{"id":1620,"date":"2025-11-29T08:57:22","date_gmt":"2025-11-29T08:57:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/rechtsanwaltsblog\/?p=1620"},"modified":"2025-12-29T08:54:21","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T08:54:21","slug":"auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/foreign-law-the-provisions-of-the-asylblg-on-basic-benefits-in-the-form-of-cash-benefits-are-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"Aliens law: The provisions of the AsylbLG on basic benefits in the form of cash benefits are unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act (AsylbLG) was introduced on 1 November 1993 in order to create an independent regulation for the care of asylum seekers and certain other foreign persons without a permanent right of residence. Previously, these benefits were covered by general social assistance. The legislator's intention with the AsylbLG was to set a lower level of benefits than in social welfare, also in order - according to the political intention - to reduce possible incentives for asylum applications. In the original version, the law stipulated flat-rate amounts of money: a single asylum seeker received around DM 360 per month for essential living expenses (food, accommodation, heating, etc.) and DM 80 as pocket money for personal needs. These amounts were granted as benefits in kind and in cash, whereby the law stipulated the Benefit-in-kind principle<\/strong> emphasised - i.e. primarily benefits in the form of accommodation, food, clothing and other goods instead of cash. However, the aforementioned lump sums remained unchanged for years (from 2002 in the corresponding euro amount), despite the rising cost of living. This led to early criticism that the minimum subsistence level for asylum seekers had not been adjusted and was significantly below the level of social welfare. In addition, the scope of application of the AsylbLG was gradually extended over time: initially it mainly applied to asylum seekers during the ongoing asylum procedure and tolerated foreigners, but later also to persons without residence status who were obliged to leave the country and - at least temporarily - to certain groups with temporary residence permits (e.g. war refugees). As a result, the AsylbLG finally covered a broad group of people seeking protection and migrants without a permanently secured status, including their spouses, partners and underage children. However, the benefits remained at the original level until the 2000s, which in practice meant a steady reduction in real purchasing power.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Current legal situation (as of November 2025)<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The AsylbLG has been fundamentally revised and adapted to changed legal requirements through several reforms, particularly from 2012 onwards. Today, the AsylbLG guarantees benefits to secure the a humane subsistence minimum<\/strong> for asylum seekers and other beneficiaries - albeit with some special rules compared to \u201enormal\u201c social assistance.<\/p>\n

- Persons entitled to benefits:<\/strong> According to \u00a7 1 AsylbLG, the group of beneficiaries primarily includes asylum seekers with a residence permit in the ongoing asylum procedure, tolerated foreigners (whose deportation has been temporarily suspended) and persons with an enforceable obligation to leave the country and no right of residence. In addition, certain groups of people with a temporary residence permit are also covered by the AsylbLG, unless they are otherwise entitled to social benefits. For example, war refugees with a residence permit in accordance with Section 24 AufenthG (temporary protection) were initially entitled to benefits under the AsylbLG. Since June 2022, however, refugees from Ukraine have been receiving benefits directly under SGB II (citizen's allowance) due to a special legal regulation as soon as they have been issued a residence permit or fictitious certificate - they are therefore assigned to the regular social benefits and not (or no longer) provided for under the AsylbLG. Overall, however, the AsylbLG remains the central legal basis for the provision of most newly arriving asylum seekers and tolerated persons as long as they do not have a permanent residence status.<\/p>\n

- Basic benefits according to \u00a7 3 AsylbLG:<\/strong> In the first 36 months<\/strong> During their stay in Germany, those entitled to benefits receive basic benefits to cover their necessary needs. These include the physical livelihood<\/strong> - i.e. food, accommodation, heating, clothing, healthcare and household consumables and supplies and<\/strong> an additional amount for Personal needs of daily life<\/strong> (for social and cultural participation, often referred to as \u201epocket money\u201c). The AsylbLG stipulates that living expenses must be covered primarily by Benefits in kind<\/strong> should be provided, especially during the first few months and in initial reception centres. This means that asylum seekers in reception centres or shared accommodation are provided with accommodation, for example, receive meals via canteens or food parcels and can also be provided with clothing or toiletries. Cash benefits are actually of secondary importance for these necessary needs. In practice, however, this strict obligation to provide benefits in kind has been relaxed: since a reform in 2015 (as part of an asylum compromise) and in view of organisational hurdles, many federal states are increasingly granting the needs outside the initial reception facilities as Cash benefit<\/strong> or in the form of vouchers. The legal basis allows both - the authorities can either pay out cash depending on the circumstances, Payment cards<\/strong> (these are electronic credit cards that are to be introduced nationwide to enable cashless payments by those entitled to benefits), or issue vouchers and similar non-cash means. In particular the Necessary personal requirements<\/strong> - i.e. pocket money for daily personal expenses - is now predominantly paid out in cash, except in the first few months in initial reception centres, where this pocket money can often also be provided in kind (e.g. hygiene or leisure items). Since October 2015, the law has even expressly stipulated that during the first up to six months in a reception centre, personal needs should also be granted primarily as benefits in kind in order to avoid supposed \u201efalse incentives\u201c. Nevertheless, it remains a matter of judgement for the authorities and practices vary from region to region.<\/p>\n

The Height<\/strong> The basic benefits are defined in the law on the basis of standard needs levels and are now generally based on the amounts of social assistance (SGB XII). Specifically, Section 3a AsylbLG defines six needs levels, analogous to the standard needs levels of social welfare, albeit with certain deviations for the situation of refugees. For example, a single adult asylum seeker who is not living in a partnership is currently entitled to the full standard rate for single people (standard needs level 1). Currently (as of 2025), this standard rate for a single person is around \u20ac364 per month<\/strong>, if the necessary needs and personal needs are added together. In addition, there are the costs of accommodation and heating, which are covered separately - either by providing a place in shared accommodation or by paying rent if the person concerned lives in their own flat or decentralised accommodation. (Accommodation costs are covered at an appropriate level, similar to the principle of \u201eaccommodation costs\u201c in social welfare law, and can now also be paid directly to the landlord, which was made easier in 2024 to relieve the burden on local authorities). The \u20ac364 mentioned for the living expenses of a single person is below the social assistance level for Germans (the citizen's allowance or social assistance for single people is around \u20ac500 per month for standard needs). This difference is partly due to the fact that the AsylbLG does not provide for certain supplements and additional needs (e.g. no general additional needs for single parents, costly food, etc., except in cases of hardship according to \u00a7 6 AsylbLG), and due to the political requirement of a lower level of benefits. However, it is important to note that the Federal Constitutional Court has made it clear that even these reduced benefits still fulfil the Minimum subsistence level<\/strong> more on this below. The amounts according to \u00a7 3a AsylbLG have been adjusted annually<\/strong>The index is automatically updated on 1 January of each year in line with the development of prices and wages, based on the calculation method in SGB XII. Unlike social welfare, however, the AsylbLG does not provide any \u201eprotection\u201c against benefit cuts in the event of a falling index - in 2025, the statistical update actually led to a reduction in benefits. slight lowering<\/strong> of cash benefits (around \u20ac15-20 less per person per month than in the previous year, depending on the level of need). This peculiarity shows that the benefit level in the AsylbLG is not set in stone, but can fluctuate.<\/p>\n

- Analogue benefits according to \u00a7 2 AsylbLG:<\/strong> After 36 months<\/strong> After their uninterrupted stay in Germany (as of 2025), those entitled to benefits are entitled to so-called analogue benefits under certain conditions. This means that their support is then raised to the level of regular social assistance (SGB XII). This is referred to as a waiting period: only after three years do asylum seekers or tolerated persons receive the same benefits as Germans in the basic social security system, provided that<\/strong> they have not \u201eabusively influenced the long period of residence themselves\u201c (this unwieldy clause aims to exclude benefit recipients from analogue benefits who, for example, have prolonged their stay by deception or deliberately delaying their proceedings - a case that is rarely found in practice, but is included in the law). The waiting period was not always this long: originally it was as long as 48 months, but was drastically reduced to 15 months in 2015 as a result of constitutional requirements, then increased again to 18 months in 2019 and finally doubled to 36 months in 2024. These extensions were politically motivated in order to delay the receipt of full social benefits for tolerated persons and asylum seekers. After expiry of the 36 months<\/strong> entitled persons are treated almost the same as social welfare recipients. In practice, this means that they will then receive standard benefits in the full amount of SGB XII (e.g. around \u20ac502 for a single person, plus assumption of reasonable housing costs) and, above all, also Comprehensive medical care<\/strong>. The latter is an important point: during the first 36 months, asylum seekers only receive limited healthcare services in accordance with \u00a7 4 and \u00a7 6 AsylbLG - essentially acute illnesses and pain conditions are treated, as well as prenatal care; for anything beyond this (e.g. chronic treatment, psychotherapeutic services), a special need must be recognised in individual cases. After switching to analogue benefits, however, beneficiaries receive a health card and can make use of regular statutory health insurance benefits, which is a considerable improvement. The Analogue services<\/strong> are granted as cash benefits (benefits in kind are then no longer provided unless someone lives in a special institution). This means that after three years at the latest, the principle of benefits in kind no longer applies - those affected then receive their money and can dispose of it freely, similar to other social benefit recipients.<\/p>\n

- Performance restrictions and new developments:<\/strong> Section 1a of the AsylbLG contains regulations that provide for even lower benefits under certain circumstances. These Sanction regulations<\/strong> For example, this applies if someone does not co-operate in their deportation despite being obliged to leave the country or provides false information about their identity. In such cases, the social welfare authorities have so far been able to reduce benefits to an absolute minimum (in extreme cases, only food and accommodation as benefits in kind, so-called \u201eaccommodation and food, nothing else\u201c). These reductions are highly controversial as they affect the minimum subsistence level. A supreme court decision on this is still pending, but the Federal Constitutional Court has already made it clear that sanctions motivated by migration policy must be scrutinised very critically. In October 2024, Section 1a AsylbLG was tightened once again: with the \u201eAct to Improve Internal Security and the Asylum System\u201c, the legislator has introduced a complete exclusion of benefits<\/strong> standardised. Specifically, refugees who are required to leave the country and whose asylum application has been rejected as inadmissible because another EU country is actually responsible (in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation) will in future receive No more asylum seeker benefits<\/strong>, if the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees has ordered their deportation to the country responsible and this deportation is actually possible. These persons are only to be granted so-called \"temporary protection\" for a maximum of two weeks. Bridging services<\/strong> (to secure shelter and food in the short time until departure). This increases the pressure for such migrants to either leave voluntarily or be transferred to the responsible EU country. This new regulation is very drastic, as previously even people who were obliged to leave the country received at least limited benefits to help them survive. However, the law makes it clear that such an exclusion of benefits only applies if the other state has agreed to the readmission and the person concerned is not threatened with inhumane treatment there - in other words, in accordance with European law. Otherwise, for example if the transfer period under Dublin has expired or the destination state does not offer any care, there can be no exclusion of benefits. It remains to be seen how this new regulation will be implemented in practice and whether it will stand up under constitutional law; in July 2024, the Federal Social Court had already referred a comparable earlier case to the European Court of Justice for review.<\/p>\n

In summary, the Legal situation at the end of 2025<\/strong> as follows: Asylum seekers and other persons covered by the AsylbLG initially receive reduced basic benefits, which are intended to ensure a minimum subsistence level but are below the level of other social benefits. These basic benefits are paid partly in kind and partly in cash and are adjusted annually. After 36 months of residence - provided there are no negative circumstances - they are equalised with social assistance (analogous benefits). The most recent amendments to the law mainly concerned organisational points (introduction of a standardised federal payment card instead of cash, easier direct payment of rent) as well as stricter regulations motivated by migration policy (extension of the waiting period to 36 months and exclusion of benefits in Dublin cases). Despite these developments, the core of the AsylbLG remains committed to the welfare state principle: Refugees in Germany must also be granted a decent minimum income.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Current case law:<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Case law has had a decisive influence on the development of the AsylbLG. A first milestone was the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of 18 July 2012 (Ref. 1 BvL 10\/10, 1 BvL 2\/11)<\/strong>. In this landmark judgement, the First Senate declared the then applicable cash benefits under the AsylbLG to be unconstitutional<\/strong>, because they are connected to the Fundamental right to the guarantee of a humane minimum subsistence level<\/strong> are incompatible. The court emphasised that this fundamental right from Art. 1 para. 1 GG<\/em> (human dignity) in connection with the Welfare state principle of Art. 20 para. 1 GG<\/em> applies to all<\/strong> people, including asylum seekers. In its judgement, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that the benefit rates, which had remained unchanged since 1993, were clearly inadequate: For almost two decades, the legislator had not taken into account inflation or real developments in needs. In addition, the amounts had been set without a comprehensible basis for calculation - there was no derivation based on current needs. The lump sums therefore appeared arbitrary and left a current, realistic minimum subsistence level<\/strong> missing. The court clarified this with a much-quoted sentence: \u201eHuman dignity cannot be relativised in terms of migration policy.\u201c<\/em> Reductions in benefits or a lower minimum subsistence level should not be justified on the basis of deterrent reasons for refugees, but only if a lower need is objectively proven - which was not the case here. The judgement obliged the legislator, immediately<\/strong> to make a new regulation. Until this new regulation comes into force, Karlsruhe ordered a transitional solution: From 1 January 2011 (retroactively), cash benefits under the AsylbLG would have to be calculated according to the same methodological principles as social benefits under SGB II\/XII. In practical terms, this meant that a significant increase took effect immediately - from then on, asylum seekers received benefits in line with Hartz IV rates. This judgement brought movement in politics: As a result, the AsylbLG was reformed in 2014\/2015 (see above) in order to meet constitutional requirements. The basic benefits were increased and dynamised, but without being aligned 1:1 with social assistance (a difference that still exists today, for example in the absence of additional needs).<\/p>\n

Another important judgement followed ten years later. In October 2022<\/strong> the Federal Constitutional Court once again ruled on a referral matter concerning asylum seeker benefits. Specifically, it concerned a special regulation introduced in 2019, which reduces benefits for Single asylum seekers in shared accommodation<\/strong> 10 % lower than for other single people. The legislator had justified this reduction by stating that people living in shared accommodation could \u201emanage from one pot\u201c, similar to a joint household, and therefore save costs - similar to married couples or communities of need. This regulation was implemented in the AsylbLG in such a way that single residents of shared accommodation only received standard needs level 2 (for household members) instead of level 1, as is usually the case for single persons. In its ruling of 19 October 2022 (case no. 1 BvL 3\/21), the Federal Constitutional Court declared this across-the-board reduction in benefits to be unconstitutional<\/strong>. In its reasoning, the court stated that the state could demand that those in need of assistance make reasonable efforts to reduce their needs, but that a flat-rate reduction of the minimum subsistence level was not permitted. only<\/strong> if there are actually demonstrable savings. A mere Assumption<\/strong> possible synergy effects is not sufficient to reduce basic needs by 10 %. In the case of shared accommodation, there was a lack of any empirical evidence to show that unknown residents of accommodation manage together as a family and thus save on expenditure. On the contrary, the court emphasised that single people living in shared accommodation generally not<\/strong> pool together with others (and do not have to expect this). Consequently, the legislator was not allowed to assume that their needs were lower. The judgement from 2022 has direct consequences: Until new legislation is passed, single persons entitled to benefits in shared accommodation must also receive the full standard rate (level 1). The practice has been changed accordingly, although the AsylbLG itself has not yet been explicitly amended - however, the constitutional interpretation is being observed by the authorities. This judgement once again underlines the guiding principle that the humane minimum subsistence level must apply to everyone<\/strong>, regardless of the type of accommodation or residence status.<\/p>\n

In addition to the Federal Constitutional Court, the specialised courts also regularly deal with the AsylbLG. The Federal Social Court (BSG) has made a number of important decisions in recent years, for example on the interpretation of the legal terms \u201eabusive influence on residence\u201c in the case of analogue benefits or on the question of the circumstances under which reduced benefits under Section 1a AsylbLG are proportionate. New dimensions of European law are also emerging: In 2024, for example, the BSG referred the matter to the European Court of Justice to clarify whether certain benefit reductions are compatible with EU law (in particular the Reception Conditions Directive for asylum seekers). These proceedings are still ongoing. However, it is generally recognisable that the courts - led by the Federal Constitutional Court - are making sure that the Human dignity and the principle of the welfare state<\/strong> are preserved. Restrictions or exclusions of benefits are subject to a strict proportionality test. Legislators are therefore faced with the challenge of implementing political control wishes (e.g. to limit incentives) while at the same time complying with constitutional limits. The coalition agreement of the current federal government envisaged further developing the AsylbLG \u201ein the light of the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court\u201c - which should ultimately mean dismantling discriminatory special regulations. It remains to be seen whether this will be implemented in the near future. Until then, judgements such as those of 2012 and 2022 ensure that benefits under the AsylbLG at least guarantee the bare minimum for a dignified life.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Asylum Seekers Benefits Act has undergone a chequered development since its introduction. As of November 2025, it provides asylum seekers and comparable groups of people with basic benefits that cover the physical subsistence level and enable limited social participation. Despite several adjustments - in particular due to constitutional court requirements - the level of benefits in the first few years of residence remains below that of social welfare. Politically, the AsylbLG remains a field of tension between humanitarian requirements and migration policy objectives. For those with an interest in law, the continuing influence of the Federal Constitutional Court is particularly noteworthy, as it has significantly influenced the design of the benefits and is likely to continue to do so in the future. For those affected, the current system means certain disadvantages and uncertainties (long waiting periods, benefits in kind, possible cuts), but also the guarantee that at least basic needs must not be denied.<\/p>\n

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.<\/strong> The content of this article has been compiled to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, the complexity and constant change of the subject matter make it necessary to exclude liability and warranty. If you Legal advice<\/strong> you can contact us at any time without obligation by calling 0221 - 80187670 or by e-mail to info@mth-partner.de<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the amount of cash benefits to be paid under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act has not been calculated in a comprehensible manner to date and that the law does not provide a realistic, needs-based calculation that currently ensures a livelihood.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11619,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3665],"tags":[1840,2687],"class_list":["post-1620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asylum","tag-voraussetzungen-asyl","tag-was-tun-nach-asylablehnung"],"yoast_head":"\nAusl\u00e4nderrecht: Die Regelungen des AsylbLG zu den Grundleistungen in Form von Geldleistungen sind verfassungswidrig<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat entschieden, dass Regelungen des Asylbewerberleistungsgesetzes verfassungswidrig sind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/foreign-law-the-provisions-of-the-asylblg-on-basic-benefits-in-the-form-of-cash-benefits-are-unconstitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die Regelungen des AsylbLG zu den Grundleistungen in Form von Geldleistungen sind verfassungswidrig\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat entschieden, dass Regelungen des Asylbewerberleistungsgesetzes verfassungswidrig sind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/foreign-law-the-provisions-of-the-asylblg-on-basic-benefits-in-the-form-of-cash-benefits-are-unconstitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-11-29T08:57:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-29T08:54:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aliens law: The provisions of the AsylbLG on basic benefits in the form of cash benefits are unconstitutional","description":"The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that provisions of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act are unconstitutional","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/foreign-law-the-provisions-of-the-asylblg-on-basic-benefits-in-the-form-of-cash-benefits-are-unconstitutional\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die Regelungen des AsylbLG zu den Grundleistungen in Form von Geldleistungen sind verfassungswidrig","og_description":"Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat entschieden, dass Regelungen des Asylbewerberleistungsgesetzes verfassungswidrig sind","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/foreign-law-the-provisions-of-the-asylblg-on-basic-benefits-in-the-form-of-cash-benefits-are-unconstitutional\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2025-11-29T08:57:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-29T08:54:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_site":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Estimated reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/5dc7cf455de54130946e3cac97f5dfbd"},"headline":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die Regelungen des AsylbLG zu den Grundleistungen in Form von Geldleistungen sind verfassungswidrig","datePublished":"2025-11-29T08:57:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-29T08:54:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/"},"wordCount":3029,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","keywords":["Voraussetzungen Asyl","Was tun nach Asylablehnung?"],"articleSection":["Asylum"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/","name":"Aliens law: The provisions of the AsylbLG on basic benefits in the form of cash benefits are unconstitutional","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","datePublished":"2025-11-29T08:57:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-29T08:54:21+00:00","description":"The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that provisions of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act are unconstitutional","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","width":1200,"height":600,"caption":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/auslanderrecht-die-regelungen-des-asylblg-zu-den-grundleistungen-in-form-von-geldleistungen-sind-verfassungswidrig\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/auslaenderrecht-anwalt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Asylum","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/auslaenderrecht-anwalt\/asylum\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht: Die Regelungen des AsylbLG zu den Grundleistungen in Form von Geldleistungen sind verfassungswidrig"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","name":"Law firm Tieben","description":"Lawyer Tieben \/ Law firm Cologne","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization","name":"Law firm Tieben","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","width":254,"height":52,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","https:\/\/x.com\/mth_Tieben","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/helmer-tieben-09570226"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/5dc7cf455de54130946e3cac97f5dfbd","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e5cd6a082a9610122b683548f09817f169e693adf042f28428cbf76b1ca03d2c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e5cd6a082a9610122b683548f09817f169e693adf042f28428cbf76b1ca03d2c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e5cd6a082a9610122b683548f09817f169e693adf042f28428cbf76b1ca03d2c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1620","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1620"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1620\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12928,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1620\/revisions\/12928"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11619"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}