German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency states: "Of course, there is structural racism in state agencies in Germany and even legal proceedings can lead to discrimination by the state organs of justice."

Below is the response of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency after I complained about the rejection of my application to the court.

My application on behalf of my Tibetan daughter for adjournment of the proceedings based on Art. 101 sec. 1 sentence 2 German Basic Law was rejected on the grounds that it was "frivolous"!

Art 101 states that the rules governing the appointment of the statutory judge must specify in advance as clearly as possible which court, which body of appeal and which judges are called to adjudicate the case.

This was not disclosed in the announcement of the court date in the letter of Sept. 3, 2019 sent to my daughter. Small wonder, cunning judges consider migrants stupid, in rotten Bavaria anyway.

Furthermore, the social courts in collusion with the Munich Jobcenter engaged in suppression of documents, thereby enabling fraud. These documents, sent to the Jobcenter, clearly proved the fact that my daughter had jobbed during her school summer vacation and these earnings were within the limit.

Learn the lesson in Germany: If you are a migrant (and you stay that your whole life!) do not rely or cite the Basic Law!

Here the email of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (bold by me):

Thank you for your inquiry to the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. In your message you complain about a decision of the Bavarian State Social Court, which forbids you to proceed against a decision of the Jobcenter Munich against your daughter. In another message, you report the rejection of your request for adjournment by the court.

Unfortunately we can not act in your case. As a Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, we advise people who experience discrimination in certain situations. The basis of our work is the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG). However, this does not apply in the present case.

The AGG prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual identity. However, this prohibition of discrimination applies only to certain areas of life. It covers disadvantages in employment and in private legal transactions - that is, always when it comes to contractual relationships, eg. As for purchases, the visit of recreational events or the rental of apartments.

For disadvantages by government agencies such as courts (or even authorities such as the Jobcenter) the AGG does not apply. The paragraph 2 (1) (5) of the AGG which you cited and which mentions "social protection", is only relevant by reference to § 19 (2) AGG. This paragraph, in turn, is limited to "civil law obligations" (see the explanatory memorandum to the bill, Bundestag printed paper 16/1780, pages 31-32). Thus, only privately organized social protection is covered, not governmental bodies such as the Jobcenter or the social court system.

Of course (sic !), there is structural racism in state agencies in Germany as well, and even legal proceedings can lead to discrimination by the state organs of justice. For these civilian authorities, the general prohibition of discrimination in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 of the German Basic Law (GG) applies, so that you are not unprotected even with your state authorities.

However, as the AGG does not apply in these cases, we can not personally or technically assess whether the Bavarian State Social Court has acted unlawfully in your case.


Referat Consulting

Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency

Glinkastraße 24, 10117 Berlin

Tel.: 03018/555-1855

Fax: 03018/555-41865

E-Mail: beratung@ads.bund.de