Germany updates: Von der Leyen to receive Charlemagne Prize – DW – 05/29/2025
05/29/2025
May 29, 2025 European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to be awarded Charlemagne Prize
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will be awarded the Charlemagne Prize during a ceremony in the western German city of Aachen, located near Belgium and the Netherlands.
The Charlemagne Prize is given to "individuals or institutions for their services to Europe and European unity," according to its website.
Hundreds of guests are expected at the awards ceremony in Aachen's city hall, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received the Charlemagne Prize in 2023 Image: Ina Fassbender/AFP/Getty Images
Why is von der Leyen receiving the Charlemagne Prize?
Von der Leyen, who is 66 years old, is being commended for playing "a key role in keeping Europe united, relient and capable of action," the awarding body said.
Von der Leyen, a German who spent much of her childhood in Belgium, stepped into the role of European Commission president in 2019.
She has been at the helm of the European Commission during some trying times for Europe, most notably the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine .
Von der Leyen also held various ministerial roles under Germany's former Chancellor Angela Merkel. Most notably, von der Leyen served as Germany's defense minister from December 2013 to July 2019.
Von der Leyen's career not without controversy
Although von der Leyen is lauded for efforts in promoting European unity, she has also been at the center of several scandals during her career.
Earlier this month, the European Court of Justice ruled that it was wrong for von der Leyen and the European Commission to block the New York Times' access to private texts between her and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
The text messages between in question dated back to 2021, when the EU was trying to procure doses of the COVID-19 vaccine from the US pharmaceutical company.
Von der Leyen has also been criticized over the awarding of certain lucrative contracts without oversight during her tenure as German defense minister. Members of the German parliament, or Bundestag, have also blamed von der Leyen for not doing enough to improve the readiness of the German military during her time as defense chief.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
7 hours ago
- DW
NATO likely to hike defense spending despite economic woes – DW – 06/05/2025
The military alliance looks set to satisfy US President Donald Trump's demands to commit to a massive increase in defense spending. Some creative counting proposed by NATO head Mark Rutte could soften the financial blow. A NATO defense ministers' meeting in Brussels on Thursday showed "broad support" for signing off a historic hike in defense spending at a crunch summit later this month. This was their response to the growing threat from Russia and a "more dangerous world" in general, the military alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters. "I will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of gross domestic product in defense investment," Rutte announced, following months of pressure from US President Donald Trump for allies to more than double the present target. Current NATO guidelines encourage states to spend 2% of their economic output on their militaries. But not all of the alliance's members meet this target, raising questions of how they will reach an even higher spending goal. Splitting the bill In response, NATO chief Rutte has specified a division of the new spending goal that could allow Trump to claim a headline figure, while giving the other 31 nations room to maneuver their national budgets. Thus, of the 5%, 3.5% of national GDP could be allotted to "core defence spending", while the remaining 1.5% could be diverted to "defense- and security-related investment like infrastructure and industry," he said. Allied defense ministers gathered at the NATO headquarters in Brussels Image: Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu/picture alliance Trump has long criticized NATO allies for relying on the US' large military might as a strategy to defend the European continent. In 2023, more than two thirds of the 32 NATO countries' collective $1.3 trillion (€1.14 trillion) military spending came from Washington, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth drove home the message to the rest of the alliance once again. "Every shoulder has to be to the plough. Every country has to contribute at that level of 5% as a recognition of the nature of threat," he said. Leaders of the world's most powerful defense alliance are set to gather in three weeks in the Dutch city The Hague. Topping the agenda will be discussions on the ongoing war in Ukraine, and Russia's resulting massive rearmament drive. It seems likely that NATO members will officially commit to the 5% goal at these upcoming talks. Giving in to pressure Under US pressure, and with Europeans alarmed by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO military spending has already burgeoned in recent years. Most countries now meet the 2% threshold, which was agreed upon 11 years ago. But around one third of the alliance still doesn't, including Portugal, Italy, Canada, Belgium, and Spain. Most NATO states had indicated willingness to spend more, but the 5% goal was considered far-fetched when Trump floated the idea earlier this year. Almost half a year on, the message seems to be resonating with many in the alliance. Earlier this week, 14 NATO states, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the five Nordic states, published a joint statement in which they said they were "moving towards reaching at least 5% of GDP on defense and defense-related investments." Specter of war: Are Europeans really ready to rearm? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Last month, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadepuhl also indicated Germany could get on board with the goal. Several NATO countries, including Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, have already committed to spending 5% or more in the future. All are former Soviet states, and two of them share a border with Russia. Since taking office in January, the "America-first" president has strained the NATO alliance with threats not to help defend alliance members that didn't meet spending targets should they be attacked. His designs on the semi-autonomous Danish territory Greenland have also alienated allies, as have his attempts at bilateral talks to find an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, which sidelined European partners and left Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy largely marginalized. Questions remain There are still many open questions to be answered, one of them being the timeline. On Thursday, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur spoke of committing to reaching 5% within five years. "We don't have time for ten years, we don't even have time for seven years, to be honest," he said. But the official focus at this week's meeting was on working out what exact capabilities NATO would need and may currently be missing to defend itself if a member of the alliance were attacked. After the talks, Rutte spoke of the need to upgrade air defense systems and long-range missiles, among other things. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Germany might need as many as 50,000 – 60,000 more troops in its standing forces to meet defense needs in the coming years. Increased spending amid economic downturn While consensus appears to be forming, it is also clear that increasing military spending to 5% of GDP would be an enormous strain on public finances, particularly as Europe's two major economies, Germany and France, face tough times. Paris and Berlin are touting increased defense spending as a chance to fuel economic growth in Europe, but there is a risk of public backlash. In April in Rome, the opposition Five Star Movement led a protest against an EU drive to rearm the bloc — a move supported by the government of far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — reportedly drawing tens of thousands of people. According to Cullen Hendrix, an expert from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a US think tank, a 5% spending target would essentially put NATO countries on "war footing." US secretary of State Pete Hegseth was in Brussels for the last NATO gathering before next month's summit Image: Bob Reijnders/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images "In 2023, just nine countries spent 5% of GDP or more on defense: Algeria, Armenia, Israel, Lebanon, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Sudan," Hendrix wrote in February. "Most are, or were, at war. Five of these are authoritarian petro-states, unencumbered by competitive elections or the need to tax their populaces to fund this military largesse." There is also a risk that increased spending will make Europe less safe, Hendrix warned. "Increasing military spending to this extent would likely catalyze an arms race with those near-peer competitors." On Thursday in Brussels, Rutte argued there was little choice but to spend significantly more on defense, pointing to recent comments by the German Chief of Defense Carsten Breuer, who posited that Russia would be ready to mount an attack on NATO states by 2029. "We live in a more dangerous world," Rutte said. "We are safe today, but if we don't do this, we are not safe in the foreseeable future." Edited by: Maren Sass
DW
10 hours ago
- DW
German activist Maja T. goes on hunger strike in Hungary – DW – 06/06/2025
German anti-fascist activist Maja T., has been held in isolation in a Hungarian prison for one year now. The case highlights the state of the rule of law in Victor Orban's Hungary. "I can no longer endure the prison conditions in Hungary. My cell was under round-the-clock video surveillance for over three months. I always had to wear handcuffs outside my cell for over seven months," reads Maja T.'s statement. The non-binary German activist went on a hunger strike on June 5. "Non-binary" refers to individuals who identify as neither exclusively female nor male. People like Maja T.* generally have a hard time in Hungary, although it is a member state of the European Union (EU), which has anti-discrimination provisions. In 2021, Hungary first made legislative amendments to multiple laws, targeting LGBTQ+ individuals. In early 2025, under Viktor Orban's authoritarian rule, Hungary passed a law that can be used to ban Pride and similar events. At the start of the trial in Budapest, Maja T. was led into the courtroom on a leash Image: Denes Erdos/AP/dpa/picture alliance No hope of a fair trial Maja T. has long given up hope of a fair criminal trial and wants to use the hunger strike to force a return to Germany. In June 2024, T. was extradited from Germany to Hungary and has been in solitary confinement in a Budapest prison ever since. The activist's trial began there on February 21. The public prosecutor's office accuses the prisoner from Jena in Germany's eastern state of Thuringia of assaulting and seriously injuring several people in Budapest in February 2023. The victims had taken part in the so-called "Day of Honor," an annual march by neo-Nazis from all over Europe. At the start of the criminal proceedings, T. was led into the courtroom in handcuffs and shackles and on a leash. The public prosecutor's office offered T. the opportunity to enter a guilty plea and accept 14 years in prison without further proceedings. However, T. declined and instead made a six-page statement with clear criticism of Hungary: "It is a state that quite openly marginalizes and separates people because of their sexuality or gender. I am accused by a European state because I am an anti-fascist." T. did not comment on the content of the charges — multiple counts of grievous bodily harm. Maja T. could now face up to 24 years in prison under Hungarian law. A sentence passed by a German court is likely to be much more lenient. Hungary amends constitution to curb LGBTQ+ rights To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Extradition to Hungary was unlawful What makes the case particularly controversial is that T.'s extradition from Germany to Hungary was unlawful. This was ruled by the Federal Constitutional Court at the end of January. It expressly referred to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) and the associated ban on inhumane treatment. The court listed: Inadequate hygiene conditions, lack of access to hot water, bedbugs, poor and little food, extreme temperatures in winter and summer, poor lighting and ventilation in the cells, violence against prisoners by fellow prisoners and prison staff, and rule of law deficits. The Berlin Court of Appeal is responsible for the unlawful extradition. The Constitutional Court accuses the appeals court of ignoring current information on overcrowding and prison conditions in Hungarian prisons. A 'political trial' However, the successful constitutional complaint came too late: Maja T. had already been extradited. Maja T.'s father, Wolfram Jarosch, traveled to Budapest at the start of the trial to offer his 24-year-old child moral support. On the phone with DW, he described the criminal proceedings as a "political trial." "The worst thing is the solitary confinement," Jarosch said. However, he is impressed by his child's self-discipline: Physical exercise, reading and writing according to a daily and weekly schedule. "Nevertheless, I ultimately notice that Maja is suffering more and more under these conditions, both mentally and physically," he added. There have been demonstrations in Germany in support of Maja T. Image: Markus Scholz/dpa/picture alliance Several members of Germany's socialist Left Party are taking a keen interest in Maja T.'s case. Carola Rackete, Member of the European Parliament, has already visited twice and was able to talk to the security staff about the conditions of detention. She was told that the solitary confinement had been ordered "from above," she told DW. While the other inmates are housed in multi-bed cells and have communal access to the yard, Maja T. is in solitary confinement, allegedly because of her non-binary identity. Rackete believes it is unlikely that this will change. The MEP calls on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the German government to exert pressure on Hungary: If you seriously want to distance yourself from right-wing extremists and stand up for democratic values, you cannot stand idly by while Orban's regime destroys human lives in Hungarian courts, Rackete argues. No further extradition of suspected left-wing extremists Six suspected left-wing extremists, who had been in hiding and are also believed to have been involved in the attacks on suspected neo-Nazis in Budapest in 2023, were luckier than Maja T. The group voluntarily handed themselves in to the German authorities in January. They apparently do not have to fear extradition to Hungary, as the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office confirmed to DW on request. Accordingly, the public prosecutors responsible for the extradition proceedings were informed in writing that the investigations in Germany have priority. This means that, should charges be brought, the proceedings would take place in Germany. *Editor's note: DW follows the German press code, which stresses the importance of protecting the privacy of suspected criminals or victims and urges us to refrain from revealing full names in such cases. This article was originally written in German. While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
Local Germany
10 hours ago
- Local Germany
OPINION: It's high time Germany scrapped the rent brake
As Bundestag debates the planned second extension of Mietpreisbremse rent controls until 2029 and is almost certain to pass it, I have a question: isn't it actually high time we got rid of the 'rent brake'? Your first reaction – especially if you are one of the 50 percent of German households living in rental accommodation – might be to ask back: scrap legislation intended to limit rent price increases at a time when rents are shooting up? What are you, nuts? To which I would answer: rents have been shooting up ever since German cities were given the option of putting controls in place ten years ago. They've risen by almost 40 percent in my part of Hamburg, for instance, as this interactive infographic map illustrates , and Berlin is another story altogether … But surely, you might object, without the Mietpreisbremse , these rises would have been even worse? That can't be proved either way. After observing Germany's increasingly dysfunctional housing market for almost two decades now, however, I'd say: probably not. In fact, my creeping suspicion is that rent controls are ineffectual at best and, at worst, may actually be contributing to rises. Wait, so you think the Mietpreisbremse is making rents higher now…? No, please: hear me out! Ineffective on its own terms First off, experts agree that, even on its own terms, the Mietpreisbremse is ineffective – that's why those in favour of it usually also argue that it needs to be more stringent. In their current form, controls only apply to new rental contracts, and come with enough loopholes and exceptions that any landlord looking for one will find a semi-legal workaround. The easiest option is to either limit the length of the rental contract to less than one year or to part-furnish the letting – which has led to a market where unscrupulous operators are now demanding top-dollar for sticking a flat-pack wardrobe in the bedroom and then coming back for more a year later when the contract needs to be renewed. READ ALSO: Four scams to be aware of while navigating Germany's rental market Theoretically, this shouldn't be happening, of course. In Germany's tenant-friendly housing law, leases can only be time-limited if there is good reason – e.g. if the renter needs a short-term let for professional reasons – and any furnishings need to be high-value enough to warrant higher prices. Advertisement Yet for legal protections to apply, tenants have to know – and exercise – their rights. And as my colleague Paul Krantz has explained , even in simpler cases where the rent has been set too high on a standard lease, many who could challenge it do not – for lack of understanding, lack of time and energy, or lack of confidence confronting a potentially Scrooge-like landlord. A man hangs up his keys in a Berlin apartment. Photo: picture alliance/dpa/dpa-Zentralbild | Kira Hofmann Then there are the grey areas where well-meaning letters can easily end up unintentionally contravening the Mietpreisbremse . Under the rule, rents should not exceed a local average price by more than ten percent in tight housing market areas. But local rental averages are determined in rent price indexs – Mietenspiegel – which themselves are for more complicated than many assume: this is Germany, after all. In Hamburg, for example, figures are declined in a detailed table according to the specific location of buildings and when they were completed, leaving ranges of between €3 and €5 per square metre to take account of amenities such as balconies, bathtubs, and bicycle cellars… What is more, the Mietpreisbremse doesn't apply when significant works have been carried out prior to letting: but what does 'significant' actually mean? You might not be surprised to learn that, in cases which have gone to court, complicated formulae have been applied and a range of factors taken into account… The upshot is now that, to be sure of being able to make back money invested, law-abiding landlords are now likely to have more work done than might be strictly necessary (and then need to set rent even higher to recoup the extra costs…). Others, meanwhile, simply do the place up on the cheap and hope that tenants never challenge them to show their receipts. Setting the wrong incentives Why wouldn't they try? After all, once they are out of Mietpreisbremse territory, the sky is the limit – so the clear incentive for landlords is to look for any way to get an apartment out of regulatory purview and then set rent at market rates. Or, simply, to invest in new-builds, which are wholly exempt from rental controls – and rarely available for under €20 per square metre. Advertisement In this way, the Mietpreisbremse is entrenching a two-speed rental market where high-earning tenants with good credit records have their pick of snazzy new-builds and souped-up Altbau flats while those lower down the socio-economic scale are left fighting for increasingly pricey scraps. As I've written before, it's a trust issue : anyone with a flat to let is now acutely aware that its rental value is capped even as inflation, wages, and market values aren't. So increasingly, landlords max out the 10% the Mietpreisbremse allows – and then make use of all legal options to keep upping the rent. That is one reason so many new rentals are now using the unloved Staffelmiete (defined raises every year) and Indexmiete inflation-linked contracts, which allow for increases of 15 or 20 percent in a three-year period. Previously, it was standard practice – especially among ethically-minded private owners – to issue standard contracts and leave rents more or less untouched for sitting tenants before upping them on re-letting. Now, as rents continue to soar but the Mietpreisbremse limits raises, many private landlords are, perversely, having to hike rents in existing leases to avoid trouble with the Finanzamt further down the line: not charging market rates is, of course, considered a form of tax avoidance. These in-tenancy rises then drag up the averages on which the 10 percent maximum is calculated, and so the 'rent brake' is being applied at the same time as the price accelerator. Advertisement Overly-complex – and potentially unconstitutional This reveals the fundamental problem with rental controls. Like it or not, Germany's rental market is just that – a market. Yet by selling off swathes of social housing stock over recent decades, many major cities have deprived themselves of the best means of slowing price rises in this market -- offering affordable rental accommodation to those who need it. Instead, they now find themselves shelling out huge sums in housing benefit – Wohngeld – to low-income households and hoping that middle-income tenants have the gumption and courage to apply the complicated Mietpreisbremse themselves. All of this, meanwhile, puts the majority of well-meaning landlords at a disadvantage and encourages those with the ways and means to maximise revenue (or to simply ignore the system). No wonder rents are going up faster than ever. A view of flats in Hamburg. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Daniel Bockwoldt So for me, it's simple: the Mietpreisbremse should be scrapped. Even in this market, asking rents currently can't go much higher – prospective tenants can no longer afford them on their wages – and there is every reason to suspect that the legislation may actually have pushed prices to this point faster than would otherwise have been the case. This, in turn, is contributing to stasis as people are forced to stay put and make do , with vacancies in most cities far below the 1 percent generally considered the minimum necessary for a functioning rental market. What is more, the Mietpreisbremse will eventually become unconstitutional: in our market economy, the state is not allowed to use price-fixing legislation to force a lasting devaluation of assets. Advertisement Thus far, Karlsruhe has accepted the rent controls because they are temporary, being implemented for defined periods of time. Yet when this planned extension reaches its term in 2029, the measures will have been in place for almost 15 years – making them 'temporary' in the same way that the exceptionally ugly shelving unit I 'temporarily' put in my hallway when we moved in 2010 is still 'temporary' one-and-a-half decades on. Mercifully, we haven't had our rent raised since then. Then again, we moved in before the Mietpreisbremse and paid top-whack in the first few years. That's how things used to work. Our newer neighbours, however, all seem to get regular rent increases. Call me crazy, but…
