Subsequent applications

Definition of a subsequent application

The law defines a subsequent application (Folgeantrag) as any claim which is submitted after a previous application has been withdrawn or has been finally rejected.[1] In case of a subsequent application the BAMF conducts a preliminary examination on the admissibility of the application.

On December 19, 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled on the conditions under which an asylum application qualifies as a subsequent application if a prior asylum application was filed in another EU member state.[2] The ruling was based on two preliminary reference cases submitted by the Administrative Court of Minden (VG Minden) concerning the interpretation of the term “subsequent application” under EU law. The ECJ clarified that a subsequent application under EU law requires a final decision (rechtskräftige Entscheidung) on the previous asylum procedure, regardless of the member state where the initial application was processed. A subsequent application can be deemed inadmissible if it follows a final rejection in another member state. However, the ECJ emphasised an important limitation: when an asylum procedure in another member state was discontinued due to implicit withdrawal (under Article 28 (1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive), the application in the second member state cannot be treated as a subsequent application unless the first state’s decision has become final. This finality only occurs after the expiration of the reopening period for the case, which is at least nine months (Article 28 (2) of the Directive).[3] As a consequence, Germany’s regulation on confirmatory applications (Zweitanträge) (§ 71a AsylG) is generally compatible with EU law.[4]

Applications following a final rejection in another member state can be considered subsequent applications and dismissed as inadmissible. However, if the previous procedure in another member state ended due to implicit withdrawal (e.g., the applicant leaving the country), German authorities cannot classify the new application as a subsequent application until the reopening period in the first state has expired. The ruling restricts Germany’s ability to swiftly reject asylum claims based on prior procedures in other EU states unless the first procedure reached a final conclusion.[5]

Under German law, a confirmatory application, on the other hand, concerns the case where a person who has already undergone an unsuccessful asylum procedure in a safe third country (e.g. Switzerland, Denmark, etc.) now applies for asylum in Germany. Such an application is only successful if Germany is responsible for examining it in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation and there are also grounds for a further procedure.[6]

Admissibility test

Since February 2024 the admissibility criteria reflects the APD (see § 71 (1) Asylum Law).

The admissibility test is determined by the requirements for resumption of procedures as listed in Section 71 (1) of the Asylum Act. According to this, a new asylum procedure is only initiated if one of the following applies:

• new elements or findings havearisen or have been presented by the foreigner which are significantly likely to contribute to a decision which is more favourable to the foreigner; or
• there are grounds for resumption of proceedings, for example because of serious errors in the earlier procedure.[7]

Regarding the first two requirements, the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen (Baden-Württemberg) has referred a question to the CJEU in February 2022 asking if this is compatible with the EU APD, which merely refers to new elements or findings as requirements for subsequent applications and does not mention whether they would change the decision. The court further requested clarification on the status of new CJEU rulings, which are currently not considered a ‘new legal situation’ in Germany if the ruling only concerns the interpretation of EU law.[8] The CJEU decided on the 8 February 2024 that in general the exceptions under which a subsequent application to be declared admissible should be interpreted broadly.[9] More specifically, the court decided that CJEU rulings qualify as ‘new elements’ which may lead to a ‘new legal situation’ even if the only concern the interpretation of EU law.[10] The Administrative Court of Minden (North Rhine Westphalia) also referred a question to the CJEU as to whether the first and second ground can be assumed to not be applicable if the applicant has returned to and lived in their country of origin for several years.[11] In its judgment from May 2023 the CJEU ruled that the temporary return to the country of origin has no impact on the classification of a further application as ‘subsequent application’.[12]

A further requirement according to the law is that the applicant was unable, without grave fault on their part, to present the grounds for resumption in earlier proceedings, particular by means of legal remedy. The law also states that the application must be made within 3 months after the applicant has learned of the grounds for resumption of proceedings, [13] however, following an CJEU ruling indicating that such time limits are in violation of the EU APD,[14] the BAMF has declared it will no longer require this in practice.[15] German courts have adopted the ruling in several cases which were decided by BAMF prior to the judgement in 2021.[16] The BAMF has consequently amended its Internal Directive according to the CJEU ruling. The current Internal Directive for Asylum Procedures states that ‘asylum applications are neither limited in time nor in number’. They can therefore be made without observing any time limits.[17]

Only if these requirements are met, the applicant regains the legal status of asylum seeker, and the merits of the case will be examined in a regular asylum procedure (see below for further details). The procedure is the same for third or further applications. A subsequent application always must be lodged by the applicant; the BAMF does not self-initiate new procedures to grant protection (as opposed to withdrawal procedures, see Cessation and review of protection status).

The legal status of applicants pending the decision on the admissibility of their subsequent application is not expressly regulated by law. It is generally assumed, though, that a removal order has to be suspended until the Federal Office has taken a decision on the commencement of a new asylum procedure. Accordingly, the stay of applicants is to be ‘tolerated’ (geduldet) until this decision has been rendered.[18] For secondary applications, the tolerated status is foreseen by law.[19] However, a removal may proceed from the very moment that the Federal Office informs the responsible Foreigners’ Authority that a new asylum procedure will not be initiated. If an enforceable removal order already exists, a new removal order or other notification is not required to enforce removal.[20] The applicant may also be detained pending removal until it is decided that a subsequent or secondary asylum procedure is carried out.[21]

The decision on admissibility of a subsequent or secondary application can be carried out without hearing the applicant.[22] Internal BAMF guidelines state that such a hearing only needs to take place when this is considered necessary to decide on the admissibility of the application. An example given is when the applicant has travelled to their country of origin in the meantime and puts forwards an individual persecution.[23] However, a judgement by the Administrative Court of Berlin of October 2022 found that even though the BAMF has full discretion, there has to be evidence that it actually exercised discretion by considering reasons for or against conducting an interview.[24] In a judgement of April 2022, the Administrative Court of Minden (North Rhine Westphalia) found that the BAMF has to conduct a hearing in principle, and has to provide a reasoning when it decided not to.[25] Because such hearings often do not take place in practice, it is recommended that subsequent applications, which generally have to be submitted in person, should be accompanied with a detailed written motivation.[26]

Outcomes of the admissibility test and return procedure

If the BAMF decides not to carry out a subsequent procedure, the application is rejected as ‘inadmissible’.[27] Even though in this case the BAMF does not examine the merits of the application, it can pronounce a removal ban subject to national law at this stage.[28] If the BAMF issues a renewed order to leave the territory with the decision (see above), the period set for ‘voluntary departure’ is seven days, which is also the delay within which an appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.[29] The appeal does not have suspensive effect, unless an interim measure is filed and granted to this effect. The delay for requesting interim measures is also seven days.[30] Where the person was already under the obligation to leave the territory before lodging the subsequent application and where no new order to leave is issued, the delay for filing an appeal against the inadmissibility decision is two weeks. However, since the appeal does not have a suspensive effect and since the immigration authority is usually informed of the outcome before the applicant, a request for interim measures should be filed quickly in order to avoid removal.[31]

In 2024, there was a key amendment concerning subsequent asylum applications with the introduction of the so-called Rückführungsverbesserungsgesetz (Law on Improving Deportation Procedures), supported by the SPD, FDP, and — with some exceptions — Bündnis 90/Die Grünen.[32] The law, which came into effect on February 21, 2024, introduces significant changes to deportation practices, including expanded search powers and an extension of pre-deportation detention (Ausreisegewahrsam).[33] Under the new §30 of the Asylum Act (AsylG), a subsequent asylum application can be deemed “manifestly unfounded” if the applicant has already undergone a further asylum procedure following a previous application. Additionally, § 71 AsylG now stipulates that if a subsequent application is filed solely to delay or obstruct deportation, or if a new application is submitted after a final rejection, deportation may proceed immediately, provided the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) confirms that no new grounds for protection exist. However, deportation must be suspended if the applicant files an appeal under § 80(5) of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) until the court rejects the appeal or the appeal period under § 74(1) AsylG has expired. The purpose of this reform is to accelerate deportation procedures and reduce misuse of the asylum system, although it has attracted criticism from human rights organizations regarding potential risks to procedural fairness and protection standards.[34]

There is no free legal assistance available for subsequent applications or for appealing against rejections of subsequent applications. Since the appeal only pertains to the (in)admissibility decision, the court considers whether such decision was made lawfully, but not the merits of the asylum application as such.

In contrast, if the BAMF decides to carry out a new procedure, this will usually be in the form of a ‘regular procedure’ and the applicant regains the status of asylum seeker, including access to reception conditions and including the other rights and obligations connected with this status.[35]

Place of lodging and distribution system

In terms of the asylum procedure, the law does not distinguish between situations in which the applicant has left Germany following a negative decision and situations where they remained on the territory. Differences exist regarding reception however: all subsequent applications have to be lodged in the BAMF branch office which was responsible for the first application, but persons who have left and re-entered Germany are subject to the regular distribution procedure and are obliged to stay in initial reception centres (see Making and registering the application),[36] whereas applicants who stayed in Germany and who are no longer required to stay in an initial reception centre usually do not have to go back to an initial reception centre for the duration of the procedure, unless their subsequent applications are dealt with in the ‘accelerated procedure’, but this type of procedure is only applied in a few branch offices of the BAMF (see Accelerated procedure).[37]

Statistics

In 2024, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees recorded 21,194 subsequent asylum applications (as of January 2025). This represents a 7.0 percent decrease compared to the previous year continuing a trend of the past years.[38] 22.795 persons lodged subsequent applications in 2023, compared to 26,358 in 2022 and 42,583 in 2021.[39] In 2024, the highest number of subsequent applications came from individuals from Syria, with 2,668 applications, followed by Afghanistan with 2,007. Applicants from Türkiye accounted for 1,879 subsequent applications, while 1,472 came from Moldova. Additionally, there were 1,406 subsequent applications from North Macedonia and 1,207 from Iraq.[40]

Statistics do not distinguish between situations where applicants have remained in Germany until lodging a subsequent application and situations where subsequent applications are lodged after the applicant had left Germany. However, there are statistics on the number of asylum applications lodged by persons who already have a legalised status in Germany. 19,551 such applications were lodged in 2024,[41] compared to 9,932 in 2023 and 20,392 in 2022.[42] Around 63% of the applicants had either a residence permit for political or humanitarian reasons (which includes international protection) or a tolerated status, suggesting that their application might be counted as a subsequent application.

The decisions on subsequent applications in 2024 were as follows:

Source: BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik 2024, available in German here

In 2024, a total of 21,194 subsequent protection applications were submitted to the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, and 26,292 decisions on subsequent applications. Among these decisions:

• 4,148 applications were deemed inadmissible.
• 3,217 applications received positive decisions (i.e., applicants were granted asylum or some form of protection).
• 18,917 applications were rejected or terminated for other reasons (e.g., inadmissibility or procedural issues).

Out of the 21,194 total subsequent applications in 2024, the success rate for positive decisions was approximately 15% (3,217 positive decisions out of 26,292 total decisions). Meanwhile, inadmissible applications comprised 16% of the total decisions (4,148 cases), with the majority of applications (around 72%) resulting in negative decisions or terminations.

When looking at specific nationalities, applicants from Türkiye had the highest success rate among the major nationalities, with around 23% of their subsequent applications resulting in positive decisions, compared to less than 1% for Syria and 2% for Afghanistan.

Compared to 2023, where 49.6% of subsequent applications were rejected as inadmissible and 40.6% of applications decided on the merits were successful (see AIDA DE 2023 report), the 2024 figures show a slight increase in negative decisions and a decrease in success rates, with only 15% of the total subsequent applications leading to positive decisions.

The 4,148 ‘positive’ decisions in 2024 consisted of the following status decisions:

• Asylum or refugee status: 1,591
• Subsidiary protection: 743
• (National) humanitarian protection / removal ban: 1,824

[1] Section 71 Asylum Act.

[2] ECJ, Cases C-123/23, C-202/23, N.A.K., E.A.K., Y.A.K, M.E.O. v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 19 December 2024, available here.

[3] For a brief summary of the decision in German see: Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration, ‚EuGH zur Einstufung von Asylanträgen als Folgeantrag nach Asylverfahren in einem anderen europäischen Staat‘, 8 January 2025, available in German here.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6]  For an overview of subsequent and confirmatory applications, see Informationsverbund here.

[7] The relevant grounds for this third alternative are listed in Section 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘action for retrial of a case’), to which the Asylum Act makes a general reference. Serious errors according to this provision include false testimony by witnesses or experts. Apart from that, Section 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains several grounds which are either not relevant for the asylum procedure or are covered by the grounds referred to under the first and second alternatives mentioned here. Although it is conceivable that the third alternative may apply in certain cases, it hardly seems to be of significance in practice, cf. Kerstin Müller, AsylVfG § 71, para. 32, in Hofmann/Hoffmann, eds. HK-AuslR (Handkommentar Ausländerrecht), 2008, 1826.

[8] Art. 33(2)d and 40(2) recast APD. The CJEU case is lodged as case C-216/22 and can be followed up upon here: https://bit.ly/4arjs14.

[9] CJEU, Case C-216/22, 8 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3T0GYLR, 36.

[10] CJEU, Case C-216/22, 8 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3T0GYLR, 44f.

[11] See Administrative Court of Minden, 7 June 2022, J.B. S.B. F.B. (Lebanon) v Federal Republic of Germany, request for a preliminary ruling, summary available at http://bit.ly/3Y7EUSm.

[12] CJEU, Case C-364/22, Judgement of 25 May 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/42Q2RAE.

[13] Section 51(2) Administrative Procedure Act.

[14] CJEU, Case C‑18/20, Judgement of 9 September 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3RQA9f4.

[15] Asyl.net, EuGH stärkt Rechte von Asylsuchenden bei Asylfolgeanträgen, last update on 17 November 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3IB1tXA.

[16] Administrative Court Saarland, Decision 6 K 703/20, 14 April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OJ0I47; Administrative Court Freiburg, Decision A 14 K 6699/18, 27 September 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ub8uwi.

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

[18] Kerstin Müller, ‘AsylG § 71, para. 50’, in Hofmann/Hoffmann, eds., HK-AuslR (Handkommentar Ausländerrecht), 3rd edition, 2023.

[19] Section 71a (3) Asylum Act.

[20] Section 71(5) Asylum Act.

[21] Section 71(8) Asylum Act, Section 71a (2) Asylum Act.

[22] Section 71(3) Asylum Act.

[23] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), January 2023, 262 (pdf), available at: https://bit.ly/49cX22k.

[24] VG Berlin, 38 L 340/22 A, 26 October 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3LK1k8M.

[25] Administrative Court Minden, judgement of 6 April 2022, 10 K 3200/20.A, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3nkUITX.

[26] Kirsten Eichler, Der Asylfolgeantrag. Zu den Voraussetzungen für die erneute Prüfung von Asylanträgen und zum Ablauf des Folgeverfahrens, October 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3MbCfBj, 55.

[27] Section 29(1)(5) Asylum Act.

[28] Section 31(3) Asylum Act, Kirsten Eichler, Der Asylfolgeantrag. Zu den Voraussetzungen für die erneute Prüfung von Asylanträgen und zum Ablauf des Folgeverfahrens, October 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3MbCfBj, 61.

[29] Section 71(4), 74(1) and 36(1)(3) Asylum Act.

[30] Section 75(1) Asylum Act, Section 80(5) Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO).

[31] Kirsten Eichler, Der Asylfolgeantrag. Zu den Voraussetzungen für die erneute Prüfung von Asylanträgen und zum Ablauf des Folgeverfahrens, October 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3MbCfBj, 64.

[32] Bundestag, ‚Bundestag stimmt Gesetz zur Verbesserung von Rückführungen zu‘, 2024, available in German here.

[33] Act on the Improvement of Repatriation (Repatriation Improvement Act), Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 54 of 26.02.2024, available in German here.

[34] ProAsyl, ‚Das Gegenteil von Verbesserungen: Das neue Rückführungsgesetz verschlimmert die Lage‘, 27 February 2024, available in German here.

[35] Before the decision on admissibility, applicants usually have access to similar reception conditions since the law governing reception conditions (the Asylum Seekers benefits Act) also applies to persons with a tolerated status, see Section 1a of the Act. The exact conditions for access to housing, the labour market or social benefits depend on the duration of stay and the individual situation, however (see Chapter on Reception Conditions).

[36] Section 71(2) Asylum Act.

[37] Kirsten Eichler, Der Asylfolgeantrag. Zu den Voraussetzungen für die erneute Prüfung von Asylanträgen und zum Ablauf des Folgeverfahrens, October 2018, available in German here.

[38] Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, ‚Asylanträge in Deutschland‘, 10 January 2025, available in German here. For a detailed overview of the asylum applications from January to December 2024, see: BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik 2024, available in German here.

[39] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, Dezember 2023, available in German here, 3.

[40] BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik 2024, available in German here.

[41] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left 20/14923, 21 March 2025, available in German here, 8.

[42] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left 20/8222, 5 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3SklJCR, 9; Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5709, 17 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3K3w3MX, 10 and 20/2309, 17 June 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ni6gYk, 9.

[43] This figure includes cases categorised as kein weiteres Verfahren (no further procedure) and formal procedure completions (formelle Verfahrenserledigungen).