Berlin’s Senate Culture Administration distributed 2.619 million euros (approximately 2.8 million USD) in funding for antisemitism projects through a process the state audit office has declared “evidently unlawful,” according to a report set for official release on Friday.
The Landesrechnungshof found that six of the 13 funded projects were ineligible because they were submitted by private companies rather than nonprofit organizations, violating a core requirement for this type of grant. This alone accounts for two million euros (approximately 2.1 million USD) in improperly allocated funds, the auditors stated, raising serious concerns about budgetary compliance.
Investigators determined that the administration made a preselection of projects without establishing a transparent, non-discriminatory selection procedure, thereby violating principles of equal opportunity. Other interested parties were effectively excluded from consideration, even though a prior jury process for allocating another portion of the ten million euro antisemitism fund had left viable applicants unfunded due to limited resources.
Crucially, the audit office noted that the 13 projects labeled as having “special political significance” were not subjected to any substantive review. Agency files lacked documentation explaining how funding decisions were justified, a gap the auditors attributed to years of missing funding guidelines within the culture administration.
The review was initiated at the request of Culture Senator Sarah Wedl-Wilson, who, shortly after taking office under pressure from her CDU faction, approved funding proposals that had been recommended by her party. Her staff had repeatedly warned her that proper vetting was not taking place, according to both sources.
In response to the findings, Senator Wedl-Wilson has accepted the audit office’s recommendations and pledged to implement them, including the establishment of clear rules, verifiable criteria, improved oversight, and legally secure procedures. She similarly proposed relocating latest funding pools to departments with appropriate expertise and resources.
However, she dismissed State Secretary Oliver Friederici on Tuesday, a official who had repeatedly warned against the special award procedure and at times refused to co-sign decisions. Friederici’s removal was condemned by Green, Left, and AfD members of the state parliament as a “sacrificial lamb” maneuver intended to deflect responsibility from the senator and her CDU colleagues.
The audit office emphasized that its investigation focused solely on administrative legality, not on whether the funded projects were effective in combating antisemitism.
How the funding process violated equal treatment principles
The administration’s unilateral selection of projects without an open call created a barrier to entry for other applicants, despite demonstrated interest in the funding pool. By bypassing a competitive or jury-based method, the Senate excluded potential contenders who might have met both the formal and thematic requirements.
Why the auditors cite missing guidelines as a systemic failure
The absence of formal funding criteria over multiple years left officials without a framework to assess eligibility or justify discretionary choices, leading to decisions that could not be traced back to objective standards—a failure the audit office identifies as foundational to the unlawful outcome.
What happens next in Berlin’s cultural funding oversight
Senator Wedl-Wilson has committed to implementing the audit office’s recommendations, including the creation of transparent procedures and the relocation of funding authority to units with subject-matter expertise, though the timeline and structural details of these reforms remain unspecified.
Were the funded projects effective in fighting antisemitism?
The audit office did not evaluate the effectiveness or content of the projects, focusing exclusively on the legality of the allocation process.
Could the misallocated funds be recovered?
The sources do not indicate whether recovery efforts are planned or legally possible; the report highlights the unlawful nature of the disbursements but does not specify remedial financial actions.
