What is it about?

Asylum seekers in Germany often live in difficult conditions: they live in collective accommodation and receive significantly less social benefits than citizens receiving welfare payments. This is because the legislature considered single refugees living in collective accommodation to be a “community of fate” that can manage their finances together and therefore needs less money. However, this has nothing to do with the reality in the shelters.

Our victory in court

The reduced social benefits for asylum seekers were too low to guarantee a decent minimum standard of living – and thus violated human dignity and the principle of the welfare state. In 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that refugees in collective accommodation are also entitled to full social benefits. Previously, the Düsseldorf Social Court had referred the question of whether the special law for collective accommodation was compatible with human dignity to the Federal Constitutional Court – on the basis of a submission by the GFF.

What is it about?

Authorities and courts often did not recognize protest camps as assemblies protected by fundamental rights. As a result, authorities prohibited protesters from setting up essential infrastructure such as sleeping areas and sanitary facilities. The camps therefore had to operate under conditions that made long-term protest impossible. This severely restricts the participants' freedom of assembly and drives protest camps out of public spaces.

Our victory in court

In 2022, we supported climate activists in their case before the Federal Administrative Court. We wanted to clarify whether the overnight accommodation areas at the Garzweiler climate camp were also protected by freedom of assembly. The Federal Administrative Court made it clear that freedom of assembly also protects long-term protest camps – including the infrastructure that participants need. After all, it is the protesters who decide where and how peaceful protests take place.

What is it about?

“Equal pay for equal work” – women must not be paid less than men. Employers have been bound by this principle for decades, but the reality is often different. For example, a female employee at a metal construction company in Saxony earned significantly less than her male colleague, who had the same qualifications and did the same job. The company's argument was that her colleague had negotiated better.

Our victory in court

In February 2023, we achieved a resounding victory for equal pay before the Federal Labor Court. Employers may not deviate from the principle of “equal pay for equal work” simply because a man demands a higher salary than his female colleague. In practice, this means that employers can respond to an employee's wage demands, but they must also increase the wages of a female employee with the same qualifications and experience. At the end of an exhausting battle through the courts, the court ruled in favor of our plaintiff and awarded her lost wages and compensation.

What is it about?

Many municipalities now use payment cards instead of cash to pay social benefits to refugees. This eliminates the possibility of buying goods cheaply at flea markets or online, for example, so that many people cannot meet their needs — this violates the right to a decent minimum standard of living. In addition, the payment card discriminates against refugees because it puts them at a disadvantage compared to other benefit recipients without justification.

Our victory in court

We have already taken legal action against the payment card for refugees in several courts. In doing so, we make it clear that the authorities must design the payment cards in such a way that they meet the living conditions and needs of those seeking protection in each individual case – and, above all, that the minimum subsistence level is maintained. Even with such a design, the violation of the right to equal treatment of refugees remains.

What is it about?

For Filmwerkstatt Düsseldorf, Facebook is the most important channel for promoting its films and events. In 2021, Facebook deleted the association's page — without notice, without reason, and without the possibility of defense. Presumably, the algorithm had mistakenly detected inappropriate nudity in a film still in the program note. Facebook left the association's attempts to clarify the issue unanswered.

Our victory in court

With the arbitrary deletion, Facebook violated the Filmwerkstatt's artistic freedom: it was unable to distribute its program as usual. The Düsseldorf Regional Court agreed and therefore ruled that the ban was unlawful. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court upheld the ruling. This is not only a success for artistic freedom, but also for the fundamental rights of all users who face large platforms.