The Federal Constitutional Court has issued a binding order compelling the German government to promptly process the visa applications of an Afghan judge and his family, highlighting significant concerns regarding bureaucratic delays and the protection of vulnerable individuals fleeing instability. In a decision released Thursday, the court’s Second Senate Chamber ruled that the applicants – a former Supreme Court judge, his wife and their four children – possess actionable claims that require immediate attention, citing a “particular urgency” justifying expedited processing.
The family’s case is particularly sensitive; the judge held a position within the Afghan Supreme Court prior to the Taliban’s seizure of power, placing him and his family at heightened risk. They were initially included in the “bridging list” program by the Federal Interior Ministry in 2022, designed to facilitate relocation for at-risk individuals. While the Foreign Office, in July 2024, stated there were no security concerns and indicated an unwillingness to revoke the admission declaration, the drawn-out administrative process triggered the legal challenge.
Lower courts demonstrated conflicting rulings; an administrative court initially granted the family’s urgent application for visa issuance, only to have that decision overturned by a higher administrative court. The Constitutional Court’s intervention underscores a fundamental legal oversight by the latter. The court’s judgment expressly criticized the higher court’s failure to rigorously assess whether the applicants had convincingly demonstrated a legitimate claim to a decision on their visa requests.
Rather than remanding the case back to the administrative court for reconsideration, the Constitutional Court opted to directly order the Federal Republic of Germany to process the applications, viewing the situation as warranting immediate action. The decision reflects increasing scrutiny of the government’s handling of at-risk Afghan nationals, particularly those who previously held positions within the judiciary.
Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) stated his ministry would “initiate the necessary steps” upon receiving the official ruling. While seemingly cooperative, Dobrindt’s accompanying statement also downplayed the ruling’s implications, asserting that the Constitutional Court affirms the government’s position that a legally binding admission for this group does not exist. Critically, the ruling highlights a potential conflict – while acknowledging the need for timely processing, the government maintains its stance on broader admission policies, raising questions about the potential application of this expedited procedure to other Afghan asylum seekers and refugees facing similar bureaucratic hurdles. The episode is likely to fuel debate within the ruling coalition concerning the balance between national security concerns and the humanitarian responsibility to protect vulnerable populations.
