Safe country of origin (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Safe country of origin is a legal term from German asylum law . It is introduced in Art. 16a of the Basic Law and defined in Section 29a of the Asylum Act (AsylG). The regulation that came into force in 1993 is one of the five building blocks of the so-called asylum compromise , which followed the amendment to Article 16 and the addition of Article 16a of the Basic Law.

Countries that the legislature assumes that political persecution does not take place there are considered safe countries of origin. Asylum applications from people from countries of origin classified as safe are usually rejected, unless there are special circumstances that speak against it. Immigrants from these countries can be deported more easily .

The following are currently considered "safe countries of origin":

Legally, the law is supplemented by Directive 2013/32 / EU (Asylum Procedures Directive) adopted in 2013 with further requirements. As a guideline, this is binding for the EU member states in terms of content, but not in terms of form and precise design. It replaces Directive 2005/85 / EC , which was passed in 2005 but was annulled by the European Court of Justice in 2008 . Among other things, the EU directive provides for a Europe-wide list of safe countries of origin with possible lists that may be supplemented by the member states. Such a Europe-wide list has not yet been implemented for political reasons.

The principle of the safe country of origin should not be confused with the principle of the safe third country , which stipulates the application for asylum in the first country of entry into the Schengen area .

definition

Legal regulation

The principle of the safe country of origin is introduced in the Basic Law and further defined in the Asylum Act.

Article 16a paragraph 3 of the German Basic Law reads:

“(3) By law, which requires the approval of the Bundesrat, states can be determined in which, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law and the general political situation, it appears guaranteed that neither political persecution nor inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment will take place there. It is assumed that a foreigner from such a state will not be prosecuted as long as he does not present facts that justify the assumption that, contrary to this presumption, he will be politically persecuted. "

The principle of the safe country of origin is further elaborated in Section 29a AsylG:

"(1) The asylum application of a foreigner from a state within the meaning of Article 16a, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the Basic Law (safe country of origin) must be rejected as obviously unfounded, unless the facts or evidence provided by the foreigner justify the assumption that In contrast to the general situation in the country of origin, he is threatened with political persecution.

(2) Safe countries of origin are the member states of the European Union and the countries specified in Annex II.

(3) The Federal Government shall determine by ordinance without the consent of the Bundesrat that a state named in Annex II is no longer considered a safe country of origin if changes in the legal or political situation of that state justify the assumption that the conditions set out in Article 16a Paragraph 3 Clause 1 of the Basic Law are no longer applicable. The ordinance shall expire no later than six months after its entry into force. "

It follows that asylum applications from people from safe countries of origin are rejected as " obviously unfounded ". Such an asylum application can only be given a positive decision if the applicant can prove that there is political persecution.

If the applicants are not granted asylum and refugee status is not recognized or subsidiary protection is not granted, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees will issue a threat of deportation in accordance with Section 34 (1) AsylG. In obviously unfounded cases, the deadline for departure is one week, in other cases according to Section 38 (1) AsylG one month. The deadline for a possible action against the order is one week, whereby actions have no suspensive effect.

For asylum seekers, classifying their country of origin as a safe country of origin has direct effects: According to the provisions of Section 30a AsylG, which was newly introduced as part of Asylum Package II , those affected should - without any time limit until the end of the asylum procedure or until their departure - in "Special reception facilities" live. Asylum seekers from safe countries of origin who submitted their application after August 31, 2015 are subject to a work ban that applies during the asylum procedure and that continues if they receive a temporary leave to remain after a negative asylum decision. In addition, they have no access to integration courses and are not allowed to get involved in the federal voluntary service .

Before classifying a state as a safe country of origin, the federal government must review the political situation as well as the legal situation and the actual application of the law. Since the assessment also includes a prognosis about the further development of security in another country, the administration - in this case the federal government - has a margin of appreciation and judgment.

Safe countries of origin

Safe countries of origin

In addition to the countries of the European Union , the countries listed in Annex II to the Asylum Act are considered safe countries of origin :

In the meantime, the following countries were also on the list in Appendix II:

With the exception of Gambia, accession to the European Union was the reason for the deletion in all other countries, because upon accession these countries fell within the direct scope of Section 29a (2) AsylG.

history

context

According to Ulrich Herbert , asylum and refugee policy in the late 1980s / early 1990s in the Federal Republic was characterized by three structural problems:

Firstly, the classic definition of political persecution no longer applied to the reality of persecution in many countries, which led to many asylum seekers being rejected, but still being tolerated as so-called “de facto refugees”.

Second, the ethnic composition of the refugees entering the Federal Republic has changed significantly. In particular, more people came from Eastern Europe and the crumbling, civil war Yugoslavia . In addition, more ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and people of Jewish origin from the dissolving Soviet Union would have entered the country.

Thirdly, the asylum policy pursued by the federal government in the 1980s, which wanted to prevent immigration, massively hindered the integration of asylum seekers and thus triggered its own socio-political dynamic.

Against this background, said Herbert, the asylum and migration policy is one of the most important topics of political discussions in the Federal Republic. The topic was also very present in the 1990 Bundestag election - along with the issues of German unity .

Asylum compromise of December 6, 1992

CDU poster for the asylum debate (November 1992)

Due to the problems described and the increasing number of refugees in the late 1980s / early 1990s, the parliamentary group of the CDU / CSU put pressure on the co-governing FDP and the opposition SPD parliamentary group to make the right to asylum more restrictive by means of an amendment to the constitution.

After numerous internal party discussions and lengthy negotiations, the parliamentary groups of the CDU / CSU, FDP and SPD agreed on December 6, 1992 the so-called asylum compromise (also known as the migration compromise or St. Nicholas' compromise ). The decision is still considered to be one of the most controversial political decisions in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. The use of German asylum law was made more difficult in order to relieve the asylum system.

The agreement primarily intended to rewrite the relevant Article 16 in the Basic Law and to create several possibilities for restricting the right of asylum. One of the building blocks of this agreement is the regulation of safe countries of origin. It created the possibility to classify certain countries as safe in order to reject asylum applications from people from these countries as obviously unfounded - and thus within a shorter processing time. The requesting parliamentary groups cited as justification:

"Paragraph 3 [of the new Art. 16a GG] gives the legislature the opportunity to determine non-persecuted countries of origin. The Basic Law specifies the most important criteria from which freedom of persecution is concluded. In addition, there are other criteria that can be used. B. heard the rate of recognition in the administrative procedure in a foreseeable period. Freedom from political persecution must in principle exist nationwide. The legal qualification as a safe country of origin creates a rebuttable presumption; The foreigner can assert that he has been politically persecuted as an exception, contrary to the rule presumption resulting from the statutory provision. An examination will only take place if the foreigner submits substantial facts in a substantiated manner. "

Since then, states have been considered safe "where (...) appears to be guaranteed that neither political persecution nor inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment takes place there." ( Art. 16a GG). The reform aimed not only at possible cases of abuse, but against any form of asylum, which changed the logic of the federal German asylum law. In legal terms, the regulation created a so-called legal presumption that there was no grounds for asylum, which can be refuted in individual cases, whereby the burden of proof lies with the asylum seeker. The legislature placed the scope of the regulation in the hands of the federal government by authorizing ordinances.

The amendment to the Basic Law was passed on May 26, 1993 by the German Bundestag and subsequently confirmed by the Bundesrat .

Supplement to the Asylum Act

In parallel to the amendment to the Basic Law, the parliamentary groups also passed an amendment to the Asylum Procedure Act, which was revised in 1992 (today's name: Asylum Act), which supplements the constitutional regulations with additional provisions. The above-cited Section 29a AsylG (safe country of origin) was added and the body of law was supplemented by Annex II, in which the safe countries of origin are listed.

Which countries should be included in the list of safe countries of origin was part of intensive debates between the parliamentary groups. During the consultation, the Foreign Affairs Committee (or its subcommittee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid ) was initially asked for a recommendation. This recommended the countries Turkey (whereby the CDU / CSU waived this before the first reading of the law), Bulgaria , Ghana , India , Liberia , Nigeria , Pakistan , Romania , Togo , Zaire (today DR Congo ).

Ultimately, on June 30, 1993, the Bundestag decided to classify Bulgaria, Gambia, Ghana, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary as safe.

1995/96: Discussion about Gambia, Ghana and Senegal

In the West African Gambia, in the course of soldiers' protests, the 29-year-old Lieutenant  Yahya Jammeh came to power as the leader of the  Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council  (AFPRC) in July 1994 and deposed the ruling Dawda Jawara . In October of the same year, Jammeh announced that he would extend the state of emergency until 1998.

This prompted several western states, u. a. the US and European Union states to limit financial aid to the country. In addition, the ruling parliamentary groups of the CDU / CSU and the FDP then applied on January 18, 1995 to remove Gambia from the list of safe countries of origin. The Bundestag and Bundesrat approved the amendment to the law on February 16, 1995 with a large majority. This came into force on April 7, 1995.

While the deletion of Gambia hardly aroused objections, the discussion on whether Ghana was also still safe was more intense. The SPD parliamentary group applied for the state to be removed from the list, claiming that the federal government had misinformed the Bundestag. According to Amnesty International , death sentences are still being carried out in Ghana. In the plenary debate, Eduard Lintner , then Parliamentary State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of the Interior, justified the classification as safe by pointing out that the death penalty, provided that it was lawful and not politically imposed, was covered by the Geneva Refugee Convention. In Ghana the death penalty would be imposed [only] for 'murder', 'treason' - betrayal -, 'subversion' - overthrow - and for certain special forms of robbery. Relevant in this case is the Refugee Convention, even if the European Convention on Human Rights and the Basic Law outlawed the death penalty. The application of the SPD federal parliamentary group was rejected by the black and yellow government majority on November 14, 1996. Even before that, the Federal Constitutional Court had agreed with the Federal Government in its assessment and judged Ghana to be safe, thus rejecting the lawsuit of a Ghanaian woman who feared political persecution because of participating in a demonstration against the demolition of her market stall and had applied for asylum in Germany.

Senegal was classified as a safe country of origin in 1993, although doubts were expressed by the opposition SPD and Amnesty International. In 1995, due to the internal political tensions in Senegal, the black-and-yellow federal government ordered the state to be removed from the list of safe countries of origin by means of an ordinance, which was only valid for six months. After the six months, the then Federal Minister of the Interior, Manfred Kanther , saw no need to change the law and thus permanently delete the country. Amnesty International in particular strongly criticized this approach. Subsequent, small inquiries to the federal government also confirmed its view that the domestic political conflicts relate primarily to the Casamance region and that the rest of the country can be classified as safe.

2004/07: Dissolution of the states that have joined the EU

In 2004 and 2007, respectively, the list of safe countries of origin was drastically shortened, since Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union and these were classified as safe per se.

It should be noted that the status as an EU candidate country is not a sufficient criterion for classification as a safe country of origin.

2014: Classification of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia

Asylum applications (first and follow-up applications) between 2000 and 2015, according to BAMF figures.

The number of asylum seekers in Germany has risen sharply since 2010, after having fallen sharply as a result of the asylum compromise and reached a minimum in 2006. In particular, people from Russia, the Western Balkans ( Albania , Bosnia-Herzegovina , Serbia , Macedonia ), Iraq , Syria and Afghanistan applied for asylum in Germany.

Since municipalities and states are financially and organizationally responsible for the reception of asylum seekers, this posed increasing problems for the increasing number of people. Under pressure from the municipalities, the CDU, CSU and SPD agreed in the coalition agreement for the 18th electoral term after the 2013 federal election :

“We want to classify the Western Balkan states of Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia and Serbia as safe countries of origin within the meaning of Section 29a AsylG in order to be able to process hopeless asylum applications from nationals of these states more quickly and to end their stay in Germany more quickly. At the same time, we want to work towards the governments of these countries and the EU Commission to take quick and sustainable steps to improve the living situation on site. "

The main purpose of the planned amendment to the law was therefore to be able to reject the asylum applications from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia (even) more quickly - which, according to the federal government, were in vain because they were largely rejected. In 2009/10, the federal government abolished the visa requirement for people from these countries.

The black-red federal government passed a bill for the admission of these three states (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia) on the initiative of the Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maizière in April 2014. While a large majority in the Bundestag voted for the law due to the black-red coalition , the approval of the Bundesrat was uncertain due to the numerous state governments with Green government participation, whereby the party leadership of Bündnis 90 / Die Party was skeptical or even negative about the proposed law.

The legislative process was marked by a great discussion about the rights and obligations of and towards refugees in Germany. The two opposition factions in the Bundestag, Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen and Die Linke , protested vehemently against the law. Both addressed the situation of the Roma in the countries that, according to Ulla Jelpke (Die Linke), live as minorities on the margins of society and are victims of racist attacks and campaigns. A large number of asylum seekers from these three countries are part of the Roma minority.

Numerous civil society organizations, including a. the refugee organization Pro Asyl and the human rights organization Amnesty International protested against the classification of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia as safe countries of origin. Protection of the Roma in the federal states is not guaranteed, nor is the formally guaranteed individual assessment. In addition, the argumentation for the change in the law - increasing numbers of refugees and low recognition rate - would be dangerous.

In the run-up to the Federal Council's decision, there were direct negotiations on a compromise between Baden-Württemberg's Prime Minister Winfried Kretschmann (Greens) and Chancellery Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU), as Baden-Württemberg's votes were necessary for a majority in the Federal Council. Ultimately, the Federal Council decided to change the law on September 19, 2014, as the Baden-Württemberg Prime Minister Winfried Kretschmann (Greens) also approved the change. All other state governments with the participation of the Greens rejected the law or abstained. Kretschmann defended his decision with the improvements for other refugees staying in Germany, including the easier access to the labor market for asylum seekers, the relaxation of the residence requirement and the priority payment of support in cash and not, as before, in benefits in kind.

2015: Classification of Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo

Countries of origin of asylum seekers in Germany in 2015 (total protection rate in brackets)

In August 2015, Federal Chancellor Merkel called for the standards of the EU countries with regard to asylum to be aligned and for joint assessments of safe countries of origin to be reached. For years there have been attempts to agree on a common EU list of safe countries of origin .

In view of the large number of people who tried to come to Germany in 2015, another extension of the list of safe countries of origin was up for debate. In particular, Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo were discussed. For their part, the Prime Ministers of Montenegro and Kosovo turned to the Balkans Commissioner of the European Parliament to have their states recognized as a “safe country of origin”.

In October 2015 the countries Albania , Montenegro and Kosovo were added to the annex of the law as additional safe countries of origin.

Since 2016/2018: Discussion about the classification of Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Georgia

At a meeting of the party leaders of the ruling grand coalition in January 2016, they agreed on the proposed law to declare Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia safe countries of origin. The media see this as a reaction to the events on New Year's Eve in Cologne . In this context, the German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière visited Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia in February / March 2016 in order to negotiate with government representatives on the spot to simplify the repatriation of citizens of these countries. On May 13, 2016, the Bundestag passed the law in unchanged form. The Federal Council postponed its deliberations on June 17, 2016 on its approval of the draft.

The Greens are involved in some coalition governments at state level (→ list ); they can cause these state governments to abstain from voting on the Federal Council. On December 19, 2016, a man committed an attack in Berlin by driving a stolen truck into a crowd at the Christmas market at the Gedächtniskirche. An urgent suspect is a Tunisian named Anis Amri , whose deportation to Tunisia failed twice. After the attack, Federal Interior Minister de Maizière called on the Greens to give up their resistance in the Federal Council to the law passed by the Bundestag . In its meeting on March 10, 2017, the Federal Council rejected the draft law. The federal government and the Bundestag could still call the mediation committee.

On July 18, 2018, the federal government made a new attempt to classify Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, and now Georgia, as safe countries of origin and passed a corresponding draft law by Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer ( CSU ). The project must first be discussed and approved by the Bundestag, then the Bundesrat must also agree. On January 18, 2019, the German Bundestag decided to classify Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Georgia as safe countries of origin. The approval of the Federal Council was considered unlikely, as the Greens involved in government in several federal states rejected the draft. After the governments of Schleswig-Holstein and Hesse had decided against the new law, they requested the vote in the Bundesrat to be removed from the agenda of February 15, 2019 in order to prevent it from failing.

Since December 2019, the CDU and Bavarian CSU have been planning to expand the list of safe countries of origin through a new law, although they do not provide for the approval of the Federal Council for this law. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Georgia, Armenia, Gambia and Ivory Coast are to be classified as other safe countries of origin. In a further legislative step, Mongolia, India and Liberia are to be classified as safe countries of origin. The political parties FDP and AfD are also calling for the list of safe countries of origin to be expanded to include the Mahgreb countries.

Judicial evaluation

In 1996, the Federal Constitutional Court dealt in two decisions with the principle of safe countries of origin, the principle of safe third countries and the general tightening of asylum law from 1992/93. The applicants mainly questioned the extent to which Art. 16a could have been changed despite the so-called eternity clause ( Art. 79 GG) and to what extent §§ 18, 26a, 31 and 34a AsylVfG (former name of the AsylG) were in conformity with the Basic Law .

The court dismissed all complaints and justified it as follows, especially with regard to the second point:

"With the reform of the asylum law, the constitution-amending legislature created a basis for an overall European regulation of the granting of protection for refugees with the aim of distributing the burden between those involved in such a system through an international agreement on responsibility for examining asylum requests and the mutual recognition of asylum decisions To reach states ( Art. 16a (5) GG). Without prejudice to such regulations at the level of international law, Article 16a (2) of the Basic Law takes into account the situation resulting from global refugee and migration movements and therefore turns away from the previous concept, the problems associated with the admission of political refugees to solve solely through regulations of domestic law. It continues from the assumption that there is a need to be granted protection from political persecution, but refers foreigners seeking asylum to other protection that they can obtain in a safe third country. "

The second judgment - with regard to the safe countries of origin - was made with three (differing) separate opinions ( Jutta Limbach , former court president, as well as Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde and Bertold Sommer ). Limbach in particular criticized the legislature's scope for assessment and evaluation and the problem of making the classification of safe countries of origin comprehensible. Above all, she criticized this with regard to the fact that a classification would restrict the guarantee content of the fundamental right of asylum and that a state would find it difficult to obtain information about legal practice and the stability of the political situation in another state.

In November 2014, the Münster Administrative Court raised serious safety concerns for Roma refugees in Serbia and questioned the country's classification.

criticism

Legislation on safe countries of origin is often criticized - for example on asylum-related demonstrations

The criticism of the principle of safe countries of origin primarily relates to the point of blanket judgments about asylum seekers based on their origin, which de facto undermines an individual assessment. In addition, the vague concept of the security of certain countries and the criteria for a corresponding classification are criticized.

One of the main criticisms of the principle is that it only serves to refuse asylum applications more quickly and thus to deport asylum seekers more quickly. A legally guaranteed individual review is not possible, the objection period is only one week according to the law. If the justified request for asylum could not be substantiated, there would be an immediate obligation to leave the country, and lawsuits would have no suspensive effect, so that any lawsuits would have to be brought from abroad. The principle of safe countries of origin as such is incomprehensible, because the origin of an asylum seeker alone cannot determine whether or not he or she is persecuted or free of persecution. The principle of safe countries of origin thus fundamentally contradicts the asylum law conceived as an individual right.

Another point of criticism is that the Basic Law and the Asylum Act do not specify a precise procedure for assessing and classifying security, which ultimately makes this an arbitrary, political decision. In the Basic Law, only test criteria are specified; obtaining certain information or determining precisely specified facts is not stipulated.

literature

  • Bade, Klaus: Europe on the move: Migration from the late 18th century to the present . CH Beck, Munich 2000
  • Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Ed.): The Federal Office in Figures 2013 - Asylum, Migration and Integration . Nuremberg 2014.
  • Hailbronner, Kay: Asylum and immigration law . Law studies series, Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, 3rd, revised edition
  • Lochoki, Timo: Integration policy issues in the 2013 federal election campaign . Humboldt University of Berlin and Universitet i Bergen, Berlin, September 2013.
  • Luft, Stefan / Schimany, Peter (eds.): 20 years of asylum compromise - balance sheet and perspectives . transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2014
  • Münch, Ursula: Asylum policy in the Federal Republic of Germany. Development and alternatives. Opladen 1993
  • PRO ASYL (Ed.): Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina: For the factual and legal assessment of the legislative project of the Grand Coalition to classify Western Balkan countries as »safe countries of origin« . Frankfurt, April 2014.
  • Randelzhofer, Albrecht: Asylrecht , in: Isensee, Josef / Kirchhof, Paul (Hrsg.): Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesoline Republik Deutschland , CF Müller, 2009, 3rd edition
  • Zimmermann, Andreas: The new basic right to asylum. Constitutional and international law limits and requirements. Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 1994

Web links

  • Marcel Leubecher (July 18, 2018): Asylum Policy: What it means when a country of origin is considered "safe" . In: Die WELT online. An article that elaborates on the differences and similarities in asylum procedures between a safe country of origin and countries that are not classified as such, and addresses the (possible) effects of classifying countries as safe countries of origin. Archived from the original on October 16, 2018. Retrieved October 16, 2018.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b The classification as a "safe country of origin". ( Memento from October 18, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) NDR.de , October 15, 2015.
  2. ^ Kay Hailbronner: Asylum and immigration law . In: Law studies series . 3rd revised edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, p. Section 116, p. 49 .
  3. ↑ a b Kay Hailbronner: Asylum and immigration law . In: Law studies series . 3rd revised edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, p. Section 1135, p. 423 .
  4. ↑ "Safe countries of origin": Effects on asylum seekers. Media service integration, May 12, 2016, accessed on July 16, 2016 .
  5. ↑ Annex II AsylVfG, valid from August 28, 2007 to November 5, 2014; available at buzer.de
  6. ↑ Annex II AsylVfG valid from April 8, 1995 to August 27, 2007; available at buzer.de
  7. ↑ Article 1 of the Act amending the Asylum Procedure Act of March 31, 1995 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 430 )
  8. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/5065 (PDF; 5.62 MB), justification for Art. 3 No. 52 (p. 221).
  9. ^ Ulrich Herbert: History of the policy on foreigners in Germany. Seasonal workers, forced laborers, guest workers, refugees . CH Beck, Munich 2001, p. 264 f .
  10. ↑ Timo Lochoki: Integration Policy Issues in the Federal Parliament Election 2013 . Humboldt University of Berlin and Universitet i Bergen, Berlin September 2013, p. 6th ff .
  11. ↑ Klaus Bade: Europe in Motion: Migration from the late 18th century to the present . CH Beck, Munich 2000, p. 391 .
  12. ↑ Andreas Zimmermann: The new basic right to asylum. Constitutional and international law limits and requirements . Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 1994, p. 30th ff .
  13. ↑ Stefan air / Peter Schimany: asylum policy in flux . In: Stefan Luft / Peter Schimany (eds.): 20 years asylum compromise - balance sheet and perspectives . transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2014, p. 11 .
  14. ^ A b Albrecht Randelzhofer: Asylum law . In: Josef Isensee / Paul Kirchhof (ed.): Handbook of the constitutional law of the Federal Republic of Germany . 3. Edition. CF Müller, 2009, p. 396 .
  15. ↑ BT-Drs. 12/4152. (PDF) p. 4 , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  16. ↑ Ursula Münch: Asylum Policy in the Federal Republic of Germany. Development and alternatives . Opladen 1993, p. 151 f .
  17. ↑ BT-Drs. Plenary minutes 12/169. (PDF) Accessed May 31, 2015 .
  18. ↑ Ulla Jelpke: Politically persecuted people enjoyed asylum ... In: Antifaschistische Nachrichten . No. 11 . Solingen May 21, 1993 ( soli-komitee-wuppertal.mobi ).
  19. ↑ BT-Drs. 12/4450. (PDF) p. 10 , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  20. ↑ Act to amend asylum procedure, foreigners and nationality regulations of June 30, 1993 . In: Federal Law Gazette . Part I, 1993, pp. 1070 .
  21. ↑ BT-Drs. Plenary minutes 13/21. (PDF) p. 1446 , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  22. ↑ BR-Drs. 99/95. (PDF) Accessed May 31, 2015 .
  23. ↑ BT-Drs. 13/3329. (PDF) Accessed May 31, 2015 .
  24. ↑ a b BT-Drs. 13/5075. (PDF) Accessed May 31, 2015 .
  25. ↑ BT-Drs. Plenary minutes 13/138. (PDF) p. 12390 , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  26. ↑ a b BVerfGE 94, 115 . May 14, 1996 ( online ).
  27. ↑ BT-Drs. 12/6255. (PDF) p. 1 , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  28. ↑ Stefan Keßler: Senegal - Climate of Terror . In: Amnesty International (ed.): AI-Journal . April 1998 ( amnesty.de ). Senegal - Climate of Terror ( Memento from January 22, 2015 in the Internet Archive )
  29. ↑ For the demarcation between EU accession candidate and safe country of origin, see for example: Turkey and EU: Dispute over classification as safe country of origin. Deutschlandfunk, October 13, 2015, accessed on October 21, 2016 .
  30. ↑ a b The Federal Office in Figures 2014 - Asylum, Migration and Integration. Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, 2014, p. 13 , accessed on January 5, 2016 .
  31. ↑ 476,649 asylum applications in 2015. Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, January 6, 2016, accessed on January 6, 2016 .
  32. ↑ Current figures on asylum. (PDF) (No longer available online.) Federal Office for Refugees and Migration, April 2015, archived from the original on May 30, 2015 ; accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  33. ↑ Laura Réthy: Asylum seekers onslaught overwhelmed many municipalities. In: The world. August 15, 2013, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  34. ↑ Germany wants fewer asylum seekers from the Balkans. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. March 14, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  35. ↑ Shaping Germany's future. Coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD. 18th legislative term. (PDF) 2013, p. 109 , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  36. ↑ Federal government adopts draft law on safe countries of origin. Federal Ministry of the Interior, April 30, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  37. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/1528. (PDF) Accessed May 31, 2015 .
  38. ↑ a b BT-Drs. Plenary minutes 18/40. (PDF) p. 3489ff. , accessed May 31, 2015 .
  39. ↑ BT-Drs. Plenary minutes 18/46. (PDF) p. 4174ff. , accessed May 31, 2015 .
  40. ↑ Sabine am Orde / Christian Jakob: The tip of the scales. In: the daily newspaper. September 17, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  41. ↑ Karin Waringo: Serbia - a safe country of origin for asylum seekers in Germany? An evaluation of sources on the human rights situation . Ed .: PRO ASYL. Frankfurt April 2013 ( proasyl.de [PDF]).
  42. ↑ Selmin Çaliskan: Lazy compromises with asylum. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. August 15, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  43. ↑ BR-Drs. Plenary minutes 925 (PDF) September 19, 2014, p. 277 ff , accessed on May 31, 2015 .
  44. ^ Letter from Winfried Kretschmann to the members of the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen party. (PDF) September 19, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  45. ↑ Federal Council votes for stricter asylum law. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. September 19, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  46. ↑ Andreas Linder: "Asylum Compromise" 2014 - cui bono? In: Circular letter from the Refugee Council of Baden-Württemberg . No. 3 , 2014 ( online [PDF]).
  47. ↑ a b Merkel wants to define safe countries of origin at EU level. (No longer available online.) In: Die Zeit . August 16, 2015, archived from the original on March 9, 2016 ; Retrieved September 9, 2015 .
  48. ↑ Kosovo and Montenegro want to be safe countries of origin. In: The time . August 3, 2015, accessed September 9, 2015 .
  49. ^ Philipp Glitz: A list in constant change. In: tagesschau.de. ARD , January 28, 2016, accessed on January 28, 2016 .
  50. ↑ Grand coalition agrees on a new asylum package. In: Spiegel Online . January 28, 2016. Retrieved January 28, 2016 .
  51. ↑ De Maizière expects North Africans to be deported more quickly. Zeit online, February 29, 2016, accessed March 3, 2016 .
  52. ^ De Maizière in North Africa: Countries want to take back citizens. Federal Government, March 1, 2016, accessed on March 3, 2016 .
  53. ↑ bundestag.de 171th meeting, May 13, 2016
  54. ↑ Topics: Asylum and Refugee Policy. (No longer available online.) Federal Council, archived from the original on July 30, 2016 ; accessed on December 24, 2016 .
  55. ↑ FAZ.net December 24, 2016: Three Amris liaison officers captured in Tunisia
  56. ↑ zeit.de December 25, 2016: De Maizière sees "no end" to the border controls
  57. ↑ Federal Council rejects classification of the Maghreb states as safe countries of origin. Spiegel Online, March 10, 2017, accessed on the same day.
  58. ↑ Bill approved: Maghreb states and Georgia - soon "safe"? . Tagesschau.de, July 18, 2018.
  59. ↑ Bundestag classifies Maghreb states and Georgia as safe . Spiegel Online, January 18, 2019.
  60. ↑ "Decision on safe countries of origin to be postponed" Welt.de of February 12, 2019
  61. ↑ Deutschlandfunk.de: Union wants regulation without state approval
  62. ↑ Zeit.de: CSU wants to expand the number of safe countries of origin
  63. ↑ Liberale.de: Declare Maghreb states to be safe countries of origin
  64. ↑ AfD Kompakt.de: Federal Council should finally classify Maghreb states as safe countries of origin
  65. ↑ Heribert Prantl: Karlsruhe should examine the new asylum law. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 28, 2014, accessed May 31, 2015 .
  66. ↑ Dr. Reinhard Marx: Legal opinion on the question of whether the legal classification of Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina as safe countries of origin is permissible under Union and constitutional law . In: PRO ASYL (Ed.): Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina: For the factual and legal assessment of the legislative project of the grand coalition to classify Western Balkan countries as "safe countries of origin" . Frankfurt April 2014, p. 22 ( online [PDF]).