In Germany, the right to asylum is guaranteed by the Basic Law and simple statutory law, in particular the Asylum Act (AsylG), is designed. Article 16a of the Basic Law (GG) enshrines asylum as a fundamental right for politically persecuted persons. This basic right to asylum has constitutional status and guarantees individually enforceable protection against political persecution. The current structure of the right to asylum takes into account both national regulations and European requirements and international agreements such as the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (GRC). In the following, the main principles, the asylum procedure and important court decisions are summarised. Status November 2025 - clearly presented.
Constitutional foundations of the right of asylum (Art. 16a GG)
Article 16a GG formulates the right to asylum and at the same time contains several important restrictions and regulations that were introduced in the course of the asylum compromise in 1993. In detail, Article 16a of the Basic Law stipulates:
-
Paragraph 1: “Politically persecuted persons enjoy the right to asylum.” - This fundamental right guarantees protection for people who flee to Germany due to political persecution. It is a subjective right with constitutional status.
-
Paragraph 2: This right to asylum cannot invoke, who comes from a Member State of the European Union or any other “safe third country” has entered the country. This rule excludes asylum seekers from being granted asylum under constitutional law if they enter via a country that also offers protection from persecution. All of Germany's neighbouring countries are considered safe third countries, as they are either EU states or comply with the Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. In practice, this provision means that Asylum in the Basic Law only applies if entry is not via a safe third country - which is rarely the case in practice. Responsibility for such asylum applications is usually regulated by the Dublin system of the EU, according to which the first safe host country in Europe is responsible for the asylum procedure.
-
Paragraph 3: The legislator may, by means of a law requiring approval “safe countries of origin” define. These are countries of origin where it is assumed that no political persecution is taking place there. Asylum applications from persons from safe countries of origin are generally recognised as obviously unfounded which allows for accelerated proceedings. However, the presumption of freedom from prosecution is refutable - an asylum seeker can demonstrate in the individual case that he or she nevertheless has suffered persecution or is specifically threatened. Germany maintains a list of such safe countries of origin in the annex to the Asylum Act. This list currently (as of 2025) includes all EU countries and various other countries, including the Western Balkan states, Georgia, Moldova, Senegal, Ghana and a few more. (Georgia and the Republic of Moldova were only newly recognised as safe countries of origin at the end of 2023).
-
Paragraph 4: Allows special Procedural regulations for persons travelling from safe countries. This forms the basis for Fast-track procedure - For example, the airport procedure. Asylum seekers who arrive directly at the airport from a country of origin or third country classified as safe can receive a decision in an accelerated procedure within a few days (sometimes within 48 hours). If their application is rejected as manifestly unfounded, their Refusal or deportation take place immediately. This regulation is intended to prevent abuse and speed up procedures, but must be designed in such a way that Right to be heard and effective legal protection remain guaranteed. In a 1996 decision, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasised that such fast-track procedures are only constitutional if certain minimum guarantees are strictly adhered to.
-
Paragraph 5: Clarifies that the provisions of Art. 16a GG international treaties remain unaffected. In particular, the obligations arising from the Geneva Refugee Convention and binding EU regulations remain valid despite the above restrictions. In other words: even if a claim to asylum is excluded under the Basic Law (e.g. due to entry via a third country), the authorities must still check whether the person concerned is entitled to protection under other regulations (e.g. refugee protection under the Refugee Convention/EU law or Subsidiary protection in the event of a risk of serious harm such as war, torture, etc.). Art. 16a para. 5 GG thus guarantees that international refugee protection and humanitarian obligations continue to apply, even if the narrow constitutional right to asylum does not apply in individual cases.
These points laid down in Article 16a of the Basic Law have made it clear that the fundamental right to asylum is still central, but must be seen in conjunction with European and international regulations. Germany has strongly Europeanised its asylum law: On the one hand, access to the asylum procedure is influenced by EU agreements (Dublin Regulation); on the other hand, the criteria for granting protection are based on the EU Qualification Directive and the Geneva Convention. The fundamental right to asylum remains a historical achievement, but in practice only applies directly under certain conditions, as most refugees enter the country via safe third countries. Refugee protection is therefore often granted today via simple legal regulations of the Asylum Act - either as Recognition of refugee status (according to §3 AsylG, which corresponds to the status of a GRC refugee) or as a subsidiary protection (§4 AsylG), if there is no specific political persecution, but the person concerned is threatened with serious harm such as war or torture in their home country.
Asylum procedures and responsibilities in Germany
In Germany, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees is responsible for examining asylum applications. Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) responsible. The BAMF receives the asylum application, conducts an interview with the applicant and then decides on the application. The decision of the BAMF can be as follows:
-
Recognition as a person entitled to asylum according to Art. 16a GG (which is practically rare, as they usually entered the country via third countries),
-
Recognition of refugee status according to § 3 AsylG (based on the Geneva Refugee Convention - this is the most common form of protection for politically persecuted persons),
-
Granting of subsidiary protection according to § 4 AsylG (if there is no persecution in the narrow sense, but serious general danger in the home country, e.g. civil war), or
-
Rejection of the asylum application (if necessary with the addition „manifestly unfounded“, especially in the case of applicants from safe countries of origin or in the case of contradictory or abusive applications).
If an asylum seeker receives a Rejection notice, he is entitled to the Administrative legal process open. An appeal against the BAMF decision can be lodged with the competent court within a certain period of time. Administrative court be filed. In urgent cases - for example if deportation is imminent - provisional legal protection can also be applied for so that the person concerned can remain in Germany until the court proceedings have been concluded. The administrative courts review the BAMF's decision both from a factual point of view (e.g. credibility of the submission, situation reports on the country of origin) and from a legal point of view (compliance with the protection criteria and procedural regulations).
Administrative jurisdiction is organised in three stages: After the administrative court of first instance, in certain cases an appeal can be lodged with the High Administrative Court (or the Administrative Court in some federal states). Finally, the proceedings can be continued until the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) reach. The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) deals with asylum issues in exceptional cases, namely when fundamental rights could be violated - however, legal recourse must be exhausted and a constitutional complaint must be lodged.
The asylum procedure in Germany is regulated in detail by the Asylum Act (until 2015: Asylum Procedure Act). It contains, for example, provisions on the distribution of asylum seekers among the federal states, the interview process, deadlines, the handling of follow-up applications and Dublin procedures as well as special types of procedures (such as the accelerated procedure in special reception centres). Over the years - particularly from 2015 during the increased immigration - the Asylum Act has been amended several times. reformed, to make procedures more efficient, but also to prevent abuse. For example, special arrival centres and so-called „AnkER centres“ have been set up in which various authorities work under one roof in order to bring about asylum decisions more quickly. At the same time, the rule of law guarantees for asylum seekers remain important: the right to a hearing, access to legal advice and effective legal protection must not be undermined.
Political persecution - definition and reference to the Geneva Refugee Convention
Article 16a of the Basic Law grants asylum exclusively to „politically persecuted persons“. The concept of political persecution is not defined in detail in the Basic Law itself. Its precise contours are the responsibility of the Case law, in particular the Federal Constitutional Court and the administrative courts, and is largely orientated towards the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (GRC) and today on the EU Qualification Directive.
According to the generally recognised definition, political persecution occurs when Interference with life, limb or personal freedom take place (or threaten to take place) that fulfil one of the characteristics listed in the CSF. tie innamely Race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The decisive factor is that the person concerned is specifically disadvantaged or threatened on the basis of one of these characteristics and that the persecution measures have a certain Heavy so that fundamental human rights are violated. It is irrelevant whether the characteristic targeted by the persecution is innate, unchangeable or characterises the identity of the person concerned - the protection applies equally. Examples Someone is persecuted because of their Religion harassed, or because of the ethnic origin systematically discriminated against, or because of his or her political opposition threatened. The Belonging to a social group is a recognised reason for persecution - this includes certain minorities, for example, LGBTQ people, or, depending on the country, women if they are at risk of particular persecution because of their gender (see below on current case law).
No asylum within the meaning of the Basic Law on the other hand, those who are fleeing great hardship but not personally targeted is persecuted for the aforementioned reasons. People fleeing a general civil war, extreme poverty or natural disasters do not fall under the narrow definition of political persecution in Article 16a of the Basic Law. Their need for protection - if any - is covered by other instruments (subsidiary protection or humanitarian admission programmes), but not by the basic right to asylum. This distinction makes it clear that Art. 16a GG is intended to protect the narrow circle of persons who are actually persecuted individually, while broader causes of flight are covered by simple statutory and international law.
It is also important, who acts as a chaser. Classically, the starting point was State as a persecutor (e.g. political persecution by authorities, police, military of a regime). In modern asylum cases, however, case law and the law also recognise non-state actors as a persecutor if the home state is unwilling or unable to offer protection. This means that if, for example, a terrorist militia or even parts of society (such as fanatical family members, clans, etc.) persecute someone and the state does not provide effective protection, this can also count as asylum-relevant persecution. Central to this is the Involuntary nature of the escapeThe persecuted person must be forced to leave the home country due to a serious threat.
The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees defines a refugee in Article 1 A in a similar way: as a person who „owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside his or her country of origin and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.“ This definition is now the basis of international refugee law and has been adopted in EU law. German asylum law - both at constitutional level and in the Asylum Act - is closely modelled on these criteria. When interpreting whether someone is politically persecuted, the German courts refer to the standards of the Refugee Convention. The Federal Constitutional Court made it clear early on that persecution is a “unlawful violation of life, physical integrity or personal freedom” must be that the person concerned “because of an asylum-relevant characteristic” and therefore ostracises him from the community.
This is an important aspect emphasised by case law: The intensity of the persecution. Not every disadvantage constitutes grounds for asylum. The measures must be of such considerable weight that Human dignity and core rights are violated. Typical examples include arbitrary arrests, torture, death threats, serious physical abuse, discrimination that threatens a person's existence or other forms of extreme pressure. Cumulative several minor interventions taken together can also reach the threshold for persecution if they become intolerable as a whole (e.g. permanent severe harassment, occupational bans, deprivation of livelihood, etc. due to an asylum-relevant characteristic).
Important case law: grounds for asylum and current decisions
Asylum law is subject to constant development by the courts. Both German courts and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have shaped the application of asylum laws through their judgements. Below are two exemplary rulings - one on the subject in principle Religious persecution and a newer one on Categorisation of safe countries of origin - which show how case law concretises the scope of protection.
Religious persecution as grounds for asylum - ECJ in the Ahmadiyya case (2012)
A milestone judgement on religious persecution was issued by the European Court of Justice back in 2012. The background to this was the case of two asylum seekers (anonymised in the judgement as Y and Z from Pakistan, which the Ahmadiyya religious community belong to. In Pakistan, Ahmadis were subjected to various forms of repression: Their religious practice was severely restricted by the state and violently suppressed by parts of society.
Y described in his asylum proceedings in Germany that he was repeatedly attacked, beaten and pelted with stones by a mob in his village during prayers. They had threatened to kill him. He was also arrested for allegedly Blasphemy (insulting the Prophet Mohammed) - an accusation that can result in draconian penalties in Pakistan. Z also reported physical assaults because of his faith and even a brief period of Imprisonment, because he practised his religion. Both claimed that as Ahmadis in Pakistan, their religious freedom was severely restricted and that they were in constant danger if they practised their faith openly.
However, the German asylum authorities initially rejected Y and Z's applications. The reason given was that the State measures against Ahmadis in Pakistan - such as the ban on publicly professing their faith - are only restrictions on the freedom of religious activity in public, but no asylum-relevant Pursuit. It was argued that Ahmadis were free to practise their faith in private; therefore, there was no immediate danger to life and limb as long as they refrained from certain provocative acts (such as missionary activities or wearing religious symbols in public).
Y and Z brought an action against this decision before the German courts. The proceedings finally reached the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), which recognised that this was a matter of principle: Under what conditions do restrictions on the practice of religion constitute “persecution” within the meaning of refugee law? The BVerwG referred this question to the European Court of Justice for interpretation of EU asylum law.
The ECJ clarified in its ruling of 5 September 2012: Religious persecution cannot be limited to the “core area” of private religious life. Rather, the decisive factor is whether the person concerned is able to maintain their faith in their country of origin. in a way that is important to him, without having to fear significant risks. The Court emphasised that the concept of Religion in the sense of refugee law expressly also the Practising religion in public such as joint church services, missionary activities or the wearing of religious symbols. When public exercise of faith is associated with severe disadvantages or punishments due to state prohibitions or social sanctions, this may constitute asylum-relevant persecution.
Specifically, the ECJ ruled in the case of Y and Z: A refugee must be recognised as a refugee (and thus granted asylum) if it is established that he or she would commit religious acts that would expose him or her to a real risk of persecution if returned to his or her home country. The national authorities may not require an asylum seeker do not demand, that he renounces certain forms of expression of his faith simply to protect himself from persecution. In other words, it is unreasonable for someone to deny their religion or only practise it in secret in order to avoid prosecution or violence - a refugee does not need to display such “evasive behaviour”.
In its judgement, the ECJ stated the following: Even if a particular religious practice (for example, the missionary promotion of one's own faith or public prayer) not the indispensable core of religion is irrelevant for the protection: The only decisive factor is whether the Personally affected practice is important for his or her faith identity and whether the practice would objectively jeopardise. If this is the case Persecution on religious grounds before. Not every obstruction of religious activity constitutes persecution - the ECJ made it clear that only sufficiently serious interference is grounds for asylum. However, in the case of the Ahmadis in Pakistan, who face prison sentences and massive threats of violence if they practise their religion in public, the threshold was clearly exceeded.
This ECJ judgement from 2012 is of great importance for the protection of religious minorities. It made it clear that religious freedom is comprehensively protected: Refugee believers must not be told to live their faith “quietly” or in secret, to remain unchallenged. For German practice, this meant that Ahmadis from Pakistan - like Y and Z - were generally recognised as Refugees are to be recognised as long as they demonstrate that they also wish to practise their faith publicly. As a consequence, both the Federal Administrative Court and the administrative courts have subsequently adopted this line. Since then, religious persecution has been interpreted more generously: Even Laws or regulations that unreasonably restrict a religion, can have a persecutory character, as can private assaults, if the state offers no protection. The Y and Z judgement has thus laid the foundation for the fact that, for example Christians in Islamic countries, converts or other religious minorities effective protection in the event that they Public exercise are threatened with persecution for their faith.
Current case law: Criteria for Safe countries of origin (ECJ 2025)
Another important aspect of the right of asylum - especially in the current political climate - is the issue of safe countries of origin. The European Court of Justice has recently tightened the standards here. In a judgement of 1 August 2025 (cases C-758/24 and C-759/24), the ECJ ruled, under which conditions a country may be considered a “safe country of origin”.
BackgroundIf an asylum seeker comes from a country of origin categorised as safe, their application is usually considered unfounded as it is assumed that they are not politically persecuted in their home country. This concept helps to quickly reject obviously hopeless applications and concentrate resources on those who are genuinely persecuted. However, it harbours the risk that people from disadvantaged minorities in a „generally safe“ country are wrongly rejected.
The case in question involved two asylum seekers from Bangladesh, which in Italy sought protection. Italy - like Germany - has its own list of safe countries of origin. Bangladesh was (and still is) on the Italian list. The two Bangladeshis were rejected in an accelerated procedure with reference to this safety classification. They defended themselves in court and the referring court doubted whether the Italian practice was compatible with EU law. In particular, it was unclear whether a country can really be called “safe” if only certain groups do not experience persecution there, while others do - The situation of persecuted minorities, for example, played a role here. Also problematised was the Transparency of the basis for decision-makingItaly did not disclose which sources of information (situation reports, human rights reports, etc.) it relied on when determining the safe countries of origin.
The ECJ made two important clarifications in its judgement:
1. “Safe” means safe for all population groups: Under EU law, a country may only be categorised as a safe country of origin, if no group within it is subject to systematic persecution. It is therefore not enough that, for example, the majority of the population is free from persecution, while, for example ethnic or religious minorities or LGBTQ people suffer repression in this country. If there are groups of people for whom there is insufficient protection, the country cannot be considered safe across the board. In other words: A country is either for all its nationals safe - or it is not safe. According to the judgement, this strict requirement applied at least under the current legal situation. (However, the ECJ pointed out that an upcoming reform of the Common European Asylum System will provide for exceptions from 2026: In future, it could be possible to define a country as “generally safe” despite dangers to narrowly defined groups if special examination procedures are provided for these groups. Currently, however - as of 2025 - the strict principle of “all or nothing” still applies).
2. transparency and judicial review of the categorisation: The ECJ judges emphasised that the decision of a Member State to place a country on the safe list of origin, traceable and verifiable must be. Specifically, the legislator must Sources and means of knowledge on which its assessment of security is based - such as reports from the Federal Foreign Office, UNHCR assessments, NGO reports, etc. Only in this way do both rejected asylum seekers and the courts have a real opportunity to challenge or review the legality of the listing. In the Italian case, it was criticised that a new law classified Bangladesh as safe without documenting what information supported this classification. This makes it difficult to disclose any changes in the situation or misclassifications. The ECJ made it unmistakably clear: Although member states may define states as safe by law, this decision is subject to full judicial review. And for effective monitoring, all facts, reports and criteria that led to the “safe” rating must be disclosed.
This ECJ judgement from 2025 also has direct significance for Germany. Here too - as mentioned above - there is a list of safe countries of origin, set out in Section 29a AsylG in conjunction with Annex II. Annex II. In addition to all EU states, these currently include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro (Western Balkans), Senegal, Ghana, Georgia and Moldova. The German authorities and courts must now comply with the ECJ requirements. In concrete terms, this means that each of these countries must check whether all groups of people are safe from political persecution there. If, for example, it turns out that in one of these countries that are considered safe Homosexuals are persecuted after all (keyword: criminal prosecution or massive social violence without state protection), the categorisation would have to be reconsidered - at the very least, the courts should not simply rely blindly on the list in such cases, but must investigate the individual request for protection more closely. The federal government is also required to Sources of knowledge for the evaluation to be disclosed. In Germany, this transparency is already created in part by the fact that the government regularly publishes reports on the situation in safe countries of origin (every two years since 2015, as required by law). Nevertheless, the ECJ judgement is likely to lead to a debate in Germany as to whether one or other country classification is still appropriate - especially as the safety of a entire population must always be carefully documented.
The decision from Luxembourg forces an overall cautious handling of “safe countries of origin”. It protects minorities in countries that may be a peaceful region, but do not protect all inhabitants equally from persecution. This is politically explosive because many European governments (including the German government) want to expand the concept of safe countries of origin in order to process asylum procedures more quickly. In future - once the new EU Asylum Procedures Regulation comes into force (probably in 2026) - it is likely that More differentiated categorisations e.g. define exceptions for certain groups (e.g. „Country X is safe, excluded personal characteristic Y“). But until then, the ECJ dictum applies: Standardised security as a prerequisite.
For German practice, this means that the administrative courts must take a close look at appeals by asylum seekers from safe countries of origin to determine whether there is a risk of persecution in the individual case, especially if the asylum seeker belongs to a specific minority. The fact that his country is on the list simplifies the procedure (the burden of proof lies more with the applicant to show why there is nevertheless a risk of persecution), but does not exempt him from a thorough examination. In the past, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasises that the classification as a safe country of origin is only constitutional if for each of these states generally there is no political persecution and at the same time it is ensured that justified exceptions are recognised in the asylum procedure. The ECJ case law of August 2025 once again expressly supports this line at European level.
Conclusion
German asylum law is a complex interplay of national constitutional law, simple laws, EU regulations and international law. Status November 2025 can be summarised as follows: The Core of the fundamental right to asylum - Protection for politically persecuted persons - remains untouched, but has been concretised and restricted by many detailed regulations in order to prevent abuse and control procedures. European court judgements have recently strengthened protection in certain areas, for example by clarifying that religious freedom must be fully respected and that high standards apply to “safe countries of origin”. For practitioners and lawyers, it is interesting that the case law remains dynamic: there are constant developments both in questions of gender-specific persecution, in dealing with the granting of protection within the EU (keyword: refugee recognition in another EU state) and with regard to new EU regulations (asylum procedure reform). This is important for the layperson: People who are actually persecuted enjoy protection in Germany. The legal hurdles are aimed at targeting this protection to those who need it most urgently - but at the same time processing unjustified or non-persecution-based applications more quickly.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. This article has been compiled to the best of our knowledge and according to the current state of knowledge. Nevertheless, in view of the complexity and ongoing changes in the subject matter, no guarantee can be given for its accuracy and completeness. It is intended to provide general information and is not a substitute for binding legal advice.
If you have a Individual legal advice or if you have any questions about asylum and refugee law, you are welcome to contact us without obligation. You can reach us by telephone at 0221 - 80187670 or by e-mail to info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients in immigration and asylum law.
