Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) issued a rare, fast-track ruling on 4 December 2025, compelling the federal government to issue entry visas “without delay” to a former judge of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court, his wife and their four children, who have been stranded in Pakistan for more than two years.
The family had been accepted into a 2022 humanitarian admission programme (the so-called “Überbrückungsliste”) after the Taliban takeover, and security screening by the German Foreign Office was completed in July 2025. Nevertheless, their visa applications stalled after the new CDU-SPD coalition put Afghan admission schemes on hold in May. Karlsruhe’s Second Senate overruled an earlier decision by the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court, citing “exceptional urgency” and the “unique danger” of deportation from Pakistan back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
![German Constitutional Court Orders Immediate Visas for Afghan Supreme Court Judge and Family]()
Practically, the ruling obliges the Interior and Foreign ministries to finalise the visas within days. NGOs involved in the case, including the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, warn that Pakistan plans to expel Afghans without valid residence papers from January 2026, placing the family at immediate risk of persecution. About 1,900 other Afghans with German admission approvals remain in limbo; lawyers expect today’s judgment to serve as a precedent that will speed up many of those cases.
For global-mobility and HR teams the decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to enforce Germany’s humanitarian commitments, overriding political pauses. Companies assisting Afghan talent or former local staff should anticipate swifter visa processing and be prepared to arrange flights and onboarding on short notice. The case also illustrates the importance of maintaining robust documentation: the court explicitly noted that the family’s records proved their eligibility beyond doubt.
More broadly, the ruling signals that the new government’s tougher migration stance has limits under constitutional and EU law. Employers relying on humanitarian or special-programme admissions can cite the judgment when contesting bureaucratic delays, while compliance teams should ensure that sponsorship obligations (e.g., accommodation or integration support) can be demonstrated if challenged.
The family had been accepted into a 2022 humanitarian admission programme (the so-called “Überbrückungsliste”) after the Taliban takeover, and security screening by the German Foreign Office was completed in July 2025. Nevertheless, their visa applications stalled after the new CDU-SPD coalition put Afghan admission schemes on hold in May. Karlsruhe’s Second Senate overruled an earlier decision by the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court, citing “exceptional urgency” and the “unique danger” of deportation from Pakistan back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Practically, the ruling obliges the Interior and Foreign ministries to finalise the visas within days. NGOs involved in the case, including the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, warn that Pakistan plans to expel Afghans without valid residence papers from January 2026, placing the family at immediate risk of persecution. About 1,900 other Afghans with German admission approvals remain in limbo; lawyers expect today’s judgment to serve as a precedent that will speed up many of those cases.
For global-mobility and HR teams the decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to enforce Germany’s humanitarian commitments, overriding political pauses. Companies assisting Afghan talent or former local staff should anticipate swifter visa processing and be prepared to arrange flights and onboarding on short notice. The case also illustrates the importance of maintaining robust documentation: the court explicitly noted that the family’s records proved their eligibility beyond doubt.
More broadly, the ruling signals that the new government’s tougher migration stance has limits under constitutional and EU law. Employers relying on humanitarian or special-programme admissions can cite the judgment when contesting bureaucratic delays, while compliance teams should ensure that sponsorship obligations (e.g., accommodation or integration support) can be demonstrated if challenged.
