Decision of the Higher Administrative Court of the Saarland dated 21 May 2025 - 2 E 16/25
Tenor
The plaintiff's appeal against the order of the Administrative Court of the Saarland of 6 January 2025 - 2 K 645/24 - is dismissed. The applicant shall bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Facts
The applicant initially submitted an application for naturalisation on 22 December 2023, mistakenly to a non-competent authority (C-City). After being informed of this, she submitted her application to the competent district of C. on 29 December 2023. The district informed her that longer waiting times were to be expected due to the high number of applications and that she was 645th out of 757 on the waiting list. On 24 April 2024, she had a personal consultation appointment with the district, during which doubts were expressed about her independent financial ability to support herself due to her temporary part-time employment.
The application was forwarded to the responsible defendant on 15 May 2024. On 24 May 2024, the plaintiff filed an action for failure to act with the Saarland Administrative Court, as no decision had yet been made on her application. The defendant then applied for the proceedings to be suspended until August 2025 on the grounds that processing could not be expected before June 2025 due to a significant increase in the number of applications.
Background to the inactivity
The defendant explained in detail that there had been a significant and unforeseeable increase in naturalisation applications since 2022. In response, the defendant had introduced numerous organisational and personnel measures. Among other things, new employees were hired, additional positions were advertised and internal processes were optimised. Nevertheless, due to the high number of new applications, there is still a backlog that can only be cleared gradually.
Decision of the Administrative Court
The Administrative Court suspended the proceedings and set the defendant a deadline of 30 June 2025 to make a decision, stating that there were sufficient grounds for the delay within the meaning of Section 75 sentence 3 VwGO due to the extraordinary pressure on the authority. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not submitted any particular urgency that would justify prioritising the processing of her application.
Reasons for the decision of the Higher Administrative Court
The Higher Administrative Court of the Saarland confirmed the decision of the Administrative Court in full. The Senate held that there were sufficient grounds pursuant to Section 75 sentence 3 VwGO to justify a longer processing period.
In particular, the Senate emphasised the extraordinary increase in the number of applications since 2022, which had not been foreseeable for the defendant. The court found that the defendant was able to demonstrate substantial measures to deal with the overload, which, however, only had a gradual effect due to their complexity and the considerable time required.
Furthermore, it was found that there was no structural organisational deficit at the authority, as continuous measures had been taken to optimise and increase the number of staff. Furthermore, the applicant had not put forward any specific reasons that could justify the particular urgency of her naturalisation procedure.
Legal categorisation
The Senate stated that although there is a right to effective legal protection under Article 19 (4) of the Basic Law, this does not include any fixed time limits for official decisions. Rather, the reasonableness of the duration of proceedings must be considered on an individual basis, in particular taking into account circumstances such as the extraordinary burden on the authority and the specific measures taken to remedy the situation.
Implications for practice
The judgement clearly shows that authorities affected by an unforeseeable, exceptional workload are entitled to accept delays in the processing of applications under certain conditions. However, the prerequisite for this is that measures for structural optimisation and staff reinforcement are clearly demonstrated.
For applicants, this means that they must accept processing in the order in which their application is received, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Applicants should therefore always endeavour to present any reasons for urgency in a comprehensible and concrete manner.
Conclusion
Authorities must respond to unforeseen burdens with structural adjustments in order to legitimise delays. At the same time, applicants are not generally entitled to immediate processing if exceptional circumstances are comprehensible and sufficiently documented. The judicial suspension of a decision is therefore legitimate and justified if suitable organisational measures can be demonstrated.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.
