BERLIN — In a significant legal decision, a Berlin court ruled on Monday that the German government's effort to turn away asylum-seekers at the country’s borders is unlawful, undermining a central component of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposed crackdown on migration.

The court emphasized that individuals submitting asylum applications during border controls on German territory cannot be turned back.

This ruling arose from a complaint lodged by three Somali asylum-seekers who entered Germany from Poland in May and were subsequently returned by the German police.

The ruling presents a considerable obstacle for Merz, who recently assumed office and had committed to enforcing an "effective entry ban" on undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers from the outset of his term.

This pledge came amid pressure from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which has positioned itself as the leading opposition force with a strong anti-immigration stance.

Following Merz's inauguration, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt announced plans to deploy several thousand additional police officers to Germany’s borders as a visible marker of a shift in national migration policy.

This initiative garnered criticism from neighboring countries, particularly Poland, which expressed concerns about potential delays and disruptions in the movement of people and goods across the Schengen Area.

In response to the court's ruling, Dobrindt questioned its implications, stating that it appeared to pertain only to the three Somali complainants.

He reaffirmed the government’s intention to continue enforcing return policies, insisting that a legal foundation exists for such actions.

A spokesperson for the court clarified that while the decision's binding effect is limited to the specific case, it is advisable for the government to adopt the ruling in similar future instances.

The court’s decision is final and not subject to appeal.

Legal analysts suggest that the government’s current policy conflicts with established European law, particularly referencing the Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that EU countries must process asylum requests to determine which member state is responsible.

The court’s decision substantiates this perspective.

Dobrindt maintains that Germany reserves the right to suspend compliance with European regulations in the interest of national security and public order, arguing it is necessary to manage the demands that asylum-seekers are placing on local municipalities.

However, the court ruled that the government did not adequately substantiate claims of a threat to public safety or order.

The influx of asylum-seekers into Germany has seen a decline of approximately 30 percent in the previous year, despite migration remaining a focal point of political discourse.

In 2024, Germany received about 230,000 first-time asylum applications, keeping migration as a critical issue in national politics.

In the wake of the ruling, members of the AfD are expected to assert that this development reflects Merz’s inability to fulfill his migration control promises.