The Federal Ministry of the Interior has rejected allegations from North Rhine-Westphalia in the Sami A. case. “We couldn’t do anything operationally,” said a ministry spokeswoman in Berlin. “Nonetheless, we advised, we accompanied the process, that is how it can be said, and indeed constantly.” NRW Integration Minister Joachim Stamp of the FDP said on Thursday that he was “deeply disappointed” that Interior Minister Horst Seehofer’s “full-bodied announcements that it should be made a top priority” had not been followed by any deeds. Deportations are a matter of the states. In the case of Sami A., however, it would have been up to the Foreign Ministry to obtain an assurance from Tunisia at the request of the Interior Ministry that the extremist would not be threatened with torture there before deportation. Seehofer had declared in May: “My goal is to achieve the deportation, also in this case.” The Higher Administrative Court in Münster decided that Sami A. who was deported to Tunisia must be brought back to Germany.
Court president Ricarda Brandts accused the authorities of having acted with “half the truth” and thus gave the originally competent judges at the Gelsenkirchen administrative court a wrong impression. The question of whether the Ministry of the Interior is now looking for a visa for Sami A. to re-enter the country Germany is trying, the spokeswoman did not answer. “We are in close contact within the federal government and also with North Rhine-Westphalia,” she said. The verbal note Tunisia demanded by the North Rhine-Westphalia courts as a prerequisite for deportation A, with the assurance that he will not face torture there, is apparently still in place not before. In general, he could say, “that diplomatic assurance is usually always obtained on the basis of a statutory decision in which the court specifies exactly what the content of the required assurance should look like,” explained a spokesman. “This has not yet happened in the case of Sami A.” Source: ntv.de, jug / dpa “According to the Higher Administrative Court in Münster, the payment of the fine is no longer required. is wrongly deported to Tunisia. The responsible city of Bochum is supposed to pay 10,000 euros in view of the failure of the authorities. But a court in Münster revokes the payment.
Now it is the Tunisian’s turn. In the scramble to bring back the illegally deported Islamist Sami A., the city of Bochum does not have to pay a fine of 10,000 euros. The Higher Administrative Court (OVG) in Münster ruled that the city had now done everything in its power to bring the Tunisian back. A penalty payment was therefore no longer required, which the Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court had set on August 3rd at the request of Sami A.’s lawyer. Since then, the city has promised to give Sami A.biology essay writers service the necessary entry permit immediately and to request an entry visa from the Foreign Office. The judges in Münster now see Sami A. at the train in their decision: He did not make credible that he had exhausted his possibilities to get a valid Tunisian passport, it said in the message, as an Islamist threat and ex-bodyguard of the killed terrorist Osama bin Laden, Sami A. was on 13.
July was deported to Tunisia – wrongly, as the OVG later decided. The German authorities now have to bring him back to Germany. Even before the latest decision by the Higher Administrative Court, Sami A.’s lawyer had applied for a further fine at the Administrative Court of Gelsenkirchen. A decision has not yet been made, while the deported Islamist’s lawyers claim that her client was harassed in prison in Tunisia.
In a letter to North Rhine-Westphalia’s refugee minister Joachim Stamp, there was talk of shackles, neck blows and sleep deprivation, reports the “Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger”. For almost two days Sami A. received nothing to eat or drink. This treatment should be classified as torture, according to the letter from the lawyers. The Ministry of Refugees confirmed receipt of the letter, but said that the house was “convinced that Sami A. was not tortured in Tunisia and that he is not threatened with torture “. Two weeks ago, FDP politician Stamp said: “If this had happened or would happen, I would not hesitate a minute to make my office available.” Source: ntv.de, fzö / dpa “Sami A. was after Tunisia deported – now he is to be brought back. The Sami A. affair triggers a debate between politicians and the judiciary about the separation of powers in Germany.
While the pressure on the responsible ministers increases, A.’s return remains uncertain. n-tv.de clarifies the most important questions. How likely is it that Sami A. will return to Germany? First of all, the Tunisian authorities are asked. Sami A. is currently free to move in Tunisia, but there is still an investigation there against him. The process is still ongoing. Before Sami A. can travel back to Germany, Tunisia has to stop the investigation, give him back his passport and give him permission to leave the country. “Only when that has happened will Germany take action in parallel to this procedure,” says Stefan Engstfeld, legal expert for the Greens in North Rhine-Westphalia, in an interview with n-tv.de.
Specifically, the city of Bochum has to issue the 42-year-old with an entry permit because there is still a re-entry ban against him. The Foreign Office must also issue a visa. What happens when Sami A. is back in Germany? In this case, the police union fears that the 42-year-old could take the opportunity and go underground. “Of course he must also expect that he will be deported again in a second procedure,” said the deputy federal chairman of the police union, Arnold Plickert, of the German press agency. The concern that he could use the remaining time until the court order to attack is “not to be wiped off the table”. A. was under observation even before his deportation in mid-July.
If, according to a risk analysis, he was classified in the highest category of endangerment, a total of around 30 police officers would be required for the observation. Which authority would be responsible for Sami A. after his return? The main responsibility then lies with the city of Bochum. Immediately after his return, A. would have to report to the local immigration office. However, he would not get a residence permit, but only a toleration for the duration of his proceedings. Who bears the costs for the repatriation? The Higher Administrative Court (OVG) has obliged the city of Bochum to cover the costs.
When asked by n-tv.de, city spokesman Thomas Sprenger confirmed that A.’s lawyer would be assured of assuming the costs of the flight. How the Tunisian will come to Germany has not yet been clarified, according to Sprenger – the question is, among other things, whether he may have to be accompanied by police officers. The amount required also depends on such circumstances.
However, the promise does not mean “that Sami A. could fly first class to Germany via Honolulu,” said Sprenger. According to the Federal Police, A.’s deportation by charter flight in mid-July already cost 34,848 euros. What happened to Sami A.’s family? Before his deportation, Sami A. lived with his family in Bochum. His wife and four children have both German and Tunisian citizenship. The Bochum city spokesman could not answer whether they are still there. According to his lawyer Seif Eddine Makhlouf, the Islamist wants to return to his family as soon as possible. Why are the authorities and courts arguing in the Sami A case? There is actually agreement on the central question: Both the judiciary and the authorities see it as proven that Sami A. supported the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and was at times one of the bodyguards of Osama bin Laden.
The city of Bochum still considers Sami A. to be a danger. Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer urged a quick deportation several times – and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf) also ordered it on June 20. Sami A. took action against his deportation before the administrative court in Gelsenkirchen. According to the law, the Tunisian was not allowed to be deported during the ongoing proceedings.
In mid-July he was nevertheless put on a plane, although the court had imposed a deportation ban the day before. The authorities only received the notification when A. was already in the air. The authorities and the judiciary are now arguing about whether the deportation was illegal. What is the standpoint of the judiciary? The courts of several instances are calling for Sami A. to be brought back from Tunisia.
They assume that the Islamist is threatened with torture in his homeland. The Administrative Court of Gelsenkirchen rejected a complaint by Bamf against the ban on deportation last week. “After a further review of the factual and legal situation”, the chamber came to the same conclusion: Sami A. must fear “treatment contrary to human rights” in Tunisia. Bochum also failed before the OVG with a complaint against its return decision. North Rhine-Westphalia’s highest judge, Ricarda Brandts, accuses politics and authorities of a lack of respect for the separation of powers – and complains about the damage to the relationship of trust between authorities and the judiciary. What is the position of politics and authorities? The Bamf still sees no danger for Sami A. in his homeland.
The office argues that since returning to Tunisia, he has not been tortured or is threatened with anything like that. The charge that the Bamf and the state authorities had deliberately left the Gelsenkirchen judges in the dark about the imminent deportation date, North Rhine-Westphalia Prime Minister Armin Laschet rejected. He explained that one could “be happy that the person who was threatening is no longer in Germany”.
The fact that Sami A. is now allowed to enter the country again meets with sheer incomprehension among politicians and authorities. North Rhine-Westphalia Interior Minister Herbert Reul of the CDU therefore demands that judges should always keep an eye on the “legal perception of the population” in their decisions. Conservative politicians in particular see the case of Sami A. as an oath of revelation for the credibility of the state. Is Sami A. actually threatened with torture in Tunisia? Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch repeatedly report cases of torture by the Tunisian police and security forces.
Systematic torture as it was in the days of dictator Ben Ali no longer exists. But in isolated cases, with reference to national security, interrogation methods that are too brutal are still being practiced. In the case of Sami A. the administrative court offered the authorities a compromise. “He could have been deported legally cleanly by a so-called verbal note,” says Engstfeld n-tv.de. With the document, the Tunisian side would have guaranteed the court that A. would not be tortured in prison. Had this verbal note on 13.
June, the case would have been settled quickly. At that time, Sami A. was no longer a threat to the population, he would have been in custody until September 25th. “It is a mystery to me why the courts have been tricked and legal proceedings thrown overboard,” says Engstfeld. What are the political consequences of the case? The case could have consequences, especially for NRW Integration Minister Joachim Stamp.
There is criticism from both the judiciary and opposition circles. Stamp had “ignored the rule of law in several places and clearly deceived the court,” said Engstfeld in an interview with n-tv.de. “The bullshit we have now is his responsibility. That’s why I call for his resignation.” The matter could also have consequences for Seehofer: because it would have been his responsibility to provide the verbal note from Tunisia required by the administrative court.
According to Reuters, the minister was quick with “strong sayings”, criticized FDP party vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki. However, when it comes to implementation, he is on the “Versagerstraße”. Not only the FDP now sees Seehofer and Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas responsible. “The federal government must now do everything in its power to ensure that Tunisia utters a verbal note so that Sami A. can finally be deported in a legally secure manner,” warns Engstfeld. “Because nobody attaches importance to the fact that he is walking around freely in this country.” Source: ntv.de “The Federal Constitutional Court rejected Sami A.’s complaint. (Photo: picture alliance / Uli Deck / dpa) The Sami A. case was resolved last The Tunisian is said to have been the bodyguard of Osama bin Laden. He was deported – and that’s how it remains.
The Federal Constitutional Court rejects a complaint. The alleged Islamist Sami A., who was deported to Tunisia under controversial circumstances last year, failed with a constitutional complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court. The highest German court in Karlsruhe did not accept his complaints in connection with his deportation for decision. These were directed against decisions of the Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court, which had repealed an originally imposed ban on deportation. (Az.
2 BvR 10/19) The Tunisian, classified by the German authorities as an Islamist threat and allegedly the bodyguard of the former Al Qaeda boss Osama bin Laden, was deported in July 2018. Shortly before, the administrative court had imposed a ban on deportation because A. was threatened with torture in his home country. The judges then initially decided that the Tunisian had to be brought back to Germany, but the court later lifted this deportation ban. The background was a so-called verbal note from the Tunisian embassy in October. After this diplomatic assurance, the danger of torture was “no longer likely”, the administrative court declared in January. The Federal Constitutional Court justified the non-acceptance of A.’s constitutional complaint by saying that he had not adequately explained a violation of fundamental rights.
His complaints against the deportation detention, the deportation to Tunisia and his imprisonment there came to nothing because the object of the constitutional complaint was solely the newer decisions of the administrative court, which were linked to a changed situation. Source: ntv.de, vpe / AFP “” He should be the bodyguard of the top terrorist Osama bin Laden and an al-Qaeda terrorist.