Left faction orders legal opinion
The Brandenburg state government had checked the request and considered it plausible. So the decision is said to have been made that the state of Brandenburg should bear the costs of relocating the station in full. There is talk of an investment volume of at least 50 million euros. Tesla should not be involved in these costs.
The left faction in the state parliament did not want to accept that. She had asked a commercial law firm to prepare a legal opinion. This should clarify whether the process is permissible. Business Insider reports. The lawyers now come to the conclusion: No, he is not.
In essence, the assumption of costs for the relocation of the station is a hidden subsidy from which only Tesla benefits, according to the paper. This means that the assumption of costs should have been registered with the EU Commission. In addition, Tesla should have submitted a corresponding application for aid, according to the legal experts. Neither of these took place, so that “the fundamental Union law prohibition of granting aid” persists.
State government assesses the legal situation completely differently
There are three possible consequences for the reviewing lawyers. First, the EU could qualify the measure as a subsidy and prohibit it. Second, the EU Commission could impose a fine on the country after the measure. Thirdly, Tesla’s competitors could claim compensation payments after the relocation because Tesla might have received an illegal advantage.
The state government rejects the results of the legal opinion. The assumption of the station costs is by no means a hidden subsidy. Rather, there has been a need for expansion at the Fangschleuse station for a long time due to the use of longer trains on the regional route. According to the State Chancellery, the fact that the freight transport requirements of Tesla and his expected up to 14,000 employees are now taken into account is probably no more and no less than sensible.
Aside from the political-ideological argument, it remains to be stated that it is indeed not uncommon to equip new building plan areas with publicly financed train stations and other infrastructure facilities if necessary – vulgo: to develop. It is almost certain that no one would have denied that a train station would have to be located in an area with 14,000 new jobs if the employers had been a mixed bag of companies of different sizes. But where the difference is now, when all jobs are created by a single company, it can hardly be argued logically.
Of course, publicly financed infrastructure measures can in principle be critically scrutinized. But then generally and in any case and not just if – and probably also because – the partial beneficiary is a company that belongs to one of the richest men in the world. By the way: The tax-paying employees will be just as happy if they don’t have to take a bus for the last two kilometers from the old train station.
Dieter Petereit
