In the ongoing legal battle between the right-wing political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz), the Higher Administrative Court in Münster has rejected around 470 requests for evidence from the party. The presiding judge, Gerald Buck, stated that some of the requests were irrelevant and would not provide any evidence. Other requests were seen as attempts to gather information about the Verfassungsschutz and were consequently denied. The party had attempted to have the requests read out during the proceedings, but the court refused and instead took them into evidence. The court has adjourned until May 6, and further steps in the legal process are expected to be taken by AfD lawyers.
During previous oral hearings, the AfD had been accused of playing for time by repeatedly making motions of bias against the court and submitting evidence requests. Judge Buck was firm in his rejection of the 470 requests, stating that many of them were irrelevant and lacked substance to support their claims. The court also dismissed requests that were deemed as attempts to gather information to the detriment of the Verfassungsschutz. Buck made it clear that there were sufficient indications of AfD’s activities against the liberal democratic order. The ongoing legal battle revolves around the classification of the entire party as a suspected extremist organization.
The legal proceedings also touched on the case of a staff member of AfD MEP Maximilian Krah who was arrested for alleged espionage for China. AfD lawyers accused the state-level Verfassungsschutz of using the detained man as a human source with influence over the party’s leading candidate. The lawyer for the Federal Office, Wolfgang Roth, dismissed the accusations as absurd, stating that the individual in question had never been a member of any governing body of the party. The AfD is challenging the Verfassungsschutz’s classification of the party as a suspected extremist organization. The first instance ruling by the Cologne Administrative Court supported the Verfassungsschutz’s position, citing evidence of anti-constitutional intentions within the party. As the Federal Office is headquartered in Cologne, courts in North Rhine-Westphalia have jurisdiction over the case.
The presiding judge, Gerald Buck, emphasized that there were enough indications linking the AfD to activities against the democratic order. The court’s decision to reject the bulk of the evidence requests highlights the contentious nature of the legal battle between the party and the Verfassungsschutz. The AfD’s continued efforts to challenge the classification as an extremist suspect reflect the party’s commitment to defending its reputation and political standing. The outcome of the case remains uncertain, with further hearings scheduled until July. It is clear that the legal dispute between the AfD and the Verfassungsschutz will continue to be a focal point in the political landscape of Germany.
