CSU Revives Toll Debate Amidst Coalition Talks, Citing Generational Responsibility
As Germany braces for coalition negotiations between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), a familiar and controversial topic has resurfaced: the introduction of a toll (Maut) for passenger vehicles on German roads. The Christian Social Union (CSU), the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, is spearheading this renewed push, arguing that all users of Germany’s road infrastructure should contribute to its upkeep, aligning the nation with common practices across Europe.
This proposition emanates from a resolution drafted by the CSU’s working group of jurists (AKJ), which advocates for a "reasonable infrastructure levy" for the usage of federal highways and autobahns. The argument centers on the need for sustainable financing to address the significant backlog of road maintenance and modernization projects plaguing the country. The AKJ emphasizes that this is not merely a matter of convenience but a fundamental responsibility towards future generations.
This isn’t the CSU’s first foray into toll proposals. A previous attempt, pushed through by the CSU within the former federal government, was ultimately deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2019. The core issue was the discriminatory nature of the proposed system, which intended to fully offset the toll for domestic drivers through reductions in vehicle taxes. The ECJ ruled that this created an unfair advantage for German drivers over their European counterparts, violating EU principles of non-discrimination.
Significantly, the current CSU proposal aims to circumvent the pitfalls of the previous attempt. This time, the emphasis is on a universal levy applicable to all users, regardless of nationality or residency. The AKJ explicitly acknowledges and respects the ECJ’s prior ruling, stating that "a direct relief for German vehicle owners via the vehicle tax is excluded by the ECJ. The AKJ respects this decision as a binding judicial decision." This suggests a deliberate effort to craft a toll system that aligns with EU law and avoids the legal challenges that doomed its predecessor.
The fallout from the previous failed toll attempt was substantial. Following the ECJ’s ruling, then-Transportation Minister Andreas Scheuer (CSU) terminated contracts with the companies slated to operate the toll system. This triggered claims for damages, culminating in a settlement reached through arbitration where the German government was obligated to pay these companies 243 million euros. This financial burden undoubtedly adds to the sensitivity surrounding the topic and underscores the importance of a legally sound and well-considered approach.
The CSU jurists justify their renewed initiative by highlighting the deteriorating state of Germany’s road network and the potential long-term consequences for younger generations. They invoke a 2021 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court, which emphasized the legislature’s responsibility to safeguard the fundamental freedoms of future generations. The AKJ argues that the accumulated investment deficit in transportation infrastructure poses a significant threat to these freedoms, potentially limiting opportunities and hindering economic progress.
Winfried Bausback, former Justice Minister of Bavaria and chairman of the AKJ, argues that the "investment backlog in the transport and other infrastructure already threatens to massively restrict the freedoms of young and succeeding generations in the future." He posits that involving all road users in financing infrastructure repairs, regardless of their origin, is a necessary and justifiable measure.
Despite the CSU’s renewed push, the broader CDU/CSU bloc has historically expressed reservations about introducing a passenger vehicle toll. However, the topic is reportedly gaining traction in behind-the-scenes discussions in Berlin. While no official position has been established, the AKJ views its proposal as a timely contribution to the ongoing coalition negotiations between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. Intriguingly, the election manifestos of both the CDU and CSU are silent on the issue of a passenger vehicle toll.
The revival of the toll debate comes after a series of rejections last December, when both the CDU/CSU and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) dismissed a similar demand from the German Construction Industry Federation. The Federation argued that a toll could generate approximately three billion euros annually, which should be exclusively dedicated to road construction and maintenance. They cited the looming threat of a traffic collapse due to dilapidated roads and escalating repair costs.
At the time, Thomas Bareiß, the transportation policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, firmly stated, "There will be no passenger car toll with us. Today, drivers are already being cashed in on everywhere: at gas stations, when parking, and with taxes. It’s becoming more and more." He argued that driving should not become a luxury and advocated for using revenues from the existing truck toll for road construction and maintenance, rather than diverting them to cover budgetary shortfalls.
The debate surrounding a passenger vehicle toll in Germany is multifaceted and laden with political, economic, and legal complexities. The CSU’s renewed proposal, framed as a generational imperative and designed to comply with EU law, seeks to reignite a discussion that has been largely dormant since the ECJ’s 2019 ruling. Whether this initiative will gain sufficient traction to influence the upcoming coalition negotiations remains to be seen. Key considerations include the political feasibility of overcoming past opposition, the potential economic impact on drivers, and the need to address the underlying structural issues contributing to the infrastructure deficit. The coming weeks will likely reveal whether the prospect of a passenger vehicle toll in Germany is truly back on the table or destined to remain a contentious but ultimately unrealized policy proposal. The debate highlights the ongoing struggle to find sustainable and equitable funding mechanisms for crucial infrastructure projects while navigating the intricacies of EU law and domestic political considerations.
