AfD Fraktion Files Constitutional Complaint Against State Budget with CDU's Support
The Brandenburg AfD parliamentary group has officially lodged a constitutional complaint against the state budget for the years 2025 and 2026, a move that has garnered backing from the CDU faction, also in opposition. The complaint centers around a newly established calculation method for assessing new debts, which the AfD argues violates the debt brake regulations.
At the core of the complaint is a change in the calculation period for new debts, now set at ten years, alongside a global expenditure cut of 2.7 percent that lacks defined areas for reductions. The AfD claims that this new regulation serves as a mechanism for the state government to authorize significant new borrowing without sufficient justification.
A spokesperson for the constitutional court has confirmed the receipt of the complaint. AfD representatives contend that the new approach to calculating debt is a deceptive tactic, allowing the government to incur excessive new debts. In contrast, Finance Minister Robert Crumbach has defended the adjustments, expressing confidence that the changes are appropriate and legally sound.
The CDU faction has echoed concerns regarding the constitutionality of the new budgetary framework. CDU faction leader Jan Redmann suggested that the adjustments appear to be a way to fabricate a scenario that enables the government to take on as many loans as possible, casting doubt on the budget's validity.
The proposed budget for 2025 amounts to approximately EUR16.8 billion, while the budget for 2026 is set at EUR17.4 billion. The governing coalition has indicated plans to incur an additional EUR1 billion in debt each year. The state parliament approved the budget in June, adhering to constitutional allowances for new borrowing in the event of revenue shortfalls due to economic conditions.
Controversy surrounding the changes to the debt calculation method has sparked an extensive debate among political analysts and legal experts. While some scholars argue that the modifications are constitutionally viable, they also acknowledge inherent risks associated with this approach.
Last year, the constitutional court ruled that the 2022 regulations for the emergency aid package designed to mitigate the impacts of the energy crisis, prompted by the Ukraine war, were invalid. The court had deemed the declaration of an emergency situation as justified but found the rationale behind the assistance insufficient.