Regular procedure

General (scope, time limits)

The legal basis for the regular asylum procedure can be found in the Asylum Act. The competent authority for the decision-making in asylum procedures is the BAMF. Next to asylum, its functions and duties include coordination of integration courses, voluntary return policies, and other tasks such as research on general migration issues. The BAMF also acts as national administration office for European Funds in the areas of refugees, integration and return (see Number of staff and nature of the first instance authority).

Time limits

The general time limit for the BAMF to decide on an application is six months.[1] The relevant provision was changed with the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures[2] and now closely mirrors Art. 31 of the EU APD..If no decision has been taken within 6 months, the BAMF must notify asylum seekers upon request about when the decision is likely to be taken.[3] The time limit can be extended to a maximum of 15 months if:

• Complex issues of fact and/or law arise,
• A large number of foreigners simultaneously apply for international protection, making it especially difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit,
• Where the delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with their obligations in the asylum procedure (Section 15 Asylum Act),[4]

The time limit of 15 months can be extended for another 3 months in exceptional cases where this is necessary to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application.[5] In line with Art. 31(5) EU APD, the new provision equally sets an absolute time limit of 21 months.[6]

In addition, and mirroring Art. 31 (4) APD, the 2022 reform introduces the possibility to postpone the decision due to a temporarily uncertain situation in the country of origin. In such cases, the Federal Office shall review the situation in the country of origin at least every six months. The Federal Office shall inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable period of time of the reasons for postponing the decision and shall also inform the European Commission of the postponement of decisions.[7]

In line with Art. 31 (3) APD, the 2022 reform also clarified that the starting time for the 6 months is the formal lodging of the asylum application. In Dublin cases, the starting time is the moment in which Germany’s responsibility to examine the claim is established, or, if the applicant is not on German territory at this point in time, the date of transfer to Germany.[8]

In 2023, procedures at the BAMF took 6.8 months on average.[9] While this is slightly shorter than in 2022 (7.6 months), the BAMF has changed the way it calculates the duration with the entry into force of the 2022 reform: since January 2023, duration is counted from the moment at which Germany becomes responsible for the asylum procedure,[10] and no longer from the moment the application is formally lodged. This is relevant since especially the Dublin procedure to determine the responsible Member State may take up a considerable amount of time. In 2023, the average duration of the Dublin procedure was 3.1 months, meaning that overall the procedures were longer, not shorter, in 2023.[11] In 2021, the average duration was 6.6 months; 8.3 months in 2020. The average time of asylum court procedures was 21.3 months between January and the end of August 2023, compared to 26.1 in 2022 (January – November) and 26.5 months in the year 2021.[12] In the first half of 2023, the average time from the asylum application to a non-appealable decision was 18.1 months, compared to 20.8 months in 2022. This includes the first instance procedure and the court procedure in cases where an appeal is filed.[13]

For the period 2016 to 2023 statistics show significant variation in length of procedures, depending on the countries of origin of asylum seekers and on the decision practice in the BAMF.[14] In 2017, the average duration was higher as the BAMF dealt with a high backlog of cases on which it eventually decided in 2017.[15] In 2020, the average length increased as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown according to the BAMF.[16]

Source: Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary questions by The Left: 18/11262, 21 February 2017, 19/1631, 13 April 2018; 19/13366, 19 September 2019, 19/23630, 23 October 2020, 20/940, 7 March 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TuNOJV, 10; 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 2, and 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 28.

The overall number of pending applications at the BAMF was 239,614 at the end of 2023.[17] This is a significant increase compared to 2022 (136,448) and 2021 (108,064) where the number had already doubled compared to 2020 (52,056)[18] and significantly higher than in previous years too (57,012 in 2019 and 58,325 in 2018).[19] Most of the pending applications are by Turkish (23.9% of all pending cases), Syrian (23.7% of all pending cases) and Afghan nationals (16.3% of all pending cases).[20] The increased backlog in 2021 and 2021 is likely due, to a large part, to the de-prioritisation of applications from Afghan nationals between August and December 2021 and from Syrian nationals holding a protection status in Greece between 2019 and April 2022 (see Sections Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure and Suspension of transfers).[21] The BAMF has also experienced some delays in registering asylum applications in the autumn of 2022,[22] which might have increased the backlog. Lastly, it should be noted that Germany experienced a significant rise in asylum applications in 2023. 18,966 or 7.9%of the pending cases at the end of 2023 were Dublin cases.[23]

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

After the first registration of the intention to seek asylum, applicants are directed towards an ‘initial reception centre’. While the organisation of reception facilities is under the auspices of the Federal States, two types of initial reception centres have been established across Germany both for first arrival and for prioritised and fast-track processing. These are the ‘arrival centres’ first established in 2015, on the one hand, and the ‘AnkER centres’ established in several States since 2018, on the other (see also Types of accommodation). Prioritised and fast-track processing in these centres is not based on a specific legal provision and is different from accelerated procedures (see Accelerated procedure).

Arrival centres (Ankunftszentren)

The arrival centres (Ankunftszentren) were introduced in December 2015 with the aim of fast-tracking procedures. For this purpose, federal authorities (in particular the branch offices of the BAMF) and regional authorities shall closely cooperate in the centres. As of January 2024, 17 out of 58 branch offices of the BAMF were integrated in arrival centres in 12 different Federal States (see also Initial reception centres).[24] The concept of arrival centres is not based in law but has been developed by business consultants under the heading ‘integrated refugee management’.[25] Accordingly, this method for fast-tracking of procedures must not be confused with the accelerated procedure introduced law in March 2016 on accelerated procedures (see Accelerated procedure).

In the arrival centres, tasks of various authorities are ‘streamlined’, such as the recording of personal data, medical examinations, registration of the asylum applications, interviews and decision-making. Apart from a general concept for the ‘streamlining’ of procedures, there is no detailed country-wide concept for the handling of procedures in arrival centres. Rather, the way the various authorities cooperate in the centres is based on agreements between the respective Federal States (responsible for reception and accommodation), the BAMF branch office (responsible for the asylum procedure) and other institutions present in the facilities (such as medical and social services).

The procedure, as it was developed at the Berlin arrival centre, was described in detail by the Berlin Refugee Council in November 2017. According to its report, a typical fast-track procedure called “direct procedure” (Direktverfahren) in the arrival centre was supposed to lead to a decision within four days.[26] According to the BAMF, the Berlin branch office is the only one systematically applying the direct procedure, mostly for Moldovan applicants. Furthermore, as of March 2023 the direct procedure is applied in Bielefeld ‘in individual cases’ and is ‘held as available’ for certain countries of origin in the Leipzig and Dresden branches but not currently applied.[27] This indicates that in other arrival centres, the procedure is carried out according to the regular BAMF guidelines. In the first half of 2023, the average length of first instance procedure in all arrival centres was 5.6 months, compared to 7.6 months for all first instance procedures.[28]

The ‘direct procedure’ shall only apply in ‘clear-cut’ cases, in which protection can be ‘easily’ recognised or rejected. In contrast, the regular procedure must take place in the following instances:

• The facts of the case cannot be established immediately, but further examinations are necessary;
• The applicant states they are not able to be interviewed for physical or mental reasons;
• A ‘special officer’ should be consulted but is not readily available;
• The applicant states that a severe illness prevents them from returning to their country of origin. In these cases, the applicant should be given four weeks to undergo further medical examinations and to obtain a qualified medical report;
• The applicant has already appointed a lawyer, in which case the interview should take place on a date which enables the lawyer to attend;
• The applicant falls within the scope of the Dublin procedure;
• The applicant is an unaccompanied child.[29]

The stages of the procedure are carried out within a few days. After that, a decision is usually handed out within a period of few weeks up to several months.[30]

It should be noted that there are considerable variations to some aspects of the procedures in the various arrival centres, particularly as there is no common approach on access to social services or other counselling institutions, while in some arrival centres no such access exists (see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR). This is dependent on how the Federal States and the BAMF have organised the procedure in the respective centres.

AnkER centres (AnkER-Einrichtungen)

Like arrival centres, the concept of AnkER centres was introduced in 2018 to speed up asylum and return procedures. In August 2018, three Federal States (Bavaria, Saxony and Saarland) started conducting a pilot project organising the procedure and accommodation in AnKER centres where not only activities relating to the asylum procedure, but also return procedures (in case of a rejection of the asylum application) are centralised. In 2019 and 2020, the concept was expanded to other Federal States, with the opening of ‘functionally equivalent facilities’ in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein and Brandenburg in 2019 and in Hamburg and in Baden-Württemberg in 2020. As of February 2024, a total of 9 BAMF branch offices were located in AnkER centres.[31] In 2020, around 27% of all asylum applications were examined in an AnkER centre or functionally equivalent facility.[32] After the federal elections in 2021, the new government declared that it would “not pursue the concept of AnkER facilities further”.[33] Since reception is in the remit of the Federal States, arrival AnkER centres continue to exist in some Federal States, however.

In a 2018 report on the situation in the AnkER centre in Bamberg, Bavaria, corroborated by findings from the AnkER centres in Regensburg and Manching/Ingolstadt, Bavaria in 2019,[34] as well as by an evaluation of AnkER centres carried out by the BAMF,[35] the procedure has been described as follows:[36]

Step 1: The registration is carried out by the regional authorities unless registration was conducted by the apprehending authorities (Federal Police). Since Federal State authorities and the BAMF are both present in AnkER centres, several measures to establish the asylum seeker’s identity and possible previous applications (such as fingerprints) are taken already before the application for asylum is officially lodged with the BAMF. If no identity documents exist, mobile phones can be confiscated and read out to determine the asylum seeker’s origin and identiy. A room on the premises of the AnkER centre is assigned and medical examinations are scheduled.

Step 2: The asylum application is lodged at the BAMF. Usually prior to this, counselling on the asylum procedure by staff members of the BAMF is provided, which consists of general information on the asylum procedure to groups of people, while individual appointments have to be requested. According to the BAMF evaluation, the time between first registration and lodging of the application is 3 days longer on average in AnkER centres. This is attributed to the upstreaming of measures to document applicants’ identity and the group counselling sessions.[37]

Step 3: The interview with the BAMF is conducted. This is followed by the decision. While the reports based on AnkER centres in Bavaria find that the interview is usually conducted within 2-3 days of lodging, the BAMF evaluation finds that on average, the time between lodging the application and the interview is 12 days, both in AnkER centres and in other branch offices.[38]

In the first half of 2023, the average duration of the first instance procedure in the AnkER centres and functionally equivalent facilities was 6.7 months, compared to 6.6 months for all first instance procedures.[39] Thus, similar to previous years (2022: 8.2 months in AnkER centres compared to 7.6 months for all procedures; 2021: 7.3 months in AnkER centres, compared to 6.6 months for all procedures), procedures were not faster but slower in AnkER centres. In 2020, procedures in AnkER centres and functionally equivalent facilities lasted 6.6 months, compared to 8.3 months for all procedures. In the BAMF evaluation of AnkER centres, a comparison between procedures in AnkER centres and other procedures leads to the conclusion that procedures are only marginally faster in AnkER centres.[40]

As the name of the institution suggests, the AnkER centres are also supposed to implement returns of rejected asylum seekers more efficiently, especially by establishing return counselling services in the facilities and also by obliging rejected asylum seekers to stay in these facilities for a period of up to 24 months after the stay in the initial reception centre.[41] However, these measures are not unique features of the AnkER centres and similar arrangements exist in other facilities as well. The BAMF evaluation finds that residents of AnkER centres and equivalent facilities who have their application rejected are more likely to decide to return “voluntarily”, i. e. with a return assistance programme or individually. However, the rate of absconding is also higher among rejected applicants living in AnkER centres according to the evaluation published in 2021, and the rate of forced removals has been found to be lower.[42] It also appears that (rejected) asylum seekers stay in these facilities for prolonged periods (see Freedom of movement).

Personal interview

In the regular procedure, the BAMF conducts an interview with each asylum applicant.^[43] In line with Article 15 APD, family members are interviewed separately.[44] Accompanied children do not have to be interviewed separately unless in case of indications for child-specific grounds flight and persecution. However, both the minors themselves and their parents can request for an accompanied minor to be interviewed. If the parents agree to the minor’s request, the BAMF conducts a separate interview if the minor is 14 years or older, and can do so if the minor is between six and 13 years old, according to its internal guidelines. Parents can usually be present in their children’s interview, unless there are indications of child-specific grounds of flight and persecution.[45] In principle, applicants can ask for the interviewer and interpreter to be of a specific gender. It has to be substantiated that this is necessary, though, and this possibility is mostly mentioned in the context of female applicants subject to gendered persecution or sexualised violence or when specific vulnerabilities are communicated to the BAMF by Federal State authorities (see Special procedural guarantees).^[46] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so ‘if possible’.^[47]

Since 2016, the law also contains a provision according to which officials from other authorities may conduct interviews, ‘if a large number of foreign nationals applies for asylum at the same time’.^[48] However, the BAMF has not made use of this possibility since its introduction.^[49]

Dispensing with the interview

Only in exceptional cases may the interview be dispensed with in the regular procedure. The Asylum Act foresees both circumstances in which no interview shall take place, and circumstances in which the BAMF can dispense with the interview at its discretion. No interview shall take place where an asylum application has been filed for children under 6 years who were born in Germany ‘and if the facts of the case have been sufficiently clarified based on the case files of one or both parents;^[50]

In the following cocumstances the BAMF may decide to not hold the interview:

• The BAMF intends to recognise the entitlement to asylum on the basis of available evidence;[51]
• The applicant fails to appear at the interview without an adequate excuse. This only applies to applciants who are not obliged to live in a reception centre.^[52]
• The BAMF is of the opinion that the foreigner is unable to attend a hearing due to permanent circumstances beyond their control.[53]

The last ground was added by the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures and took effect on 1 January 2023.^[54] With this provision, the government implements Art. 14(2)(1)a of the APD.^[55] According to the government, the provision aims at speeding up procedures. In cases of doubt, the BAMF must involve medical personnel in the decision and seek confirmation from a medical doctor.^[56] The introduction of this possibility to dispense with the interview were criticised inter alia by Der Paritäsche Gesamtverband (one of the main welfare associations), on the ground that the central piece of the procedure should only be dispensed with in extreme circumstances and with the consent of the applicant.^[57] As of April 2024, no information is available as to how often this possibility was use by the BAMF. The 2022 reforms also deleted as a ground to dispense with the interview the fact that applicants claim to have entered from a safe third country. The Federal Government explains this by a lack of a provision to that effect in the EU APD.^[58] Before, this ground was only rarely applied in practice.^[59]

In the past, and especially at the height of the personnel and organizational restructuring of the BAMF in early/mid 2016, interviews at the BAMF have been criticised for being too superficial and not sufficiently aiming to establish the facts of the case. In particular, it has been reported that there are instances where no further questions are asked in case of inconsistencies in the asylum seekers’ accounts.^[60] In such cases, it is impossible to establish in later stages of the procedure whether inconsistencies result from contradictions in the asylum seekers’ statement or merely from misunderstandings or translation errors.

Since then, the BAMF has expanded the quality assurance and procedure management. According to the BAMF, procedural tools are used with the aim of complying with the quality standards and ensuring uniform decision-making practice. Furthermore, randomly-selected procedures are subjected to further quality control by the central Quality assurance division.[61] For further information see Quality under Number of staff and nature of the first instance authority.

According to the BAMF, all decision-makers in the asylum procedure are trained in relation to the interview and interview techniques (using EUAA Modules and in-house training). Even if the applicant is legally obliged to present their reasons for persecution on their own initiative, the Federal Office’s investigation and clarification of the facts is of particular importance. According to the BAMF, particular attention is paid to ensuring that relevant aspects are sufficiently clarified during the interview. Inconsistent and contradictory information will be investigated. This also applies to information that contradicts country of origin information. If doubts still remain, according to the BAMF the applicant will be given the opportunity to comment (obligation to make a reservation).[62]

Videoconference interviews

In another important change, the 2022 reform introduced the possibility of conducting interviews via video conference in exceptional cases (for video interpretation see Interpretation).[63] While the law does not specify the types of procedures in which interview via video conference are allowed, the BAMF internal guidelines state that they are not permitted for interviews during the regular procedure but can be conducted for interviews in during the Dublin procedure, as part of the subsequent and second application procedure, during the airport procedure and revocation processes.[64]

According to the Federal Government, video conference interviews still require that the applicant be in BAMF premises for the interview; but not necessarily in the same building as the interviewer.[65] A BAMF employee will however stay in the same room as the interviewee during the whole interview, according to the Federal Government.[66] Consent of the applicant is not required, according to internal BAMF guidelines.[67] Video interviews shall only be conducted in cases where they contribute to a better use of capacities within the BAMF and contribute to accelerating the procedure, and if the case is suited for a video interview.[68] The interviews are not recorded; the transcript is compiled in the same way as for in-person interviews.[69] The internal guidelines list cases in which video interviews cannot be conducted, such as :

• persons whose identity or nationality could not be established,
• certain groups of vulnerable applicants (unaccompanied minors, persons older than 65 years, victims of torture, traumatised applicants or applicants who have been subject to gendered and sexualised violence or because of their sexual orientation or identity; applicants with a disability),
• cases where an “enhanced credibility assessment” is needed (cases of religious conversion are listed as an example),
• cases with security relevance,
• applicants who need sign language translation.[70]

According to the Federal government, the interview is to be stopped when it becomes apparent during the interview that the use of video conferencing is not adequate for the specific interview situation.[71]

When introducing the change, the Federal Government stated that this new provision merely adapts the law to administrative practice.[72] However, while in 2021 the internal BAMF guidelines had been updated to allow for video interviews for the Dublin interview, for border procedures as well as for subsequent applications and revocation procedures, these internal guidelines did not and currently still do not foresee its use in regular asylum procedure,[73] although this would be possible with the 2022 reform. At the time, in 2021, the directives concerning video interviews were only applicable during the Covid-19 pandemic. Video conferencing equipment for interviews had been installed in all BAMF branch office as of early 2022. As of April 2024, there are no statistics as to how often this possibility was used in practice.[74] According to the Federal Government, up until the change in law video conferencing had only been used ‘in individual cases in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic’.[75]

Civil society organisations as well as legal practitioners criticise the introduction of video conferencing. By way of example, the German Institute for Human Rights and the Republican Lawyers’ Association demand that consent of the applicant be required for video interviews as well as for interpretation via video.[76] According to PRO ASYL and the German Lawyer’s Association, video conferencing is not an adequate technique for the personal interview as the central piece of the procedure, which requires the interviewer to gain a holistic impression of the applicant and their behaviour, including details of gestures or facial expressions, and where applicants must have the time and possibility to put forward all relevant claims.[77]

In the first half of 2023, out of a total of 93,015 interviews, 715 interviews (0.8%) were conducted via videoconferencing.[78] 429, or 60% of the video interviews were conducted in the Berlin branch office. The protection rate has been lower overall for decision where the interview was conducted via video.[79] However, this could be related to a number of factors, as the percentage of video interviews is quite small and not evenly distributed among the BAMF branch offices. In previous years, video conferencing was used on a very rare basis until 2013, but its use seemed to have been abandoned completely since then.[80] Audio or video recording or video conferencing is not used in appeal procedures either.

Interpretation

The presence of an interpreter at the interview is required by law.[81] The BAMF recruits its own interpreters on a freelance basis. As for interviewers, in principle, applicants can ask for the interpreter to be of a specific gender. It has to be substantiated that this is necessary, though, and this possibility is mostly mentioned in the context of female applicants subject to gendered persecution or sexualised violence or when specific vulnerabilities are communicated to the BAMF by Federal State authorities (see Special procedural guarantees).[82] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so if possible.[83]

          Video interpretation

The BAMF introduced the possibility of videoconferences for interpretation in 2016. This practice was codified through the Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures.[84] The provision allows for video interpretation ‘in suitable cases’ and ‘exceptionally’,[85] indicating that, as for the interview itself, interpretation in presence retains priority over video interpretation. In these cases, interpreters sit in a different branch office than the one in which the interview is taking place or participate via a so-called ‘interpretation-hub’, ensuring that all transmission is via a secure internal network. Video interpretation is regarded as complementary to in-person interpretation. The BAMF internal guidelines apply a relatively low threshold for this to be the case, however, by stating that video interpretation can be used when there is an objective reason, such as a more efficient or flexible allocation of interpreters cost efficiency reasons, a shortage of interpreters in a certain area or for rare languages with few interpreters. All countries of origin are in principle considered suitable for video interpretation, including when the applicant is considered vulnerable. However, special officers need to be included in the decision when it concerns unaccompanied minors, victims of gendered violence, torture, human trafficking or traumatised persons.[86] Video interpretation does not require consent by the applicant.[87]

No statistics on the use of video conferencing for interpretation were available for the years 2023 and 2022 at the time of writing of this report. Video conferencing was used in 1,019 interviews in 2021 and 1,359 interviews in 2020, compared to around 2,500 interviews in 2019.[88] Thus, the Covid-19 outbreak did not lead to more use of video interpretation. According to the BAMF, this is because distancing measures and contact avoidance were also implemented in the interpretation hub, leading to an overall lower number of interviews.[89]

          Quality of interpretation

Following discussions about the quality of translations during interviews, the BAMF has revised the procedures for the deployment of interpreters since 2017. For example, a new online training programme was established.[90] Both experienced and newly assigned interpreters are now required to complete the training programme. Apart from basic information on the asylum procedure and general communication skills, several training modules deal with specifics of the asylum interview such as the ‘role of the interpreter during the interview’ or ‘handling psychological burden caused by asylum seekers’ traumatic backgrounds. Interpreters further need advanced German language skills (level C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages). Moreover, the BAMF established a system for complaint management in the context of interpretation at the BAMF in 2017.[91] The complaint management system was revised in 2020 and involves a multi-stage procedure at the end of which a termination of contractual relations with the interpreter is possible.[92]

The qualification requirements and pay for interpreters also vary between interviews at the BAMF and court hearings: whereas in court, interpreters must take an oath to accurately reflect the applicants’ position, this is not the case for interviews conducted with the BAMF or the Border Police. Reportedly, taking oath in Court proceedings results in better translation services and cases being taken ‘more seriously’.[99] Interpreters at court are, however, also generally paid more than interpreters contracted by the BAMF – as of January 2023, the hourly rate for interpretation in courts is EUR 85,[100] whereas the BAMF negotiates hourly rates for interpretation assignments which may vary according to individual levels of qualification. German courts, depending on the Federal land where they are located, may require higher levels of qualifications than the BAMF.

Transcript of the interview

The transcript of the interview consists of a summary of questions and answers (i.e. it is not a verbatim transcript) and is only available in German. The interpreter present during the personal interview is also responsible for translating the transcript back to the applicant in oral form. The applicant has the right to correct mistakes or misunderstandings. By signing the transcript, the applicant confirms that they have had the opportunity to present all the important details of the case, that there were no communication problems and that the transcript was read back in the applicant’s language. Video recordings of interviews do not take place.

In spite of this, alleged mistakes in the transcript frequently give rise to disputes at later stages of the asylum procedure. For instance, doubts about the credibility of asylum seekers are often based on their statements as they appear in the transcript. However, it is possible that the German wording of the transcript reflects mistakes or misunderstandings which were caused by the translation. As mentioned above, the transcript is usually translated orally once more at the end of the session by the same interpreter who has been present during the interview as well. On this occasion, it is possible that interpreters repeat the mistakes they made during the interview and it is thus impossible for the asylum seeker to identify errors in the German transcript which result from the interpreters’ misunderstandings or mistakes. It is very difficult to correct such mistakes afterwards, since the transcript is the only record of the interview.[101]

Appeal

Appeal before the Administrative Court

Appeals against rejections of asylum applications must be lodged before a regular Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht, VG). There are 51 Administrative Courts, at least 48 of which are competent to deal with appeals in asylum procedures.[103] The responsible court is the one with regional competence for the asylum seeker’s place of residence. Procedures at the administrative court generally fall into 2 categories, depending on the type of rejection of the asylum application:

‘Simple’ rejection: An appeal to the Administrative Court must be submitted within 2 weeks (i.e. 14 calendar days) after reception of the negative decision.[104] This appeal has suspensive effect. It does not necessarily have to be substantiated at once, since the appellant has 1 month (also counting from the reception of the decision) to submit reasons and evidence.[105] Furthermore, it is common practice that the courts either set another deadline for the submission of evidence at a later stage (e.g. a few weeks before the hearing at the court) or that further evidence is accepted up to the moment of the hearing at the court.[106]

Rejection as ‘manifestly unfounded’ (offensichtlich unbegründet): Section 30 of the Asylum Act lists several grounds for rejecting an application as ‘manifestly unfounded’. These include among others unsubstantiated or contradictory statements by the asylum seeker, as well as misrepresentation or failure to state one’s identity. Furthermore, applications from so-called safe countries of origin are legally assumed to be manifestly unfounded (Section 29a Asylum Act) requiring a higher burden of proof on the part of the applicant of their reasons for needing protection.[107] For inadmissibility decisions, see Admissibility procedure.

If asylum applications are rejected as ‘manifestly unfounded’, the timeframe for submitting appeals is reduced to one week. Since appeals do not have (automatic) suspensive effect in these cases, both the appeal and a request to restore suspensive effect have to be submitted to the court within 1 week (7 calendar days).[108] The request to restore suspensive effect has to be substantiated. Court practice varies as to how much time is given for the substantiation, but usually it as to be filed within one week or ‘immediately’, meaning as soon as possible.[109]

The short deadlines in these rejections are often difficult to meet for asylum seekers and it might be impossible to make an appointment with lawyers or counsellors within this timeframe. Therefore, it has been argued that the 1-week period does not provide for an effective remedy and might constitute a violation of the German Constitution.[110] In any case, suspensive effect is only granted in exceptional circumstances.

Procedure

The Administrative Court investigates the facts of the case as well as the correct application of the law by the BAMF. This includes a personal hearing of the asylum seeker in cases of a ‘simple’ rejection. With the Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures which entered into force on 1 January 2023,[111] personal hearings can be dispensed with if the applicant is represented by an attorney and if they do not concern a ‘simple’ rejection application or a withdrawal/revocation, e. g. in cases of rejection as ‘manifestly unfounded’ or inadmissible.[112] However, a hearing has to take place if the applicant requests so.[113] Court decisions on applications for suspensive effect are usually conducted without a personal hearing. Courts are required to gather relevant evidence at their own initiative. Asylum appeals are decided by a single judge in the vast majority of cases.[114] As part of the civil law system principle, judges are not bound by precedent. Court decisions are generally available to the public (upon request and in anonymous versions if not published on the court’s own initiative). As of 1 January 2023,[115] the rules for filing a bias motion against the competent judge have changed so that the hearing can take place with said judge if a bias motion was filed three days or less before the hearing. If the judge is found to be biased after the hearing, the hearings that took place after the filing of the motion must be repeated.[116]

In 2023, the average processing period for appeals was 21.3 months, compared to 26 months in 2022 and 26.5 months in 2021 (2020: 24.3 months).[117] This seems to indicate a decrease in 2023 after a strong rising trend over the previous years.[118] However, according to the BAMF; this cannot yet be attributed to the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures[119] enacted as of 1 January 2023 with the aim to accelerate the asylum and court procedures, as the statistics only include cases that were concluded before 31 August 2023 and of which the great majority had started before 2023.[120] The high increase in 2020 and 2021 is likely related to the Covid-19 pandemic, as administrative courts had cancelled hearings, treated only urgent cases or did not allow public access especially during the first wave of the pandemic in spring 2020.[121] The increase in previous years can still be traced back to a significant increase in the number of appeals filed in 2017, following a sharp increase in BAMF decisions especially in 2016 and 2017.[122] At the end of the year 2017, 361,059 cases were pending before the Administrative Courts. It appears that courts are still trying to address this backlog, with 120,247cases pending as of October 2023 (compared to 124,169 pending cases in January 2023, 191,110 pending cases at the end of 2020 and 252,250 at the end of 2019).[123] In addition, administrative courts faced a high number of so-called “upgrade appeals” of Syrian nationals between 2018 and 2021 (see Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure). According to the UNHCR, PRO ASYL as well as the spokesperson of the Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony and a representative of the Association of German Judges, courts have been understaffed and have lacked the capacity to effectively deal with the backlog for years.[124]

It should be noted that a high number of appeal procedures (62.2% between January and the end of August 2023)[125] are terminated without an examination of the substance of the case, and therefore often without a hearing at the court. These terminations of procedures take place, for instance, if the appeal is withdrawn by the asylum seeker. Therefore, it must be assumed that the average period for appeals is considerably longer than the averages referred to above, if the court decides on the merits of the case.

If the appeal to the Administrative Court is successful (or partly successful), the court obliges the authorities to grant asylum and/or refugee status or to declare that removal is prohibited. The decision of the Administrative Court is usually the final one in an asylum procedure. Only in exceptional cases is it possible to lodge further appeals to higher instances.

Until the end of August 2023, 9.6% of all court decisions led to the granting of a form of protection to the applicant. If formal decisions (without examination of the substance) are not considered, the success rate for appeals was 25.4%.[126] This is lower than in previous years: in 2022, 17.6 % of appeals led to a positive decision (37% if formal decisions are not considered), in 2021 18% of all appeal decisions were successful (35% if formal decisions are not considered). In 2020, the rates were 17% of all appeal decisions and 31% if formal decisions are not considered; the rates for 2019 were15% and 27%.[127]

Over the last years, the BAMF has put efforts into digitalising communication with the courts, partly to shorten the length of appeal procedures. According to the BAMF, ‘files and documents from all the branch offices can be sent to the administrative courts electronically, by legally-compliant means as well as encrypted’, via the so-called ‘Electronic Court and Administration Mailbox EGVP’. The administrative courts can in turn address file requests to a central office of the BAMF in Nuremberg. ‘An average of approx. 1,800 files and documents are sent by electronic means every day,’ according to a statement by the BAMF in 2024. ‘The rapid dispatch of files requested, on the same day in most cases, enables administrative court judges to recognise a clear time benefit when it comes to processing cases’.[128] A digitalisation of court hearing themselves, e.g., via video conferencing, is neither practiced nor discussed as of January 2024 for asylum and other administrative court cases.

Onward appeal(s)

The second appeal stage is the High Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht, OVG or Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VGH); the latter term is used in the Federal States of Bavaria, Hessen, and Baden-Württemberg. There are 15 High Administrative Courts in Germany, one for each of Germany’s 16 Federal States, with the exception of the States of Berlin and Brandenburg which have merged their High Administrative Courts since 2005. High Administrative Courts review the decisions rendered by the Administrative Court both on points of law and of facts.

In cases of ‘fundamental significance’, either the authorities or the applicant can apply to the High Administrative Court to be granted leave for a further appeal if the first appeal has not been rejected as manifestly unfounded or manifestly inadmissible.[129] In contrast to the general Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) the criterion of ‘serious doubts as to the accuracy of a decision’ is not a reason for a further appeal in asylum procedures. It is therefore more difficult to access this second appeal stage in asylum procedures than it is in other areas of administrative law. According to Section 78 of the Asylum Act, a further appeal against an asylum decision of an Administrative Court is only admissible if:

• The case is of fundamental importance;
• The Administrative Court’s decision deviates from a decision of a higher court; or
• The decision violates basic principles of jurisprudence.

Second appeal cases in the Higher Administrative Courts are decided by the senate which is composed of several judges.[130] Decisions by the High Administrative Court may be contested at a third stage, the Federal Administrative Court, in exceptional circumstances. Until January 2023, the Federal Administrative Court only reviewed the decisions rendered by the lower courts on points of law. The respective proceeding is called ‘revision’ (Revision). Both administrative courts (in the first appeal stage)[131] and High Administrative Courts can grant leave for a revision if the case itself or a point of law is of fundamental significance, otherwise the authorities or the asylum seekers must apply for leave for such a further appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. Possible reasons for the admissibility of a revision are similar to the criteria for an appeal to a High Administrative Court as mentioned above. As of 1 January 2023, with the entry into force of the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures,[132] the Federal Administrative Court can also decide on the facts of the case as they pertain to the situation in the country of origin or destination.[133] This only applies if the Higher Administrative Court grants leave for revision and if the Higher Administrative Court’s appreciation of the situation in the respective country differs from that of other High Administrative Courts or of the Federal Administrative Court.[134] The reform was introduced in an effort to unify jurisprudence when it comes to the situation in countries of origin or destination.[135] PRO ASYL criticises the change as it stands in the way of an appreciation of circumstances in each individual case and hampers the appreciation of circumstances “in real time” if lower administrative courts are bound by earlier decisions by the Federal Administrative Court. PRO ASYL thus expects the change to not enhance legal certainty, but to lead to legal disputes on the scope of Federal Administrative Court decisions regarding the situation in a given country.[136] Over the course of 2023, the Federal Administrative Court has announced the launch of three revision procedures based on the new provision. 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.[137] The second revision procedure is still ongoing as of February 2024.[138] 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.[139]

Judgments of the Federal Administrative Court are always legally valid since there is no further remedy against them. However, when the Federal Administrative Court only decides on points of law and does not investigate the facts, it can send back cases to the High Administrative Courts for further investigation.

Outside the administrative court system, there is also the possibility to lodge a so-called constitutional complaint at the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). Such complaints are admissible in cases of violations of basic (i.e., constitutional) rights. In the context of asylum procedures this can be the right to political asylum, the right to human dignity including the state obligation to provide a minimal subsistence level of benefits as well as the right to a hearing in accordance with the law, but standards for admissibility of constitutional complaints are difficult to meet. Therefore, only few asylum cases are accepted by the Federal Constitutional Court. Recent examples of Federal Constitutional Court decisions with relevance for the asylum procedure concern the level of social benefits for persons living in reception centres (see Reduction or withdrawal of reception conditions) or a failure to take into account changed circumstances in Romania after the outbreak of the war against Ukraine, which violated the right to an effective legal remedy.[140]

Legal assistance

Legal assistance at first instance

NGOs are not entitled to legally represent their clients in the course of the asylum procedure. During the first instance procedure at the BAMF, asylum seekers may be represented by a lawyer but they are not entitled to free legal aid, so they have to pay their lawyers’ fees themselves at this stage.[141] Consequently, legal assistance at first instance is not systematically available to asylum seekers in Germany. Asylum seekers are rarely represented by a lawyer at the initial stage of the asylum procedure and/or during the interview.

Since 2019, systematic counselling is offered to asylum seekers (see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR). As of 1 January 2023, the provisions on counselling have been reformed and it now encompasses the whole asylum procedure until a final decision, including appeal decisions, and hence advice on legal remedies against asylum decisions.[142] However, counselling still falls short of covering legal representation at first or second instance as NGOs are not entitled to legally represent their clients.

Once asylum seekers have left the initial reception centres and have been transferred to other accommodation, the access to legal assistance in practice depends on the place of residence. For instance, asylum seekers accommodated in rural areas might have to travel long distances to reach advice centres or lawyers with special expertise in asylum law (see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR).

Legal assistance at second instance

During court proceedings, asylum seekers can apply for legal aid to pay for a lawyer. The granting of legal aid is dependent on how the court rates the chances of success. This ‘merits test’ is carried out by the same judge who has to decide on the case itself and is reportedly applied strictly by many courts.[143] Therefore some lawyers do not always recommend to apply for legal aid, since they are concerned that a negative decision in the legal aid procedure may have a negative impact on the main proceedings.

Furthermore, decision-making in the legal aid procedure may take considerable time so lawyers regularly have to accept a case before they know whether legal aid is granted or not. Lawyers argue that fees based on the legal aid system do not always cover their expenses.[144] Thus, specialising only on asylum is generally supposed to be difficult for law firms. Most specialising in this area have additional areas of specialisation while a few also charge higher fees on the basis of individual agreements with clients.

It is possible to appeal against the rejection of an asylum application at an Administrative Court without being represented by a lawyer, but from the second appeal stage onwards representation is mandatory.

[1] Section 24(8) Asylum Act.

[2] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[3] Section 24(8) Asylum Act.

[4] Section 24(4) Asylum Act.

[5] Section 24(4) Asylum Act.

[6] Section 24(7) Asylum Act.

[7] Section 24(5) Asylum Act.

[8] Section 24(6) Asylum Act.

[9] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[10] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[11] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU, 2010869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 25.

[12] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 17, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 37 and 20/2309, 17 June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ni6gYk, 43.

[13] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 29, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 4.

[14] For the year 2023, detailed statistisc are only available fort he priod between January and October. This is why the average duration differs from the average duration over the whole of 2023 indicated above.

[15] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/1371, 22 March 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3NzAQa2, 42; 18/11262, 21 February 2017, available in Germzn at: https://bit.ly/3NzGQ2t, 13.

[16] For details see AIDA, Country Report Germany – Update on the year 2021, April 2022, available at https://bit.ly/3XnN7RS, 27.

[17] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[18] BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik (statistics on applications, decisions and pending procedures), 1-12/2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3IMppKK and BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik (statistics on applications, decisions and pending procedures), 1-12/2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3rnIEzR.

[19] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2XL4gsp.  

[20] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[21] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022.

[22] Federal Government, response to written question by Clara Bünger (The Left), 20/5137, 6 January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RNA63I, 29.

[23] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[24] BAMF, Locations, www.bamf.deavailable in German at: https://bit.ly/3dFTd8w, lists 58 ‘branch offices’ and ‘regional offices’, with some offices having both functions.

[25] These include McKinsey, Roland Berger and Ernst & Young: BAMF, ‘Viele helfende Hände – für den gemeinsamen Erfolg’, 22 March 2016, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2llkWoc. See also Janne Grote, ‘The Changing Influx of Asylum Seekers in 2014-2016: Responses in Germany’. Focused Study by the German National Contact Point for the European Migration Network (EMN), October 2017, study available at: https://bit.ly/33iJAO8, 29, 53; See further Washington Post, ‘How McKinsey quietly shaped Europe’s response to the refugee crisis’, 24 July 2017, available at: http://wapo.st/2HdDq0P. 

[26] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.

[27] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023. No information for the whole year of 2023 was available as of April 2024.

[28] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/8787, 11 October 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48WSr4w, 4;11.

[29] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.

[30] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.

[31] BAMF, Locations, available at: https://bit.ly/3dFTd8w.

[32] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/30711, 15 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3veNm8t, 31.

[33] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN UND FDP, ‚Mehr Fortschritt wagen. Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit. Koalitionsvertrag 2021 – 2025 zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (SPD) und den Freien Demokraten (FDP)‘, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ITYqJZ, 111.

[34] ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZ.

[35] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq.

[36] Markus Kraft: ‘Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4at6eAU, 352-353.

[37] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq, 28.

[38] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq, 30.

[39] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/8787, 11 October 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48WSr4w, 4,12.

[40] The evaluation is based on asylum procedures regarding first-time cross border asylum applications that were finished within one calendar year and carried out between 01.8.2019 and 31.03.2020. The evaluation finds that such procedures took 77 days in AnkER centres and equivalent facilities, compared to 82 days in other BAMF branch offices. Source: BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq, 23 and 30.

[41] Markus Kraft: ‘Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4at6eAU, 355.

[42] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq, 52-53.

[43] Sections 24 and 25 Asylum Act.

[44] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 95.

[45] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 90-91.

[46] For example, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, Vor der Anhörung, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3WuUfKZ.

[47] BAMF, The personal interview, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3XPDLyf.

[48] Section 24(1a) Asylum Act.

[49] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.

[50] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

[51] Section 24(1) No. 1 Asylum Act.

[52] Section 25 (5) Asylum Act.

[53] Section 24(1) No. 2 Asylum Act.

[54] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[55] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 35.

[56] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

[57] Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8.

[58] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 35.

[59] This provision was rarely applied in the regular procedure since it has usually not been established at the time of the interview whether Germany or a safe third country is responsible for the handling of the asylum claim.

[60] See for example Memorandum Alliance, Memorandum für faire und sorgfältige Asylverfahren in Deutschland. Standards zur Integrate any of this?Gewährleistung der asylrechtlichen Verfahrensgarantien, November 2016, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ShphWJ, 14; Uwe Berlit, Sonderasylprozessrecht – Zugang zu gerichtlichem Rechtsschutz im Asylrecht, Informationsbrief Ausländerrecht 9/2018, 311; taz, Kritik an schnellen Asylverfahren: Ohne Beratung geht es nicht, 20 June 2018, available in German at https://bit.ly/4e2koL2. For an individual case, see e. g. Leipziger Zeitung, Das BAMF Leipzig prüft Transidentität nicht als Fluchtgrund, 25 May 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3V3JAZ6.

[61] BAMF, “Procedure management and quality assurance”, available here, 28 November 2018.

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

[63] Section 25 (7) Asylum Act.

[64] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 108.

[65] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 19.

[66] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 15.

[67] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 109.

[68] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 110.

[69] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 18.

[70] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 111, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 111.

[71] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 16.

[72] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 28.

[73] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), 03 August 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49mypAr, 104.

[74] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 18. See also EASO, ‘COVID-19 emergency measures in asylum and reception systems. Issue No. 3, 7 December 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3FBPZ3Y.

[75] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 19.

[76] German Institute for Human Rights, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8, 11.

[77] Deutscher Anwaltverein / Berthold Münch, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8, 13, and PRO ASYL, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 24 October 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ks1Cpb.

[78] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/8787, 11 October 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48WSr4w, 29.

[79] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/8787, 11 October 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48WSr4w, 30.

[80] Katharina Stamm, ‘Videokonferenztechnik im Asylverfahren – warum sie unzulässig ist’, Asylmagazin 3/2012, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Twho1E, 70; Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 17/8577, 10 February 2012, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TtS4JT, 22.

[81] Section 17 Asylum Act.

[82] For example, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, Vor der Anhörung, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3WuUfKZ.

[83] BAMF, The personal interview, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3XPDLyf.

[84] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[85] Section 17(3) Asylum Act.

[86] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 105.

[87] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 111, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 104-107.

[88] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022 and 8 April 2022.

[89] Information provided by the BAMF, 8 April 2022.

[90] BAMF, Dolmetschen und Übersetzen für das BAMF, 17 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3HngsXd.

[91] BAMF, ‘Online-Videotraining für Sprachmittler gestartet’, 28 September 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2oWwbTH.

[92] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022.

[93] BAMF, Standards für das Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren, April 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3wjM4tz.

[94] BAMF, Standards für das Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren, April 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3wjM4tz, 1.

[95] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/1631, 13 April 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2F2kvqq, 40-41.

[96] PRO ASYL, ‘Stellungnahme von PRO ASYL zum Antrag für ein umfassendes Qualitätsmanagement beim Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BT-Drs. 19/4853) sowie zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Asylgesetzes zur Beschleunigung von Verfahren durch erweiterte Möglichkeit der Zulassung von Rechtsmitteln (BT-Drs. 19/1319) 21’, available in German at: https://bit.ly/34Ge2Sy.

[97] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.

[98] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022. This is out of a total of 3,971 messages to the system, which also include positive or neutral messages.

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

[100] Section 9(5) Judicial Remuneration and Compensation Act.

[101] DER SPIEGEL, Probleme mit schlecht qualifizierten Dolmetschern: Ohne Worte, 15 June 2017, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42SGFpx.

[102] Federal Government, Response to information request by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 17.

[103] In the Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate, the Administrative Court of Trier is competent for all asylum appeal procedures, therefore the other three Administrative Courts in the Federal State only deal with asylum matters on an ad hoc basis. For an overview of administrative courts, see https://www.verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit.de/ (in German).

[104] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.

[105] Section 74(2) Asylum Act.

[106] Justiz NRW, Verwaltungsgerichtliches Verfahren in Asylsachen, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49HQSY0.

[107] Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Grundlagen des Asylverfahrens, überarbeitete 5. Auflage 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/33c4uhF, 26.

[108] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.

[109] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, January 2023.

[110] See more references in Dominik Bender and Maria Bethke. ‘‘Dublin III‘, Eilrechtsschutz und das Comeback der Drittstaatenregelung.’, Asylmagazin 11/2013, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4ar98Gl, 362.

[111] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[112] Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

[113] Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

[114] Section 76 Asylum Act.

[115] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[116] Section 74(3) Asylum Act.

[117] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 17; 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 12; 20/432, 14 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RvW8GL, 22; 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 39.

[118] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/18498, 2 April 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RPHZFG, 47; 19/8701, 25 March 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GPyr7l, 48; 19/1371, 22 March 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3NzAQa2.

[119] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[120] LTO, “Politik lässt sich vor den Karren der AfD spannen”, 23 Ocotber 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OKW5qc.

[121] By way of example see the website of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart as of 11 April 2020: https://bit.ly/34ITHvU and of the Administrative Court of Berlin as of 1 April 2020: https://bit.ly/3K43Kfa.

[122] BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48qKOTi, 37.

[123] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left19/32678, 14 October 2021, 30; 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 38; 19/18498, 2 April 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RPHZFG, 47; 19/8701, 25 March 2019, 43; 19/1371, 22 March 2018, 34; 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 35.

[124] LTO, “Politik lässt sich vor den Karren der AfD spannen”, 23 Ocotber 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OKW5qc; FRA (European Union Fundamental Rights Agency), Migration: Key Fundamental Rights Concerns, Quarterly Bulletin 01.01.2021-30.06.2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3qB3RHk, 14.

[125] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 35.

[126] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa,16.

[127] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left 20/432, 14 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RvW8GL, 21; 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 38; 19/18498, 02 April 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RPHZFG, 45.

[128] BAMF, Digitalisation of the asylum procedure, 2020 available at: https://bit.ly/3pFFlTU.

[129] Section 78 (4) Asylum Act.

[130] By way of example, at the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia it is composed of three judged plus two voluntary judges in cases with an oral hearing, see http://bit.ly/3lhV2m5.

[131] Section 134 Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO). The admission of revision by the first instance court (called ‘Sprungrevision’) is only allowed if both parties to the case agree to it.

[132] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

[133] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.

[134] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.

[135] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: at: https://bit.ly/48hQe2k, 43.

[136] PRO ASYL, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 24 October 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ks1Cpb, 34-35.

[137] Federal Administrative Court, “Tatsachenrevision” zu Italien unzulässig wegen Versäumung der Revisionsbegründungsfrist, 28 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OL9nmA.

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

[139] Federal Administrative Court, Rücknahme der “Tatsachenrevision” betreffend die allgemeine abschiebungsrelevante Lage in Afghanistan, 25 January 2024, availbale in German at: https://bit.ly/3Pd8zHp.

[140] Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), Decision of 19 July 2022 2 BvR 961/22 – asyl.net: M30822.

[141] In theory, there is the possibility to apply for free legal counselling under a general scheme for legal counselling (Beratungshilfe). However, the fees paid by the state for this counselling are so low that there are only few lawyers who accept to give counselling under this scheme. Moreover, the scheme that is available to all persons in Germany who do not have enough funds to avail themselves of legal counselling is hardly known in general.

[142] Section 12a (2) Asylum Act.

[143] For an overview of practice in Regensburg, Bavaria, see ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZv.

[144] According to information proved by an attorney-at-law in January 2023, legal aid fees amount to € 868,70 for an appeals procedure and 367,23 € for interim measures to reinstate the suspensive effect of an appeal. The legal basis for the fees is the Act on the Remuneration of Lawyers (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz – RVG).