COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 706 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report   Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report   The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  German  justice  system,  characterised  by  the  important  role  of  the  Länder  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  continues  to  benefit  from  a  very  high  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence.  A  legislative  proposal  is  under  discussion  to  limit  the  rarely  used,  power  of 
Ministers of Justice to issue instructions to prosecutors in individual cases, in light of the case 
law  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice.  Discussions  are  on-going  regarding  the  selection 
criteria for some presiding judges at the Federal Courts following some criticism by judges of 
the  proposed  removal  of  experience  requirements.  The  creation  of  the  additional  posts  for 
judges and prosecutors under the 2019 ‘Pact for the Rule of Law’ is advancing. As noted in 
the 2020 Rule of Law Report, long-term challenges as regards recruitments in the judiciary 
persist, also in light of upcoming retirement waves of judges.  Initiatives continue to further 
improve the digitalisation of justice. Specialised commercial courts focussed on international 
matters which can work in English, are being created in several  Länder. The justice system 
continues to perform efficiently, showing improvements for administrative cases.  

The  strategic  response  to  corruption  prevention  saw  further  positive  developments, 
complementing the anti-corruption framework already in place. Germany is modernising its 
strategic framework for the prevention of corruption in the federal administration. A new law 
introduces  a  lobby  register  by  January  2022,  not  envisaging,  however,  a  ‘legislative 
footprint’. Shortcomings remain in the regulation of secondary activities of parliamentarians 
and  in  the  rules  on  asset  disclosures,  although  some  improvements  are  underway.  Political 
party  financing  rules  contain  some  legal  gaps,  including  on  sponsoring,  while  ceilings  for 
donations are considered too high. The financial damage of corruption decreased significantly 
with classical cash bribery on the decline. Other forms of non-monetary bribery such as free 
event tickets and potential undue influence through private dinners for business and politics 
are coming into focus. Germany leads globally in the prosecution of individuals who commit 
foreign bribery, but there is no legal provision for criminal liability of companies. 

Germany has a  well-functioning regulatory framework on media freedom  and pluralism.  In 
the  course  of  the  transposition  of  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive,  the 
German media law framework was updated, notably through the State Media Treaty, which 
entered  into  force  in  November  2020.  The  degree  of  independence  of  the  media  and  the 
relevant  regulatory  authorities  remains  high.  German  law  guarantees  a  good  level  of 
transparency of media ownership. Notwithstanding a solid legal framework, a main concern 
remains  the  physical  safety  of  journalists,  notably  when  covering  protests.  In  this  regard, 
2020 was marked by a significant number of recorded cases of aggression against journalists.  

The  system  of  checks  and  balances  has  played  an  active  role  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. Restrictive measures have been taken primarily by the Länder Governments on the 
basis  of  the  Infection  Protection  Law,  which  has  been  amended  several  times,  including  in 
November 2020 to increase oversight by the Federal Parliament. These measures have been 
subject  to  extensive  judicial  review.  Some  concerns  have  been  raised  regarding  a  broader 
trend of shortened stakeholder consultation periods. On 9 June 2021 the Commission initiated 
infringement proceedings against Germany for breach of the principle of primacy of EU law 
in  relation  to  the  5  May  2020  judgment  of  the  Federal  Constitutional  Court.  Civil  society 
continues  to  benefit  from  a  robust  framework,  but  is  facing  uncertainty  regarding  the  tax-
exempt  status  of  non-profit  organisations.  According  to  stakeholders,  concerns  over  losing 
this status can lead them to refrain from taking positions on potentially sensitive issues.  

1 

 
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  Länder1. 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  merit2  and  the  judicial  review  of  the  process  and  decision  relating  to 
appointments. 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 process3. 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 Länder4. 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. 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 Land has its own public prosecution service. 
Germany participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. There are 27 regional Bars 
in Germany5, which are organised under the umbrella of the German Federal Bar.  

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  continues  to  be  high.  Overall,  80%  of  the 
general population and 69% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and 
judges  as  ‘very  good’  or  ‘fairly  good’  in  20216.  This  high  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence has shown a stable trend over the past five years and represents a slight further 
increase  compared  to  2020  as  regards  the  general  public,  while  for  companies  it  has 
somewhat decreased compared to the stable level of previous years.  

1   As explained in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the independence of the German justice systems is ensured by 
multiple safeguards, which include judicial control over appointments, professional appraisals,  promotions, 
disciplinary sanctions and dismissals, and by a number of elements of judicial self-administration.  

2   The principle of merit (Leistungsprinzip) is anchored in Article 33 para. 2 of the Basic Law; mainly on the 

basis of the grades in the two legal state exams.  

3   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,  though  not  all  of  them.  Moreover,  the  process  and  decision  of 
appointment or non-appointment is fully subject to judicial control before the administrative courts.  

4   There are also 18 financial courts, 108 labour courts, 18 higher labour courts, 68 social courts and 14 higher 

social courts. Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

5   There  is  also  a  special bar  for  the  lawyers  with  rights  of  audience  in  civil  matters  at  the  Federal  Court  of 

Justice.  

6   Figures 48 and 50, 2021 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%).  

2 

 
                                                 
Changes  to  the  power  of  Ministers  of  Justice  to  issue  instructions  to  prosecutors  in 
individual  cases  is  being  considered.  In  January  2021,  a  draft  proposal  for  amending  the 
system of instructions to prosecutors in individual cases, which has been under discussion in 
past years7, was submitted to consultation to the Länder and stakeholders. The proposal inter 
alia reacts to the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning the application of the 
European Arrest Warrant8. The proposal would codify the obligation to respect the principle 
of legality and introduce a requirement that instructions in individual cases must be reasoned 
and  issued  in  writing9.  Such  envisaged  safeguards  would  be  consistent  with  Council  of 
Europe  recommendations10.  In  addition,  the  proposal  would  abolish  the  possibility  of 
instructions  in  individual  cases  for  the  area  of  EU  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters, 
while  maintaining  it  otherwise11.  While  the  proposed  safeguards  have  been  broadly 
welcomed by stakeholders12, reactions to the latter element of the proposal have been mixed. 
Some Länder13 and stakeholders14 consider that the current system of instructions has to be 
maintained  to  comply  with  the  constitutional  democracy  principle  and  thereby  the 
accountability  of  the  prosecution  service.  Other  stakeholders15  consider  that  the  power  to 
issue instructions in  individual cases  should be  fully abolished and that  the proposal  would 
create an artificial separation of national matters and those involving EU judicial cooperation. 
The Government is reviewing the consultation responses to decide whether and how to move 
forward with the proposal16.  

The selection criteria for presiding judges at the Federal Courts are subject to ongoing 
discussions,  following  some  criticism  on  the  proposed  removal  of  specific  experience 
requirements. Promotions to positions of president, vice-president and presiding judge of a 
senate17  at  the  Federal  Courts  are  decided  by  the  Federal  President  upon  proposal  of  the 
responsible Minister18. The proposal is based on a procedure which includes the mandatory 
involvement of the Council of Judges of the court concerned. The principle of merit for the 
selection of candidates is specified through requirements established by law and, particularly, 

7   As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the fact that this right is rarely used in practice, combined with the 
legal safeguards in place, appears to mitigate the risk of misuse of the right of instruction; 2020 Rule of Law 
Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 3.  

8   Judgments  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 and of 24 November 2020 – C-510/19. 

9   Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Protection  (2021),  Draft  law  to  strengthen  the  independence  of  public 

prosecutors and criminal law cooperation with the member states of the European Union.  

10   See Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 13 (d-e). 
Further safeguards recommended by the Council of Europe are to include the instruction in the case file and 
allow it to be accessed by the parties.  

11   Concretely, the draft refers to parts eight to eleven and thirteen of the law on international legal assistance in 
criminal  matters  (Gesetz  über  die  internationale  Rechtshilfe  in  Strafsachen),  which  ,  inter  alia,  cover  EU 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters.  

12   See the contributions referenced in footnotes 13, 14 and 15.  
13   Joint  letter  by  Hessen,  Bayern,  Brandenburg,  Nordrhein-Westfalen,  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,  Saarland, 

Niedersachen and Schleswig-Holstein of 3 February 2021.  

14   Contribution by the German Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.  
15   Contribution from the German Association of Judges and Prosecutors for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.  
16   Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Germany.  
17   While presiding judges  have  the same  vote as the  other judges in the senate, they lead  hearings and  write 

professional assessments for promotions; the position also carries a higher salary.  

18   The  Minister  of  Justice  is  responsible  for  the  Federal  Court  of  Justice,  the  Federal  Finance  Court  and  the 
Federal Administrative Court, while the Minister of Labour is responsible for the Federal Social Court and 
the Federal Labour Court.  

3 

 
                                                 
in  case  of  the  position  of  presiding  judges,  through  the  selection  criteria  for  the  position19; 
and  applications  are  assessed,  in  particular,  on  the  basis  of  their  professional  evaluation  by 
their court president. In September 2020, the Ministry of Justice revised its selection criteria 
for the position of presiding judges at all Federal Courts within its responsibility, in particular 
removing a requirement of usually five years of experience at the respective Federal Court for 
becoming a presiding judge20. The Presidents of the Federal Courts21 and stakeholders22 have 
criticised  this,  arguing  that  such  experience  is  necessary  to  be  able  to  fulfil  the  tasks  of  a 
presiding  judge  and  regretting  their  lack  of  involvement23  in  preparing  the  changes24.  The 
Ministry was also criticized for reviewing the selection criteria during an ongoing recruitment 
procedure. Following the criticism, the Ministry of Justice is  engaging in dialogue with  the 
Federal Courts. In early 2021, the Ministry proposed two candidates to the Federal President 
for the vacant posts of vice-president and president at the Federal Finance Court, who were 
elected  by  the  Federal  judges’  election  committee,  but  do  not  fulfil  the  five  years  of 
experience at the Federal Finance Court25. Appeals against the promotion  procedure for the 
president and the vice-president position are currently pending26, with a suspensive effect on 
the  appointment.  According  to  the  Council  of  Europe,  procedures  for  the  appointment  of 
Supreme Court Presidents should be defined by law, based on merit and formally rule out any 
possibility of political influence27. 

Quality  

The implementation  of the 2019 ‘Pact for the Rule of Law’ is  in progress,  but longer-
term challenges regarding recruitments in the judiciary persist28. The creation and filling 
of the 2000 posts for judges and prosecutors in the Länder foreseen in the Pact for the Rule of 
Law is progressing. In the majority of the federal states all allocated posts have been created 
(with  some  going  beyond  their  obligations),  and  in  the  remaining  federal  states  all 
outstanding posts are set to be created by December 2021. The posts foreseen at Federal level 
have  also  been  created29.  A  joint  report  by  the  Federal  Government  and  the  Länder  on  the 

19   The  case  law  of  the  Federal  Constitutional  Court  has  defined  the  application  of  the  principle  of  merit  for 
Federal judges, see e.g. Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 29 November 2016, 2 BvR 2453/15. 

20   Thus, under the former criteria, exceptions from the five years of experience were possible. 
21   See e.g. SWR (2021), Bettina Limperg: "Das muss sich unbedingt ändern" and information received in the 

context of the country visit to Germany.  

22   Contribution from the German Association of Judges and Prosecutors for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.6. 
The Judges Association cites a risk that a perception of political considerations impacting promotions could 
negatively impact public trust in the judiciary. Deutsche Richterzeitung (4/21), “Ein verstörender Verdacht”.  
23   While such involvement is not legally required, the previous selection criteria had been established in 2016 

in agreement between the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Courts.  

24   The Ministry of Justice considers that the experience can also be acquired at other relevant courts. 
25   Whether  criteria  for  presiding  judges  apply  to  court  presidents  and  vice-presidents  is  a  point  of  debate. 
Stakeholders  consider  that  in  particular  vice-presidents  have  primarily  judicial  responsibilities  and  should 
therefore  fulfil  the  experience  criteria.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  considers  that  due  to  the  administrative 
responsibilities  of  presidents  and  vice-presidents,  the  five  years  experience  should  not  be  considered  as  a 
compulsory criterion; Information received in the context of the country visit to Germany.  
26   LTO (2021), Urgent appeals against replacements at the top of the Federal Finance Court.  
27   Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion N°19 The role of court presidents, para 53. Under 
German law any promotion decision, including those of Supreme Court Presidents, must be based on merit 
(Art. 33 (2) Basic Law, § 46 German Judges Act, §§ 9, 22 (1) Federal Civil Servants Act). In addition, every 
such decision is subject to judicial review. 

28   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp. 4-5.  
29   24 posts at the Federal Court of Justice and 71 posts at the Federal Prosecutor General, input from Germany 

for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9.  

4 

 
                                                 
state of implementation of the pact was presented on 10 June 2021, which concluding that the 
implementation has well progressed, noting in particular that over 2 700 post for judges and 
prosecutors  have  been  created  so  far,  with  2 500  being  filled30.  However,  stakeholders31 
consider  that  further  investments  are  needed  especially  in  view  of  increasing  new  tasks  for 
the judiciary, and have therefore proposed an extension of the Pact on the Rule of Law. In a 
decision  of  the  Conference  of  Justice  Ministers  of  16  June  2021,  the  16  Länder  jointly 
requested  a  continuation  and  expansion  of  the  Pact  for  the  Rule  of  Law  beyond  2021, 
including  for  financing  investments  in  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system32.  As  already 
noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, challenges remain regarding the long-term situation of 
recruitments  for  courts  and  prosecution  services  in  light  of  upcoming  retirement  waves33; 
stakeholders  continue  to  point  to  the  issue  of  competitiveness  of  entry-level  salaries  for 
judges and prosecutors and persisting differences in the salary levels in the different Länder 
in this context34. The Länder, in particular in the eastern part of Germany, are undertaking a 
number of initiatives to attract graduates to judicial professions in anticipation of retirements 
in the coming years of judges hired post-reunification35.   

Efforts  to  improve  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  are  continuing,  including  in 
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic36. Comprehensive procedural  rules for the use of 
digital tools are in place in Germany for civil and administrative proceedings. However, they 
are  less  developed  in  main  hearings  in  criminal  proceedings,  especially  as  regards  the 
possibility  to  carry  out  oral  proceedings  via  distance  communication  with  the  accused 
person37.  Electronic  communication  tools  for  courts  and  prosecution  services  are  fully 
implemented38.  While  digital  solutions  to  initiate  and  follow  proceedings  in  civil  and 
administrative cases are well-developed, this is in practice less the case for criminal cases39. 
The three projects at Länder level to introduce electronic files are advancing in view of the 
overall  goal  to  fully  transition  to  e-files  by  2026.  The  Federal  Government,  in  cooperation 
with the Länder and Federal Courts, is developing a number of further digitalisation projects, 
including  setting  up  a  common  videoconferencing  platform  for  all  courts  and  an  IT 
application  allowing  citizens  to  receive  assistance  when  submitting  claims  to  court40.  The 
Government and stakeholders report that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, existing 

30   Joint Report by the Federal Government and the Länder on the implementation of the measures agreed on 31 
January 2019 on the ‘pact for the rule of law’; see also Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection 
(2019), Pact for the Rule of Law.  

31   The German Association of Judges and Prosecutors points to additional gaps in posts of approx. 2000 judges 
and  prosecutors  and  suggests  prolonging  the  pact  until  2025.  Deutsche  Richterzeitung  (2021),  Pact  with 
middling interim results (Pakt mit durchwachsener Zwischenbilanz).  

32   Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2021),  Decision  –  Continuing  to  sustainably  increase  personnel  and 

advancing the digitalization of the judiciary – Pact for the rule of law 2.0.  

33   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 4.  
34   A  2021  survey  by  the  German  Association  of  Judges  and  Prosecutors  shows  a  difference  of  685  Euros 
between  the  Länder  with  the  highest  and  lowest  monthly  entry-level  salaries  for  judges.  DRB  (2021), 
Significant differences in salaries between the Federal States (Große Besoldungsunterschiede zwischen den 
Bundesländern).  

35   Information received by Ministries of Justice of the Länder in the context of the country visit to Germany.  
36   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 4.  
37   Figure 40, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. According to the Government, this is related to the emphasis on the 

principle of oral hearings and the presence of the accused in the main hearing. 

38   Figures 42-43, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
39   Figures 44-45, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
40   Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 14.  

5 

 
                                                 
possibilities for digital hearings foreseen in the civil procedural code facilitated the continued 
activity of the courts41.  

Specialised commercial courts with a focus on international disputes have been created 
in several Länder.  In November 2020, a new commercial court, with jurisdiction for high-
value commercial cases, especially with an international dimension42, has taken up activity in 
Baden-Württemberg, with seats in Mannheim and Stuttgart43. Proceedings at the court can be 
conducted exclusively in English at the parties’ request. Similar specialised chambers dealing 
with commercial disputes with the possibility to conduct proceedings in English had already 
been  created  at  courts  in  Hessen,  Nordrhein-Westfalen  and  Saarland44.  The  overall  aim  of 
these  initiatives  is  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  Germany  as  a  place  for  international 
commercial litigation. In a position paper adopted by the Conference of the Justice Ministers 
of  the  Länder  in  November  2020,  the  Länder  are  calling  for  the  creation  of  the  legal 
conditions  for  the  optional  introduction  of  commercial  courts  dealing  exclusively  with 
commercial cases with an international dimension above a value of EUR 2 million, conducted 
in English45. A draft law tabled in the Bundesrat by Nordrhein-Westfalen and Hamburg was 
submitted  to  the  Bundestag  in  May  2021,  proposing  amendments  to  the  Court  Constitution 
Act to allow for such courts to be created46.   

Efficiency 

The justice system continues to perform efficiently and shows improvements as regards 
efficiency  in  administrative  cases47.  Both  the  disposition  time  (from  435  days  in  2018  to 
397  days  in  2019)  and  the  clearance  rate  (from  97.1%  in  2018  to  109%  in  2019)  have 
improved  as  regards  administrative  cases  in  2019,  reversing  a  trend  from  previous  years, 
when  efficiency  in  administrative  cases  had  declined48.  This  increase  in  efficiency  has  also 
led  to  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  pending  administrative  cases,  although  it  remains 
relatively  high  at  1.0  cases  per  100  inhabitants49.  Regarding  civil  and  commercial  litigious 
cases,  performance  indicators  have  remained  stable  (with  the  clearance  slightly  improving 
from 97.2% in 2018 to 98.8% in 2019)50. According to stakeholders, there appears to be no 
significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the efficiency of the justice system so far51. 
To understand why the figure of incoming civil cases is steadily decreasing, the Ministry of 
Justice has commissioned a study on the topic52.  

41   Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 14; Contribution from the German association of 

Judges and Prosecutors for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9.  

42   Especially corporate disputes, corporate acquisitions and significant financial disputes in the B2B sector.  
43   The Commercial Court: https://www.commercial-court.de/.  
44   In  the  Saarland,  a  chamber  for  (cross-border)  commercial  disputes  as  well  as  a  chamber  for  cross-border 

consumer disputes had been created in 2019, with the possibility to conduct proceedings in French.  

45   Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2020),  Report  of  the  country  working  group  "Germany  as  a  Justice 

Location: Strengthening the Courts in Economic Disputes/Commercial Courts”  

46   Bundesrat (2021), Draft law to strengthen the courts in economic disputes.  
47   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 5; 
48   The  number  of  incoming  administrative  cases  remains  very  high.  Figures  5,  9  and  13,  2021  EU  Justice 

Scoreboard.  

49   Figure 16, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
50   Figure 12, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
51   Deutsche  Richterzeitung  (2020),  Corona  leads  to  advancements  in  digitalization  (Corona  führt  zu 

Digtialisierungsschub) and information received in the context of the country visit to Germany.  

52  Contribution from the German Federal Bar for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.  

6 

 
                                                 
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.  The  2004  Directive  Concerning  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  in 
the Federal Administration, providing the strategic legal framework on corruption prevention 
in the federal public administration, is currently under revision. The complementing detailed 
rules on gifts and favours for federal public officials and, as part of the Corruption Prevention 
Directive, also the comprehensive Codes of Conduct, which aim at preventing corruption at 
the federal level, are currently being revised. As to the repression of corruption, Germany has 
a decentralised approach. The sixteen states (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 2020 Corruption Perceptions  Index by Transparency 
International, Germany scores 80/100 and ranks 4th in the European Union and 9th globally53. 
This perception has been relatively stable54 over the past five years55. 

Germany  has  initiated  a  revision  of  its  comprehensive  strategic  framework  for  the 
prevention of corruption at the federal level. Within that context, updates under the 2004 
‘Federal  Government  Directive  Concerning  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  in  the  Federal 
Administration’56, which is the main regulatory framework for the prevention of corruption, 
are planned, among others, with regard to  corruption risk analyses57. The 2004 rules on the 
prohibition  to  accept  favours  and  gifts  are  also  currently  under  revision  to  assess  whether 
more up-to-date and harmonised rules and increased legal certainty would be required58. For 
the first time, Germany  will publish a comprehensive compilation report on integrity in the 
federal public administration in 202159. 

Due to the federal structure, Germany’s institutional anti-corruption framework for the 
repression of corruption is decentralised. The sixteen German states are responsible for the 

53   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

54   In 2015 the score was 81, while, in 2020, the score is 80. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

55   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

56   Directive of the Federal Government regarding corruption prevention in the Federal administration (2004). 
57   Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Germany.  
58   Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 18.  
59   This  report  will  compile  information  from  three  pre-existing  sources,  including  from:  (i)  the  Report  on 
corruption  prevention  developments  and  results  in  the  public  administration,  including  the  number  of 
suspected  corruption  cases  and  department-specific  corruption  prevention  measures;  (ii)  amounts  of  the 
sponsoring  accepted  by  the  public  administration;  and  (iii)  the  extent  of  the  use  of  external  staff  in 
Germany’s public administration. Input from Germany for 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 19. 

7 

 
                                                 
repression  of  corruption60.  Competences  of  the  sixteen  Ministries  of  Interior  at  the  Länder 
level  depend  on  the  legislative  framework  of  the  respective  Land.  They  can  include  policy 
coordination  and  corruption  prevention  as  well  as,  in  some  instances,  investigative  tasks61. 
The  police,  including  the  State  Criminal  Police  Offices  (Landeskriminalämter)  and  local 
police,  is  subject  to  the  law  of  the  sixteen  states.  Some  states  have  established  specialised 
police units and specialised prosecution services focusing specifically on economic crime and 
corruption investigations and prosecutions62. Dedicated criminal divisions in regional courts 
specialised  in  white-collar  crime,  including  corruption,  exist  for  the  adjudication  of 
corruption cases. The Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) plays an essential 
role  in  the  cooperation  and  information-exchange  between  the  states  and  with  international 
partners in criminal investigations.  

The  number  of  reported  cases  of  corruption  has  increased  but  the  overall  financial 
damage of corruption on society is decreasing. Information on Germany’s police efforts to 
repress  corruption,  which  is  broadly  criminalised63,  is  publicly  available  The  latest  official 
federal police report on corruption reports 5,428 police-registered corruption cases in 201964. 
This is a significant increase of 42.7% compared to 2018. The report also indicates a slight 
increase of 3.3% in the number of suspects. Of those who accepted a bribe, 67% have been 
public officials. Public procurement is the most affected sector. Classical bribe payments in 
cash  are  on  the  decline  and  as  such  the  financial  damage  caused  by  corruption  has  notably 
decreased  by  61.2%  amounting  to  EUR  47  million  in  2019.  Instead  other  forms  of  non-
monetary  bribery  and  potential  undue  influence  are  coming  into  focus,  including  primarily 
the  provision  of  free  event  tickets  that  are  otherwise  not  accessible  to  the  public  and  of 
private dinners where business meets politicians. Parliamentary investigation committees call 
for  and  hold  committee  meetings  on  a  regular  basis  to  address  high-level  corruption  cases 
involving  members  of  Government  or  federal  ministries.  Some  concerns  exist  as  to  the 
capacity  to  detect  and  investigate  allegations  of  corruption-related  financial  crime65.  To 
address concerns of backlogs, Germany’s Financial Intelligence Unit announced an increase 
of its capacities to 800 staff over the next three years and to introduce a dedicated software to 
identify risk areas66. In foreign bribery cases, Germany’s enforcement in holding companies 

60   At  the  federal  level,  the  Ministry  of  Interior,  Building  and  Community  is  in  charge  of  the  overall  policy 
coordination  on  the  prevention  of  corruption  in  the  federal  administration.  As  such,  the  Ministry  adopts 
guidelines  for  the  implementation  of  corruption  prevention  rules  for  all  federal  administrative  bodies  and 
issues Codes of Conducts for staff and superiors. Citizens and employees can reach out to dedicated contact 
points regarding corruption-related questions or concerns. The Ministry of Justice leads on the criminal law 
relating  to  corruption.  Neither  the  Federal  Prosecution  Office  nor  the  Federal  Criminal  Police  have  the 
mandate to tackle corruption. 

61   For instance, the Ministries of Interior of the city states Bremen and Hamburg have investigative tasks. 
62   Specialised  prosecution  offices  (‘Schwerpunktstaatsanwaltschaften’)  exist  in  Brandenburg,  Niedersachsen, 
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Thüringen,  Schleswig-Holstein  with varying  mandates covering corruption cases for 
the entire respective state or just a specific, locally limited jurisdiction within a state.  

63   Corruption is comprehensively criminalised in Germany, including active and passive bribery (see sections 
331-337  of  the  Criminal  Code).  Private  sector  bribery  is  further  penalised  in  sections  299-300  of  the 
Criminal Code, while bribery of public officials is specifically criminalised in section 108e. Germany has a 
specific  law  for  the  fight  against  bribery  of  foreign  officials  in  place,  and  has  also  regulated  criminal 
responsibility of legal persons with sanctions of up to EUR 10 million.  

64   Bundeskriminalamt, Bundeslagebild Korruption 2019 (2020), p. 2/  
65   Cf.  Transparency  International-Deutschland,  Stellungnahme  zum  Entwurf  eines  Gesetzes  zur  Stärkung  der 

Finanzmarktintegrität (Nov. 2020).  

66   H.  Steinharter,  Financial  Intelligence  Unit:  Anti-Geldwäsche-Behörde  FIU  plant  Hunderte  neue  Stellen, 

Handelsblatt (23 December 2020).  

8 

 
                                                 
liable  remains  critically  low,  despite  its  leading  role  in  investigating,  prosecuting  and 
sanctioning individuals who commit foreign bribery67. 

A new federal law to introduce a lobby register for interest representatives was adopted 
in March 2021 and will become operational on 1 January 2022. The legislation68 aims at 
increasing  transparency  in  the  federal  decision-making  process.  It  introduces  rules  for 
lobbying  activities  toward  the  German  Federal  Parliament,  the  Government  and  ministries. 
Stakeholders  acknowledge  the  wide  personal  scope  envisaged,  also  including  lawyers  and 
clients  of consultancies who lobby on their behalf69. Actors such as  trade  unions, employer 
associations,  churches  and  religious  communities,  as  the  most  important  lobby  actors  in 
Germany, are however exempt from the mandatory registration requirement. The provision of 
financial information on amounts invested in the lobbying activities also remains voluntary. 
Further,  the  requirement  to  register  concerns  only  meetings  with  top-level  government 
officials.  The  technical  level  in  the  ministries,  where  most  of  the  lobbying  regularly  takes 
place, is not included, with the consequence that no track record will exist of such meetings. 
Failure  to  comply  can  be  sanctioned  with  up  to  EUR  50 000.  The  electronic  lobby  register 
will  be  operational  by  1  January  2022  and  will  be  administered  by  the  Parliament 
(Bundestag). The introduction of a ‘legislative footprint’ that would allow for the monitoring 
and  tracing  of  all  interest  representatives  who  seek  to  influence  and  contribute  to  specific 
legislative texts has not received the support of the political majority at the federal level in the 
debate around the lobby register. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has also 
recommended to improve transparency of external inputs to legislative proposals70. Concerns 
also remain as to the consistent application of Germany’s ‘revolving doors’ rules, including 
varying  cooling-off  periods  and  the  large  discretion  in  the  decision  of  superiors  regarding 
future employments of state secretaries and directors general71. 

is  strengthening 

the  rules  on  potential  conflicts  of 

for 
Germany 
parliamentarians  and  for  members  of  its  financial  supervisory  body.  To  restrict 
secondary  activities  of  members  of  the  Federal  Parliament,  amendments  to  the  Act  on 
Members  of  the  Federal  Parliament72  were  presented  to  Parliament  in  December  2020  and 
adopted in June 202173. The reform includes a prohibition of remunerated lobby activities as 
side jobs  of parliamentarians as well as remunerated lectures that are in  connection to  their 

interest 

67   OECD,  Phase  4  Two-Year  Follow-Up  Report:  Germany  (2021),  p.  3:  “The  continued  discrepancy  in  the 
prosecutorial approach to holding natural as opposed to legal persons liable across Länder, the fragmented 
investigative approach, coupled with the alternative use of forfeiture orders has continued to greatly hinder 
Germany’s ability to hold companies liable in foreign bribery cases.” 

68   Gesetz  zur  Einführung  eines  Lobbyregisters  für  die  Interessenvertretung  gegenüber  dem  Deutschen 
Bundestag  und  gegenüber  der  Bundesregierung  (Lobbyregistergesetz  –  LobbyRG),  (16.  April  2021), 
Bundesgesetzblatt 
818, 
19 
https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav#__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl121s0818.pdf%
27%5D__1625212991548.  

2021, 

April 

2021 

vom 

Teil 

Nr. 

27. 

69   Transparency International Germany (2020), position paper on the draft law introducing a lobby register and 

p. 

I 

information received in the context of the country visit to Germany. 

70   GRECO,  5th  Evaluation  Round  evaluation  report  -  Germany  (2020),  para.  60.  See  also  pillar  IV  on  other 
institutional issues related to checks and balances for more information on the transparency in the decision-
making process. See also section IV. 

71   Cf. GRECO, 5th Evaluation Round evaluation report – Germany (2020), paras. 89 and 91. Political servants 
and Directors-General are subject to cooling-off regulations stipulated in section 105 Civil Servants Act. 
72   Gesetz  über  die  Rechtsverhältnisse  der  Mitglieder  des  Deutschen  Bundestages  (Abgeordnetengesetz  –

AbgG). 

73   Gesetz  zur  Änderung  des  Abgeordnetengesetzes  –  Verbesserung  der  Transparenzregeln  für  Mitglieder  des 

Deutschen Bundestages, https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/287/1928784.pdf 

9 

 
                                                 
parliamentary work. Secondary activities of more than EUR 1 000 per month, or EUR 3 000 
per  year,  would  need  to  be  disclosed  publicly.  The  amendments  would  not  entail  the 
disclosure  of  the  actual  time  spent  for  the  engagement  in  the  side  job.  The  Act  on the 
enhancement  of the  financial  market integrity  (FISG),  which  has  come  into  force  on  1  July 
2021,  further  prohibits  private  trading  in  financial  instruments  for employees  of  the 
Federal Financial Services Supervisory Authority74.  

Germany’s  rules  on  asset  declarations  are  under  review.  The  amendment  of  the  Act  on 
Members  of  the  Federal  Parliament  foresees  a  provision  for  members  of  the  Federal 
Parliament  to  disclose  their  financial  holdings  in  unincorporated  companies  and  companies 
with  share  capital  above  5%  as  well  as  the  revenues  of  such  holdings75.  The  assets  and 
financial interests of parliamentarians will be subject to notification, if the respective member 
of the parliament is in charge of an issue in a parliamentary committee and, at the same time, 
remunerated through a secondary activity. However, concerns remain with regard to the lack 
of regulation for members of the Federal Government to disclose assets and properties76. 

New  rules  on  whistleblower  protection  are  under  preparation.  The  draft  legislation  for 
the  protection  of  whistleblowers  aims  at  protecting  disclosures  of  breaches  of  EU  and 
national law and covers both the private and the public sector77. In practice, several contact 
points for whistleblower disclosures are in place at the federal and state level, including the 
Anti-Corruption  Appointees,  the  Specialised  Ombudspersons,  such  as  the  Armed  Forces 
Ombudsman at the federal level, and the Citizen Ombudsmen and Confidence Lawyers at the 
state  level,  who  facilitate  the  disclosure  and  investigation  of  corruption  offences.  The 
fragmentation  across  institutions  and  administrative  levels  has  been  criticised,  as  potential 
whistleblowers  and  complainants  might  have  difficulties  in  identifying  the  appropriate 
disclosure channels78. 

The  financing  of  political  parties  is  regulated  in  a  specific  law  with  reasonably 
dissuasive  sanctions.  Political  parties  are  obliged  to  submit  annual  financial  reports  to  the 
President of the Federal Parliament including on political party assets, liabilities, income and 
expenditure  in  both  campaign  and  off-campaign  periods79.  In  case  of  inaccuracies,  the 
respective  party  can  be  sanctioned  with  an  amount  of  twice  as  much  as  the  corresponding 
incorrect  information80.  Concerns  have  been  raised  regarding  the  significant  time  lapse 
between the party income and its reporting81. Donations above EUR 50 000 must be reported 
without  delay  and  published  on  the  website  of  the  Federal  Parliament.  Donations  above 
EUR 10 000  must  be  disclosed  publicly  in  the  annual  report,  while  the  ceilings  for 

74   Gesetz  zur  Stärkung  der  Finanzmarktintegrität 
Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I vom 3. Juni 2021, p. 1534.  
75   Information received during the country visit to Germany. 
76   GRECO, 5th Evaluation Round (2020), para. 95, and as previously reported in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, 

(Finanzmarktintegritätsstärkungsgesetz  –  FISG), 

country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 7. 

77   Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 21 and information received in the context of the 

country visit to Germany.  

78   Transparency  International-Deutschland,  Comments  and  Recommendations  to  UNCAC  Second  Review 

Cycle (2018), p. 3.  

79   The German Political Parties Act. 
80   Pursuant to Section 23(a) of the Political Parties Act. Furthermore, where the inaccuracies relate to property 
or holdings in companies in the balance sheet or in the accompanying part of the explanatory note, the claim 
shall be 10 per cent of the assets not listed or incorrectly stated. 

81   Information received by LobbyControl in the context of the country visit to Germany, indicating that data for 

the year 2019 was still not published in April 2021. 

10 

 
                                                 
anonymous  donations  are  EUR 500  and  for  donations  in  cash  EUR  1 000.  International 
reviewers have repeatedly pointed out the need for lower thresholds and strengthened record-
keeping82.  Sponsoring  remains  largely  unregulated  despite  its  potential  to  buy  access  to 
important government officials83.  

impacted  the  fight  against  corruption 

The  COVID-19  pandemic 
in  Germany 
highlighting  pandemic-specific  corruption  risks.  The  Financial  Intelligence  Unit  has 
received  an  increased  number  of  reports  in  the  context  of  COVID-19  support  measures 
offered  by  the  Government,  including  on  corruption  and  mostly  on  fraud84.  Further,  the 
alleged  reception  of  kickbacks  for  parliamentarians  who  have  brokered  facemask  deals  for 
the Government have led to public debates and the launch of corruption investigations85. To 
enhance  the  prevention  of  corruption,  including  during  and  aftermaths  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic,  Germany  will  launch  its  electronic  competition  register  in  support  of  public 
procurement  processes  in  the  course  of  202186.  Once  operational,  the  register  will  host  and 
flag 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. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

regulatory  authorities,  with 

Germany has a well-established framework on media freedom and pluralism, mostly falling 
under  the  competence  of  the  federal  states  (Länder).  The  fourteen  media  authorities  are 
their  political 
independent 
independence87.  The  Constitution  (Grundgesetz)  and  secondary  legislation  expressly 
guarantee  the  rights  of  journalists  to  protect  the  confidentiality  of  sources  and  the  right  of 
access  to  information88.  The  new  State  Media  Treaty  (Medienstaatsvertrag)  and  further 
legislative  acts89  were  adopted  to  transpose  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
Directive90 into German law91.  

legal  guarantees  ensuring 

82   Most  recently,  see  UNCAC,  Review  of  implementation  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  Against 
Corruption, Review Cycle 1 (Chapter III and IV), Executive Summary: Germany, Implementation Review 
Group (July 2020), and Review Cycle 2 (Chapter II and V), Executive Summary: Germany, Implementation 
Review Group, January 2019. 

83   Information received in the context of the country visit to Germany. 
84   Information received by the Financial Intelligence Unit in the context of the country visit to Germany.  
85   Two  politicians  are  accused  of  having  received  six-figure  kick-backs  after  recommending  facemask 
manufacturers  to  the  federal  government.  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
Germany.  

86   Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 23. 
87   The 14 media authorities are responsible for private broadcasters, while public service media are each under 

the supervision of specific broadcasting councils.  

88   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany. 
89   In particular the Act amending the Telemedia Act and other Acts, of 19 November 2020. 
90   Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the  coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid 
down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual 
media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. 

91   In  the  2021  World  Press  Freedom  Index,  Germany  ranks  13th  globally  and  9th  among  EU  Member  States 
(Reporters without Borders, Germany). Over the last years, the situation is stable, and the country continues 
to  enjoy  a  high  degree  of  media  freedom  and  journalist  protection.  The  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor 
assesses the overall risk for media pluralism in Germany as rather low (2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 8). 

11 

 
                                                 
The degree of independence of the media authorities and broadcasting councils remains 
high92. With the entry into force of the revised State Media Treaty, the media authorities have 
gained  new  competences,  in  particular  on  media  intermediaries.  However,  the  media 
authorities will only gradually start the full application of the new rules, as they progressively 
adopt  their  joint  statutes  required  by  the  State  Media  Treaty  and  detailing  some  of  its 
provisions  (e.g.  on  the  findability  of  content  deemed  relevant  for  the  formation  of  public 
opinion)93. 

The  self-regulation  of  the  press  continues  to  work  well,  with  some  issues  signalled 
regarding  the  publication  of  reprimands94.  The  German  Press  Council  is  composed  of 
journalists and publishers associations. Its yearly report for 2020 highlights a strong increase 
in  complaints  related  to  a  small  number  of  controversial  press  articles  (4  085  single 
complaints  received  in  2020,  compared  to  2  175  in  2019)95.  At  the  same  time,  the  report 
concludes that concerned publishers published only 34 out of a total of 53 public reprimands 
issued  by  the  Press  Council  in  2020.  As  the  Press  Code  obliges  publishers  to  publish  such 
public reprimands, this could signal potential issues as regards the effectiveness of this aspect 
of the self-regulatory Press Code.  

German  laws  continue  to  ensure  a  good  level  of  transparency  of  media  ownership 
information96.  This  is  due  to  provisions  requiring  commercial  broadcasters  to  report 
ownership  information  and  plans  affecting  the  shareholders’  structure97.  In  addition,  online 
media  entities  have  to  make  their  ownership  information  transparent  in  the  imprint 
information  on  their  websites.  For  the  press,  transparency  obligations  for  imprints  are 
stipulated  in  the  respective  state  press  laws98.  The  Commission  on  Concentration  in  the 
Media  (KEK)  of  the  state  media  authorities  monitors  concentration  in  the  private 
broadcasting  sector  and  maintains  a  public  database  on  media  ownership  information 
covering  television,  radio,  press  and  online  media99.  The  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor 
indicates  a  low  risk  on  the  transparency  of  media  ownership  and  a  medium  risk  regarding 
news media concentration100. Media concentration is regulated in the State Media Treaty and 
is subject to regulatory supervision by the Commission on Concentration in the Media101. 

92   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 11. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law 

situation in Germany, p. 8.  

93   Information received in the context of the country visit to Germany. State Media Treaty, s. 84. 
94   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 13. A public reprimand (öffentliche Rüge), obliging the concerned media 
outlet to publish a correction is the most far reaching sanction of the German Press Council (to protect those 
affected, the Council may also decide to pronounce a non-public reprimand).   

95   German Press Council (2021), Annual Report 2020.  
96   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 12; 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation 

in Germany, p. 9. 

97   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 9.  
98   2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  p.  12;  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law 

situation in Germany, p. 9. 

99   KEK (2021), Media concentration. 
100  According  to  the  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor:  “The  audience  concentration  of  the  top  4  audiovisual 
media owners in Germany (ProSiebenSat.1, Mediengruppe RTL, ARD, ZDF) is 89%. The market share of 
the Top 4 newspaper owners (Springer, KKR, Media Union, Funke) is 60% and the market share of the Top 
4 online news media (Bertelsmann, Burda, Springer, United Internet) is 34%”. 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  Commission  on 
Concentration in the Media (KEK).  

101  State Media Treaty, s. 60 and 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 12. 

12 

 
                                                 
Media  organisations  have  benefitted  from  COVID-19  related  support  schemes.  The 
overall  level  of  media  pluralism  in  Germany  remains  high.  At  the  same  time,  stakeholders 
point to increasing economic difficulties of many regional and local press outlets, putting at 
risk  the  diversity  of  opinion  at  regional  level102.  Media  actors  were  able  to  apply  for  the 
general relief programmes of the German government aiming to address the economic impact 
of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  companies  and  freelancers.  In  addition,  a  targeted  support 
programme was addressed to the radio broadcasting sector103. While public support schemes 
were able to alleviate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Media Pluralism Monitor 
points to concerns as regards the long-term sustainability of the sector, even if media actors 
are slowly able to generate more revenues from digital offers104.  

Safeguards against the control of media entities by political parties are in place105. The 
2021 Media Pluralism Monitor indicator on the political independence of media shows a low 
risk106.  Political  advertising  is  not  permitted  in  television  broadcasting  nor  in  radio  and 
broadcast-like  telemedia107,  with  the  exception  of  a  short  period  prior  to  elections  which  is 
strictly regulated as regards the division of airtime among political parties108. With regard to 
media content that is not covered by these rules for broadcast-like telemedia, the revised State 
Media  Treaty  has  extended  transparency  provisions  regarding  online  political  advertising, 
requiring such advertisement to be appropriately labelled109.  

The  framework  for  the  access  of  journalists  to  information  is  in  place,  but  certain 
shortcomings have been criticised.  The Constitution, the Freedom of Information Act and 
the press laws in place in most federal states ensure access to information by journalists110. 
However,  in  global  comparison,  this  framework  is  seen  as  relatively  weak  by  Reporters 
without Borders111. GRECO has recommended that the Freedom of  Information Act should 
be  independently  evaluated  and  possible  improvements  should  be  considered  on  this  basis, 
notably as regards exceptions allowing to decline requests under the Act112.  

Concerns  have  increased  as  regards  the  physical  safety  of  journalists,  notably  when 
covering  protests113.  Notwithstanding  the  existing  framework  for  the  protection  of 
journalists114,  stakeholders  are  reporting  an  increase  in  aggressions  against  journalists  and 

102  Reporters  without  Borders,  Germany  and  information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Germany. 

103  Minister of State for Culture and the Media (2020), ‘Neustart Kultur’: Private Broadcasters.  
104  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 12-13 and pp. 20-22. 
105  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 9. 
106  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 14. 
107  The State Media Treaty defines broadcast-like telemedia as “telemedia with content that is similar to radio or 
television in terms of form and design and which is made available from a catalogue specified by a provider 
for  individual  demand  at  a  time  selected  by  the  user  (audio  and  audiovisual  media  services  on  demand); 
contents  include,  in  particular,  radio  plays,  feature  films,  series,  reports,  documentaries,  entertainment 
programmes, information programmes, and children's programmes” (State Media Treaty, s. 2). 

108  Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law report, pp. 31-32. 
109  State Media Treaty, s. 22. 
110  Basic Law, Art. 5(1). 
111  Reporters without Borders, Germany.  
112  GRECO (2020), Fifth evaluation round, Evaluation Report Germany, p.23.  
113  Contribution from ZDF for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5; Contribution from the European Centre for 
Press and Media Freedom for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 3-4; Council of Europe, Platform to promote 
the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists;  European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom, 
Platform on mapping media freedom. 

114  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, pp 9-10.  

13 

 
                                                 
media  workers  when  covering  protests115.  In  particular,  protests  related  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic were marked by recurring reports of violence against journalists116. By December 
2020,  police  statistics  counted  252  incidents  against  media  representatives  for  the  year117 
(compared to 104 cases in 2019 and 93 cases in 2018118). The 252 incidents included 29 cases 
of threats and 30 violent offences, 22 of which qualified as personal injuries119. Since October 
2020, the Council of Europe platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of 
journalists  published  one  alert  concerning  Germany,  regarding  aggressive  acts  against 
journalists  during  a  demonstration120.  Journalist  associations  and  unions  point  to  a  lack  of 
protection and support for journalists provided by the police during protests121. The German 
Press Council calls for a stronger protection of the freedom of the press and has proposed to 
update  existing  principles  of  conduct  for  the  media  and  the  police122.  The  Länder  are 
currently assessing such an update of these principles of conduct.  In addition, some  Länder 
have  taken  measures  to  improve  the  relationship  between  journalists  and  the  police123.  In 
April  2021,  journalist  associations  published  a  code  of  conduct  for  media  houses  asking 
publishers  to  self-commit  to  a  range  of  measures  aimed  at  protecting  journalists  from 
violence and threats124. While the 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor’s indicator on journalistic 
profession, standards and protection shows a low risk, the respective indicator on the physical 
safety of journalists shows a high risk125.  

Some  concerns  exist  regarding  privacy  of  journalists  in  the  context  of  legal  action. 
Associations of journalists point to concerns about journalists’ private data and, in particular, 
their  private  address  becoming  public  if  they  take  legal  action  against  harassment,  both 
physical  and  online126.  NGOs  and  journalist  associations  see  potential  risks  of  journalists 
being subject to electronic surveillance measures by intelligence services, in particular when 
interacting with potential informants, and call for stronger safeguards in the respective laws, 
notably  the  revised  Federal  Intelligence  Service  (BND)  Act127.  Generally,  pre-litigation 

115  Contribution from RSF for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 29; Information received in the context of the 

country visit to Germany. 

116  German Federation of Journalists (03.08.2020), Improve security.  
117  German  Bundestag,  Reply  of  the  Federal  Government,  Drucksache  19/25940,  p.  5.  The  respective  crime 
statistics do not account for attacks on journalists separately, but report on criminal offences against media in 
general. 

118  European Federation of Journalists (21.01.2021), Germany: 252 attacks against media workers in 2020. 
119  German Bundestag, Reply of the Federal Government, Drucksache 19/25940, p. 5. 
120  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. At the time of 
writing,  German  authorities  had  not  yet  provided  a  reply  to  this  case,  which  was  registered  in  May  2021 
under the category “Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists”. 

121  E.g.  German  Journalists  Union  (08.11.2020),  dju  in  ver.di  condemns  attacks  on  media  workers  in 

“Querdenken” demo in Leipzig); Information received in the context of the country visit to Germany.  

122  German Press Council (2020), Principles of conduct for the media and the police to prevent obstacles in the 
performance of police duties  and the  free exercise  of reporting; Information received in  the context of  the 
country visit to Germany. 

123  E.g.  Press  Code  of  the  Police  of  Baden-Württemberg  (Ministry  of  the  Interior,  for  Digitisation  and 
Municipalities (21.04.2021), State-wide standards for press relations. Information received in the context of 
the country visit to Germany. 

124  German Federation of Journalists (2021), Code of conduct for media houses. 
125  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 10. 
126  Contribution from RSF for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 29; Information received in the context of the 
country  visit  to  Germany.  On  24  June  2021,  the  German  Parliament  passed  a  law  that  penalises  the 
distribution of so-called ‘enemy lists’, however this does not address the issue of personal data of journalists 
becoming available during legal proceedings.  

127  Contribution  from  GFF  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  4;  Reporters  without  Borders  (26.03.2021) 
Missed  opportunity  for  freedom  of  the  press;  German  Federation  of  Journalists  (19.02.2021),  BND-law: 

14 

 
                                                 
 
mechanisms  lead  to  potential  cases  of  strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation 
(SLAPPs) being dismissed before reaching court128. However, while there may not be many 
prominent  cases,  stakeholders  and  studies  point  out  that  the  problem  of  pre-emptive  legal 
actions or threats against journalists is also present in Germany129.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Germany is a federal, democratic republic, with powers distributed between the federal and 
the sixteen state Governments. The separation of powers is enshrined in the Basic Law130 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)131. 
The  Government,  the  Bundesrat  or  members  of  the  Bundestag  can  submit  legislative 
proposals132.  The  German  Human  Rights  Institute  and  the  Federal  Anti-Discrimination 
Agency contribute to upholding fundamental rights.  

Concerns  have  been  expressed  about  the  transparency  of  the  legislative  process  and  a 
tendency  for  shortened  consultation  periods.  Generally,  a  robust  framework  for 
consultation  of  stakeholders  in  the  legislative  process  exists133.  In  September  2020,  the 
Federal Government has also created a platform that brings together the websites of different 
Ministries,  where  information  about  possibilities  for  (early)  stakeholder  involvement  is 
hosted134.  However,  a  position  paper  by  the  Conference  of  Justice  Ministers  of  the  Länder 
from November 2020 has stressed the need for sufficient time for consultations of the Länder 
on  draft  legislation  and  requested  that  legislative  proposals  by  the  Bundesrat  should  be 
considered  by  the  Bundestag  without  undue  delay135.  In  addition,  stakeholders  have  raised 
concerns over regular occurrences of shortened consultation periods to examine lengthy and 
complex  proposals,  and  raised  concerns  over  an  overall  lack  of  transparency  of  inputs 
influencing the legislative process before the formal consultation procedure136. GRECO has 
also recommended in December 2020, that substantive external inputs to legislative proposals 
received  before  the  formal  launching  of  consultations  should  also  be  identified  and 

Better protect informants. The revision of the Federal Intelligence Service Act in 2021 followed a judgement 
of  the  Federal  Constitutional  Court  of  19  May  2020  which  declared  the  powers  of  the  BND  to  conduct 
surveillance of foreign telecommunications to be in violation of fundamental rights enshrined in Germany’s 
Basic Law (Federal Constitutional Court (19.05.2020), Press Release No. 37/2020. 

128  Contribution from the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5.  
129  Contribution from the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 5; 
Contribution  from  RSF  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  pp.  33-34;  Gostomzyk  T.  and  Moßbrucker  D. 
(2019),  ‘If  you  write  that,  I'll  sue  you!’  Study  on  preventive  attorney  strategies  towards  the  media,  Otto 
Brenner Foundation Workbook 99. 

130  Article 20 Basic Law.  
131  Articles 70 et seq. Basic Law.  
132  Proposals by the  Bundestag  can be submitted by (at least)  5% of its  members. In practice, most proposals 

emanate from the Government.  

at 

133  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 10.  
134  Website 
auf 

Bundesebene): 
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/gesetzgebungsverfahren-beteiligung.  Such  a  platform  also 
exists linking to formal consultation procedures of different Ministries.  

‘Participation 

(Beteiligung 

Federal 

level’ 

the 

135  Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2020),  Strengthening  federalism  in  practice  -  The  participation  of 
countries in federal legislative proposals and the treatment of legislative initiatives by the Federal Council by 
the Federal Government  

136  Contribution by ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 153; see also contributions from the German 

Bar Association and the German Federal Bar for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

15 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
disclosed137.  While  shortened  consultation  periods  have  also  occurred  in  the  context  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic, stakeholders consider this to be a broader trend138.  

The  framework  for  adopting  measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  been 
amended  several  times,  and  measures  have  been  subject  to  comprehensive  judicial 
review.  Measures  related  to  the  pandemic  are  taken  based  on  the  Infection  Protection  Law 
(IfSG), which enables the Governments of the Länder (who are competent to enact measures 
under  the  IfSG)  to  introduce  restrictions  by  ordinance.  In  the  context  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, in March 2020, the powers of the Federal Government to take measures under the 
IfSG have also been extended139. Most of these empowerments can only be exercised as long 
as  the  Bundestag  has  declared  a  “state  of  epidemic”,  which  it  can  revoke  at  any  point  and 
which needs to be re-confirmed every three months140. Following discussions over the lack of 
role of the Federal Parliament141, in November 2020, amendments were adopted to increase 
parliamentary control, primarily by introducing a standard list of measures that can be taken 
by ordinance, which were previously not specified by law142. Further amendments adopted in 
April  2021,  have  introduced  a  so-called  “emergency  brake”,  which  foresees  the  automatic 
introduction of certain restrictive measures by federal law if a specific threshold of COVID-
19 cases is reached over three days in a city or district143. This has been subject to significant 
debate regarding the constitutionality and proportionality of such provisions144. To adapt  to 
the  conditions  of  the  pandemic,  the  Federal  Parliament  has  changed  its  rules  of  procedure, 
allowing for electronic votes in committees and reducing the quorum  required for a vote in 
plenary145.  Measures  taken  in  the  context  of  the  pandemic  have  been  subject  to 
the  higher  administrative  courts  and 
comprehensive 
constitutional courts of the Länder, with over 6000 cases having been registered by the end of 
2020146. Many of these cases so far have only been handled in emergency proceedings, with 
the main decision still outstanding. As of March, the Constitutional Court has received 321 
constitutional complaints related to the COVID-19 measures and has closed 273 of them147.  

judicial  review,  primarily  by 

The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Germany for breach of 
fundamental principles of EU law in light of the 5 May 2020 judgment of the Federal 
Constitutional  Court.  On 9 June 2021, the Commission  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 European 

137  GRECO (2020), Fifth evaluation round – evaluation report Germany, recommendation iv).  
138  Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report and information received in 

the context of the country visit to Germany.  

139  First Law on the protection of the population in cases of epidemic situations of national relevance.  
140  Initially the changes had been time-limited to 31 March 2021. See §5 (1) IfSG.  
141  To  be  noted  that  in  this  context  scrutiny  is  also  exercised  by  the  Parliaments  of  the  Länder,  who  in  some 
cases have adopted laws requiring an involvement of their Parliaments in the COVID-19 related measures.  
142  See new §28a IfSG. Third law on the protection of the population in cases of epidemic situations of national 

relevance, adopted on 18 November 2020.  

143  See  new  §28b  IfSG.  Fourth  Law  on  the  protection  of  the  population  in  cases  of  epidemic  situations  of 

national relevance adopted on 21 April 2021. 

144  The automatic measures foreseen in the “emergency brake” had already been limited compared to the initial 
Government  proposal  following  these  reactions.  A  number  of  challenges  have  already  been  filed  with  the 
Federal  Constitutional  Court,  especially  as  regards  the  competence  of  the  Federal  Government  and  the 
automatic rules on curfews.  

145  These changes are currently limited until June 2021, see §126a of the rules of procedure of Parliament.  
146  Deutsche Richterzeitung (2020), Corona-Krise sorgt für tausende Verfahren.  
147  All  closed  cases  have  been  rejected  or  otherwise  closed;  48  cases  remain  pending.  See  also  2020  Rule  of 

Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p.11 for further details.  

16 

 
                                                 
Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU148. With its judgment of 5 May 2020149, the Federal 
Constitutional  Court  has  deprived  a  judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  of  its  legal 
effect  in  Germany150.  The  order  of  the  Federal  Constitutional  Court  of  29  April  2021  that 
found  a  request  for  enforcement  of  the  judgment  inadmissible151  does  not  reverse  the  legal 
situation created by the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court particularly in relation 
to the principle of primacy of EU law. 

The position of the director of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency remains vacant. 
According  to  the  German  law,  the  director  of  the  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Agency  is 
appointed by the Federal Government on proposal of the Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior 
Citizens, Women and Youth and is independent in the exercise of his or her function152. Since 
April  2018,  the  function  has  been  exercised  ad  interim,  as  the  outcome  of  the  selection 
procedure for the new director has been annulled in court due to a lack of compliance with 
the  constitutional  principle  of  merit153.  According  to  the  responsible  Ministry  there  were 
several diverging court decisions on the selection procedure which lead to uncertainty on the 
selection criteria154.  

Uncertainty regarding the tax-exempt status for civil society organisations continues to 
be  a  challenge155  despite  some  slight  improvements  to  the  framework.  Generally,  civil 
society space continues to  be considered ‘open’156 and a robust framework for civil  society 
remains  in  place157.  A  reform  of  the  Fiscal  Code  in  December  2020  introduced  further 
categories of  civil  society  actors to  the  activities covered by the tax-exempt status  for non-
profit organisation with a public benefit purpose158. However, this reform has not addressed 
the  uncertainty  created  by  a  2019  ruling  of  the  Federal  Finance  Court159  and  which  was 
further  confirmed  by  a  ruling  in  December  2020160  regarding  the  scope  of  the  tax-exempt 
status. According to case law, civil society organisations must not engage in political matters 
more  generally,  but  are  only  allowed  to  do  so  if  strictly  necessary  to  pursue  the  activities 
included in  the Fiscal  Code. While they may provide information  to  the public in  a neutral 
manner, in practice the interpretation of these conditions creates a significant uncertainty for 
civil  society  organisations,  especially  those  active  in  human  rights  and  democracy 

148  European Commission (9 June 2021), June infringement package – key decisions.  
149  Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15.  
150  As regards the concerns raised by the judgment see: 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 2020.2020. 
See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 11.  

151  Decision  of  the  Federal  Constitutional  Order  of  29  April  2021  2  BvR  1651/15,  2  BvR  2006/15.  In  its 
decision the Constitutional Court considered among others that the request is also unfounded given that the 
Federal Government and the Bundestag substantially addressed and appraised the monetary policy decisions 
taken by the ECB Governing Council following the judgment of 5 May 2020, including the proportionality 
assessment conducted and substantiated by the ECB in its decisions of 3-4 June 2020 in that regard.  

152  Article 26, General Act on Equal Treatment.  
153  Judgment of the Administrative Court Berlin of 8 February 2019, 7 L 218.18.  
154 Written contribution received by the Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth in the 

context of the country visit.  

155  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 12. 
156  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed.  

157  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Germany, p. 12.  
158  E.g. climate protection and the protection of vulnerable groups. Annual Tax Law 2020 (Jahressteuergesetz). 
159  Judgment of the Federal Financial Court of 10 January 2019, V R 60/17.  
160  Judgment of the Federal Finance Court of 10 December 2020, V R 14/20.  

17 

 
                                                 
advocacy161. According to stakeholders, concerns over losing tax-exempt status can lead civil 
organisations to refrain from taking positions on potentially sensitive issues and they report 
that  threats  of  legal  action  related  to  the  tax  status  can  also  be  used  as  a  political  tactic162. 
Beyond  this,  the  newly  established  Federal  German  Foundation  for  Civic  Engagement  and 
Volunteering, which took up its operations in July 2020 and is based on a joint initiative of 
several Federal Ministries, has set up a support programme to help civil society organisations 
cope  with  the  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  with  a  budget  of  EUR  20  Million  in 
2020163. 

161  Contributions from ENNHRI and the Gesellschaft for Freiheitsrechte for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  
162  Contribution from Gesellschaft  für Freiheitsrechte  for the 2021 Rule of Law  Report,  p.5. The contribution 
points  to  several  cases  where  a  right-wing  political  party  has  requested  that  the  tax-exempt  status  and/or 
public  funding  for  civil  society  organisations  working  in  the  field  of  anti-discrimination  be  withdrawn,  as 
they considered their work to be political in nature. For further example, see Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte 
and Open Society Foundations (2020), Shrinking spaces in Germany; shrinking spaces in Europe.  

163  Federal  German  Foundation  for  Civic  Engagement  and  Volunteering,  Förderprogramm  2020:  Gemeinsam 
wirken in Zeiten von Corona, https://www.deutsche-stiftung-engagement-und-ehrenamt.de/foerderung/ 

18 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*  

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Participation at Federal Level (Beteiligung auf Bundesebene) (https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-
de/service/gesetzgebungsverfahren-beteiligung). 

2019, 
Bundeskriminalamt 
(https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/JahresberichteUndLagebilder/Korrup
tion/korruptionBundeslagebild2019.html;jsessionid=BB07C9D8DF5A361AB3C08080C0AC57C7.liv
e0612?nn=28078) 

Bundeslagebild 

Korruption 

(2020), 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021  

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Germany (https://monitor.civicus.org/country/germany/). 

Conference  of  the  Justice  Ministers  (2020),  Report  of  the  country  working  group  Germany  as  a 
Justice  Location:  Strengthening  the  Courts  in  Economic  Disputes/Commercial  Courts  (Bericht  der 
Länderarbeitsgruppe 
in 
Wirtschaftsstreitigkeiten/Commercial 
Courts) 
(https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2020/Herbstkonferenz_2020/Top-I-25-Bericht-
der-Laenderarbeitsgruppe-Justizstandort-Deutschland---Staerkung-der-Gerichte-in-
Wirtschaftsstreitigkeiten.pdf).  

„Justizstandort 

Deutschland: 

Stärkung 

Gerichte 

der 

Conference of the Justice Ministers (2020), Strengthening federalism in practice - The participation of 
countries  in  federal  legislative  proposals  and  the  treatment  of  legislative  initiatives  by  the  Federal 
Council  by  the  Federal  Government  (Föderalismus  in  der  Praxis  stärken  –  Die  Beteiligung  der 
Länder  an  Gesetzgebungsvorhaben  des  Bundes  und  die  Behandlung  von  Gesetzesinitiativen  des 
Bundesrates 
Bundesregierung) 
(https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2020/Herbstkonferenz_2020/Top-I-8-
Foerderalismus-in-der-Praxis-staerken---Die-Beteiligung-der-Laender-an-
Gesetzgebungsvorhaben.pdf) 

durch 

die 

Conference of the Justice Ministers (2021), Decision – Continuing to sustainably increase personnel 
and advancing the digitalization of the judiciary – Pact for the rule of law 2.0. (Personalverstärkungen 
nachhaltig  fortsetzen  und  Digitalisierung  der  Justiz  vorantreiben  –  Pakt  für  den  Rechtsstaat  2.0) 
(https://www.justiz.nrw.de/JM/jumiko/beschluesse/2021/Fruehjahrskonferenz_2021/TOP-I_-1-u-I_-
20---Pakt-fuer-den-Rechtsstaat.pdf).  

Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion N°19 - The role of court presidents.  

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,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Germany (https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/germany).  

Court of Justice of the European Union (2020), Press release No 58/20. 

Federal 
2 BvR 1651/15, 2 BvR 2006/15. 

Constitutional 

Order, 

Decision 

of 

29 

April 

2021,  

Deutsche  Richterzeitung  (2020),  Corona  leads  to  advancements  in  digitalization  (Corona  führt  zu 
Digtialisierungsschub)  

Deutsche  Richterzeitung  (2020),  Corona  crisis  leads  to  thousands  of  cases  (Corona-Krise  sorgt  für 
tausende Verfahren) 

Deutsche  Richterzeitung  (2021),  Pact  with  middling  interim  results  (Pakt  mit  durchwachsener 
Zwischenbilanz).  

19 

 
Directive of the Federal Government regarding ccorruption prevention in the Federal administration 
(2004)  Richtlinie  der  Bundesregierung  zur  Korruptionsprävention  in  der  Bundesverwaltung  (2004) 
(https://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_30072004_O4634140151.htm). 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

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

DRB (2021), Great disparaties in salaries between the Federal States (Große Besoldungsunterschiede 
zwischen  den  Bundesländern)  (https://www.drb.de/newsroom/presse-mediencenter/nachrichten-auf-
einen-blick/nachricht/news/grosse-besoldungsunterschiede-zwischen-den-bundeslaendern).  

European  Centre for  Press  and  Media  Freedom  (2021),  Contribution from  the European  Centre for 
Press and Media Freedom for the 2021 Rule of Law Report 

European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom,  Platform  on  mapping  media  freedom 
(https://www.ecpmf.eu/monitor/mapping-media-freedom/)  

European Commission (2020), Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 
Germany. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Commission 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_2743  

June  2021), 

June 

(9 

infringement  package  –  key  decisions. 

European  Federation  of  Journalists  (2021),  Germany:  252  attacks  against  media  workers  in  2020 
(https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2021/01/21/germany-252-attacks-against-media-workers-in-
2020/). 

European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2021),  Contribution  by  the  European 
Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Federal  German  Foundation  for  Civic  Engagement  and  Volunteering,  Förderprogramm  2020: 
Gemeinsam  wirken 
(https://www.deutsche-stiftung-engagement-und-
ehrenamt.de/foerderung/).  

in  Zeiten  von  Corona 

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

German Association of Judges and Prosecutors (2021), Contribution from the German Association of 
Judges and Prosecutors for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

German Bar Association (2021), Contribution from the German Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report. 

German  Bundestag 
(https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/259/1925940.pdf) 

(2021),  Reply  of 

the  Federal  Government,  Drucksache  19/25940 

German  Federal  Bar  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  German  Federal  Bar  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

German  Federation  of  Journalists  (2020),  Improve  security  (https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-
djv/pressebereich-download/pressemitteilungen/detail/news-sicherheit-verbessern).  

German 
Journalists 
(https://www.djv.de/suche/meldungen/news-informanten-besser-schuetzen) 

(2021),  BND-law:  Better 

Federation 

of 

protect 

informants 

German  Federation 
(https://www.djv.de/startseite/info/themen-wissen/schutzkodex-journalistinnen-vor-gewalt-und-
bedrohungen-schuetzen).  

(2021),  Code 

for  media 

Journalists 

conduct 

of 

of 

houses 

German Government (2021), Input from Germany for the 2021 Rule of Law Report 

20 

 
German Journalists Union (2020), dju in ver.di condemns attacks on media workers in “Querdenken” 
demo  in  Leipzig  (https://dju.verdi.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/++co++79521560-21a6-11eb-bdd1-
001a4a16012a);  

the 

German Press Council (2020), Principles of conduct for the media and the police to prevent obstacles 
reporting 
in 
(https://www.presserat.de/files/presserat/dokumente/download/Verhaltensgrunds%C3%A4tze_Medie
nPolizei_Entwurf_24_11_2020.pdf) 

performance 

exercise 

police 

duties 

free 

and 

the 

of 

of 

German  Press  Council  (2021),  Annual  Report  2020  (https://www.presserat.de/jahresberichte-
statistiken.html). 

Gesellschaft  für  Freiheitsrechte  (2021),  Contribution  from  Gesellschaft  für  Freiheitsrechte  for  the 
2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte and Open Society Foundations (2020), Shrinking spaces in Germany; 
shrinking spaces in Europe.  

GFF (2021), Contribution from GFF for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Gostomzyk  T.  and  Moßbrucker  D.  (2019),  “If  you  write  that,  I'll  sue  you!”  Study  on  preventive 
attorney strategies towards the media. 

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. 

H.  Steinharter,  Financial  Intelligence  Unit  (2020):  Anti-Geldwäsche-Behörde  FIU  plant  Hunderte 
(https://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/banken-
neue 
versicherungen/banken/financial-intelligence-unit-anti-geldwaesche-behoerde-fiu-plant-hunderte-
neue-stellen/26745786.html?ticket=ST-55488-FuqUZPM3mm6lk6jLHzJ6-ap6) 

Handelsblatt 

Stellen, 

Hessen,  Bayern,  Brandenburg,  Nordrhein-Westfalen,  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,  Saarland, 
Niedersachen and Schleswig-Holstein (2021), Joint letter. 

Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 29 November 2016, 2 BvR 2453/15. 

Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 5 May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15 

Federal 
37/2020 
(https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-037.html) 

Constitutional 

(19.05.2020), 

Release 

Court 

Press 

No. 

Federal Finance Court, judgment of 10 December 2020, V R 14/20.  

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

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgments  of  27  May  2019,  OG  and  PI,  Joined  Cases  C-
508/18 and C-82/19 PPU and of 24 November 2020 – C-510/19. 

KEK (2021), Media concentration (https://www.kek-online.de/medienkonzentration). 

LTO  (2021),  Urgent  appeals  against  replacements  at  the  top  of  the  Federal  Finance  Court. 
(https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/vg-muenchen-eilantraege-neubesetzung-praesident-bmjv-
bundesgerichte-richter-auswahl-erfahrung-politische-einflussnahme-bundes-finanzhof/)  

Minister  of  State  for  Culture  and  the  Media  (2020),  ‘Neustart  Kultur’:  Private  Broadcasters 
(https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/bundesregierung/staatsministerin-fuer-kultur-und-
medien/private-rundfunkveranstalter-1777032) 

OECD 
4 
(https://www.oecd.org/corruption/germany-oecdanti-briberyconvention.htm) 

Follow-Up 

Two-Year 

(2021), 

Phase 

Report: 

Germany 

Press  Code  of  the  Police  of  Baden-Württemberg  (Ministry  of  the  Interior,  for  Digitisation  and 
(https://im.baden-
Municipalities 

State-wide 

standards 

relations 

(2021), 

press 

for 

21 

 
wuerttemberg.de/de/service/presse-und-oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/pressemitteilung/pid/landesweite-
standards-fuer-die-pressearbeit/) 

Reporters  Without  Borders 
(https://rsf.org/en/germany)  

(2021),  2021  World  Press  Freedom 

Index  –  Germany 

Reporters Without Borders (2021), Contribution from Reporters Without Borders for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report. 

Reporters without Borders (2021), Missed opportunity for freedom of the press (https://www.reporter-
ohne-grenzen.de/pressemitteilungen/meldung/verpasste-chance-fuer-die-pressefreiheit) 

State  Government  Hamburg  (2021),  Hamburg  position  paper  on  the  pact  on  the  rule  of  law. 
(https://www.hamburg.de/bjv/unsere-themen/14908648/positionspapier-zum-pakt-fuer-den-
rechtsstaat/)  

State Government Hamburg (2021), Hamburg position paper on the pact for the rule of law. 

Statement by President von der Leyen (2020), Statement/20/846.  

(2021), 

SWR 
(https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/karlsruhe/bettina-limperg-praesidentin-des-
bghs-100.html) 

unbedingt 

Limperg: 

Bettina 

“Das 

muss 

sich 

ändern” 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

Transparency  International  Germany  (2020),  Position  paper  on  the  draft  law  introducing  a  lobby 
register 
(https://www.transparency.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Aktuelles/Stellungnahmen/2020/Stellungnahme_T
ransparency_Deutschland_Lobbyregister_20-09-29.pdf) 

Transparency International-Deutschland (2018), Comments and Recommendations to UNCAC Second 
Review  Cycle  (https://www.transparency.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Aktuelles/Stellungnahmen/2018/18-
09-10_Comments_and_Recommendations_UNCAC_Second_Review_Cycle.pdf) 

Transparency  International-Deutschland  (2020),  Stellungnahme  zum  Entwurf  eines  Gesetzes  zur 
Stärkung 
Finanzmarktintegrität 
der 
(https://www.transparency.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Aktuelles/Stellungnahmen/2020/20-11-
09_Stellungnahme_Transparency_Deutschland_Referentenentwurf_Gesetz_zur_Staerkung_der_Fina
nzmarktaufsicht_-_Website-Version__1_.pdf)  

UNCAC  (2019),  Review  of  implementation  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  Against  Corruption, 
Review Cycle 1 (Chapter III and IV), Executive Summary: Germany, Implementation Review Group 
(July 2020), and Review Cycle 2 (Chapter II and V), Executive Summary: Germany, Implementation 
Review 
Group 
(https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReviewGroup/E
xecutiveSummaries2/V2000216e.pdf) 

ZDF (2021), Contribution from ZDF for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

22 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Germany 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2021 with: 

  European Affairs Committee of the Justice Minister’s Conference 
  Federal Administrative Court  
  Federal Bar 
  Federal Criminal Police 
  Federal Supreme Court 
  Financial Intelligence Unit 
  German Association of Judges and Prosecutors 
  German Bar Association 
  German Institute for Human Rights 
  Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte 
 
  Lobbycontrol DE 
  Minister of State for Culture and Media 
  Ministry of Health 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ministry of the Interior 
  Press Council 
  Specialised prosecution service for corruption and economic crime Munich 
  Transparency International Germany 

Joint Office of the Media Authorities 

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

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  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 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 

23 

 
 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

24