Administrative Court of Stuttgart, March 1, 2010, Case No. 11 K 223/09
If a foreigner wishes to become a German citizen, they must apply for naturalisation. Many applicants ask whether a Naturalisation without a birth certificate is possible at all. According to case law, it depends on the totality of the evidence submitted, not necessarily on a legalised document. The requirements for this are regulated in the Nationality Act (StAG) and the Residence Act (AufenthG). In addition to various other requirements listed in the laws, proof of identity is always required. This cannot be read directly from § 10 para. 1 sentence 1 StAG, for example.
The Administrative Court of Stuttgart clarifies in the judgment that authorities are not always allowed to insist on the legalization of documents used to prove identity. Such matters should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the credibility of other documents. Even an unlegalized document can be used in the context of free assessment of evidence.
In the following ruling, the Stuttgart Administrative Court clarifies that the authorities may not always insist on the legalisation of documents that are intended to prove identity. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the credibility of the other documents. A non-legalised document can also be used as part of the free assessment of evidence.
Case Facts of the Court Ruling
In this case, the parties are disputing the naturalization claim of a father. The plaintiff is a man from Sudan, and the defendant is an immigration authority.
The man arrived in Germany as a refugee in 1996, was granted asylum, and received an indefinite residence permit. In 1998, his wife joined him through family reunification. In this procedure, the man submits a Sudanese work permit and a marriage certificate, which provide his personal details.
Plaintiff Filed a Naturalization Application
In 2006, the man applied for naturalization with the immigration authority and submitted the required documents. He also swore an affidavit before a notary that his stated data was correct.
The foreigners authority then informs him that it cannot process the application because the man's identity has not been fully clarified. The man then also submits his original Sudanese birth certificate. The Birth certificate for naturalisation is often scrutinised critically by the authorities. However, the judgement shows that other documents or affidavits can also be included in the assessment.
The process was delayed several times as the authority investigated whether revoking the man’s asylum status was possible.
The Immigration Authority Refuses to Recognize the Birth Certificate Due to Lack of Legalization
It was only in November 2007 that the authority informed him that it would not recognize the birth certificate due to the lack of legalization by the German embassy in Khartoum (Sudan). The man attempted to achieve legalization by asking an acquaintance in Sudan to handle it. However, during the necessary visit to the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the certificate was confiscated.
In June 2008, the immigration authority additionally requested current pension insurance documents, which the man provided. He also submitted a copy of a certificate from the Sudanese embassy confirming his Sudanese citizenship. His personal data was again consistent with the previously provided information. Additionally, he passed a German language exam with a grade of 1.
Foreigner Files a Lawsuit
The authority continued to refuse to act, citing the lack of legalization of the birth certificate. Consequently, the man filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court.
He requested that the court compel the authority to naturalize him.
The immigration authority opposed the lawsuit, arguing that the man’s identity was not clarified due to the lack of legalization of his birth certificate.
It did not follow a suggestion from the German embassy in Khartoum that a birth certificate does not necessarily need to be legalized but can be considered in the context of free assessment of evidence.
Moreover, the authority considered the man’s citizenship unclear, citing past instances where Nigerians were documented as Sudanese. The authority also had doubts about the copy of the certificate from the Sudanese embassy, as it had not received such a certificate from the embassy.
Decision of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart
The Administrative Court of Stuttgart finds the lawsuit well-founded and obliges the immigration authority to naturalize the plaintiff. It considers the plaintiff’s naturalization claim under Section 10 (1) StAG to be justified, which the authority had previously examined.
The court states that the person to be naturalized must have lived lawfully in Germany for eight years, be capable of action under Section 37 (1) StAG, and meet the requirements of Nos. 1-7 in Section 10 (1) StAG. The court sees these requirements as obviously met. The only dispute was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven his identity. Although the requirement for identity clarification is not explicitly stated, it is consistently recognized in case law.
Court’s Position on Legalization of the Birth Certificate
The court explicitly denies that proof of identity can only be provided with a legalized birth certificate. It argues that the legislature did not establish this requirement. A fictional obligation by the authority to provide a legalized birth certificate would contradict the principle of separation of powers. However, the court acknowledges that providing a legalized birth certificate is a suitable means, though not the only one.
Sufficient Evidence for Identity Clarification
The court believes the man has proven his identity even without a legalized certificate. He consistently provided the same personal details and made no corrections. Although his Sudanese work permit and affidavit alone are not proof of identity, they are sufficient when combined with the submitted certified marriage certificate.
Furthermore, the unlegalized birth certificate is to be considered authentic in the context of free assessment of evidence, making a legalization procedure inappropriate.
Finally, the submission of a copy of the certificate issued by the Sudanese embassy confirming the man’s citizenship is sufficient, as it already clears up doubts about his identity. The original is not required in this case.
This multitude of evidence leads the court to conclude that the man’s identity is clarified and thus the requirements of Section 10 (1) StAG are met. It orders the immigration authority to naturalize him.
Court’s Criticism of the Immigration Authority
Unusually, the court also criticizes the immigration authority for its actions. It clarifies that requesting pension insurance documents is not provided for under Section 10 (1) StAG and unnecessarily prolonged the process. A requirement for naturalization under Section 9 (2) (1) No. 5 AufenthG should not be applied to the claim under Section 10 (1) StAG.
The court also criticizes the repeated examination of whether revoking the asylum was possible, as this unnecessarily delayed the process. Such an examination should only occur as an exception when significant changes in the circumstances in the country of origin are evident, which was not the case in Sudan.
Similar uncertainties also arise when people need documents for other procedures. One example is when someone needs a Apply for a passport without a birth certificate would like. Here too, alternative evidence may be accepted under certain conditions.
Conclusion: Conclusion: Often, immigration or naturalization authorities exceed their bounds and impose overly stringent criteria. In such cases, judicial review should be sought.
Source: Administrative Court of Stuttgart
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.
