The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has strongly criticized the country's Constitutional Court following its decision that the party, which holds the position of the second-largest in the Bundestag, is not entitled to use the second-largest conference room.

„The decision was politically foreseeable. However, at a legal level, it still took us by surprise,” stated Stephan Brandner, the deputy leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), in an interview with Brussels Signal.

„If we set aside ideological biases, common sense suggests that a larger faction requires more space for its internal meetings and discussions,” added the lawyer from Thuringia.

According to the ruling of the German Constitutional Court, the Bundestag’s Council of Elders—a body consisting of 28 representatives that deals with administrative matters—acted correctly when it denied the AfD the use of the Otto Wels Room, the second-largest conference room at 462 square meters.

Instead, the Council allocated a much smaller room (251 m²) to the right-wing party, which had previously been used by the 92 representatives of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) until the general elections in 2025. The larger room was granted to the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which had been using it since 1999.

In the February 2025 elections, the AfD finished in second place, securing 152 seats—69 more than before. The SPD plummeted from 206 to 120 seats, while the FDP failed to enter parliament.

„The AfD’s assertion that the Otto Wels Room, as the second-largest room, corresponds to the second place it is entitled to based on its results in the federal elections, is incorrect,” the court stated, adding, „The institutional rights enshrined in the constitution do not guarantee a reward for success but rather ensure the opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes of public institutions.”

Brandner argued that the smaller room significantly hampers parliamentary work. „In our current room, there is only 1.7 m² available per representative, while the SPD has 4 m². Faction meetings can last for hours, but due to the current space constraints, reasonable work or debate is hardly possible,” he said.

Brandner added that while the Bundestag’s procedural rules do not include the allocation of parliamentary spaces, many other resources are clearly distributed based on the size of the factions. This includes the number of committee chairs, staff, access to public funds, and speaking time.

„In the past, spaces were always allocated peacefully according to the size of the factions,” Brandner remarked. „Except for one occasion when the SPD—despite having more representatives—gave the larger space to the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which was only 1 m² larger than theirs.”

Die AfD-Fraktion bleibt von einem der größten Sitzungssäle des Bundestages ausgeschlossen. Karlsruhe stärkt die Entscheidung des Ältestenrates und zementiert die bisherige Raumverteilung. Die AfD muß weiterhin in den kleineren Fraktionssälen arbeiten. pic.twitter.com/O7yTT4PhKG

— JUNGE FREIHEIT (@jungefreiheit) February 5, 2026

Political Bias May Be Behind the Decision

Brandner suggests that political bias may be influencing the decision.

“The decision was made by the second senate of the Constitutional Court. This senate has been led since 2025 by Judge Ann-Kathrin Kaufhold, who is a controversial leftist ideologue and was appointed as a constitutional judge at the request of the SPD,” he stated.

In contrast to previous practice, the AfD was not informed in advance about the court’s decision.

“Normally, the parties involved in the proceedings are notified one day in advance of the decision, and they receive information about it approximately an hour before it is published,” he said, adding that this time the decision was made public without prior notice.

The Otto Wels Room is informally named after Otto Wels, a Social Democratic representative who famously delivered a speech against the Enabling Act in 1933, which allowed Adolf Hitler to become the dictator of Germany. Officially, the room is designated as 3N 039.

Brandner finds it “misleading” that the Constitutional Court uses the name given by the SPD for the room in its decision.

“This designation is not an official name; it is merely a name given to the room by the SPD. They could have removed the plaque. Otto Wels never set foot in this room,” he remarked.