For the time being there will be no legal speed limit, not even with the help of the Federal Constitutional Court.

As became known on Tuesday, a constitutional complaint against the inaction of the legislature there failed for formal reasons.

The complaint was so thinly substantiated that it was not even accepted for decision.

This is the first hurdle to be overcome in Karlsruhe.

Marlene Grunert

Editor in Politics.

  • Follow I follow

The complainants had objected to the Federal Government's climate protection measures, which they considered inadequate.

From a legal point of view, they were concerned with a violation of the climate protection requirement of Article 20a of the Basic Law and future violations of civil liberties.

These threaten to a considerable extent if the legislature does not act now.

These are arguments that had great effect in the climate protection decision of the Constitutional Court of March 24, 2021.

"The goal of achieving climate neutrality continues to gain in relative importance"

The current complaint failed because the complainants did not adequately justify the need for a speed limit.

Rather, they derived an “exemplary” violation of their rights from the fact that such a law did not exist.

With reference to the climate resolution, the 3rd Chamber of the First Senate makes it clear that the “goal of achieving climate neutrality continues to gain relative weight in all of the state’s weighing decisions as climate change progresses.” This applies not only to administrative decisions, but also to for that of the legislature.

However, the complainants had not "substantiated" that "legal regulations or legislative omissions in the transport sector, here the lack of a speed limit, could have an encroachment-like preliminary effect on their fundamental freedom rights".

The Federal Constitutional Court affirms such a “preliminary effect” if it is already certain at the present time that the current omissions will at a later point in time “inevitably lead to state restrictions on constitutionally protected freedom that are disproportionate from today’s perspective”.