In its ruling of 19 February 2026 (Ref.: 1 C 16.25), the First Senate of the Federal Administrative Court made an important decision regarding refugees who have been granted international protection in another Member State and who migrate to Germany in order to reside there permanently. These refugees who have migrated further may lose their protection status and be deported to their home country if they apply for asylum in Germany. In future, recognised refugees will have to weigh up whether they want to take this risk solely with a view to improving their living conditions. This decision will put a lasting stop to the internal migration of recognised refugees.
Foreign nationals who have been granted international protection in another Member State but who cannot be deported there due to the threat of inhuman treatment may be threatened with deportation to their country of origin after their asylum application in Germany has been rejected.
The plaintiffs had been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection in Greece. Their new asylum applications, submitted after entering the Federal Republic of Germany, were rejected by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. They were threatened with deportation to their country of origin (Republic of Iraq). While the Administrative Court of Stuttgart attributed limited binding effect to the granting of refugee status by the Hellenic Republic with regard to the threat of deportation and therefore overturned it, the Administrative Court of Cologne dismissed the action in this respect as well. The First Senate of the Federal Administrative Court upheld the defendant's appeal against the ruling of the Stuttgart Administrative Court and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the ruling of the Cologne Administrative Court.
The prohibition of deportation under Section 60(1) sentence 2 variant 3 of the Residence Act is based on the premise that the other Member State will grant protection to the refugee. If, in exceptional cases, this cannot be assumed and the Member State now dealing with the case has to decide on a new application for international protection, this constitutes a contradiction in terms, which indirectly binds the Member State obliged to examine this new asylum application by applying Section 60 (1) sentence 2 var. 3 AufenthG to the positive decision of the other Member State, which is not fulfilling its responsibility to grant protection. Section 60 (1) sentence 2 Var. 3 AufenthG must therefore be reduced teleologically in a situation such as the present one in such a way that the prohibition of refoulement does not preclude the threat of deportation of the foreigner to his country of origin.
