In a recent ruling, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder concerning the staffing and funding of his office. The case, which unfolded in Leipzig, highlighted the contentious issues surrounding the privileges granted to former heads of government. Schröder, who has faced significant criticism for his close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, contended that he was entitled to maintain the same level of office support that previous chancellors had enjoyed. However, the court found no legal basis for his claim. The origins of Schröder's legal battle date back to May 2022, just three months after the onset of the Ukraine conflict. At that time, the Budget Committee determined that Schröder was no longer fulfilling any ongoing obligations from his chancellorship and consequently placed his office in a state of suspension. Following this decision, Schröder initiated legal proceedings, but both the Administrative and Higher Administrative Courts rejected his claims. Central to the dispute was whether Schröder was entitled to an office with staff, based on the precedent set by his predecessors and his successor. Over the decades, the provisions for former chancellors have evolved significantly. For instance, Konrad Adenauer was limited to a single advisor funded by the federal budget, while subsequent leaders received increasingly generous allocations, culminating in Schröder's entitlement to four staff members at the time of his departure from office. In contrast, Angela Merkel currently employs nine staff members. However, the legal framework governing these provisions remains ambiguous, as there are no formal laws specifying the entitlements of former chancellors. Instead, the arrangements are based on resolutions by the Budget Committee, which have left many questions about the intent and purpose of such privileges. It remains unclear whether the provision of an office and staff serves as a form of retirement benefit or as acknowledgment for past service. The court's ruling also touched on the broader constitutional implications of the case. The Federal Administrative Court stated that any disputes regarding the constitutional rights and obligations of former chancellors should be resolved at the Federal Constitutional Court, effectively resetting the matter. The court did not address whether the rights and obligations of a former chancellor, and the associated office privileges, could be derived from the German Constitution. This leaves the potential for further legal scrutiny as the matter may now be escalated to Karlsruhe. As the debate over the rights of former leaders continues, this ruling underscores the complexities involved in balancing state resources with the ongoing roles of individuals who have held the highest political office in Germany. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for future discussions about the privileges afforded to former chancellors, especially in light of evolving political landscapes and public expectations.