The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that Germany may not reduce certain benefits paid to asylum seekers, declaring such cuts incompatible with European law in specific circumstances. The judgment, published on Thursday in Luxembourg, centres on the case of an Afghan man whom German authorities had ordered to be deported to Romania, an order that was never carried out. While the ruling formally addresses this single case, it also sets out broader principles (case reference C‑621/24).
In its decision, the ECJ held that it is not compatible with European law to scale back the “material benefits granted” to an asylum seeker in a situation such as this one. The court specified that this covers in-kind provisions meeting the need for clothing and for everyday household goods, as well as “cash benefits to cover necessary personal needs.”
Crucially, these restrictions remain unlawful even when an application for protection has been rejected in Germany on the grounds that another EU member state is responsible for processing it, m the so-called Dublin cases.
The human rights organisation Pro Asyl described the ruling as a “slap in the face for the federal government.” For years, it said, Germany had withheld benefits that asylum seekers were entitled to. “Now it is clear: this is contrary to European law and a genuine scandal,” said the group’s legal policy spokeswoman, Wiebke Judith.
This was all the more significant, she added, given that since 2024 a complete withdrawal of benefits has applied in such cases. The decision, in Pro Asyl’s view, amounts to a firm rejection of blanket rules that reduce support for asylum seekers to “a bed, bread and soap.”
The ECJ had been asked to weigh in by Germany’s Federal Social Court. According to the statement, the Afghan man applied for protection in Germany in September 2021. He initially lived in an initial reception facility in the district of Schweinfurt, where he was granted the standard benefits set out under the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act.
Those benefits were later cut after the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf) determined that Romania was responsible for his case and, in October 2021, ordered his deportation there by April 2022 at the latest. From that point the district provided only certain in-kind benefits for food, accommodation, personal hygiene and health, withdrawing support for clothing, household and consumer goods, and cash payments. The man took legal action against the decision.
An adequate standard of living within the meaning of EU law cannot be achieved “without measures relating to clothing and cash benefits to cover daily needs,” the ECJ found. Clothing, it noted, ranks among “the most elementary needs” of any person.
Cash payments were likewise essential to give those affected “a minimum of self-determination”, for example, to obtain necessary items such as transport tickets or means of communication, and to take part in social and cultural life. Such entitlements in the host country, the court stressed, do not end when a deportation is ordered, but only when it is actually carried out.
A final ruling from the Federal Social Court is still outstanding, but it will have to follow the ECJ’s guidance. Earlier in the proceedings, the Würzburg Social Court had dismissed the Afghan man’s claim against the benefit cuts imposed by the Schweinfurt district.
The Bavarian Higher Social Court, however, upheld his appeal, finding that he had not engaged in any culpable conduct. The district then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Federal Social Court, which doubted whether the provisions of the German Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act were compatible with EU law and referred the question to the ECJ.
Since March 2022, Romania has refused to accept asylum seekers in so-called Dublin cases, citing the consequences of the war in Ukraine. As a result, deportation orders to the country can generally not be enforced.
From breaking news to thought-provoking opinion pieces, our newsletter keeps you informed & engaged.
