Germany - Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Administrative Court), 16 May 2012, 11 S 2328/11

Facts:

The Claimant is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish ethnicity. He arrived in Germany in January 1997 and was recognised as a refugee.

The Claimant has been married to a Turkish citizen since 1995, who has also been recognised as a refugee since 1998.

The Claimant obtained a settlement permit in 2006 (unlimited residence permit). He also possesses travel documents for refugees.

On account of his regular visits to events, meetings and demonstrations organised by the PKK and its successor organisations, the authorities expelled the Claimant in 2010. 

The Administrative Court of Stuttgart lifted the expulsion in May 2011 on the grounds that no support for the PKK had been identified. Participation in a series of PKK events for which the Claimant had been reproached in the challenged decision had not been proven. Simple participation in a few events which had also been attended by PKK supporters did not constitute an inherent closeness and solidarity with the PKK. Moreover, no current danger has been found to be associated with the Claimant.   

The authorities appealed to the High Administrative Court to amend the decision of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart. The appeal was accepted. 

Decision & reasoning:

The extradition is lawful and does not violate the Claimant’s rights.

The PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and its successor organisations have been involved in terrorism and are therefore considered to be organisations which support terrorism.

Through his continued involvement in PKK events, the Claimant has been supporting terrorism. He has attended a series of events which, as he has acknowledged, are designed to strengthen the ideological and emotional cohesion of the PKK, its successor organisations and other organisations in the political environment.

As a recognised refugee, the Claimant enjoys special protection against expulsion. He may only be expelled on serious grounds relating to public security and order, which are generally associated with the supporting of a terrorist organisation.

The expulsion of a refugee may only take place, however, according to the requirements of Article 21 (3) in conjunction with (2) of the Qualification Directive. This applies irrespective of whether or not the Qualification Directive applies the (national) concept of expulsion.  

In the case in point, no danger is presented in terms of the public security of the Federal Republic on account of the Claimant in view of his political activities, which implies that expulsion  cannot be initiated according to Article 21 (3) in conjunction with (2) (a) of the Qualification Directive.

However, the compelling grounds of public security or order for the expulsion of the Claimant according to Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive form the basis for the case. An overall evaluation of all his supporting activities has revealed that he has expressed considerable solidarity with the PKK in a quantitative and qualitative manner which clearly indicates that he has been a party sympathiser for a number of years. Compelling grounds for public security or order according to Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive do not presuppose any outstanding acts of extraordinary danger in support of international terrorism; neither does specific involvement of a sympathiser suffice unless it is characterised by a large degree of continuity and as such shapes and influences the environment of the terrorist organisation.  

The effective combating of international terrorism is one of the essential goals of the European Union. This is not simply expressed in Article 83 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but has also been emphasised repeatedly in numerous legal acts of the Union dealing with the combating of terrorism, which consider sympathisers to be associated with the threat of terrorism. Because of its particular characteristics and organisational structure, the PKK obtains its backing and support above all from an active “group of sympathisers” outside Turkey, whereby local PKK organisations play a central role, for example by organising communication among supporters, mobilising campaigns and preparing and implementing public activities.

Based on the appraisal of all the circumstances surrounding this specific case and in particular in view of the right to respect for one’s private and family life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 6 (1) and 2 (1) of the Basic Law), expulsion is a relative term. It undermines the legality of the Claimant's residence and is therefore associated with far-reaching consequences in terms of social life. However, it does not affect living arrangements with family members on federal territory, which is highly significant in terms of relativity, as no expulsion threats are made and as a result no expulsion will occur.  

Outcome:

The appeal was upheld. The decision of the High Administrative Court of Stuttgart of 23.5.2011 was amended. The claim against expulsion was rejected. 

Other sources:

• BT-Drs. 16/5065 – Gesetsentwurf zum Richtlinien-umsetzungsgesetz (RFRL) 2007, S. 183 zu Nr. 42
• BT-Drs. 17/5470, S. 39 zu § 11 AufenthG
• Antwort der Bundesregierung auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Fraktion Die Linke zu dem gegen Muzaffer Ayata verhängten politischen Betätigungsverbot, BT-Drs. 17/9076 vom 22.03.2012
• BR-Drs. 1017/01 vom 26.11.2001 - Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Rates über Mindestnormen für die Anerkennung und den Status von Drittstaatsangehörigen und Staatenlosen als Flüchtlinge oder als Personen, die anderweitig internationalen Schutz benötigen
• Gemeinsamer Standpunkt des Rates der EU vom 27.12.2001 über die Anwendung besonderer Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus GASP/2001/931, Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 28.12.2001, L 344/93
• Verordnung (EG) 2580/2001 des Rates der EU vom 27.12.2001 über spezifische, gegen bestimmte Personen und Organisationen gerichtete Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus (Abl. 344 vom 28.12.2001, Seite 70)
• Rahmenbeschluss (EU) vom 13.06.2002 zur Terrorismusbekämpfung, ABl. L 164, S. 3
• Rahmenbeschluss 2008/919/JI des Rates (EU) vom 28.11.2008 zur Änderung des Rahmenbeschlusses  2002/475/JI zur Terrorismusbekämpfung (Abl L 330, S. 21)
• Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 213/2012 vom 13.3.2012 zur Änderung der Durchführungs-verordnung (EU) Nr. 1375/2011 zur Durchführung des Artikels 2 Absatz 3 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2580/2001 über spezifische, gegen bestimmte Personen und Organisationengerichtete restriktive Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus, Amtsblatt der EU vom 14.03.2012, L74/1
• Anhang zum Gemeinsamen Standpunkt des Rates der EU vom 02.05.2002 betreffend die Aktualisierung des Gemeinsamen Standpunkts 2001/931/GSAP über die Anwendung besonderer Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus - 2002/340/GSAP – ABl. L 116, S. 75, Ziffer 2.9
• Beschluss des Rates der EU vom 13.03.2012 <2012/150/GASP>, ABl. L 74, 9
• Beschluss des Rates der EU und vom 22.12.2011 <2011/872/GASP>, ABl. L 343, 54 und Anhang (Auflistung von Personen und Organisationen, sog. “Terrorliste”)
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 12.11.2002 – 14083/02 –
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 08.11.2002 – 13648/02 –
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 19.12.2002 – 15627/02 –
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 19.06.2003 – 10576/03 –
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 26.02.2003 – 6566/03 ADD 1 COR 1 –
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 17.03.2004 – 7469/04 –
• Dokument des Rates der EU vom 24.03.2004 – 7728/04 –
• GK zum AufenthaltsG, Stand: Sept. 2011, § 54 Rn. 436ff.; § 58 Rn. 102
• ZEIT-ONLINE vom 23.06.2010: www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2010-06/kurden-tuerkei-politik
• WELT ONLINEvom 22.06.2010 www.welt.de/politik/ausland/ article8142791/Tuerkei-Touristen-im-Fadenkreuz-kurdischen-Terrors.html
• SPIEGEL ONLINE vom 28.08.2006 www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,434039,00.htm
• SPIEGEL ONLINE v. 09.07.2011 www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,564783,00.html
• Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, „Arbeiterpartei  Kurdistans (PKK) – Volkskongress Kurdistans (KONGRA-GEL)“, März 2007
• EU Kommission, Vorschlag zu einem Entwurf der RFRL v. 01.09.2005, Kom(2005) 391 endgültig
• Vorläufige Anwendungshinweise des BMI v. 16.12.2010 zur einstweiligen Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2008/115/EG – Az M I 3 – 215 734/25, S. 3
• Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz Bad.-Württ., „Aus-länderextremismus“, August 2007, S. 9 ff.
• Verfassungsschutzbericht BW 2010, S. 106ff.
• Karlsruher Kommentar zur StPO, 6. Aufl., 2008, § 250 Rn. 13
• Roxin/Schünemann, Strafverfahrensrecht, 26. Aufl., 2009, § 46 Rn. 33f.
• Detter, Der Zeuge vom Hörensagen – eine Bestands- aufnahme, NStZ 2003, 1, 4
• Gutmann, InfAuslR 2011, 13
• Gutmann, InfAuslR 2012, 208
• Deibel, ZAR 2012, 148
• Renner/Dienelt, AuslR, 9. Aufl. 2011,§ 12 AufenthG Rn. 2
• GK zum AufenthaltsG, Stand: Sept. 2011, § 54 Rn. 436ff.; § 58 Rn. 102
• Westphal/Stopper, Report Ausländer- und Asylrecht Nr. 24, November 2011 unter www.westphal-stoppa.de
• Hörich, ZAR 2011, 281, 283f.
• Fritsch, ZAR 2011, 297, 302f.
• Stiegeler, Asylmagazin 2011, 62, 63ff.
• Keßler, Asylmagazin 2012, 142
• Bader, u.a., VwGO, 5. Aufl. 2011, § 68 Rn. 41 und § 75 Rn. 5
• Sodann/Ziekow, VwGO, 3. Aufl., 2010, § 75 Rn. 25, § 96 Rn. 38
• Hailbronner, AuslR, Stand Sept. 2011, § 56 AufenthG, Rn 23ff.
• Marx, Handbuch zur Qualifikationsrichtlinie 2009, § 46 Rn. 59f.
• Waldmann, Terrorismus – Provokation der Macht – 2. Aufl. 2005, S. 29ff.
• Zimmermann, The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, A Commentary, Oxford 2011, Art. 33, para 2 Rn. 82ff.
• Yeni Özgur Politika v. 06.02.2008