Bundesverfassungsgericht - Preview of decisions 2025

First Senate

**Reporting Justice: President Prof. Dr. Harbarth, LL.M. (Yale)**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
1.	1 BvR 1885/24	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether the declaration of the Federal Cartel Office that the complainant, including all of its affiliated companies, is of paramount significance for competition across markets within the meaning of § 19a(1) of the Competition Act in the version of the Act Amending the Competition Act to Create a Focused, Proactive and Digital Competition Framework 4.0 and Other Provisions of 18 January 2021 (BGBl I p. 2), as well as the decision of the Federal Court of Justice rejecting the complaint against this declaration and § 19a of the Competition Act as such are compatible with the Basic Law.
2.	1 BvR 2428/20	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether a criminal conviction for disrupting assemblies and processions (§ 21 Assembly Act) is compatible with Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 19(1) second sentence and Article 103(2) of the Basic Law when the case underlying the conviction involves participation in a sit-down blockade that may also be protected by Article 8(1) of the Basic Law.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Ott**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
3.	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. NRW 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. NRW p. 684, corrected 2019 p. 23), which contains a catalogue of terrorist offences within the meaning of this Act.
4.	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 spyware used by the government, so-called ‘state Trojans’).
5.	1 BvF 1/18, 1 BvR 2271/18, 1 BvR 506/19	Application for abstract judicial review and constitutional complaints regarding the compatibility of individual provisions of the Bavarian Police Act with the Basic Law, in particular with regard to the category of danger (‘impending danger’), the maximum permissible duration of police custody and the possibilities for the use of explosives.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Christ or his successor**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
6.	1 BvR 368/22	Constitutional complaint, lodged by Humboldt University (Berlin), against § 110(6) second sentence of the Berlin Higher Education Act in the version of the Act to Strengthen Higher Education and Research of 14 September 2021 (GVBl p. 1039), and against § 110(6) second through fourth sentence of the Berlin Higher Education Act in the version of the Act Updating the Berlin Higher Education Act of 5 July 2022 (GVBl p. 450) – concerning mandatory follow-up employment commitments for postdoctoral researchers with fixed-term contracts with certain qualification targets agreed in the employment contract (‘postdocs’).
7.	1 BvR 2259/23, 1 BvR 1245/24, 1 BvR 1246/24, 1 BvR 1247/24, 1 BvR 1248/24, 1 BvR 1459/24	Constitutional complaints of manufacturers of single-use plastic products against the levy on single-use plastics introduced by the Act on the Fund to Address the Negative Impacts of Single-Use Plastics of 11 May 2023 (BGBl I no. 124).
8.	1 BvR 2127/24	Constitutional complaint lodged by an operator of day-care centres on behalf of the Protestant Church on the question of whether it is compatible with the Basic Law that religious institutions, on the basis of § 20(1) second and third sentence of the North Rhine-Westphalia Act on Early Childhood Education of 30 October 2007 (GV. NRW p. 462), in the version of the Act of 8 July 2016 (GV. NRW p. 622), receive a subsidy for the day-care centres they operate that is three percentage points lower than the one received by other recognised independent day-care centre operators.

**Reporting Justice: Prof. Dr. Radtke**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
9.	1 BvL 1/21, 1 BvL 2/21, 1 BvL 7/21, 1 BvL 2/22, 1 BvL 1/23, 1 BvR 2167/22	Referrals by several Higher Regional Courts and Local Courts and constitutional complaint regarding so-called co-motherhood; several ordinary courts and the complainants contend that the applicable law of parentage is unconstitutional because it does not allow two married women to be the joint parents of a child born to one of the women during the marriage, or only allows such co-parentage by way of adoption. The proceedings concern several cases involving different forms of conception, for example by means of official or private sperm donation or embryo donation.
10.	1 BvR 911/21	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether the family courts, in proceedings for the adoption of an adult (§ 1767 Civil Code) and 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, must hear not only from the children of the adoptive parent and the person to be adopted, but also from other descendants of the adoptive parent – and in the specific case from a granddaughter who is entitled to a compulsory portion of the estate.
11.	1 BvR 2229/21	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether § 1680(2) and (3) of the Civil Code in its current version, as interpreted by the ordinary courts, is compatible with the fundamental right of parental care (Article 6(2) first sentence and Article 6(3) of the Basic Law) of the parent who has not previously had custody. Specifically, the question to be decided is whether the transfer of custody to the parent who has not previously had custody when the custody of the parent who has previously had sole custody is withdrawn can only be refused if this puts the child’s best interests at risk in light of the constitutional requirements under Article 6(3) of the Basic Law that apply to separating a child from its parents against the parents’ will.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Härtel**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
12.	1 BvR 2578/24	Constitutional complaint lodged by public broadcaster Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (rbb) against Acts of Approval of the Land Berlin and of the Land Brandenburg of the rbb State Treaty concluded between the two Länder on 13 and 17 November 2023 regarding various provisions on organisation and liability.
13.	1 BvR 2524/24, 1 BvR 2525/24	Constitutional complaints lodged by public broadcasters Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) and the nine Land broadcasters affiliated with the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) against the failure to guarantee the financing of public broadcasting by increasing the public broadcasting fee for the contribution period of 2025 to 2028 in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission for the Determination of the Financial Needs of the Public Broadcasting Corporations.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Wolff**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
14.	1 BvR 1628/22, 1 BvR 1629/22, 1 BvR 1786/22, 1 BvR 1491/23, 1 BvR 1709/23, 1 BvR 885/24, 1 BvR 2661/24	Constitutional complaint against decisions of the Federal Network Agency relating to energy industry law that concern the determination of general sectoral productivity factors for operators of gas and electricity distribution networks for the third regulatory period and against the Federal Court of Justice’s approval of such decisions.
15.	1 BvR 948/23	Constitutional complaint challenging decisions of the civil courts that ordered the complainants to provide the producers of sound recordings with information and to hand over reproductions for the purpose of destruction (so-called Metall-auf-Metall case) in connection with the use of a sampled piece of music between 22 December 2002 (after expiry of the implementation deadline for 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.
16.	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). Several 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.
17.	1 BvR 1863/23	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of what effect a denial of authorisation in the context of a medicinal products authorisation procedure has on entitlements under § 2(1a) of the Fifth Book of the Code of Social Law and on entitlements directly relating to fundamental rights, and whether the restrictive interpretation of these entitlements adopted by the Federal Social Court in this context is compatible with the Basic Law, specifically with the complainant’s fundamental rights under Article 2(2) first sentence and Article 2(1) of the Basic Law in conjunction with the principle of the social state.

**Reporting Justice: Prof. Dr. Eifert, LL.M. (Berkeley)**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
18.	1 BvR 1699/24, 1 BvR 2098/24, 1 BvR 2113/24	Constitutional complaints challenging the amendments to the Federal Climate Change Act of 15 July 2024, pursuant to which cross-sectoral and multi-year accounts will be used to review whether climate targets have been met. The complainants assert a violation of the intertemporal guarantee of freedom (Article 2(1) of the Basic Law) and the right to life and physical integrity (Article 2(2) first sentence of the Basic Law).
19.	1 BvR 2637/21	Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether § 6a, § 6b and § 7(1), (2) nos. 3 through 6, (3) of the Act to Protect Employee Rights in the Meat Industry and § 1(3) nos. 3 and 6, § 2(1) first sentence nos. 5 and 9 and § 5(5) first and second sentence of the Act to Combat Undeclared Work and Illegal Employment in the version of Article 2 no. 5, Article 3, Article 3a, Article 8, Article 9 and Article 11 of the Act to Improve Enforcement of Worker Protection Rules of 22 December 2020 (BGBl I p. 3334) are compatible with Article 2(1), Article 3(1) Article 9, Article 12(1), Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 103(2) of the Basic Law.
20.	1 BvR 1141/19	Constitutional complaint challenging reforms to the Thuringian Higher Education Act of 10 May 2018 that strengthen co-determination rights of students and non-academic staff on university committees, revise the organisational framework of higher education institutions and lay down attendance requirements for students. The complainants assert a violation of their freedom of research and teaching (Article 5(3) first sentence of the Basic Law).

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Meßling**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
21.	1 BvL 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, as amended by the Act to Accelerate Asylum Procedures of 20 October 2015 (BGBI I p. 1722) and the Act Introducing Accelerated Asylum Procedures of 11 March 2016 (BGBI I p. 390), and the publication by 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 Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 20(1) of the Basic Law.
22.	1 BvR 804/22	Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether the preferential inheritance and gift tax treatment of 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.
23.	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 Article 12(1), Article 101(1) second sentence and Article 103(1) of the Basic Law and of Article 15(1), Article 16 and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
24.	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) in order to set out a procedure for the allocation of life-sustaining treatment capacities in intensive care, criteria for the allocation decisions 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 have 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 also applies 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 grades within the remuneration brackets A, C and R in 2013 and 2014 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Article 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 grades within the remuneration bracket A from 2010 to 2015 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Article 33(5) of the Basic Law.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Langenfeld**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
6.	2 BvR 934/19	Constitutional complaint lodged by a church-affiliated 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 did not extend an invitation to a job interview to a candidate without religious affiliation and had thereby discriminated against her on grounds of religion.
7.	2 BvE 7/20, 2 BvR 420/21	The application in Organstreit proceedings and the constitutional complaint concern the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP), an asset purchase programme of the European Central Bank (ECB). The PEPP was established by Decision (EU) 2020/440 of the European Central Bank of 24 March 2020 (OJ EU L 91 of 25 March 2020), which was subsequently amended by two further decisions. The applicant in the Organstreit proceedings is the parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag.
8.	2 BvE 9/21	Application in Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag and the Federal Government asserting a 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.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Prof. Dr. Wallrabenstein**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
9.	2 BvE 3/18	Application in Organstreit proceedings concerning the question of whether the Federal Government’s responses to minor interpellations regarding the granting of government loans to Air Berlin, an airline, and the cost development of the railway project Stuttgart 21 have violated the rights of the applicant and of the Bundestag and whether specific documents or parts thereof must be handed over in this context. Applicants: The parliamentary group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN in the German Bundestag and seven members of the German Bundestag.
10.	2 BvE 5/19	Application in Organstreit proceedings concerning the question of whether the German Bundestag has violated the rights of the applicants arising from Article 38(1) of the Basic Law by failing to elect certain Bundestag members to a special committee established under the Act on the Assumption of Guarantees within the Framework of a European Stabilisation Mechanism and the Act on the Financial Participation in the European Stability Mechanism. Applicants: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag and three members of the German Bundestag.
11.	2 BvE 3/20	Application in Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag and its Presidium regarding the handling of two motions lodged by the applicant in which it had raised doubts as to the existence of the quorum required to take decisions in the Plenary 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.
12.	2 BvE 4/22	Application in Organstreit proceedings against the Federal Government regarding the question of whether a statement by Federal Chancellor Scholz made in the context of parliamentary question time violated the rights of the applicants and the Bundestag following from Article 38(1) second sentence and Article 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.
13.	2 BvE 4/23	Application in 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 Article 38(1) second sentence of the Basic Law and Article 38(1) second sentence in conjunction with Article 42(1) first sentence and Article 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.
14.	2 BvE 12/23	Application in 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 applicants and of the Bundestag following from Article 38(1) second sentence and Article 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.
15.	2 BvE 13/23	Application in 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 Article 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.
16.	2 BvE 2/24	Application in Organstreit proceedings concerning the question of whether the German Bundestag has violated the rights under Article 38(1) second sentence of the Basic Law of the group DIE LINKE, its members of Parliament and the German Bundestag by limiting the group’s right to submit minor interpellations to ten such interpellations per month following the adoption of the resolution in Bundestag document 20/10219. Applicants: The group DIE LINKE in the German Bundestag and 28 members of the German Bundestag.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Fetzer**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
17.	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 Article 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 Article 3(1) of the Basic Law.
18.	2 BvL 15/14	Order of suspension and referral from the Federal Fiscal Court regarding the questions of whether § 50d(10) first sentence of the Income Tax Act 2002 as amended by the Tax Act 2009 and the Administrative Assistance Directive Implementation Act constitute a treaty override in violation of Article 20(3) and Article 25 of the Basic Law, of whether § 52(59a) eighth sentence of the Income Tax Act 2002, as amended by the Tax Act 2009 (now § 52(59a) eleventh sentence of the Income Tax Act 2002 as amended by the Administrative Assistance Directive Implementation Act), and § 52(59a) tenth sentence of the Income Tax Act 2009, as amended by the Administrative Assistance Directive Implementation Act, are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of the prohibition of retroactivity (Article 20(3) of the Basic Law).
19.	2 BvL 21/14	Order of suspension and referral from the Federal Fiscal Court regarding the questions of whether § 50d(9) first sentence no. 2 of the Income Tax Act 2002 as amended by the Tax Act 2007 constitutes a treaty override in violation of Article 20(3) and Article 25 of the Basic Law, of whether § 52(59a) ninth sentence in conjunction with § 50d(9) third sentence of the Income Tax Act 2009, as amended by the Administrative Assistance Directive Implementation Act, is unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of the prohibition of retroactivity (Article 20(3) of the Basic Law).
20.	2 BvL 19/17	Order of suspension and referral from the Hamburg Finance Court regarding the question of whether § 8c second sentence of the Corporation Tax Act as amended by the Act to Reform Corporate Taxation 2008 of 14 August 2007 (BGBl I p. 1912) is compatible with Article 3(1) of the Basic Law insofar as, in the event of the direct transfer of more than 50 per cent (with the case at hand involving an 80 per cent transfer) of the subscribed capital of a corporation to a buyer within a period of five years, losses that are not used before the acquisition of the holding are no longer deductible.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Offenloch**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
21.	2 BvR 702/20	Constitutional complaint challenging the criminal offence of handling stolen data under § 202d of the Criminal Code and the prohibition of seizures under § 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).
22.	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.
23.	2 BvE 2/22, 2 BvE 3/22, 2 BvE 3/23	Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether Federal Chancellor Scholz, Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Dr. Habeck and Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth Paus, as well as the Federal Government, through statements made in the Bundestag on the applicant – the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) –, have violated the applicant’s right to equal opportunities in political competition following from Article 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).
24.	2 BvR 1096/22, 2 BvR 1097/22	Constitutional complaints challenging the criminalisation of selling, buying or possessing childlike sex dolls in § 184l of the Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 July 2021 as part of the Act to Combat Sexual Violence Against Children. The complainants assert a violation of their general right of personality in the form of the right to sexual self-determination.
25.	2 BvE 1/23	Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether the German Bundestag, in adopting decisions on the 2022 and 2023 Budget Acts, violated the right to equal opportunities (Article 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law) of the applicant, the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), 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).
26.	2 BvE 4/24, 2 BvE 6/24, 2 BvE 7/24, 2 BvE 10/24	Application in Organstreit proceedings concerning the question of whether the German Bundestag, in adopting the Act on the Financing of Political Foundations (BGBl I 2023 no. 383) and (in part) in adopting the 2024 Budget Act (BGBl I no. 38) and/or the 2024 federal budget, has violated the applicants’ right to equal opportunities following from Article 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law. Applicants: The parties Partei Mensch Umwelt Tierschutz (Tierschutzpartei), Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ÖDP), Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht - Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (BSW).
27.	2 BvR 1643/24	Constitutional complaint lodged by the Desiderius Erasmus Foundation directly against the Act on the Financing of Political Foundations of 19 December 2023 on the grounds of a violation of its rights following from Article 2(1), Article 3(1) and Article 3(3) first sentence of the Basic Law and from Article 19(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law, all ‘reinforced by’ Article 21 of the Basic Law.
28.	2 BvR 1677/24	Constitutional complaint lodged by the Foundation ‘Frieden, Vernunft, Gerechtigkeit’ against the Act on the Financing of Political Foundations of 19 December 2023 on the grounds of a violation of its rights following from Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 21(1) of the Basic Law.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Frank**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
29.	2 BvR 2097/16	Constitutional complaint lodged by 67 municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia against the Second Act Amending the North Rhine-Westphalia Strengthening Pact Act of 3 December 2013 (GV. NRW, p. 726).
30.	2 BvR 1850/19	Constitutional complaint lodged by two municipalities against the failure of the Land Rhineland-Palatinate to provide for appropriate municipal finances in the Land Fiscal Equalisation Act, and against various provisions of the Rhineland-Palatinate Land Fiscal Equalisation Act.
31.	2 BvR 31/21	Constitutional complaint lodged by seven municipalities against § 94(1a) of the Twelfth Book of the Code of Social Law, which was inserted by the Act to Alleviate the Burden on Family Members of Care-Dependent Persons of 10 December 2019 (BGBl I p. 2135). They assert a violation of Article 28(2) first and third sentence of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 84(1) seventh sentence of the Basic Law.

**Reporting Justice: Justice Dr. Wöckel**
No.	File reference	Description of the case
32.	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 Baden-Württemberg Higher Education Act, as amended by the Third Act Amending Higher Education Law of 1 April 2014 (GBl. pp. 99, 140), violates Article 71 and Article 73(1) no. 9 of the Basic Law.
33.	2 BvL 11/18, 2 BvL 12/18, 2 BvL 14/18	Orders of suspension and referral from the Saarland Higher Administrative Court and Administrative Court regarding the question of whether individual provisions of the law governing the remuneration of civil servants in Saarland concerning remuneration amounts for various grades within the remuneration brackets A and R from 2011 to 2016 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Article 33(5) 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 Article 20a of the Basic Law.