Press release no. 1/22 of March 14, 2022
The fact that Jens Maier will be working as a judge in the Free State of Saxony again from today, March 14, 2022, once again reveals the blatant errors made by the Ministry, the judiciary and the democratic parties represented in the Saxon State Parliament.
It is incomprehensible why the disciplinary court for judges could not or would not decide on the Ministry of Justice's urgent application for a temporary suspension of the judge's official duties within one month. The official explanation given is that the disciplinary court felt prevented from reaching a decision and that it was impossible to predict when a decision would be reached at all. Jens Maier is being represented by a lawyer from Cologne, who will first be granted access to the case file at the Cologne District Court and will then comment on the application.
This explanation is unconvincing:
All lawyers are obligated to receive service of process digitally via the special electronic mailbox for lawyers (beA). Communication with the court must take place exclusively via the beA. It is unclear why access to the files could not be granted via the beA at short notice.
Attorney Kati Lang, a member of the extended board of the RAV (Regional Association of Lawyers) from Dresden, commented: “From my experience as a lawyer, it seems highly surprising that a decision on an expedited procedure cannot be reached within one month of the application being filed, while ensuring the right to be heard. Rather, the approach of the disciplinary court appears to be delaying and not in line with the principle of expedited proceedings – especially considering the potential harm to the administration of justice.”
On the day Jens Maier took up his post, the Vice President of the Dresden Regional Court, as his new superior, initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. Since it is assumed that the threshold for a reprimand, and thus the Regional Court's authority to decide, has been exceeded, the disciplinary proceedings would have to be submitted – after a hearing – to the Saxon Ministry of Justice (§ 31 of the Saxon Disciplinary Law), meaning the ball would once again be in the court of the Green Party Minister of Justice, Katja Meier. Whether the Dresden Regional Court will react more decisively this time than in 2017, when disciplinary proceedings against Jens Maier ended with a mere reprimand, remains to be seen.
Lawyer Kati Lang continued: “The shirking of responsibility by the democratic parties in the Saxon state parliament, which together possess the necessary two-thirds majority for an indictment, is completely incomprehensible. The governing coalition in Saxony, consisting of the CDU, SPD, and Greens, is thus demonstrating an unparalleled lack of democratic responsibility.”
A one-third majority in the Saxon State Parliament is sufficient to initiate impeachment proceedings against a judge (Article 80 of the Saxon Constitution). It remains puzzling that the Green Party, as if there were no urgency, only commissioned an expert report on impeachment in February 2022, even though the possibility of returning to the Bundestag after Jens Maier's departure in October 2021 had been on the table. The SPD also does not see itself as a driving force and remains silent, while the CDU, presumably fearing dissent from within its own ranks, is reluctant to use the instrument of impeachment. Only the Left Party, currently in opposition, has indicated its support for the other parties in achieving the necessary two-thirds majority.
The Saxon Ministry of Justice, which only attempted to prevent Jens Maier's return under public pressure, also bears some responsibility for the current situation. Despite the legal debate that arose after Jens Maier's return request became public in December 2021, the ministry, which had been anticipating this possibility since autumn 2021, reacted with extreme restraint and initially denied any responsibility. When Minister Katja Meier finally came under massive public pressure, she opted for what she considered the legally safest solution. She rejected alternative options such as denying Jens Maier's right to return outright or at least initiating disciplinary proceedings herself without delay. She
also failed to explain why she did not assign Jens Maier a position within the Ministry of Justice but instead sent him to the Dippoldiswalde District Court. In principle, an assignment to the Ministry would have been possible and would have meant that the Minister herself, as his direct superior, would have been immediately responsible for any disciplinary proceedings.
For a long time, there was no word from the Saxon judiciary. No public distancing, no stance – the judges and prosecutors largely remained silent.
Lawyer Kati Lang: “A commitment to democracy and the rule of law could have looked very different. The Saxon judiciary seems to possess hardly any capacity for self-correction; otherwise, the hesitant approach of the disciplinary court for judges cannot be explained. This is probably the biggest mistake: that the judiciary itself tolerates right-wing, racist, and anti-Semitic officials, shows no stance, and thus contributes to the escalation.”
There are numerous ways the judiciary could, through internal chamber allocation (preventing decisions by single judges), through case allocation plans, or even through recusal motions filed by public prosecutors, to procedurally curb right-wing officials. It is particularly welcome that in the specific debate surrounding Jens Maier, both the New Association of Judges, which contributed constructive proposals, and the German Association of Judges demanded that the return of the far-right AfD member to the judiciary be prevented.
Contact via the RAV office:
kontakt@rav.de; Tel.: 030-417 235 55
