In this article we present the intervention by Meral Zeller (ProAsyl), who describes the specific situation at the Swiss border, where the German federal police conducts preventive checks on Swiss territory.
After an examination of strategic litigation on the issue of the reintroduction of border controls, the report analyzes the evolution and increasingly systematic use of pushback practices at internal borders, highlighting the practices that have become established over time in Germany. The current situation is rapidly evolving and requires distinguishing between two key moments: the period before May 7, 2025 and what happened after that date. The specific situation at the Swiss border is also examined, where the German federal police conducts preventive checks also on the Swiss side.
Re-writing Borders – Unmapping the map
Meral Zeller’s intervention took place at the event Re-writing Borders – Unmapping the map organized by Progetto Medea, from July 3 to 6, 2025 in Trieste. With the aim of reflecting on European migration policies, their impact on the rights of foreign nationals and on the resilience of democracy, the event brought together practitioners, lawyers and activists supporting foreign nationals.
Part of the discussions addressed the internal borders of the European Union, which have now become a space of free movement exclusively for European citizens or those whose physical appearance conforms to “whiteness”. We have been documenting this since 2015, reporting on and challenging the policies of Member States that have progressively restricted the mobility of foreign nationals by making wholly disproportionate use of “exceptional” instruments, such as the reintroduction of border controls, or illegitimate measures, such as informal readmissions and pushbacks at borders more generally, through advocacy, legal analysis, and litigation.
Historical context: the situation before May 7, 2025
Political and social narrative
From early 2022 onwards, a narrative developed in German public discourse claiming that capacity limits had been reached. There was talk of lack of housing, childcare places, rising rents, and naturally refugees became the scapegoats for decades of failed social policies. Although some municipalities contradicted this narrative, their voices remained unheard.
The former government, formed by the Green Party, Social Democrats, and Liberals, somehow accepted this narrative, introducing and announcing the fight against illegal migration and attempting to make the Dublin system work. This led to the first expansion of border controls, introduced in October 2023 at the borders with Poland, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic.
The German legal system for border controls
To better understand the situation, it is necessary to briefly examine German law. In case of interception at the border, the system works as follows: the federal police control borders and, if they intercept a person who does not meet entry criteria, they initiate an inquiry for the offense of illegal entry. If the person hints at asylum in any way, police should conduct an interview about the reasons for entry. If an asylum claim is voiced even in this setting, the person should be allowed to enter the country and referred to competent authorities, in this case BAMF.
However, if this does not happen, two situations apply in Germany for third-country nationals who do not meet entry criteria and do not intend to apply for asylum:
First situation: interception directly at the border, in close proximity to the border. In this case, the fiction of non-entry applies: police refuse entry, claiming the person never entered Germany, and return them to the neighboring country based on a readmission agreement. This occurs according to section 15 of the Residence Act. Importantly, no entry or residence ban is issued.
Second situation: if the person is intercepted by federal police in relation to the border, but not as close as in the previous case (perhaps in a 30-kilometer zone), the person is considered to have entered the country. Unauthorized entry is determined, federal police activate readmission based on an agreement with the neighboring country, the process may take a few days (up to two), detention is also possible, and subsequently readmission or removal to the neighboring country occurs with the issuance of an entry and residence ban.
In case of asylum application, this system should not come into play: entry should be allowed and transfer to competent authorities is mandatory for federal police.
Statistical analysis of borders
Border with Poland
Statistics from 2019 to 2024 show the impact of introducing border controls. There is an increase in entry refusals from 1,711 in 2023 to 9,360 in 2024, while asylum applications decreased dramatically from 21,518 in 2023 to 3,530 in 2024. Despite a general decrease in asylum applications of 30% from 2023 to 2024, an 80% decrease is recorded at the border.
Border with Czech Republic
The same phenomenon is observed: with the introduction of border controls, entry refusals increase and applications for international protection decrease.
Border with Austria
The situation is slightly different since border controls already existed. Despite this border marking the end of the Balkan route and being a very busy area, there has always been a relatively low level of asylum applications.
Border with Switzerland
Here upstream border controls were introduced in late 2022. There is a general increase in figures, but especially a very strong situation of entry refusals, representing the hotspot of pushbacks.
Who is being returned?
Data from August 2023 to June 2024 shows that most people refused entry come from the main countries of origin for asylum applications in Germany. Approximately every second person refused entry comes from one of the 15 most frequent countries of origin in Germany: Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey. Considering Ukrainian citizens as well, this percentage rises to 70%.
The problem of border interrogations
The situation of border interrogations presents significant problems. Various questionnaires are used by federal police, some of which are seriously misleading. One particular questionnaire, made known by German media in September last year, is a closed questionnaire where people are asked the reason for entry, but are only offered options like work, family visits, or study, with nothing referring to asylum requests or international protection.
Other questionnaires present an initial list of questions repeated three times, and only if asylum or international protection is mentioned are other questions activated. The crucial problem is that there is no information obligation by police; it depends on the person to raise the issue.
Better questionnaires also exist that include questions about persecution suffered, but in the end it is always a single police officer who checks the box “asylum: yes or no.”
Conclusions on the pre-May 7 situation
Based on statistical information, testimonies received from asylum applicants, and reports from neighboring countries and media, it emerges that even under the previous government, systematic pushbacks occurred at the German border, with federal police systematically not registering intentions to seek asylum at the border.
The situation after May 7
Political context
After the fall of the old government and the start of early elections, at the beginning of the year a series of deadly attacks occurred in Germany, some allegedly committed by asylum applicants with fingerprints in other member states. This shifted the debate to security and protection of the majority, again fueling the narrative against illegal migration and “Dubliners.”
During the early election campaign, current Chancellor Merz clearly promised that on his first day in office he would introduce a general ban for all migrants and refugees at borders.
The Interior Minister’s order
On the same day of taking office, the new Interior Minister Dobrindt sent an order to the President of Federal Police. Referring to national law, the order establishes to “refuse entry to asylum applicants at borders, except in case of visible vulnerability,” when possible.
The Minister refers to section 18 of asylum law, according to which all foreigners must be refused if they come from a safe third country. Since Germany is surrounded by safe third countries (EU member states), this would practically apply to all land borders.
However, this article is not applicable due to the primacy of EU law and the Dublin system, which must first determine which country should handle the asylum application and whether that country is actually safe for the person.
Jurisprudential precedents
The European Court of Human Rights, last October, clearly established that Germany violated the convention when an asylum applicant, after clearly expressing his application, was returned to Greece within 48 hours.
The legal case of June 2 2025
It was necessary to find a case to challenge Dobrindt’s order. After the order took effect, some colleagues went to the border and met people who had suffered pushbacks.
The case involved three people: a 16-year-old girl from Somalia and two young Somali men. They had flown to Belarus, then gone to Lithuania, traveled through Poland, and attempted to enter Germany three times. May 9 was their third attempt. They were in very poor health conditions, especially the sixteen-year-old who could barely walk. Despite their evident vulnerability, they were refused entry.
For about a month, from May 9, they remained in Poland without detention but with alternative measures, without any support from the Polish state, supported only by civil society.
The Administrative Court of Berlin decided on June 2 that the refusal of entry for the three was unlawful. The court ordered to allow them border crossing to access the procedure.
The court rejected the reference to national law, emphasizing the primacy of the Dublin regulation and the right to due process. It also rejected the reference to an emergency situation and Article 72, despite Germany having used in its argumentation a Commission note from December 2024 suggesting the possibility of deciding according to national interests in special situations at external borders.
The court referred to 2019 rulings on pre-Dublin procedures, establishing that there is no way to circumvent the Dublin regulation. The decision was made with urgent procedure due to the dramatic situation of applicants in Poland and the risk of deportation to Belarus.
Government response and practical results
The government continues with its measures, arguing that it is a decision on a real case and that it might be necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Between May and July 2025, approximately 3,297 third-country nationals were refused entry, of which only 160 were registered international protection applicants. This is a very low number. Even before this measure, there were approximately 3,000-3,300 entry refusals at the border.
The numbers are not really higher; it is mainly symbolic. It is still possible to cross the German border; it just takes longer and perhaps two or three attempts, but then one enters Germany and has access to the procedure.
A negative result is that if one has an asylum application after being removed according to Article 57, this entails an entry and residence ban that has negative implications for the asylum procedure in case the Dublin deadline is exceeded and the application is rejected.
General remarks
From a practical standpoint, the effect is not so dramatic, but at a higher level, Germany is seen as no longer following the rule of law. The government is clearly violating international and European law, not following court decisions.
For the Union as a whole, with Poland introducing border controls at the German-Polish border, a domino effect is occurring with more and more countries introducing notifications for controls.
