The administrative court in Munich had declared the way to the “Saurüsselalm” to be part of the on-site visit, and so the judges recently made the three-quarter-hour walk from Bad Wiessee to the new destination on Lake Tegernsee. A hiking trail there was not marked on the panoramic maps in the valley until a few months ago, but today’s destination was still called “Söllbachaualm” and was used solely for alpine animal husbandry. Those times are over since Helmut Kohl’s former personal chef Martin Frühauf started serving there at the end of 2021 on behalf of the large landowner Franz Haslberger. Exactly what there is to eat is of no concern to the chamber, and the route that has now been taken by the courts and otherwise occasionally used by Saurüssel shuttle buses has also existed before. In the meantime, the court has published its verdict, according to which the conversion of Söllbachau to Saurüssel is legal and only the 15 extra events per year for closed companies, which are also permitted by the Miesbach district office, have to be canceled. The black dance floor also has to go, but that’s not the end of the hut peace and quiet.
Because the association for the protection of the mountain world, which had sued against the approval for the conversion and conversion of the Alm, sees the matter as a precedent for the rampant development and commercialization of once remote huts by their old or new owners. He is accordingly dissatisfied with the verdict and speaks expressly of the “first instance”. One of the decisive factors in this case is that there really are a lot of day-trippers who have to be catered for on the alp. The fact that this was also the case on the day of the on-site visit is only a consequence of the new offer for the association and its affiliated Tegernseer Tal protection community and should therefore not be used to justify it. Instead, the animal world must be left alone, like the deer, which apparently also showed up at the on-site visit.
The opposite of calm has now triggered the actually victorious district office on the occasion of the negotiation. He had lost the original maps of six landscape protection areas designated in the 1950s. In response to a judicial reference to another matter, the district council re-decided on these areas in 2019, but now doubts the validity of that decision, because the minutes of the meeting again contained no reference to the maps. The district office held the plaintiffs indirectly responsible for this malaise in the Saurüsselalm matter, because they had pushed the dispute so far that a court had to declare the protected areas invalid. The association for the protection of the mountain world considers this to be “an absolute scandal”, and the protective community and the Greens in the district council do not see that nature conservation associations should waive their right to sue, just to keep mistakes by the district office under the legal blanket. It will only become clear in a few weeks after the written justification for the judgment has arrived whether another instance will look under this blanket.