The German environmental aid fundamentally denies the right to mobility

Dr. Remo Klinger, lawyer and legal campaigner for rights in the matter of can deposit, felt obliged a long time ago to send me the basic rights catalog of the Basic Law. It annoyed him that I didn't agree with his view that there is no fundamental right to mobility. He feels that his strange view is confirmed by the basic rights catalog of the Basic Law. "If you have the word in it Mobility please let me know. If you fail, I am grateful that I have contributed to your constitutional education. "

The lawyer for environmental aid is serious about the fact that man has no fundamental right Mobility have. This makes it terrifyingly clear how people think about German environmental aid. Remo Klinger was and is a ardent advocate in terms of deposit on cans and environmental zones in court. In my opinion, his conviction that the catalog of fundamental rights does not indicate a fundamental right to mobility is proof of what the “environmentalists” really care about: the restriction of mobility, especially individual ones Mobility.

In view of Klinger's reasoning, this conclusion is probably more than admissible. The state should be able to restrict people's freedom of movement at any time if this can be justified on the basis of pretexts defined by environmental workers. Particulate matter today, climate protection tomorrow and another arbitrary pretext for the day after tomorrow. What the lawyer overlooks under the arm with the catalog of fundamental rights under the Basic Law: that there is an abundance of information in this document that very well suggests a basic right to mobility. And also: Does this catalog contain anything about the basic right to eat, the basic right to breathe? Of course not, because such a matter of course is not necessary.

The basic right to the free development of the personality is there (Article 2). This also means that you can move anywhere with the means of transport of your choice. Or the right to free movement (Article 11), which guarantees that the citizens of this country can move around freely. So it is pointless to seriously engage in it: because the fundamental right to mobility is not explicitly mentioned, there could be any restrictions on individual mobility. Those who argue seriously in this way do not have to be taken seriously. No municipality in this country would ever block a road with reference to a lack of a fundamental right to mobility. Precisely because Remo Klinger argues in the name of Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the goal of the advocates of traffic restrictions is only really clear. The automobile is a guarantee of individual freedom.

The fact that people all over the world see the car as their favorite means of transport cannot seriously be denied. Because the mass success of the automobile also creates challenges to solve related problems, there is no reason to deprive people of this “basic right” to be able to drive it. Even if Deutsche Umwelthilfe sees it differently. It will not enforce this thinking that ignores the wishes of the people. And certainly not with reference to the fact that mobility is not mentioned in the Basic Law.

3 comments on "German environmental aid basically denies the right to mobility"

  1. Dear Mr. Groschupf,
    I had no idea how much you were concerned with the little letter I sent you - let me estimate - about 8 years ago. You shouldn't be short of topics, so I'm astonished.
    Before the matter continues to work undigested in you for another decade, I would just like to point out that at the time it was about compliance with EU air limit values. The argument that the limit values ​​set by the EU should not be observed because there was a basic right to (auto) mobility opened the discussion as to whether the Basic Law actually supports this invention. I continue to agree with Sendler in NJW 1995, 1468 and the beautiful contribution to the "miraculous increase in basic rights - especially the basic right to mobility and driving": One absurdity (like that of the basic right to mobility) provokes the other - we should be careful be. Just read it once, good old Sendler, who has unfortunately passed away in the meantime, also found the right words for this ...

    Dr. Remo Klinger

    • Dear Mr. Groschupf,
      Dear Mr. Klinger,

      I was amazed to see how long this “dispute” over the view of the right to mobility had raged between you.

      Of course there is a living right to mobility in Germany! Already far from any motorization!
      As far as possible, public buildings are designed to be barrier-free to ensure that people with disabilities can also participate in public life.
      This also goes so far that in individual cases, vehicles are converted / purchased to meet the physical needs of those affected at the expense of health insurance companies / social systems! An excellent achievement!

      Likewise, less well-off people are given the opportunity to be “mobile” in their city
      (please refer: ). This now clearly refers to public (mass) transport and is also a good achievement!

      Now in Germany we do not have the documented basic right to mobility, but we do have the PRINCIPLE "ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW" (Article 3,1)

      It is also regulated (Article 11,1)
      All Germans enjoy freedom of movement throughout Germany.

      If these two things regulated in the Basic Law are added together, then there is no doubt that the rural residents (without public transport) must also have the appropriate mobility. Even with the car

  2. Dear Mr. Gerum,

    I totally agree with you. My arguments related to the fact that residents on busy streets are being told that the introduction of an environmental zone violates the constitutional right to (auto) mobility. In fact, this discussion is long gone, as none of the courts dealing with these questions could make use of this argument. Before, I didn't understand why Mr Groschupf published the whole thing again ...

Leave a comment

E-mail address will not be published.