Hessian Administrative Court - Decision of 2 October 2006 - 12 TG 1870/06
No automatic expiry of the residence permit upon termination of an au pair activity
The Hessian Administrative Court (VGH) clarified that the residence of a foreigner staying in Germany as an au pair does not automatically end with the premature termination of her employment. The decisive factor is whether the residence permit contains an express condition subsequent - and this was not the case here.
The court ruled in favour of the applicant, a Moroccan national, and ordered the immigration authority to reconsider the extension of her residence permit. In addition, the court ordered the suspensive effect of the appeal against the negative decision.
Initial situation: From the au pair position to marriage
The applicant came to Germany in 2001 with an au pair visa. Her stay was initially limited until 31 August 2002. During this time, she married a German national in July 2002. She subsequently applied for a marriage-related residence permit.
However, the foreigners authority and the Administrative Court of Frankfurt had rejected the application for an extension because they assumed that the original residence permit for the au pair activity had expired prematurely with the marriage and the end of the activity. According to the reasoning, this meant that there was no longer any legal residence - a prerequisite for independent residence in accordance with Section 31 (1) of the Residence Act.
Court considers residence to be lawful throughout
The VGH Hessen disagreed with this view. The judges found that the applicant had lived legally in Germany without interruption:
-
Until the end of August 2002 with a valid residence permit,
-
from 29 August 2002 by virtue of an application with a fictitious right of residence in accordance with § 69 Para. 3 AuslG old version until the marriage-related residence permit was issued in October 2002.
The legally required two-year period of cohabitation in Germany was thus fulfilled.
Cancellation condition must be expressly included
The central point of the decision is that a residence permit does not automatically end when the original purpose of residence ceases, for example when an au pair position ends.
The court referred to § 44 AuslG old version (today § 51 AufenthG), which exhaustively lists the reasons for the expiry of residence permits. According to this, a residence permit only expires if:
-
Expiry of the period of validity,
-
Commencement of a permissible condition subsequent,
-
Withdrawal or revocation by administrative act,
-
or other cases expressly regulated by law.
The mere end of the employment relationship - even if the residence title was issued for this purpose - is not sufficient to automatically terminate the residence permit.
„The fulfilment of a permissible condition subsequent leads to the expiry of a residence permit, but not merely the loss of the original purpose of residence.“
(VGH Hessen, decision of 2 October 2006 - 12 TG 1870/06)
Ancillary provision was not a condition, but a requirement
The wording attached to the residence permit read:
„Only valid for work as an au pair in conjunction with a work permit from the relevant employment office. Other gainful employment not permitted.“
In the opinion of the court, this is not a resolutory condition, but merely a requirement.
The difference is significant:
-
A condition subsequent automatically terminates the stay as soon as a certain event occurs.
-
A condition only describes the conditions under which the title may be used; it can be penalised under administrative law in the event of a breach, but does not automatically terminate residence.
The authority should therefore have clearly and explicitly stated that the title would expire if the au pair activity was cancelled. As this was not done, the title remains valid until the expiry date.
Authorities must formulate conditions clearly and unambiguously
The court recalled that it is the responsibility of the authority to formulate ancillary provisions clearly, specifically and without contradiction (Section 36 HVwVfG). Any ambiguities are the responsibility of the administration.
In practice, this means
If an authority wants a residence permit to end automatically, it must state this clearly and explicitly - for example with the following wording:
„The residence permit expires when the au pair activity ends.“
If there is no such wording, the title continues to be effective despite the loss of purpose until it is limited or revoked by administrative act.
Comparison with other cases
The VGH Hessen clarified that there are indeed cases in which a resolutory condition has been effectively ordered - for example in a decision by the VG Augsburg in 2001, where the text explicitly stated:
„The residence permit expires if the au pair activity is terminated prematurely.“
In the present case, however, there was no such wording. This meant that no automatic cancellation could occur.
Significance for § 31 AufenthG - Legality of the marriage period
The judgement also has significance for the independent right of residence after separation (§ 31 AufenthG). According to this provision, a foreign spouse can receive an independent residence permit if the marital partnership has legally existed in Germany for at least two years.
The VGH confirmed that the applicant fulfilled this requirement, as her residence was also legal during the transition from the au pair period to marriage. The administrative court's assumption that she had lived in the country „illegally in the meantime“ was therefore incorrect.
Legal aid and decision on costs
As the appeal was successful, the applicant was granted legal aid for the proceedings before the VGH. The defendant - the foreigners authority - bears the costs of the entire court proceedings. The amount in dispute was set at 2,500 euros.
Significance for practice
The decision of the Hesse Administrative Court is still significant for administrative practice under immigration law today:
Key messages:
-
A residence permit does not automatically expire if the purpose of residence no longer applies (e.g. termination of au pair work or separation from spouse).
-
A condition subsequent must be formulated expressly and unambiguously.
-
Without a clear condition, the stay remains legal until expiry or until a formal decision is made.
-
The legality of residence can also continue to exist through a fictitious right of residence (Section 81 (3) AufenthG, formerly Section 69 (3) AuslG).
Conclusion: Legal certainty through clear administrative acts
The decision of the Hessian Administrative Court of 2 October 2006 (12 TG 1870/06) strengthens the legal security of foreigners whose residence permit is linked to a specific purpose.
The message to the authorities is clear:
Unclear or ambiguously worded ancillary provisions are at the expense of the administration.
As long as there is no clear cancellation mechanism, the residence permit remains valid - even if the original purpose of residence no longer applies.
