Admissibility procedure

General (scope, criteria, time limits)

There is no separate procedure preceding the regular procedure in which decisions on admissibility of asylum applications are taken. However, it is possible that applications are declared inadmissible in the course of the regular procedure, based on the grounds set out in Section 29 of the Asylum Act.

Applications are deemed inadmissible in the following cases:

• Another country is responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure, according to the Dublin Regulation or based on other European or international treaties (see Dublin); ^[1]
• Another EU Member State has already granted the applicant international protection;^[2]
• A country that is willing to readmit the foreigner is regarded as a ‘safe third country’ for the asylum seeker;^[3]
• A country that is not an EU Member State and is willing to readmit the foreigner is regarded as ‘another third country’;^[4]
• The applicant has made a subsequent,^[5] or secondary,^[6] application (see Subsequent applications).

The BAMF took the following inadmissibility decisions in 2025:

Source: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911 , 30 March 2026, available in German here, 17, 18.*

Of practical importance is the situation of persons who have been granted international protection in another EU Member State and then move to Germany to apply for international protection there. This often concerns persons with a status in Greece, or other EU Member States where it is difficult for beneficiaries of protection to access certain services and secure adequate living standards. In such cases, the BAMF’s earlier practice to issue inadmissibility decisions was subject to judicial review. Following the Federal Administrative Court’s judgment of 16 April 2025 (revision proceeding),[7] the BAMF again issues inadmissibility decisions in certain categories of cases, including for applications from persons who have already been granted protection status in Greece. The BAMF practice, court rulings and figures are described in Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State.

On 1 August 2022, the CJEU established in a preliminary ruling that the asylum applications of a child born in one Member states (in this case Germany) whose parents have been granted protection in another Member State (in this case Poland) cannot be rejected as inadmissible.^[8] The request was made by the Administrative Court of Cottbus (Brandenburg), based on a BAMF decision that such an application was inadmissible on the grounds that Poland was responsible for conducting the asylum procedure under the Dublin regulation. According to the CJEU, this ground for inadmissibility cannot be applied analogously to cases where international protection has already been granted to family members.

The provision that asylum applications may be considered inadmissible in case of safety in ‘another third country’ (sonstiger Drittstaat) is based on the concept of First country of asylum of Article 35 of the recast APD.^[9] ‘Another third country’ may refer to any country which is not defined as a Safe third country under German law.^[10] The provision is rarely applied (15 cases in 2025, 11 cases in 2024, 5 cases in 2023, 6 cases in 2022, 4 cases in 2021).^[11]

Personal interview

The examination of whether an application may be considered as inadmissible is part of the regular procedure; therefore, the same standards are applied and an inadmissibility interview has to take place before the inadmissibility decision is issued^[12] (see also Regular Procedure: Personal Interview). However, if the applicant fails to appear at the interview, the BAMF can decide based on written documentation.^[13]

See also Dublin: Personal Interview, as most inadmissibility decisions concern Dublin cases.

Appeal

The appeal procedure in cases of inadmissible applications (i.e., mostly Dublin cases and cases of persons granted protection in another EU country) has been described in the section on Dublin: Appeal. Appeals must be submitted to the court within 1 week (7 calendar days) together with a request to the court to grant suspensive effect to the appeal. The latter request must be substantiated.

Legal assistance

As in the regular procedure, asylum seekers can be represented by lawyers at first instance (at the BAMF), but they must pay for legal representation themselves and it may be difficult to find a lawyer for practical reasons.

The appeal procedure in cases of applications which are found inadmissible is identical to the procedure in ‘manifestly unfounded’ cases. It is possible to apply for legal aid for the appeal procedure. However, because of time constraints and because many of these cases are likely to fail the ‘merits test’, it is unusual for legal aid to be granted, with the exception of some Dublin cases (see Dublin: Legal Assistance).

Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State

According to the Asylum Law, asylum applications of persons who have been granted international protection in another EU Member States are usually rejected as inadmissible.^[14] According to information provided by the BAMF in February 2026, in practice, if an applicant has already been granted international protection (refugee or subsidiary protection) in another EU Member State, their asylum application is generally considered inadmissible in line with domestic law. This inadmissibility assumes that returning the applicant to the responsible Member State would not violate Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. According to the BAMF, in practice, given the high personal and social protection standards in EU Member States—including access to medical care—applications are typically rejected on this basis. However, the BAMF stresses that it recognizes that exceptions may exist in specific cases, where systemic or general deficiencies in the responsible Member State pose a substantial risk to the individual. In such cases, a case-by-case assessment is conducted, during which any existing vulnerabilities of the applicant are carefully considered. The hearing on admissibility serves to clarify these circumstances. In addition, the presence of vulnerability is always taken into account as one factor among others when assessing the potential need for protection in the final decision.[15]

In recent years, this practice has been challenged with regards to Member States where it is difficult for beneficiaries of protection to access certain services and secure adequate living standards. While previously, the BAMF usually decided that the asylum application was inadmissible but sometimes issued a removal ban for said Member State, the Federal Administrative Court, in a decision of 20 May 2020, ruled that in line with a CJEU ruling, an application for asylum cannot be deemed inadmissible on the grounds that another Member State has already granted protection if the situation the applicant would face in this Member State amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment, and thus be in violation of Art. 4 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.^[16] In these cases, the BAMF would have to carry out a regular asylum procedure. Over the course of 2023, the Federal Administrative Court announced the launch of three revision procedures. Two concerned the situation of persons who have been granted international protection in Italy and whose asylum request has been rejected as inadmissible by the BAMF, and where different higher administrative courts have come to different assessments of the situation in Italy. The first of these procedures was stopped however as the claimants failed to send the reasons and documentation for the revision to the court in time.^[17] The second revision procedure is still ongoing as of January 2026.[18] The third case of such a revision, which concerned the situation in Afghanistan for young men who do not belong to a particularly vulnerable group, was withdrawn by the claimants just before a scheduled hearing on the case.

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), in its new role as a Tatsacheninstanz, ruled in November 2024 that non-vulnerable, employable protection holders in Italy could reasonably be expected to return, referencing available accommodations from churches and NGOs, as well as employment opportunities. The court did not conduct new fact-finding but relied on existing sources, highlighting that changes in circumstances could prompt reassessment. In an additional case from September 2024, the Federal Administrative Court made a similar ruling regarding Greece in April 2025, determining that single, employable and non-vulnerable individuals with international protection status would not face inhuman or degrading living conditions upon return to Greece, thereby allowing German authorities to reject their asylum applications as inadmissible under §29(1)(2) AsylG.[19] In August 2025, the Federal Administrative Court suspended six revision cases regarding Dublin transfers to Italy for families with small children pending the outcome of the CJEU preliminary ruling in C-458/24 (“Daraa”).[20] These cases concern applicants whose protection claims were rejected by the BAMF as inadmissible due to Italy’s supposed responsibility, raising the question of the legal effect of a member state’s failure to accept Dublin transfers .[21]

Many court decisions which have been published in recent years deal with cases of persons who have been granted international protection in other European states such as Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary or Italy. In many of these cases, transfers were suspended by courts on the grounds that a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment could not be excluded for beneficiaries of international protection in these countries. However, similarly to the existing case law on ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the context of Dublin transfers, the case law on this issue was not consistent and other courts upheld transfers of beneficiaries of international protection to Bulgaria or Italy, while the majority of courts do not consider transfers to Greece to be lawful (see also Suspension of transfers and below, this section).^[22] A list of court cases dealing with transfers of beneficiaries of international protection is accessible online.^[23] For further information see Onward appeal(s)).

Two of the three revision procedures launched under this new competence concerned the situation in Italy. One procedure was stopped without a decision. In the second procedure, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) ruled in November 2024 for the first time on a factual revision according to § 78 (8) AsylG, assessing the general situation in Italy for recognised refugees who are not vulnerable and are of working age.[24] The case involved two single women from Somalia and Syria, who had been granted refugee status in Italy but later applied for asylum in Germany. The court was bound by the prior findings of the Higher Administrative Court Rheinland-Pfalz (Oberverwaltungsgericht Rhineland-Palatinate), which had determined that the applicants were not particularly vulnerable and could work.[25]

The BVerwG concluded that the general living conditions in Italy were not in violation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for this specific group of people. It ruled that returning these individuals to Italy would not subject them to inhuman or degrading treatment, as defined by Article 4 of the Charter. The Court cited temporary accommodation options provided by churches and NGOs, access to employment, and medical care under the Italian health system as evidence that the conditions were sufficient for these individuals to live with dignity.[26] This ruling establishes that, for the time being, the situation in Italy for non-vulnerable, working-age refugees is considered acceptable under EU law. However, any significant changes in conditions could lead to a new assessment.[27] The BVerwG also emphasised that this decision only applies to the specific group of individuals in question and did not address broader questions regarding the situation in Italy or other countries.[28]

In its decision of 12 March 2025, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH Baden-Württemberg) clarified that a voluntary waiver of international protection granted in another EU Member State does not remove the inadmissibility of a subsequent asylum application in Germany under § 29(1) No. 2 Asylum Law.[29] The court held that such a waiver must be treated in the same way as the continued existence of the protection status, in order to prevent circumvention of the Dublin and inadmissibility system and to avoid incentivising secondary movements.[30]  The applicant’s argument that his Bulgarian protection status had been withdrawn was rejected, as the withdrawal was based on his own explicit request; allowing this to reopen access to the German asylum procedure would, in the court’s view, undermine the legislative objective of limiting secondary migration.[31]

Between December 2019 and April 2022, the BAMF ‘de-prioritised’ cases from applicants who had already been granted international protection in Greece, meaning applications were de facto not processed, which left applicants in legal limbo, retaining the status of asylum seekers. In 2021, the Higher Administrative Courts of Lower Saxony and of North Rhine Westphalia ruled that persons with a protection status cannot be sent back to Greece as this would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.^[32] The Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony ruled that the applicants, two unmarried sisters, were likely to be homeless upon return to Greece due to the lack of state and non-state assistance regarding housing, the lack of access to social benefits and the high administrative and practical hurdles to find gainful employment. The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia ruled that it would be highly unlikely for the applicants to find accommodation and gainful employment in Greece and that access to social benefits was only possible after two years of residence proven with a tax declaration. Regarding the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with Article 4 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Federal Administrative Court ruled in September 2021 that all available support to individuals, including support by NGOs and other non-state actors and the applicants’ own efforts are to be taken into account for the assessment of each individual situation.^[33] In July 2021, the German and Greek ministers of the Interior signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at improving the integration of beneficiaries of international protection in Greece regarding accommodation, health care and the provision of necessary goods through a project implemented by the IOM and financed by EU and German funds.^[34] In March 2022, it was reported that an agreement was reached, and that accordingly the BAMF was planning on starting to examine the pending cases.^[35] Decisions of the Higher Administrative Courts of Baden-Württemberg and Saxony in 2022 confirmed that beneficiaries cannot be sent back to Greece, and that their applications cannot be deemed inadmissible for the reason that protection has been granted in another Member State.^[36]

The BAMF took up the processing of applications again on 1 April 2022. The BAMF stated that it planned to assess each case again on its merits, instead of accepting the decision to grant international protection from another Member State, and to only deem applications inadmissible “in justified individual cases” where no threat of violation of Art. 3 or 4 ECHR exists.^[37] As of December 31, 2024, approximately 26,150 cases involving individuals who had already been granted protection status in Greece were still pending before the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees[38], compared to about 6,100 pending cases in 2023,^[39] and 12,500 as of 31 December 2022,^[40] a significant rise in numbers in comparison to previous years. In 2024, 8,716 decisions were made regarding applications by persons who had already been granted protection in Greece[41] (compared to 16,495 decisions in 2023). In 2024, the authorities received 25,112 such applications,[42] which constitutes a significant increase compared to previous years. In 2023, the number stood at 7,113 applications ^[43] and 14,053 in 2022. Syrians (12,254), Afghans (6,718) and Iraqis (2,625) made up most of these applications in 2024.[44] Overall, in 2024, the BAMF issued a total of 8,716 decisions in cases involving individuals who had already been granted international protection in Greece.[45] Of these, 2,169 applicants were granted refugee status (including constitutional asylum), 1,114 received subsidiary protection, and 639 were granted a removal ban.[46] Combined, this results in an overall protection rate of 45%, a significant drop compared to 84.2% in 2023.^[47] 950 applications (10.9% of total decisions) were rejected on the merits, and 3,844 cases (44.1% of total decisions) were resolved through formal decisions, including inadmissibility findings.[48] This represents a substantial increase in inadmissibility and other formal decisions compared to 11.5% in 2023,[49] while the share of rejections on the merits despite prior recognition in Greece decreased relative to 13.9% of total decisions in the previous year. The data points to a notable shift in BAMF’s practice in 2024, with a stronger emphasis on inadmissibility and a reduced likelihood of granting additional protection to individuals already recognized by Greek authorities.

In 2025, the BAMF resumed once again decision-making for persons who had already been granted international protection in Greece, following a temporary suspension that had been in place for roughly a year.[50] The practice, formalized in updated internal circulars of September 2025 and made publicly available via a request under the Freedom of Information Act, distinguishes between vulnerable and non-vulnerable applicants.[51] For non-vulnerable adults—including both men and women, and spouses under 62 without children who are minors —transfers may now be deemed admissible under § 29 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Asylum Law without further review, as the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment is considered negligible.[52] In all other cases, a full national procedure must be conducted.[53] The BAMF guidance also instructs caseworkers to assess additional integration factors, such as prior residence in Greece, language skills, professional experience, social and family networks, and financial means, which may further support a decision of inadmissibility.[54] Some administrative courts have confirmed rejections on the merits, arguing that the BAMF is not bound by decisions of the Greek asylum authorities. This question has been put before the CJEU in a request for preliminary ruling in September 2022.^[55] Between January and August 2023, a total of 92 removals of non-Greek nationals took place to Greece, but the removal statistics do not give indications on the residence status or nationality of persons returned.^[56] This indicates an increase from 2022 where 72 non-Greek nationals were removed to Greece. ^[57]

Throughout 2025 and early 2026, German administrative courts questioned the lawfulness of returning beneficiaries of international protection to Greece in several decisions. While some courts distinguished and upheld returns for able-bodied persons, most decisions emphasized individualized vulnerability and material conditions in Greece, often granting interim protection. Administrative courts in Berlin, Hannover, and Meiningen found that serious health conditions or systemic deficiencies in Greek reception conditions, especially for women, can give rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Art. 3 ECHR / Art. 4 EU Charter. In contrast, the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court (VGH Bayern) rejected a broad, group-based vulnerability for young women, affirming that vulnerability must be assessed case by case.

In detail, the Administrative Court Meiningen held in its decision of 12 June 2025, that even young, healthy, and able-bodied beneficiaries of international protection may face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Greece.[58] The Court found that recognized refugees would, as a rule, be unable to secure their basic needs for a foreseeable period, facing a serious risk of homelessness and extreme material deprivation due to the lack of effective state support and limited access to housing and employment.[59] The Court further rejected the argument that returnees could reasonably be expected to rely on the shadow economy to survive, stressing that referring individuals to illegal work in another EU Member State is impermissible under EU law and exposes them to exploitation and sanctions.[60] The Court also declined to depart from its established case law based solely on a press release of the Federal Administrative Court, emphasizing that a meaningful reassessment requires full access to the reasoning and evidentiary basis of the higher court’s judgments.[61]

In its decision of 22 July 2025, the Administrative Court of Osnabrück granted interim protection against a return to Greece for a beneficiary of international protection suffering from Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.[62] While the Court reaffirmed that young, healthy, and able-bodied men can generally be returned to Greece because they are expected to overcome existing deficiencies in reception conditions through their own initiative, it held that this assumption does not apply to persons with relevant medical conditions. In the applicant’s case, the Court found, on a summary assessment, that the documented Hashimoto’s disease required ongoing medical treatment and could impair his ability to secure employment and sustain himself. As a result, there was a substantial risk that he would fall into extreme material deprivation contrary to Article 3 ECHR if returned. The Court therefore suspended the transfer, noting that the extent of the applicant’s limitations and access to treatment in Greece would need to be examined more closely in the main proceedings.

In its judgment of 18 December 2025, the Administrative Court of Hannover likewise suspended the return of a female asylum seeker from Germany to Greece, despite her already having international protection there.[63] The Court emphasized that systemic deficiencies in the Greek asylum system disproportionately affect women and expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[64] These deficiencies include limited access to adequate housing, social services, healthcare, and employment; gender-specific vulnerabilities such as greater exposure to sexual and gender-based violence; and insufficient support for basic needs like menstrual hygiene.[65] The Court found that existing Greek programs, such as HELIOS+, do not provide effective assistance, and NGOs’ support is constrained by financial and administrative challenges.[66] Taken together, these factors render female refugees in Greece particularly vulnerable, meaning that a return could violate their fundamental rights, and the case must therefore be further examined before any transfer can occur.[67]

Likewise, in a decision of 8 January 2026, the Administrative Court of Berlin suspended the return of an asylum seeker from Germany to Greece despite the fact that he already enjoys international protection there.[68] The Court held that a medication-dependent HIV infection constitutes a “serious physical illness” and thus a special vulnerability within the meaning of Article 21 of the Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU).[69] While the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees had acknowledged the applicant’s HIV diagnosis, it had failed to clarify whether the necessary antiretroviral therapy would in fact be available and accessible to him in Greece. Given the potentially life-threatening consequences of an interruption of treatment, the Court found that this lack of assessment was decisive and must be remedied in the main proceedings, leading to a temporary bar on the return.[70]

On the other hand, in its decision of 17 December 2025 , the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court (VGH) rejected a request to admit an appeal on the general question of whether young women with recognized international protection in Greece are automatically vulnerable.[71] The Court emphasized that vulnerability is not determined by gender or age alone, but must be assessed based on the individual circumstances of each case and whether a person has significantly higher needs compared to healthy adults.[72] While acknowledging that women may face specific challenges, such as increased risk of sexual exploitation or physically demanding work, the VGH held that these factors do not suffice to establish a general, group-based vulnerability.[73] Consequently, the Court concluded that the case did not raise a question of fundamental importance and that the applicant’s assertions about risks for young women in Greece were too general and unsubstantiated to justify a broader ruling.[74] In the case QY v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-753/22, decided on June 18, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Member States are not required to automatically recognise refugee status granted by another Member State.[75] This decision came after a Syrian national, who had been granted refugee status in Greece, sought asylum in Germany. Due to the poor living conditions for refugees in Greece, she could not be returned there, and Germany granted her subsidiary protection. Upon ruling on an appeal against the decision, the German Federal Administrative Court had sought a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The CJEU clarified that while Member States are not obligated to recognise the refugee status granted by another State, they must, however, conduct a new, thorough examination of the asylum request. This examination must consider the elements of the previous decision and involve an exchange of information with the other Member State if necessary. However, in another decision of the same day, C-352/22, the CJEU ruled that the extradition of an individual recognised as a refugee is not permissible without considering the refugee status granted by another Member State.[76] The case involved a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, who had been granted refugee status in Italy in May 2010 due to a threat of political persecution by the Turkish authorities. The individual had been residing in Germany since 2019 and was arrested following an Interpol notice based on a Turkish arrest warrant, accusing him of having killed his mother during a family dispute. The Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Hamm initially believed that asylum and extradition procedures were independent of each other, meaning that the refugee status granted by Italy should not bind the extradition process. Therefore, the court initially ruled that the individual could be extradited to Türkiye despite the recognition of his refugee status in Italy.[77] However, this decision was overturned by the German Federal Constitutional Court, which referred the matter back to the CJEU.[78] The CJEU clarified that extraditing the individual without considering the refugee status granted in Italy would be unlawful. The Court emphasised that there is a specific procedure under EU law to revoke refugee status, and allowing extradition in this case would circumvent such a procedure, effectively ending the individual’s refugee status and stripping him of the rights it entailed.[79]

Source: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 30.

Regarding removals to Bulgaria, most courts are of the opinion that removals of beneficiaries of protection are lawful. By way of exception, some administrative courts have found – in the case of the administrative court of Potsdam even before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine – that even non-vulnerable persons face destitution and homelessness upon arrival.^[80] The Federal State government of Lower Saxony issued guidance on 21 February 2022 according to which transfers are only admissible for healthy persons who are fit to work, and not for single parents, families with minor children and persons unable to work.^[81] In 2025, administrative courts continued to uphold the permissibility of returning beneficiaries of international protection to Bulgaria, while at the same time scrutinising closely the lawfulness of accompanying return measures. This is illustrated by the judgment of the Administrative Court Bayreuth of 28 July 2025 (B 7 K 25.30925), where the court confirmed that a subsequent asylum application by a healthy and employable beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Bulgaria could be rejected as inadmissible under § 29(1) No. 2 and No. 5 Asylum Law, applying the high threshold developed by the CJEU and the ECtHR for violations of Art. 3 ECHR / Art. 4 CFR.[82] At the same time, however, the court partially upheld the action by obliging the authorities to lift the existing deportation order and entry ban, emphasising that new factual developments—such as serious mental illness, the appointment of a legal guardian, and the establishment of a marital family life in Germany protected by Art. 6 of the German Constitution (GG)—must be properly taken into account, at least with regard to the continued enforceability of return measures.[83] A similar pattern can be observed in other 2025 case law, including decisions of the Administrative Court of Osnabrück, which reaffirmed that poor socio-economic conditions or limited integration prospects in the responsible Member State are, as such, insufficient to bar return of protection beneficiaries, but insisted on an individualized assessment where concrete vulnerabilities or family ties may render removal measures unlawful or require reconsideration by the competent authorities.[84] Likewise, on 12 March 2025, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH Baden-Württemberg) reaffirmed its established case law that returning healthy, employable and non-vulnerable single men to Bulgaria does not, in general, expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 3 ECHR and Art. 4 of the EU Charter.[85] Relying on up-to-date country information and the high threshold set by the CJEU in Jawo, the court found that reception and living conditions in Bulgaria do not reach a level where such persons would be systematically unable to secure their most basic needs (“Bett, Brot und Seife”).[86]

For Hungary, according to latest available case law from 2023, some administrative courts have found that the situation of beneficiaries of international protection in Hungary bears the danger of violating Art. 3 ECHR or Art. 4 CFR as beneficiaries are likely not able to ensure a minimum of existence.^[87]

For Poland, jurisprudence from 2022 has been unclear over the course of 2022, with the administrative court of Hannover deciding against removal in June 2022 on the basis that capacities in Poland are overstretched due to the reception of Ukrainian refugees,^[88] while the administrative court of Würzburg found no indication of inhuman or degrading treatment for beneficiaries of international protection in April 2022.^[89]

A transfer of beneficiaries of international protection to Romania was halted by the Federal Constitutional Court in July 2022, which held that the competent administrative court had not properly assessed the situation on the ground in light of the changed situation after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.^[90] The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia asked the Swiss Refugee Council to assess the situation in April 2022, and found in a judgement of 25 August 2022 that no danger of inhuman or degrading treatment exists.^[91]No more recent relevant case law pertaining to Romania is available.

^[1] Section 29(1)(1) Asylum Act.

^[2] Section 29 (1)(2) Asylum Act.

^[3] Section 29(1)(3) Asylum Act, citing Section 26a Asylum Act.

^[4] Section 29(1)(4) Asylum Act, citing Section 27 Asylum Act.

^[5] Section 29(1)(5) Asylum Act, citing Section 71 Asylum Act.

^[6]  Section 29(1)(5) Asylum Act, citing Section 71a Asylum Act.

[7] Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), case nos 1 C 18.24 and 1 C 19.24, 16 April 2025 available in German here.

^[8] CJEU, Judgment in case C-720/20, 1 August 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3WEtCmX.

^[9] Maria Bethke und Stephan Hocks, Neue „Unzulässigkeits’-Ablehnungen nach § 29 AsylG, Asylmagazin 10/2016, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3NXQ0Gz, 336-346 (343).

^[10] ‘Safe third countries’ are all member states of the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland: Section 26a Asylum Act and addendum to Asylum Act.

^[11] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 3-4, 20/432, 14 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RvW8GL, 6, and 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 6. For 2024 and 2025 information provided by the BAMF on 13 February 2026.

^[12] Section 29(2) Asylum Act.

^[13] Section 29(3) Asylum Act.

^[14] Section 29 (1) No. 2 Asylum Act.

[15] Information provided by the BAMF on 13 February 2026.

^[16] Federal Administrative Court, Decision 1 C 34.19, 20 May 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3hvFzsN. The CJEU decisions to which the BverG refers are decisions C-297/17 and C-540/17.

^[17] Federal Administrative Court, “Tatsachenrevision” in asylgerichtlichem Verfahren betreffend Italien eingegangen, 11 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SIFcgV.

[18] Federal Administrative Court, 1 C 21.23, pending aso of 29 January 2026, see here.

[19] Federal Administrative Court, BVerwG 1 C 18.24 , judgment of 16 April 2025, soon to be available in German here.

[20] Federal Administrative Court, Press Release No. 59/2025, 28 August 2025.

[21]  Ibid.

^[22] Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration, Vorlage des BVerwG an den EuGH: Ist das BAMF an die Schutzzuerkennung durch andere EU-Staaten gebunden?, 21 September 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/407ZvXV.

^[23] The website is available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Tj9SqI. Search with the keyword ‘internationaler Schutz in EU-Staat’ (international protection in EU Member State).

[24] Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), Az. 1 C 24.23, 21 November 2024, available in German here.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Informationsverbund Asyl and Migration, ‚BVerwG: Keine unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Aufnahmesituation für nicht-vulnerable Schutzberechtigte in Italien‘, 22 November 2024, available in German here.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Higher Administrative Court (VGH) Baden-Württemberg, Decision of 12 March 2025 – A 4 S 256/24 (asyl.net: M33666), available here.

[30]  Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

^[32]  Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia, Decisions 11 A 1564/20.A and 11 A 2982/20.A of 21 and 26 January 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/483EIZi and Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony, Decisions 10 LB 244/20 and 10 LB 245/20, 19 April 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/483L4rj and https://bit.ly/41zQDeL; see also PRO ASYL, ‘Bett, Brot, Seife – Ein ferner Traum für Flüchtlinge in Griechenland’, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3FzB4Y9.

^[33] Federal Administrative Court, Decision 1 C 3.21 of 07 September 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3pnuXk2.

^[34 Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community, ‘Gemeinsame Absichtserklärung zu Bemühungen um die Integration von Personen mit internationalem Schutzstatus in Griechenland’, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3KeKziO.

^[35]  Infomigrants, ‘Germany to process frozen asylum claims of refugees from Greece’, 21 March 2022, available online at: https://bit.ly/3qH0fTN.

^[36 Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, A 4 S 2443/21, 27 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Nz6c0B; Higher Administrative Court of Saxony, 5 A 492/21.A, 27 April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/483ETUs.

^[37] BAMF, Letter to the Presidents of Higher Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts, 31 March 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ksC5Mq.

[38] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 30.

^[39]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU/CSU, 20/10869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 14.

^[40] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU/CSU, 20/10869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 14.

[41]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 30.

[42] Ibid., 29.

^[43]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9067, 2 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T30yHd, 20.

[44] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 29.

[45] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 30.

[46] Ibid.

^[47] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 17.

[48] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 30.

[49] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 17.

[50] Flüchtlingsrat Hessen, “Neues Rundschreiben zur BAMF-Entscheidungspraxis bei Antragstellern mit Schutzstatus in Griechenland anerkannte,” 8 October 2025, available here.

[51] BAMF, Rundschreiben 61A-7406/437-25, 24 September 2025, available in German here.

[52]  Ibid.

[53]  Ibid.

[54]  Ibid.

^[55]  Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), Decision of 7 September 2022 – 1 C 26.21 – asyl.net: M30943; to monitor the progress of the request, see case C-753/22 before the CJEU, available at: http://bit.ly/3KbQp6T.

^[56] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9067, 2 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T30yHd, 24.

^[57] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 25.

[58]  Administrative Court Meiningen,  2 E 1204/2512, June 2025.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Administrative Court Osnabrück,  3 B 83/2522, 07.2025.

[63] Administrative Court Hannover,15 A 3217/25), 18 December 2025, available in German here.

[64] Ibid.

[65]  Ibid.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68]  Administrative Court Berlin, 35 L 725/25 A, 08 January 2026, available in German here.  

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Higher Administrative Court Bavaria, 24 ZB 25.31394, 17 December 2025, available in German here.  

[72] Ibid.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid.

[75] CJEU, C-753/22, QY v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 18 June 2024, available here.

[76] CJEU, C-352/22, A v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm, 18 June 2024, available here.

[77] Ibid., para. 27.

[78] Ibid., para. 28.

[79] Ibid., para. 73.

^[80] Administrative Court of Frankfurt / Oder, 10 K 803/22.A, 6 January 2023; Administrative Court of Oldenburg, 12 A 849/22, 2 March 2023; Administrative Court of Saarland, 3 L 1057/23, 20 July 2023; Administrative Court of Potsdam, 12 K 2418/20.A, 11 January 2022; Administrative Court of Ansbach, 14 S 22.50126, 31 October 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4738dJb; Administrative Court of Köln, 20 K 3733/22.A, 15 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48nFdwU; Administrative Court of Freiburg, A 14 K 900/22, 19 September 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GRyCza. See also Justus Linz, Zur Situation von »Dublin-Rückkehrenden« und »Anerkannten« in Staaten Osteuropas, September 2022, asyl.net, 3, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3JdJ7PH.

^[81]  Ministry for the Interior and Sports of Lower Saxony, Abschiebunsgvollzug von anerkannt Schutzberechtigten nach Bulgarien, 21 February 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3Y1o1rT.

[82] Administrative Court Bayreuth, 28 July 2025 (B 7 K 25.30925), available in German here.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Administrative Court Osnabrück, 18 November 2025, Az.: 7 A 252/23, available athttps://voris.wolterskluwer-online.de/browse/document/18c0e603-ebc1-46e2-8d61-8785927022a8. 

[85] Higher Administrative Court (VGH) Baden-Württemberg, Decision of 12 March 2025 – A 4 S 256/24 (asyl.net: M33666), available here.

[86] Ibid.

^[87]  Administrative Court of Meiningen, 8 K 529/23 Me, 25 April 2023; Administrative Court of Bremen, 3 K 491/18, 6 April 2022; Administrative Court of Aachen, 5 K 3571/18.A – asyl.net: M30632, available in German at: https://bit.ly/47nolWp; Administrative Court of Munich, M 6 K 18.33184, 10 May 2022, asyl.net: M30693, available in German at: https://bit.ly/41ufxfY.

^[88] Administrative Court of Hannover, 15 B 371/22.A, 27 June 2022, asyl.net: M30777, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48usuZz.

^[89] VG Würzburg, W 1 K 22.30178, 6 April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/485Qm5J; see also Justus Linz, Zur Situation von »Dublin-Rückkehrenden« und »Anerkannten« in Staaten Osteuropas, September 2022, asyl.net, 3, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3JdJ7PH.

^[90] Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), 2 BvR 961/22, 19 July 2022, asyl.net: M30822, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4760ASn.

^[91] Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia, Decision 11 A 861/20.A, 25 August 2022, asyl.net: M30995, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3tvWmWk.