You would have to be blind not to see it: the headline writes itself while it lies to you. Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution loses - that sounds like a final defeat, a legal collapse, a game that is over. But an emergency ruling is not a game. An emergency ruling is a pause in the game. The confusion is no accident. It is deliberate. The Administrative Court of Cologne did not comment on the ideological status of the AfD. It did not say: The party is not right wing extremist. It did something far more mundane, far more procedural. It prohibited the domestic intelligence service from making a public claim while it is still being examined whether that claim is sustainable. That is not an acquittal. That is quiet. That is: wait.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Type of proceeding:<\/strong> From a strictly legal perspective, this is a decision in interim legal protection under Section 123 paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure.<\/p>\n\n Function:<\/strong> This provision allows the court to issue a provisional order if this appears necessary to secure a claim or to prevent significant disadvantages. It is therefore not about a final decision on the lawfulness of the measure, but about temporary protection until clarification in the main proceedings.<\/p>\n\n Requirements:<\/strong> An entitlement to the order and grounds for the order are required under Section 123 paragraph 3 of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Sections 920 and 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The entitlement to the order need only be made credible, not proven. The court conducts a summary review, meaning only a preliminary assessment without comprehensive taking of evidence and without final findings of fact.<\/p>\n\n Substantive legal framework:<\/strong> The powers of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution arise from Section 3 paragraph 1 and Section 4 paragraph 1 of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Act. Whether the requirements for classification as a confirmed extremist endeavor are met is a matter for the main proceedings, not for the emergency proceedings.<\/p>\n\n No substantive res judicata:<\/strong> Decisions under Section 123 of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure do not have substantive res judicata effect within the meaning of Section 121 of the Administrative Court Rules of Procedure. They do not bind the court in the main proceedings. The court may reach a different conclusion there.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n