The German states of Saxony and Thuringia struggle with costs that exceed their expectations for environmental restorations, agreements made following the GDR's privatization. Initially, they thought the renovations would be cheaper, but reality proved otherwise. Although these states desired a renegotiation of their agreements with the federal government, the latter refused.
In defense of its stance, the federal government argued that it had no obligation to pay more than previously agreed on for the GDR's environmental damage liabilities. As a result, Saxony and Thuringia decided to approach the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe for help. Their goal was to challenge the federal government's refusal to renegotiate, believing it violated their rights under the German Basic Law.
To their surprise, the court dismissed their application, ruling that the states lacked the authority to file the renegotiation request in the first place. In addition, the court stated that the federal government's stance did not infringe on its rights and obligations under the Basic Law.
However, the specifics behind this case aren't fully addressed in available sources. The Federal Constitutional Court's rulings have touched upon state finances and public services, though no detailed report on this specific disagreement is publicly available. To delve deeper into this topic, you'll need to consult a legal database or examine the court's records for more information.
Including GDR-owned businesses in their privatization agreements, the federal and state governments often exempted such companies from liability for environmental damage. Following the 1992 agreement, costs for these exemptions were distributed between the two levels of government. After that, agreements with lump-sum compensation were made with individual federal states such as Saxony in 2008 and Thuringia in 1999. The agreements included renegotiation options when assumed costs exceeded the actual ones.
In the 90s, Saxony and Thuringia believed they could manage the environmental restorations costs effectively, but that presumption was quickly debunked. The actual costs of the renovations eventually proved to be much higher than expected. When the federal government did not reconsider the agreements, the two states took their case to the Federal Constitutional Court to argue for renegotiation.
Ultimately, the court declared that the federal government did not breach trust with the federal states when it declined to renegotiate the environmental damage compensation agreements. The court's rationales were based on the legal authorities and established principles outlined in the Basic Law. If you'd like to delve deeper into this topic, further investigation via legal databases or consultations with experts would be necessary.
