Anyone who relies on their own legal assessments in tender procedures also bears the risk associated with this. This is clear from a judgement of the Koblenz Administrative Court (VG) (Case No.: 2 K 676/25.KO of 12 August 2026).

In this case, the city of Koblenz had conducted a Europe-wide tender process for outdoor advertising within the city limits. In the tender documents, it pointed out that, in addition to the contractually agreed lease, special usage fees would also be payable and that bidders should factor this into their bids. However, the company, which was subsequently awarded the contract on the basis of its highest bid, concluded, following its own assessment of the legal situation, that it would not be required to pay any special usage fees. It entered into a licence agreement with the city, under which it was granted the exclusive right to advertise within the city limits and, in return, paid the agreed lease. It was further agreed that special-use permits were not covered by the contract and that any fees or costs for the necessary authorisations and permits were to be borne separately by the claimant. 

Two years later, the company received the notice regarding the special usage charges and brought legal proceedings against it – albeit without success. The Koblenz Administrative Court found that the by-law on special usage fees did not constitute a breach of either the principle of equivalence or the general principle of equality. The judges ruled that the failure to offset the lease against the special usage fees was not objectionable. According to the court’s press release, the company had taken a risk by assuming, despite the terms of the licence agreement and the circumstances of the tender procedure, that it would not have to pay special usage fees. The court also clarified that the licence agreement did not regulate special use, as the licence agreement was a contract under civil law. It was also apparent from this contract that it did not entail any public-law authorisations, in particular no special-use permits.

The company has already lodged an appeal against the judgement with the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate.