Diesel in Berlin : Legal obligations don't just disappear in the air

Stephan Groscurth is the presiding judge at the Berlin administrative court – and at the same time its speaker.

Mr Groscurth, in the discussion of the nitrogen-oxide limit, various politicians have given the impression that it is, in many cases, but without a Diesel-driving bans, if the limit is only slightly exceeded. In Berlin, the administrative court ruled in October that the country must impose bans. Is this forced?

in a ruling of 9. October 2018 has committed to the administrative court of the country to update the clean air plan. In this case, the court has explicitly named eleven sections of road are eight streets of Berlin, where mandatory driving bans are to be provided. This decision has not been attacked by the country and, therefore, appealable. The obligation has to be fulfilled: to 31. March 2019 must be written the clean air plan until the end of June 2019 appropriate transport must be placed in the signs.

When the Berlin CDU-transport policy-makers Oliver Friederici, proclaimed that "the bans from Anti-car-Senator Günther had dissolved in the air", is he so wrong?

It is not the essence of the rule of law and also an expression of the separation of powers, that final court rulings, even if you agree with them. Legally binding commitments to solve not just in the air, unless the court determines in a separate proceeding, the circumstances have decisively changed.

in addition to the eleven sections, with inevitable driving, the court has designated prohibited 106 routes on which the limit value also by means of other measures can be met. You can create the transport administration, there is now a new standard?

For this route, the court has held sections it is totally excluded that the applicable limit values could be achieved in other ways than by driving bans. It remains, therefore, as a matter of the country, this scan job in the clean air plan. With the current discussion on the revision of the limits, which are enshrined in law, this has nothing to do.

The Opposition has demanded of the red-red-green coalition, in vain, against the judgment for the Berlin appeal. If you would take the time and have a speculation: it Would be in the second instance rather without driving bans assumed – or, rather, with much more extensive, as the coalition have speculated?

It prohibits, on the prospects of success of a non-loaded right by means of to speculate. In addition, it is completely open, what are the facts and the law in the case would be placed to a decision of the higher administrative court is based.

In the debate is increasingly, the impression that the German environmental aid would instrumentalize the courts to conduct a campaign against the automotive industry and the diesel driver. This should go to you as Chairman of judges, but to the professional honor?!

In the case law, it is not disputed that the German environment was empowered to help the Association and, to comply with the limits enforce, the apply for many years. The process of procedure is not familiar with the concept of "instrumentalization", and an unlawful conduct of the German environmental aid has not seen the decisive chamber of the court here. If such actions are therefore allowed, is to decide in the matter, regardless of their Motivation.

nitrogen oxide pollution Diesel-driving bans in Berlin Are now redundant?

environment and traffic are always issues in our people-the Newsletter from all districts of Berlin. Here free order: leute.tagesspiegel.de