NPD ban proceedings (2013-2017)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the perpetrators of the violent acts and murders of the right-wing extremist terror cell National Socialist Underground (NSU) became known, efforts were made in 2012 to initiate a second NPD ban proceedings after the first ban proceedings had been discontinued in 2003 due to procedural errors. The aim of the applicants was to have the unconstitutionality of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) determined by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) and thus to ban this party.

According to Art. 21 of the Basic Law , it is up to the Federal Constitutional Court alone to decide on the constitutionality of a party ; accordingly, an unconstitutional party in Germany can only be banned by the federal constitutional court .

In December 2012, the German states decided to submit an application to ban the NPD and, in case of doubt, to submit it without the support of the Bundestag and the federal government. The federal government did not participate in the application for a ban that was submitted the following year . In January 2017 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the application for a ban. Although the judges saw it as proven that the party had an anti-constitutional attitude, it did not have the "potential" to eradicate democracy in Germany.

prehistory

Applications for an NPD ban proceedings at the beginning of the 2000s were submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) by the Federal Government under Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder , largely led by Interior Minister Otto Schily , as well as by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat . However, the proceedings were discontinued by the Federal Constitutional Court on March 18, 2003 for procedural reasons, because informers from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution were also active in the party's management level. The question of whether the NPD is an unconstitutional party was not examined.

As a result, there were repeated attempts for a new procedure. Due to the offensive and combative behavior of the NPD, the submission of a new application for a ban to the Federal Constitutional Court continued to be discussed. The hurdles that the Federal Constitutional Court put in place in 2003 for a new prohibition procedure are seen as problematic, namely not to use informants in the management level of the NPD immediately before and during the procedure.

2008

Due to a knife attack on the Passau police chief Alois Mannichl on December 13, 2008, there was renewed debate about a possible NPD ban proceedings. The debate was opened by a corresponding statement by the CSU chairman Horst Seehofer . Because of the questionable chances of success, the then FDP chairman Guido Westerwelle , the general secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany , Stephan Kramer , and the Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann expressed skepticism about a renewed ban procedure.

2009

In May 2009, interior ministers and interior senators from some federal states presented documentation that was created without the intervention of informers . This documentation should prepare a new lawsuit for unconstitutionality and prohibition of the party.

“The opposition of the NPD and its supporters to the essential constitutional principles is not just part of a theoretically abstract dispute, but is expressed in the active fight against the constitutional order, it says in the current documentation. The NPD pursues its goals in a way that goes far beyond its original role as an electoral party in a democratic representative system. It is not about reforms that are common and necessary for political life, but systematically and continuously pursues the elimination of the free democratic basic order. This particularly applies to their relationship to violence. "

- Patrick Gensing : Federal states present documentation: "The NPD is actively fighting the constitutional order"

In September 2009 the Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann announced a renewed ban procedure in cooperation with the Prime Ministers of the SPD- governed federal states and contrary to the opinion of Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble . He commented on his plan with the words: "Bavaria does not want to watch the activities of the NPD until these constitutional enemies have established themselves in the republic."

2011

After the uncovering of connections between the former deputy chairman of the Thuringian NPD Ralf Wohlleben and the terrorist group National Socialist Underground (NSU) in November 2011, there were renewed calls for an NPD ban. Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (Federal Minister of Justice in the Merkel II cabinet and from 1992 to 1996) was skeptical. Her main concern is to reform the security authorities towards greater efficiency. On December 9, 2011, the Conference of Interior Ministers (IMK) in Wiesbaden decided unanimously to examine the chances of a renewed ban proceedings.

2012

In February 2012, Der Spiegel reported on the NPD. The authors stated:

“Inside views from the party today give the image of a troop that

  • incites against foreigners and Jews;
  • enthuses about Adolf Hitler and the "Third Reich";
  • flirted right up to the federal executive board with changing the country with violence if necessary;
  • use the work in parliament as an opportunity to fight the state;
  • their worldview concealed with the image of a caretaker party and thus penetrated deeply into the bourgeoisie in the east.

In the end there is one goal for the NPD: to overcome the system, democracy, pluralism. "

This suggests that the NPD could actually be banned. Another question is whether you should really do it.

The fact that the interior ministers of the CDU and CSU-governed federal states decided in a telephone conference in March 2012 to withdraw the informants from the top of the NPD was taken as an indication of a renewed ban procedure. Some politicians of the CDU and CSU expressed concerns as to whether a prohibition procedure would be proportionate enough to have any chance of success. The NPD hardly plays a role nationwide; a prohibition procedure could fail due to a lack of relevance.

In November 2012, Franz-Wilhelm Dollinger, Vice President of the Karlsruhe Social Court , presented a comprehensive report. Uwe Schünemann (CDU), then Lower Saxony's interior minister in the McAllister cabinet (he had commissioned the report two months earlier) then changed his mind: from now on he supported an attempt to ban the NPD.

At a meeting in Rostock-Warnemünde on December 5, 2012, the interior ministers of the federal states voted unanimously in favor of a new ban procedure. One day later, the Prime Minister's Conference also unanimously followed the vote of the Interior Ministers. As a result, the Federal Council decided on December 14, 2012 with a large majority (only the State of Hesse abstained) to apply again to the Federal Constitutional Court for a ban on the NPD.

The prohibition proceedings are also related to the investigation of the murders by the National Socialist Underground (NSU). Links between the NSU and the NPD were discussed in public and seen in many ways as an occasion to start a new NPD ban proceedings.

Prohibition Procedure

2013

In March 2013, the federal government announced that it would not submit its own application for a ban, as it considered it "not necessary". A separate motion submitted to the vote on the initiative of the SPD parliamentary group did not find a majority in the Bundestag on April 25, 2013 - 211 MPs voted in favor, 326 against the motion, with 40 abstentions.

In the course of the public debate about a ban on the NPD, the latter brought an organ charge before the Federal Constitutional Court, in which it requested "to determine that the applicant is not unconstitutional within the meaning of Article 21 (2) of the Basic Law" . This and other petitions by the NPD on the matter were rejected in the decision of the 2nd Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of February 20, 2013 (2 BvE 11/12).

The starting point of the argumentation of the Federal Constitutional Court was its view that political parties are "free to exercise their rights" as long as the Federal Constitutional Court has not determined that they are unconstitutional and therefore "may not be hindered by administrative intervention on the basis of the allegation of their unconstitutionality" .

Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that political parties "in accordance with their task of participating in the formation of the political will of the people (Art. 21.1 sentence 1 GG), the public debate" and: "Part of the public debate are statements to assess a political party as unconstitutional, provided they comply with the law. Such statements can and must be countered by the party concerned by means of an opinion struggle. "

In March 2013, the CSU , SPD , Greens and Left advocated a ban on the NPD. The FDP is against a ban. The CDU is questioning its own application for a ban. At the same time, she hopes that the federal states' application will be successful.

On December 3, 2013, the Federal Council submitted an application to the Federal Constitutional Court to ban the NPD under Article 21 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany . The application is based on an expert opinion from the Munich Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ). The scholars see the political program of the NPD in this as largely identical to the ideology of the NSDAP under Adolf Hitler. An " acute threat to the constitution", which also enabled the party to be banned, was a controversial argument in advance, as the political significance of the NPD could be assessed as too low in a subsequent review by the European Court of Human Rights on Article 11 of the Human Rights Convention. The two professors for public law at the Humboldt University in Berlin, Christoph Möllers and Christian Waldhoff, are authorized by the Federal Council .

The former President of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2002 to 2010, Hans-Jürgen Papier , expressed skepticism about the chances of success of the new NPD ban proceedings. For him, it is not enough for a ban if a party represents and disseminates unconstitutional ideas. In addition, there would have to be an aggressive-combative, active-combative attitude towards the basic values ​​and the core of the constitutional order .

On December 4, 2013, the NPD responded to the renewed ban procedure in a press conference; its chairman at the time, Holger Apfel, described it as a “scandal” and “absurd antics”.

2014

Michael Gerhardt , the constitutional judge responsible for the NPD ban proceedings since December 2013 as rapporteur for the preparation and the draft decisions, applied for early retirement in 2014 after four months “for personal reasons”.

2015

On March 19, 2015, the Federal Constitutional Court asked the Federal Council on several points to provide more evidence that V-persons in the NPD had been "switched off". On May 15, 2015, the documents were handed over to the Constitutional Court. On December 2, the Federal Constitutional Court decided to open the ban proceedings against the NPD.

2016

For the oral hearing, three dates were initially set from March 1 to March 3, 2016. On March 1, before the start of the oral hearing, the representative of the NPD, Peter Richter , submitted several requests for bias . They were directed against Peter M. Huber and Peter Müller , who, before they became constitutional judges, were state ministers or prime ministers of a federal state and who had expressed themselves critical of the NPD in these functions. Another bias motion was directed against the entire Senate, as its judges were still elected solely by the election committee and not by the entire Bundestag. The court denied all requests for bias. "Furthermore, Peter Richter complained that the judge Doris König and the judge Ulrich Maidowski did not join the Second Senate until the ban had already been applied for." In terms of content, the question of switching off the underwriters was dealt with on the first day of the hearing.

The matter was discussed on the second and third days. Numerous critical questions from the bench made it clear that there are massive doubts as to whether a ban on the generally weak and politically isolated NPD is proportionate. On the other hand, the court seems to regard the NPD's xenophobic goals (“return of foreigners”) as unconstitutional. The court will have to clarify whether an unconstitutional objective alone is sufficient for a ban in a party that does not pose a serious threat to the “free democratic basic order”. It is expected that it will specify and update its prohibition standards of the fifties ( SRP and KPD prohibition ruling ) - not least with a view to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Shortly before the end of a deadline that the Federal Constitutional Court had granted the NPD to respond to a new statement by the Federal Council, the NPD took legal action against the expert Steffen Kailitz . This must be forbidden to claim that the party is planning “racially motivated state crimes”.

On November 3, the Federal Constitutional Court announced that the verdict would be pronounced on January 17, 2017. Even before the verdict was pronounced, circles of the Federal Council and the federal government involved in the prohibition procedure speculated that the application for a ban might fail. The NPD is “clearly unconstitutional in ideological terms”, but politically too insignificant to be able to ban it.

2017

This legal opinion was confirmed by the judgment on January 17, 2017. From the point of view of the court, however, a ban was out of the question, so the ban application was rejected. The court judged the NPD to be unconstitutional in terms of content, but in view of its insignificance in the political process, the court did not justify a ban on the party. It also denied that there was sufficient evidence for the party's creation of an atmosphere of fear with which it was able to perceptibly impair the freedom of political decision-making. “ Nationally liberated zones ” would not exist and the tiny town of Jamel (Gägelow) was “a non-transferable special case.” Immediately after the verdict began, false reports were circulating in numerous large media that the NPD had been banned because the court president Andreas Vosskuhle read out the application for a ban at the beginning of the meeting, which many journalists mistakenly believed to be the verdict.

The incompatibility of the political concept of the NPD with the FDGO was justified mainly with their racially defined popular term, according to which non-whites cannot become Germans , which, according to the court, resulted in the "racist exclusion of all ethnically non-Germans". Your entire political concept based on it therefore shows "elements of the affinity with historical National Socialism ". The court countered the objection of the party that its concept of the people was in conformity with the Basic Law, since it was only calling for a return to the Reich and Citizenship Act , which was in effect until 1999 , by the court saying that its racial definition of the term went far beyond its provisions. In addition, the court also evaluated, among other things, their demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty and the implementation of life imprisonment , a publicly accessible sex offender file , the chemical castration of pedophiles and the payment of social benefits only to Germans as evidence of the hostility to the constitution the party. Furthermore, the court found that the party's hostility to the constitution also came into play because it discriminated against Muslims living in Germany according to Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law, cultivated anti-Jewish images of the enemy and opposed the public display of homosexuality.

The determination of the anti-constitutionality causes a change of the legal position of the NPD, for example a restriction of the neutrality requirement of public officials towards it. In June 2017, the Bundestag changed the provisions governing state party funding so that parties that, like the NPD, are classified as unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court are excluded from it. This also means that donations to these parties are no longer tax-deductible. The background to this was a note that the court had incorporated into the ruling on the prohibition procedure, according to which the legislature could pass a law at any time that would withdraw party funding from a party classified as anti-constitutional.

literature

  • Robert Ackermann: Why the NPD cannot be successful - organization, program and communication of a right-wing extremist party. Opladen 2012, ISBN 978-3-86388-012-5 .
  • Eckhard Jesse : The discussion about a new NPD ban procedure - ban: no requirement, requirement: no ban . In: Zeitschrift für Politik 59 (2012) 3, pp. 296–313. * Martin Möllers, Robert Chr. Van Ooyen (Ed.): Party prohibition proceedings . 3rd edition, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-86676-137-7 .
  • Claus Leggewie , Horst Meier (Ed.): Ban on the NPD or Live with Right-Wing Radicals? The positions. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt 2002, ISBN 978-3-518-12260-0 .
  • Horst Meier: Ban on the NPD - a German state theater in two acts. Analyzes and criticism 2001-2014. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2015.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Right-wing extremism: Merkel hesitates in the NPD ban proceedings. In: Spiegel Online . December 6, 2012, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  2. ↑ Court rejects ban: NPD unconstitutional, but allowed at tagesschau.de, January 17, 2016 (accessed on January 17, 2016).
  3. ↑ a b (ast): Mannichl case: New debate on NPD ban. In: Focus Online. December 15, 2008, accessed December 5, 2012 .
  4. ↑ (tsv): Laborious search for strategies against neo-Nazis. In: Welt Online. December 17, 2008, accessed December 5, 2012 .
  5. ↑ On the criticism of recent requests for a ban, cf. Horst Meier: Endless debate on the NPD ban. In: Sheets for German and International Politics, Issue 10/2009.
  6. ↑ Patrick Gensing: “The NPD is actively fighting the constitutional order” , May 4, 2009, first published on tagesschau.de, here on addn.me.
  7. ↑ (hen): Bavaria wants to ban the NPD. In: Spiegel Online. September 10, 2009, accessed December 5, 2012 .
  8. ^ Philipp Wittrock: Bavaria provokes CDU protest. In: Spiegel Online. September 10, 2009, accessed December 5, 2012 .
  9. ↑ (gxs): Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP) warns of NPD ban proceedings. In: Focus Online. November 18, 2011, accessed December 5, 2012 .
  10. ↑ a b spiegel.de: An unbearable party
  11. ↑ Interior ministers withdraw V people ( memento from March 16, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) on Tagesschau.de, accessed on March 22, 2012.
  12. ↑ The political long-running ban on the NPD ( memento of March 23, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) on Tagesschau.de (March 22, 2012).
  13. ↑ Interior ministers try a new NPD ban. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung Online . December 5, 2012, accessed December 5, 2012 .
  14. ^ Right-wing extremism: Federal Council resolves NPD ban application. In: Spiegel Online. December 14, 2012, accessed December 14, 2012 .
  15. ^ Cabinet says no to its own application for a ban on the NPD ( memento from March 23, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) at tagesschau.de, March 20, 2013 (accessed on April 26, 2013).
  16. ↑ Bundestag does not submit an NPD ban application ( memento of April 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) at tagesschau.de, April 25, 2013 (accessed on April 26, 2013).
  17. ↑ NPD has their loyalty to the constitution checked by a court. In: Spiegel Online. November 13, 2012, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  18. ↑ BVerfG, 2 BvE 11/12 of February 20, 2013, paragraph no. (1 - 31)
  19. ↑ Archived copy ( Memento from December 12, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  20. ↑ SPD fails in the Bundestag with NPD ban application. SPD parliamentary group , April 25, 2013, accessed on December 20, 2013 .
  21. ↑ Greens: NPD ban as a signal to the victims. In: Merkur Online . November 27, 2011, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  22. ↑ Gesine Lötzsch : NPD ban urgently required. In: Website of Die Linke . December 1, 2011, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  23. ↑ Fight against NPD: FDP also does not want a ban application from the Bundestag. In: Spiegel Online. March 20, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  24. ↑ CDU vice questions NPD ban application. In: The world. March 20, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  25. ↑ [1]
  26. ^ NPD ban application: Federal Council wants to ban NPD. In: Zeit Online . December 3, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  27. ^ NPD application for a ban in Karlsruhe: states dare to make a second attempt. December 3, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  28. ↑ Christina Hebel and Veit Medick: Second attempt at prohibition in Karlsruhe: Now the NPD must tremble. In: Spiegel Online. December 3, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  29. ^ Tilman Steffen: Prohibition: Not enough evidence against the NPD. In: Zeit Online. May 23, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  30. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: Federal Council submits NPD ban application. In: Zeit Online. December 3, 2013, accessed December 20, 2013 .
  31. ↑ Mr. Apple is fed up. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. December 4, 2013, accessed December 4, 2013 .
  32. ↑ Constitutional judge for the NPD proceedings applies for retirement. In: Spiegel Online. May 4, 2014, accessed May 5, 2014 .
  33. ↑ Stefan Geiger : Change in Karlsruhe: A constitutional judge wants to go. In: Stuttgarter Zeitung . May 5, 2014, accessed May 6, 2014 .
  34. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: Order of March 19, 2015 - 2 BvB 1/13. March 19, 2015, accessed March 23, 2015 .
  35. ↑ NPD proceedings: Karlsruhe demands more evidence for the shutdown of informants. Spiegel Online , March 23, 2015, accessed March 23, 2015 .
  36. ↑ https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/npd-verfahren-105.html
  37. ↑ Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court , accessed on December 7, 2015.
  38. ↑ Press release of the Federal Constitutional Court of December 7, 2015, accessed on March 1, 2016.
  39. ↑ a b Christina Hebel and Dietmar Hipp : NPD prohibition procedure: Right Störfeuer. Der Spiegel , March 1, 2016, accessed on March 1, 2016 .
  40. ^ A b Tilman Steffen : V-Mann question shapes the first day of negotiations. Die Zeit , March 1, 2016, accessed on March 2, 2016 .
  41. ↑ See the detailed trial report by Claus Leggewie / Johannes Lichdi / Horst Meier, "What should we do with it?" The renewed ban proceedings against the NPD. The process (part 2). In: Law and Politics , Issue 2/2016, pp. 86–97.
  42. ↑ Cf. on this and other aspects Horst Meier, Verbot der NPD - a German state theater in two acts. Analyzes and criticism 2001–2014. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2015.
  43. ↑ NPD takes legal action against prohibition experts , terminus on the right , May 12, 2016.
  44. ↑ Press release of the Federal Constitutional Court of November 3, 2016, accessed on November 4, 2016.
  45. ↑ NPD ban proceedings: federal states prepare for defeat. In: Spiegel Online. January 2, 2017, accessed June 9, 2018 .
  46. ↑ https://www.fr.de/politik/unbedeutend-verbot-11083034.html
  47. ↑ mh: NPD ban: federal states expect failure - party probably "too insignificant". In: Focus Online . January 2, 2017, accessed October 14, 2018 .
  48. ^ Karlsruhe: Is the NPD too insignificant for a ban? - Video. In: welt.de . January 2, 2017, accessed October 7, 2018 .
  49. ↑ Archived copy ( Memento from January 2, 2017 in the Internet Archive )
  50. ^ Decision in Karlsruhe: Federal Constitutional Court does not prohibit NPD. In: Spiegel Online . January 17, 2017, accessed June 9, 2018 .
  51. ↑ a b c d e f g Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of January 17, 2017
  52. ^ False reports on the NPD ban , FAZ , January 17, 2017.
  53. ↑ Lukas C. Gundling: The narrow framework of the neutrality requirement , in: Zeitschrift für Landesverfassungsrecht und Landesverwaltungsrecht , 1/2017, p. 23.
  54. ^ A b c Tilman Steffen: Bundestag adopts "Lex NPD" , Zeit Online , June 22, 2017.