The verdict concerns the procedure for distributing across the country Jewish immigrants from former USSR countries who were accepted for permanent residence in the Federal Republic of Germany with the status of quota refugees. In this decision, the administrative court also clarifies the rather vague status and legal position of this group of emigrants.
COMPLAINT OF TWO COUSINS
Two families of Jewish emigrants from Ukraine and Moldova filed a complaint with the court, demanding in court proceedings the redistribution of residence from the federal state of Saxony to the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The justification was that the cousin of a Saxon resident lives in Rhineland-Palatinate, with whom the "Saxons" have family, religious, and personal ties. The authorities of Rhineland-Palatinate rejected the applicants' request for redistribution from Saxony to Rhineland-Palatinate. The reason was the obligation imposed by the competent German authorities on the applicants to reside in Saxony. The plaintiffs' complaint was directed against the authorities' decision to designate a mandatory place of residence.
YOU MUST LIVE WHERE THE AUTHORITIES HAVE INDICATED
The administrative court dismissed the complaint with the following reasoning: the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany do not guarantee Jewish immigrants admission to Germany. The existing quota-based admission procedure is determined by the goodwill of the federal government. The resettlement agreement is an individual bilateral agreement between the potential emigrant and the German government. This means that resettlement takes place on terms agreed by the parties.
A particularly important condition is the Jewish emigrant's consent to reside in the federal state designated by the German authorities. This procedure of distribution corresponds to the interests of the Federal Republic. Otherwise, the entire flow of emigrants would head towards the most attractive federal states. The even distribution of emigrants across the country, including to the less attractive eastern federal states, corresponds to the public interest of the Federal Republic. According to the court, administrative bodies also have the right to prevent the concentration of emigrants in overcrowded urban conglomerations of the FRG.
COUSIN IS NOT A RELATIVE,
JEWISH EMIGRANTS ARE NOT REFUGEES
Regarding the specific situation of the plaintiff, the court reached the following conclusion: the alleged family ties are not of particular significance, as this case does not concern the core family but rather more or less distant kinship. Religious motives, in the judges' opinion, should not play a special role in this case, as within reach in the state of Saxony there are a sufficient number of Jewish communities with opportunities for worship for all quota refugees.
In its ruling, the administrative court elaborated on the requirements of paragraphs 23 and 26 of the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. According to these provisions, recognized political refugees must not be subjected to spatial restrictions by the authorities of the host state or discrimination in access to social support compared to the native population. In the view of the Neustadt administrative court, these provisions of the Convention, ratified by the German parliament, do not apply to the situation of quota refugees who are admitted to the FRG on the basis of voluntary commitments by the country's government.
THE STATUS OF QUOTA REFUGEE
REMAINS UNCLEAR
In response to this argument, it should be objected that the practice of admitting Jewish quota refugees is based on the Law on Measures for Quota Refugees Admitted as Part of Humanitarian Aid (Gesetz ueber Massnahmen fuer im Rahmen humanitaerer Hilfsaktionen aufgenommene Fluechtlinge).
According to §1 of this law, the provisions of the Geneva Convention also apply to quota refugees. I want to support my opinion by referring to a decision of the Federal Administrative Court. This decision was made on a complaint by an officially recognized refugee (not of Jewish origin), who also disagreed with the place of residence assigned to him.
As a result of examining the case, the court concluded that the requirements of §120 Para. 5 Sentence 2 of the Federal Social Assistance Act cannot be applied to officially recognized refugees. This paragraph gives the social welfare office the right to stop paying social assistance to a refugee who has unilaterally moved to another place of residence outside the federal state designated for his residence.
The guidelines of the Federal Administrative Court specified the rights of an official refugee. In the case of Jewish emigrants, it is not about formally recognized refugees. The application of the humanitarian aid law as a legal basis for admitting Jewish emigrants is general in nature due to the absence of special laws. I cannot reliably predict what decision the Federal Administrative Court will make on the claim of a quota refugee of Jewish origin for permission to change his place of residence.
WRITE APPLICATIONS
In such cases, one should consider changing residence using all available legal options. To this end, interested persons can submit a reasoned request for redistribution to the authority that assigned them to their current place of residence.
Another path is to directly submit an application for social assistance to the local social welfare office at the new (desired) place of residence. For this, the applicant must have the statutory prerequisites for receiving social assistance (neediness, unemployment, lack of own means). A refusal by the local social welfare office to provide the requested social assistance should be appealed to the competent administrative court.
Appealing to the court does not guarantee success and carries a certain risk. As I have already said, it is impossible to predict whether the Federal Administrative Court will agree to extend the provisions of the Geneva Convention on Refugees to Jewish emigrants from the former USSR. In urgent cases, when for personal reasons it is absolutely necessary for a contingent refugee to change their place of residence without delay, they should consult a lawyer and consider the possibility of following the paths I have described.
In the case under consideration, the Neustadt Administrative Court denied the existence of close family ties between cousins. In this regard, I would like to note that various situations can arise in life. For example, relatives live in different federal states and one of them is seriously ill and needs external care. Another relative is ready to take care of the sick person. In this case, one can speak of the existence of close family ties and the need for the constant presence of the relative to provide the necessary care.
Thomas PUE,
German lawyer.