Federal Administrative Court calls for more staff

The Federal Administrative Court of Germany has called for additional personnel due to increasing case loads and new legal responsibilities, according to its president, Christian Filzwieser. During a press conference today, he stated that the court had been allocated 20 new positions following recent legislative changes, yet these have not yet been made available. The court’s activity and judicial administration report for 2025 indicates a 25 percent increase in new cases compared to the previous year, highlighting growing demands on the institution. The court's workload has intensified significantly in 2025, with 30,550 new proceedings initiated, according to Daniela Urban, the newly appointed vice-president. She noted that the court's jurisdiction continues to expand, with new areas such as the Freedom of Information Act, amendments to asylum law under the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), and monitoring of messaging services contributing to this growth. These developments require additional resources, which the court has not received, Filzwieser emphasized. Filzwieser pointed out that although the government had committed to providing new judicial positions through effect-oriented impact assessments of new laws, these promises have not materialized. Last year, ten judicial and ten non-judicial positions were promised but remained unfulfilled. He warned that insufficient funding for courts undermines the state itself, stressing the importance of adequate financial support for the judiciary. In addition to requesting more resources, Filzwieser called for a critical examination of applications for extending deadlines. Such requests can be made when statutory deadlines for decisions are exceeded, which increases costs for the republic, as it would then have to compensate for missed deadlines. He also urged simplifying procedures for returning cases to administrative authorities. Currently, some investigations are being passed on to administrative courts when there are procedural errors within the authority. Instead of referring back, the court must handle the work itself, which adds to its burden. Furthermore, Filzwieser highlighted the need for legal frameworks governing the effective use of artificial intelligence in procedural law. This includes ensuring that AI tools are integrated responsibly into court processes without compromising efficiency or fairness. His remarks underscore the complex challenges facing the court as it navigates evolving legal landscapes and technological advancements. The court’s call for increased staffing comes amid broader concerns about the capacity of Germany’s judiciary to manage rising caseloads and new legal obligations. With the expansion of its responsibilities and the introduction of new legislation, the Federal Administrative Court faces mounting pressure to maintain efficiency and uphold the rule of law. The failure to provide promised resources raises questions about the long-term sustainability of the court’s operations and its ability to meet future demands. The court’s leadership has consistently advocated for greater investment in judicial infrastructure, emphasizing that delays and resource shortages could have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice. As legislative reforms continue to reshape the legal landscape, the need for adequate staffing and modernization becomes increasingly urgent. The court’s ongoing efforts to secure necessary resources reflect its commitment to fulfilling its role effectively despite existing constraints. The situation highlights the interplay between legislative developments and judicial capacity, underscoring the necessity for coordinated planning between policymakers and the judiciary. As the court prepares for upcoming challenges, its leaders remain focused on securing the resources needed to ensure continued operational effectiveness. The outcome of their current requests will likely influence the court’s ability to respond to future legal complexities and maintain public trust in the judicial system.