Regular procedure

Germany

Country Report: Regular procedure Last updated: 30/11/20

Author

Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration Visit Website

General (scope, time limits)

 

The competent authority for the decision-making in asylum procedures is the BAMF. Its functions and duties include coordination of integration courses or 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 law does not set a time limit for the BAMF to decide on an application. If no decision has been taken within 6 months, the BAMF has to notify asylum seekers upon request about when the decision is likely to be taken.[1]

The overall number of pending applications at the Federal Office was 57,012 at the end of 2019. This number is roughly on the same level as it was at the end of 2018 (58,325 pending applications in 2018, thus representing a decrease of 2.3%).[2]

In 2019, procedures at the BAMF took 6.1 months on average. This average time is similar to previous years, with the exception of the year 2017 during which the average time was 10.7 months. The BAMF had explained that the increase in 2017 was due to the backlog of cases, which were eventually processed in 2017.[3] As regards the average time of asylum procedures until a final decision is issued (i.e. including possible court procedures), it was 17.6 months in 2018 according to the government – but no comparable figures were available for the year 2019.

For the years 2013 to the mid-year 2019, statistics show significant variation in length of procedures, depending on the countries of origin of asylum seekers:

Average duration of the procedure (in months) per country of origin

 

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019 (mid-year)

All countries

7.2

7.1

5.2

7.1

10.7

7.5

5.9

Serbia

2.1

4

4.2

8.9

:

3

2.3

Afghanistan

14.1

13.9

14.0

8.7

11.9

10.6

6.3

Syria

4.6

4.2

3.2

3.8

7.0

4.9

5.1

Iraq

9.5

9.6

6.8

5.9

9.1

6.0

5.6

North Macedonia

2.4

5.3

4.5

:

:

2.6

2.0

Iran

13

14.5

17.1

12.3

10.3

6.3

5.5

Pakistan

15

15.7

15.3

15.5

13.9

10.6

5.2

Russia

5.6

10

11.8

15.6

15.7

12.9

8.5

Source: Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary questions by The Left:  18/705, 5 March 2014; 18/3580, 28 January 2015; 18/7625, 22 February 2016; 18/11262, 21 February 2017, 19/1631, 13 April 2018; 19/13366, 19 September 2019 (detailed statistics for countries of origin not available for the whole year of 2019)..

 

Since 2016, branch offices of the BAMF are entitled to set their own priorities in dealing with caseloads, in order to respond effectively to the local situation.[4] “Clustering” of cases, which had been introduced in late 2015 and which meant that both caseloads with an alleged high and those with an alleged low success rate would be prioritised, does not take place anymore.[5]

 

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

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. At the beginning of 2020, 20 out of 58 branch offices of the BAMF were integrated in arrival centres in 14 different Federal States.[6] The concept of arrival centres is not based in law but has been developed by business consultants under the heading “integrated refugee management”.[7] Accordingly, this method for fast-tracking of procedures must not be confused with the Accelerated Procedure introduced into law in March 2016.

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.[8] The report illustrates how asylum seekers go through the various stages of the reception procedure and the asylum procedure within a few days and thus is still typical of a procedure in an arrival centre, although the conditions may differ at other centres. 

Day 1   Asylum seekers who report to the authorities are sent to a central accommodation centre, where they are registered preliminarily and are given instructions on the next steps of the procedure.

Day 2   Asylum seekers have to report to the arrival centre where the following steps take place: (a) medical examination; (b) formal registration, including identification checks, possible confiscation of documents and mobile phones; (c) decision on whether the asylum procedure is to be carried out in Berlin or in another Federal State, according to the EASY distribution system (see Registration).

If it has been established that the asylum procedure is to be carried out in the Federal State of Berlin, the asylum seekers are issued an arrival certificate (Ankunftsnachweis) and given various leaflets and instructions on the asylum procedure (see Provision of Information on the Procedure).

Asylum seekers whose procedure is carried out in Berlin are given the opportunity to speak to a staff member of the Federal State’s social services (Sozialdienst). The social services then carry out a consultation interview which lasts between 20 and 30 minutes. They also hand out further leaflets, including information on counselling services offered by NGOs and also basic advice on the interview in the asylum procedure published by Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration. If the social services find that an asylum seeker has special reception needs – e.g. single women, persons with physical disabilities or illnesses, LGBTI persons – they try to organise special accommodation on the same day. If there are indications that an asylum seeker is suffering from a severe illness, this person is referred to further medical examinations and the interview in the asylum procedure is postponed. In other cases the social services may also inform the BAMF that the interview should be carried out by a “special officer” (see Special Procedural Guarantees). Furthermore, asylum seekers are handed out some cash and a travel card for local public transport, valid for three months.

Day 3   Asylum seekers again have to report to the arrival centre where the asylum application is now lodged with the BAMF. The arrival certificate is then replaced with the “permission to stay” (Aufenthaltsgestattung). If the “direct procedure” applies, the Personal Interview can be carried out on the same day.

Day 4   It is possible that the decision is handed out on the fourth day. If protection is granted, a residence permit can be applied for on the same day. If the asylum application has been rejected, staff members of the authorities explain the reasons for the decision. The Berlin Refugee Council notes that this explanation does not include any advice on appeal procedures, however. In contrast, rejected asylum seekers may contact an advice service on voluntary return immediately.

In any case, regardless of the outcome of the procedure, asylum seekers should be referred to a different reception centre within the Federal State of Berlin.

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

  • The facts of the case cannot be established immediately, but further examinations are necessary;
  • The applicant states he or she is 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 him or her 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.

These 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. It should be noted that there are considerable variations to the procedure in the various arrival centres. In particular, there is no common approach on access to social services or other counselling institutions, while in many arrival centres no such access exists. This is dependent on how the Federal States and the BAMF have organised the procedure in the respective centres.

Since 2019, the BAMF is obliged by law to offer a basic counselling service, consisting of general information on the procedure which is supposed to be provided before the asylum application is registered. During the procedure, asylum seekers shall also be given an opportunity to make individual appointments with a BAMF staff member or with a welfare organisation for advice on the procedure (see Provision of information on the procedure)

AnkER centres (AnkER-zentren)

Since August 2018, three Federal States (Bavaria, Saxony and Saarland) further established the so-called 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 Bavaria, where the majority of AnkER centres have been set up, asylum seekers are first registered in a so-called “arrival centre”[9] in Munich and are transported to an AnkER centre if the responsibility of Bavaria has been established under the EASY system.

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,[10] the procedure has been described as follows:[11]

Step 1 The registration is carried out by the regional authorities. If no identity documents exist, mobile phones are confiscated and checked to determine the asylum seeker’s origin. 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.

Step 3 Interview with the BAMF, usually conducted within 2-3 days of lodging. This is followed by the decision.

The average duration of the first instance procedure in the AnkER centres in 2019 has been estimated at two months.[12] 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.[13] However, these measures are not unique features of the AnkER centres and similar arrangements exist in other facilities as well. 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.[14] Only in exceptional cases may the interview be dispensed with, where:

  1. The BAMF intends to recognise the entitlement to asylum on the basis of available evidence;
  2. The applicant claims to have entered the territory from a Safe Third Country;[15]
  3. 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;[16] or
  4. The applicant fails to appear at the interview without an adequate excuse.[17]

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”.[18] This provision has not been applied in 2019.

Interpretation

The presence of an interpreter at the interview is required by law.[19] The BAMF recruits its own interpreters on a freelance basis.

Following discussions about the quality of translations during interviews, the BAMF announced in 2017 that procedures for the deployment of interpreters had been revised. For example, a new training programme of online modules and in-house trainings was established. Both experienced and newly employed interpreters are now required to complete the training programme. Apart from basic information on the asylum procedure and general communication skills, several training modules are supposed to 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 for many languages now need advanced German language skills; level C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Moreover, the BAMF has stated that a system for complaint management in the context of interpretation at the BAMF has been established.[20]

In addition, the BAMF has published a code of conduct for interpreters.[21] According to this document, interpreters at the BAMF have to commit to various principles, such as “integrity”, “qualification” and “professional and financial independence” (including neutrality, an obligation to provide full and correct translations, and to clarify misunderstandings immediately). Following the introduction of the new concept and the code of conduct in 2017, more than 2,100 interpreters have been declared unfit for further employment 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.[22]

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). It is usually taken from a tape recording of the interview and it is only available in German. The interpreter present during the personal interview will also be responsible for translations of the transcript. The applicant has the right to correct mistakes or misunderstandings. By signing the transcript, the applicant confirms that he or she has 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.

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. For example, 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 more than likely 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. The tape (or digital) recording of the interview is deleted.

Furthermore, asylum seekers are frequently asked if the retranslation of the transcript may be dispensed with. Few asylum seekers insist on the retranslation, therefore mistakes in the transcript go unnoticed, as reported in observations from a network of 12 German NGOs (“Memorandum Alliance”).[23]

Interviews at the BAMF have frequently been criticised for being too superficial and not sufficiently aiming to establish the facts of the case. In particular, it has been reported that no further questions are asked in cases of inconsistencies in the asylum seekers’ accounts.[24] For this reason, it is impossible to establish in later stages of the procedure whether inconsistencies result from contradictions in the asylum seekers’ statements or merely from misunderstandings or translation errors. 

Video recordings of interviews do not take place. Video conferencing was used, albeit rarely,[25] until 2013, but its use seems to have been abandoned completely since then. Audio or video recording or video conferencing is not used in appeal procedures either.

 

Appeal

 

Appeal before the Administrative Court

Appeals against rejections of asylum applications have to be lodged at a regular Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht, VG). There are 50 Administrative Courts, at least 47 of which are competent to deal with appeals in asylum procedures.[26] 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 application:

“Simple” rejection: An appeal to the Administrative Court has to be submitted within 2 weeks (i.e. 14 calendar days). This appeal has suspensive effect. It does not necessarily have to be substantiated at once, since the appellant has 1 month to submit reasons and evidence. 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.

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. 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). The request to restore suspensive effect has to be substantiated.

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.[27] In any case, suspensive effect is only granted in exceptional circumstances.

The Administrative Court investigates the facts of the case. This includes a personal hearing of the asylum seeker (usually not when deciding on applications for suspensive effect, though). Courts are required to gather relevant evidence at their own initiative. 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).

In 2019, the average processing period for appeals was 17.6 months, which was significantly longer than in 2018 (12.5 months) and represented a dramatic increase in comparison to 2017 (7.8 months). [28] It should be noted that a high number of appeal procedures (44.7%) was 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 or if an out-of-court settlement is reached between the asylum seeker and the BAMF. Therefore, it has to be assumed that the average period for appeals is considerably longer than the 17.6 months referred to above, if the court decides on the merits of the case.

The increase in the average duration of appeal procedures can still be traced back to a dramatic increase in the number of appeals filed in 2017. 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 252,250 cases pending at the end of 2019 (compared to 310,959 pending cases at the end of 2018).[29]

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 deportation 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.

Onward appeal

The second appeal stage is the High Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht, OVG or Verwaltungsgerichtshof); 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” the Administrative Court itself may pave the way for a further appeal (Berufung) to the High Administrative Court, but usually it is either the authorities or the applicant who apply to the High Administrative Court to be granted leave for a further appeal. 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:

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

Decisions by the High Administrative Court may be contested at a third stage, the Federal Administrative Court, in exceptional circumstances. The Federal Administrative Court only reviews the decisions rendered by the lower courts on points of law. The respective proceeding is called “revision” (Revision). High Administrative Courts may 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 have to 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.

Judgments of the Federal Administrative Court are always legally valid since there is no further legal remedy against them. However, as the Federal Administrative Court only decides on points of law and does not investigate the facts, it often sends 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 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.

 

Legal assistance

 

Legal assistance is not systematically available to asylum seekers in Germany. Welfare organisations and other NGOs offer free advice services which include basic legal advice.[30] In some initial reception centres (including the arrival centres and AnkER centres) welfare organisations or refugee councils have regular office hours or asylum seekers can easily access the offices of such organisations close to the centres. However, such advice services are not available in all centres and not all of the time, so very often interviews take place before asylum seekers have had a chance to contact an NGO or a lawyer. There is no mechanism which ensures that asylum seekers are getting access to legal advice from an independent institution before the interview.

The so-called “Orderly-Return-Law”, in force since 21 August 2019,[31] created a new section in the Asylum Act (Section 12a). This provision establishes a “voluntary independent state-run” counselling service with a two-stage approach: the first stage consists of group lectures with basic information on the asylum procedure as well as on return procedures; in the second stage individual counselling sessions can take place upon demand, these can be carried out either by the Federal Office or by welfare organisations, according to the law. However, the government has made it clear that it does not intend to commission welfare organisations to carry out the counselling service on its behalf, but rather plans to extend advice services offered only by BAMF staff members throughout Germany. Moreover, the government has also pointed out that the counselling service on asylum procedures is “definitely is not legal advice”.[32] (see chapter Provision of information on the procedure).

Legal assistance at first instance

Once asylum seekers have left the initial reception centres and have been transferred to other accommodation, the accessibility of legal advice depends strongly 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.

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.

Legal assistance in appeals

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.[33] 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 often argue that fees based on the legal aid system do not always cover their expenses. As a consequence, specialising only on asylum cases is generally supposed to be difficult for law firms. Most lawyers specialising in this area have additional areas of specialisation while a few also charge higher fees on the basis of individual agreements with their 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(4) Asylum Act.

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

[3] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/1371, 22 March 2018, 42; 18/11262, 21 February 2017, 13.

[4] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 18/9415, 17 August 2016, 23.

[5] Information provided by the BAMF, 23 January 2018.

[6] BAMF, Locations, , www.bamf.de   https://bit.ly/3dFTd8w, lists  58 “branch offices” and “regional offices” , with some offices having both functions. The official list still refers to two “arrival centres” in the Federal State of Saxony (Chemnitz and Leipzig), although these facilities were renamed as “AnkER-centres”, according to other reports.

[7] 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/2Hbd1Ruhttp://bit.ly/2llkWoc. See further Washington Post, ‘How McKinsey quietly shaped Europe’s response to the refugee crisis’, 24 July 2017, available at: http://wapo.st/2HdDq0Phttp://wapo.st/2gWSmJ3.

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

[9] This form of “arrival centre” seems to a Bavarian institution, not to be confused with the arrival centres in other Federal States which operate as a combination of reception facilities and BAMF branch offices.

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

[11] Markus Kraft: “Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken”, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, 352-353.

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

[13] Markus Kraft: “Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken”, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, 355.

[14] Sections 24 and 25 Asylum Act.

[15]  This provision is 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.

[16] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

[17] Section 25 Asylum Act.

[18] Section 24(1a) Asylum Act.

[19]  Section 17 Asylum Act.

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

[21] BAMF, Verhaltenskodex für Sprachmittler, June 2017, available in German at https://bit.ly/2XZADBF.

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

[23] Memorandum Alliance, Memorandum für faire und sorgfältige Asylverfahren in Deutschland: Standards zur Gewährleistung der asylrechtlichen Verfahrensgarantien, November 2016, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2gZGhBq, 18-19.

[24]Uwe Berlit, Sonderasylprozessrecht – Zugang zu gerichtlichem Rechtsschutz im Asylrecht, Informationsbrief Ausländerrecht 9/2018, 311.

[25] Katharina Stamm, ‘Videokonferenztechnik im Asylverfahren – warum sie unzulässig ist’, Asylmagazin 3/2012, 70; Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 17/8577, 10 February 2012, 22.

[26] 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. 

[27]  See more references in Dominik Bender and Maria Bethke. “'Dublin III', Eilrechtsschutz und das Comeback der Drittstaatenregelung.”, Asylmagazin 11/2013, 362.

[28]  Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/18498, 2 April 2020, 47; 19/8701, 25 March 2019, 48; 19/1371, 22 March 2018, 42.

[29]  Fderal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/18498, 2 April 2020, 47; 19/8701, 25 March 2019, 43; 19/1371, 22 March 2018, 34.

[30]   A database of advice services for asylum seekers is available at: https://bit.ly/2Ho73Az.

[31]   Second law to enhance enforcement of the obligation to leave, 20 August 2019, Official Gazette I, 1294.

[32]  „Die Asylverfahrensberatung des BAMF ist gerade keine Rechtsberatung“, Federal government, response to information request by The Left, 19/19535, 26 May 2020, 17.

[33]  For a recent 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/2W7dICZ.

 

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation