The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
BVerwG 9 VR 1/10•Costs after mootness in interim relief against plan approval
BVerwG 9 VR 1/10Bverwg / Division 9Jul 7, 2010Other
Extracted by Omnilex
The applicants challenged an immediately enforceable plan approval order in interim relief proceedings. After both sides declared the dispute moot, the Federal Administrative Court terminated the proceedings by analogy to Section 92(3) VwGO. Applying Section 161(2) VwGO, it ordered the respondent to bear the costs because the authority should already have suspended enforcement ex officio, given that the project could not begin before spring 2011. This would likely have spared the applicants the need to seek urgent court protection within the one-month period under Section 17e(2) FStrG.
§ 92 Abs. 3 VwGO analog, § 161 Abs. 2 VwGO; costs after mootness in interim relief proceedings. If the parties declare the main proceedings moot, the court terminates the proceedings by analogy to § 92(3) VwGO and decides costs according to equitable discretion under § 161(2) VwGO on the basis of the prior factual and legal situation. Where the authority could and should have suspended the immediate enforceability of a plan approval ex officio because implementation was not imminent, it is equitable to impose costs on the respondent, since such a measure would likely have made judicial interim protection unnecessary (consid. 1-2).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-07-07
Aktenzeichen: 9 VR 1/10
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 80 Abs 4 S 1 VwGO, § 161 Abs 2 VwGO, § 17e Abs 2 FStrG
Spruchkörper: 9. Senat
Aussetzung der Vollziehung eines kraft Gesetzes sofort vollziehbaren Planfeststellungsbeschlusses; verzögerte Ausführung; Kostenentscheidung bei Hauptsachenerledigungserklärung
1 Das Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes ist in entsprechender Anwendung von § 92 Abs. 3 VwGO einzustellen, nachdem die Beteiligten es mit Schriftsätzen vom 15. Juni 2010 und 30. Juni 2010 in der Hauptsache übereinstimmend für erledigt erklärt haben. Gemäß § 161 Abs. 2 VwGO ist über die Kosten des Verfahrens nach billigem Ermessen zu entscheiden; dabei ist der bisherige Sach- und Streitstand zu berücksichtigen.
2 Billigem Ermessen im Sinne dieser Vorschrift entspricht es, die Kosten dem Antragsgegner aufzuerlegen. Bei Erlass des von den Antragstellern angefochtenen Planfeststellungsbeschlusses am 17. Dezember 2009 war bereits bekannt, dass der Vorhabensträger mit dessen Ausführung nicht vor dem Frühjahr 2011 beginnen wird. In dieser Situation hätte es nahe gelegen, die Vollziehung des kraft Gesetzes sofort vollziehbaren Planfeststellungsbeschlusses gemäß § 80 Abs. 4 Satz 1 VwGO von Amts wegen behördlich auszusetzen, um die - für die Antragsteller ansonsten unausweichliche - Einleitung eines Verfahrens des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes innerhalb der Einmonatsfrist nach § 17e Abs. 2 Satz 2 FStrG entbehrlich zu machen (vgl. Beschluss vom 17. September 2001 - BVerwG 4 VR 19.01 - Buchholz 310 § 80 VwGO Nr. 66 S. 2 ff.).
3 Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 52 Abs. 1, § 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 GKG und entspricht der Hälfte der voraussichtlichen Streitwertfestsetzung im Klageverfahren.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the interim relief proceedings had to be terminated after mutual declaration of mootness
The court terminated the proceedings by analogy to Section 92(3) VwGO after the parties had jointly declared the main matter moot.
Once the parties agreed on mootness, there was no further need for a merits decision in the interim protection procedure.
How the costs should be allocated after the case became moot
Costs were imposed on the respondent in equitable exercise of discretion under Section 161(2) VwGO, taking into account the prior procedural and factual situation.
At the time of the plan approval, it was already known that implementation would not begin before spring 2011; the authority should therefore have suspended immediate enforcement ex officio, which would likely have made interim proceedings unnecessary.
Whether the authority should have suspended immediate enforcement of the plan approval ex officio
The court considered such suspension appropriate in the situation described, because immediate judicial interim protection could thereby have been avoided.
The delayed start of implementation meant that ex officio suspension under Section 80(4) sentence 1 VwGO would have prevented the applicants from needing to seek urgent judicial relief within the one-month period under Section 17e(2) FStrG.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.