The decision on the reorganization of the company floor is left to the proceedings in the main

The Nation­al Park Asso­ci­a­tion could not pre­vail in the inter­im legal pro­tec­tion pro­ceed­ings with its appli­ca­tion before the High­er Admin­is­tra­tive Court Berlin-Bran­­den­burg to restore the sus­pen­sive effect of its objec­tion to the deci­sion of the State Office for Rur­al Devel­op­ment, Agri­cul­ture and Land Reor­ga­ni­za­tion (LELF) of 11.06.2013. On July 4th, 2013, the asso­ci­a­tion filed an objec­tion to the pro­vi­sion­al assign­ment of own­er­ship with­in the scope of the com­pa­ny floor reor­ga­ni­za­tion, but since the State Office had ordered imme­di­ate enforce­abil­i­ty, it was forced to sub­mit an appli­ca­tion to the OVG for the sus­pen­sive effect to be estab­lished. With this, he want­ed to avert the chaos caused by the land con­sol­i­da­tion author­i­ty among the own­ers and users of the areas in the Low­er Oder Val­ley and to ensure that a fair, sus­tain­able and sen­si­ble land con­sol­i­da­tion is well pre­pared from the start and not car­ried out in a rushed manner.

In its incon­testable deci­sion, the OVG hard­ly dealt with the argu­ments that the asso­ci­a­tion had put for­ward sev­er­al times and com­pre­hen­sive­ly in writ­ing and did not allow an oral hear­ing, not even an oral hear­ing, but after a long wait sim­ply decid­ed based on the file sit­u­a­tion and decid­ed on the Con­cen­trat­ed on the ques­tion of rea­son­able­ness and the area and val­ue ratio for the areas brought in by the club and its com­pen­sa­tion areas. As a result, the OVG con­sid­ers it rea­son­able that the asso­ci­a­tion will take over the areas allo­cat­ed to it by the State Office for Rur­al Devel­op­ment, Agri­cul­ture and Land Reor­ga­ni­za­tion until the deci­sion is made on the main issue, i.e. pro­vi­sion­al­ly. The finan­cial loss is rea­son­able, there is no gross dis­pro­por­tion between the areas brought in by the asso­ci­a­tion and the com­pen­sa­tion areas allo­cat­ed to it. All oth­er dis­putes could be set­tled in the main proceedings.

The asso­ci­a­tion does not share the argu­ments and jus­ti­fi­ca­tions of the OVG and con­sid­ers them extreme­ly ques­tion­able due to con­sti­tu­tion­al and con­sti­tu­tion­al con­sid­er­a­tions, as will be explained else­where. The inter­im legal pro­tec­tion pro­ce­dure is thus over, the pro­vi­sion­al pos­ses­sion can be car­ried out legal­ly. The asso­ci­a­tion will con­tin­ue to assert its argu­ments in the main pro­ceed­ings, in accor­dance with its statutes, its man­date and in the inter­ests of nature conservation. 

The board of directors