Revocation of Protection for Visiting Syria: Is Germany Violating International and European Law?
Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, Germany has seen intense debate over whether Syrian refugees should be allowed to travel to their homeland to assess the situation. While some argue that such travel enables refugees to search for relatives or inspect property, others warn of potential misuse that could undermine asylum regulations.
In October 2025, the German Ministry of the Interior announced that, following an in-depth review, it would not permit Syrians to make short trips to their country of origin without jeopardizing their protection status. Instead, those seeking permanent voluntary return are encouraged to use counseling services rather than conducting exploratory trips themselves.
Meanwhile, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) is considering revoking protection status for Syrian refugees if travel to Syria can be proven. According to information provided by BAMF to the human rights organization Pro Asyl, approximately 2,600 review procedures for revoking the protection of Syrian refugees who traveled to Syria were initiated in 2025.
The “Settlement” Requirement
Under Section 47b of the Residence Act, individuals granted asylum or international protection must inform the Foreigners’ Authority (Ausländerbehörde) of their intention and reason for traveling to their country of origin. The authorities must then notify BAMF to assess whether protection should be revoked. Failure to report travel plans can result in a fine, effectively forcing individuals to trigger a review of their own legal status should they wish to travel.
Section 73 (Paragraph 1, No. 1) of the Asylum Act stipulates that protection is revoked if a person voluntarily returns to the protection of the state from which they fled. However, Paragraph 1, No. 4 introduces a crucial limitation: travel alone is insufficient; the person must have “settled” there.
Legal jurisprudence defines “settlement” as permanent residence with the intention of establishing a new life—for example, owning a second home in the country of origin while maintaining residency in Germany. Consequently, short trips intended solely for assessment (e.g., searching for relatives or checking on a home) do not constitute settlement and are not covered by this provision, according to the Pro Asyl report.
In October 2024, a new paragraph (Paragraph 7) was added to Section 73 of the Asylum Act. It introduces a legal presumption that the conditions for protection are no longer met once a person travels to their country of origin. This presumption does not apply only if the trip was “morally necessary”—for instance, due to a serious illness or death of a family member.
However, the report argues that applying this rule effectively “nullifies the significance of the settlement condition,” because the presumption is triggered regardless of whether actual settlement occurred.
Conflict with International and European Law
Pro Asyl states that this presumption rule—as applied to refugees and protected persons—violates both international and European law. It is incompatible with the Geneva Refugee Convention and the EU Qualification Directive. Since European law takes precedence, the rule should not be applied to these categories.
In contrast, the requirement of “settlement” aligns with international and European law. This condition remains in place even under the new European regulations set to take effect in June 2026.
Pro Asyl argues that trips to the country of origin should not automatically lead to revocation of protection as long as settlement has not occurred. This includes exploratory trips to find relatives or evaluate future return options. The organization calls on the German government to abolish the presumption rule introduced in 2024 and provide legal clarification permitting such trips.
Pro Asyl suggests that trip durations should be sufficient—e.g., two to four weeks, or up to 90 days—to allow individuals to realistically assess the situation.
Currently, the presumption rule remains in effect for those with subsidiary protection or deportation bans, who are strongly advised against exploratory travel. Those with formal asylum or refugee status may also face revocation procedures, despite the potential illegality of such moves under European law.
Pro Asyl advises affected individuals to seek legal counsel before traveling. If protection is revoked, they can appeal the decision on grounds of inconsistency with European law.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
The post Revocation of Protection for Visiting Syria: Is Germany Violating International and European Law? first appeared on The Syrian Observer.
