BVerfG, 2 BvR 1606/17, 2017
- 2017
- Germany
Topics
Violent extremism 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
Right to a fair trial Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatment Right to respect for private and family lifeFacts
The complainant is Russian national, originally from Dagestan, who moved to Germany as an infant and lived with his parents until his arrest in 2017. In 2014, the City of Bremen denied the applicant the right to leave the country as it assumed that the applicant would travel to Syria in support of the so-called Islamic State, while the prosecutor of the City of Bremen started legal proceedings against the applicant. In 2017, the Ministry of Interior of Bremen issued a deportation order to the Russian Federation regarding the applicant, as gathered evidence suggested a substantial risk that the applicant might commit a terrorist attack on German soil. The applicant challenged this decision on the grounds that he might be subjected to torture and that there haven’t been any diplomatic assurances on behalf of the Russian Federation that he won’t be subject to treatment in violation of human rights.
Legal grounds
Article 2.2 sentence 1, Article 6.1, Article 19.4, Article 20.3, Article 101.1 sentence 2, Article 103.1 of the GG; Article 3 of the ECHR; Article 8 of the ECHR.
Findings
The Court assessed the constitutional complaint as unfounded. The decisions to deport the applicant and deny his request for preliminary legal protection from deportation cannot be considered unconstitutional as they were grounded firmly in a risk assessment of the application based on appropriate evidence. In light of the danger to important public goods that complainant poses, the deportation order was justified even if it didn’t include a proper hearing of the complainant. Furthermore, although the assessment that the complainant doesn’t have a high risk of being subjected to torture in Russia lacks depth in argumentation, it is based on assessment of the situation that had been conducted with due diligence. Therefore, the application was rejected.