Uncompromising on Repatriation: German Immigration Policy in Quest
Refusal of Asylum Seekers' Applications Remains Permissible (Merz)
A whirlwind in Berlin's immigration policy sphere, courtesy of Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU), unfolded as the hardline stance on repatriating asylum seekers at the border still thrived, defying a specific court decision deeming it unlawful. The opposition came from the coalition partner, the SPD, who pushed the government to respect the Berlin court's decision.
Merz, addressing the Communal Congress of the German Cities and Municipalities Association in Berlin, proclaimed, "Although the options have slightly narrowed due to the court ruling, they're still in play. We will carry out repatriations." Emphasizing their commitment to sticking within the boundaries of existing European law, Merz added, "We strive to protect public safety and order in our country and steer clear of overwhelming cities and municipalities."
Miersch Cautions: Weigh the Consequences
In response, Matthias Miersch, the SPD parliamentary group leader, deemed the court decision fundamental but not final. He urged pondering the impacts the decision might have on future border procedures.
Meanwhile, Federal Minister of Justice Stefanie Hubig (SPD) affirmed, "I have no doubt that the government will abide by the court's decisions." The court's ruling resulted in proceedings according to the so-called Dublin rules, which dictate which EU country is accountable for an asylum applicant's procedure.
Merz firmly asserted that owing to the unabated chaos at Europe's external borders, "stringent internal border controls" would persist. As recently as May 7, Federal Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) ordered amplified border controls and repatriation of asylum seekers at the border, with exceptions such as children and pregnant women.
Somalis Sent Back to Poland; Dobrindt Stands Firm
The Berlin Administrative Court ruled on Monday that the repatriation of three Somalis at a border control at Frankfurt (Oder) station was unlawful due to the lack of clarification about which EU country should handle the applicants' asylum claims. The trio, backed by Pro Asyl, was returned to Poland.
Dobrindt reaffirmed his stance in Berlin, stating, "We're positive that our repatriation actions align with the law." He repeatedly invoked Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows exemptions when preserving public order and internal security is at stake. Dobrindt expressed concern regarding the immense burden of irregular migration on integration capabilities, schools, healthcare, and even kindergartens, citing these as justifications for repatriation.
Critics like Winfried Kluth, professor of public law at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, question the validity of drawing assumptions about the entirety of Germany based on the conditions in specific municipalities.
Legal Loopholes, Impossibility of Appeal, and the Quest for Judicial Clarity
According to the Berlin Administrative Court, there are several legal hurdles to an appeal against their decision to the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg. The particular legal dispute procedure pertaining to asylum matters in urgent proceedings does not allow an appeal.
The court spokesperson explained that the federal legislator intended to expedite judicial urgent proceedings in legal disputes related to asylum issues through this unique procedure. As a result, the court delves deeper into the case during urgent proceedings in asylum matters.
The Berlin judges focused on achieving their goal in the lawsuit with the urgent procedure. The case in question concerned two men and a young woman from Somalia. The woman had also filed a lawsuit in addition to the urgent application. Since she has resolved her case in the urgent procedure, a "disposal situation" likely exists. However, she may issue a disposal declaration, which the Federal Ministry of the Interior could either join or object to. In such a case, the court would only examine whether the legal dispute has been resolved or not. A further substantive review would take place only if the court concluded otherwise.
After the court's decision, Dobrindt expressed intentions to stick to the border practices and pursue the main proceeding. The Federal Ministry of the Interior is reportedly unaware of any other pending proceedings involving rejected asylum seekers, apart from the three cases covered by the Berlin court's decision.
Hubig clarified that the court had not definitively settled whether repatriating asylum seekers at the internal borders was consistent with European law. "Convincing the courts that these rejections are lawful is not going to be easy," Hubig suspected, acknowledging that the final say ultimately rests with the European Court of Justice.
The Green faction plans to question Dobrindt during the meeting of the Interior Committee on Wednesday about the legal foundations and consequences of the controls and rejections. "Ignorant decisions shouldn't set a precedent here," Green interior politician Lukas Benner remarked.
Merz's stance on repatriation, despite the court decision, is part of the ongoing policy-and-legislation discussions in the realm of politics and general-news. Miersch urges caution, emphasizing the potential impact on future border procedures due to the court decision.
){kind=link}