Landmark judgment challenges Berlin’s approach as incompatible with EU obligations
Berlin. In a significant legal rebuke to Germany’s recent asylum enforcement measures, the Berlin Administrative Court has ruled that the government’s policy of rejecting asylum seekers at the border is illegal under European Union law, citing violations of the Dublin III Regulation and broader EU principles on asylum rights.
The ruling, first reported by jurist.com and based on court findings reviewed by Juri Berger of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, directly challenges a policy implemented by the conservative CDU-led federal government, which has aimed to curb asylum entries by turning individuals away at border crossings—particularly those entering from so-called “safe third countries” like Poland.
Court: Policy Violates EU Obligations
The case concerned three Somali nationals—two men and one woman—who were denied entry and forcibly returned to Poland after reaching German territory. The court found these rejections violated the Dublin III Regulation, which governs which EU member state is responsible for examining an asylum claim.
While the regulation does stipulate that the first EU country entered should typically process the claim, the Berlin court emphasized that each case must receive a proper individual assessment, including a hearing to determine if exceptions apply. These include factors such as health issues, humanitarian grounds, or—crucially in this case—minors’ protection. One of the plaintiffs claimed to be underage, which, if confirmed, would require Germany to consider the claim itself.
The court further clarified that systematic border rejections without individual assessment fall outside the legal bounds of both the Dublin system and EU fundamental rights obligations.
Rejection of German Government’s Legal Arguments
The German government had attempted to justify the policy by invoking Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which permits EU member states to suspend certain EU laws to protect public order and internal security.
However, the court dismissed this defense, citing previous rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which set a high bar for using Article 72. It found the government had provided no convincing evidence that the number of asylum seekers currently posed such a threat. In fact, the ruling notes, asylum numbers in Germany and across the EU have declined in recent years.
Merz Government Signals Defiance
Despite the ruling, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt have so far refused to reverse the policy, stating they will not instruct police or border forces to stop rejections at the border. Merz characterized the court’s judgment as a “singular decision,” implying that the government awaits a broader judicial resolution before changing course.
Still, he insisted that his administration wishes to remain “within the boundaries of EU law,” while signaling that they believe their interpretation of asylum rules is still open to debate.
Broader EU Tensions Over Asylum
The case marks the first major legal test of Germany’s border rejection policy, which had come under growing scrutiny from rights groups and legal scholars. It also throws Germany into the center of the EU asylum debate, as other member states like Poland and the Netherlands have also moved to limit or bypass European asylum standards in recent years—though generally through formal EU consultations or opt-out discussions.
Germany, by contrast, unilaterally halted Dublin transfer hearings, a step that many experts argue bypasses both the spirit and the structure of EU asylum law.
Legal and Political Implications
The ruling sets a potentially far-reaching precedent. Legal experts suggest that unless overturned by a higher court, it could force the German government to reinstate individual asylum assessments at the border, reinforcing the primacy of EU legal standards over national measures in asylum procedures.
With elections looming and migration policy remaining a polarizing issue, the judgment also carries political weight. If upheld, it could signal the limits of how far member states can go in tightening border controls without breaching European legal commitments.
Source: Excerpts from jurist.com article by Juri Berger, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, CH.
Higher Administrative Court Berlin by Georg Slickers
