Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has rejected a challenge by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party regarding the allocation of meeting rooms in the Reichstag building. The court found no violation of parliamentary rights in the decision to allow the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to retain the “Otto-Wels-Saal,” despite the AfD being a larger parliamentary group.
AfD’s Challenge
The AfD filed an organ lawsuit in July, arguing that the size of the meeting room assigned to them significantly hindered their ability to function and, therefore, violated their parliamentary rights. The court disagreed, stating that the Otto-Wels-Saal was not automatically due to the second-largest faction.
The Decision and its Context
Following the February 2025 Bundestag election, the AfD, with 151 members, sought the second-largest meeting room in the Reichstag. This room had previously been used by the SPD, which now has 120 members. The Bundestag’s Council of Elders ultimately decided in May to allow the SPD to continue using the Otto-Wels-Saal and assigned the AfD a smaller room previously used by the Free Democratic Party (FDP).
The court affirmed the Council of Elders’ authority to make decisions about room allocation by majority vote, without a requirement to assign rooms based strictly on faction size. It also found no evidence of unequal treatment towards the AfD, concluding that the assigned room was suitable for the party’s size.
What’s Next?
The AfD could potentially continue to raise the issue of room allocation within the Bundestag, though the court’s decision significantly limits their legal options. It is likely the party will seek to use this outcome as a rallying point, framing it as evidence of unfair treatment. The SPD is expected to continue using the Otto-Wels-Saal, reinforcing its symbolic importance to the party.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the AfD’s primary argument in this case?
The AfD argued that the smaller meeting room assigned to them “massively restricted” their ability to work and exercise their parliamentary rights.
Who decided to allocate the Otto-Wels-Saal to the SPD?
The Bundestag’s Council of Elders decided in May to allow the SPD to retain the Otto-Wels-Saal.
What is the significance of the Otto-Wels-Saal?
The Otto-Wels-Saal is named after a former SPD chairman who, in 1933, spoke out against the Nazi’s “Enabling Act” with the famous words: “Freedom and life can be taken from us, but not our honor.”
How might decisions like these impact the dynamics within the German parliament moving forward?
