The AfD is reviewing its previous legal action against the domestic intelligence service, which is monitoring the party because of right-wing efforts. The Handelsblatt has internal details.
Berlin. How expensive is the AfD's legal fight against its classification and the classification of individual members as right-wing extremist by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution? And how successfully has the party defended itself against these classifications in court so far? In order to clarify these questions, the AfD leadership is currently having all legal and court costs recorded nationwide for the years 2023 to 2025, paying particular attention to a law firm's invoices.
“The query is used to analyze the ratio of the costs incurred compared to the results achieved,” said party vice-president Stefan Möller to the Handelsblatt. “This is needed for an evaluation of the previous approach and thus also as a basis for further decisions.” The Thuringian AfD member of the Bundestag is responsible for legal issues relating to the protection of the constitution on the federal executive board.
At the beginning of August 2026, the party leadership decided to create the query. It is aimed at all state associations of the AfD, as Möller confirmed. “In order to prepare an overall overview, I would like to ask for structured feedback on all of your association’s current procedures and those completed in the last three calendar years in connection with an assessment under constitutional protection law,” says Möller’s email to the chairmen of the regional associations, which is available to the Handelsblatt.
According to the email, the survey will include procedures for “observation or classification as a suspected case”, for classification as “proven right-wing extremist” as well as “individual procedures for protecting individual members from harassment in connection with such a classification”.
The AfD has been involved in legal disputes on these issues with the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and several state offices for years. The party initially suffered defeats at the federal level. The AfD then achieved an important success in February 2026: The Cologne Administrative Court temporarily prohibited the Federal Office from classifying the entire party as firmly right-wing extremist and treating it accordingly. A decision on the main issue is still pending.
13 of 16 AfD state associations are under surveillance by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
The administrative courts are also busy with numerous proceedings in the federal states. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the AfD as “certainly right-wing extremist” in five countries: Lower Saxony, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Thuringia. In Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Bremen and Hesse it is considered a suspected case, as well as in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, according to media reports. The authorities are monitoring them with restrictions in North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate, but not at all in Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg.
Focus on billing from the Höcker law firm
The AfD wants to record the costs of its proceedings against the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in as much detail as possible. The regional associations should therefore break down the legal and court costs incurred for each individual procedure, name the law firms commissioned and document possible cost increases.
Particular attention is paid to the Höcker law firm. The Cologne media law firm has represented the AfD in disputes with the Office for the Protection of the Constitution for years. In his email to the state chairmen, AfD Vice President Möller demands “a brief assessment of the Höcker law firm’s billing behavior,” in particular “whether there is a noticeable change – such as a significant increase in costs – compared to previous years.”
When asked whether there had been any indications of noticeable fee increases or complaints about the law firm from the regional associations, Möller told the Handelsblatt: "The query was made at the suggestion of a regional association." At the same time, he emphasized: “The Höcker law firm is still highly valued by the Federal Executive Board for its highly professional work.”
In response to a request from the Handelsblatt, the law firm explained: "It is a completely normal process that costs are repeatedly tracked and checked by legal service providers in so-called cost controlling processes. If there is such an audit at the AfD, in our opinion there is no particular public interest in the fact that the AfD, like companies in the economy regularly do, carries out reviews from time to time as part of cost controlling."
A table template in the Excel organizational software that is attached to Möller's email shows how exactly the party leadership wants to examine the expenses. The associations should enter the costs of the three calendar years separately for each legal dispute. The table then calculates the total expenses. A spreadsheet entitled “Summary – Costs by Category” organizes expenses by procedure type. Another overview lists the costs of the federal association and the 16 state associations individually. In this way, the party leadership recognizes which associations bear the highest legal costs and which procedures are the most expensive.
“Specifically describe the scope of success”
There is a separate spreadsheet for the Höcker law firm entitled “Höcker billing”. There, the regional associations should indicate the approximate number of mandates they have with the law firm. When asked “Is there a noticeable increase in billing?” the answers “Yes/No/Unclear” are provided. Specific examples should also be documented.
Möller also wants to know how the courts decided. The state associations should indicate in which cases the party won in whole or in part. In the case of partial successes, they should “specifically describe the extent of the success”.
Originally, the state associations were supposed to send their cost statements back to the federal executive board by September 15, 2026. According to Möller, the deadline has now been extended. A final cost balance is therefore not yet available. The evaluation of the information received so far has not yet been completed, said Möller.
