Regular procedure

General (scope, time limits)

The legal basis for the regular asylum procedure can be found in the Asylum Act. The competent authority for the decision-making in asylum procedures is the BAMF. Next to asylum, its functions and duties include coordination of integration courses, voluntary return policies, and other tasks such as research on general migration issues. The BAMF also acts as national administration office for European Funds in the areas of refugees, integration and return (see Number of staff and nature of the first instance authority).

Time limits

The general time limit for the BAMF to decide on an application is six months.^[1] The relevant provision was changed with the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures^[2] and now closely mirrors Art. 31 of the EU APD. If no decision has been taken within 6 months, the BAMF must notify asylum applicants upon request about when the decision is likely to be taken.^[3] The time limit can be extended to a maximum of 15 months if:

• Complex issues of fact and/or law arise,
• A large number of foreigners simultaneously apply for international protection, making it especially difficult in practice to conclude the procedure within the six-month time limit,
• Where the delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with their obligations in the asylum procedure (Section 15 Asylum Act),^[4]

The time limit of 15 months can be extended for another 3 months in exceptional cases where this is necessary to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application.^[5] In line with Art. 31(5) EU APD, the new provision equally sets an absolute time limit of 21 months.^[6]

In addition, and mirroring Art. 31 (4) APD, the 2022 reform introduces the possibility to postpone the decision due to a temporarily uncertain situation in the country of origin. In such cases, the Federal Office shall review the situation in the country of origin at least every six months. The Federal Office shall inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable period of time of the reasons for postponing the decision and shall also inform the European Commission of the postponement of decisions.^[7] For more detail, see Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure.

In line with Art. 31 (3) APD, the 2022 reform also clarified that the starting time for the 6 months is the formal lodging of the asylum application. In Dublin cases, the starting time is the moment in which Germany’s responsibility to examine the claim is established, or, if the applicant is not on German territory at this point in time, the date of transfer to Germany.^[8]

In 2025, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees reported an average asylum processing time of 12.2 months[9] up from 8.7 months in 2024[10], and 6.8 months in 2023^[11], reflecting a revised calculation method introduced in 2023 that counts duration from the moment Germany becomes responsible for the procedure rather than from the formal lodging of the application.^[12] According to the BAMF, the average duration of asylum procedures increased noticeably compared to 2024 due to a statistical effect: the authority has recently prioritized reducing its backlog of long-pending cases.[13] As a result, many decisions concerned older applications rather than new arrivals, which typically lengthens the calculated average processing time. Over the course of the year, the number of pending cases nevertheless fell by 111,050, reaching 101,606 at the end of December 2025.[14]

In general, in 2025 procedures became longer overall, partly because the average Dublin procedure lasted 3.1 months in 2023^[15]; by comparison, average durations were 6.6 months in 2021 and 8.3 months in 2020, while asylum court proceedings remained lengthy at 21.3 months in 2023 (down from over 26 months in 2021–2022).^[16] Compared to the 12.2 months for first and follow-up procedures in 2025, the average duration of the so-called ‘annual procedures’, which include all decisions on first-time and follow-up asylum applications submitted within the past twelve months, was 3.1 months.[17] The 2025 average processing time for asylum applications varied significantly by country of origin and showcased longer durations for certain groups. Particularly long average processing times in the full year 2025 were recorded for Nigeria (20.4 months), Iran (17.7 months), Iraq (17.1 months), Turkey (15 months), Syria (14.1 months), the Russian Federation (14.1 months) and Pakistan (11.1 months), while comparatively short durations were observed for countries such as Serbia (1.6 months), Kosovo (2 months), Bosnia and Herzegovina (2.8 months) and North Macedonia (3.7 months).[18] For Afghanistan, the average duration until a first administrative decision in 2025 as a whole was 8.8 months.[19] When looking at the time until an unalterable (final) decision, data are available only for the first half of 2025, showing a substantially longer overall average of 18.4 months.[20] In this period, the longest processing times were recorded for Iraq (28.9 months), Iran (28.6 months), the Russian Federation (25 months), Syria (22.3 months) and Pakistan (22 months), while Turkey (19.1 months) and Afghanistan (12.8 months) also exceeded one year. By contrast, Serbia (9.6 months), North Macedonia (10.7 months) and Kosovo (6.3 months) remained at the lower end of the spectrum in the first half of 2025.[21] Overall, the data highlight pronounced disparities both between nationalities and between procedural stages, with final decisions taking several months longer than initial administrative decisions and particularly long delays affecting applicants from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Russia.

In 2025, asylum procedures involving unaccompanied minors were, on average, somewhat shorter than for the general asylum-seeking population, but still marked by substantial overall durations.[22] For the full year 2025, the average processing time until a first administrative decision for unaccompanied minors was 11.8 months across all nationalities.[23] While most countries clustered around this average, the longest durations in 2025 as a whole were observed for Syria (20.2 months) and Iraq (15.3 months), with Afghanistan (12.7 months) also exceeding one year.[24] When looking at the time until a final, unappealable decision, data are available only for the first half of 2025, showing an overall average of 12.8 months for unaccompanied minors. In this period, the longest processing times again concerned Iraq (19.2 months), Syria (15.7 months) and Turkey (15 months), indicating that even for children and adolescents without caregivers, procedures frequently extended well beyond a year.[25]

Dublin procedures in 2025 averaged 2.1 months of processing time until a first administrative decision in Dublin.[26] Even among the slower cases, durations remained comparatively short, with Syria (around 3 months) and Iran (2.4 months) among the highest averages in 2025 as a whole. Longer timelines re-emerge in procedures that culminated in a final negative decision (i.e. where neither the BAMF nor the courts granted protection).[27] For these cases, data are available only for the first half of 2025, showing an overall average duration of 18.3 months. The longest procedures in this category affected applicants from Iraq (31.3 months), Eritrea (27.7 months) and Nigeria (25.8 months),[28] Finally, particularly lengthy procedures were recorded in national asylum procedures following a failed Dublin transfer. For the full year 2025, the average duration until a first administrative decision in these cases was 18.8 months across all nationalities, making them among the slowest procedures overall. The longest average durations were observed for Nigeria (35.8 months), Iraq (31.8 months) and Iran (24.2 months) in 2025 as a whole.[29]

Source: Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary questions by The Left: 18/11262, 21 February 2017, 19/1631, 13 April 2018; 19/13366, 19 September 2019, 19/23630, 23 October 2020, 20/940, 7 March 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TuNOJV, 10; 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 2; 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 28; 20/12757, 2 September 2024, available in German here, 30; 20/15083, 3 March 2025, available in German here, 3.Information on duration overall for the entire year of 2024 provided by the BAMF on 26 February 2025. For 2026 numbers, see German Bundestag Printed Matter 21/3999, 4 February 2026, Reply of the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Members of Parliament Clara Bünger, Anne-Mieke Bremer, Agnes Conrad, other Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Group Die Linke, Supplementary Information on Asylum Statistics for the Year 2025, available in German here, pp. 4 ff.

As of 31 January 2026, a total of 92,201 asylum cases were still pending at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.^[31] The largest share of pending cases involved applicants from Syria with 46,005 cases (49.9%), followed by Afghanistan with 16,954 cases (18.4%) and Turkey with 5,608 cases (6.1%). Of all pending cases, 2,650 were Dublin procedures, accounting for 2.9% of the total.^[32]

This is a significant decrease compared to 212,656 pending cases by the end of December 2024 [33] and 239,614 at the end of 2023.^[34] This is still a significant high number compared to 2022 (136,448) and 2021 (108,064) where the number had already doubled compared to 2020 (52,056)^[35] and significantly higher than in previous years too (57,012 in 2019 and 58,325 in 2018).^[36] Most of the pending applications are by Turkish (23.9% of all pending cases), Syrian (23.7% of all pending cases) and Afghan nationals (16.3% of all pending cases).^[37] The increased backlog in 2021 and 2021 is likely due, to a large part, to the de-prioritisation of applications from Afghan nationals between August and December 2021 and from Syrian nationals holding a protection status in Greece between 2019 and April 2022 (see Sections Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure and Suspension of transfers).^[38] The BAMF has also experienced some delays in registering asylum applications in the autumn of 2022,^[39] which might have increased the backlog. In 2024, Germany received 250,945 asylum applications, marking a significant decrease from the 351,915 applications in 2023,^[40] while the number of pending cases dropped from 240,300 to 212,656; however, the average processing time increased from approximately 7.6 months in 2023 to 8.7 months in 2024.[41]

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

After the first registration of the intention to seek asylum, applicants are directed towards an ‘initial reception centre’. While the organisation of reception facilities is under the auspices of the Federal States, two types of initial reception centres have been established across Germany both for first arrival and for prioritised and fast-track processing. These are the ‘arrival centres’ first established in 2015, on the one hand, and the ‘AnkER centres’ established in several States since 2018, on the other (see also Types of accommodation). Prioritised and fast-track processing in these centres is not based on a specific legal provision and is different from accelerated procedures (see Accelerated procedure).

Arrival centres (Ankunftszentren)

The arrival centres (Ankunftszentren) were introduced in December 2015 with the aim of fast-tracking procedures. For this purpose, federal authorities (in particular the branch offices of the BAMF) and regional authorities shall closely cooperate in the centres (see also Initial reception centres).^[42] The concept of arrival centres is not based in law but has been developed by business consultants under the heading ‘integrated refugee management’.^[43] Accordingly, this method for fast-tracking of procedures must not be confused with the introduced law in March 2016 on accelerated procedures (see Accelerated procedure).

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

The procedure, as it was developed at the Berlin arrival centre, was described in detail by the Berlin Refugee Council in November 2017. According to the report, a typical fast-track procedure called “direct procedure” (Beschleunigte Verfahren, §30a Asylum Law) in the arrival centre was supposed to lead to a decision within four days.^[44]  In 2025, the average duration of accelerated asylum procedures under § 30a Asylum Law was 5.8 days, significantly shorter than the average duration of 127.6 days for all first-instance asylum procedures.[45] Among the top five nationalities in accelerated procedures in 2025, Kosovo had an average processing time of 6.3 days, Serbia 5.6 days, Algeria 5.5 days, Georgia 5.1 days, and North Macedonia 5.2 days.[46]

The “direct procedure” shall only apply in ‘clear-cut’ cases, in which protection can be ‘easily’ recognised or rejected. In contrast, the regular procedure must take place in the following instances:

• The facts of the case cannot be established immediately, but further examinations are necessary;
• The applicant states they are not able to be interviewed for physical or mental reasons;
• A ‘special officer’ should be consulted but is not readily available;
• The applicant states that a severe illness prevents them from returning to their country of origin. In these cases, the applicant should be given four weeks to undergo further medical examinations and to obtain a qualified medical report;
• The applicant has already appointed a lawyer, in which case the interview should take place on a date which enables the lawyer to attend;
• The applicant falls within the scope of the Dublin procedure;
• The applicant is an unaccompanied child.^[47]

The stages of the procedure are carried out within a few days. After that, a decision is usually handed out within a period of few weeks up to several months.^[48]

It should be noted that there are considerable variations to some aspects of the procedures in the various arrival centres, as there is no common approach to access to counselling institutions, with some arrival centres reportedly not providing such access (see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR). Access to social services, by contrast, is generally available but may vary in its organisation and implementation. These differences depend on how the Federal States and the BAMF have organised the procedure in the respective centres.

AnkER centres (AnkER-Einrichtungen)

Like arrival centres, the concept of AnkER centres was introduced in 2018 to speed up asylum and return procedures. In August 2018, three Federal States (Bavaria, Saxony and Saarland) started conducting a pilot project organising the procedure and accommodation in AnKER centres where not only activities relating to the asylum procedure but also return procedures (in case of a rejection of the asylum application) are centralised. In 2019 and 2020, the concept was expanded to other Federal States, with the opening of ‘functionally equivalent facilities’ in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein and Brandenburg in 2019 and in Hamburg and in Baden-Württemberg in 2020. As of early 2026, the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) operates 17 branch offices located within arrival centers across 12 German Federal States, in addition to 9 branch offices integrated into AnkER facilities in Bavaria, Saxony, and Saarland. These offices serve as key points for initial asylum procedures and coordination of reception and registration processes.^[49] In 2020, around 27% of all asylum applications were examined in an AnkER centre or functionally equivalent facility.^[50] After the federal elections in 2021, the new government declared that it would “not pursue the concept of AnkER facilities further”.^[51] However, since reception is in the remit of the Federal States, arrival AnkER centres continue to exist in some Federal States.

In 2025, the average processing time until a first administrative decision varied only modestly across different procedural settings, but consistently remained around or above one year, with no clear acceleration effect in reception-based formats.[52] Procedures decided in arrival centres (Ankunftszentren) took an average of 12.5 months, those decided in AnkER centres or functionally equivalent facilities averaged 11.8 months, and procedures handled in external branches or at the BAMF headquarters averaged 12.2 months.[53] While individual nationalities and locations showed substantial variation, the overall comparison indicates that AnkER procedures were not significantly faster than decisions taken elsewhere and in many cases differed only marginally from standard procedures.[54] This pattern becomes even clearer when viewed over time: in 2024, the average duration of first-instance procedures in AnkER centres was 8 months[55] , compared to 8.7 months for all first-instance procedures; in 2023, AnkER procedures averaged 7 months, compared to 6.8 months overall. The same trend was already evident in earlier years, with 2022 showing 8.2 months in AnkER centres versus 7.6 months overall^[56], and 2021 7.3 months versus 6.6 months, respectively.^[57]

As the name of the institution suggests, the AnkER centres are also supposed to implement returns of rejected asylum seekers more efficiently, especially by establishing return counselling services in the facilities and also by obliging rejected asylum seekers to stay in these facilities for a period of up to 24 months after the stay in the initial reception centre.^[58] However, these measures are not unique features of the AnkER centres and similar arrangements exist in other facilities as well. The BAMF evaluation finds that residents of AnkER centres and equivalent facilities who have their application rejected are more likely to decide to return ‘voluntarily’,[59] i.e. with a return assistance programme or individually. However, the rate of absconding is also higher among rejected applicants living in AnkER centres according to the evaluation published in 2021, and the rate of forced removals has been found to be lower.^[60] It also appears that (rejected) asylum seekers stay in these facilities for prolonged periods (see Freedom of movement).

Personal interview

In the regular procedure, the BAMF conducts an interview with each asylum applicant.^[61] In line with Article 15 APD, family members are interviewed separately.^[62] Accompanied children do not have to be interviewed separately unless in case of indications for child-specific grounds flight and persecution. However, both the minors themselves and their parents can request for an accompanied minor to be interviewed. If the parents agree to the minor’s request, the BAMF conducts a separate interview if the minor is 14 years or older and can do so if the minor is between six and 13 years old, according to its internal guidelines. Parents can usually be present in their children’s interview, unless there are indications of child-specific grounds of flight and persecution.^[63] In principle, applicants can ask for the interviewer and interpreter to be of a specific gender. It has to be substantiated that this is necessary, though, and this possibility is mostly mentioned in the context of female applicants subject to gendered persecution or sexualised violence or when specific vulnerabilities are communicated to the BAMF by Federal State authorities (see Special procedural guarantees).^[64] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so ‘if possible’.^[65]

Since 2016, the law also contains a provision according to which officials from other authorities may conduct interviews, ‘if a large number of foreign nationals applies for asylum at the same time’.^[66] However, the BAMF has not made use of this possibility since its introduction.^[67]

According to the publicly available Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal instructions of the authority) of the BAMF dated 12 June 2024, asylum interviews are generally conducted individually to ensure adequate confidentiality and privacy, as stipulated in § 25 Abs. 6 AsylG.[68] Separate interviews are typically conducted for adult women and men from the same family, and hearings in the presence of family members are only permitted under exceptional circumstances, such as when the applicant requests the presence of a companion for moral or psychological support due to vulnerabilities like trauma, mental disabilities, or experiences of sexual violence.[69] Even in such cases, the consent of the applicant is required. Furthermore, if the companion is also an asylum applicant awaiting their own hearing, their participation is prohibited to avoid compromising the integrity of their interview.[70] The guideline emphasises that interviews should be conducted in confidential settings, and even if open-plan or shared offices are used in exceptional cases, simultaneous hearings or the presence of unrelated persons are not allowed.[71]

Omission of the interview

In the regular procedure, omitting the interview is possible only in exceptional cases. The Asylum Act foresees both circumstances in which no interview shall take place, and circumstances in which the BAMF can dispense with the interview at its discretion. No interview shall take place where an asylum application has been filed for children under 6 years who were born in Germany ‘and if the facts of the case have been sufficiently clarified based on the case files of one or both parents’.^[72]

In the following circumstances the BAMF may decide to not hold the interview:

• The BAMF intends to recognise the entitlement to asylum on the basis of available evidence;^[73]
• The applicant fails to appear at the interview without an adequate excuse. This only applies to applicants who are not obliged to live in a reception centre.^[74]
• The BAMF is of the opinion that the foreigner is unable to attend a hearing due to permanent circumstances beyond their control.^[75]

The last ground was added by the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures and took effect on 1 January 2023.^[76] With this provision, the government implements Art. 14(2)(1)a of the APD.^[77] According to the government, the provision aims at speeding up procedures. In cases of doubt, the BAMF must involve medical personnel in the decision and seek confirmation from a medical doctor.^[78] The introduction of this possibility to dispense with the interview were criticised inter alia by Der Paritäsche Gesamtverband (one of the main welfare associations), on the ground that the central piece of the procedure should only be dispensed with in extreme circumstances and with the consent of the applicant.^[79] As of February 2026, according to information provided by the BAMF, no information is available as to how often this possibility was used since its implementation in 2023. The 2022 reforms also deleted as a ground to dispense with the interview the fact that applicants claim to have entered from a safe third country. The Federal Government explains this by a lack of a provision to that effect in the APD.^[80] Before, this ground was only rarely applied in practice.^[81]

In the past, particularly during the BAMF’s rapid restructuring in 2016, asylum interviews were criticised as superficial and inadequate for fact-finding,^[82] but the authority has since expanded quality assurance and procedural management, including the use of procedural tools and random quality controls by a central quality assurance division.^[83] For further information see Quality under Number of staff and nature of the first instance authority.

According to the BAMF, all decision-makers in the asylum procedure are trained in relation to the interview and interview techniques (using EUAA Modules and in-house training). Even if the applicant is legally obliged to present their reasons for persecution on their own initiative, the Federal Office’s investigation and clarification of the facts is of particular importance. According to the BAMF, particular attention is paid to ensuring that relevant aspects are sufficiently clarified during the interview. Inconsistent and contradictory information will be investigated. This also applies to information that contradicts country of origin information. If doubts still remain, according to the BAMF the applicant will be given the opportunity to comment (obligation to make a reservation).^[84]

Videoconference interviews

In another important change, the 2022 reform introduced the possibility of conducting interviews via video conference in exceptional cases (for video interpretation see Interpretation).^[85] While the law does not specify the types of procedures in which an interview via video conference are allowed, the BAMF internal guidelines state that they are not permitted for interviews during the regular procedure but can be conducted for interviews during the Dublin procedure, as part of the subsequent and second application procedure, during the airport procedure and revocation processes.^[86] Within BAMF, the personal interview is preferred and video conferencing is seen as an exceptional procedure.

According to the Federal Government, video conference interviews still require that the applicant be in BAMF premises for the interview; but not necessarily in the same building as the interviewer.^[87] A BAMF employee will however stay in the same room as the interviewee during the whole interview, according to the Federal Government.^[88] Consent of the applicant is not required.^[89] Video interviews shall only be conducted in cases where they contribute to a better use of capacities within the BAMF and contribute to accelerating the procedure, and if the case is suited for a video interview.^[90] The interviews are not recorded; the transcript is compiled in the same way as for in-person interviews.^[91] The internal guidelines list cases in which video interviews cannot be conducted, such as :

• persons whose identity or nationality could not be established,
• certain groups of vulnerable applicants (unaccompanied minors, persons older than 65 years, victims of torture, traumatised applicants or applicants who have been subject to gendered and sexualised violence or because of their sexual orientation or identity; applicants with a disability),
• cases where an “enhanced credibility assessment” is needed (cases of religious conversion are listed as an example),
• cases with security relevance,
• applicants who need sign language translation.^[92]

According to the Federal government, the interview is to be stopped when it becomes apparent during the interview that the use of video conferencing is not adequate for the specific interview situation.^[93]

When introducing the change, the Federal Government stated that this new provision merely adapts the law to administrative practice.^[94] However, while in 2021 the internal BAMF guidelines had been updated to allow for video interviews for the Dublin interview, for border procedures as well as for subsequent applications and revocation procedures, these internal guidelines did not and currently still do not foresee its use in regular asylum procedure,^[95] although this would be possible with the 2022 reform. At the time, in 2021, the directives concerning video interviews were only applicable during the Covid-19 pandemic. Video conferencing equipment for interviews had been installed in all BAMF branch office as of early 2022.

As of February 2026, there are no available statistics as to how often this possibility was used in practice. According to the Federal Government, up until the change in law video conferencing had only been used ‘in individual cases in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic’.[96] In 2025, video-based formats played only a marginal role in asylum interviews in Germany vis-à-vis the overall number of conducted interviews. Out of 122,401 persons who were heard by the BAMF, 120,252 interviews (98.2%) were conducted in person without audio-visual transmission, while only 2,149 cases involved video interviews or the assistance of a translator via video, corresponding to an overall share of 1.8%.[97] The use of video formats varied considerably by nationality but remained low across the board: higher relative shares were recorded for Guinea (4.2%), Somalia (3.4%), and Turkey (3.3%), whereas video formats were almost negligible for Iran (0.2%), Venezuela (0.2%), Afghanistan (0.5%), and entirely absent for Colombia[98]. A similar picture emerges when looking at locations. While most asylum offices made very limited use of video technology, a small number of sites accounted for a disproportionate share, notably Berlin (5.2%), Eisenhüttenstadt (3.5%), and Bramsche (3.1%).[99] According to information provided by the BAMF in February 2026, in 2023 and 2024, the use of video conferencing and video interpretation in asylum hearings in Germany was also very limited compared with the total number of interviews conducted. In 2023, out of 185,941 persons heard by the BAMF, 1,356 interviews (0.7 %) were conducted either as video hearings or with the assistance of a translator via video, while 184,585 interviews (99.3 %) took place in person without audio‑visual transmission. For 2024, the share of video‑based formats was even smaller: of 171,890 interviews, only 685 (0.4 %) were conducted via video or with video interpreting, with the remaining 171,205 (99.6 %) carried out in person without audio and video links.

Civil society organisations, as well as legal practitioners, criticised the introduction of video conferencing. For example, the German Institute for Human Rights and the Republican Lawyers’ Association demand that consent of the applicant be required for video interviews as well as for interpretation via video.^[100] According to PRO ASYL and the German Lawyer’s Association, video conferencing is not an adequate technique for the personal interview as the central piece of the procedure, which requires the interviewer to gain a holistic impression of the applicant and their behaviour, including details of gestures or facial expressions, and where applicants must have the time and possibility to put forward all relevant claims.^[101]

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

Interpretation

The presence of an interpreter at the interview is required by law.^[102] The BAMF recruits its own interpreters on a freelance basis. As for interviewers, in principle, applicants can ask for the interpreter to be of a specific gender. It has to be substantiated that this is necessary, though, and this possibility is mostly mentioned in the context of female applicants subject to gendered persecution or sexualised violence or when specific vulnerabilities are communicated to the BAMF by Federal State authorities (see Special procedural guarantees).^[103] The BAMF is not obliged by law to provide this but states that it will do so if possible.^[104]

Video interpretation

The BAMF introduced the possibility of videoconferences for interpretation in 2016. This practice was codified through the Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures.^[105] The provision allows for video interpretation ‘in suitable cases’ and ‘exceptionally’,^[106] indicating that, as for the interview itself, interpretation in presence retains priority over video interpretation. In these cases, interpreters sit in a different branch office than the one in which the interview is taking place or participate via a so-called ‘interpretation-hub’, ensuring that all transmission is via a secure internal network. Video interpretation is regarded as complementary to in-person interpretation. The BAMF internal guidelines apply a relatively low threshold for this to be the case, however, by stating that video interpretation can be used when there is an objective reason, such as a more efficient or flexible allocation of interpreters cost efficiency reasons, a shortage of interpreters in a certain area or for rare languages with few interpreters. All countries of origin are in principle considered suitable for video interpretation, including when the applicant is considered vulnerable. However, special officers need to be included in the decision when it concerns unaccompanied minors, victims of gendered violence, torture, human trafficking or traumatised persons.^[107] Video interpretation does not require consent by the applicant.^[108]

The BAMF provided figures on video hearings and video-based interpretation in February 2026 for the years 2023 to 2025. In 2023, 1,356 cases involved either a video hearing or the use of a translator via video, corresponding to 0.7 % of all asylum interviews that year. In 2024, the number of video-based cases decreased to 685, representing just 0.4 % of the total. In 2025, the share increased slightly to 2,149 cases, or 1.8 % of interviews. However, at the time of writing this report, the BAMF had not disclosed statistics specifically showing the use of video conferencing exclusively for interpretation, and such disaggregated data were neither available for the previous years.

Quality of interpretation

Following discussions about the quality of translations during interviews, the BAMF has revised the procedures for the deployment of interpreters since 2017. For example, a new compulsory online information programme was established.^[109] Both experienced and newly assigned interpreters are now required to complete the programme. Apart from basic information on the asylum procedure and general communication skills, several modules deal with specifics of the asylum interview such as the ‘role of the interpreter during the interview’ or ‘handling psychological burden caused by asylum applicants’ traumatic backgrounds. Interpreters further need advanced German language skills (level C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages). Moreover, the BAMF established a system for complaint management in the context of interpretation at the BAMF in 2017.^[110] The complaint management system was revised in 2020 and involves a multi-stage procedure at the end of which a termination of contractual relations with the interpreter is possible.^[111]

However, in 2025, concerns have been raised about the quality and availability of interpretation in BAMF asylum interviews. In their contribution to the EUAA Asylum Report 2025, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen e.V., a German NGO, stressed that interpreters used in BAMF hearings and asylum counselling are not required to be sworn translators nor to hold a formal degree in the relevant language(s); instead, they must demonstrate language skills and provide information on their residence status in Germany and ties to their country of origin.[112] They further highlighted a severe shortage of interpreters for rarely spoken languages—including Dinka, Nuer, Oromo, Kinyarwanda, and others—which has led to significant delays in asylum procedures, in some cases exceeding two years between the formal application and the substantive interview.[113] According to the Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen e.V., sworn interpreters, by contrast, are generally only available at the judicial stage, raising concerns about procedural fairness and effective communication during the administrative asylum process.[114] According to the BAMF, contracts sworn interpreters for various languages. However, the number of languages involved as well as the number of assignments makes it impossible to guarantee a sworn interpreter for every language also because it cannot be guaranteed that a sworn interpreter will accept a specific assignment on a specific date[115].

In addition, the BAMF has published standards for interpretation in the asylum procedure including a new code of conduct which replaces which replace an earlier code of conduct adopted in 2017.^[116] According to this document, interpreters at the BAMF must not only have knowledge of their respective interpretation language, but also show knowledge and qualifications in interpretation skills and in the asylum procedure and dealing with authorities. They must commit to five principles that are spelled out in more detail in the guidelines. These are “completeness and accuracy”, “transparency”, “all-party impartiality”, “professional integrity” and “confidentiality”. In cases of repeated or serious violations of the standards or the code of conduct, the BAMF can decide to terminate the contract with an interpreter.^[117] According to information provided by the BAMF in February 2026, a total of 40 interpreters were excluded from further assignments between 2023 and 2025 due to violations of quality standards or the BAMF Code of Conduct. The number of exclusions increased gradually over this period: 8 interpreters in 2023, 9 in 2024, and 23 in 2025. During the same period, the BAMF received 1,110 complaints regarding interpreter services, with 368 complaints in 2023, 327 in 2024, and 415 in 2025.

The qualification requirements and pay for interpreters also vary between interviews at the BAMF and court hearings. Court interpreters swear an oath to interpret “faithfully and conscientiously” while interpreters working for BAMF are obliged to follow the Code of Conduct for BAMF interpreters which lays down the ethical principles of “completeness and accuracy”, “transparency”, “all-party impartiality”, “professional integrity” and “confidentiality”. These principles are in essence identical to the oath formula for court interpreters.[118]

Interpreters at court are, however, also generally paid more than interpreters contracted by the BAMF – as of February 2025, the hourly rate for interpretation in courts is EUR 93,^[119] whereas the BAMF negotiates hourly rates (up to – at maximum – the fixed rate for court interpreters)[120] for interpretation assignments which may vary according to individual levels of qualification and experience. Depending on the federal state where courts are located, the level of qualification for interpreters (e.g. level of competence in German) may be higher or, indeed, lower than requirements for BAMF interpreters.[121]

 Transcript of the interview

The transcript of the interview consists of a summary of questions and answers (i.e. it is not a verbatim transcript) and is only available in German. The interpreter present during the personal interview is also responsible for translating the transcript back to the applicant in oral form. The applicant has the right to correct mistakes or misunderstandings. By signing the transcript, the applicant confirms that they have had the opportunity to present all the important details of the case, that there were no communication problems and that the transcript was read back in the applicant’s language. Video recordings of interviews do not take place.

 Appeal before the Administrative Court

Appeals against rejections of asylum applications must be lodged before a regular Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht, VG). There are 51 administrative courts, which constitute the lowest level of the administrative court system. Each administrative court has jurisdiction over its respective district and generally acts as the court of first instance. The courts are organised into chambers. In proceedings on the merits, a chamber usually decides in a panel composed of three professional judges and two lay judges, whereas lay judges do not participate in decisions taken by order. In straightforward cases, proceedings may be assigned to a single judge. In asylum cases, jurisdiction is in practice exercised by a single judge, except if the case presents particular difficulties of a factual or legal nature of the legal matter is of fundamental significance. The responsible court is the one with regional competence for the asylum applicant’s place of residence.[123] Procedures at the administrative court generally fall into 2 categories, depending on the type of rejection of the asylum application:

‘Simple’ rejection: An appeal to the Administrative Court must be submitted within 2 weeks (i.e. 14 calendar days) after reception of the negative decision.^[124] This appeal has suspensive effect. It does not necessarily have to be substantiated at once, since the appellant has 1 month (also counting from the reception of the decision) to submit reasons and evidence.^[125] Furthermore, it is common practice that the courts either set another deadline for the submission of evidence at a later stage (e.g. a few weeks before the hearing at the court) or that further evidence is accepted up to the moment of the hearing at the court.^[126]

Rejection as ‘manifestly unfounded’ (offensichtlich unbegründet): Section 30 of the Asylum Act lists several grounds for rejecting an application as ‘manifestly unfounded’. These include among others unsubstantiated or contradictory statements by the asylum applicant, as well as misrepresentation or failure to state one’s identity. Furthermore, applications from so-called safe countries of origin are legally assumed to be manifestly unfounded (Section 29a Asylum Act) requiring a higher burden of proof on the part of the applicant of their reasons for needing protection.^[127] For inadmissibility decisions, see Admissibility procedure.

If asylum applications are rejected as ‘manifestly unfounded’, the timeframe for submitting appeals is reduced to one week. Since appeals do not have (automatic) suspensive effect in these cases, both the appeal and a request to restore suspensive effect must be submitted to the court within 1 week (7 calendar days).^[128] The request to restore suspensive effect must be substantiated. Court practice varies as to how much time is given for the substantiation, but usually it as to be filed within one week or ‘immediately’, meaning as soon as possible.^[129]

The short deadlines in these rejections are often difficult to meet for asylum applicants, and it might be impossible to make an appointment with lawyers or counsellors within this timeframe.[130] Suspensive effect is only granted in exceptional circumstances.

Procedure

The Administrative Court investigates the facts of the case as well as the correct application of the law by the BAMF. This includes a personal hearing of the asylum applicant in cases of a ‘simple’ rejection. With the Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures which entered into force on 1 January 2023,^[131] personal hearings can be dispensed with if the applicant is represented by an attorney and if they do not concern a ‘simple’ rejection application or a withdrawal/revocation, e. g. in cases of rejection as ‘manifestly unfounded’ or inadmissible.^[132] However, a hearing has to take place if any party requests so.^[133] Court decisions on applications for suspensive effect are usually conducted without a personal hearing. Courts are required to gather relevant evidence at their own initiative. Asylum appeals are decided by a single judge in most cases.^[134] As part of the civil law system principle, judges are not bound by precedent. Court decisions are generally available to the public (upon request and in anonymous versions if not published on the court’s own initiative). As of 1 January 2023,^[135] the rules for filing a bias motion against the competent judge have changed so that the hearing can take place with said judge if a bias motion was filed three days or less before the hearing. If the judge is found to be biased after the hearing, the hearings that took place after the filing of the motion must be repeated.^[136]

For asylum appeal proceedings before the administrative courts, the available data for 1 January to 30 November 2025 show an average duration of 14.3 months across all nationalities.[137] At the level of the Federal States, the same period reveals pronounced disparities: proceedings were longest on average in Brandenburg (19.4 months), Berlin (19.2 months) and Hesse (19.1 months), whereas considerably shorter average durations were recorded in Rhineland-Palatinate (7.4 months), Baden-Württemberg (9.9 months) and Bavaria (10.7 months).[138]

A similar pattern emerges for urgent interim proceedings in asylum matters, measured in days rather than months. For the period January to November 2025, the overall average duration was 36.5 days across Germany.[139] At the state level, the longest average durations in this period were recorded in Saxony (71.6 days), Thuringia (64.9 days) and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (55.9 days), while Saarland (13 days), Rhineland-Palatinate (16.4 days) and Saxony-Anhalt (20.3 days) handled interim proceedings much more rapidly.[140] Finally, the scale of the judicial backlog becomes clear from the number of pending asylum appeal cases: As of15 January 2026, a total of 191,566appeal proceedings were still pending nationwide.[141]

In comparison, in 2024, more than 100,000 appeals against BAMF decisions were filed before German administrative courts, marking a sharp increase from approximately 72,000 in 2023 and around 62,000 in 2022.[142] According to news reports citing a survey amongst relevant ministries of the states, this surge in appeals is partly due to the BAMF’s accelerating its processing of pending asylum cases from previous years.[143] In total, 100,494 new main proceedings were initiated before courts in 2024, representing a 62% increase compared to 2022. The highest number of cases was recorded in North Rhine-Westphalia (19,267), followed by Bavaria (15,278) and Baden-Württemberg (12,755). The most significant percentage increases over two years were seen in Brandenburg, where cases more than doubled (a 134% rise to 6,138 cases), and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, which experienced a 116% increase to 2,647 cases.[144]

If the appeal to the Administrative Court is successful (or partly successful), the court obliges the authorities to grant asylum and/or refugee status or to declare that removal is prohibited. The decision of the Administrative Court is usually the final one in an asylum procedure. Only in exceptional cases is it possible to lodge further appeals to higher instances.

Until the end of August 2023, 9.6% of all court decisions led to the granting of a form of protection to the applicant. If formal decisions (without examination of the substance) are not considered, the success rate for appeals was 25.4%.^[145] This is lower than in previous years: in 2022, 17.6 % of appeals led to a positive decision (37% if formal decisions are not considered), in 2021 18% of all appeal decisions were successful (35% if formal decisions are not considered).^[146]

Over the last years, the BAMF has put efforts into digitalising communication with the courts, partly to shorten the length of appeal procedures. According to the BAMF, ‘files and documents from all the branch offices can be sent to the administrative courts electronically, by legally compliant means as well as encrypted’, via the so-called ‘Electronic Court and Administration Mailbox EGVP’. The administrative courts can in turn address file requests to a central office of the BAMF in Nuremberg. ‘An average of approx. 1,800 files and documents are sent by electronic means every day,’ according to a statement by the BAMF in 2024. ‘The rapid dispatch of files requested, on the same day in most cases, enables administrative court judges to recognise a clear time benefit when it comes to processing cases’.^[147] A digitalisation of court hearing themselves, e.g., via video conferencing, is neither practiced nor discussed as of February 2025 for asylum and other administrative court cases.

Onward appeal(s)

The second appeal stage is the High Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht, OVG or Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VGH); the latter term is used in the Federal States of Bavaria, Hessen, and Baden-Württemberg. There are 15 High Administrative Courts in Germany, one for each of Germany’s 16 Federal States, with the exception of the States of Berlin and Brandenburg which have merged their High Administrative Courts since 2005. High Administrative Courts review the decisions rendered by the Administrative Court both on points of law and of facts.

In cases of ‘fundamental significance’, either the authorities or the applicant can apply to the High Administrative Court to be granted leave for a further appeal if the first appeal has not been rejected as manifestly unfounded or manifestly inadmissible.^[148] In contrast to the general Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) the criterion of ‘serious doubts as to the accuracy of a decision’ is not a reason for a further appeal in asylum procedures. It is therefore more difficult to access this second appeal stage in asylum procedures than it is in other areas of administrative law. According to Section 78 of the Asylum Act, a further appeal against an asylum decision of an Administrative Court is only admissible if:

• The case is of fundamental importance;
• The Administrative Court’s decision deviates from a decision of a higher court; or
• The decision violates basic principles of jurisprudence.

Second appeal cases in the Higher Administrative Courts are decided by the senate which is composed of several judges.^[149] Decisions by the High Administrative Court may be contested at a third stage, the Federal Administrative Court, in exceptional circumstances. Until January 2023, the Federal Administrative Court only reviewed the decisions rendered by the lower courts on points of law. The respective proceeding is called ‘revision’ (Revision). Both administrative courts (in the first appeal stage)^[150] and High Administrative Courts can grant leave for a revision if the case itself or a point of law is of fundamental significance, otherwise the authorities or the asylum applicants must apply for leave for such a further appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. Possible reasons for the admissibility of a revision are similar to the criteria for an appeal to a High Administrative Court as mentioned above. As of 1 January 2023, with the entry into force of the 2022 Act on the acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures,^[151] the Federal Administrative Court can also decide on the facts of the case as they pertain to the situation in the country of origin or destination (“Tatsacheninstanz” (fact-finding instance) in asylum proceedings, following the introduction of § 78 Abs. 8 AsylG)^[152] This only applies if the Higher Administrative Court grants leave for revision and if the Higher Administrative Court’s appreciation of the situation in the respective country differs from that of other High Administrative Courts or of the Federal Administrative Court.^[153] The reform was introduced in an effort to unify jurisprudence when it comes to the situation in countries of origin or destination.^[154] PRO ASYL criticises the change as it stands in the way of an appreciation of circumstances in each individual case and hampers the appreciation of circumstances “in real time” if lower administrative courts are bound by earlier decisions by the Federal Administrative Court. PRO ASYL thus expects the change to not enhance legal certainty, but to lead to legal disputes on the scope of Federal Administrative Court decisions regarding the situation in each country.^[155]

In 2023, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) launched three revision procedures under §78(8) AsylG concerning Dublin transfers to Italy and cases from Afghanistan.^[156] One case was discontinued, one remained ongoing as of February 2024, and one was withdrawn before the hearing.^[157] In 2024–2025, the Court issued rulings on returns to Italy and Greece,[158] while on 28 August 2025, it suspended all factual reviews (Tatsachenrevisionen) to Italy pending a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice (C-458/24 “Daraa”).[159] For further details, see Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State.

Judgments of the Federal Administrative Court are always legally valid since there is no further remedy against them. However, when the Federal Administrative Court only decides on points of law and does not investigate the facts, it can send back cases to the High Administrative Courts for further investigation.

Outside the administrative court system, there is also the possibility to lodge a so-called constitutional complaint at the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). Such complaints are admissible in cases of violations of basic (i.e., constitutional) rights. In the context of asylum procedures this can be the right to political asylum, the right to human dignity including the state obligation to provide a minimal subsistence level of benefits as well as the right to a hearing in accordance with the law, but standards for admissibility of constitutional complaints are difficult to meet. Therefore, only few asylum cases are accepted by the Federal Constitutional Court. Recent examples of Federal Constitutional Court decisions with relevance for the asylum procedure concern the level of social benefits for persons living in reception centres (see Reduction or withdrawal of reception conditions) or a failure to take into account changed circumstances in Romania after the outbreak of the war against Ukraine, which violated the right to an effective legal remedy.^[160]

Legal assistance at first instance

During the first instance procedure at the BAMF, asylum applicants may be represented by a lawyer, but they are not entitled to free legal aid, so they must pay their lawyers’ fees themselves at this stage.^[161] Legal services may only be provided if the person providing the service has the necessary legal qualifications. However, under the conditions of Section 6 of the Legal Services Act (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz), out-of-court legal services free of charge are permitted if the persons providing advice are instructed by a legally qualified person. Thus, representatives of NGOs are only entitled to legally represent their clients during the asylum procedure if this requirement is met. Asylum applicants are rarely represented by a lawyer at the initial stage of the asylum procedure and/or during the interview.

Since 2019, systematic counselling is offered to asylum applicants. According to the law, every applicant has access to free asylum procedure advice in accordance with Section 12a Asylum Act, which is provided by authorised agencies (for details and implementation in practice, see Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR). As of 1 January 2023, the provisions on counselling have been reformed and it now encompasses the whole asylum procedure until a final decision, including appeal decisions, and hence advice on legal remedies against asylum decisions.^[162]

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

Legal assistance at second instance

During court proceedings, asylum applicants can apply for legal aid to pay for a lawyer. The granting of legal aid is dependent on how the court rates the chances of success. This ‘merits test’ is carried out by the same judge who has to decide on the case itself and is reportedly applied strictly by many courts.^[163] Therefore some lawyers do not always recommend applying for legal aid, since they are concerned that a negative decision in the legal aid procedure may have a negative impact on the main proceedings.

Furthermore, decision-making in the legal aid procedure may take considerable time so lawyers have to regularly accept a case before they know whether legal aid is granted or not. Lawyers argue that fees based on the legal aid system do not always cover their expenses.^[164] Thus, specialising only on asylum is generally supposed to be difficult for law firms. Most lawyers specialising in asylum also have additional fields of expertise, while a few charge higher fees based on individual agreements with their clients.

It is possible to appeal against the rejection of an asylum application at an Administrative Court without being represented by a lawyer, but from the second appeal stage onwards representation is mandatory.

^[1] Section 24(8) Asylum Act.

^[2] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[3] Section 24(8) Asylum Act.

^[4] Section 24(4) Asylum Act.

^[5] Section 24(4) Asylum Act.

^[6] Section 24(7) Asylum Act. This was recently reaffirmed in a ruling by the Administrative Court of Stuttgart, A 7 K 2324/24, Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, 10 July 2024, available in German here, in the case of an applicant having been granted international protection in Greece and applying for asylum in Germany. The BAMF had not issued an inadmissibility decision due to a potential violation of Article 3 ECHR in returning the applicant to Greece, but had not decided on the substance of the protection claim in Germany either. The court, after recognising that 21 months had passed, ordered the BAMF to decide on the asylum application within 3 months.

^[7]  Section 24(5) Asylum Act.

^[8]  Section 24(6) Asylum Act.

[9] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2025, available in German here.

[10] See AIDA report Germany 2024.

^[11] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

^[12] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[13] BAMF, Asylzahlen Gesamtjahr und Dezember 2025, 12 January 2026, available in German here.

[14] Ibid.

^[15] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the CDU, 2010869, 27 March 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3TTUfVx, 25.

^[16] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa, 29, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 4.

[17] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2025, available in German here.

[18] German Bundestag Printed Matter 21/3999, 4 February 2026, Reply of the Federal Governmentto the Minor Interpellation by Members of Parliament Clara Bünger, Anne-Mieke Bremer, Agnes Conrad, other Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Group Die Linke, Supplementary Information on Asylum Statistics for the Year 2025, available in German here, pp. 4 ff.

[19] Ibid.

[20]  Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., p. 5.

[26] Ibid., pp. 5, 6.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Partial figures for the first 6 months of the year are available in the previous update to this report: AIDA, Country Report : Germany – Update on the year 2023, June 2024, available here, 39.

[31] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2025, available in German here.

[32] Ibid.

[33]  BAMF, Asylzahlen Gesamtjahr und Dezember 2024, January 2025, available in German here.

^[34] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

^[35] BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik (statistics on applications, decisions and pending procedures), 1-12/2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3IMppKK and BAMF, Asylgeschäftsstatistik (statistics on applications, decisions and pending procedures), 1-12/2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3rnIEzR.

^[36] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2XL4gsp.

^[37] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

^[38] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022.

^[39] Federal Government, response to written question by Clara Bünger (The Left), 20/5137, 6 January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RNA63I, 29.

^[40] BAMF, Aktuelle Zahlen, December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3T3N1PA, 13.

[41] BAMF, Asylzahlen Gesamtjahr und Dezember 2024, January 2025, available in German here.

^[42] BAMF, Locations, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3dFTd8w.

^[43]  These include McKinsey, Roland Berger and Ernst & Young: BAMF, ‘Viele helfende Hände – für den gemeinsamen Erfolg’, 22 March 2016, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2llkWoc. See also Janne Grote, ‘The Changing Influx of Asylum Seekers in 2014-2016: Responses in Germany’. Focused Study by the German National Contact Point for the European Migration Network (EMN), October 2017, study available at: https://bit.ly/33iJAO8, 29, 53; See further Washington Post, ‘How McKinsey quietly shaped Europe’s response to the refugee crisis’, 24 July 2017, available at: http://wapo.st/2HdDq0P.

^[44] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.

[45] German Parliament, Response to request by The Left Party, 21/3999, 4 February 2026, available in German here, 30.

[46] Ibid.

^[47]  Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.

^[48] Flüchtlingsrat Berlin, Das Schnellverfahren für Asylsuchende im Ankunftszentrum Berlin, November 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2HdSDzb.

^[49]  BAMF, Locations, available at: https://bit.ly/3dFTd8w and information provided by the BaMF on 13 Februay 2026.

^[50]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 19/30711, 15 June 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3veNm8t, 31.

^[51] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN UND FDP, ‚Mehr Fortschritt wagen. Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit. Koalitionsvertrag 2021 – 2025 zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (SPD) und den Freien Demokraten (FDP)‘, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ITYqJZ, 111.

[52] German Bundestag Printed Matter 21/3999, 4 February 2026, Reply of the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Members of Parliament Clara Bünger, Anne-Mieke Bremer, Agnes Conrad, other Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Group Die Linke, Supplementary Information on Asylum Statistics for the Year 2025, available in German here, pp. 9 ff.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/15083 , 3 March 2025, available in German here, 10.

^[56]  Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left,20/15083 , 3 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

^[57]  The evaluation is based on asylum procedures regarding first-time cross border asylum applications that were finished within one calendar year and carried out between 01.8.2019 and 31.03.2020. The evaluation finds that such procedures took 77 days in AnkER centres and equivalent facilities, compared to 82 days in other BAMF branch offices. Source: BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq, 23 and 30.

^[58]  Markus Kraft: ‘Die ANKER-Einrichtung Oberfranken’, Asylmagazin 10-11/2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4at6eAU, 355.

[59] Overall in the migration context – non-specific to Germany – while governments and some international organisations qualify these as voluntary returns or assisted voluntary returns given that the person agrees to comply with the return decision and the lack of physical coercion, many stakeholders in NGOs and academia find the notion of ‘voluntary’ return misleading inter alia due to the lack of any alternatives and risks associated with irregular stay for the persons concerned. See, among many others: ECRE, Voluntary departure and return: between a rock and a hard place, 2018, available here; ‘Chapter 11 – Mandatory (“Voluntary”) Return’ in Izabella Majcher, The European Union Returns Directive and its Compatibility with International Human Rights Law (Brill 2019), 547ff; Mixed Migration Centre, ‘Eight things we learned about migrant returns and reintegration’, 1 October 2024, available here; Barak Kalir, ‘Between ‘voluntary’ return programs and soft deportation’ in Zana Vathi and Russell King (eds), Return Migration and Psychosocial Wellbeing (Routledge 2017), available here, 56-71; Jean-Pierre Gauci, ‘IOM and ‘Assisted Voluntary Return’’ in Megan Bradley et al (eds), IOM Unbound? (CUP 2023), available here.

^[60] BAMF, Evaluation of AnkER Facilities and Functionally Equivalent Facilities, Research Report 37 of the BAMF Research Centre, 2021, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3FgxXnq, 52-53.

^[61] Sections 24 and 25 Asylum Act.

^[62] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 95.

^[63] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 90-91.

^[64]  For example, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, Vor der Anhörung, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3WuUfKZ.

^[65] BAMF, The personal interview, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3XPDLyf.

^[66] Section 24(1a) Asylum Act.

^[67]  Information provided by the BAMF, 9 March 2023.

[68] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl, 12 June 2024, available in German here.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid, see section Anhörung.

[71] Ibid.

^[72] Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

^[73] Section 24(1) No. 1 Asylum Act.

^[74] Section 25 (5) Asylum Act.

^[75] Section 24(1) No. 2 Asylum Act.

^[76] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[77] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 35.

^[78]  Section 24(1) Asylum Act.

^[79] Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8.

^[80] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 35.

^[81] This provision was rarely applied in the regular procedure since it has usually not been established at the time of the interview whether Germany or a safe third country is responsible for the handling of the asylum claim.

^[82] See for example Memorandum Alliance, Memorandum für faire und sorgfältige Asylverfahren in Deutschland. Standards zur Integrate any of this?Gewährleistung der asylrechtlichen Verfahrensgarantien, November 2016, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ShphWJ, 14; Uwe Berlit, Sonderasylprozessrecht – Zugang zu gerichtlichem Rechtsschutz im Asylrecht, Informationsbrief Ausländerrecht 9/2018, 311; taz, Kritik an schnellen Asylverfahren: Ohne Beratung geht es nicht, 20 June 2018, available in German at https://bit.ly/4e2koL2. For an individual case, see e. g. Leipziger Zeitung, Das BAMF Leipzig prüft Transidentität nicht als Fluchtgrund, 25 May 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3V3JAZ6.

^[83] BAMF, “Procedure management and quality assurance”, available here, 28 November 2018.

^[84] Information provided by the BAMF on 10 May 2024.

^[85] Section 25 (7) Asylum Act.

^[86]  See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 108.

^[87] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 19.

^[88] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 15.

^[89] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 109.

^[90] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 110.

^[91] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 18.

^[92] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 111, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 111.

^[93] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/6052, 14 March 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3zrfRPq, 16.

^[94]  SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OOqzYn, 28.

^[95] BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), 03 August 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49mypAr, 104.

[96]  Information provided by the BAMF on 13 February 2026.

[97] German Bundestag Printed Matter 21/3999, 4 February 2026, Reply of the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Members of Parliament Clara Bünger, Anne-Mieke Bremer, Agnes Conrad, other Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Group Die Linke, Supplementary Information on Asylum Statistics for the Year 2025, available in German here, p. 28.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Ibid.

^[100] German Institute for Human Rights, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8, 11.

^[101]  Deutscher Anwaltverein / Berthold Münch, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 28 November 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3kzfbD8, 13, and PRO ASYL, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 24 October 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ks1Cpb.

^[102] Section 17 Asylum Act.

^[103] For example, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen, Vor der Anhörung, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3WuUfKZ.

^[104] BAMF, The personal interview, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3XPDLyf.

^[105] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[106] Section 17(3) Asylum Act.

^[107]  See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 105.

^[108] See BAMF, Dienstanweisung Asyl (internal directive for asylum procedures), version of January 2023, 111, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3J5jPTA, 104-107.

^[109] BAMF, Dolmetschen und Übersetzen für das BAMF, 17 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3HngsXd.

^[110] BAMF, ‘Online-Videotraining für Sprachmittler gestartet’, 28 September 2017, available in German at: http://bit.ly/2oWwbTH.

^[111] Information provided by the BAMF, 10 March 2022.

[112] Füchtlingsrat Niedersachsen e.V., Contribution by Civil Society Organisations to the EUAA Asylum Report 2025 (European Union Agency for Asylum, February 2025) https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-02/23_fluchtlingsrat_niedersachsen_ev.pdf

[113] Ibid.

[114] Ibid.

[115] Information provided by the BAMF, 22 May 2026.

^[116] BAMF, Standards für das Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren, April 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3wjM4tz.

^[117] BAMF, Standards für das Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren, April 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3wjM4tz, 1.

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

^[119] Section 9(5) Judicial Remuneration and Compensation Act. The hourly rate for court interpreters in Germany was increased from €85 to €93 per hour on 1 June 2025, in accordance with the Judicial Remuneration and Compensation Act (JVEG), covering performance, travel, waiting, and preparation time. Surcharges also apply for night work and weekend services.

[120] Section 14 Judicial Remuneration and Compensation Act (§14 JVEG).

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

[122] Federal Government, Reply to parliamentary questions by The Left, 20/15083, 3 March 2025, available in German here, 3.

[123] In the Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate, the Administrative Court of Trier is competent for all asylum appeal procedures, therefore the other three Administrative Courts in the Federal State only deal with asylum matters on an ad hoc basis. For an overview of administrative courts, see https://www.verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit.de/ (in German).

^[124] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.

^[125] Section 74(2) Asylum Act.

^[126]  Justiz NRW, Verwaltungsgerichtliches Verfahren in Asylsachen, available in German at: https://bit.ly/49HQSY0.

^[127] Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Grundlagen des Asylverfahrens, überarbeitete 5. Auflage 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/33c4uhF, 26.

^[128] Section 74(1) Asylum Act.

^[129 Information provided by an attorney-at-law, January 2023.

[130] Information provided by the ELENA network, June 2026.

^[131]  Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[132]  Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

^[133]  Section 77(2) Asylum Act.

^[134] Section 76 Asylum Act.

^[135]  Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[136]  Section 74(3) Asylum Act.

[137] German Bundestag Printed Matter 21/3999, 4 February 2026, Reply of the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Members of Parliament Clara Bünger, Anne-Mieke Bremer, Agnes Conrad, other Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Group Die Linke, Supplementary Information on Asylum Statistics for the Year 2025, available in German here, 18 ff.

[138] Ibid.

[139] German Bundestag, Printed Matter 21/4448, Reply of the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Parliamentary Group Die Linke 2 March 2026,  available in German here, 59.

[140] Ibid.

[141 Ibid.

[142] Zeit Online, Zahl der Asylklagen in Deutschland deutlich gestiegen, 5 March 2025, available in German here.

[143] Ibid.

[144] Ibid.

^[145] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/9933, 28 December 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/42NJDMa,16.

^[146] Federal Government, Responses to parliamentary question by The Left 20/432, 14 January 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3RvW8GL, 21; 19/28109, 30 March 2021, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3LJmTGw, 38.

^[147] BAMF, Digitalisation of the asylum procedure, 2020 available at: https://bit.ly/3pFFlTU.

^[148] Section 78 (4) Asylum Act.

^[149] By way of example, at the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia it is composed of three judged plus two voluntary judges in cases with an oral hearing, see http://bit.ly/3lhV2m5.

^[150] Section 134 Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO). The admission of revision by the first instance court (called ‘Sprungrevision’) is only allowed if both parties to the case agree to it.

^[151] Official Gazette I no. Nr. 56 (2022) of 28 December 2022, 2817.

^[152] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.

^[153] Section 78(8) Asylum Act.

^[154] SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN and FDP, Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 20/4327, 8 November 2022, available in German at: at: https://bit.ly/48hQe2k, 43.

^[155] PRO ASYL, expert opinion (Sachverständigenstellungnahme) on the Draft Act on the Acceleration of asylum court proceedings and asylum procedures, 24 October 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3ks1Cpb, 34-35.

^[156] Federal Administrative Court, “Tatsachenrevision” zu Italien unzulässig wegen Versäumung der Revisionsbegründungsfrist, 28 September 2023, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3OL9nmA.

^[157] Federal Administrative Court, Rücknahme der “Tatsachenrevision” betreffend die allgemeine abschiebungsrelevante Lage in Afghanistan, 25 January 2024, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3Pd8zHp.

[158] Federal Administrative Court, BVerwG 1 C 23.23, judgment of 21 November 2024, available in German here.

[159] Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Pressemitteilung Nr. 59/2025: Tatsachenrevisionen zu Italien im Hinblick auf EuGH‑Vorabentscheidungsverfahren ausgesetzt (28 August 2025) https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2025/59.

^[160] Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), Decision of 19 July 2022 2 BvR 961/22 – asyl.net: M30822.

^[161] In theory, there is the possibility to apply for free legal counselling under a general scheme for legal counselling (Beratungshilfe). However, the fees paid by the state for this counselling are so low that there are only few lawyers who accept to give counselling under this scheme. Moreover, the scheme that is available to all persons in Germany who do not have enough funds to avail themselves of legal counselling is hardly known in general.

^[162] Section 12a (2) Asylum Act. Asylum procedure advice also includes information on the asylum procedure and may also include legal services in accordance with the Legal Services Act.

^[163] For an overview of practice in Regensburg, Bavaria, see ECRE, The AnkER centres implications for asylum procedures, reception and return, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2W7dICZv.

^[164]  According to information proved by an attorney-at-law in January 2023, legal aid fees amount to € 868,70 for an appeals procedure and 367,23 € for interim measures to reinstate the suspensive effect of an appeal. The legal basis for the fees is the Act on the Remuneration of Lawyers (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz – RVG).