Border procedure (border and transit zones)

General (scope, time limits)

In Germany, the border procedure is a so-called ‘airport procedure’ regulated in Section 18a of the German Asylum Act and applied in international airports. There is no special procedure at land borders, although as part of the reintroduction of border controls, a refusal of entry and return procedure has been installed on the German-Austrian border for cases of persons who have previously sought asylum in Spain and Greece (see Access to the territory and push backs). The following section thus refers to the airport procedure (Flughafenverfahren).

Legal framework

The airport procedure is legally defined as an ‘asylum procedure that shall be conducted prior to the decision on entry’ to the territory.[1] Thus, asylum applicants are not considered to have entered Germany before a decision on entry has been taken.[2] It can only be carried out if the asylum seekers can be accommodated on the airport premises during the procedure, which depends on the capacities of the Federal States. If a person has to be sent to hospital and therefore cannot be accommodated on the airport premises, the person is accompanied to the hospital by the Federal police and will be returned to the airport facilities once released from hospital. Within the broader police border procedure, the BAMF office is responsible for processing the claim for asylum. The necessary (detention) facilities exist in the airports of Berlin, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt/Main, Hamburg and Munich, although the BAMF does not have a branch office assigned to all of those places.[3]

The German Asylum Act foresees the applicability of the airport procedure where the asylum seeker arriving at the airport:[4]

• Comes from a ‘safe country of origin’; or
• Is unable to prove their identity with a valid passport or passport replacement.

The second ground merits particular consideration. German law triggers the airport procedure as soon as it is established that the asylum seeker is unable to prove identity by means of a passport or passport replacement. It does not condition the applicability of the procedure upon requirements of misleading the authorities by withholding relevant information on identity or nationality or destroying or disposing of an identity or travel document in bad faith.[5] The scope of the airport procedure in Germany is therefore not consistent with the boundaries set by the recast APD according to the opinion of a lawyer from 2014.[6]

Yet, practice suggests that the second ground is the one most often used for activating the airport procedure. As demonstrated by the countries of origin of applicants, many applicants in the airport procedure in 2022 came from Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan (see table below). These are all countries which are not considered as ‘safe’ and which have a relatively high chance of recognition at national level. A fortiori, this means that the airport procedure is necessarily mostly activated on the second legal ground, when a person is unable to present proof of identity.

The applicability of the Dublin procedure is also examined, and this is done prior to the processing of the asylum claim in the airport procedure. According to the BAMF, the formal examination of the application of the Dublin regulation lies with the Federal Police (and the Dublin-Unit of the BAMF). If there are reasons to believe that another Member State is responsible for the application, the responsible BAMF unit takes the decision of inadmissibility without an additional interview, based on the information provided during the first interview with the federal police (see Personal interview).[7] According to reports by PRO ASYL, persons falling under the responsibility of another country are usually held in the airport facility in Frankfurt/Main until their transfer.[8] They may not enter German territory but may leave voluntarily by taking flights to another destination.

Number of airport procedures

In the first half of 2023, 200 airport procedures were initiated.[9] This seems to indicate a similar trend to 2022, when 347 airport procedures took place. This is a marked increase compared to 2021 (198 procedures) and 2020 (145 procedures) but still lower than the 489 cases processed in 2019. This decrease in 2020 and 2021 is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the reduced air traffic. Out of the 200 procedures initiated in the first half of 2023, 165 procedures took place at the Frankfurt/Main Airport, 17 at the Munich Airport, and 18 at the Berlin Airport. No airport procedures are reported for the first half of 2023 at the airports of Düsseldorf or Hamburg. As the statistics show, the overwhelming majority of procedures have taken place at Frankfurt/Main Airport over the last years.[10] However, in Germany, the number of airport procedures remains very low compared to the total number of applications.

Countries of origin of persons subject to the airport procedure

The main countries of origin of persons subject to the airport procedure in 2020-2023 were as follows (for each year the top 10 nationalities are reported by the Federal Government):

Source: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 33, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 34, and 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw.

Two out of the three main countries of origin of applicants in Germany in 2023 (Syria, Türkiye and Afghanistan) were among the main nationalities in the airport procedure in the first half of 2023. The top three nationalities in the airport procedure were Syria, Iran and Afghanistan, same as in previous years. Other countries represented in the airport procedure in the first half of 2023 Zimbabwe, Somalia, Cuba, Iraq, Cameroon, Comoros and Myanmar.[11] Overall, between 2015 and the first half of 2023, Syrians and Iranians were systematically part of the top 3 nationalities represented in the airport procedure.[12]

In contrast to previous years, since 2020 there seems to be more divergence between the top nationalities in airport procedures and among all asylum applications. The top nationalities further indicate that so-called ‘safe countries of origin’ are not among the 10 most frequent nationalities in the airport procedure.

Time limits in the airport procedure

The maximum duration of the airport procedure is 19 days:

• The BAMF examines the application for international protection, carries out the personal interview and decides within 2 days after the applicant submitted the formal application for asylum whether the applicant asylum is granted or if the application is to be rejected as manifestly unfounded; applications submitted by lawyers or other representatives do not activate the two-day period.[13]
• In case of a negative decision by the BAMF on the asylum application, applicants can lodge an appeal within two weeks to the competent Administrative Court.
• Depending on the decision of the BAMF on the asylum application the Federal Police grants or rejects access to the territory.[14]
• In case of rejection of entry by the Federal Police, applicants can lodge an appeal within 3 days to the competent Administrative Court and request an interim measure (i.e. the granting of suspensive effect to the appeal);
• If the Administrative Court grants the provisional measure according to Section 18a para. 4 German Asylum Act or if it does not rule within 14 days, the applicant can enter the territory of Germany.[15]

These time limits are thus much shorter than the 4-week time limit laid down in the recast APD.[16] Nevertheless, where the BAMF decides to examine an application for international protection under the airport procedure, the two-days time limit is always respected in practice since if the decision cannot take place within two days, the airport procedure ends and the applicant enters the regular procedure.[17] If the application cannot be rejected as manifestly unfounded within two days, the applicant is granted access to the territory and enters the regular asylum procedure (see also below).

Outcome of the border procedure

Potential outcomes of airport procedures are as follows:

1. The BAMF decides within 2 days after formal submission of the asylum claim that the application is ‘manifestly unfounded’, in which case entry into the territory is denied by the Federal Police. A copy of the decision is sent to the competent Administrative Court.[18] The applicant may ask the court for an interim measure against removal and rejection of entry;
2. In theory, the BAMF can decide within the 2 calendar days that the application is successful or it can reject the application as ‘unfounded’. In these cases, entry into the territory and, if necessary, access to the legal remedies of the regular procedure would have to be granted. However, this option seems to be irrelevant in practice since the Federal Police always grants entry into the territory for the asylum procedure to be carried out in a regular procedure if an application is not rejected as manifestly unfounded;[19]
3. The BAMF declares that it will not be able to decide upon the application at short notice, in which case entry into the territory and access to the regular procedure are granted;[20] or
4. The BAMF has not taken a decision within 2 days following the application. Entry into the territory and to the regular procedure is granted.

In practice, the third option has been the most common outcome. However, whereas prior to 2018 the majority of airport procedures were halted because the BAMF notified the Federal Police that no decision would be taken within the timeframe required by law,[21] a notable increase in decisions rejecting the application as manifestly unfounded has been reported since 2018.

According to available statistics, manifestly unfounded decisions rose from around 10% in 2015 up to 50% in 2019 and have remained at ca. 45% in 2020 and 2021, dropping only slightly to 34.5% in 2022 and 29.5% in the first half of 2023.[22]

The increase in “manifestly unfounded” decisions in the context of the airport procedure has been subject to particular scrutiny in Germany. A 2020 study analysed the decisions issued by BAMF’s branch office at the Frankfurt/Main, which is responsible for most airport procedures in Germany.[23] It was demonstrated that, compared to the rejection rates recorded at national level, the rejection rates of the Frankfurt/Main Branch office were much higher, indicating that the airport procedure as such might be prone to produce higher rates of rejection. For asylum seekers from Iraq, the protection rate at the branch office Frankfurt/Main in 2019 was only 18.3%, compared to 51.8% at national level; for Afghanistan: 50% compared to 63.1%; for Iran: 16.2% compared to 28.2%; for Nigeria: 4.1% compared to 14.5%; for Türkiye: 30.2% compared to 52.7%.[24] In the first half of 2023, the rejection rate was similar for Afghan nationals, but lower for Iranian nationals in the Frankfurt branch office (40% in-merit protection compared to 58.8% on average).[25] In addition, as a result of the set-up of the airport procedure, rejections as manifestly unfounded are much more likely than ‘regular’ rejections. By way of example, and according to a study by PRO ASYL, 67% of all applications form Iranian nationals were rejected as manifestly unfounded in the airport procedure in 2020, whereas the overall rate of rejection s as manifestly unfounded of Iranian applicants was 3.7%.[26]

The difference in the rejection rate at national level and in the airport procedure may be linked to a variety of objective factors, such as the profile of the applicants and the individual circumstances of the asylum applications. Nevertheless, these figures seem to indicate that the BAMF has a more restrictive approach to claims in the airport procedure compared to procedures elsewhere in Germany, a practice that has been criticised by various stakeholders,[27] and confirms EASO’s (now EUAA) analysis according to which recognition rates are prone to be lower in the border procedure than in the regular procedure.[28] The difference in recognition rates is particularly worrying since in theory the BAMF decisions in the context of the airport procedure are based on the same country of origin information and guides used by all BAMF branch offices and taking into consideration that many asylum seekers at airports in Germany originated from countries of origin with high recognition rates nationwide (i.e. Syria, Afghanistan and Türkiye).[29] In 2023, two cases of removals to Iran after an airport procedure became public, even though a federal level removal ban for the country was in place (see Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure). In one case, the application of an Afghan woman who travelled with an Iranian passport was rejected as manifestly unfounded and resulted in her removal to Iran and later Afghanistan.[30] Replying to criticism of these removals to Iran and Afghanistan, the Federal Ministry of Interior stated that they are not technically removals but refusals of entry, since the fiction of non-entry applies in the airport procedure.[31] In addition, in 2021 PRO ASYL illustrated how the lack of access to the outside world, the tight time limits and the fact that there is no systematic screening for vulnerable applicants on the side of the authorities means that vulnerabilities are less likely to be detected during the airport procedure.[32] At Munich Airport, concerns have been expressed with regard to the lack of risk assessment prior to rejections of applications as manifestly unfounded, even in cases where asylum seekers bring forth evidence such as political activity in the country of origin.[33] Finally, it should be highlighted that at Munich Airport, where the BAMF decides within the time limit of 2 days, it occurs that the notification of the decision to the applicant can take up to a week.[34]

As regards the outcome of airport procedures between 2021 and 2023 between the different airports, it was as follows:

Source: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 34; 20/2309, 17 June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ni6gYk, 39, 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 37.

Personal interview

During the airport procedure, two interviews are carried out: first an interview with the border police upon apprehension at the airport, followed by a second interview with the BAMF. If the Dublin procedure applies, the BAMF does not carry out an additional interview, according to research by PRO ASYL.[35]

Interview with the border police

The Federal Police is the first authority involved in the airport procedure, as it is usually the first authority interviewing individuals apprehended at the airport. It may apprehend individuals either directly on the airport apron or in the airport terminal upon passport control. The Border Police is responsible for assessing whether cases where persons do not fulfil the criteria for entry into Germany or present false or falsified documents falls under the airport procedure and writes a report collecting detailed information (e.g., travel routes and modes of arrival in Germany) that will be shared with the BAMF.[36]

The Federal Police may conduct a preliminary interview which includes questions on the travel route and on the reasons for leaving the country of origin. Practice varies from one airport to another. At Frankfurt/Main Airport, the person is interviewed by the Federal Police in the airport terminal and subsequently upon arrival at the de facto detention facility, whereas at Munich Airport the only interview with the Federal Police takes place upon arrival at the facility. In cases where persons are apprehended at night or where interpreters are not available earlier, their interview may take place even at night. Interpretation shall be ensured, depending on the local availability this may be done by phone. The asylum seeker does not receive a copy of the report of these interviews.[37]

Concerns have been expressed by lawyers regarding the level of detail of the interviews conducted by the border police. This includes lengthy questions on travel routes and on the people met en route and/or the people who helped in the flight, as well as cases where the border police asked the exact date of issuance of a visa; the reason for not having declared the same amount of money during a first and second interview; and whether there would be objections against a potential removal to the country of origin etc.[38] This is especially problematic as the interviews usually take plce upon arrival, and hence after a long, often tiring journey.[39] Inconsistencies and/or contradictions between an applicant’s statements during the personal interview with the determining authority and the interview with the border police may be used against the applicant, including on elements such as travel route, duration of stay in transit, and personal details of relatives. he applicant, should they realise that there are inconsistencies in the eyes of the authorities in their application, is according to the BAMF given the opportunity to resolve any contradictions and discrepancies in his statements to the Federal Police and the BAMF until the procedure is completed.

In this regard, concerns have been raised that the two authorities conducting the interview – the Federal Police and the BAMF – have very different mandates (border protection vs. refugee protection), qualifications and approaches that also reflect in the way the interview is conducted.[40]

Interview with the BAMF

The relevant interview on the asylum application is carried out by the BAMF in person, with the presence of an interpreter. Whereas the BAMF has a branch office in the facility of Frankfurt/Main Airport, for procedures at the airports of Berlin, Munich and Hamburg officials travel to the facility when interviews need to be conducted. At the new airport in Berlin, opened in October 2020, an ‘entry and exit centre’ is planned which would also accommodate BAMF staff for the airport procedure, according to the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (see Airport detention facilities).[41]

The standards for this interview are identical to those described in the context of the regular procedure (see Regular Procedure: Personal Interview). However, the setting of the interview in the airport procedure increases the risk of problematic interviews. The situation of being de facto detained at the airport during the procedure, with the first interview just after arrival and the lack of contact to the outside world, weighs heavily on applicants, who are frequently disoriented and anxious vis-à-vis the authorities.[42] Similarly to the regular asylum procedure, caseworkers of the BAMF follow a specific questionnaire throughout the interview. According to a lawyer working for applicants who are subjected to the airport procedure, as opposed to more experienced caseworkers, less experienced caseworkers tend to strictly follow the questionnaire, which results in prolonging the time of the interview and asking questions that may be irrelevant to the case concerned.[43]

According to a specialised lawyer working for applicants in airport procedures, while the average length is three to five hours, there have been cases lasting much longer, e.g. the interview of an Iraqi female applicant lasting about 6 hours or the interview of a Sri Lankan applicant taking up to 8 hours.[44] While this could provide the opportunity for an in-depth assessment of the application for international protection, it seems that questions on individual circumstances are asked at a late stage of the interview, after a few hours. The first part of the interview largely focuses on basic information such as the travel route and identification, i.e. questions that have already been asked by the Border Police. This part of the interview may take up to several hours and aims to identify potential inconsistencies and contradictions with previous statements.[45] It is only after this that the BAMF asks questions relating to the grounds for applying for asylum and the reasons for having fled from the country of origin. At this stage, asylum seekers are already very tired and stressed from the interview; yet per the experience of a specialised lawyer the BAMF is reluctant to stop the interview given the tight deadlines within which it has to issue its decision.[46]

The BAMF states that the interviewers regularly offer breaks and that in cases where the conditions of the person are unreasonable, the interview is stopped and postponed. According to the BAMF, the numbering of the questions corresponds to the consecutive numbering of a list of questions. Regardless of this order, only the relevant questions were recorded in the transcript in the order in which they were asked, just as in the regular procedure.[47]

As regards interpretation during the BAMF interview, freelance interpreters are contracted by the BAMF. It has been highlighted by NGOs that the interpretation isvery problematic at the airports in Frankfurt/Main and Munich, where the majority of airport procedures are conducted (see statistics above).[48] When interpreters are not deemed fit for the interview at hand and need to be replaced, the BAMF at times calls for a replacement on the same day, prolonging the already long and stressful interviews even more.[49]

The Border Police resorts to interpretation services via phone in many cases, especially during the first interview at the airport upon apprehension of the individual, and as sources suggest the BAMF often struggles to find adequate interpreters for the interview. There have been cases where the interview was conducted in a language not understood by the applicant,[50] or where it was clear that the interpreter was lacking the necessary terminology.[51]

Appeal

Manifestly unfounded decisions are generally subject to restrictions in legal remedy, but in the airport procedure the law has placed even stricter timeframes on the procedure. Thus, if an application is rejected as manifestly unfounded in the airport procedure, a request for an interim measure must be filed with an Administrative Court within 3 calendar days. In line with jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court,[52] upon request applicants are given four additional days to submit a reasoning accompanying the appeal.[53] The necessary application to the court can be submitted to the court directly or to the border authorities who forward it to the competent court.[54] All BAMF decisions are forwarded to the local administrative court at the same time that they are issued to the applicants, even if these do not intend to appeal the decision.[55]

The Administrative Court shall decide upon the application for an interim measure in a written procedure, i.e., without an oral hearing of the applicant.[56] The denial of entry, including possible measures to enforce a removal, is suspended as long as the request for an interim measure is pending at an Administrative Court. If the court does not decide on this request within 14 calendar days, the asylum seeker has to be granted entry into the territory.[57]

The overwhelming majority of requests for interim measures have been rejected by Administrative Courts in recent years, thus upholding the BAMFs’ rejections as manifestly unfounded and refusals of entry into the territory.[61] This might also be partially attributed to the high standard required for a decision to halt a removal order. The enforcement of the BAMF decision may only be suspended if there are ‘serious doubts about the legality’ of the BAMF decision.[62]

NGOs have also reported that Administrative Courts do not provide a real opportunity to further clarify inconsistencies between the reports of the interviews conducted by the BAMF and the Federal Police.[63] The tight deadlines for the appeal make it extremely challenging to adequately prepare the necessary documentation, including translations of documents.[64] Moreover, where an application has been rejected as ‘manifestly unfounded’, the court has to decide on a request for an interim measure by written procedure, i.e. without an oral hearing and solely based on case-files.[65] The right to appeal in the context of airport procedures has thus been described as severely limited in practice.

Legal assistance

According to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (‘Bundesverfassungsgericht’), asylum seekers whose applications are rejected in the airport procedure are entitled to free, quality and independent legal assistance.[66] This is the only procedure where asylum seekers are entitled to a form of free legal assistance in Germany.[67] However, in practice it has been recorded that access to legal aid remains difficult in some cases, especially since free legal aid (financed through the BAMF) is made available only after a negative decision by the BAMF, and only if the rejected applicant does not already have legal representation, according to the BAMF.  This means that legal aid is not systematically provided during the first instance airport procedure i.e., prior to the interview with the BAMF. During the first instance airport procedure the applicant has only access to legal aid at their own expense or if civil society organisations fund the legal assistance.

In Frankfurt Airport for example, asylum seekers cannot easily reach out to lawyers prior to their interview and must heavily rely on relatives or the support of Church Refugee Services to establish contact with a lawyer.[68] Subject to available capacity, organisations such as PRO ASYL provide funding for lawyers to support asylum seekers from the outset of the procedure in individual cases, mostly for especially vulnerable applicants.[69] This has led to about 80 to 90 cases being supported at first instance by PRO ASYL-funded lawyers in 2018.[70] More recent figures are not available, but it has been confirmed that only a minority of asylum applicants have access to legal assistance at this stage of the procedure.[71]

Legal practitioners witness a notable difference in the procedure depending on whether they are present or not during the interview with the BAMF. When the interview is conducted without the presence of a lawyer, it has been reported by a lawyer that the interview may be shorter and that interviewer transcript display a tendency to make superficial assessments of the claim and to omit asking questions on important elements such as health conditions.[72] Similarly, NGOs and practitioners have thus highlighted that access to quality legal assistance prior to the BAMF interview in the airport procedure would increase the likelihood of a positive first instance decision by the BAMF and decrease the unequal chances of legal representation based on the – often too short – assessment of vulnerability done by NGOs such as the Chruch Refugee Services.[73]

As regards access to legal aid following a negative BAMF decision and potential appeals before the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht, VG), the bar association of the airport’s region coordinates a consultation service with qualified lawyers. For example, the Bar Association of Frankfurt provides a legal consultation service in which 36 attorneys are on stand-by for free counselling with asylum seekers when needed, paid for – at low rates, according to the association – by the BAMF on the basis of an agreement between the BAMF and the Frankfurt bar association.[74] In practice, however, the chances of success of appeals seem to be very low (see Appeal) and the scope of the legal assistance is limited. The lack of trust of asylum seekers towards lawyers who are appointed to them on the basis of this list has also been reported as problematic.[75]

NGOs have also very limited access to the airport procedure as they need to be accredited. At Frankfurt airport, the Church Refugee Service provides counselling prior to the asylum interview. The limited access for NGOs can be problematic, since shortcomings in the identification of vulnerabilities by the BAMF have been documented by NGOs and NGOs represent an important remedy the shortcomings in the identification the vulnerabilities.[76] Presence of NGOs during the asylum interview conducted by the BAMF at Munich Airport is not clearly regulated. As a result, authorisation for the Church Refugee Service to attend the interview depends on the individual caseworker, which is usually allowed in the case of female applicants.[77] On the other hand in Frankfurt Airport, the presence of the Church Refugee Service during the interview is not a problem if the BAMF has been informed beforehand. The Church Refugee Service further provides psychosocial assistance to asylum and helps reaching out to lawyers depending on available capacity. Access to other NGOs than the Church Refugee Service, however, remains limited in practice at the Frankfurt/Main Airport.[78]

[1] Section 18a(1) Asylum Act.

[2] Section 13(2) Residence Act.

[3] BAMF, The Airport Procedure, 14 November 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3SRgL0K.

[4] Section 18a(1) German Asylum Act.

[5] Article 31(8)(c) and (d) recast APD.

[6] See also Dominik Bender, Das Asylverfahren an deutschen Flughäfen, May 2014, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Nz7tEV, 41.

[7] According to Section 29 para. 2 Asylum Act. See also PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 8.

[8] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 8.

[9] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 33.

[10] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 34; 20/2309, 17 June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ni6gYk, 39; 19/32678, 14 October 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RQINtZ, 28 and 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 37.

[11] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 33.

[12] Information provided by the BAMF, 11 September 2020; for 2020: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/2FSXg67, 37.

[13] Section 18a(6)(1) and (2) German Asylum Act.

[14] Section 18a(3) (2) German Asylum Act.

[15] Section 18a(4) and (6) German Asylum Act.

[16] Article 43(2) recast APD.

[17] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 9.

[18] Section 18a(2)-(4) Asylum Act.

[19] This practice of granting access to the regular procedure rather than protection even in clear cut protection cases is rooted in the administrative framework for dealing with asylum procedures. The granting of protection to persons that have not been assigned to a specific Federal State (and accommodation facility) is not foreseen in the administrative framework and would therefore lead to administrative challenges for the authorities involved.

[20] Section 18a(6) Asylum Act.

[21] 264 out of 444 in 2017; 191 out of 273 in 2016, 549 out of 627 in 2015.

[22] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 33, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 34. This increase is even more striking when comparing with numbers of the year 2013: between 2013 and 2019, the rejection rate in the airport procedure have increased tenfold, from 5.1% in 2013 to 52.7% in 2019. For 2020 and 2021 figures see Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/32678, 14 October 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RQINtZ, 28 and 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 37.

[23] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv.

[24] Dr. Thomas Hohlfeld, Vermerk zur Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der LINKEN (Ulla Jelpke u.a.) zur ergänzenden Asylstatistik für das Jahr 2019 (BT-Drs. 19/18498), Newsletter of 6 April 2020. Based on an analysis of data provided in Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/18498, 2 April 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RPHZFG, 12 et seq.

[25] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 16.

[26] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 9.

[27] Ibid. See also PRO ASYL, Allein in Abschiebungshaft: Jugendlicher als Letzter am Frankfurter Flughafen, 11 April 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSSqCm; Bistum Limburg, ‘Caritas und Diakonie wollen Aus für Flughafen-Asylverfahren’, 30 October 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GNARn8; ECRE, Airport procedures in Germany: Gaps in quality and compliance with guarantees, available at: https://bit.ly/3RxE92z , 11-12; See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv.

[28] EASO, Border Procedures for Asylum Applications in EU+ Countries, September 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3z4BaGk, 20.

[29] BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2019, 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/480bIl0, 56.

[30] Hessischer Flüchtlingsrat and PRO ASYL, Skandal im Flughafenverfahren: Afghanin in den Iran zurückgewiesen, direkt weiter nach Afghanistan abgeschoben, 29 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SR9nCN.

[31] Nd, Abschiebungen in den Iran: Juristische Spitzfindigkeiten, 6 April 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42KH1i5.

[32] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 15.

[33] ECRE, Airport procedures in Germany Gaps in quality and compliance with guarantees, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2QgOmAH.

[34] Ibid.

[35] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 8.

[36] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 8.

[37] ECRE, Airport procedures in Germany Gaps in quality and compliance with guarantees, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2QgOmAH.

[38] These questions are examples deriving from transcripts of interviews conducted with the Border Police that have been obtained by lawyers. Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[39] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 20.

[40] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 8.

[41] Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community, ‘Gemeinsam genutztes Einreise- und Ausreisezentrum am Flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg’, 23 September 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3FuMzQp.

[42] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 16.

[43] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[44] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[45] In one case, the first part of the interview focusing on travel route and relevant questions took from 9:30am to 11:25am. It was followed by a short break, and at 11:40am it continued with questions on grounds for applying for asylum; as well as questions highlighting inconsistencies with previous statements. The interview finished at 3:30 pm; thus taking a total of around 6 hours; Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[46] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[47] Information provided by the BAMF on 10 May 2024.

[48] Information provided by the Munich Airport Church Service, 5 April 2019; an attorney-at-law, 15 April 2019; an attorney-at-law, 29 April 2019.

[49] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 21.

[50] ECRE, Airport procedures in Germany: Gaps in quality and compliance with guarantees, available at: https://bit.ly/3RxE92z, 10.

[51] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[52] German Federal Constitutional Court, Decision 2 BvR 1516/93, 14 May 1996, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48hLGcY.

[53] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 10 and 21.

[54] Section 18a(4) Asylum Act.

[55] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 10 and 21.

[56] Section 18a(4) Asylum Act.

[57] Section 18a(6) Asylum Act.

[58] BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen – 2019, 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/480bIl0, 60.

[59] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 33. Decisions may refer to appeals lodged in previous years, which is why the figures do not add up (see BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen – 2019, 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/480bIl0, 62).

[60] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 34; 20/2309, 17 June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ni6gYk, 39; 20/432, 14 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RvW8GL, 20.

[61] BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2019, 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/480bIl0, 60 / 45.

[62] Section 18a(4) Asylum Act in connection with Section 36(4) Asylum Act.

[63] Information provided by PRO ASYL, 1 April 2019; an attorney-at-law, 29 April 2019.

[64] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 21.

[65] Section 36(3) Asylum Act.

[66] German Federal Constitutional Court, Decision 2 BvR 1516/93, 14 May 1996, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48hLGcY.

[67] AIDA, Country Report Germany – Update on the year 2019, July 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/4105BsU, 51.

[68] Information provided by the Munich Airport Church Service, 25 August 2020.

[69] See Caritas, ‚Auch im Schnellverfahren am Flughafen die Rechte wahren‘, Dezember 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49eEcH; PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 16.

[70] Information provided by the Frankfurt Airport Church Refugee Service, 1 April 2019.

[71] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.

[72] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 29 April 2019.

[73] See PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 17.

[74] Frankfurter Anwaltsverein e. V. , Asylrechtskundige Beratung, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49L3PAi.

[75] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020, see also PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 22.

[76] PRO ASYL, ‘ABGELEHNT IM NIEMANDSLAND. Vom Flughafenverfahren zum »New Pact on Migration and Asylum« – Warum Asylgrenzverfahren unfair und mangelhaft sind’, June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/31XOpvv, 22.

[77] Information provided by the Munich Airport Church Service 5 April 2019.

[78] Information provided by the Frankfurt Airport Church Service, 25 August 2020.