VG Sigmaringen [Administrative Court of Sigmaringen] A 8 K3735/2018

Parties (including notable third parties)

A stateless Bidoon man of Arabic descent born in the UAE and his family (First Plaintiff); his wife (Second Plaintiff); their child (Third Plaintiff); The German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge/BAMF) (Defendant)

---

Summary of Facts

The First Plaintiff is a stateless Bidoon of Arabic descent who was born in the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’). In 2011, without his consent or that of his family, the UAE's Ministry of Interior forcibly issued Comorian passports to him, his wife (the Second Plaintiff), and their son (the Third Plaintiff), despite the fact that they had never visited the Comoros and had no connection to the country. The First Plaintiff also possessed birth certificates issued in the UAE. Following the onset of the Arab Spring, the Plaintiff was repeatedly interrogated by UAE authorities due to his objections to having been issued Comoros passports. He denied any affiliation with specific religious or political groups. He was eventually warned that an arrest warrant was being issued against him, prompting the family to flee the UAE in 2014 and seek asylum in Germany.

During his asylum hearing before the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge or ‘BAMF’) in 2017, the First Plaintiff explained that an order had been signed in the UAE prohibiting him and his family from using their Comoros passports to enter the Comoros or assert any rights there. He expressed concerns that returning to the UAE would lead to imprisonment without trial. The family applied for subsidiary protection as an alternative and requested a determination of a prohibition on deportation.

In 2018, the BAMF rejected the Plaintiffs' claims and instructed the family to leave Germany and warned that failure to comply would lead to deportation to the Comoros or another admissible destination. The family appealed against this decision to the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen.

---

Legal Arguments

Legal arguments by the Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs argued that they should not be deported to the Comoros because they had no genuine connection to the country. They questioned their supposed Comorian nationality and expressed that they had never received naturalisation certificates and had never visited the Comoros. They also stressed that they had signed an order in the UAE which ‘prohibited them from using their passports to enter the Comoros or asserting any rights therein.’ The first Plaintiff expressed concerns that returning to the UAE would lead to imprisonment without a trial, and worried that if relocated to the Comoros, his family would face the risk of deportation back to the UAE from there.

Legal arguments by the Defendant

The BAMF rejected the Plaintiffs' asylum application on several grounds. First, it argued that the couple had ‘not presented compelling grounds for fleeing their home country, the Comoros’ which the BAMF considered to be the Plaintiffs’ country of nationality based on their passports, noting that this was a prerequisite for refugee status. Second, the BAMF stated that it ‘could not identify any humanitarian conditions or imminent life-threatening circumstances to justify a prohibition on deportation’. Third, the BAMF deemed the couple's ‘employment history adequate to support themselves in the unknown country’ of the Comoros.

Outcome

The Administrative Court of Sigmaringen partly rejected the Plaintiffs' asylum request because they lacked a connection to their presumed country of origin, the Comoros. However, the Court recognised the family's entitlement to a determination of a national prohibition on deportation and found that the BAMF had violated their rights.

The Court provided two main reasons for its decision. First, it interpreted ‘poor humanitarian conditions’ resulting from exceptional individual circumstances as constituting ‘treatment’ under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Second, the Court found that the conditions required for establishing a national prohibition of deportation under the Residence Act were met.

In assessing whether to prohibit deportation, the Court considered various case-specific factors, including the duration of humanitarian conditions, the resulting physical and mental consequences, and issues surrounding age, gender, and health. The Court also took into account an individual's ability to meet basic needs such as shelter, food, healthcare, and employment, as well as access to financial resources and familial or network support.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs met the requirements for a national prohibition of deportation due to the humanitarian conditions in the Comoros. The Plaintiffs' circumstances were categorised as ‘very exceptional’ due to precarious living conditions that raised concerns for their lives and safety under Article 3 of the ECHR. The Court accepted the Plaintiffs' lack of ties to the Comoros and recognised their prior residence as stateless Bidoons in the UAE and acknowledged the challenges they faced in accessing essential rights and services there. The Court ultimately concluded that the Plaintiffs required protection because their Comoros passport would render them ‘completely rightless’ in a country that is not their country of origin.

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)	Article 3: Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Domestic	Asylum Act (2008)	Section 3 and 4
Domestic	Act on the Residence, Employment and Integration of Foreigners in Germany (‘Residence Act’)	Section 60(5)

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

Helena-Ulrike Marambio, ‘Germany: Prohibition of Deportation for Bidoons with Comoros Passports’ (2024) 6(1) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 151.

• The author argues that the UAE Government deliberately avoided naturalising stateless Bidoons (a long-rejected minority born on UAE territory) by instead purchasing ‘economic citizenship’ passports from the Comoros. This strategy backfired, creating ‘yet another marginalised group’ of Bidoons who became ‘foreigners in their home country.’ While they received Comoros passports, these documents did not extend any genuine constitutional citizenship rights.
• The author contends that Western countries, including Germany, have struggled to properly assess asylum claims from Bidoons holding Comoros passports due to three interconnected problems.
  • First, there is a ‘gap in international legislation concerning 'investor citizenships' without naturalisation and other related rights,’ meaning international law does not clearly address situations where a person holds a passport but no genuine nationality (page 156).
  • Second, foreign courts and immigration authorities lack expertise in recognising ‘the incompatibility’ between the Comoros economic citizenship law and the Comoros' own nationality and constitutional framework, leading to confusion about whether the passport holders are truly Comorian nationals (page 156).
  • Third, there is a broader ‘failure to grasp that Comoros 'economic citizenship' is a legal construct ('legal fiction')
• The author concludes that the ruling exposed the Administrative Court's struggle to evaluate the situation of Bidoons due to an inability to obtain updated evidence through governmental channels, and that the Comoros passport has served as ‘a strategic tool in perpetuating discrimination’ while allowing the UAE to sidestep naturalisation processes (page 157).