The German Federal Constitutional Court has delivered a significant ruling, overturning a lower court’s decision and raising critical questions about the limits of state power in the context of deportation proceedings. The court’s decision, announced Thursday, effectively deems a police action at a Berlin communal housing facility in 2019 a violation of fundamental rights.
At the heart of the case is a situation where police forcibly entered a room within the facility, breaking down the door with a battering ram, in order to apprehend an individual slated for deportation. Previous rulings by the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court and the Federal Administrative Court had concluded that no “search” had occurred, sidestepping the requirement for judicial oversight. The court reasoned that because nobody answered the door despite repeated knocking, no search action transpired.
However, the Karlsruhe-based Constitutional Court emphatically rejected this interpretation. The court asserted that the forceful entry, intended to locate the individual for the purpose of deportation, constituted a search requiring prior judicial authorization. The ruling highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the individual’s whereabouts at the time, emphasizing that a court order was essential to justify such intrusive action.
The court’s decision, rendered in reference case 2 BvR 460/25, determined a violation of Article 13 of the German Basic Law, which safeguards the right to liberty and security. They stated that the preventative protection of fundamental rights-the principle of ensuring legal safeguards are in place “before” an action is taken-was demonstrably lacking.
This ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on deportation procedures across Germany. Legal experts suggest it will necessitate stricter protocols for law enforcement agencies, requiring them to secure judicial warrants before entering residences or communal housing facilities to apprehend individuals facing deportation. Critics argue the previous absence of such oversight afforded authorities excessive power, potentially opening avenues for abuse, while proponents of stricter regulations contend that the ruling will bolster the rule of law and uphold fundamental constitutional liberties within the complexities of immigration enforcement. The case has been remanded back to the Higher Administrative Court, which must now reassess the matter in light of the Constitutional Court’s guidance.