What are bilateral deportation agreements?
Bilateral deportation agreements are treaties signed between Germany and certain countries. Under these treaties, those countries commit to taking back their nationals whom Germany does not allow to remain on its territory, whether due to:
the rejection of an asylum claim,
the expiry of a residence permit,
or a deportation order issued for criminal reasons.
Such agreements typically include:
procedures for identity verification,
deadlines for issuing replacement travel documents,
cooperation between police authorities and diplomatic missions,
arrangements for air or land transport.
Countries that have deportation agreements with Germany
Germany has concluded agreements with many countries, including:
Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria
Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, North Macedonia
Nigeria, Georgia, Armenia, Pakistan
India, Vietnam, Russia, Moldova
Afghanistan (temporarily suspended)
Note: Some agreements are framed as general framework agreements, while others contain detailed implementation provisions.
How do these agreements affect asylum decisions?
1. Encouraging classification as a “safe country”
Having an active agreement with a country may strengthen arguments for classifying it as a “safe country”, which can lead to:
faster processing (shortened procedures),
a higher likelihood of quick rejections,
reduced practical chances in appeals.
2. Making deportation decisions and enforcement easier
When an agreement is active and effective, German authorities can often:
confirm a person’s identity more easily through consular cooperation,
obtain travel documents faster,
set a deportation date without long delays.
3. Reduced ability to rely on “deportation being impossible” (§ 25(5))
An active agreement makes it harder to prove deportation is not feasible in technical or diplomatic terms.
Real-life examples
A person from Morocco: the asylum claim is often rejected quickly unless there are very strong grounds (such as sexual orientation or specific individual threats), and deportation may be prepared swiftly due to an active agreement.
A Nigerian applicant: travel documents are requested through cooperation with the Nigerian consulate, which may respond under the agreement.
Can you challenge deportation despite these agreements?
Yes, but it can be difficult. Challenges may rely on:
human-rights violations in the destination country despite the agreement,
special individual circumstances (illness, psychological condition, family-related risk),
lack of real protection despite the agreement (e.g., the consulate does not cooperate).
In general, however, the existence of an agreement often weakens arguments for remaining.
How does this relate to people coming via a “safe third country”?
If a person passed through a country that has return arrangements with Germany—such as Italy, Spain, or France—they may be transferred there under:
the Dublin system (within Europe),
or bilateral agreements (in other contexts).
Conclusion
Bilateral deportation agreements are among Germany’s strongest tools for speeding up forced returns, and they can be decisive in cases involving nationals of countries covered by such agreements. They do not eliminate individual legal protection, but they make staying conditions stricter and require precise legal arguments proving a real risk or a humanitarian exception.
