The Federal Ministry of the Interior views the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision regarding Afghanistan’s admission program as largely confirming its general course of action. A spokesperson for Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) told “Die Welt” that the Constitutional Court mostly aligns with the government’s argument that admission declarations can be revoked when political interests change. However, the spokesperson noted that the Court required the Federal Ministry of the Interior to account for each individual case during any withdrawal.
Furthermore, the spokesperson stated that the Constitutional Court found no violation of the duty to protect trust, nor did it establish the existence of external protection obligations. Instead, the court granted the government broad political discretion when it comes to rescinding admissions for political reasons.
Civil rights groups and organizations such as the Society for Civil Liberties (GFF) and the Kabul Airlift organization were also vindicated by the ruling, which utilized a model constitutional complaint filed by a women’s rights activist and her two minor children. Elaha Hakim, operational director of the Kabul Airlift organization, expressed satisfaction that the Constitutional Court followed their arguments, clarifying that the blanket revocation of acceptance promises is unconstitutional. She subsequently called on the Federal Government to fulfill its individual obligations and finally grant the protection these families deserve.
Mareile Dedekind, a lawyer at the GFF and co-author of the model complaint, echoed this sentiment, declaring that the recent ruling from Karlsruhe was clear. She emphasized that the government cannot arbitrarily withdraw its protection commitment from highly vulnerable Afghans. “This is good news for basic rights-but it is not yet enough. Germany must finally put the protection-seekers in safety from torture and death,” Dedekind added.
The Constitutional Court had ruled that Germany could not unilaterally abolish the admission programs for Afghans. As the Karlsruhe judges announced on Friday, the individual circumstances of the affected foreigners must be considered within case-by-case decisions.
The background to the dispute involved the government’s decision in 2025 to largely discontinue voluntary admission programs. Subsequently, the Federal Ministry of the Interior declared acceptance declarations from the “human rights list” invalid in December 2025. The subsequent rejection of visa applications from affected Afghans led to a constitutional complaint, which was ultimately successful. The Court overturned the decision made by the Higher Administrative Court, which had supported the rejection of the emergency petition.
The Federal Constitutional Court reiterated that the executive branch, even within the rule of law, is not completely free and remains bound by the prohibition of arbitrary action. The BMI’s declaration of revocation was deemed objectively arbitrary because it failed to consider the individual circumstances of the complainants. The Higher Administrative Court must now re-examine whether the political interest in admitting the complainants exists, while adhering to the guidelines set by the Constitutional Court.
