ECJ Sets Limits on Germany's Asylum Benefits
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) —the highest court in the EU—has ruled that the reduction of certain asylum benefits in Germany violates EU law. The ruling primarily affects people whose asylum applications in Germany were rejected because another EU member state is responsible for processing their cases (Dublin III Regulation).
To explain: The Dublin III Regulation is an EU rule. It determines which EU country is responsible for examining an asylum application. As a rule, the country responsible is the one where the person seeking protection first entered the EU or first filed an asylum application. If that person later files an asylum application in Germany as well, Germany can reject the application as inadmissible and order a transfer to the responsible EU country.
In such cases, asylum benefits in Germany were often severely restricted. Asylum seekers continued to receive food, housing, heating, and benefits for hygiene and health. However, other benefits—such as those for clothing, household items, or daily living expenses—could be cut.
However, according to the ECJ, this is precisely what violates EU law. The EU Reception Directive requires member states to ensure that asylum seekers are provided with a standard of living that is consistent with human dignity. This means that the benefits must cover their basic living expenses and protect their physical and mental health.
What was the case about?
The ruling stemmed from the case of an asylum seeker from Afghanistan in the district of Schweinfurt, Bavaria. The man had initially applied for asylum in Romania and later in Germany. Under the Dublin Regulation, Romania was therefore responsible for his asylum proceedings.
The German authorities rejected his asylum application in Germany as inadmissible and ordered his transfer to Romania. Until his transfer, the man received only limited benefits. He continued to receive housing, food, and benefits for hygiene and health care. However, he no longer received cash benefits for clothing, household supplies, and personal daily needs.
This type of care is often described as “bed, bread, and soap.” What this means is that the person receives only the bare necessities for survival, but no means to shape their daily life on their own.
The man filed a lawsuit against this decision in the German social courts. The Federal Social Court had doubts as to whether the cuts were compatible with EU law and referred the case to the European Court of Justice.
ECJ: Minimum standards must be met
The European Court of Justice has now ruled that such a reduction is not compatible with the EU Reception Directive. Under this directive, member states must ensure that asylum seekers are provided with a standard of living that is consistent with human dignity.
According to the European Court of Justice, this includes not only shelter, food, heating, and personal hygiene. Clothing is also one of a person’s most basic needs. It must therefore not simply be eliminated.
The ECJ also clarified that benefits for daily necessities are also required. This is because asylum seekers must be able to purchase certain items on their own. These include, for example, transportation tickets, communication devices, personal care products, and small household items.
In addition, these services must enable a minimum level of participation in social and cultural life. According to the European Court of Justice, this is important for protecting the dignity and mental health of those affected.
Germany remains responsible for asylum seekers until they are transferred
Another key point of the ruling is that Germany may not justify the reduction of benefits on the grounds that the asylum seeker is to be transferred to another EU member state anyway. According to the ECJ, Germany’s obligations do not end until the person has actually been transferred to the competent member state.
Therefore, as long as the asylum seeker is in Germany, Germany must comply with EU regulations. This applies even if a transfer decision has already been issued.
This is important for many Dublin cases. That’s because weeks or even months can pass between a transfer decision and the actual transfer. Sometimes the transfer doesn’t happen at all, for example because deadlines expire or the other Member State fails to actually take the person in.
Conclusion: What does the ruling mean for those affected?
This ruling is very important for asylum seekers in Dublin cases. It makes it clear that they cannot be denied basic benefits in Germany simply because another EU country is responsible for their asylum proceedings.
Under EU law , asylum seekers are entitled to benefits that meet their basic needs. These include housing, food, hygiene, health care, clothing, and a minimum allowance for personal needs. As long as asylum seekers are in Germany, Germany must provide these basic benefits.
The ECJ ruling sets clear legal limits on German immigration policy. While the state may reduce benefits for certain groups under specific conditions, it may not fall below the minimum level required by EU law and fundamental rights.
