Dobrindt Stands Firm on Border Rejections: "We'll Win the Main Proceedings"
Dobrindt responds to court decision: "We adhere to our rejections" - Court ruling upholds Dobrindt's stance: 'We adhere to the refusals'
In a recent twist, the Berlin Administrative Court has ruled that the rejection of three Somali individuals at border controls was unlawful. According to the ruling, Germany must initiate asylum procedures for these three individuals and determine which EU member state holds responsibility under the Dublin Regulation. Although this decision applies solely to these three individuals, the court has hinted that such rejections at border controls in similar cases may be unlawful.
The Somali trio attempted to cross the German border on May 2nd and May 3rd without filing an asylum application, resulting in their rejection. They reappeared at the border on May 9th, filed an asylum application, but were once again refused due to their "previous border encounters." Alexander Dobrindt, CSU politician, supports the police's decision as appropriate.
The court's ruling emphasizes that a Dublin examination must be carried out, with Germany determining which member state holds responsibility for the asylum procedure, as stated by the minister. However, these are interim decisions by the court, and the ministry is actively pursuing the main proceedings with conviction that they will "clearly" win.
Between May 8th and June 1st, 2850 individuals were rejected at the borders, with 179 of them filing an asylum application. 138 of these applications were rejected, and the remaining 41 were from vulnerable groups. Dobrindt found these numbers "unacceptably high," justifying the continued rejections.
Border control reinforcement and refusal of refugee entry were instituted by Dobrindt on May 7th. This is not a long-term measure, according to the minister, and particularly vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women are exempted from the rejections.
- Alexander Dobrindt
- Border Control
- Rejection
- CSU
- Germany
- Berlin
- Administrative Court
- Somalia
- EU
Enrichment Data:The Berlin Administrative Court's ruling challenges the German government's border control policy, suggesting that turning away asylum seekers without thorough examination of their claims may be unlawful. Prior court rulings have stressed the obligation for Germany to adhere to EU immigration policies like the Dublin system, which requires case-by-case examination of asylum applications. Despite the ruling, the German government remains unwavering in its pursuit of stricter asylum measures, including designating "safe countries of origin"[2][3]. The continuing tension between the government's migration policy and the court's rulings is likely to shape future legal challenges. [1][4] [5]
- The Berlin Administrative Court's ruling, challenging Germany's border control policy, implies that rejecting asylum seekers without a thorough examination of their claims may be considered unlawful under community law, as seen in past court decisions emphasizing the need for Germany to abide by EU immigration policies like the Dublin system.
- Alexander Dobrindt, a CSU politician, continues to defend Germany's border rejections, expressing confidence that they will prevail in the main proceedings, despite the court's interim decision suggesting potential policy-and-legislation implications regarding politics involving general-news regarding the treatment of asylum seekers at the borders.
