"Troubling Tactics" Dobrindt's Move Could Lead to Challenges for Border Patrol Officers
Aggressive strategies by Dobrindt might lead to severe consequences for border officers.
Article by Sarah Platz
The Berlin Administrative Court's decision that the rejection of asylum seekers doesn't align with EU law has left Federal Minister of the Interior, Dobrindt, undeterred. His persistence, however, raises concerns about the rule of law, potentially causing problems not just for the government, but for thousands of border control agents.
For nearly 17,000 federal officers, Dobrindt's current actions could become a delicate balancing act. As their superior, Dobrindt instructs these Federal Police officers to carry out their duties. But what happens when the superior's orders appear to contradict or jeopardize the law? Blind obedience is no longer an option, particularly after Germany's dark history of administrative abuses. Instead, the responsibilities of the officers themselves grow.
With over 14,000 officers posted at German border checkpoints and an additional 3,000 on the way, their primary task is to detect and reject unauthorized border crossings – a directive that now includes most asylum seekers. In response to taking office, Dobrindt issued an immediate instruction to bar all people without permits from entering Germany, except in a few instances.
Public Opinion Polls: Majority Supports Dobrindt's Rejections
The officials are now tasked with enforcing Section 18 of the Asylum Act, which enables foreigners to be denied entry if they originate from countries considered safe, such as Poland, Austria, or France. This seems like a clear-cut policy, but it presents a loophole – EU law is to prevail over national asylum law. This fact is universally acknowledged within the federal government. This means that Section 18, praised by Dobrindt, is superseded by the Dublin Regulations. Hence, Germany must accept asylum seekers until their responsible country has been determined in an orderly manner.
The Berlin Administrative Court's judgement confirms this. The judges declared that the rejection of three Somalis was illegal. They rejected the government's arguments. The government argues that Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, an exception regulation, allows them to circumvent the Dublin Regulations during a state of emergency. However, the Berlin judges stated that such a state does not presently exist in Germany. Japan argued that the overall asylum application numbers had increased, but the judges explained that the numbers had already started declining before Dobrindt's directive.
Politics: Diverging Views on the Berlin Court Ruling
"The Berlin court's decision was scarcely surprising," says Patrick Heinemann in an interview with ntv.de. What's more puzzling, however, is the government's response to the ruling. Dobrindt announced that they would continue with the rejections, still citing Section 18 of the Asylum Act as the legal basis. On the contrary, the Berlin judges have asserted the opposite. Dobrindt attributed this to the nuances of the individual cases, yet the court's grounds could affect more than just the three Somalis.
The originally responsible judge had even referred the case to a panel of three adjudicators due to its "fundamental significance." Dobrindt has since stated that they would provide "sufficient justification" if the European Court of Justice decides on the rejections. Still, the figures previously mentioned were nationwide, rendering it unclear why Dobrindt didn't bring up any further indications of an emergency situation in the Berlin proceedings to avoid a loss.
In My Opinion: Dobrindt's Objection is Weak
"I've never seen a federal government so flagrantly disregard a court decision, let alone one from an administrative court," says Heinemann. Following separate powers is crucial for the rule of law. In this context, the executive must adhere to the law in all its actions, with the judiciary holding the power to verify them. The significance of the Berlin decisions goes beyond the specific cases. The court confirmed that there is no emergency situation in Germany to deviate from the Dublin Regulation. These decisions, therefore, apply to all asylum seekers at the German border.
Confusion Among the Officers
The disconnect between the executive and the judiciary is cause for concern, making it essential to address the issue promptly. Uli Grotsch, the Federal Police Ombudsman, shared these concerns, stating, "The officers are starting to question: Are we still acting lawfully, or perhaps even illegally?"
Andreas Roßkopf, the Chairman of the Federal Police in the Police Trade Union, echoed these concerns. Some even feared potential criminal consequences.
Legal Hurdles for Police Officers: What's at Stake?
Even though the legal hurdles for police officers are tall, they carry full personal responsibility for the lawfulness of their actions according to the Federal Civil Service Act. Roßkopf had recently demanded a written clarification from the Interior Ministry, absolving the officers from the court proceedings. However, this would not likely have the desired effect, according to Heinemann. "There is no such 'get-out-of-jail-free' card."
To avoid getting caught between the need to follow orders and personal liability, the officers have another option: remonstration. If they express their concerns to their superior twice, followed by another superior, they are generally released from their personal responsibility. While it rarely happens in practice, this might be advisable under the circumstances, especially since the illegal nature of the orders is becoming increasingly clear.
Criminal liability for coercion in office is also possible. This may be evident if officers use force or threats of violence or significant harm to prevent asylum seekers, armed and uniformed, from crossing the border. This may make many police officers liable for coercion. The significance lies in determining whether their action was unlawful and whether they were aware of it.
"The clearer the illegality, the higher the risk of criminal liability," explains Heinemann. With the Berlin Administrative Court's decision, the risk might still be manageable at this stage. Nonetheless, further court decisions could change this scenario. Especially since recently, even Federal Minister of Justice, Stefanie Hubig, publicly spoke in this direction. As she stated on the ministry's website, the government must comply with court decisions. "Therefore, it is clear: the interim decisions of the Berlin Administrative Court must be implemented."
Brief Update: Daily Cases of Confusion Among Border Guards
The longer Dobrindt insists on his rejections at the border, the more complicated it will become for his federal officials. "At a certain point, even protests may no longer suffice to shift responsibility," adds Heinemann. "This applies to Dobrindt himself as well." Unlike in the US, government members in Germany can also face criminal charges for illegal actions. Dobrindt should thus avoid disregarding potential further court decisions for both legal and personal reasons.
Markers: Immigration, Alexander Dobrindt, Asylum Law
Enrichment Data:
The current legal status of asylum seekers at the German border is complex and heavily influenced by recent developments:
- Court Rulings on Border Rejections: Asylum seekers have been turned away at Germany's borders, a practice known as pushbacks, ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court deems this illegal[6].
- On-going Policy Dispute: Despite this ruling, the German government, led by Interior Minister Dobrindt, persists in enforcing border policies, raising questions about compliance with the court's decision[6].
- Yearly Asylum Application Trends: Germany has observed a decline in the number of asylum applications, with figures dropping from 352,000 in 2025 to 250,000 in 2026[3].
- Classification of Safe Countries: Germany is considering changes to the list of "safe countries of origin," which may influence asylum seekers from countries such as Algeria[1]. However, this does not directly address policies at the border.
- EU Perspective: The broader European context has seen a shift in asylum trends, with Syria no longer being a significant source of asylum seekers[2]. Additionally, a recent court ruling in Germany suggests that country conditions in Syria may be reassessed for asylum claims[4].
In summary, the court's decision against pushbacks contrasts with the government's continued efforts to enforce border policies. Asylum seekers at the German border face legal uncertainty due to conflicting measures and court decisions.
Community policy should specify the actions that border control agents can take in response to Dobrindt's controversial border rejections, as the Berlin Administrative Court has ruled them illegal. General-news outlets report that the officials are currently tasked with enforcing Section 18 of the Asylum Act, but the law conflicts with EU law. Politics experts argue that Dobrindt's obstinate defiance of court decisions could lead to challenges for these officers, as their employment policy mandates them to follow the law, and blind obedience is no longer an option in light of Germany's history of administrative abuses. Crime-and-justice issues may arise if border control agents continue to enforce illegal orders, potentially facing criminal consequences for coercion in office.
![Hannover welcomes newcomer Bastian Allgeier in fresh relocation. [Photograph included.]](/en/img/20250615164744_pexels-image-search-image-description-headline-description.jpeg?width=1280&crop=4-3&quality=75)
