It stated that there were no serious doubts as to the correctness of the decision of the Administrative Court in the meaning of § 124.2 no. 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Courts (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung – VwGO ). The complainant’s general right of personality had not been violated, since the reports had been lawful. The Land had been the competent association to act with regard to the challenged measures. The Administrative Court, whose arguments the Higher Administrative Court adopted, had rightly assumed, on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of a large number of publications of Junge Freiheit , that with regard to the complainant there were factual indications supporting the suspicion of tendencies against the free democratic fundamental order which justified a publication in the reports of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. In an overall survey, the impression was formed that the complainant actively advocated the above opinions hostile to the constitution. The objections of the complainant made against this were not capable of removing the suspicion. It was irrelevant whether the articles could also be interpreted differently. The only conclusive factor was the fact that the articles in question, when considered reasonably, could also, and particularly, be understood in the sense set out by the Administrative Court and the totality of the articles assessed by the Administrative Court at all events gave sufficient cause for the suspicion of aims hostile to the constitution. Over a prolonged period of time, the editorial department had published a large number of such articles without commentary and without distancing itself from them. In addition, the Higher Administrative Court, in conformity with the decision of the Administrative Court, assumes that a violation of the principle of proportionality cannot be established and the areas protected by Article 5.1 sentence 2 and Article 12.1 of the Basic Law are not affected. The Higher Administrative Court also, without giving details of the reasons for this, refused leave to appeal for the reasons in § 124.2 no. 2 of the Regulations of the Administrative Courts (case with special factual or legal difficulties) and of § 124.2 no. 3 of the Regulations of the Administrative Courts (fundamental importance).