Today, the German Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint brought by a Palestinian living in Gaza challenging German arms exports to Israel. With this decision, the Court does not intervene to ensure effective legal protection for people whose lives are endangered by German arms exports. While the Court acknowledges that Germany’s Basic Law obliges the state to protect human rights and international humanitarian law, it simultaneously holds that these obligations generally do not give rise to an individual right to a specific action by the state.
At its core, the Court states: Constitutional law provides for a state’s duty to protect, but it regularly does not entail an enforceable claim to concrete measures for individuals. In practice, this means that even where decisions by the German government endanger human lives or contribute to such risks, those affected are denied effective legal remedy. As a result, state action in this highly sensitive area is effectively shielded from judicial review. In the view of the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), this seriously undermines the fundamental right to effective legal protection.
For people whose lives are endangered by German arms exports, access to the courts remains barred, while the unlawful export of military equipment that puts the civilian population in Gaza in danger continues.
If a protection system exists in law but clearly fails to prevent weapons or key components from being used by Israel in Gaza despite massive civilian casualties and systematic violations of international law, it is not sufficient to merely point to the existence of that system. Effective legal protection means being able to challenge state decisions when that system fails.
Despite numerous reports documenting Israeli international crimes, provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice in the case brought by South Africa against Israel, and existing arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and his former Minister of Defence, the German government has continued to authorise arms exports. Over the past two years alone, these export licenses amounted to more than €606 million. As Israel’s second-largest arms supplier, Germany therefore bears concrete co-responsibility for Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza.
“The Court acknowledges the duty to protect, but only in the abstract and refuses to ensure its practical enforcement. For people whose lives are endangered by the consequences of German arms exports, access to justice remains effectively closed,” says Dr. Alexander Schwarz, Co-Director of the International Crimes and Accountability Programme at ECCHR. “Especially when life and death are at stake, the rule of law must allow for judicial oversight. Instead, this decision largely removes state action in this sensitive area from review. This is not persuasive.”
The proceedings concern transmission components for Israeli Merkava and Namer tanks. These tanks are widely deployed by the Israeli armed forces in Gaza and, according to reports, have repeatedly been used in violation of international law. The Israeli ground offensive could not be conducted without these tanks being kept operational through German spare parts. They pose a direct threat to the life and physical integrity of the complainant living in Gaza – as well as many others. For this reason, he already turned to the German administrative courts in October 2024, seeking to stop the export of military equipment authorised by the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control and with the approval of the German government.
ECCHR supports the complainant together with the Palestinian human rights organisations Al-Haq, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR).
Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, states: “Today’s decision is the latest example in a series of cases across different countries in which national courts have unduly deferred to states’ foreign policy preferences, thereby contributing to the emergence of an accountability gap. Germany remains bound by international law, including the Genocide Convention, and must not export weapons where there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law or contribute to genocide. Israel’s conduct throughout Palestine clearly violates international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention. Germany’s continued adherence to a policy of ‘reason of state’ that defends Israeli crimes regardless of their scale and impact and trivialises the cost in Palestinian lives, must be challenged. We will continue to pursue justice for the Palestinian people.”
The Palestinian complainant has suffered devastating personal losses through attacks by Israeli forces: An Israeli airstrike killed his wife and child in February 2024, followed later by the killing of his father and brothers. Today, after being repeatedly displaced, he lives under precarious conditions in a makeshift shelter. He asserts that German export decisions contribute to the continuation of Israeli military operations.
Regardless of today’s decision, ECCHR and its partner organisations will continue to pursue all available legal avenues before the courts to stop unlawful arms exports to Israel. Regardless of this ruling, the German government remains legally obliged to deny arms export licenses where, as in this case, there is an overriding risk that the weapons will be used to commit violations of international law.
The situation in Gaza remains dire. The so-called ceasefire announced in October 2025 has not brought safety to the people of Gaza. According to international organisations, Israeli attacks killed more than 574 people since, including over 120 children. Airstrikes, shelling, and military operations—and Israel’s genocide—continue.