EUGH: Merkel durfte in vorauseilender Solidarität handeln

Tagesschau fasst das gestrige Urteil der Großen Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs in der Rechtssache C‑646/16 gut zusammen. Es besagt, dass die Dublin-Verordnung auch bei Überlastung anzuwenden ist und die Bundesregierung Asylbewerber an sich zog, die nicht die ihren waren. Dies zu tun stand allerdings in ihrem Ermessen. Merkels Gäste genießen nun in Deutschland umfassende Rechte. Dublin-Abschiebungen sind nur möglich, wenn man sich an die Regeln und Fristen hält.

Die Bundesregierung fühlt sich bestätigt. Sie handelte tatsächlich in dem von Martin Schulz und der SPD vertretenen Geiste der “europäischen Solidarität”. Dafür trat sie in Vorleistung. Die Bundesregierung wollte damit in die von der SPD und der Europäischen Kommission anvisierte Richtung streben. Die Vierte Gewalt gab mit ihren “hässlichen Bildern” und Kommentaren die Richtung vor. Tagesschau-Interviewpartner Migrationspapst Klaus Bade drückt in diesen Tagen den gleichen Geist aus.

Aus Straßburg kamen dieses Jahr weitere Urteile gegen Italien, die im Geiste des Todesurteils von 2012 Italien zwingen, den aus simulierter Seenot geretteten Afrikanern umfassende Menschenrechte zu gewährleisten. MenschenrechtlerInnen jubeln über den Fall Khalifa vom Januar 2017, beklagen aber auch einzelne Wermutstropfen, wo die “Menschenrechte” noch nicht restlos über das Überlebensinteresse Italiens triumphieren konnten.

Der ganz große Durchbruch der Menschenrechte gegen die Völker kam am 23. Februar 2012 mit dem Urteil Hirsi & Jamaa, mit dem die Großen Kammer einhellig Italien zum Tode verurteilte. Menschenrechtsprofessorin Marie-Bénédicte Dembour jubelt:

Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy is the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights delivers a judgment on interception-at-sea. In the present context the latter term is a short-hand for referring to the enforced return of irregular migrants to the point of departure of their attempted Mediterranean crossing, without any individual processing, let alone examination of asylum claims. Unanimously, the Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 3 ECHR prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment on a double count (risk of ill-treatment in Libya and risk of repatriation from Libya to countries where ill-treatment is rife), a violation of Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 prohibiting collective expulsion and a violation of Article 13 ECHR guaranteeing a domestic remedy for any arguable complaint of a violation of the Convention. These verdicts, reached by the Grand Chamber unanimously on 23 February 2012, undoubtedly put into question the kind of bilateral and multilateral agreements which have been signed by European states in the last decade or so in order to fight clandestine immigration, not to mention the fact that they indirectly require major aspects of European migration policy to be revised.

Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy is the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights delivers a judgment on interception-at-sea. In the present context the latter term is a short-hand for referring to the enforced return of irregular migrants to the point of departure of their attempted Mediterranean crossing, without any individual processing, let alone examination of asylum claims. Unanimously, the Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 3 ECHR prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment on a double count (risk of ill-treatment in Libya and risk of repatriation from Libya to countries where ill-treatment is rife), a violation of Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 prohibiting collective expulsion and a violation of Article 13 ECHR guaranteeing a domestic remedy for any arguable complaint of a violation of the Convention. These verdicts, reached by the Grand Chamber unanimously on 23 February 2012, undoubtedly put into question the kind of bilateral and multilateral agreements which have been signed by European states in the last decade or so in order to fight clandestine immigration, not to mention the fact that they indirectly require major aspects of European migration policy to be revised.

In case this needed to be spelled out, this conclusion on Article 13 puts into question the very idea and practice of intercepting irregular migrants in the high seas and summarily returning them to their point of embarkation. Taken literally, Hirsi is exclusively directed at Italy. (Interestingly, the Court does not cite in part III of its judgment – listing relevant European law – the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum adopted by the Council of the European Union in 2008 which, by contrast, is referred to by the Italian Government (para 94)). Let us not be fooled, however. Like M.S.S. last year in respect to Dublin II, Hirsi has enormous implications for EU policy, including its Frontex operations. This is the more so since Hirsi was adopted by the Grand Chamber and unanimously.

Hirsi has undoubtedly much to offer for the defence of irregular migrants. As such it deserves the qualification of ground-breaking. Its ruling on reparation, however, is strange, to say the least, and makes clear that the Court is not ready to go all the way in the protection of migrants. This can be contrasted to the resolutely principled concurring opinion by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque. This will be the object of a separate blog. Rendez-vous tomorrow.

Vom FAZ-Journalisten Karl-Peter Schwarz stammt der folgende Text, der erklärt, warum “Europa” in der Migrationsfrage das Problem und nicht die Lösung ist:

Let us assume that neither the Schengen zone nor the EU existed. How would the countries on the northern coast of the Mediterranean sea confront the mass migration from Africa and the Middle East?

They would obviously do everything they can to defend their maritime borders. They would save the migrants from drowning and bring them at once back to where they came . They would block the illegal immigrants in camps on the islands and make sure that they could not reach the mainland.

Sovereign Mediterranean countries would not have to care about the 2012 Hirsi Jamaa judgment of the ECHR which prohibited Italy to send back migrants to Libya as stipulated by a bilateral agreement. There would be a competition about the most effective border controls between the governments to close quickly any alternative migration route.

As in 2016 when the countries along the Western Balkan route closed their borders the national self-interest would guarantee a quick and effective solution to solve the actual crisis. In the meantime international diplomatic endeavours of sovereign national states (including the European as well as the leading Arab and African countries, the US and Russia) would prepare the ground for effective humanitarian aid and create defendable protection zones in and/or around the war-torn regions. A coalition of the willing would be established which would be ready to register and decide asylum applications in their embassies – and only there.

The simple truth is that there are solutions offered by the national states, but not by the EU and the Schengen zone. The “European solution” is no solution. Instead of blocking efficiently the migration stream it aims at the distribution of migrants between EU member states while a biased law system impedes even the deportation of illegal immigrants with a criminal record and no chance to get asylum. Europe is part of the problem.

CDU SPD Umvolkung Islamisierung

Die “europäische Lösung” besteht im solidarischen Völkerselbstmord, wie ihn die Bundesregierung 2015 exemplarisch vorexerzierte und wie ihn Kapo Schulz jetzt laut einfordert. Die Osteuropäer weigern sich zu Recht. Der deutsche Wähler wählt zwischen den skrupellosen Völkermördern (R2G), den Liberalala-Getriebenen (CDU,FDP) und denen, die als gerne als rechtstreue Kritiker von “Merkels Rechtsbruch” im Schlafwagen in den Bundestag kommen möchten. Aber sind letztere auch bereit, für einen Bruch des “Europäischen Rechts” zu kämpfen? Sind sie eine echte Alternative oder nur ein Denkzettel, der die anderen ein wenig abstraft?


Bayern ist frei. Bunte Kartelle passen nicht zu uns. Wir diskutieren auch auf FB. Wir fördern Volksbildung im Sinne einer Befähigung des Souveräns zur Artikulation seiner Interessen. Helfen Sie uns dabei!





Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s