Regular procedure

General (scope, time limits)

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

As of 2022, 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 must notify asylum seekers upon request about when the decision is likely to be taken.[1] The relevant provision was changed with the Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures[2] and now closely mirrors Art. 31 of the EU APD. As such, the BAMF must normally decide on applications within six months. This 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)[3]

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.[4] In line with Art. 31(5) EU APD, the new provision equally sets an absolute time limit of 21 months.[5]

In addition, and mirroring Art. 31 (4) APD, the reform introduces the possibility to postpone the decision due to a temporarily uncertain situation in the state 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.[6] In line with Art. 31 (3) APD, the reform also clarifies 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.[7]

In 2022, procedures at the BAMF took 7.6 months on average.[8] In 2021, the average duration was 6.6 months; 8.3 months in 2020. The average time of asylum court procedures was 26.1 months between January and the end of November 2022, compared to 26.5 months in the year 2021.[9] In the first half of 2022, the average time from the asylum application to a non-appealable decision was 21.8 month. This includes the first instance procedure and the court procedure in cases where an appeal is filed.[10]

For the period 2016 to 2022, 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. In 2017, the average duration was higher as the BAMF dealt with a high backlog of cases on which it eventually decided in 2017. [11] In 2020, the average length increased as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown according to the BAMF.[12]

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, 10; 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 2.

The overall number of pending applications at the BAMF was 136,448 at the end of 2022.[13] This is a significant increase compared to 2021 (108,064) where the number had already doubled compared to 2020 (52,056)[14] and significantly higher than in previous years too (57,012 in 2019 and 58,325 in 2018). [15] Most of the pending applications are by Syrian (26.4% of all pending cases), Afghan (20.2% of all pending cases) and Turkish nationals (14.1% of all pending cases). The backlog 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).[16] 11,432 of the pending cases are Dublin cases.[17] The BAMF has also experienced some delays in registering asylum applications in the autumn of 2022,[18] which might have increased the backlog.

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 Section Types of accommodation). Prioritised and fast-track processing is not based on a specific legal provision and different to 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. At the beginning of 2022, 19 out of 63 branch offices of the BAMF were integrated in arrival centres in 12 different Federal States.[19] The concept of arrival centres is not based in law but has been developed by business consultants under the heading ‘integrated refugee management’.[20] Accordingly, this method for fast-tracking of procedures must not be confused with the Accelerated Procedure introduced law in March 2016 on accelerated procedures (see Accelerated procedure).

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

The procedure, as it was developed at the Berlin arrival centre, was described in detail by the Berlin Refugee Council in November 2017. According to its report, a typical fast-track procedure called “direct procedure” (Direktverfahren) in the arrival centre was supposed to lead to a decision within four days.[21] According to the BAMF, the Berlin branch office is the only one systematically applying the direct procedure, mostly for Moldovan applicants. Furthermore, 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.[22] This indicates that in other arrival centres, the procedure is carried out according to the regular BAMF guidelines. The average length of first instance procedure in all arrival centres was 7.0 months in 2022, compared to 7.6 months for all first instance procedures.[23]

 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.[24]

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.[25] 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 (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.

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)

Like arrival centres, the concept of AnkER centres was introduced in 2018 to speed up asylum and return procedures. As of 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 15 February 2023, a total of 9 BAMF branch offices were located in AnkER centres.[26] In 2020, around 27% of all asylum applications were examined in an AnkER centre or functionally equivalent facility.[27]

In Bavaria, where the majority of AnkER centres have been set up, asylum seekers are first registered in a so-called ‘arrival centre’[28] in Munich and are transported to an AnkER centre if the responsibility of Bavaria has been established under the EASY system. A similar system has been established in the other Länder where AnKER centres are operating.

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,[29] as well as by an evaluation of AnkER centres carried out by the BAMF,[30] the procedure has been described as follows:[31]

Step 1              The registration is carried out by the regional authorities. 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 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. 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 establish identity and the group counselling sessions.[32]

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.[33]

In 2022, the average duration of the first instance procedure in the AnkER centres and functionally equivalent facilities was 8.2 months, compared to 7.6 months for all first instance procedures.[34] Thus, similar to 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.[35]

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.[36] 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”. However, the rate of absconding is also higher among rejected applicants living in AnkER centres published in 2021, and the rate of forced removals has been found to be lower.[37] 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.[38] 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).[39] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so ‘if possible’.[40]

Only in exceptional cases may the interview be dispensed with, where:

• The BAMF intends to recognise the entitlement to asylum on the basis of available evidence;
• The applicant claims to have entered the territory from a Safe third country;
• 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;[41] or
• The applicant fails to appear at the interview without an adequate excuse.[42]

Taking effect on 1 January 2023, the grounds for dispensing with the interview have been reformed in the Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures.[43] From then onwards, the interview can also be dispensed with when the BAMF is of the opinion that the foreigner is unable to attend a hearing due to permanent circumstances beyond their control.[44] With this provision, the government implements Art. 14(2)(1)a of the APD.[45] 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.[46] 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,[47] In addition, the provision on applicants claiming to have entered from a safe third country no longer applies. The Federal Government explains this by a lack of a provision to that effect in the EU APD.[48] Before, this ground was only rarely applied in practice. [49]

In another important change, the reform introduced the possibility of conducting interviews via video conference in exceptional cases (for video interpretation see below).[50] According to the Federal Government, this would still necessitate the applicant to be in on BAMF premises for the interview; but not necessarily in the same building as the interviewer.[51] A BAMF employee will however stay in the same room as the interviewee during the whole interview, according to the Federal Government.[52] Consent of the applicant is not required, according to internal BAMF guidelines.[53] 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.[54] The interviews are not recorded; the transcript is compiled in the same way as for in-person interviews.[55] 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.[56]

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.[57]

When introducing the change, the Federal Government stated that this new provision merely adapts the law to administrative practice.[58] However, 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, but not in the regular asylum procedure.[59] At the time, 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 March 2023 there are no statistics as to how often this possibility was used in practice.[60] 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’.[61]

Civil society organisations as well as legal practitioners criticise the introduction of video conferencing. By way of example, the German institute for Human Rights and the Republican Lawyers’ Association demand that consent of the applicant be required for video interviews as well as for interpretation via video.[62] 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.[63]

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.[64] Audio or video recording or video conferencing is not used in appeal procedures either.

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’.[65] However, the BAMF has not made use of this possibility since its introduction.[66]

Interpretation

The presence of an interpreter at the interview is required by law.[67] 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).[68] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so “if possible”.[69]

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.[70] The provision allows for video translation ‘in suitable cases’ and ‘exceptionally’,[71] 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.[72] Video interpretation does not require consent by the applicant.[73]

Video conferencing was used in 1,019 interviews in 2021 and 1,359 interviews in 2020, compared to around 2,500 interviews in 2019.[74] No statistics were available for the year 2022 at the time of writing of this report. 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.[75]

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.[76] 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. They 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.[77] 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.[78]

In addition, the BAMF has published a code of conduct for interpreters.[79] According to this document, interpreters at the BAMF must 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). From the introduction of the new concept and the code of conduct in 2017 and until April 2018, more than 2,100 interpreters were 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.[80] However, no re-assessment of the decisions where these interpreters were involved has taken place.[81] In 2022, the BAMF received 77 notifications via its complaint management system that were classified as complaints.[82] Between 2017 and February 2022, a total of 926 complaints were signalled to the BAMF via the same system.[83]

The quality of interpretation also seems to vary between interviews at the BAMF and court hearings: whereas in court, interpreters must take an oath to accurately reflect the applicants’ position, this is not the case for interviews conducted with the BAMF or the Border Police. Reportedly, taking oath in Court proceedings results in better translation services and cases being taken ‘more seriously’.[84] Interpreters at court are, however, also generally paid more than interpreters contracted by the BAMF – as of January 2023, the hourly rate is 85 Euro,[85] whereas the BAMF does not make pay rates public –, and courts generally require higher levels of qualifications.

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 they have had the opportunity to present all the important details of the case, that there were no communication problems and that the transcript was read back in the applicant’s language. Video recordings of interviews do not take place.

In spite of this, alleged mistakes in the transcript frequently give rise to disputes at later stages of the asylum procedure. For instance, doubts about the credibility of asylum seekers are often based on their statements as they appear in the transcript. However, it is possible that the German wording of the transcript reflects mistakes or misunderstandings which were caused by the translation. 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.

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 there are instances where no further questions are asked in cases of inconsistencies in the asylum seekers’ accounts.[86] In such cases, 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.

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.[88] 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 must be submitted within 2 weeks (i.e. 14 calendar days) after reception of the negative decision.[89] 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.[90] 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. 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.[91] 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).[92] 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.[93]

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

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,[95] 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.[96] However, a hearing has to take place if the applicant requests so.[97] Court decisions on applications for suspensive effect 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.[98] 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,[99] 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. [100]

In 2022, the average processing period for appeals was 26 months, compared to 26.5 months in 2021 (and to 24.3 months in 2020).[101] This is significantly longer than in the previous years which had already seen a rising trend (17.6 months in 2019 compared to 12.5 months in 2018 and 7.8 months in 2017). [102] The high increase in 2020 and 2021 is likely related to the Covid-19 pandemic, as administrative courts had cancelled hearings, treated only urgent cases or did not allow public access especially during the first wave of the pandemic in spring 2020.[103] 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. [104]  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 124,169 cases pending as of January 2023 (compared to 191,110 pending cases at the end of 2020 and 252,250 at the end of 2019).[105] According to the UNHCR, PRO ASYL as well as the spokesperson of the Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony, courts have been understaffed and have lacked the capacity to effectively deal with the backlog for years.[106]

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 the BAMF, ‘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’. [107] A digitalisation of court hearing themselves, e. g. via video conferencing, is neither practiced nor discussed as of January 2023.

It should be noted that a high number of appeal procedures (52.4% in 2022)[108] are terminated without an examination of the substance of the case, and therefore often without a hearing at the court. These terminations of procedures take place, for instance, if the appeal is withdrawn by the asylum seeker. Therefore, it has to 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 November 2022, 17.6% 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 37%. This is similar to 2021 (18% of all appeal decisions and 35% if formal decisions are not considered) and slightly higher than in previous years (in 2020, the rates were 17% of all appeal decisions and 31% if formal decisions are not considered; the rates for 2019 were15% and 27%).[109]

Onward appeal(s)

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:

• 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.[110] Decisions by the High Administrative Court may be contested at a third stage, the Federal Administrative Court, in exceptional circumstances. As of 2022, 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 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 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures,[111] 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.[112] 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.[113] The reform was introduced in an effort to unify jurisprudence when it comes to the situation in countries of origin or destination.[114] 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.[115]

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.[116]

Legal assistance

Legal assistance at first instance

Legal assistance at first instance is not systematically available to asylum seekers in Germany. 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.[117] Consequently, asylum seekers are rarely represented by a lawyer at the initial stage of the asylum procedure and/or during the interview.

Since 2019, systematic counselling is offered to asylum seekers (see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR). As of 1 January 2023, the provisions on counselling have been reformed and it now encompasses advice on legal remedies against asylum decisions, but falls short of covering legal representation at first or second instance.[118]

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

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.[119] Therefore some lawyers do not always recommend to apply for legal aid, since they are concerned that a negative decision in the legal aid procedure may have a negative impact on the main proceedings.

Furthermore, decision-making in the legal aid procedure may take considerable time so lawyers regularly have to accept a case before they know whether legal aid is granted or not. Lawyers argue that fees based on the legal aid system do not always cover their expenses.[120] 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(4) Asylum Act.}

^{[4]  Section 24(4) Asylum Act.}

^{[5] Section 24(7) Asylum Act.}

^{[6]  Section 24(5) Asylum Act.}

^{[7]  Section 24(6) Asylum Act.}

^{[8] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2022, 13, available in German at https://bit.ly/3TDLUEZ.}

^{[9] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 37 and 20/2309, 17 June 2022, 43.}

^{[10] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 4.}

^{[11] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/1371, 22 March 2018, 42; 18/11262, 21 February 2017, 13.}

^{[12] For details see AIDA, Country Report Germany – Update on the year 2021, April 2022, 27, available at https://bit.ly/3XnN7RS, 27.}

^{[13] BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik (statistics on applications, decisions and pending procedures), 1-12/2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3IMppKK.}

^{[14] BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik (statistics on applications, decisions and pending procedures), 1-12/2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3rnIEzR.}

^{[15] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2XL4gsp.}  

^{[16] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022.}

^{[17] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2022, available in German at https://bit.ly/3TDLUEZ, 13.}

^{[18] Federal Government, response to written question by Clara Bünger (The Left), 20/5137, 6 January 2023, 29.}

^{[19]  BAMF, Locations, www.bamf.dehttps://bit.ly/3dFTd8w, lists 63 ‘branch offices’ and ‘regional offices’ , with some offices having both functions. Some of the centres listed as ‘arrival centres’ are also considered functionally equivalent to ‘AnkER-centres’, according to the BAMF (see BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, 17 and 22, available in English at https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq).}

^{[20]  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.}

^{[21] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.}

^{[22] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.}

^{[23] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 9.}

^{[24]  Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.}

^{[25] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.}

^{[26]  Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023. See also BAMF, Locations, available at: https://bit.ly/3dFTd8w.}

^{[27] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/30711, 15 June 2021, 31.}

^{[28] 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.}

^{[29] ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZ.}

^{[30] 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.}   

^{[31]  Markus Kraft: ‘Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, 352-353.}

^{[32] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, 28, available in English at https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq.}   

^{[33] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, 30, available in English at https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq.}

^{[34] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 9.}

^{[35] 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, 23, 30, available in English at https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq}

^{[36]  Markus Kraft: ‘Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, 355.}

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

^{[38] Sections 24 and 25 Asylum Act.}

^{[39]  For example, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, Vor der Anhörung, available in German at http://bit.ly/3WuUfKZ.}

^{[40] BAMF, The personal interview, available in German at http://bit.ly/3XPDLyf.}

^{[41] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.}

^{[42] Section 25 (5) Asylum Act.}

^{[43] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.}

^{[44] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.}

^{[45] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, 35.}

^{[46]  Section 24(1) Asylum Act.}

^{[47] 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.}

^{[48] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, 35.}

^{[49] 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.}

^{[50] Section 25 (7) Asylum Act.}

^{[51]  SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, 19.}

^{[52]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 15.}

^{[53] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 109, available in German at https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA.}

^{[54] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 110, available in German at https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA.}

^{[55]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 18.}

^{[56] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 111, available in German at https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA.}

^{[57] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 16.}

^{[58] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, 28.}

^{[59] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), 03 August 2021, 104.}

^{[60] 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.}

^{[61] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 19.}

^{[62] 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, 11, available in German at http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8.}

^{[63] Deutscher Anwaltverein / Berthold Münch, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, 13, available in German at http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8, 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.}

^{[64] 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.}

^{[65] Section 24(1a) Asylum Act.}

^{[66] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.}

^{[67] Section 17 Asylum Act.}

^{[68] For example, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, Vor der Anhörung, available in German at http://bit.ly/3WuUfKZ.}

^{[69] BAMF, The personal interview, available in German at http://bit.ly/3XPDLyf.}

^{[70] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.}

^{[71] Section 17(3) Asylum Act.}

^{[72] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 105, available in German at https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA.}

^{[73]  BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), 03 August 2021, 101.}

^{[74] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022 and 8 April 2022.}

^{[75] Information provided by the BAMF, 8 April 2022.}

^{[76] BAMF, Dolmetschen und Übersetzen für das BAMF, 17 November 2022, available in German at https://bit.ly/3HngsXd.}

^{[77]  BAMF, ‘Online-Videotraining für Sprachmittler gestartet’, 28 September 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2oWwbTH.}

^{[78] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022.}

^{[79] BAMF, Verhaltenskodex für Sprachmittler, June 2017, available in German at https://bit.ly/2XZADBF.}

^{[80] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/1631, 13 April 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2F2kvqq, 40-41.}

^{[81] 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}

^{[82] Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.}

^{[83] 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.}

^{[84] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, 31 August 2020.}

^{[85] Section 9(5) Judicial Remuneration and Compensation Act.}

^{[86]  Uwe Berlit, Sonderasylprozessrecht – Zugang zu gerichtlichem Rechtsschutz im Asylrecht, Informationsbrief Ausländerrecht 9/2018, 311.}

^{[87] For the period until 30 September 2021. Source: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/432, 14 January 2022, 22. A full-year figure was not available in 2021. By way of comparison, the average processing time for the appeal body in 2020 was 24.3 months.}

^{[88]  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.}

^{[89] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.}

^{[90]  Section 74(2) Asylum Act.}

^{[91]  Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Grundlagen des Asylverfahrens, überarbeitete 5. Auflage 2021, available in German at https://bit.ly/33c4uhF, 26.}

^{[92] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.}

^{[93] Information provided by an attorney-at-law, January 2023.}

^{[94]  See more references in Dominik Bender and Maria Bethke. ‘‘Dublin III‘, Eilrechtsschutz und das Comeback der Drittstaatenregelung.’, Asylmagazin 11/2013, 362.}

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

^{[96] Section 77(2) Asylum Act.}

^{[97]  Section 77(2) Asylum Act.}

^{[98] Section 76 Asylum Act.}

^{[99]  Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.}

^{[100]  Section 74(3) Asylum Act.}

^{[102]  Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/18498, 2 April 2020, 47; 19/8701, 25 March 2019, 48; 19/1371.}

^{[103]  By way of example see the website of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart as of 11 April 2020: https://bit.ly/34ITHvU and of the Administrative Court of Berlin as of 1 April 2020: https://bit.ly/3K43Kfa .}

^{[104]  BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2020, 37.}

^{[105] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left 19/28109, 14 October 2021, 30, 19/28109, 30 March 2021, 38, 19/18498, 2 April 2020, 47; 19/8701, 25 March 2019, 43; 19/1371, 22 March 2018, 34; 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 35.}

^{[106] FRA (European Union Fundamental Rights Agency), ‘Migration: Key Fundamental Rights Concerns’, Quarterly Bulletin 01.01.2021-30.06.2021, 14, available at: https://bit.ly/3qB3RHk.}

^{[107] BAMF, Digitalisation of the asylum procedure, 2020 available at: https://bit.ly/3pFFlTU.}

^{[108]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 35.}

^{[109]  Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left 20/432, 14 January 2022, 21 19/28109, 30 March 2021, 38, 19/18498, 02 April 2020, 45.}

^{[110] 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.}

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

^{[112]  Section 78(8) Asylum Act.}

^{[113] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.}

^{[114]  SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, 43.}

^{[115] PRO ASYL, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 24 October 2022, 34-35, available in German at https://bit.ly/3ks1Cpb.}

^{[116] Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), Decision of 19 July 2022 2 BvR 961/22 – asyl.net: M30822.}

^{[117]  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.}

^{[118]  SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, 34.}

^{[119]   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/2W7dICZ.}

^{[120] 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.}