A German court has ruled that the country acted unlawfully by rejecting asylum seekers at the border, specifically in a case involving three Somalis expelled from Poland.

The Berlin Administrative Court emphasized that asylum seekers cannot be rejected without going through the Dublin procedure, which determines the responsible EU state for their asylum process.

Despite the court's ruling, Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt intends to continue the practice of rejecting asylum seekers at the borders.

Critics, including members of the Green Party and some from the SPD, argue that the court's decision exposes Dobrindt's policies as legally flawed and call for immediate changes to the rejection practices.

Dobrindt's policies have faced scrutiny as the government seeks to balance immigration control with humanitarian responsibilities.

Shortly after taking office, Dobrindt ordered intensified border controls and allowed for asylum seekers to be turned away, with exemptions for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and children.

While Dobrindt can continue his border policy temporarily, he is required to provide better justifications for such rejections going forward.

The NGO Pro Asyl supported the plaintiffs in the court case and hailed the decision as a significant success, urging the immediate cessation of border rejections.

Experts warn that if Dobrindt fails to improve his legal reasoning, a wave of similar legal challenges could arise against the government.

SPD Interior expert Sebastian Fiedler emphasized the need for discussions on aligning Dobrindt's directives with European and German law.

The court criticized the government's failure to coordinate with other EU member states regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, citing the principle of 'loyal cooperation' within the EU.

This ruling highlights ongoing tensions in Germany's approach to asylum and immigration amidst changing public and political sentiments.