The Infrastructure Future Act is a potentially significant modernisation initiative for many planning and approval procedures. The adopted version of the Act provides for extensive amendments to administrative, planning and environmental law with the aim of substantially accelerating and digitising the implementation of infrastructure projects. Among other objectives, the Act is intended to accelerate the modernisation of ageing bridges, roads, railways and waterways. This article provides an overview of the legislative objectives, key innovations and practical implications for project developers and public authorities.
Political background of the Infrastructure Future Act and its objectives
Germany’s transport infrastructure has for some time been in need of substantial modernisation in many areas. Until now, lengthy planning and approval procedures have delayed essential new construction and expansion projects, often prolonging implementation for several years. The new Infrastructure Future Act (Infrastruktur-Zukunftsgesetz, “InfZuG”) is intended to remove obstacles in planning and approval processes and to shorten the duration of protracted procedures.
To achieve this, the InfZuG is built around three guiding principles: acceleration, digitalisation and standardisation of procedures. The core mechanism for accelerating procedures is the designation of key infrastructure projects as projects of overriding public interest (“überragendes öffentliches Interesse”). Legal classification as such is intended to influence administrative decision-making and prioritise infrastructure over competing legal interests. In future, projects that support national and collective defence will also be given statutory priority as specially protected interests (“Schutzgütervorrang”). Another key component of the Act is the introduction of standardised, digital planning and approval procedures. Revising planning, construction, environmental and procedural law was a key promise in the coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD.
From a political perspective, the InfZuG is part of a larger legislative package. Additional reforms in environmental law are being pursued through separate legislative initiatives (such as the planned Act to Strengthen Natural Infrastructure and Further Develop the Impact Mitigation Regulation under Nature Conservation Law and the amendment to the Environmental Appeals Act (Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz, “UmwRG”). The measures also serve to implement the federal-state pact on the acceleration of planning and approval procedures and the efficient use of the new Special Fund for Infrastructure and Climate Neutrality. In addition, the Bau-Turbo is intended to accelerate housing projects.
Legislative process
The first draft bill of the Infrastructure Future Act was published in early November 2025. Following interministerial consultation within the Federal Government, the proposal was incorporated into the government draft (Bundestag document 21/4099). On 24 June 2026, the Transport Committee issued its recommendation, proposing that the bill be adopted as amended. The Bundestag subsequently passed the bill, and the Bundesrat approved the InfZuG on 10 July 2026.
The Act can now be promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette and will generally enter into force the following day.
For certain planning approval procedures initiated by the end of 2027 or 2028, the transitional provisions allow the authorities to continue applying the previous procedural rules.
Brief overview of the most important changes in the InfZuG
As an omnibus act, the Infrastructure Future Act simultaneously provides for amendments to various laws – including the Administrative Procedure Act, the sector-specific legislation governing railways, federal highways and federal waterways, as well as environmental laws.
Classification as an overriding public interest in transport infrastructure projects
Under existing law, certain projects may already be deemed to be in the overriding public interest, e.g. the expansion of railway lines where plans have been firmly established or an urgent need for this has been formally identified in the statutory requirements plan. The Infrastructure Future Act also classifies – by law – the expansion, construction, modernisation and maintenance of certain transport and infrastructure projects as being in the overriding public interest, including, for example:
- Section 20(1) General Railway Act (Allgemeines Eisenbahngesetz, “AEG”) – with regard to the European Transport Corridors;
- Section 3(1), sentence 4 Federal Trunk Roads Act (Bundesfernstraßengesetz, “FStrG”) and section 1(3) Federal Trunk Roads Expansion Act (Fernstraßenausbaugesetz, “FStrAbG”) – for service areas, replacement bridge contruction, the maintenance of existing tunnels, and certain new construction and expansion involving federal trunk roads;
- Section 8(1) Federal Waterways Act (Bundeswasserstraßengesetz, “WaStrG”), section 1(3) Federal Waterways Expansion Act (Bundeswasserstraßenausbaugesetz, “WaStrAbG”), section 67(3), section 70a Federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz, “WHG”) and section 6(1) Air Traffic Act (Luftverkehrsgesetz, “LuftVG”) – including for maintenance measures aimed at the full or partial replacement of system-critical shipping facilities, in particular locks and weirs, as well as priority federal waterway projects, flood and coastal protection measures, certain port projects, and the construction or expansion of airports.
Due to their classification as an overriding public interest, certain infrastructure projects are given particular weight in official and judicial considerations, for example in the case of exceptions under nature conservation law. While the classification does not entirely predetermine the balancing of interests, it does shape it in legislative terms in favour of the accelerated implementation of the projects concerned. This facilitates decision-making by the competent authorities and helps speed up procedures.
Priority as specially protected interests – defence-related projects
For certain defence-related projects, military relevance is intended to give rise to a statutory priority as a specially protected interest (“Schutzgütervorrang”). One example of this is section 18(1), sentence 6 WStrG. Under this provision, construction measures relating to some trans-European waterways are of military relevance and therefore to be included as a priority interest in the respective balancing of protected interests. A corresponding provision is also set out in section 1(3) Federal Trunk Roads Expansion Act (Fernstraßenausbaugesetz, “FStrAbG”) for certain construction measures included in the statutory requirements plan for federal trunk roads.
A priority as a specially protected interest is a legal privilege that generally gives particularly important infrastructure projects priority over conflicting protected interests in the event of a balancing of interests (e.g. over water protection areas, the landscape, in forestry, emissions protection, nature conservation, construction or road law). If different protected interests must be balanced against each other, a project benefiting from priority protection will generally prevail. In contrast to the mere classification of a project as being in the overriding public interest (see, for example, section 8(1), sentence 6 WaStrG above), the defence-related priority justifies an additional, i.e. double privileging of the project.
Moreover, the classification of an infrastructure project as defence-related can eliminate the need for review processes at EU level, such as obtaining an opinion from the EU Commission for projects that encroach on certain nature reserves. Without the explicit classification of projects as defence-related, an opinion of the EU Commission would often have to be obtained (cf. section 34(4), sentence 2 Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, “BNatSchG”)).
Standardised digital planning approval procedures (“digital only”)
The planning approval process for infrastructure projects has been extensively modernised and further digitalised under the Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, “VwVfG”). In future, planning documents will generally have to be submitted electronically. This applies to all procedural steps, such as the submission of plans, the display of documents, announcements and public participation. However, the procedure is not entirely paperless in all cases: Where electronic access is technically impossible or unreasonable, section 27a VwVfG provides for alternative methods of publication, public inspection, or access on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, AI-assisted evaluations and digital models – such as building information Modeling (BIM) – are expected to shorten procedures by up to 30%.
New cut-off date for planning approval decisions
Another new addition, compared with the government draft, is the cut-off date introduced in section 74(1), sentences 2 and 3 VwVfG. At the project developer’s request, the factual and legal position at the close of the consultation meeting will generally serve as the relevant cut-off point. If no consultation meeting takes place, the cut-off date will be six months after the deadline for submitting objections. This may give project developers greater planning certainty, as subsequent changes in fact or law will not necessarily require them to revise their documentation.
Fewer preliminary review steps due to elimination of the spatial impact assessment
In future, a spatial impact assessment (“Raumverträglichkeitsprüfung”) will no longer be required for federal projects involving federal highways, federalwaterways or federal railway lines, or for projects involving tramways, gas and hydrogen pipelines with a diameter exceeding 300 millimetres, pumped-storage power plants or magnetic levitation railways (see section 16(2) Spatial Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz, “ROG”)). The spatial impact assessment is an administrative procedure that is carried out prior to the main approval procedure in order to identify spatial conflicts of an infrastructure project. For example, there may be an assessment of whether a new motorway is consistent with the regional spatial development plans and what potential adverse impacts it could have on people and the landscape. Authorities, municipalities and the public are involved in the process. The review ends with a spatial planning assessment, which is taken into account in the subsequent planning process.
The elimination of the spatial impact assessment can be expected to result in faster approval and thus implementation of these transport projects.
These simplifications also apply to energy infrastructure: according to section 16(2), sentence 3 ROG, project developers of pumped storage power plants will also be able to expressly waive a spatial impact assessment in the future. The only exception is where the competent highest state authority objects within four weeks of the notification under section 15(4), sentence 2 ROG on the grounds that significant conflicts with spatial planning requirements are expected
Fewer environmental impact assessments (EIA)
An Environmental Impact Assessment (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, “EIA”) is an official procedure designed to identify and assess the environmental effects of a planned infrastructure project. In contrast to a spatial impact assessment (“Raumverträglichkeitsprüfung”), an environmental impact assessment identifies environmental protection concerns (e.g. effects on animals, plants, soil, water and climate) so that they can be taken into account in the planning decision. The public and other authorities are involved in the assessment. The outcome is then taken into account in the subsequent authorisation decision in the planning process.
In future, the obligation to carry out an EIA will no longer apply in certain situations:
- The obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment no longer applies to certain modernisation projects on railway lines (see section 14a(1) Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, “UPVG”). These include the installation of overhead lines or conductor rails on existing railways for up to 180 kilometres of track, digitalisation measures, the construction of noise barriers as part of noise reduction measures, the construction of crossing tracks and passing tracks or the installation of switches. Due to the elimination of this time-consuming environmental impact assessment, a much faster implementation of the aforementioned projects is to be expected.
- In exceptional cases, the Federal Ministry of Transport may exempt specific transport projects from the EIA requirement in accordance with Annex 1 No. 14 (see section 14e(2) UVPG). For example, this could benefit the construction of federal waterways, federal motorways or railway lines with the associated operating facilities or traction power lines. The construction of airfields or the construction of trams in the city may also be exempted from the EIA requirement. However, the prerequisite for this is that the conduct of an environmental impact assessment would have a detrimental effect on the purpose of the project, in particular due to the urgency of the project. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Infrastructure Future Act, this may be the case for projects that are capable of making a significant contribution to mitigating the effects of an imminent natural disaster and substantially strengthening defence readiness.
- In addition, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy may exempt energy infrastructure projects listed in Annex 1 Nos. 1 and 19 from the EIA requirement (section 14e(3) UVPG). All kinds of projects in the field of heat generation, mining and energy as well as pipeline systems can benefit from this regulation, such as the construction of power plants, wind turbines or biogas installations. This also benefits the construction and operation of high-voltage overhead lines, gas supply lines or pipeline systems for the transport of chemicals and other substances. However, according to the explanatory memorandum to the government draft, an exemption from the EIA requirement may only apply if such projects are capable of making a significant contribution to coping with a natural disaster or energy supply crisis or mitigating their effects, and are capable of substantially strengthening defence readiness.
- The EIA requirement will also be waived for certain defence-related projects. According to the new section 14e(1) UVPG, the authorities are not to carry out an environmental impact assessment for projects that support the production or storage of products for national defence (in particular, armaments, ammunition and explosives). However, the prerequisite for this is that the necessity of the project in question for the operational capability of the Bundeswehr is confirmed by a declaration from the Federal Ministry of Defence and that an environmental impact assessment would have a detrimental effect on national or collective defence objectives.
Fewer approval requirements for rail projects
The list of measures that do not require planning approval has been significantly expanded. In addition to the existing exemptions, it now covers measures such as the installation of signalling and safety equipment, including signals, modifications to culverts, slope and rock stabilisation measures, and the construction of crossing, passing and marshalling tracks.
Clarification of the Federal Railway Authority’s environmental responsibilities
For railway projects, an important practical development is the statutory clarification of the responsibilities of the Federal Railway Authority (Eisenbahn-Bundesamt, “EBA”) under environmental law. Under section 4(6) AEG, this applies in particular to matters concerning emissions control, water law, plant protection and environmental damage law. By contrast, the EBA will not be responsible for enforcing nature conservation legislation or waste and soil protection law.
Deemed notification and deemed consent
Under the current legal framework, the planning approval authority may, after the initiation of the planning approval procedure, issue a provisional order in which preparatory measures or partial measures for the construction of various infrastructure projects are specified. Provisional orders must be made public. In future, when such announcements are made online, a deemed notification will apply after two weeks for many projects that will uniformly set the time limit for third-party appeals in motion and thus create more legal certainty; cf. section 14(2) WaStrG for construction projects of the federal waterways, section 28(3a) Passenger Transportation Act (Personenbeförderungsgesetz, “PBefG”) for tram construction projects and section 17(2) FStrG for federal highway construction projects.
To further accelerate planning approval procedures, deemed consent will also apply in certain cases (see, for example, section 14(3), sentence 4 WaStrG). If an authority remains silent during the statutory period, its consent is deemed granted by operation of law.
Under current law, the approval of other authorities is often required for large infrastructure projects, as such projects regularly affect matters that fall within the technical competence of federal state authorities. For example, the respective water and nature conservation authorities of the federal states are responsible for water and nature conservation. Statutory approval requirements exist for the purpose of integrating their technical expertise and local knowledge into the decision-making process. In practice, however, these approval requirements lead to significant delays. The introduction of deemed consent prevents projects from being held up solely due to administrative silence or delayed responses.
In some cases, the adopted version of the Act even removes requirements to obtain the consent of other authorities, thereby reducing delays caused by the need for additional approvals (see, for example, section 19(3) Federal Water Act (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz, “WHG”)).
Consultation instead of consent
To accelerate procedures, various approval processes will no longer require the consent of other authorities involved; instead, consultation with those authorities or an opportunity for them to be heard will be sufficient (see sections 16(2) ROG, 17b(4) FStrG and 19(3) WHG). This applies, for example, to certain decisions under water law. For spatial impact assessments, however, the spatial planning authority will retain a narrowly time-limited right to object where significant spatial planning conflicts are expected.
Substitute payments instead of compensatory measures in nature conservation law
For infrastructure projects that encroach on nature but are classified as being in the overriding public interest or are financed through the Special Fund for Infrastructure and Climate Neutrality, monetary compensation is recognised as an equal alternative to actual compensatory and replacement measures. This means that developers of infrastructure projects that encroach on nature will be able to dispense with actual compensatory measures to protect nature. Instead, substitute payments may be made to the Federal Ministry for the Environment, which will ensure that the payments are used for ecological enhancement within the affected natural area (see section 15(6a) draft Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, “BNatSchG”).
This possibility is also explicitly emphasised in section 15(6a) BNatSchG among others for projects under section 1(1) Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz, “TKG”). According to this, developers who intend to relocate or modify telecommunications lines for the development of public telecommunications networks can also make substitute payments instead of implementing actual compensatory measures to protect nature.
Changes to the Environmental Appeals Act
The first draft bill of the Infrastructure Future Act provided that environmental associations would only receive temporary recognition for the purpose of bringing legal remedies under the Environmental Appeals Act (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz). It also introduced procedural hurdles for the late submission of objections by environmental associations in environmental court proceedings. In addition, the draft bill provided for the removal of the suspensive effect of actions brought by recognised environmental associations. These issues were deleted from the government draft and outsourced to another legislative package:
These issues were initially excluded from the government draft of the Infrastructure Future Act but have since been addressed in a separate Act amending the Environmental Appeals Act and other provisions of environmental law. A key change for infrastructure projects is the revised section 7(6) Environmental Appeals Act (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz, “UmwRG”), under which objections and actions for annulment against decisions on infrastructure projects pursuant to section 1(1) and (1a) UmwRG will no longer have suspensive effect. This significantly broadens the scope of immediate enforcement for infrastructure decisions that may be challenged on environmental law grounds. Interim relief will, however, remain available by way of an application under section 80(5) VwGO.
At the same time, the recognition required for environmental organisations to bring legal challenges under section 2(1) UmwRG will become subject to time limits. Under section 3(4) UmwRG, initial recognition will be valid for five years, with each subsequent recognition valid for ten years. If an organisation’s recognition expires while legal proceedings are pending, section 2(2a) UmwRG provides that it will remain valid until those proceedings have been finally and conclusively determined.
For the Infrastructure Future Act, this means that its substantive and procedural measures to accelerate infrastructure projects will be supplemented by corresponding reforms to environmental procedural law.
Reactions to the InfZuG and criticism
The Federal Government and the coalition parliamentary groups emphasize that the Act will accelerate procedures through greater digitalisation, more harmonised procedural rules and the increased use of digital tools. On the other hand, the Act continues to face criticism: In particular, critics argue that treating monetary compensation as equivalent to in-kind compensatory measures under nature conservation law weakens effective protection of nature and landscapes. Furthermore, they contend that the blanket designation of numerous transport infrastructure projects as being in the overriding public interest effectively downgrades environmental concerns in legal terms. As a result, interventions in nature may become the rule rather than the exception.
Conclusion & implications for practice
The Infrastructure Future Act marks a clear shift towards digital, standardised, and faster planning and approval procedures for infrastructure projects. In particular, the digitalisation of the planning approval procedure, the new cut-off date, the expanded range of measures exempt from planning approval and the legal prioritisation of key transport projects are to noticeably speed up procedures.
From a practical perspective, the adopted Act will require businesses to prepare for digital-only procedures, establish effective processes for managing deadlines, review applicable cut-off dates and transitional arrangements at an early stage, and develop robust compensation and environmental strategies. Project developers and public authorities that adapt their processes at an early stage are likely to benefit most from the anticipated efficiency gains and minimise transitional risks.
Forward
