The VGH Munich has confirmed an immediately enforceable removal order for an illegal outdoor storage site containing substances that pose a risk to the environment.

If waste is stored in an unauthorized outdoor storage area, the owner is liable as the person responsible for disturbing the condition.

With Decision of June 18, 2025 (Ref. 9 CS 25.763) the Bavarian Administrative Court (VGH Munich) dismissed the appeal against the immediate enforceability of a removal order for an unlawfully used storage site in an outdoor area. The case concerns the illegal use of a plot of land for the storage of various types of waste, including substances hazardous to the environment and water. The court confirmed the legality of the order, supported the claim against the landowner as the party disturbing the condition and affirmed the special public interest in immediate enforcement.

What exactly was it about?

A plot of land in an outdoor area, formerly used for disaster control, had been used for years as a storage area for waste, scrap metal and vehicles - without planning permission and contrary to public interests. The building inspectorate ordered the removal of the facility and ordered immediate enforcement. The owner, a GbR, defended itself against this, but failed before the Ansbach Administrative Court and now also in the appeal instance at the VGH Munich.

Facts of the case: Outdoor storage area with Contaminated sites, asbestos and oil drums - authorities take action

The 16,490 m² property was acquired by the applicant in 2002. It was formerly the site of a respiratory protection and telecommunications workshop. For years, the site had been littered with building rubble, old wood, scrap metal, asbestos-containing materials, wrecked cars and other waste. The district authority had already taken measures to clear the site and avert danger in the past - including substitute measures.

A section of the site was transferred to the husband and father of the partners in 2012. However, this area was completely enclosed by the rest of the property and coincided with the particularly encumbered sub-areas - a classic attempt at circumvention to avoid claims under public law, as the court later found.

Despite multiple site inspections, hearings and requests to clear the site, the situation remained unchanged. The water management authority certified "catastrophic conditions" with widespread oil contamination, heating oil tanks, asbestos slabs and piles of garbage. Under planning law, the storage site was located in an outdoor area and was not eligible for approval.

Legal assessment: No grandfathering, no eligibility for approval, but massive endangerment

The VGH Munich judged the use of the gravel and waste-covered areas as a building structure within the meaning of Art. 2 para. 1 sentence 3 no. 2 BayBO. A building permit is required for such facilities, which cannot be granted here due to a lack of privilege and conflicting public interests (Section 35 (3) sentence 1 BauGB).

The court found the following violations, among others:

• Impairment of the natural character of the landscape (Section 35 (3) No. 1 BauGB),
• Negative effects on the townscape and landscape (Section 35 (3) No. 5 BauGB),
• Threat to water management (Section 35 (3) No. 6 BauGB) due to oil and pollutant discharges,
• Consolidation of a splinter settlement (Section 35 (3) No. 7 BauGB).

The court also did not accept the applicant's argument that it was merely a matter of "mobile vehicles" or only temporary use. Extensive photographic documentation proved a permanent, massive misuse of the area as a storage area for waste.

Selection of addressee: State troublemaker cannot wriggle out of it

The applicant was rightly held liable as a disturber in accordance with Art. 9 Para. 2 LStVG. It managed the entire area, had concluded rental agreements with various users and had itself submitted a building application for both parcels of land concerned.

The court pointed out that the actual control of the property and not the formal ownership position was decisive for the claim. The transfer of the particularly encumbered parcel of land in question to the general agent was also deemed to be immoral, as it apparently only served to avoid liability.

Immediate enforcement: environmental protection cannot be delayed

The order for immediate enforcement was classified as urgent due to the serious environmental and water damage. The applicant could not invoke an imminent loss of substance, as it was a matter of removing illegal deposits.

Recommendation for owners and landlords of outdoor properties

This decision makes it clear that the use of land as a storage area in an outdoor area or for other commercial purposes in an outdoor area without a permit is not only unlawful, but can also lead to considerable measures by the building inspectorate - including cost-intensive replacement measures, fines and immediate enforcement.

Owners should note:

• Even purely factual possibilities of influence (e.g. through renting) justify responsibility as a condition disturber.
• The classification of parking and storage areas under building and environmental law is very strict - especially in the case of outdoor storage areas.
• Attempts to avoid liability by transferring land within the family can be regarded as an abuse of rights.

Our recommendation: Have the permissibility and admissibility under building planning law of planned uses in outdoor areas checked at an early stage. In the event of a conflict, it is important to enter into a dialog with the authorities at an early stage and develop legally secure alternatives.

Would you like to have it checked whether your use in the outdoor area is permitted under building law or whether a removal order can be averted? Get in touch with AVANTCORE Attorneys at Law in Stuttgart - we advise You are competent and committed!