During the council around the "Zwickauer cell" are far from being clarified, politicians demand a re-prohibition procedure against the NPD. The CSU wants to change parallel to party financing possibilities.
About the penetration of a party does not decide the Federal Scarf Court. Only the longest level, the next level, can be determined by the Supreme Court of Germany and then leads to the party affected by the judgment, among other things, that the mandates expire from the date of prohibition, the party’s migration is drawn and the use of the party labels is prohibited. Regulated the status for the longitudinacy assessment in Art 21 (2) GG:
Parties aming their objectives or behavior of their harmonics to affect or eliminate the liberal democratic principle or to danger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, are being strangled. The Federal Canceling Court decides on the question of the preamble.
It follows that the imprinting is not only dependent on the judgment of the BVerfG, but is explained in advance. An advancing is Z. B. Also, the reason for the Federal Office for strike protection to put a party under observation, as it is z. B. in North Rhine-Westphalia at the party the left happen. Now, however, the catch protection resp. the interior ministries, which he is understood, in relation to the NPD with the debt that the NPD is not prohibited or not prohibited today. the corresponding prohibition request was rejected by the BVerfG by means of the blocking minority.
A renewed prohibition procedure, as policy is currently being reused, has only chances of success when the prerequisites for the use of V-Manner had just changed in the lead-level since then – which is questionable. The CSU therefore has now employed a different coating: according to it, parties, which are considered as preamble, are excluded until the decision of the pebbles of party financing. However, it required a change in the legal bases. Among other things, the article 21 of the Basic Law and the corresponding paragraph of the Party Financing Act also had to be modified.
Although such a procedure is to be regarded as LEX NPD right now – but the dangers for the democratic constitutional state are obvious: who should decide on imprisonment and what legal basis? Is it enough if the controversial catch protection a party for catch-up? Should the authorities whose spy and monitoring measures (as in the case of Rolf Gossner) have been part of part for decades, even though they are based on any facts, whether a party is cut off before the decision is cut off and her so that the means are missing to defend themselves against such a decision?
The idea of the CSU is a quick shot, which is supposed to suggest, something was done against violence by right-wing extremists. But with him, however, was also new parties that are relatively conveniently defamed by the established by their influence on media relatively as privy, the financial foundation – which ultimately helps only those who have other economic donations as revenue sources.
The CSU was not only able to go to the Gartner in this way, she has also been a kind of Damocleswalch value for all new parties and also what else is associated with the judgment of the Highest Court (namely the question of party enhanced and financing by the State) in the hands of a relatively uncontrolled pre-instance.