Bundesverfassungsgericht - Preview of decisions 2024

First Senate

**Reporting Justice: President Prof. Dr. Harbarth, LL.M. (Yale)**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
1.	1 BvR 553/19	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether provisions of the Copyright Act concerning the legally permitted use of intellectual property for teaching and research purposes and by institutions, including the rules on remuneration provided for these uses, as amended by the Act to Align Copyright Law with the Current Demands of the Knowledge-based Society of 1 September 2017 (BGBl I p. 3346), violate the right to property and the principle of equal treatment
2.	1 BvR 1550/21	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether a court decision finding that the use of the word ‘balsamic’ to label a German vinegar product did not amount to an impermissible allusion to the protected geographical indication ‘Aceto balsamico di Modena’ protected by § 13(1) subpara. 1(b) of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 of 21 November 2012 in conjunction with § 135(1) of the Trade Mark Act violates the complainant’s EU fundamental rights under Art. 47 and Art. 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
3.	1 BvL 1/24	Referral from the Federal Court of Justice regarding the question of whether § 1906a(1) first sentence no. 7 of the Civil Code as amended by the Act Amending the Substantive Requirements for Coercive Medical Measures and Strengthening the Right of Self-Determination of Persons under Custodianship of 17 July 2017 (BGBl I p. 2426) is incompatible with the state’s duty of protection following from Art. 2(2) first sentence of the Basic Law. Pursuant to the provision at issue, a custodian may only consent to coercive medical measures when they are carried out in a hospital even if, from a medical perspective, affected persons could equally undergo coercive medical treatment in the facility in which they are confined, provided that it can ensure the necessary medical care including any necessary follow-up treatment, and their health is affected by being taken to a hospital for the purpose of carrying out the coercive medical measure.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Ott**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
4.	1 BvR 2466/19	Constitutional complaint challenging § 20c of the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia as amended by the Act to Adapt the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia and the Act on the Structure and Powers of the Public Security Authorities of 18 December 2018 (GV. NW p. 741, corrected 2019 p. 23), which concerns powers for telecommunications surveillance and source telecommunications surveillance, as well as § 8(4) of the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia as amended by the Act to Strengthen Security in North Rhine-Westphalia of 13 December 2018 (GV. NW p. 684, corrected 2019 p. 23), which contains a catalogue of terrorist offences within the meaning of this Act.
5.	1 BvL 3/22	Referral from the Federal Administrative Court concerning two provisions of the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia (§ 16a(1) first sentence no. 2 in conjunction with the second sentence of the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia in the version of 25 July 2003 – GV. NW p. 441 –, as amended by the Act Amending the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia of 9 February 2010 – GV. NW p. 132 - and § 17(1) first sentence, first alternative no. 2 in conjunction with the second sentence of the Police Act for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia in the version of 25 July 2003 – GV. NW p. 441), which authorise the police authorities to carry out longer-term observation measures and to collect data through the covert use of technical means, in particular to record images, in the course of which the data of (uninvolved) third parties may also be collected where necessary.
6.	1 BvR 2133/22	Constitutional complaint challenging various surveillance powers, related procedural requirements and authorisations to process and share data under the Hessian Protection of the Constitution Act in the version of the Act Amending Security Law Provisions and Reorganising the Riot Police of 29 June 2023 (GVBl p. 456), newly promulgated on 20 July 2023 (GVBl p. 614).
7.	1 BvR 180/23	Constitutional complaint lodged by lawyers, artists and journalists, amongst others, regarding the constitutionality of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure effected by the Act to Improve the Effectiveness and Practicality of Criminal Proceedings of 17 August 2017 (BGBl I p. 3202, entry into force on 24 August 2017), in particular the possibility of ordering so-called source telecommunications surveillance and remote searches (by means of Trojan software used by the government, so-called state Trojans).

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Christ**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
8.	1 BvL 9/21	Referral from the Federal Administrative Court regarding the question of whether there exists a constitutional right of those in need of financial support for their education and training to grants arising out of the right to equal participation under Art. 12(1) in conjunction with Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law and the social state principle pursuant to Art. 20(1) of the Basic Law and, if that is the case, whether the level of grants provided to students enrolled in higher education pursuant to § 13(1) no. 2 of the Federal Education Assistance Act in the relevant time period of October 2014 to February 2015 is compatible with these constitutional requirements.
9.	1 BvR 460/23	Constitutional complaint of operators of renewable energy plants challenging the transfer of excess profits to grid operators under §§ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 29 of the Act to Control Energy Prices of 20 December 2022 (BGBl I p. 2512).
10.	1 BvR 611/23	Constitutional complaint lodged by operators of renewable energy plants challenging the transfer of excess profits to grid operators under the relevant provisions of the Act to Control Energy Prices of 20 December 2022 (BGBl I p. 2512).
11.	1 BvR 1726/23	Constitutional complaint challenging a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court and by-laws of the City of Tübingen regarding the levying of a tax on non-recyclable packaging (disposable packaging) and non-reusable crockery (disposable crockery) as well as on non-reusable cutlery (disposable cutlery).

**Reporting Justice: Prof. Dr. Radtke**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
12.	1 BvL 10/20	Referral from the Federal Court of Justice regarding the question of whether it is compatible with the general right of personality protected by Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 1(1) of the Basic Law that a person adopted as an adult who used their birth name as their last name – but not as their married name – prior to adoption cannot continue to use their birth name as their only last name pursuant to § 1767(2) first sentence and § 1757 of the Civil Code even if special circumstances exist.
13.	1 BvR 911/21	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether the family courts, in proceedings for the adoption of an adult (§ 1767 of the Civil Code), must hear not only the children of the adoptive parent and the person to be adopted, but also other descendants, in an interpretation that goes beyond the wording of § 193 of the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction.
14.	1 BvR 2017/21	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether it is compatible with Art. 6(2) first sentence of the Basic Law that, under § 1600(2) and (3) of the Civil Code, a biological father cannot challenge paternity under any circumstances if a social and family relationship existed between the child and the legal father at the time of the last court hearing.
15.	1 BvR 2229/21	Constitutional complaint regarding the questions of whether in the constellations covered by § 1680(3) in conjunction with § 1680(2) of the Civil Code, following the loss of custody of the parent who had sole custody and the child’s separation from them, the transfer of custody to the parent who previously did not have custody can only be refused if this puts the child’s best interests at risk and whether decisions to that effect by the ordinary courts should be subject to constitutional review on the basis of the strict standard (Art. 6(3) of the Basic Law) that applies to cases of parent-child separation.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Härtel**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
16.	1 BvR 1743/16, 1 BvR 2539/16	Constitutional complaints challenging provisions of the Article 10 Act and the Federal Data Protection Act concerning strategic surveillance of telecommunications.
17.	1 BvR 1160/19	Constitutional complaint challenging provisions of the Federal Criminal Police Office Act, in particular concerning the covert surveillance of contact persons for counter-terrorism purposes using special means and the further processing of previously collected personal data in police databases.
18.	1 BvR 1820/23	Constitutional complaint challenging provisions of the Federal Intelligence Service Act regarding the strategic surveillance of foreign telecommunications (between non-Germans located outside of Germany) and remote searches as well as the further processing of personal data.
19.	1 BvR 1705/21, 1 BvR 1295/22	Constitutional complaints challenging provisions on source telecommunications surveillance and the related procedural requirements under the Article 10 Act, the sharing of personal data by the intelligence services (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Land Offices for the Protection of the Constitution, Military Counter-Intelligence Service and Federal Intelligence Service) and the legislator’s failure to enact a specific framework governing IT security vulnerabilities.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Wolff**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
20.	1 BvR 548/22	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether fees imposed for additional police presence at ‘high-risk’ games in professional football (so-called event fees, cf. § 4(4) of the Bremen Fee and Levy Act) are compatible with the Basic Law, in particular with the organiser’s fundamental rights under Art. 2(1), Art. 3(1), Art. 12(1) and Art. 14(1) of the Basic Law.
21.	1 BvR 948/23	Constitutional complaint challenging decisions of the civil courts that ordered the complainants to provide the producers of sound recordings with specific information and to hand over reproductions for the purpose of destruction (so-called Metall-auf-Metall case) due to acts of use of a sampled piece of music between 22 December 2002 (after expiry of the implementation deadline of the so-called InfoSoc Directive) and 7 June 2021 (entry into force of § 51a of the Copyright Act). The constitutional complaint concerns the delineation of the scope of application of the fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the fundamental rights under the Basic Law.
22.	1 BvR 968/23, 1 BvR 1020/23, 1 BvR 1507/23, 1 BvR 2116/23, 1 BvR 2197/23	Constitutional complaints challenging §§ 35a, 130a, 130b and 130e of the Fifth Book of the Code of Social Law as amended by the Act to Stabilise the Finances of Statutory Health Insurance Schemes of 7 November 2022 (BGBl I p. 1990) and by the Act to Control Drug Supply Shortages and to Improve Supply of 19 July 2023 (BGBl I no. 197). Pharmaceutical companies challenge various legislative measures designed to limit increases in spending on drugs, including the increase in the manufacturer discount, the extension of the price moratorium, limits regarding the pricing of new drugs and the combination discount.

**Reporting Justice: Prof. Dr. Eifert, LL.M. (Berkeley)**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
23.	1 BvR 1141/19	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether the amendments to the Thuringian Higher Education Act of 10 May 2018, which strengthen co-determination rights of students and non-academic staff in universities’ self-governing bodies, set out new directorial powers and lay down attendance requirements for students, violate the complainants’ freedom of research and teaching following from Art. 5(3) of the Basic Law.
24.	1 BvR 1109/21	Constitutional complaint challenging a decision of the Federal Labour Court, which declared rules in collective agreements to be incompatible with the general guarantee of the right to equality and eliminated the violation of the right to equality by means of ‘levelling up’.
25.	1 BvR 2047/23	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether the Federal Government’s climate action programme, adopted on 4 October 2023 pursuant to § 9(1) of the Federal Climate Change Act, violates intertemporal guarantees of freedom.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Meßling**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
26.	1 BvR 5/21	Referral from the Lower Saxony/Bremen Higher Social Court regarding the question of whether § 3(2) first and second sentence of the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act and § 3(2) fifth sentence in conjunction with § 3(1) fifth and eighth sentence of the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act in the version applicable in 2018, promulgated on 20 October 2015 (BGBI I p. 1722) and 11 March 2016 (BGBI I p. 390) and the publication of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of 26 October 2015 (BGBI I p. 1793) concerning the amount of benefits granted to asylum seekers during their first months in Germany is compatible with the fundamental right to the guarantee of an existential minimum in accordance with human dignity following from Art. 1(1) in conjunction with Art. 20(1) of the Basic Law.
27.	1 BvR 804/22	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether the preferential inheritance and gift tax treatment for the transfer of business assets pursuant to §§ 13a, 13b, 13c, 19, 19a, 28a of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act 2016 and § 203 of the Valuation Act are compatible with the Basic Law or whether they disadvantage those to whom the provisions do not apply in a constitutionally objectionable manner.
28.	1 BvF 1/23	Constitutional review concerning the question of whether § 12(3), § 16(1) and § 19(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act in the version promulgated on 27 February 1997 (BGBl I p. 378), last amended by Article 8 of the Act of 16 July 2021 (BGBI I p. 2947), is incompatible with the Basic Law.
29.	1 BvR 1796/23	Constitutional complaint lodged by a lawyer-notary challenging the expiry of his right to practise as a notary because he reached the statutory age limit of 70 and asserting a violation of Art. 12(1), Art. 101(1) second sentence and Art. 103(1) of the Basic Law as well as Art. 15(1), Art. 16 and Art. 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
30.	1 BvR 2284/23, 1 BvR 2285/23	Constitutional complaint by emergency and intensive care doctors against § 5c of the Protection Against Infection Act, which was newly inserted at the end of 2022. The federal legislator enacted this provision in response to the Triage decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Order of 16 December 2021 - 1 BvR 1541/20 -, BVerfGE 160, 79) and set out a procedure for the allocation of life-sustaining treatment capacities in intensive care, criteria for the allocation decision as well as documentation and notification obligations.

Second Senate

**Reporting Justice: Vice-President Prof. Dr. König**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
1.	2 BvR 508/21	Constitutional complaint challenging the Federal Republic of Germany’s failure to take suitable measures to ensure compliance with international law with regard to the deployment of drones, used for the purpose of killing people in Yemen, operated by the United States through its Ramstein Air Base.
2.	2 BvR 1277/23	Constitutional complaint challenging a court decision that declared impermissible an ongoing arbitration procedure on the basis of the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. The complainants challenge a decision of the Federal Court of Justice, which held that German courts have jurisdiction to determine the permissibility of an arbitration procedure under the ICSID Convention and that the ICSID Convention does not unfold its preclusive effect in view of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding investment protection agreements among Member States of the European Union.
3.	2 BvR 85/24	Constitutional complaint challenging the declaration of enforceability of an arbitration decision based on a bilateral investment protection agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of India. The complainant asserts a violation of the right to one’s lawful judge on the grounds that the Federal Court of Justice failed to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union the question of whether the latter’s case-law regarding investment protection agreements among Member States of the European Union is also applicable to investment protection agreements between Member States of the European Union and states outside of the European Union.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Maidowski**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
4.	2 BvL 2/16, 2 BvL 4/16, 2 BvL 5/16, 2 BvL 6/16	Orders of suspension and referral from the Bremen Administrative Court regarding the question of whether individual provisions of the law governing the remuneration of civil servants in Bremen concerning remuneration amounts for various remuneration grades within the remuneration brackets A, C and R in 2013 and 2014 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Art. 33(5) of the Basic Law.
5.	2 BvL 5/18, 2 BvL 6/18, 2 BvL 7/18, 2 BvL 8/18, 2 BvL 9/18	Orders of suspension and referral from the Federal Administrative Court regarding the question of whether individual provisions of the law governing the remuneration of civil servants in Berlin concerning remuneration amounts for various remuneration grades within the remuneration bracket A from 2010 to 2015 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Art. 33(5) of the Basic Law.
6.	2 BvL 2/22	Order of suspension and referral from the Higher Administrative Court for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia regarding the question of whether the inclusion of the Land Police Commissioner in the group of political appointees laid down in § 37(1) no. 5 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Civil Service Act is unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Art. 33(5) of the Basic Law.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Langenfeld**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
7.	2 BvR 557/19	Constitutional complaint challenging a decision of the Federal Court of Justice setting aside an arbitration decision based on a bilateral investment protection agreement. The investment protection agreement granted certain rights to investors and provided for the possibility of challenging a violation of these rights by an EU Member State before an arbitral tribunal. The Court of Justice of the European Union found that such a system of legal protection is incompatible with the autonomy of EU law. The complainant asserts that German courts were not allowed to implement the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, given that it amounted to an ultra vires act.
8.	2 BvR 934/19	Constitutional complaint lodged by a religious association against a judgment of the Federal Labour Court. In its decision – which was preceded by a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union – the Federal Labour Court ordered the complainant to pay compensation because it had not invited a candidate without religious affiliation to a job interview and had thereby discriminated against her on grounds of religion.
9.	2 BvE 1/20	Application in Organstreit proceedings against the Bundestag and the Bundestag Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection challenging the recall of one of the members of the applicant – a parliamentary group – as chair of the Committee. The applicant asserts that the recall decision taken by the Committee majority violates its constitutional rights, claiming that it was entitled to the position of chair on that Committee. Applicant: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag.
10.	2 BvE 9/21	Application in Organstreit proceedings against the Bundestag and the Federal Government on grounds of an asserted violation of the responsibility with regard to European integration in relation to Regulation (EU) 2021/697 establishing the European Defence Fund (OJ EU L 170 of 12 May 2021, p. 149). Applicant: The former parliamentary group DIE LINKE in the German Bundestag.
11.	2 BvE 10/21	Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether committees of the German Bundestag may appoint their chairs by majority vote. The applicant claims that the circumvention of its right to appoint committee chairs, established by the Saint Laguë/Schepers method, by way of free majority voting violates its right to equal treatment as a parliamentary group, its right to fair and good-faith application of the Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag and its right to effective opposition. Applicant: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag.
12.	2 BvR 141/22	Constitutional complaint challenging the Act on the Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union (BGBl II no. 1 of 21 January 2021, p. 3). The complainant asserts that the act of approval deprives it of an arbitration decision in its favour.
13.	2 BvR 6/23, 2 BvR 994/23	Application in Organstreit proceedings lodged by a political party and constitutional complaint concerning the Act to Approve Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 of 13 July 2018 amending the so-called direct election provision (Council Decision and Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976). The applicant and the complainant contend that their rights have been violated by the obligation on the Federal Republic of Germany provided for in the law to impose a threshold of at least two percent for elections to the European Parliament.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Wallrabenstein**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
14.	2 BvE 3/20	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag and its Presidium regarding the handling of two motions lodged by the applicant in which it had doubted that the Plenary had the required quorum to make decisions in two night sessions on 27/28 June 2019 and 7/8 November 2019. Applicant: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag.
15.	2 BvE 4/22	Organstreit proceedings against the Federal Government regarding the question of whether a statement by the Federal Chancellor made in the context of parliamentary question time violated the rights of the applicant and the Bundestag following from Art. 38(1) second sentence and Art. 20(2) second sentence of the Basic Law. Applicants: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag and a member of the German Bundestag.
16.	2 BvE 2/23	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the Bundestag, in adopting the Act Amending the Federal Elections Act and the Twenty-Fifth Act Amending the Federal Elections Act on 17 March 2023, violated the applicant’s right to equal opportunities and its freedom to operate as a political party following from Art. 21(1) of the Basic Law, or, subsidiarily, the question of whether the Bundestag violated Art. 21(1) of the Basic Law by failing to amend the five-percent threshold laid down in § 6(3) first sentence of the Federal Elections Act for all of Germany in such a way that the provision no longer applies throughout Germany, but only in relation to the individual Länder. Applicant: The party Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (CSU).
17.	2 BvE 4/23	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the design of the legislative process regarding the Second Amendment to the Buildings Energy Act failed to satisfy the requirements arising from Art. 38(1) second sentence of the Basic Law and Art. 38(1) second sentence in conjunction with Art. 42(1) first sentence and Art. 76 f. of the Basic Law and violated the applicant’s right as a member of Parliament to equal participation in parliamentary decision-making. Applicant: A member of the German Bundestag.
18.	2 BvE 9/23	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the Bundestag, in adopting Art. 2 no. 4 of the Act Amending the Federal Elections Act and the Twenty-Fifth Act Amending the Federal Elections Act of 8 June 2023 (BGBl I no. 147), violated the applicant’s right to equal opportunities following from Art. 21(1) in conjunction with Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law to the extent that the so-called minimum representation provision set out in § 6(3) first sentence, second alternative of the Federal Elections Act (old version) is no longer included in the new version of § 4(2) second sentence no. 2 of the Federal Elections Act as a counter-exception to the five-percent threshold set out therein. Applicant: The party DIE LINKE.
19.	2 BvE 10/23	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the Bundestag, in adopting Art. 2 no. 4 of the Act Amending the Federal Elections Act and the Twenty-Fifth Act Amending the Federal Elections Act of 8 June 2023 (BGBl I no. 147), violated the applicant’s constitutional status as a parliamentary group under Art. 38(1) second sentence in conjunction with Art. 21(1) and Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law and its right to equal participation in parliamentary decision-making under Art. 38(1) second sentence of the Basic Law, firstly through the design of the legislative process and secondly to the extent that the so-called minimum representation provision set out in § 6(3) first sentence, second alternative of the Federal Elections Act (old version) is no longer included in the new version of § 4(2) second sentence no. 2 of the Federal Elections Act, in particular as a counter-exception to the five-percent threshold set out therein, and it therefore cannot be ruled out that the applicant will no longer be represented in the German Bundestag as a parliamentary group after the next Bundestag elections. Applicant: The former parliamentary group DIE LINKE in the German Bundestag.
20.	2 BvE 12/23	Organstreit proceedings against the Federal Government regarding the question of whether a statement made in the context of parliamentary question time by the Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, who serves as Federal Government Commissioner for the Acceptance of Sexual and Gender Diversity, violated the rights of the applicant and of the Bundestag following from Art. 38(1) second sentence and Art. 20(2) second sentence of the Basic Law. Applicant: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag and a member of the German Bundestag.
21.	2 BvE 13/23	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the Bundestag decision of 5 July 2023 not to establish a committee of inquiry regarding the ‘Cum-Ex/M.M. Warburg & CO Bank’ affair violated the applicants’ rights following from Art. 44(2) first sentence of the Basic Law. Applicants: The parliamentary group CDU/CSU in the German Bundestag and 197 members of the German Bundestag.
22.	2 BvE 15/23	Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the Bundestag, in amending § 1(2) first sentence and § 1(3) second sentence of the Federal Elections Act while failing to adapt § 20(2) third sentence of the Federal Elections Act, and in inserting § 20(2) second sentence in conjunction with § 26(1) third sentence of the Federal Elections Act while failing to adapt § 27(1) second sentence of the Federal Elections Act, violated the applicant’s right to universal and equal elections under Art. 38(1) of the Basic Law and its right to equal opportunities as a political party following from Art. 21(1) in conjunction with Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law. Applicant: The party Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ÖDP).
23.	2 BvF 1/23	Proceedings for the abstract judicial review of whether Art. 2 of the Act Amending the Federal Elections Act and the Twenty-Fifth Act Amending the Federal Elections Act of 8 June 2023 (BGBl I no. 147) is incompatible with Art. 20(1) and (2), Art. 21(1) and Art. 38(1) first sentence of the Basic Law and void. Applicant: The Bavarian Land Government
24.	2 BvF 3/23	Proceedings for the abstract judicial review of whether Art. 2 of the Act Amending the Federal Elections Act and the Twenty-Fifth Act Amending the Federal Elections Act of 8 June 2023 (BGBl I no. 147) is incompatible with Art. 20(1) and (2), Art. 21(1) and Art. 38(1) first sentence of the Basic Law and void. Applicants: 195 members of the German Bundestag.
25.	2 BvR 790/23, 2 BvR 842/23, 2 BvR 1120/23, 2 BvR 1209/23, 2 BvR 1523/23, 2 BvR 1547/23	Constitutional complaints challenging amendments to the Federal Elections Act and the Twenty-Fifth Act Amending the Federal Elections Act of 8 June 2023 (BGBl I no. 147) and asserting a violation of Art. 3(1), Art. 21(1) and Art. 38(1) of the Basic Law in particular.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Fetzer**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
26.	2 BvL 19/14	Order of suspension and referral from the Federal Fiscal Court regarding the question of whether § 8(1) of the Corporation Tax Act 2002 in conjunction with § 10d(2) first sentence of the Income Tax Act 2002, as amended by the Act to Implement the Protocol Declaration of the Federal Government regarding the Recommendation of the Mediation Committee on the Act to Reduce Tax Concessions of 22 December 2003 (BGBl I p. 2840), violate Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law, and whether § 10a second sentence of the Trade Tax Act 2002, as amended by the Act to Amend the Trade Tax Act and Other Laws of 23 December 2003 (BGBl I p. 2922), violates Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law.
27.	2 BvR 1505/20	Constitutional complaint lodged by six members of the German Bundestag from the FDP parliamentary group challenging the continuation of the Solidarity Surcharge Act 1995 in the version promulgated on 15 October 2002 (BGBl I p. 4130), as amended by Article 1 of the Act to Roll Back the Solidarity Surcharge 1995 of 10 December 2019 (BGBl I p. 2115).

**Reporting Justice: Justice Offenloch**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
28.	2 BvR 702/20	Constitutional complaint against the criminal offence of handling stolen data in § 202d of the Criminal Code and the prohibition of seizures in § 97(2) third sentence of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inserted by the Act to Introduce a Retention Obligation and a Maximum Retention Period for Traffic Data of 10 December 2015 (BGBl I p. 2218).
29.	2 BvR 533/21	Constitutional complaint challenging decisions of the Berlin Higher Regional Court and Regional Court in relation to the confiscation of two properties in Berlin Neukölln pursuant to § 76a(4) first sentence of the Criminal Code after a criminal investigation on suspicion of money laundering was discontinued for lack of a specific predicate offence.
30.	2 BvE 2/22, 2 BvE 3/22	Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether the Federal Chancellor, the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action and the Federal Government, through statements made in the Bundestag on the applicant, the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), violated the applicant’s right to equal opportunities in political competition following from Art. 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law (right of members of the government to issue political statements). Applicant: The party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
31.	2 BvE 1/23	Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether the German Bundestag, in enacting the 2022 and 2023 Budget Acts, violated the right of the applicant, the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), to equal opportunities following from Art. 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law because the Desiderius Erasmus Foundation, which is affiliated with the party, was not taken into consideration when general grants were allocated to political foundations. Applicant: The party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). (The application brief of 12 October 2022 was an additional submission made in proceedings 2 BvE 3/19; by judgment of 22 February 2023, it was separated from these proceedings and is now continued as proceedings 2 BvE 1/23).
32.	2 BvE 3/23	Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether the Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, through a statement made in the Bundestag on the applicant, the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), violated the applicant’s right to equal opportunities in political competition following from Art. 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law (right of members of the government to issue political statements). Applicant: The party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Wöckel**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
33.	2 BvL 3/18	Application for specific judicial review lodged by the Baden-Württemberg Higher Administrative Court concerning the question of whether § 44(6) of the Act on the Higher Education Institutions of the Land Baden-Württemberg (Land Higher Education Act) as amended by the Third Act Amending Higher Education Law (Third Higher Education Law Amendment Act) of 1 April 2014 (GBl. pp. 99, 140) violates Art. 71 and Art. 73(1) no. 9 of the Basic Law.
34.	2 BvF 1/19	Application for abstract judicial review lodged by the Berlin Land Government concerning the question of whether essential elements of part 5 of the Livestock Welfare Ordinance concerning pig farming are incompatible with §§ 2 and 2a of the Animal Welfare Act in conjunction with Art. 20a of the Basic Law.