Update info: Gaston's legal battle against German authorities on the residential restriction on UN travel document

Border control problem: Berlin-London:

Dear All,

I would like to announce that, due to the German Border Police withholding my Travel Document against Boarding Easy Jet EZY210 Berlin-London on the 31st of May 2005, I was unable to take my flight from Berlin to London as I tried to get a notification about the problem. As a result, I am having a case file by the Berlin Bundesgrenzchutzinspektion- Schönefeld (Border police) Case No: 22 10 600/1-06-2005 for a notification as I was told there is an investigation about my residence status.

Regarding the hearing of the 1st of March 2005, at the Administrative court of Darmstadt against thhe residential restriction to the city of Darmstadt only( Also see http://www.thevoiceforum.org/gaston-Rechtstreit), the announced decision of the 15th of March 2005 by the court was only made available to my lawyer on the 2nd of May 2005. This was only after a letter dated 26th April.2005 demanding the minutes of the hearing was addressed to the court.

The Administrative court of Darmstadt refuses jurisdiction(refering to Berlin) over the matter and claims the restriction is right at the sametime. As a result of this we are having an appeal in Berlin over the very restriction for the same reason there has been an appeal in Darmstadt. In the meantime my lawyer has requested a retrial in Darmstadt.

Below the appeal by my German Lawyer to the German Authorities in Berlin.

--------------------------------------------

Letter Translated from Original German Version:

SOLICITORS

(Contact Address in Berlin)

To (Foreigners’ Office Berlin)

Landesamt für Bürgerinnen und Ordnungsangelegenheiten

Abt. IV Ausländerbehörde

Friedrich-Krause-Ufer 24

13353 Berlin

Berlin, May 17th 2005

IV A 131 – Mr Gaston Ebua, born June 01st 1973

Residence Restriction of August 08th 2004

Dear Madam or Sir,

In the above mentioned matter we appeal in the name of and in authorization of Mr Gaston Ebua – see authorization attached – against the residence restriction issued on August, 13th 2004 for the City of Darmstadt.

A p p e a l.
Reasons:
The residence restriction, that was issued together with the extension of the residence permit, is materially as well as formally illegal and violates the rights of the appellant.

The extension of the residence permit and of the travel document by the Foreigners’ Office was done due to the local and regulative responsibility of the City of Berlin for the matters of our client, who has his residence in Berlin and is registered there. An official request for administrative assistance was without a doubt not involved. Therefore, the residence restriction has not been issued due to administrative assistance but due to the very responsibility of the City of Berlin. Issuing residence restrictions in its own jurisdiction for the City of Darmstadt through the Foreigners’ Office of Berlin is legally not permissible. Therefore, the residence restriction concerning the appellant is already formally illegal.

That the Foreigners’ Office of Berlin has acted in its own jurisdiction due to the residence of the appellant in Berlin, has also been assumed by the Administrative Court of Darmstadt, most recently in the decision of March 15th 2005 - E 1392/03(4). The decision reads: “The transfer of the normal residence of the plaintiff from Darmstadt to Berlin has resulted into a transfer of administrative responsibility and jurisdiction. But if Berlin has issued the residence permit of August 14th 2004 in its own competency due to the transfer of federal jurisdiction the same holds true for the restriction, that was issued at the same time together with the residence permit.”

This opinion was also adopted by the Foreigners’ Office of Darmstadt, see letters from July 19th and 30th 2004.

That the Foreigners’ Office of Berlin still refuses in its letters to be the Foreigners’ Office in charge for the appellant in spite of the extension of the residence permit an the travel document is comprehensible and lacks legal grounds. In the letter of August 13th 2004, the very next day after the extension of the residence permit and the travel document, the appellant was refused to be handed out a certificate to be submitted to the British Consulate in order to apply for a study visa on the ground that this certificate “could not be issued in administrative assistance for the still responsible Foreigners’ Office of Darmstadt”. Simultaneously, the appellant was advised to deregister his residency from Berlin and to apply for a visa for re-entry after the end of his studies. Also in the last letter of you Foreigners’ Office of February 3rd 2005 it was pointed out that the appellant could turn to the “Foreigners’ Office of Darmstadt, which still holds the files”, for extension.

The ongoing dispute on the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Foreigners’ Offices constitutes a extraordinary burden and insecurity for the appellant; especially when considering his special legal residential situation since he wants to study at the Roehampton University of London. In order to arrange his visa matters he is dependent on the cooperation of the responsible Foreigners’ Office. However, past experience has shown that he can only arrange for his visa and residence permit matters with large effort and legal support of a lawyer. For the extension of the residence permit and the travel document in August 2004 he addressed you Foreigners’ Office already in April and June 2004 in order to clarify the responsibilities in advance. In July 2004 he again addressed the Foreigners’ Office of Darmstadt. He received a rejection from both Foreigners’ Offices. At this point, the appellant was under huge pressure since he had to arrange for his visa matters in order to start his studies in England. Even after the Foreigners’ Office of Berlin had extended the residence permit and the travel document a certification guaranteeing that he would be able to return to Germany after the end of his studies was rejected due to lack of responsibility and jurisdictional power.

Until today the appellant does not know what will happen in the case he is not in Germany at the time of expiry of his travel document. According to information from the Federal Office of External Affairs, German embassies in other countries cannot offhand extend his travel document. In the case of expiry of the travel document expires also the right to return. This fact still constitutes an element of uncertainty for the appellant.

The dispute over the residence restriction and the jurisdictional responsibility, which has been going on for years now, has led to the fact that the plaintiff is continuously preoccupied with his legal residential matters. This has reduced his ability to concentrate on his studies of Human Rights in Great Britain. The appellant can provide a certification of the University of Roehampton from February this year which confirms that the appellant is very much suited for the studies but that his legal residential situation has led to disturbances.

The residence restriction is also materially illegal.

The residence restriction violates the interdiction of discrimination respectively the obligation of equal treatment according to article 26 GC (Geneva Convention) in connection with article 6 GC. Furthermore, it violates article 2 of the Protocol No. 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Humans Rights and Freedom Rights, according to which every person residing legally on the territory of a state has the right to move and chose residence freely. The restriction violates article 17 paragraph 2a GC according to which refugees have to be granted the possibility to look for a job nationwide latest after three years of residence.

Referring to the material illegality of the residence restriction we refer you to the detailed argumentation of the decision of June 11th 2002 of the Bavarian Administrative Court – M 21 K 02.1729 (InfAuslR, 2003, pp 30. This decision has been legally valid since January 2003 after the Free State of Bavaria withdrew it application for appeal.

This letter will be transferred by fax in advance.

Sincerely,

Weidner, lawyer