Sad low point for Tack and Treichel

The Min­istry of the Envi­ron­ment is not enti­tled to an addi­tion­al final proof of use from the Nation­al Park Asso­ci­a­tion (18.05.2011)

 

“The Min­istry for the Envi­ron­ment, Health and Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion of the State of Bran­den­burg (MUGV) has again tak­en action against the Asso­ci­a­tion of Friends of the Ger­­man-Pol­ish Euro­pean Nation­al Park Unteres Oder­tal e. V. (club) have to accept a defeat. Ten years after the last fund­ing was paid out, the min­istry had request­ed a so-called “final proof of use” from the asso­ci­a­tion in addi­tion to the indi­vid­ual state­ments of use that had long been drawn up by the association.

As you can remem­ber, the Nation­al Park Asso­ci­a­tion received annu­al grant notices and fund­ing between 1992 and 1999. Of course — as required in the fund­ing noti­fi­ca­tion — at the end of each fund­ing year he cre­at­ed a proof of use that was checked and approved by the fund­ing agency, i.e. the min­istry. Funds paid too much were repaid by the association.

Well, well over a decade lat­er, the min­istry want­ed to force the asso­ci­a­tion to cre­ate a “final proof of use” for the entire fund­ing peri­od. Due to the alleged urgency, the min­istry ordered imme­di­ate enforce­abil­i­ty in its deci­sion of Decem­ber 22, 2010. How­ev­er, in the legal dis­pute, the min­istry was only able to pro­vide the court with the nec­es­sary doc­u­ments late and incompletely.

The asso­ci­a­tion had sued against the deci­sion of the min­istry and against the order of imme­di­ate enforce­abil­i­ty and has now reached the court to “restore the sus­pen­sive effect of the law­suit”. As a result, he does not have to pre­pare a “final use report” for the time being. He would not have been able to meet the repeat­ed­ly tight­ened require­ments set up by the min­istry for this. There­fore, the demand for a “final proof of use” was pure harass­ment of the ministry.

A deci­sion is only now made in the main pro­ceed­ings, although expe­ri­ence has shown that such pro­ceed­ings are pend­ing before the admin­is­tra­tive court in the state of Bran­den­burg for sev­en years or more before they are decid­ed. But already in the pre­lim­i­nary legal pro­tec­tion pro­ceed­ings, the court made it clear that it does not con­sid­er the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion giv­en by the min­istry for the deci­sion and the imme­di­ate enforce­abil­i­ty to be con­vinc­ing and not very promis­ing. Because the case was clear, the court did not even sched­ule an oral hear­ing, but decid­ed on the basis of the files.

That should give the min­istry food for thought. It is prob­a­bly bet­ter to give up the hope­less legal dis­pute with the club and to begin rea­son­able nego­ti­a­tions with them instead of con­ced­ing fur­ther loss­es in court, which is cost­ly and time-consuming.

As expect­ed, the MUGV has lodged a com­plaint with the com­pe­tent high­er admin­is­tra­tive court in Berlin. As usu­al, the min­istry lit­i­gates as an incor­ri­gi­ble lit­i­ga­tor until a fed­er­al court once again cer­ti­fies that he has act­ed against the law and immoral­i­ty. The Bran­den­burg state gov­ern­ment can cov­er the costs of the unnec­es­sary legal dis­pute with an even high­er nation­al debt, but at the same time con­tin­ues to extend the wait­ing times before the admin­is­tra­tive courts of the state, which are already sev­en years and longer. This puts legal peace and ulti­mate­ly the rule of law in jeopardy “.

Thomas Berg
CEO