Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has taken the German Parliament to the Constitutional Court over what it considers a direct attack on the rights of the opposition. Despite the party becoming the second largest political force in the country after the federal elections, the Bundestag has denied it a parliamentary meeting room proportional to its size.
Meanwhile, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), now only the third-largest faction, continues to enjoy logistical privileges it is no longer entitled to. For the AfD, this is a deliberate act of political discrimination.
The conflict centers around allocating so-called Fraktionssäle, the dedicated rooms assigned to each parliamentary group for internal meetings. Traditionally, the largest room goes to the largest group, the second-largest room to the second-largest party, and so on. However, the Ältestenrat (Council of Elders), which the governing parties control, decided that the SPD could retain the second-largest meeting room, despite now having fewer seats than the AfD.
The AfD was instead assigned a smaller room, previously used by the now-ousted liberal FDP group. That room was designed for 92 deputies and technically has a maximum capacity of 148 people. The issue is that the AfD currently holds 150 parliamentary seats. According to a technical report commissioned by the party, the assigned space is insufficient and violates workplace safety and fire protection regulations. There is not enough room between seats, emergency exits are lacking, and power outlets, screens, and technical infrastructure are inadequate.
The lawsuit filed in Karlsruhe includes an urgent request that the SPD vacate its current room, pending a final ruling. The AfD argues that all faction rooms are located on the same floor of the Reichstag and are easily accessible on foot, making the SPD’s argument—that they need to be close to the CDU for “government coordination”—legally baseless. The party also dismantles the SPD’s symbolic excuse that the room cannot be reassigned because it is named after Otto Wels, a historical Social Democrat figure.
AfD legal counsel Ulrich Vosgerau put it bluntly: never before in the Bundestag‘s history has a governing party been given priority over an opposition party in the assignment of parliamentary rooms, let alone in defiance of electoral results. “The largest room goes to the largest group, the second to the second-largest,” he notes. Deviating from that principle, the lawsuit argues, violates the constitutional principle of parliamentary equality.
This episode does not stand alone. It coincides with another controversy that further reveals the double standards within German institutions. AfD MP Peter Felser revealed that former Chancellor Olaf Scholz continues to occupy an office with eight publicly funded employees, despite legal limits allowing only five. The government refuses to specify what these employees do, justifying the expense by claiming that Scholz “initiated political projects during his tenure that remain historically relevant.”
The response was vague and evasive. State Minister Michael Meister (CDU), a close ally of current Chancellor Friedrich Merz, merely copied and pasted a previous government statement in reply to Felser’s inquiry. For Felser, this reveals a political complicity between the CDU and SPD that undermines voters: “The SPD gives the orders, and the Union delivers,” he said, criticizing the fact that policies like the promised electricity tax cut have been scrapped.
Both cases reveal a troubling pattern: political forces that challenge the system are marginalized, while the ruling elite shields itself with opaque use of public resources. If the courts fail to act, Germany risks sliding from a representative democracy into a party-state regime, where citizens’ votes are nullified by internal party machinery. This is no longer just about square meters, but respect for the democratic order.
