The horrific act in Aschaffenburg has led to sweeping accusations in the election campaign, but not to a sober analysis of the problem. The parallel to the attack in Solingen is striking. Both the Afghan perpetrator in Aschaffenburg and the Syrian perpetrator in Solingen came to Germany via Bulgaria and applied for asylum here. Although the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected the implementation of an asylum procedure in Germany under the Dublin System and issued deportation orders to Bulgaria, the individuals concerned were not deported, even though Bulgaria agreed to take back the asylum seekers. But what are the reasons for the failure of repatriation?
No one in federal politics seems willing to take a closer look at the reasons for the failure of repatriation within Europe. The causes are manifold, but none of them are acceptable.
- It is unacceptable that European states see themselves as unable to provide an asylum procedure that meets basic minimum requirements. The transfer of asylum seekers to the EU state responsible for examining an asylum application is only inadmissible in the event of an extreme risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, whereby systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure must be present. In times when billions are being spent on refugee policy, systemic deficiencies in the asylum system of some EU member states must not be tolerated in Europe.
- The same applies to the simple refusal of EU states to take back refugees. The refusal to apply European law has also been tolerated by the EU Commission for years. There has long been no interest in enforcing European Dublin regulations, as these were not intended for the mass influx of refugees and are therefore not suitable for a fair distribution of the burden between EU states.
- Ultimately, returns to EU member states fail due to absurd demands regarding the manner in which the return is to be carried out. For example, the demand to return Dublin refugees by scheduled flight, although a direct land connection between the EU states would allow a bus transfer, is just one method of boycotting the Dublin system through the back door.
Considering the shortcomings mentioned, Europe is ultimately called upon to act, but it fails to do so because there is no internal solidarity between EU states when it comes to refugee law. The new Dublin system, which will come into force in the middle of next year, also only has a future if there is solidarity in the distribution of refugees in Europe. The functioning of the new Dublin system will also depend on whether it is possible to prevent the internal migration of refugees and to limit legal protection options to what is necessary under constitutional and European law.
Where does the failure lie? Certainly, not with the federal and state authorities, which are overwhelmed by the mass of asylum procedures. Rather, the common European asylum system is a write-off.
The accusation by the federal government that the Bavarian authorities had not taken sufficient care to ensure the prompt return of the perpetrator is also difficult to comprehend, since the specific case involved deportation to Afghanistan. Was the federal government not just congratulating itself in the press release of 30 August 2024 on the fact that ‘for the first time since August 2021, returns of Afghan nationals to their country of origin [were] carried out’? The federal government had made great efforts to achieve the return of 28 criminals to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, without diplomatic efforts at the highest level, returns are often virtually impossible – not only to Afghanistan. The Bavarian state authorities certainly did not have the opportunity to organise a flight to Afghanistan in the case of the man from Aschaffenburg. The announcement of a voluntary departure to Afghanistan was therefore a rare stroke of luck for the competent authorities.
Conclusion: If blame is to be apportioned, then it should be directed at Europe. Those who set European law and thus limit the scope of action of the member states are responsible for ensuring that the mandatory system works. If no conclusions are drawn from the failure of the Common European Asylum System at the Union level for years, then one should not be surprised if the member states go it alone or plan to go it alone at the national level in ways that are hardly compatible with Union law.
