Germany's highest court hears Green challenge to minister's unilateral repeal of nutrient rule

Background

The Stoffstrombilanzverordnung, introduced in 2018 under the Fertilizer Act, required farmers to document all nutrient inputs and outputs on their holdings. Designed to curb groundwater pollution from nitrates and phosphorus, the regulation obliged detailed records of fertiliser, feed, and harvest flows. Many farmers criticised it as bureaucratic, and in July 2025 Agriculture Minister Alois Rainer (CSU) abolished the ordinance without parliamentary consultation. The repeal was justified as saving about €18 million in annual red tape, with the ministry insisting groundwater protection would not suffer.

The Green party's complaint

The Greens filed a constitutional complaint, arguing that the Fertilizer Act explicitly requires Bundestag involvement when such regulations are amended or revoked. They claim the minister's solo act bypassed parliament, violating its constitutionally guaranteed rights. The faction likened the approach to 'Trump-style politics.'

“This is Trump-style politics — without regard for democratic institutions and the principle of separation of powers.”

The government's defence

A spokesperson for the Agriculture Ministry stated that the Interior and Justice Ministries were consulted in advance and both confirmed no need for Bundestag or Bundesrat approval. The repeal had majority support among state governments and had been agreed in the coalition agreement of the previous black-red government.

“Both constitutional departments confirmed that from their perspective the repeal of the Stoffstrombilanzverordnung requires neither the consent of the Bundesrat nor the participation of the Bundestag.”

What's at stake

The case (Az. 2 BvE 15/25) goes beyond a single regulation. Administrative law expert Wilhelm Achelpöhler notes an observable shift of decision-making power from parliament to government, citing parallel debates on conscription. The court's eventual ruling will clarify the limits of ministerial authority and the conditions under which the legislature must be consulted.

What happens next

The court heard arguments on Tuesday and will deliberate; a written judgment is expected in several months. The decision will set a precedent for similar separation-of-powers disputes.