Aggressive strategies by Dobrindt pose potential risks to border enforcement officials.
**"Stepping into the Gray" -- Dobrindt's Actions May Put Border Agents in Legal Hot Water
By Sarah Platz
The Berlin Administrative Court has deemed the rejection of asylum seekers as violating EU law. Nevertheless, Interior Minister Dobrindt remains adamant about enforcing the practice. This raises questions about upholding the rule of law – and could spell trouble, not just for the government, but for Germany's border agents.
For more than 17,000 federal officials, Dobrindt's current approach could become a precarious tightrope act. As the federal interior minister, this CSU politician oversees the federal police, making them responsible for executing his instructions. But what if those directives potentially violate or threaten to breach laws? Blind obedience might no longer be an option, as the dark days of German administrative history have shown. Instead, the officials' personal accountability increases.
Overseeing the German border controls, some 14,000 police officers – with 3,000 more on the way – are responsible for detecting and denying entry to individuals without a permit. Following Dobrindt's orders issued just a day after he took office, this now includes asylum seekers seeking to apply in Germany. Technically, this means a de facto ban on entry for all unauthorized individuals.
Public Opinion Many Agree with Dobrindt's Rejections, Critics Raise Questions
The ministers are now expected to abide by section 18 of the Asylum Act. According to this, foreigners should be refused entry if they hail from a safe third country like Poland, Austria, or France. However, EU law supersedes national asylum law, as agreed upon without dispute – even within the federal government. This means that Dobrindt's praised section 18 is overridden by the Dublin Regulations. Consequently, Germany has a binding obligation to accept asylum seekers, as long as their status is sorted out in an orderly manner.
In the Court's Words Berlin Judges Denounce Government's Argumentation
The Berlin Administrative Court recently reached this conclusion. The judges forcefully rejected the government's reasoning. The government leans on Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, a kind of exception regulation. This could allow the Dublin Regulations to be circumvented if Germany were in a state of emergency. Yet, the prerequisites for such an emergency – as many already know – are extremely stringent. Public order must be seriously jeopardized, as one might find in an impending civil war or widespread internal unrest. The European Court of Justice has already clarified these conditions on multiple occasions. Accordingly, the government's cited numbers of asylum applications for a total of 229,751 last year do not constitute an emergency, the Berlin judges explained, especially since those numbers had already started declining before Dobrindt's orders.
Political Response Dobrindt Stands Firm, Critics Cry Foul
"In light of this ruling, the decision from Berlin was far from surprising," Patrick Heinemann shared in an interview with ntv.de. What is puzzling, however, is the government's response to the court's rulings. Dobrindt promptly declared that they would continue to enforce the rejections, citing section 18 of the Asylum Act as the legal basis. He claims that this keeps him within the bounds of European law. However, the Berlin judges have unequivocally stated the opposite. Dobrindt attributes this discrepancy to the individual cases under consideration. Merz assumes that the government still has some "maneuverability" after the court decisions. Yet, the specifics of this remain unclear.
Legal Analysis Dobrindt's Objections Fall Short
"I have never seen a federal government so resolutely ignore a court decision, let alone one from an administrative court," says Heinemann. The separation of powers is essential for upholding the rule of law. This means that the executive must adhere to the law in every action – a task that falls to the judiciary for verification. The supreme courts – both national and international – play a crucial role in this examination. In fact, it is the primary responsibility of all German administrative courts to scrutinize the legalities of the administration and government's actions.
Formally, the Berlin decisions are individual decisions. However, Heinemann points out that court decisions often have significance beyond the parties involved in the legal proceedings. "And that is clearly the case here." The court established that there is no state of emergency in Germany to justify deviating from the Dublin Regulation. These grounds could hardly be clearer. They apply not only to the three Somalis but also to any other asylum seekers at the German border.
Potential Precedent ** Legal Consequences for Border Agents**
The government's unwavering stance could put German border agents in a difficult position legally. If they continue to execute Dobrindt's orders, they may face individual liability for violating the law, potentially leading to legal action. Dobrindt's assertion that they are not personally liable because they are following a clear instruction is incorrect, as police officers bear full personal responsibility under the Federal Civil Service Act for the legality of their actions. There is no way to absolve themselves of this responsibility in advance.
However, there is another path to avoid getting caught between adhering to instructions and personal responsibility: remonstrance. If the agents express their concerns twice, first to their superior and then to the next supervisor, they are generally relieved of their personal responsibility, as Heinemann explains. While this is not common practice, Heinemann advises that border agents should consider remonstrating – especially now, as the illegality becomes increasingly apparent.
Additional Implications ** Potential Human Rights Issues, Diplomatic Tensions**
Turning away asylum seekers without proper assessment could be seen as a violation of their human rights, particularly the right to seek asylum. This could lead to international scrutiny and possible legal action under human rights frameworks. Additionally, continuing with the policy could lead to diplomatic tensions, as it challenges established international norms on asylum and migration.
Moving forward, the government's resistance to court rulings could be a slippery slope, potentially leading to further challenges to the rule of law and international norms. The situation demands a careful balancing act, ensuring that both the responsibilities of border agents and adherence to the law are respected.
- In light of the Berlin Administrative Court's decision, the employment policies for federal officials, especially those responsible for border control, should consider the personal accountability of officials when executing orders that potentially violate or threaten to breach laws, such as the escalating asylum policy debate.
- The ongoing community policy disputes surrounding asylum seekers, including Dobrindt's stance, have significant implications for education-and-self-development, politics, general-news, and crime-and-justice, as they may result in human rights violations, legal action, and diplomatic tensions, underscoring the importance of upholding the rule of law and international norms.
