Construction application costs only 40 euros due to exemption application?

Large parts of your answer are completely correct. But:

Part of this answer could unsettle the builders (loosely based on Thomas de Maiziere).

I think it is somewhat exaggerated to build up the danger of an (arbitrary) construction stop as a horror scenario with the exemption from approval and to present it as a special distinguishing feature from the building permit. An authority certainly will not stop a construction site unchecked just because someone calls.

Well, in total this has happened here 3 times. So your opinion or idea does not seem to match the experienced reality of what an authority would or would not do.
Moreover, the authority must check when a notice or request for inspection is received. This happened here 3 times:
1. The height level apparently does not match, call to the district office (LRA), employee goes out, considers inspection necessary, stops the construction site
2. Setback areas apparently miscalculated (not based on natural terrain, but from fill), visit to the district office, LRA orders construction stop, inspects, builder must change the planning
3. Changed planning does not meet floor area ratio and parking regulations, LRA imposes construction stop again until revised planning is submitted
One might also think that the LRA would check the rest immediately when discovering 2., but no, everything must be brought up by laypeople from the neighborhood...

And your distant neighbor would either not have received a building permit at all or he would have built deviating from the permit, which would also have led to a construction stop.

Would, would... you know it, right? The facts are different, assumptions don’t help. [emoji6]

... calls the authority and requests a review - then the authority immediately issues a construction stop until this is resolved

This wording sounds as if the authority issues a construction stop without verification first and that construction may not continue until the review is completed. And in my experienced reality, this indeed does not occur. Apparently not in your described case either, since an employee actually went out and checked the facts. Besides, I still do not see the increased hazard situation for a construction stop with the approval exemption. In the approval procedure, a neighbor can also request a review by the authority, which, in case of inconsistencies, similarly orders a construction stop.

Moreover, the authority must check if a notice or request for review is received.

There is no obligation. However, it should act and normally does so, since inaction could lead to claims for damages.

The factual situation is simply different; assumptions do not help here.

What do you want to tell me with that? Your thesis was that objections in the approval procedure do not immediately lead to a construction stop, and that is not correct.

With the “normal” building permit, construction would have continued.

How do you come to that? If there is a significant building violation, there will be a construction stop, regardless of whether exempted or approved.

It is important to consider here that these permits have what is called a suspensive effect.

With the approval exemption, there is no permit. And who designates what has a "suspensive effect" in this context?

Of course, no one noticed

Do you know the building templates? If an obviously unlawful building circumstance should be recognizable from these, I agree with you. Although even then, no unlawful behavior can be attributed to the authorities. Legally, the municipality and the district office merely acknowledge that someone intends to build there. Here, only proof that the planner is authorized to submit building applications and declares that all regulations are complied with must be verified. This is exactly the crux with the exemption permit. The builder is happy because of the short deadlines and low fees and forgets that all responsibility lies with the architect and thus also with him. Because in case of a dispute, the builder must enforce claims for damages against the planner. The authorities are out! With the establishment of the legally binding development plan, they have fulfilled their part of the unbureaucratic building process. To what extent the "guy from the district office" is knowledgeable is therefore completely irrelevant in the case of the exemption permit. The considerations to abolish the permit exemption in NRW are precisely based on the bad experiences in practice with irresponsible or ignorant planners and the increased administrative effort in sanctioning and remedying building violations.

This wording sounds as if the authority first imposes a construction stop without examination and then building is not allowed until the review is completed.

Well, you added the „without examination“ yourself, I didn’t write that. I assume that any objection is initially checked for plausibility and proportionality. If someone thinks that the ground plan shape of the foundation slab does not please them for aesthetic reasons, surely no construction stop will be imposed, especially since the „review“ should also be done quite quickly.
It wasn’t about spreading panic either, but if the difference is asked for, there is one. Whether and how often it comes into play is initially irrelevant, isn’t it? It was about the difference, not the likelihood of occurrence.

Besides, I still do not see the increased risk situation for a construction stop with the approval exemption.

I do, because I have experienced it several times. But that is also not relevant to explain the difference.

In the approval process a neighbor can also request a review by the authority, which in case of discrepancies also orders a construction stop.

Building authority Nuremberg, I quote:
„... The challenge is made by filing a lawsuit at the Administrative Court Ansbach within one month after delivery or public announcement of the decision (see section legal remedies/appeals against decisions). However, the neighbor’s lawsuit against a building permit by law (§ 212 a of the Building Code - Baugesetzbuch) has no suspensive effect, i.e. the builder may - at his own risk - nevertheless start construction (but risks that in case the building permit is revoked the structure has to be removed again). ...“
Seems to be somewhat different in Bavaria...

There is no obligation. However, it should act and normally does so, since claims for damages could arise from inactivity.

...which de facto amounts to an obligation [emoji6]

What are you trying to tell me with this? Your thesis was that objections in the approval procedure do not lead to an immediate construction stop and that is not correct.

See the quote above: After the building permit is granted, objection by neighbors means filing a lawsuit, which has NO suspensive effect. Construction continues - admittedly at own risk, but it continues. At least that’s what the building authority’s page says. Of course, it is possible that they don’t know either... [emoji6]

How do you come to that? If there is a significant building violation, a construction stop is imposed, whether exempt or approved.

Who said anything about significant? You keep changing the facts. That doesn’t help us...
Maybe you just briefly say what the differences are for the builder between approval exemption and building permit procedure. That might be more helpful...
[/QUOTE]

Do you know the building plans?

Yes.

If an obviously unlawful building circumstance can be recognized from these, I agree with you. Although even then, no unlawful behavior can be attributed to the authorities. Legally, the municipality and the district office merely acknowledge that someone wants to build there.

I never said that the authority acted unlawfully, but I definitely showed annoyance that, in my opinion, they are making it too easy for themselves and their behavior is unpredictable. With us, setback areas are recalculated and a 1 sqm small corner facing the public space is taken as a reason to refuse the exemption. With the mentioned neighbor, who even a layman can see is building too large, nothing happens; no plausibility check is done (setback areas, parking regulations (!) and floor area ratio—and with the floor area ratio he was 150 sqm over on a 640 sqm plot because he simply didn’t include terraces, access paths, and parking spaces in the calculations!!!)

Here, only proof needs to be checked that the planner is authorized to submit building plans and declares that all regulations are complied with.

...and the regulations do not include relevant planning figures of the development plan such as floor area ratio, number of parking spaces, building height etc.?
So I submit plans for a building that contradict each other (site plan and floor area calculations) and whoever checks it at best counts the number of pages?! Then why bother with this nonsense at all? Then everyone can simply start building and that’s it, the responsibility lies with the builder... and neighborhood concerns don’t matter anyway. Great system... but we’re getting off track.

But that is exactly the principle of the freestanding specialist. The engineers and the client take responsibility. If the surveyor calculates and shows the distances as appropriate, then it is okay. They are not laymen. One must consider that freestanding specialists are also subject to conditions; they are now possible for every construction project.

The mode guarantees that experts involved in the project can be held liable for mistakes. Don’t forget that these are professions tied to memberships in their chambers, etc. Trouble can also come from there if someone is negligent.

There was an error in our documents; the surveyor (even a publicly appointed one) was to blame. But he was rushing when it came out ...