Groundwater Case
West Germany Federal Constitutional Court
58 BVerfGE 300 (1981)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
The federal government of West Germany (defendant) enacted the Water Resources Act to protect public water supplies from contamination. The act prohibited certain activities that impacted the quantity or quality of groundwater. A property owner (plaintiff) owned a gravel pit near Münster, West Germany, and used groundwater while mining for gravel. Under the act, the property owner needed to acquire a permit from the government to continue using groundwater. The property owner argued that this permitting system constituted a taking of his property contrary to Article 14 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. The lower court, the Federal Court of Justice, found that the property owner’s property rights under § 905 of the Civil Code included the groundwater on his property and that the act therefore violated the property owner’s property rights. The Federal Court of Justice also concluded that § 903 of the Civil Code allowed property owners to use their property in every possible and economically reasonable manner and that the act impermissibly infringed upon this right. The Federal Court of Justice concluded that the government’s restriction on the property owner’s use of groundwater amounted to an expropriation of property. The federal government appealed the matter to the Germany Federal Constitutional Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.