After the administrative court in Cologne paused its earlier decision to classify the AfD as a securely extremist party in a summary proceeding, Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CDU) said the focus must now shift to the main case. He explained that the court had confirmed sufficient certainty that within the AfD there are activities directed against the liberal democratic basic order. However, it could not find a prevailing pattern that shapes the party’s overall picture. Consequently, attention should turn to the main proceedings, where the Office for the Protection of the Constitution will continue to observe and present the case.
Addressing calls for a party ban, Dobrindt said the government must “regime‑out” the AfD rather than simply prohibit it. He noted that the court’s decision highlights how challenging it is to classify a party, underscoring the high thresholds required and the necessity of proving a dominating, constitution‑hostile trend in the party’s overall profile.
Green Party lawmaker Till Steffen criticized the court’s ruling and called for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution to file a complaint as soon as possible. Steffen accused the court of misunderstanding the AfD’s strategy, arguing that the agency has not grasped the significance of the term “remigration” in the party’s platform. He claimed that the AfD deliberately obscures the true meaning of this concept, a deception that the court allegedly fell for.
Background: On 2 May 2025, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution announced that, based on an internal follow‑up assessment, the AfD would be upgraded from a “suspected case” to a “securely right‑extremist ambition”. The AfD sued on 5 May 2025 against both the upgrade and the public announcement, filing a summary request. In the summary proceedings, the Cologne court found sufficient evidence that the AfD pursues actions aimed at undermining the liberal democratic basic order. However, the court concluded that, at present, these actions do not dominate the party’s overall character, and therefore a constitutionally hostile basic tendency cannot be established across the board.