Dispute over noise protection: A 94 lawsuit must not cost the city of Dorfen anything

Created: 07/31/2022, 09:00

By: Timo Aichele

The subject of dispute: the glass spray protection walls on the A94 bridges.

© fib Foto Ess Winfried 0049/173/5

Dorfen will only attack the plan approval decision if the legal protection insurance pays.

Dorfen

- The fight against the Isentalautobahn is peppered with defeats and disappointments - still.

The town of Dorfen is trying to subsequently enforce the rights of the noise-plagued residents.

But the chances seem slim.

"The lawyer we hired gives the lawsuit only very moderate prospects," Mayor Heinz Grundner (CSU) reported on Wednesday to the building and transport committee.

"It is to be expected that the lawsuit will be dismissed or that there will be a crushing defeat."

In 2021, the city filed a lawsuit with the administrative court.

The change in the planning approval decision was attacked in 2015. At that time, the noise protection walls on bridges were redesigned administratively, i.e. without the public and without the participation of the neighboring municipalities.

Effective absorbers have been replaced with clear splashbacks that don't block noise as well but enhance the scenery.

The question now is how the city should proceed, said Grundner.

Because with a lost process "we have achieved exactly the opposite," he argued.

Then you will also be wrong in terms of content.

Legally, it is also the case that the city of Dorfen can go to court for its own interests, for example in the event of negative effects on land use planning - but not because individual citizens are affected, explained Grundner.

"What we are complaining about is not covered by our own interests," he explained the legal logic.

It doesn't help anyone "if we get tangled up in windmill blades à la Don Quixote," he said.

"We should continue along this path," countered Günther Drobilitsch (GEM).

"We can't put up with that.

They trampled on our quality of life,” agreed Martin Heilmeier (LDW).

And Heiner Müller-Ermann (SPD) contradicted the view that the defeat before the Administrative Court was automatically perceived as meaning that Dorfen was wrong.

The chosen approach is indeed unusual, said the comrade.

It is about “changing a plan approval decision that was illegal from the outset”.

In order to justify this, the government of Upper Bavaria wrote down the installation of a noise-reducing road surface in the documents, says Müller-Ermann.

However, the surface had already been designed to be three decibels quieter – so there was no compensation.

“Using this trick, the government enabled the PPP company to increase its profits.

Unbearable!” Müller-Ermann scolded.

Finances were ultimately crucial for the committee.

According to initial information, a procedure is covered by municipal legal expenses insurance, at least in the first instance, Grundner reported.

"But it is questionable whether this will remain so after the negative assessment of our lawyer." Then it is to be feared that the city will have to bear procedural costs of 10,000 to 20,000 euros.

The committee therefore voted on two variants.

The harder stance failed with 5:5 votes.

If the legal protection insurance does not pay, the legal action will not be taken any further.

If the costs are covered, the city will continue to fight for the rights of those affected by the noise.

This decision was unanimous.