In 2018, Germany intended to admit asylum seekers who had been rescued at sea and brought to Malta. Some of them were denied admission after staff of the German domestic intelligence services conducted “security screenings” and issued negative assessments. In its judgment of 22 January 2026, the Administrative Court of Cologne found that the collection of personal data during an interview at the Marsa Initial Reception Center in Malta on 28 January 2019, as well as the subsequent storage of this data by the German domestic intelligence services, were unlawful.
When Italy and Malta increasingly denied rescue ships access to their ports in 2018, a so-called “Coalition of the Willing” was formed, of which Germany was a member, committing to the admission of people rescued at sea. After the Sea-Watch 3 rescued people in distress at sea in December 2018, the vessel was only allowed to dock after other EU Member States agreed to take in those rescued; the claimant arrived in Malta on 9 January 2019. The individuals concerned were subsequently accommodated in the “Marsa Initial Reception Center,” which, according to the court’s findings, was characterized at the time by a practice of coercive, detention-like accommodation.
On 28 January 2019, individuals who were not identifiable as representatives of German authorities approached the claimant and stated that transfer to Germany required a “necessary security check.” The claimant had not been informed in advance about the interview; it took place from 9:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. without back-translation. As a result of the negative security assessment, the claimant was denied onward travel to Germany. The reasons for the rejection were not made transparent to him. It later emerged that the interviewers were employees of the German domestic intelligence services.
In its judgment, the Administrative Court of Cologne makes clear that neither valid consent nor any other legal authorization existed for this data collection and storage. According to the court, consent already failed due to the lack of voluntariness: the claimant was in a situation of massive pressure and was told that refusal to participate in the interview would result in the transfer procedure not being pursued further. The Federal Constitutional Protection Act also provides no legal basis for conducting security interviews with “unknown third parties” abroad in the absence of concrete indications of anti-constitutional activities or other threats. Nor can the measure be based on Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: according to its wording, structure, and purpose, the “checks” referred to there concern the existence of “humanitarian grounds” (family or cultural context), not security screenings conducted in the requesting state’s own interest.
The court further emphasizes that the “Malta Agreement” or related Standard Operating Procedures cannot replace a legal basis. As intergovernmental declarations of intent, they are incapable, particularly in light of the principle of materiality applicable to the fundamental right to informational self-determination, of legitimizing an interference with fundamental rights. Leave to appeal was granted due to the fundamental importance of the case; the defendant bears the costs.
“The judgment makes it unmistakably clear: the German domestic intelligence services, especially when operating abroad, is bound by fundamental rights. The collection and storage of such sensitive data require a clear statutory basis. That basis did not exist here,” explains Christopher Wohnig, the claimant’s lawyer.
Robert Nestler, Managing Director of Equal Rights Beyond Borders, adds: “At a time when human rights are increasingly under pressure, the court demonstrates the rule-of-law limits of state action. Public authorities are bound by law and justice, this applies not only to the German domestic intelligence services, but also to the Federal Ministry of the Interior.”
***
Contact: press@equal-rights.org