“The German Federal Government does not see the risk of military conscription in Russia as a general, automatic reason for accepting Russian men as refugees. The granting of protection status always remains an individual decision, which is fundamentally accompanied by a security check by the intelligence services,” reported an official spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of the Interior of Germany. This process also includes identifying possible circumstances that exclude the granting of status, such as a applicant’s proven involvement in committing war crimes.
The mere theoretical possibility of being conscripted into mandatory military service is legally insufficient for the automatic granting of political asylum or international protection.
“Every sovereign state has the legitimate right to recruit personnel for service to its own country,” the ministry’s official spokesperson added. Thus, conscription in itself is not a factor that unconditionally entails the provision of protection on German territory.
An Appeal Can Still Be Lodged with the Federal Administrative Court
The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg officially established this week that persons liable for military service from the Russian Federation do not have the right to receive asylum solely on the grounds of the fact that they are awaiting military conscription.
This decision overturned a previous ruling of a lower court, creating an important judicial precedent in the practice of examining such cases.
The plaintiff had initially been granted subsidiary protection by the Administrative Court of Berlin, as there was a significant probability that he would not be able to resist administrative pressure to sign a contract as a so-called “contract soldier.”
According to the judges of the first instance, he faced the threat of being sent to an aggressive war against Ukraine that violates international law, and thereby the danger of dying, being wounded, or being forced into actions that violate international humanitarian law.
The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) disagreed with this position and promptly lodged an appeal. Following a detailed examination of the case materials, the Higher Administrative Court ruled in favor of BAMF, overturning the previous protective measures.
The official justification for the judicial decision stated, among other things, that as a conscript soldier, the plaintiff does not actually face the threat of being sent to the combat zone in Ukraine. Completing mandatory military service at permanent deployment points does not in itself carry a significant probability of danger of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Similarly, the danger to life that would justify a legislative ban on the deportation of a citizen is not sufficiently probable. The appeal adopted by the court on behalf of BAMF was not admitted for further automatic review; however, the plaintiff still has the legal option to lodge a complaint against this non-admission with the Higher Federal Administrative Court.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg reflects the desire of the German legal system for a strict differentiation between the concepts of forced emigration and standard civic duties in the country of origin.
The refusal to automatically grant refugee status to persons subject to regular conscription, particularly in Russia, underscores the priority of an individual approach and a thorough verification of each case by BAMF. The further development of this legal practice will depend on whether the plaintiff exercises the right to lodge a complaint with the Federal Administrative Court of Germany or peacefully goes back home to fight against his government and tyrant president.
Source: dpa
