Strategies employed by Dobrindt may pose a life-threatening risk to border officials.
By Sarah Platz
These days, over 17,000 federal officials find themselves at a crossroads, and it's Administrator Alexander Dobrindt who's guiding them. As the head of Germany's Interior Ministry, Dobrindt wields power over the Federal Police, meaning his orders become their commands. But what happens when those commands contradict the law or threaten to do so? Blind obedience no longer cuts it - not since the dark days of German administrative history. The responsibility on the officials themselves is increasing.
Some 17,000 police officers stand sentinel at German border control points, with 3,000 more en route. Their mission: detect and reject those without entry permits at the border. Applying for asylum in Germany is now largely off the table, a factual ban practically issued by Dobrindt just a day after taking office.
Polls Show Public Support for Dobrindt's Rejections
The officials are expected to adhere to Section 18 of the Asylum Act, which permits denying entry to aliens from "safe third countries" such as Poland, Austria, or France, but there's a twist. EU law supercedes national asylum law, a fact Germany acknowledges within its government. In other words, Dobrindt's lauded Paragraph 18 is rendered moot by the Dublin Regulations. So, when it comes to taking in asylum seekers, Germany is obligated to do so - at least until a resolution can be reached on individual cases.
The Berlin Administrative Court has just affirmed this, ruling the rejection of three Somalis illegal due to Dobrindt's policy. But the government didn't budge, vowing to continue with their rejections, invoking Paragraph 18 as the reasoning. "I assume we're within the bounds of European law," Dobrindt declared. However, the Berlin judges have already refuted that claim. Dobrindt bases his stance on the emergency exception regulation, Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. But the conditions for such an emergency are high indeed, requiring serious public order disturbances, similar to civil war or internal unrest, which the European Court of Justice has defined time and again. Germany's influx of asylum applications last year totaling 229,751 doesn't meet this criteria, the Berlin judges reasoned, especially since the numbers were already dropping before Dobrindt's instruction.
The Government's Argument is Failing to Impress
Patrick Heinemann, interviewed by ntv.de, commented on the unsurprising nature of the Berlin decision. But the government's response to this judgment leaves more questions than answers. Dobrindt remained adamant about the rejections, while Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz saw room for maneuver, but what exactly he implied remained vague.
"Never have I seen a federal government so shamelessly disregard a court decision, let alone an administrative court," said Heinemann, expressing widespread concerns about the rule of law. The court decisions apply not only to those three Somalis, but also to any other asylum seekers at the border. Heinemann pointed out that the court decisions have fundamental implications.
Moreover, the single judge handling the case escalated it "due to its fundamental importance" to a chamber of three members, as reported by Süddeutsche Zeitung. The government's arguments for the Somalis didn't concern them specifically, and Dobrindt's promise to provide "sufficient justification" if the European Court of Justice rules on the rejections is shadowy at best. Dobrindt's strategic footwork leads down a murky path, and its ultimate destination remains hazy.
A Risky Tightrope Walk for Officers
Should Dobrindt's policy continue, enforcement officers are in danger of wading into some legally shaky waters. Federal police ombudsman Uli Grotsch expressed his concerns to Rheinische Post, stating that the "difference between what the executive and judiciary are saying ought to be clarified as soon as possible." The officers themselves are asking themselves if they are acting lawfully, or perhaps even illegally, due to the escalating uncertainty.
Andreas Roßkopf, head of the federal police in the police trade union, voiced similar concerns in an interview with RTL, saying that officers are afraid of potential criminal consequences. Despite Dobrindt's insistence on the legality of the orders, the officers carry a growing burden of potential legal liability.
The officers can potentially lessen this liability by protesting the orders, first to their superior and then to the next level. While this isn't common practice, it would be wise for officers to speak up in the face of the killjoys of illegal actions.
Potential Legal Consequences
The complexities become even more intricate when considering the officers' own potential criminal liability for coercion. Forcefully preventing asylum seekers from crossing the border, either through threats of violence or serious harm, would likely violate the law. Several officers could potentially face charges for these offenses. However, the responsibility ultimately depends on the legality of the action and the officers' understanding of its illegality.
The clearer the illegal act, the greater the risk of criminal liability for the officers involved, according to Heinemann. As more administrative courts chime in, the risk for the officers may grow significantly.
"If other administrative courts rule similarly, the predicament for border guards will only intensify," Heinemann warned. Further, the government must adhere to court decisions, as pointed out by Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig. "Therefore, it's crystal clear: The interim decisions of the Berlin Administrative Court must be obeyed," she stated on her ministry's website.
So, as Dobrindt continues his standoff with the court, the risk of legal and career consequences for border guards increases. If Dobrindt acts against the courts, he too may find himself in a conundrum, facing possible legal and personal repercussions.
- Migration
- Alexander Dobrindt
- Asylum Law
Further Considerations:
If officers continue to follow Dobrindt's orders in violation of EU and German law, they could face a multitude of legal and professional consequences, including:
- Criminal charges for violating the law in enforcing policies deemed illegal by the courts.
- Civil liability in the form of damages for asylum seekers wrongly turned back.
- Disciplinary actions such as suspension or dismissal.
- International condemnation and potential sanctions from EU bodies.
- Professional repercussions including damage to reputation and future career opportunities.
Source: ntv.de
- Migration
- Alexander Dobrindt
- Asylum Law
Insights:
- Criminal Consequences: German police officers carrying out orders against a court ruling could face potential charges of coercion if they force asylum seekers to a certain behavior through threats or significant harm.
- International Impact: Ignoring potential further court rulings could lead to international criticism, sanctions, and reputational damage for Germany due to violations of EU regulations.
- Professional Consequences: Officers may face professional repercussions such as damage to their reputation and career advancement opportunities due to their involvement in controversial actions.
- The potential fallout from Dobrindt's defiant policy on asylum seekers, as enforced by German border guards, has sparked concerns about possible unlawful actions, which could lead to criminal charges, civil liability, disciplinary actions, international condemnation, and professional repercussions for the officers involved.
- The debate over Dobrindt's policy on asylum seekers and its legality unveils a complex web of policy-and-legislation issues that intersect with politics, general-news, and crime-and-justice, raising questions about the rule of law and the responsibilities of community and employment policies within the German government.
