What constitutes a dignified standard of living for asylum seekers awaiting transfer between EU nations was put to the test before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) this week.
The court delivered a decisive ruling on Thursday, finding that Germany had violated EU law by reducing benefits below an acceptable threshold for rejected asylum seekers. The case centered on an Afghan national, identified as FB, whose application was deemed inadmissible after Romania—where he had first applied in 2021—was designated as responsible for his claim under the Dublin Regulation.
While FB waited to be transferred, he received accommodation, meals, and medical care but was denied support for clothing and household essentials. German law, revised in 2024, permitted basic shelter and healthcare while significantly cutting cash assistance. Advocates described the approach as offering only “bed, bread, and soap.” FB challenged these cuts with the Bavarian district of Schweinfurt, ultimately bringing the matter to the ECJ.
The ECJ concluded that cash benefits for clothing, travel tickets, communication tools, and other daily necessities are vital. These allowances facilitate participation in social and cultural life and contribute to both physical and mental well-being. The court emphasized that such support remains necessary even after an application is rejected, until the individual is actually transferred.
Rights organizations welcomed the ruling as establishing important EU-wide precedent. However, uncertainty looms with the implementation of Europe’s new migration pact on June 12, which some experts say could undermine these protections.
Germany Tightens Rules Amid Political Pressure
FB applied for asylum in Germany in 2021. His case became “inadmissible” in 2022 when the Dublin Regulation assigned responsibility to Romania, which had already recorded his initial claim.
Designed to prevent disproportionate burden on frontline states, the Dublin system aims to distribute asylum seekers fairly across the bloc by assigning claims to the first EU country of entry.
Migration has increasingly polarized German politics, with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) using welfare costs as a central campaign issue. In response, successive governments have sought to reduce benefits, culminating in the 2024 amendment to the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act—which eliminated cash payments except for food, shelter, and healthcare.
“In practice, that can mean none or very little cash,” explained Wiebke Judith, policy officer at Pro Asyl, a German refugee rights organization.
Advocates argued that removing clothing allowances and cash violated the EU’s Reception Conditions Directive, which sets minimum standards for asylum seekers—including those whose claims are rejected.
The ECJ ruling confirms that essential support must continue until actual transfer occurs.
AfD Leverages Welfare Concerns Ahead of Elections
European right-wing parties have criticized what they call excessively generous benefits, framing them as incentives for irregular migration. The AfD claims asylum seekers misuse cash aid or send funds abroad, pointing to Germany’s 2024 introduction of a restricted-use debit card system.
Yet rights groups maintain such restrictions do not deter genuine refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, instead pushing them into informal economies.
EU Migration Pact Raises Questions About Future Protections
The ECJ decision offers clear guidance to EU members on meeting fundamental rights obligations during transfer processes. However, concerns arise over whether this victory will endure under the incoming migration framework.
“It won’t help for too long,” warned Gerard Sadik, asylum coordinator at French NGO La Cimade. The new pact allows member states to reduce or eliminate daily allowances for individuals subject to transfer orders.
Swedish political scientist Bernd Parusel noted that while cuts are permitted, minimum living standards must still comply with EU charter requirements and international treaties.
Pro Asyl’s Judith remains optimistic, seeing the ruling as reinforcing judicial recognition of personal dignity as essential to subsistence.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Judith of Pro Asyl was more optimistic and pleased with the court’s direction. “The court’s ruling reveals a direction of travel, that it sees personal benefits as essential to a dignified life,” she said.
