The leaders of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Thuringia and Saxony, Björn Höcke and Jörg Urban, have introduced a legal opinion into their ongoing dispute with the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) regarding the classification and surveillance of their party. The opinion, prepared by constitutional law expert Michael Elicker, argues that measures impairing the exercise of parliamentary mandate, including those by the BfV, are prohibited. This argument is based on the principle of indemnity for members of parliament as outlined in the state constitutions of Thuringia and Saxony, which protects lawmakers from legal or official persecution for their votes or statements made in the exercise of their mandate, except in cases of defamatory insults.

Höcke and Urban presented the document in Berlin, emphasizing its potential relevance not only for their respective state associations but also for the federal party's legal battle against the BfV. The AfD has been classified as a confirmed right-wing extremist group by the domestic intelligence agency earlier this month, a designation the party is contesting in court. The legal opinion suggests that the surveillance of AfD members by the BfV could be in violation of constitutional protections afforded to parliamentarians.

The AfD's federal executive board and state leaders are set to discuss the next steps in their legal confrontation with the BfV during a meeting in Berlin. Höcke expressed confidence that the federal level of the party would incorporate the legal opinion into their ongoing legal efforts. The outcome of these discussions could have significant implications for the party's strategy in challenging the BfV's surveillance activities and its classification of the AfD.

This development underscores the deepening legal and political tensions between the AfD and Germany's domestic intelligence services. As the party seeks to leverage constitutional protections to shield its members from surveillance, the case raises important questions about the balance between national security and parliamentary immunity. The AfD's legal challenges against the BfV's actions are being closely watched, as they could set precedents affecting the oversight of political parties in Germany.