DECISION
In the administrative case
of Mr. xxx,
plaintiff,
Legal representative:
Attorney Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
the Lower Saxony Ministry of the Interior and Sport,
defendant,
Subject of dispute:
Police and public order
law - Information -
The Administrative Court of Braunschweig – 5th Chamber – decided on February 29, 2016, through the rapporteur:
The proceedings are discontinued.
The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
The value in dispute is set at EUR 5,000.00.
REASONS
Following the parties' concurring declarations of settlement, the proceedings are to be discontinued in accordance with Section 92 Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) and a decision is to be made on the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Section 161 Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO).
According to Section 161 Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO), in the cases of Section 75 VwGO, after the main issue has been resolved (after the requested decision has been issued), the costs are always borne by the defendant if the plaintiff could have expected a decision before filing the lawsuit.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on December 14, 2015, and the disputed request for information was received by the defendant on September 2, 2015. Therefore, the deadline stipulated in Section 75, Sentence 2 of the German Code of Administrative Procedure (VwGO) had expired by the time the lawsuit was filed. The defendant merely informed the plaintiff in an interim notification dated November 30, 2015, that the request for information was still being processed and simultaneously asked for "a little patience." This letter does not constitute a sufficient explanation of a valid reason within the meaning of Section 75, Sentence 3 of the VwGO, as it states neither a reason for the delay nor a date for a decision.
The determination of the value in dispute is based on Section 52 Paragraph 2 of the Court Costs Act (GKG) (catch-all value).
The appeal against the determination of the value in dispute on grounds of fundamental importance is not admitted.
The following is information on legal remedies.
