ECJ declares German reduction of asylum benefits in Dublin procedures unlawful

The case was triggered by the lawsuit of a young Afghan who had entered Germany via Romania. According to the Dublin III Regulation, the EU state responsible for an asylum application is generally the one in which the applicant first entered the EU or first applied for asylum. German authorities rejected the man's application in 2021 because Romania was considered the responsible state, and ordered his deportation there. In the Schweinfurt district in Bavaria, various benefits were subsequently reduced.

The case from the Schweinfurt district

According to his lawyer, the Afghan plaintiff received only about 150 euros per month for personal needs after the reduction in 2022. While he was provided with accommodation, heating, food, and hygiene and health items, benefits for clothing, household goods, or telecommunications were cut. The responsible authority cited the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act, which allows for such reductions. The man sued in German social courts, which eventually referred the case to the European Court of Justice.

The Federal Social Court had doubts about the compatibility of the relevant provisions of the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act with EU law and called upon the ECJ. In its ruling with file number C‑621/24, the judges clarified that clothing is among the most basic needs of every human being. Financial means for travel tickets, communication devices, or personal hygiene are also necessary to enable those affected to have a minimum of self-determination and participation in social and cultural life.

Key points of the ruling

The judges further emphasized that these entitlements do not end with the issuance of a deportation order, but only with the actual transfer to the responsible member state. Until then, the receiving state is responsible for granting the benefits. According to the court's assessment, the ruling thus corrects a misinterpretation of EU law by the German federal government, which had assumed that the theoretically responsible state was already liable for benefits from the time of application rejection.

The human rights organization Pro Asyl welcomed the ruling and called it a "slap in the face for the federal government." The spokesperson for legal policy, Wiebke Judith, said that for years Germany had denied asylum seekers benefits to which they were entitled. "Now it is clear: this is contrary to European law and a blatant scandal," Judith declared. The ruling confirms that the benefit reductions previously practiced in Germany are unlawful.

Reactions from politics and civil society

The background to this practice is a gradual tightening of benefit rules in Germany. Since 2019, German law has allowed reductions for asylum seekers for whom another EU state is responsible. At the end of 2024, the rules were significantly tightened again under the then "traffic light" coalition. At that time, Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) pushed ahead with a security package that was quickly put together in the wake of the consequences of the fatal stabbing attack in Solingen. Since then, benefits in Dublin cases with an existing obligation to leave the country can be completely withdrawn.

According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, more than 900,000 rejected asylum seekers currently live in Germany, most of them with a tolerated stay. Around 40,000 of them are immediately obliged to leave the country and could have been affected by the benefit reductions. For them, the ruling could open up claims for retroactive benefits. The new federal government under Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) thus faces the task of immediately adapting German practice to the ECJ's requirements.

Impact on practice

Asylum law expert Constantin Hruschka, professor at the Protestant University of Applied Sciences Freiburg, sees clear consequences: "Since the ECJ is so clear, national authorities are obliged to implement this immediately. Benefit restrictions must cease immediately with this ruling." He points out that authorities are now obliged to grant asylum seeker benefits under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act without restrictions, "even for persons who have received a Dublin decision." Hruschka summarized it as: "If I am not allowed to reduce, then of course I am not allowed to withdraw either."

At the same time, Hruschka pointed out that the ECJ has established an absolute minimum standard that must be guaranteed in every situation. "The most important statement is that the most basic needs must always be met," he said. Even in the new EU regulation within the framework of the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which will apply from June 12, 2026, a minimum standard in line with Union law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is enshrined. Although the new law still allows for benefit restrictions for persons residing in a non-competent EU state, these must not go so far as to jeopardize the minimum standard of human dignity.

Outlook on the new CEAS reform

Legally, according to experts, an amendment to the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act would be necessary to fully reflect the ECJ's requirements. Until then, authorities are obliged to apply the interpretation that complies with European law immediately. The ruling is considered a landmark decision with immediate consequences for German asylum administration. It also comes just one week before the new CEAS rules, which it clearly frames, come into force: the most basic needs must be met at all times.

The ruling was reported, among others, on Deutschlandfunk on June 5, 2026. The report is based on information from the news agencies dpa, AFP, and epd.

The ruling strengthens the rights of asylum seekers in Dublin procedures and clarifies that a transfer to another member state does not prematurely end the receiving state's obligation to provide benefits. At the same time, it highlights the tension between national tightening of asylum policy and the binding requirements of European law.