Administrative Court Karlsruhe on exploration permit for geothermal energy: retrospective extension of a mining permit is excluded – geothermal companies face significant legal losses

The Administrative Court Karlsruhe has excluded retrospective extension of a mining permit. The extension of an exploration permit for the use of geothermal energy must be applied for in timely fashion to avoid legal losses.

The use of geothermal energy is regarded as one of the keys to the heat transition in Germany. Already today, over 300,000 installations supply around 16 terawatt-hours of heat annually – with the potential to cover around 10 % of German heat demand in a climate-neutral manner by 2030. Geothermal energy offers not only a virtually unlimited, CO₂-free energy source, but also supply security for cities and municipalities.

Against this background, the judgment of the Administrative Court Karlsruhe of 16 July 2025 (Az. 3 K 3065/23) is a wake-up call for the entire industry. The decision directly affects the extension of mining rights, which includes the exploration permit, and makes clear: retrospective extension is excluded, even if the extension application was filed in timely fashion. Companies thereby risk the complete loss of their permit – with potentially million-euro consequences.

What was the dispute about? Dispute over exploration permit for geothermal energy in Karlsruhe

An energy company received in 2016 from the Regierungspräsidium Freiburg a permit for the exploration of geothermal energy, brine and lithium in the field "Karlsruhe-Süd". This had been extended several times, most recently until 31 May 2021.

• May 2021: The company timely applied for a further extension of three years.
• May 2021: The Ministry of the Environment drew the authority's attention to a judgment of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), according to which a mining permit expires upon expiry – even if an extension application is filed in timely fashion.
• July 2021: Administrative practice was changed at short notice; retrospective extension of the exploration permit was excluded.
• August 2021: The company filed a new application. In parallel, a competitor applied for an adjacent field ("Karlsruhe-Rheinhafen").
• July 2023: The authority rejected the extension, issued a new, reduced permit, and gave the competing company priority.

The company sued to have the original permit extended retrospectively and to have the competing decision overturned – without success.

Legal considerations of the court

The Administrative Court Karlsruhe rejected the action in full and made several findings central to practice:

Written form requirement for application and withdrawal

• According to § 10 BBergG both the application and a withdrawal must be submitted in writing.
• A simple email is insufficient.
• The company did not effectively withdraw its extension application; however, this does not change the expiry of the permit.

Substantive law deadline – no entitlement to retrospective extension

• According to § 16 Abs. 4 Satz 2 BBergG the exploration permit expires upon expiry of the fixed term.
• Even an application filed before the deadline expires cannot preserve the legal effect.
• This applies by analogy to the mining permit and serves the public interest in swift, effective raw material extraction.
• Even from a constitutional law perspective, this is permissible: neither protection of property (Art. 14 GG) still Freedom of profession (Art. 12 GG) are infringed.

Priority decision in competing applications

• Decisive factors for the decision in simultaneous applications are criteria such as
• • meaningfulness and realism of the work programme,
  • previous mining activities,
  • land access and existing heat networks.
• The competing company offered here a higher probability of consumer-proximate and reliable heat supply offered.

No legitimate expectation protection against changed administrative practice

• Although the authority changed its practice at short notice,
• the company should nevertheless have interim legal protection requested in order to avert the loss of rights.
• The change was substantively justified and lawful.

Significance for geothermal practice

This decision is ground-breaking for all companies that hold an exploration permit and/or extraction permits under the Bundesberggesetz (BBergG):

• Extension applications must not only be filed in time, but the extension must have been granted before the deadline expires.
• If the authority fails to make a timely decision, the permit automatically lapses.
• Subsequent legal protection can no longer compensate for the loss of rights.
• In the case of competing applications, economic performance capacity, land access and existing infrastructure are given particular consideration.

The judgment underscores the political and legal significance of geothermal energy as a "matter of overriding public interest" (§ 2 Abs. 3 Wärmeplanungsgesetz) and calls for swift and efficient allocation of permits to promote the heat transition.

Conclusion and recommendation

Companies active in geothermal energy or raw material extraction must proactively secure their mining law permits. We recommend:

• Early application filing: At least three to six months before the deadline expires.
• Simultaneous interim legal protection: In the event of an impending deadline, request judicial safeguarding in good time.
• Strategic land securing: Secure land access and infrastructure (e.g. district heating networks) contractually on a long-term basis.
• Legal support: Complex administrative proceedings and priority decisions should be accompanied by specialized lawyers in order to minimize investment risks.

AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart is specialized in administrative law and supports energy companies nationwide in the application, extension and defence of mining law permits – from the administrative authority to judicial enforcement. With our expertise, we secure your projects for sustainable, climate-neutral energy supply.