The personnel issue has kept the public busy beyond the borders of Brandenburg for some time. Now the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) of Berlin-Brandenburg has provided clarification with its decision of 17 April 2026 (Ref.: 4 S1 /26): The former Minister of Economic Affairs of the State of Brandenburg, Jörg Steinbach, cannot work as a freelance consultant for an international commercial law firm after leaving office. During his time in office, the law firm in question had advised the state of Brandenburg on important economic policy projects, in particular on the establishment of the electric car manufacturer Tesla. As Minister, Steinbach had arranged for the law firm to be commissioned. After leaving office, he now intended to provide professional advice on „business development measures“ for the same law firm.

Impairment of public interests

The OVG used the Brandenburg Ministers Act (Section 5c (1) BbgMinG) as a benchmark, which is intended to make these delicate situations foreseeable. According to this law, the state government can prohibit gainful employment or other employment for the first two years after leaving office if there is a risk that public interests will be impaired as a result. Conflicts of interest and even the appearance that political decisions could possibly be influenced by the prospect of later professional advantages are to be avoided in this way.

The state government in Brandenburg relied on this basis and prohibited the former minister from working as a consultant for the law firm in question for two years. In summary proceedings, the Administrative Court Potsdam and currently the Higher Administrative Court ruled that the state government's prohibition order was lawful: For the assumption of an impairment of public interests, it is already sufficient to have a reasonable appearance that a reasonable and objectively thinking citizen could have doubts about the integrity of the state government. It is not necessary that an impairment has actually occurred or is imminent. Rather, the objective perception of the situation from the perspective of an informed observer is decisive.

The court pointed out that the prohibition did not constitute a disproportionate interference with professional freedom. The former minister was only prohibited from working for this specific law firm, but not from working as a consultant in general. He is free to work for other law firms or companies. In addition, he receives a pension and a transitional allowance to secure his livelihood after leaving office. The ban therefore does not constitute a restriction on the choice of profession, but rather a regulation on exercising the profession limited to the necessary extent.

Protecting the trust of the population

In this case, the High Administrative Court emphasised that public trust in the integrity of political decision-makers is of paramount importance. If citizens could get the impression that members of the government make their decisions with a view to future career prospects, this would undermine trust in democratic institutions and the impartiality of government action in the long term. This public interest outweighs the individual interest of the former minister concerned in working for this specific law firm.

The decision makes it clear that in the first two years after leaving office, special care must be taken when choosing new professional activities - for good reason - and that public office must not be misused as preparation for a subsequent private professional activity. This applies all the more in the current political times, in which trust in the rule of law and its institutions is continuously declining. A loss of trust is encouraged and critics feel strengthened and all the more attracted to the right-wing fringe when there are indications that political integrity may be lacking.

The judgement is therefore of significance far beyond the individual case for all those who currently hold government offices and are dealing with „the time after“.