Illegal: asylum seekers rejected at the border - political chaos!

Illegal: asylum seekers rejected at the border - political chaos!

Frankfurt (Oder), Deutschland - The Berlin Administrative Court decided that the rejection of three Somali asylum seekers at the German-Polish border was ill. This decision ensured sharp criticism from the CDU and CSU, which accused the aid organization Pro Asylus of provoking the judgment through supposed recommendations to refugees. CSU state group leader Hoffmann also expressed doubts about the credibility of the asylum seekers and claimed that Pro Asylum recommended refugees to throw away their ID cards to make the deportations difficult.

The court found in its judgment that the returns on May 9th by the Federal Police at Frankfurt (Oder) train station were carried out without prior clarification of the jurisdiction of an EU state. This is a violation of the Dublin procedure that regulates that is responsible for an asylum procedure. According to the Dublin III Ordinance, asylum seekers who express an asylum application in the German territory are not rejected without proper execution of the procedure, as was stipulated in the decision.

illegality of the rejections

In his argument, the administrative court found that the German authorities have to clarify which Member State is responsible for the asylum procedure. The federal police had justified the rejection by assuming that Poland was a safe third country, which the court considered insufficient. Dobrindt's attempt to refer to Article 72 of the TFEU was rejected because the need for a risk to public security was not sufficiently presented.

Federal Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt still plans to have increased border controls and adheres to the rejections in the controversy. He announced that he may have the decision checked by the European Court of Justice. Despite the judicial decision, it was made clear that the federal police can continue the rejections for the time being, which could lead to increasing pressure on the federal government if other courts make similar decisions.

criticism of the federal government

asylum law expert Daniel Thym criticized the previous reasons for the rejections and called for a comprehensive statement from the Federal Government. Pro asylum sees the judgment as a clear call to politics to end the practice of rejections contrary to European law. The weapons of the critics are sharp: Throm from the CDU accused Pro Asylic support for illegal border crossings, while the organization rejects the allegations as false assumptions.

The factual behavior also raises questions regarding the Dublin procedure that regulates responsibility for asylum procedures in the EU. According to the bamf , the procedure has the goal that every asylum application is only checked by a member state in order to control the secondary hike within Europe. In the case of the three Somali asylum seekers, however, this process was not properly observed, which could now have legal consequences.

The current situation illustrates the tensions between the political actors who pursue both the protection of human rights and compliance with legal regulations. It remains to be seen how the legal situation will develop under the pressure of further judgments.