"A win that shouldn’t have been necessary: First successful disciplinary complaint against BAFA for unfair treatment of complainants under the LkSG", 1 April 2026

[...]

After having endured this unfair and unreasonably burdensome procedure – that not least clearly contravenes settled case law by the German Federal Administrative Court – ASTAC decided that it wouldn’t accept this treatment. In September 2025, they submitted the first known disciplinary complaint (German: Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde) about the BAFA to the supervisory ministry, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)). In their complaint, ASTAC criticized the BAFA’s handling of their request for access to the records as illegal and asked the ministry to intervene both in their own procedure and with regards to the BAFA’s future practice in other cases...

However, in this case, even the BMWE couldn’t back the BAFA’s discriminatory practice and found in favor of ASTAC in March 2026. The Ministry requested the BAFA to exercise its discretion in accordance with its duties in this and all other complaints proceedings, and in particular to consider the possibility of giving access to files electronically, to provide complainants with clearer information regarding instructions given by the BAFA, and to work toward avoiding redactions in the files. The Ministry further asked the BAFA to include these aspects into the rules of procedure that it is currently drafting. We sincerely hope that this will contribute to making the complaints procedure more accessible and fairer for complainants in the future.

While this is an important procedural win for ASTAC and all future complainants, it’s important not to be mistaken: All of these access barriers, for the removal of which ASTAC had to fight long and hard, shouldn’t even have been there in the first place. The BAFA shouldn’t understand itself as a gatekeeper trying to keep those affected out of the proceedings wherever possible. Instead, it should acknowledge workers, trade unions and affected communities as the experts they are and be glad that they are willing to provide the information necessary to effectively monitor companies’ due diligence measures. Only by working with them, Germany can truly comply with its duty to protect against business-related human rights abuses under international human rights law.

All of this is now more important than ever: Across all EU Member States, the legislative processes are starting for implementing the European Supply Chain Directive (CSDDD). Many of them are looking to Germany and specifically the BAFA as an example of a supervisory authority enforcing human rights due diligence laws. The BAFA must therefore urgently take steps to demonstrate that it’s up to the task the legislator entrusted it with and doesn’t understand itself as a rubber stamp of German companies, putting their interests to continue their exploitative business models unchecked over the interests of negatively affected rights holders worldwide.