His “migration master plan” was “practically fully implemented,” announced Interior Minister Seehofer over the summer. Yes, he has done a lot. But now it has stopped – precisely because of Bavaria.
The federal government’s planned reform to speed up asylum procedures is likely to end. According to DPA information, it is unclear whether the project to alleviate the heavily used administrative courts in the current parliamentary term is likely. The reason for this is opposition from the Bavarian state government: instead of the envisaged reduction, there is fear of a growing number of lawsuits, according to the union fraction in Berlin.
People in Munich themselves are unsuspecting: the corresponding plans of the Federal Minister of the Interior Horst Seehofer (CSU) are unknown, it is said upon request. This is hardly imaginable, the draft submitted by the Federal Ministry of the Interior about a year ago has been leaked and published online. It was discussed within the federal government, but talks are now stalling.
The reason for Seehofer’s push was the heavy burden on the administrative courts with asylum procedures. About every second person who last sought protection went to court; either to challenge a negative asylum decision or to achieve better protection status with more rights. Across Germany, 273,681 people were waiting for a decision at the turn of the year. Nearly every second of the 20,707 cases pending at the end of February in Berlin’s administrative court alone were asylum complaints. Each of the 40 chambers handles asylum procedures, some of them almost exclusively, a spokesperson said.
It is about assessing the situation in the country of origin
As paradoxical as it may sound, according to the ministry and politicians, the high burden is also due to the fact that the possibilities for those affected to complain through the authorities are currently severely limited in the right of asylum. In this way, a single trial can be completed more quickly, but each judge starts again on the next case. Complaints can only be lodged with the Federal Court of Justice regarding the formalities related to the asylum procedure. The assessment of the situation in the country of origin by the judges of the lower courts is no longer investigated.
The design aims to change that. The assessment of the situation in the country of origin is relevant for ‘a larger number of people’, it says. The same applies to the question of whether those seeking protection can be returned to another European country under Dublin rules.
The federal administrative court as the highest authority should therefore take the leading decisions about the situation in the country of origin during a review and in this way provide guidance to the lower courts.
The German Judges’ Association (DRB) expects a lot from this possibility. “So far, administrative courts have assessed similar issues very differently from region to region,” said DRB federal manager Sven Rehnn. “Supreme court decisions on fundamental issues can standardize case law here. This is in the interest of all parties involved, as it provides legal clarity at an early stage and makes it easier to assess a court’s chances of success.”
Also SPD for speeding up the procedure
The Union and SPD in the Bundestag are also popular. The lengthy legal process is absurd, says internal group spokesman for the Union, Mathias Middelberg (CDU): “This is not a satisfactory situation and often leads to a steady stay before a legal decision is made on the matter.”
His SPD counterpart, Ute Vogt, is also committed to the plans. “We want the asylum procedures of the administrative courts to be speeded up and speeded up in the future. We can do this with the expanded option of remedies,” she says. Leading decisions can lead to “greater legal certainty and justice for all concerned”.
The left-wing faction’s political spokesperson, Ulla Jelpke, also believes reform is too late, but rather to improve the legal protection of asylum seekers. “In order to relieve the courts, the Bamf should be instructed to increasingly independently reject negative decisions and, if necessary, correct them for asylum seekers if they are charged.”
However, Jelpke strictly rejects the plan to allow the Federal Administrative Court to assess the situation in the country of origin: “This gives the impression that questions about the situation in the countries of origin can finally be clarified. However, this is not the case because the security situation is developing dynamically and should be assessed daily, said the Federal Constitutional Court. “
But whether this happens at all is completely unclear anyway. Or, in the meager words of a ministry spokesman, “The corresponding voices about the form in which the bill should continue are still ongoing.” Open end.