{"id":1920,"date":"2025-11-29T06:17:22","date_gmt":"2025-11-29T06:17:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/rechtsanwaltsblog\/?p=1920"},"modified":"2025-12-29T08:55:13","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T08:55:13","slug":"asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/asylum-law-severe-interference-with-the-public-practice-of-religion-constitutes-persecution-based-on-religious-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"Asylum Law: Severe Interference with the Public Practice of Religion Constitutes Persecution Based on Religious Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"<p data-start=\"79\" data-end=\"803\">In Germany, the right to asylum is guaranteed by the Basic Law and simple statutory law, in particular the <strong data-start=\"186\" data-end=\"208\">Asylum Act (AsylG)<\/strong>, is designed. <strong data-start=\"224\" data-end=\"262\">Article 16a of the Basic Law (GG)<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"538\" data-end=\"562\">European requirements<\/strong> and international agreements such as the <strong data-start=\"599\" data-end=\"637\">Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (GRC)<\/strong>. In the following, the main principles, the asylum procedure and important court decisions are summarised. <strong data-start=\"751\" data-end=\"774\">Status November 2025<\/strong> - clearly presented.<\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"805\" data-end=\"869\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Verfassungsrechtliche_Grundlagen_des_Asylrechts_Art_16a_GG\"><\/span>Constitutional foundations of the right of asylum (Art. 16a GG)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"871\" data-end=\"1076\"><strong data-start=\"871\" data-end=\"889\">Article 16a GG<\/strong> 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:<\/p>\n<ul data-start=\"1078\" data-end=\"4937\">\n<li data-start=\"1078\" data-end=\"1319\">\n<p data-start=\"1080\" data-end=\"1319\"><strong data-start=\"1080\" data-end=\"1093\">Paragraph 1:<\/strong> <em data-start=\"1094\" data-end=\"1137\">\u201cPolitically persecuted persons enjoy the right to asylum.\u201d<\/em> - This fundamental right guarantees protection for people who flee to Germany due to political persecution. It is a subjective right with constitutional status.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"1320\" data-end=\"2198\">\n<p data-start=\"1322\" data-end=\"2198\"><strong data-start=\"1322\" data-end=\"1335\">Paragraph 2:<\/strong> This right to asylum <strong data-start=\"1357\" data-end=\"1384\">cannot invoke<\/strong>, who comes from a <strong data-start=\"1400\" data-end=\"1440\">Member State of the European Union<\/strong> or any other <strong data-start=\"1462\" data-end=\"1487\">\u201csafe third country\u201d<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"1877\" data-end=\"1980\">Asylum in the Basic Law only applies if entry is not via a safe third country<\/strong> - which is rarely the case in practice. Responsibility for such asylum applications is usually regulated by the <strong data-start=\"2080\" data-end=\"2097\">Dublin system<\/strong> of the EU, according to which the first safe host country in Europe is responsible for the asylum procedure.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2199\" data-end=\"3159\">\n<p data-start=\"2201\" data-end=\"3159\"><strong data-start=\"2201\" data-end=\"2214\">Paragraph 3:<\/strong> The legislator may, by means of a law requiring approval <strong data-start=\"2272\" data-end=\"2302\">\u201csafe countries of origin\u201d<\/strong> define. These are countries of origin where <strong data-start=\"2351\" data-end=\"2419\">it is assumed that no political persecution is taking place there<\/strong>. Asylum applications from persons from safe countries of origin are generally recognised as <strong data-start=\"2500\" data-end=\"2530\">obviously unfounded<\/strong> which allows for accelerated proceedings. However, the presumption of freedom from prosecution is <strong data-start=\"2636\" data-end=\"2651\">refutable<\/strong> - an asylum seeker can demonstrate in the individual case that he or she <em data-start=\"2717\" data-end=\"2726\">nevertheless<\/em> 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 <strong data-start=\"2924\" data-end=\"2933\">and<\/strong> various other countries, including the Western Balkan states, <strong data-start=\"3001\" data-end=\"3037\">Georgia, Moldova, Senegal, Ghana<\/strong> and a few more. (Georgia and the Republic of Moldova were only newly recognised as safe countries of origin at the end of 2023).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"3160\" data-end=\"4092\">\n<p data-start=\"3162\" data-end=\"4092\"><strong data-start=\"3162\" data-end=\"3175\">Paragraph 4:<\/strong> Allows special <strong data-start=\"3194\" data-end=\"3218\">Procedural regulations<\/strong> for persons travelling from safe countries. This forms the basis for <strong data-start=\"3299\" data-end=\"3319\">Fast-track procedure<\/strong> - 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 <strong data-start=\"3678\" data-end=\"3712\">Refusal or deportation<\/strong> take place immediately. This regulation is intended to prevent abuse and speed up procedures, but must be designed in such a way that <strong data-start=\"3842\" data-end=\"3891\">Right to be heard and effective legal protection<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"4093\" data-end=\"4937\">\n<p data-start=\"4095\" data-end=\"4937\"><strong data-start=\"4095\" data-end=\"4108\">Paragraph 5:<\/strong> Clarifies that the provisions of Art. 16a GG <strong data-start=\"4160\" data-end=\"4189\">international treaties<\/strong> remain unaffected. In particular, the obligations arising from the <strong data-start=\"4249\" data-end=\"4281\">Geneva Refugee Convention<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"4635\" data-end=\"4657\">Subsidiary protection<\/strong> in the event of a risk of serious harm such as war, torture, etc.). Art. 16a para. 5 GG thus guarantees that <strong data-start=\"4756\" data-end=\"4793\">international refugee protection<\/strong> and humanitarian obligations continue to apply, even if the narrow constitutional right to asylum does not apply in individual cases.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p data-start=\"4939\" data-end=\"6051\">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. <strong data-start=\"5145\" data-end=\"5199\">Germany has strongly Europeanised its asylum law:<\/strong> 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. <strong data-start=\"5638\" data-end=\"5659\">Refugee protection<\/strong> is therefore often granted today via simple legal regulations of the Asylum Act - either as <strong data-start=\"5758\" data-end=\"5800\">Recognition of refugee status<\/strong> (according to \u00a73 AsylG, which corresponds to the status of a GRC refugee) or as a <strong data-start=\"5875\" data-end=\"5897\">subsidiary protection<\/strong> (\u00a74 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.<\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"6053\" data-end=\"6104\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Asylverfahren_und_Zustandigkeiten_in_Deutschland\"><\/span>Asylum procedures and responsibilities in Germany<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"6106\" data-end=\"6412\">In Germany, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees is responsible for examining asylum applications. <strong data-start=\"6162\" data-end=\"6212\">Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF)<\/strong> 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:<\/p>\n<ul data-start=\"6414\" data-end=\"7111\">\n<li data-start=\"6414\" data-end=\"6548\">\n<p data-start=\"6416\" data-end=\"6548\"><strong data-start=\"6416\" data-end=\"6469\">Recognition as a person entitled to asylum according to Art. 16a GG<\/strong> (which is practically rare, as they usually entered the country via third countries),<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"6549\" data-end=\"6726\">\n<p data-start=\"6551\" data-end=\"6726\"><strong data-start=\"6551\" data-end=\"6593\">Recognition of refugee status<\/strong> according to \u00a7 3 AsylG (based on the Geneva Refugee Convention - this is the most common form of protection for politically persecuted persons),<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"6727\" data-end=\"6906\">\n<p data-start=\"6729\" data-end=\"6906\"><strong data-start=\"6729\" data-end=\"6765\">Granting of subsidiary protection<\/strong> according to \u00a7 4 AsylG (if there is no persecution in the narrow sense, but serious general danger in the home country, e.g. civil war), or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"6907\" data-end=\"7111\">\n<p data-start=\"6909\" data-end=\"7111\"><strong data-start=\"6909\" data-end=\"6922\">Rejection<\/strong> of the asylum application (if necessary with the addition \u201emanifestly unfounded\u201c, especially in the case of applicants from safe countries of origin or in the case of contradictory or abusive applications).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p data-start=\"7113\" data-end=\"7812\">If an asylum seeker receives a <strong data-start=\"7144\" data-end=\"7166\">Rejection notice<\/strong>, he is entitled to the <strong data-start=\"7182\" data-end=\"7206\">Administrative legal process<\/strong> open. An appeal against the BAMF decision can be lodged with the competent court within a certain period of time. <strong data-start=\"7299\" data-end=\"7321\">Administrative court<\/strong> 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).<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"7814\" data-end=\"8417\">Administrative jurisdiction is organised in three stages: After the administrative court of first instance, in certain cases an appeal can be lodged with the <strong data-start=\"7956\" data-end=\"7982\">High Administrative Court<\/strong> (or the Administrative Court in some federal states). Finally, the proceedings can be continued until the <strong data-start=\"8124\" data-end=\"8161\">Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)<\/strong> reach. The <strong data-start=\"8181\" data-end=\"8218\">Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG)<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"8419\" data-end=\"9379\">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. <strong data-start=\"8920\" data-end=\"8934\">reformed<\/strong>, to make procedures more efficient, but also to prevent abuse. For example, special arrival centres and so-called \u201eAnkER centres\u201c 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.<\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"9381\" data-end=\"9461\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Politische_Verfolgung_%E2%80%93_Definition_und_Bezug_zur_Genfer_Fluchtlingskonvention\"><\/span>Political persecution - definition and reference to the Geneva Refugee Convention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"9463\" data-end=\"9881\"><strong data-start=\"9463\" data-end=\"9533\">Article 16a of the Basic Law grants asylum exclusively to \u201epolitically persecuted persons\u201c.<\/strong> The concept of <strong data-start=\"9550\" data-end=\"9576\">political persecution<\/strong> is not defined in detail in the Basic Law itself. Its precise contours are the responsibility of the <strong data-start=\"9664\" data-end=\"9682\">Case law<\/strong>, in particular the Federal Constitutional Court and the administrative courts, and is largely orientated towards the <strong data-start=\"9794\" data-end=\"9832\">Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (GRC)<\/strong> and today on the EU Qualification Directive.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"9883\" data-end=\"11129\">According to the generally recognised definition, political persecution occurs when <strong data-start=\"9959\" data-end=\"10017\">Interference with life, limb or personal freedom<\/strong> take place (or threaten to take place) that fulfil one of the characteristics listed in the CSF. <strong data-start=\"10092\" data-end=\"10105\">tie in<\/strong>namely <strong data-start=\"10115\" data-end=\"10227\">Race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group<\/strong>. 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 <strong data-start=\"10386\" data-end=\"10397\">Heavy<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"10670\" data-end=\"10682\">Religion<\/strong> harassed, or because of the <strong data-start=\"10712\" data-end=\"10735\">ethnic origin<\/strong> systematically discriminated against, or because of his or her <strong data-start=\"10785\" data-end=\"10819\">political opposition<\/strong> threatened. The <strong data-start=\"10838\" data-end=\"10880\">Belonging to a social group<\/strong> is a recognised reason for persecution - this includes certain minorities, for example, <strong data-start=\"10963\" data-end=\"10981\">LGBTQ people<\/strong>, or, depending on the country, women if they are at risk of particular persecution because of their gender (see below on current case law).<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"11131\" data-end=\"11862\"><strong data-start=\"11131\" data-end=\"11171\">No asylum within the meaning of the Basic Law<\/strong> on the other hand, those who are fleeing great hardship but <strong data-start=\"11227\" data-end=\"11261\">not personally targeted<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"11692\" data-end=\"11772\">Art. 16a GG is intended to protect the narrow circle of persons who are actually persecuted individually<\/strong>, while broader causes of flight are covered by simple statutory and international law.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"11864\" data-end=\"12647\">It is also important, <strong data-start=\"11882\" data-end=\"11912\">who acts as a chaser<\/strong>. Classically, the starting point was <strong data-start=\"11944\" data-end=\"11953\">State<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"12117\" data-end=\"12144\">non-state actors<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"12523\" data-end=\"12554\">Involuntary nature of the escape<\/strong>The persecuted person must be forced to leave the home country due to a serious threat.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"12649\" data-end=\"13778\">The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees defines a refugee in <strong data-start=\"12721\" data-end=\"12736\">Article 1 A<\/strong> in a similar way: as a person who \u201eowing 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.\u201c 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 <strong data-start=\"13462\" data-end=\"13490\">Federal Constitutional Court<\/strong> made it clear early on that persecution is a <strong data-start=\"13537\" data-end=\"13642\">\u201cunlawful violation of life, physical integrity or personal freedom\u201d<\/strong> must be that the person concerned <strong data-start=\"13674\" data-end=\"13716\">\u201cbecause of an asylum-relevant characteristic\u201d<\/strong> and therefore ostracises him from the community.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"13780\" data-end=\"14523\">This is an important aspect emphasised by case law: <strong data-start=\"13833\" data-end=\"13866\">The intensity of the persecution<\/strong>. Not every disadvantage constitutes grounds for asylum. The measures must be of such considerable weight that <strong data-start=\"13985\" data-end=\"14017\">Human dignity and core rights<\/strong> 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. <strong data-start=\"14233\" data-end=\"14246\">Cumulative<\/strong> 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).<\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"14525\" data-end=\"14591\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wichtige_Rechtsprechung_Asylgrunde_und_aktuelle_Entscheidungen\"><\/span>Important case law: grounds for asylum and current decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"14593\" data-end=\"15023\">Asylum law is subject to constant development by the courts. Both German courts and the <strong data-start=\"14702\" data-end=\"14736\">European Court of Justice (ECJ)<\/strong> have shaped the application of asylum laws through their judgements. Below are two exemplary rulings - one on the subject in principle <strong data-start=\"14873\" data-end=\"14897\">Religious persecution<\/strong> and a newer one on <strong data-start=\"14918\" data-end=\"14957\">Categorisation of safe countries of origin<\/strong> - which show how case law concretises the scope of protection.<\/p>\n<h3 data-start=\"15025\" data-end=\"15099\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Religiose_Verfolgung_als_Asylgrund_%E2%80%93_EuGH_im_Fall_der_Ahmadiyya_2012\"><\/span>Religious persecution as grounds for asylum - ECJ in the Ahmadiyya case (2012)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"15101\" data-end=\"15573\">A <strong data-start=\"15105\" data-end=\"15134\">milestone judgement<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"15299\" data-end=\"15310\">Y and Z<\/strong> from Pakistan, which the <strong data-start=\"15345\" data-end=\"15383\">Ahmadiyya religious community<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"15575\" data-end=\"16295\"><strong data-start=\"15575\" data-end=\"15580\">Y<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"15827\" data-end=\"15841\">Blasphemy<\/strong> (insulting the Prophet Mohammed) - an accusation that can result in draconian penalties in Pakistan. <strong data-start=\"15963\" data-end=\"15968\">Z<\/strong> also reported physical assaults because of his faith and even a brief period of <strong data-start=\"16069\" data-end=\"16085\">Imprisonment<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"16297\" data-end=\"16950\">However, the German asylum authorities initially rejected Y and Z's applications. The reason given was that the <strong data-start=\"16413\" data-end=\"16464\">State measures against Ahmadis in Pakistan<\/strong> - such as the ban on publicly professing their faith - are only restrictions on the <strong data-start=\"16560\" data-end=\"16616\">freedom of religious activity in public<\/strong>, but no asylum-relevant <em data-start=\"16643\" data-end=\"16655\">Pursuit<\/em>. 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).<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"16952\" data-end=\"17400\">Y and Z brought an action against this decision before the German courts. The proceedings finally reached the <strong data-start=\"17061\" data-end=\"17098\">Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)<\/strong>, which recognised that this was a matter of principle: <strong data-start=\"17156\" data-end=\"17289\">Under what conditions do restrictions on the practice of religion constitute \u201cpersecution\u201d within the meaning of refugee law?<\/strong> The BVerwG referred this question to the European Court of Justice for interpretation of EU asylum law.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"17402\" data-end=\"18234\">The <strong data-start=\"17406\" data-end=\"17414\">ECJ<\/strong> clarified in its ruling of 5 September 2012: <strong data-start=\"17468\" data-end=\"17572\">Religious persecution cannot be limited to the \u201ccore area\u201d of private religious life.<\/strong> Rather, the decisive factor is whether the person concerned is able to maintain their faith in their country of origin. <strong data-start=\"17657\" data-end=\"17687\">in a way that is important to him<\/strong>, without having to fear significant risks. The Court emphasised that the concept of <em data-start=\"17798\" data-end=\"17808\">Religion<\/em> in the sense of refugee law expressly also the <strong data-start=\"17862\" data-end=\"17909\">Practising religion in public<\/strong> such as joint church services, missionary activities or the wearing of religious symbols. When <strong data-start=\"18019\" data-end=\"18053\">public exercise of faith<\/strong> is associated with severe disadvantages or punishments due to state prohibitions or social sanctions, this may constitute asylum-relevant persecution.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"18236\" data-end=\"18946\">Specifically, the ECJ ruled in the case of Y and Z: <strong data-start=\"18280\" data-end=\"18520\">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.<\/strong> The national authorities may not require an asylum seeker <strong data-start=\"18575\" data-end=\"18594\">do not demand<\/strong>, 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 \u201cevasive behaviour\u201d.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"18948\" data-end=\"19816\">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) <strong data-start=\"19125\" data-end=\"19172\">not the indispensable core of religion<\/strong> is irrelevant for the protection: The only decisive factor is whether the <strong data-start=\"19256\" data-end=\"19281\">Personally affected<\/strong> practice is important for his or her faith identity and whether the practice <strong data-start=\"19367\" data-end=\"19403\">would objectively jeopardise<\/strong>. If this is the case <strong data-start=\"19430\" data-end=\"19467\">Persecution on religious grounds<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"19818\" data-end=\"20968\">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: <strong data-start=\"19972\" data-end=\"20080\">Refugee believers must not be told to live their faith \u201cquietly\u201d or in secret<\/strong>, to remain unchallenged. For German practice, this meant that Ahmadis from Pakistan - like Y and Z - were generally recognised as <strong data-start=\"20209\" data-end=\"20224\">Refugees<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"20494\" data-end=\"20577\">Laws or regulations that unreasonably restrict a religion<\/strong>, can have a persecutory character, as can <strong data-start=\"20625\" data-end=\"20647\">private assaults<\/strong>, if the state offers no protection. The Y and Z judgement has thus laid the foundation for the fact that, for example <strong data-start=\"20767\" data-end=\"20858\">Christians in Islamic countries, converts or other religious minorities<\/strong> effective protection in the event that they <strong data-start=\"20910\" data-end=\"20935\">Public exercise<\/strong> are threatened with persecution for their faith.<\/p>\n<h3 data-start=\"20970\" data-end=\"21053\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Aktuelle_Rechtsprechung_Kriterien_fur_sichere_Herkunftsstaaten_EuGH_2025\"><\/span>Current case law: Criteria for <strong data-start=\"21013\" data-end=\"21041\">Safe countries of origin<\/strong> (ECJ 2025)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"21055\" data-end=\"21440\">Another important aspect of the right of asylum - especially in the current political climate - is the issue of <strong data-start=\"21152\" data-end=\"21181\">safe countries of origin<\/strong>. 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, <strong data-start=\"21354\" data-end=\"21438\">under which conditions a country may be considered a \u201csafe country of origin\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"21442\" data-end=\"21941\"><strong data-start=\"21442\" data-end=\"21457\">Background<\/strong>If 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 \u201egenerally safe\u201c country are wrongly rejected.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"21943\" data-end=\"22939\">The case in question involved two asylum seekers from <strong data-start=\"21998\" data-end=\"22013\">Bangladesh<\/strong>, which in <strong data-start=\"22022\" data-end=\"22033\">Italy<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"22470\" data-end=\"22601\">a country can really be called \u201csafe\u201d if only certain groups do not experience persecution there, while others do<\/strong> - The situation of persecuted minorities, for example, played a role here. Also problematised was the <strong data-start=\"22720\" data-end=\"22763\">Transparency of the basis for decision-making<\/strong>Italy did not disclose which sources of information (situation reports, human rights reports, etc.) it relied on when determining the safe countries of origin.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"22941\" data-end=\"23004\">The ECJ made two important clarifications in its judgement:<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"23006\" data-end=\"24156\"><strong data-start=\"23006\" data-end=\"23068\">1. \u201cSafe\u201d means safe for all population groups:<\/strong> Under EU law, a country may only be categorised as a safe country of origin, <strong data-start=\"23154\" data-end=\"23226\">if no group within it is subject to systematic persecution<\/strong>. It is therefore not enough that, for example, the majority of the population is free from persecution, while, for example <strong data-start=\"23327\" data-end=\"23388\">ethnic or religious minorities or LGBTQ people<\/strong> 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: <strong data-start=\"23560\" data-end=\"23655\">A country is either for <em data-start=\"23588\" data-end=\"23594\">all<\/em> its nationals safe - or it is not safe.<\/strong> 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 \u201cgenerally safe\u201d despite dangers to narrowly defined groups if special examination procedures are provided for these groups. Currently, however - as of 2025 - the strict principle of \u201call or nothing\u201d still applies).<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"24158\" data-end=\"25360\"><strong data-start=\"24158\" data-end=\"24229\">2. transparency and judicial review of the categorisation:<\/strong> The ECJ judges emphasised that the decision of a Member State to place a country on the safe list of origin, <strong data-start=\"24356\" data-end=\"24391\">traceable and verifiable<\/strong> must be. Specifically, the legislator must <strong data-start=\"24436\" data-end=\"24468\">Sources and means of knowledge<\/strong> 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: <strong data-start=\"25065\" data-end=\"25219\">Although member states may define states as safe by law, this decision is subject to full judicial review.<\/strong> And for effective monitoring, all facts, reports and criteria that led to the \u201csafe\u201d rating must be disclosed.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"25362\" data-end=\"26960\">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 <strong data-start=\"25618\" data-end=\"25700\">Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro<\/strong> (Western Balkans), <strong data-start=\"25715\" data-end=\"25743\">Senegal, Ghana, Georgia<\/strong> and <strong data-start=\"25748\" data-end=\"25758\">Moldova<\/strong>. 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 <strong data-start=\"25905\" data-end=\"25913\">all<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"26072\" data-end=\"26109\">Homosexuals are persecuted after all<\/strong> (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 <strong data-start=\"26464\" data-end=\"26503\">Sources of knowledge for the evaluation<\/strong> 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 <em data-start=\"26903\" data-end=\"26913\">entire<\/em> population must always be carefully documented.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"26962\" data-end=\"27771\">The decision from Luxembourg forces an overall <strong data-start=\"27019\" data-end=\"27078\">cautious handling of \u201csafe countries of origin\u201d<\/strong>. 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 <strong data-start=\"27526\" data-end=\"27559\">More differentiated categorisations<\/strong> e.g. define exceptions for certain groups (e.g. \u201eCountry X is safe, <em data-start=\"27653\" data-end=\"27666\">excluded<\/em> personal characteristic Y\u201c). But until then, the ECJ dictum applies: <strong data-start=\"27725\" data-end=\"27752\">Standardised security<\/strong> as a prerequisite.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"27773\" data-end=\"28726\">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 <strong data-start=\"28319\" data-end=\"28347\">Federal Constitutional Court<\/strong> emphasises that the classification as a safe country of origin is only constitutional if for each of these states <em data-start=\"28465\" data-end=\"28475\">generally<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"28728\" data-end=\"28736\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Fazit\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"28738\" data-end=\"30070\">German asylum law is a complex interplay of national constitutional law, simple laws, EU regulations and international law. <strong data-start=\"28885\" data-end=\"28908\">Status November 2025<\/strong> can be summarised as follows: The <strong data-start=\"28936\" data-end=\"28964\">Core of the fundamental right to asylum<\/strong> - 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. <strong data-start=\"29150\" data-end=\"29181\">European court judgements<\/strong> have recently strengthened protection in certain areas, for example by clarifying that religious freedom must be fully respected and that high standards apply to \u201csafe countries of origin\u201d. 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: <strong data-start=\"29767\" data-end=\"29845\">People who are actually persecuted enjoy protection in Germany.<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"30072\" data-end=\"30421\"><em data-start=\"30072\" data-end=\"30420\"><strong data-start=\"30073\" data-end=\"30095\">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> 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.<\/em><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"30423\" data-end=\"30686\" data-is-last-node=\"\" data-is-only-node=\"\"><em data-start=\"30423\" data-end=\"30686\" data-is-last-node=\"\">If you have a <strong data-start=\"30438\" data-end=\"30474\">Individual legal advice<\/strong> 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 <strong data-start=\"30622\" data-end=\"30641\">0221 - 80187670<\/strong> or by e-mail to <strong data-start=\"30661\" data-end=\"30684\"><span data-start=\"30663\" data-end=\"30682\">info@mth-partner.de<\/span><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/services\/immigration-law\/\">Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients in immigration and asylum law<\/a>.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div id=\"gtx-trans\" style=\"position: absolute; left: 490px; top: 5669.09px;\">\n<div class=\"gtx-trans-icon\"><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Reasons for asylum in Germany are given, for example, if a person is persecuted in their home country because of their race, gender or nationality. However, serious interference with public religious activities can also be grounds for asylum.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11619,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3665],"tags":[2443,2534,1840],"class_list":["post-1920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asylum","tag-aufenthaltserlaubnis-fuer-unanfechtbar-anerkannte-asylberechtigte","tag-rechtsanwalt-koeln-migration","tag-voraussetzungen-asyl"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Asylrecht: Schwere Eingriffe in die Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung in der \u00d6ffentlichkeit stellen eine Verfolgung wegen der Religionsaus\u00fcbung dar<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Die Voraussetzungen der Gew\u00e4hrung von Asyl liegen auch bei einem schweren Eingriff in die \u00f6ffentliche Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung eines Asylbewerbers vor.\" \/>\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\/asylum-law-severe-interference-with-the-public-practice-of-religion-constitutes-persecution-based-on-religious-practice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asylrecht: Schwere Eingriffe in die Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung in der \u00d6ffentlichkeit stellen eine Verfolgung wegen der Religionsaus\u00fcbung dar\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Die Voraussetzungen der Gew\u00e4hrung von Asyl liegen auch bei einem schweren Eingriff in die \u00f6ffentliche Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung eines Asylbewerbers vor.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/asylum-law-severe-interference-with-the-public-practice-of-religion-constitutes-persecution-based-on-religious-practice\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-11-29T06:17:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-29T08:55:13+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Asylum Law: Severe Interference with the Public Practice of Religion Constitutes Persecution Based on Religious Practice","description":"The conditions for granting asylum are also met in the event of a serious interference with the public religious activities of an asylum seeker.","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\/asylum-law-severe-interference-with-the-public-practice-of-religion-constitutes-persecution-based-on-religious-practice\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asylrecht: Schwere Eingriffe in die Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung in der \u00d6ffentlichkeit stellen eine Verfolgung wegen der Religionsaus\u00fcbung dar","og_description":"Die Voraussetzungen der Gew\u00e4hrung von Asyl liegen auch bei einem schweren Eingriff in die \u00f6ffentliche Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung eines Asylbewerbers vor.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/asylum-law-severe-interference-with-the-public-practice-of-religion-constitutes-persecution-based-on-religious-practice\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2025-11-29T06:17:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-29T08:55:13+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/5dc7cf455de54130946e3cac97f5dfbd"},"headline":"Asylrecht: Schwere Eingriffe in die Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung in der \u00d6ffentlichkeit stellen eine Verfolgung wegen der Religionsaus\u00fcbung dar","datePublished":"2025-11-29T06:17:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-29T08:55:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/"},"wordCount":4181,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","keywords":["Aufenthaltserlaubnis f\u00fcr unanfechtbar anerkannte Asylberechtigte","Rechtsanwalt K\u00f6ln Migration","Voraussetzungen Asyl"],"articleSection":["Asylum"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/","name":"Asylum Law: Severe Interference with the Public Practice of Religion Constitutes Persecution Based on Religious Practice","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","datePublished":"2025-11-29T06:17:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-29T08:55:13+00:00","description":"The conditions for granting asylum are also met in the event of a serious interference with the public religious activities of an asylum seeker.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#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\/asylrecht-schwere-eingriffe-in-die-glaubensbetatigung-in-der-offentlichkeit-stellen-eine-verfolgung-wegen-der-religionsausubung-dar\/#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":"Asylrecht: Schwere Eingriffe in die Glaubensbet\u00e4tigung in der \u00d6ffentlichkeit stellen eine Verfolgung wegen der Religionsaus\u00fcbung dar"}]},{"@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\/1920","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=1920"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1920\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12929,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1920\/revisions\/12929"}],"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=1920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}