Germany’s legal landscape in 2025–2026 is marked by intense legal debate, especially in the areas of constitutional rights, policing and surveillance powers, migration and EU law, intelligence oversight, and procedural criminal law. These developments reflect broader societal tensions between security policy, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
- German Legal System
The German legal system follows a civil law tradition based mainly on written laws, not judge-made law. Its highest law is the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of 1949, which sets up Germany as a federal, democratic rule-of-law state.
The system strongly protects basic rights, keeps powers separate between the legislature, executive, and courts, and guarantees independent judges. A key institution is the Federal Constitutional Court, which can strike down laws or government actions that violate the Constitution.
German law is built around major legal codes, such as the Civil Code, Criminal Code, and Procedural Codes. Court decisions help explain and apply these laws, but they are not formally binding. Because Germany is a federal country, law-making powers are shared between the federal government and the 16 states. The system places great importance on legal certainty, fairness, proportionality, and equality before the law.
- Search Warrants on Law Offices & Constitutional Protection
Case: Federal Constitutional Court on Search of a Lawyer’s Office (September 2025)
In September 2025, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court reviewed a police search of a lawyer’s office during a fraud investigation.
Facts:
A Hamburg court allowed the police to search a lawyer’s office for suspected fraud related to fee collection. A higher court confirmed this order. The lawyer then went to the Constitutional Court, saying his right to be heard under the Constitution was violated.
Decision:
The Court rejected the case because the lawyer had not used all normal legal remedies first. However, the Court still explained that the search order was unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
The search was not proportionate. It interfered with:
- the protection of the office as a private space,
- client confidentiality and personal data, and
- the proper functioning of justice, including free communication between lawyer and client.
The Court said the alleged offence was not serious, the suspicion was weak, and the chance of finding important evidence was low. This did not justify such a serious intrusion.
Legal Impact:
The case strengthens constitutional protection for lawyers and their clients and limits police powers in criminal investigations involving legal professionals.
- Federal Triage Rule Declared Unconstitutional (Healthcare Law)
In November 2025, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court struck down a federal rule on medical triage under the Protection Against Infection Act.
Issue:
The rule set binding criteria for how doctors should decide who receives treatment during medical shortages caused by infectious diseases. It also banned certain criteria, such as age and disability.
Decision:
The Court ruled the law unconstitutional.
Reasons:
- The rule violated doctors’ freedom to practice their profession because it strongly restricted their medical judgment.
- The federal government did not have the constitutional power to pass this rule, which made the law invalid from the start.
Impact:
Doctors keep their constitutional freedom to make critical medical decisions unless a valid law is passed. The case also highlights limits on federal power and ongoing tensions between federal and state authority in healthcare regulation.
- Surveillance and Police Data Powers: BKA Act Cases
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court ruled that parts of the old BKA (Federal Criminal Police Office) law were unconstitutional.
Court Findings:
- The police were not allowed to store basic personal data, such as names, addresses, and phone numbers, for long periods without strong privacy safeguards.
- The secret collection of data from people loosely connected to a suspect (such as friends, family members, or acquaintances) was also unlawful. The law did not clearly limit when such surveillance was necessary or fair.
The Court allowed these rules to remain in force only for a short time. Parliament was ordered to change the law to meet constitutional standards.
Legislative Response:
In June 2025, the German Parliament amended the BKA Act to follow the Court’s rulings. The changes tightened rules on data storage and surveillance and reorganized police information systems.
Significance:
These cases show the continuing balance between strong law enforcement powers and the protection of basic rights like privacy and proportionality in modern security law.
- Migration Control & EU Law: Border Policy
In mid-2025, the Berlin Administrative Court decided that sending asylum seekers back at the border without proper procedures broke EU law, specifically the Dublin III Regulation. This showed that EU rules take priority over Germany’s own border policies. Later, there were more cases about long-lasting internal border checks. Scholars and NGOs went to the Munich Administrative Court, arguing that extending these checks was also illegal. These cases highlight that Germany must follow EU rules on asylum and free movement and cannot make its own border decisions that go against them.
- Naturalisation Law Reform & Fraud Sanctions
In 2025, Germany changed its citizenship law. Under the new rules, anyone who commits fraud or gives false information, such as fake language or integration certificates, is barred from applying for German citizenship for 10 years. This change was made by the government after many cases of forged documents were discovered, not because of a court order.
At the same time, some new citizenship requirements, like a declaration accepting responsibility for Germany’s history, have been challenged in the Constitutional Court. While the Court has rejected some urgent requests, it is still closely examining these new rules.
- Intelligence Surveillance & Mass Monitoring Laws
Challenges to BND Surveillance: Civil rights groups, including Reporters Without Borders and the Society for Civil Rights, have challenged the German intelligence service (BND) in the Constitutional Court. They argue that the BND’s mass surveillance violates privacy rights and lacks clear legal limits.
Private Lawsuit: A private company, DE-CIX Management GmbH, has also filed a case. It questions whether the BND is allowed to monitor telephone and internet exchange points on such a large scale.
Legal Importance: These cases deal with the balance between intelligence powers, privacy, and digital communication. Their outcome may set new rules for how far intelligence surveillance is allowed to go.
- Administrative & EU Liability Jurisprudence
This case is about when a government can be made to pay compensation under EU law.
Germany had applied EU rules on meat imports in a certain way. Some businesses said this caused them financial loss and asked for compensation. In 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne rejected their claims.
What the court meant, in simple terms: Under EU law, a state is not easily held responsible for losses. A claimant must clearly prove three things:
- The government broke EU law in a serious way.
- The government’s action directly caused the loss.
- The loss would not have happened without that action.
Example:
- If the government wrongly bans meat imports in clear violation of EU law, and a company can show that this ban directly stopped its business and caused specific losses, compensation may be possible.
- But if the rules were unclear, or the loss was caused partly by market conditions, transport problems, or business decisions, then the state is usually not responsible.
Why the claim failed here: The court said there was no clear proof that Germany’s actions alone directly caused the financial damage. Because this direct link was missing, the compensation claim failed.
Conclusion
In late 2025 and early 2026, Germany’s legal system is facing important tensions as it tries to balance individual rights with state powers. Courts and lawmakers are weighing civil liberties such as privacy against stronger security measures like surveillance and data retention. There is also ongoing friction between Germany’s national laws and its duties under European Union rules, especially on border controls and asylum.
At the same time, the Constitution places clear limits on how far the state can go in areas like medical triage decisions and coercive investigation powers. Efforts to modernise laws on immigration and naturalisation are being closely reviewed by courts. Together, these debates show that Germany’s legal changes are not just about new laws, but about protecting core constitutional values such as human dignity, privacy, proportionality, and legal certainty.
