The case was the first of its kind in Germany's highest court. The possibility of excluding anti-constitutional parties from public funding was introduced in 2017, after the NPD ban failed for a second time. In 2019, the Bundestag, the Bundesrat and the federal government submitted a corresponding request in Karlsruhe.
The Basic Law states: Parties “which, based on their objectives or the behavior of their supporters, aim to undermine or eliminate the free democratic basic order or endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany” are excluded from state funding.
Pfeifer (ORF) to fund NPD
ORF correspondent Andreas Pfeifer talks about the cancellation of state funding for the right-wing extremist NPD.
The renaming did not bring any reorientation
The German Constitutional Court must decide this issue. This has now defined the requirements in more detail. The expression “aiming at this” requires “qualified and planned action”, he explained. In the case of the Die Heimat party, its organizational structure, regular participation in elections and other activities, as well as national and international networking demonstrate that its objective is to eliminate the basic free democratic order.
Unlike banning a party, it is not necessary that the party in question can potentially achieve its anti-constitutional objectives. The requirements for exclusion from state party financing are met by Die Heimat, as the court's vice-president Doris König explained. The party is still anti-constitutional. The renaming did not result in the repositioning of the company in terms of content.
Portal/Fabian Bimmer The German National Democratic Party (NPD) has now renamed itself Die Heimat
Possible consequences with high obstacles
It is likely that the extent to which the Supreme Court's decision could affect the AfD will now be discussed. Its importance is much greater than that of the NPD ever was. It would also involve significantly more money. While the NPD last received state subsidies in 2020, around 370,600 euros, the AfD, for example, received almost ten and a half million euros in 2022. In recent years, Die Heimat has stopped receiving public funding due to lack of success electoral.
Some politicians and constitutional law experts argue that rather than banning the AfD, we should seek to exclude it from state funding. But this does not mean that public funding can simply be cut. In fact, this would hardly be easier than banning the party altogether. The requirements for the exclusion of party financing “are no less demanding than the requirements for the ban”, former constitutional judge Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff told the newspapers of the Funke communication group.
In order for the Constitutional Court to consider cutting public funds to the AfD, the Bundestag, the Bundesrat or the Federal Government would have to submit a corresponding request. The process would likely take years.
Portal/Annegret Hilse More than 900,000 people recently participated in demonstrations against right-wing extremism in German cities
Scholz: Don't give the enemies of freedom too much space
Immediately after the verdict was announced, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) made a reference to the AfD, without mentioning it by name, referring to the weekend's mass demonstrations against the party and declaring: “This decision comes at a time that shows one more thing: right-wing extremism is the biggest extremist threat to our democracy.”
The fact that right-wing extremist networks want to expel people en masse from Germany because of their ethnic origin “is an attack on the foundations of our society,” said Faeser. She was referring to reports about a meeting of right-wing extremists – including some AfD politicians – in Potsdam in November, at which plans for mass expulsions and deportations of people of foreign origin were discussed.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) also welcomed the Karlsruhe decision and announced that he would examine possible effects in other cases. The court's ruling confirms that “the enemies of freedom cannot be given too much space,” Scholz said. We will now look closely at “what this tells us in other contexts that may interest us”.
Portal/Liesa Johannssen Scholz and Faeser hope the verdict will have an impact on other cases
“Project” or “non-transferable” judgment?
Other forces in the “traffic light coalition” expressed themselves more cautiously. FDP leader Christian Lindner urged caution when asked whether AfD party funding should also be cut. “The impression should not arise that parties in the democratic center want to ward off unpleasant competition by resorting to party law,” Lindner said.
The head of the Green parliamentary group, Britta Haßelmann, also initially sees no consequences for the AfD in the Karlsruhe decision. Her group will “look very, very carefully at the conclusions that can be drawn from this,” Haßelmann said. “But first of all, the verdict is not easily transferable.”
No state money for the enemies of the constitution! The ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on the exclusion of #NPD of #Party financing is correct and innovative. Radical groups are not allowed to receive state funding for advertising and propaganda. This could also…
-Markus Söder (@Markus_Soeder) January 23, 2024
CSU head Markus Söder evaluates the decision differently; on X (Twitter) he wrote about a “plan for the AfD”. In the current debate on a possible ban on the AfD, Söder had already raised the option of a financing exclusion procedure. From the perspective of the former NPD, the decision “banned unwanted competition for this financing”. It was said that an example was set against a “party loyal to the people”. “If it has now reached Die Heimat, the focus is now, as expected, on the AfD.”