In the long dispute over contributions for old water connections in the state of Brandenburg have dashed the hopes of the affected property owners to compensation. The Federal constitutional court rejected the claim of so-called Altanschließer in a pattern case, as on Tuesday in Karlsruhe, Germany, was informed. Thus, a judgment of the Federal court of justice (BGH) of 2019, the stock has are, with the recoveries in the three-digit millions, largely from the table. (Az. 1 BvR 2838/19)

In the case, which has a pilot character for many similar procedures in the state of Brandenburg, wanted to property owners from the water and waste water purpose Association "Scharmützelsee - Storkow/Mark" (WHAT) around 1320 euros. They were before the year 2000 to the municipal drinking water network must be connected. The decision about the contribution was sent to you in November 2011.

the Background of the late claims was a Problem with the legislation, after the reunification, which was only fixed later on. In its first ruling of 2015, the Federal constitutional court had objected to, that posts have been so lengthy in hindsight to be loaded. So no one had to reckon.

In the pilot of the proceedings before the BGH, it then went to compensation claims from owners who had given up their resistance in front of the constitutional court decision and paid for - because of the large plots of land in rural Brandenburg, sometimes a high five-digit sums. The presiding judge then spoke of the claims in the total amount of 300 million euros.

But the Supreme court dismissed the damages lawsuit in June 2019. It was not especially surprising that the Supreme civil judge is presented with its understanding of the law only against the higher administrative court of Brandenburg, but also against the Federal constitutional court. So the plaintiffs filed a new constitutional complaint.

The Constitution a judge does not drive the conflict, but on the top. The Supreme court had not ruled in unconstitutional way, is to say it is now in the current decision. The decision of 2015 was based on the view of the administrative courts. But also the interpretation of the Supreme court would be acceptable. The plaintiff would not be injured in their constitutional right to legal certainty and protection of trust.