Constitutional Complaints on Commercial Practices, Trademark Law

First Senate

1 BvR 2271/18,
1 BvR 506/19 | Application for judicial review and constitutional complaints regarding the compatibility of certain provisions of the Bavarian Police Act with the Basic Law, in particular with regard to the category of danger (‘impending danger’), the maximum permissible duration of police custody and the possibilities for the use of explosives. |
| 4. | 1 BvL 2817/20 | Constitutional complaint challenging several provisions of the Saxony Police Act (§ 40(4) third sentence, § 46, § 58(1) no. 4, § 63(2) first sentence no. 2, § 64(1), § 79(2) first sentence, § 80(1) of the Act), which govern covert and open data collection powers granted to the police in Saxony and the further processing of personal data, as well as the power to use machine guns and hand grenades granted to special police units. Moreover, the constitutional complaint is directed against a provision of the Saxony Act Implementing Data Protection Law (§ 17(4) of the Act), according to which the Data Protection Officer in Saxony may not order authorities and their legal entities to implement measures immediately. The complainants claim a violation of their right to informational self-determination, the right to the privacy of telecommunications and the principle of the rule of law. With regard to the use of machine guns and hand grenades by the police, they assert a violation of human dignity and the fundamental right to life. |

1 BvL 2/21,
1 BvL 7/21,
1 BvL 2/22,
1 BvL 1/23,
1 BvR 2167/22 | Referrals by several Higher Regional Courts and Local Courts and a constitutional complaint regarding so-called co-motherhood; several ordinary courts and the complainants contend that the applicable law of parentage is unconstitutional because it does not allow two married women to be the joint parents of a child born to one of the women during the marriage, or only allows such co-parentage by way of adoption. The cases underlying the proceedings concern different forms of conception, including by means of official or private sperm donation or by means of embryo donation. |
| 6. | 1 BvR 911/21 | Constitutional complaint regarding the question of whether the family courts, in proceedings for the adoption of an adult (§ 1767 of the Civil Code), must hear not only the children of the adoptive parent and the person to be adopted, but also other descendants, in an interpretation that goes beyond the wording of § 193 of the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction. |
| 7. | 1 BvR 2229/21 | Constitutional complaint concerning the question of whether § 1680(2) and (3) of the Civil Code in its current version, as interpreted by the ordinary courts, is compatible with the fundamental right of parental care (Article 6(2) first sentence and Article 6(3) of the Basic Law) of the parent who has not previously had custody. Specifically, the question to be decided is whether the transfer of custody to the parent who has not previously had custody in cases where the custody of the parent who has previously had sole custody is withdrawn can only be refused if this puts the child’s best interests at risk in light of the constitutional requirements under Article 6(3) of the Basic Law that apply to separating a child from its parents against the parents’ will. |

1 BvR 2058/22,
1 BvR 2234/22 | Constitutional complaints directly challenging § 230(5) of the Telecommunications Act, pursuant to which every party to a telecommunications services contract providing telecommunication services to buildings or apartment units within these buildings concluded before 1 December 2021 can terminate the contract without a notice period without giving rise to claims for damages for the other party, due to a restriction on apportioning telecommunications costs under tenancy law (§ 2 first sentence no. 15(a) and (b) of the Ordinance on Operational Costs), which took effect starting on 1 July 2024. |
| 12. | 1 BvR 948/23 | Constitutional complaint challenging decisions of the civil courts that ordered the complainants to provide the producers of sound recordings with specific information and to hand over reproductions for the purpose of destruction (so-called Metall-auf-Metall case) due to acts of use of a sampled piece of music between 22 December 2002 (after expiry of the implementation deadline of the so-called InfoSoc Directive) and 7 June 2021 (entry into force of § 51a of the Copyright Act). The constitutional complaint concerns the delineation of the scope of application of the fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the fundamental rights under the Basic Law. |
| 13. | 1 BVR 656/25 | Constitutional complaints challenging provisions of the Act on Rescue Services of the Land Baden-Württemberg of 25 July 2024. The complainants challenge a violation of a duty of protection under Article 2(2) first sentence of the Basic Law and, insofar as the complainants work as emergency doctors, they also assert a violation of Article 12(1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) second alternative of the Basic Law. |

1 BvR 2098/24,
1 BvR 2113/24,
1 BvR 2240/24 | Three constitutional complaints challenge the amendments to the Federal Climate Change Act of 15 July 2024, pursuant to which cross-sectoral and multi-year accounts will be used in future to review whether climate targets have been met. The complainants assert a violation of the intertemporal guarantee of freedom (Article 2(1) of the Basic Law) and the right to life and physical integrity (Article 2(2) first sentence of the Basic Law). A fourth constitutional complaint challenges the legislator’s failure to take effective climate action in all sectors, in particular in the transport sector. The complainants additionally assert a violation of the right to equality (Article 3(1) of the Basic Law). |
| 15. | 1 BvR 2380/24 | Constitutional complaint challenging the Federal Republic of Germany’s failure to enact suitable legislation to ensure the preservation of biodiversity. The complainants assert a violation of the right to life and physical integrity (Article 2(2) first sentence of the Basic Law), the guarantee of private property (Article 14(1) of the Basic Law) and the intertemporal guarantee of freedom. |
| 16. | 1 BvR 1181/22,
1 BvR 1197/22,
1 BvR 1198/22 | Constitutional complaints against decisions of the Federal Labour Court. According to the decisions of the Federal Labour Court, terms of collective agreements which make the payment of overtime allowances to both full-time and part-time employees contingent on these workers exceeding the regular weekly working hours of full-time employees violate neither the general right to equality (Article 3(1) of the Basic Law) nor the specific right to equality (Article 3(3) first sentence of the Basic Law), nor do they result in discrimination of part-time employees (§ 4(1) first and second sentence of the Act on Part-Time Work and Fixed-Term Contracts) or in discrimination on the basis of sex. The complainants assert a violation of Article 3(1), Article 3(3) first sentence and Article 101(1) second sentence of the Basic Law. |

Second Senate

The challenged decision of the German Bundestag concerns objections to the Bundestag election on 23 February 2025. The German Bundestag had rejected the objections insofar as they concern the counting of votes and the determination and documentation of results.

Applicants: The political party Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (BSW) and others |
| 2. | 2 BvR 1636/24 | Constitutional complaint lodged by a prisoner against decisions of the Higher Regional Court and the Berlin I Regional Court regarding the review of support provided to the prisoner pursuant to § 119a(1) of the Prison Act in cases where preventive detention was ordered in addition to life imprisonment. |
| 3. | 2 BvR 143/26 | Constitutional complaint challenging a court decision regarding the permissibility of extradition to the Republic of Korea (South Korea). The complainant asserts, inter alia, a violation of the courts’ obligations to investigate the facts under Article 19(4) first sentence of the Basic Law with regard to the expected cell size in case of extradition. |

The applicant in the Organstreit proceedings is the parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag. |
| 5. | 2 BvE 9/21 | Application in Organstreit proceedings against the Bundestag and the Federal Government on grounds of an asserted violation of the responsibility with regard to European integration in relation to Regulation (EU) 2021/697 establishing the European Defence Fund (OJ EU L 170 of 12 May 2021, p. 149).
Applicant: The former parliamentary group DIE LINKE in the German Bundestag. |

Applicants: The parliamentary group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN in the German Bundestag and seven members of the German Bundestag. |
| 7. | 2 BvE 5/19 | Application in Organstreit proceedings concerning the question of whether the German Bundestag violated the rights of the applicants arising from Article 38(1) of the Basic Law by failing to elect certain Bundestag members to a special committee established under the Act on the Assumption of Guarantees within the Framework of a European Stabilisation Mechanism and the Act on the Financial Participation in the European Stability Mechanism.

Applicants: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag and three members of the German Bundestag. |
| 8. | 2 BvE 4/22 | Application in Organstreit proceedings against the Federal Government regarding the question of whether a statement by Federal Chancellor Scholz made in the context of parliamentary question time violated the rights of the applicants and the German Bundestag following from Article 38(1) second sentence and Article 20(2) second sentence of the Basic Law.

Applicants: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag and a member of the German Bundestag. |
| 9. | 2 BvE 4/23 | Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the design of the legislative process regarding the Second Amendment to the Buildings Energy Act failed to satisfy the requirements arising from Art. 38(1) second sentence of the Basic Law and Art. 38(1) second sentence in conjunction with Art. 42(1) first sentence and Art. 76 f. of the Basic Law and violated the applicant’s right as a member of Parliament to equal participation in parliamentary decision-making.
Applicant: A member of the German Bundestag. |
| 10. | 2 BvE 12/23 | Organstreit proceedings against the Federal Government regarding the question of whether a statement made in the context of parliamentary question time by the Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, who serves as Federal Government Commissioner for the Acceptance of Sexual and Gender Diversity, violated the rights of the applicant and of the Bun destag following from Art. 38(1) second sentence and Art. 20(2) second sentence of the Basic Law.
Applicant: The parliamentary group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the German Bundestag and a member of the German Bundestag. |
| 11. | 2 BvE 15/23 | Organstreit proceedings against the German Bundestag concerning the question of whether the Bundestag, in amending § 1(2) first sentence and § 1(3) second sentence of the Federal Elections Act while failing to adapt § 20(2) third sentence of the Federal Elections Act, and in inserting § 20(2) second sentence in conjunction with § 26(1) third sentence of the Federal Elections Act while failing to adapt § 27(1) second sentence of the Federal Elections Act, violated the applicant’s right to universal and equal elections under Art. 38(1) of the Basic Law and its right to equal opportunities as a political party following from Art. 21(1) in conjunction with Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law.
Applicant: The party Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ÖDP). |

Applicant: The political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). |
| 17. | 2 BvE 1/23 | Application in Organstreit proceedings regarding the question of whether the German Bundestag, in enacting the 2022 and 2023 Budget Acts, violated the right of the applicant, the party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), to equal opportunities following from Art. 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law because the Desiderius Erasmus Foundation, which is affiliated with the party, was not taken into consideration when general grants were allocated to political foundations.
Applicant: The party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
(The application brief of 12 October 2022 was an additional submission made in proceedings 2 BvE 3/19; by judgment of 22 February 2023, it was separated from these proceedings and is now continued as proceedings 2 BvE 1/23). |
| 18. | 2 BvE 4/24,
2 BvE 6/24,
2 BvE 7/24,
2 BvE 10/24 | Application in Organstreit proceedings concerning the question of whether the German Bundestag, in adopting the Act on the Financing of Political Foundations from the Federal Budget (BGBl I 2023 no. 383) and (in part) in adopting the 2024 Budget Act (BGBl I no. 38) and/or the 2024 federal budget, violated the applicants’ rights to equal opportunities following from Article 21(1) first sentence of the Basic Law.

Applicants: The political parties Partei Mensch Umwelt Tierschutz (Tierschutzpartei), Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ÖDP), Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (BSW). |
| 19. | 2 BvR 1096/22,
2 BvR 1097/22 | Constitutional complaints challenging the criminalisation of the sale, purchase or possession of childlike sex dolls in § 184l of the Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 July 2021 as part of the Act to Combat Sexual Violence Against Children. The complainants assert a violation of their general right of personality in the form of the right to sexual self-determination. |
| 20. | 2 BvR 1643/24 | Constitutional complaint lodged by the Desiderius Erasmus Foundation directly against the Act on the Financing of Political Foundations from the Federal Budget of 19 December 2023 on the grounds of a violation of its rights following from Article 2(1), Article 3(1) and Article 3(3) first sentence of the Basic Law and from Article 19(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law, all ‘reinforced by’ Article 21 of the Basic Law. |
| 21. | 2 BvR 1677/24 | Constitutional complaint lodged by the Foundation ‘ Frieden, Vernunft, Gerechtigkeit ’ against § 2 of the Act on the Financing of Political Foundations from the Federal Budget of 19 December 2023 (BGBl I no. 383) on the grounds of a violation of its rights following from Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 21(1) of the Basic Law. |

2 BvL 3/16,
2 BvL 4/16,
2 BvL 5/16,
2 BvL 6/16 | Orders of suspension and referral from the Bremen Administrative Court regarding the question of whether individual provisions of the law governing the remuneration of civil servants in Bremen concerning remuneration amounts for various grades within remuneration brackets A, C and R in 2013 and 2014 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Article 33(5) of the Basic Law. |
| 30. | 2 BvL 3/18 | Application for specific judicial review lodged by the Baden-Württemberg Higher Administrative Court concerning the question of whether § 44(6) of the Act on the Higher Education Institutions of the Land Baden-Württemberg (Land Higher Education Act) as amended by the Third Act Amending Higher Education Law (Third Higher Education Law Amendment Act) of 1 April 2014 (GBl. pp. 99, 140) violates Art. 71 and Art. 73(1) no. 9 of the Basic Law. |
| 31. | 2 BvL 11/18,
2 BvL 12/18,
2 BvL 14/18 | Orders of suspension and referral from the Saarland Higher Administrative Court and Administrative Court regarding the question of whether individual provisions of the law governing the remuneration of civil servants in Saarland concerning remuneration amounts for various grades within remuneration brackets A and R from 2011 to 2016 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Article 33(5) of the Basic Law. |
| 32. | 2 BvL 13/18,
2 BvL 4/21 | Orders of suspension and referral from the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Administrative Court and Administrative Court regarding the question of whether individual provisions of the law governing the remuneration of civil servants in Schleswig-Holstein concerning remuneration amounts for various grades within remuneration bracket A in 2007 are unconstitutional on grounds of a violation of Article 33(5) of the Basic Law. |

Applicant: Parliamentary group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN in the German Bundestag |
| 34. | 2 BvR 319/26 | Constitutional complaint lodged by Afghan nationals who seek the issuance of visas pursuant to § 22 second sentence of the Residence Act (so-called human rights list). |

Preview of decisions of previous years

• Preview of decisions 2025
• Preview of decisions 2024