COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 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 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Germany, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 304 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 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  2020 Rule of Law Report     The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT  

The  German  justice  system  is  characterised  by  the  country’s  federal  structure  and  the 
important role of the Länder in the administration of justice. The level of perceived judicial 
independence  is  high.  Safeguards  for  the  independence  of  prosecutors  have  recently  been 
under discussion. The German justice system is mostly performing efficiently, although some 
indicators have been showing a decline in overall performance. Particular efforts are ongoing 
to  further  develop  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system,  which  would  contribute  to 
enhancing its efficiency and quality. The 2019 ‘Pact for the Rule of Law’ between the federal 
level  and  the  federal  states  will  lead  to  additional  funding  for  the  justice  system  and  the 
creation of 2000 new posts for judges and prosecutors by end-2021. This is also relevant in 
view of the increasing number of judges and prosecutors who will retire in the coming years.  

The legal, regulatory and institutional anti-corruption framework is broadly in place, with the 
implementation  of  repressive  anti-corruption  policies  and  criminal  cases  prosecution  lying 
with the Länder. A ‘revolving doors’ policy exists at the federal level and in most Länder. As 
regards  lobbying,  the  mandatory  registration  of  contacts  with  both  members  of  the  Federal 
Parliament and members of the Federal Government is missing, although reforms in this area 
are  being  considered.  Whistleblowers  protection  in  Germany  relies  on  a  system  which  is 
integrated  within  businesses,  allowing  for  people  to  rely  on  a  reporting  channel  which  is 
additional to the institutional one.  

Germany has well-established regulation on media freedom and pluralism, which mostly falls 
under  the  competence  of  the  Länder.  The  fourteen  media  regulatory  authorities  are  public 
agencies, with a legal guarantee of independence from political and commercial interference. 
Transparency  of  ownership  of  media  outlets  is  high  and  safeguards  are  in  place  to  prevent 
political  interference  with  the  media.  The  constitution  and  secondary  legislation  expressly 
guarantee  the  right  of  journalists  to  protect  the  confidentiality  of  their  sources  and  regulate 
the right of access to information. In recent years, some concerns about increasing attacks on 
journalists have arisen. 

The system of checks and balances is well established. An impact assessment framework and 
the  involvement  of  stakeholders  contribute  to  the  quality  of  the  legislative  process. 
Constitutional  review  takes  place  at  both  the  federal  level  as  well  as  at  the  level  of  the 
Länder.  An  enabling  framework  for  civil  society  and  a  policy  for  making  information 
accessible to citizens are in place. Civil society organisations can operate freely in Germany. 
Regular  discussions  on  rule  of  law  topics,  both  from  a  domestic  as  well  as  an  European 
perspective,  are  promoted,  including  through  a  nationwide  information  and  publicity 
campaign conducted in  2019 in the context of the  ‘Pact  for the Rule of Law’, focussing on 
communicating  the  significance  of  the  rule  of  law  and  the  guarantees  it  provides  for  the 
individual citizen as well as for a democratic society. 

1 

 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

in  particular 

The court system in Germany is structured in a federal manner. Jurisdiction is exercised by 
federal  courts  and  by  the  courts  of  the  16  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  and  specialised  courts.  The 
ordinary jurisdiction consists of the civil and criminal jurisdiction. The specialised courts are 
the  administrative  courts,  the  finance  courts,  the  labour  courts  and  the  social  courts.  The 
courts  of  the  Länder  are  generally  administered  by  their  respective  ministries  of  justice. 
Appointment  of  judges  and  prosecutors,  except  for  the  federal  courts,  falls  within  the 
competence  of  the  Länder.  While  appointment  procedures  differ  in  detail  between  the 
the  principle  of  merit 
Länder,  all  share  common  core  elements, 
(Leistungsprinzip)1  and  the  judicial  review  of  the  process  and  decision  relating  to 
appointment. For the Federal  Courts, a judges’ selection committee (Richterwahlausschuss) 
selects judges for appointment by the executive and Councils of judges (Präsidialräte) of the 
relevant courts have to be consulted in this process.2 There are currently 638 local courts, 115 
regional  courts  and  24  higher  regional  courts  as  part  of  the  ordinary  jurisdiction.  There  are 
further  51  administrative  courts,  15  higher  administrative  courts,  18  financial  courts,  108 
labour courts, 18 higher labour courts, 68 social courts and 14 higher social courts across the 
16 Länder3. At the federal level, the Federal Minister of Justice is responsible for the Federal 
Court  of  Justice,  the  Federal  Administrative  Court  and  the  Federal  Finance  Court.  The 
Federal  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Affairs  is  responsible  for  the  Federal  Labour  Court 
and the Federal Social Court. Constitutional review is ensured by the Federal Constitutional 
Court and the constitutional courts 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 has its own public prosecution service. There are 27 
regional  Bars  in  Germany4.  The  umbrella  organisation  of  all  28  Bars  in  Germany  is  the 
German Federal Bar in Berlin.  

Independence 

The  perceived  independence  of  courts  and  judges  among  the  general  public  and 
companies  remains  high.  Overall,  76%  of  the  general  population  and  73%  of  companies 
perceive the level of independence of courts and judges as ‘fairly or very good’5. This high 
level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  has  remained  stable  over  the  last  years6.  This  was 
also  confirmed by stakeholders such as the German Association  of Judges and Prosecutors, 

1   This is anchored in Article 33 para. 2 of the Basic Law; mainly on the basis of the grades in the two legal 

state exams. 

2   The  judges’  selection  committee  (Richterwahlausschuss)  is  composed  in  equal  parts  of  the  responsible 
ministers  of  the  federal  states  and  members  selected  by  the  Federal  Parliament.  See  Law  on  Election  of 
Judges  (Richterwahlgesetz)  and  German  Law  on  Judges  (Deutsches  Richtergesetz),  Art.  54-55.  Similar 
committees exist in certain Länder. Moreover, the process and decision of appointment or non-appointment 
is fully subject to judicial control before the administrative courts.  

3   Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (2020).  
4   In addition, there is a special bar for the lawyers with rights of audience in civil matters at the Federal Court 

of Justice. 

5   Figures 44 and 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

6   2013 to 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

2 

 
                                                 
the German Bar Association and the German Federal Bar7. The independence of the German 
justice systems is ensured by multiple safeguards, which include in particular judicial control 
over the legality of any decision relating to the judiciary, such as appointments, professional 
appraisals,  promotions,  disciplinary  sanctions  and  dismissals8.  Furthermore,  the  German 
justice system contains a number of elements of judicial self-administration9.  

The  right  of  Ministers  of  Justice  to  instruct  prosecutors  in  individual  cases  is  under 
discussion.  An  amendment  to  abolish  this  right  had  been  proposed  as  a  reaction  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  concerning  the  application  of  the 
European  Arrest  Warrant10,  which  found  that  German  public  prosecutor’s  offices  do  not 
provide a sufficient guarantee of independence from the executive for the purposes of issuing 
a European Arrest Warrant.  This  amendment was rejected by the  Federal Parliament  on 28 
May 202011. Structurally, the prosecution services form part of the executive. Therefore and 
as stipulated in the relevant provisions of the Law on the Judicial System12, the Ministers of 
Justice  of  the  Länder  and  the  Federal  Minister  of  Justice  have  the  possibility  to  give 
instructions  to  prosecutors in  individual cases. This  power is  subject  to legal  safeguards.  In 
addition to the principle of legality13, which circumscribes any action of prosecution services, 
and the constitutional principle of the rule of law 14, there are additional safeguards at federal 
and  Länder  level15.  The  overall  effect  is  to  ensure  that  any  instructions  in  a  specific  case 
cannot  in  any  event  exceed  the  limits  of  the  law16.  Moreover,  both  authorities  and 
stakeholders  explained  that  only  in  very  rare  cases  this  right  of  instruction  is  actually 
exercised17.  This  practice,  combined  with  the  legal  safeguards  in  place,  appears  to  mitigate 
the risk of misuse of the right of instruction18.  

7   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  and  the  consultation  process  for  the  report,  e.g. 

contribution from the German Federal Bar.  

8   In particular, Art. 97 Basic Law on Judicial Independence. 
9   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, under point 5. 
10   Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 27 May 2019, OG and PI, Joined Cases C-508/18 
and  C-82/19  PPU.  In  response  to  the  judgment,  European  Arrest  Warrants  are  now  issued  by  a  judge  in 
Germany. See also the Report by the European Commission on the implementation of Council Framework 
Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the  surrender  procedures  between  Member 
States, COM(2020) 270 final,  p. 5-6. 

11   The amendment was proposed by an opposition party and did not find a parliamentary majority. Deutscher 

Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/163, 28 May 2020. 

12   In particular, paras. 146 – 147 of the German Law on the Judicial System (‘Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz’). 
13   Para. 152 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Strafprozessordnung’). 
14   Art. 20 para. 3 of the Basic Law. 
15   Figure 55, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard; e.g. the Federal Ministry of Justice and the Government parties of 
Saxony  issued  commitments  not  to  exercise  their  rights  to  give  instructions.  The  ministry  of  Thuringia 
committed itself not to give instructions in individual cases, the ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia and the 
Government  of  Lower  Saxony  committed  to  give  individual  instructions  only  in  exceptional  cases.  While 
there are no federal laws, there are certain state laws as well as federal and state regulations and guidelines 
setting forth rules on instructions. Instructions of the Federal Ministry of Justice and the ministries of North 
Rhine-Westphalia and Thuringia need to be in writing, in Thuringia they must also be reasoned, in Lower 
Saxony they need to be in written form if no agreement is reached and in Schleswig-Holstein they need to be 
documented in written form and reported to the president of the Parliament.  

15   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  
16   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, under point 8. 
17   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  and  the  consultation  process  for  the  report,  e.g. 

written contribution by the German Bar Association.  

18   See  also  Recommendation  Rec(2000)19  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  para. 
13(d):  “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”. As regards the safeguards, see para. 13 (points d to e). 

3 

 
                                                 
Quality 

Digitalisation of the court system is advancing, but remains a longer-term challenge. On 
1  January  2018,  the  Act  on  the  Introduction  of  Electronic  Files  in  the  Judiciary  and  the 
further Improvement of Electronic Legal Communication came into force. According to this 
law,  courts  and  public  prosecutors  will  be  obliged  to  keep  court  files  and  procedural  files 
exclusively as electronic files from 1 January 2026 at the latest. Stakeholders explained that 
currently the use of IT-tools may differ from one court to another, regardless of the federal 
state19.  The  Länder  are  engaging  in  three  large-scale  networks  to  implement  the  full 
digitalisation of court files (‘elektronische Akte’)20. The federal level is participating in some 
of  these  networks,  depending  on  the  respective  federal  court.  Further  digitalisation  will 
reinforce  the  efforts  to  promote  the  quality  of  the  justice  system.  In  particular,  Germany 
provides for arrangements for producing machine-readable judicial decisions, the promotion 
of and incentives for using Alternative Dispute Resolution methods, arrangements that make 
the justice system more child-friendly, training for judges, as well as the use of and follow-up 
on court users’ surveys21. However, Germany appears to have comparatively high court fees 
for  certain  categories  of  cases,  such  as  low-value  consumer  claims  or  specific  commercial 
cases involving a cross-border element22.  

The  justice  system  will  see  an  elevated  number  of  judges  and  prosecutors  reaching 
retirement  age  in  the  coming  years.  Both  authorities  and  stakeholders  indicated  that  in 
many  Länder,  particularly  in  the  eastern  parts,  upcoming  retirements  will  increase 
significantly over the next years. This will require the attention of both Ministries of Justice 
and  Finance  to  ensure  that  sufficient  numbers  of  new  judges  and  prosecutors  are  recruited. 
Stakeholders have voiced some concerns on what  is  considered  a lack of competitive entry 
grade  salaries  for  new  judges  and  prosecutors,  in  particular  when  compared  to  private 
practice, which increases the difficulties  to  attract  sufficient  numbers of qualified graduates 
for the  courts  and prosecution services23. This  challenge may be more pronounced in  some 
parts of the country, given that salary levels can differ between the Länder up to 17%24. 

To strengthen the justice system and the rule of law, Germany is implementing a ‘Pact 
for the Rule of Law’25, which includes additional resources, both at the federal level and 
the level  of the  Länder.  The federal  level  and the Länder  on 31 January  2019 agreed on a 
‘Pact for the Rule of Law’. The latter foresees additional funding of EUR 220 million from 
the  federal  level  for  the  Länder  to  create  2000  additional  posts  for  judges  and  prosecutors, 
including  the  necessary  administrative  staff  by  31  December  2021.  In  addition,  the  federal 
level  is  creating,  within  its  competence,  24  additional  posts  at  the  Federal  Court  of  Justice 

19   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  and  the  consultation  process  for  the  report,  e.g. 

written contribution by the German Bar Association.  

20   eAS  (Baden-Württemberg,  Sachsen,  Schleswig-Holstein,  Thüringen),  eIP  (Bayern,  Berlin,  Brandenburg, 
Hamburg, Rheinland-Pfalz, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), e2A (Bremen, Hessen,  Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Saarland). 

21   Figures 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 41, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
22   See previous note, Figures 24 and 25.  
23   Information received in the context of the country visit and the consultation process for the report, e.g. the 

written contribution from the German Association of Judges and Prosecutors, p. 7.  

24   Authorities  and  stakeholders  stressed  that  the  wage  gap  has  closed  in  recent  years,  following  a  relevant 
decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 2015 (2 BvL 17/09), but can still represent up to 17% 
at  the  entry  grade  of  R1;  see  in  this  respect  the  contribution  from  the  German  Association  of  Judges  and 
Prosecutors for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 7. 

25   Pakt für den Rechtsstaat. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (2019), Pact for the Rule of 

Law.  

4 

 
                                                 
and 71 posts at the Prosecutor General of the Federal Court of Justice to strengthen the justice 
system26.  The  ‘Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law’  is  perceived  very  positively  by  stakeholders,  in 
particular the  German  Association of Judges and Prosecutors, as it responds to  long-voiced 
demands to strengthen resources in the justice system27, which is also relevant in view of the 
expected additional challenges related to the upcoming wave of retirements. 

Efficiency 

The  German  justice  system  is  mostly  performing  efficiently,  although  some  indicators 
have been showing a decline in overall performance. First instance courts in litigious civil 
and commercial cases largely manage to deal with their workload, as indicated by a clearance 
rate  close  to  100%.  However,  in  2018,  the  clearance  rate  fell  to  97.2%28.  The  length  of 
proceedings in first instance litigious civil and commercial cases has been steadily increasing 
since  201229.  This  has  also  been  indicated  by  stakeholders30.  Administrative  courts  mostly 
perform efficiently, in particular at third instance where the time needed to resolve cases is 
considerably  lower  than  in  first  and  second  instance  administrative  courts31.  However, 
administrative courts have seen a comparatively high level of incoming cases32, which is also 
reflected in a comparatively high number of pending cases33.  

II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

Germany has several authorities responsible for corruption prevention and prosecution, which 
include  the  Federal  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Building  and  Community,  Federal  Ministry  of 
Justice  and  Consumer  Protection,  Supreme  Audit  Institution,  Financial  Intelligence  Unit, 
Federal  Office  for  Justice,  Federal  Criminal  Police  Office,  and  the  competent  authorities 
(prosecution  offices  and  courts)  of  the  federal  states.  Some  Länder  have  specialised 
prosecution  offices  on  corruption  offences,  others  have  specific  corruption-related  expertise 
distributed  across  all  prosecution  offices.  The  Directive  concerning  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption  in  the  Federal  Administration  provides  the  legal  framework  as  regards  the 
prevention. It is complemented by detailed guidelines and comprehensive codes of conduct, 
which aim at preventing corruption at federal level.  

Germany scores 80/100 in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 
and  was  ranked  5th  in the  European  Union  and  9th  globally.  53%  of  respondents  to  the 
2020  Eurobarometer  on  corruption  consider  corruption  widespread  in  their  country  (EU 
average 71%) but only 9% of people feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives 
(EU  average  26%).  As  regards  businesses,  31%  of  companies  consider  corruption  to  be 
widespread  (EU  average  63%).  According  to  the  surveys,  22%  of  companies  consider  that 
that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 37%). 33% of people find that 
there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 
36%) while 41% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior 
official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%). 

26   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, under point 13. 
27   Contribution from the German Association of Judges and Prosecutors for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 
28   Figure 11, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
29   Figure 6, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
30   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  and  the  consultation  process  for  the  2020  Rule  of 

Law Report , e.g. contribution from the German Bar Association. 

31   Figure 9, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
32   Figure 4, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
33   Figure 15, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

5 

 
                                                 
Germany has a comprehensive institutional framework to fight corruption. The federal 
anti-corruption  institutional  framework  comprises  the  Federal  Ministry  of  the  Interior, 
Building  and  Community,  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Protection,  the 
Supreme  Audit  Institution  and  the  Federal  Criminal  Police  Office.  A  network  of  contact 
persons for corruption prevention has also been established, which the OECD has labelled as 
‘good  practice’  at  the  international  level34.  These  contact  persons  provide  citizens  and 
employees with assistance and advice for corruption-related questions or concerns35.  

The 
implementation  of  repressive  anti-corruption  policies  and  criminal  cases 
prosecution  lies  with  the  Länder.  The  official  police  report  on  corruption  reports  4  894 
police-registered corruption cases in 201736. Compared to the previous year, this is a decrease 
of 25 %. The number of suspects, however, increased by 15%. The financial damage caused 
through  corruption  amounted  to  EUR  291  million,  which  represent  an  increase  of  137%. 
Some  Länder  have  specialised  prosecution  offices  on  corruption  offences,  others  have 
specific  corruption-related  expertise  distributed  across  all  prosecution  offices.  As  regards 
foreign bribery investigations, the country has been evaluated as one of the highest enforcers 
of the Anti-Bribery Convention37.  

Germany  has  a  thorough  regulatory  framework  to  prevent  corruption.  The  prevention 
framework of corruption is included in several provisions at both federal and state level. The 
Directive  concerning  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  in  the  Federal  Administration  (CPD) 
provides  the  legal  framework  as  regards  the  prevention  of  corruption  in  the  Federal 
Government.38 Its implementation is monitored by different bodies, such as the leading unit 
within the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Court of Audit. A revision of the 
CPD is currently foreseen by the Federal Ministry of Interior. The CPD is complemented by 
detailed  guidelines  for  implementations  (Code  of  Conduct,  Guide  for  Superiors  and  Public 
Authorities,  Focus  on  Risk  Assessment).  In  addition,  ministries  develop  their  own 
implementation guideline (Umsetzungsrichtlinie). 

Germany  has  put  in  place  integrity  and  prevention  measures  for  civil  servants  and 
public  employees.  Rules  governing  contacts  with  third  parties,  the  acceptance  of  gifts, 
secondary employment and post-employment activities are contained in the Code of Conduct 
against Corruption and the Guide for Principals and Heads of Administration, further backed 
up  by  provisions  in  the  Criminal  Code,  the  Act  on  Federal  Civil  Servants  and  the  Federal 
Civil  Servant  Status  Act  and  the  Collective  Agreement  for  the  Public  Service  (TVöD). 
Bribery offences are broadly defined and in particular, criminal liability can be triggered by 
the mere acceptance of gifts39.  

Rules  on  conflicts  of  interest  and  asset  declarations  for  members  of  the  Federal 
Parliament have been revised. Disclosure of remunerated side activities and other outside 
ties with respect to members of the Federal Parliament is governed by the Act on Members of 

34   Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (2019), Prevention of Corruption in the Federal 

Administration: Annual report for 2018. 

35   Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community  (2019), Prevention of Corruption in the  Federal 

Administration: Annual report for 2018.  

36  Bundeskriminalamt, Bundeslagebild Korruption 2017, Bundeskriminalamt, 2019, p. 2.   
37   Implementing the OECD anti-bribery convention, phase 4 report, 2018.  
38   Die Bundesregierung, Richtlinie der Bundesregierung zur Korruptionsprävention in der Bundesverwaltung, 

2004. 

39   Die Bundesregierung, Richtlinie der Bundesregierung zur Korruptionsprävention in der Bundesverwaltung, 

2004.   

6 

 
                                                 
the Federal Parliament40, the Code of Conduct for Members of the Federal Parliament and the 
Provisions  Implementing  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  Members  of  the  Federal  Parliament41. 
Most  Länder  require  the  disclosure  of  remunerated  activities  for  the  members  of  the 
parliament,  which  are  not  prohibited,  but  some  Länder  are  still  missing  legislation  in  this 
regard42.  As  regards  financial  interests  and  contracts  with  state  authorities,  there  is  no 
prohibition  or  restriction  on  the  holding  of  financial  interests  by  members  of  the  Federal 
Parliament or on them entering into contracts with state authorities43. Members of the Federal 
Parliament must disclose their shareholdings, however only if they exceed 25% of the voting 
rights  in  a  company.  The  number  of  staff  of  the  administration  of  the  Federal  Parliament 
responsible for monitoring conflict of interests and asset declarations was increased in 2019. 
GRECO  noted  the  need  to  strengthen  the  resources  to  allow  for  an  effective  check  on  the 
implementation  of  the  rules44.  As  regards  members  of  the  Federal  Government,  relevant 
provisions are contained in the Act governing the legal status of the members of the Federal 
Government45. Under this Act,  members of the  Federal  Government  cannot  hold  secondary 
positions and they have to declare gifts received in relation to their office46. The disclosure of 
assets  and  properties  is  not  regulated.  Similarly,  for  member  of  the  federal  parliament,  the 
possession of assets or financial interests is not subject to notification.  

A policy to regulate ‘revolving doors’ exists at the federal level and in most  Länder. A 
legal cooling-off period was introduced in 2015 for outgoing Federal Chancellors, Ministers 
and Parliamentary State Secretaries. Current and former members of the Federal Government 
must notify the Federal Government if they intend to work outside the public sector within 18 
months  of  leaving  the  Federal  Government.  Parliamentary  State  Secretaries  shall  make  the 
notification to the Member of the Federal Government responsible47. Some Länder have also 
introduced  cooling-off  periods.  Overall,  such  provisions  are  in  place  in  seven  Länder, 
whereas discussions on their introduction are ongoing in three48. 

Lobbying  is  regulated  in  different  rules  governing  contacts  with  third  parties  for 
members of the Federal Parliament, federal ministries and civil servants of the federal 
administration.  As  regards  contacts  between  members  of  the  federal  parliament  and 
lobbyists,  Germany  does  not  have  a  lobby  register  yet.  A  public  list  is  maintained  by  the 
President of the Federal Parliament and representatives of associations lobbying the Federal 
Parliament  or  the  Federal  Government  shall  only  be  heard  by  the  Federal  Parliament 
committees if they have entered themselves therein. However, registration is on a voluntary 
basis and foresees a registration obligation only for representatives of associations, which do 
not  include  enterprises,  self-employed  lobbyists  and  other  categories49.  As  regards  civil 

40  Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Gesetz über die Rechtsverhältnisse der Mitglieder 

des Deutschen Bundestages, Bundesamt für Justiz: Gesetze im Internet. 

41  Deutscher  Bundestag,  Verhaltensregeln  für  Mitglieder  des  Deutschen  Bundestages  as  promulgated  on  18 

June 2013 (BGBl. I, S. 1645). 

42   Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Rheinland-Pfalz, Thüringen. 
43   However, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Federal Parliament, members who 
are lawyers shall inform the President of the Federal Parliament of a representation of the Federal Republic 
of Germany in court or out of court when such representation is provided against remuneration. 

44   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report, recommendation IV, p. 6.  
45   Bundesministergesetz (BGBl. I S. 1328). 
46   World Bank, Country Profile Germany. 
47   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, point 21. 
48   Brandenburg,  Hamburg,  Hessen,  Niedersachsen,  Nordrhein-Westfalen,  Schleswig-Holstein  and  Thüringen 

have provisions in place. Discussions are ongoing in Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen. 

49   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report.  

7 

 
                                                 
servants in the federal administration, the Corruption Prevention Strategy contains guidelines 
for contacts between civil servants and third parties.   

Whistleblower protection provisions and reporting procedures for whistleblowers exist 
in various sector-specific laws. Under the current rules, there is for example an obligation to 
establish  reporting  channels  for  receiving  and  handling  certain 
information  from 
whistleblowers  in  the  health  sector50.  Moreover,  many  companies  have  put  in  place 
whistleblower  protection  systems,  following  recommendations  of  the  German  Corporate 
Governance  Codex51.  Stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  with  regard  to  the  risk  of  an 
insufficient level of protection for whistleblowers, depending on the applicable set of laws.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

Freedom of expression, freedom of the press52 and the right to information are guaranteed in 
the  Constitution  (Basic  Law)53.  The  independence  of  the  fourteen  media  authorities  is 
enshrined in interstate treaties at a national level and in state-specific broadcasting and media 
acts of the Länder54. German law provides for transparency rules requiring the disclosure of 
ownership in the news media sector and the disclosure of any involvement in media entities 
by political parties. 

Content-related media regulation is a matter of competence of the Länder. Private radio 
and  television  broadcasters  are  regulated  by  the  14  different  independent  state  regulatory 
authorities  (Medienanstalten),  who  are  responsible  for  granting  licences,  allocating 
frequencies  and  supervising  private  radio  and  television  broadcasters55.  They  monitor 
compliance with advertising rules and provisions on youth protection, and promote projects 
to  enhance  media  literacy.  They  further  support  the  introduction  of  new  broadcasting 
technology and contribute to securing diversity in private broadcasting56. The fourteen media 
authorities  are  public  agencies,  with  a  legal  guarantee  of  independence  from  political  and 
commercial  interference.  They  have  wide  regulatory  powers  at  their  disposal  and  their 
decisions may be challenged before administrative courts. According to the Media Pluralism 
Monitor 2020 (‘MPM 2020’), the indicator on independence and effectiveness of the media 
authority scores at very low risk in Germany57.  

The German Press Council is a self-regulatory body founded by media publishers58. The 
effective  implementation  of  the  Basic  Law,  which  guarantees  the  freedom  of  the  press  and 
prohibits  censorship,  ensures  the  independence  of  the  press  and  its  self-regulatory  bodies 
from  political  interference.  The  Press  Council  is  organised  as  a  registered  association 
comprised of two publishing and two journalist organisations: German Newspaper Publishers 
Association  (BDZV),  German  Federation  of  Journalists  (DJV),  German  Journalists  Union 
(dju) within the German United Trade Services Union (dju in ver.di) and the Association of 
German Magazine Publishers (VDZ). Through addressing complaints about press behaviour, 

50   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 15.  
51   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
52   Germany ranks on 11th place on the 2020 World Press Freedom Ranking of Reporters without Borders. 
53   Art. 5 para. 1 Basic Law. 
54   Medienanstalten, Legal basis of media authorities web page.  
55   Public Service Broadcasters are monitored by their own supervisory boards. 
56   Medienanstalten, The media authorities web page.   
57   Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2020.  Regulators’  good  reputation  and  independence  were  further  confirmed  by 

the information received in the context of the country visit. 

58   The relevant German Press Codex is a self-regulatory framework established by the German Press Council. 

8 

 
                                                 
the Press Council monitors compliance with the ethical rules for the daily work of journalists 
laid down in the German Press Code and may publicly reprimand the respective press outlet 
for breaching the press code. The work of the Press Council is financed from contributions 
from  member  associations  and  the  board  of  complaint  is  funded  by  the  German  Federal 
Government. 

As  regards  transparency  of  ownership,  German  law  contains  specific  provisions 
requiring  the  disclosure  of  ownership  in  the  media  sector59.  Commercial  broadcasters 
must report ownership information in order to apply for and hold a broadcasting license and 
they must report on plans affecting the shareholders’ structure. Online media entities have to 
make  their  ownership  information  transparent  via  its  imprint  information  on  their  websites. 
For the press, these transparency obligations for imprints are stipulated in the respective state 
press laws. Political parties must disclose their involvement in media entities in accordance 
with  the  Act  on  Political  Parties  Act  of  196760.  According  to  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor 
2020, the indicator on transparency of media ownership scores low on the risk scale61.  

Germany has functioning safeguards against the formal control by political parties over 
the  media.  The  indicator  on  political  independence  of  media  scores  at  a  low  risk62.  The 
Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia generally prohibits advertising of a political, 
ideological or religious  nature in radio, television and video-on-demand services63. Political 
advertising  is  only  allowed  during  elections  periods,  where  airtime  must  be  given  to  all 
parties  participating  in  the  election  according  to  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities64. 
Airtime for political adverts is free of charge and no additional airtime can be purchased. The 
distribution  of  online  political  advertising  (beyond  video-on-demand-services)  is  currently 
not  regulated.  However,  the  new  Interstate  Treaty  on  Media  will  include  a  transparency 
provision  on  political  advertising.  Politicians  and  parties  commonly  do  not  report  on  their 
spending for advertising on online platforms.  

The  framework  for  the  protection  of  journalists  is  in  place  although  there  are  some 
concerns  about  increasing  attacks  on  journalists.  The  framework  for  the  protection  of 
journalists is defined by the freedom of the press and broadcasting freedom guaranteed under 
the  Basic  Law65.  This  is  further  complemented  by  the  relevant  press  and  media  acts  of  the 
Länder.  Journalists  have  the  right  to  protect  their  sources  and  refuse  to  testify  in  criminal, 
civil  and  administrative  cases.  Based  on  a  legitimate  interest,  the  right  of  access  to 
information is guaranteed by the Constitution and access to Federal Government information 
is  regulated  by  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act.  Thirteen  Länder  have  enacted  similar 
frameworks.  Journalists  are  protected  against  criminal  offenses  based  on  the  criminal  laws 
applicable to all citizens. Currently, there is no specific law in Germany to protect journalists 
from crime or to investigate the relevant crime. Police crime statistics do not evaluate attacks 
on  journalists  separately,  but  account  for  criminal  offenses  against  media  in  general. 
Nevertheless,  the  German  authorities  consider  that  a  separate  law  for  the  protection  of 
journalists  and  a  separate  record  of  attacks  do  not  appear  to  be  necessary  against  the 

59   Section 26 of the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia.  
60   Gesetz über die politische Parteien (BGBl. I S. 149). 
61   2020  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  p.  12.  This  finding  was  also  confirmed  by  information  received  in  the 

context of the country visit. 

62   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 13. 
63   Sections 7, 58 para.3 of the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia. 
64   Section 42 of the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia. 
65   Art. 5 Basic Law. 

9 

 
                                                 
background of the available statistics on the extent of the problem66. In Germany defamation 
may  be  punished  with  imprisonment,  though  it  has  to  be  noted  that  this  occurs  only  very 
rarely  in  practice67.  According  to  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2020,  the  overall  basic 
protection  indicators  relating  to  the  journalistic  profession,  standards  and  protection 
demonstrates a low risk. However, the relevant Media Pluralism Monitor 2020 indicator on 
physical safety shows a high risk. Reporters without Borders stated that in 2018, at least 22 
and in 2019 at least 13 violent attacks on journalists were reported68. In 2019 and 2020, the 
Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
published  five  alerts  for  Germany,  concerning  cases  of  attacks  on  the  physical  safety, 
harassment  and  intimidation  of  journalists  and  other  acts  having  chilling  effects  on  media 
freedom69.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Germany  is  a  federal,  democratic  republic  comprised  of  sixteen  federal  states  (Länder). 
Power is distributed between the federal and state Governments. The separation of powers is 
enshrined in the Basic Law70 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)71. The Government, the Bundesrat or members of the Bundestag 
can submit legislative proposals.72 The German Human Rights Institute and the Federal Anti-
Discrimination Agency contribute to upholding fundamental rights.  

Conducting  impact  assessments  and  consulting  stakeholders  are  established  practices 
for enacting legislation. In Germany, a national better regulation body exists since 2006, to 
advise the Federal Government on these issues. To strengthen transparency of the legislative 
process at the federal level, the Federal Government decided in November 2019 to publish all 
stakeholder  contributions  concerning  federal  legislative  proposals  online.  This  development 
was  also  welcomed  by  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  as  ‘a 
significant  step  in  improving  transparency  of  the  legislative  process  on  the  side  of  the 
Federal Government’73. It is further planned to unify this in a single platform, as currently, 
each federal ministry is publishing such contributions on their respective websites74. 

Respect  for  fundamental  and  constitutional  rights  is  ensured  in  several  ways. 
Constitutional  review  takes  place  at  both  the  federal  level  as  well  as  at  the  level  of  the 
Länder. At the federal level, the Basic Law provides for a number of different procedures that 
allow for the constitutional  review by the  Federal  Constitutional  Court75. These include the 
abstract  judicial  review  of  statutes,  the  specific  judicial  review  of  statutes,  the  disputes 
between  the  federal  level  and  the  Länder,  the  disputes  between  constitutional  organs  and 

66   Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, point 34. 
67   Media Pluralism Monitor 2020, MPM 2020, p. 9. 
68   Intimidation campaigns, especially via social media, attacks from right wings extremists, police preventing 
journalists from working during some demonstrations. Reporters without Borders (2019, 2020) World Press 
Freedom Index, p. 3.  

69   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  
70   Art. 20 Basic Law. 
71   Articles 70 et seq. Basic Law. 
72   Proposals by the  Bundestag can be submitted by (at least)  5% of its  members. In practice, most proposals 

emanate from the Government.  

73   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report, para. 38. 
74   Information received in the context of the  country  visit and the input  from Germany  for the 2020 Rule of 

Law Report, point 21. 

75   Arts. 93 and 100 Basic Law; also Bundesverfassungsgericht, Types of proceedings web page. 

10 

 
                                                 
individual  constitutional  complaints,  which  may,  in  exceptional  cases,  also  include  the 
constitutional review of statutes. The Federal Constitutional Court may also issue preliminary 
injunctions. Review of constitutionality also exists at the level of the Länder. For state laws, 
it is exercised by the respective Constitutional Courts of the  Länder. The general regime in 
place  for  constitutional  review  is  generally  considered  as  effective.  However,  the  recent 
judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 202076 has raised concerns regarding 
the scope of its constitutional review in relation to the legal order of the European Union77. 
Stakeholders  also  pointed  to  specific  aspects  regarding  the  mechanisms  in  place  for 
monitoring the satisfactory implementation of judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court. 
There  are  some  concerns  that  no  effective  mechanism  exists  to  ensure  that  judgments  are 
implemented within a set period of time, as witnessed in the lack of legislative follow-up in 
the implementation of a landmark judgment on inheritance tax law from 201478 or at the level 
of some Länder where the executive has not implemented administrative court rulings in the 
area  of  EU  law  concerning  air  quality79.  Another  aspect  raised  is  the  lack  of  any  fast-track 
constitutional review of new laws, where their constitutionality is in doubt and where there 
are reasons to believe that the legislator is not fully implementing previous judgments of the 
Federal Constitutional Court. The only available remedy in this particular case is to launch a 
new  complaint,  which  may  lead  to  significant  burdens  for  the  complaining  party80.  In  the 
context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  Federal  Constitutional  Court  has  been  seized  with 
regards to certain of the measures adopted to combat the pandemic81, and ordered preliminary 
injunctions82 against some measures. Moreover, administrative courts across Germany were 
seized in proceedings for preliminary relief or injunctions as regards certain public measures 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, in some cases with success, while main proceedings are 
ongoing83.  

Independent  authorities  play  a  role  in  safeguarding  fundamental  rights.  The  German 
National Human Rights Institute has been accredited with A-Status by the Global Alliance of 
National  Human Rights  Institutions  in  line with  the  so-called Paris Principles84. As regards 
the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, which is the national equality body, the nomination 
procedure for its leadership appears to be prone to extended delays and frictions. Since April 

76   Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15. 
77   Court of Justice of the European Union, Press release No 58/20 of 8 May 2020; Statement by President von 

der Leyen, Statement/20/846 of 10 May 2020. 

78   Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 17 December 2014, 1 BvL 21/12. 
79   E.g.  the  contribution  from  the  German  Association  of  Judges  and  Prosecutors  for  the  2020  Rule  of  Law 
Report, p. 14 with further references or the contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2020 Rule 
of Law Report, p. 14 with further references. 

80   Information received in the context of the country visit and the consultation process for the report, e.g. the 

written contribution from the German Bar Association.  

81   Germany did not declare a state of emergency or adopt a specific emergency regime, measures were taken at 

Federal Level based on the Epidemics Law as well as at Länder level. Constitutional Court.  

82   This  included  the  temporary  suspension  of  a  total  ban  of  religious  services,  Decision  of  the  Federal 
Constitutional Court, 29 April 2020, 1 BvQ 44/20; see also decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 15 
April  2020,  1  BvR  828/20,  concerning  the  freedom  of  assembly.  A  number  other  submissions  have  been 
declared inadmissible.  

83   See  for  such  successful  challenges  e.g.  Higher  Administrative  Court  Baden-Württemberg  (VGH  Baden-
Württemberg),  5  May  2020,  case  no  1  S  1623/20  concerning  the  indicative  criterion  for  the  permitted 
number of customers [20m2 per person including staff] considered as likely unlawful; Higher Administrative 
Court Baden-Württemberg (VGH Baden-Württemberg), 30 July 2020, case no. 1 S 2087/20 concerning an 
unconditional testing obligation for staff of a slaughterhouse (twice per week) found to be disproportionate. 
84   UN  Human  Rights  Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  (1993),  Principles  relating  to  the  Status  of  National 

Institutions (The Paris Principles). 

11 

 
                                                 
2018, it is  managed only  on an ad interim  basis.85 Next  to  the Federal  Anti-Discrimination 
Agency, eight Länder have also established anti-discrimination agencies. 

There  is  an  enabling  framework  for  civil  society  and  a  policy  for  making  information 
accessible to citizens. Civil society organisations can operate freely in Germany.86 There is 
some  discussion  concerning  a  2019  ruling  of  the  Federal  Financial  Court  concerning  the 
criteria  for  civil  society  organisations  to  benefit  from  tax  privileges  for  non-profit 
associations  with  a  public  benefit  purpose.87  Stakeholders,  including  the  National  Human 
Rights Institute, consider that this ruling is narrowing civil society space.88 

Regular  debates  and  publications  on  rule  of  law  topics,  both  from  a  domestic  and  a 
European perspective contribute  to fostering a dynamic rule of law culture.  A widely-
read  platform  for  discussions  on  rule  of  law  related  topics89  has  gained  in  importance  over 
recent  years and has become a forum for both domestic as well as European discussions on 
the rule of law. In 2019, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection as part of 
the ‘Pact for the Rule of Law’ conducted a nationwide information and publicity campaign. 
This  campaign  focussed  on  communicating  the  significance  of  the  rule  of  law  and  the 
guarantees it provides for the individual citizen as well as for a democratic society and this is 
further reflected in the programme of the German Council Presidency (2020). 

85   Contribution from the Federal Discrimination Agency for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
86   The civic space is rated as open. Rating given by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: 

open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed and closed. 

87   Judgment of the Federal Financial Court of 10 January 2019, V R 60/17. 
88   Contribution from the European Network of Human Rights Institutions for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 

109. 

89   Verfassungsblog. 

12 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*  
* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 
can be found at (COM website). 

Bundestag (2020), Plenarprotokoll 19/163.  

Bundeskriminalamt 

(2018), 

Bundeslagebild 

Korruption 

2017. 

https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/JahresberichteUndLagebilder/Korru
ption/korruptionBundeslagebild2017.html?nn=28078.  

Bundesregierung  (2004),  Richtlinie  der  Bundesregierung  zur  Korruptionsprävention 

in  der 
http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-

Bundesverwaltung. 
internet.de/bsvwvbund_30072004_O4634140151.html.  

Bundesverfassungsgericht, 

Types 

of 

proceedings 

web 

page.  

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/EN/Verfahren/Wichtige-Verfahrensarten/wichtige-
verfahrensarten_node.html.  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space: Germany. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/germany/.  

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists. 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom.  

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee 

of Ministers to member states on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system. 

Court of Justice of the European Union (2020), Press release following the judgment of the German 

Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020, No 58/20.  

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  27  May  2019,  OG  and  PI,  Joined  Cases  C-

508/18 and C-82/19. 

Der 

Spiegel 

(2017), 

Was 

Abgeordnete 

nebenher 

verdienen. 

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nebeneinkuenfte-in-den-landtagen-das-sind-die-top-
verdiener-a-1136866.html.  

Die  Linke,  proposal 

a 
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/000/1900015.pdf.  

introduction  of 

the 

for 

compulsory 

transparency 

register: 

Directorate-General for Communication (2019, 2020), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

European  Commission  (2013,  2014,  2015,  2016,  2017,  2018,  2019,  2020),  The  EU  Justice 

Scoreboard.  

European Commission (2020), Report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 
June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.  

European  Commission  (2019),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  in 
order to comply with Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating 
corruption in the private sector, COM(2019)355 final.  

European Network of Human Rights Institutions (2020), Contribution from the European Network of 

Human Rights Institutions for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

European  University  Institute,  Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom,  Media  Pluralism 

Monitor 2020, 2020. 

13 

 
Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 17 December 2014, 1 BvL 21/12.  

Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 5 May 2015, 2 BvL 17/09.  

Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 15 April 2020, 1 BvR 828/20. 

Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 29 April 2020, 1 BvQ 44/20. 

Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 5 May 2020, BvR 859/15.  

Federal Criminal Office (2019), Bundeslagebild Korruption 2018. 

Federal Discrimination Agency (2020), Contribution from the Federal Discrimination Agency for the 

2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Federal Financial Court, judgment of 10 January 2019, V R 60/17.  

Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Protection  (2017),  Courts  of  the  federal  and  state 

Governments. 
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Anzahl_der_Gerichte_des_Bundes_und_der
_Laender.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.  

Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Protection  (2019),  Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law. 

https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Artikel/DE/2019/020119_Rechtstaat.html.   

Federal  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Building  and  Community  (2019),  Prevention  of  Corruption  in  the 
2018. 
Annual 

Federal 
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/themen/moderne-verwaltung/korruption-
prevention-report-2018.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.  

Administration: 

report 

for 

German Association of Judges and Prosecutors (2020), Contribution from the German Association of 

Judges and Prosecutors for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

German Bar Association (2020), Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2020 Rule of 

Law Report.  

German  Federal  Bar  (2020),  Contribution  from  the  German  Federal  Bar  for  the  2020  Rule  of  Law 

Report.  

German Government (2020), Input from Germany for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

German Press Council, German Press Codex. https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html.   

GRECO (2015), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Germany on corruption prevention 

in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

GRECO (2019), Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report on Germany on corruption 

prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

Medienanstalten, 

Legal 

basis 

of  media 

authorities  web 

page. 

https://www.die-

medienanstalten.de/service/rechtsgrundlagen.  

Medienanstalten, The media authorities web page.  https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/en/about-the-

media-authorities.  

OECD  (2018),  Implementing  the  OECD  anti-bribery  convention  –  Phase  4  report:  Germany.  

https://www.oecd.org/corruption/anti-bribery/Germany-Phase-4-Report-ENG.pdf.  

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen (2020), Statement by President Von der 

Leyen, statement/20/846.  

Reporters without Borders (2019, 2020), World press freedom index. https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2019.  

https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2020.  

Transparency 

International 

(2019), 

Corruption 

Perceptions 

Index 

2019. 

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results/deu.  

14 

 
UN  Human  Rights  Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  (1993),  Principles  relating  to  the  Status  of 
National Institutions (The Paris Principles) – Adopted by General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 
December 1993.  

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2019), Review of implementation of the United Nations Convention 
Germany. 
against 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewGroup/
17-18December2019/V1911805e.pdf.  

Corruption 

summary: 

Executive 

– 

Verfassungsblog: On matters constitutional. https://verfassungsblog.de/.   

Virtual country visit to Germany in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

World  Bank,  Country  Profile:  Germany.  https://star.worldbank.org/sites/star/files/germany-ad-

country-profile.pdf.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Germany  

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June 2020 with: 

  Bavarian State Chancellery  
  European Committee of the Conference of Justice Ministers of the Federal States 
  Federal Criminal Police Office 
  Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection 
  Federal Ministry of the Interior 
  German Association of Judges 
  German Chamber of Lawyers (BRAK) 
  German Lawyers' Association (DAV) 
 
  Transparency International Germany 

Joint Management Office of the Media Authorities 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

16