Briefing
Berlin, 6 November 2026 — The AfD parliamentary group in the German Bundestag is calling for an amendment to the Bundestag’s Rules of Procedure, so that the use of parliamentary group rooms and other meeting and event spaces is allocated according to the size of the parliamentary groups. The proposal is based on a motion by the group, referring to documents first submitted in April 2026, which has now been brought forward again.
The proposal is essentially intended to establish a system of entitlements in the Rules of Procedure. So far, the Council of Elders has managed room allocations, usually by majority vote. In the AfD’s view, this procedure disadvantages larger opposition groups; it points to the increased number of MPs and what it considers an inadequate provision of suitable rooms for meetings and high-profile events.
Other parliamentary groups and the Council of Elders, by contrast, emphasise that the allocation of resources in parliamentary operations must take account of numerous organisational and security-related factors. The Bundestag’s Rules of Procedure deliberately leave room for discretion in this regard, allowing it to respond to changing needs, the condition of buildings and security situations.
The dispute is framed by rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court. In 2026, Karlsruhe rejected both an application by the AfD parliamentary group in an inter-organ dispute concerning the allocation of the so-called Otto Wels Hall and related applications for interim relief. The judges made clear that the Basic Law does not establish an automatic system for allocating rooms in internal parliamentary matters according to the size of parliamentary groups. At the same time, Parliament remains free to amend its Rules of Procedure as a matter of policy, provided it has the necessary majority.
Whether the AfD parliamentary group’s current motion will succeed remains unclear. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure are adopted in the Bundestag plenary session. Such decisions are usually preceded by discussions in the Council of Elders and the relevant committees. If a majority rejects the proposal, further political disputes are likely; however, given the existing case law, new court proceedings would face significant hurdles.
The debate goes beyond this individual case, raising the question of how equal treatment, effective functioning and majority control should be balanced in day-to-day parliamentary work. At the time of publication, no specific decisions to amend the Bundestag’s Rules of Procedure had been made.
Editor: Phillipe Schmidt-Araguin (Article created with AI assistance).