1) Judgement of the Göttingen Administrative Court of 2 June 2004, Ref.: 2 A 209/03
There was no legal basis for the defendant to intervene as the lower monument protection authority. The defendant cannot invoke Section 23 (1) sentence 1 NDSchG.
According to this provision, the monument protection authorities shall, at their discretion, issue the orders necessary to ensure compliance with Sections 6 to 17, 25, 27 and 28 of the Act. However, there is no violation of the aforementioned provisions. The installation of the photovoltaic and solar panel system did not alter a listed building. Consequently, the plaintiff did not require a licence under monument protection law pursuant to § 10 para. 1 no. 1 NDSchG for its installation.
2) Judgement of the Lüneburg Higher Administrative Court of 3 May 2006, Ref.: 1 LB 16/05
A listed ensemble does not have to consist of buildings that were constructed within a reasonable period of time.
The installation of solar panels on a pitched roof of a building located in an inner city area (half-timbered landscape) built between the 13th and 19th centuries may constitute an encroachment contrary to the preservation order.
Articles 14 and 20a of the Basic Law do not generally prevent the building supervisory authority from demanding the removal of such collectors.
3) Judgement of the Lower Saxony Fiscal Court of 23 March 2006, Ref.: 5 K 491/02
VAT 1997: No entrepreneurial activity when operating a photovoltaic system if the electricity produced is consumed by the company itself and only the surplus electricity is fed into the supplier's grid.
4) Judgement of the Minden Administrative Court of 25 June 2002, Ref.: 1 K 1350/01
The plaintiff is not entitled to be granted the requested preliminary building permit for the construction of a PVA because the project is contrary to the provisions of public law, Sections 71 (2), 75 (1) sentence 1 BauO NRW.
The construction of the planned PVA on the property intended for it, which is indisputably located in an outdoor area, is not permitted under building planning law in accordance with Section 35 BauGB. The benchmark for this assessment is Section 35 (2) BauGB, because the project does not fulfil any of the privilege criteria of Section 35 (1) BauGB.
It is true that the operation of a PV plant can serve the public supply of electricity if the electricity generated is fed into the public supply grid. However, the permissibility of energy supply systems in outdoor areas in accordance with Section 35 para. 1 no. 3 BauGB also requires a specific reference to the location. The plant must be so dependent on the use of the outdoor area that the project as a whole stands or falls with it. It is not sufficient for the location to be suitable or obvious for reasons of profitability. In the case of public utility installations, this is particularly the case insofar as they are connected to power lines, because a comprehensive supply is not possible without touching the outdoor area. The planned PVA lacks such a specific connection to the location. It is not apparent that such plants would, by their nature, be dependent on the utilisation of outdoor areas. There are also unshaded areas in the inner areas of towns and municipalities. In principle, PV plants do not have a disruptive potential that would largely prevent their authorisation in inner areas.
5) Judgement of the NRW Higher Administrative Court of 17 September 1999, Ref.: 10 A 2464/99
The plaintiff has not fundamentally questioned the statements of the administrative court that the installation of solar panels on the roof is likely to impair the heritage value of the building. However, she believes that the solar panels installed by the company she commissioned do not appear disruptive. To this end, it has submitted several photos of installed solar panels. However, the photos do not cast doubt on the correctness of the administrative court's assumption that solar panels (of a conventional type and size) would impair the heritage value of the building. On the contrary, the photos clearly confirm that conventional solar panels, which are mounted on the roof over a large area, have a negative impact on the external appearance of the building and thus on the building as a whole.
6) Judgement of the Regional Court of Heidelberg of 15 May 2009, Ref.: 3 S 21/08
A homeowner does not have to accept significant glare effects caused by the reflection of sunlight from a photovoltaic system located on the neighbouring building if the system is not customary in the area in terms of its detrimental effect.
7) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg of 11 March 2009, Ref.: 3 S 1953/07
The difference between pitched roofs and hipped roofs. The specification of pitched roofs for a larger building area for the purpose of preserving and securing this roof shape, which is clearly predominant in the municipal area, can represent a sufficient design concept that is free from errors in consideration. Reasons of general welfare within the meaning of Section 56 (5) sentence 1 no. 1 LBO do not generally require the approval of a hipped roof in order to install solar cells on its south-facing roof surface and thereby optimise their efficiency compared to other possible locations.
8) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg of 05.10.2006, Ref.: 8 S 2417/05
If the installation of photovoltaic modules permitted under Section 56 Para. 2 No. 3 LBO inevitably results in about 99 % of the surface of one half of the roof appearing black, black/grey or black/blue, and if the municipality is also pursuing the goal of achieving extensive uniformity in the colour design of the roof coverings, reasons of general welfare within the meaning of Section 56 Para. 5 Sentence 1 No. 1 LBO require the approval of a colour for the rest of the roof covering that matches the colour of the solar modules.
9) Judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart dated 26 June 2003, Ref.: 2 U 43/03
Renewable energy: bearing the costs of laying a new line between a transformer house and the delivery point of the customer feeding back into the grid
10) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt of 23 June 2009, Ref.: 3 K 150/08.F
Individual case in which the intended heating of the property with electrical energy does not authorise exemption from the obligation to connect to and use a district heating plant.
11) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt of 4 March 2009, Ref.: 1 K 4048/08.F
The exclusion of condominium owners whose common property relates to a building with more than two residential units from the basic subsidy for measures to utilise renewable energies violates the principle of equal treatment.
There are no objections to the fact that only solar collector systems that do not exceed a certain total gross collector area are subsidised with grants for measures to use renewable energies, while larger systems are only subsidised with low-interest loans.
12.) Judgement of the Regional Court of Gießen of 01.04.2008, Ref.: 6 O 51/07
Future payment obligation for an electricity feed-in tariff: Prerequisite for the existence of a conversion area in the case of the intended construction of a ground-mounted photovoltaic system on a former wind energy utilisation area.
13) Judgement of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of 1 November 2007, Ref.: 15 U 25/07
Electricity feed-in: Requirements for increased remuneration under the EEG for a photovoltaic system; exclusive installation on a building when the weight of the module is transferred via a mast with its own foundation.
14) Judgement of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of 1 November 2007, Ref.: 15 U 12/07
Electricity feed-in: Calculation of remuneration for electricity generation by means of photovoltaic systems on "shelters" for free-range chickens.
15) Judgement of the Frankfurt Administrative Court of 10 October 2007, Ref.: 1 E 1914/07
The grant for the installation of a solar collector system for the combined preparation of hot water and space heating may not be withdrawn in full if the beneficiary has not fulfilled the requirements for funding such a system, but has fulfilled the requirements for funding a solar collector system that is only used to prepare hot water or to provide process heat.
16.) Judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt dated 05.06.2007, Ref.: 14 U 4/07
On the requirements for increased remuneration for electricity generation from solar radiation energy in accordance with § 11 II 1 EEG.
17) Judgement of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court of 21 May 2007, Ref.: 1 U 201/06
An interpretation of the provision on § 11 para. 6 EEG according to its wording, context and purpose leads to the conclusion that the operator of the newly added installation and the operator of the existing installation do not have to be identical.
18) Judgement of the Regional Court of Kassel of 5 March 2007, Ref.: 5 O 1690/06
Renewable energies: Entitlement to remuneration for electricity fed into the grid from a solar installation mounted on a carport.
19) Judgement of the Regional Court of Kassel of 06.12.2006, Ref.: 9 O 1252/06
Legal dispute regarding the obligation of the local grid operator (defendant) to pay remuneration in accordance with Section 11 (1) EEG and Section 11 (2) sentence 1 EEG.
20) Judgement of the Frankfurt Administrative Court of 19 January 2006, Ref.: 1 E 538/05
On the legality of the subsidy authorisation for the installation of a solar collector system with absorber mats.
21) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt of 07.01.2002, Ref.: 1 E 3541/01
Withdrawal of a grant notification for a solar collector system.
22) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Mainz of 09/09/2009, Ref.: 3 K 92/09
The current No. 1.1.2.2 of Annex 1 to the State Ordinance on Fees for Official Acts of the Building Supervisory Authorities and on the Remuneration of the Services of Test Engineers for Structural Analysis (Special Fee Schedule) of 9 January 2007 (GVBl. p. 22, BS 2013-1-35) cannot be used to determine the fee in the case of the granting of a building permit for the construction of a ground-mounted photovoltaic system. This type of fee requires authorisation in accordance with Section 61 of the State Building Code (LBauO) for the separate production, construction or modification of storage, parking, installation or exhibition areas.
23) Judgement of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court of 22 July 2009, Ref.: 8 A 10417/09.OVG
Insofar as the plaintiff sees a reason for privilege not only in the serving auxiliary function of the photovoltaic system for a wind energy system, but also regards the combination of wind energy system and photovoltaic system to form a combined electricity generation system (hybrid) as privileged and pursues this as a primary research objective, the requirements of § 35 Para. 1 No. 5 BauGB are not met. As the Senate explained in more detail in its ruling of 12 September 2007 8 A 11166/06.OVG- [ZfBR 2008, 63], p. 13 et seq., the development of such a hybrid plant for continuous electricity generation is an aliud to a plant limited to the use of wind energy. However, the legislator has deliberately limited the privileged status in Section 35 para. 1 no. 5 BauGB to the isolated use of wind energy. Reference can be made to this judgement to avoid repetition.
24) Judgement of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court of 12 September 2007, Ref.: 8 A 11166/06.OVG
In a building application dated 4 July 2002, its legal predecessor applied for planning permission to erect a photovoltaic module support (SPT SK 30 WKA) on a wind turbine. According to the construction documents, a circular base 4 metres high was to be erected around the tower of the wind turbine, on which a module support approx. 23 metres long, 15.54 metres wide and inclined at 45° (clear height approx. 16 metres above the foundation) was to move according to the position of the sun. The number and layout of the modules were also shown in these documents. Information sheets on solar technology were also submitted. These explained that a photovoltaic system tracking the sun's path would achieve a significantly higher yield. The creation of a hybrid system makes sense because the combination of wind and solar energy guarantees an independent energy supply.
25) Judgement of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court of 24 May 2006, Ref.: 8 A 10892/05.OVG
Pursuant to Section 35 (1) BauGB, the privileged projects described therein are permitted in outdoor areas if they do not conflict with any public interests. The plaintiff cannot invoke this provision because the disputed carrier for PV cladding, MDS and small wind turbines is not one of the privileged projects. Contrary to the opinion of the lower court, it does not "serve" the research, development or utilisation of wind energy (see § 35 para. 1 no. 5 BauGB). In its final judgement of 11 May 2005 (BauR 2005, 606ff.), which is known to the parties involved, the Senate discussed when installations that do not generate wind energy themselves fulfil the requirements of "serving" in accordance with § 35 Para. 1 No. 5 BauGB.
26) Judgement of the Administrative Court of Neustadt/Weinstraße of 5 March 2009, Ref.: 4 K 1029/08.NW
The plaintiffs have installed a photovoltaic system on their house in ..., which they use to feed the electrical energy generated into the public grid. For tax reasons, they registered the "operation of a photovoltaic system" in the trade register on 3 March 2008. The defendant then charged the plaintiffs a commercial waste disposal fee of € 39.15 for the period from April to December 2008 in the notice of 7 April 2008.
27) Judgement of the Local Court of Fürstenwalde of 20 February 2007, Ref.: 13 C 243/06
The plaintiff has no claim against the defendant in the amount of 136.83 euros. The defendant's reductions were justified. The conditions according to which the defendant is obliged to pay an increased fee pursuant to Section 11 sentence 2 para. 2 EGG are not met. The photovoltaic system is not an essential component of the residential building within the meaning of Section 94 (2) BGB. The patio roofing it replaced was not added for the construction of the residential building. Even without the patio roofing, the residential building is to be regarded as completed according to the public perception. Its purpose of serving as a residential building is also achieved without the terrace roofing (see Palandt, 66th edition § 94 marginal no. 6). These did not primarily serve to shade the residential building. The purpose of the patio roofing is to protect the patio as such from the effects of the weather. The shading of living areas behind the patio is only a side effect. Unlike an awning, which is used for a limited period of time and only as a shading element when the sun is shining on the window, the patio cover always provides shade.
The terrace roof could then be an integral part of the building if it were part of the roof structure, i.e. if the roof is extended over the terrace beyond the usual roof overhang. However, even in such a case, § 11 Para. 2 Sentence 2 EEG does not apply, as the terrace roof would then be regarded as the roof of the residential building.
28.) Judgement of the Federal Fiscal Court of 11 April 2008, Ref.: V R 10/ 07
Whether a person who is not otherwise engaged in business activities and who operated a photovoltaic system on the roof of his owner-occupied home in 1997 and fed some of the electricity generated into the public electricity grid in return for remuneration was to be regarded as an entrepreneur within the meaning of VAT law remains an open question.
An input tax deduction from the purchase of a photovoltaic system in 1997, which is claimed for the first time in a VAT return submitted in 2002 for the year 1997, is not possible.
29) Judgement of the Federal Court of Justice of 29 October 2008, Ref.: VIII ZR 313/07
Photovoltaic systems are only mounted exclusively on or to a building within the meaning of § 11 para. 2 sentence 1 EEG 2004 (§ 33 EEG) if the building as the supporting structure forms the main object on which the system attached to it depends for its existence. This is not the case if the supporting structure is designed to support the photovoltaic modules without the interposition of a building characterised by its own static supporting structure.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.