A legal expert has assessed the recent report by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Verfassungsschutz, classifying the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as a confirmed extremist organization, concluding it provides a solid foundation for a potential ban.
Markus Ogorek, a professor of public law and administrative science at the University of Cologne, argues the agency’s findings are highly relevant to any future legal proceedings aiming to prohibit the party. His legal analysis, reported by “Der Spiegel” contradicts earlier statements made by Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, who suggested the report was insufficient to support a ban.
Ogorek’s assessment indicates that the legal standards for classifying a party as extremist and the requirements for initiating a formal ban are largely comparable. He further contends that much of the evidence compiled in the Verfassungsschutz report could be successfully utilized to demonstrate constitutional violations in a ban proceeding.
The professor examined 829 statements made by AfD officials identified by the agency as potentially violating the guarantee of human dignity, applying the stricter standards required for a ban. He found 574 of these statements to be “potentially or possibly relevant.
Ogorek is urging Germany’s established political parties to begin preparing a formal application for a ban, but recommends they await the outcome of the AfD’s legal challenge to the Verfassungsschutz’s classification. A favorable ruling by the Münster Higher Administrative Court, he believes, would strengthen the case for utilizing the agency’s evidence in a ban proceeding.
The legal scholar argues that delaying action until the court’s decision is reached would be a failure to meet the constitutional responsibility placed on parliament and the federal government to protect the free democratic basic order through the possibility of a ban.
