Since Tuesday, the Munich Administrative Court has been investigating the question of whether the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution is allowed to monitor the AfD as a whole party and to use intelligence resources in doing so. AfD lawyer Christian Conrad described the hearing, which is scheduled to last nine days, as an “operation on the heart of democracy”.
The party’s regional chairman, Stephan Protschka, nevertheless believes he has little chance of success. After the AfD had already failed in expedited proceedings in two instances and also at the federal level at the Higher Administrative Court in Münster (North Rhine-Westphalia), he does not believe that his party will be decided in his favor, said Protschka on the sidelines of the opening of the hearing on Tuesday in Munich. “The verdict will be similar to that in Münster. That is clear to us and we have already prepared the further steps here in this country to enforce our rights as an opposition party,” said Protschka with a view to possible further instances.
The Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution had already announced in 2022 that it would monitor the AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case – and that it would use intelligence resources in addition to exhausting publicly accessible sources. These include informants or telephone surveillance. However, the use of such resources has so far been refrained from – pending a judicial clarification – a representative of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution said in court. Only in one exceptional case was a telephone number determined using intelligence resources. However, publicly accessible material was collected.
The decision to monitor the party was justified by the domestic intelligence service on the grounds that members of the now officially dissolved party faction “The Wing” still had a great deal of influence on the party. There was talk among members of the party of “fantasizing overthrow”. There was talk of an ethnic concept of the people that prevailed in parts of the AfD, and Muslims were generally despised and defamed.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution has collected extensive material on the AfD in recent years. Presiding Judge Michael Kumetz spoke of “thousands and thousands of pages” that had been submitted to the court. Just on Monday, the court received a USB stick with many gigabytes of material. Chat logs were evaluated, entries on social media channels, excerpts from public speeches and written statements.
Names like Paul Traxl, ex-Flügel man and chairman of the Aichach-Friedberg district association, are mentioned again and again. Or that of the state parliament member Franz Schmid from Neu-Ulm, who is also being monitored separately by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Schmid is the state chairman of the AfD youth organization Junge Alternative (JA), and is said to have a certain affinity with the right-wing extremist Identitarian Movement.
:“Generation Greta”? That was once
For the first time, minors were allowed to take part in a major election in Bavaria. The fact that many voted for the AfD is causing alarm. Experts criticize the fact that young people’s issues have been neglected – once again.
The observations made so far have made it clear “that extremist forces are exerting considerable influence on the party,” said a constitutional protection officer in court. The Greens in the state parliament are demanding that the AfD be allowed to Bavaria is to be classified as “certainly right-wing extremist”. “The AfD staff in Bavaria have long shown their true face without any shame,” said parliamentary group leader Katharina Schulze. Networking meetings with right-wing extremists will continue. “The AfD is a threat to our democracy and examining an AfD ban is essential,” she stressed.
AfD lawyer Conrad stressed that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is using incorrect terminology to put the AfD in a false light and prevent it from exercising its rights as part of the opposition. Right-wing radical behavior is indeed covered by the constitution, but right-wing extremism is outside the constitution. In addition, parts of the AfD are labeled “anti-constitutional.” This assumes unconstitutional behavior without calling it that. However, only the Federal Constitutional Court can determine unconstitutionality.
Simply publishing the fact that someone is being observed could lead to fewer voters, which would also have financial implications for the party. The question of whether the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution could monitor the AfD as a whole party and thus beyond the state’s borders remained controversial on the first day of the hearing. The AfD assumes that this is not legal.