Draft Bill for a German Space Act: The Benchmarks It Must Meet

The publication of the ministerial draft bill (Referentenentwurf) for a German Space Act (Weltraumgesetz, “WRG”) is expected shortly.

Its predecessor is the key issues paper (Eckpunktepapier) that the “previous” Federal Government published on September 4, 2024, under the heading “For a Stronger Space Industry” (Bundestag printed paper 20/12775) (the “2024 Key Issues”).

We commented on the 2024 Key Issues in an article in September 2024. Independently, other statements from the industry evaluating the key issues have been available since October 2024.

Our article and other statements from that time reach similar conclusions on many points but set different priorities. Taken together, they provide a benchmark against which the draft bill must be measured.

The main points of criticism of the 2024 Key Issues at a glance:

1. Competitiveness as the Guiding Principle

Strengthening the competitiveness of the German space industry is the top priority in the 2024 Key Issues. Accordingly, the WRG is to be simple and lean, promote investment and innovation, and create legal certainty.

We additionally noted that the promise of support stated in the heading of the key issues is barely reflected in the specific provisions, at least those of the key issues paper. Acceptance of the WRG would increase considerably if it were embedded in an overall package of measures with a direct strengthening effect, as has been the case in other countries.

2. Scope, EU Space Act, and Exemptions

Both our article and other statements call for avoiding duplicative regulation. They call for alignment with the planned EU Space Act, definitions based on internationally recognized terminology, and a single point of contact that coordinates applications under the WRG, EU law, and, for example, the German Satellite Data Security Act (Satellitendatensicherheitsgesetz, “SatDSiG”).

We also pointed out that German operators will be covered even when conducting activities abroad. As a result, several legal systems may apply in parallel. The waiver of the WRG provided for in the key issues where an equivalent level of protection exists abroad is likely to apply only in part. In practice, a predictable catalog of accepted countries or scenarios – ideally available when the WRG enters into force – would be important.

3. Authorization and Procedure

A positive comment on the 2024 Key Issues was that satellite constellations can presumably be authorized as a single space activity.

Almost all statements primarily expect a lean authority structure and digital, efficient procedures.

We took a critical view of the broad authorization requirement, which is also intended to cover “partial” space activities, the lack of general relief for SMEs and start-ups, and the use of numerous vague legal terms relevant to authorization, such as “precautions required by the state of the art” or “no reason to assume.” We also criticized parallel authorization procedures in other areas, such as telecommunications, NIS2, critical infrastructure (KRITIS), or environmental law. Assessment standards, responsibilities, and the duration of proceedings must be coordinated.

The duration of an authorization procedure was seen as a major source of uncertainty. In particular, it was suggested that a kind of “completeness pre-review” should fix the start of the actual decision period and that – similar to merger control – approval should be deemed granted once the period expires.

4. Recourse and Financial Security

Under the key issues, recourse in cases of slight and ordinary negligence is to be capped at 10% of the average annual revenue over the last three years, up to a maximum of EUR 50 million. Other comments welcome this cap but criticize the reference to the group structure, as it makes cooperation between start-ups, SMEs, and large system integrators more difficult. In their view, liability should instead be based on the mission risk or the mission revenue.

We, too, see the revenue-based cap as relief for smaller and younger companies. However, we pointed out:

• the limitation of financial security to insurance or a bank guarantee, without more liquidity-friendly alternatives;
• a possible risk-based tiering of the coverage amount, for example along the lines of a model discussed in the United Kingdom;
• the potentially unlimited exposure in cases of gross negligence, a threshold that is difficult to draw in practice; and
• the lack of an indemnification against liability toward private third parties above the maximum recourse amount, as known in other countries.

5. National Security and Government Access Rights

Other statements emphasize the space industry’s contribution to defense. They call for clearly regulated access rights with clear responsibilities for defense and disaster scenarios, compensation at market prices, and special protection and support for ground segments as critical infrastructure. Some statements criticized these access rights on fundamental grounds. However, they reflect a general and largely indispensable principle that is laid down not only in the Federal Requisition Act (Bundesleistungsgesetz) but also in space-specific legislation.

6. Sustainability and Space Debris

Both our article and other statements welcome the fact that the WRG is intended to minimize risks and prevent space debris. In our view, it remains unclear what “precautions for sustainable use” means exactly: Does it refer only to space debris, or also to environmental impacts on Earth and along the value chain? The act itself should answer this question. Otherwise, the authorization requirement could become a gateway for requirements that are difficult to anticipate.

We welcomed the innovation clause in the 2024 Key Issues that opens up certain authorization requirements.

7. Responsibilities, Enforcement, and Fees

Other statements warn against additional bureaucracy through a new authority and advocate using existing structures and regularly benchmarking fees against the global market. We highlighted the requirement of “agreement” (Einvernehmen) with all interested ministries, which effectively amounts to a veto right. The ministries to be involved should be determined in advance, and responsibilities should be concentrated as far as possible. Duration, complexity, and indirect costs of the procedure are decisive in international competition.

8. Alignment with Related Legislation

Finally, other statements call for aligning the SatDSiG, foreign trade and export control law, and other special legislation intertwined with space activities with the WRG.

Conclusion and Outlook

The draft bill will have to be measured at least by whether it addresses the pain points already identified in 2024.

Companies that plan or already conduct space activities should review the draft bill for at least these points promptly after its publication and use the opportunity to submit comments in stakeholder consultations.