The British government had planned to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The ruling is also likely to have an impact on the German migration debate.

The British Supreme Court has ruled that the British government's plan to deport asylum seekers from all backgrounds with no prospect of return to Rwanda is unlawful.

The verdict is the culmination of a bitter legal dispute. The Court of Appeal ruled in June that Rwanda cannot be classified as a safe third country and that an asylum procedure in that country does not offer sufficient protection against deportation to the country of origin. This overturned a lower court decision by the High Court, which had declared the scheme complied with the law. Asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania filed lawsuits against him.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's Conservative government appealed against this. With the plan, Rwanda, for which an agreement was signed with the East African country, wants to discourage migrants from entering the country irregularly in small boats through the English Channel. Last year, more than 45,000 people arrived in the UK this way. Although the number so far this year, around 27,000, is lower than last year, the government's promise to stop the boats is still not considered to have been fulfilled.

Under the plan, in the future irregular migrants would be deported directly to Rwanda without examining an asylum application to seek protection there. This was met with strong criticism inside and outside the country. The United Nations refugee agency condemned the action as a violation of international law. The bishops of England spoke of “disgrace for Great Britain.” There were also doubts about whether the expected deterrent effect would actually materialize.

The Supreme Court's decision is likely to trigger fresh calls for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal judges based their argument on convention. It was also the European Court of Human Rights that stopped the only planned flight with asylum seekers to Rwanda with a provisional order.

The decision in Britain is also likely to affect the debate. In the struggle to deal with the many refugees and migrants arriving in the EU and ultimately Germany, mainly via the Mediterranean, there have been calls to outsource asylum procedures to third countries.

Last week, at the Prime Minister's urging, the federal government confirmed it wanted to examine asylum procedures outside Europe. The federal-state resolution does not go into detail here. However, the SPD premiers made it clear that they could only imagine that asylum applications would be checked before entry. A one-way ticket to Rwanda, as Britain had planned, is not up for debate.

Italy also recently concluded an agreement with Albania with the intention of establishing two centers to receive migrants rescued in the Mediterranean. The people rescued by the Italian authorities' ships will be transferred to Albania to undergo their asylum procedure. Only people whose asylum application is approved should be brought to Italy.