Germany is allowed to deport an asylum seeker to a judgement by the highest EU court, according to due to lack of competence in another European country, even if the social system is flawed.

such A transfer is prohibited only if the vulnerability is particularly high, was the opinion of the judges of the European court of justice on Tuesday in Luxembourg.

This is the case, if the person is in extreme material Need, the most basic needs could not satisfy, or would he impoverish (cases C-163/17, C-297/17, C 318/17, C 319/17, C-438/17).

the Background of the ECJ’s judgments are a number of cases in which German courts had asked the ECJ for interpretation of EU asylum rules. In one case, a man from the Gambia should be deported to Italy because he had already asked for asylum. This failed, however, because he was in his accommodation.

Later, the husband argued that his deportation is inadmissible, because the conditions for asylum-seekers and the conditions for refugees in Italy had systematic weaknesses. The administrative court of Baden-Württemberg asked the ECJ to the interpretation of the Dublin rules. The judges also wanted to know what are the rules, if a because of the lack of responsibility of rejected asylum-seekers may not be deported, because he is nowhere to be found.

in 2018, failed, according to the interior Ministry, nearly 34 000 of such rendition in a different European state. In more than half of the person in question was nowhere to be found.

According to the Dublin rule, is normally the country for protection seekers where they first enter European soil. Migrants who travel illegally, can be returned normally within a period of six months in your country of arrival.

According to the Federal Ministry of the interior, Germany pushes to Hungary, Greece and Bulgaria currently very limited or not at all. It is not possible to ensure that the handling of the migrants in these countries, the EU-according to law.

In other cases, the Federal administrative court the ECJ whether an asylum request can only be refused because the applicant was in another country already enjoys subsidiary protection. It is, among other things, the question is whether it plays a role, that existence is a lack of assurance services in the other country or are insufficient. Background a number of cases where asylum applications were rejected because the person Concerned in Bulgaria or Poland subsidiary protection had been granted.

This limited protection applies to people who are not persecuted as a politically, but still be allowed to stay, because you in the home of “serious harm” threatened – such as torture, the death penalty or indiscriminate violence in an armed conflict. Often civil war refugees from Syria.

The ECJ referred on Tuesday to the fact that the European asylum system is based on the principle of mutual trust. If the weaknesses in the social system of a country, however, to be significant, then should there not be deported. This was not the case, if the Affected person feed there, and finding accommodation could wash the mental or physical health would be affected.

Alone in great poverty or a deterioration of the life conditions do not reach the threshold, according to the judge, if you are not associated with extreme material Need, to inhuman or degrading treatment.

On the question of the person entitled to subsidiary Protection, which is somewhere else again for asylum, was the opinion of the judges in Luxembourg, this could also be rejected, when subsistence benefits were restricted in the first country. Prohibited the rejection was here, too, if the person in the country would be in extreme material Need.

Finally, the court held that an asylum seeker accepted as fleeting, when he was evading the deportation specifically. This is the case, when he was leaving his apartment, without informing the competent authorities. Of this duty he had, however, been previously taught. An asylum seeker should not be escaped, and the six-month period for deportation to the competent state to be expired, it could make the person Concerned claims that the new state be responsible for him.