Germany / Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) / M 22 E 17.1861 ECLI:DE:VGMUENC:2017:0727.M22E17.1861.0A

Country

Germany

Title

Germany / Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) / M 22 E 17.1861 ECLI:DE:VGMUENC:2017:0727.M22E17.1861.0A

View full Case

Year

2017

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München)

Key facts of the case

The applicant, leader of the political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Bavaria, wanted to stop the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz) to surveil him and to talk publicly about this surveillance. Previously, he had publicly expressed his sympathy for the Identitarian Movement (IB), a far-right political movement, with the following comment: "Likewise, I do not succeed (even after several observations) in reading something negative out of the IB's motto: "Homeland, Freedom, Tradition – Stop multiculturalism”. Personally, I prefer that Christian crosses continue to stand on the summits of the Bavarian mountains rather than that the Islamic crescent moon is enthroned there.” This had triggered the observation of the applicant by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the regional branch of the domestic intelligence service.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution was allowed to continue to surveil the applicant by using open sources but was not allowed to name him publicly because this would result in stigmatisation. There are actual indications that the Identitarian Movement is suspicious of anti-constitutional efforts.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

Balancing the public interest of surveillance with the applicant's fundamental rights (right ro privacy and freedom of expression).

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The applicant was only partially successful. His surveillance was considered legitimate. However, the court acknowledged that the authorities should refrain from mentioning his name or quoting him in public in connection with this surveillance.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Mit den in seiner Funktion als ... Landesvorsitzender der ... getätigten Äußerungen hat der Antragsteller die IBD auch nachdrücklich unterstützt und damit tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte für verfassungsfeindliche Bestrebungen begründet."

"With the statements made in his function as chairman of the …, the applicant has also emphatically supported the IBD and thus established actual indications of anti-constitutional efforts."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.