The asylum procedure and the determination of facts are designed completely differently in the European host states and are subject to constant changes. On the occasion of the radical changes and the beginning of European harmonization of asylum law, the author examines what the elaborate asylum procedure in the Federal Republic of Germany is capable of and what improvements are possible and necessary.
The study focuses on the administrative and judicial fact-finding, which is of great importance in deciding whether an asylum seeker falls under the protection of the fundamental right. As it turns out, fact-finding in asylum proceedings is characterized by a combination of peculiarities and complications that cannot be found anywhere else.
The author examines these peculiarities (e.g., the acquisition of information about the countries of origin as well as the impeded communication through interpreters and intercultural misunderstandings) against the background of the legal framework and with a view to the legal systems of other states.
The study is aimed at asylum law practitioners as well as policymakers and academics.