FECL 37 (September 1995):

SUDANESE ASYLUM SEEKERS THWART DEPORTATION ATTEMPT

Seven rejected asylum seekers from Sudan have thwarted an attempt by the German authorities to send them back to their home country. The pilot of the plane due to take them to Khartoum refused to take off when the men began rioting, and border guards had to remove them from the plane. The incident at Frankfurt airport occurred just hours after the Federal Constitutional Court lifted objections to the deportation measure. The Sudanese were put into custody.

The Constitutional Court lifted the injunction without giving grounds after the German Interior Ministry contacted the Sudanese Government and received assurances that the seven risked no maltreatment at home. The move of the Interior Ministry drew strong criticism from human rights groups claiming that torture of political opponents is still common in Sudan and that the Government in Khartoum could not be trusted.

In August, the Constitutional Court had blocked the planned deportation of the seven, when doctors pointed to physical evidence indicating that some of the men had been tortured in their home country.

In the August decision, the Court declined to rule specifically on the men's appeal, but said the Frankfurt court of first instance handling their case must delay their deportation to examine whether there were reasons preventing the men's repatriation, and whether they faced an increased risk of persecution due to the media coverage given to the case in Germany.

According to current German asylum practice, asylum applications of Sudanese nationals are handled in "accelerated" summary procedures and turned down, because Sudan is deemed a "safe country of origin".

Comment

The case once again highlights the dramatic consequences of a "Conclusion" on countries in which there is "generally no serious risk of persecution" adopted at a London meeting in November 1992 by the then 12 EU immigration ministers. The Conclusion names a number of "elements of assessment" for establishing "safe" countries according to the above definition, but member states decide individually which countries they deem safe. Consequently, "safe country" lists often differ strongly from one member state to another. This has added to the legal insecurity facing asylum-seekers in the EU countries.

For the asylum seekers concerned, the question of whether their home country is deemed safe or not is of vital importance. Indeed, according to a "Resolution" agreed at the 1992 London meeting of the immigration ministers, applications of asylum seekers from "safe" countries shall be considered as "manifestly unfounded" and handled in a summary procedure enabling rapid deportation (see FECL No. 11: "London Conference on closer coordination of Immigration and Justice policies within the EC").

N.B.