German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (FOMR) - Bundesamt für Migartion und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

In 2016, the data subject entered Germany and applied for asylum. The asylum application was made on grounds that the data subject had converted from the Muslim to the Christian faith and feared being arrested for reasons of faith in the home country. In the application, the data subject credibly demonstrated that, due to the conversion, he would face state persecution if returned to the home country and refugee status was subsequently granted. In 2021, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (FOMR) reassessed the data subject's refugee status. In a request for information with a deadline subject to a €500 fine, the FOMR asked the data subject to explain, how his interest in the Christian religion had been developing since refugee status was granted or whether the data subject had tried to convince other people of the Christian faith. In addition, the data subject was asked to provide evidence of a conversion to Christianity and of any involvement in a church congregation. The data subject filed a suit against this course of action. The Administrative Court had to decide, inter alia, whether the FOMR’s request for participation was incompatible with Article 9 GDPR. The administrative court decided that the request for information was compatible with GDPR requirements under EU law. The court did not find a breach of the processing of special categories of personal data under Article 9 GDPR. Article 9(1) GDPR prohibits the processing of special categories of personal data, such as religious or philosophical beliefs, unless the processing is, inter alia, necessary under Article 9(2)(g) GDPR for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of Union or Member State law which shall be proportionate to the aim pursued, respect the essence of the right to data protection and provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject. The court held that under § 73(1) German Asylum Act (AsylG),