Higher Administrative Court of the State of Saxony-Anhalt - Decision of 7 November 2025 - Ref. 3 O 129/25
Legal force: yes
Standard: § 75 VwGO
Waiting years for naturalisation is unreasonable
Many naturalisation applicants are familiar with the situation: the application has been submitted, the documents are complete, and yet nothing happens for months - sometimes years. Queries remain unanswered, decisions are postponed further and further into the future. The decision of the Higher Administrative Court of the State of Saxony-Anhalt of 7 November 2025 makes it unmistakably clear that such a practice is incompatible with the principles of the rule of law.
The Senate expressly agrees with the current case law of the OVG North Rhine-Westphalia and thus once again strengthens the position of naturalisation applicants whose procedures remain unprocessed for no objective reason.
§ Section 75 VwGO also applies without restriction to nationality law
The court clarifies that Section 75 VwGO also applies in full to naturalisation proceedings. An action for failure to act can be brought after three months have elapsed since the application was submitted if no decision is made without sufficient reason.
This deadline is not a mere formality. It expresses the legislative judgement that administrative procedures should be conducted swiftly. There is also no special regulation in nationality law that would justify longer waiting times across the board.
Exceeding the standard processing time tenfold is no longer acceptable
The court is particularly clear in its assessment of the processing time. An average processing time of around 2.8 years - i.e. more than ten times the statutory three-month period - is no longer reasonable in the opinion of the Senate, even taking into account the complexity of naturalisation procedures.
The significance of naturalisation for those affected is considerable: it affects security of residence, career development, political participation and family life planning. Against this background, generalised references to workload lose all legal validity.
Chronological processing does not replace a substantive decision
The defendant authority had argued that, for reasons of equal treatment, applications were processed strictly in the order in which they were received. The High Administrative Court makes it clear that this procedure does not justify years of inactivity.
The decisive factor is not the internal organisational model of the administration, but the question of whether an application is ready for a decision. If all the necessary documents are available and no further cooperation is required, there is a right to a prompt decision.
Permanent overload is an organisational problem for the administration
The Senate expressly recognises that naturalisation authorities have been under considerable pressure in recent years. Rising application numbers, legal reforms, relocations and digitalisation processes undoubtedly pose challenges.
Nevertheless, the court emphasises that an overload that has persisted for years is no longer a temporary event, but a structural organisational deficit. This must not be borne on the backs of the applicants. Staff shortages, sickness absence or budget bottlenecks are generally not sufficient reasons within the meaning of Section 75 VwGO.
Effective legal protection requires decisions within a reasonable period of time
Like other higher courts, the OVG Saxony-Anhalt closely links its decision to Article 19 (4) of the Basic Law. Effective legal protection means not only the formal possibility of appealing to a court, but also a decision within a reasonable period of time.
Proceedings that can only realistically be expected to be concluded after many years fail to fulfil this requirement. The Senate therefore clarifies that a stay of the proceedings in accordance with Section 75 sentence 3 VwGO cannot be considered in such circumstances.
Importance for naturalisation applicants
The decision has considerable practical relevance:
- An action for failure to act is already admissible after three months.
- Average processing times of several years are unreasonable.
- Permanent overload does not justify a suspension of proceedings.
- Courts are increasingly scrutinising the actual organisation of the authorities.
The decision fits seamlessly into a now well-established case law of the higher courts.
Conclusion: The administration must act, not put off
The decision of 7 November 2025 is another clear step towards greater legal certainty in naturalisation law. It shows that courts are not prepared to accept structural deficits in the administration if these lead to years of inactivity.
This means for naturalisation applicants: If you have waited long enough, you don't have to wait any longer. The right to a decision exists - and it can be enforced.
