Federal Constitutional Court: Are Bundestag Sonder meetings stopped? | Stern.de

The plans of the Union and SPD to finance a billion dollar defense and infrastructure package with additional debts are in the floating. It is open whether there is a majority in the Bundestag. But the project could also be stopped by the highest point. Several applications have been received by the Federal Constitutional Court, such as AfD and Left. Among other things, they are directed against the first of two special sessions in the parliament this Thursday. A decision is expected beforehand.

In their explorations for a possible future coalition, the Union and SPD had agreed a special fund -financed special fund for infrastructure of 500 billion euros and a relaxation of the debt brake for defense expenditure. The plans require changes to the Basic Law, for which two-thirds of the Bundestag and the Federal Council are required.

In the new Bundestag – which must meet for the first time on March 25 at the latest – such a majority would only come about with voices from the left or the AfD. CDU, CSU and SPD therefore want to decide on the financial package in the old Bundestag. At the request of her factions, Bundag President Bärbel Bas (SPD) had invited to special meetings of the old parliament for this Thursday and next Tuesday.

Several lawsuits against these planned special meetings are pending at the Federal Constitutional Court. Both the AfD parliamentary group and the future left faction have applied for organ dispute procedures and want to achieve an interim order with urgent applications. The parliamentary member of the Bundestag Joana Cotar (formerly AfD) and five AfD MPs have also submitted corresponding applications. According to the court, there is also a constitutional complaint on the matter. Whoever submitted this remained unclear at first.

In their 85-page application to the court, the lawyers of the AfD parliamentary group argue that the convening of the old Bundestag was already formally void. According to Article 39 Basic Law, Bundestag presidents can convene the parliament to special meetings if a third of the MPs require this. The Bundestag president had done this at the request of the Union and SPD factions, which together put more than a third of the MPs.

The AfD argues that factions themselves are not authorized to provide a request for convening the Bundestag according to Article 39 Basic Law. Instead, there should be concrete, handwritten desired request from at least one third of all MPs.

In addition, the old Bundestag no longer has democratic legitimation in order to decide as important things as constitutional changes when a new parliament with other majorities has long since been chosen. To convene the old Bundestag now, violate the rights of the new MPs.

The left also sees a violation of the rights of new MPs. To put it simply, she argues legally: As soon as the Federal Election Committee officially determines the result of the Bundestag election on Friday, the new Bundestag must be convened immediately if something can really be decided quickly. Special meetings of the old parliament are then no longer permitted.

The left is represented in the old Bundestag with only 28 mandates, in the new, on the other hand, with 64. In the future, its voices – or those of the AfD – will be needed for constitutional changes. Your political goal is to have a say and to tip the debt brake completely or at least to reform comprehensively. So more money should then flow into infrastructure – which should benefit from the wish of the left housing construction, health facilities and schools. The left rejects only defense spending from the debt brake.

If there is a dispute between the top federal bodies on their rights and obligations from the Basic Law, those affected can apply for an organ dispute procedure at the Federal Constitutional Court. This option is also open to individual members of the Bundestag, parties or factions. The applicants must rely on the fact that their constitutional rights and obligations are violated or endangered by another federal body.

Until the Federal Constitutional Court decides on a lawsuit, months or even years can often pass. If things have to go quickly, the court can also issue temporary orders on request. Such preliminary regulations are intended to prevent facts from being created that could no longer be reversed if the Karlsruhe judges should later decide differently in the main proceedings. With such an order, the court, for example, had stopped the adoption of the controversial heating law in the Bundestag in 2023. A decision about it is still pending in the main procedure.