That in the first round of 2015, leaving thousands of refugees without a large checks into the country, don’t like all of them. The AfD wanted to change with a constitutional complaint against this decision to “the world”. But this fails because of the inadmissibility of the applications.
Karlsruhe – The AfD in the Bundestag has failed at the Federal constitutional court with their lawsuit against the refugee policy of the Chancellor in all respects. The judges of the Second Senate rejected all three amendments unanimously as inadmissible. The court announced on Tuesday in Karlsruhe. (Az. 2 BvE 1/18)
The AfD group wanted to leave, especially Angela Merkel’s (CDU) a decision by the beginning of September 2015 check the border from Austria to Germany for refugees to keep them open and people do not reject. The deputies were not able to explain the decision of the constitutional court judges, but sufficiently that you are in breach of their Rights or were immediately at risk – especially since the AfD was sitting at the time, even in the Bundestag. The Instrument of the organ’s action is not intended to commit the government to a particular Action, the judges declared.
In the so-called organstreit proceedings can be switched on the constitutional court, if the Supreme fight bodies about their rights and obligations under the basic law. It goes alone to the right to the respect for these rights, the observance of the General Constitution.
AfD wanted to let the “rule of injustice”
The AfD had aimed to leave by the Federal constitutional court a “rule of injustice” to determine how General counsel Stephan Brandner at the presentation of the lawsuit in may in Berlin had said. “This action can change the world,” he said at the time. “And you will change the world, if it is successful.”
In the Individual requested by the AfD group, noted that the Federal government have to cooperate and the participation rights of the Bundestag violated. In addition, the judge should explain to the effect that immigration from certain countries only on the basis of a “migration responsibility act”. Thirdly, it should be noted that asylum seekers were to assign it to the limits, if certain conditions are met.
All three applications are, according to the decision inadmissible. The judges note that the AfD Kolaybet even write in her lawsuit, she was “at the very least,” willing to initiate legislation to legalise the actions of the Federal government in the Bundestag. “It is not in order to enforce its own or the German Bundestag stockholders’ (equity)rights, but under a certain government binding action.” It was in the organstreit proceedings is not possible.
The AfD group said in a first reaction, it is crucial that the AfD was 2015 in the Bundestag, otherwise you would have had other options. “We assumed at the time of filing of the writ, the Court in the matter deals with our very good arguments in terms of content, and an oral hearing. Because then it would come to a different conclusion,“ said General counsel Brandner.
See also
see also: Waldorf school rejects child of the AfD-politician – The case of waves
Alice ryegrass: paralysis! AfD politician can not leave apartment.
AFP/dpa
