The longstanding border controls within Germany, a contentious issue since the height of the 2015 refugee crisis, are poised to formally end, according to leading legal experts. Daniel Thym, a prominent authority on asylum law, predicts a cessation of these internal border checks as early as June 12th, 2024. This anticipated shift stems, in part, from a prior legal challenge that exposed vulnerabilities in the government’s justification for maintaining the controls.
The initial setback occurred shortly after the current coalition government assumed power, with the Berlin Administrative Court ruling against the measures citing a failure to adequately demonstrate the exceptional burden faced by the nation. This ruling, Thym notes, effectively silenced further legal challenges until the implementation of the EU’s new Asylum Procedures Regulation (GEAS) next June. The legal argument against the controls, centered on deficiencies within existing European asylum law, will become moot with GEAS’s arrival.
Beyond the imminent end of border controls, the EU’s proposed asylum reforms introduce even more complex and potentially problematic elements. Among the most controversial is the concept of establishing “Return Hubs” – processing centers located outside of the EU – intended to manage rejected asylum claims. Reports suggest potential partnerships with countries such as Uganda, Tunisia and Ethiopia.
However, Thym cautions against overoptimism regarding the feasibility and ethical implications of this initiative. Persuading nations to accept individuals previously residing within the EU, individuals for whom repatriation to their countries of origin has already proven difficult and whom may potentially include individuals with criminal records, presents a substantial diplomatic and moral hurdle. “It requires exceptionally persuasive arguments, crucially including significant financial incentives” Thym emphasizes, highlighting the likely resistance from countries hesitant to accept such complex cases. The viability and fairness of these “Return Hubs” remain deeply questionable given the current geopolitical context and the human rights concerns they raise.