Berlin – The German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in a dispute over meeting space within the Reichstag building. The AfD had filed a lawsuit seeking access to the “Otto-Wels-Saal” (officially designated “3-S-001”), currently used by the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The court determined the AfD does not have a claim to the room.
The dispute has been ongoing for months, with both the AfD and SPD publicly arguing their case. The AfD argued that its current meeting room is too small for its 151 members, with each representative having only 1.7 square meters of space. The party maintained that, as the second-largest faction in parliament, it should be entitled to the second-largest meeting room.
The AfD further asserted that being denied adequate space would “massively restrict” its ability to function and exercise its parliamentary rights. The SPD, however, refused to relinquish the “Otto-Wels-Saal,” considering it a significant space for the party. They also cited the need for space to accommodate visiting SPD ministers.
The court’s decision represents a setback for the AfD’s efforts to secure more prominent accommodations within the Reichstag.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the AfD’s primary argument for claiming the “Otto-Wels-Saal”?
The AfD argued that its current meeting room was too small for its 151 members, providing only 1.7 square meters of space per representative, and that as the second-largest faction, it deserved the second-largest meeting room.
Why was the “Otto-Wels-Saal” important to the SPD?
The SPD considered the “Otto-Wels-Saal” a significant space for the party, having named it after a prominent historical figure, Otto Wels. They also stated a need for the space to accommodate visiting SPD ministers.
What was the outcome of the AfD’s lawsuit?
The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled against the AfD, determining that the party has no claim to the “Otto-Wels-Saal.”
As the AfD navigates this decision, what strategies might the party employ to address its concerns about adequate space for its parliamentary work?
