After the end of National Socialism, SS-Obersturmbannführer, Adolf Eichmann, disappeared and went to Argentina in 1950. He was detained there in 1960, subsequently tried, sentenced to death and executed in Israel. Numerous details of Eichmann’s arrest are still unclear.

   My first lawsuit for access to the files of the Foreign Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst) was partially successful in 2011. The Federal Administrative Court decided that the Foreign Intelligence Service must present several files (Case No. 20 F 22.10, 7 A 6.08). However, numerous other documents are still under lock and key. I have therefore again applied for file inspection in 2020. My lawyer argues that in the meantime even the 60-year protection period according to § 11 of the Federal Archives Act has expired. Our application was partially successful. The Federal Intelligence Service has in the meantime submitted some file components which the Federal Administrative Court had still considered to be subject to secrecy in 2012. However, many documents are still being refused or only offered in blacked out form.

Therefore, we have again filed a lawsuit with the Federal Administrative Court and demand access to the complete and unblackened files. 60 years after the documents were created, the Federal Intelligence Service can no longer invoke the protection of secret service methods or its relationship with foreign secret services to impede historical investigation.

About the legal battle for the Eichmann files in my film “Ewig Geheim“.and "the fight for the files" (2017).
 

I had trusted that German federal authorities and judges would abide by written laws—laws that have accompanied human civilization since time immemorial (link). The Federal Archives Act (BArchG) states clearly and unequivocally:

Section 11 Access restriction periods: (1) The general access restriction period for federal archival material is 30 years, unless otherwise stipulated by legal provision. (…)
Section 12 (3) The Federal Archives may shorten or extend the access restriction period under Section 11, subsection 3, by a maximum of 30 years if this is in the public interest.


This trust was, of course, naive. The oral hearing before the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) took place in June 2026. My longtime lawyer, Thomas, had died suddenly just a few days prior; since then, I have been represented by attorney Christoph Partsch, an expert commentator on the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Archives Act. The judges dismissed the lawsuit. They cited § 13 of the Federal Archives Act, which states: “The Federal Archives shall restrict or deny access pursuant to Sections 10 to 12 if 1. there is reason to believe that access would endanger the welfare of the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its federal states, (…) 3. access would violate federal legal provisions regarding confidentiality.”


This line of reasoning overlooks the fact that the Federal Archives (which is subject to directives from the Chancellery) offered no comment whatsoever during my proceedings. Section 13 does not suspend the maximum access restriction period—it does not even mention it—but merely grants the Federal Archives (where historians, not lawyers, are at work) the option to extend the statutory restriction period, for instance from 30 years to 60. As I said, neither the Federal Archives nor any other historians were consulted. The court hid behind the decision of its hand-picked specialized senate, regarding it as binding. While freedom of the press, freedom of information, and academic freedom are mentioned in passing in the written judgment, the decision holds that they must yield to other, more important norms, such as the "welfare of the Federation." The law makes no provision for in-camera proceedings or an internal specialized panel of judges. Further details on the case can be found here.


Attorney Partsch has filed a constitutional complaint and, if necessary, will take the case to the ECHR.