iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

And tune in tonight to see the story live in ZDF heute JOURNAL! 📺

021

In my interview with Nathan, I explain that this matches very much the experience of us at @ecchr.bsky.social and our partners - and why all of this violates the rule of law. ⚖️

121

📢 "We have pushed forward with proceedings against companies that have effectively defied the law or failed to remedy known violations. However, under pressure from above, fines were never imposed."

📢 "There are cases where normally the elements of an administrative offense penalized with a fine are quite clear in the law. But in many of these cases, a proceeding hasn't even been opened. I assume there must have been a corresponding more or less explicit directive not to pursue them."

📢 "If the law and the supervision process were taken seriously now, then we'd actually have to review a lot more cases."

📢 "If this continues, I'm not sure how much longer anyone will even be working there."

📢 "The general impression is that the department is supposed to be put on the back burner."

📢 "At that point, it was just a matter of managing the current state of affairs - you could also simply call it decay."

📢 "With these restrictions, effective enforcement of this law is impossible."

🔍 Investigative journalist Nathan Niedermeier at @zdfde.bsky.social, after months of research, exposes how the German minister for economic affairs, Katherina Reiche, repeatedly instructed the @bafa.de NOT (❗) to enforce the German Supply Chain Act. Insiders familiar with enforcing the law said:

144

Find the full answers and questions of the minor interpellation here: dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/pers...

dip.bundestag.de

DIP

000

Since they couldn't achieve this through legislative means, they now try to create a fait accompli by making the BAFA practically incapable of working. After all, a law that is not effectively enforced is little more than a voluntary commitment.

100

❗ This official response by the German government proves what civil society organizations like @ecchr.bsky.social have been saying for months: Ever since taking office, the conservatives in the German government, under pressure from business lobbyists, have tried to get rid of the law.

100

🤝 In the first half of 2026, the BAFA only attended seven events and one meeting with a business association about the law. The reason? - The "dynamic nature of the overall situation" provides currently "only limited scope for comments" by the BAFA.

100

0️⃣ Due to the lack of an "investigation plan" for 2026, initiating new risk-based controls has been "deprioritized" in 2026. In other words: In the first half of 2026, zero (!) new risk-based controls have been opened.

100

🧾 There is still, after more than half of 2026 has passed, no "investigation plan" for 2026, because the Ministry of Economic Affairs is "still working on it" (is it?).

100

👩‍⚖️ The entire department, by now, only employs four lawyers (which seems quite ambitious given that they have to enforce completely novel and highly contested legal provisions).

👷‍♂️ Of 101 positions foreseen to enforce the law, 14 are vacant. Of the remaining 87 persons, only 40 (so less than 50 %!) actually work on enforcing the law. The others have "temporarily been assigned to other tasks".

Initiative Lieferkettengesetz @lieferketteng.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

🚨 Is the @bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de (German Ministry of Economic Affairs) repealing the German Supply Chain Act through the "back door" by making the @bafa.de (supervisory authority) stop enforcing it? Today's reply by the government to the minor interpellation of @gruene.de speaks volumes:

143

Reposted by Lisa Pitz

Darf das Wirtschaftsministerium die Durchsetzung eines geltenden Gesetzes behindern? So geschieht es gerade beim #Lieferkettengesetz. Alles zu dieser besorgniserregenden Entwicklung im Artikel von @lisapitz.bsky.social vom @ecchr.bsky.social. ⬇️ www.cora-netz.de/gesetzesabsc...

cora-netz.de

Gesetzesabschaffung durch die Hintertür: Wie das Wirtschaftsministerium die Durchsetzung des Lieferkettengesetzes sabotiert

01310

Reposted by Lisa Pitz

Initiative Lieferkettengesetz @lieferketteng.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy · 13/07/2026

mastodon.social

Original post on mastodon.social

024

❗ Solche Zugangsansprüche sind essentiell, damit die Zivilgesellschaft ihrer Funktion als "öffentlicher Wachhund" nachkommen und Betroffene öffentliche Stellen zur Einhaltung ihrer menschenrechtlichen und umweltbezogenen Verantwortung anhalten können.

000

👉https://www.ecchr.eu/pressemitteilung/urteil-kfw-ist-nach-ifg-informationspflichtig-und-muss-angefragte-informationen-zu-agrar-investition-in-paraguay-von-der-deg-beschaffen/

100

💡 In diesem Urteil wurde die KfW dazu verpflichtet, Informationen zu Agrar-Investitionen in Paraguay zu beschaffen, die für Entwaldung und Landkonflikte mit Indigenen verantwortlich sind.

100

🚨 Die Einschränkungen hätten fatale Konsequenzen für Transparenz und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Erfolgen wie das 2022 von @fiandeutschland.bsky.social mit Unterstützung vom @ecchr.bsky.social erstrittene Urteil des VG Frankfurt a.M. gegen die Staatsbank KfW würde damit die Rechtsgrundlage entzogen.

Lisa Pitz @lisapitz.bsky.social · 03/07/2026

Beim @ecchr.bsky.social setzen wir Menschenrechte mit juristischen Mitteln durch -und werden das auch hier tun. Im Zweifel werden Gerichte das BAFA und BMWE daran erinnern müssen, dass in einem Rechtsstaat Gesetze nicht eigenmächtig durch die Exekutive geändert werden können.

031

Lisa Pitz @lisapitz.bsky.social · 03/07/2026

👉zum Beitrag: www.cora-netz.de/gesetzesabsc...

100

Lisa Pitz @lisapitz.bsky.social · 03/07/2026

@bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de sabotiert die Durchsetzung des Lieferkettengesetzes durch das @bafa.de - obwohl das Gesetz nach wie vor unverändert in Kraft ist. Im CorA-Newsletter-Beitrag zeigen wir, warum das gegen rechtsstaatliche Grundsätze und die Gewaltenteilung verstößt.

174

✊ At @ecchr.bsky.social, we are determined to stand with those affected in calling out such illegal practices and challenging them with legal means, if necessary.

Such news and our own experience with accompanying affected rights holders in their complaints procedures before the BAFA increasingly leads us to the conclusion that the German government doesn't actually want the authority to effectively enforce the law.

How is a public authority supposed to function if their vice president is also leading a whole directorate-general, if the positions of the heads of both subordinate directorates are vacant and if one head of division is leading all of the 6 (!) divisions tasked with "Due Diligence Control"?

The Ministry says there is "no doubt" about the BAFA's ability to work. But a mere look at the BAFA's organizational chart as it has been updated just 7 days ago (see picture below) calls that into question:

120

Highly skilled employees are leaving, others are asked to resolve old cases quickly and, if possible, cease investigating new complaints. The authority increasingly limits its investigations to clarifying the facts through mere audits (paid for by the very same companies it is supposed to monitor).