The Federal Constitutional Court has issued a forceful directive, compelling the German government to promptly process the visa applications of an Afghan judge and his family, highlighting concerns over bureaucratic delays and individual urgency. The court’s Third Chamber of the Second Senate ruled on Thursday that the applicants-an Afghan national formerly serving as a judge on the Supreme Court before the Taliban’s takeover, along with his wife and four children-possess “indisputable claims” that demand immediate action.
The case originates from a complex series of legal challenges. The family was initially placed on the “bridging list” program by the Federal Interior Ministry in 2022, designed to facilitate relocation for vulnerable individuals. Despite assurances from the Foreign Office in July 2023 that no security concerns existed and that its placement on the list would remain unchanged, subsequent administrative proceedings proved protracted. While an administrative court initially granted their request for expedited visas, an Upper Administrative Court refused to obligate the German government to issue them.
Critically, the Constitutional Court now argues that the Upper Administrative Court failed to adequately assess whether the applicants had convincingly demonstrated a legitimate claim for a decision on their visa applications, emphasizing the unique circumstances of individual urgency. To avoid further delays and potential harm, the court bypassed a referral back to the Upper Administrative Court, opting instead to directly mandate the Federal Republic to process the applications without further deliberation.
The ruling has drawn immediate reaction. Alexander Dobrindt, the CSU-led Federal Interior Ministry, stated that it will initiate “necessary steps” upon receipt of the ruling. Dobrindt’s spokesperson emphasized that the court’s decision affirms the ministry’s prior assessment that a legally binding admission for this particular group remains absent, despite the need for an expeditious decision.
The case exposes a potential vulnerability within Germany’s asylum and relocation processes, raising questions about the responsiveness of the bureaucracy to vulnerable individuals facing immediate danger. While the government insists on upholding legal frameworks, critics argue the protracted delays in this instance constitute a dereliction of Germany’s humanitarian obligations and a failure to adequately prioritize cases involving individuals at imminent risk amidst a volatile political landscape like Afghanistan. The outcome will likely trigger scrutiny of similar pending cases and potentially necessitate reforms to streamline processing times for vulnerable applicants.