Classification of the AfD: Court in Münster postpones hearing

There is still no end in sight in the legal dispute between the AfD and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) before the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) in Münster, even after the second day of negotiations. After numerous requests from the AfD and contentious disputes with the party’s definition of the people, the Senate postponed the hearing on Wednesday to an as yet undetermined date. Finding an appointment will take a certain amount of time, said the presiding judge.

Since Tuesday, the court has been negotiating, among other things, whether the AfD as a whole party can be listed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a suspected right-wing extremist case. In March 2022, the Cologne Administrative Court dismissed a lawsuit filed against it by the AfD in the first instance.

On Wednesday, after numerous proposals from the AfD, the Senate negotiated primarily about the party’s definition of the people. The BfV argued that the AfD differentiates between an ethnic people and a legal state people. However, the Basic Law does not recognize such a distinction. Germans with a migrant background are not viewed by the AfD as part of the ethnic people, which means a violation of human dignity.

AfD members with a migration background speak in court

In this context, the BfV lawyer presented statements from party officials and representatives of the AfD. There are statements about one at all levels of the party “National death” or the “Destruction of the German people” proven, emphasized the lawyer. Migrants would be seen by AfD officials, among other things “criminal” or “Welfare fraudsters” designated. Statements of this kind are so common in the evidence that it is justified to list the entire party as a suspected case.

The AfD, on the other hand, tried to dismiss statements of this kind as verbal gaffes. There are also numerous people with a migrant background in the party. In this context, three AfD members with a migration background also spoke in court on Wednesday, saying they had not experienced any exclusion in their party.

The second day of negotiations began with numerous applications from the AfD. Among other things, the party demanded that several representatives of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution be summoned as witnesses – including BfV President Thomas Haldenwang. After the presiding judge postponed further applications to a later date, the AfD filed a motion for bias against the judge. The Senate rejected the application as an abuse of law.

Applications could delay proceedings

The party also filed a motion to adjourn the hearing for at least six weeks. The reason is that the days of negotiations brought new insights that those involved would first have to agree on. On Tuesday it became known in the proceedings that, among thousands of documents from the BfV, two documents were from “human sources” originated. The majority of the findings, however, are said to come from speeches and social media posts by party officials. The court initially did not decide on the application.

The subject of the oral hearing are three appeals against the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the BfV. In doing so, the AfD is defending itself against, among other things, the classification of the entire party as a suspected extremist case and the public announcement of this.

The three appeals also concern the classification of the AfD youth organization Junge Alternative (JA) and the now officially dissolved so-called wing as suspected cases – in the case of the wing also about the classification as a confirmed extremist effort.