The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Revision allowed; Article 2(2) of Regulation 2988/95 and limitation periods

BVerwG 3 B 24/15, 3 B 24/15 (3 C 2/16)Bverwg / Division 3Jan 12, 2016Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against the non-admission of revision. It found that the case has fundamental significance because the revision court will likely need to decide whether the leniency principle in Article 2(2) second sentence of Regulation 2988/95 applies to limitation provisions concerning sanctions. The decision concerns only admissibility of revision, not the merits.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; fundamental significance of a case exists where a previously unresolved, revisable legal question requires clarification for the development or uniform application of the law. The complaint may succeed if the appellant identifies a question whose answer is decisive in the revision proceedings. Here, the Court considered it open whether Art. 2(2) second sentence of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No. 2988/95, embodying the lex mitior principle, extends to limitation provisions relating to sanctions; this question is suitable for revision review.

Full text

BVerwG — 3 B 24/15, 3 B 24/15 (3 C 2/16), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-01-12

Aktenzeichen: 3 B 24/15, 3 B 24/15 (3 C 2/16)

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:120116B3B24.15.0

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO, Art 2 Abs 2 S 2 EGV 2988/95

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 20. Januar 2015, Az: 10 LB 118/10, Urteilvorgehend VG Lüneburg, 28. August 2009, Az: 4 A 167/07

Spruchkörper: 3. Senat

Titelzeile

Revisionszulassung; Anwendbarkeit von Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 EGV 2988/95 (EG, Euratom) auf Verjährungsvorschriften

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu, § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich insbesondere die Frage zu klären sein, ob das Günstigkeitsprinzip des Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 VO (EG, Euratom) Nr. 2988/95 auf Verjährungsvorschriften anzuwenden ist, die sich auf Sanktionen beziehen.

Keywords

revision admissibilityfundamental significancelimitation periodsanctionslex mitior

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether revision should be allowed for the question of the applicability of Article 2(2) second sentence of Regulation 2988/95 to limitation provisions governing sanctions.

Extracted holding

The complaint succeeded because the case raises a question of fundamental importance requiring clarification in the revision proceedings.

Extracted reasoning

The court held that the unresolved legal question is whether the principle of leniency in Article 2(2) second sentence of Regulation 2988/95 applies to limitation provisions relating to sanctions; this warrants revision under Section 132(2) No. 1 VwGO.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.