What strategy is the AfD pursuing in the proceedings against the Office for the Protection of the Constitution? She shows great interest in the means the intelligence service uses to observe her. She’s in no hurry.
In the appeal process regarding the classification of the AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case, the party’s lawyers tried to elicit details from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution about its methods of obtaining information. Today, the second day of the trial, they also submitted an application to the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Administrative Court (OVG) in Münster to interrupt the trial and not continue it for another six weeks at the earliest.
In response to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s accusation that the AfD distinguishes between an ethnically defined German people and a legally defined state people, Roman Reusch, a member of the AfD federal executive committee, suggested questioning AfD members with a migration background as witnesses.
Lawyer: AfD disparages people with a migration background
The lawyer for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Wolfgang Roth, countered the AfD by saying that representatives of the party had degraded people with a migration background to second-class status and talked about the alleged destruction or extinction of the German people. He quoted, among other things, statements by the Thuringian AfD state leader Björn Höcke.
Reusch said these were “splitting hairs” that might not be understood by AfD members with low levels of education. He rejected the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s assessment as “insinuations that are somehow cobbled together from small snippets of facts.”
Roth also accused the AfD of submitting applications “out of the blue” with the aim of “delaying the process”. The AfD’s lawyers, Michael Fengler and Christian Conrad, rejected this. After several detailed, almost identical requests from the AfD to name witnesses, the presiding judge, Gerald Buck, also emphasized that he was interested in conducting the trial efficiently.
AfD wants to know more about informants
On Wednesday, the topic was, among other things, the use of virtual agents, i.e. employees of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution who use a different identity on social networks, and so-called informants – informants from the party’s environment. The BfV declared on Tuesday evening that “only two of the several thousand pieces of evidence” that had been submitted to the court “contain statements or behavior from human sources of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.”
The Federal Office also critically examined whether, during the processing of the AfD as a suspected case and with regard to its junior organization, during the processing of the Junge Alternative as a suspected case and as a proven extremist effort, members of state or federal executive boards were appointed as confidants of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, one of whom was “controlling “Influence” could have resulted. There was no such influence during the relevant period.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution rules out “external control”.
When asked on Wednesday, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution emphasized that its evidence on the AfD came mainly from speeches and social media posts by elected officials and officials. It can be ruled out that employees or informants of the Federal Office or the state authorities for the protection of the constitution could have provoked this. The BfV’s lawyer accused the other side of not presenting any evidence that could indicate “external control” or “manipulation” when asking about possible influence from informants.
In the appeal process, which began on Tuesday, the 5th Senate is clarifying whether the ruling from the lower court at the Cologne Administrative Court stands. The BfV, based in Cologne, had classified the party and the youth organization Junge Alternative (JA) as suspected right-wing extremist cases. The judges in Cologne confirmed this view in 2022. Since then, the party and the JA have been allowed to be monitored using intelligence means. The OVG must now clarify whether the assessment is legal according to the Federal Constitutional Protection Act.
Eleven hours of negotiations on the first day
The first day of negotiations ended after eleven hours. Even on Wednesday it didn’t look like a quick decision would be made until the afternoon. The day before, the AfD announced that it had prepared more than 200 applications for evidence. If there is not enough time, the court would have to look for new dates; a continuation on Thursday is out of the question.
When it comes to using informants, people are now very cautious and cautious when it comes to parties. The first of two unsuccessful ban proceedings against the right-wing extremist NPD, which today calls itself Die Heimat, was discontinued in 2003 because of the numerous informants that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution also had in the party’s leadership.
