Germany’s Top Court Delivers Landmark Verdict on Deportation of Refugees

In a landmark decision published on published on 20 November, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) declared that police may not enter a refugee’s room in a communal shelter to carry out a deportation without first obtaining a judicial search warrant. The court, based in Karlsruhe, ruled that such an enforcement measure constitutes a search (“Durchsuchung”) under the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), and therefore requires prior authorization from a judge.

The Court thus upheld the constitutional complaint of an asylum-seeker from Guinea whose room had been forced open by the police for the purpose of deportation without a search warrant.

What Happened: The Facts of the Case

The case centres on a man — identified in media reports as a citizen of Guinea — who, in 2019, was due for deportation. He was living with another person in a communal accommodation (Übergangswohnheim) in Berlin. According to court documents, when authorities attempted to arrest him, he did not open his door. Without a court-ordered warrant, police forcibly entered his room using a battering ram.

Supported by the NGO Society for Civil Rights (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, GFF) and the advocacy organization Pro Asyl, the man challenged the mode of his arrest in court, claiming that the police had no right to forcibly open his room without a search warrant issued by a court.

Previously, the Berlin-Brandenburg Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) rejected his claims, deciding that what had occurred was not a “search” under Article 13 of the Basic Law, but only a “simple entry.” The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) rejected his appeal as it saw no merit in granting a judicial review.

The Constitutional Court Speaks

The Bundesverfassungsgericht, however, disagreed with the lower courts. In its ruling (case number 2 BvR 460/25), it emphasized that because the authorities did not know the individual’s precise location before breaking in, their act should legally be classified as a search — and searches in private rooms under German constitutional law require a warrant.

The court stressed that a preventive check by a judge before the action begins is essential to protect fundamental rights. It rejected a narrower understanding of “search” used by the lower courts — which focused only on visible “searching actions” during the operation — because such a narrow view would undermine the preventive safeguard intended by Article 13.

The court added that whether or not the person was hiding or could have been seen immediately is irrelevant. What matters is that the police did not have guaranteed prior knowledge of his situation — making judicial oversight mandatory.

As a result of the ruling, the Constitutional Court overturned the earlier decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg Administrative Court and remanded the case for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.

Why This Decision Matters

Civil rights advocates have welcomed the ruling as a crucial protection for refugees and asylum seekers. Sarah Lincoln, a lawyer with the GFF, stated that the decision sends a firm message: “Deportations are not a free pass, and refugees’ bedrooms are not lawless zones. These spaces deserve strong constitutional protection.”

Pro Asyl, the other human-rights group involved in supporting the complaint, echoed this sentiment. Wiebke Judith, their legal policy spokesperson, argued that the ruling is “a vital reminder that basic rights cannot be ignored simply because someone is facing deportation.”

Legal analysts also point to the decision’s broader significance. By reinforcing the “judge-before-action” requirement, the court is strengthening preventive legal checks and ensuring that fundamental rights are protected even in the context of migration enforcement.

Sola Jolaoso