PRO ASYL Presseerklärung | Press Release

19 May 2004

Airport asylum procedure: Zimbabwean refugee shall be deported to region of origin, even though his wife has been granted refugee status in United Kingdom.

German administrations and courts
act in breach of EU law
British administration plays a problematic role
Deportation likely within this week

The Zimbabwean asylum seeker M. is in danger of deportation to Tunisia or to his country of origin. Yet, his wife has been granted refugee status in UK on the basis of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Mr. M’s deportation was decided upon by the German Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees and by a judge at the Administrative Court in Frankfurt/Main. M. faces deportation to Tunisia and as a possible result being sent to Zimbabwe, where he might face further political persecution.

German administrations and the Administrative Court in Frankfurt/Main are apparently trying to bypass the European regulation of competences for asylum procedures (Dublin II) by means of a peculiar cooperation with British institutions. Germany had filed a pro forma request in accordance with the Dublin procedures and – without awaiting the British answer whether the UK was willing to let Mr. M. undergo the asylum procedure there – made a quick decision.

Article 7 of the Dublin II regulation states: “Where the asylum seeker has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a refugee in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum, provided that the persons concerned so desire.”

Despite this explicit regulation, Mister M., who is separated from his wife due to diverging dates of their escape from Zimbabwe, is facing deportation. The Administrative Court in Frankfurt/Main holds this to be neither a violation of the Dublin II regulations nor a case of humanitarian hardship.

PRO ASYL is in possession of a letter from the Immigration Service Heathrow of 14 May 2004. The letter confirms that a female Zimbabwean citizen by the name that Mr. M. referred to received asylum in the UK. Further it states: “If Mr. M wishes to maintain claim that Mrs. T. is his wife, and that he wishes to reside with her in the United Kingdom, then he will need to apply for the required UK entry clearance. By following this correct procedure we can assure that all the necessary inquiries will be made. Mr. M will of course need to obtain the required entry clearance before he travels to United Kingdom.”

PRO ASYL is afraid that the Chief Immigration officer might not be aware of all details of this case. The consequences of this behaviour on all sides: M.s last chance in Germany is an appeal to the German Federal Constitutional Court.

Neither the German Ministry of the Interior nor the British Home Office seem to be willing to act in a humane manner. PRO ASYL urges the UK and the German authorities to find a quick, unbureaucratic and humane solution to solve the case in the spirit of Article 7 of the Dublin II regulation.