Asylum denial remains an option for refugee applicants (Merz)

In It to Stick It: Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) remains adamant on denying asylum seekers entry, disregarding a Berlin court's decision deeming such actions illegal. The SPD doesn't protest, yet urges consideration for the court's ruling.

Merz's stance was voiced at the municipal congress of the German Association of Towns and Municipalities in Berlin. He justified his stance, stating that while the court's decision has somewhat limited flexibility, there's still room for border rejections. "But make no mistake, we've got the balls to enact rejections," Merz declared.

Germany, he added, will perform these actions within EU law, stating, "We'll do it, to ensure public safety and order within our borders and relieve cities and municipalities from being swamped."

Miersch: Ponder the Implications

The court's decision, while significant, is far from the final word, SPD's Matthias Miersch asserted. He urged careful scrutiny of the decision's potential ramifications on further border proceedings.

Federal Minister of Justice Stefanie Hubig (SPD) spoke in assurance, "I have no doubt that the federal government will abide by court rulings." The three Somali applicants, backed by Pro Asyl, were sent back to Poland following the court's verdict.

Merz underscored that until the European Union strengthens its external borders with new rules, "We'll need to maintain internal border controls." Federal Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) intensified border controls on May 7 and ordered border rejections, but with exceptions, such as for children and pregnant women.

Somalis Returned to Poland

Following a Berlin court's urgent decision on Monday, three Somalis were rejected at a border control point at Frankfurt (Oder) railway station. Their rejection, the court ruled, was unjustified as the EU country responsible for their asylum application hadn't been determined.

Dobrindt: Rejections Due to Overwhelm

Dobrindt was unapologetic, asserting that border rejections fell in line with the law. He reiterated Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the "emergency clause," which allows exceptions for maintaining public order and internal security. Dobrindt pointed to the strain on integration resources, stating that overburdening justifies asylum seeker rejections.

"However, whether Germany as a whole can be inferred from the situation in individual municipalities is highly questionable," cautioned Winfried Kluth, a public law professor at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.

The Berlin Administrative Court acknowledged legal hurdles, with no appeals option available under the law. According to the court, an appeal isn't provided in asylum expedited proceedings to accelerate judicial proceedings under the Asylum Act.

Court: Border Rejections Unlawful

In their ruling, the Berlin judges assumed that the lawsuit's objective was achieved with the expedited proceedings. In this particular case, it involved two Somali men and a woman. The woman had also lodged a separate lawsuit. The woman's case was resolved in expedited proceedings, making a "matter resolved" situation likely. To minimize costs, the plaintiff could submit a "declaration of resolution." The Federal Ministry of the Interior could either join this or object to it.

"In that case, the court would focus solely on whether the legal dispute is resolved or not," explained the court spokeswoman. Additional substantive review would only occur if the court concluded otherwise.

Ministry of the Interior: No Further Pending Procedures

Post the court decision, Dobrindt vowed to maintain the practice at the border and pursue a main proceeding. Apart from the three cases addressed by the Berlin court's decision, no further pending procedures of rejected asylum seekers are known to the Federal Ministry of the Interior.

Justice Minister Hubig conceded that the Administrative Court hadn't definitively determined whether border rejections of asylum seekers were compatible with EU law. "However, convincing the judiciary that these rejections are legal will be no walk in the park," suspected Hubig. The European Court of Justice has the ultimate authority.

The Green Party intends to question Dobrindt about the legal basis and consequences of the controls and rejections during the Interior Committee meeting on Wednesday. "Courts disregarding the law should not set a precedent here," the Green interior politician, Lukas Benner, declared.

European Asylum Laws: A Quick Roundup

The Berlin Administrative Court's decision exemplifies the legal complexities surrounding asylum seeker rejections at European internal borders. Here's a brief rundown of current laws and regulations:

Dublin Regulation: Asylum claims must be processed by the EU country where the applicant first entered the EU. This regulation seeks to prevent multiple asylum applications across different EU countries and ensure each member state is responsible for processing claims from those who initially entered the EU.
EU's "Safe Third Country" Proposal: The European Commission proposes revising the "safe third country" concept, aiming to ease the transfer of asylum seekers for processing outside the EU.
Asylum Procedures Regulation: This regulation includes provisions for border procedures, potentially denying individuals entry during asylum claim processing.
Temporary Protection Directive: While not directly related to border rejections, this directive offers immediate protection to displaced people, such as those from Ukraine.
Return Regulation Proposal: The European Commission proposes a common system for returning third-country nationals staying illegally in the EU. This includes the establishment of "return hubs" and the mutual recognition of return decisions across member states.

The political implications of the Berlin court's decision on asylum seeker rejections are vast and require careful consideration, as SPD's Matthias Miersch emphasizes.
The ongoing debate between Merz and the SPD on asylum policy-and-legislation extends to their interpretations of the court's decision and the role of general-news in shaping public opinion on the matter.