Possible violation of the constitution: doubts about Scheuer’s motorway reform

The motorway reform by Transport Minister Scheuer could violate the Basic Law. That comes from an assessment of the Scientific Service of the Bundestag. The reasons for this are similar to those of the toll debacle.

The new Autobahn GmbH started at the beginning of the year, so that the federal government is supposed to manage the German autobahns on its own and centrally. From the point of view of the Scientific Service, however, there is now in fact a mixed administration by the federal and state governments – and according to the expert opinion this may not be compatible with the Basic Law.

The Ministry of Transport rejects the concerns. The federal states only supported the federal government selectively and for a limited period of time. In addition, the scientific service does not give a final assessment.

Memories of the toll debacle

The accusation by the report is ultimately the same as when the car toll failed: that Scheuer pushed through the innovation too quickly and could have caused problems.

The transport minister had not managed to get the new federal autobahn GmbH to take over all autobahn tasks from the federal states in time for its start at the beginning of the year. The federal government has therefore concluded cooperation agreements with the federal states. The federal states help with IT, for example.

Court of Auditors issued a warning years ago

According to the Scientific Service, such mixed administration is only permitted in exceptional cases. And he has strong doubts as to whether the motorway reform is such a case.

Because the Federal Audit Office had warned years ago that the time for the reform could be too short. The problem might have been avoided if the federal government had just given more time to reform.

The Greens criticize the transport minister. Scheuer concealed the fact that he had not completed the reform on time with just one handle in the bag of tricks. The FDP also speaks of “understandable doubts” as to whether the reform was legal.