BVerfG, 2 BvR 1487/17, 2017
- 2017
- Germany
Topics
Public securityLegal bases
European Convention on Human Rights Germany: Constitution of 1949, Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (GG))Courts
Federal Constitutional Court, GermanyLaws
Proportionality Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatment Right to an effective remedy Right to lifeFacts
The applicant is an Algerian national who entered Germany for the first time in early 2003. On March 2017, the competent authority of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen ordered his deportation to Algeria and issued a permanent ban on entry and residence against the applicant. The reasoning of the deportation notice stated that the applicant posed a terrorist threat. The action brought by the applicant against the deportation order was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court, subject to the reservation that a deportation would only be permissible upon obtaining an assurance from Algerian government authorities that the applicant would not be at risk of suffering human rights violations in Algeria. With his constitutional complaint, the applicant challenges constitutionality of the legal provisions that govern so-called foreign “dangerous suspects” (Gefährder) residing in Germany, i.e. persons who constitute a special danger to the security of the Federal Republic of Germany or a terrorist threat, and allows for their deportation in order to avert such threats. The applicant contends that the provision was inserted without first having been tabled for parliamentary debate; for this reason, the applicant claims that the enactment of the challenged provision does not meet formal constitutional requirements.
Legal grounds
Article 1 sec. 1, Article 2 sec. 2 sentence 1, Article 6 sec. 1, Article 19 sec. 4, Art. 101 sec. 1 sentence 2 of the GG; Article 3 of the ECHR.
Findings
The Court did not admit the constitutional complaint for decision, on the basis that it was unfounded. The Court held no objection to the formal constitutionality of the challenged provision as it satisfies the principles of clarity, specificity and proportionality. The application of the challenged provision in the applicant’s case also does not violate his fundamental rights. In particular, the Federal Administrative Court did not base its assessment that the applicant poses a terrorist threat solely on the applicant’s ideological conviction. Rather, the Federal Administrative Court considered the applicant’s conviction merely as one of several aspects contributing to the applicant’s potential dangerousness. Moreover, there are no constitutional objections to the Federal Administrative Court’s evaluation of evidence, leading to the conclusion that the applicant shows signs of a significantly increased willingness to resort to violence and terrorist methods in order to achieve his religiously motivated aims. Finally, the decision of the Federal Administrative Court is not objectionable under constitutional law insofar as it made the deportation of the applicant contingent upon an assurance from the Algerian authorities, to be obtained prior to the applicant’s transfer.