In Deutschland können Menschen subsidiären Schutz beantragen, wenn sie in ihrem Heimatland bedroht sind. Ein recent court ruling has determined that this is not currently the case for Syrian nationals, which could have significant implications.
The Higher Administrative Court of Münster recently ruled that there is no longer a general threat to asylum seekers from Syria due to civil war conditions. This decision resulted in the rejection of a subsidiary protection request from an individual who entered Germany in 2014.
This landmark ruling contradicts the previous practices adopted by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, which typically granted subsidiary protection to Syrian asylum seekers on the grounds of their status as war refugees. A spokesperson for the NRW Administrative Court highlighted the significance of this decision released last Tuesday.
Buschmann: “genau hinschauen”
The ruling raises critical questions for over 700,000 Syrian refugees and asylum seekers currently residing in Germany. Federal Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann emphasized the necessity of carefully evaluating who can be deported to which parts of Syria, noting that the security situation varies significantly across the country. He acknowledged the court’s decision, stating, “It must be examined more thoroughly instead of assuming that the security landscape is uniformly dangerous throughout Syria.”
Innenministerium prüft Entscheidungspraxis
The Federal Ministry of the Interior, led by the SPD, responded by stating that they continually review the decision-making practices based on available intelligence, including court rulings which play a pivotal role in these assessments.
During a recent conference in June, there was an agreement to resume deportations of offenders and suspected Islamist radicals to Afghanistan and Syria, potentially through neighboring countries. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser mentioned ongoing discussions with multiple states regarding this issue, highlighting the need for an updated assessment of the situation in Syria.
Pro Asyl: “An der Realität vorbei”
The legal policy spokesperson for Pro Asyl criticized the ruling, arguing that the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia is disconnected from the actual situation in Syria. Citing relevant reports, she warned of a significant ongoing conflict, emphasizing that no individual is safe from the oppressive regime led by Bashar al-Assad.
Subsidiary protection is designed for individuals who are not formally recognized as persecuted refugees but can provide substantial reasons for fearing serious harm—such as violence from civil war—should they return to their country. Until now, it has been widely presumed that civilians in Syria faced such serious threats due to ongoing internal conflict.
Recent demands from the District Association and the Union have called for the denial of subsidiary protections for Syrians, which represents a significant shift in policy.
In Syrien “keine ernsthafte, individuelle Bedrohung” des Lebens
In its judgment, the court concluded that there is currently “no serious individual threat to life or physical integrity for civilians in Syria due to arbitrary violence in the context of an ongoing armed conflict.”
In the specific case of the claimant from the Hasaka province, the court found no grounds for protection either in his home region or in Syria at large. It noted that although armed confrontations and occasional attacks still occur in Hasaka, they do not rise to a level that would reasonably lead civilians to fear for their lives or safety, providing the rationale for the ruling.
Haftstrafe in Österreich
The claimant had previously been sentenced to imprisonment in Austria for involvement in human trafficking from Turkey into Europe. The Higher Administrative Court stated that he does not face political persecution in Syria, and his criminal record disqualified him from being granted refugee status. Furthermore, the requirements for subsidiary protection were also deemed unmet.
This ruling is not final, as there is still an option to appeal despite the court’s decision not allowing for a revision.
(Az: 14 A 2847/19.A, I. Instanz VG Münster 2 K 2750/18.A)
