The Federal Constitutional Court has rejected a constitutional complaint filed by two Yemeni nationals challenging the use of the Ramstein Air Base by the United States for drone operations in Yemen. The court’s decision, announced Tuesday, concluded that there was no demonstrated serious risk of a systematic violation of international law.
The complainants had argued that the Federal Republic of Germany had failed in its duty of protection by not preventing the United States from utilizing the Ramstein Air Base for these operations. The court in Karlsruhe acknowledged that Germany has a general obligation to protect fundamental human rights and core tenets of humanitarian international law, even in situations with international implications. This obligation can, under specific conditions, solidify into a concrete constitutional protection duty.
However, the court emphasized that such a duty requires a sufficient connection to the authority of the Federal Republic and a serious risk of a systematic violation of international law. Evaluating the complaint against these criteria, the court found it to be unsubstantiated. It stated that whether a constitutional responsibility for the Federal Republic arises regarding US drone operations remained an open question, but this was irrelevant due to the lower courts’ findings that a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law could not be established.
The complainants, whose close relatives were killed in a US drone strike in Yemen in 2012, had previously pursued legal action before administrative and appellate courts. While one appellate court had directed the Federal Republic to ensure the use of Ramstein Air Base aligned with international law, a higher administrative court had upheld the rejection of an appeal against the initial lower court’s ruling. The constitutional complaint, challenging these dismissive judgments (ruling of July 15, 2025 – 2 BvR 508/21), was ultimately unsuccessful.