Administrative Court of Bremen (VG Bremen) confirms lottery procedure for e-scooter special use permits – landmark decision for municipalities and sharing providers

The Administrative Court of Bremen (VG Bremen) has declared the lottery procedure in the award of e-scooter special use permits to be lawful. The decision strengthens municipalities in regulating sharing offers and provides clarity for providers.

Legal background: permit for e-scooter special use in Bremen

The decision of the Administrative Court of Bremen of 29 August 2025 (Az. 5 V 2083/25) addresses the question of how cities and municipalities can organise the award of special use permits under § 18 Bremisches Landesstraßengesetz (BremLStrG) in a legally secure manner. At its core, it concerns the permissibility of a lottery procedure in the selection of providers of e-scooter sharing.

Public road space is in principle dedicated to common use. However, the parking and rental of e-scooters within the so-called free-floating model goes beyond common use and constitutes a special use requiring a permit. Anyone wishing to offer e-scooters in a city such as Bremen, but of course also in other municipalities in Germany, therefore requires a special use permit. Since the number of possible providers and vehicles is limited for reasons of traffic safety, the usability of public spaces and to preserve urban planning interests, the administration must conduct a transparent selection procedure.

What was the dispute about? Controversy over the licence for e-scooters in Bremen

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

The Bremen special use concept provides that the number of e-scooters be limited to 2,700 vehicles and the number of providers to two companies. Additionally, 43 detailed criteria were specified in a model special use permit that applicants must meet. These include requirements for maintenance, parking, redistribution, response times to problems, establishment of no-parking zones and even social law requirements.

Six providers – including the applicant – met all criteria. However, since only two permits could be granted, the city resorted to the lottery procedure provided for in the regulations. In this process, the applicant was not selected. It challenged this decision with an emergency application and argued that the city had not exercised its discretion but had impermissibly "replaced" it by means of the lottery.

The legal assessment by the Administrative Court of Bremen

The Administrative Court of Bremen clarified that the city's selection decision was lawful.

Permissibility of lottery procedures in special use permits

The court emphasised that a lottery procedure in the award of scarce public resources is generally permissible provided that objective criteria are applied beforehand and applicants appear equal in rank thereafter. This also corresponds to the case law on Art. 12 GG (freedom of profession) and Art. 56 AEUV (freedom to provide services): a lottery procedure does not violate fundamental rights as long as transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination are preserved.

No discretionary errors by the city

The applicant argued that the city had not exercised its discretion but had abandoned it entirely through the lottery. The court disagreed: Bremen had first carried out a qualitative examination on the basis of 43 criteria and thus prepared a proper selection decision. Only after six applicants were of equal standing did the lottery procedure come into play. In this way, the city exercised its discretion and did not forgo making a decision.

Additional conditions of the model permit

The court did acknowledge that some additional conditions of the model special use permit (e.g. labour and social law requirements or certain liability provisions) were partly not material to the matter. However, these errors did not have an adverse effect on the applicant since all applicants had equally fulfilled the conditions.

Transparency and requirements under Union law

The public notice given by the City of Bremen of the criteria and the procedure ensured the necessary transparency. There was therefore no breach of Union law – in particular the principles of freedom to provide services.

Significance of the decision for municipalities and providers

The decision is an important precedent for cities awarding special use rights in the field of micro-mobility. It demonstrates:

• Municipalities may limit the number of providers and vehicles in public space provided they do so in a transparent and comprehensible manner.
• Lottery procedures are permissible when multiple providers are equal in rank according to objective criteria. This allows cities to simplify complicated selection processes while making them legally secure.
• Providers must be prepared for the fact that even with full compliance with all criteria the can decide on the concession. There is no legal entitlement to a special use permit.

Recommendation for stakeholders involved: prepare strategically and secure legal options

For providers of e-scooter sharing, car-sharing or e-bike systems the following applies: those wishing to succeed in the market should prepare their applications in detail and without errors, and provide comprehensive evidence of all criteria. At the same time, it is advisable to have the respective special use concepts critically reviewed – in particular with regard to potentially extraneous ancillary conditions.

For municipalities it is important to design award concepts that are legally sound and to ensure a transparent procedure in order to avoid subsequent litigation.

The experts in administrative law at AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart advise both providers and cities on the design, review and judicial enforcement of special use regulations. Please get in touch with us if you are faced with a tender or selection procedure in the area of special use of public roads for sharing services.