Magnificent chandeliers, velvet-covered chairs, gold-rimmed doors: the Crystal Hall in Cologne's exhibition center is an unusual place for administrative court proceedings.

The procedure itself is no less unusual.

The 13th Chamber of the Cologne Administrative Court has to decide whether the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is allowed to monitor the AfD and its sub-organizations.

A politically explosive question, but one which the judiciary must not resolve politically.

The court must clarify when the well-fortified democracy can take action against parties and when the dispute must be left to the battle of opinions.

Helen Bubrowski

Political correspondent in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

In January 2019, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution announced that it was taking a look at the AfD.

Since then the conflict has smoldered.

The material that is being argued about here fills more than 130 files, some of which are double-sided.

They are in multiple versions in the converted ballroom.

The matter is "extremely complex," said presiding judge Michael Huschens in the morning at the beginning of the hearing.

The very condensed presentation of the dispute by the court alone takes more than half an hour.

The presiding judge confidently leads through this long day.

In a friendly but firm tone, he warns both sides not to get lost in the multitude of controversial statements.

Yes, the four examples that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution presented on the AfD’s ethnic concept were enough for him, the rest is in the files “that we have all read”.

No, if you look at every statement in context, you'll still be sitting here in three weeks.

The court must clarify what the terms actually mean

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the AfD and the youth organization Junge Alternative (JA) as a suspected case and the sub-organization "Flugel", which has formally dissolved, as an extremist-secured endeavor;

that is one step higher in the scale of the protection of the constitution.

In both cases, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution may use intelligence resources.

In order to find out whether the authority was allowed to make these classifications, the court first has to clarify what the terms actually mean.

"In the text of the law you will find very few criteria," says the presiding judge.

There is only talk of “actual indications” of an extremist effort.

It has to be more than hypotheses and conjectures.

Huschens cites the legal definition: "to a certain extent condensed circumstances as factual basis".

"Whatever that may mean," he adds and has his own vivid description ready: The suspected case is like a risk investigation measure: "If something smells like oil, you can carry out test drilling." When asked what a secured extremist effort is , it is even more difficult.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution accuses the AfD of representing an ethnic concept that the authority regards as incompatible with human dignity.

The authority bears the burden of proof in the proceedings.

It is therefore up to the representative of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Wolfgang Roth from the Redeker law firm, to cite statements by AfD politicians that support this accusation.