What was the case about?
The case in question involved a man who, according to his own statements, is a Syrian national. He applied for subsidiary protection in Germany. However, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) had already rejected his application in 2018.
The BAMF justified its decision on the grounds that the man posed a danger to the public. He had previously committed multiple crimes and had been sentenced to fines, juvenile sentences, and prison terms in more than ten cases. The man filed a lawsuit challenging the BAMF’s decision.
In the first instance, the Administrative Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) to grant him subsidiary protection. However, the Higher Administrative Court overturned the decision on appeal and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision. The Federal Administrative Court has now issued a final ruling on the case.
What is subsidiary protection, and under what circumstances can it be denied?
In Germany, subsidiary protection is granted to people who do not meet the requirements for recognition as refugees but who nevertheless face a serious threat in their country of origin. This can include, for example, torture, the death penalty, or a serious threat to life or limb due to an armed conflict.
If a person is granted subsidiary protection, they receive a residence permit in Germany on humanitarian grounds. The corresponding Residence permit is governed by Section 25(2), second sentence, of the Residence Act (AufenthG).
However, under the law, a person may be excluded from subsidiary protection. This applies in particular when there are serious grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the general public.
Until now, there has been much debate over when a danger to the public exists: Must a person have committed a particularly serious crimefor this to be the case? Or are multiple less serious crimes, when taken together, sufficient?
What was the court's ruling—and why?
The Federal Administrative Court—one of the highest courts in the Federal Republic of Germany—has now ruled that a single particularly serious criminal offense is not a mandatory requirement for exclusion from subsidiary protection. Multiple violations of the law may also be sufficient when considered as a whole.
The decisive factor is the overall gravity of all the acts taken together. If, taken as a whole, they give rise to the assumption that the person in question poses a danger to the general public, subsidiary protection may be denied.
In this specific case, the judges upheld the Administrative Court’s ruling. The large number of criminal offenses—the plaintiff had been convicted in more than ten cases—justified the assumption that the man posed a danger to the general public. Therefore, he was not entitled to subsidiary protection.
What does this ruling mean for other asylum seekers?
The ruling does not mean that every minor offense automatically results in the loss or denial of subsidiary protection. Rather, the court emphasizes that each individual case must still be examined.
At the same time, the judges make it clear that it is not only particularly serious crimes that can lead to exclusion from subsidiary protection. Even multiple convictions for less serious offenses may be sufficient if the person is thereby considered a danger to the public.
The ruling thus shows that repeated criminal offenses can preclude subsidiary protection. This applies even if no single offense is particularly serious on its own. What matters is how all the offenses are assessed collectively.
