The German Federal Constitutional Court has rejected a constitutional complaint filed by two Yemeni nationals challenging the use of the Ramstein Air Base by the United States for drone operations in Yemen. The court’s decision, delivered Tuesday, found that there was no demonstrable risk of a systematic violation of international law.
The complainants had argued that the Federal Republic of Germany had failed in its duty of protection by not preventing the U.S. from utilizing the Ramstein Air Base for drone operations in Yemen. The court in Karlsruhe acknowledged that Germany bears a general responsibility to protect fundamental human rights and core principles of humanitarian international law, even in cases involving foreign affairs. This responsibility can, under certain conditions, solidify into a specific constitutional duty of protection.
However, the court stated that to trigger such a duty, a sufficient connection to the authority of the Federal Republic and a serious risk of a systematic violation of international law must be present. According to these criteria, the constitutional complaint was deemed unfounded. The court explicitly stated that whether Germany holds a constitutional responsibility regarding the U.S. drone operations remained an open question, given the findings of the specialized courts that indicated no serious risk of a systematic violation of applicable international law.
The complainants, whose close relatives were killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in 2012, had previously pursued legal action in lower courts, including the administrative court and the higher administrative court. While the higher administrative court instructed the Federal Republic to ensure the use of Ramstein Air Base complied with international law, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed an appeal against the initial court’s ruling. The constitutional complaint against these rulings denying legal redress was ultimately unsuccessful (judgment of July 15, 2025 – 2 BvR 508/21).
