This is a good day for democracy, Thomas Haldenwang is right about that.

The President of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution can see the verdict of the administrative court in Cologne on Tuesday evening as full confirmation of his line towards the AfD.

The verdict is a heavy defeat for the AfD.

The court ruled that there were “actual indications” that the AfD was an extremist party.

Thus, the observation of the party as a suspected case is permissible.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution has thus prevailed, even if the decision to carry out this observation is still missing.

At the beginning of last year, the court ordered the observation to be suspended until a judgment had been reached on the matter.

In view of the federal elections, the court waited until today.

Against the institutions of the constitution

The written justification of the judgment will straighten out some things that the AfD has always deliberately obscured.

An example: their concept of people.

The view is cultivated right up to the top of the party that the people in the Basic Law have always been defined purely ethnically.

The Cologne court is now making it clear that the AfD is at war with the Basic Law.

The AfD, in turn, considers anyone who sees things differently to be an opponent of the constitution.

With all the consequences for looking at institutions: at the protection of the constitution, at constitutional courts, at “old parties”.

With the Cologne verdict, one thing is certain: The AfD is thus placing itself outside the constitution and against its institutions.

A small partial success for the AfD

However, the good day for democracy also has a downside.

The court considers it wrong that the "wing" of the party was described as "securely extremist" by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

The statement that the “wing” has 7,000 members is also inadmissible.

How does that fit with the rest of the judgement?

Basically it is a formality.

The observation of the "wing" by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution had a weakness.

The organization was difficult to narrow down, the number of members and sympathizers could only be estimated.

The group eventually disbanded itself.

The attempt to be on the safe side legally by limiting the observation to a specific group that can be relatively easily classified as extremist thus came to nothing.

The court has now made this clear once again.

Not necessarily in the spirit of the AfD.

Because retrospectively it would have been possible to have the entire party observed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution can live with that.

What does the verdict mean for party members who are in government service?

It should have a deterrent effect.

Because the members, especially the civil servants among them, will have to face the accusation that the claim is false, they belong to a party loyal to the constitution, in AfD jargon: the only party loyal to the constitution.

Whether the judgment will lead to disciplinary proceedings will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

It is not automatic as long as the suspicion against the AfD that justifies the observation has not been proven.

Until then, there will certainly be several more court decisions.

On the way through the instances, the AfD loses credibility from time to time.

Because the reversal has not yet led to a collision between the AfD and the Basic Law.