A federal administrative court in Leipzig has ruled that Saxony’s Flood Recovery Directorate used an unsuitable weather station to judge claims after severe flooding in Pirna in June 2025. The judgment, issued on Thursday, found that the agency relied on readings from Dresden airport, 27 km (17 miles) away, instead of local measurements that recorded far heavier rain.
The decision requires the directorate to review 312 rejected applications within 90 days. The fund was set up to help households repair flood damage; it has received 1,140 applications, and €18.4 million (about $21.3 million) has been paid so far from its €46 million (about $53 million) budget.
The gauge behind the denials
Pirna’s municipal gauge recorded 179 mm (7 inches) of rain in 24 hours during the storm, while Dresden airport recorded 62 mm (2.4 inches). The directorate’s rule required applicants to show that rainfall exceeded 100 mm, but its staff applied that test using the airport figure, the court said.
The ruling says the agency had received the local readings before it rejected claims, yet did not explain why it chose the more distant station. Judges concluded the method did not reflect conditions in Pirna and ordered the office to assess the cases again using evidence relevant to each neighbourhood.
“They measured our flood with a cloud that never passed over our street,” said Ralph Hackl, one of 26 residents who challenged their rejections. Hackl said his family had spent months paying for repairs while the claim was treated as ineligible.
They measured our flood with a cloud that never passed over our street.
Ralph Hackl, applicant
Leongīne Sproģis, a spokeswoman for the directorate, said the office would follow the judgment and contact affected applicants. “The rainfall threshold was applied consistently, but the court has questioned whether the reference station was appropriate for these cases,” she said. She declined to say whether other payments would be suspended during the review.
Wider questions for the fund
The case began after 26 applicants appealed their refusals. The court’s order does not award them compensation automatically, but requires fresh decisions; the ruling also says the directorate must review other rejected applications assessed under the same method.
Yadu B. Goda, a hydrologist who reviewed the judgment for the applicants, said a single airport reading could not represent the intense, localised rainfall that caused flooding in the district. He said a case-by-case review should consider municipal gauges and residents’ records, not just a regional reference point.
The Saxon parliament’s public-accounts committee is due to question the directorate next week. The fund’s administration has not been accused of personal wrongdoing, but opposition lawmakers say they will seek a full breakdown of how many claims were assessed this way and whether the revised decisions will be completed before winter.
