The debate about nepotism kept the AfD on its toes at the beginning of the year. Party members blamed each other. New names of MPs kept appearing who are said to have employed family members of other AfD MPs in their own office. Numerous cases were made public, particularly from the regional associations of Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt - but also from other federal states.
The focus is on the AfD politician and member of the Bundestag Jan Wenzel Schmidt, who made allegations to party colleagues after internal disputes in the Saxony-Anhalt AfD. That had consequences: Schmidt was expelled from the parliamentary group in March. He sued the Federal Constitutional Court against this. Today the Karlsruhe judges are negotiating whether Schmidt's parliamentary rights have been violated by the faction's exclusion.
First the party expulsion process, then exclusion from the parliamentary group
The debate came about in particular through an interview on the online portal Nius. In it, Bundestag member Schmidt, who comes from Saxony-Anhalt, spoke of a "community of loot" and said that mandates were being moved back and forth, appointments were being made among each other and funds were being withdrawn.
The AfD Saxony-Anhalt initiated party expulsion proceedings against Schmidt, which the federal leadership joined. In addition, his membership rights were revoked. Schmidt has so far unsuccessfully taken action against this before the party arbitration courts.
In March he was expelled from the Bundestag parliamentary group. According to the dpa news agency, the parliamentary group leadership's motion to exclude Schmidt stated that Schmidt's interview with Nius in its entirety had had "massive reputational damage" for the parliamentary group and its members. "The statements about supposed or actual internal processes do not belong on the media stage."
Schmidt defends himself with a lawsuit
Jan Wenzel Schmidt says that his exclusion from the parliamentary group violated his parliamentary rights under the Basic Law. He now wants to have this checked by the Federal Constitutional Court. In writing before the hearing, he stated that exclusion from a parliamentary group had a significant impact on a member's ability to participate in parliament.
"That's why I think it's right to have the constitutional limits of such an exclusion clarified in court," said Schmidt. The move to Karlsruhe is “not a freely chosen political escalation” and the procedure is “not a political departure from the AfD”.
When asked before the hearing, the AfD parliamentary group did not comment on the proceedings.
Fewer opportunities to participate
But what about the opportunities for non-attached MPs to participate? In principle, all MPs have the same rights and obligations. The Federal Constitutional Court also makes this clear again and again in its case law.
In order to ensure that Parliament remains functional, the participation opportunities of non-attached MPs can be restricted. For example, a non-attached MP usually gets less speaking time than a MP who is in the group.
What will be important in court?
From the previously published outline of the oral hearing, it can be seen that the judges will look at exactly how the AfD parliamentary group proceeded with the exclusion: This should cover questions of the hearing, secret voting and the voting quorum. On the other hand, according to the structure, the Senate will also deal with what could be the reason for an exclusion.
So far, the Federal Constitutional Court has not yet decided on the exclusion of the parliamentary group. However, there is already case law from the constitutional courts of the federal states. According to this, it is generally okay to exclude a member of parliament from their group if there is an important reason for it. The parliamentary group has some leeway in assessing whether such an important reason exists. The courts therefore usually only check whether the decision was not arbitrary.
It remains to be seen whether the Federal Constitutional Court will apply the same standards as the state constitutional courts. A decision is not expected for a few months.
File number: 2 BvE 2/26
