Car toll in Germany

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The car toll in Germany (officially the infrastructure charge ) was a legally stipulated but not in force toll on all German roads . As a central part of the project, the revenue from the toll should be used to lower vehicle taxes for residents, as was the case in Austria when the vignette was introduced in 1996, where there was also a tax reduction via the significantly higher commuter flat-rate.

The car toll was formally introduced on January 1, 2016. According to Section 16 of the Infrastructure Tax Act (InfrAG), however, it should only be collected when the system required for collection is ready for use, which has not yet been the case. For vehicles registered abroad, the infrastructure fee should only be paid on federal motorways (Section 1 InfrAG).

The model of unequal treatment of nationals and foreigners was classified by the European Court of Justice as discriminatory in a judgment of June 18, 2019 and therefore failed.

Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt tears up a toll flower. Petals are diverse groups of citizens for whom a toll is possible ( Mainzer Rosenmontagszug 2015)

Introduction history

Since 1990 there has been a regular discussion about the introduction of a car toll in Germany. In order to overcome the financing bottlenecks in the road transport infrastructure, both academics and politicians have repeatedly emphasized the advantages of a car toll. In addition to the supporters, however, there were repeatedly critical voices.

The discussion sparked when in October 2005 the sale of the German motorway network to private companies (e.g. investment banks) was discussed. According to estimates by the Prognos Institute, the value of the motorway network was around 127 billion euros , and according to information from the German Institute for Economic Research with the federal highways around 213 billion euros (at the prices at the time). A central element of privatization would be the introduction of a car toll. Since then, this has been in more or less in-depth political discussion.

The black and red federal government from 2005 to 2009 ( Merkel I cabinet and its transport minister Wolfgang Tiefensee (SPD)) rejected a car toll and pointed out the already high financial burdens on motorists. The Merkel II cabinet ruled from 2009 to 2013 ; According to Passauer Neue Presse, Transport Minister Peter Ramsauer (CSU) considered the car toll for the future, but shortly thereafter put it into perspective again (there is "nowhere in the coalition agreement any mention of a car toll"). Some CDU politicians already expressed their sympathy for a car toll in May 2010.

In the election campaign for the 2013 federal election, the CSU promoted the introduction of a foreigner toll or toll for foreigners . With the foreigner toll , only foreign drivers should pay for the use of the motorway. At an election campaign event, party leader Horst Seehofer said : “'Germans pay in most European countries.' Therefore, foreigners should now also pay in Germany. 'For reasons of justice', the CSU boss adds. ”Referring to conformity with EU law, Seehofer said“ 'Yes, is that possible under European law?' He asks rhetorically and looks at people. But if you always have 'legal concerns', says Seehofer, 'nothing ever happens'. "

According to surveys, it was especially approved by Bavarian voters who live near the German-Austrian or German-Swiss border. For many years they have had to buy a motorway vignette in Austria and Switzerland ; Austrians and Swiss, on the other hand, are allowed to drive for free on German motorways. Furthermore, Austria also makes massive use of the German autobahn, where there is no domestic connection, e.g. B. between Salzburg and Kufstein.

At the insistence of the CSU, the car toll was included in the coalition agreement Shaping Germany's future . At the end of 2013, in an interview with Bild am Sonntag (BamS) , the new transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt , gave himself a time frame up to the end of 2014 and the technical implementation in 2015 . Lawyers from the Federal Ministry of Transport warned that the law would not stand before the ECJ.

Later, after the election, the CSU avoided the term foreigner toll and instead spoke of the infrastructure fee or car toll .

In December 2018, Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer announced that the order to collect the toll to the v. a. CTS Eventim , which appeared as a concert ticket seller, and the Austrian toll operator Kapsch TrafficCom had been awarded. The contract has a volume of approx. 2 billion euros and a term of at least 12 years. The project should start in 2020 at the latest. Before that, the operating companies Scheuer are said to have proposed at least once to postpone the signing of the contract to a point in time after the expected ECJ ruling. Scheuer is said to have rejected this with reference to the tight schedule for the CSU prestige object. The State Secretary responsible for the toll project, Gerhard Schulz , has been CEO of Toll Collect since 2019.

Intended design of the 2014 car toll

On July 7, 2014, Federal Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt presented his concept for a car toll. It includes the following points:

  1. In Germany, an infrastructure charge will be levied from 2016. Owners whose motor vehicle is registered in Germany pay the infrastructure fee for a whole year.
  2. This applies to all class M and M1G vehicles (cars and off-road vehicles) up to 3.5 tonnes total weight that use the public road network in Germany. The toll does not apply to other vehicle classes unless they have to pay taxes under other laws (trucks must of course pay a fee per km). The infrastructure tax applies to federal, state and municipal roads.
  3. Owners of motor vehicles that are subject to vehicle tax in Germany would be relieved of a tax exemption that completely and unbureaucratically compensated for the expenses for the infrastructure fee.
  4. Vehicles that are wholly or partially exempt from vehicle tax (e.g. electric vehicles or vehicles for disabled people) are exempt from the infrastructure tax with the same effect.
  5. The price of the annual vignette depends on the environmental friendliness, the cubic capacity and the year of registration of the motor vehicle - in accordance with the system in the Motor Vehicle Tax Act.
  6. Owners of motor vehicles that are not subject to vehicle tax in Germany can choose between a vignette for ten days (10 euros), two months (20 euros) or one year (the amount depends on the characteristics of the vehicle) and purchase it online. In addition, it can be purchased at petrol stations.

The concept was thus similar to that of the truck toll of 1990 , in which domestic trucking companies were to be relieved by a reduction in vehicle tax; In 1992 the ECJ assessed it as a violation of Art. 76 EEC Treaty .

On September 6, 2014, Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble predicted that this concept would not generate the expected additional income. According to an evaluation of the toll concept from the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), the result could be considerably less than 600 million euros per year for road infrastructure financing. According to Spiegel information, Schäuble is planning a concept with which he wants to burden all users of German motorways.

As a result, the Federal Ministry of Finance has prevailed: In the final draft of the Federal Government, the car toll will only be levied for federal highways in accordance with the Federal Highways Act; The federal government, as the road construction agency, is exclusively entitled to income .

Infrastructure Tax Act 2015

On this basis, on March 27, 2015, the Bundestag decided to introduce the car toll as part of a legislative package as the Infrastructure Tax Act (InfrAG) .

Section 1 (1) InfrAG provides for a general tax obligation for cars in Germany; According to its wording, only for the use of federal highways according to § 1 of the Federal Trunk Road Act (FStrG), however, approval is not possible without proof of payment of the fee and compensation of possible arrears ( § 9 Paragraphs 3 and 5 InfrAG). Already registered cars be after the beginning of the survey to § 9 para. 6 InfrAG ex officio decommissioned. The amount of the fee is based on the Appendix to the InfrAG.

In an amendment to the draft law introduced by the Federal Government, the vignette for foreign vehicles with a 10-day validity will cost 5, 10 or 15 euros, depending on environmental compatibility and cubic capacity, and the vignette for 2 months will cost 16, 22 or 30 euros. The annual vignette costs a maximum of 130 euros. At the same time as the infrastructure charge begins to be levied , a vehicle tax reduction for domestic owners in the same amount comes into force ( Art. 1 No. 7 in conjunction with Art. 3 (2) of the Second Law on Amending Traffic Tax ).

On June 8, 2015, the Federal President issued the laws to introduce a car toll; they were published in the Federal Law Gazette on June 11, 2015 and came into force the following day.

Infringement Procedure

On June 18, 2015, the EU Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Germany because it was believed that the toll laws (package of laws) were contrary to European law. At the end of June 2016, the federal government replied to the EU Commission's reasoned statement that the Brussels concerns were unjustified. Transport Minister Dobrindt has announced that he will wait until the process is completed before starting the toll, although the laws have been in force since mid-2015.

On August 28, 2016, the two-month deadline for the reasoned statement to the EU Commission expired . This reached the last stage of the preliminary proceedings in the infringement proceedings against Germany. The Commission now has the opportunity to bring an action before the ECJ in order to clarify the conformity of the German Infrastructure Fees Act with European law.

However, after talks with the federal government, the commission indicated that it could withdraw the complaint that it had filed with certain legal modifications. After submitting the revised drafts, the EU Commission announced that it would no longer pursue the infringement proceedings.

Compromise at the end of 2016

After negotiations with the EU Commission, a new draft for the car toll was presented.

Cost of the annual vignette for domestic cars (per 100 cm³ or part thereof)
Emission class Petrol engine Diesel engine
Euro 0, 1, 2, 3 € 6.50 € 9.50
Euro 4, 5 € 2 5 €
Euro 6 1.80 € 4.80 €
RVs 16 € per 200 kg or part thereof permissible total weight
Antique car 130 € flat rate

The costs are limited to a maximum of € 130.

For passenger cars registered abroad, there is a graduation according to § 7 (2) of the law, since there should normally not be a desire to purchase an annual vignette. There are therefore 10-day, 2-month vignettes and annual vignettes, the price of which is graded according to the cost of an annual vignette for foreign cars. There are five so-called vignette levels for these short-term vignettes.

Cost of the 10-day and 2-month vignette
Annual vignette 10-day vignette 2-month vignette
up to 20 € € 2.50 7 €
from 20 € to 40 € 4 € 11 €
from 40 € to 70 € 8 € 18 €
from 70 € to 100 € 14 € 30 €
from 100 € to 130 € 20 € 40 €
from 130 € 25 € 50 €

2017

The Federal Council's Transport Committee decided on the first law amending the Infrastructure Charges Act that the Mediation Committee should be convened with the aim of repealing the law. However, in the plenary session of the Bundesrat on March 31, 2017, there was no majority in favor of convening the mediation committee and the law already passed by the Bundestag passed unchanged through the Bundesrat. The new legal regulations can ultimately be implemented after the Federal President has drawn up the law and has promulgated it; the further steps for the introduction of the German car toll can be initiated by the transport minister.

The approval was preceded by an intensive discussion by the minister-presidents of the Union the evening before, during which Horst Seehofer threatened to reject the compromise on federal-state financial relations and thus the grand coalition as a whole was considered to be at risk. Ultimately, approval was secured when Thuringia's Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow promised approval to Federal Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt on the morning before the vote on the condition that the Central-Germany connection (railway line between Weimar and Gößnitz) would be expanded more quickly. Brandenburg, Berlin, Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein, Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony voted in favor of convening the mediation committee; Thuringia abstained from the vote.

Costs, Income and Damages

As of June 28, 2019, the following information can be provided:

costs

“Expenses in connection with the preparation of the collection of the infrastructure charge” included costs of EUR 8 million for 2015 and EUR 11.2 million for 2016. The cost of the failed car toll already amounts to 53.6 million euros - from 2014 to the day of the toll stop. This emerges from a report from the Federal Ministry of Transport to the Bundestag. Exactly how the loss of expected toll revenue will affect the federal budget is still being examined.

In the Federal Ministry of Transport, several hundred thousand hours have been spent on the project since 2013. The project is therefore considered to be "one of the greatest waste of resources in German politics."

Planned costs

Die Welt reported in June 2015 that the implementation of the car toll could cost almost 450 million euros. According to the Federal Transport Minister, the simultaneous relief from vehicle tax should amount to around 3 billion euros. The traffic scientist Alexander Eisenkopf assumed that the compromise from the end of November 2016 would lower the income from the vehicle tax by a further 100 million euros. The minister reckoned the cost of setting up and operating the toll system would amount to 300 million euros. In the draft law, the running costs were estimated at 195 million euros.

revenue

The Federal Transport Minister assumed an annual income of 3.7 billion euros, of which 3 billion from domestic drivers. At the same time, however, there would be a shortfall in vehicle tax revenues, which would have to be offset.

balance

The Federal Minister of Transport assumed an annual balance of EUR 500 million. Eisenkopf assumes 350 million euros and Ralf Ratzenberger (for the ADAC) of 260 (or 262) million euros. The toll operator AGES assumed 900 million euros.

damages

In 2017, contracts were signed with a consortium consisting of the ticket marketer CTS Eventim and the Austrian telecommunications provider Kapsch for collecting the toll. These were terminated the day after the judgment of the ECJ. In the operating contract it was stipulated that in the event of termination by the client the so-called gross company value (a fictitious 12-fold annual profit, according to Oliver Luksic (transport policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group), an estimated 380-480 million euros due to a particularly high return on sales of 23.8%) pay is.

reviews

Proponents and their arguments

In the election campaign for the 2013 federal election , Horst Seehofer (CSU) called for tolls for foreign motorway users; However, this is considered incompatible with EU law because of the discrimination it implies against EU citizens in accordance with Article 18 of the TFEU . The idea of ​​a vignette soon circulated as a model, the costs of which for car owners whose cars are registered in Germany were compensated in return through a lower vehicle tax so that only foreign drivers would have to pay an additional contribution.

On May 17, 2013, the Main Association of the German Construction Industry supported the idea of ​​a toll and commented: “If we want to maintain an efficient transport network in Germany, there is no way around a car toll in the medium term. An argument in favor of a vignette solution is that it could be introduced quickly and without high costs, without having to fear alternative traffic or an excessive burden on commuters. Such a toll could only be conveyed to citizens, however, if they could rely on the earmarking of the toll revenue for the construction of federal highways. ”Shortly before the 2013 federal election , there was a public dissent between Merkel and Seehofer on the question of the“ car toll ”. In the chancellor duel, Merkel confirmed her “no” to a car toll with the words: “With me there will be no car toll”, although the CSU prevailed in the coalition agreement.

Opponents and their arguments

The automobile club ADAC has been advocating against a car toll on German motorways for many years; in addition he called u. a. the following arguments:

  • Foreign car traffic (or those who fill up in Germany) already pay 195% of the infrastructure costs incurred through the mineral oil tax.
  • Foreign vehicles only accounted for 5.2% of car traffic on German autobahns.
  • For years the state has only been spending around 30 to 35% of the income from vehicle taxes, mineral oil taxes and truck tolls on infrastructure (e.g. for road repairs or the construction of new roads).
  • The vignette model gives no incentive to drive less and no incentive to drive in an energy-saving manner. A small car with low mileage pays the same for the vignette as a high-end car that drives a lot. This is unjust and anti-social.

In addition, according to the ADAC, if only 20 percent of car traffic is shifted from the motorways to the subordinate roads ( toll avoidance traffic), around 250 additional traffic fatalities and over 10,000 additional injuries can be expected each year. The ADAC further argued that a route-related toll would require too much technical effort in terms of collection and administrative costs .

With regard to the effort, it was also noted that the expected approx. 600 million euros would only account for 1% of the total costs for the necessary road maintenance (approx. 60 billion euros), i.e. would not bring any noticeable improvement. The thesis was also expressed that the road rehabilitation measure would be of no use at all, because the transport ministry's allocations from the overall federal budget could be reduced by the amount of the expected direct income: the truck toll had the same effect.

Further negative arguments related to the considerations that existed until the law was introduced in the German Bundestag (2015) to collect the toll as a general road user charge or to use technical monitoring systems, which were implemented both after the deliberations of Dobrindt in 2013 or after his first overall presentation of the concept in Passed July 2014.

European positions

Siim Kallas as the responsible EU Commissioner (2010-2014) already noted on October 28, 2013 in response to a request from the European Parliament that toll systems were generally subject to Directive 1999/62 / EC (1) ("Eurovignette Directive") ) for heavy goods vehicles and - if they apply to passenger cars - must comply with the general principles of the EU Treaty. Both pieces of legislation prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality. The collection of taxes is the responsibility of the Member States. According to Article 5 of Directive 1999/62 / EC, vehicle taxes are only levied in the Member State in which the vehicle is registered. The level of tax on passenger cars of resident drivers can therefore be determined by Member States at their own discretion. For this reason, road toll systems that apply to both resident and non-resident drivers should be implemented in the form of user charges rather than levies so that the charges levied are proportionate to the use of the infrastructure.

According to Kallas, the more attention is paid to the proportionality of the toll systems, the more they correspond to the user principle (“user pays”) and the less discriminatory they are. In principle, a reduction in vehicle taxes for resident users, taking into account the minimum rates for trucks laid down in Directive 1999/62 / EC, with the simultaneous charging of reasonable usage fees for all users does not constitute discrimination on the basis of nationality.

A commission spokeswoman added that a "toll system in which locals received a vignette free of charge" is not possible, the commission prefers distance-dependent charging systems such as in France or Italy, in which nationals and foreigners have to pay equally taking into account the distance actually traveled . Accordingly, the original CSU concept of issuing the vignette to German car owners free of charge is legally impossible. It is questionable to what extent a toll for foreigners could cover the annual additional need for infrastructural measures, which according to various estimates is up to more than seven billion euros. With an annual toll of 100 euros and 3 million vignettes sold to foreigners per year, only 300 million euros in additional income would be generated.

After the announcement in July 2014 that the general toll would be implemented by 2016, several neighboring states announced objections. In July 2014, the Austrian Minister of Transport, Bures , expressed her intention to go before the highest court for discrimination. The then German transport minister Alexander Dobrindt said on December 10, 2016 that he had "little understanding for the Austrian toll foul play". The Green National Councilor Georg Willi (Austria) responded by open letter the next day with multiple criticism: “To charge something for the use of the high-level motorway network is right, but it must be fair and fair to the user (...). Due to tax cuts for German cars, mostly only foreign drivers would be asked to pay the toll, which triggered criticism from Austria. “Austria earns 449 million euros from the vignette, Dobrindt expects only 500 million euros with a lot of bureaucracy for an approximately six times larger motorway network. The Austrian model of the vignette would generate 2.7 billion euros in Germany. “Austria is expanding the rail network by billions and cannot watch as nothing goes on with the access routes to the Brenner Base Tunnel, for example. (...) Austria tries to implement the EU road cost directive. Car and truck tolls would generate around 1.86 billion euros, which would flow into the motorway and expressway network. Unlike in parts of Germany, this is in good condition. ”Shortly before the National Council election in Austria in 2017 , the Austrian Transport Minister announced that he would sue Germany. In December 2017, the government of the Netherlands announced that it would join the lawsuit.

Legal reviews

Bundestag lawyers as well as parts of the literature considered the foreigner toll according to the 2014 concept to be contrary to European law. They also considered the compromise of the end of 2016 to be incompatible with EU law. In an expert opinion, it was stated that “the effect of the tax relief amount in favor of domestic vehicle taxpayers causes indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality at the expense of vehicle owners who are not subject to vehicle tax in Germany and users of German federal highways from other member states who do not can support justifications recognized under Union law. ”In addition, foreign transport companies are“ imposed a new burden, which is compensated to a considerable extent by a reduction in vehicle tax that only benefits domestic transport companies. ”European law prohibits“ any deterioration in the relationship between domestic and foreign Transport company. ”The European Commission took the view that the agreed solution upheld the right of EU citizens to equal treatment regardless of their nationality, and to ensure fair infrastructure financing ng and facilitate the transition to low-emission mobility.

On February 6, 2019, the Swedish Advocate General at the ECJ Nils Wahl recommended that Austria's action should be rejected. He rejected both Austria's argument of discrimination against foreign road users in Germany and the alleged distortion of the internal market through the toll. Politicians from the SPD and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen reacted particularly disappointed to this recommendation . In this context it was also reported that the judges would often, but not always, follow a recommendation of the Advocate General.

Judgment of the ECJ of June 18, 2019 and its consequences

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in its judgment of June 18, 2019 in case C-591/17 that the introduction of an infrastructure charge for the use of federal highways by passenger cars (so-called car toll) violates EU law. Insofar as there should be a tax relief for motor vehicle tax in favor of the owners of vehicles registered in Germany with a total weight of up to 3.5 t in an amount that at least corresponds to the amount of the infrastructure charge, foreign vehicle owners would be discriminated against.

The ECJ further stated that "the disputed national measures, by reducing the new burden in the infrastructure charge to be paid by all transport companies, through a tax relief for vehicle tax in the amount of at least the amount of the charge paid, Completely compensate for the benefit of domestic transport companies and from which foreign transport companies are excluded, have the effect that the situation of foreign transport companies compared to that of German transport companies is changed in a way that is unfavorable for the former. "

Chancellor Angela Merkel , whose previous position was that there would be no car toll with her, expressed her regret about the lack of additional income in the federal government of up to 500 million euros after the judgment of the ECJ.

Termination of toll contracts and their disclosure

On the evening of June 18, 2019, Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer initiated the termination of contracts for the automatic control and collection of tolls. The Austrian toll operator Kapsch TrafficCom and the ticket specialist CTS Eventim (see: CTS Eventim and CTS Eventim Austria ) are affected by the contract cancellations .

On the question of what damage was caused, the Federal Ministry of Transport answered an extensive catalog of questions, but did not provide any information on the amount of costs and possible claims for damages by the terminated toll operators Kapsch and Eventim. When concluding the contracts, Transport Minister Scheuer relied on a legal opinion commissioned by himself . The large number of contradicting reports on the question of conformity with European law, on the other hand, did not justify any contracts with high compensation payments.

On July 17, 2019, the head of CTS Eventim announced that the companies CTS Eventim and Kapsch advocate full disclosure of the contracts. So far they have refused to do so, citing trade and business secrets. In the following week, the Bundestag's transport committee was supposed to deal with the car toll and its consequences for taxpayers in a special session.

The Federal Ministry of Transport signed the two toll contracts , the contract on the development, construction and operation of a system for collecting the infrastructure charge from December 30, 2018 and, in a second step, the contract on planning, development, construction, operation and maintenance of the automatic ISA control system on October 22, 2018. The agreement on the consent of the client to conclude the subcontracting contract between the operator and Toll Collect GmbH ("consent agreement") and the internal agreement in connection with subcontracting services by Toll Collect GmbH for collecting the infrastructure fee were also published .

Claims for damages by toll operators, federal recourse claims

The claims for damages that the federal government may have to pay for damages were put at EUR 500 million in an initial estimate. The Greens are now expected to cost more than a billion euros. However, Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer wanted to have possible federal government claims against the toll operators for poor performance checked.

Opposition parties' opinions

According to a media report on August 25, 2019, Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer violated the Basic Law, according to the Greens . This is the conclusion reached by an opinion that Ulrich Hufeld and Florian Wagner-von Papp , two professors from the Helmut Schmidt University / University of the Federal Armed Forces in Hamburg , prepared on behalf of the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen parliamentary group . After that, Scheuer would have had to rely on the German Bundestag to conclude the contract to collect the car toll. The report states that the Federal Ministry of Transport took a risk with the contract without budgetary cover . Guarantee promises made by the federal government, however, require legal authorization (see authorization , legal basis and authorization to intervene ). After the report has been analyzed, the Greens want to examine whether the case should be brought before the Federal Constitutional Court and continue to work on setting up an investigative committee . The FDP and the Left are also calling for this.

The Greens also accuse Scheuer of providing incorrect information after reports on August 26 and 27, 2019. In the special meeting of the Transport Committee on July 24, 2019, Scheuer stated that the risk of a negative judgment within the Federal Ministry of Transport had been assessed “with a probability of up to 15 percent”. After reviewing all risk management documents, the Green budget politician Sven-Christian Kindler criticized the fact that it was not clear where the probability of a negative ECJ ruling of up to 15 percentage points was derived and where this is exactly mapped.

Another report - commissioned by the FDP - was reported on August 30, 2019. The report prepared by Chatham Partners came to the conclusion that the consequences of termination agreed in the contract on toll collection were to be regarded as unusually disadvantageous for the client Germany. Because of the numerous warning voices and the uncertain outcome of the proceedings, there was a particular need for a regulation that would protect the client and thus the taxpayer. The federal government could now face considerable demands. The Ministry of Transport rejected the representation. The contracts should never have been signed in this form, said the FDP transport expert Oliver Luksic in relation to the report. Due to the lack of willingness to provide information on the part of Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer , the convening of a committee of inquiry was the only logical consequence.

Accusation of unfaithful damage to "autoTicket"

According to media reports from September 2, 2019, the Federal Ministry of Transport accused “autoTicket” of deliberately attempting to harm in bad faith (see: Inadmissible exercise of rights , good faith ), while the dispute over the failed car toll was escalating. Even after the termination of the contract by the federal government, the company is said to have signed seven contracts for a total of at least 576 million euros, with companies belonging to their own group of companies. “AutoTicket” was supposed to set up the car toll system on behalf of the shareholders Kapsch TrafficCom (see Kapsch AG , Kapsch BusinessCom ) and CTS Eventim . Meanwhile, a dispute about possible claims for damages of hundreds of millions of euros is emerging.

Criticism of the Federal Audit Office

In October 2019, the Federal Audit Office sharply criticized the actions of Federal Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer . It was "violated public procurement law" and "violated budget law". The Federal Ministry of Transport rejected all allegations, while both Oliver Luksic (FDP) and Sven-Christian Kindler (Greens) spoke of a deliberate breach of the law.

Committee of Inquiry

On November 28, 2019, with the votes of the parliamentary groups from the FDP, Greens, Left and AfD, with the CDU / CSU and SPD abstaining, the toll affair investigation committee was convened as the second investigation committee of the 19th electoral term of the German Bundestag.

Will there be a "road user charge" for everyone?

On August 14, 2019, a new approach was reported after the failed car toll. The idea goes in the direction of a “road usage fee” that everyone should pay and comes from Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg , federal states in southern Germany that are considered to be “car countries”. The municipal assemblies of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg demand that the fee be introduced (after all). Uwe Brandl ( CSU ), President of the Bavarian Municipal Council : "I think a toll is absolutely sensible". For the toll (or rather the road usage fee), Brandl also wants to claim German drivers: "I think it's only fair that someone who uses a public service pays for it."

Roger Kehle , President of the Municipal Assembly of Baden-Württemberg and Vice President of the German Association of Towns and Municipalities : "We need a toll for everyone". Kehle suggests a kilometer-based toll for residents and foreigners, which would be more of a burden for frequent drivers, namely for federal highways , state roads and municipal roads . Kehle says he doesn't think there can be any relief, but that he is calling for compensation for commuters . Kehle believes that a “new toll” is urgently needed to prevent a traffic blackout and to finance the turnaround in traffic. The entire road network in Germany (cf. road network and road system in Germany ) comprises 920,000 kilometers, of which the communal share is around 600,000 kilometers. In Kehle's opinion, the funds should be divided up in the same way as the transport routes. The transport infrastructure has been underfunded for years . The money should not only benefit the federal government, but also the municipalities. Last but not least, there must be a “clever control effect”: “Those who drive more have to pay more,” says Kehle. Instead of bans, however, “clever incentive systems” should be created. However, an “intelligent toll” could become more expensive if someone drives into a metropolis at peak times. Such a fee should be able to be calculated electronically when traveling in private vehicles.

literature

  • Alexander Dambach: Transport policy on the German and European level. Actors, interrelations, room for maneuver - illustrated using the example of road user charges. Dissertation, University of Heidelberg 2007. ( Full text online , accessed on November 4, 2016.)
  • Michael Rodi (ed.): Fair price for mobility. Road tolls as a tool to control traffic flows. 2. Greifswald Forum Environment and Transport 2006. Lexxion, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-939804-15-4 . (= Series Environment - Law - Society; 4)
  • Sebastian Hartmann: The compatibility of the so-called car toll with the law of the European Union , Ergon-Verlag Würzburg 2016, ISBN 978-3-95650-153-1 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Austria doesn't do it any differently. In: Bayerische Staatszeitung. July 10, 2015 .;
  2. ↑ Austria attacks German toll plans - but did the same 20 years ago. In: FOCUS Online. June 26, 2017 .;
  3. ↑ Herbert Baum, Jan-André Bühne, Jan Dobberstein, Torsten Geißler: Car toll in Germany? A transport and economic policy assessment. Study for the Allgemeine Deutsche Automobil-Club e. V. (ADAC). (PDF) Institute for Transport Science at the University of Cologne , 2010, accessed on November 4, 2016.
  4. ↑ ff / AP / dpa / ddp / Reuters: Advance on the car toll: Ramsauer makes lightning-backdrops. In: Spiegel Online . November 5, 2009, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  5. ^ CDU housekeeper in discussion about savings for car tolls. In: verkehrsrundschau.de , May 18, 2010. Accessed November 4, 2016.
  6. ↑ a b Thorsten Denkler: Foreigner toll is coming - with the latest changes . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . March 24, 2015, accessed November 30, 2016 .
  7. ↑ This is how expensive the toll is for German drivers . In: The world . Retrieved December 1, 2016 .
  8. ↑ a b Peter Müller: Seehofer ignites with the "foreigner toll". In: Der Spiegel . August 12, 2013 .;
  9. ↑ The federal government is putting the toll on the road. In: FAZ .net , December 17, 2014. Accessed November 4, 2016.
  10. ↑ Michael Backhaus, Martin S. Lambeck, Burkhard Uhlenbroich in an interview with Alexander Dobrindt : "We need the fastest Internet in the world" . In: Bild am Sonntag . December 22, 2013, accessed November 30, 2016 .
  11. ^ A b c Markus Feldenkirchen , Gerald Traufetter: House of Breakdowns . In: Der Spiegel . No. 29 , 2019, pp. 32-40 ( online - 13 July 2019 ).
  12. ↑ Minister Dobrindt presents a concept for car tolls . Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure , July 7, 2014, accessed on November 30, 2016 .
  13. ↑ Thorsten Denkler: Nobody intends to introduce a foreigner toll . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . December 17, 2014, accessed November 30, 2016 .
  14. ↑ fek / Reuters: Eventim: Ticket provider is awarded the contract to collect the car toll. In: Spiegel Online . December 19, 2018, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  15. ↑ Reuters / dpa: Ticket marketer Eventim is to collect car toll. In: FAZ.net . December 19, 2018, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  16. ↑ SZ from October 8, 2019, across from October 10, 2019
  17. ↑ Minister Dobrindt presents a concept for car tolls. Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI), press release, July 7, 2014. Accessed November 4, 2016.
  18. ↑ Walther Michl: The crux with the toll. Verassungsblog.de , January 15, 2014, accessed October 15, 2019 .
  19. ↑ with material from AFP: Maut: Schäuble warns of losses, de Maizière of a breach of the constitution. In: Spiegel Online . September 6, 2014 .;
  20. ↑ Maut: Schäuble has an alternative to Dobrindt's concept developed. In: Spiegel Online . August 30, 2014 .;
  21. ↑ Text and justification for the Infrastructure Tax Act (InfrAG) In: buzer.de . Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  22. ↑ information on die-maut.de maut.de , a private website by Sebastian Hartmann. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  23. ↑ Car toll. In: die-juristerei.de. Retrieved July 12, 2016 . , a private website by Sebastian Hartmann. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  24. ↑ EU Commission press release of December 1, 2016. Accessed March 21, 2017
  25. ↑ BGBl. 2017 I p. 1218
  26. ↑ Video recording from phoenix.de: Federal Council meeting on March 31, 2017. In: youtube.com. Retrieved March 31, 2017 .
  27. ↑ Federal Council clears the way for car tolls. In: faz.net. Retrieved March 31, 2017 .
  28. ↑ Sven Böll, Horand Knaup, Wolf Wiedmann-Schmidt: Left number . In: Der Spiegel . No. 15 , 2017, p. 34 f . ( online ).
  29. ↑ How Bavaria enforced the toll in the Federal Council. In: sueddeutsche.de. Retrieved April 1, 2017 .
  30. ↑ Not in force and already costing millions. In: Der Spiegel . July 3, 2015, accessed December 1, 2016 .
  31. ↑ apr / ene / dpa / Reuters: CSU favorite project: This is how expensive the failed car toll is - at least. In: Spiegel Online . June 25, 2019, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  32. ^ Matthias Kamann, Andre Tauber: Brussels' no to the car toll would cost millions. Die Welt , June 3, 2015 .;
  33. ↑ a b c d e f Britta Beeger, Manfred Schäfers: Doubts about Dobrindts toll revenues are growing. FAZ , November 7, 2016 .;
  34. ↑ a b c d Dietmar H. Lamparter, Felix Rohrbeck: Who is wrong? In: Die Zeit , No. 46/2014
  35. ↑ Frontal21 of October 9, 2019, video
  36. ↑ BMVI - Press Releases-Strategy Dialogue Construction Industry in Berlin. (No longer available online.) In: bmvi.de. May 17, 2013, archived from the original on March 4, 2016 ; accessed on March 20, 2016 .
  37. ↑ syd / dpa: TV debate with Steinbrück: Merkel includes introduction from car toll. In: Spiegel Online . September 1, 2013 .;
  38. ↑ The toll lie. In: mirror-online. May 11, 2014 .;
  39. ↑ ADAC motorwelt 09/2011, p. 14.
  40. ↑ ADAC - To the point: car toll. (PDF) as of January 2014, point 6; Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  41. ↑ Annett Meiritz, Philipp Wittrock: Dobrindts Infrastructure Tax: It's a Mäutchen! In: spiegel.de , October 30, 2014. Retrieved November 4.
  42. ↑ Birgit Baumann: German foreigner toll on the crawl lane. In: derStandard.at , July 4, 2014. Accessed November 4, 2016.
  43. ^ Jan Dams, Nikolaus Doll, Martin Greve, Andre Tauber: 42 billion euros misused by the state. In: welt.de , November 10, 2013; Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  44. ^ Dietmar H. Lamparter, Felix Rohrbeck: Who is wrong? In: Die Zeit , No. 46/2014.
  45. ↑ a b Answer to a written question - Discrimination against non-residents in the car toll - P-011520/2013. In: europarl.europa.eu. October 28, 2013, accessed March 20, 2016 .
  46. ↑ Michael Stabenow: “There is no U-turn”. In: FAZ.net , January 31, 2013. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  47. ↑ Claudia Ehrenstein, Jochen Gaugele: Toll concept: cash in foreigners without discrimination. In: welt.de . July 6, 2014, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  48. ↑ German toll Plans: Bures announced resistance. In: orf.at , July 7, 2014. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  49. ^ Green NR Willi counters German minister. In: orf.at , December 11, 2016, accessed December 15, 2016.
  50. ↑ als / dpa / AFP: Austria is suing German car toll. In: Spiegel Online . October 12, 2017, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  51. ↑ German car toll: The Netherlands join Austria's lawsuit in the courier of December 13, 2017, accessed on June 18, 2019.
  52. ↑ so z. B. Sebastian Hartmann: The compatibility of the car toll with the law of the European Union . Ergon-Verlag, Würzburg 2016, ISBN 978-3-95650-153-1 (see literature).
  53. ^ Foreigners toll: Bundestag lawyers call Dobrindt plan illegal. In: Spiegel Online . August 3, 2014, accessed April 13, 2020 .
  54. ^ A b Arne Meyer: Bundestag report doubts car toll. In: tagesschau.de . February 17, 2017. Retrieved February 17, 2017 .
  55. ↑ EU Commission press release of December 1, 2016. Accessed March 21, 2017
  56. ↑ Hannelore Crolly: This is how the ECJ lawyer dismantled Austria's lawsuit against the car toll. In: welt.de. February 6, 2019, accessed December 12, 2019 .
  57. ↑ ECJ overturns German car toll from June 18, 2019, accessed on June 18, 2019.
  58. ↑ Judgment of the ECJ available at Curia: "Failure of a Member State - Art. 18, 34, 56 and 92 TFEU - Regulation of a Member State which provides for an infrastructure charge for passenger cars - Situation in which the owners of vehicles registered in this Member State benefit from tax relief the motor vehicle tax is granted in the amount of this fee " , reasons under No. 162, accessed on June 18, 2019
  59. ↑ tagesschau.de: Is the climate toll coming now?
  60. ↑ Decision of the ECJ: German car toll violates EU law. tagesschau.de, June 18, 2019, accessed June 19, 2019 .
  61. ↑ According to the judgment of the European Court of Justice: Transport Minister Scheuer declares the car toll to have failed. Der Tagesspiegel, June 18, 2019, accessed on June 19, 2019 .
  62. ↑ Dirk Rodenkirch: After the ECJ decision: The next car toll could be more expensive. tagesschau.de, June 18, 2019, accessed June 19, 2019 .
  63. ↑ Car toll: Angela Merkel regrets the lack of toll income. Zeit Online, June 19, 2019, accessed June 19, 2019 .
  64. ↑ Simon Schütz: The day after the shock judgment: Scheuer terminates contracts with a toll company in Austria. bild.de, June 19, 2019, accessed on June 19, 2019 .
  65. ↑ Henrik Mortsiefer: Minister Scheuer under pressure: toll arbitration costs 1.9 million euros. Der Tagesspiegel, July 12, 2019, accessed on July 12, 2019 .
  66. ↑ After the ECJ stopped: operators allow inspection of toll contracts. tagesschau.de, July 17, 2019, accessed on July 19, 2019 .
  67. ^ Tilman Wittenhorst: Car toll: Federal Ministry of Transport puts contracts on the network. Heise Online, July 20, 2019, accessed on July 20, 2019 .
  68. ↑ Here you will find the contracts "Collection" and "Control" of the car toll. Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, July 19, 2019, accessed on July 23, 2019 .
  69. ↑ Arne Semsrott: 700 million euros loss: This is the secret agreement on car tolls. In: FragDenStaat . May 18, 2020, accessed May 29, 2020 .
  70. ↑ Claims for damages: Toll disaster could cost taxpayers 500 million. Manager Magazin, July 22, 2019, accessed on July 23, 2019 .
  71. ↑ Failed car toll: Greens expect costs of more than one billion euros. Deutschlandradio, August 8, 2019, accessed on August 8, 2019 .
  72. ↑ Car toll: the federal government is considering claims for repayment against operators. LZonline, August 8, 2019, accessed August 8, 2019 .
  73. ↑ Toll report by the Greens: Scheuer is said to have violated the Basic Law. Manager Magazin, August 25, 2019, accessed on August 27, 2019 .
  74. ↑ Georg Ismar: New inconsistencies about Scheuer's toll defeat: Greens accuse transport ministers of wrong information. Der Tagesspiegel, August 26, 2019, accessed on July 27, 2019 .
  75. ↑ The Greens accuse Scheuer of providing false information about the car toll. Epoch Times, August 27, 2019, accessed August 27, 2019 .
  76. ^ Opinion on the failed fee: FDP wants U committee on car tolls. Spiegel Online, August 30, 2019, accessed on August 31, 2019 .
  77. ↑ Kristin Becker, Kirsten Girschick: Expert opinion of the FDP: Toll contract could be expensive for the federal government. tagesschau.de, August 30, 2019, accessed on August 31, 2019 .
  78. ^ Toll: New allegations against Scheuer - also FDP for investigative committee. Deutschlandradio, August 30, 2019, accessed on August 31, 2019 .
  79. ↑ Transport Minister: FDP report: Scheuer has taken considerable risks for car tolls. Retrieved July 9, 2020 .
  80. ↑ DER SPIEGEL: FDP wants committee of inquiry into the car toll - DER SPIEGEL - economy. Retrieved July 9, 2020 .
  81. ^ Toll contracts: Federal government accuses "autoTicket" of fraud. tagesschau.de, September 2, 2019, accessed on September 2, 2019 .
  82. ^ Federal Government: New allegations in the toll dispute. Wallstreet Journal, September 2, 2019, accessed September 2, 2019 .
  83. ↑ The Federal Audit Office sharply criticizes the transport minister's approach to car tolls. Retrieved July 9, 2020 .
  84. ↑ Frontal 21 research: How the audit office tore apart Scheuer's toll allocation. Retrieved July 9, 2020 .
  85. ↑ Bundestag sets up toll investigation committee. Süddeutsche Zeitung, November 28, 2019, accessed on November 28, 2019 .
  86. ↑ a b Community days: New start for the introduction of a car toll. Die Welt, August 14, 2019, accessed on August 27, 2019 .