EUROPEAN COMMISSION Luxembourg, 13.7.2022 SWD(2022) 505 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report















Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report

















The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}



Abstract The German justice system continues to experience a very high level of perceived judicial independence and performs overall efficiently. The reinstatement of experience requirements among the selection criteria for presiding judges at the Federal courts has been welcomed by the judiciary. The Government intends to present a new reform to the powers of Ministers of Justice to issue instructions to prosecutors in individual cases after a draft bill by the Federal Ministry of Justice failed to advance in the last legislative period. An extension of the Pact for the Rule of Law to provide further resources for the judiciary has been announced, and the Länder have requested the Federal Government to start negotiations on this. However, long-term challenges remain regarding recruitments and the level of salaries of judges. Efforts to improve the digitalisation of the justice system continue and would also be addressed in the new Pact for the Rule of Law. Germany is still in the process of updating its strategic framework for the prevention of corruption in the federal administration as well as its whistleblower protection rules. However, a number of reforms are planned for the prevention of corruption, including to further enhance transparency in decision making. Among the planned initiatives of the new coalition agreement are the introduction of a legislative footprint on lobbying during the legislative process, and the revision of political party financing rules. Shortcomings remain in the regulation of asset disclosures for parliamentarians and government officials, especially with regard to fragmented and inconsistent post-employment rules and cooling-off periods. Following a significant rise in the detected financial damage caused by corruption in Germany in 2020, with a stark rise of bribery targeting the public sector, Germany has increased criminal sanctions for bribery of members of Parliament. Germany has a very solid record of the prosecution of individuals who commit foreign bribery, but no legal provisions for criminal liability of companies are in place. Germany continues to enjoy a high level of media freedom and pluralism. There is a high degree of independence of the media and relevant supervisory authorities. This includes a strongly pluralistic framework of national and regional public service broadcasters as well as a well-established Press Council. Transparency of media ownership is ensured. Journalist representatives point to room for improvement regarding the framework for the access to information by journalists, an issue which is also included in the coalition agreement. Länder authorities, the Press Council and other media stakeholders are currently discussing an update of the existing principles of conduct for the media and the police to address the safety of journalists during protests. As regards checks and balances, plans to improve the transparency and inclusiveness of law-making have been announced, which could address challenges identified by stakeholders in in this respect. Restrictive measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic have continued to be subject to constitutional and judicial review as well as parliamentary scrutiny. The appointment procedure for the head of the Anti-Discrimination Agency, who has remained in functions ad interim for the past four years, has been reformed. Civil society continues to experience challenges due to the uncertainty of rules related to their tax-exempt status. While the Government has announced an intention to reform the legal framework related to the tax exempt status, no concrete proposal has been tabled so far. Recommendations It is recommended to Germany to: ·Continue efforts to provide adequate resources for the justice system as part of the new pact of the rule of law, including on the level of salaries for judges, taking into account European standards on resources and remuneration for the justice system. ·Proceed with plans to introduce a ‘legislative footprint’ to allow for the monitoring and tracing of all interest representatives who seek to influence and contribute to specific legislative texts. ·Strengthen the existing rules on revolving doors by increasing consistency of the different applicable rules, the transparency of authorisations for future employment of high ranking public officials, and the length of cooling-off periods for federal ministers and federal parliamentary state secretaries. ·Take forward the plan to create a legal basis for a right to information of the press as regards federal authorities, taking into account European standards on access to documents. ·Take forward the plan to adapt the tax-exempt status for non-profit organisations with a view to address the challenges which the currently applicable rules present for their operation in practice, taking into account European standards on funding for civil society organisations. I.Justice System The court system in Germany is structured in a federal manner. Jurisdiction is exercised by federal courts and by the courts of the sixteen federal states (‘Länder’). The main share of competence and workload regarding the administration of justice lies with the Länder. The court structure is divided between the ordinary jurisdiction (civil and criminal) and specialised courts (administrative, finance, labour and social courts). Appointment of judges and prosecutors, except for the Federal Courts and the Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice, falls within the competence of the Länder. While appointment procedures differ in details between the Länder, all share common core elements, in particular the principle of merit and the judicial review of the process and decisions relating to appointments. For the Federal Courts, a judges’ selection committee selects judges for appointment by the executive and Councils of judges of the relevant courts have to be consulted in this process. There are currently 638 local courts, 115 regional courts and 24 higher regional courts, as well as 51 administrative courts and 15 higher administrative courts across the 16 Länder. There are five Federal Courts: the Federal Court of Justice, the Federal Administrative Court, the Federal Finance Court, the Federal Labour Court and the Federal Social Court. Germany has a Federal Constitutional Court and as well as constitutional courts in each of the Länder. The prosecution services in Germany are part of the executive, at federal level with the Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice. At the level of the Länder, each Land has its own public prosecution service. Germany participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). There are 27 regional Bars in Germany, which are organised under the umbrella of the German Federal Bar. Independence The level of perceived judicial independence in Germany continues to be very high among the general public and is now very high among companies. Overall, 76% of the general population and 77% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2022. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the level remains consistently high for both the general public and companies since 2016. The perceived judicial independence among the general public has decreased in comparison with 2021 (80%), but it remains higher than in 2016 (69%). The perceived judicial independence among companies has increased in comparison with 2021 (68%) as well as in comparison with 2016 (73%). The reinstatement of experience requirements among the selection criteria for presiding judges at the Federal Courts has been welcomed by the judiciary. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, the decision by the Minister of Justice in September 2020 to remove the requirement of usually five years of experience at the respective Federal Court from the selection criteria for presiding judges, without involving the Federal Courts and during an on-going recruitment procedure, had been subject to criticism from the judiciary. In February 2022, the new Minister of Justice decided to return to the previous selection criteria, including as regards the specific experience requirement, which has been welcomed by stakeholders. This has allowed the Federal Courts to proceed with appointments for presiding judges for a number of vacant posts, which had been frozen in the meantime. As regards the vacancies at the Federal Finance Court that were noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, a new president was appointed in January 2022, following an unsuccessful appeal by another applicant. Furthermore, in the appeal proceedings against the appointment of the vice-president of the Finance Court, a second instance administrative court found that the selection procedure had violated the requirements of Article 33 para 2 of the Basic Law (principle of merit), meaning that the procedure will have to be repeated. More generally, the coalition agreement includes an announcement to reform the appointment and promotion system for judges at the Federal Courts based on the criteria of quality, transparency and diversity. However, no steps have yet been taken. Stakeholders consider that the current system broadly functions well. A new proposal to reform the power of Ministers of Justice to issue instructions to Prosecutors in individual cases has been announced. During the last legislative period, , the reform proposed by the Federal Ministry of Justice to abolish the right to issue instructions to prosecutors in individual cases only in the field of EU and international judicial cooperation in criminal matters was not taken forward. The new coalition agreement maintains the intention to adjust the ministerial right to issue individual instructions in view of the requirements set out in the case law of the European Court of Justice. At this stage no further details have been announced, but stakeholders and the Länder remain split on the need for such a reform. A number of Länder as well as other stakeholders consider that the possibility to issue instructions needs to be maintained to comply with the constitutional principle of democratic legitimacy, while other stakeholders argue for its abolition, in view of avoiding any appearance of political influence. The UN Human Rights committee has also recommended to Germany in November 2021 to consider legislative reforms to effectively ensure the independence of the prosecution service. According to Council of Europe recommendations, where the Government has the power to give instructions to prosecute a specific case, such instructions must carry with them adequate guarantees that transparency and equity are respected in accordance with national law. Measures and reflections to introduce regular security checks for judges before their appointment are underway in certain Länder. In most Länder, the National Security Agencies only perform security checks of the records of a specific candidate for judicial appointment upon explicit request of the appointing authority. In Bavaria, since 2016, all candidates are subject to a standard request to the security agency to check its records, but only with the consent of the candidate and the applicant has the right to react to any potential concerns raised in the context of this check. In May 2021, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern introduced a system of systematic security checks of all candidate judges by the National Security Agency. Candidate judges have to be informed about the procedure and have the right to request a review in front of an administrative court. In Bremen and Niedersachsen, reflections are currently on-going to introduce a system of more systematic security checks. The aim behind such reforms would be to identify whether candidate judges respect the principle of constitutional loyalty. According to European standards, when security/integrity checks are not carried out by self-governing bodies of the judiciary themselves but by an external body, utmost consideration must be given to respecting the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Quality The Pact for the Rule of Law will be extended to provide further resources for the judiciary, but long-term challenges regarding to recruitment and salaries of judges remain. Following a request by the Länder reiterated in November 2021 and repeated demands by stakeholders already noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, the new coalition agreement of the Federal Government includes a commitment to continue the 2019 ‘Pact for the Rule of Law’. On 2 June 2022, the Länder formally requested the Federal Government to start negotiations for the new Pact for the Rule of Law, which were then started on 9 June 2022. The implementation of the original pact has continued, with over 2700 posts for judges and prosecutors having been created by June 2021, already over-fulfilling the commitment of creating 2000 new posts by the end of 2021. A final report from the Länder on the implementation of the pact will be presented in 2022. While recognising the progress made so far, representatives of judicial associations consider that due to new tasks for the judiciary, around 1500 to 2000 additional posts for judges and prosecutors would be necessary and that additional investments are also needed for creating posts for court staff, requesting a strong involvement of all judicial stakeholders, including also lawyers, in the preparation of the new pact for the rule of law. In addition, longer-term challenges persist, in view of an upcoming ‘wave’ of retirements of judges. In this context, concerns continue to be raised regarding the overall attractiveness of the profession, with stakeholders pointing both to the overall level of salaries as well as regional disparities in this respect as a challenge. A study of the German Association of Judges published in January 2022 shows that such disparities can amount up to a 13% difference in salary for entry-level positions between the Länder. Efforts to improve the digitalisation of the justice system continue, and should also be covered in the framework of the expanded Pact for the Rule of Law. The new Federal Government coalition has announced that the existing ‘Pact for the Rule of Law’ will be expanded to encompass also a ‘Digital Pact for the Judiciary’. Comprehensive procedural rules for the use of digital tools are in place in Germany for civil, criminal and administrative proceedings. Electronic communication tools for courts and prosecution services are fully implemented. Digital solutions to initiate and follow proceedings in civil and administrative cases are overall very good. However, gaps still exist for criminal cases, for example on defendants’ ability to communicate confidentially with their lawyer during remote hearings. As noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, courts and public prosecutors will be obliged to keep court and procedural files exclusively as electronic files by 1 January 2026 and three projects at Länder level are ongoing towards that transition. While the stakeholders are broadly in favour of the digitalisation of the judiciary under the expanded Pact for the Rule of Law, they pointed out that greater efforts are needed to ensure the consistent, effective and practical use of digital tools across the country, which can vary among individual courts and Länder. Building on the experiences of using the existing civil procedural rules for digital hearings, in November 2021 the Conference of Justice Ministers asked the Federal Government to modernise the rules for hearings in the civil procedural code. The Federal Ministry of Justice is presently working on a draft proposal. Steps to provide for specialised court chambers for commercial matters with the possibility to conduct proceedings in English are continuing. Following a legislative proposal tabled by the Federal Council (Bundesrat) as noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, the coalition agreement has taken up a commitment to provide for specialised chambers for international commercial and economic disputes that may conduct proceedings in English. The proposal had lapsed with the end of the legislative period, but has been reintroduced by the Bundesrat to the Bundestag in March 2022. In the meantime, in Berlin a new chamber for international commercial and competition disputes has been created in 2021. Other projects aimed at improving court specialisation related to large-scale international proceedings include ‘Quality Law NRW’, which provides for the centralisation of certain type of disputes at specific upper regional courts, for example cases related to mergers and acquisitions above a value of EUR 500 000 at the upper regional court of Düsseldorf. The aim is to centralise expertise in complex and fast-evolving areas of law and thereby to ensure efficient and high-quality adjudication. Efficiency The justice system overall continued to perform efficiently, even if the ‘mass’ civil court cases are posing a challenge. While the disposition time has increased for administrative cases in 2020 (from 397 days in 2019 to 426 days in 2020), their high clearance rate has remained relatively stable (at 109% in 2019 and at 110% in 2020) and confirmed the positive trend on efficiency in administrative cases. The number of pending administrative cases has slightly decreased in 2020, yet remains relatively high at 0.9 cases per 100 inhabitants. At the same time, in 2021, a significant increase of cases in relation to challenges on restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic was observed in the administrative courts compared to 2020, which may take time to process also throughout 2022. The performance indicators on civil and commercial litigious cases have remained stable (with the clearance slightly decreasing from 98.8% in 2019 to 98.1% in 2020). As highlighted by stakeholders, the phenomenon of ‘mass’ civil court cases, such as cases related to the so-called Dieselgate scandal present serious challenges for judges to ensure handling of cases within adequate timeframes. This issue has also been recognised as urgent by the Conference of Justice Ministers in November 2021 and June 2022, which have asked the Federal Government to examine the possibility of legislative amendments to enable the efficient handling of mass civil court proceedings. II.Anti-Corruption Framework Germany has several authorities responsible for the prevention of corruption at the federal level, including the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community and the Supreme Audit Institution. Competences for the policy coordination and corruption prevention in the 16 Ministries of the Interior at the Länder level depend on the anti-corruption frameworks in place. The Federal Court of Auditors and the Courts of Auditors at the Länder level have a preventive role in monitoring the public spending, including controls of corruption. As to the repression of corruption, Germany has a decentralised approach. The sixteen Länder are in charge of the investigation and prosecution of corruption offences across Germany. Some Länder have specialised police and prosecution offices on corruption in place. The Federal Criminal Police Office plays a role in the information-exchange between the international level and the local level as well as among police offices at the Länder level. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains low. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Germany scores 80/100 and ranks 5th in the European Union and 10th globally . This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years . The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 53% of respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 8% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%) . As regards businesses, 44% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 17% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%) . Furthermore, 34% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%) , while 35% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%) . Germany’s strategic anti-corruption framework at the federal level continues to be implemented and is under review. The ‘Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’ sets out key elements of the federal administration’s corruption prevention strategy applying to all categories of federal employees, authorities and offices, including the supreme federal authorities, the military and state-owned enterprises. The revision of the directive led by the Ministry of Interior is expected to be finalised by the end of 2022. Germany has been encouraged during the UNCAC review to seek, where appropriate, input from stakeholders outside the public sector. Similarly, the currently ongoing revision of the 2004 rules on the prohibition to accept favours and gifts, with an aim to assess whether more up-to-date and harmonised rules and increased legal certainty would be required, takes longer than initially planned and is expected to be finalised in 2023. The delayed comprehensive 2020 compilation report on integrity in the federal public administration planned for 2021, was finally published in spring 2022, including, among others, specific data on corruption cases and suspicion of corruption in the federal public administration. The Government envisages further strengthening the legal framework for corruption. Corruption is already broadly criminalised in Germany. Following the introduction of increased sanction levels that entered into force in October 2021, the new coalition agreement includes, in addition, reform plans to make the criminal offence for bribery involving members of the Parliament more effective. There is also a new initiative foreseen in the new coalition agreement to revise current corporate sanctions, after the failure of the initiative from the Ministry of Justice to introduce a Corporate Sanction Law in June 2021. A statute for corporate criminal liability could further facilitate Germany’s leading role among OECD countries in criminal prosecutions of foreign bribery. A new law also came into force amending the existing transparency register now requiring all legal entities to register information on beneficial ownership in companies. The financial damage caused by corruption has seen a significant rise in 2020. The federal police publishes on an annual basis a robust analytical National Situation Report illustrating Germany’s efforts to repress corruption. The report could be further improved by including information broken down by Germany’s 16 Länder. The latest 2021 official Federal Police Report details 5 510 police-registered corruption cases in 2020. This represents a minor increase in numbers of cases by 1.5% compared to 2019. The Report also indicates a decrease of 14.5% in the number of suspects. However, the number of bribery cases have starkly increased. Cash payments are the most widely used form of corruption. At the same time, the value of undue advantages obtained through bribery also significantly increased. Overall, the detected financial damage caused by corruption has notably increased compared to the previous year (2019) by 72.3% amounting to EUR 81.2 million in 2020. Of those who accepted a bribe, 71% have been public officials, which represents an increase by 4%, compared to the previous year. The services sector is the most affected, while the public administration represents the preferred target. Thus, compared to the previous year, overall the detected financial damage caused by corruption has notably increased in Germany in 2020, with a stark rise of bribery targeting the public sector. The mandatory lobby register and a lobbying code of conduct entered into force and the coalition agreement aims at further increasing lobbying transparency. Germany’s mandatory lobby register, administered by the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) and applicable to the Federal Parliament, the Federal Government and ministries, including heads of directorates and above, came into force in January 2022. The new Government plans to widen its scope to register a larger group of interest representatives and to also record lower level meetings at technical levels in the ministries where legislative drafts originate from. The register is accompanied by a lobbying code of conduct. An initial suggestion from stakeholders to establish an independent oversight body was not implemented with the result that the administration of the Federal Parliament will rely on third parties’ compliance monitoring. The new Government plans the introduction of a ‘legislative footprint’ or a digital legislative portal to publish who sought to influence legislative drafts. The collection and disclosure of comprehensive information on who influences whom in the decision-making process would help to ensure a level playing field for all interest representatives contributing to balanced legislative outcomes. It would also help to ensure that risks of corruption, conflicts of interest and regulatory capture is reduced, while the public interest is at the legislation’s core. The timeline for the introduction of the new transparency tool is scheduled for the end of 2022. Different post-employment rules remain a concern. In case of concerns of interference with the public interest, the Federal Government can prohibit, wholly or in part, the taking up of new employment of high-ranking public officials. For federal ministers and federal parliamentary state secretaries, the cooling-off periods are much shorter with a 12-18 months period, compared to the period applicable to state secretaries and directors general of three to five years, and thus could warrant a longer mandatory cooling-off period. Despite international recommendations, the Federal Government does not currently plan to address the persistent concerns as to the different application of Germany’s ‘revolving doors’ rules, including varying cooling-off periods and the large discretion in the decision of superiors regarding future employment of state secretaries and directors general. The administration of the Federal Parliament is working on guidelines to interpret rules on remunerated side jobs of members of Parliament. The amended Act on members of the Federal Parliament adopted in June 2021 addresses integrity challenges with regard to members of Parliament. The reform includes a prohibition for members of Parliament of remunerated lobby activities as side jobs and of remunerated lectures that are in connection to their parliamentary work. Supervision and enforcement may present obstacles in practice due to the lack of a fully independent oversight body or ethics committee with a mandate to investigate breaches. The amendment does not entail the disclosure of the actual time spent on the side job. Similarly, ad hoc disclosures are not required when a conflict between specific private interests of a member of Parliament emerges in relation to a matter under discussion in Parliament. There were several cases of delays in the reporting of parliamentarians’ side activities in 2021. Germany finalised the 2021 internal review of its rules on asset declarations, with some concerns remaining. The review did not result in addressing the lack of regulation for members of the Federal Government to disclose assets and properties. For members of the Federal Parliament, the categories of information to be disclosed in their financial declarations was also not extended to liabilities and significant assets, such as shareholdings in private enterprises below the current threshold. Similarly, Germany does not intend to widen the scope of declarations to also include information on spouses and dependent family members. The assets and financial interests of members of Parliament are subject to notification, if the respective member is in charge of an issue in a parliamentary committee and, at the same time, remunerated through a secondary activity. Germany plans to revise its political party financing rules to introduce more transparency in decision-making. Party financing is regulated in the Law for Members of the Parliament and the Law for Political Parties. The new coalition agreement includes plans to regulate sponsoring and hidden campaign finance by third parties. In this context, donations for parties above EUR 35 000 (instead of EUR 50 000, as is currently the case) would have to be notified to the President of the Parliament and made public in the future. In addition, the threshold for donations to be publicly disclosed by parties in their annual accountability report would be lowered from EUR 10 000 to EUR 7 500. Furthermore, it is planned to increase the human and financial resources of the Parliament’s administration to strengthen its oversight and control functions in this regard. It is however not clear whether it would have access to the tax information of donors for the monitoring of the regularity of party finance, in order to be able to cross-check data during the verification process of statements of accounts of political parties. Concerns remain regarding the significant time lapse between the party income and its reporting. New rules on whistleblower protection are still in preparation. The legislative initiative of the Federal Ministry of Justice to introduce a comprehensive whistleblowing legislation failed to receive the full support of the government coalition in 2021. A new draft law was published in April 2022. Until adoption, the general protections against retaliation for whistleblowers remain fragmented across several pieces of legislation.. In practice, also several contact points for whistleblower disclosures are in place at the federal and state level who facilitate the disclosure and investigation of corruption offences. The fragmentation across institutions and administrative levels has been criticised, as potential whistleblowers might have difficulties in identifying the appropriate disclosure channels. The Federal Police indicates a trend in previous years of approximately three quarters of corruption proceedings being initiated upon disclosures from such sources, including whistleblowers. Pandemic-related corruption risks continue to exist, with several cases under investigation, while additional preventive measures were taken. Several procurements of protective face masks that had been brokered by active and former members of Parliament and their relatives, who had obtained commission payments for the facilitation of contracts, were discovered and investigations were launched and continued in 2021. One case of alleged passive bribery of members of the Parliament who have brokered facemask deals is pending at the Federal Supreme Court. Since December 2021, Germany’s electronic competition register in support of public procurement processes is operational, enhancing the prevention of corruption during and in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, there is an obligation to report relevant crimes and misdemeanours to the register hosted by the Federal Cartel Office. The register hosts and flags information for public contracting authorities that is relevant for the exclusion of bidders from the procurement, including on final convictions, penalty orders and fines for corruption, bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, and other serious crimes. Public contracting authorities will be under the obligation to consult the competition register in this regard as of 1 June 2022. III.Media Pluralism And Media Freedom

In Germany, the Basic Law and secondary legislation form a well-established legal framework, guaranteeing media freedom and pluralism as well as the right of access to information. The main legislative competence in the area lies with the Länder, which conclude state treaties to establish a common media policy framework, including notably the State Media Treaty. This is completed by national legislation and safeguarded by constitutional guarantees and the relevant jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. The federal structure results in a variety of legal frameworks, supervisory structures and public service broadcasters providing an additional safeguard for media pluralism and media freedom. The independence of the 14 State Media Authorities functioning as regulatory authorities for commercial broadcasters remains ensured. There have been no major changes in the legal framework concerning the State Media Authorities since the 2021 report. Their financial independence remains guaranteed, with the budget ensured by a share of the broadcasting fee for households. The media authorities have now adopted all of their statutes required under the revised State Media Treaty and are fully applying the revised framework, which entered into force in November 2020. The self-regulation of the press remains effective, but the extension of the framework to new online media outlets brings challenges. The number of complaints received by the self-regulatory Press Council, composed of journalists’ and publishers’ associations, in 2021 has decreased notably, but remains at a high level (2 556 complaints received in 2021, compared to 4 085 in 2020 and 2 175 in 2019). Overall, the Press Council issued 60 public reprimands in 2021 of which 80% have been published. About a third of these reprimands related to violations of the protection of privacy as defined in the Press Code. The last revision of the State Media Treaty has introduced the possibility for certain online media with journalistic content to comply with their obligation to adhere to recognised journalistic principles by joining the Press Council and committing themselves to its Press Code. Journalist representatives indicate that the Council still needs to gather further experience and establish practices for how to best deal with these new type of media outlets. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor does not see a risk of commercial or political influence on editorial decisions. There are no issues signalled regarding the transparency of media ownership which is well developed. The legal framework requires commercial broadcasters to report ownership information and plans affecting the shareholders’ structure. It also sets out the requirements for broadcasting licences. Additional provisions ensure transparency of ownership for online news media and the press. Access to the information covering television, radio, press and online media remains ensured via a public database of the Commission on Concentration in the Media (KEK) of the state media authorities. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor concludes that there is a low risk regarding the transparency of media ownership. The Länder have initiated the process to update the rules on media concentration. While the state media laws contain provisions on media concentration across the press and broadcasting sector, the State Media Treaty regulates ownership concentration in television, under the regulatory supervision of the KEK. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates a medium risk on its news media concentration indicator. It states that the current media concentration control system, which was created for a traditional media environment and focuses on nationwide linear broadcasting, does not prevent a high degree of horizontal ownership concentration and would need to be updated to take into account today’s digital environment. The need to establish a future-proof media concentration framework was already concluded in a protocol declaration of all Länder in the context of the conclusion of the State Media Treaty in 2020. The relevant working group of the Länder has now started to discuss a future revision of the current rules on concentration. The legal framework safeguards the independence of the public service broadcasters and guarantees a pluralistic offer. The system of public service broadcasters at regional and national level, gathered in ARD and ZDF, ensures a pluralistic public service broadcasting structure and programming. The legal framework for both regional and national public service broadcaster ensures independent supervisory structures, in particular in the form of broadcasting councils responsible for the supervision as regards the programming of the broadcasters, and administrative councils, responsible for the supervision of the management and financial affairs of the broadcasters. The supervisory bodies are intended to reflect society with its members being nominated by relevant social groups, such as representatives from employer and trade associations, employee organisations, churches, cultural or educational institutions as well as representatives of the Länder and their parliaments. The members of the supervisory councils are mandated to act independently. Following the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, the number of political representatives in such supervisory bodies is limited to one third of the members. The financing in the form of a broadcasting fee secures the financial independence of the public service broadcasters. Overall, there are strong safeguards for the independence of the public service broadcasters, ensuring a pluralistic programming. The Länder launched in November 2021 a public consultation on the future mandate and structure of the public service broadcasters with a view on a reform reflecting the digital transformation in the media sector. Based on the results of this consultation, the Länder agreed in June 2022 to a legislative proposal amending the State Media Treaty, to be adopted in the following months. There is a solid framework for the journalists’ access to information, but stakeholders see further room for improvement. At national level, the Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act provide for the access to information. However, as already noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, journalist representatives see certain gaps in the framework, in particular as regards requests for access to information from federal authorities. GRECO has also addressed a recommendation to Germany regarding the Freedom of Information Act. A recent judgment of the Federal Administrative Court confirmed that journalists have a right of access to information vis-à-vis federal authorities. In most Länder, there are press laws in place guaranteeing the access to information by journalists. However, there are noteworthy divergences in the legislation of the Länder. In its coalition treaty, the Federal Government has announced that it will create a legal basis for a right to information of the press as regards federal authorities. While authorities at both federal and Länder level are making efforts to increase the safety of journalists, particularly when covering protests, incidents relating to physical aggression and online threats remain a serious concern. As in 2020, also in 2021 protests related to COVID-19 measures/vaccines were a particular hotspot for aggressions against journalists. Preliminary police statistics for 2021 indicate a total of 276 registered criminal offences in the broad target category ‘media’. These 276 cases included 49 cases of threats and 30 cases of violent offences, of which 27 qualified as personal injuries. In addition, verbal attacks and online hate speech and threats targeting journalists have been reported to be common. Since the last report, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists has registered five alerts relating to events in Germany . For the year 2021, the Mapping Media Freedom project recorded 119 alerts . The registered incidents relate to physical aggressions, verbal insults as well as online threats against journalists. Overall, these concerns have a notable impact on the professional environment for journalists and in particular their reporting of protests. Media outlets often provide private security guards to protect journalists at protests. The Mapping Media Freedom project and Reporters without Borders also refer to alleged cases of aggressions or threats by police officers against journalists. However, it is not clear to which extent or whether these allegations have been investigated or confirmed by official authorities. The Conference of the Ministers of Interior of the Länder, the Press Council and further media stakeholders currently discuss an update of the existing principles of conduct for the media and the police. Police authorities in some regions have increased efforts to protect journalists during protests, for example by establishing safe spaces for media workers. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor concludes that the increasing violence against journalists can be considered concerning. Civil society and journalist associations point to some further developments of concern regarding the professional environment for journalists. While the legal framework remains generally effective at preventing strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) targeting journalists, also in Germany there are some cases of abusive litigation against journalists, as highlighted by a call of media organisations and civil society organisations (CSOs) on the issue in 2021. CSOs and journalist associations continue to see potential risks of journalists being subject to electronic surveillance measures by intelligence services, in particular when interacting with potential informants, and have announced a joint appeal against the recent legal reform adopted in June 2021, allowing Germany’s intelligence services to use software tools to monitor communications. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Germany is a federal republic, with powers distributed between the federal and the sixteen state Governments. The separation of powers is enshrined in the Basic Law and the constitutions of the Länder. At the federal level, federal legislative power is vested in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) and the representative body of the Länder (Bundesrat). The Government, the Bundesrat or members of the Bundestag can submit legislative proposals. Constitutional review is ensured by the Federal Constitutional Court and the constitutional courts of the Länder. The German Human Rights Institute and the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency contribute to upholding fundamental rights. The Government plans to improve the transparency and inclusiveness of law-making, which could address challenges identified by stakeholders in the past. However, the Government coalition agreement contains an overall commitment to improve quality of law making, including early consultation of stakeholders and the creation of a digital portal on the law-making process, where the state of play of a proposal will be presented and comments can be submitted. While concrete details are yet to be announced, this could respond to criticism raised by some stakeholders over short or very variable consultation periods, especially but not only related to measures taken in the COVID-19 pandemic or overall insufficiently transparent consultation procedures on draft legislation. Currently, the Federal Government’s central platform on consultation procedures only brings together information on the existing sites of Ministries and agencies. Germany’s restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic have progressively eased and been subject to constitutional review. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law report, the Infection Protection Law (IfSG) contained powers for the Federal Government and the Länder to take measures under the IfSG, which could only be exercised as long as the Bundestag has declared a “state of epidemic”. On 18 November 2021, Parliament passed amendments to the IfSG, which allowed the Government to maintain certain restrictions and obligations to combat the pandemic in place until 19 March 2022 and, at the same time, the ‘state of epidemic’ expired on 25 November 2021. As a result, Länder could adopt certain restrictive measures to the extent that there was a concrete epidemic danger and subject to the approval of the regional parliaments. In 2021, a considerable share of the constitutional complaint proceedings concerned measures taken to combat the pandemic. In the period between March 2021 and February 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court received 465 new constitutional complaints against pandemic measures and decided on 318 such complaints. The complaints against the restrictive measures adopted to combat the COVID-19 pandemic also constituted an important share of cases at the administrative courts. On 19 November 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled on a number of constitutional complaints challenging the constitutionality and proportionality of the amendments adopted in April 2021 (the so-called ‘emergency brake’), and which had expired on 30 June 2021. Though the measures in the emergency brake constituted a strong interference with fundamental rights, the Federal Constitutional Court found that they were proportionate and in accordance with the German Basic Law. Following formal commitments by Germany clearly recognising the primacy of EU law, the Commission has closed the infringement procedure concerning the judgment of the German Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, on 9 June 2021, the Commission had decided to send a letter of formal notice to Germany for violation of the principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform application of Union law, as well as the respect of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU. On 2 December 2021, the Commission announced that it had closed the infringement procedure, in light of the strong commitments provided by Germany in the reply to the letter of formal notice. In particular, Germany formally declared that it affirms and recognises the principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness and uniform application of Union law. It explicitly recognised the authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the fact that measures taken by EU institutions cannot be a direct object of review in constitutional complaints and that courts of the Member States are required to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, including a second referral if necessary, as to whether an EU measure would exceed the EU competences, or risks violating the national identity of a Member State in disregard of Article 4(2) TEU. The German Government committed to using all the means at its disposal to ensure full recognition of the judicial powers assigned to the Court of Justice by the EU Treaties, in particular its power to issue binding and definitive rulings on the interpretation of EU law and the validity of EU measures. On 1 January 2022, Germany had 13 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation. At that time, Germany’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that remained pending was at 37% and the average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 3 years and 2 months. The oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 6 years, concerns the access to and the efficient functioning of justice in public trial. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending implementation remains 13. The appointment procedure for the director of the Anti-Discrimination Agency, who had been in function ad interim for the past four years, has been reformed. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, during the entire last legislative period, the position of the director of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency had remained vacant. Following an announcement in the coalition agreement, Parliament adopted legislative amendments that entered into effect on 28 May 2022 which provide that the head of the agency, who was previously appointed by the Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, will now be elected by Parliament on proposal from the Federal Government and appointed by the Federal President, for a period of five years, thereby decoupling the mandate from the legislative period. The amendments also set out a number of qualification criteria and defines the status of the head of the agency as the independent Federal Commissioner for antidiscrimination. This amendment corresponds also to a previous proposal made by the advisory council of the agency. The coalition agreement also commits to provide for additional competencies and appropriate financial and human resources for the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. As regards the German Institute for Human Rights, the coalition agreement commits to increasing its financial and human resources, which corresponds to a long-standing demand of the Institute, which currently often relies on project-based funding. The re-accreditation of the Institute, which functions as the National Human Rights Institution, was deferred by the Sub-Committee on accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) for 18 months during the session in March 2022. In its deferral decision, the SCA in particular encouraged the German Institute for Human Rights to advocate for amendments to its mandate that would strengthen its protection mandate, including its capacity to monitor and have access to places of deprivation of liberty. The Institute has proposed that the Federal Parliament change its rule of procedures, to ensure that the Institute is invited ex officio to parliamentary hearings, instead of relying on invitations by specific parliamentary groups, also to avoid any appearance of politicisation. Civil society continues to face practical challenges due to the uncertainty of their tax-exempt status, while a reform of the rules has been announced. While civic space in Germany continues to be considered as ‘open’, as noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, the legal uncertainty related to the political activity of civil society organisations (CSOs) with tax-exempt status continues to be a challenge in practice. While an administrative decree adopted in January 2022 provides clarifications on the current situation in line with the case law of the Federal Finance Court, stakeholders continue to raise concerns over the limitations for CSOs to engage in ‘political activity’ while maintaining their tax-exempt status. In particular, certain associations may be unable to carry out their charitable purpose without use of political means. In this context, civil society continues to report about cases of pressure on CSOs by political actors through legal action and threats related to their tax-exempt status, which can lead them to refrain from taking any political positions or engaging in advocacy work, and have started to systematically document such cases. The coalition agreement includes the commitment to present a legislative amendment that would clarify that charitable organisations can, within their charitable purpose, conduct political activity and can also occasionally take political positions on other issues outside its main field of activity. Council of Europe recommendations underline that any form of public support for NGOs should be governed by clear and objective criteria. To support civil society, the new Government also intends to present a ‘democracy support law’ in 2023, which responds to a demand from CSOs to create a more sustainable framework for federal funding for democratic engagement, as well as to develop a new national strategy for engagement in cooperation with civil society. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation_en . Abgeordnetenwatch (2021), ‘Many representatives breached transparency rules’ (‘Zahlreiche Abgeordnete verstießen gegen Transparenzvorschriften’) https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/recherchen/nebentaetigkeiten/zahlreiche-abgeordnete-verstiessen-gegen-transparenzvorschriften .

Allianz für Rechtssicherheit für politische Willensbildung (2022), Contribution from Allianz für Rechtssicherheit für politische Willensbildung for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. ARD (2022), Contribution from ARD for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Bavarian Ministry of Justice (2022), Press statement of 2 June 2022 on the Conference of Justice Ministers https://www.justiz.bayern.de/presse-und-medien/pressemitteilungen/archiv/2022/99.php . Bayrischer Rundfunk (2021), 'Mask deals – Tax investigations against Andrea Tandler' (Maskendeals - Steuerermittlungen gegen Andrea Tandler) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/maskendeals-steuerermittlungen-gegen-andrea-tandler,SrUydO1 . Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (2021), Position Paper by Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement for the 2021 elections (Engagementpolitische Empfehlungen des Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE) für ein Regierungsprogramm der 20. Legislaturperiode (Langfassung)) https://www.b-b-e.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/06_Service/02_Publikationen/2021/2021-bbe-reihe-positionen-003.pdf . Bundesrat (2021), Draft Law on strengthening courts in economic disputes (Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung der Gerichte in Wirtschaftsstreitigkeiten) https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2022/0001-0100/79-22(B).pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022. Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Germany https://monitor.civicus.org/country/germany/ . Civil Liberties Union for Europe (2022), Contribution from Civil Liberties Union for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Civil Society Europe (2022), Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Commission for the determination of concentration in the media sector (KEK, Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich) (2022), Media concentration https://www.kek-online.de/medienkonzentration . Conference of the Justice Ministers (2021), Further development of video hearings in court proceedings (Weiterentwicklung der Videoverhandlung im Gerichtsverfahren) https://www.justiz.nrw/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Herbstkonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-1---Videoverhandlungen.pdf . Conference of the Justice Ministers (2021), Pact for the Rule of Law – Pact for the strengthening of justice (Pakt für den Rechtsstaat - Stärkungspakt Justiz) https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Herbstkonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-14---Pakt-fuer-den-Rechtsstaat.pdf . Conference of the Justice Ministers (2021), Urgent need for reform to deal with mass procedures (Dringender Reformbedarf zur Bewältigung von Massenverfahren) https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Herbstkonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-11---Dringender-Reformbedarf-zur-Bewaeltigung-von-Massenverfahren.pdf . Conference of the Justice Ministers (2022), Pact for the Rule of Law – Pact for the Strengthening of Justice (Pakt für den Rechtsstaat – Stärkungspakt Justiz) https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/pdf/top_i.14_-_pakt_f%C3%BCr_den_rechtsstaat.pdf . Conference of the State Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption (2020), Implementation Review Group, Executive Summary – Germany https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewGroup/ExecutiveSummaries2/V2000216e.pdf . Correctiv (2022), Export champion Germany – the corruption file (Exportmeister Deutschland: Die Korruptions-Akte) https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/korruption/2022/03/10/exportmeister-deutschland-die-korruptions-akte/ . Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Germany. https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287 . Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2007), Recommendation Rec(2007)14 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe.

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Republic of Moldova - Joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on some measures related to the selection of candidates for administrative positions in bodies of self-administration of judges and prosecutors and the amendment of some normative acts (CDL-AD(2021)046). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022), Opinion no. 1073/2021 on the Introduction of the procedure of renewal of security vetting through amendments to the Courts Act (CDL(2022)005). Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 24 November 2020, AZ, C-510/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:953. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 27 May 2019, Minister for Justice and Equality v OG and PI, Joines Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456. Die Zeit (2021), ‘BGH must deal with mask affair’ (‘BGH muss sich mit Maskenaffäre befassen’) https://www.zeit.de/news/2021-11/18/bgh-muss-sich-mit-maskenaffaere-befassen . Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. District Court Berlin (2021), International chambers in the District Court Berlin (Internationale Kammern beim Landgericht Berlin) https://www.berlin.de/gerichte/landgericht/das-gericht/zustaendigkeiten/internationale-kammern/artikel.1034131.php . European Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (2021), Mapping Media Freedom – Monitoring Report 2021. European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, Mapping Media Freedom – Country profile: Germany. European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany. European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany. European Commission (2021), December infringement package: key decisions https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_6201?fbclid=IwAR1w6wbHhdcA5vxlqXTohUjxcgF7mJbpSBxTXjxaNWXpMJ0MIzb9Zyuwv7I . European Commission (2021), June infringement package: key decisions https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/INF_21_2743 . European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 9 June 2016, Madaus v. Germany, 44164/14.

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2021), Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Franet, German Institute for Human Rights (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Germany, Vienna, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-related . German Association of Judges (2021), After the Pact is before the Pact (Nach dem Pakt ist vor dem Pakt) https://www.drb.de/newsroom/presse-mediencenter/nachrichten-auf-einen-blick/nachricht/news/nach-dem-pakt-ist-vor-dem-pakt . German Association of Judges (2021), Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. German Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the German Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. German Association of Judges (2022), Gap in entry level salaries remains wide (Schere bei Einstiegsbesoldung bleibt weit geöffnet) https://www.richterbesoldung.de/besoldung-versorgung/besoldungsmeldungen/meldung/news/schere-bei-einstiegsbesoldung-bleibt-weit-geoeffnet . German Association of Judges (2022), Make use of all legal options in case of Meier (Alle rechtlichen Möglichkeiten im Fall Maier ausschöpfen) https://www.drb.de/newsroom/presse-mediencenter/nachrichten-auf-einen-blick/nachricht/news/alle-rechtlichen-moeglichkeiten-im-fall-maier-ausschoepfen . German Bar Association (2021), Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. German Bar Association (2022), Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. German Federal Administrative Court, Summary of Case law on access to information of the Federal Intelligence Service https://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/pdf/080721U6A10.20.0.pdf . German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, Advisory Council - Recommendations for a Reform of the procedure for the appointment of the Director (Empfehlungen zur Änderung des Verfahrens zur Besetzung der Leitung) https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/ueber-uns/beirat/beschluesse_des_beirats/beschluesse_des_beirats_node.html . German Federal Bar (2022), Contribution from the German Federal Bar for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. German Federal Constitutional Court (2021), Constitutional Complaints on the ‘Federal emergency break’ unsuccessful (Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend Ausgangs- und Kontaktbeschränkungen im Vierten Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite („Bundesnotbremse“) erfolglos) https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-101.html . German Federal Constitutional Court (2022), 2021 Annual Report https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Jahresbericht/jahresbericht_2021.pdf;jsessionid=F5E6DF8DE85081613AE79D68540DC5BC.2_cid506?__blob=publicationFile&v=8 . German Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of the First Senate of 25 March 2014, 1 BvF 1/11 https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/fs20140325_1bvf000111en.html . German Federal Constitutional Court, Written contribution from the German Federal Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit. German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) (2021), Federal overview on corruption 2020 (Bundeslagebild Korruption 2020) https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/JahresberichteUndLagebilder/Korruption/korruptionBundeslagebild2020.html;jsessionid=CAD4A2CA52733E972C2ED787931E94B3.live602?nn=28078 . German Federal Finance Court (2022), Dr. Hans-Josef Thesling new President of the Finance Court (Dr. Hans-Josef Thesling neuer Präsident des Bundesfinanzhofs) https://www.bundesfinanzhof.de/de/presse/pressemeldungen/detail/dr-hans-josef-thesling-neuer-praesident-des-bundesfinanzhofs/ . German Federal Government (2022), Input from Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.

German Federal Government, Reply to Parliamentary Question on Attacks on media professionals in the context of pandemic-related protests (Angriffe auf Medienschaffende im Kontext von pandemiebezogenen Protesten) (Bundestag Drucksache 20/949) https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/009/2000949.pdf . German Federal Ministry of Finance (2022), Revision of the administrative decree on the Fiscal Code (Änderung des Anwendungserlasses zur Abgabenordnung) https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/BMF_Schreiben/Weitere_Steuerthemen/Abgabenordnung/AO-Anwendungserlass/2022-01-12-aenderung-des-anwendungserlasses-zur-abgabenordnung-AEAO.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 . German Federal Ministry of Health (2021), Law amending the Infection Protection Law and other laws on the occasion of the repeal of the determination of the epidemic situation of national importance (Gesetz zur Änderung des Infektionsschutzgesetzes und weiterer Gesetze anlässlich der Aufhebung der Feststellung der epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite) https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/ministerium/gesetze-und-verordnungen/guv-20-lp/ifsg-aend.html . German Federal Ministry of Interior (2021), Integrity in the public administration – annual Report 2020, (Integrität in der Bundesverwaltung – Jahresbericht 2020) https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/veroeffentlichungen/themen/moderne-verwaltung/integritaet-der-verwaltung/integritaetsbericht2020.pdf;jsessionid=B6E3588608AF5FCBE802891194D5CCBB.1_cid295?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 German Federal Ministry of Justice (2020), Business Integrity Strengthening Act (Gesetz zur Stärkung der Integritär der Wirtschaft) https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/Staerkung_Integritaet_Wirtschaft.html . German Federal Ministry of Justice (2020), Courts at federal level and of the Länder (Gerichte des Bundes und der Länder) https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Anzahl_der_Gerichte_des_Bundes_und_der_Laender.pdf;jsessionid=2F6B80E7093D8B4F32366E2443C2259C.2_cid334?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 . German Federal Ministry of Justice (31 April 2022), Better protection for whistleblowers (Besserer Schutz für Hinweisgeber) https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2022/0413_Hinweisgeberschutz.html . German Federal Parliament (2021), Follow-up rules on the occasion of the lifting of the epidemic situation (Folgeregelungen an­lässlich der Auf­hebung der epi­de­mischen Lage beraten) https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw45-de-infektionsschutzgesetz-867578 . German Federal Parliament (2022), Handbook for interest representatives to register in the lobby register (Handbuch für Interessenvertreterinnen und Interessenvertreter zur Eintragung in das Lobbyregister) https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/handbuch . German Journalists’ Association (2021), Press release – SLAPPS: Against the abuse of claims (SLAPPS: Gegen Klagemissbrauch) https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/pressebereich-download/pressemitteilungen/detail/news-gegen-klagemissbrauch . German Journalists’ Association, Right to information under press law from federal authorities (Presserechtlicher Auskunftsanspruch bei Bundesbehörden) https://www.djv.de/startseite/info/themen-wissen/presserechtlicher-auskunftsanspruch . German Judges’ Magazine (12/21). Civil Justice at the beginning of a deep crisis (Ziviljustiz am Beginn einer tiefen Krise). German Judges’ Magazine (1/22), Interview with Supreme Court President Bettina Limperg. German Judges’ Magazine (3/22), Progress with recruitments at the Federal Courts (Personeller Aufbruch an den obersten Bundesgerichten). Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (2021), Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/SCA-Report-October-2021_E.pdf . GRECO (2020), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Germany on preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. GRECO (2021), Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim compliance report Germany on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. Hessen, Bayern, Brandenburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saarland, Niedersachen and Schleswig-Holstein (2021), Joint letter of 3 February 2021. High Administrative Court of Bavaria, judgment of 1 February 2022, 6 CE 21.2708. Higher Administrative Court of North-Rhine Westphalia (2022), Annual Report.

Human Rights Watch (2021), Germany’s New Surveillance Laws Raise Privacy Concerns https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/24/germanys-new-surveillance-laws-raise-privacy-concerns . Human Rights Watch (2022), Contribution from the Human Rights Watch for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Legal Tribune Online (2022), Once again five years’ experience for leading a Federal Court (Wieder fünf Jahre Erfahrung für Führung eines Bundesgerichts) https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/bundesjustizminister-marco-buschmann-bundesgerichte-bundesrichter-fuehrung-praesident-anforderung-erfahrung-korrigiert/ . Lobbycontrol (2021), ‘Lobbying undermines democracy – Ten theses’ (‘Lobbyismus höhlt die Demokratie aus: Zehn Thesen’) https://www.lobbycontrol.de/lobbyismus-hoehlt-die-demokratie-aus-zehn-thesen/ . Lobbycontrol (2021), ‘The lobby register is coming – Our evaluation’ (‘Das Lobbyregister kommt – Unsere Auswertung’) https://www.lobbycontrol.de/2021/03/das-lobbyregister-kommt/ . LobbyControl, Lobbypedia – Cooling-off Period (Karenzzeit) https://lobbypedia.de/wiki/Karenzzeit . Lobbyranking of the Länder 2022 (Lobbyranking der Bundesländer 2022) https://lobbyranking.de/ . New Judges’ Association (Neue Richtervereinigung), Position paper on the draft law on instructions to prosecutors from 2021 https://www.neuerichter.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fg_strafrecht/2021-01_FG_StrR_Stn_externe_Weisung_StA.pdf . OECD (2021), Working Group on Bribery - Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 4 - Two Year Follow-Up Report Germany https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/germany-phase-4-follow-up-report.pdf . Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Concluding observations on the seventh periodic review of Germany https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/357/46/PDF/G2135746.pdf?OpenElement . Open Knowledge Foundation (2021), Transparency Ranking https://transparenzranking.de/static/files/ifg-ranking.pdf . Press Council (2022), Annual report 2021 (Jahresbericht 2021) https://www.presserat.de/files/presserat/bilder/Downloads%20Jahresberichte/Jahresbericht2021-vero%CC%88ffentlicht.pdf . Reporters without Borders (2022), Close-up view Germany (Nahaufnahme Deutschland), https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/nahaufnahme/2022 . Reporters without Borders (2022), Contribution from Reporters without Borders for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Reporters without Borders (28 October 2021), RSF and Journalists sue against ‘state trojans’ (RSF und Journalisten klagen gegen Staatstrojaner), https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/deutschland/alle-meldungen/meldung/journalisten-klagen-gegen-staatstrojaner . Reporters without Borders – Germany, https://rsf.org/en/country/germany . Rundfunkkommission der Länder (2021), Draft discussion paper on the order and structural optimisation of the public service broadcaster (Diskussionsentwurf zu Auftrag und Strukturoptimierung des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks) https://www.rlp.de/fileadmin/rlp-stk/pdf-Dateien/Medienpolitik/Synopse_MAEStV_Reform_OERR_Nov2021.pdf . SPD, The Greens and FDP (2021), Coalition Agreement 2021-2025 (Koalitionsvertrag 2021-2025) https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1990812/04221173eef9a6720059cc353d759a2b/2021-12-10-koav2021-data.pdf?download=1 . State Government of Rheinland-Pfalz (2022), Amendments to the State Media Treaty adopted - brand of public service broadcasting strengthened (Änderungen des Medienstaatsvertrags angenommen - Markenkern des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks gestärkt) https://www.rlp.de/de/aktuelles/einzelansicht/news/News/detail/aenderungen-des-medienstaatsvertrags-angenommen-markenkern-des-oeffentlich-rechtlichen-rundfunks-ges/ . Tagesschau (2021), ‘Mask affair – kisses and commissions’ (Maskenaffäre – Bussis und Provisionen) https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/emix-masken-provisionen-103.html

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. Transparency International Germany (2018), Comments and Recommendations on UNCAC Second Review Cycle (Chapters II and V) – Review of Germany https://www.transparency.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Aktuelles/Stellungnahmen/2018/18-09-10_Comments_and_Recommendations_UNCAC_Second_Review_Cycle.pdf . Transparency International Germany (2021), ‘Ancillary income: Hundreds of thousands of euros from MEPs remained undiscovered for years’ (‘Nebeneinkünfte: Hunderttausende Euro von Abgeordneten blieben jahrelang unentdeckt’) https://www.transparency.de/aktuelles/detail/article/nebeneinkuenfte-hunderttausende-euro-von-abgeordneten-blieben-jahrelang-unentdeckt/ . Transparency International Germany (2022), Contribution from Transparency International Germany for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Transparency International Germany (21 May 2021), ‘More than 20.000 euros: Özdemir has also forgotten to report special payments’ (Mehr als 20.000 Euro: Auch Özdemir hat vergessen, Sonderzahlungen zu melden) https://www.transparency.de/aktuelles/detail/article/mehr-als-20000-euro-auch-oezdemir-hat-vergessen-sonderzahlungen-zu-melden/ . Transparency International Germany (24 May 2021), ‘Lauterbach reports fees belatedly’ (‘Lauterbach meldet Honorare nach’) https://www.transparency.de/aktuelles/detail/article/lauterbach-meldet-honorare-nach/ . UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe (OCHCR) (2022), Contribution from the UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2016), Country Review Report of the Federal Republic of Germany - Review by the Czech Republic and Denmark of the implementation by Germany of articles 15 - 42 of Chapter III “Criminalization and law enforcement” and articles 44 - 50 of Chapter IV “International cooperation” of the United Nations Convention against Corruption for the review cycle 2010 – 2015 https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2022_02_04_Germany_Cycle_I_Country_Report_EN.pdf . UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2020), Review by Greece and Croatia of the implementation by Germany of articles 5-14 and 51-59 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption for the review cycle 2016-2021 https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2020_11_06_Germany_Final_Country_Report.pdf . ZDF (2022), Contribution from ZDF for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Annex II: Country visit to Germany The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2022 with: ·ARD ·Association of Judges ·Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (Network for Civil Engagement) ·EU Affairs Committee of the Justice Ministers’ Conference ·Federal Administrative Court ·Federal Bar

·Federal Constitutional Court ·Federal Criminal Police, Anti-corruption unit ·Federal Supreme Court ·German Association of Judges ·German Association of Journalists ·German Bar Association ·German Institute for Human Rights ·German Publishers’ Association ·German Union of Journalists ·Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte ·Joint Office of the Media Authorities ·Lobbycontrol DE ·Ministry of Justice ·Ministry of Interior ·Ministry of State for Culture and Media ·Prosecution Service ·Transparency International Germany ·ZDF * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: