The 1985 born defendant is employed on the first promotion post in the intermediate service (Regierungsobersekretär) of the federal civil service and deployed in the Federal Intelligence Service (BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst). The defendant is unmarried and has no children. He is severely disabled with a degree of disability of 50%. The defendant is also in possession of a weapons permit.

After obtaining his secondary general school certificate (Hauptschulabschluss) in 2001, the defendant attended a private business school for one year and subsequently underwent vocational training as a clerk in public administration (Verwaltungsfachangestellter) specialising in general internal administration of the Free State of Bavaria and local administration with the city of H., which he completed in 2006.

Since December 2007, the defendant has been working for the BND, first as a public service employee (Tarifbeschäftigter), later as a civil servant (Beamter). He was initially deployed as an office assistant (Bürosachbearbeiter) in P. From March 2016 to October 2017, he worked at the German Embassy in B. In connection with the investigations initiated against him, his deployment there was terminated; since then he has returned to work as an office assistant in P.

The defendant has completed numerous further training courses. In March 2014, he received formal recognition for his delivered performance and exemplary commitment (and was granted two days of special leave). In September 2015, he received a performance bonus of EUR 750 for outstanding activities. His performance was last appraised in June 2017 with an overall grade of 7 ("exceeds requirements through frequently outstanding performance").

The defendant was continuously sick and unfit for duty from 14 November 2017 to 11 January 2018 and has been continuously sick and unfit for duty since 8 February 2018. In 2018, he was examined by a public health officer and underwent rehabilitation.

Following a tip-off by the District Commissioner's Office (Landratsamt) S., the Police Headquarters U. informed the BND in a letter dated 16 August 2017 that the defendant had applied for a certificate of nationality with the District Commissioner's Office S. on 27 July 2015 and - also with regard to his place of birth, his current address, his places of residence since his birth in 1985, the circumstances of his father, born in 1953, and also the marriage of his grandfather, born in 1913, which existed from 1950 to 2000 - consistently indicated "Kingdom of Bavaria" in his application and referred to the "Imperial and State Nationality Act (RuStAG, Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz) version 1913" (hereinafter RuStAG 1913). As a result, the BND initiated disciplinary proceedings against the defendant on 20 November 2017. The BND informed the defendant of this in a letter dated 4 December 2017. The facts of the case gave reason to examine whether the defendant belonged to the "Reichsbürger" scene or sympathised with it. The letter also contains the notice on his rights in the disciplinary proceedings.

This was preceded by investigations by the state security division of a criminal investigation district office in a procedure to verify the defendant's reliability under weapons law, in the context of which the defendant provided information on the reason for the application of 27 July 2015 and on his attitude towards the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany. In the disciplinary proceedings, the defendant and the employees of the District Commissioner's Office dealing with the application were questioned.

With the defendant's consent, the personal drives of his work computers in P. and B. were examined on 24 September 2018. According to the report drawn up on this examination on 17 December 2018, on this occasion, marked excerpts from the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, Bundesverfassungsgericht) of 31 July 1973 on the Basic Treaty as well as a lengthy listing of statesmen, politicians, rulers of history and the present, both in Germany and abroad were found; there was no "common thread" to be detected in this listing.

A Google search by the BND of 18 June 2019 did not reveal any information about the defendant. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz), which was questioned by the BND, stated in its reply of 20 August 2019 that a Federal Intelligence Information System (NADIS, Nachrichtendienstliches Informationssystem) query did not yield any result on the defendant.

In April 2020, the BND informed the defendant's counsel that the investigation had been completed and provided him with the opportunity to comment.

In January 2021, the BND pointed out to the defendant's counsel the staff council's right to participate pursuant to section 78 (1) of the Federal Personnel Representation Act (BPersVG, Bundespersonalvertretungsgesetz) prior to bringing disciplinary action. The representative body for severely disabled employees, which was consulted by the specialist division, replied in February 2021 that it did not intend to give an opinion. The Equal Opportunities Commissioner informed the specialist division in February 2021 that she had no objections to bringing the action.

On 12 March 2021, the President of the BND filed a disciplinary action accusing the defendant as follows: He had neither been able to plausibly explain why he had applied for a certificate of nationality, nor why he had at least initially referred to the "Kingdom of Bavaria" and the "RuStaG 1913" in the application. In addition, a specially marked version of the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment on the Basic Treaty had been found on his work computer; parts of the Federal Constitutional Court's statements were regularly used by "Reichsbürger" in a manner taken out of context to support their thesis of the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. 

In doing so, the defendant had breached his duty of loyalty to the constitution as laid down in section 60 (1) third sentence of the Act on Federal Civil Servants (BBG, Bundesbeamtengesetz). A civil servant who shared the ideology of the "Reichsbürger" did not fulfil his or her duty of loyalty to the constitution (Verfassungstreuepflicht), as an essential part of this ideology was to deny the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, he had breached his duty of good conduct (Wohlverhaltenspflicht) under section 61 (1) third sentence BBG.

Despite the exonerating circumstances - no previous acts that could qualify as disciplinary offences, impeccable conduct during service, above-average overall result in the last performance appraisal - the breach of these duties required the defendant's removal from civil service. 

The defendant countered: He had not committed any disciplinary offence and had been loyal to the constitution. The circumstances surrounding the application for the certificate of nationality could not give rise to doubts about his loyalty to the constitution. He himself had deleted the typewritten entries "Kingdom of Bavaria" and "version 1913" in handwriting. His explanations of his motivation for the original formulations were not self-serving declarations. He had only become aware of the possibility to apply for a certificate of nationality in the course of his genealogical research. He had found it remarkable and "funny" that such a certificate was issued at all and that it may also be applied for. He had also found it remarkable and "funny" that German nationality was determined in accordance with an act dating back to 1913, which had - essentially identical in content - only been amended in name in 2000. Due to his interest in history, he had found it fascinating that the nationality of his ancestors before 1914 might be relevant. "Reichsbürger" typically applied for certificates of nationality with corresponding entries in order to enter into conflict in the event of a correction by the competent authority, to negate their competence in this regard and in doing so to make it clear to the outside world that the Federal Republic of Germany was rejected as a state. However, he had not shown such conduct; he had corrected his entries voluntarily and had not entered into a conflict with the officers in charge at the District Commissioner's Office. From the marked passages of the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling on the Basic Treaty found in his possession, it could not be concluded that he actually subscribed to the misinterpretations of these passages in the "Reichsbürger" scene - regardless of whether he had dealt with this ruling at all. 

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG, Bundesverwaltungsgericht) removed the defendant from civil service.

19 The Senate decides on the disciplinary action in the first and last instance (section 50 (1) no. 4 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO, Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung), section 45 fifth sentence of the Federal Disciplinary Act (BDG, Bundesdisziplinargesetz)). It leads to the removal of the defendant from civil service (section 60 (2) first sentence and second sentences no. 1, section 5 (1) no. 5, as well as sections 10 and 13 (2) first sentence BDG).

20 1. The Senate has established the following facts:

21 The defendant applied for a certificate of nationality with the District Commissioner's Office S. on 27 July 2015. In doing so, he submitted an application form that he had already filled out in typescript and that he had downloaded from the website of the Federal Office of Administration (Bundesverwaltungsamt). In the application form, in his personal data, he had consistently entered "Kingdom of Bavaria" as the state. Thus he named the "Kingdom of Bavaria" as the state of his birth in 1985. He repeated to refer to the "Kingdom of Bavaria" when entering his current residential address and each of his nine places of residence within Germany from 1985 to 2014; in addition, under the heading "Nationality", he entered "in Bavaria" and, under "Miscellaneous", he referred to his "descent pursuant to section 4 (1) RuStaG version 1913". In the attachments on his ancestors, regarding his father, born in Germany in 1953, he entered "Kingdom of Bavaria" and "Kingd. Bavaria" as the state of birth and as the state of the marriages in 1977 and 1981 respectively. In the attachment on his grandfather, born in 1913, he - correctly in this respect - not only named the "Kingdom of Bavaria" as the state of birth, but also entered "Kingd. Bavaria" as the state with regard to the marriage in Germany, which was concluded in 1950 and lasted until 2000. In the two attachments on his ancestors, the defendant repeated the entry "in Bavaria" in each case under the heading "Nationality" and, under "Miscellaneous", referred to "descent pursuant to section 4 (1) RuStaG version 1913".

22 After he had been informed by the clerk receiving the application that the application could not be processed with this information, the defendant made handwritten corrections to these entries on the spot by crossing out all the entries "Kingdom of Bavaria" and the entry "in Bavaria" in the application form and adding the word "Germany" in handwriting; he also crossed out the entry "version 1913". In the attachment "Ancestors" concerning his father, he crossed out "Kingd. Bavaria" under the heading "Marital Status" and added the word "Germany" to "in Bavaria" under the heading "Nationality"; the other entries remained unchanged. The attachment "Ancestors" concerning his grandfather remained completely unchanged. The certificate of nationality was issued to the defendant on 12 August 2015, which - as usual - is limited to the certification of German nationality and does not contain any reference to the information provided by the defendant in the application.

23 2. These findings are based on the application form filled out by the defendant, initially in typescript, together with the attachments and the handwritten changes he made on it - at the instigation of the employee of the District Commissioner's Office -, the defendant's submissions at the oral hearing and his submissions in the disciplinary procedure before the authority.

24 3. By behaving as established, the defendant committed a disciplinary offence (section 77 (1) first sentence BBG). He has - while on duty - intentionally and culpably breached his duty of loyalty to the constitution under section 60 (1) third sentence BBG (a) and - while off duty - his duty of respectful and trustful conduct pursuant to section 61 (1) third sentence BBG (b).

25 a) Pursuant to section 60 (1) third sentence BBG, a civil servant must, through all his or her conduct, profess for the free democratic basic order within the meaning of the Basic Law and stand up for its preservation. The filing of a written application by a civil servant for the issuance of a certificate of nationality continuously entering "Kingdom of Bavaria" as well as pursuant to section 4 (1) "RuStaG version 1913" for circumstances relevant to the application in the period after May 1949 - such as the country of birth and residence of the applicant or his or her ancestors - breaches the civil servant's duty of loyalty to the constitution.

26 Since section 60 (1) third sentence BBG covers the entire conduct of the civil servant, the duty of loyalty to the constitution is - as a core duty under the law on civil servants - as such indivisible and not limited to conduct shown on duty. Rather, conduct shown off duty is also covered, with the consequence that in the event of any conduct in violation of an obligation, due to its service-related nature, it always constitutes an on-duty disciplinary offence. Accordingly, qualifying such off-duty conduct as disciplinary offence does not depend on the existence of the special requirements stipulated in section 77 (1) second sentence BBG (BVerwG, judgment of 29 October 1981 - 1 D 50.80 - Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwGE, Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts) 73, 263 <284>). It is also irrelevant whether the defendant's conviction had an influence on the fulfilment of his official duties and that there were no concrete complaints about the way he performed his duties.

27 aa) Civil servants in a special public-law service and loyalty relationship with the state, who may give orders on its behalf and in doing so enforce its position of power, must profess and stand up for the free democratic, rule-of-law and social-state based basic order of the Basic Law. Civil servants do not have to adopt the goals or maxims of the respective government majority; they must, however, hold the constitutional order as worthy of protection and actively stand up for it. Persons who reject and fight the basic order of the Basic Law may not work in the civil service. These persons lack the aptitude to exercise a public office (BVerfG, judgment of 27 April 1959 - 2 BvF 2/58 - Rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE, Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts) 9, 268 <282>, decision of 22 May 1975 - 2 BvL 13/73 - BVerfGE 39, 334 <346> and judgment of 8 July 1997 - 1 BvR 2111/94 et al. - BVerfGE 96, 171 <181>; BVerwG, judgment of 17 November 2017 - 2 C 25.17 - BVerwGE 160, 370 para. 18).

28 Pursuant to section 77 (1) first sentence BBG and sections 5 and 13 BDG, the removal by way of disciplinary proceedings of an active civil servant from civil service established for life requires a serious disciplinary offence as a result of which the civil servant has definitively lost the trust of the employer or the general public. Where the duty of loyalty to the constitution is at issue, the civil servant must be specifically proven to have breached this duty. It is not simply that the civil servant "lacks the guarantee" to stand up for the free democratic basic order at all times that constitutes the disciplinary offence. Also, merely having a conviction and simply communicating that one has it, is not sufficient. A civil servant shall only be deemed to have committed a disciplinary offence if he or she draws conclusions from his or her political conviction for his or her attitude towards the constitutional order of the Federal Republic of Germany, for the way in which he or she performs his or her official duties, for the way in which he or she deals with his or her employees or for political activities reflecting his or her political conviction. Moreover, the activity to be complained about must be of particular weight (BVerfG, decision of 22 May 1975 - 2 BvL 13/73 - BVerfGE 39, 334 <350 et seq.> and chamber decision of 6 May 2008 - 2 BvR 337/08 - Chamber Rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGK, Kammergerichtsentscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts) 13, 531 <540 et seq.>; European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), judgment of 26 September 1993 - Application no. 7/1994/454/535, Vogt - (...); BVerwG, judgment of 17 November 2017 - 2 C 25.17 - BVerwGE 160, 370 para. 21 et seqq.).

29 The "more" required in the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court than simply having and communicating a certain conviction is not only fulfilled when the civil servant offensively promotes a political conviction that is incompatible with the duty of loyalty to the constitution. Thus, a disciplinary offence to be sanctioned by disciplinary measure may also consist, for instance, in a civil servant expressing his or her attitude that is contrary to the constitutional order by wearing a tattoo with anti-constitutional content, even if he or she only reveals his or her convictions among like-minded people, for instance in order to identify as and to show one's solidarity with a group that can be distinguished from the "others" (see BVerwG, judgment of 17 November 2017 - 2 C 25.17 - BVerwGE 160, 370 para. 22 et seqq. and 29 et seq.).

30 bb) In accordance with these principles, applying for a certificate of nationality while continuing to refer to the "Kingdom of Bavaria" and "pursuant to section 4 (1) RuStaG version 1913" constitutes a breach of the duty of loyalty to the constitution. This is because anyone who, with regard to nationality, refers to circumstances prior to the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany although the matter falls within the time after that founding - in the present case on the "Kingdom of Bavaria" that ceased to exist at the beginning of November 1918 and the German Empire prior to the Weimar Republic - denies the legal existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. It is utterly impossible to deny the legal existence of this state and at the same time profess and stand up for its basic order, as required by section 60 (1) third sentence BBG. Thereby, the defendant negates the foundations of his civil service relationship and seriously breaches his duty of loyalty to the constitution.

31 By providing the original typewritten entries in the application for the certificate of nationality, the defendant objectively expressed in legal relations with a state authority - and hence to the outside world - that he assumed the continued existence of the "Kingdom of Bavaria" and that the Federal Republic of Germany did not legally exist (likewise Higher Administrative Court (OVG, Oberverwaltungsgericht) Lüneburg, judgment of 20 April 2021 - 3 LD 1/20 - (...) para. 16; Higher Administrative Court (VGH, Verwaltungsgerichtshof) Munich, judgment of 28 July 2021 - 16a D 19.989 - para. 65). He answered the form questions on the respective nationality reaching up to the present day with "Kingdom of Bavaria". Objectively, therein lies the declaration that he denies the legitimacy and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany and rejects the free democratic basic order. This declaration, precisely because it was made in legal relations with an authority, is also of considerable weight. As a civil servant, the defendant was also aware of the significance of a formal application formulated in this way.

32 Moreover, there is no discernible objective purpose that the issuance of a certificate of nationality may have for those who do not need it in legal relations. The defendant holds an identity card and a passport. His German nationality has never been questioned by any authority since his birth. In any case, applying for a certificate of nationality by providing information on nationality not referring to the Federal Republic of Germany, but to states that have long since ceased to exist, has the objective declaratory content of denying the legal existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. This is a prepared, planned and purposeful - i.e. not merely spontaneous - act vis-à-vis an authority with legally relevant content.

33 This also constitutes conduct that is typical of the so-called Reichsbürger scene. Regardless of the differences of the very heterogeneous groups in detail, a common characteristic of such group of people is that they deny the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. The term "Reichsbürger" is used to comprise groups and individuals who reject the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal system for a variety of motives and on a variety of reasons - including reference to the historical German Reich, conspiracy theory arguments or a self-defined natural law - deny the legitimacy of the democratically elected representatives or even define themselves entirely as being outside the legal system and against whom there is therefore a well-founded concern that they are in breach of the legal system. Their unifying element is the fundamental rejection of the legitimacy and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany (for a definition of the term, see: Report on the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutzbericht) 2020 issued by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat), p. 115).

34 Although the defendant stated that he was not a "Reichsbürger" and that he did not want to question the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, he was also unable to plausibly explain at the oral hearing why he had conducted himself in this way.

35 By filing the application with the - continuous - typewritten entries "Kingdom of Bavaria" as well as "pursuant to section 4 (1) RuStaG version 1913", the defendant - objectively - negated the legal existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its constitutional order. He was not able to explain his conduct neither in the disciplinary procedure before the authority nor in the oral hearing in such a way as to allow for his conduct to be attributed a different meaning. Moreover, the defendant's various attempts at explanation contradict each other in content. The Senate does not accept the defendant's entire submission on the alleged motives for filing an application for a certificate of nationality with the original entries "Kingdom of Bavaria" and "pursuant to section 4 (1) RuStaG version 1913".

36 In the disciplinary procedure before the authority, the defendant justified the filing of the application with the listed typewritten entries asserting that he had found it "interesting" to apply for the certificate as such and that he had found the incriminated entries to be "funny". This statement is not plausible, especially against the background of the defendant's education. The defendant has successfully undergone vocational training as a clerk in public administration specialising in general internal administration. Based hereon, he was aware that he had initiated an administrative procedure with this application - which, in addition, was subject to a fee - and that he may be charged as a civil servant with the continuous reference to long-defunct states instead of the reference to the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal system, which he is obliged to uphold.

37 The defendant's submission in the administrative procedure that he had referred to the "RuStaG 1913" for his typewritten entries in the application form because of fill-in instructions he had allegedly found on the website of the Federal Office of Administration at the time, according to which information on the descent from ancestors born before 1914 was required, also lacks plausibility. For, this does not explain why the defendant did not simply refer to "descent", but complemented it with an addition referring to the previous legal status, nor that he did not limit this addition to his grandfather born in 1913, but also used it for himself and his father born in 1953. The fact that the defendant was prompted to enter his information on the basis of the aforementioned fill-in instructions also appears implausible because - as the Senate pointed out to the defendant at the oral hearing - the instructions at that time did not contain any reference to "section 4 (1) RuStaG 1913".

38 What is also not convincing, is his further explanation to the BND that with the original entries "Kingdom of Bavaria" he had merely referred to his grandfather's country of birth. The application form is clearly structured and easy to understand with regard to the information required on the applicant and the respective ancestors. This applies in particular to the defendant, who, due to his vocational training, is familiar with dealing with official forms and the requirements for correctly filling in application forms. The form does not leave any scope for interpretation as to what the requested information on the state - be it the state of birth, residence or stay - refers to.

39 A plausible other interpretation of the defendant's conduct cannot be inferred from his submission at the oral hearing either. Apart from the fact that, compared to the information he provided earlier, his submission changes, his new submission also fails to provide a plausible explanation for his conduct.

40 At the oral hearing, the defendant, in response to the Senate's introductory request to summarise the motives for his conduct in his own words, stated that he had come across "some pages" on the internet and had followed the fill-in instructions by "strange guys" which he had found there. He could not imagine that an application with such information would "work" and wanted to see whether such an application would be accepted; that was all he had in mind.

41 This new submission is not plausible either. If the defendant, as a civil servant bound by the Basic Law and in view of the content of the internet information, had already gained the impression for himself, that these were "strange guys", then it would have been almost obvious to refrain from following the instructions of these persons to fill in the form by submitting a corresponding application with the incriminated information. Every civil servant - no matter what career group - knows about his or her duty of loyalty to the constitution and that he or she breaches it by denying the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal order. This holds particularly true for the defendant as a member of an intelligence service who is used to questioning sources.

42 Moreover, even assuming the correctness of the information he provided at the oral hearing, it is not plausible, why he maintained the application even after his estimation, that the application might be rejected by the District Commissioner's Office due to the original entries, had been confirmed. His explanation, which was newly introduced at the oral hearing, that, with the application in its original version he had merely "tested", whether a certificate of nationality could be obtained with this information, would have been in line with simply withdrawing the application after the employee of the District Commissioner's Office had complained about the entries - from the point of view of the new submission - as expected. Instead, the defendant made - for the most part - handwritten changes in the application form in accordance with the instructions by the District Commissioner's Office and paid the applicable fee for the positive decision on the application for a certificate of nationality. This, despite the fact that he has no use for this certificate of nationality, as he also stated at the oral hearing when asked by the Senate.

43 However, it cannot be held against the defendant that the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 31 July 1973 on the Basic Treaty (BVerfG, judgment of 31 July 1973 - 2 BvF 1/73 - BVerfGE 36, 1) was stored on the private drive of his work computer and that a certain part thereof was marked. Dealing with this - or any other - ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court is not an indication that one is not loyal to the constitution. The highlighting of the part in question only proves that the defendant dealt with this topic, but not that he has adopted the - aberrant - interpretation of this part by others.

44 b) Through his intentional and culpable conduct, the defendant also breached his duty of respectful and trustful conduct (section 61 (1) third sentence BBG). In view of the seriousness of the breach of duty, the application for a certificate of nationality containing information denying the legal existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its constitutional order gives rise to serious doubts, as to whether the defendant is fulfilling his official mandate as administrator of an administration bound by law and justice (BVerwG, judgment of 27 June 2013 - 2 A 2.12 - BVerwGE 147, 127 para. 23 et seq.)

45 4. Within the scope of determining the measure incumbent on the court (section 13 (1) and (2) first sentence and section 60 (2) second sentence BDG), the removal of the defendant from civil service is the required measure, irrespective of the fact that his conduct does not qualify as a criminal offence. Through his serious disciplinary offence, the defendant has definitively lost the trust of his employer and the general public.

46 a) The disciplinary measure required shall be determined in accordance with section 13 (1) second to fourth sentence BDG based on the seriousness of the disciplinary offence with due regard to the personality profile of the civil servant. The legal provisions require that the disciplinary measure be determined on the basis of a prognostic overall assessment, taking into account all incriminating and exonerating circumstances of the individual case. This is in line with the purpose of the power to impose disciplinary measures as a means of safeguarding the function of the public service. Accordingly, the object of the disciplinary consideration and assessment is the question of which disciplinary measure is required in view of the civil servant's personality profile in order to maintain the functioning of the public service and the integrity of the civil service as undiminished as possible (BVerwG, judgments of 20 October 2005 - 2 C 12.04 - BVerwGE 124, 252 <258 et seqq.>, of 3 May 2007 - 2 C 9.06 - (...) para. 16 et seqq. and of 29 March 2012 - 2 A 11.10 - (...) para. 71 with further references).

47 In the overall assessment, the facts relevant to the determination in the individual case shall be established in accordance with section 58 (1) BDG and shall be included in the assessment with the weight they carry. The seriousness of the disciplinary offence under section 13 (1) second sentence BDG is the decisive criterion for determining the required disciplinary measure. This means that the established disciplinary offence is to be assigned to one of the disciplinary measures listed in the catalogue of section 5 BDG in accordance with its seriousness. Based thereon, it is important for the determination of the disciplinary measure whether findings on the personality profile and the extent of the impairment of trust are of such importance in the individual case as to require a disciplinary measure other than the one indicated by the seriousness of the disciplinary offence (BVerwG, judgment of 29 March 2012 - 2 A 11.10 - (...) para. 72 with further references).

48 A definitive loss of trust of the employer or the general public within the meaning of section 13 (2) first sentence BDG shall be held to have occurred if, based on the prognostic overall assessment on the basis of all relevant incriminating and exonerating circumstances in the individual case, the conclusion must be drawn that the civil servant will continue to be in breach of his or her official duties in a significant manner in the future or that the damage to the reputation of the civil service caused by his or her misconduct would be irreparable if the civil service relationship were to continue. Under these conditions, the civil service relationship must be terminated in the interest of the effectiveness of the public service and the integrity of the civil service (BVerwG, judgments of 29 March 2012 - 2 A 11.10 - (...) para. 73 with further references and of 10 December 2015 - 2 C 6.14 - BVerwGE 154, 10 para. 12 et seqq.).

49 b) Based on these principles, the removal of the defendant from civil service is the appropriate measure here.

50 In the case in dispute, regarding the seriousness of the disciplinary offence, the breach of the duty of loyalty to the constitution (section 60 (1) third sentence BBG) is decisive; the breach of the duty of respectful and trustful conduct (section 61 (1) third sentence BBG), which also occurred, does not have any further significance that would additionally influence the determination of the measure.

51 The breach of the duty of loyalty to the constitution (section 60 (1) third sentence BBG) is of such seriousness that the maximum measure, that is removal from the civil service (section 10 BDG), is to be taken as a basis when determining the measure to be taken under section 13 BDG. This follows from the indispensability of the duty of loyalty to the constitution in a civil service relationship. Loyalty to the constitution is an element of aptitude for civil servants. Persons who do not profess the free democratic basic order within the meaning of the Basic Law and do not stand up for its preservation may not be trusted by the citizens to the extent required for the exercise of the public office (BVerwG, judgments of 18 June 2015 - 2 C 9.14 - BVerwGE 152, 228 para. 11 et seqq. and of 17 November 2017 - 2 C 25.17 - BVerwGE 160, 370 para. 18 with further references).

52 In the defendant's favour, it must be taken into account that he was not subject to disciplinary measures before and that he has performed his duties well with great dedication, for which he has not only been well appraised, but has even received formal recognition. Nor have any further acts or statements by the defendant denying the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal system become known.

53 However, in view of the seriousness of the breach of the duty of loyalty to the constitution, this may not save him from the maximum measure. The foundations of civil service do not permit to entrust persons rejecting the free democratic constitutional order with the exercise of state authority.

54 There is no reason to deviate from the legal provision granting a maintenance allowance (section 10 (3) BDG).