Fixed-term employment contract financing?

Normally, chain contracts are not permitted. At the latest after the second (?) extension, a permanent position must be established. As cschiko correctly describes, it is different at the university, for example. There, the positions are largely (in my institute about 85%) funded by third-party funds. Then it can also be 15, or 8, or 23 contracts in a row.

There are probably also court rulings regarding third-party funding that led to permanent employment! Because usually the required fixed "project attachment" can be very well refuted or simply not legally proven. In many cases, one is paid from a project, but often has tasks in more than just one project. BUT as long as the fixed-term contract is basically acceptable to both sides, it is indeed quite okay in the current basic situation. One should rather question why there are not more internal funds available if the need for positions exists.

However, there are apparently also court rulings regarding third-party funding that led to permanent employment! Because usually the required fixed "project commitment" can be very well disproved or simply not legally proven. In many cases, one is paid from a project but often does not work only on one project. BUT as long as the fixed-term contract is basically okay for both sides, it is indeed quite acceptable in the current basic situation. One should rather question why there are not more internal funds available if the need for positions justifies it.

Full agreement!

It is not always nice for young people. Especially when you want to build a house and start a family, a permanent position is somehow emotionally nicer.

Exactly! Especially when there are tendencies, as was the case with me, that contracts are no longer extended even though both parties agree to continue working on a fixed-term basis. However, since this could eventually lead to a legal claim for permanent employment, the staff council has meanwhile become very petty in a contradictory way.

This has led to some people seeking to leave when an opportunity arose.

At the latest after the second (?) extension, a permanent position must be established.
This is, as cschiko correctly describes, different at universities, for example. There, positions are largely (about 85% in my institute) funded by third-party funds. Then it can also be 15, or 8, or 23 contracts in succession.

Third-party funding has NOTHING to do with this. Otherwise, regular companies could also save permanent positions by using arbitrary project durations.

There are special regulations in the Higher Education Act for universities that limit the maximum employment duration. It is politically desired and intended (yes, also by the universities) to employ staff for a maximum of 5 years with various exceptions such as parental leave. Universities are training institutions and should also train doctoral candidates for the private sector. Then at least with a doctorate. Otherwise, permanent employees would block a scientific position for 40 years. That would be a death blow for science.

By the way, large institutes can also permanently employ scientific staff at will. This is quite easy via bilateral industrial projects and the freely generated funds from them. The institutes all have affiliated GmbHs. Of course, they still only grant permanent contracts exceptionally. The people who get such contracts do not stay long. Just recently, Prof. Günther Schuh came up again in the news with flying taxis. The good man has a huge network of companies parallel to his chair and his Fraunhofer department.

So I can understand that doctoral candidates should not be allowed to "hang around" in the respective positions indefinitely, both during and after this period, thereby preventing others from having the same opportunity to obtain their doctorate. But why lecturers, who are employed as teaching staff (with certain freedoms for research), should only receive fixed-term contracts for many years is not clear to me, but it is equally common.