2024-09-18 18:08:32
Federal Constitutional Court
Dispute over committee chairpersons: AfD fails in Karlsruhe
Updated on 18.09.2024 – 14:15Reading time: 4 min.
Was the distribution of top positions in Bundestag committees fair? The AfD doubts this and took the matter to court. In vain. Karlsruhe emphasizes the Bundestag’s autonomy in terms of its rules of procedure.
The tenth-graders from a high school in Germersheim, Rhineland-Palatinate, were unable to get any ice cream. AfD politician Stephan Brandner had promised this in the event that he won in Germany’s highest court. But in the foyer of the Federal Constitutional Court, shortly before the verdict, he no longer believes in success.
A few minutes later, it was clear: the AfD had failed in two lawsuits in Karlsruhe to have its right to chair positions in Bundestag committees established. Both the elections to determine the committee chairs and the removal of Brandner from the chair of the Legal Affairs Committee were within the scope of the Bundestag’s autonomy in terms of its rules of procedure, said the presiding judge of the Second Senate, Doris König.
In the current legislative period, AfD candidates failed to achieve the required majority in elections for the chairmanship of three Bundestag committees – and thus did not get a committee chairmanship, although the parliamentary group would have been entitled to three posts based on its strength. The AfD saw its rights to equal treatment as a parliamentary group, to effective opposition and to fair and loyal application of the rules of procedure of the German Bundestag violated and turned to the Senate in Karlsruhe with an organ complaint (case no. 2 BvE 10/21).
According to the Bundestag’s rules of procedure, committees choose their chairmen and their deputies “according to the agreements in the Council of Elders”. In fact, there is a procedure agreed upon by the parliamentary groups, which is based on the strength of the individual parliamentary groups. This sets the order in which the parliamentary groups have access to committee chairs. Parliamentary groups can decide for themselves which of the vacant committees they want to appoint chairmen to. The AfD thus won the Committee on Internal Affairs, the Committee on Health and the Committee on Development Cooperation.
It is unusual for the committee to elect the chairperson. Normally, the personnel decision is accepted by the other factions. However, this was different at the beginning of the current election period, where the AfD was to provide the chairperson. Here, the other committee members demanded an election, in which they then failed the AfD candidate. The vice-chairpersons currently lead the committees concerned.
Constitutional Court Judge König stressed that the parliamentary groups should be treated equally and in accordance with their strengths when announcing the verdict. The right to participate also extends to the Bundestag committees – in principle, every committee must be a smaller version of the plenary. However, this principle of mirroring does not apply to committees and functions of a purely organizational nature, such as the chair of a committee.
The design, interpretation and application of the Bundestag’s rules of procedure are subject to only limited constitutional control, according to the court. “It has a wide scope for manoeuvre in the design of its internal organisation and business operations.” The design of the appointment procedure is an internal matter for parliament, which it can regulate autonomously within the framework of the constitutional order. The election of committee chairmen upholds the principle of a fair and loyal interpretation of the Bundestag’s rules of procedure.
Brandner’s removal from office was lawful
The lawsuit against the dismissal of the then Legal Affairs Committee Chairman Stephan Brandner in November 2019 was also unsuccessful (case no. 2 BvE 1/20). After several scandals, all committee members with the exception of the AfD MPs voted for his dismissal in the last legislative period – a unique event in the history of the Bundestag.
The Senate ruled that it was justifiable that the committee itself was responsible for any possible vote-out. It was also not arbitrary. In light of a series of incidents, the majority of committee members had lost confidence in the chairman and his abilities, so that effective cooperation within the committee was no longer possible in their view. However, trust is important for efficient committee work. The Senate’s decision was unanimous.
After the verdict, the parliamentary manager of the SPD parliamentary group, Johannes Fechner, spoke of a good day for parliamentarism. At the same time, he announced that the government factions would propose a more precise definition of the Bundestag’s rules of procedure. “According to this, in future both the chairmen of committees and the secretaries in the Presidium of the German Bundestag should be able to be voted out of office according to clear rules.”
The court has strengthened the Bundestag’s autonomy in terms of its rules of procedure as a core area of parliamentary autonomy, said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker (CDU), chairwoman of the Legal Affairs Committee. “The Bundestag can regulate its internal affairs, including the filling of organizational functions, on its own responsibility.” Brandner’s removal was permissible after a series of incidents, including tweets about the right-wing extremist attack in Halle. Stephan Thomae of the FDP emphasized: “Committee chairmen depend on the trust of the committee, which is why it is also possible to vote them out.”