Kenneth Glad
A ruling in Cologne has reshaped a sensitive legal dispute between Germany’s domestic intelligence service and one of the country’s most polarizing political forces.The decision narrows how authorities may publicly characterize the Alternative für Deutschland, at least for now.
Germany’s constitutional system makes it deliberately difficult to sideline political parties, a safeguard rooted in the country’s experience under Nazi rule. A formal designation of “proven extremist” carries weight: it can justify expanded surveillance and would strengthen any future attempt to seek a party ban.
According to Danish public broadcaster DR, the Cologne administrative court ruled that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution may not currently classify AfD as “proven extremist” nationwide.
AfD had previously been treated as a “suspected extremist” case, a lower threshold that allows monitoring. The stricter label, introduced in May 2025 after years of observation, was challenged by the party in court.
Co-leader Alice Weidel welcomed the judgment, writing on X: “A great victory not only for AfD, but for democracy and the rule of law.”
Click to display external content from t.co,
- You can always enable and disable third-party content.
You agree to display external third-party content. Personal data may be sent to the provider of the content and other third-party services.
Read more about in our Privacy statement
What Judges Examined
The court did not dispute that some AfD positions raise constitutional concerns. Der Spiegel, which reviewed the written ruling, reported that judges pointed to statements and proposals they said conflict with protections for “human dignity.”
These included calls to ban headscarves in public institutions, prohibit minarets and Muslim calls to prayer, and remarks claiming knife attacks and gang rapes are phenomena “known only from Muslim cultures.”
But the legal question was narrower. To uphold the “proven extremist” label, the agency had to demonstrate that the party as a whole, across all state branches, actively pursues aims incompatible with Germany’s democratic order.
On that point, the judges found the evidence presented insufficient. They were also not persuaded that AfD’s use of the controversial term “remigration” had been conclusively shown to mean mass deportations, including of German citizens with migrant backgrounds.
Appeal and Uncertainty
The case now heads to a higher administrative court in Münster. Until then, the intelligence service is barred from using the contested classification.
DR reported that the Cologne judges relied on material available in the public record. German media have furthermore suggested additional intelligence, possibly gathered through surveillance, could surface later in the proceedings.
The outcome could matter beyond rhetoric. Germany’s Constitutional Court rejected banning the far-right NPD in 2017, arguing that although the party held extremist views, it lacked the capacity to undermine democracy. Whether AfD meets a different threshold remains an open legal question.
A final decision may take many months, leaving the issue unresolved as Germany moves through a packed state election calendar, including key votes in eastern regions where AfD has polled strongly.
Sources: DR; Der Spiegel
