Parrot owner Andreas Hermanns successfully sued the Würzburg Administrative Court. Why he still can’t sit back and relax on his property.
“For now I’m happy,” said Andreas Hermanns when asked by this editorial team about his success at the Würzburg Administrative Court at the end of August. In 2019 he resisted a decision from the district office. In it, the district office asserted a right of first refusal for its newly acquired property on the Thulba. The authority referred to nature and landscape protection as a justification. But that was not the point of the authority, criticized the administrative judges in their judgment at the end of August.
Thanks to the judgment, Hermanns can probably keep his property. The ultimatum that he could stay until he found something else is also obsolete. But that’s probably just a stage win. Thomas Schoenwald, Head of the Building Law and Environment Department at the District Office, announced when asked by this editorial team that he would now appreciate the project from a building law perspective.
But first things first: Hermanns acquired the property, including a 30-square-meter hut that had existed for decades, in 2019 to keep his six parrots. As Lucas Loros, he offers shows at markets, at parties and in kindergartens.
After clearing the area overgrown with trees and hedges, he began to rebuild the wooden structure with walls. He included a previous pergola in the rooms. “It’s about 12.8 square meters,” says Hermanns about the extension.
–
The community did not want to come to terms with the construction project, especially since there was no permit. She referred to the necessary protection of the nearby springs and water protection on the Thulba. That’s why the municipality turned on the district office. In December 2018, the building supervisor called for the work to be stopped during an inspection. In addition, the authority described the project near the local springs and the Thulba as inadmissible in terms of water management and argued with the location in the Bavarian Rhön landscape protection area.
In order to win the land for the public sector, the district office wanted to win the water management office as a buyer. But there you waved off, according to the judgment. There are currently no water law measures pending on the Thulba.
Insightful correspondence
Thereupon the building administration of the municipality Oberthulba asked the district office to exercise the right of first refusal itself. The judges object to the existing correspondence in their written statement of reasons. Because a letter from the district office to the municipality assures the purchase of the property, because one will be happy if there is no more stress with the “black farmers”.
According to the conviction of the court chamber, this choice of words shows “that when exercising the right of first refusal, the issues of nature conservation and landscape maintenance were not decisive, but rather the aim of removing the existing black buildings more easily”. The letter from a clerk to the district administrator, which is also available to the court, goes even further, saying that the building authority should be spared work by purchasing the property.
Reference to the administrative economy
And even the decision in which Andreas Hermanns is informed about the attempted exercise of the right to sell is seen by the court as an expression that it was not about nature conservation. The district office wrote that they wanted to buy the property for administrative reasons. One hoped for an easier game with a planned demolition of the buildings.
Because there had been contradicting signals from the district office about the building in question. According to the judgment, the previous owner of the property received an oral promise from the local building authority that the old building would not have to be removed if the extension was demolished. According to Hermanns, this is even recorded in the notary contract that has already been concluded with him.
Court: It’s about the individual case
In its reasoning for the judgment, the administrative court also refers to the principles of the right of first refusal. His perception cannot be justified abstractly, but always depends on the individual case. It also plays a role in how important private interests protected by fundamental rights are.
In the present case, the District Office probably did not deal sufficiently with Andreas Hermanns’ objections, the judges conclude. Even before his lawsuit, the authorities had issued an ultimatum in the course of a demolition order in May 2019: In connection with the demolition request, however, it was said that the parrots were allowed to stay in the hut that existed before the extension was built until another accommodation could be found. Whether this discretionary decision corresponds to the legal requirements is doubtful, it says in the judgment. And finally: Because the decision to exercise the right of first refusal is illegal after all and also violates the plaintiff’s rights, it should be revoked.
The owner wants to take off
Andreas Hermanns now wants to get started on the property after a year of little progress due to the uncertainty involved. After almost three years, the life of the parrots would have settled down there. Now he wants, among other things, to integrate the now brick hut even better into nature using wood paneling, to complete his power connection and to hang up further nesting boxes. He also wants to sow bee pasture and get a beekeeper to build apiaries. The aim is to create a real green oasis.
Another on-site visit in autumn
“We naturally accept the verdict,” says Thomas Schoenwald from the district office. The constellation in which the right of first refusal should be used here is unusual, he admits. But the removal of black buildings is also an enrichment for nature, he makes his attitude clear. Now the district office wants to examine building law issues. After all, one moves in the area of a change in use. “The keeping of exotic animals in the outdoor area seems to me hardly approvable”, the lawyer points out. They want to look at the property again in autumn.
–
