Dublin

General

Germany filed 35,942 outgoing Dublin requests to other Member States in 2025.Out of those, 23,912 cases were accepted, and 5,377 transfers took place in practice.[1] At the same time, Germany received 16,530 requests, accepted 10,512 and 4,865 transfers from other Member States to Germany took place that year.[2] In comparison, in 2024, Germany filed 74,583 outgoing Dublin requests to other Member States.[3] Out of those, 5,827 transfers actually took place.[4] At the same period, Germany received 14,984 incoming requests to receive transferred individuals from other member states, out of which 10,112 cases were accepted, and 4,592 individuals were transferred to Germany.[5]

In 2025, the three main countries to which Germany had sent outgoing requests were Greece (6,518), Italy (6,229) and Croatia (5,311).[6] The previous year, the three main countries to which Germany had sent outgoing requests were Greece (15,453), Croatia (14,068) and Italy (12,841).[7] Most incoming requests for takeovers came from France (4,712), Belgium (2,449) and the Netherlands (2,299) in 2024.[8] Detailed statistics on the legal bases for the requests are available from Eurostat. They might differ slightly from statistics reported at the national level.

Dublin statistics: 2025 (first time requests)

Source: BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen Dezember 2025, available in German here, p. 10 and Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here.

Detailed statistics on the legal bases for the requests are available from Eurostat. They might differ slightly from statistics reported at the national level. To mirror national data, the data on legal bases presented below concerns first requests, rather than total requests which would include re-examination requests.

Source: Eurostat, ‘Outgoing ‘Dublin’ requests by receiving country (PARTNER), type of request, legal provision, sex and type of applicant’, last updated 16 April 2025, available here (consulted on 17 April 2025) and Eurostat, ‘Decisions on outgoing ‘Dublin’ requests by receiving country (PARTNER), type of decision, type of request, legal provision, sex and type of applicant’, last updated 16 April 2025, available here (consulted on 17 April 2025).

Source: Eurostat, ‘Incoming ‘Dublin’ requests by submitting country (PARTNER), type of request, legal provision, sex and type of applicant’, last updated 16 April 2025, available here (consulted on 17 April 2025) and Eurostat, ‘Decisions on incoming ‘Dublin’ requests by submitting country (PARTNER), type of decision, type of request, legal provision, sex and type of applicant’, last updated 16 April 2025, available here (consulted on 17 April 2025).

Application of the Dublin criteria

In 2025, like in previous years, the majority of outgoing Dublin requests was based on so-called ‘Eurodac hits’ (64.1%),[9] similar to previous years (72.3% in 2024, 73.7% in 2023, 68.6% in 2022, 69.9% in 2021 and 71.8% in 2020).^[10] Details on the criteria used for requests are only available for the outgoing requests which were based on ‘Eurodac hits’. In 2025, 23,049 outgoing requests were based on Eurodac, out of which:

• 16,750 were hits under Article 9 of the Eurodac Regulation,
• 4,365were hits under Article 14 Eurodac Regulation, and
• 1,934 under Article 17 Eurodac Regulation[11]

In 2025, Greece filed 1,116 requests for Dublin transfers to Germany, of which 889 were accepted and 806 actually occurred.[12] In comparison, in 2024 229 transfers were recorded, representing around 5% of all transfers to Germany.[13] Both 2024 and 2025 marked a significant increase of transfers from Greece to Germany compared to 167 in 2023 and 212 in 2022. The German government provided the following details on transfers carried out from Greece based on family unity provisions:

Source: Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 24f.

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

In 2025, the sovereignty clause was applied in 645 cases[14] (compared to 1,808 cases in 2024, 574 cases in 2023, 624 cases in 2022, and 665 cases in 2021), resulting in an asylum procedure being carried out in Germany.^[15]

Procedure

The Dublin Regulation is explicitly referred to as a ground for inadmissibility of an asylum application in the Asylum Act.^[16] The examination of whether another state is responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure is an admissibility assessment and as such a part of the regular procedure. Thus, in the legal sense, the term ‘Dublin procedure’ does not refer to a separate procedure in the German context, but merely to the shifting of responsibility for an asylum application within the administration (i.e., takeover of responsibility by the ‘Dublin Units’ of the BAMF). In 2025, Germany established “Dublin Centres”, special reception facilities, run by the responsible Federal States, for applicants with a high likelihood of being subject to a decision/transfer under the Dublin regulation in the towns of Hamburg and Eisenhüttenstadt. The Eisenhüttenstadt center focuses on transfers to Poland and Hamburg on people whose case has been assigned to Hamburg and who are supposed to be transferred to other responsible EU states.[17] These centres provide basic necessities but involve strict residency requirements and limited freedoms for residents, causing mental strain for some individuals in these centers, according to legal experts and human rights groups.[18] Germany opened dedicated Dublin centres in to manage and accelerate transfers of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation. However, according to InfoMigrants, since their inauguration, very few migrants have actually been returned to the EU countries responsible for their asylum claims, highlighting ongoing challenges in implementing Dublin transfers despite the efforts to streamline the process.[19]

Fingerprints are to be taken from all asylum applicants aged six years or older^[20] on the day that the application is registered and are systematically subjected to a Eurodac query for applicants aged 14 years and older, in line with the Eurodac regulation. Eurodac queries are the major ground for the initiation of Dublin procedures. No cases of asylum applicants refusing to be fingerprinted have been reported, only several cases where finger print quality was insufficient to perform a Eurodac search. Lack of quality may resulf from i.e. old age, illness, working with corrosive substances or manipulation of finger tips to render recording them temporarily or permanently impossible (e.g. persons scraping off or etching their fingertips, making fingerprints unrecognisable.)

Only the BAMF is responsible for conducting the Dublin procedure. The Federal Police, the Federal States Police or their respective agencies informs the BAMF if there is evidence or if statements of a third country national apprehended at the border indicate that another Dublin State might be responsible for the procedure. The Dublin procedure is then carried out by the BAMF which can issue a removal order. A possible forced return to the responsible Member State is carried out by the Federal States (Länder) or the Federal Police.^[21] The Federal Police may also ask a court to issue a detention order if there is a considerable risk of ‘absconding’. When this happens, it implies that asylum applicants are not sent to the ‘normal’ reception centres but remain under the authority of the Federal Police for the whole duration of the Dublin procedure for a maximum of six weeks, in line with the Dublin regulation.^[22] Following a ruling by the Federal Court in July 2020 that detention is illegal for refusal of entry in the case of internal border controls, the Federal Police has adapted its practice and only orders detention when there is a ‘heightened risk of absconding’, according to the Federal Government.^[23] In 2023, the Federal Government reported that persons who ask for asylum at the border are ‘in principle’ sent to the responsible initial reception centres,^[24] which would indicate that they are not – at least immediately – detained for the purposes of the Dublin procedure.^[25] For more information on applications at the border and practices of refusal of entry see Access to the territory and push backs.

Since the Mengesteab judgment of the CJEU 2017, the BAMF bases the time limits for issuing a ‘take charge’ or ‘take back’ request on the moment of registration and the issuance of an ‘arrival certificate’, not the moment when the application is lodged. It applies the same interpretation to incoming requests and has often rejected such requests on the basis that the deadlines of the Regulation have been exceeded.^[26]

On average, a Dublin procedure lasted 2.1 months[27] in 2025, compared to 8 months in 2024,[28] 3.1 months in 2023, and 2.3 months in 2022.^[29] In 2025, when Germany took over responsibility after a failed transfer to another Member State, the average duration of the whole asylum procedure until a first instance decision was 18.8 months[30], compared to 13.8 months in 2024,[31]15.2 months in 2023, and 22.1 months in 2022.^[32]

Individualised guarantees

There is no general policy to require guarantees for vulnerable groups, although the Dublin Unit and local authorities make arrangements for the asylum applicants concerned e.g. to ensure the continuation of dialysis treatments, or to ensure separate accommodation of families in cases of domestic violence.^[33] For an analysis of the examination of individualised guarantees and suspension of transfers in relation to specific countries see Suspension of transfers.

Transfers, absconding and ‘church asylum’

Since 2023, self-initiated voluntary transfers are possible. The transfer to the responsible member state can be carried out on the initiative of the asylum applicant in a controlled manner or accompanied. These are carried out in cooperation with immigration authorities and police in compliance with the organisation requirements and the exchange of information with the responsible member state.^[34] According to information provided by the BAMF in February 2026, since 2023, there was a growing number of voluntary (self-initiated) Dublin transfers. In 2023, 199 transfers were completed, with the top five destination countries being the Netherlands (58), Austria (35), France (29), Switzerland (25), and Italy (11). In 2024, the number increased to 248 transfers, primarily to the Netherlands (64), Austria (44), France (34), Switzerland (34), and Belgium (18). In 2025, 269 voluntary transfers were recorded, with most going to the Netherlands (59), France (49), Switzerland (47), Belgium (36), and Austria (23). The BAMF stressed in its information provided to the authors in February 2026 that the statistics on Dublin transfers conducted using coercive measures are not systematically recorded, and at the time of writing, there are no available data on related complaints or legal proceedings. This indicates that while voluntary transfers are tracked in detail, transfers under enforcement remain less transparent in official BAMF reporting.

Asylum applicants subject to transfer under the Dublin III Regulation and issued a deportation order are excluded from receiving asylum benefits if their departure is ‘legally and practically possible’.[35]

In line with the Residence Act,^[36] dates of removals are not previously announced to asylum applicants in Dublin procedures.^[37] The police usually perform unannounced visits to places of residence e.g. reception centres with a view to apprehending the person and proceed to the transfer. Some states foreigners’ authorities seem to deviate from this practice, however, and instructs applicants to come to be at a specific location for their transfer or to be present in their room in the reception centre at a specified time for pick-up by the police, usually between 03:30 and 05:00. If the applicant is not found in their room at that time, the authority deems the person to have ‘absconded’ and informs the BAMF accordingly in order for the extension of the transfer deadline from 6 to 18 months to be ordered under Article 29(2) of the Dublin Regulation.^[38] In August 2021, the Federal Administrative Court stated that a breach to cooperate with authorities does not generally justify the assumption of absconding according to Art. 29 (2) of the Dublin Regulation as long as the authorities are aware of the applicant’s whereabouts and they have an objective possibility of a transfer. Rather, all circumstances of a case have to be taken into account.^[39] Following the ruling, the BAMF has updated its internal guidelines to the effect that if the applicants do not comply with the order to be at a specific location outside the reception centre at a given time, this is not sufficient reason to believe the person has absconded, and hence the extension of the transfer deadline to 18 months cannot be ordered solely on this fact. However, the BAMF does consider that a person absconded if they are not found in the reception centre despite a previous announcement by the authorities.^[40]

The use of excessive force, physical restraints, separation of families, humiliating treatment and sedative medication by police authorities in Dublin transfers were denounced in Berlin and Lower Saxony in 2018.^[41] The practice continues for both Dublin transfers and removal since 2023.^[42] Observations from Bavaria corroborate coercive practices in the enforcement of Dublin transfers, including police raids with dogs in AnkER centres and handcuffing of asylum applicants, including pregnant women.^[43] According to information provided by the BAMF in February 2026, statistics on Dublin transfers conducted using coercive measures are not systematically recorded, and at the time of writing, there are no available data on related complaints or legal proceedings.

Germany’s Federal Cabinet adopted a draft CEAS Adaptation Act in early September 2025 to transpose the EU’s Common European Asylum System into national law, aiming to align German asylum and migration legislation with the new EU framework that becomes applicable in mid‑2026.[44] The initial draft, which has since been passed, the government envisages the establishment of “secondary migration centres”, facilities intended for asylum seekers subject to the Dublin regulation and those granted protection in other Member States, from which they could be transferred or returned to the responsible Member State, potentially with restrictions on freedom of movement as part of efforts to manage secondary movements within the EU.[45]

Transfer rate

In 2025, Germany sent 35,942 outgoing requests to other member states, of which 23,912 were accepted, but only 5,377 transfers took place in practice.[46] In comparison, in 2024, Germany requested transfers in 74,583 cases, and European partner countries approved 44,431 of these. However, only 5,827 transfers were actually carried out.[47] Various factors, such as administrative hurdles, legal challenges, and logistical issues, contribute to this discrepancy between approved and completed transfers.[48] Italy has since 2022 unilaterally withdrawn from the Dublin system. In detail, in the first half of 2024, around 22,000 timely Dublin transfers from Germany to other EU member states failed.[49] The primary reasons included obstacles posed by the receiving member state in approximately 7,900 cases (36%), inaction by the responsible German immigration authorities in 3,044 cases (14%), and the disappearance of the individuals to be transferred in 2,356 cases (11%).[50] In 2024, Italy in practice accepted only three Dublin transfers from Germany, despite having agreed to take back more than 10,000 individuals.[51] On the other hand, in 2024, Germany received 14,984 incoming Dublin requests, of which 10,112 were accepted by German authorities. However, only 4,592 of these cases resulted in actual transfers to Germany.[52]

The inefficiency of the Dublin procedure has sparked heated debate in Germany following a tragic incident in Aschaffenburg in January 2025, where an asylum applicant, who was supposed to have been transferred under the Dublin system, killed two people.[53] This case intensified public and political scrutiny of the asylum process, with political leaders, in the midst of the election campaign, (Federal Government elections in February 2025), calling for stricter controls and faster transfers.[54] Throughout 2025, Germany’s political debate on migration has included calls from politicians across parties—particularly from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU/CSU)—for a tightening of asylum and Dublin policies, including faster Dublin procedures, acceleration of the CEAS reform, and more deportations to quickly transfer so‑called “Dublin cases” to the responsible EU states, as current rules are widely seen as ineffective and have come under intensified scrutiny following high‑profile incidents such as the Aschaffenburg attack.[55]

Church asylum

Following an initial agreement between the BAMF and high-ranking members of the Protestant and Catholic church in Germany in 2015, the central points of contact from the churches can submit a dossier providing meaningful information about individual hardship as ultima ratio to the BAMF and the BAMF will reconsider the case in justified exceptional cases to avoid humanitarian hardship.^[56] Church asylum is not a legal institution, but is respected as an expression of a Christian-humanitarian tradition. During the examining of the dossier by the BAMF, the immigration authorities generally refrain to transfer as long as the people concerned are staying in the church. If BAMF rejects a hardship case after reviewing a dossier the asylum applicant is legally obliged to leave the country. In cases in which the church’s dossier is followed, the BAMF applies a discretionary clause in accordance with Art. 17 (1) Dublin III Regulation and initiates the national procedure. In cases in which the church’s dossier is not followed, the BAMF informs the church representative of the negative decision with the aim of the responsible parish releasing the person from church asylum within 3 days after the announcement of the negative decision. Being subject to church asylum does not affect the original transfer deadline if the actual whereabouts are known.

The current BAMF practice dates from January 2021, when the BAMF clarified that persons in ‘open church asylum’ where their whereabouts are known are not considered to be absconding.^[57] The change followed an update in the guidelines in 2018 which extended the grounds on which absconding could be assumed, and a ruling by the Federal Administrative Court in 2020 that a person receiving church asylum whose whereabouts are reported to the BAMF cannot be considered as ‘absconding’ from the Dublin procedure (for more information see the 2022 Update to the AIDA Country Report for Germany).^[58] This led to an increase in reported cases: in 2022, a total of 1,243 cases of ‘church asylum’ in the context of a Dublin procedure were reported to the BAMF, up from 822 cases in 2021 and 335 in 2020.^[59] In 2023, 2,065 such cases were reported^[60] and 2,386 in 2024, showing a continuous rise of such cases.[61] In 2024, out of them only 39 cases did not have a Dublin procedure connection.[62] In the same year, the BAMF decided in one case to apply the sovereignty clause of the Dublin regulation and to conduct the asylum procedure in Germany,[63] compared to nine cases in 2023.^[64] As of November 2025, there were 1.673 active cases of church asylum in Germany including 2.139 people.[65] A large majority of these cases involve asylum seekers subject to the Dublin regulation.[66]

The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees attributes the decline to its own identification of “genuine hardship cases”. According to the agency’s assessment, most reported cases of church asylum did not qualify as hardship cases based on its evaluation.[67] Even after rejections, most individuals did not leave church asylum. In 2023, only 1% left after a negative decision, while in 2024, none did.[68] No data is available for 2025. However, according to church activists in North Rhine Westphalia, almost all cases of church asylum are successful in that they lead to the ‘intended goal’, presumably the avoidance of a Dublin transfer or removal.^[69] Between January and September 2023, Germany became responsible for the asylum applications of persons in church asylum in 1,676 cases (however it cannot be established in how many of these cases this was a direct result of the granting of church asylum).^[70]

According to church activists, demand rose over the course of 2022, with far more requests than the participating churches can accommodate.^[71] Church asylum was challenged by prosecution authorities in Bavaria in recent years, leading to criminal charges against persons providing this type of shelter. The Bavarian High Court ruled on 25 February 2022 that granting shelter and food to persons obliged to leave Germany cannot be considered a criminal offence if the agreement on church asylum is followed. The court further found that there is no obligation on the host to actively end church asylum when the stay in unauthorised.^[72] In 2023 and 2024, several breaches of church asylum in Germany were reported, mostly related to Dublin transfers, including forced removals in Viersen, Schwerin, Hamburg, Rhineland-Palatinate, and Bremen; some transfers were halted due to protests or intervention, while others proceeded, drawing criticism from churches.[73]

In 2025, no individual was removed from church asylum in Germany, according to a survey across the Federal States.[74] The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) reported that between January and November 2025, a total of 2,139 people were staying in church asylum.[75] While media reports earlier in the year, mentioned an Afghan individual being transferred to Sweden under Dublin rules after seeking church asylum in Berlin, the individual was reportedly arrested outside church premises, not within the sanctuary itself.[76]

At the same time, some churches highlighted a decline in new church asylum cases but raised concerns over increasing political pressure and restrictive practices.[77] These reports indicate ongoing forced removals from churches and deportations of vulnerable individuals, including well-integrated persons, reflecting growing tensions between authorities and church-based measures.[78]

Withdrawal of benefits and detention

‘Absconding’ from the Dublin procedure also has repercussions on Reduction or withdrawal of reception conditions, in that when the failure to transfer a person can be attributed to their behaviour, they are only entitled to reduced benefits.^[79] In cases of church asylum, according to a ruling by the administrative court of Bremen, persons who leave the district assigned to them by local authorities in order to find sanctuary in a church are no longer entitled to social benefits for asylum applicants.^[80] Absconding can also constitute a ground for ordering Detention.^[81]

Moreover, in 2024, there were significant changes in Germany’s law for individuals whose case was deemed inadmissible under the Dublin system regarding social benefits (see Reception conditions – Reduction of withdrawal of reception conditions). The changes, which took effect on October 31, 2024, amended the Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz (Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Law), introducing stricter provisions for asylum applicants whose cases are governed by the Dublin Regulation.[82]

Under the new law, asylum seekers whose applications are deemed inadmissible can face complete cuts of their benefits. Previously, a reduction in benefits was possible in such cases, but this provision has now been removed. The law primarily affects asylum seekers who are required to leave Germany and who have not received a toleration permit.[83] The newly added provision specifies that this exclusion from regular benefits applies in particular to two categories of persons: first, individuals who have already been granted international protection by another EU Member State or a participating third country and whose protection status continues to exist; and second, individuals whose asylum application has been declared inadmissible by the BAMF, for whom a deportation order has been issued under the Dublin procedure and whose departure is deemed legally and factually possible, even if the decision is not yet final. [84] Persons falling under this provision have no entitlement to benefits under the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act and may receive only limited “bridging assistance” until departure, for a maximum of two weeks and only once within a two-year period.[85] These bridging benefits are restricted to in-kind provision covering basic subsistence and essential medical care, exclude cash payments, and may be extended or supplemented only in exceptional hardship cases, with additional provisions allowing for the coverage of reasonable return travel costs, in principle as a loan.[86] While the Flüchtlingsrat NRW warns that after the two week period, those affected potentially face homelessness and hardship,[87] the BAMF contradicts this stating that after the two weeks period, due to the hardship regulation, it is ensured that the basic needs for accommodation, food and medical care will be met.[88]

Travel expenses to the member state where an asylum application is pending are also covered.[89] This new situation has prompted legal challenges, with asylum seekers urged to file objections, emergency applications, and lawsuits against the cuts.[90] The Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen (Refugee Council of Lower Saxony) argues that the law violates both the German constitution, which guarantees the right to a dignified existence, and EU law, specifically the EU Reception Conditions Directive, which ensures that asylum seekers are entitled to material assistance and medical care.[91] Some social courts have already raised doubts about the law’s compatibility with EU regulations, suggesting that the cuts may be unlawful.[92] In April 2025, the Hamburg Social Court clarified in two interim proceedings that the exclusion of benefits is unlawful as long as voluntary departure is not in fact realistically possible in the near future (S 7 AY 196/25 ER and S 5 AY 195/25 ER).[93] Despite this, according to the organization Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, affected persons in Hamburg continue to receive only significantly reduced, discretionary benefits, and the authorities do not assess in advance whether timely voluntary departure is actually feasible.[94] Following the Hamburg rulings, numerous courts have issued similar decisions granting applicants full benefits[95], including the Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony–Bremen, which confirmed this approach in its decision of 13 June 2025 (L 8 AY 12/25 B ER).[96] Also on the international level, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) issued an interim measure requiring German authorities to provide basic housing, healthcare, and minimum subsistence support to individuals who had been denied all benefits under the expanded exclusion rule in §1(4) AsylbLG following an inadmissibility decision due to Dublin in autumn of 2025.[97] The decision marks the first individual complaint from Germany to the UN Social Committee on this issue and underscores serious concerns about the practical and legal effects of the AsylbLG exclusion on access to essential support.[98]

Transfer detention under the Dublin procedure must occur in special detention facilities, separate from criminal inmates, meeting the requirements of Article 28(4) D-III-VO and the Reception Directive.[99] The detention order is based on a request from the immigration authorities of the Federal States or the Federal Police, followed by a court hearing.[100] A complaint can be filed against the detention order within a specified period. In practice, the detention court does not review the legality of the Dublin procedure unless there is a successful urgent application before the administrative court[101] (for detailed information, see Chapter on Detention).

Practices as to detention before and during the Dublin procedure vary among the Federal States. Not all Federal States differentiate between Dublin transfers and removals to countries of origin in their detention statistics. Among those which do collect and segregate the data, between 1.5% and 50% of all Dublin transfers involved a form of detention in 2020.^[102] If asylum applicants have already accessed the regular procedure, they must not be detained for the duration of the procedure. However, detention may be imposed once an application has been rejected as ‘inadmissible’ because another country was found to be responsible for the asylum procedure, there is a risk of absconding, and the removal order issued as a result of the inadmissibility decision becomes enforceable.

In this case, the legal basis for ordering and prolongation of detention is the same as for other forms of detention pending removal. This implies that certain preconditions for the lawfulness of detention have to be fulfilled: in particular, any placing into custody under these circumstances should generally be ordered in advance by a judge, since it does not constitute a provisional arrest which may be authorised by a court at a later stage. However, a judge should generally not issue a detention order until the formal request to leave Germany – usually a part of the rejection of the asylum application – has been handed out to the person concerned and if sufficient grounds for detention exist. However, it has been alleged that the authorities often order detention even if these conditions are not met (in the same manner as in other cases of detention pending removal, see Alternatives to detention).

 Personal interview

There is no consistent practice regarding the timing of interviews in Dublin procedures. For the authorities a Dublin procedure means that responsibilities are transferred to the ‘Dublin units’ of the BAMF, which may happen at various stages of the procedure. In practice, the Dublin and regular procedure are carried out simultaneously. The personal hearing in the framework of the Dublin procedure is to be conducted, if possible, immediately after the registration of the asylum application, during which a first interview is conducted to establish the basic facts of a case in relation to the possible responsibility of another Member State to carry out the asylum procedure. In many cases, however, the personal interview is conducted a few days after the registration, sometimes even later and when the BAMF has already received a reply from the Member State to which it has sent a take charge or take back request, but in any case before a decision of inadmissibility is issued, unless the interview can be waived in accordance with Art. 5 (2) of the Dublin regulation.^[103]

In this Dublin interview, applicants should be given an opportunity to provide possible reasons why a removal to another Dublin state could be impeded (e.g. existence of relatives in Germany). According to BAMF internal guidelines of December 2022, even if there are reasons to believe that another Member State might be responsible, the BAMF case officer is to conduct a personal interview related to the grounds for asylum (see Regular procedure – Personal interview) after the ‘Dublin interview’ to increase efficiency of the procedure.^[104] In this context it has been noted that questions on the travel routes of asylum applicants may take up a considerable part of the interview, which, when both interviews are conducted on the same day, risk result in a shifting of focus away from the core issues of the personal interview due to time constraints.

Whereas before the outbreak of Covid-19, a face-to-face interview was mandatory for the admissibility interview,^[105] the reform of the Asylum Act through Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures,^[106] which entered into force on 1 January 2023 introduced the possibility to conduct video interviews, including for Dublin interviews (see Personal interview). Even before, this possibility had been introduced for Dublin interviews as of July 2021.^[107] In 2023, 715 video interviews were conducted (see Regular procedure – Personal interview). It is not possible to say how many of these were purely related to admissibility according to the Dublin regulation, however.

Appeal

Dublin decisions are inadmissibility decisions under Section 29 of the Asylum Act.

It is possible to lodge an appeal against a Dublin decision before an Administrative Court within 1 week of notification. This appeal has no automatic suspensive effect; suspensive effect can be restored only upon request to the court. Once an application to restore suspensive effect has been filed, the transfer to another Member State cannot take place until the court has decided on this request. The transfer can be executed only if the applicant misses the deadline or if the court rejects the application for suspensive effect. As of 1 January 2023, following the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures,^[108] courts have discretion on whether to hold personal hearings if the applicant is represented by a lawyer. However, a hearing must take place if the applicant requests so.^[109]

Material requirements for a successful appeal remain difficult to fulfil and the way these requirements must be defined in detail remains a highly controversial issue. For example, administrative courts in the Federal States continue to render diverging decisions regarding whether problems in the different Member States’ asylum systems amount to ‘systemic deficiencies’ or not (see Suspension of transfers).

In addition, serious practical difficulties result from the 7-day time limit for the necessary application to the court. This short deadline is often difficult to meet for asylum applicants since the parallel application for suspensive effect must be fully substantiated. To prepare such an application requires expert knowledge of the asylum law, but in the absence of systematic legal counselling asylum applicants regularly have to turn to a lawyer or to refugee counsellors for assistance. However, it might prove impossible for asylum applicants to make an appointment with lawyers or counsellors within the short timeframe. Even if they manage to contact a lawyer, it is still very difficult to produce a sufficiently substantiated application at such short notice. Therefore, it has been argued that the one-week period, although being an improvement compared to the previous situation, still does not provide for an effective remedy and might constitute a violation of the German Constitution.^[110]

In May 2017, the Federal Constitutional Court established some general standards for the appeal procedure in Dublin cases and cases of removals of people who have been granted protection status in a third country. With regard to the case at hand, where the Administrative Court had rejected an application to restore suspensive effect of an appeal against a removal to Greece, the Court stated that the reception conditions in another country have to be assessed on a factual basis which is ‘reliable and sufficient, also concerning the amount [of available information].’ This is necessary, in any case, if there were grounds to assume that inhuman or degrading treatment might take place following a removal. If sufficient information on the factual situation in another country was not available, suspensive effect of the appeal should be granted. In line with the general principle of judicial independence, the Constitutional Court did not define which kind of information was necessary to clarify the factual situation. It only pointed to the general obligation for authorities and courts to obtain information about conditions in other countries and to obtain individual guarantees, if necessary.^[111]

The following table illustrates the number of court decisions on requests for urgent legal protection i.e. requests to restore suspensive effect of appeals in Dublin cases in 2024. A decision to grant an interim measure does not necessarily mean that the court suspended a transfer because of serious individual risks or because of systemic deficiencies in another Dublin state. In many cases, interim measures can also be granted for formal or technical reasons (expiry of time-limits, formal errors in the authorities’ decision etc.).

Source:. Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 19.

Legal assistance

There are no specific regulations for legal assistance in Dublin procedures; therefore, the information given in relation to the section on Legal assistance applies equally to the Dublin procedure.

It is possible to apply for legal aid for the appeal procedure. However, because of time constraints and because many of these cases are likely to fail the ‘merits test’, it is unusual for legal aid to be granted, with the possible exception of cases concerning certain Dublin countries such as Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, in which chances of success have to be rated higher due to the conflicting case law.^[112]

Suspension of transfers

Suspension of transfers and individualised guarantees for specific Member States

Bulgaria: In 2025, several administrative courts in Germany addressed Dublin transfers to Bulgaria with varying outcomes. The Administrative Court Würzburg, for example prevented with its decision of 13 January 2025, an Armenian mother and her disabled daughter from being removed to Bulgaria. The applicants had challenged the BAMF’s order to transfer them to Bulgaria.[113] The court found that Bulgaria’s asylum and reception system contained systemic deficiencies for highly vulnerable individuals, including inadequate medical care, poor living conditions, and lack of protection mechanisms.[114] These deficiencies created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Art. 3 ECHR and Art. 4 EU Charter, justifying Germany’s assumption of responsibility for examining their asylum claims.[115] Similarly, the Administrative Court Düsseldorf prevented the transfer of an Armenian man in a wheelchair to Bulgaria due to serious health conditions requiring treatment unavailable there.[116] Both decisions emphasized that Dublin transfers can be blocked when systemic shortcomings in the receiving country expose highly vulnerable persons to risks of extreme material deprivation or threats to human dignity, even if general economic hardship alone would not suffice. On the other hand, in three publicly available decisions, administrative courts held that transfers could proceed when the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment was not sufficiently high. The Administrative Court Saarland in a case pertaining to a family with minor children concluded that the living conditions and childcare options did not amount to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and the family could be transferred to Bulgaria.[117] Similarly, the Administrative Court Cologne held in May 2025 that a family seeking international protection in Germany could not prevent their transfer, with the court noting that while Bulgaria’s asylum system was imperfect, it did not create a real risk of violations of fundamental rights.[118] Finally, the Higher Administrative Court Baden-Württemberg upheld a removal order, as the court found no systemic deficiencies in Bulgaria sufficient to trigger protection.[119] The Bavarian Refugee Council, a local NGO, reported about a dramatic case relating to a transfer to Bulgaria unfolding in spring of 2025. A seriously ill Syrian woman in her 60s with cancer was deported from Germany to Bulgaria on March 26, 2025, despite her medical condition and family ties to Germany, where her two sons live and one works as a doctor who had pledged to cover all her medical costs.[120] After a court in Würzburg ruled on April 7 that she should be allowed to return, her repatriation became impossible because the Central Foreigners Authority had retained her Syrian passport during the deportation—a critical error that prevents the German embassy in Sofia from issuing the necessary visa for her return.[121] Weeks later, she remained stranded in Bulgaria in deteriorating health, urgently needing tumor surgery and authorities have failed to respond to repeated requests to return the passport or provide assistance.[122]

Croatia: Several administrative courts have halted Dublin transfers to Croatia, referring to illegal pushbacks of asylum seekers to Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia and police violence against asylum seekers, while other courts saw no danger of pushback for returnees from Germany (for an overview see tables above and below). One example for the former stance is the Administrative Court of Munich decision of February 2024.[123] Here, the Court addressed the case of asylum seekers, primarily from Türkiye, facing deportation under the Dublin procedure. The court found that due to systemic issues in Croatia, including police violence and the lack of effective legal recourse for asylum seekers, deporting the applicants to Croatia would violate their rights under EU law and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court annulled the German authorities’ decision and emphasised the risks of “chain deportations” to Bosnia-Herzegovina.[124] In contrary to this 2024 decision, the Administrative Court Munich rejected in February 2025 an Afghan asylum seeker’s request to block his transfer to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation.[125] The court confirmed Croatia as the responsible Member State based on a EURODAC “Category 1” hit and found the transfer legally permissible. Although noting potential systemic weaknesses in Croatia’s asylum system, the court held they did not create a concrete risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Art. 4 EU Charter for this applicant.[126] The decision emphasized that Croatian reception centers provide basic housing, medical care, and support for vulnerable persons, and the removal order was upheld.[127]

With a total of 189 transfers compared to 10,576 outgoing requests and 9,544 cases accepted by Croatia until August 2023, the ratio of transfers to requests was much lower than the average of all member states. The number of outgoing requests almost doubled in 2023 compared to 2022 (4,657 outgoing requests until August, compared to 4,657 for the whole of 2022).^[128] The discrepancy between outgoing requests and actual transfers persisted in 2025. Germany issued 5,311 transfer requests to Croatia under the Dublin Regulation, while carrying out 572 transfers to Croatia, representing 10.6% of all German Dublin transfers that year. Although this reflects a slight increase in the absolute number of transfers compared to previous years, the ratio of transfers to requests remains comparatively low, confirming the continued gap between formal responsibility allocation and effective implementation.[129]

At the same time, judicial practice in Dublin cases concerning Croatia remained significant. In 2025, German courts decided 952 interim relief applications related to Croatia, granting suspensive effect in 156 cases and rejecting 796 applications. While refusals clearly predominate, the number of successful applications indicates ongoing legal challenges to transfers.[130]

Hungary: Developments in 2025 confirm that transfers to Hungary remain largely negligible in practice despite the continued use of the Dublin procedure. Germany submitted 415 transfer requests to Hungary, yet only 2 transfers were effectively carried out. This extremely low implementation rate further underscores the persistent gap between formal responsibility allocation and actual transfers[131]. According to information provided by the BAMF in 2018, any Dublin request to the Hungarian authorities is accompanied by a request of individualised guarantees, i.e. that Dublin returnees will be treated in accordance with the Reception Conditions Directive and the APD.^[132] It is established jurisprudence, however, that admissibility decisions and removals regarding Hungary are unlawful due to the lack of access to the national asylum system in Hungary^[133] (see table below for other decisions suspending transfers to Hungary). The German government informed Parliament in March 2019 that no individual guarantees had been provided by the Hungarian authorities. Hence, it can be concluded that the policy of seeking individual guarantees have led to a standstill in transfers to Hungary in practice. However, this has not led to a formal suspension of transfers or to a change of policy: German authorities continue to submit take charge requests to their Hungarian counterparts and to send requests to Hungary also in 2023.^[134] Whereas no Dublin transfers to Hungary took place between 11 April 2017 and the end of 2020,^[135] one person was transferred to Hungary in 2021, with an individualised guarantee issued by the Hungarian authorities.^[136] 8 transfers took place in 2022,^[137] and 6 in 2023.^[138] In 2024, Hungary received 363 transfer requests under the Dublin Regulation, resulting in only 3 actual transfers, which accounts for just 0.1% of all transfers conducted within the Dublin framework.[139] No further information is available on these cases and it is unclear whether this presents a general change in practice on the side of either the German or the Hungarian authorities. Several court decisions halting transfers to Hungary in 2022 and 2023 (see table below) indicate that the BAMF is again ordering transfers to Hungary at least in some cases. The Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, in its decision of May 15, 2024 (22 L 764/24.A), concluded that no systemic weaknesses exist in Hungary’s asylum system or reception conditions for healthy, employable individuals during the asylum process or after being granted international protection.[140] This decision emphasised that, based on the circumstances at the time, there is no evidence suggesting a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for such individuals in Hungary, allowing for the continued application of the Dublin procedure in this context.[141]

Greece: A formal suspension of transfers to Greece, which had been in place for several years, ended in March 2017.^[142] In 2022 and 2021, Germany sent a comparably high number of take charge requests to Greece (9,166 in 2022, or 13.3% of all outgoing requests in 2022, 10,427 or 24.6% of all outgoing requests in 2021).^[143] In 2024, Greece received 15,453 transfer requests under the Dublin Regulation from Germany, which constitutes 20.7% of all transfer requests Germany made to other Member States. However, only 22 actual transfers were carried out to Greece in the same year.[144] Compared to previous years, the number of transfers indicates a relatively sharp increase of transfers in 2024. Only 3 transfers were carried out in 2023 , none in 2022, only one in 2021 and 4 in 2020 (compared to 20 in 2019).^[145] While the number of requests seems to be similar in 2023 with 5,523 outgoing requests sent, they represented only 7.4% of all outgoing requests.^[146] The government asserts that vulnerable people are not being transferred since Dublin transfers have been taken up again in March 2017, and that individualised guarantees are sought for every case regarding reception, accommodation and the asylum procedure.^[147] In 2022, no such individualised guarantees were issued according to the Federal Government.^[148] Upon a freedom of information request, PRO ASYL obtained a letter by the BAMF dated to February 2024 according to which since 31 January 2024, people from Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan and Bangladesh are to be deported back to Greece as part of the Dublin procedure if there is a EURODAC hit from Greece. The BAMF stated that Greece is accepting returns of people from these countries of origin and will individually guarantee their human rights-compliant accommodation. It has also instructed the Federal States to treat transfers to Greece from the mentioned nationalities with priority. ^[149] Courts like the administrative court Ansbach confirmed this approach in a case where it addressed an appeal by “a young, healthy, and employable Palestinian man from Gaza”, seeking to suspend his deportation to Greece.[150] The court concluded that, based on available evidence in August 2024, there were no systemic deficiencies in Greece’s asylum system that would expose the applicant to inhuman or degrading treatment. Therefore, the application was deemed inadmissible, and no serious doubt existed regarding the lawfulness of the deportation under the Dublin procedure.[151]

In October 2019, the Federal Constitutional Court defined some important standards concerning transfers of persons who have applied for international protection in Greece, ruling that it is necessary to consider the situation of an asylum applicant in Greece not only during the asylum procedure, but also after the possible granting of protection status. The Constitutional Court in the present case saw ‘concrete indications’ that persons with protection status might be at risk of treatment which might violate Article 4 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In line with the CJEU’s ruling in the case of Jawo,^[152] the court held that authorities and courts in Germany had to examine this point when deciding about the possibility of a transfer.^[153] In 2023, five out of ten applications for legal protection in German courts against a transfer to Greece were successful.[154] In 2025, German administrative courts issued 46 publicly available decisions concerning Dublin transfers to Greece.[155] The vast majority of these cases resulted in successful challenges by the person concerned. In 40 out of the 46 cases, the appeal to the administrative courts was successful. Most successful claims involved applicants with recognized protection status, particularly vulnerable groups such as women, minors, or individuals with serious health conditions or psychological disorders.[156] Courts repeatedly highlighted risks of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the EU Charter, often linked to inadequate reception conditions, homelessness, or lack of access to the labour market in Greece.[157] Only a small number of cases—around five to six—were unsuccessful, typically involving healthy, adult, male applicants for whom no concrete risk of ill-treatment could be established.[158] These 2025 decisions demonstrate a clear judicial tendency to grant suspensive effect or block transfers when systemic or individualized protection concerns in Greece are substantiated, especially for vulnerable populations.

For transfers of persons who have received a protection status in Greece, see Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State.

Italy: Since 2019, the BAMF has systematically issued Dublin transfer requests to Italy, including for vulnerable persons, after ending its previous policy of requiring individual guarantees for families with young children.^[159] Despite Italy’s December 2022 letter announcing a suspension of incoming transfers to Italy citing a lack of reception capacity, Germany continued issuing requests for transfers though most were not accepted.^[160] In 2023 only 11 of 15,479 requests were realized, mostly voluntary^[161], and in 2024 only 3 of 12,841. Courts have issued conflicting rulings: while the Higher Administrative Court of NRW saw Italy’s capacity issues as systemic deficiencies making transfers unlawful, the Federal Administrative Court rejected this in October 2023. The Federal Constitutional Court and CJEU case law require courts to rely on reliable, up-to-date information, considering risks such as homelessness or systemic asylum deficiencies. Overall, jurisprudence on transfers to Italy remains inconsistent, with courts diverging on whether systemic deficiencies exist or individual guarantees are needed^[162], and assessments differ on the impact of Italy’s government changes.^[163]

Over the last years, courts continue to render diverging decisions on the issue of whether problems in the Italian asylum system amount to ‘systemic deficiencies’ or not, or whether the situation of Dublin returnees in Italy calls for individualised guarantees or not. Jurisprudence regarding transfers to Italy has remained inconsistent as of 2026.^[164] Separately, the ECJ ruled that Italy’s cannot discharge itself of its responsibilities under the Dublin Regulation by unilaterally stopping transfers based on a self-declared ‘state of emergency’. [165]

A decision by the higher Administrative Court of Schleswig-Holstein found no systemic deficiencies, even for vulnerable applicants, in January 2024.[166] The Administrative Court of Munich (VG München) confirmed this approach in a case involving a Syrian asylum applicant who challenged his transfer to Italy under the Dublin Regulation in September 2024.[167] The court upheld the German authorities’ decision, confirming that Italy was responsible for processing the asylum claim, based on the Dublin III Regulation, which determines the member state responsible for asylum applications. The court dismissed the claim, stating that there were no systemic deficiencies in Italy’s asylum process. Although Italy had suspended the acceptance of Dublin transfers in December 2022, the court did not consider this an insurmountable issue in this case. It emphasised that the asylum seeker would not face a “refugee in orbit” situation—where a person remains in limbo without a clear country of responsibility—since the case did not present exceptional circumstances requiring a different legal approach. Regarding the decision on deportation to Italy, the court confirmed that, even with the potential difficulties in implementing the transfer due to Italy’s suspensions, the legal order for deportation was not invalid. The ruling also addressed procedural concerns, noting that the usual legal process for challenging the deportation was still applicable despite Italy’s temporary suspension of Dublin transfers. In a similar case decided on May 29, 2024, the Administrative Court Berlin had likewise concluded that the lack of Italy’s willingness to accept transfers under the Dublin procedure does not constitute systemic deficiencies.[168] The court upheld the principle that such a situation does not justify an automatic suspension of Dublin transfers. In 2025, German administrative courts continued to issue mixed rulings on Dublin transfers to Italy. Of the eight publicly available cases on this issue, four were successful in blocking transfers[169], often involving applicants willing to return voluntarily or cases invoking procedural irregularities.[170] The unsuccessful cases generally concerned non-vulnerable applicants where no concrete risk of inhuman or degrading treatment could be established.[171] Overall, the decisions illustrate the ongoing tension between the BAMF’s systematic issuance of Dublin transfer requests to Italy and courts’ scrutiny of conditions on the ground, including reception standards and potential systemic deficiencies.

Poland: The jurisprudence on the suspensive effect of Dublin cases in relation to Poland has varied in past years. Some courts, like the VG Hannover in October 2022, granted suspensive effect, citing concerns about inhumane or degrading treatment, especially regarding detention conditions in Polish facilities.[172] However, other courts, such as the VG Berlin (2023)[173] and VG Chemnitz (2023)[174], denied suspensive effect, noting improvements in conditions and emphasizing that Dublin returnees were not systematically detained.[175] In contrast, the VG Minden (August 2023) ruled in favour of suspensive effect, citing systemic issues in Poland’s treatment of children and families, including overcrowding and inadequate conditions.[176] In its 15 October 2025 decision the Administrative Court Hannover, (15 A 5036/24), blocked a planned Dublin transfer to Poland, emphasizing systemic deficiencies in the Polish asylum system.[177] It found that the applicant would likely be denied meaningful access to the asylum procedure, in part due to Poland’s strict nine-month rule for Dublin returnees, widespread pushbacks at the Belarus border, and the denial of registration for asylum seekers arriving irregularly.[178] The court highlighted documented reports of violence, inadequate reception conditions, and restricted access to legal assistance, concluding that these structural shortcomings create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and render the transfer incompatible with non-refoulement obligations under both the ECHR and EU law.[179]

A detailed analysis of case law on this issue, which consists of hundreds of decisions, is not possible within the scope of this report. By way of illustration, recent decisions concerning transfers of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection to selected Member States are listed below:

Source: Publicly available caselaw databases. See also the database of asyl.net.

In other cases, courts have stopped short of discussing these basic questions and have stopped transfers on individual grounds e.g., lack of adequate medical treatment for a rare disease in the Member State.

For information about suspensions of transfers of beneficiaries of international protection, please see Suspension of returns for BIPs in another Member State.

The situation of Dublin returnees

Germany received 5,827 transfers in 2024, compared to lower numbers in previous years.[180] In 2023, the number of transfers from other member States to Germany stood at 4,275 transfers^[181] compared to 3,700 in 2022, 4,274 in 2021, 4,369 in 2020 and 6,087 in 2019. Dublin transfers are usually carried out individually through commercial flights.

In 2024, the highest number of incoming requests for transfers came from France (4,712), Belgium (2, 449), and the Netherlands (2,299).[182] Per the national dispersal rules, if persons are transferred to Germany based on family unity provisions, upon arrival they are sent to the place where their relatives are staying and local authorities provide them with accommodation and other related reception services.

There have been no reports of Dublin returnees facing difficulties in re-accessing an asylum procedure or facing any other problems after having been transferred to Germany. There is no uniform procedure for the reception and further treatment of Dublin returnees. If they had already applied for asylum in Germany, they are usually obliged to return to the region to which they had been assigned during the former asylum procedure in Germany. If their application had already been rejected by a final decision, it is possible for them to be placed in pre-removal detention upon return to Germany.^[183]

[1] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen Dezember 2025, available in German here, p. 10.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

[4] Ibid., 10.

[5] Ibid., 37.

[6] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 5.

[7] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 37.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 4.

^[10] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 4. Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU/CSU, 20/10869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 2, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 3; 20/861, 24 February 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/41vdo3r, 2; 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 3.

[11] Ibid

[12] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 18.

[13] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 37.

[14] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 5.

^[15] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9067, 2 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T30yHd, 11-12,; 20/861, 24 February 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/41vdo3r, 10; 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 9.

^[16] Section 29(1) Asylum Act.

[17] Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat (BMI), ‘Dublin‑Center: Deutschland richtet erste Stellen zur beschleunigten Bearbeitung von Dublin‑Fällen ein’ (28 February 2025) https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/kurzmeldungen/DE/2025/02/dublin-center.html.

[18] InfoMigrants, ‘Germany’s Dublin centres cause mental stress and anxiety, experts say’ (27 October 2025) https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/67331/germanys-dublin-centers-cause-mental-stress-and-anxiety-experts-say.

[19] InfoMigrants, ‘Germany: Few migrants sent to other EU countries since inauguration of Dublin centres’ (17 January 2025) https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/66695/germany-few-migrants-sent-to-other-eu-countries-since-inauguration-of-dublin-centers.

^[20] See Section 16(1) Asylum Act; Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5674, 15 February 2023 available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ORuTGl, 32.

^[21] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 18/13428, 18 August 2017, 23-24.

^[22] Article 28 Regulation (EU) 604/2013.

^[23] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 50-51. The Federal Court decision is available in German at: https://bit.ly/3rfbXV9.

^[24] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5674, 15 February 2023 available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ORuTGl,32.

^[25] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5674, 15 February 2023 available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ORuTGl, 32.

^[26] BAMF, Entscheiderbrief (newsletter for decision-makers) 9/2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T5G2FH, 5-6; Diakonie Deutschland, Family reunification in Germany under the Dublin III Regulation. Entitlement – Procedure – Practical tips English translation of 2nd edition, 2022, available at https://bit.ly/3R6TB6J, 8. See also AIDA, Country Report – Greece, available here.

[27] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 22.

[28] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 42.

^[29] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU/CSU, 20/10869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 25.

[30] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here, 23.

[31] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 43.

^[32] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9067, 2 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T30yHd, 37; Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 36-37.

^[33] Information provided by the BAMF, 1 August 2017.

^[34] Information provided by the BAMF on 10 May 2024.

[35] Mediendienst Integration, ‚Abschiebungen im Rahmen der Dublin-Verordnung‘, available in German here.

^[36] Section 59(1) Residence Act.

^[37] Section 59 (1) Residence Act; Diakonie Deutschland, PRO ASYL & Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration, Das Dublin-Verfahren. Grundlagen, Verfahrensablauf und Praxistipps, January 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42PClHq, 93.

^[38] Diakonie Deutschland, PRO ASYL & Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration, Das Dublin-Verfahren. Grundlagen, Verfahrensablauf und Praxistipps, January 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42PClHq, 93.

^[39] Federal Administrative Court (BverwG), Decision 1 C 55.20, 17 August 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3rgh2wA.

^[40] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Dublin (internal directive for Dublin procedures), version of December 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 149.

^[41] See Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/7401, 29 January 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2HwaiQQ.

^[42] For examples of excessive force or inhumaen removal practices see for example the website of Abschiebungsreporting NRW: https://www.abschiebungsreporting.de/.

^[43] ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZ.

[44] PRO ASYL, ‘Bittere Bilanz für den Flüchtlingsschutz’ (5 January 2026) https://www.proasyl.de/news/bittere-bilanz-fuer-den-fluechtlingsschutz/.

[45] Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat (BMI), GEAS‑Anpassungsgesetz https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/MI4/GEAS_01.html.

[46] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen 2025, available in German here, p. 10.

[47] ARD Tagesschau, ‚Deutschland scheitert oft an Rückführungen‘, 21 January 2025, available in German here.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Statista Research Department, Gescheiterte Überstellungen von Asylbewerbern aus Deutschland nach Gründen 1. HJ 2024, 29 November 2024, available in German here.

[50] Ibid.

[51] ARD Tagesschau, ‚Deutschland scheitert oft an Rückführungen‘, 21 January 2025, available in German here.

[52] BAMF, Akuelle Zahlen, December 2024, available in German here.

[53] Deutsche Welle, ‚Migration: Deutschland scheitert meist an Rückführungen‘, 27 January 2025, available in German here.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid. BR.de, ‘Politische Debatte über Migration entbrannt’, 12 June 2025, available in German here.

^[56] BAMF, ‘Merkblatt Kirchenasyl im Kontext von Dublin-Verfahren’, November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3HY47WI.

^[57] BAMF, ‘Merkblatt Kirchenasyl im Kontext von Dublin-Verfahren’, November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3HY47WI. See also PRO ASYL, ‚Bundesverwaltungsgericht entscheidet: Kein »Flüchtigsein« im offenen Kirchenasyl!‘, 21 September 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3fi5Rhd.

^[58] Federal Administrative Court (BverwG), Decision 1 B 19.20, 8 June 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/33k6qEK.

^[59] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 27; 20/861, 24 February 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/41vdo3r, 18; 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 25.

^[60] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU, 2010869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 22.

[61] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 36.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid.

^[64] Ibid., 3.

[65] Mediendienst Integration, ‘Kirchenasyl – Zahlen und Rechtslage’ (2025) available in German here.

[66] Ibid

[67] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

[68] Ibid.

^[69] Domradio.de, Aktuell viele Anfragen nach Kirchenasyl in NRW, 04 December 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kOQ9Ao.

^[70] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the AFD, 20/9673, 7 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49FKoZC, 3.

^[71] Domradio.de, Aktuell viele Anfragen nach Kirchenasyl in NRW, 04 December 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kOQ9Ao.

^[72] Infomigrants, Ruling in church asylum case creates legal precedent in Germany, 04 March 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3wAt3jv.

[73] For details on these cases of 2023 and 024, see AIDA country report 2024.

[74] Pro Medienmagazin, Keine Abschiebungen aus dem Kirchenasyl im Jahr 2025, 30 December 2025, https://www.pro-medienmagazin.de/keine-abschiebungen-aus-dem-kirchenasyl-im-jahr-2025/.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Ibid.

[77] evangelisch.de, Flüchtlinge: Deutlicher Rückgang bei Kirchenasylen, 10 January 2026, available in German here.

[78] Ibid.

^[79] Section 1a (3) asylum Seekers Benefits Act.

^[80] Infomigrants, Bremen court ruling: Benefits can be cut for migrants receiving church asylum, 13 December 2023, avaialbel in German at: https://bit.ly/4bJIOba.

^[81] ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZ.

[82] Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, ‚Was tun bei drohendem Leistungsausschluss bei „unzulässigen“ Asylanträgen?‘, 17 January 2025, available in German here.

[83] Flüchtlingsrat NRW, ‚Hinweise zum Leistungsausschluss bei “unzulässigen” Asylanträgen’, 20 January 2025, available in German here.

[84] Ibid. See also section 1(4) Asylum Seeker Benefits Act.

[85] Section 1(4) Asylum Seeker Benefits Act.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Flüchtlingsrat NRW, ‚Hinweise zum Leistungsausschluss bei “unzulässigen” Asylanträgen’, 20 January 2025, available in German here.

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

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

[90] Flüchtlingsrat NRW, ‚Hinweise zum Leistungsausschluss bei “unzulässigen” Asylanträgen’, 20 January 2025, available in German here.

[91] Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, ‚Was tun bei drohendem Leistungsausschluss bei „unzulässigen“ Asylanträgen?‘, 17 January 2025, available in German here.

[92] Ibid.

[93] Hamburg Social Court, S 7 AY 196/25 ER and S 5 AY 195/25 ER, both of 17 April 2025, available in German here and here.

[94]  GFF, ‘Leistungsausschluss drängt Geflüchtete in existentielle Not’, available in German here.

[95] For an overview of these decisions in German see here.

[96] Higher Social Court of Lower Saxony–Bremen, 13 June 2025, L 8 AY 12/25 B ER, available in German here.

[97] UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Interim Measures Request in Individual Complaint Against Germany on Exclusion of Benefits under § 1 (4) AsylbLG, 31 October 2025, available here.

[98] For details and background information, see Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration, UN-Sozialausschuss fordert existenzsichernde Unterstützung für einen Geflüchteten nach Leistungsausschluss, 31 October 2025, available here.

[99] PRO ASYL et. al, Dublin-Verfahren 2024: Überblick und Praxis, 2024, February 2025, available in German here.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Ibid.

^[102] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/31669, 04 August 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4awfTGM, 117 et seq.

^[103] Diakonie Deutschland, PRO ASYL & Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration, Das Dublin-Verfahren. Grundlagen, Verfahrensablauf und Praxistipps, January 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42PClHq, 54.

^[104] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Dublin (internal directive for Dublin procedures), version of December 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA.

^[105]   Entscheiderbrief, 9/2013, 3.

^[106] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[107]  BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), 03 August 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49mypAr, 104.

^[108] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[109] Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

^[110] Dominik Bender and Maria Bethke, ‘‘Dublin III‘, Eilrechtsschutz und das Comeback der Drittstaatenregelung.’ Asylmagazin 11/2013, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4ar98Gl, 362.

^[111] BverfG, Decision 2 BvR 157/17, 8 May 2017, asyl.net, available at: http://bit.ly/2G6rw9X.

^[112] For an overview of court decisions on legal aid, see the database of asyl.net (search term ‚Prozesskostenhilfe‘).

[113] Administrative Court Würzburg, 13 January 2025 – W 6 K 24.50451, available here.

[114] Ibid.

[115] Ibid.

[116] Administrative Court Düsseldorf, 21.07.2025 – 29 K 1083/25, available here.

[117] Administrative Court Saarland, 07 November 2025, 3 L 1857/25, available here.

[118] Administrative Court Cologne ,15 May 2025, 23 L 1145/25.A, available here.

[119] Higher Administrative Court Baden-Württemberg, 12 March 2025, A 4 S 256/24,available here.

[120] Bayerischer Flüchtlingsrat, “Krebskranke Frau aus Krankenhaus nach Bulgarien abgeschoben,” April 11, 2025, available at https://www.Flüchtlingsrat-bayern.de/kebskranke-frau-nach-bulgarien-abgeschoben/ and Bayerischer Flüchtlingsrat, “Update Abschiebung nach Bulgarien: Fataler Fehler der Ausländerbehörde,” April 2025, available at https://www.Flüchtlingsrat-bayern.de/update-zur-abschiebung-nach-bulgarien/

[121] Ibid.

[122] Ibid.

[123] Administrative Court Munich, M 10 K 22.50479, judgment of 22 February 2024, available in German here.

[124] Ibid.

[125] Administrative Court Munich, M 3 S 25.50045, 12 February 12, 2025, available in German here.

[126] Ibid.

[127] Ibid.

^[128] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9067, 2 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T30yHd, 5 and Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5870, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/40KZhWi, 4.

[129] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here.

[130] Ibid.

[131] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4911, 30 March 2026, available in German here.

^[132] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/921, 26 February 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RTIGy4, 19.

^[133] Justus Linz, Zur Situation von »Dublin-Rückkehrenden« und »Anerkannten« in Staaten Osteuropas, September 2022, asyl.net, available in German at:https://bit.ly/3JdJ7PH, 3.

^[134] See Administrative Court of the Saarland, 5 L 837/23, 18 October 2023, asyl.net: M31916.

^[135] Preliminary remark to Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/17100, 20 February 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4aqLV7g, 1.

^[136] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 4; 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 47.

^[137] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by the CDU/CSU, 20/10869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 22-23.

^[138] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9067, 2 November 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T30yHd, 29.

[139] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 5, 10.

[140] Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, 22 L 764/24.A, 15 May 2024, available in German here.

[141] Ibid.

^[142] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 27.

^[143] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/861, 24 February 2022, 2; .19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 3.

[144] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 5, 10.

^[145]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 12; 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 11; 19/17100, 20 February 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4aqLV7g, 59-60.

^[146] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU, 2010869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 22.

^[147]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/30849, 21 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GSrxhM, 27.

^[148] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 36.

^[149] The BAMF letter is available in German at: https://bit.ly/4asyVO3.

[150] Administrative Court Ansbach, AN 17 S 24.50516, decision of 27 August 2024, available in German here.

[151] Ibid.

^[152] CJEU, Judgment in case C-163/17, Jawo, 19 March 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/304sXA2.

^[153]  Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 7 October 2019 – 2 BvR 721/19 – Asylmagazin 1-2/2020, S. 37 f. – asyl.net: M27758, available at: https://bit.ly/4auAtax.

[154] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 1.

[155] All 46 decisions are available on the database oft he Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration here https://www.asyl.net/recht/dublin-entscheidungen?tx_ksrsdb_pi6%5Baction%5D=searchDublin&tx_ksrsdb_pi6%5Bcontroller%5D=Newsitem&tx_ksrsdb_pi6%5BcurrentPage%5D=2&cHash=15fc398783e0e6febf721bc6e896fd81.

[156] See for example, VG Frankfurt/Oder, 10.11.2025 – 1 L 650/25.A; VG Magdeburg, 07.11.2025 – 9 B 455/25 MD; VG Oldenburg, 06.11.2025 – 12 B 7351/25.

[157] See, for example, VG Gießen, 30.10.2025 – 1 L 6036/25.GI.A; VG Hannover, 17.06.2025 – 2 L 596/25.A; VG Dresden, 06.08.2025 – 11 L 840/25.A.

[158] VG Göttingen, 27.10.2025 – 2 B 617/25; VG Augsburg, 07.10.2025 – Au 1 S 25.35775; VG Leipzig, 10.07.2025 – 6 L 445/25.A.

^[159] Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration, ‘BAMF führt Überstellungen nach Italien wieder „uneingeschränkt’ durch’, 29 March 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2Uobbqu. For more information on the practice in previous years and corresponding jurisprudence see AIDA, Country Report Germany – Update on the year 2019, July 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3hCWYOF, 36-37.

^[160] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/5868, 28 February 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TFefdY, 40-41.

^[161] Oral discussion with AIDA partner NGO.

^[162] Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia, 11 A 1689/20.A, 20 July 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TsJL0Q.

^[163] Federal Administrative Court, 1 B 66.21, 27 January 2022, asyl.net: M31153, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3M4fRvh.

^[164] Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration, Decisions Dublin Transfers to Italy 2025, available here.

[165] European Court of Justice (ECJ). Judgment of the Court in Case C-458/24 | [Daraa]. Available online here.

[166] Higher Administrative Court of Schleswig-Holstein, 4 LB 4/23, 25 January 2024, available in German at https://bit.ly/4dYIWoq.

[167] Administrative Court Munich, M 10 K 24.50768, 9 September 2024, available in German here.

[168] Administrative Court Berlin, 9 K 668/23 A, 29 May 2024, asyl.net: M32460, available in German here.

[169] For all 8 decisions, see, Informationsverbund Asyl & Migraiton, Decisions Dublin Transfers to Italy 2025, https://www.asyl.net/recht/dublin-entscheidungen?newsearch=1&bundeslandGe=&gericht=&entscheidung=&date=&datefrom=01.01.2025&dateto=&aktenzeichen=&dublinstaat=423&dublinRm=&keywords_dublin=&docnumber=&limit=25.

[170] See, e.g., Administrative Court Frankfurt/Oder, 1 L 597/25.A or Administrative Court Münster, 10 L 515/25.A.

[171] See, e.g. Higher Administrative Court Hessen, 2 A 1129/25.A or Higher Administrative Court Niedersachsen, 10 LB 70/25.

[172] Administrative Court Hannover, 12 B 3546/22, 7 October 2022, available in German here.

[173] Administrative Court Berlin, 23 L 457/23, 2 September 2023, available in German here.

[174] Administrative Court Chemnitz, 16 October 2023, available in German here, 279.

[175] Ibid.

[176 Administrative Court Minden, 12 K 2197/22.A, judgment of 28 August 2023, available in German here.

[177] Administrative Court Hannover, 15 A 5036/24, 15 October 2025, available in German here.

[178] Ibid.

[179] Ibid.

[180] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 37.

^[181] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU, 2010869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 25.

[182] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 20/14869, 19 March 2025, available in German here, 37.

^[183] ECRE, The AnkER centres Implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZ.