Failed car toll: Operators are entitled to compensation

After the end of the controversial car toll, critics repeatedly warned of consequences for taxpayers in the millions. An arbitral tribunal has now affirmed the claim for damages and reimbursement of expenses of the originally intended operator.

According to the other side, the federal government has suffered a defeat in the legal dispute over compensation payments due to the bursting of the car toll. As the previously intended operators CTS Eventim and Kapsch Trafficcom announced in mandatory notifications for the stock exchange, an arbitration court affirmed a claim for damages and reimbursement of expenses against the Federal Republic. In a second phase of the arbitration proceedings, the amount of the claim will now be decided. The companies are demanding 560 million euros.

The legacy of the former transport minister has consequences

The car toll was a prestige project of the CSU in the then black-red federal government with the former Minister of Transport Andreas Scheurer. In June 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) stopped it as unlawful. Immediately after the verdict, Scheuer terminated the operator contracts – and since then has decisively rejected all claims for compensation from the companies. Arbitration began.

Claims exist “on the merits”

Kapsch and CTS Eventim founded the joint venture Autoticket for the toll. They said the arbitral tribunal had confirmed that the claims filed for Autoticket “are fundamentally valid”. This emerges from the interim award that was sent to the operator parties yesterday. The Federal Ministry of Transport was therefore not allowed to withdraw from the contract “unilaterally and without compensation”. With the arbitral award, the alleged reason for termination of “poor performance” was also rejected.

The Ministry of Transport initially did not comment on the matter. “We have not yet received a decision,” said a spokeswoman for department head Volker Wissing when asked in the evening. “As soon as this happens, we will carefully examine, evaluate and decide on how to proceed.”

Scheurer: Contract situation “in favor of the federal government”

Scheuer had repeatedly emphasized that the operators were not entitled to compensation. They would not have fulfilled the contractual services and, even after the termination, had intentionally and in bad faith violated the contracts. These were therefore terminated for several valid reasons. In this case, the contractual situation is “in favor of the federal government”.

The operating companies had argued, however, that their subsidiary Autoticket was entitled to lost profits over the contract period in the present case of contract termination – twelve years were intended. Furthermore, the operator contract provides for compensation for “termination costs”, which also include claims for damages from subcontractors.

Scheuer’s actions had occupied a committee of inquiry in the Bundestag during the previous electoral term. The opposition at the time accused him of violating budgetary and public procurement law and warned that the termination of the contract would cost taxpayers millions. Scheuer had always rejected the allegations.