Germany’s Border Turnback Policy and ECJ Ruling, Shooting Jackal in Germany’s Island

Germany’s Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt announced that the government will seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to determine the legality of its migrant turnback policy at the border. This follows a Berlin Administrative Court ruling on June 2, 2025, which declared that turning away asylum seekers without adhering to the EU’s Dublin Regulation—requiring a determination of which EU country is responsible for processing asylum claims—was unlawful. The case stemmed from an incident on May 9, 2025, where three Somali nationals were denied entry at the Polish border and returned without proper asylum procedures.

The German government, led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, introduced stricter border controls in May 2025, allowing asylum seekers to be turned away at the border, a policy central to Merz’s campaign to curb irregular migration. Despite the Berlin court’s ruling, Dobrindt insists the policy is legally justified and plans to continue pushbacks while seeking ECJ clarification. The court emphasized that Germany must follow the Dublin procedure, which assigns responsibility for asylum claims to the first EU country of entry, and rejected arguments that public security threats justified bypassing it.
Critics, including the Greens and advocacy group Pro Asyl, argue the policy violates EU law and strains relations with neighboring countries like Poland. The government maintains that the measures are temporary, with a long-term goal of strengthening EU external borders. Over 2,800 people, including 138 asylum seekers, were reportedly denied entry in the first two weeks of the policy. The ECJ ruling could set a precedent for Germany’s migration strategy and its alignment with EU regulations.

The Berlin Administrative Court’s ruling on June 2, 2025, highlights that Germany’s turnback policy may violate the EU’s Dublin Regulation, which mandates that asylum claims be processed by the first EU country of entry after proper assessment. An ECJ ruling could either legitimize Germany’s approach or force a policy overhaul, clarifying the balance between national border control and EU law. If the ECJ rules against Germany, it could set a precedent limiting member states’ ability to unilaterally implement border pushbacks, reinforcing EU-wide asylum protocols.

Conversely, a ruling in Germany’s favor could embolden other nations to adopt similar measures, potentially fragmenting EU migration policy. Domestically, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government faces pressure to curb irregular migration, a key campaign promise. Continuing pushbacks despite legal challenges risks backlash from opposition parties like the Greens, who argue it undermines EU values and human rights. A prolonged legal battle could erode public support if migration numbers remain high.

Internationally, the policy strains relations with neighbors like Poland, which has criticized Germany’s unilateral actions. This could hinder EU cohesion, especially as other countries like Austria and Hungary also tighten border controls. Over 2,800 people, including 138 asylum seekers, were turned away in the policy’s first two weeks, raising concerns from groups like Pro Asyl about violations of asylum seekers’ rights. Pushbacks without proper procedure could lead to refoulement, sending migrants to unsafe countries, breaching international law.

The policy fuels anti-migrant sentiment in Germany, potentially deepening social divides, while also galvanizing pro-asylum advocacy, leading to protests and public debate. Germany’s push for an ECJ ruling signals a broader debate on harmonizing EU migration policies. The outcome could influence reforms to the Dublin system, which many criticize as outdated, and affect negotiations on strengthening EU external borders, a stated German goal.

Pro-Policy (Merz’s CDU/CSU argue that strict border controls are necessary to manage migration flows, reduce strain on public services, and address security concerns. They view pushbacks as a pragmatic response to rising irregular crossings (e.g., Germany recorded over 1.2 million asylum applications in 2024, per web sources). Opposition (Greens, SPD Left Wing, NGOs) criticize the policy as inhumane and legally dubious, emphasizing Germany’s obligation to uphold EU and international asylum laws. They warn of social polarization and damage to Germany’s reputation as a humanitarian leader.

Pro-Border Control States (e.g., Germany, Hungary, Austria) favor stricter national measures to deter migration, citing overwhelmed systems and public discontent. They push for stronger EU external borders but resist centralized EU control over their policies. Pro-EU Integration States (e.g., France, Spain) advocate for unified EU migration policies and burden-sharing, opposing unilateral actions like Germany’s that could shift migration pressures to other member states or destabilize EU solidarity.

German public opinion is split, with polls (e.g., from X posts in 2025) showing 55% support for stricter border controls but 60% favoring humane asylum processes. Far-right groups exploit the issue to gain traction, while progressive activists rally against perceived xenophobia. The debate amplifies tensions between urban, cosmopolitan areas and rural, conservative regions, mirroring broader European trends. Poland and other eastern neighbors resent Germany’s pushbacks, which increase pressure on their borders. This has sparked diplomatic friction, with Poland threatening reciprocal measures, highlighting a divide between Western and Eastern EU approaches to migration.

Locals Reject Hunting Tourists’ Help To Shoot Jackal On Germany’s Island

Locals on the German island of Sylt have expressed strong opposition to a proposal allowing hunting tourists to shoot jackals, following the first sighting of a golden jackal on the island. The initiative, backed by the local hunting association and the Hunters’ Association of Schleswig-Holstein, aimed to control the jackal population, citing concerns about the non-native species’ potential impact on local wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds.

However, residents and some conservationists argue that the jackal, likely a lone animal that migrated from Eastern Europe, poses no significant threat and should be left alone or managed non-lethally. They view the involvement of external hunters as unnecessary and disruptive to the island’s ecosystem and tourism-driven identity.
Public sentiment, as reflected in local discussions and posts on X, emphasizes protecting Sylt’s natural balance over introducing hunting tourism, with some calling the plan an overreaction.

The controversy over allowing hunting tourists to shoot jackals on Sylt highlights several implications and reveals a clear divide among stakeholders, reflecting broader tensions between conservation, local identity, and external intervention. The golden jackal, a non-native species in Germany, could potentially disrupt Sylt’s delicate ecosystem, particularly affecting ground-nesting birds like oystercatchers or lapwings. However, with only one confirmed sighting, the ecological threat may be overstated, and lethal measures could unnecessarily disturb the island’s biodiversity. Non-lethal alternatives, like monitoring or relocation, could suffice but require resources and coordination.

Sylt is a premier tourist destination known for its pristine beaches and natural beauty. Introducing hunting tourism risks alienating visitors who prioritize eco-friendly experiences, potentially harming the island’s economy. Conversely, proponents argue controlled hunting could attract a niche market of hunting enthusiasts, though this seems less aligned with Sylt’s established tourism brand. The proposal has sparked a clash between local values and external pressures. Sylt’s residents, many of whom view the island as a sanctuary for nature, see the involvement of outside hunters as an intrusion. This could erode trust in local authorities and hunting associations, deepening community divisions.

The decision on Sylt could set a precedent for handling other non-native species in Germany. A heavy-handed approach might encourage similar measures elsewhere, while a more restrained response could promote coexistence or non-lethal management, influencing national conservation policies. The local hunting association and the Hunters’ Association of Schleswig-Holstein support allowing hunting tourists to target the jackal, framing it as a proactive measure to protect local wildlife from an invasive species.

They argue that jackals, native to Southeast Europe, could multiply and threaten Sylt’s ecosystem. They also see economic potential in regulated hunting tourism. Critics view this as an overreaction to a single animal and question the motives, suspecting profit-driven interests over genuine ecological concerns. Many Sylt locals and some conservationists oppose the plan, advocating for the jackal to be left alone or managed non-lethally (e.g., through monitoring or capture).

They argue the jackal poses no immediate threat and reflects natural migration patterns. They prioritize Sylt’s identity as a nature-friendly destination and reject external hunters as disruptive. Proponents claim this stance underestimates the long-term risks of invasive species and lacks a practical plan for managing potential population growth. Many see the situation as emblematic of broader conservation debates, advocating for science-based, humane solutions over knee-jerk reactions.

Some accuse these voices of being detached from local realities, arguing that urban or non-resident perspectives may overlook the practical challenges faced by island communities. Sylt’s case underscores the challenge of aligning local governance with community values, especially in areas dependent on tourism. The lack of consensus risks prolonging the stalemate, with the jackal’s fate—and Sylt’s approach to conservation—hanging in the balance. No recent updates indicate a resolution, suggesting ongoing deliberation among stakeholders.

Stolbur Phytoplasma Is Ravaging Crop Communities in Germany

The Stolbur phytoplasma, transmitted by the cixiid planthopper Hyalesthes obsoletus (commonly known as the Schilf-Glasflügelzikade or reed leafhopper), has caused significant crop yield losses in Germany, particularly affecting potatoes, sugar beets, and various vegetables. In Baden-Württemberg, yield losses in potato crops have reached up to 70% in some areas, with severe cases leading to total crop failure. Potatoes are a critical crop for Germany, which is largely self-sufficient in potato production, making these losses particularly concerning.

The affected area for sugar beets has nearly doubled from 40,000 hectares in 2023 to at least 75,000 hectares in 2024, representing about a quarter of Germany’s sugar beet cultivation area. Yield losses in Baden-Württemberg reached up to 25% in 2024. Crops such as red beets, celery, cabbage, onions, carrots, and even rhubarb and peppers in some regions have experienced significant yield and quality losses. Infected plants often become rubbery, wilt, or rot, rendering them unsuitable for processing or storage.

The German Farmers’ Association (Deutscher Bauernverband) and the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Agriculture have described Stolbur as a “serious threat” to the supply of domestic potatoes, vegetables, and sugar. Farmers face financial losses due to reduced yields, increased sorting efforts, and the disposal of unmarketable crops. In some cases, entire farms’ viability is at risk. Stolbur is caused by the bacterium Candidatus Phytoplasma solani, which is transmitted through the feeding of the reed leafhopper. Infected plants exhibit symptoms such as wilting, reddening, rubbery roots or tubers, and reduced sugar content, severely impacting quality and marketability.

The reed leafhopper has spread rapidly from southern Germany (Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate, Bavaria, Hesse) to northern regions, including Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. Warmer and drier conditions linked to climate change have enhanced the leafhopper’s reproduction and survival, exacerbating the disease’s spread. Weeds like Convolvulus arvensis (field bindweed) and Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle) can act as reservoirs for the phytoplasma, facilitating its persistence and spread among crops.

Baden-Württemberg is the hardest hit, with significant losses in potato and sugar beet production. Other southern states like Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate, and Hesse are also affected. The disease has reached Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, indicating a northward expansion likely driven by climate change. There are currently no known natural enemies of the reed leafhopper in Germany, complicating biological control efforts.

Effective chemical or biological controls for the leafhopper are scarce. Research is ongoing, with trials exploring deeper tillage (20 cm or more) to reduce leafhopper nymphs, crop rotation with maize or fallow land, and the use of SBR-tolerant sugar beet varieties. Repellents and natural enemies are also being tested, but results are preliminary. Strategies like crop rotation, intercropping, and resistant cultivars are being explored to reduce disease incidence. However, these require further research to optimize for different cropping systems.

Consumer and Health Implications

Authorities and associations confirm that Stolbur poses no health risks to humans. Affected crops with rubbery textures or rot are not sold in markets. Continued spread could lead to reduced availability of domestically grown potatoes and vegetables by autumn, potentially increasing reliance on imports and affecting food prices. Warmer and drier conditions are amplifying the leafhopper’s lifecycle, increasing Stolbur’s prevalence. This aligns with broader trends where climate change exacerbates plant disease risks, particularly in temperate regions like Europe.

Stolbur is not unique to Germany. Studies from South Moravia (Czech Republic) reported yield losses of up to 60% in tomatoes, 93% in peppers, and 100% in celeriac from 2006–2008. Similar issues have been noted in maize in Bosnia and Herzegovina and potatoes in Turkey, indicating a regional challenge in Europe. Farmers are urged to adopt deeper tillage and consider crop rotations with non-host crops like maize to reduce leafhopper populations. Monitoring and removing weed reservoirs can also help.

The German Farmers’ Association President, Joachim Rukwied, has called for urgent political action to develop effective control measures, as current responses are deemed insufficient. Collaborative efforts, like Südzucker’s task force with the Julius Kühn Institute and universities, aim to accelerate research and practical solutions. Investing in resistant crop varieties, improving disease surveillance, and adopting climate-smart farming practices (e.g., ICM) are critical to mitigating future losses.