Berlin, 15 July 2025 – The Federal Constitutional Court ruled today that the German government is not required to take action in response to the use of the U.S. airbase in Ramstein in the U.S. drone war. Although it is undisputed that the US airbase in Ramstein plays a central role in conducting such missions, the court does not see any legal obligation on the part of Germany to take action against the use of drone attacks by the USA. At a time when the adherence of state action to international law is increasingly being called into question, the court has failed to send a strong signal.
The case goes back to a US drone attack in 2012 in the Yemeni village of Khashamer, in which two members of the bin Ali Jaber family were killed. The US Ramstein Air Base in Rhineland-Palatinate played a decisive role in the incident, as the most important radio systems (relay stations) for controlling US drone attacks and the largest central data distribution and analysis center (DCGS) of the US armed forces outside the US are located there. Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot control its combat drones in real time in Yemen. This is why the bin Ali Jaber family filed a lawsuit against the German government with the Cologne Administrative Court in 2014, calling on it to stop the use of Ramstein for US drone attacks that violate international law. After the Münster Higher Administrative Court’s ruling in a 2019 appeal confirmed that Germany has a constitutional duty to protect those potentially affected by US drone missions conducted via Ramstein – the Federal Administrative Court overturned this ruling in 2020. The court’s reasoning was that the German government had taken sufficient diplomatic steps to prevent the use of drone strikes that violate international law. Two of the plaintiffs, Ahmed and Khaled bin Ali Jaber, then filed a constitutional complaint in 2021.
Ahmed and Khaled bin Ali Jaber said: “We have been fighting for justice for 13 years now, ever since Salem and Waleed were violently ripped from us by an American missile. We fought this case not only for them, but for every innocent victim of a missile strike, in Yemen and around the world. To hear the court say that Germany had no duty to protect them, despite facilitating the strike that killed them, compounds that pain. This is a dangerous and disturbing ruling that suggests countries that provide assistance to the US assassination programme bear no responsibility when civilians are killed. Our hearts are broken, and our faith in international law is shaken. Where else can we turn for justice?”
“This ruling finds no danger for those affected in recent years, but it leaves the door open for future cases. Violations of international law can be subject to judicial review, even if the court imposes high hurdles. This is an important statement by the Federal Constitutional Court in these times,” explains Andreas Schüller from ECCHR.
