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 2024, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees reported that the average processing time for asylum applications in Germany was 8.7 months (up from 6.8 months in 2023).[9] This figure encompasses both initial and subsequent applications across the entire country.[10] Between 2022 and 2023the 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,[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14]

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.[15] In 2017, the average duration was higher as the BAMF dealt with a high backlog of cases on which it eventually decided in 2017.[16] In 2020, the average length increased as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown according to the BAMF.[17]

According to information provided by the BAMF in February 2025, the average processing time for asylum procedures initiated within the past twelve months (“Jahresverfahren”) was 4.3 months in January 2025, and these accounted for nearly 50% of all procedures. For the year 2024, the average duration for these cases was 4.7 months, with Jahresverfahren making up 70% of all decided cases. In contrast, the overall processing time for both initial and subsequent applications across Germany reached 12.0 months in January 2025, a sharp increase compared to 8.7 months in 2024. This rise is attributed to a statistical effect, as the BAMF has prioritised reducing the backlog of long-pending cases, meaning that many of the cases processed in early 2025 were not newly submitted applications. This shift is also reflected in the decreased share of Jahresverfahren among all decided cases in January 2025 compared to the previous year. Given the BAMF’s continued focus on reducing the backlog and the currently lower number of new applications, an increase in the overall processing time is expected in 2025. Additionally, when assessing the duration of asylum procedures in cases where applications are rejected, the length of administrative court proceedings must also be considered. As of February 2025, the average duration for first-instance court proceedings alone is 16.7 months.[18]

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; 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 28; 20/12757, 2 September 2024, available in German here, 30; 20/15083, 3 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

Information on duration overall for the entire year of 2024 provided by the BAMF on 26 February 2025.

The overall number of pending applications at the BAMF by the end of December 2024 was 212,656[20] compared to 239,614 at the end of 2023.[21] This is still a significant high number compared to 2022 (136,448) and 2021 (108,064) where the number had already doubled compared to 2020 (52,056)[22] and significantly higher than in previous years too (57,012 in 2019 and 58,325 in 2018).[23] 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).[24] 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).[25] The BAMF has also experienced some delays in registering asylum applications in the autumn of 2022,[26] which might have increased the backlog. In 2024, Germany received 250,945 asylum applications, marking a significant decrease from the 351,915 applications in 2023,[27] while the number of pending cases dropped from 240,300 to 212,656; however, the average processing time increased from approximately 7.6 months in 2023 to 8.7 months in 2024.[28]

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).[29] The concept of arrival centres is not based in law but has been developed by business consultants under the heading ‘integrated refugee management’.[30] Accordingly, this method for fast-tracking of procedures must not be confused with the 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 the report, a typical fast-track procedure called “direct procedure” (Direktverfahren) in the arrival centre was supposed to lead to a decision within four days.[31] 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.[32] 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.[33]

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.[34]

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.[35]

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.[36] In 2020, around 27% of all asylum applications were examined in an AnkER centre or functionally equivalent facility.[37] After the federal elections in 2021, the new government declared that it would “not pursue the concept of AnkER facilities further”.[38] However, since reception is in the remit of the Federal States, arrival AnkER centres continue to exist in some Federal States.

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,[39] as well as by an evaluation of AnkER centres carried out by the BAMF,[40] the procedure has been described as follows:[41]

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 identity. 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.[42]

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.[43]

In 2024, the average duration of the first instance procedure in the AnkER centres and functionally equivalent facilities was 8 months compared to 8.7 months for all first instance procedures[44] (compared to 7 months in 2023 in AnkER centres, compared to 6.8 months for all first instance procedures).[45] 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.[46]

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.[47] 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’,[48] 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.[49] 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.[50] In line with Article 15 APD, family members are interviewed separately.[51] 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.[52] 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).[53] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so ‘if possible’.[54]

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’.[55] However, the BAMF has not made use of this possibility since its introduction.[56]

According to the publicly available Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal instructions of the authority) of the BAMF dated 12 June 2024, asylum interviews are generally conducted individually to ensure adequate confidentiality and privacy, as stipulated in § 25 Abs. 6 AsylG.[57] Separate interviews are typically conducted for adult women and men from the same family, and hearings in the presence of family members are only permitted under exceptional circumstances, such as when the applicant requests the presence of a companion for moral or psychological support due to vulnerabilities like trauma, mental disabilities, or experiences of sexual violence.[58] Even in such cases, the consent of the applicant is required. Furthermore, if the companion is also an asylum applicant awaiting their own hearing, their participation is prohibited to avoid compromising the integrity of their interview.[59] The guideline emphasises that interviews should be conducted in confidential settings, and even if open-plan or shared offices are used in exceptional cases, simultaneous hearings or the presence of unrelated persons are not allowed.[60]

Omission of the interview

In the regular procedure, omitting the interview is possible only in exceptional cases. 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’.[61]

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

• The BAMF intends to recognise the entitlement to asylum on the basis of available evidence;[62]
• The applicant fails to appear at the interview without an adequate excuse. This only applies to applicants who are not obliged to live in a reception centre.[63]
• The BAMF is of the opinion that the foreigner is unable to attend a hearing due to permanent circumstances beyond their control.[64]

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.[65] With this provision, the government implements Art. 14(2)(1)a of the APD.[66] 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.[67] 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.[68] As of February 2025, no information is available as to how often this possibility was used 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 APD.[69] Before, this ground was only rarely applied in practice.[70]

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.[71] 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.[72] 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).[73]

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 below).[74] 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.[75]

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.[76] A BAMF employee will however stay in the same room as the interviewee during the whole interview, according to the Federal Government.[77] Consent of the applicant is not required.[78] 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.[79] The interviews are not recorded; the transcript is compiled in the same way as for in-person interviews.[80] 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.[81]

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.[82]

When introducing the change, the Federal Government stated that this new provision merely adapts the law to administrative practice.[83] 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,[84] 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 February 2025, there are no available statistics as to how often this possibility was used in practice.[85] 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’.[86]

Civil society organisations as well as legal practitioners criticised the introduction of video conferencing. For 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.[87] 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.[88]

In the first half of 2023, out of a total of 93,015 interviews, 715 interviews (0.8%) were conducted via videoconferencing.[89] 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.[90] 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.[91] 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.[92] 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).[93] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so if possible.[94]

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.[95] The provision allows for video interpretation ‘in suitable cases’ and ‘exceptionally’,[96] 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.[97] Video interpretation does not require consent by the applicant.[98]

No statistics on the use of video conferencing for interpretation were available for the years 2024, 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.[99] 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.[100]

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.[101] 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.[102] 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.[103]

In addition, the BAMF has published standards for interpretation in the asylum procedure including a new code of conduct which replaces which replace an earlier code of conduct adopted in 2017.[104] According to this document, interpreters at the BAMF must not only have knowledge of their respective interpretation language, but also show knowledge and qualifications in interpretation skills and in the asylum procedure and dealing with authorities. They must commit to five principles that are spelled out in more detail in the guidelines. These are “completeness and accuracy”, “transparency”, “all-party impartiality”, “professional integrity” and “confidentiality”. In cases of repeated or serious violations of the standards or the code of conduct, the BAMF can decide to terminate the contract with an interpreter.[105] Between 2017 and April 2018, more than 2,100 interpreters were declared unfit for further interpretation assignments by the BAMF, most of them apparently due to insufficient language skills. In 30 cases, interpreters were declared unfit because they were found to be in breach of the code of conduct.[106] However, no re-assessment of the decisions where these interpreters were involved has taken place.[107] In 2022, the BAMF received 77 notifications via its complaint management system that were classified as complaints.[108] Between 2017 and February 2022, a total of 926 complaints were signalled to the BAMF via the same system.[109] No information for the years 2023 or 2024 was available as of February 2025.

The qualification requirements and pay for interpreters also vary between interviews at the BAMF and court hearings. Court interpreters swear an oath to interpret “faithfully and conscientiously” while interpreters working for BAMF are obliged to follow the Code of Conduct for BAMF interpreters which lays down the ethical principles of “completeness and accuracy”, “transparency”, “all-party impartiality”, “professional integrity” and “confidentiality”. These principles are in essence identical to the oath formula for court interpreters.[110]

Interpreters at court are, however, also generally paid more than interpreters contracted by the BAMF – as of February 2025, the hourly rate for interpretation in courts is EUR 85,[111] whereas the BAMF negotiates hourly rates (up to – at maximum – the fixed rate for court interpreters)[112] for interpretation assignments which may vary according to individual levels of qualification and experience. Depending on the federal state where courts are located, the level of qualification for interpreters (e.g. level of competence in German) may be higher or, indeed, lower than requirements for BAMF interpreters.[113]

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.

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.[115] 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.[116] 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.[117] 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.[118]

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.[119] 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).[120] 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.[121]

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. 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,[122] 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.[123] However, a hearing has to take place if any party requests so.[124] 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.[125] 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,[126] 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.[127]

In 2024, more than 100,000 appeals against BAMF decisions were filed before German administrative courts, marking a sharp increase from approximately 72,000 in 2023 and around 62,000 in 2022.[128] According to news reports citing a survey amongst relevant ministries of the states, this surge in appeals is partly due to the BAMF’s accelerating its processing of pending asylum cases from previous years.[129] In total, 100,494 new main proceedings were initiated before courts in 2023, representing a 62% increase compared to 2022. The highest number of cases was recorded in North Rhine-Westphalia (19,267), followed by Bavaria (15,278) and Baden-Württemberg (12,755). The most significant percentage increases over two years were seen in Brandenburg, where cases more than doubled (a 134% rise to 6,138 cases), and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, which experienced a 116% increase to 2,647 cases.[130] Despite this growing caseload, processing times have slightly improved, though they remain well above the target of six months set by the Minister Presidents’ Conference in most federal states. Rheinland-Pfalz currently has the shortest average duration at 5.4 months, while Baden-Württemberg (7.9 months), Saxony-Anhalt (8.3 months), and Saarland (8.5 months) are also approaching the goal. However, twelve federal states still report double-digit processing times, ranging from 10.9 to 24.5 months, with Hessen having the longest delays.[131]

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).[132] This seems to indicate a decrease in 2023 after a strong rising trend over the previous years.[133] However, according to the BAMF; this cannot yet be attributed to the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures[134] 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.[135] 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.[136] 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 which started in 2016-2017. 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.[137]

It should be noted that in 2023 a high number of appeal procedures (62.2% between January and the end of August 2023)[138] were 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%.[139] 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).[140]

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’.[141] A digitalisation of court hearing themselves, e.g., via video conferencing, is neither practiced nor discussed as of February 2025 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.[142] 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.[143] 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)[144] 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,[145] 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 (“Tatsacheninstanz” (fact-finding instance) in asylum proceedings, following the introduction of § 78 Abs. 8 AsylG)[146] 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.[147] The reform was introduced in an effort to unify jurisprudence when it comes to the situation in countries of origin or destination.[148] 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.[149] Over the course of 2023, the Federal Administrative Court 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.[150] The second revision procedure is still ongoing as of February 2024.[151] 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.[152]

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), in its new role as a Tatsacheninstanz, ruled in November 2024 that non-vulnerable, employable protection holders in Italy could reasonably be expected to return, referencing available accommodations from churches and NGOs, as well as employment opportunities.[153] The court did not conduct new fact-finding but relied on existing sources, highlighting that changes in circumstances could prompt reassessment. In an additional case from September 2024, the Federal Administrative Court made a similar ruling regarding Greece in April 2025, determining that single, employable and non-vulnerable individuals with international protection status would not face inhuman or degrading living conditions upon return to Greece, thereby allowing German authorities to reject their asylum applications as inadmissible under §29(1)(2) AsylG.[154]

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.[155]

Legal assistance

Legal assistance at first instance

During the first instance procedure at the BAMF, asylum applicants 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.[156] Indeed, legal services may only be provided if the person providing the service has the necessary legal qualifications. However, under the conditions of Section 6 of the Legal Services Act (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz), out-of-court legal services free of charge are permitted if the persons providing advice are instructed by a legally qualified person. Thus, representatives of NGOs are only entitled to legally represent their clients in the course of the asylum procedure if this requirement is met. 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. According to the law, every applicant has access to free asylum procedure advice in accordance with Section 12a Asylum Act, which is provided by authorised agencies (for details and implementation in practice, 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.[157]

Once asylum applicants 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 applicants 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.[158] Therefore some lawyers do not always recommend applying 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.[159] 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. This was recently reaffirmed in a ruling by the Administrative Court of Stuttgart, A 7 K 2324/24, Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, 10 July 2024, available in German here, in the case of an applicant having been granted international protection in Greece and applying for asylum in Germany. The BAMF had not issued an inadmissibility decision due to a potential violation of Article 3 ECHR in retuning the applicant to Greece, but had not decided on the substance of the protection claim in Germany either. The court, after recognising that 21 months had passed, ordered the BAMF to decide on the asylum application within 3 months.

[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, January 2025, available in German here.

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

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

[13] 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.

[14] 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.

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

[16] 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 German at: https://bit.ly/3NzGQ2t, 13.

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

[18] Information provided by the BAMF on 26 February 2025.

[19] Partial figures for the first 6 months of the year are available in the previous update to this report: AIDA, Country Report : Germany – Update on the year 2023, June 2024, available here, 39.

[20] BAMF, Asylzahlen Gesamtjahr und Dezember 2024, January 2025, available in German here.

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

[22] 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.

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

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

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

[26] 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.

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

[28] BAMF, Asylzahlen Gesamtjahr und Dezember 2024, January 2025, available in German here.

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

[30] 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[38] 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.

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

[40] 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.

[41] Markus Kraft: ‘Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4at6eAU, 352-353. For additional information on the background, functioning etc. of the AnkER centres, see also: BAMF, AnkER Einrichtungen – Ein Überblick, 1 August 2018, available in German here.

[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, 28.

[43] 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.

[44] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/15083 , 3 March 2025, available in German here, 10.

[45] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/15083 , 3 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

[46] 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.

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

[48] Overall in the migration context – non-specific to Germany – while governments and some international organisations qualify these as voluntary returns or assisted voluntary returns given that the person agrees to comply with the return decision and the lack of physical coercion, many stakeholders in NGOs and academia find the notion of ‘voluntary’ return misleading inter alia due to the lack of any alternatives and risks associated with irregular stay for the persons concerned. See, among many others: ECRE, Voluntary departure and return: between a rock and a hard place, 2018, available here; ‘Chapter 11 – Mandatory (“Voluntary”) Return’ in Izabella Majcher, The European Union Returns Directive and its Compatibility with International Human Rights Law (Brill 2019), 547ff; Mixed Migration Centre, ‘Eight things we learned about migrant returns and reintegration’, 1 October 2024, available here; Barak Kalir, ‘Between ‘voluntary’ return programs and soft deportation’ in Zana Vathi and Russell King (eds), Return Migration and Psychosocial Wellbeing (Routledge 2017), available here, 56-71; Jean-Pierre Gauci, ‘IOM and ‘Assisted Voluntary Return’’ in Megan Bradley et al (eds), IOM Unbound? (CUP 2023), available here.

[49] 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.

[50] Sections 24 and 25 Asylum Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[57] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl, 12 June 2024, available in German here.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid, see section Anhörung.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

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

[63] Section 25 (5) Asylum Act.

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

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

[66] 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.

[67] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

[68] 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.

[69] 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.

[70] 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.

[71] 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.

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

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

[74] Section 25 (7) Asylum Act.

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

[76] 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83] 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.

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

[85] 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.

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

[87] 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.

[88] 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.

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

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

[91] 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.

[92] Section 17 Asylum Act.

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

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

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

[96] Section 17(3) Asylum Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[107] 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.

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

[109] 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.

[110] Information provided by the BAMF on 28 May 2025.

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

[112] Section 14 Judicial Remuneration and Compensation Act (§14 JVEG).

[113] Information provided by the BAMF on 28 May 2025.

[114] Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary questions by The Left, 20/15083, 3 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

[115] 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).

[116] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.

[117] Section 74(2) Asylum Act.

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

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

[120] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.

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

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

[123] Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

[124] Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

[125] Section 76 Asylum Act.

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

[127] Section 74(3) Asylum Act.

[128] Zeit Online, Zahl der Asylklagen in Deutschland deutlich gestiegen, 5 March 2025, available in German here.

[129] Ibid.

[130] Ibid.

[131] Ibid.

[132] 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.

[133] 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.

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

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

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

[137] 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.

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

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

[140] 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.

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

[142] Section 78 (4) Asylum Act.

[143] 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.

[144] 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.

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

[146] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.

[147] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.

[148] 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.

[149] 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.

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

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

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

[153] Federal Administrative Court, BVerwG 1 C 23.23, judgment of 21 November 2024, available in German here.

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

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

[156] 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.

[157] Section 12a (2) Asylum Act. Asylum procedure advice also includes information on the asylum procedure and may also include legal services in accordance with the Legal Services Act.

[158] 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.

[159] 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).