Members of the SPD and left criticized this as inappropriate. The landers lacked comrades in arms in their advance. Chancellor angela merkel (CDU) had already announced on thursday that the federal government would not decide until march 2013 whether it would support the procedure. If necessary, the lander will take the extreme right-wing party to the federal constitutional court alone.
The minister presidents had spoken out unanimously in berlin on thursday in favor of a new application for a ban. The official decision is to follow next friday in the bundesrat. Formally, a request from a single constitutional body – the bundesrat, bundestag or federal government – is enough. But the countries want a common advance.
Lammert gave them little hope of that. In the "frankfurter allgemeine zeitung," he expressed doubts as to whether the collection of incriminating evidence against the NPD presented by the ministers of the interior would be sufficient for a ban. Even the legal justifications did not make sense to him: "it’s better to leave it alone," he advised. The risk that the european court of human rights would revoke a ban on the NPD was great.
SPD deputy and chairman of the neo-nazi investigation committee, sebastian edathy, warned that parliamentarians first had to examine the collection of materials themselves. Then they could decide whether the bundestag, too, should propose a ban. "It is not the task of the president of the bundestag to anticipate, as it were, the outcome of this review," he contended in the "passauer neue presse.".
Ulla jelpke, a left-wing member of parliament, called lammert’s revision "anything but helpful. The decision of the lander will be talked up in this way. "It would now be better to give all members of the bundestag the time to look at the material."
The position of the bundestag – as well as the pending vote of the bundesrat – plays a role for the federal government in its own deliberations. Government spokesman steffen seibert said that the question naturally arose as to how the three constitutional bodies behaved among themselves.
Merkel referred to legal risks on thursday and stressed that the federal government had not yet completed its deliberations on the matter. Federal minister of the interior hans-peter friedrich (CSU) warned the government and the bundestag not to feel pressured by the state decision to ban the npd. "There is of course no automatic that when a constitutional body says "we make the motion", all the others automatically have to join in," the head of department said on deutschlandfunk radio. "It is a sovereign decision in which every constitutional body – the bundestag and the bundesrat – must agree."And: "whether one or five people sue in court is not decisive for the question of success in court."
In 2003, a first attempt before the federal constitutional court failed because informants from the office for the protection of the constitution (V-leute) were used right up to the leadership levels of the NPD.
In view of the debacle at the time, sabine leutheusser-schnarrenberger (FDP), the federal minister of justice, had also expressed great skepticism about a new attempt.
North rhine-westphalia’s interior minister ralf jager (SPD) reacted with incomprehension to the government’s hesitant attitude, especially that of merkel. "This is incomprehensible," said jager at the end of the conference of interior ministers in rostock-warnemunde. The federal states have always kept the federal government informed about the progress of the preparations, and the cabinet must now decide quickly. A joint motion by all three constitutional bodies would be an important signal. "At the moment, we don’t make a very good impression," jager lamented.