In the artificial torrent, 2.5 million liters of water rush downhill every hour, guests at the Lindau thermal baths can slide down with them – but only experienced swimmers from the age of eight. The largest thermal spa on Lake Constance has a number of attractions, including outdoor pools and indoor pools, a children’s area, a candle sauna and a fire sauna, slides and brine floating pools and, of course, a beach bar pool too. The thermal baths are in one of the loveliest spots on Lake Constance, and even conservationists would probably agree. This is one of the reasons why they fought so vehemently against the 45 million euro project.
There was a citizens’ request, complaints from residents and just two court cases that the Bund Naturschutz (BN) had initiated. The thermal baths are now finished, they have been open since the summer of 2021, and yet the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig is now deciding again on the dispute over the thermal baths: the BN wants to have its legal standing clarified by the highest court, the core issue is the fundamental question of whether environmental associations have the right to sue building permits and zoning plans and stop them before the diggers roll in and environmental damage occurs.
The thermal bath is located in the “Bavarian Lake Constance shore” nature reserve and borders on a European bird sanctuary, a nature reserve and a European fauna-flora habitat area. In 2017, however, the people of Lindau had clearly voted in favor of the project in a referendum, after the city council had discussed it for years. Even today, the BN criticizes the lighting of the thermal baths, which protrude far into the lake. It poses a problem for numerous migratory birds, “after all, Lake Constance is one of the most important Central European resting and wintering sites,” says Maximilian Schuff, chairman of the local BN district group.
In legal battles against the Lindauer Therme, the BN failed both times: First, the Administrative Court (VG) Augsburg and the Administrative Court (VGH) in Munich rejected a construction freeze, which the BN wanted to enforce in summary proceedings. The reason: according to the Environmental Legal Remedies Act, the BN has no legal standing against building permits. “That surprised us very much, the other administrative courts in Bavaria see it differently in similar cases,” says Rottner. Be that as it may: The construction work on the Lindauer Therme was able to continue unhindered. Nevertheless, the BN continued the legal dispute. But he failed again. The VG Augsburg and the VGH rejected his lawsuit against the development plan for the thermal baths. Their argument: the construction work on it had progressed so far that the lawsuit was unnecessary.
20 minutes later the first trees fell
From the point of view of the BN, the extremely short time between the publication of the development plan, the handing over of the building permit to the client and the start of the construction work played an important role in the dispute. “She practically took the time to prevent the project in court,” says BN lawyer Peter Rottner. According to BN, the development plan and the resolution on the statutes were published in the Official Journal of the City of Lindau on February 24, 2018, a Saturday when work in authorities, courts and environmental organizations usually rests. The building permit was handed over to the client at 6.45 a.m. on the same day. Just 20 minutes later, under police protection, the first trees were felled, some of them more than 100 year old oaks. “This haste alone is suspicious,” says Rottner. “It looks as if they wanted to keep the BN out of it.”
From Rottner’s point of view, the judicial decisions are also tough. “First we are deprived of the opportunity to stop construction until a final verdict is reached,” he says. “And later our complaints were settled because the project went too far.” If this example catches on, the BN sees a great danger for his work. “Facts are far too often created with saws and excavators without us having the opportunity to evaluate the construction projects from the perspective of nature and environmental protection and possibly to sue,” says Rottner. “We cannot and do not want to accept that.” Hence the lawsuit before the Federal Administrative Court.
The BN and other environmental organizations see their right to sue as a central instrument in the fight for nature and the environment to be as intact as possible. They refer to the Aarhus Convention from 1998. The international treaty, which was signed by 47 states, including all EU members and thus also Germany, and the EU, secures individuals and environmental organizations access to extensive environmental information and a right to sue in environmental matters. This is intended to improve the protection of nature and the environment. From the point of view of many politicians, investors and business people, the environmental organizations’ right to sue goes too far and hinders important projects.