A proposed shift in German asylum law, spearheaded by the current governing coalition, is facing legal scrutiny. The plan, which aims to transfer the onus of proof regarding the reasons for persecution onto asylum seekers, is reportedly at odds with both European and German law, according to a detailed legal opinion from the Bundestag’s Scientific Service. The opinion, commissioned by the Left party and reported by “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, raises concerns about the potential impact on asylum seekers’ rights.
The core of the proposal involves a change in the established principle of “official investigation” within asylum proceedings. The coalition agreement stipulates a move toward a “burden of proof” system, meaning courts would no longer proactively investigate potential dangers faced by asylum seekers in their countries of origin. Instead, applicants would be required to directly provide evidence, such as witnesses or documentation, to substantiate their claims.
The legal opinion indicates that such a change would likely violate EU law, as it would remove the court’s responsibility to assess general safety conditions in destination countries. Furthermore, it argues that demanding comprehensive proof of risks, such as those arising from potential deportation, could be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the German constitution.
Critics, including Left party parliamentarian Aaron Valent, have described the proposed reform as a significant infringement upon human rights, creating an insurmountable barrier for asylum seekers. While a draft law addressing this issue has not yet been presented, the government stated that the matter is still under review. The potential legal challenges and human rights implications are expected to fuel ongoing debate surrounding asylum policy in Germany.
