The German government has introduced a 10-point strategy to address islamist extremism, a direct response to the attack on Berlin’s CSD parade earlier this year. Key elements include tougher penalties for knife-related offenses, enhanced surveillance of known extremists, and stricter probation standards when national security is involved. The plan also aims to strengthen laws against the spread of IS propaganda and terrorist fundraising, while aligning youth justice penalties with those for adults.
Early reactions have been mixed. Thomas Jansen, writing in the FAZ, described the measures as a reasonable step but pointed out unresolved issues, including the absence of mandatory public safety reviews in parole hearings and extended traffic data retention by state authorities. Frederik Eikmanns, in taz, praised the plan’s avoidance of inflammatory language but criticized its heavy focus on enforcement without sufficient investment in prevention or deradicalization programs.
These developments follow broader legal reforms. The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) and Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) are set to gain expanded surveillance capabilities under new legislation. While the BfV’s changes are largely procedural, the BND will now retain communication data for longer periods and deploy AI-driven analysis of intercepted materials. Legal experts, including Luca Manns of the University of Cologne and Markus Ogorek, a constitutional law professor, acknowledged potential constitutional concerns but argued the reforms could still comply with legal standards.
Germany’s €2 Billion Mask Contracts Face Legal Scrutiny
The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) is addressing a major procurement dispute involving €2 billion in claims tied to the federal government’s 2020 mask-buying contracts. The court recently heard arguments on whether the contracts, awarded through an “open house” process during the pandemic, were legally valid. While judges rejected forced fixed-price deals, they signaled potential support for the government’s April 30 delivery deadline, suggesting that missing this cutoff could justify immediate contract termination—unless delays resulted from a third-party logistics provider acting as the Bund’s delivery hub.
A final decision is expected by December 15, with implications for 90 similar cases from the pandemic era. Legal analysts, including Wolfgang Janisch in the SZ and Christian Rath in LTO, emphasized the ruling’s potential to set a precedent for enforcing public contracts under extreme time constraints.
Kosovo’s Thaçi Sentenced for War Crimes
The Kosovo Special Tribunal in The Hague has delivered its most significant verdict to date, sentencing Hashim Thaçi, Kosovo’s former president, to 25 years in prison for systematic war crimes committed during the late-1990s conflict. Thaçi and three other UÇK (Kosovo Liberation Army) leaders were found guilty of murder, torture, arbitrary detention, and ill-treatment against Serbs, Roma, and political opponents. The sentence remains subject to appeal.
Related Post: Paris Court to Hear Frederico Aramburú Case Monday
The ruling has provoked immediate controversy in Kosovo, where Thaçi remains a divisive figure. Michael Martens in the FAZ called the verdict legally justified but noted the broader historical context, including Serbian atrocities under Slobodan Milošević, which were far more lethal. Barbara Oertel, writing in taz, described the judgment as necessary but painful, arguing that accountability—even decades later—could help support reconciliation with Serbia.
BGH Tests GDPR’s Limits on Private Data
The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) is set to rule on two cases testing the boundaries of Germany’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The first involves a woman who shared confidential WhatsApp chats with third parties, with lower courts divided over whether the household exemption applies. The Frankfurt Regional Court awarded damages under GDPR, while the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court rejected the claim, arguing the chats were part of private life.
The BGH must determine whether such disclosures, especially when tied to potential criminal investigations, qualify as professional data processing, possibly requiring a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). A second case concerns a family secretly filming their kitchen; both lower courts ruled the recordings fell outside GDPR’s scope as a private matter. The BGH’s decision could redefine how German courts interpret the household exemption.
The Landessozialgericht Baden-Württemberg has ruled that eligibility for social welfare benefits depends solely on a person’s legal residency status. A woman who applied for aid under a false German name was denied support because her actual status—Russian citizenship without authorization—limited her to asylum-seeker benefits rather than broader SGB II assistance.
In unrelated proceedings, Ulf Johannemann, a former Freshfields partner convicted in the Cum-Ex tax fraud scandal, has begun serving his 3.5-year prison sentence—14 months after the ruling’s finality. The delay resulted from administrative backlogs at the Frankfurt Regional Court, which only recently forwarded custody documents to authorities. Johannemann, who remains licensed to practice law, was found guilty of aiding and abetting severe tax evasion tied to the Maple Bank scheme, though his sentence was reduced on appeal.
