No restrictions on the freedom of movement within Germany exist for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. They can travel at any time to any destination within Germany, without having to ask for permission from the authorities, in contrast to the so-called ‘residence obligation’ which applies to asylum applicants during the early stages of the procedure (see Reception Conditions: Freedom of Movement).
However, since August 2016, refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are generally obliged to take up their place of residence within the Federal State in which their asylum procedures have been conducted. This has been regulated by the ‘residence rule’ of Section 12a of the Residence Act.[1]
Further to the obligation to reside in a Federal State, authorities can impose further restrictions and oblige beneficiaries to take up a place of residence in a specific municipality within the Federal State. This obligation is now applied in seven Federal States: Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse, Saarland, Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, with some regional distinctions. For instance, in the Federal State of Saxony, the obligation to live in a particular place is limited to a one-year period, as opposed to the possible three-year period applied in other states.[2] Furthermore, the Federal States of Lower Saxony and Rhineland-Palatinate introduced ‘negative’ regulations according to which refugees can be asked not to move to certain municipalities. This regulation is effective for three towns in Lower Saxony (Salzgitter, Delmenhorst and Wilhemshaven) and one in Rhineland-Palatinate (Pirmasens) which are faced with structural economic difficulties and already house a comparably high number of migrants and refugees. In Rhineland-Palatinate, the ‘negative’ regulation for Pirmasens was lifted in 2021 but reinstated in January 2025. The ‘city-states’ (Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen) and several smaller Federal States (Brandenburg[3], Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia) have not introduced any further restrictions beyond the obligation to take up residence in the respective Federal State.[4]
The obligation to live in a certain Federal State or in a certain municipality remains in force for a maximum period of three years, but it can be lifted for certain reasons e.g., for family-related reasons or for education and employment purposes.
The regulation of Section 12a of the Residence Act only applies to beneficiaries of protection who have been granted a residence permit based on protection status since 1 January 2016. The residence rule shall not apply if a beneficiary of protection (or one of their family members) can take up a job in another place if this job provides for a sufficient income to cover the cost of living. For the lifting of the obligation in case of a job in another place, it is now sufficient that the beneficiaries are able to cover the ‘overwhelming part’ of the cost of living with the income, whereas before beneficiaries had to cover all the living costs.[5] It also has to be lifted, if a beneficiary of protection takes up vocational training or university education in another place. Furthermore, the rule shall not apply if family members (spouses, registered partners or minor children) live in another place.[6] In 2022 the legal framework for the obligatory place of residence has been slightly changed. New exception grounds for the obligation to take up a specific place of residence have been introduced. Accordingly, beneficiaries of international protection may be exempted from the obligation if their participation in an integration course or other qualification measures requires them to move somewhere else.
According to the official explanatory memorandum, the residence rule is supposed to promote sustainable integration by preventing the segregation of communities. However, it has been questioned whether the way in which the provision has been put into effect is suitable for achieving the intended aim.[7] Early analyses already suggested that the measure would affect comparatively few people and was unlikely to have strong regulatory effects on labour and housing markets or on integration outcomes, given that integration processes are difficult to steer by law.[8]
Subsequent evaluations largely confirmed these concerns. Based on the IAB‑BAMF‑SOEP survey, several studies show that refugees subject to the residence rule are less likely to be employed and to live in private housing than comparable groups, while no clear positive effect on language skills or participation in integration courses can be established. An assessment by the Der Paritätische from 2022 and the evaluation commissioned by BAMF published in August 2023 conclude that the obligation to take up residence in specific places tends to prolong stays in collective accommodation, hampers access to the regular housing and labour markets, and can particularly impede protection for victims of violence.[9] A 2024 analysis by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) similarly finds that the residence rule restricts mobility without measurably promoting integration in employment, housing, social ties or language acquisition, while generating a significant administrative burden.[10]
Germany’s NIP for the CEAS reform confirms that the residence obligation (Wohnsitzregelung, § 12a AufenthG) — requiring beneficiaries of international protection to reside in the Federal State where their asylum procedure was conducted for up to three years — remains in place and is not subject to change under the CEAS reform package. Competent authorities retain the additional power to assign BIPs to a specific municipality within that Federal State. No amendments to these provisions were introduced in 2025; the framework applies as described throughout the reporting period.
[1] Not to be confused with the ‘geographical restriction’ or ‘residence obligation’ (Residenzpflicht) as described above. The residence rule is part of the so-called Integration Act of 31 July 2016, Official Gazette I no. 39 (2016) of 5 August 2016, 1939.
[2] Welt.de, ‚Dort wohnen, wo der Staat es will‘, 1 March 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2XiTGZH.
[3] In January 2026, plans to introduce residence requirements were discussed in Brandenburg, but there is no information as to whether they have been adopted. Article available in German here.
[4] Melina Lehrian, Zwei Jahre Wohnsitzregelung nach Artikel 12a AufenthG – Ein Überblick zur Umsetzung der Regelung in den einzelnen Bundesländern. Asylmagazin 12/2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2V7T1rn, 416-423.
[5] GGUA, Änderungen ab 1. June 2022 für Geflüchtete aus der Ukraine mit Aufenthaltserlaubnis nach § 24 AufenthG oder nach Antrag auf § 24 AufenthG, 27 May 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3JwRohS.
[6] Section 12a(5) Residence Act.
[7] Explanatory memorandum, Bundestag Document no. 18/8614, 42-43; Clara Schlotheuber and Sebastian Röder, Integrative (?) Zwangsmaßnahme (!), Die neue Wohnsitzregelung nach § 12a AufenthG, Asylmagazin 11/2016, available in German at: https://shorturl.at/gvDJ5, 364-373; AIDA, Country Report: Germany – Update on 2024, June 2025, available here.
[8] Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB): Wohnsitzauflagen reduzieren die Chancen auf Arbeitsmarktintegration, IAB-Kurzbericht 2/2020, January 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/34rH7wL; Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Die Wohnsitzregelung gem. § 12a AufenthG, April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3jmhNEq.
[9] Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Die Wohnsitzregelung gem. § 12a AufenthG, April 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3jmhNEq; Baba, L., Schmandt, M., Tielkes, C., Weinhardt, F. & Wilbert, K. (2024). Evaluation der Wohnsitzregelung nach § 12a AufenthG (Beiträge zu Migration und Integration, Band 13, 1. aktualisierte Fassung). Nürnberg. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. Available in German here.
[10] Ludger Baba and others, ‘Wohnsitzregelung für Geflüchtete: Kleine Wirkung, großer Aufwand’ (DIW Wochenbericht 20/2024, May 2024), available in German here.