Published by Global Banking & Finance Review®
Posted on July 15, 2025
3 min readLast updated: January 22, 2026
Add as preferred source on GoogleGermany's top court dismissed a complaint against US drone missions at Ramstein, ruling Berlin need not intervene in US operations.
By Miranda Murray
BERLIN (Reuters) -Berlin is not required to intervene in U.S. drone activities at the Ramstein air base in southwestern Germany, the country's top court ruled on Tuesday in dismissing a complaint brought by Yemeni nationals whose family members were killed in a strike.
The constitutional court's ruling rejected the complaints of two men living in Yemen who lost two relatives - one an imam who had preached against al Qaeda and the other a police officer - in a 2012 U.S. drone strike.
The men say they have since been living in fear for their lives and that Germany bears joint responsibility for the deaths because the drone missions were supported from Ramstein.
At issue was the question of whether Germany had a responsibility to ensure a relay station at Ramstein that sends satellite data to drones did not violate international law.
The court ruled that, while Germany did have a general duty to protect fundamental human rights including those of foreigners abroad, the conditions triggering that duty were not met.
Berlin was acting within its purview on foreign and security policy when it accepted the United States' interpretation of what was allowable under international law, the court said.
"It could not be established that the U.S. is applying unacceptable criteria for distinguishing between legitimate military targets and protected civilians in the conflict in Yemen," wrote one of the judges in the ruling.
In a statement, the two Yemeni plaintiffs, Ahmed and Khaled bin Ali Jaber, criticized the ruling as "dangerous and shocking", saying it sent a message that states supporting the U.S. drone programme were not held responsible when civilians were killed.
Germany's foreign and defence ministries welcomed the ruling as confirmation of the government's legal opinion.
The judges confirmed that "the federal government has broad discretion in assessing the conformity of third countries' actions with international law".
The Ramstein public affairs office was not able to comment on the court case.
The German government had argued that Germany's ability to take part in military alliances would be jeopardised if it had to ensure operations conducted by foreign militaries abroad adhered to Germany's understanding of international law simply because they had a base on German soil.
The United States and Germany are allies in NATO and Washington has had a military base at Ramstein since 1948.
(Reporting by Ursula Knapp and Miranda Murray, editing by Kirsti Knolle, Madeline Chambers and Alex Richardson)
The court ruled that Germany is not required to intervene in US drone activities at the Ramstein air base, dismissing a complaint from Yemeni plaintiffs.
The court found that while Germany has a duty to protect human rights, the conditions triggering that duty were not met in this case.
The plaintiffs were Ahmed and Khaled bin Ali Jaber, two Yemeni men who lost relatives in a US drone strike and claimed Germany shares responsibility.
Germany's foreign and defense ministries welcomed the ruling, viewing it as confirmation of the government's legal stance on the matter.
The plaintiffs criticized the ruling as 'dangerous and shocking', arguing it sends a message that states supporting the US drone program are not held accountable.
Explore more articles in the Headlines category
