A verdict handed down by Germany’s constitutional court says that police will need to obtain a warrant from a judge to search property inhabited by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, in order to enforce deportations of failed asylum seekers.
The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe upheld a migrant's complaint, ruling that authorities may search spaces in asylum accommodation centers in the event of a planned deportation — only if a judge has given prior permission.
In 2019, a group of police officers had forcibly broken down the door to the complainant's room in a Berlin asylum shelter as part of plans to have the Guinean man deported to Italy under the EU's Dublin Regulation.
This happened after authorities had attempted to detain him for deportation purposes; when he failed to open his door, police forcibly entered his room using a battering ram, without obtaining a court-ordered warrant first, according to court documents.
Officials had also, according to court documents, taken private belongings from the man such as his wallet and mobile phone to obtain information related to his case, also without seeking a judicial search warrant first.
Read AlsoGermany's Dublin centers cause 'mental stress' and anxiety, experts say
'Simple entry' versus 'search'
The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg had ruled earlier that such methods were lawful, falling under other rights that police officers have when conducting a "simple entry" into properties in cases where a warrant is not required.
However, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that these actions were not reflective of a "simple entry" and due to the sheer use of force involved constituted a "search" — for which a warrant would have to be obtained from a judge first.
The top judges in Karlsruhe further added that since the authorities did not know the migrants' precise location at the moment before breaking into the room, their act would legally be classified as a "search" and not a "simple entry."
In the ruling, the judges wrote among other things that "(f)ailure to comply with an (enforceable) obligation to leave the country does not constitute an urgent danger" that would warrant such extraordinary measures as breaking down a door and putting a person still wearing nothing but their underwear in handcuffs.
The Constitutional Court's rejection of this interpretation now means that the case returns to the Higher Administrative Court, which has to issue a new ruling.
Rights' groups welcome ruling
The refugee and migrants' rights organizations Pro Asyl and the Society for Civil Rights (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte), which had jointly supported the complaint at the Constitutional Court, welcomed the decision.
They said the ruling served as a "lesson for the government to respect fundamental and human rights in its migration policy."
Sarah Lincoln, a lawyer working with the Society for Civil Rights, said that the decision sent the message that deportations are "not a carte blanche, and refugees' bedrooms are not a legal vacuum, but rather a unique and fundamental space of refuge that is specially protected by constitutional rights."
Wiebke Judith from Pro Asyl said that the ruling was "a vital reminder that basic rights cannot be ignored simply because someone is facing deportation."