Latest news with #Article72
DW
2 days ago
- Politics
- DW
German govt to ask EU court to rule on migrant turnbacks – DW – 06/07/2025
06/07/2025 June 7, 2025 German interior to seek EU verdict on border turnbacks Germany's Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the German government would seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the legality of migrant turnbacks at the border. Dobrindt's comments to the Funke media group follow a ruling by a court in Berlin on Monday that the refusal to allow three Somali nationals to enter last month was unlawful. The court ruled that on May 9, border guards failed to initiate proper asylum procedures and returned the trio to Poland. According to the court, Germany should have applied the European Union's so-called Dublin Regulation, establishing which country is responsible for the asylum claim of the migrants, before they were sent back. The Dublin rule specifies which EU state should process an asylum application, partly to prevent arrivals from making claims in wealthier countries rather than the first EU nation that they entered. Dobrindt said the government would provide its rationale for invoking Article 72 — a special clause under EU law that permits exceptions to the Dublin rule in emergencies. "We will submit sufficient justification, but the European Court of Justice should decide on the matter," Dobrindt said, adding: "I am convinced that our actions are in line with European law." Dobrindt insisted that Germany had to crack down on illegal migration, which he said would prevent the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party from pushing more radical solutions. German Chancellor Merz rejects criticism of border controls To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Germany introduced tougher border checks on May 7, including new rules allowing asylum seekers to be turned away at the border for the first time. In the first days of the new rule, 19 people who sought asylum in Germany were denied entry, along with nearly 300 other migrants, local media reported. Following this week's court ruling, the cabinet approved even stricter measures.
DW
2 days ago
- Politics
- DW
Germany: Car drives into crowd in Passau – DW – 06/07/2025
06/07/2025 June 7, 2025 German interior to seek EU verdict on border turnbacks Germany's Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the German government would seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the legality of migrant turnbacks at the border. Dobrindt's comments to the Funke media group follow a ruling by a court in Berlin on Monday that the refusal to allow three Somali nationals to enter last month was unlawful. The court ruled that on May 9, border guards failed to initiate proper asylum procedures and returned the trio to Poland. According to the court, Germany should have applied the European Union's so-called Dublin Regulation, establishing which country is responsible for the asylum claim of the migrants, before they were sent back. The Dublin rule specifies which EU state should process an asylum application, partly to prevent arrivals from making claims in wealthier countries rather than the first EU nation that they entered. Dobrindt said the government would provide its rationale for invoking Article 72 — a special clause under EU law that permits exceptions to the Dublin rule in emergencies. "We will submit sufficient justification, but the European Court of Justice should decide on the matter," Dobrindt said, adding: "I am convinced that our actions are in line with European law." Dobrindt insisted that Germany had to crack down on illegal migration, which he said would prevent the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party from pushing more radical solutions. German Chancellor Merz rejects criticism of border controls To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Germany introduced tougher border checks on May 7, including new rules allowing asylum seekers to be turned away at the border for the first time. In the first days of the new rule, 19 people who sought asylum in Germany were denied entry, along with nearly 300 other migrants, local media reported. Following this week's court ruling, the cabinet approved even stricter measures.
Hindustan Times
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Rajoana's mercy petition will not be withdrawn: SGPC
Chandigarh, The SGPC on Saturday said it will not withdraw the mercy petition filed in the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana, a death row convict in the assassination of former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh. A decision in this regard was taken by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee after holding a meeting with legal experts. Rajoana had earlier demanded that the SGPC withdraw its petition concerning him. Speaking to reporters here, Harjinder Singh Dhami, the president of the apex gurdwara body, said all the legal experts believed that the mercy petition should not be withdrawn and the legal battle should be carried on. "All lawyers gave their view that the petition should not be withdrawn. We should see what the government's stand is on it," said Dhami. Taking no decision on the petition by the successive governments at the Centre was not right. This is a very serious matter and it is important to form an opinion on it, said Dhami. He said the SGPC has been fighting a legal battle in this regard for a long time, but the successive governments "inaction" in this matter reflects "violation of human rights". Prominent among those who participated in the meeting were senior advocates Puran Singh Hundal, G S Bal, Amar Singh Chahal, Rajwinder Singh Bains, Sikh scholar Kehar Singh and former IAS officer Kahan Singh Pannu. Former chief minister Beant Singh and 16 others were killed in a blast at the entrance of the civil secretariat in Chandigarh on August 31, 1995. A special court sentenced Rajoana to death in July 2007. A mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution was moved by the SGPC on his behalf in March 2012. The Supreme Court in January this year had asked the Centre to take a decision on the petition. The bench was hearing the plea seeking directions to commute his death sentence to a life term due to the "inordinate delay" in deciding his mercy petition. The SGPC has also been seeking the release of other Sikh prisoners, including Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, a 1993 Delhi bomb blast convict.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Germany to declare national emergency on immigration
Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, is set to declare a 'national emergency' on migration so that he can use a loophole in EU rules to turn away asylum seekers. Mr Merz intends to trigger Article 72 of the EU treaties, which, in theory, allows member states to suspend asylum regulations if they pose a threat to internal security, German media reported. It is unclear when the chancellor will make the announcement, but neighbouring EU countries were reportedly notified of Mr Merz's intentions on Thursday. The centre-Right leader of the Christian Democrats (CDU) party has vowed to turn back asylum seekers from Germany's land borders, claiming the country's capacity to receive them is 'overwhelmed'. Berlin risks triggering a diplomatic row with neighbouring Poland, Austria and Switzerland, who oppose the move because it undermines the EU's policy of open internal borders. Mr Merz may also face resistance from liberals in his new coalition, consisting of his CDU party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD). Their agreement states that asylum seekers can only be rejected 'in agreement' with neighbouring countries. If Mr Merz declares the emergency, it is understood that he would have to convince EU member states that the level of migration in Germany is so high that it risks collapsing internal order and security. The German government may struggle to achieve this as the number of asylum seekers entering Germany has already fallen by around 30 per cent, according to the latest statistics. The European Union has previously launched disciplinary actions against member states, such as Hungary, for incorrectly using the same emergency powers to reduce migration levels. This week, Alexander Dobrindt, the German interior minister, revoked an order dating back to 2015 under Angela Merkel, which had allowed asylum seekers to enter Germany without residency papers. The Merkel government-era order was given to police after she threw open Germany's borders at the height of the refugee crisis to welcome Syrians, Afghans and others fleeing conflict. The German government says the decision to revoke that order is justified and legal, as in practice it will mean turning away people who have already acquired refugee status in a safe neighbouring EU country. Mr Merz, a former BlackRock banking executive, was sworn in as chancellor this week after winning the second of two votes in the Bundestag, the German parliament, on approving his leadership. The CDU leader lost the initial round of voting after more than a dozen of his allies in the new coalition rebelled against him in the secret ballot. He went on to win the second vote that afternoon by a small margin. Mr Merz is facing intense pressure from the far-Right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to introduce major reforms on migration. The AfD came second place in last February's federal elections, making it the de facto opposition in Germany. Germany's domestic intelligence service has moved to classify the AfD as a Right-wing extremist group, opening the door to a potential ban of the party. The party has been embroiled in a series of scandals over divisive migration rhetoric and playing down Nazi war crimes, as well as Russian and Chinese spying allegations. On Thursday, the intelligence service said it had temporarily paused that process, awaiting approval from the federal constitutional court to continue. However, the AfD reacted by claiming a victory over political censorship in Germany. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
New Indian Express
25-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Friction between judiciary and executive: An unhappy conversation continues
In a democracy, there is nothing unusual about a fissure between the executive and the judiciary. There could even be a healthy discourse between the two branches. Yet, the criticism of the Supreme Court's activist posture in the Tamil Nadu governor's case has attained a larger dimension. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar chose to remind the country about Montesquieu's principle of the separation of powers. To drive home his point, he criticised not only the judgement, but also Article 142 of the Constitution, which enables the court to pass orders 'for doing complete justice'. In exercise of the power, the court fixed a time limit for presidential and gubernatorial actions on bills passed by state legislatures. Being dissatisfied with this gesture, the vice president feels that the provision resembles a 'missile' available with the Supreme Court that could be used against 'democratic forces'. There is an inherent irony in labelling the 'forces' that torpedo the decisions of people's representatives at states as 'democratic'. The same irony is perpetuated when the vice president, by implication, endorses the arbitrary action or inaction of a governor. Equally fallacious is his dissatisfaction about the Supreme Court not placing the case before a Constitution bench by invoking Article 145(3). Article 142 is an indispensable device that equips the Supreme Court to determine the impact of adjudication on the ground, in concrete terms. The court cannot resolve disputes in a vacuum, or in purely theoretical or propositional terms. Judicial pragmatism is not alien to constitutional adjudication. A two-judge bench in the A G Perarivalan case (2022) ordered the release of a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case after incarceration of about 30 years. This was done without relegating the matter again to the president, who holds pardoning power under Article 72. The court did so on finding that much time had already lapsed over communication between constitutional functionaries. In that case, the court invoked Article 142 for releasing the convict forthwith. This was done when the Tamil Nadu governor chose to sit on the state government's recommendation to release Perarivalan. The Supreme Court applies Article 142 in many other cases that are neither sensitive nor of public importance. It enables the court to decide the legal issues and meet the requirements of justice. The situations that call for invocation of the provision could be innumerable. Then there is the criticism that the Tamil Nadu case should have been referred to a Constitution bench, instead of the two-judge dealing with it. The vice president, by implication, has supported this criticism. This line of thought is unfounded for several reasons. First, there was no such request either from the petitioner's side or from the Centre's. The Centre was effectively represented by the attorney general, who placed all possible contentions before the bench. Secondly, given the number of Constitution bench matters pending before the Supreme Court, the possibility for an early decision in the case is bleak. In all probability, by the time a Constitution bench decides the case, the tenure of the assembly would end, which would practically nullify the whole exercise. This would result in aborting the bills passed by the elected representatives, due to gubernatorial and judicial lethargy. Thus, the reference argument lacks practical wisdom. Thirdly, and more importantly, the matter did not raise questions of interpretation of any substantial provisions of the Constitution. True, it warranted an interpretive exercise on Article 200 dealing with the duties of the governor and Article 201 dealing with the president's powers on bills passed by state legislatures. The court's interpretive exercise was, essentially, on the procedural aspects in the provision, and not on any sustentative part of the articles. Even the fixing of a time limit for high constitutional functionaries was essentially procedural. The meaning of these provisions was not a matter of serious controversy in the case. The power of judicial review vested with constitutional courts is a basic feature of India's Constitution. It is unalterable, even by a legislative majority. In India, a strong executive has often faced a 'weaker' judiciary. On the other hand, the judiciary has at times appeared stronger to a 'weaker' executive. The relationship between the court and parliament or the executive has been dialectical and asymmetrical in history. It started with the Golak Nath case (1967), where the Supreme Court endorsed the court's power to review the laws made by parliament that infringe on the citizen's fundamental rights. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the court asserted against legislative majoritarianism by holding that even parliament cannot pass a law damaging the basic structure of the Constitution. Thereafter, a mighty executive under Indira Gandhi blatantly interfered with the affairs of the judiciary even in the case of elevations, transfers and postings. During the Emergency (1975-77), the phrase 'committed judiciary' was synonymous with a fragile system that played a subservient role to the executive, failing to carry out its functions as the guardian of the Constitution. After the Emergency, the Supreme Court tried to assert itself as a powerful court, evolving devices like public interest litigations and social action litigations. Yet, the friction went on. When a constitutional amendment was made for replacing the collegium system, the court stalled it by a majority judgement in 2015. The verdict aggravated the friction between the two branches, often leading to the Centre sitting on proposals for judicial appointments for months or years together. When the vice president invoked the alleged transgression of powers against the background of the Tamil Nadu judgement, it clearly lacked a formidable foundation. Given the governor's moves, the Supreme Court was bound to act in time, upholding the rights and privileges of state legislative bodies. Alexander Hamilton, one of the drafters of the US Constitution, famously described the judiciary as the 'least dangerous' branch, hinting at the more dangerous executive. When a high constitutional functionary criticises the highest court and its directives, and the text of constitutional provisions based on the idea of checks and balances, it sends an unpleasant message to our democracy. No individual is above the law under our constitutional scheme. The judgement in the Tamil Nadu case underscores this democratic principle. (Views are personal) (kaleeswaramraj@ Kaleeswaram Raj | Lawyer, Supreme Court of India
