Bavarian Police Duties Act

The GFF, together with the #noPAG alliance – a coalition of over 80 civil society organisations in Bavaria – and supported by Campact, has lodged a constitutional complaint against the Bavarian Police Duties Act (BayPAG). The complaint challenges the amendment to the Act of 15 May 2018, which expands the powers of the Bavarian police to an unconstitutional extent. The police can now interfere with fundamental rights before there is any concrete evidence of a threat. Furthermore, they are granted powers to carry out online searches and various other covert surveillance measures. The constitutional complaint was lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe on 6 October 2018.

The BayPAG significantly lowers the thresholds for interference with civil liberties, thereby making it easier for the police to take preventive action.

The central concept of the Act is the so-called ‘imminent threat’: even if the police merely assume that a dangerous situation could develop at some point – which can practically always be justified in some way – they can carry out a wide range of interventions in civil rights. This means that police measures are ultimately no longer subject to any conditions that can be reviewed by the courts.

The concept of ‘imminent threat’ was coined by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2016 in the context of a ruling on countering terrorist threats. However, the Court explicitly refers to individual cases that pose a threat to a ‘pre-eminent legal interest’. Applying the concept to many other areas of police work places citizens under general suspicion and is clearly unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Act contains a number of questionable individual measures which the police are now permitted to employ. These include, for example, the use of explosive devices such as hand grenades – even where there is a high probability that bystanders will be killed in the process. Furthermore, the BayPAG also permits extended DNA analysis, the easier use of body cameras, drones and video cameras, the deployment of undercover officers and informants, as well as the seizure of post and data stored in cloud storage, and the use of state Trojans to spy on IT systems.

GFF focuses on violation of civil liberties by the state

The GFF regards the BayPAG as a clear violation of civil liberties by the state. The message from the Bavarian legislature is structurally authoritarian: ultimately, the police should be free to do whatever they deem appropriate. Officers are thus effectively encouraged to take arbitrary police measures at the expense of the people of Bavaria. This is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law, in which the power of the executive must be limited and subject to judicial oversight.

Virtually anyone who regularly resides in Bavaria could be affected by these measures. The ten complainants include journalists, volunteers and criminal defence lawyers.

Oral hearing in Karlsruhe

On 7 July 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court heard the constitutional complaint. The concept of ‘imminent threat’ was also of central importance during the oral hearing. Representatives of the Bavarian police explained in detail how they use this power in practice – and the court questioned them very critically. It is now clear that Bavaria’s law goes significantly further than those of other federal states.

The power to use explosives was also discussed. The Bavarian representatives attempted to play down the significance of the law: they claimed that, since the BayPAG came into force, the police had never had to use explosives. However, the power is enshrined in the law and the police can exercise it in an emergency – with all the consequences that entails for bystanders. The judges’ questions also focused on this fact.

Further information (in German):

• You may find impressions from Bavaria on the homepage of the noPAG alliance.