Administrative Court of Munich, January 20, 2016, Case No.: M 25 K 15.4003
According to § 10 Paragraph 1 of the German Nationality Act (StAG), a foreigner is eligible for naturalization if all the conditions specified therein are met.
It is important to note that the aforementioned conditions set forth in the law must be fulfilled cumulatively. Only when all criteria are met does the applicant have a right to be granted naturalization in the German states federation. Regarding the condition of being free from criminal convictions, the non-consideration threshold of § 12a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 StAG must be taken into account, which specifies, among other things, that fines of up to 90 daily rates are not considered in the naturalization process. Similarly, measures for securing and improving can be disregarded. However, the latter is at the discretion of the authority, which must make a decision on a case-by-case basis, weighing the interests involved.
The plaintiff seeks naturalization into the German states federation through the decision below. The underlying issue of the case is the question of whether minor convictions should be considered within the scope of the authority’s discretion.
Introduction and Background Plaintiff Conceals Criminal Convictions in Naturalization Process
The plaintiff, a foreign national, entered Germany with a visa for studies in September 2002. After completing his dance diploma in July 2004, he worked as a dancer for a ballet ensemble until 2009. After receiving a settlement permit in February 2009, he opened a café in 2010. He is currently studying at a private university, running an online store for gifts, and working part-time in a consulting job. Despite his diverse engagement, the plaintiff encountered difficulties that ultimately hindered his efforts for naturalization.
In August 2011, the plaintiff submitted a naturalization application and agreed to renounce his previous citizenship. However, in April 2012, he was caught driving under the influence of marijuana in Berlin, which led to his conviction for negligent driving under the influence. The local court imposed a fine of 30 daily rates, revoked his driving license, and decided that he could not apply for a new license for ten months. The plaintiff did not disclose this conviction in his subsequent naturalization applications.
Criminal Convictions and Their Consequences
In December 2012 and again in September 2013, the plaintiff submitted his naturalization application without disclosing the 2012 conviction. Due to this concealment, he was convicted in June 2014 of obtaining naturalization by deceit and fined 60 daily rates. Consequently, the responsible authority rejected his naturalization application in August 2015. The rejection was based on legal provisions, particularly § 10 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 of the Nationality Act (StAG), which states that a foreigner cannot be naturalized if they have been convicted of a crime or if measures for improvement and security have been imposed.
Although the imposed fines were not detrimental to naturalization due to their insignificance according to § 12a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 StAG, the still unextinguished measure of improvement and security (the revocation of the driving license) was an obstacle. The authority decided, at its discretion, that this measure could not be disregarded as it remained relevant and outweighed the public interest. The plaintiff challenged this decision, arguing that the rejection was disproportionate and violated his rights.
Legal Assessment by the Administrative Court
The Administrative Court of Munich addressed whether the plaintiff was entitled to naturalization despite his criminal convictions and the measure of improvement and security. The court concluded that the complaint was unfounded. The contested decision of the authority from August 18, 2015, was lawful, and the plaintiff’s rights were not violated. According to § 10 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 5 StAG, a foreigner may be naturalized after eight years of lawful residence in Germany, provided there are no convictions for crimes and no measures for improvement and security have been ordered.
However, the plaintiff had been convicted twice for unlawful acts. Although these convictions were insignificant in terms of their punishment, the ordered measure of improvement and security under § 61 No. 5 of the Criminal Code (revocation of the driving license) was relevant. The court found that the authority had correctly and proportionately decided that this measure could not be disregarded in this case and thus obstructed naturalization.
Balancing of Interests
The decision involved balancing the public interest against the plaintiff’s interest in naturalization. The court stated that the legislator views any unlawful and sanctioned crime as an obstacle to naturalization to protect public legal goods. Although the plaintiff’s offenses, due to their insignificance, did not directly affect naturalization, the revocation of the driving license as a measure of improvement and security was crucial.
According to the case law of the Bavarian Administrative Court, the ongoing purpose of the measure for improvement and security must also be considered in the balancing. The authority correctly decided in its discretion that the revocation of the driving license should be taken into account in the naturalization process. The duration until the restoration of the driving license, the consequences of the offense, and the fact that the convictions occurred relatively recently were also considered in the balance.
Proportionality of the Decision
The court assessed the authority’s decision as proportionate. Although the plaintiff had regained his driving license after the end of the ban period, the measures for its restoration took almost a year. The Administrative Court found that the plaintiff was not urgently dependent on naturalization to continue his life in Germany. He was able to continue living lawfully in the country and pursue his employment.
Additionally, it was noted that the plaintiff had been convicted twice within a short period, with one conviction directly related to his naturalization application. The fact that the convictions were recent and the measure for improvement and security was still effective justified the authority’s decision to reject naturalization. The court found that there was no reduction of discretion to zero and the decision was thus free from errors in discretion.
Conclusion and Summary
In summary, the Administrative Court of Munich decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to naturalization. The authority correctly applied the legal requirements in its decision and considered all relevant circumstances in its exercise of discretion. The public interest in preventing naturalization of individuals with criminally relevant behavior outweighs the plaintiff’s personal interest in obtaining German citizenship in this case. The case demonstrates that even minor criminal convictions and resulting measures for improvement and security can have significant impacts on naturalization procedures.
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.