Specialized article
In the future, mining companies will no longer be able to finance the recultivation and restoration of lignite opencast mines after their closure from their current revenues. Securing these obligations over the decades following closure is therefore becoming increasingly important for the authorities and the general public. Against this background, the question arises, among other things, as to whether a retrospective security deposit can be ordered under mining law. The possibly prevailing, but also clearly controversial view, unjustifiably limits the competent mining authorities in taking measures necessary to secure the mining company's public-law obligations. Therefore, a close look at the applicable legal situation is necessary. The following results are obvious: The competent authority is authorized to order – after approval of an operating plan – the provision of a financial security or other measures to ensure precaution. The relevant commentary literature considers this to be inadmissible in the majority of cases; however, the better arguments speak in favor of the admissibility of a subsequent order. An order under § 71 BBergG does not preclude the subsequent order of a financial security.
