The Bremen Administrative Court has declared the lottery procedure for awarding e-scooter special use permits to be lawful. The decision strengthens municipalities in regulating sharing services and creates clarity for providers.

Legal Background: E-Scooter PermitSpecial use in Bremen

The Decision of the Bremen Administrative Court of August 29, 2025 (File No. 5 V 2083/25) deals with the question of how cities and municipalities can Granting special use permits for § 18 Bremen State Road Act (BremLStrG) can be legally organized. At its core, it's about the admissibility of a Losverfahren when choosing providers of Electric Scooter Sharing.

The public street space is generally dedicated to public use. However, parking and renting e-scooters as part of the so-called free-floating model goes beyond public use and constitutes a Permit-required special use In order to offer e-scooters in a city like Bremen, and of course in other municipalities in Germany as well, a special use permit is required. Since the number of potential providers and vehicles is limited for reasons of traffic safety, usability of public spaces, and to safeguard urban planning interests, the administration must conduct a transparent selection process.

What was it about? Dispute over the e-scooter concession in Bremen

The applicant is a company operating nationwide that rents e-scooters in the city of Bremen using a free-floating system. They held a special use permit until mid-2025. A total of seven companies applied for the new award period starting August 1, 2025.

The Bremen special use concept provides for the number of e-scooters to be 2,700 vehicles and the number of providers on two companies is limited. In addition, 43 detailed criteria stipulated in a sample special use permit that applicants must meet. These include requirements for maintenance, parking, redistribution, response times for problems, establishment of no-parking zones, and even socio-legal requirements.

Six providers – including the applicant – met all the criteria. However, since only two permits could be issued, the city resorted to the regulation provided for in its statutes Loser procedures back. The applicant was not considered. She objected to this decision with an urgent application, arguing that the city had not exercised its discretion but had unlawfully "replaced" it with a lottery.

The legal assessment of the Bremen Administrative Court

The Bremen Administrative Court clarified that the city's selection decision legitimate War.

Admissibility of the lottery procedure for special use permits

The court emphasized that a lottery system for the allocation of scarce public resources. generally permissible is, provided that objective criteria have previously been applied and the applicants subsequently appear to be of equal standing. This also corresponds to the case law on Art. 12 GG (freedom of occupation) and Art. 56 TFEU (freedom to provide services): A lottery procedure does not violate fundamental rights, as long as Transparency, equal treatment, and non-discrimination remain.

No discretionary errors by the city

The applicant argued that the city had not exercised its discretion but had completely relinquished it through the lottery. The court disagreed: Bremen had first a qualitative assessment based on 43 criteria and thereby prepared a sound selection decision. Only after six applicants were deemed equal did the lottery procedure come into play. With this, the city exercised its discretion and did not forgo a decision.

Ancillary provisions of the pattern permit

While the court acknowledged that some ancillary provisions of the model special use permit (e.g., labor and social law requirements or certain indemnity obligations) were partly irrelevant. However, these errors did not adversely affect the applicant, as all applicants had met the conditions equally.

E-Scooter Sharing System

Transparency and Union Law Requirements

The public announcement of the criteria and procedure by the City of Bremen ensured the necessary transparency. Therefore, there was no violation of Union law, particularly the principles of freedom to provide services.

Significance of the decision for municipalities and providers

The decision is a important precedent for cities that have special usage rights in the area Micromobility forgiven. It shows:

  • Municipality may limit the number of providers and vehicles in public spaces as long as they provide transparent and comprehensible justification.
  • Loser procedures are permissible when multiple providers are equally ranked according to objective criteria. This allows cities to simplify complex selection processes while ensuring legal certainty.
  • Provider must be prepared for the fact that even if all criteria are fully met Who can decide on the concessionThere is no legal claim to a special use permit.

Recommendation for Involved Stakeholders: Prepare Strategically and Secure Legal Options

For providers of E-scooter sharing, car sharing, or e-bike systems gilt: Anyone wanting to succeed in the market should prepare their applications in detail and without errors, and provide complete documentation for all criteria. At the same time, it is advisable to have the respective special use concepts critically reviewed – especially regarding possible extraneous ancillary provisions.

For Municipality It is important to design award concepts in a legally sound manner and to ensure a transparent procedure in order to avoid later lawsuits.

The Administrative Law Experts from AVANTCORE RECHTSANWÄLTE In Stuttgart, both providers and cities consult on the design, review, and legal enforcement of special use regulations. Contact us if you are facing a tender or selection process in the area of Special use of public roads for sharing services stand