Higher Administrative Court Münster, 09.03.2011, Case No.: 11 A 1439/07.A
The German asylum law for politically persecuted individuals is a fundamental right in Germany, established in Article 16a of the Basic Law (GG) and specified in the Asylum Procedure Act (AsylVfG).
The decision on whether an applicant qualifies as a person entitled to asylum lies with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees in Nuremberg.
The decision on whether the grant of asylum should be revoked is also the responsibility of the Federal Office (§§ 73 ff. AsylVfG).
According to § 73 Abs. 1 AsylVfG, recognition as a person entitled to asylum and the granting of refugee status must be revoked immediately if the conditions for it are no longer met.
This is particularly the case according to § 73 ff. AsylVfG if, after the circumstances that led to the recognition as a person entitled to asylum or the granting of refugee status have ceased, the foreigner can no longer refuse to seek protection from the state of which he or she is a national, or if the individual, as a stateless person, is able to return to the country where he or she had habitual residence.
According to § 73 Abs. 2 AsylVfG, recognition as a person entitled to asylum must be withdrawn if it was granted based on incorrect information or due to the concealment of essential facts, and the foreigner could not be recognized for other reasons as well.
The examination of whether there are grounds for revocation or withdrawal of asylum entitlement is carried out as part of a so-called regular review, which is to be conducted every three years for the respective asylum seeker.
However, a revocation does not mean that the person entitled to asylum must immediately leave Germany, as the decision on returning to the home country, including measures to end residence, lies not with the Federal Office but with the respective immigration authority of a federal state.
Therefore, regarding the obligation to leave Germany, further aspects that are unrelated to the revocation are also considered, such as family ties and length of stay.
In the case mentioned above, the Higher Administrative Court Münster had to decide whether the asylum entitlement of an imam could be revoked because he had delivered inflammatory sermons against Jews and Christians.
Facts
The plaintiff was recognized as a person entitled to asylum in 1999. In April 2006, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees revoked the asylum recognition. The reason given was that the plaintiff, who worked as an imam for Muslim communities in Münster and Minden, had delivered „incendiary sermons“ against „infidels.“ Among other things, the imam preached that „God should break the backs of the Jews, Christians, and their supporters.“ Additionally, the imam had connections to the Islamist terrorist organization „Al-Jihad Al-Islami,“ which, according to the Federal Office, fulfilled the conditions for legal grounds for exclusion from asylum.
Administrative Court Minden
The imam challenged this decision at the Administrative Court Minden. The court upheld the lawsuit and annulled the revocation decision of the Federal Office.
Higher Administrative Court Münster and European Law
However, the Higher Administrative Court Münster confirmed the Federal Office’s decision and rejected the lawsuit. It referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union from 09.11.2010 (C-57/09 and C-101/09). According to this judgment, a person can be excluded from refugee status if they are individually responsible for actions committed by an organization that uses terrorist methods.
The Refugee Recognition Directive 2004/83/EC sets minimum standards for the recognition of third-country nationals or stateless persons as individuals entitled to international protection and for the content of the protection granted. According to this directive, a person may be excluded from recognition as a refugee if there are serious reasons to believe that they have committed a „serious non-political crime“ or have engaged in actions „contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.“
Source: Higher Administrative Court Münster
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers from Cologne advise clients nationwide on immigration law.
