Administrative Court of Hanover, April 27, 2018, Case No.: 12 A 60/17
Commitment declarations under § 68 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) are to be interpreted in accordance with §§ 133, 154 of the German Civil Code (BGB), considering the circumstances underlying the declaration at the time it was made. The decisive factor is not the internal will but the declared intent, as understood by the immigration authority through an objective assessment of all relevant circumstances and the purpose of the declaration. The subsequent behavior of the parties involved can also be of significant importance for interpretation. Based on this, the obligation undertaken in connection with the Lower Saxony Directive for the issuance of residence permits under § 23 (1) of the Residence Act for Syrian refugees ends with the granting of a residence permit under another legal basis. Additionally, the admission of Syrian civil war refugees, similar to the admission of Bosnian civil war refugees in the 1990s, constitutes a public matter that recognized an atypical case under the circumstances at the time.
If the liability of the guarantor for benefits provided after this point far exceeds the liability intended by the state authority, this constitutes an atypical case. In such cases, the reimbursing authority must decide at its discretion whether and to what extent the reimbursement claim is asserted. Discretion, in this context, means that the authority is granted a margin of decision-making. The legal basis for this is found in § 40 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG). If the authority fails to exercise its discretion or does so incorrectly, its decision is considered unlawful and must be annulled for this reason.
Scope of the Commitment Declaration
The plaintiff signed a commitment declaration under § 68 of the Residence Act on September 30, 2014, to cover the living expenses of his sister, a Syrian national. This commitment was valid from the date of her entry until the end of her stay or until the issuance of a residence permit for another purpose. The plaintiff was aware that his obligation would generally end with either the completion of the overall stay or the issuance of a new residence permit for another purpose.
Stay and Recognition of the Sister as a Refugee
The plaintiff’s sister entered Germany on November 9, 2014, with a valid visa issued under the „Syria Admission Directive.“ On November 19, 2014, she received a residence permit under § 23 (1) of the Residence Act. Later, she applied for asylum and was recognized as a refugee on December 28, 2015, after which she received a residence permit under § 25 (2) of the Residence Act on January 13, 2016. Between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2016, she received social benefits totaling €3,513.00.
Reimbursement of Social Benefits
The city demanded reimbursement of the social benefits granted to the plaintiff’s sister, arguing that the plaintiff’s obligation did not end with the recognition of refugee status. The plaintiff argued that his obligation ended with the recognition of refugee status, but the city disagreed, citing the wording of the commitment declaration, which stated that it would end only upon the issuance of a residence permit for another purpose.
Decision of the Administrative Court of Hannover
The Administrative Court of Hanover ruled that the plaintiff’s obligation ended on January 12, 2016, when his sister received a residence permit under § 25 (2) of the Residence Act. Therefore, the city could only reclaim benefits totaling €281.04 that were granted before this date. The court based its decision on the interpretation of the commitment declaration and the circumstances under which it was made.
Interpretation of the Commitment Declaration
The court found that the plaintiff’s commitment declaration ended with the issuance of a residence permit for another purpose. The declared intent of the plaintiff, as the immigration authority could reasonably interpret it, was decisive. The plaintiff’s obligation was tied to the original purpose and ended with the issuance of the residence permit under § 25 (2) of the Residence Act, which fulfilled a different purpose.
Discretionary Error by the Authority
The court identified a discretionary error in the city’s demand for reimbursement of benefits granted after January 12, 2016. The authority should have exercised its discretion because the commitment declaration was made in an atypical case. The plaintiff was not obligated in good faith to continue covering his sister’s living expenses beyond January 12, 2016, making the demand for reimbursement of €3,513.00 unlawful.
Source: Administrative Court of Hannover
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 e-mail to info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.
