Jurist explains: Environmental aid shouldn't complain to the general public

Environmental worker Jürgen Resch can look forward to the BGH Photo: German environmental aid

Jürgen Resch was sweating at Maybrit Illner. Resch evaded the question of the environmental aid lawsuit business model visibly unsettled. There are completely different reasons to doubt the legality of the lawsuit flood. Environmental aid itself violates EU law.

A lawyer in Stuttgart claims that the association should not have had the general right to sue, with which "environmental worker" Resch loves to brag. It is surprising that this has never bothered anyone. "Probably nobody expected how environmental aid abused this general right to lodge a claim and lived well off it."

How is that possible? According to the EC Directive 2003/35 / EC (Environmental Legal Remedies Act - UmwRG), an association can only be granted general legal standing if it allows everyone to join as a memberthat supports the goals of the association; Members are people with admission full voting rights received in the general assembly of the association.

I tried to become a member myself; my request was not even answered. I was told by phone that I could become a "sponsoring member" without voting rights. A clear violation of EU law. Jürgen Resch replied to Maybritt Illner, somewhat unsure that the association had 274 members, "seven times as many as Greenpeace". What the comparison with Greenpeace is about remains his secret, but served as a distraction.

What is certain is that environmental aid does not comply with the above-mentioned EC directive. For good reason. In this way, the active “managing director” Resch avoids that the general meeting might come up with the idea of ​​deselecting both the dubious Abmahn business model and Resch himself. That would mean the end of the environmental aid Reschser coinage, which the CDU member of the Bundestag Joachim Pfeiffer even calls "a semi-criminal association".

In fact, Resch has given his ideological stubbornness with the wrongly obtained right to sue a stable foundation, which is confirmed by the highest courts. Nobody asks today why environmental aid can act as avenger for those who have died prematurely from exhaust fumes. Nobody asks whether the general right to bring an action has been rightly granted. Resch has made environmental aid the vehicle of his apparent hostility to the car, which he would never admit. He is of course "only about the people who live on busy streets". The pathological auto opponent does not accept that these people should accept significantly higher limit values ​​at work. Not even that the pollution levels in critical cities are approaching the limit values ​​that would be reached in two or three years without driving bans.

And whoever thinks that environmental aid would calm down after the first driving bans is naive. Resch thinks ahead. Should the cities provide traffic bans for diesel, the environmental aid will demand driving bans for the entire city center. Then gasoline engines without a particle filter (which are now increasingly being introduced in new models) should also be excluded from environmental zones. "We need less individual traffic," said Resch at Maybrit Illner. And he says: We can / should / have to do without the car altogether. This is how the "environmental worker" sees applied consumer protection.

5 comments to "Lawyer explains: Environmental aid shouldn't complain to the general public"

  1. These so-called environmentalists complain of car manufacturers' fraud. And what do you do yourself? And then they still live very well on it.

  2. But. You need. If your name is Resch. And works for the DUH ”. How else should you drive 130 km / h in V. gear? They also checked all the diesel on the market. Except that of her “partner Toyota, of course. He has been for 18 years. PS. If you want to drive “aggressively” as an exception: then the paddles for holding the gear are already good PS2. Conflict of conscience at the DUH? Sometimes the “arch enemy of the DUH delivers its diesel engines to Toyota (they come from BMW)

  3. That's not true with Toyota at all. These had supported a manageable amount for two earmarked projects for many years, long before the DUH became a warning club.
    In addition, Toyota was attacked by the DUH in some ways, like others.
    The biggest sponsor is the state, so our tax money!
    Then there would be Telekom, Krombacher and a few others.
    Thank God the sponsors are gradually disappearing ...

  4. Oliver Schmizze | 2. January 2019 14 to: 34 | Reply

    Above all, for reasons of language truth and clarity, we have to stop talking about “DER Deutsche Umwelthilfe” as if this organization had any institutional competence or meaningfulness in environmental questions.
    The so-called German Environmental Aid (actually the Association of German Environmental Aid) is neither “German” with a national mandate, like the German Red Cross or you Deutsche Post, nor a “help” like Welthungerhilfe, Katastrophenhilfe or the Technische Hilfswerk, but a tiny association, no 300 members but 90 permanent employees, millions in sales, a dubious company that thrives on warnings and donations.
    The warnings in particular are a legal gray area of ​​the bottom rail. And besides, one wonders: Who is donating there? Sure, there are a few environmental friends, but it is interesting that the automotive industry is one of the donors. What kind of game are they playing?
    In this sense, please speak of the "so-called German environmental aid" or at least of the "Association of German environmental aid".
    Thanks in advance.

  5. Jörg Breidbach | 4. January 2019 07 to: 48 | Reply

    And then why doesn't the lawyer named in the article take action against the DUH warning association?

Leave a comment

E-mail address will not be published.