Seminar in Leipzig on 2 February 2026

On 2 February 2026, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany hosted a seminar on the topic of "Redefining the terms and limits of judicial review, particularly in relation to disputes of a highly technical nature" in co-operation with ACA-Europe. It was the second seminar under the Greek Presidency (2025-2027), following the Seminar in Athens on 10 and 11 November 2025.

A welcome dinner preceded the seminar on Sunday 1 February 2026. It was designed as a walking dinner where every participant changed seat after each course. This arrangement brought long-serving representatives and new faces together for an informal exchange and friendly conversations.

In preparation of the seminar, the host court had compiled a General Report from the answers of the 31 participating institutions to the Questionnaire. The report focussed on the common lines while at the same time highlighting differences of how the councils of state and supreme administrative jurisdictions deal with disputes of a highly technical nature.

The President of the Federal Administrative Court, Andreas Korbmacher, opened the seminar and lead through the three different sessions. Each one opened with two or three short (complementary) presentations and was then followed by a lively discussion between the 45 participants.

Session 1 focussed on internal and external technical expertise. Monica Gullans described how the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland uses expert judges, especially in certain environmental proceedings. The aim is to gain the broadest possible and holistic understanding of the underlying facts in order to discuss the case from all conceivable angles. An independent and impartial state-funded organisation of experts was the focus of Rosa Uylenburg’s presentation: The Foundation of Independent Court Experts in Environmental and Planning Law (STAB) in the Netherlands provides technical expertise not only for the Council of State, but also for the courts of first instance. François Chaix reported on several specialised Federal Offices in Switzerland, which are involved in planning, environmental, energy and agricultural matters and whose findings play an essential role in the decision-making. All three presentations underlined the importance of technical expertise in supporting judges. The key thing is, may it come from inside or outside the court, that the facts can be assessed correctly and comprehensively.

Session 2 dealt with the setting and changing of technical standards. Carsten Tegethoff first introduced the German concept of "administrative rules specifying a legal provision" predicated on a special legal basis. It may be surprising why a rule adopted by the administration can also - with exceptions, of course - have a binding effect on the courts when they interpret indefinite legal terms. Thus, the courts when applying the provisions can take into account technical standards without having to request additional expertise, e.g. in the form of expert reports. Subsequently, Carsten Tegethoff addressed the term "the best available techniques" according to EU law. Whereas the administrative rules specifying a legal provision trace a certain level of technical development and must be adapted in due course, it is necessary to examine, in the context of the interpretation of the term of best available techniques, whether a certain technology is already developed, practically suitable and proportionate. The following discussion focussed on the practical challenges associated with both concepts in the application of the law.

Session 3 addressed the topic of “Judicial review of decisions containing a prognosis”. Ivo Pilving shed light on three areas of law where Estonian administrative courts have dealt with factual uncertainties and prognoses. The examples given – uncertainty related to the achievement of climate targets, uncertainty in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and uncertainty in the application of the Birds Directive <2009/147> – illustrated very well that even if prognoses do not automatically reduce the density of judicial review, the presence of scientific uncertainties in complex cases may support the application of a test of reasonableness. Erik Kerševan broadened his reflections to a wider context. He pointedly spoke about the dangers of a future where the public authorities enjoy an excessive leeway and the administrative courts limit themselves to examine whether an analysis of the facts has been made, instead of whether the analysis is correct or adequate given the circumstances.

The Seminar ended after a lively exchange including different perspectives from all across Europe. The President of the Hellenic Council of State, Michail Pikramenos, invited the participants to take part in the next Seminar and the General Assembly in Rhodes on 15 and 16 May 2026.

An informal visit to the Bach Museum and St. Thomas Church completed the Seminar.