So far this year, 233,500 refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe’s Mediterranean region, compared to 159,410 during the whole of 2022. Several EU states–including the EU’s three largest economies, Germany, France, and Italy–have focused on intensifying detention measures as a tool for responding to these growing challenges, raising concerns about the region’s faltering commitment […]
The removal operation: preparations and conduct In Germany (from report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 2023 visit to Germany)
A. The removal operation: preparations and conduct; (Read full CPT report) 8. A main destination for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, Germany has over the past decade received the highest number of asylum seekers in the European Union (EU).8 Since 2015, the country has pursued several initiatives and restrictive measures to reduce the number of […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
Throughout 2020, Germany conducted numerous removal flights despite concerns regarding the dangers they present for deportees and their home communities as a result of the pandemic. (For more information on deportations from Germany, see 17 July update on this platform). Most recently–and amidst spiralling infection rates in the country–Germany deported 26 rejected Afghan asylum seekers […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
Responding to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 survey, the German National Agency for the Prevention of Torture, which acts as National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), reported that the country had not implemented a moratorium on immigration detention orders after the onset of the pandemic; however, some detainees had been released as a consequence of the crisis, […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
Observers have repeatedly raised concerns during the pandemic regarding conditions inside reception facilities in Germany, with several centres witnessing Covid-19 outbreaks and others subjecting refugees and asylum seekers to dangerous living conditions (see 10 June update). Recently, volunteers, social workers, and NGOs have warned of the dire living conditions experienced by non-nationals in Munich’s network […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
There are an estimated 200,000 – 600,000 undocumented migrants in Germany. Authorities have stated that everyone, regardless of their status, may access Covid-19 testing and treatment. Although this is technically true, migrant rights advocates have highlighted concerns amongst undocumented migrants that should they seek testing and treatment, they will face sanctions. Hospitals and GPs in […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
In response to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 survey, which has been sent to all national contact points of the European Migration Network, Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) repeated its standard response to questions concerning immigration detention in the country: that all such queries must be forwarded to state (Land) authorities. They […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
Protests were reported in the Halberstadt reception centre, where more than 800 people have been under lockdown since 27 March 2020 due to positive Covid-19 tests in the facility. The lack of sanitary products and effective hygiene measures highly increases the risk of infection. Reports indicate that up to 50 people share a single toilet […]
Germany: Covid-19 and Detention
On 16 March, Germany reintroduced border controls, stationing federal police at the borders with Austria, Switzerland, France, Luxembourg and Denmark. The Ministry of Interior said that in coordination with the neighboring countries and authorities in all German federal states with external borders, the border police are ordered to turn away all travelers without a valid […]
Last updated: August 2020
DETENTION STATISTICS
DETAINEE DATA
DETENTION CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT DATA
PRISON DATA
POPULATION DATA
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS
LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Does the Country Have Specific Laws that Provide for Migration-Related Detention?
Detention-Related Legislation
Additional Legislation
Name
Year Adopted
Last Amended
Act concerning the execution of prison sentences and measures of rehabilitation and prevention involving deprivation of liberty (Prison Act)
1976
2013
Bilateral/Multilateral Readmission Agreements
Name
Year in force
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
Immigration-Status-Related Grounds
Non-Immigration-Status-Related Grounds in Immigration Legislation
Criminal Penalties for Immigration-Related Violations
Grounds for Criminal Immigration-Related Incarceration / Maximum Length of Incarceration
Children & Other Vulnerable Groups
LENGTH OF DETENTION
DETENTION INSTITUTIONS
Custodial Authorities
Agency
Ministry
Typology
Year
Bavaria Ministry of Interior, Building and Transport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2014
Bavaria Ministry of Interior, Building and Transport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2014
Bavaria Ministry of Interior, Building and Transport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2013
Mecklenburg - Western Pomerania Ministry of Interior and Sport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2013
Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Integration, Family, Children, Youth and Women
Regional Authority-Social Affairs
2013
Bavaria Ministry of Interior, Building and Transport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2013
Bavaria Ministry of Interior, Building and Transport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2013
Mecklenburg - Western Pomerania Ministry of Interior and Sport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2013
Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Integration, Family, Children, Youth and Women
Regional Authority-Social Affairs
2013
Bavaria Ministry of Interior, Building and Transport
Regional Authority-Interior or Home Affairs
2013
Schleswig - Holstein Ministry of Justice, Cultural and European Affairs
Regional Authority-Justice
2013
Detention Facility Management
Entity
Type
Year
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS & SAFEGUARDS
Types of Non-Custodial Measures (ATDs) Provided in Law
Name
In Law
In Practice
Year
COSTS & OUTSOURCING
COVID-19 DATA
TRANSPARENCY
MONITORING
Types of Authorised Detention Monitoring Institutions
Institution
Type
Year
Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte
National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI)
2023
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
International or Regional Bodies (IRBs)
2023
National Agency for the Prevention of Torture
National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI)
2023
The German Institute for Human Rights
National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI)
2016
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
International or Regional Bodies (IRBs)
2014
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOS)
GOVERNMENTAL MONITORING BODIES
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & TREATY BODIES
International Treaties Ratified
Ratification Year
Observation Date
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
2009
2009
OPCAT, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
2008
2008
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
2006
2006
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
2006
2006
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1990
1990
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
Ratio: 16/19
Individual Complaints Procedures
Acceptance Year
CRC, [Third] Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child establishing a communications procedure, 2011
2013
2013
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, declaration under article 31
2009
2009
CEDAW, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 1999
2002
2002
Relevant Recommendations or Observations Issued by Treaty Bodies
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
37. The Committee also remains concerned about the increase of attacks on shelters nationwide and the obligation for asylum-seekers and people who have been granted a temporary suspension of deportation to stay in State reception facilities, in some cases for the whole duration of the asylum procedure, and by the condition imposed on asylum-seekers restricting their movements to the area or district where they are accommodated (art. 5)...
2023
2023
2023
Committee on Enforced Disappearance
Registers of persons deprived of liberty
51. ... the Committee is concerned at:
(a) The inconsistency of the elements listed in article 17 (3) of the Convention that
appear in the registers, and the lack of information on registration procedures in other places of deprivation of liberty, such as military or immigration detention facilities;
(b) Allegations of the lack of independence of the National Committee against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its inability to conduct visits to prisons;
(c) Insufficient measures taken to ensure that registers are completed as soon as a person is deprived of liberty and are updated as necessary;
(d) Restrictions to the right of persons with a legitimate interest to have prompt and easy access to at least the information listed in article 18 (1) of the Convention (arts. 17, 18, 20 and 22).
52. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Ensure the interoperability of existing and future registers of deprivation of liberty, guaranteeing that they all contain, as a minimum, the information required under article 17 (3) of the Convention, and that all persons deprived of liberty are registered without exception and from the outset;
(b) Enable the National Committee against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to fulfil its mandate independently and effectively, including conducting regular and unannounced visits to all places of detention;18
(c) Guarantee that information in the registers is filled out and updated promptly and accurately and is subject to periodic checks, and that, in the event of irregularities, the officers responsible are duly sanctioned;
(d) Ensure that any person with a legitimate interest, such as a relative of a person deprived of liberty or his or her representative or counsel, has prompt access to all the information listed in article 18 (1) of the Convention.
2023
2023
2023
Committee on the Rights of the Child
40. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(c)Invest the resources necessary to ensure that reception centres are child-friendly and prioritize the immediate transfer of asylum-seeking and refugee children, including unaccompanied children, from reception centres to ensure their prompt access to education and necessary support;
(d) Prevent the separation of migrant children from their parents;
(e) Prohibit the arrest and detention of asylum-seeking and migrant children on the basis of their or parents’ migration status;
(f) Continue to ensure that all unaccompanied children are promptly identified and appointed a guardian with legal expertise in asylum;
(g) Ensure that children in initial reception centres have prompt access t o education in the regular school system;
(h)R epeal the statutory obligation on all service facilities to inform the immigration authorities of any child w ithout regular residence status.
2022
2022
2022
Committee against Torture
§31: (a) Asylum seekers are only detained as an exceptional measure of last resort for as short a period as possible and in facilities that are appropriate for their status and such detention is carried out in accordance with international human rights standards, including revised deliberation No. 5 of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on deprivation of liberty of migrants (see A/HRC/39/45, annex);
(b) The legal regime of alien detention is suitable for its purpose and is strictly differentiated from the regime of penal detention. In particular, solitary confinement should not be used as a disciplinary measure against detained asylum seekers and undocumented migrants;
(c) Asylum seekers and undocumented migrants who are deprived of their liberty have adequate access to an independent and effective mechanism for addressing complaints of torture and ill-treatment;
(d) Independent national and international monitoring bodies and non-governmental organizations regularly monitor all places in which asylum seekers and migrants are deprived of their liberty or their liberty is restricted, including in the Anker centres, and all incidents and allegations of torture and ill-treatment of asylum seekers and migrants are promptly, effectively and impartially investigated, and those responsible are prosecuted and appropriately punished;
2019
2019
2019
Committee on the Rights of the Child
§ 69: The Committee recommends that the State party: (d) Ensure that detention of asylum-seeking and migrant children is always used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate time, in compliance with article 37 (b) of the Convention, and that detention is made subject to time limits and judicial review.
2014
2014
2014
Committee against Torture
§ 24: The Committee urges the State party to: (a) Limit the number of detained asylum-seekers, including those who are the subject in “Dublin cases”, and the duration of their detention pending return, while observing the European Union Directive 2008/115/EC; (b) Ensure mandatory medical checks and systematic examination of mental illnesses or traumatization of all asylum-seekers including the “Dublin cases” by independent and qualified health professionals upon arrival in all Länder detention facilities; (c) Provide a medical and psychological examination and report by a specially trained independent health expert when the signs of torture or traumatization have been detected during the personal interviews by asylum authorities; and (d) Provide adequate accommodation for detained asylum-seekers separate from remand prisoners in all detention facilities, particularly for women awaiting deportation.
2011
2011
2011
> UN Special Procedures
Visits by Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council
Year of Visit
Observation Date
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism
2023
2023
2023
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
2009
2009
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
1995
1995
Relevant Recommendations or Observations by UN Special Procedures
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
Working Group on arbitrary detention
§ 68 (e): The use of alternatives to detention for foreigners who are not in possession of a valid visa or whose visa is expired should always be considered; (f) The issue of proportionality in the detention of foreigners for illegal entry to the country or for illegal border crossing, coupled with harsh sentencing, should be carefully addressed;
2012
2012
Working Group on arbitrary detention
§ 84: To safeguard the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, the Government should prohibit pre-deportation custody orders against persons belonging to particularly vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied minors. The Working Group recommends that the Government reduce the length of the detention to the period of time strictly necessary for identification.
§ 85: There is a need for special attention to be given to vulnerable asylum seekers during the initial medical check.
§ 87: The Working Group recommends that the Government not limit court review of deportation orders, and build on the achievements in reducing the number of foreign nationals awaiting deportation in detention.
§ 88: The duration of detention pending deportation should be subjected to the strict application of the principle of proportionality and limited to the shortest possible period. The Working Group recommends that the duration of pre-deportation custody be significantly decreased. 2015
2015
> UN Universal Periodic Review
Relevant Recommendations or Observations from the UN Universal Periodic Review
Observation Date
Yes
155.254 Adopt legislative and administrative measures to avoid the detention of migrants and allow the early identification of migrants in situations of vulnerability, including transsexual persons and victims of torture, with a view to their being considered in the asylum application processes, as well as in the terms of appeal before the expulsion (Mexico);
2018
3rd
2018
> Global Compact for Migration (GCM)
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Regional Legal Instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
Observation Date
CPCSE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
2015
2015
2017
ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights
1952
1952
2017
ECHRP1, Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)
1957
1957
2017
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment
1990
1990
2017
Relevant Recommendations or Observations of Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
12. The CPT would like to be informed how the German authorities carry out oversight of
personnel of private security companies during forced removal operations by air conducted
by federal state authorities alone, and how effective monitoring of these flights is ensured.
The Committee would also like to receive detailed information about the training that is
provided to private security staff members carrying out return flights.
25. The CPT recommends that the German authorities ensure that procedures are in place to
prevent documents with potentially compromising information about the returned person’s
asylum claim, criminal record or political activities from accompanying the person in their
luggage, unless they request otherwise.
27. The CPT would like to encourage the German authorities to develop a system of independent
post-return monitoring and collecting relevant data and information on whether foreign
nationals removed by force to their countries of origin were exposed to treatment
contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights upon their return
(see also paragraph 100). It also encourages the German authorities to bring this matter to
the attention of Frontex and the other EU member states organising or participating in return
operations supported by Frontex.
32. The CPT would like to receive the German authorities’ comments on whether these two practices observed are applied by all federal states throughout Germany.
36. The CPT reiterates its recommendation that foreign nationals held in custody awaiting
deportation should be notified at least one week in advance of their impending deportation,
as required by law. If they are detained less than one week prior to deportation, they should
be informed of the impending deportation on the day of their deprivation of liberty.
--The CPT also recommends that the German authorities take the necessary steps to ensure
that returnees who are apprehended on the day of their removal be given the opportunity and
sufficient time to inform the persons they need to, to collect their personal belongings,
including money (especially from their bank accounts), medication and documents, and to
make the necessary arrangements to prepare for their departure and organise their return.
To this end, additional measures should be taken to guarantee that they can effectively
benefit from the protection of the fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment from the
outset of their deprivation of liberty.
-- The Committee also encourages the German authorities to provide information more
systematically on possible assistance and support upon their return to all persons subject to
forced removal.
42. The CPT recommends that the German authorities review their policy concerning
access to a telephone to ensure that all returnees have the right to contact relatives, or a third
person of their choice, from the outset of their deprivation of liberty by the competent police
and/or immigration authorities of the federal states. These agents should actively facilitate
the right of returnees to inform a person of their choice of their detention and impending
removal, including by granting access to their mobile phones. The right of notification from
the outset of deprivation of liberty should be formally granted to persons held in short-term
detention, and the relevant instructions reviewed accordingly.
47. The CPT recommends that the German authorities ensure that all returnees can
effectively exercise their right to contact a lawyer from the outset of their deprivation of liberty
by the competent police and/or immigration authorities of the federal states. This right should
be formally granted to persons held in short-term detention and be facilitated in practice.
52. The CPT recommends that the German authorities take the necessary measures to ensure
that, in the context of forced removal operations by air organised by Germany, all returnees
systematically benefit from a somatic clinical examination by an independent medical doctor
prior to the removal operation. This examination might be carried out at the airport of
departure. Further, clear procedures of reporting and action to be taken in case of credible
allegations of ill-treatment should be developed.
Moreover, a fit-to-fly certificate should be systematically established for all returnees. To this
end, the Committee encourages the authorities to further harmonise the different practices
at the federal state-level.
53.
The CPT recommends that the German authorities ensure that the number of missions for
which medical doctors are contracted in the context of forced removal operations is limited
to the extent that they do not present an essential part of their professional activities in order
avoid a situation of dependency.
56. 56. The CPT recommends that the German authorities take the necessary steps to address
the above-mentioned shortcomings and draw up a clear policy concerning the respect of
medical confidentiality during forced removal operations by air. This policy should be fully
respected in practice. In particular, the documentation made available to police officers,
including escort staff, should not contain information covered by medical confidentiality.
Further, all medical examinations of persons deprived of their liberty should be conducted
out of the hearing and – unless the healthcare professional concerned requests otherwise in
a particular case – out of the sight of police officers.
58. The CPT would like to be informed of the measures taken by the competent
immigration authorities prior to deportation to guarantee the continuity of care of both
persons upon their return to Pakistan. More generally, the CPT encourages the German
authorities to put in place effective arrangements to organise the continuity of care of
returnees in the countries of removal prior to their deportation.
60. The CPT recommends that the German authorities take the necessary measures to
ensure that all returnees are systematically and fully informed of their rights, the procedure
applicable to them and the legal remedies available against their deportation from the very
outset of their deprivation of liberty (that is, from the moment when they are obliged to remain
with the competent police and/or immigration authorities from the federal states). This should
be ensured by the provision of clear verbal information at the moment of apprehension, to be
supplemented at the earliest opportunity by the provision of the relevant information sheet,
in a language that they can understand. If needed, the assistance of a qualified interpreter
should be provided.
103. The CPT recommends that the German authorities take the necessary measures to swiftly
transpose Article 8 (6) of the Return Directive into national law by designating a national
forced return monitoring system that is both independent and effective. The Committee
wishes to be informed about the steps taken in this regard as well as the timeline and
resources envisaged to render this monitoring system effective in practice.
2023
2023
2023
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
§ 33: the German authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that, in all German Länder (including Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Saxony), detention pending deportation is governed by specific rules reflecting the particular status of immigration detainees; § 33: the authorities of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Saxony to take the necessary measures to ensure that immigration detainees are accommodated in centres specifically designed for that purpose, meeting the criteria set out by the Committee in its 7th and 19th General Reports. Such measures should also be taken by the authorities of all other Länder which have not yet set up detention centres for foreigners; § 36: material conditions in the unit for male immigration detainees at Munich-Stadelheim Prison to be improved, in the light of the remarks made in paragraph 36; § 40: steps to be taken at Leipzig, Munich-Stadelheim and Schwäbisch Gmünd Prisons and, where appropriate, in other establishments in other Länder in Germany to ensure that an open-door regime is implemented for all immigration detainees throughout the day, steps to be taken at Munich-Stadelheim Prison to ensure that male immigration detainees are provided with board games and made aware of the possibilities of having access to reading material (in various languages) and that more recreational activities are organised for them; § 41: the authorities of Bavaria and, if necessary, of other Länder to take immediate steps to ensure that immigration detainees are granted regular and frequent access to the telephone (at the detainee’s own expense), the authorities of Baden-Württemberg and Saxony and, if necessary, of other Länder to take
steps to ensure that all immigration detainees are allowed to receive at least one visit of one hour per week; § 43: the authorities of Bavaria and all other Länder to create secure rooms in major hospitals, with a view to avoiding the shackling of inmates to hospital beds, the authorities of all Länder to take steps to ensure that all medical examinations/consultations of hospitalised inmates are conducted out of the hearing and – unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case – out of the sight of prison officers; § 45: at Leipzig and Schwäbisch Gmünd Prisons, written information on the house rules as well as on the legal status of, and procedure applicable to, immigration detainees to be provided to all foreign nationals, upon their admission to these establishments. Such information should be available in the most commonly used languages.
2012
2012
2012
HEALTH CARE PROVISION
HEALTH IMPACTS
COVID-19
Country Updates
Throughout 2020, Germany conducted numerous removal flights despite concerns regarding the dangers they present for deportees and their home communities as a result of the pandemic. (For more information on deportations from Germany, see 17 July update on this platform). Most recently--and amidst spiralling infection rates in the country--Germany deported 26 rejected Afghan asylum seekers on 12 January, from Dusseldorf to Kabul. Reportedly, this marked the 35th deportation flight to Afghanistan since 2016. Rights advocates condemned the deportation, highlighting the danger that returnees face in the country--both from surging violence and the threat of coronavirus. (Indeed, the UN has warned that five million more Afghans will be in need of assistance in 2021 due to the pandemic and conflict.)
While many countries that are rolling out COVID-19 vaccination programmes have failed to specify when non-nationals might expect to receive the vaccine, in late 2020 Germany announced that asylum seekers living in shelters would be amongst the second group to be vaccinated. It remains unclear, however, when immigration detainees may expect to receive the vaccine.
According to several media reports, several German states have drawn up plans to place German nationals repeatedly flouting self-isolation rules in establishments including detention centres and refugee accommodation facilities. Reportedly, states including Saxony, Baden-Wurttemburg, Brandenburg, and Schleswig-Holstein are in the process of preparing areas in which nationals can be held--including the construction of a new unit within a refugee facility in Saxony. According to the Telegraph, news of these plans has drawn widespread criticism in Germany, with some comparing them to the use of political prisons in communist East Germany.
Responding to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 survey, the German National Agency for the Prevention of Torture, which acts as National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), reported that the country had not implemented a moratorium on immigration detention orders after the onset of the pandemic; however, some detainees had been released as a consequence of the crisis, in particular because of the grounding of removal flights. The NPM also said that only Niedersachsen, Hamburg, and Nordrhein-Westfalen were testing detainees for Covid-19. In addition, they reported that extensive protection and hygiene measures have been introduced in all detention facilities. The staff and immigration detainees were all informed about measures such as social distancing. Only in Niedersachsen’s Hannover detention centre do staff members have to wear mouth and nose protection. The NPM mentioned that new detainees are separated from others for two weeks and placed in quarantine.
As regards deportations, the NPM said that the decision to which countries removals take place to are left to the Länder. Deportations were never completely suspended in Germany, but largely reduced (see 17 July Germany update on this platform).
On 1 July, Germany’s Development Minister, Gerd Müller, said that Germany may see a new “wave of refugees” from poorer countries due to the pandemic. He announced that Germany has earmarked €3 billion for aid to developing countries. In addition, on the day Germany assumed presidency of the Council of the European Union, Müller also criticised the EU budget assigned for aid to developing countries and urged that more aid be provided: “The EU has only assigned €1 billion per year to Africa. ... This is blatantly inadequate. ... That is not the way to overcome future problems to do with the pandemic, climate change and economic recovery for the rapidly rising African population. ... That’s why I am calling for a €50 billion ‘Recovery and Stabilisation’ program from the EU.”
The country’s prisons have largely been spared from Covid-19 and it was only on 14 July that the first prisoner tested positive for the disease in Saxe-Anhalt, shortly after his arrival. Upon arrival, he was placed in quarantine in the medical department of the Burg correctional facility. Despite being asymptomatic, he tested positive for the virus a few days later.
Observers have repeatedly raised concerns during the pandemic regarding conditions inside reception facilities in Germany, with several centres witnessing Covid-19 outbreaks and others subjecting refugees and asylum seekers to dangerous living conditions (see 10 June update). Recently, volunteers, social workers, and NGOs have warned of the dire living conditions experienced by non-nationals in Munich’s network of reception accommodation. In several facilities, people are granted just thirty minutes of fresh air each day, spending the rest of their time in seven square metres and in temperatures that have reached 50 degrees Celsius. Food is left outside their door; television and internet are often not made available.
While some NGOs have criticised the decision to quarantine entire reception centres when only a few inhabitants have tested positive, the Bavarian health department reported that refugees remain fearful of the virus and that isolation remains necessary. (Although Germany has been easing its lockdown, authorities have been imposing local quarantines to counter fresh outbreaks--such as those centred around abattoirs and their accommodation facilities [see 10 June update].) However, despite the alleged necessity of quarantining entire facilities, humanitarian groups continue to argue that quarantine conditions in these centres are deeply worrisome. Caritas, for example, has denounced the “spatial, security and hygienic conditions” that persist in facilities in Upper Bavaria.
Separately, although the Federal Ministry of Interior has insisted that returns should continue to be carried out during the pandemic (see 20 May update), statistics reveal that deportations have dropped off significantly. Between January and May 2020, a total of 5,022 were deported--a decline of more than 50 percent compared to the same period in 2019 (when 10,951 were deported.) On 14 July, the country carried out its first deportation flight to Pakistan since the crisis began (19 Pakistani nationals were deported to Islamabad), while in mid-June, the government announced the resumption of Dublin returns. (Although the GDP submitted a survey request in May to Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees [BAMF]--seeking information regarding detention and deportations during the pandemic--the office stated that it was unable to complete to the survey, and that such queries should instead be sent to state authorities [see 20 May update.])
There are an estimated 200,000 - 600,000 undocumented migrants in Germany. Authorities have stated that everyone, regardless of their status, may access Covid-19 testing and treatment. Although this is technically true, migrant rights advocates have highlighted concerns amongst undocumented migrants that should they seek testing and treatment, they will face sanctions. Hospitals and GPs in Germany are obliged to provide emergency treatment to undocumented migrants, and medical practitioners are not required to pass information to immigration authorities. However, should an undocumented migrant wish to access planned care, postnatal care, preventive care, postnatal care, and care for infectious or sexually transmitted diseases, they must provide a document from the social welfare office—and these welfare offices are required to report undocumented migrants to immigration authorities. Reportedly, migrants must present this card should they seek Covid-19 testing and treatment—thus exposing them to the risk of arrest, detention, and deportation. Advocates, however, insist that “in the context of a spreading pandemic, states must ensure that preventative care, goods, services and information are available and accessible to everyone, regardless of their residence permit” (PICUM).
Although the pandemic has made most removals from Germany impossible, the country’s Interior Ministry has rejected calls for a nationwide ban on deportation flights. According to German media, some states and the federal government contine to attempt to conduct deportations when possible. (For more on deportations from Germany, see the 20 May update).
As lockdown measures began to ease in Germany in May, a handful of new virus hotspots were identified centred around the country’s meat industry. According to trade union estimates, migrant workers make up some 80 percent of the industry, with most originating from eastern and southern European states having been hired by sub-contractors. These workers are often required to work well beyond the legal limit of 10 hours, receive poor pay, and are housed by the sub-contractors in overcrowded and unhygienic dorms. Often, they share rooms with five other persons. With hundreds of confirmed cases now connected to the country’s slaughterhouses (in some factories, more than half of the workforce have tested positive) and with workers unable to isolate in overcrowded dormitories, entire blocks have been placed in quarantine and migrants have faced movement restrictions—but some subcontractors have reportedly failed to provide those quarantined with essential supplies.
Significant criticism has been levelled at the sub-contractors responsible for these migrant workers—in particular, their failure to provide workers with adequate living and working conditions. Calls for municipalities to have greater control over migrant living conditions have thus grown, and in late May the Federal Cabinet approved draft legislation which will bar subcontractors from the meat industry from January 2021.
Away from the country’s meat industry, another hotspot that was identified in mid-May centred around a reception centre for asylum seekers outside Bonn. More than 160 people tested positive in the Sankt Augustin Reception Centre (including several staff members), prompting some politicians to call for improved living conditions inside such facilities. Asylum seekers in Germany are required to live in reception centres or shared accommodation during their asylum procedures, and the facilities they are placed in have long been criticised by refugee and rights observers. Additional outbreaks were also identified in reception facilities in Bonn and Berlin.
(CORRECTION: This update was corrected on 17 June 2020. Previously, we incorrectly reported that medical practitioners are required to report undocumented migrants to immigration authorities.)
In response to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 survey, which has been sent to all national contact points of the European Migration Network, Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) repeated its standard response to questions concerning immigration detention in the country: that all such queries must be forwarded to state (Land) authorities. They wrote (on 13 May): “In accordance with its state and constitutional structure, the individual federal states are responsible for the management of detention facilities in Germany. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees as a federal authority can therefore not answer questions in this regard. I would therefore encourage you to consult the competent authorities at the state („Länder“) level.”
Over many years, the GDP has repeatedly received responses like this one to queries and official information requests that we have sent to German authorities. However, given the unprecedented nature of the Covid19 threat to detainees, the GDP considered it relevant to address the survey to BAMF as they are the EMN contact point in the country. Thus, we sent a follow up message (on 14 may) to the BAMF contact point, asking: “Would it be accurate for us to interpret your response as indicating that the German EMN focal point is unaware of what is happening in immigration detention centres in the Länder during the Covid-19 crisis? We would very much appreciate it if you could confirm this for us so that we can accurately report this situation to our readers.” As of 20 May, the GDP had yet to receive a response to this query.
As of 20 May, Germany had recorded 177,827 cases of Covid-19 and 8,193 deaths related to the disease. On 15 April, it was reported that within five days, the number of Covid-19 cases within the Ellwangen reception centre for refugees and asylum seekers had increased from seven to 251. None of the residents of the centre (606 people from 26 nations) are believed to be in a critical condition, although one person was transferred to hospital. Despite being under lockdown since 5 April and authorities stating they have tested new arrivals for Covid-19 since March, residents have complained about the crowded conditions, shared facilities and a lack of protective equipment and disinfectant. One of the residents of the centre said: “we stayed in the same building and flat as people who had been tested positive for two days. We used the same kitchens and had meals with them. Because of this neglect, we will also get corona.” The refugee council for the state of Baden-Wurttemberg expressed concern on 15 April regarding these reports from inside the Ellwangen facility and called on states across Germany to reduce cramped conditions within migrant centres. In Freiburg, 30 refugees were moved from a reception centre to hotels or hostels that had rooms standing empty during the lockdown.
On 18 May, it was reported that at least 70 people tested positive for Covid-19 out of the 300 tested at a refugee centre outside the city of Bonn. Green Party politician Horst Becker said that they had “repeatedly called for blanket testing in these homes. Now we can see that this is happening far too late.” Outbreaks have also been reported at other refugee homes in Bonn, Berlin and other areas of Germany.
On 11 May, a Court ruled that protections against Covid-19 at a refugee centre in the town of Rheine were “inadequate.” A pregnant woman and her husband living at the facility will no longer be required to live there. The couple raised numerous health concerns arguing it was impossible to implement social distancing rules inside the cramped facility. The Court stated that the local authorities were unable to disprove the couple’s claims, leading the court to assume the “hygienic conditions were inadequate in this area.”
According to figures released by the German government in response to an inquiry by the Left party (Die Linke), 4,099 people were deported from Germany between January and March of this year, a drop of 27 percent in comparison to last year’s figure of 5,613 for the same period. Due to the pandemic, most chartered deportation flights scheduled for March were cancelled and countries of origin denied entry or suspended air traffic altogether. Yet, the Interior Ministry had rejected implementing a general ban on deportations in light of the pandemic, a decision criticised by Ulla Jelpke: “In many countries of origin and transit countries, refugees not only face persecution, war and a lack of perspective, there are also no functioning health systems in place.” On the other hand, in February, Dublin transfers to Italy were suspended and at the end of March, the German government suspended Dublin transfers to other EU member states, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein “until further notice” but that deportations to third countries could still take place.
Protests were reported in the Halberstadt reception centre, where more than 800 people have been under lockdown since 27 March 2020 due to positive Covid-19 tests in the facility. The lack of sanitary products and effective hygiene measures highly increases the risk of infection. Reports indicate that up to 50 people share a single toilet and that due to overcrowding, physical distancing is impossible to implement. On 4 April 2020, residents started protesting against these conditions. 100 people began a hunger strike while others clashed with security guards. Residents of the reception centre issued a letter to the public requesting food, hygiene products including disposable gloves, relocation for the elderly, pregnant women and people with illnesses. In the evening of 4 April 2020, a meeting took place between residents and camp management and an improvement of the situation was promised.
Meanwhile, as increasing numbers of doctors and medical personnel in Germany contract Covid-19, “Germany’s health authorities are appealing to medically qualified migrants to help them tackle the coronavirus.” According to The Guardian (14 April), “The eastern state of Saxony is at the forefront of a campaign calling on foreign doctors, including the thousands of refugees who arrived in 2015, to help. According to the Facebook group Syrian Doctors in Germany there are 14,000 Syrian doctors waiting for their qualifications to be approved. … What makes Saxony’s plea salient is that it is the home of Pegida, the anti-Islam protest movement, and the heartland of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party. The AfD rose to prominence – becoming the largest opposition in parliament in 2017 – on the back of voter anger over Angela Merkel’s decision to allow almost 1 million refugees into the country in 2015.”
On 16 March, Germany reintroduced border controls, stationing federal police at the borders with Austria, Switzerland, France, Luxembourg and Denmark. The Ministry of Interior said that in coordination with the neighbouring countries and authorities in all German federal states with external borders, the border police are ordered to turn away all travellers without a valid travel reason to enter and exit at the named borders.
On 31 March, the German Interior Ministry announced that it had temporarily suspended the deportation of failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan. This decision was reportedly made after Afghan authorities requested that deportations cease, amidst concerns that returns were increasing the rate of transmission. The last deportation flight left Germany on 12 March 2020.
The state of North-Rhine Westphalia is planning on releasing 1,000 prisoners from its prisons in order to free up cells to be used as quarantine rooms. Sex offenders and those convicted of violent crimes were excluded from the scheme. On 19 March, Hamburg Prison released 40 prisoners and Berlin Prison released 18.
Government Agencies
Centre for International Migration and Development, www.cimonline.de/en/index.asp
Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, www.bamf.de/SiteGlobals/Forms/Sprachumschaltung/DE/Sprachumschaltung_Formular.html
National Agency for the Prevention of Torture, www.nationale-stelle.de
International Organisations
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Germany Country Website, http://www.unhcr.de
International Organisation for Migration Germany Country Website, http://germany.iom.int
NGO & Research Institutions
German Institute for Human Rights, https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/en/
Informationsverbund Asyl &Migration, www.asyl.net
Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Germany, www.jesuiten-fluechtlingsdienst.de
Migrationsrecht.net, www.migrationsrecht.net
Pro Asyl, https://www.proasyl.de/en/
