Screening of vulnerability
There is no requirement in law or mechanism in place to systematically identify vulnerable persons in the asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children. The BAMF and the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community drafted a ‘concept for the identification of vulnerable groups’ in 2015, which was intended to be codified in law as part of the transposition of the recast APD and Reception Conditions Directive. However, the concept was initially only made available to BAMF staff as an internal guideline.[1] In June 2022, the BAMF published a revised version of the concept[2] as well as standardised forms with which the Federal States can communicate detected vulnerabilities and specifics to the BAMF and vice versa.[3] According to the BAMF, the procedures to identity vulnerabilities are laid down in its internal regulations, while the concept gives the BAMF staff comprehensive information on the detection and treatment of vulnerable persons and is binding in so far as the internal guidelines refer to it.[4]
According to the BAMF, the identification of vulnerable applicants as required by the APD is primarily the remit of the Federal States, who are responsible for reception and accommodation. Additionally, since 2022 the BAMF internal guidelines lay down the standards for the BAMF employees to identify vulnerabilities in order to guarantee a fair asylum procedure for the persons concerned.[5] These guidelines are updated regularly and are to be used conjointly with the concept mentioned above. A 2016 amendment to the German Asylum Act introduced wording relevant to the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers by allowing Federal States to transmit personal information about an applicant’s vulnerabilities to the BAMF. In turn, the BAMF has the obligation to transmit relevant information on vulnerabilities to the Federal States if they are necessary for adequate accommodation.[6]
However, lacking clear duties of identification, the Asylum Act still fails to properly transpose the recast APD, as it only requires the BAMF to ‘duly carry out’ the interview and not to provide ‘adequate support’ to applicants in need of special procedural guarantees throughout the duration of the procedure.[7] In practice, therefore, identification procedures in Germany have been described as ‘a matter of luck and coincidence’, given that authorities ‘are not able to systematically undertake the necessary steps to ascertain mental disorders or trauma.’[8]
Prior to the revision of the law on counselling in 2023, the BAMF stated that the counselling service for asylum-seekers, consisting of general information on the procedure as well as the opportunity to make individual appointments with BAMF staff (see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR) has led to vulnerabilities ‘being partially identified more often’ as counsellors inform applicants about rights of vulnerable applicants during the procedure. As of 1 January 2023, the BAMF provides additional funding for independent counsellors providing support for vulnerable groups.[9] The independent counsellors are required to transmit personal information to the BAMF and the Federal States agencies responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers which is relevant for the identification and support of vulnerable groups, if the applicant consents.[10] However, no details were given concerning the number or the type of vulnerabilities which were identified in the course of the new advice serviceAccording to information provided by the BAMF, no data are collected on vulnerabilities detected during the counselling nor on the number of vulnerable persons applying for asylum in Germany.[11] The BAMF affirms that the funding for independent counsellors is dependent on relevant certifications and qualifications for the identification of vulnerabilities, which should guarantee the effectiveness of the identification of vulnerabilities.[12]
Prior to the revision of the identification concept in 2022, the lack of a systematic identification processes for vulnerable applicants been subject to recurring criticism from NGOs[13] and international organisations,[14] and described as especially problematic in the context of the airport procedure by NGOs (see Border procedure (border and transit zones)). In 2023, the Federal working group on psycho-social centres for refugees and victims of torture in cooperation with several NGOs acknowledged that there have been attempts mainly by the Federal States to address these shortcomings. However, the working group repeated the criticism of no systematic approach.[15] Along with these policy demands, the associations introduced a toolbox on vulnerabilities which provides guidance for counselling and the identification of vulnerabilities.[16]
The procedures and practice of identification in reception centres, which are run by the Federal States, vary. Upon initial registration, all asylum seekers should undergo a medical examination, which usually takes place shortly after the registration of the asylum application in the arrival centre. However, this examination is focused on the detection of communicable diseases and does not include a screening for potential vulnerabilities. Sometimes medical personnel or other staff members working in the reception centres inform the BAMF if they recognise symptoms of trauma, the BAMF provides notification sheets with which vulnerabilities can be communicated but there is no systematic procedure in place ensuring that such information is passed on.[17]
As of 2020, only three Federal States (Berlin, Brandenburg and Lower Saxony) had a structured procedure in place to identify particularly vulnerable asylum seekers.[18] A number of States conduct screenings, offer psychiatric or psychological consultations or refer to the general care infrastructure, and some Federal States have integrated identification in their concepts for protection from violence in reception centres (Hamburg, Hesse, North Rhine Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein).[19] Since 2021, a project led by the Federal working group on psycho-social centres for refugees and victims of torture in cooperation with several NGOs as well as the BAMF and local authorities has developed a concept to identify vulnerable applicants in reception centres and in psycho-social centres. The concept was piloted in two reception centres in North Rhine Westphalia and Bremen and the findings were published in March 2023 in a toolbox of guidelines which provide guidance for counselling and the identification of vulnerabilities.[20] The working group continues its work, and the Federal government affirms that it supports those Federal States who are interested in implementing the guidelines. However, the guidelines are not legally binding, and the government does not systematically monitor the implementation of the guidelines in the Federal states.[21]
In Berlin, a ‘Network for persons with special protection needs’ has developed concepts for the identification of vulnerable persons and their needs since 2008. The network, which refers to itself as a unique project in Germany, consists of seven NGOs which cooperate with the social services of the regional government. The NGOs have special expertise in the support of the following groups: traumatised persons and victims of torture; LGBTQI+; single women and pregnant women; children and unaccompanied children; persons with disabilities, with chronic diseases and older persons.[22] The network was involved in the development of guidelines for the social services to assist with the identification of vulnerable groups.[23] The guidelines, published in August 2018, provide detailed information on how vulnerable persons can be identified and on the determination of special support needs. Social services at the arrival centre Berlin are instructed to systematically screen applicants for vulnerability in the reception procedure. If they find that an asylum seeker has special reception needs or requires special procedural guarantees, they try to take appropriate measures (including appointments with specialised institutions) and inform the BAMF and the State authority accordingly.[24] In spite of these efforts, participating NGOs of the Berlin network have reported that measures to accelerate asylum procedures in the ‘arrival centre’ have had a negative impact on the identification process, since the interview in the asylum procedure is often scheduled before the persons concerned have a chance to speak to staff members of NGOs or of the Federal State institutions.[25] In practice when an asylum seeker needs special procedural guarantees, the BAMF assigns ‘special officers’ for the interview (see Special procedural guarantees).[26] These officers are trained and experienced decision-makers on various groups of vulnerable people (e.g. unaccompanied minors, victims of human trafficking, traumatized persons, victims of torture, gender-specific persecution. These officers shall guarantee that the necessary procedural safeguards are adhered to. NGOs have criticised the fact that special procedural needs of asylum seekers are not considered (i.e., the lack of support and time to prepare for an interview).[27] In addition, identification of a vulnerability by the social services does not entail a right to specific reception conditions, which can still be hard to obtain especially since social services and State authorities do not always work hand in hand.[28]
Especially since the war in Ukraine has led to rising numbers of protection seekers, systematic shortcomings in the identification of vulnerabilities in arrival centres have been documented.[29] Despite the pledge for the establishment of a Pre-screening procedure for the identification of vulnerabilities by the Berlin senate in 2022,[30] the Berlin Refugee Council criticises that this pre-screening mechanism has never been implemented and that instead no specified reception conditions or other support mechanisms for asylum seekers with special needs are in place in certain arrival centres.[31]
In Brandenburg, a questionnaire is handed out upon registration in the initial reception centre to detect vulnerabilities and possible psychological disorders. If the questionnaire indicates a potential vulnerability, a screening interview takes place with the socio-psychological service of the Brandenburg immigration authority (Zentrale Ausländerbehörde). Following the screening interview, if a vulnerability is detected applicants are referred to psychiatric counselling (which only takes place in Eisenhüttenstadt) and can be housed in a special house for vulnerable applicants. The vulnerability is also communicated to the BAMF. However, in 2016 this was the case for under 1% of all asylum seekers, indicating that detection rates are very low compared to the estimated prevalence of psychological distress among asylum seekers. Furthermore, the special accommodation houses both single men with psychological difficulties and single women who might have been victims of sexual violence.[32] The Brandenburg Refugee Council criticises that while there is a coordinated approach to identify vulnerabilities, the support measures vary depending on the local governance. Accordingly, in some regions no specialised services for the accommodation of asylum seekers with special needs are available.[33]
In Lower Saxony, projects to improve the identification of vulnerable groups have been established in reception centres first in Friedland in 2012 and have since then expanded to all reception centres in the Federal State.[34] Upon registration, all applicants are informed about special vulnerabilities during a meeting with the social service of the reception centre and a further diagnosis is carried out in cases where there are indications of psychological disorders. While the authorities usually follow the recommendations which follow from the diagnosis, between 2015 and 2017 only very few people were referred for a diagnosis.[35]
In e.g., Rhineland-Palatinate,[36] the regional government has adopted a protection concept which also includes methods for the identification of vulnerabilities.[37] This includes the following measures:
- Obligation to check for possible vulnerabilities in the reception centres during the initial stages of the reception process and the asylum procedure;
- Intensification of communication between various actors and authorities involved in the reception system and in the first steps of the asylum procedure;
- Documentation of possible vulnerabilities in a data system used by all authorities involved in the reception process and in the asylum procedure;
- Training measures for persons employed by the Federal State in the reception centres to raise awareness on the different forms of vulnerabilities.
However, there are considerable variations to the procedure in the different arrival centres, AnkER centres etc. There is no common approach on access to social services or other counselling institutions. This depends on how the Federal States and the BAMF have organised the procedure in the respective centres. Around two thirds of all Federal States have also adopted measures for the protection against violence in accommodation centres.[38]
Age assessment of unaccompanied children
The BAMF refers unaccompanied asylum seekers claiming to be under 18 to the local youth welfare office for an age assessement (Jugendamt), but can also can also under certain circumstances request an age assessment directly.[39] During the provisional care period, the youth welfare office has to establish the age of the unaccompanied minor. The office has to check identification documents and, if these are not available, an age assessment has to be carried out based on a ‘qualified inspection’, meaning the overall impressions of two experienced staff members of the office with the help of interpreters, based on their assessment of the developmental state of the minor obtained during the conversation as well as their visual impression.[40] As part of this qualified inspection, the office may hear or gather written evidence from experts and witnesses. The unaccompanied minor has the right to be involved in the process and to be provided with information in a manner that they understand, including translation and can have a person they trust be present during the assessment.[41] In 2023, it has been criticised that due to the discretion to what ‘qualified inspection’ means in practice, many children have been determined as being adults. Additionally, it has been witnessed that they did not have sufficient access to legal remedies to challenge this decision.[42]
Only in cases in which remaining doubts concerning the age cannot be dispelled by these means, the youth office may initiate a medical examination. This examination has to be carried out by qualified medical experts with the ‘most careful methods’. The law does not specify the methods to be used. A network for forensic age diagnoses recommends a set of different methods, which are used in practice interchangeably, including x-rays of the denture, key bone or wrist.[43] While there is no information available on whether these methods are used systematically in all around Germany, at least some hospitals explicitly refer to the network and their recommendations.[44] The explanatory memorandum to the law states explicitly that the previously practiced examination of the genitals is excluded in this context.[45]
The problem of questionable age assessments carried out by the authorities has been discussed in some court decisions since 2016. For instance, the Administrative Court of Berlin criticised the authorities for an age assessment based only on outward appearances.[46] This age assessment had been called into question by a paediatrician. The High Administrative Court of Bavaria, in a decision of 16 August 2016, set certain standards for age assessment by the authorities: an age assessment that leads to the conclusion that the applicant is not a minor and that is based only on outward appearances cannot be regarded as sufficiently certain if there is possibility that a medical examination might lead to a different result. This means that the conclusion based on such an assessment could only be warranted in exceptional cases in which there can be no doubt that an asylum seeker is older than 18 years. All other cases should be treated as ‘cases of doubt’ and a ‘grey area’ (margin of error) of one to two years should be taken into account in favour of the asylum seeker. Even following a medical examination, a margin of error of another two to three years should be considered as a margin of tolerance, in order to avoid any risk of incorrect assessments. The court based its opinion on an expert’s statement, according to which some medical methods for age assessment had a margin of error of up to five years.[47] A similar decision was issued by the High Administrative Court of Bremen in 2018, which found that medical assessment can only be taken as a basis for concluding the person is not a minor if they can establish with certainty that the person is older than 18 years. A high likelihood that the person is over 18 based on just one method (in this case a dental x-ray) is not sufficient.[48] The conclusion, that synopsis of several age assessment methods may provide sufficient proof in the asylum procedure and in court proceedings, has been affirmed by several other regional court decisions in 2019, 2020 and 2021.[49]
The decision of the youth welfare office to take the child into custody may be challenged with an ‘objection’, to be filed within one month and to be examined by the youth authorities themselves. If the objection is not successful, the person can appeal before the competent Family Court. However, neither the objection nor the appeal has suspensive effect.[50] This means that the youth welfare office’s decision not to take a young person into custody remains in force as long as the objection or appeal procedure is pending. This means equally that the pending objection or appeal to the age assessment has no automatic suspensive effect to the asylum procedure.[51] The age assessment and the asylum procedure are two separate administrative proceedings and decisions to one administrative proceeding do not have a binding effect for other administrative proceedings. However, authorities may take information received in the age assessment into account for the asylum procedure.[52] For further information on the asylum procedure see: Legal representation of unaccompanied children.
In practice, though, the results of age assessment are rarely challenged and therefore not many court decisions on this issue have become known. A study by the NGO ‘Association for unaccompanied refugee minors’ found that young persons affected by age assessments as well as staff of youth authorities often were not aware of the possibility to challenge the decision to take the person into care based on the age assessments and that the review of the age assessment is then also part of the court proceedings. Moreover, young persons usually lose any entitlement to be supported in legal matters by the youth authorities once they are declared to be adults in the course of the age assessment.[53]
Latest numbers from 2021 show that 3,999 unaccompanied minors have been taken into custody. For 1,608 of those this measure was ended due to an age assessment.[54]
[1] Information provided by the BAMF, 1 August 2017; see BAMF Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures) – 2. Identifizierung vulnerabler Personen, 2021, 81 at https://bit.ly/48Gv3In.
[2] BAMF, Die Identifizierung vulnerabler Personen im Asylverfahren. Umsetzung in der Praxis des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge, June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Z7JHCU.
[3] The forms are available on the website of the Refugee Council North Rhine Westphalia at http://bit.ly/3GMc5Do.
[4] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.
[5] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), – 2. Identifizierung vulnerabler Personen, version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 288. The duty is based on Section 24(1) Asylum Act, which obliges the BAMF to investigate the relevant facts in each asylum case.
[6] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures) – 2.1 Verpflichtung zur Identifizierung vulnerabler Personen, 2021, 81 at: https://bit.ly/48Gv3In.
[7] See Nina Hager and Jenny Baron, ‘Eine Frage von Glück und Zufall. Zu den Verfahrensgarantien für psychisch Kranke oder Traumatisierte im Asylverfahren’ in Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration (ed), Beratung und Rechtsschutz im Asylverfahren: Beilage zum Asylmagazin 7-8/2017, July 2017, available in German at: , 17-26.
[8] For a recent example of criticism of the lack of vulnerability identification and specific assistance, see Refugee Council Berlin, 13 March 2023, ‚ Kein Ort für Schutzsuchende: Notunterkunft im Flughafen Tegel schließen ‘, available in German here.
[9] BAMF, Antrag auf Gewährung von Bundeszuwendung für die Durchführung der Rechtsberatung für queere und weitere vulnerable Schutzsuchende, January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/47SfOuC.
[10] Section 12a Asylum Act.
[11] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.
[12] Federal Government, Response to information request by The Left, 20/7089, 31 May 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SsRNpC.
[13] KOK, Betroffene von Menschenhandel im Asylkontext erkennen. Problembeschreibung und Handlungsempfehlungen, 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RuJcAY, 4.
[14] GRETA, Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Germany, 20 June 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3FKhZ8k, 30.
[15] BAfF, Policy Paper & Toolbox besondere Schutzbedarfe, 27 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3UbSzIU.
[16] BAfF, Policy Paper & Toolbox besondere Schutzbedarfe, 27 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3UbSzIU.
[17] Flüchtlingsrat Baden-Württemberg, Arbeitshilfe „Unterstützung geflüchteter Frauen“, 19 April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K7uMo8, 2.
[18] BAfF, Identifizierung besonderer Schutzbedürftigkeit am Beispiel von Personen mit Traumafolgestörungen, 30 June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3UdHuqH, 24f.
[19] BAMF, Die Identifizierung vulnerabler Personen im Asylverfahren. Umsetzung in der Praxis des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge, June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Z7JHCU, 16.
[20] BAfF, Policy Paper & Toolbox besondere Schutzbedarfe, 27 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3UbSzIU.
[21] Federal Government, Response to information request by The Left, 20/7089, 31 May 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SsRNpC; Bundesinitiative Schutz von geflüchteten Menschen in Flüchtlingsunterkünften (Federal Initiative for the protection of asylum seekers/refugees in accommodation centres’), BESAFE – Besondere Schutzbedarfe bei der Aufnahme von Geflüchteten erkennen, December 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Kf1jIZ.
[22] A list of the project partners of the „Berliner Netzwerk für besonders schutzbedürftige Flüchtlinge’ can be found at: https://bit.ly/3dR5CGU.
[23] Leitfaden zur Identifizierung von besonders schutzbedürftigen Geflüchteten in Berlin. Für Mitarbeiter*innen des Sozialdienstes des Landesamts für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten (LAF), available in German at: https://bit.ly/479wMo3.
[24] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb; See BafF, ‘Identifizierung besonderer Schutzbedürftigkeit am Beispiel von Personen mit Traumafolgestörungen. Status quo in den Bundesländern, Modelle und Herausforderungen’, June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GsdrSm, 26.
[25] Nina Hager and Jenny Baron, ‘Verfahrensgarantien für psychisch Kranke oder Traumatisierte’, Asylmagazin 7–8/2017, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TzhllY, 17-26, 22.
[26] Manuel Armbruster, Georg Classen und Katharina Stübinger, Neue Verfahrensabläufe im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RsPnpf, 350.
[27] Manuel Armbruster, Georg Classen und Katharina Stübinger, ‘Neue Verfahrensabläufe im Ankunftszentrum Berlin’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RsPnpf, 350.
[28] See BafF, ‘Identifizierung besonderer Schutzbedürftigkeit am Beispiel von Personen mit Traumafolgestörungen. Status quo in den Bundesländern, Modelle und Herausforderungen’, June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GsdrSm, 26.
[29] See e.g.: Refugee Council Berlin, Kein Ort für Schutzsuchende: Notunterkunft im Flughafen Tegel schließen, 13 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Ufa7Um.
[30] Berlin Senate, Senat beschließt Verfahren zur Unterstützung für besonders schutzbedürftige Geflüchtete aus der Ukraine, 5 April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48NlJCt.
[31] Refugee Council Berlin, Kein Ort für Schutzsuchende: Notunterkunft im Flughafen Tegel schließen, 13 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Ufa7Um.
[32] See BafF, ‘Identifizierung besonderer Schutzbedürftigkeit am Beispiel von Personen mit Traumafolgestörungen. Status quo in den Bundesländern, Modelle und Herausforderungen’, June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GsdrSm, 28.
[33] Brandenburg Refugee Council, Besondere Schutzbedürftigkeit, available in German at: https://bit.ly/495y9FI.
[34] See evaluation report of the project in Lower Saxony which was carried out between 2015 and 2018: Jenny Thomsen, Evaluation zur Früherkennung besonders Schutzbedürftiger im Aufnahmeverfahren, Umsetzung der EU-Aufnahmerichtlinie 2013/33/EU in Niedersachsen, July 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/3dVoCnq and See BafF, ‘Identifizierung besonderer Schutzbedürftigkeit am Beispiel von Personen mit Traumafolgestörungen. Status quo in den Bundesländern, Modelle und Herausforderungen’, June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GsdrSm, 30.
[35] See BafF, ‘Identifizierung besonderer Schutzbedürftigkeit am Beispiel von Personen mit Traumafolgestörungen. Status quo in den Bundesländern, Modelle und Herausforderungen’, June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GsdrSm, 30-31.
[36] Nina Hager and Jenny Baron, ‘Verfahrensgarantien für psychisch Kranke oder Traumatisierte’, Asylmagazin 7–8/2017, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TzhllY, 17-26, 22.-24.
[37] Konzept zum Gewaltschutz und zur Identifikation von schutzbedürftigen Personen in den Einrichtungen der Erstaufnahme in Rheinland-Pfalz, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OE8Xyn.
[38] Jakob Junghans, Schutzbedürftige Personen im Aufnahmeverfahren der Länder, in: Helene Heuser, Jakob Junghans and Winfried Kluth, Der Schutz vulnerabler Personen im Flucht- und Migrationsrecht Grundlagen, Identifizierung und bedarfsgerechte Maßnahmen am Beispiel der Betroffenen von Menschenhandel, 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3JK0Exl.
[39] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), 1 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3Ht4JVw, 4/14.
[40] Section 42f Social Code (SGB), Vol. VIII. See BumF, ‚Alles auf einen Blick. BumF-Basisinformationen‘, 11, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3nvWyi9.
[41] Section 8 Social Code XIII (SGB), Vol. VIII ; see also Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge, Alterseinschätzung, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3lG0BuG.
[42] Federal Association for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (BumF), Es ist 5 nach 12: Rechtsverletzungen bei unbegleiteten geflüchteten Kindern und Jugendlichen, 21 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3UiVX4x.
[43] Ralf Pauli, Wie funktioniert die Altersfeststellung bei Flüchtlingen?, Fluter, 18 April 2018, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3JF09Vv; Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forensische Altersdiagnostik, Empfehlungen – Altersdiagnose bei Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen außerhalb des Strafverfahrens, available in German at: https://bit.ly/484oZZf.
[44] See e.g. Charité, University Hospital Berlin, Informationen zur Altersdiagnostik beim Lebende, available in German at: https://bit.ly/43gMSvB or University Hospital Mainz, Forensische Altersdiagnostik, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48UhZhM.
[45] Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge, Vorläufige Inobhutnahme – Was ändert sich zum 1.11.2015?, October 2015, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ngs8mQ, 2-3.
[46] Administrative Court Berlin, Decision 18 L 81.16, 19 April 2016, asyl.net, available at: https://bit.ly/3v49F0J.
[47] High Administrative Court Bavaria, Decision 12 CS 16.1550, 16 August 2016, asyl.net, available at: http://bit.ly/2m2hP0w.
[48] High Administrative Court Bremen, Decision 1 B 82/18, 4 June 2018, available at: http://bit.ly/3LMMzSu, and
[49] See: Landgericht Ingolstadt, Decision 22 T 964/19, 16 September 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4b4xLZX; Administrative Court Gera, Decision 4 K 203/20 Ge, 27 October 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3U9V26F; High Administrative Court Bremen, Decision 5 WF 7/21, 28 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42jwIBm.
[50] Section 42f(3) Social Code, Vol. VIII.
[51] Guido, Kirchhoff in Schlegel, Voelzke: Praxiskommentar Sozialgesetzbuch VIII, Section 42f para. 8; High Administrative Court Saarland, Decision 2 D 268/20, 23 November 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Hz5Kw0, 12.
[52] High Administrative Court Saarland, Decision 2 D 268/20, 23 November 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Hz5Kw0, 12.
[53] Nerea González Méndez de Vigo, Alterseinschätzung – ein Irrgarten ohne Ausweg? Rechtlicher Rahmen und Verfahren der Alterseinschätzung in Deutschland, Asylmagazin 6-7/2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2VI0w9G, 206-217.
[54] Statistisches Bundesamt, Statistiken der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe, Vorläufige Schutzmaßnahmen 2021, 27 July 2022, avialable in German at: https://bit.ly/3Sz6mru, 28.