Enlarge image
Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe: Rights of those affected strengthened
Photo: Sebastian Gollnow / dpa
Courts may not simply impose detention pending deportation without notifying a trusted person or a relative of the person concerned. The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe made this clear in a decision published on Wednesday, upholding a complaint from three men. From the Senate's perspective, the lower courts had made it too easy for themselves to reach or locate confidants.
Two Afghan citizens and a Jordanian had filed suit against lower court rulings made in Saxony-Anhalt, Bavaria and Thuringia. According to the Karlsruhe Senate, the plaintiffs' rights under Article 104 paragraph 4 of the Basic Law were violated. The passage states that before any judicial decision on the order or continuation of a deprivation of liberty, a relative of the detainee or a person he or she trusts must be notified. The judges emphasized that this standard was intended to prevent prisoners from disappearing without a trace. The lower courts did not take this into account.
In the first case, an Afghan wanted to call a friend with whom he kept his belongings and with whom he stayed regularly. The district court ignored this, did not document the reasons for this and ordered detention pending deportation. The district court later decided that the friend, who was not named, did not meet the requirements of a confidant.
In the second case, an Afghan citizen was arrested upon entering Germany and placed in so-called transfer custody. Here, too, the man said in a hearing that a person he trusted should be notified. However, he only stated that the person lived in Frankfurt. The court found this too imprecise and did not see any obligation to investigate. The Jordanian in the third case had worked as a doctor in a rehabilitation clinic. When deportation detention was ordered, the man wanted the clinic to be notified. This was also omitted with the statement that a clinic is neither a person of trust nor a relative.
Overall, that wasn't enough for the judges from Karlsruhe. For example - as in the second case - it is entirely reasonable for a court to obtain registration information and thus find out the address of friends or relatives. In the third case, too, the lower court made things too easy for itself. After all, a person from the clinic's human resources department could have been notified.
(2 BvR 656/20, 2 BvR 1816/22, 2 BvR , 210/23).
ani/dpa