Bavarian Higher Administrative Court confirms surveillance of the AfD by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution

Background: Surveillance since 2022

As early as 2022, the Bavarian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution had announced that it would monitor the AfD as a whole party using intelligence means and publish the results. The basis was an assessment by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The state office had taken "ein Gutachten des Bundesamts für Verfassungsschutz zum Anlass, die AfD zum Beobachtungsobjekt zu erklären", the ruling states.

Against this decision, the AfD initially went to court in summary proceedings and lost in both instances. The party then filed a main action against the Free State of Bavaria. In the summer of 2024, the Munich Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit as unfounded after a three-day oral hearing. The Administrative Court did not grant leave to appeal against this ruling, whereupon the AfD applied to the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court for leave to appeal – this application has now also been unsuccessful.

Reasoning of the Administrative Court

The Munich Administrative Court had based its decision on an extensive taking of evidence. According to the ruling, the Bavarian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution had submitted thousands of pieces of evidence and pages of files to the court, including social media posts, statements by AfD politicians at events, and chat logs. "Das Gericht war deshalb nach Begutachtung von umfangreichem Material und einer dreitägigen mündlichen Verhandlung zu der Überzeugung gelangt, dass es tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte für verfassungsfeindliche Bestrebungen innerhalb der AfD gebe", the reasoning states.

Among the materials submitted, the court saw statements based on an ethnic-biological understanding of the people: "Beispielsweise lägen Äußerungen vor, die auf ‚einem ethnisch-biologischen Volksverständnis basieren‘, teilte das Gericht damals zur Begründung mit." The presiding judge also stated that the indications of suspected right-wing extremist tendencies were sufficient and so significant that the public could also be informed about the surveillance.

Confirmation by the Higher Administrative Court

The Bavarian Higher Administrative Court confirmed this assessment. The outcome of the Administrative Court's decision was not objectionable, "soweit festgestellt werde, dass insbesondere bestimmte, der AfD zurechenbare Äußerungen zur ‚Remigration‘, zu einer Diffamierung von Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund oder muslimischen Glaubens, zu Umsturzphantasien oder zu einer fortgesetzten Agitation gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung das Maß der zulässigen Kritik am verfassungsrechtlichen System überstiegen". The surveillance was therefore proportionate.

At the same time, the appellate court pointed out that the lower instance had considered both incriminating and exonerating arguments: The Administrative Court had "in nicht zu beanstandender Weise gleichermaßen be- und entlastende Argumente einbezogen und einschlägige Äußerungen ausdrücklich unter Berücksichtigung der Meinungsfreiheit und der jeweiligen Umstände gewürdigt", the Higher Administrative Court decided. The cited statements were not merely verbal slip-ups by individual officials, but the expression of a fundamental attitude. A serious distancing from extremist forces within the party as a whole does not take place, the senate stated.

Reactions from politics

The political reactions to the ruling were pronounced. Bavaria's Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) spoke of a clear signal: "Das ist ein klares Zeichen für unsere Demokratie und den Rechtsstaat. Es gebe auch allen Anlass, die AfD weiter zu beobachten", Herrmann said. At the same time, he warned: "Von dieser Partei geht nach wie vor eine Gefahr für die Demokratie aus." CSU General Secretary Martin Huber put it even more sharply: "Die AfD besteht aus Rechtsextremen, nicht aus Patrioten."

The opposition parties in Bavaria also reacted. Katharina Schulze, parliamentary group leader of the Greens in the state parliament, said: "Wer unsere Demokratie angreift, Menschen gegeneinander ausspielt und demokratische Grundwerte infrage stellt, muss damit rechnen, dass der Rechtsstaat genau hinschaut." She again called for the examination of an AfD ban procedure: "Unsere Demokratie muss sich gegen ihre Feinde schützen können."

Debate about a party ban procedure

For the SPD, Anna Rasehorn, vice parliamentary group leader of the SPD state parliamentary group and spokesperson in the fight against right-wing extremism, spoke out. She described the ruling as a "Weckruf für den Bestand unserer Demokratie". At the same time, Rasehorn referred to connections of the Bavarian AfD to the Identitarian Movement: "Es gebe enge Verbindungen der Partei zur Identitären Bewegung (IB)." The AfD in Bavaria clearly stands in the tradition of the officially dissolved right-wing "Flügel" around Björn Höcke. Rasehorn also spoke out in favor of a party ban procedure: "Die wehrhafte Demokratie hat die Pflicht, ihre Instrumente zu nutzen." Such an examination procedure has prospects of success and must be initiated now.

The AfD itself did not initially comment on the decision. At the weekend, the party wants to meet in Passau for a state party conference, at which, among other things, the new election of the state executive board is on the agenda. AfD Bundestag member Reinhard Mixl is running against the incumbent state chairman Stephan Protschka. At the end of May, the state parliamentary group had already elected a new leadership team; the previous parliamentary group leader Katrin Ebner-Steiner is no longer sole chairwoman, but shares the chairmanship with the member of parliament Ulrich Singer.

Outlook on the state party conference in Passau

Legally, the dispute over Bavarian surveillance is now largely settled. The court pointed out that the legal requirements for surveillance had already been clarified by the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Administrative Court. With the now confirmed decision from Munich, the surveillance of the AfD by the Bavarian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution has been placed on a broader judicial basis – the appeal was unappealable.

Attention now turns to the political level. Several democratic parties in Bavaria are demanding that the competent authorities exhaust the possibilities that the rule of law offers against anti-constitutional efforts. Whether and when a procedure to examine an AfD ban will be initiated remains to be seen. What is clear is that as long as the surveillance continues, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution will continue to be permitted to publish its findings.

The ruling also makes clear that even after an election success at state or federal level, the classification by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution can remain the subject of judicial review. The judges made clear that freedom of expression and party-political disputes do enjoy a high status, but that where the boundary to agitation against the free democratic basic order is crossed, the rule of law may respond.

Reporting: dpa. The news was broadcast on 17.06.2026 on Deutschlandfunk; the report was also published by BR24 on 17.06.2026 at 08:45.