Complaint dismissed as inadmissible for late reasoning

BVerwG 2 B 124/09Bverwg / Divisão 221 de jan. de 2010Dismissed

Abrir fonte

Extraído pela Omnilex

Resumo Omnilex

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the defendant’s complaint against the denial of leave to appeal as inadmissible. The court held that the complaint reasons were not filed within the statutory deadline, which had expired on 7 December 2009, and that there were no grounds for reinstatement. The cost of the complaint proceedings was imposed on the defendant. No separate value determination was required because the proceedings were court-fee-free.

Sumário Omnilex

Art. 133 Abs. 3 Satz 1 VwGO, Art. 69 BDG; versäumte Begründungsfrist und Wiedereinsetzung: A complaint against denial of leave to appeal is inadmissible if the reasons are not submitted within the statutory period. A missed deadline is only excusable under Art. 60(1) VwGO; reinstatement requires a substantiated showing within the time limit of Art. 3 BDG in conjunction with Art. 60(2) sentence 1 second half-sentence VwGO. The period begins upon receipt of a clear judicial notice of the missed deadline. The cost decision follows Art. 77 BDG in conjunction with Art. 154(2) VwGO; in fee-free disciplinary complaint proceedings, no dispute value need be fixed.

Texto completo

BVerwG — 2 B 124/09, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-01-21

Aktenzeichen: 2 B 124/09

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 16. September 2009, Az: 3 LD 6/07, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat

Tenor

Die Beschwerde des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts vom 16. September 2009 wird verworfen.

Der Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens.

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde ist unzulässig, da sie nicht innerhalb der am 7. Dezember 2009 abgelaufenen Frist (§ 133 Abs. 3 Satz 1 VwGO, § 69 BDG) begründet worden ist. Auf die Frist ist in der Rechtsmittelbelehrung der angefochtenen Entscheidung hingewiesen worden. Anhaltspunkte für eine unverschuldete Fristversäumung (§ 60 Abs. 1 VwGO) sind nicht ersichtlich. Davon abgesehen hat der Beklagte innerhalb der Monatsfrist gemäß § 3 BDG i.V.m. § 60 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Halbs. 2 VwGO keine Wiedereinsetzungsgründe dargelegt. Die Frist hat zu laufen begonnen, als die Prozessbevollmächtigten des Beklagten den Hinweis des Vorsitzenden des Berufungsgerichts vom 3. Dezember 2009 über die Versäumung der Beschwerdebegründungsfrist erhalten haben.

2 Die Kostenentscheidung folgt aus § 77 BDG i.V.m. § 154 Abs. 2 VwGO. Der Festsetzung eines Streitwertes für das Beschwerdeverfahren bedarf es nicht, da das Verfahren gemäß § 78 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BDG a.F. i.V.m. § 85 Abs. 11 BDG i.d.F. des Art. 12b Nr. 1 Buchst. b DNeuG gerichtskostenfrei ist.

Palavras-chave

disciplinary lawtime limitinadmissibilityreinstatementcostsnon-admission complaint

Extraído pela Omnilex

Questões jurídicas principais extraídas pela Omnilex

Questão jurídica principal

Whether the complaint against denial of leave to appeal was filed and substantiated in time

Decisão extraída

The complaint was inadmissible because the statement of reasons was not filed within the expired deadline and no basis for reinstatement was shown.

Fundamentação extraída

The statutory time limit under Art. 133(3) sentence 1 VwGO and Art. 69 BDG had expired on 7 December 2009. The court found no indications of excusable lateness under Art. 60(1) VwGO, and no reinstatement grounds were sufficiently alleged within the one-month period under Art. 3 BDG in conjunction with Art. 60(2) sentence 1 second half-sentence VwGO.

Questão jurídica principal

Who bears the costs of the complaint proceedings

Decisão extraída

The defendant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings.

Fundamentação extraída

The cost order followed from Art. 77 BDG in conjunction with Art. 154(2) VwGO.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.