Our position remains that the German government, under international law, is not permitted to issue licenses for weapons of war or other military equipment to Israel for use in Gaza.
Despite overwhelming evidence of international law violations in Gaza, the German government continues to approve arms exports to Israel. United Nations experts, international human rights organizations and various international law experts have come to the conclusion that Israel’s actions in Gaza satisfy the legal criteria for genocide. In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant, among others, citing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet, legal efforts to challenge German arms export licenses – led by five Gaza-based plaintiff and supported by ECCHR and its partners – have so far been rejected by the courts.
In early 2024, the plaintiffs filed an urgent request to stop the export of anti-tank weapons reportedly used in Gaza. But the licenses had already been granted months earlier, rendering the urgent application obsolete. In November 2025, the Berlin Administrative Court also dismissed the continuation of declaratory judgment action (Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage), through which we sought to establish whether the weapons of war shipments that took place between October 2023 and February 2024 were lawful. The court held that there was no risk of repetition. A second application from May 2024, aimed at preventing future war weapons exports, was dismissed on the grounds that there was no such pending license procedure."
This is where the systematic lack of transparency proves to be a fundamental problem in legal protection against arms export licenses: Without access to information about export decisions, those affected cannot seek timely legal remedies. A third application demanded that the government disclose license approvals for war weapons once granted. Again, both the Berlin Administrative Court and the Higher Administrative Court in Berlin-Brandenburg denied the claim, citing confidentiality and the absence of a legal right to such information.
In July 2024, the plaintiffs filed an urgent application with the Frankfurt Administrative Court regarding exports of military equipment not covered by the weapons of war regulation, such as tank engines, transmissions, weapons system components, and technology transfer licenses. The court rejected the request, deeming it inadmissible and unjustified. It argued that granting licenses for military equipment did not violate the plaintiffs' rights and that UN statements on Israel were insufficient to support claims of international law violations in expedited proceedings, citing the UN’s controversial stance on the Middle East conflict.
When media outlets revealed in October 2024 that tank components had been licensed for export, a new filing followed. For once, specific details about the weapons, manufacturer and timing were public. But even then, the court in Frankfurt dismissed the case, acknowledging the catastrophic scale of the war but ruling that the plaintiff from Gaza lacked the legal standing to challenge the exports. The court also referenced the controversial Bundestag resolution on antisemitism, interpreting it as a political mandate for the German government to continue supporting Israel – including through arms exports deemed “compatible” with human rights and international law. The Higher Administrative Court in Kassel also refused to grant legal protection.
These proceedings reveal a fundamental flaw in Germany’s arms export system: decisions are shielded from public scrutiny and judicial oversight. Without transparency, courts cannot assess the legality of exports, and those directly affected cannot defend their rights – despite the catastrophic consequences on the ground. While several legal actions have been dismissed on procedural grounds, the plaintiff from Gaza has appealed one of the most recent decisions. Although the applicant from Gaza lost in the specialized courts, he now intends to exhaust all possible legal avenues by filing a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court, challenging decisions that have denied him effective legal protection.
