Waste illegally dumped on openly accessible land: property owners are not required to bear disposal costs

Who bears the costs of illegally dumped waste?

Illegally disposed roofing felt in the forest, construction debris at the field's edge or household waste on an openly accessible area: for property owners, the question regularly arises whether they are deemed owners of the waste solely by virtue of their ownership and must therefore bear the costs of removing such so-called fly-tipped waste. The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) has now clarified this question on an essential point.

If a property is openly accessible to the public due to statutory rights of access, the owner is generally not deemed the owner of waste illegally dumped there by unknown third parties. Rather, the public law disposal authority remains responsible for disposal. This applies not only to private owners but also to public law institutions.

In a judgment published with effect from 28 April 2026 – BVerwG 10 C 7.24 – the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) has thereby clarified the waste law responsibility for fly-tipped waste and at the same time decided under what conditions a property owner can recover already incurred disposal costs from the responsible county (Landkreis).

Roofing felt on an openly accessible forest property

The plaintiff in the proceedings was the Federal Property Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben), which is the owner of a property in Saxony. The property contained forest. According to § 11 Abs. 1 of the Saxon Forest Act (Sächsisches Waldgesetz), there was a general right of access there, so that the area could be entered by anyone.

Unknown persons illegally dumped roofing felt on the property. The Federal Property Office demanded that the responsible county remove it. However, the county refused to take action. Thereupon, the plaintiff had the waste collected by an employee of the Federal Forest Service and disposed of at a materials recycling facility. She then demanded that the county reimburse her for the costs incurred, amounting to €99.59.

The Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) Chemnitz initially dismissed the action. The Saxon Higher Administrative Court (Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht) reversed this decision and ordered the county to pay. The county's appeal on points of law against this decision before the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) was unsuccessful.

Property ownership alone does not establish waste ownership

At the centre of the decision is the definition of waste owner according to § 3 Abs. 9 of the Circular Economy Act (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz). According to this provision, a waste owner is any natural or legal person who holds actual control over waste.

This does not depend on the civil law concept of possession. Rather, what matters is an independent public law concept of waste ownership. An intention to establish possession is not required. A person can therefore in principle become the owner of waste even without their knowledge or even against their will.

Nevertheless, the mere status as property owner is not sufficient in every case. According to the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), waste law responsibility requires a minimum degree of actual control. The affected party must be legally and factually able to influence the waste and to exclude other persons from access to it.

This is precisely lacking in the case of properties that are openly accessible due to general nature conservation law, forestry law or comparable rights of access. In such a constellation, the owner's control over items deposited there differs little from the access possibilities of any other person. Ownership then does not convey, according to general understanding, an exclusive sphere of control which would simultaneously establish ownership of all waste present on the property.

Openly accessible forest: disposal is the responsibility of the county

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) therefore established that the Federal Property Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) did not become the owner of the illegally dumped roofing felt. Consequently, it neither had its own obligation to remove the waste under § 15 Abs. 1 Satz 1 KrWG nor an obligation to hand over the waste to the public law disposal authority under § 17 Abs. 1 KrWG.

Rather, the residual responsibility of the public law disposal authority under § 20 Abs. 1 Satz 1 KrWG applied. The county should have collected and disposed of the fly-tipped waste itself on the property.

The court thus follows the legislative intent that the collection of waste discarded in forests and fields should not be burdened on farmers and foresters or other property owners. When the legal system imposes on an owner the free accessibility of their property in the interest of the public, then in principle the public – represented by the responsible disposal authority – must bear the costs of removing illegally dumped waste.

Different result for fenced or controllable properties!

However, the decision does not mean that property owners are never responsible for fly-tipped waste on their property. The legal situation is different if a property is not generally accessible and the owner can at least largely control third-party access or restrict it by means of a fence.

In this case, there is generally the minimum degree of control required for waste ownership. The fact that even a fence or other security measure cannot completely prevent illegal dumping does not in principle preclude the owner's waste law responsibility.

What is therefore decisive is not solely whether the waste was dumped against the will of the property owner. Rather, what matters is whether the owner, based on the legal and factual circumstances, possesses a sufficiently defined sphere of control and can in principle control access to the property.

The principles also apply to public law owners

The judgment is of particular importance for properties owned by the state, the Länder, municipalities or other public law bodies and institutions. The county had argued that the Federal Property Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben), as a public law institution, could not rely on the property guarantee of Art. 14 of the Basic Law (Art. 14 GG). A limitation of waste ownership developed in favour of private owners could therefore not be transferred to it.

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) did not follow this argument. The restriction on waste ownership is already based on an interpretation of § 3 Abs. 9 KrWG and thus on ordinary waste law. The constitutional property guarantee strengthens this result in favour of private owners but is not its necessary prerequisite.

A public law property owner is therefore not deemed a waste owner if their property is openly accessible by virtue of general statutory rights of access. In the case decided, it was furthermore the case that the affected property formed part of the state's fiscal assets.

However, this must be distinguished from administrative property areas which a public authority dedicates to common use through its own decision or opens to the public. In such a constellation, control over waste dumped there can continue to be attributed to the authority. Whether costs are the responsibility of the authority therefore always depends on the legal basis for the property being publicly accessible.

No violation of European waste law

According to the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), the European Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EG likewise does not require broader liability on the part of the property owner. Although § 3 Abs. 9 KrWG must be interpreted in the light of the EU law concept of waste owner, European law does not require that every owner of a generally accessible property automatically be deemed the owner of waste dumped there by third parties.

Rather, the polluter pays principle enshrined in Art. 14 of the Waste Framework Directive argues against such blanket cost allocation. An owner who neither caused the dumping nor was able to prevent it based on a controllable sphere of control should not have to bear the disposal costs solely because of their formal ownership status. For the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), this EU law assessment was so clear that it did not consider it necessary to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH).

Reimbursement of disposal costs through public law agency without authority

The Federal Property Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) could demand from the county not only the actual disposal costs but also the cost of the working time expended. The legal basis was public law agency without authority in corresponding application of §§ 683 and 670 BGB.

The provisions on agency without authority are in principle also applicable in public law, provided there is no exhaustive special regulation to the contrary. In particular, it is a requirement that the affected party conducts business which actually falls within the task area of a public authority.

This requirement was met. The removal of the roofing felt was not a task of the Federal Property Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) itself, but rather, due to the residual waste law responsibility, a task of the county. After the county had expressly refused its responsibility and had in effect forced the plaintiff to dispose of the waste, her actions did not violate the statutory allocation of responsibilities.

Also reimbursable were the one and a half hours of work time of a forest worker that were charged. Market-standard remuneration for own work performance can be claimed as a cost when the work is performed within the scope of the manager's professional, commercial or comparable statutory task area. The management of federally owned real property by the Federal Property Office (Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) satisfied these requirements.

Clear leading decision for fly-tipped waste and disposal costs

The judgment of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) creates significant legal certainty for owners of forest land, agricultural properties and other land that are opened to the public due to statutory rights of access. Property ownership and waste ownership are not synonymous. If the owner lacks a minimum degree of exclusive control, the public law disposal authority cannot simply shift the burden of removing fly-tipped waste onto them.

Affected property owners should demonstrably request the responsible county (Landkreis) or independent city to remove the waste before undertaking their own disposal, document the dumping photographically and record the legal basis for the property's free accessibility. If a claim is made regarding own waste ownership or cost responsibility, careful examination should be made as to whether actual sufficient control exists. In the event of necessary self-execution, all third-party costs, working hours and disposal records should be carefully documented in order to enforce a later claim for cost reimbursement.

Our law firm AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart advises property owners, companies, forestry enterprises, public law bodies and disposal authorities on questions of waste law and circular economy law. We examine responsibility for illegally dumped waste, assist in proceedings against waste authorities and enforce claims for reimbursement of disposal and personnel costs both out of court and before the administrative courts.