Concerns are mounting that the new measures implemented by Germany’s federal government to deter asylum seekers from entering the country could escalate into conflicts with its neighbors.

Berlin’s decision to completely prevent asylum seekers from entering Germany is facing scrutiny at the EU level. Legal proceedings are anticipated against these German measures, with predictions that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is likely to rule against Berlin.

Last week’s introduction of stricter border controls, aimed at identifying potential asylum seekers, triggered protests both within Germany and abroad. For instance, the mayor of Kehl asserts that these controls undermine the carefully cultivated cooperation with the French city of Strasbourg.

Neighboring governments are equally incensed. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated, “We will not accept those who send groups of migrants to Poland.” Chancellor Friedrich Merz, however, has declared that Germany will not compromise.

Given that permanent border controls within the Schengen area are incompatible with EU law, the federal government justifies its actions under Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This article permits EU member states to invoke national laws, rather than EU laws, if it is necessary to “protect public order” or “protect internal security.”

The national legislation currently invoked by the federal government is Article 18(2) of the German Asylum Act. This article unequivocally states that “foreigners shall be refused entry if they enter from a safe third country.” Notably, all of Germany’s neighboring countries are officially classified as “safe third countries.”

Berlin is now adopting a policy of generally refusing asylum applicants, with exceptions solely for children and pregnant women. Furthermore, the procedure is stipulated to be “proportionate.”

This approach clearly contravenes the Dublin Agreement, which permits asylum seekers to be returned to the EU member state through which they initially entered, while also requiring the identification of their country of origin. Berlin, however, argues that the Dublin Agreement can be disregarded because it is “not functional in practice.”

Widespread skepticism exists regarding the legal defensibility of the framework the federal government is using to legitimize its actions.

The European Commission is also reportedly taking a “critical” stance on this entire process. It is suggested that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did a “favor” to Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited Brussels on Friday, by refraining from publicly disclosing the “legal skepticism” prevalent within the Commission.

Nevertheless, this does not imply that the skepticism has dissipated. Legal action against this move appears certain. Observers suggest that Berlin will then be compelled to clarify why it perceives the acceptance of asylum seekers as a severe threat to “internal security,” particularly considering the “decreasing numbers of asylum applications” currently observed.

Merz has thus far attributed this decision to “overcrowded asylum seeker accommodations, overburdened schools, and violence.” It remains uncertain whether the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will deem this sufficient justification, especially in light of the current “decreasing numbers of asylum applications.” However, it is also noted that a ruling could take years.

The federal government hopes that by then, the influx of migrants into Germany will have significantly diminished. Berlin is likely attempting to gain time, recognizing the contentious nature of its current approach.

Beyond the doubts concerning the legal validity of these measures, there is substantial political criticism of the federal government’s actions.

These criticisms originate from directly impacted municipalities such as Kehl in the state of Baden-Württemberg, which shares a very close collaborative relationship with the French city of Strasbourg.

Wolfram Britz, the independent mayor of Kehl, explains that they have consistently been urged to undertake “common projects” in the name of Europe, and now they have “a common tram, common bridges, and a common kindergarten.”

Britz is quoted as stating, “People from Strasbourg work in Kehl, and people from Kehl work in Strasbourg.” The substantial increase in border controls has resulted in prolonged traffic congestion between the two cities. It is also highlighted that these controls have disrupted tram services in Strasbourg.

Britz further asserted, “We can strongly condemn this action. We feel as though we are reverting to times we believed we had long since overcome.”

Growing dissatisfaction is also evident in neighboring countries. Luxembourg’s Minister of the Interior, Léon Gloden, last week voiced his opposition to Germany’s border controls, noting that approximately 52,000 people commute daily from Germany to Luxembourg for work.

Gloden had requested the “prevention of unnecessary disruption to cross-border traffic.”

Protests are also emerging from Switzerland. According to statements issued last weekend, even though the new controls have not yet caused significant traffic jams, fundamental objections persist.

Justice Minister Beat Jans declared, “Germany’s planned systematic rejections at the border, from Switzerland’s perspective, violate existing laws,” and alluded to possible “measures” against Berlin’s practices.

Austria has also expressed its criticism. The Austrian Ministry of Interior stated last Wednesday, “We assume that Germany will comply with European law in all measures it takes. Any measure taken by German authorities that deviates from this will not be accepted.”

However, Vienna also articulated its willingness to further tighten border controls through a common EU-wide effort.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk offered particularly sharp criticisms when he hosted Chancellor Merz, who made his inaugural visit to Warsaw on Wednesday evening.

Among other points, Tusk highlighted that approximately 95,000 people currently reside in Poland and commute to Germany for work every day.

Noting that long waiting times at the border are already a significant daily annoyance and should be reduced, Tusk affirmed, “I will be very insistent on this.”

Warsaw also objects to the unilateral refusal of asylum seekers by German border authorities. Tusk emphasized that he “attaches great importance” to ensuring that no country, including Germany, creates the impression or situation that they intend to send migrant groups to Poland anymore, and he underscored that Poland would not accept this.

Merz’s response indicates a hardening of the dispute over Germany’s new border policy.

According to reports, the chancellor defended the right of all EU member states to “regulate entry into their own territory” and consequently asserted that a compromise with neighboring countries was unnecessary.

In Brussels on Friday, Merz reiterated that Germany would continue to turn back asylum seekers, but that this would be conducted “in accordance with European law.”

The chancellor argued, “Germany is not acting alone on this,” claiming that its European neighbors were “fully informed” about Berlin’s actions.