Systemic Failure in Germany: The Discrimination and Apathy Scandal of 2026

In 2023, I was fired from my job in the public sector of Rhineland-Palatinate, within the Ministry of Science and Health (MWG), under deeply discriminatory circumstances. Since that day, I've gone to every complaint and oversight body I know of. The response has been pretty much the same everywhere: silence, or "we don't have jurisdiction."

On January 5, 2026, I sent an official request (Eingabe) to over 4,000 decision-making officials in German politics and media. The goal is to expose the systemic failure of oversight bodies in this state. This page documents and tracks all stages of the case transparently and is updated regularly.

Current Status of the Case (Latest Update: May 14, 2026)

• European Petition: My petition to the European Commission has been officially accepted and is under review. Next steps depend on the internal evaluation of the submitted documents.
• Administrative Court of Mainz: A failure-to-act lawsuit (Untätigkeitsklage) has been filed under case number 1 K 242/26.MZ and is currently being reviewed. No ruling has been issued yet.
• New Documents from the Ministry: After the lawsuit was filed, the ministry released documents for the first time that it had previously explicitly denied existed. These documents show that several legal obligations—including the duty to clarify, document, and hear the other side—were not met.
• Data Protection Officer (LfDI): On April 26, 2026, I reported the new inconsistencies to this office and haven't received a response yet. Since this process is ongoing, I'm not publishing more details for now. If the response isn't convincing, I'll spell it out in more detail.

The Case at a Glance

Full Update Report (Newest to Oldest)

April 22, 2026: Official Confirmation of the "2023 Statement" and Case Entering Court

Following my ultimatum to the ministry and the supervisory complaint to the LfDI, the status of the case has fundamentally changed in recent weeks. Several new documents now officially show that the Ministry of Science and Health of Rhineland-Palatinate (MWG) gave contradictory information for months and kept parts of the file hidden.

1. Official Confirmation by the State Ombudsman: On April 21, 2026, I received a letter from the state ombudsman officially confirming for the first time that the ministry prepared a statement on my case in 2023 and sent it only to the ombudsman. This confirmation directly contradicts the ministry's claim on March 23, 2026, when it called the existence of any documents a "misunderstanding."

2. Silence on My Legal Assessment: My legal letter from March 10, 2026, concerning the violation of transparency, violation of the right to be heard, potential breaches of EU law, and even the suspicion of arbitrary action, was left completely unanswered. The reason is clear now: answering it wouldn't fit the ministry's next narrative.

3. Start of Legal Proceedings: Due to the failure to provide documents and unilateral extensions, I filed a failure-to-act lawsuit (Untätigkeitsklage) in the Administrative Court of Mainz on April 8, 2026 (case number 1 K 242/26.MZ). The case is moving forward, court fees have been set, and I've submitted the new documents to the court.

4. Structural Dimension: The ombudsman's confirmation shows that even an independent body didn't have access to the complete documents. This raises serious questions about document management at the state level.

Summary: The documents existed, were kept hidden from me, the ministry gave contradictory accounts, and now an official body has confirmed this contradiction. I'm keeping on with the push for transparency. Covering up documents doesn't just mess up a personal case; it undermines public trust in the rule of law.

March 25, 2026: Ultimatum to the Ministry and Supervisory Complaint to the LfDI

After dragging its feet for over 10 weeks, the ministry suddenly called the existence of the 2023 review file a "misunderstanding." In response, on March 24, 2026, I launched a full-scale legal and political action:

1. 14-Day Ultimatum to the Ministry: I formally demanded full access to the file within 14 days.

• Legal Basis: Article 15 Paragraph 1 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (DSGVO) combined with the State Transparency Act (LTranspG RLP).
• Blatant Contradiction: Officials first confirmed the existence of a thorough review in 2023 and now say no documents exist. That's legally indefensible. The only standard is that this information relates to me personally.
• Consequence: If the deadline (April 7, 2026) passes to no avail, the path to a failure-to-act lawsuit under Section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) is wide open.

2. Supervisory Complaint to the LfDI (case number LfDI 900-0009#2026/0040-0104):

• Dragging their feet: I wanted to get clear on why the LfDI accepted the ministry's unilateral extensions, even though I explicitly warned them that the files were at risk of being destroyed.
• Suspicion of institutional arbitrariness: When a top state agency first confirms that documents exist and then denies it, they've stepped outside the framework of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) (Articles 3, 19 Para. 4, and 20 Para. 3 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)).

3. CC list for federal bodies, parties, and the media: To break the silence, both letters were sent out simultaneously in CC to these bodies, including: the Office of the Federal President, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), offices of members of the Bundestag and the state parliament (including Kočak from the Left Party, Wechenbach from the CDU, and the BSW party), the Anti-Discrimination Office (ADB RLP), and the editorial office of Der Spiegel magazine.

My summary: The system is trying to dodge responsibility through lame excuses and post-facto denials. But our exact and continuous chronology proves the opposite. I won't let citizen-hostile bureaucracy wear me down. Whoever makes files vanish is destroying trust in the entire rule of law.

March 15, 2026: Another deadline extension and escalation of the legal challenge

Despite the official mediation by the LfDI, the ministry is still stalling:

• Another delay: The ministry has asked for another four weeks' extension. It's unacceptable that it now takes over ten weeks to hand over case files that were supposedly 'closed' back in 2023.
• Legal showdown: I've formally confronted the ministry and the LfDI with 18 counts of legal violations; including Articles 3 and 19 of the Basic Law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Section 12 of the State Transparency Act (LTranspG RLP), which stresses the 'prompt' delivery of information.
• My demand: A superficial statement just won't cut it. If documents remain incomplete or no precise arguments are provided for these 18 points, the path to a failure-to-act lawsuit under Section 75 VwGO is wide open.

Anyone who buys time is trying to cover up the truth. I won't let administrative attrition tactics trample on a citizen's legal rights.

February 28, 2026: Contradiction in the ministry and intervention by the state transparency watchdog

• Ministry stalling: After months of silence, the ministry reacted on February 21, extending the response deadline by claiming the 'complexity of the matter' and the 'need to consult third parties.' This comes even though they previously claimed the 2023 case was completely closed.
• LfDI steps in: On February 25, 2026, the State Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (LfDI) officially stepped in under case number 900-0009#2026/0040-0104 and asked the ministry for an explanation regarding the withheld documents.
• Unanswered question: If the investigation wrapped up in 2023, why do they suddenly need 'third parties' and 'more time' to hand over those exact same records? This contradiction shows that past investigations weren't fair or transparent at all.

February 19, 2026: Response from the Federal Office of Justice and the whistleblower protection deadlock

The response from the federal government's reporting center at the Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) arrived. They confirmed reviewing all my documentation—including the apathy of state agencies and an attempt by a state parliament member to intimidate me—but stated they couldn't take action.

The reason is a bizarre legal catch-22: because I already published my case on YouTube, I'm no longer covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG). In their view, this law only protects folks who report non-public information.

My conclusion: This is a paradox in a constitutional state. Anyone who dares to bring wrongdoing out into the open loses their legal protection as a whistleblower under this interpretation. The core issue—systemic discrimination and official silence in Rhineland-Palatinate—remains unanswered.

February 5, 2026: Three new responses

Federal Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt): My case reached the Chancellery. In an official reply, while stressing the issue's importance for the federal government, they confirmed structural flaws and suggested following up through the Federal Office of Justice. While the country's highest executive body considers the matter worth looking into, state authorities keep right on playing deaf.

Federal Police Commissioner: As expected, they declared themselves incompetent, since the case involves the state authority of Rhineland-Palatinate and not the federal police. Every agency meticulously confirms its own 'lack of jurisdiction,' but the core question remains unanswered: when an entire state goes silent, who watches the watchers?

Contradiction in Left Party responses: The parliamentary office of Christian Görke (Left Party) grasped the gravity of the situation and referred the case to the anti-racism expert, but the party's central headquarters (Bundesgeschäftsstelle) just brushed me off with a boilerplate reply sending me to a lawyer. This contrast shows that political leadership is often out of touch with the reality of structural discrimination, while some reps try hard on an individual level.

January 24, 2026: Progress in official reviews

• Citizen Rights Commissioner (U 58/26): Confirmed in a recent letter that they are looking into the failures of the ministry and regulatory authorities.
• CSU: The second case was registered under number CSU-275327-B5B4N9.
• BSW Party: My complaint was logged under number 30118216.
• Anti-Discrimination Office (ADB): The necessary documents were sent over for specialized documentation.

January 21, 2026: The case reaches the state parliament

Mr. Michael Wechenbach, member of the state parliament (CDU) and the health and social affairs committee, reached out to me personally; right before the new state anti-discrimination law was passed. (This law went into effect in February 2026 under the name 'State Act for Equal Opportunities, Democracy, and Diversity' (LGCDV).)

• Topic: Mr. Wechenbach asked about the status of my case (U 58/26) and how the supervisory authorities are handling their responses.
• My response: The current system is broken; the anti-discrimination center (LADS) has admitted it lacks independence, and the ministry claims it's reviewing the case without ever having spoken to the victim once.
• Significance: My case is being brought up in parliament as a real-world example to critique the new law: will this law actually have independence and enforcement teeth, or is it just for show?

January 19, 2026: Ministry's Claim and Request for Access to Documents

The Ministry of Science and Health (MWG) responded to my official report—a clear-cut example of brushing civil rights aside behind bureaucratic walls.

• The Ministry's Claim: My case was "comprehensively" reviewed and documented back in 2023.
• The Reality: Not a single call or conversation took place with me throughout all of 2023. Reviewing a case without ever hearing out the victim is a blatant violation of the right to be heard.
• My Reaction: Using the state transparency law (LTranspG), I filed a formal request to access the file and the alleged documents. If a review was actually done, they need to make the paperwork transparent.

January 16, 2026: Acknowledgment of Receipt from the AfD

The headquarters of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party logged my documents with an automated confirmation and tracking number #78441180. Now political parties across the entire spectrum, from the government to the opposition, are officially in the loop about this systemic failure.

January 15, 2026: Case Opened with the Citizens' Commissioner

The Rhineland-Palatinate Citizens' Commissioner (Bürgerbeauftragte) officially registered my complaint under case number U 58/26. At first, the commissioner thought this was just an employment office case. I explained that my complaint is about the "silence of ministries and regulatory bodies" in the face of corruption and discrimination reports, not just a personal firing.

January 14, 2026: Filing Number from the Higher Administrative Court (OVG)

The Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrative Court officially logged my correspondence and assigned it the number 1402E26-OVG RP-0001. Even though the court says there's no legal basis for them to step in right now, this filing shows that my report on the structural failure of institutions is now logged in the state's judicial system and can't be swept under the rug.

January 12, 2026: CSU, the Green Party, and the Hesse Parliament

CSU: My complaint was logged in the party's database under CSU-222693-J8P2Y7 and is currently being reviewed.

The Greens in the Bundestag: Bundestag member Silvia Breitenbach pointed to the separation of powers and wrote that parliament can't give legal advice and I need to talk to a lawyer. To me, this is a prime example of dodging political responsibility. I wasn't asking for legal advice; I was demanding parliament's oversight duty. If parliament doesn't see itself as responsible when the executive branch goes silent, a dangerous vacuum opens up in the rule of law.

Hesse State Parliament: Since the responsibility lies with the authorities in Rhineland-Palatinate, they officially forwarded the case to that state's citizens' commissioner—an important step to turn up the heat on the folks in charge in Mainz.

January 10, 2026: Response from the State Anti-Discrimination Center (LADS)

I got a response from Mechthild Gerhards-Koch, head of the Anti-Discrimination Center (LADS) at the Ministry for Family Affairs and Culture, which confirms the key points of my criticism:

• Lack of Independence: This body officially admitted that as a sub-entity of the ministry, it's "not independent" and has no executive power over other offices.
• Hiding Behind Legal Deadlines: Instead of looking into the managers' behavior and the institutions' silence, they hid behind the expired deadlines of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).
• System Failure: Victims of state discrimination are basically left out in the cold the moment internal oversight bodies clam up.

When a state anti-discrimination center admits it's not independent and hides behind legal fine print, the rule of law is in trouble. This correspondence is yet more proof that we desperately need an independent investigative committee.

Full Text of the Request Sent to Bundestag Members (January 2026)

This is the Persian translation of the documents sent to over 4,000 political officials in Germany in January 2026.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a formal request regarding the systemic breakdown of the rule of law in Rhineland-Palatinate. This case, documented in the videos below, shows a gross violation of the state's duty of protection and the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) (Article 3 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)).

Following an unfair and discriminatory termination in the public sector, every oversight and complaints body I reached out to refused to lift a finger. This institutional silence is itself a prime example of discrimination and a sign of a fundamental glitch in how a law-abiding state operates.

Case Summary: Indifference as Institutionalized Discrimination
Following my termination in 2023 within the Ministry of Science and Health under deeply discriminatory circumstances, a chain of silence began:

• I reached out to the staff council, department management, and the head of the institution.
• I contacted regulatory authorities and the relevant ministry.
• Even the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (ADS) failed to answer my request.

This total ghosting is a violation of the legal right to file a complaint (under Section 13 of the AGG). My request also needs to be evaluated under the Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) because it points to systemic flaws in public management.

Intimidation Instead of Transparency
After I shared my experiences, I ran right into direct attempts to intimidate me. A Green Party member of the state parliament wrote to me:

"Good evening, do you get paid for this nonsense or do you do it for free? ... I'll report anything that has a criminal aspect immediately. I promise you. The rest of it couldn't care less." (Josef Winkler, Member of Parliament)

My Call to Action and Demand
I'm not fighting just for myself, because I'm used to this pain. I'm fighting for my kids and future generations so that discrimination has no place in our society. As elected representatives of the people, I'm asking you to:

1. Investigate the structural failure of state institutions in handling discrimination complaints.
2. Don't let the rights enshrined in the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) and civil laws be crushed by institutional apathy.

I look forward to confirmation that you received this info and to hearing what practical steps you'll take next.

Sincerely, Omid

Video Documentation of the Case

• Part 1 (YouTube)
• Part 2 (YouTube)
• Part 3 (YouTube)
• Part 4 (YouTube)