23
Apr 2025
Germany’s highest administrative court has cleared the way for deporting certain migrants back to Greece, ruling that they would not face inhumane treatment despite acknowledged systemic shortcomings.
The decision, which upholds rejected asylum claims from two men previously granted protection in Greece, reignites debate over the European Union’s (EU) asylum policy and the human cost of procedural efficiency.
Judges dismiss risks of degrading conditions
The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig handed down the ruling on April 16th, 2025, rejecting appeals from two men.
One, a 34-year-old man from northern Gaza with undetermined nationality, and the other, a 32-year-old Somali national, had both fled their home countries and arrived in Greece via Turkey. There, they received international protection and temporary residence permits before continuing to Germany and applying for asylum a second time.
German authorities rejected their applications as inadmissible. Lower courts had already dismissed the claims.
The Federal Administrative Court confirmed those decisions, stating that deporting the men back to Greece did not pose a significant risk of inhumane or degrading treatment.
Presiding judge Robert Keller summed up the court’s position with a stark phrase: the men could count on access to “bread, bed, and soap” in Greece.
“That’s not much—we know that,” he admitted. “It’s a tough benchmark.”
Emphasis on basic survival, not dignity
At the heart of the ruling is the interpretation of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which prohibits inhumane or degrading treatment.
The court said that despite bureaucratic delays and lack of formal welfare systems in Greece, returnees could likely access shelter, soup kitchens, and informal work. Emergency medical care is also theoretically available.
Critics argued that this sets the bar dangerously low. While the court acknowledged flaws in Greece’s asylum infrastructure, it insisted that these did not amount to violations of fundamental rights.
Activists and aid groups cry foul
Refugee advocacy groups quickly condemned the decision. Pro Asyl, a prominent German NGO, called the court’s view “detached from reality.”
“We have a very different assessment of the situation,” said consultant Andreas Meyerhöfer. “We know that people are at real risk of falling into destitution.”
Greece has long struggled to support the large number of refugees that it receives, many of whom land on its shores after treacherous journeys. Once granted protection, these migrants often find themselves without stable housing, regular income, or access to health care.
(Image courtesy of Felix Mittermeier via Pixabay)
Legal precedent and policy shift
The court’s decision reverses the course of previous rulings in Germany that had paused deportations to Greece due to humanitarian concerns. Those earlier rulings often cited degrading conditions such as homelessness and lack of sanitation in Greek refugee camps.
This new judgment aligns more closely with the “Dublin Regulation,” an EU policy that requires asylum seekers to file their claims in the first EU country they enter. In practice, that rule has placed a disproportionate burden on Mediterranean countries like Greece and Italy.
The court said that its job was not to question the fairness of EU law but to assess whether deportation amounted to extreme hardship. It ruled that it did not—at least not for healthy, employable, and single men.
Mixed reactions and lingering concerns
While some German officials view the decision as a long-overdue correction to inconsistent deportation policies, others fear that it sets a troubling standard.
By declaring that minimal access to survival essentials satisfies fundamental rights, the court may have opened the door for broader removals to countries with poor refugee support systems.
Despite the court’s assurance, there is little guarantee these deported individuals will find shelter or work once returned. Additionally, with the number of displaced people growing, critics worry that the burden is being shifted without solutions.
(Image courtesy of SCM Jeans via iStock)
Travel rules grow stricter as courts back deportations
The court’s ruling sends a strong signal to both migrants and travelers heading to the EU: the rules are getting tighter, and enforcement is ramping up.
While the judgment focuses on deporting recognized refugees who seek asylum in a second EU country, the message reaches further.
For short-term and long-term visitors, especially those from regions with high migration flows, the decision highlights a shift toward stricter border controls and heightened scrutiny. The upcoming launch of the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS), expected to begin operations in 2026, reflects this trend.
Under ETIAS, travelers from visa-free countries must secure digital approval before entering the Schengen Zone. Though it targets tourists and business travelers, the system also functions as a pre-screening filter for security and irregular migration risks.
The Leipzig ruling reinforces the EU’s broader attempt to close loopholes that allow migrants to bypass the “first country of entry” rule. Even migrants with protection in one EU state now risk deportation if they move onward and apply elsewhere.
Combined with ETIAS and existing Schengen visa policies, the ruling adds to a growing framework of deterrents designed to keep border-crossing under tight control. The EU’s approach is becoming less forgiving, not only for asylum seekers but also for travelers whose visits blur into longer stays.
Uniform enforcement over humanitarian flexibility
The decision from Germany’s top court marks a turning point in how EU countries interpret and enforce asylum law. It suggests a coordinated pivot toward uniform implementation of the Dublin Regulation, rather than allowing individual member states to soften their approach based on humanitarian concerns.
In the past, several German courts halted deportations to Greece, citing dire reception conditions. However, this new judgment overturns that trend and resets the legal tone.
By stating that access to basic needs suffices, the ruling gives governments broader leeway to deport without facing legal blocks. This standard is minimal, yet now considered legally acceptable for asylum transfers.
Other EU nations are likely to follow Germany’s lead, seeing the judgment as legal cover to resume suspended deportations. Policymakers across the bloc may feel emboldened to prioritize deterrence and return agreements over integration strategies.
This shift could weaken protections for vulnerable asylum seekers and move EU immigration policy closer to a model of containment, where responsibility is concentrated in frontline states like Greece.
It also sets the stage for deeper reform discussions, particularly around burden-sharing, solidarity mechanisms, and the legal definition of humane treatment under EU law.
(Image courtesy of Ralph via Pixabay)
A precedent set amid controversy
Germany’s top court has drawn a firm line, ruling that deporting healthy, single male migrants to Greece does not violate human rights—a decision that could reshape asylum dynamics across the EU.
While the ruling reinforces the EU’s Dublin Regulation, it simultaneously reignites tensions over reception conditions in frontline states like Greece.
Human rights advocates warn this decision ignores harsh realities on the ground, where access to housing, food, and medical care is far from guaranteed. Judge Robert Keller summed up the court’s stark standard with “bed, bread and soap”—a threshold many call troublingly low.
As legal certainty returns to German deportation policy, the humanitarian debate is far from settled.
