Democracy
World’s Population
Population
HRF classifies Germany as democratic.
Germany is a federal parliamentary republic in Central Europe. After the fall of the Nazi regime in 1945, Germany was partitioned and underwent a period of Allied occupation. During this time, West Germany established a democratic constitutional order with the 1949 Basic Law, while East Germany, officially called the German Democratic Republic (GDR), developed as a Soviet-aligned socialist state. The country reunified in 1990 following the 1989 peaceful collapse of the GDR and the emblematic Berlin Wall that had previously divided the city between the two states. Reunification effectively extended West Germany’s institutional framework across the entire state. Since that time, Germany has maintained competitive multiparty elections, stable coalition governments, and robust protections for civil liberties and minority rights, while playing a central role in the European Union, which it co-founded.
Starting in the 2010s, the country has faced challenges related to economic uncertainty, migration, and rising popular discontent with the political status quo, which had been historically dominated by the Christian Democrats on the center-right and the Social Democrats on the left. The rise of the nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and a thwarted 2022 coup plot by the Reichsbürger group, which aspired to restore centralized authoritarian rule, have prompted concerns about the resilience of the country’s consolidated democracy. Nonetheless, mainstream parties across the political spectrum have successfully isolated extremist groups, while independent institutions have proved capable and willing to guarantee the constitutional order of the post–Cold War German state.
National elections are largely free and fair. While two main parties have been dominant since Germany reunified in 1990—the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD)—multiple other parties typically hold seats in the lower house of Parliament, the Bundestag. Equitable media representation and sound campaigning regulations contribute to highly competitive elections.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to criticize or challenge the government openly. Germany has one of the most extensive ecosystems of publicly funded and politically independent media outlets, well-regarded for their impartial coverage. While journalists enjoy relative safety, those covering sensitive topics (such as migrant rights) have faced harassment by law enforcement on some occasions. Freedom of assembly is generally upheld, yet some of the federal states, such as Bavaria, have resorted to arbitrary measures, such as “preventive detention,” to obstruct activists or have issued blanket bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, drawing criticism from international watchdogs. Some speech laws introduced in the last decade have also sparked concerns about digital censorship.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. The Federal Constitutional Court has intervened adequately to uphold the freedom of dissent when controversial new laws have threatened to undermine it. The courts also generally hold political elites accountable for abuses of office or criminal speech, eroding fundamental constitutional rights.
In Germany, national elections are largely free and fair. The country has robust campaign regulations, as well as a complex mandate allocation system that allows voters to support a preferred majoritarian candidate and, in a separate “second vote,” an overall party list in each district. At the same time, the overall distribution of parliamentary mandates is proportional, allowing smaller parties that don’t necessarily field successful majoritarian candidates to gain seats.
Reflecting a sound legal framework regulating political campaigns and its effective implementation, the incumbent party does not enjoy unfair campaign advantages vis-à-vis the mainstream opposition. For instance, the Political Parties Act (PPA) guarantees all contenders free airtime on public outlets and opportunities to purchase airtime on private channels at preferential rates, facilitating outreach to voters. Together with campaign donation and spending regulations that further mitigate larger parties’ competitive advantages, these policies have contributed to electoral cycles that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has assessed as “vibrant and competitive.” As a testament to this robust electoral competition, neither of the historically dominant parties—the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU) or the center-left Social Democrats (SPD)—has won a majority in the Bundestag in recent decades, requiring the formation of governing coalitions. The February 2025 elections, which followed the collapse of the center-left SPD–FDP–Greens government in a no-confidence vote in December 2024, brought about a shift to the right and upset the historical preeminence of the Social Democrats. The CDU (together with its Bavarian counterpart, the CSU) won the largest share of the popular vote, 28.5%. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which ran on a pronounced anti-immigration, nationalist platform, surged in popularity, achieving its strongest result to date (20.8%). By contrast, the SPD fell to a historic low of 16.4%, the Greens secured around 12–13%, and the Left Party (Die Linke) hovered near 7%, while the FDP dropped below the 5% threshold and lost all representation. After protracted coalition talks and an initial failed vote, CDU leader Friedrich Merz was elected chancellor in May 2025, ushering in a new center-right government.
The orderly transfer of power was consistent with the long tradition of the CDU and SPD taking turns in office and negotiating majorities with their preferred partners, from the neoliberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) or the Greens/Alliance 90, respectively, or even among themselves. The CDU and SPD governed together, alongside smaller coalition partners, during the first three Merkel cabinets (2005–2017). Following the 2021 parliamentary elections, the SPD, led by Olaf Scholz, formed an unstable partnership with the FDP and the Greens.
Post-reunification, no democratically elected government has been overthrown through a coup d’état. However, in 2022, authorities exposed the most severe threat to Germany’s constitutional order in decades: a planned coup devised by the far-right Reichsbürger (Citizens of the Reich) group. Its members largely do not recognize the contemporary German state as legitimate, with many subscribing to Nazi ideology and envisioning a return to autocratic rule. The group planned to kidnap then–health minister Karl Lauterbach, carry out explosive attacks against landmark government buildings (e.g., the Bundestag), and trigger a nationwide power outage to destabilize the state and create “civil war–like conditions.” Their ultimate goal was to replace Germany’s democratic order with a regime modeled on the country’s 1871 imperial constitution. Multiple suspects were arrested across several federal states, and several group members are currently on trial for high treason. In June of 2025, a court in the western German city of Koblenz sentenced the four conspirators who had plotted to abduct then-Health Minister Karl Lauterbach to prison terms between five years and nine months to eight years.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Germany has an extensive public media ecosystem, numerous independent outlets, and a long record of investigative reporting that the government has not unduly obstructed. Journalists generally operate safely, despite isolated incidents of harassment by law enforcement. Recent laws expanding the scope of state-sanctioned surveillance and tightening online content moderation on social media have raised concerns among domestic and international human rights watchdogs. Freedom of assembly is generally upheld, though some states use “preventive detention” to obstruct activists or impose blanket bans on protest. Nonetheless, these measures do not appear to have created a systemic chilling effect.
The government has not heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor. Though the top five broadcasters control close to 90% of the media (in terms of audience share), the country’s large number of independent outlets (including investigative ones) ensures pluralism and diversity. With as many as 21 public television channels and 80 public radio stations, Germany has one of the most extensive public media ecosystems worldwide. It is funded by mandatory contributions by each household and managed by independent boards elected by diverse stakeholders, ensuring editorial independence and impartiality. Multiple private outlets, such as the authoritative Der Spiegel, have openly criticized political elites or shed light on abuses of office through their investigations without facing obstruction or retaliation by the government.
The government has not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent, dissenting media, and most journalists work in relative safety. Nonetheless, some have experienced harassment or threats by police while covering sensitive topics, such as climate justice or migration. For example, in 2023, officers beat and pepper-sprayed a reporter covering the “occupation” of Lützerath, a village evacuated to make room for a new coal mine, by environmental activists. Evidence suggests that impunity for such police brutality, however limited, is still the norm, with a 2021 study showing that less than 3% of unlawful use-of-force cases against police that year were ultimately prosecuted.
Germany’s legal framework is also largely conducive to the freedom of dissent, and the government has not seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech. Nonetheless, recent laws have raised serious concerns about potential surveillance of journalists and their sources and online censorship. The initial version of the Federal Intelligence Service law (the BND Act), introduced in 2016, allowed the intelligence services to monitor the communications of non–EU journalists and media outlets located outside of Germany legally, with few to no restrictions, so long as the information gathering “served German security interests.” In 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court upheld a constitutional complaint against the BND Act submitted by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The court found that the state’s obligation to respect the freedom of expression and protect the privacy of journalists’ sources extended internationally and ordered the Bundestag to revise the law. While observers welcomed the court’s ruling, many found the subsequent amendments (approved by the Bundestag in 2021) insufficient. For instance, monitoring communications about a journalistic source was still allowed, as was surveilling non–EU citizens (even those with permanent German residence) while abroad. The 2017 Network Enforcement Act and its subsequent amendments, which required social networks to promptly take down content that meets the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code or risk steep fines, also sparked controversy. International observers, such as the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and Human Rights Watch, criticized the act as a “dangerous precedent” insofar as risking censorship and deferring nuanced judgments on the legality of speech to third parties without sufficient legal expertise, among other things. Given the high sanctions for non-compliance and short window for appeal, the law arguably incentivized the “overregulation” (that is, censorship) of legitimate expression. Despite these concerns, there isn’t sufficient evidence that the Network Enforcement Act has substantially altered social networks’ content moderation policies or prompted the massive preemptive removal of content that watchdogs warned about.
As evident from the frequency of peaceful demonstrations touching a range of issues, the government has not seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings. Nonetheless, in some federal states, authorities have resorted to “preventive detention,” a measure that doesn’t require reasonable suspicion, to obstruct protests preemptively. For instance, in 2023, police in Bavaria targeted members of the environmental movement Last Generation (LG) planning large-scale demonstrations against the automobile trade fair in Munich, which they considered an emblem of the fossil fuel industry. Twenty-seven members of the group spent between 24 hours and 30 days (at least one confirmed case) in detention without proof of (intended) wrongdoing, an extreme measure Amnesty International assessed as “a violation of human rights.” In 2023, authorities used excessive force against participants in pro-Palestinian protests, deploying pepper spray and water cannons, and arresting 174 people in a single night in Berlin. In recent years, pro-Palestinian protests have also been banned in Berlin and Frankfurt on arbitrary grounds, with authorities citing the hypothetical threat of antisemitic hate speech.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. On the contrary, the state plays a vital role in fostering a thriving civil society through substantial public funding. Reflecting these favorable conditions, Germany has more than 650,000 active civil society organizations (CSOs), according to some estimates.
In Germany, institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. The judiciary, while not immune to undue political interference, has demonstrated its capacity and willingness to halt overt encroachments on the freedom of dissent, such as by checking editorial interference in publicly owned media. The government frequently holds officials accountable for violating speech and lobbying laws.
The government has not subjected legislative institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. While the executive branch, through the Ministry of Justice, oversees the appointment and professional advancement of magistrates, strictly stipulated qualification criteria and largely meritocratic procedures mitigate the threat of overt political interference. It is worth noting, however, that unlike most EU member states, Germany lacks an independent central judicial oversight body (such as a High Judicial Council), an idiosyncrasy that has drawn some criticism from legal experts.
As illustrated by the Federal Constitutional Court striking down controversial sections of the BND Act, the courts have not frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled, attempts to surveil or retaliate against those who express opposition towards the government’s prominent policies. In another notable case, in 2022, a Bonn labor court ruled that the public broadcaster Deutsche Welle had wrongfully fired Palestinian journalist Maram Salem for supposed antisemitism. The court found that Salem’s criticism of Israel on her social media platforms was a legitimate form of free expression and could not constitute grounds for dismissal. On the other hand, the Federal Constitutional Court and state-level courts (such as the Constitutional Court of Bavaria) have remained steadfast in affirming the constitutionality of “preventive detention” following numerous unsuccessful complaints. The persistence of this arguably extreme measure is all the more jarring, considering that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found, in multiple judgments, that it violated the European Convention of Human Rights.
In recent years, multiple high-ranking politicians have been convicted for violating speech or lobbying laws, indicating judicial and executive institutions do not frequently and unfairly fail to hold government officials accountable. German courts have sanctioned multiple members of the AfD party for using Nazi symbols and slogans in their political campaigns, such as Björn Höcke, who was fined a total of over $30,000 in two separate court rulings in 2024. In the same year, a court ruling upheld on appeal the formal classification of the party itself as “suspected of extremism,” allowing continuous monitoring of its activities by the intelligence service. The judges found credible evidence that various members were promoting unconstitutional forms of discrimination (that would primarily disadvantage citizens with immigrant backgrounds) as a part of their ultranationalist ideology. The ruling follows revelations about AfD members discussing mass deportations at a secret meeting and a series of scandals involving alleged espionage and Kremlin links. According to monitoring reports by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), abuse of office is also prosecuted effectively in Germany. In a landmark case, in January 2025, former members of Parliament (MPs) Axel Fischer and Eduard Lintner were put on trial for accepting bribes from Azerbaijan’s autocratic Aliyev regime to support Azerbaijani interests in the Council of Europe. In July 2025, a Munich court handed Lintner a nine-month suspended sentence (which could still be appealed).
HRF classifies Germany as democratic.
Germany is a federal parliamentary republic in Central Europe. After the fall of the Nazi regime in 1945, Germany was partitioned and underwent a period of Allied occupation. During this time, West Germany established a democratic constitutional order with the 1949 Basic Law, while East Germany, officially called the German Democratic Republic (GDR), developed as a Soviet-aligned socialist state. The country reunified in 1990 following the 1989 peaceful collapse of the GDR and the emblematic Berlin Wall that had previously divided the city between the two states. Reunification effectively extended West Germany’s institutional framework across the entire state. Since that time, Germany has maintained competitive multiparty elections, stable coalition governments, and robust protections for civil liberties and minority rights, while playing a central role in the European Union, which it co-founded.
Starting in the 2010s, the country has faced challenges related to economic uncertainty, migration, and rising popular discontent with the political status quo, which had been historically dominated by the Christian Democrats on the center-right and the Social Democrats on the left. The rise of the nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and a thwarted 2022 coup plot by the Reichsbürger group, which aspired to restore centralized authoritarian rule, have prompted concerns about the resilience of the country’s consolidated democracy. Nonetheless, mainstream parties across the political spectrum have successfully isolated extremist groups, while independent institutions have proved capable and willing to guarantee the constitutional order of the post–Cold War German state.
National elections are largely free and fair. While two main parties have been dominant since Germany reunified in 1990—the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD)—multiple other parties typically hold seats in the lower house of Parliament, the Bundestag. Equitable media representation and sound campaigning regulations contribute to highly competitive elections.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to criticize or challenge the government openly. Germany has one of the most extensive ecosystems of publicly funded and politically independent media outlets, well-regarded for their impartial coverage. While journalists enjoy relative safety, those covering sensitive topics (such as migrant rights) have faced harassment by law enforcement on some occasions. Freedom of assembly is generally upheld, yet some of the federal states, such as Bavaria, have resorted to arbitrary measures, such as “preventive detention,” to obstruct activists or have issued blanket bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, drawing criticism from international watchdogs. Some speech laws introduced in the last decade have also sparked concerns about digital censorship.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. The Federal Constitutional Court has intervened adequately to uphold the freedom of dissent when controversial new laws have threatened to undermine it. The courts also generally hold political elites accountable for abuses of office or criminal speech, eroding fundamental constitutional rights.
In Germany, national elections are largely free and fair. The country has robust campaign regulations, as well as a complex mandate allocation system that allows voters to support a preferred majoritarian candidate and, in a separate “second vote,” an overall party list in each district. At the same time, the overall distribution of parliamentary mandates is proportional, allowing smaller parties that don’t necessarily field successful majoritarian candidates to gain seats.
Reflecting a sound legal framework regulating political campaigns and its effective implementation, the incumbent party does not enjoy unfair campaign advantages vis-à-vis the mainstream opposition. For instance, the Political Parties Act (PPA) guarantees all contenders free airtime on public outlets and opportunities to purchase airtime on private channels at preferential rates, facilitating outreach to voters. Together with campaign donation and spending regulations that further mitigate larger parties’ competitive advantages, these policies have contributed to electoral cycles that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has assessed as “vibrant and competitive.” As a testament to this robust electoral competition, neither of the historically dominant parties—the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU) or the center-left Social Democrats (SPD)—has won a majority in the Bundestag in recent decades, requiring the formation of governing coalitions. The February 2025 elections, which followed the collapse of the center-left SPD–FDP–Greens government in a no-confidence vote in December 2024, brought about a shift to the right and upset the historical preeminence of the Social Democrats. The CDU (together with its Bavarian counterpart, the CSU) won the largest share of the popular vote, 28.5%. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which ran on a pronounced anti-immigration, nationalist platform, surged in popularity, achieving its strongest result to date (20.8%). By contrast, the SPD fell to a historic low of 16.4%, the Greens secured around 12–13%, and the Left Party (Die Linke) hovered near 7%, while the FDP dropped below the 5% threshold and lost all representation. After protracted coalition talks and an initial failed vote, CDU leader Friedrich Merz was elected chancellor in May 2025, ushering in a new center-right government.
The orderly transfer of power was consistent with the long tradition of the CDU and SPD taking turns in office and negotiating majorities with their preferred partners, from the neoliberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) or the Greens/Alliance 90, respectively, or even among themselves. The CDU and SPD governed together, alongside smaller coalition partners, during the first three Merkel cabinets (2005–2017). Following the 2021 parliamentary elections, the SPD, led by Olaf Scholz, formed an unstable partnership with the FDP and the Greens.
Post-reunification, no democratically elected government has been overthrown through a coup d’état. However, in 2022, authorities exposed the most severe threat to Germany’s constitutional order in decades: a planned coup devised by the far-right Reichsbürger (Citizens of the Reich) group. Its members largely do not recognize the contemporary German state as legitimate, with many subscribing to Nazi ideology and envisioning a return to autocratic rule. The group planned to kidnap then–health minister Karl Lauterbach, carry out explosive attacks against landmark government buildings (e.g., the Bundestag), and trigger a nationwide power outage to destabilize the state and create “civil war–like conditions.” Their ultimate goal was to replace Germany’s democratic order with a regime modeled on the country’s 1871 imperial constitution. Multiple suspects were arrested across several federal states, and several group members are currently on trial for high treason. In June of 2025, a court in the western German city of Koblenz sentenced the four conspirators who had plotted to abduct then-Health Minister Karl Lauterbach to prison terms between five years and nine months to eight years.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Germany has an extensive public media ecosystem, numerous independent outlets, and a long record of investigative reporting that the government has not unduly obstructed. Journalists generally operate safely, despite isolated incidents of harassment by law enforcement. Recent laws expanding the scope of state-sanctioned surveillance and tightening online content moderation on social media have raised concerns among domestic and international human rights watchdogs. Freedom of assembly is generally upheld, though some states use “preventive detention” to obstruct activists or impose blanket bans on protest. Nonetheless, these measures do not appear to have created a systemic chilling effect.
The government has not heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor. Though the top five broadcasters control close to 90% of the media (in terms of audience share), the country’s large number of independent outlets (including investigative ones) ensures pluralism and diversity. With as many as 21 public television channels and 80 public radio stations, Germany has one of the most extensive public media ecosystems worldwide. It is funded by mandatory contributions by each household and managed by independent boards elected by diverse stakeholders, ensuring editorial independence and impartiality. Multiple private outlets, such as the authoritative Der Spiegel, have openly criticized political elites or shed light on abuses of office through their investigations without facing obstruction or retaliation by the government.
The government has not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent, dissenting media, and most journalists work in relative safety. Nonetheless, some have experienced harassment or threats by police while covering sensitive topics, such as climate justice or migration. For example, in 2023, officers beat and pepper-sprayed a reporter covering the “occupation” of Lützerath, a village evacuated to make room for a new coal mine, by environmental activists. Evidence suggests that impunity for such police brutality, however limited, is still the norm, with a 2021 study showing that less than 3% of unlawful use-of-force cases against police that year were ultimately prosecuted.
Germany’s legal framework is also largely conducive to the freedom of dissent, and the government has not seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech. Nonetheless, recent laws have raised serious concerns about potential surveillance of journalists and their sources and online censorship. The initial version of the Federal Intelligence Service law (the BND Act), introduced in 2016, allowed the intelligence services to monitor the communications of non–EU journalists and media outlets located outside of Germany legally, with few to no restrictions, so long as the information gathering “served German security interests.” In 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court upheld a constitutional complaint against the BND Act submitted by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The court found that the state’s obligation to respect the freedom of expression and protect the privacy of journalists’ sources extended internationally and ordered the Bundestag to revise the law. While observers welcomed the court’s ruling, many found the subsequent amendments (approved by the Bundestag in 2021) insufficient. For instance, monitoring communications about a journalistic source was still allowed, as was surveilling non–EU citizens (even those with permanent German residence) while abroad. The 2017 Network Enforcement Act and its subsequent amendments, which required social networks to promptly take down content that meets the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code or risk steep fines, also sparked controversy. International observers, such as the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and Human Rights Watch, criticized the act as a “dangerous precedent” insofar as risking censorship and deferring nuanced judgments on the legality of speech to third parties without sufficient legal expertise, among other things. Given the high sanctions for non-compliance and short window for appeal, the law arguably incentivized the “overregulation” (that is, censorship) of legitimate expression. Despite these concerns, there isn’t sufficient evidence that the Network Enforcement Act has substantially altered social networks’ content moderation policies or prompted the massive preemptive removal of content that watchdogs warned about.
As evident from the frequency of peaceful demonstrations touching a range of issues, the government has not seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings. Nonetheless, in some federal states, authorities have resorted to “preventive detention,” a measure that doesn’t require reasonable suspicion, to obstruct protests preemptively. For instance, in 2023, police in Bavaria targeted members of the environmental movement Last Generation (LG) planning large-scale demonstrations against the automobile trade fair in Munich, which they considered an emblem of the fossil fuel industry. Twenty-seven members of the group spent between 24 hours and 30 days (at least one confirmed case) in detention without proof of (intended) wrongdoing, an extreme measure Amnesty International assessed as “a violation of human rights.” In 2023, authorities used excessive force against participants in pro-Palestinian protests, deploying pepper spray and water cannons, and arresting 174 people in a single night in Berlin. In recent years, pro-Palestinian protests have also been banned in Berlin and Frankfurt on arbitrary grounds, with authorities citing the hypothetical threat of antisemitic hate speech.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. On the contrary, the state plays a vital role in fostering a thriving civil society through substantial public funding. Reflecting these favorable conditions, Germany has more than 650,000 active civil society organizations (CSOs), according to some estimates.
In Germany, institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. The judiciary, while not immune to undue political interference, has demonstrated its capacity and willingness to halt overt encroachments on the freedom of dissent, such as by checking editorial interference in publicly owned media. The government frequently holds officials accountable for violating speech and lobbying laws.
The government has not subjected legislative institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. While the executive branch, through the Ministry of Justice, oversees the appointment and professional advancement of magistrates, strictly stipulated qualification criteria and largely meritocratic procedures mitigate the threat of overt political interference. It is worth noting, however, that unlike most EU member states, Germany lacks an independent central judicial oversight body (such as a High Judicial Council), an idiosyncrasy that has drawn some criticism from legal experts.
As illustrated by the Federal Constitutional Court striking down controversial sections of the BND Act, the courts have not frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled, attempts to surveil or retaliate against those who express opposition towards the government’s prominent policies. In another notable case, in 2022, a Bonn labor court ruled that the public broadcaster Deutsche Welle had wrongfully fired Palestinian journalist Maram Salem for supposed antisemitism. The court found that Salem’s criticism of Israel on her social media platforms was a legitimate form of free expression and could not constitute grounds for dismissal. On the other hand, the Federal Constitutional Court and state-level courts (such as the Constitutional Court of Bavaria) have remained steadfast in affirming the constitutionality of “preventive detention” following numerous unsuccessful complaints. The persistence of this arguably extreme measure is all the more jarring, considering that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found, in multiple judgments, that it violated the European Convention of Human Rights.
In recent years, multiple high-ranking politicians have been convicted for violating speech or lobbying laws, indicating judicial and executive institutions do not frequently and unfairly fail to hold government officials accountable. German courts have sanctioned multiple members of the AfD party for using Nazi symbols and slogans in their political campaigns, such as Björn Höcke, who was fined a total of over $30,000 in two separate court rulings in 2024. In the same year, a court ruling upheld on appeal the formal classification of the party itself as “suspected of extremism,” allowing continuous monitoring of its activities by the intelligence service. The judges found credible evidence that various members were promoting unconstitutional forms of discrimination (that would primarily disadvantage citizens with immigrant backgrounds) as a part of their ultranationalist ideology. The ruling follows revelations about AfD members discussing mass deportations at a secret meeting and a series of scandals involving alleged espionage and Kremlin links. According to monitoring reports by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), abuse of office is also prosecuted effectively in Germany. In a landmark case, in January 2025, former members of Parliament (MPs) Axel Fischer and Eduard Lintner were put on trial for accepting bribes from Azerbaijan’s autocratic Aliyev regime to support Azerbaijani interests in the Council of Europe. In July 2025, a Munich court handed Lintner a nine-month suspended sentence (which could still be appealed).
