Once again, the AfD failed in the state parliament with a constitutional complaint. The Bavarian Constitutional Court rejected an application by the parliamentary group that aimed to classify a statement made by the President of the Landtag Ilse Aigner (CSU) at a panel discussion as unconstitutional. “The request for a declaratory judgment is unfounded, since the objectionable statement does not unconstitutionally interfere with the applicant’s group rights,” said the court in Munich on Friday.
The AfD group had accused Aigner of violating the neutrality requirement and demanded a revocation. The reason for the legal dispute were statements made by Aigner at a panel discussion “Long Night of Democracy” organized by the Bavarian Value Alliance in early October in Munich. The state parliament is a partner of the value alliance, Aigner and the mayor of Munich Dieter Reiter (SPD) were patrons of the evening.
From the point of view of the AfD, Aigner violated the neutrality obligation imposed on her as head of parliament with words about the party’s appearance in the state parliament. Specifically, Aigner had said that the AfD was “consistently provocative and distancing themselves from the ‘old parties’, as the AfD calls the other factions”. As an example, Aigner also cited an incident at the time in which an AfD MP had stepped up to the lectern in the plenum with a gas mask during the Corona crisis. The state parliament published a report on the event on its website.
In December 2020, the court had already ruled against the AfD’s request in the case. The AfD’s request for a declaratory judgment is admissible, “but unfounded,” the court said. The statement by the President of the State Parliament infringes the scope of protection of the free mandate and the guaranteed rights of the opposition. “But the intervention is justified by the constitutional tasks of the respondent.”
In addition, Aigner’s appearance at the panel discussion is part of her public relations work as President of the Parliament. As with the decision in December 2020, the court also emphasized that Aigner “reported truthfully and appropriately on this actual event”. In general, Aigner’s “other choice of words” is constitutionally unobjectionable.