Administrative Court Munich, 01.07.2017, Case No.: M 25 K 15.5908
According to § 25 Abs. 1 and Abs. 2 AufenthG, a foreigner must be granted a residence permit if they are recognized as entitled to asylum. This does not apply if the foreigner has been expelled for serious reasons related to public security and order. Until the residence permit is granted, the stay is considered permitted. The residence permit entitles the holder to engage in gainful employment. Additionally, a residence permit must be granted if the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has granted refugee status under § 3 Abs. 1 AsylG or subsidiary protection under § 4 Abs. 1 AsylG.
Under § 25 Abs. 5 AufenthG, a residence permit may be granted to a foreigner who is obliged to leave the country if their departure is impossible for legal or factual reasons, and it is not expected that these obstacles will be removed in the foreseeable future. A long-term obstacle to departure may include long-term imprisonment or placement in psychiatric institutions.
In this case, the plaintiff sought a residence permit despite multiple convictions and placement in a psychiatric hospital.
Introduction: Lawsuit for Residence Permit and Lifting of the Entry Ban
The plaintiff, a Burundian national, sought the issuance of a residence permit and the obligation of the defendant to lift or at least reduce to zero an entry and residence ban imposed on him by an expulsion order dated July 15, 2005. The plaintiff entered Germany in December 1997 at the age of 13 as part of family reunification. He was recognized as a refugee and granted an unlimited residence permit on October 11, 1999.
On May 21, 2004, the plaintiff became the father of a son who holds German citizenship. However, shortly thereafter, on August 17, 2004, he was convicted of two counts of rape and three counts of coercion and sentenced to two years and ten months in a juvenile detention facility. This conviction eventually led to the defendant’s expulsion order in 2005, which prohibited the plaintiff from re-entering the country.
Criminal Convictions and Expulsion
After his conviction and subsequent imprisonment, the plaintiff became a father during his incarceration and married the German mother of his son in May 2006. After his release from prison in February 2007, he moved in with his family. In 2007, he was again convicted, this time receiving a ten-month suspended sentence for aggravated assault after being involved in a fight in prison. His victim lost several teeth in the incident.
Despite these offenses and the existing expulsion order, the plaintiff was granted a temporary residence permit under § 25 Abs. 5 AufenthG on November 3, 2009, which was initially valid until November 2, 2011. This residence permit was subsequently extended several times, most recently until November 29, 2013. On March 22, 2010, the plaintiff was again convicted, this time for insulting police officers, and was fined.
Escalation: Killing of Wife and Psychiatric Commitment
In February 2012, the situation escalated when the plaintiff moved out of the shared apartment at his wife’s request. During a visit for his son’s eighth birthday on May 21, 2012, the situation escalated, and the plaintiff stabbed his wife without apparent reason, resulting in her death. The plaintiff was immediately arrested and initially held in pre-trial detention before being committed to a psychiatric hospital.
On July 18, 2013, the Munich I Regional Court acquitted the plaintiff of the charge of murdering his wife and instead ordered his permanent placement in a psychiatric hospital. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had been legally insane at the time of the crime due to paranoid schizophrenia, which had completely impaired his ability to understand the nature of his actions.
Application for Residence Permit and Denial by the Defendant
On May 10, 2015, the plaintiff informally applied for the issuance or renewal of a permanent residence permit. In a subsequent letter dated June 27, 2016, he argued that he was entitled to a residence permit under § 25 Abs. 1 and Abs. 2 AufenthG. The defendant initially granted a temporary suspension of deportation but ultimately rejected the application on December 9, 2015. At the same time, the defendant imposed an entry and residence ban for eight years, starting from the plaintiff’s release from psychiatric commitment. The defendant emphasized that the severity of the crimes committed and the ongoing threat to public safety precluded an extension of the plaintiff’s stay.
Lawsuit at the Administrative Court Munich
The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit at the Administrative Court Munich, seeking to overturn the defendant’s decisions of December 9, 2015, and to compel the defendant to grant him a residence permit. In his argument, the plaintiff questioned whether his residence permit under § 25 Abs. 5 AufenthG could have been revoked in the first place. He also claimed that his transfer to the Munich-Haar District Hospital indicated a reduced level of dangerousness.
However, on May 16, 2017, the treating hospital reported that all relaxation measures for the plaintiff had been revoked and that he was being held in a high-security unit. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a complex personality disorder, which he refused to acknowledge, complicating his therapy. His lack of insight into his past crimes, particularly the rapes, and his tendency to downplay these acts, indicated that he remained a significant threat. The plaintiff engaged in therapy only superficially, without genuinely addressing his crime, life history, addiction, or psychotic illness.
Court’s Judgment: No Grant of Residence Permit
The Administrative Court Munich dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to a residence permit or a reduction of the entry and residence ban. There was no entitlement under § 9a Abs. 2 AufenthG, as the requirements for long-term residence were not met. Additionally, there was no claim to a residence permit on humanitarian grounds under § 25 Abs. 1, 2, or Abs. 5 AufenthG.
The issuance of a residence permit was particularly precluded by the continued threat to public safety. Given the severity of the crimes and the plaintiff’s ongoing mental illness, granting him a residence permit was deemed untenable. An exception to the general prohibition on issuance was not warranted, as the threat to public safety remained.
The court also rejected the request to reduce the ban to zero. The court emphasized that such a reduction is only possible in exceptional cases, where the original reasons for the expulsion no longer exist or where proportionality requires such a measure. Neither condition was met in the plaintiff’s case, as he continued to pose a danger to the public. Finally, the court concluded that even considering Art. 6 GG and Art. 8 ECHR, no other decision could be made. The defendant had properly exercised its discretion, and the decision was lawful.
Source: Munich Administrative Court
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 to info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.