Germany Faces Legal Scrutiny Over Border Rejections

Rising Legal Pressure on Border Rejections

Germany’s tightened border controls, initiated on May 8, 2025, by Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), are now under growing legal and political scrutiny. While the initiative was launched to reduce irregular entries, especially from asylum seekers, only six individuals have so far filed lawsuits challenging their rejection at the border. Despite the low number of cases, the legal and constitutional implications of these rejections are beginning to escalate.

Dobrindt’s directive allowed authorities to reject asylum seekers at the German border without processing their applications. This marked a significant policy change, immediately sparking criticism from human rights organizations, opposition politicians, and legal scholars who warned of potential violations of both German constitutional standards and EU law.

Court Rulings Challenge Government Stance

In early June, the Administrative Court in Berlin ruled that the rejection of three Somali asylum seekers at Frankfurt (Oder) railway station was unlawful. The court stated that asylum seekers cannot be turned away before a determination is made regarding which EU member state is responsible for their claim. This ruling directly questioned the legitimacy of Dobrindt’s orders and called for stronger legal justification.

Despite this, the Interior Ministry referred to the ruling as an isolated case and continued its enforcement. The official line remains that the government is operating under Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which permits national exceptions to standard EU asylum procedures for the sake of public order and security. However, the ministry has yet to provide a full explanation of how this clause applies, stating it will only do so during upcoming court proceedings.

Lawsuits Are Few, But the Stakes Are High

Although over 6,000 rejections have been carried out since May, only six individuals have initiated legal action, with three successful cases and three still pending. Legal experts are watching these cases closely, as they are likely to set important precedents for how EU law interacts with national border policies.

Critics argue that the small number of lawsuits may not reflect the legality of the rejections but rather the limited access to legal support for many asylum seekers. Organizations like Pro Asyl, which supported the Somali plaintiffs, have emphasized the structural barriers that prevent more individuals from challenging their treatment. They have also formally appealed to the European Commission to launch infringement proceedings against Germany.

Political Tensions Across Europe

The controversy is also straining relations with neighboring countries. In response to Germany’s strict border regime, Poland began its own temporary border controls along the German border, stating that the move would be reversed if Germany suspended its measures.

Meanwhile, CDU politicians have defended the actions as a necessary step to restore order and enforce border sovereignty, especially given what they claim is widespread non-compliance with the EU’s Dublin Regulation by other member states. CDU’s Alexander Throm stressed that almost all EU countries are already ignoring asylum rules, often at Germany’s expense, and called for a revision of the European legal framework.

In contrast, Green Party members have sharply criticized Dobrindt’s policy. Vice parliamentary group leader Konstantin von Notz accused the ministry of withholding critical legal justifications and failing to meet basic transparency standards. Even Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) has called for clearer reasoning, though her ministry now appears to be taking a more reserved stance.

European Legal Showdown Likely

As legal challenges unfold in German courts, there is growing consensus that the matter will ultimately be decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The key legal question is whether Germany’s use of Article 72 legitimately overrides EU asylum procedures. The ECJ’s interpretation could have long-term consequences not only for Germany but for asylum policy across the European Union.

The Interior Ministry insists that its actions are compliant with European treaties, but the lack of public legal documentation has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders and legal professionals. For now, the government maintains its position and plans no immediate change to the current directive.

Migration Summit on the Zugspitze

In an effort to reshape EU migration rules more broadly, Dobrindt has invited interior ministers from neighboring countries to a summit at the Zugspitze on July 18. The goal is to foster cooperation and press for a coordinated overhaul of European asylum policy. The high-profile setting underlines the urgency with which the German government views the issue.

With asylum numbers down significantly—43 percent fewer applications compared to the same period last year—Dobrindt has used the data to justify ongoing border enforcement. However, maintaining the current level of control requires over 3,000 additional federal police officers, and internal discussions have already started on redeploying them for domestic security tasks by the end of August.

Still, the Interior Ministry plans to keep border checks in place until at least the end of the year. Official statements confirm that the directive remains open-ended for now.

Broader Implications for EU Policy

The debate over Germany’s border policy is quickly becoming a test case for the future of European asylum cooperation. As legal challenges make their way through national and possibly European courts, and as political leaders clash over interpretations of legal texts, the outcome could reshape how Europe handles asylum claims at its internal borders.

For asylum seekers and advocacy groups, the primary concern remains access to fair procedures and legal clarity. As of now, Germany’s insistence on maintaining its current path continues to face both legal hurdles and mounting diplomatic pressure.