Berlin Court Halts Border Pushbacks: Germany Must Follow EU Asylum Rules, Judges Rule

Court Rules Border Pushbacks Violate EU Law

A landmark ruling from the Berlin Administrative Court has declared the German government’s new policy of turning back asylum seekers at the border without a proper procedure as unlawful. The decision came in response to emergency appeals from three Somali nationals who were denied entry despite declaring their intent to seek asylum. Legal experts and human rights organizations are calling the ruling a major setback for the federal government’s controversial immigration approach introduced in early May.

Asylum Seekers Rejected at Frankfurt (Oder) Station

On May 9, two men and one woman from Somalia arrived by train from Poland and were intercepted by federal police at Frankfurt (Oder) station. After expressing a formal asylum request, they were not processed under the European Union’s Dublin Regulation but instead sent back to Poland the same day.

This handling, according to the court, violated established EU procedures. The Dublin Regulation requires that asylum requests made on EU territory must first be evaluated through a designated legal process to determine which member state is responsible for the application. Germany is obligated to initiate and complete this procedure before considering a return or transfer.

Legal Experts: Decision Was Expected

Legal professionals were not surprised by the court’s intervention. Philipp Pruy, a specialist in European asylum law, stated that bypassing the Dublin process was clearly against EU legal standards. He pointed to a 2023 judgment by the European Court of Justice (C-143/22), which reaffirmed that member states cannot refuse asylum claims at internal EU borders without initiating the required procedures.

Pruy emphasized that asylum seekers arriving by land, sea, or air must be given access to the appropriate legal mechanisms, regardless of their point of entry into the EU. “Skipping the Dublin process and returning people immediately contradicts binding European law,” he explained.

Interior Minister Dobrindt’s Policy Under Fire

The court’s ruling directly challenges the emergency policy introduced by Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt just hours after taking office on May 7. His directive called for intensified border checks and authorized pushbacks of asylum seekers arriving from other EU states, framing the move as necessary to protect public order.

The government attempted to justify the decision using Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows member states to override EU law in cases of severe threats to public security. Officials cited the high number of asylum claims filed in Germany—nearly a quarter of all applications in the EU in the previous year—as proof of systemic strain.

However, the Berlin court rejected this rationale, stating that the government failed to demonstrate an imminent threat or explain how immediate border pushbacks would mitigate such a situation. The court also noted the lack of coordination with neighboring countries, particularly Poland, and emphasized the EU principle of “loyal cooperation,” which obliges member states to work together before adopting unilateral measures.

Eurodac System and Legal Obligations Ignored

The court dismissed arguments from the federal police that the presence of previous registrations in the EU’s Eurodac fingerprint database was enough to justify a summary return. Instead, the judges insisted that such data only informs the Dublin process—it does not replace it. The asylum seekers should have been transferred to a reception center in Germany and formally processed before any return could be considered.

According to asylum procedures, only after verifying through Dublin regulations that another country is responsible may Germany request a transfer, which must then include a deadline for voluntary departure or an official expulsion notice. None of these steps were followed in the Somali applicants’ case.

Political Pressure Mounts

The decision has sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum. Clara Bünger of the Left Party called for Dobrindt’s immediate resignation, accusing him of knowingly violating the law. The Green Party echoed these demands, labeling the federal policy a “national solo effort” that undermines the EU as a union governed by legal norms.

Britta Haßelmann, co-chair of the Green parliamentary group, warned that bypassing EU asylum mechanisms not only harms individuals in need but also damages Germany’s credibility in Europe. Parliamentary secretary Irene Mihalic described the ruling as a “clear warning” to the government to adhere strictly to legal standards.

The Police Union (GdP) also expressed skepticism about the legality of the policy from the outset. Andreas Roßkopf, head of the GdP’s federal police division, reiterated that immediate rejections at the border were always legally questionable and welcomed the court’s clarification.

Court Decision Applies Immediately and Cannot Be Appealed

The Berlin Administrative Court’s ruling is legally binding and final. According to court officials, the government has no further path for appeal. The judgment invalidates not only the specific action taken in the Somali case but also sets a precedent that could affect many similar cases.

Pro Asyl, the non-governmental organization that supported the plaintiffs, called the ruling a potentially historic victory for refugee rights. Spokesperson Karl Kopp urged the federal government to immediately halt all border pushbacks and reinstate compliance with the Dublin procedure.

Questions About Future Policy Direction Remain

Despite the court’s decision, some government officials maintain that the legal process is not yet over. Heiko Teggatz, chairman of another police union, emphasized that the case is currently in an emergency procedure phase and that the full trial could lead to a different outcome. Nonetheless, legal observers suggest that the structural flaws in the policy are unlikely to survive further scrutiny.

With the government now under growing pressure to abandon or radically revise its strategy, all eyes are on how Interior Minister Dobrindt will respond. In the meantime, border agencies must adjust their practices to remain within the confines of EU law.