A coalition plan to shift the burden of proof regarding persecution grounds onto asylum seekers and legal proceedings faces potential legal challenges, according to a detailed analysis by the German Bundestag’s Scientific Service. The report, requested by the Left party and reported by “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, suggests the proposed changes could conflict with both European and German law.
The coalition agreement stipulates a move away from the principle of official investigation in asylum proceedings toward a system where claimants are primarily responsible for providing evidence. Currently, authorities and courts independently investigate potential dangers in potential destination countries. The analysis indicates that ceasing this practice could be incompatible with EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the requirement for asylum seekers to provide comprehensive proof of the risks they face, such as potential deportation threats, is deemed potentially unconstitutional under the German Basic Law.
The proposed change represents a significant departure from existing asylum procedures. While asylum seekers are currently required to provide information about the causes and circumstances of their flight, they are not generally expected to provide detailed assessments of general risk conditions within their countries of origin.
Left party parliamentarian Aaron Valent has characterized the potential reform as “a direct attack on human rights” arguing that it would create an insurmountable obstacle for many asylum seekers. While no legislative draft regarding this matter exists, the German government has stated that the issue is still under review.