Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:38:36.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Changes in German Refugee Law: A Critical Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Sam Blay  and
Andreas Zimmermann
Sam Blay
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania, Australia
Andreas Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two of the most significant events of the 1980s were the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of Germany. Since the beginning of the 1990s, however, the euphoria that greeted these events has given way to concern as Germany adopts measures to deal with the realities of reunification against a background of general political and economic instability in the former Communist states of Eastern and southeastern Europe. Of the many post-reunification problems, the influx of refugees into Germany has predominated.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 361 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On German reunification, see generally Jochen A. Frowein, The Reunification of Germany, 86 AJIL 152 (1992); Ryszard W. Piotrowicz, The Arithmetic of German Unification: Three into One Does Go, 40 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 635 (1991).

2 For details, see Hans-Ingo von Pollern, Die Entwicklung der Asylbewerberzahlen imjahre 1992, 11 Zeitschrift Für Ausländerrecht 26 (1993).

3 For the text of the compromise, see Volkmar Giesler & Dieter Wasser, Das Neue Asylrecht 226 (1993).

4 Gesetz zur Änderung des Grundgesetzes (Artikel 16 und 18), 1993 Bundesgesetzblatt [BGB1.] I 1102.

5 A new asylum procedure law to implement the new constitutional amendment was adopted simultaneously. See Gesetz zur Änderung asylverfahrensrechtlicher-, ausländer- und staatsan-gehörigkeitsrechtlicher Vorschriften, 1993 BGB1. I 1062 [hereinafter Procedure Law]. See generally Andreas Zimmermann, Asylum Law in the Federal Republic of Germany in the Context of International Law, 53 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 49 (1993).

6 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 150 [hereinafter Refugee Convention]; Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 UST 6223, 606 UNTS 267. The Convention entered into force for Germany on Sept. 1, 1953, 1953 BGB1. II 559, and the Protocol on Nov. 11, 1969, 1970 BGB1. II 194.

7 This constitutional provision resulted from Germany's experience with the political persecution that accompanied Nazism and the fact that many German emigrants in those days had severe difficulties finding a safe haven from persecution. On the foundations of German asylum law, see generally Gottfried Koffner & Peter Nikolaus, Grundlagen des Asylrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1986).

8 See, e.g., Judgment of Apr. 14, 1992, Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 11 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht [NVwZ] 682, 683 (1992) (holding that the application of Article 16(2) might even extend to persons at airports in third states who are about to leave their country to seek political asylum in Germany).

9 This was based on the fact that Article 19(4) of the German Constitution guarantees access to judicial protection whenever a possible violation of an individual right is involved. For details of the procedure to be followed, see Werner Kanein & Günter Renner, Ausländerrecht—Kommentar (5th ed. Supp. 1993).

10 About 4% of applicants were recognized in the first instance by the Federal Office for the Recognition of Refugees; however, a further 2–3% were recognized by court decisions. Moreover, a significantly higher number of applicants, while not recognized, remain in Germany legally, because deportation is either not feasible or would run counter to Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221 [ECHR]. There are many refugees from Bosnia-Hercegovina in Germany who are generally not recognized as politically persecuted in the sense of Article 16(2)/Article 16a(l) of the German Constitution, but whose deportation, it is agreed, would expose them to a serious danger of inhuman treatment or torture.

11 In 1992 there were more than 2,200 reported cases of violence against foreigners, including 17 deaths, 7 of foreigners and 10 of Germans. Int'l Herald Trib., Mar. 18, 1993, at 6.

12 1993 BGB1. I 1102 (translation by the authors).

13 Convention Applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders, June 19, 1990, 30 ILM 84 (1991).

14 Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities, June 15, 1990, 30 ILM 425 (1991).

15 For an analysis of the Schengen mechanism, see Schengen: Internationalisation of Central Chapters of the Law on Aliens, Refugees, Security and the Police (Hans Meijers ed., 1991) [hereinafter Schengen].

16 For a survey of the position in some other states, see Atle Grahl-Madsen, Territorial Asylum, ch. 3 (1980).

In France, the Conseil Constitutionnel recently underlined the existence of this right under the Constitution. See Judgment of Aug. 18, 1993, 1993 Journal Officiel de la République Française 11,722.

17 The right is enhanced by other related legislation in Germany. See, e.g., Article 53 of the Aliens Law of 1990, 1990 BGB1. I 1354, which provides that an alien will not be deported if (1) he would thereby be exposed to inhuman treatment or torture, or (2) his deportation would run counter to the European Convention on Human Rights.

18 Gesetz über das Asylverfahren of July 16, 1982, 1982 BGB1. I 946, as amended.

19 Id. §9(1)(1).

20 Id. §9(1)(2).

21 Id. §9(2).

22 Refugee Convention, supra note 6, Art. 1(C)(3).

23 Id., Art. 31 (emphasis added).

24 On the problems related to the concept of the state of first refuge, see generally Göran Malender, Refugees in Orbit (1978); Grahl-Madsen, supra note 16, at 95–100; Guy Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law 52–56 (1983); and most recently, Morten Kjaerum, The Concept of Country of First Asylum, 4 Int'l J. Refugee L. 514 (1992).

25 Maryellen Fullerton, Restricting the Flow of Asylum-Seekers in Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands: New Challenges to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights, 29 Va. J. Int'l L. 33 (1988); see also Christopher L. Avery, Refugee Status Decision-Making: The Systems of Ten Countries, 19 Stan. J. Int'l L. 235(1983).

26 See, e.g., Min Chin Wu v. Fullilove, 282 F.Supp. 63 (N.D. Cal. 1968); Alidede v. Hurney, 301 F.Supp. 1031 (N.D. Ill. 1969).

27 Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo, 402 U.S. 49, 57 (1971). See also Chinese Am. Civic Council v. Attorney Gen., 566 F.2d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

28 See especially José Bolten, From Schengen to Dublin: The New Frontiers of Refugee Law, in Schengen, supra note 15, at 8, esp. 20.

29 Fullerton, supra note 25, at 80.

30 But see the different views expressed by Bolten, supra note 28, at 19.

31 Opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

32 However, the actual implementation of the rules by border authorities and immigration officials may not conform with the laws they seek to enforce. See Grahl-Madsen, supra note 16, at 95.

33 See Immigration Act, R.S.C. ch. 1–2, amended by ch. 49, 1992, §§46.01, 114(1)(s). Section 46.01 provides: “(1) A person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division if the person … (b) came to Canada … from a country … that is a prescribed country under paragraph 114(1)(s) … .” Section 114(1)(s) provides, in turn: “The Governor in Council may make regulations … prescribing, for the purpose of sharing responsibility for the examination of persons who claim to be Convention refugees, countries that comply with Article 33 of the Convention … .” For details, see text at note 47 infra.

34 For details, see R. G. L. Fairweather, Canada's New Refugee Determination System, 27 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 295, 298 (1989); James Hathaway, Selective Concern: An Overview of Refugee Law, 34 McGill L.J. 354, 355 (1989); and Braham Segal, Restructuring Canadian Refugee Determination Process: A Look at Bills C–55 and C–84, 29 Cahiers de Droit 733, 743 (1988).

35 Decision of July 22, 1993, Nos. 2 BvR 1507, 1508/93, reported in 11 NVwZ 1 (Supp. 1, 1993).

36 Current statistics on asylum seekers entering Germany easily prove this. The overwhelming number who arrive from the former Yugoslavia, Romania or Bulgaria come by land and normally arrive illegally through Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland or Switzerland.

37 See, e.g., the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding entry from Poland, in which the request for temporary measures was denied. Judgment of July 22, 1993, No. 2 BvQ 26/93 (unpublished).

38 Gesetz iiber das Asylverfahren, supra note 18, §9(1)(2).

39 In the United States, for example, an applicant who fled persecution from a Communist state, subsequently established residence in Turkey, and obtained citizenship and stayed to operate a restaurant for eight years subsequent to leaving his home state was held not to be a refugee any longer. Alidede v. Hurney, 301 F.Supp. 1031 (N.D. 111. 1969). Similarly, in New Zealand in 1980, the Inter-Departmental Committee on Refugees rejected the case of an Iranian Bahai who held a valid residence permit for Germany, where he had lived for several years. See Goodwin-Gill, supra note 24, at 55 n.44.

40 Procedure Law, supra note 5, §18(2).

41 This will only happen, however, if the third state is willing to readmit these persons. For a survey of relevant agreements Germany has concluded with its neighbors, see Andreas Zimmermann, Das neue Grundrecht auf asyl- verfassungs- und völkerrechtliche Grenzen und Voraussetzungen (forthcoming 1994).

42 See Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior, Circular No. 70 027/10–111/16/92 (May 15, 1992).

43 Study by the German Federal Parliament, Deutscher Bundestag—Wissenschaftliche Dienste, Asylrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Verfahrensrechts in 15 Europäischen Ländern und in den USA, landesbericht Frankreich 50, 53 (1991); see also Claude Norek & Fréderique Doumic-Doublet, Le Droit d'asile en France 40 (1989).

44 See Immigration Rules, as amended Mar. 23, 1990, Cmnd 251, reprinted in Ian MacDonald & Nicholas Blake, Immigration Law and Practice 559 (3d ed. 1991) (stipulating only that asylum will not be refused if the sole country the person could be removed to is the country of persecution). On UK practice, see also David O'Keeffe & Richard Pietrowicz, Asylum Law in the United Kingdom, in Asyl Und Einwanderungsrecht im Europäischen Vergleich 38 (Kay Hailbronner ed., 1992).

For the recent changes in the refugee law of the United Kingdom through the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, see J. Gillespie, The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill: a review of the proposed asylum appeal rights, 7 Immigr. & Nationality L. & Prac. 68 (1993).

45 Aliens Law, Law No. 226, June 8, 1983, as amended by Law No. 686, Oct. 17, 1986; see Nana Mallet, Deterring Asylum-Seekers: German and Danish Law on Political Asylum, 6 Immigr. & Nationality L. & Prac. 115, 120 (1992).

46 Grundgesetz Art. 16a(2).

47 Immigration Act, supra note 33, §114(8).

48 Id. §114(9).

49 Id. §114(7).

50 As far as the protection of human rights within the framework of the Council of Europe is concerned, it is an interesting question whether “adherence to the ECHR” must necessarily include recognition of the individual complaint procedure under both Articles 25 and 46 of the ECHR. See Andreas Zimmermann, Aktuelle Fragen des Fluchtlings- und Asylrechts in Polen, 46 Die offentliche Verwaltung 559, 560 n.18 (1993).

51 On minimum standards for the administrative process when dealing with refugee claims, see Guy Goodwin-Gill, The Determination of Refugee Status: Problems of Access to Procedures and the Standard of Proof, 1 Y.B. Int'l Inst. Humanitarian L. 56, 60 (1985).

Note that Article 6 of the ECHR is not applicable to claims for political asylum. See the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights in Lukka v. United Kingdom, App. No. 12122/86, 50 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 268, 271 (1986); P. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 13162/87, 54 id. at 211 (1987); and A. Kilkic v. Switzerland, App. No. 12364/86, 50 id. at 280 (1986). But see Bertold Huber, Anwendbarkeit des Art. 61 MRK auf Asylstreitverfahren, 11 NVwZ 856 (1992) (answering this question in the affirmative).

52 Procedure Law, supra note 5, §26(a)(3).

53 As to whether Switzerland can be considered secure, see the decision of the German Constitutional Court of Aug. 10, 1993, No. 2 BvR 1644/93 (unpublished). For the current Swiss law on asylum, see Walter Schmid, Das neue Asylrecht der Schweiz, 13 Zeitschrift für Ausiänderrecht 81 (1993).

As to Austria, see the decision of the German Constitutional Court of Oct. 26, 1993, No. 2 BvR 2315/93. For the relevant Austrian practice, see generally Ulrike Brandl, Asylrecht und Asylpolitik in Osterreich, 9 Asyl 3 (1993).

54 In 1992 Poland processed approximately four hundred claims for refugee status. For a survey of recent Polish practice, see R. A. Stainsby, Asylum-Seekers in Poland: Catalyst for a New Refugee and Asylum Policy in Europe, 2 Int'l J. Refugee L. 636 (1990).

55 On July, 22, 1993, the German Constitutional Court denied a request for temporary measures in the case of applicants who had entered Germany via Poland. The applicants had claimed that Poland was not a secure third state and that the inclusion of Poland on the list was unconstitutional since it did not abide by the ECHR and the Refugee Convention. The Court dismissed the claims. It is not clear, however, whether the applicants submitted any substantial evidence to support their claims.

56 Übereinkommen zwischen den Regierungen des Königreichs Belgien, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, der Französischen Republik, der Italienischen Republik, des Grossherzogtums Luxemburg, des Königreichs der Niederlande und der Republik Polen betreffend die Rückübernahme von Personen mit unbefugtem Aufenthalt, Mar. 29, 1991, 1993 BGB1. II 1099.

57 Abkommen uber die Zusammenarbeit hinsichtlich der Auswirkungen von Wanderungsbewegungen [hereinafter Polish Agreement], May 7, 1993, reprinted in Giesler & Wasser, supra note 3, at 145. For 1993, however, the number of third-state nationals to be taken back was limited to ten thousand.

58 Polish Agreement, supra note 57, Art. 1(3).

59 Id.

60 This is only correct, however, if one takes the view that Article 33 of the Refugee Convention extends to persons who have not yet been able to cross the border. For a more limited view of the scope of application of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, see Jochen A. Frowein & Andreas Zimmermann, Der völkerrechtliche Rahmen fur die Reform des deutschen Asylrechts 17–27 (1993) (extensive survey of relevant state practice).

61 For this reason the Administrative Tribunal of Regensburg, in an unpublished decision of Sept. 2, 1993, No. RN 7 E 93 31704, considered the Czech Republic not to be a secure third state for this class of persons. But see the decision of the Higher Bavarian Administrative Court of Oct. 28, 1993, Nos. 24 CE 93 32582, 31631, 31632, which reversed this decision.

62 Procedure Law, supra note 5, Ann. II (relating to §29(a)).

63 Refugee Convention, supra note 6 (emphasis added).

64 See Article 16 of the Swiss Asylum Law, Oct. 5, 1979, as amended, reprinted in Walter Kalin, Grundriss des Asylverfahrens 328 (1990), which stipulates: “(2) The Federal Council can designate states in which, according to its findings, security against persecution exists; it is to periodically review such decisions. If the applicant comes from such a state, his application or his complaint will not be handled unless the hearing develops indications of persecution” (unofficial translation).

65 Opinion of June 28, 1991, Conseil d'Etat (sur le projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers), Pari. Doc. Chambre Rep. 1647/2/90/91, at 1 (1991). That opinion was shared by the representative of the French-speaking bar association, Sénat, Sess. 1991/91, Doc. 1076/2, at 77–78 (“discrimination contraire à la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme et aux autres instruments internationaux qui font partie de notre droit”).

In March 1993, the Belgian Constitutional Court also considered the issue and held that the application of such a list in Belgian law would run counter to the nondiscrimination clause of the Constitution. See Judgment of Mar. 4, 1993, No. 20/93, 1993 Belgisch Staatsblad [O.J.] 6409.

66 For references to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in this respect, see Jochen A. Frowein & Wolfgang Peukert, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention—EMRK-Kommentar 314–18 (1985). On Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171, see Manfred Nowak, UN-Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—CCPR-Commentary, Art. 26, marginal n.21 (2d ed. 1993); and Torkel Opsahl, Equality in Human Rights Law with Particular Reference to Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Fortschritt im Bewusstsein der Grund- und Menschenrechte—Festschrift für F. Ermacora 51, 62–63 (Manfred Nowak et al. eds., 1988).

67 See Judgment of July 22, 1993, German Const. Ct., 11 NVwZ 1 (Supp. 1, 1993) (stating that even in cases of applicants from safe countries of origin, the individual arguments of the applicant must be taken into consideration).

68 Procedure Law, supra note 5, §18(2).

69 Id. §18(4). See also text at notes 13–15.

70 Procedure Law, supra note 5, §18(4).

71 See Bruno Nascimbene, The Albanians in Italy: The Right of Asylum under Attack?, 3 Int'l J. Refugee L. 714 (1991).

72 Decision of Sept. 13, 1993, Const. Ct., No. 2 BvQ 1938/93, 15 Informationsbrief Auslanderrecht 388 (1993).

73 Procedure Law, supra note 5, §29a.

74 Id. §29(4).

75 Judgment of July 22, 1993, Nos. 2 BvR 1507, 1508/93, Const. Ct., 11 NVwZ 1 (Supp. 1, 1993).

76 Any such reform would have necessarily involved a significant increase in personnel to handle applications.