Freedom of movement

Dispersal and geographical restriction

The freedom of movement of asylum applicants is restricted and they have no right to choose their place of residence. According to the Asylum Act, their right to remain on the territory under a permission to stay (Aufenthaltsgestattung) is generally limited to the district of the foreigners’ authority in which the responsible reception centre is located.^[1] This ‘residence obligation’ (Residenzpflicht), legally called ‘geographical restriction’ (räumliche Beschränkung), means that asylum applicants are not allowed to leave that area even for short periods of time without permission of the BAMF, except to attend appointments with the authorities or court hearings where their personal appearance is necessary.[2] However, Federal States have the possibility to extend this geographical restriction to the jurisdiction of other foreigners’ authorities or the area encompassing a whole Federal State, or even to another Federal State, provided that there is agreement between the concerned Federal States.^[3] Asylum applicants in Brandenburg for example have the freedom to move in all of Brandenburg and Berlin.

As long as the residence obligation applies – i.e. during the initial period of the procedure in most cases – the applicant can also request permission to temporary leave the assigned area for urgent public interest reasons, where it is necessary for compelling reasons or where refusal of permission would constitute undue hardship.^[4] As a rule, permission shall also be granted if the asylum applicant intends to take up employment or education in another area. Permission shall be granted without delay in cases where the person has appointments with UNHCR or NGOs.^[5] Next to the residence obligation, freedom of movement is often constrained in practice through the remote location of many reception facilities and the lack of accessible public transport (see below, Obligation to stay in initial reception centres). Violation of the residence obligation might have severe consequences. The administrative Court Lower Saxony-Breme, for example, has decided in 2023 that asylum applicants who leave the district assigned to them by local authorities in order to find sanctuary in a church in a different district are no longer entitled to social benefits for asylum applicants.[6]

The law provides that the geographical restriction shall generally expire after 3 months.^[7] However, this rule is subject to two important derogations:

• The geographical restriction remains in force for persons who have an Obligation to Stay in Initial Reception Centres.^[8] Given that the obligation to stay in these centres has been extended by the 2019 amendment of the Asylum Act, the geographical restriction has also been extended substantially.
• The geographical restriction may be re-imposed if the person has been convicted of a criminal offence or if removal is imminent.^[9]

The place of residence of asylum applicants is usually determined by the Initial Distribution of Asylum Seekers (Erstverteilung der Asylbegehrenden, EASY); a general distribution system whereby places for asylum applicants are at first allocated to the Federal States for the initial reception period. Within that Federal State, they are allocated to a particular municipality, usually the place of the initial reception centre at first and possibly another municipality when the obligation to live in the initial reception centre ends.^[10]

Distribution of asylum applicants to the Federal States is determined by the following aspects:^[11]

• Capacities of initial reception centres;
• Competence of the branch offices of the BAMF for the particular applicant’s country of origin. This means that certain initial reception centres tend to host specific nationalities (see Differential treatment of specific nationalities in reception);
• A quota system called ‘Königsteiner Schlüssel’,^[12] according to which reception capacities are determined for Germany’s 16 Federal States. The Königstein key takes into account the tax revenue (accounting for ²/₃ of the quota) and the number of inhabitants (¹/₃) of each Federal State.

The quota for reception of asylum applicants in 2025 (Königsteiner Schlüssel’) in comparison to number of (first) asylum applications in 2025 was as follows:

Source: BAMF, Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2025, available in German here.

The above table demonstrates that the distribution of applicants was only roughly in line with the ‘Königsteiner Schlüssel’ in 2025. Deviations from the quota can (at least partially) be explained by a flexibility created by inter-Länder agreements and other state (Länder) laws.

It is possible for the asylum applicant to apply to the authorities to be allocated to a particular town or district, but such applications are only successful for compelling reasons (e.g. if a rare medical condition requires that an asylum applicant has to stay close to a particular hospital).^[13] The allocation of the asylum applicant to a particular area is not a formal decision that can be legally challenged by the individual.

The draft CEAS Adjustment Act (GEAS-Anpassungsgesetz), passed by the Bundestag on 27 February 2026 is set to significantly restrict the freedom of movement for refugees and asylum seekers. The Act allows authorities to prohibit individuals from leaving reception centres and newly established secondary migration centres for extended periods, based on a broad assumption of flight risk that applicants must disprove.[14] This presumption applies generally to persons in Dublin proceedings, i.e. while authorities are determining which EU member state is responsible for their asylum procedure. The act introduces new forms of detention, including asylum and return detention at borders, raising concerns about disproportionate interference with fundamental rights.[15] Additionally, the law ties these restrictions to severe cuts in social benefits to pressure individuals into “voluntary” departure. These measures have sparked extensive criticism from human rights organisations for their harshness and for their potential violations of constitutional and EU law provisions.[16] The CEAS Adjustment Act is set to take effect from June 2026. The following chapters continue to lay out the reception conditions under the previous regulations that were in place in 2025.

Obligation to stay in initial reception centres

As a rule, asylum applicants are required to stay in the initial reception centre where they lodged their application for international protection. Initial reception centres can be designated as ‘arrival centres’ (Ankunftszentren), AnkER-centres or as separate institutions, depending on the way reception is organised in the Federal States. Long term stays in these centres used to be the exception. In recent years, however, the obligation to stay there has been regularly extended. While the law initially foresaw a maximum stay of 3 months, the maximum was extended to 6 months in 2015. In 2019, the German legislature extended the maximum by another year – i.e., asylum applicants now may be obliged to stay in initial reception centres for up to 18 months.^[17]

For some groups of asylum applicants, the maximum obligatory stay is even longer:

• Asylum applicants from safe countries of origin have to stay in initial reception centres until their asylum application has been decided upon and – in case of a rejection – until they leave the territory.^[18]
• Since 2019, under certain circumstances, asylum applicants who have failed to cooperate with the authorities have to stay in initial reception centres indefinitely.^[19]
• Federal States are allowed to impose an obligation on applicants to stay in initial reception centres for up to 24 months.^[20] As of November 2021, three Federal States had regulations in place that oblige asylum applicants to stay in initial reception centres for up to 24 months under Section 47(1b) of the Asylum Act (see below).^[21]

However, the obligation to stay in initial reception centres must be limited to the duration of the first instance procedure until a decision by the BAMF and may only be prolonged in case the application is rejected as manifestly unfounded or dismissed as inadmissible.^[22]

Since 2019, the Asylum Act also provides for a maximum stay of 6 months in initial reception centres for families with minor children. This maximum time period applies to all asylum applicants with minor children pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Asylum Act, as well as to families from safe countries of origin pursuant to Section 47(1a) of the Asylum Act. However, it does not explicitly apply to asylum applicants subject to a Federal State regulation, which extends the stay in initial reception centres to 24 months pursuant to Section 47 (1b) Asylum Act. It is argued that – because of the clear legislative intent to protect families with children – the maximum stay of 6 months must apply to these asylum applicants as well.^[23] In practice it seems that this premise is kept since North Rhine-Westphalia as well as Saxony excluded minor children from the prolongation in the regulation, Bavaria also included a more general exclusion clause.^[24]

The maximum stay in initial reception centres which the law provides for is not obligatory for the Federal States. They are entitled to release asylum applicants from these centres and allocate them to other places within the State. In fact, the obligation may be terminated at any time for reasons of public health, for other reasons of public security and order, e.g. to ensure accommodation and distribution, or for other compelling reasons.^[25] Moreover, the obligation has to be terminated if a threat of removal (Abschiebungsandrohung) is enforceable and removal is not possible within a reasonable period of time.^[26] The asylum applicant shall also be released from the initial reception centre if the administrative court granted suspensive effect to their appeal, with the exception of Dublin cases and those already granted international protection in another Member State.^[27]

In Bavaria, the obligation to stay in initial reception centres for up to 24 months had already been introduced in 2017 in three ‘transit centres’ (Manching/Ingolstadt, Regensburg, Deggendorf).^[28] All of these centres were renamed as AnKER centres in 2018, together with the other Bavarian reception centres. The Bavarian Reception Act generally obliges the following groups to stay in reception centres:

• All asylum applicants until the BAMF has decided upon their applications;
• Asylum seekers whose application has been rejected as manifestly unfounded or inadmissible until they leave the country or are deported, but limited to a maximum period of 24 months.

The latest version of the Act also clearly states that this obligation does not apply in cases in which Federal Law provides for a shorter duration of the obligation.^[29]

In 2022, PROASYL and the Refugee Council Berlin published a comprehensive study on reception conditions. Accordingly, the average duration of stay varies not only for the different nationalities but rather due to regional differences.^[30] In Berlin the average duration in initial arrival centres were 6 weeks to 6 months, in North Rhine-Westphalia a few days to six months for families, up to 24 months for single adults. One interviewee stated that in one part of the AnkER centre in Bavaria, which is reserved for people who should be expelled, a man has been living there for 25 years.

Similarly, in Saxony, where three AnkER centres or arrival centres exist, an obligation to stay in reception centres under Section 47(1b) Asylum Act was introduced through the state’s Refugee Reception Act of 11 December 2018 in conjunction with the Saxon Residence Restriction Extension Decree (Sächsische Wohnpflichtverlängerungsverordnung). This obligation affects the following groups of asylum applicants:^[31]

• Asylum applicants from a country of origin with a protection rate lower than 20% until the BAMF has decided upon their applications. The Federal State’s government has published a list of 94 countries of origin which fall under this category.^[32]
• Asylum seekers whose application has been rejected as manifestly unfounded or inadmissible until they leave the country or are deported.

In both cases, the maximum period of stay is 24 months and minor children and their parents are exempt.^[33]

The Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia had extended the obligation to stay in initial reception centres to a maximum of 24 months for those whose application has been rejected as manifestly unfounded or inadmissible. Families and children are exempted from this regulation.^[34] This provision expired on 1 September 2024, so since that date the general federal regulations on the length of stay in reception centres apply.

Finally, the Federal State of Saxony Anhalt made use of Section 47(1b) of the Asylum Act but extended the obligation to 18 months only. Additionally, the State not only exempted families with children, but also single women, persons with severe physical and psychological illnesses, victims of torture and sexual violence, LGBTIQ and asylum applicants who belong to persecuted minorities.^[35] Asylum applicants may leave the premises of the initial reception centres (regardless of whether they are called arrival centres, AnkER-centres or have a different denomination) at any time, subject to no curfew or obligation to stay overnight, but in many centres they have to report to security personnel at the door upon leaving and re-entering. In some AnkER centres such as Regensburg, monitoring of entry and exit is carried out through a bar code card scanned by asylum applicants at the door.^[36] The same is true, for example, for initial reception centres in Brandenburg, like Eisenhüttenstadt and Doberlug-Kirchhain. According to house rules, asylum applicants at these facilities are allowed to leave the premises for a maximum of 48 hours only (not including weekends). In the event of prolonged unannounced absence from the initial reception facility, the person concerned can be deregistered and payment of benefits can be suspended.

In general, people can travel freely within the town and district in which the reception centre is located, although the limited accessibility of certain initial reception centres by public transport raises questions concerning freedom of movement. For example, the authorities provide asylum applicants in the AnkER centres with subsidised public transport tickets. However, residents in accommodation centres attached to AnkER centre (Dependancen) located outside the municipality of the competent AnkER centre – e.g. Schwandorf, located 38km from Regensburg, or Garmisch, located 90km away from Munich – are only provided with public transport tickets to travel to the competent AnkER centre for official appointments such as interviews with the BAMF. Applicants have to cover their own travel costs for any other appointments, including meetings with NGOs or doctors, that are not present in Dependancen. The set-up and location of the Dependancen therefore poses an additional barrier to asylum applicants’ access to essential services.^[37] In most Federal States, applicants need a special permission to travel to other parts of the state or to other parts of Germany (see Residenzpflicht above).

^[1]  Sections 55(1) and 56(1) Asylum Act.

[2] Section 57 (3) and Section 58 (3) Asylum Act.

^[3] Section 58(6) Asylum Act.

^[4] Section 58(1) Asylum Act.

^[5] Section 58(2) Asylum Act.

[6] Infomigrants, Bremen court ruling: Benefits can be cut for migrants receiving church asylum, 13 Decemeber 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4bJIOba.

^[7] Section 59a(1) Asylum Act.

^[8] Section 59a(1) Asylum Act.

^[9] Section 59b(1) Asylum Act.

^[10] BAMF, ‘Initial Distribution of Asylum-Seekers (EASY)’, 2 February 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/48PNzOz.

^[11] Section 46(2) Asylum Act.

^[12] Section 45 Asylum Act.

^[13] Stahlmann in Hofmann, Ausländerrecht §57 AsylG para. 6f., 2016.

[14] PRO ASYL, ‘GEAS-Umsetzung in Deutschland: Mit voller Härte’ (16 September 2025), available here.

[15] Ibid; Amnesty International, ‘Stellungnahme zum Gesetzentwurf zur Anpassung des nationalen Rechts an die Reform des gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems (GEAS-Anpassungsgesetz in der Fassung vom 24.06.2025)’ (08 July 2025), available here.

[16]  Ibid; Annika Fischer‑Uebler, ‘Wenig Freiheit, wenig Schutz: Das GEAS‑Anpassungsgesetz aus grund‑ und menschenrechtlicher Perspektive’ (Verfassungsblog, 4 September 2025), available here; Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, ‘Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Anpassung des nationalen Rechts an die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems (GEAS‑Anpassungsgesetz)’ (July 2025), available here; Annika Fischer-Ueberl, ‘Schlechte Aussichten für Geflüchtete‘ (Verfassungsblog, 13 March 2026), available here.

^[17] Section 47(1) Asylum Act.

^[18] Section 47(1a) Asylum Act.

^[19] Section 47(1) 3rd Sentence Asylum Act.

^[20] Section 47 (1b) Asylum Act.

^[21] Refugee Council North Rhine-Westfalia, Übersicht: Regelungen zum §47 Abs. 1b AsylG, 23 March 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3wopA7n.

^[22]  Section 47(1b) Asylum Act.

^[23] Wiebke Judith, ‚Druck auf die Länder? Lex AnkER im „II. Hau-Ab-Gesetz’ in: Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration (ed), Das Migrationspaket: Beilage zum Asylmagazin 8-9/2019, September 2017, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4aqKg1x, 74.

^[24] Refugee Council North Rhine-Westfalia, Übersicht: Regelungen zum §47 Abs. 1b AsylG, 23 March 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3wopA7n.

^[25] Section 49(2) Asylum Act.

^[26] Section 49 (1) Asylum Act.

^[27] Section 50 (1) Number 1 Asylum Act.

^[28] Bayerischer Flüchtlingsrat, ‘Die Geschichte der ANKER Zentren, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3HE4ho3.

^[29] Section 2(2) Bavarian Reception Act (Aufnahmegesetz), as amended by the Act of 23 December 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2uE71MT.

^[30] PROASYL and Refugee Council Berlin, Das Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz – Einschränkungen des Grundrechts auf ein menschenwürdiges Existenzminimum für Geflüchtete, November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3XrdSox, 269.

^[31] Section 12(3) Saxon Refugee Reception Act (Flüchtlingsaufnahmegesetz), as amended by the Act of 14 December 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2VaJLkY, in conjunction with Section (1) and (2) Saxon Residence Restriction Extension Decree (Wohnpflichtverlängerungsverordnung), as amended by the Act of 20 April 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2Zgcgku.

^[32] Addendum to the Saxon Residence Restriction Extension Decree of 3 May 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2CBBAKl.

^[33] Section 3 Saxon Residence Restriction Extension Decree (Sächsische Wohnpflichtverlängerungsverordnung).

^[34] Section(1) Implementing Act to Section 47(1b) of the Asylum Act, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2BcfuO5.

^[35] Section(1a) Reception Act, as amended by the Act of 14 Febrary 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2YAXTbC.

^[36] ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZ.

^[37] Ibid.