"Breaking the Norms" Dobrindt's Tactic might mean trouble for border police officers
Tactics employed by Dobrindt may potentially prove lethal for border agents
By Loose ScoopMore Info | Facebook | Twitter | WhatsApp | Email | Print | Copy Link
The Berlin Administrative Court has declared that dismissing asylum seekers clashes with EU law. Nonetheless, Dobrindt insists on the practice. This raises questions about the rule of law – and might become a personal issue for the border cops.
Almost 17,000 federal officers stand guard at the German border, another 3,000 are on the way. Their tasks include detecting and denying entry to folks without all the necessary papers. That includes asylum seekers who want to file for asylum in Germany.
One day after taking office, Dobrindt ordered a de facto entry ban for all unauthorized individuals – despite EU law taking precedence. The ordinance gets shot down by Dublin regulations, which mandate Germany to accept asylum seekers until their case can be properly evaluated.
"Perplexing" Response to Court Ruling
The Berlin Administrative Court reached the same conclusion recently. They decided that denying three Somalis access was unlawful. The court disproved the government's reasoning. The government argued that Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU allowed them to bypass the Dublin regulations in case of emergency. However, the requirements for such a state, like internal unrest or an impending civil war, are highly demanding. The European Court of Justice has previously clarified this. As such, the current level of asylum applications in Germany doesn't qualify as an emergency, the judges explained.
Politics RTL/ntv-Trendbarometer A vast majority supports Dobrindt's rejections "Given this context, the Berlin decision wasn't a shock," said Patrick Heinemann in an interview with ntv.de. What was more puzzling was the government's reaction to the court decisions. Dobrindt stated they would persist with the rejections, citing paragraph 18 of the Asylum Act as the legal basis. Heinemann believes that the Berlin judges have clearly stated the opposite. Dobrindt believes that the individual cases account for the discrepancy.
Dobrindt's Argument is Weak
"I have never seen a federal government treat a court decision with such disregard, let alone one from an administrative court," Heinemann added justly. The separation of powers is necessary for a rule of law to exist. And that means the executive must adhere to the law in all its actions – and judicial oversight is a part of that.
Despite Dobrindt arguing that the court decisions involve specific cases, many share Heinemann's perspective that the judgment has broader implications. The court concluded that there's no emergency situation in Germany to warrant dodging the Dublin Regulation. The grounds for the decision carry significant weight and affect any asylum seeker in the vicinity of the border.
Politics Police Union Disagrees Merz Disagrees with Citizen Militias in Germany Moreover, the court case was referred "due to its fundamental importance" to a panel of three judges by the originally responsible judge. Their primary concern wasn't specific to the three Somalis. Dobrindt announced that they would offer "adequate justification" for the alleged emergency if the European Court of Justice rules on the rejections, but they neglected to provide these grounds in the Berlin proceedings. Failing to do so may have allowed them to lose the case.
Boxing themselves into a Corner
In Heinemann's opinion, the government's reaction might be nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue. The current border practice, as validated by the court, seems illegitimate. The growing unease among the authorities is being noticed.
"I can see that the executive and judiciary are presenting conflicting messages. I consider this a truly problematic situation that needs to be resolved as soon as possible," said Police Ombudsman Uli Grotsch to the Rheinische Post. "The officers are now questioning: Are we still operating within the law, or perhaps even unlawfully?" Federal Police Trade Union's Chairman Roßkopf mentioned his concern in an interview with RTL. Some worry about facing legal consequences.
Politics After the Berlin ruling: "The pressure on Dobrindt may escalate faster than expected" As "absolutely unreasonable" as Dobrindt assesses these fears, they might have a grain of truth. While the legal barriers to action for police officers are high, they bear personal responsibility for the legality of their actions under the Federal Civil Service Act. The officers are not exempt from personal liability because they're following a clear instruction.
However, the officers could avoid getting caught between obeying orders and personal responsibility by speaking up. If they express their concerns twice first to their superior and then to the next higher ranking officer, they're typically relieved from personal responsibility according to Heinemann. While this is not frequently done in practice, it would be wise for the officers to lodge their objections – especially now that the illegality is becoming more apparent.
The Thin Red Line
Completely unfounded police rejections could land officers in hot water. While the legal hurdles for the officers are high, they're personally responsible for the legality of their actions under the Federal Civil Service Act. Officers might be forced to face individual legal action or disciplinary measures.
It's critical to note that the officers' actions would need to be both illegal and obviously so for them to face potential criminal charges. "The clearer the illegality, the higher the risk of criminal action," said Heinemann. The Berlin Administrative Court's ruling could set a precedent, with other courts potentially reaching similar conclusions. In that case, the dilemma for border guards might intensify.
Source: ntv.de
- Migration
- Alexander Dobrindt
- Asylum Law
Enrichment Data:
Potential Consequences for Border Officers:
- Individual Legal Actions: If border guards are found to have violated the law by turning away asylum seekers, they might face individual legal actions or disciplinary measures.
- Personal Liability: Officers bear personal responsibility for the legality of their actions under the Federal Civil Service Act. Refusing to acknowledge and address this responsibility could lead to legal consequences.
- International Pressure: Continued non-compliance could lead to heightened international scrutiny and potential diplomatic fallout with other EU member states.
- Pressure from Public Opinion: The public and advocacy groups may apply pressure on the government and law enforcement agents, raising concerns over ethical practices in border control and affecting the reputation of those involved.
- Officers' Safety: Tension among the public, potential protesters, or hate groups may arise, increasing risks to the safety of law enforcement agents on the ground.
- Political Fallout: Ongoing defiance of court rulings and European law could impact the government's political standing and damage their credibility with voters and EU partners.
- Long-term Impact on Career Progression: Actions contradicting established legal precedents may have long-term repercussions for officers' careers, affecting their chances for promotions or advancement opportunities.
- The perplexing response of the German government to the Berlin Administrative Court's ruling on the denial of asylum seekers and its disregard for EU law poses a potential issue for border police officers, as they may face individual legal actions or disciplinary measures due to personal liability for the legality of their actions under the Federal Civil Service Act.
- Meanwhile, the increasing unease among authorities and conflicting messages between the executive and judiciary have raised questions among border cops about their adherence to community and employment policies, with some officers expressing concern about potential legal consequences for unlawful actions, as the clearer the illegality, the higher the risk of criminal action.
