Immigration Law: Interim Relief in Spouse Reunification Cases Involving German Nationals

Administrative Court of Berlin, Decision from January 29, 2014, Case No.: 19 L 278.13 V

For years, a trend has been observed in immigration law where judicial proceedings reviewing decisions of immigration authorities or embassies are increasingly prolonged.

This delay can lead to significant disadvantages for foreign nationals when urgency is required. To ensure swift legal protection in such cases, foreign nationals can secure their rights in court through interim relief, known as „einstweiliger Rechtsschutz.“ These procedures, often referred to as urgent relief proceedings, allow for a rapid decision based on a preliminary review, with less stringent evidence requirements than in a main proceeding.

Interim relief differs from normal lawsuits in that it involves a quick decision based on a preliminary examination. Therefore, the evidence requirements are less stringent than in the main proceedings, with affidavits playing a significant role.

An urgent application is justified when the applicant successfully demonstrates the urgency and the validity of the claim to the court.

The case presented here concerns interim relief proceedings before the Berlin Administrative Court. In these proceedings, the wife, who comes from Kosovo, applied for interim relief in order to be able to join her German husband in Germany.

Procedure and requirements for marriage visas and subsequent immigration of spouses

Facts of the Case:

Kosovo-born wife seeks to join her German husband in Germany

The 1988-born applicant from Kosovo sought a visa for family reunification with her German husband living in Germany

She applied for a spouse reunification visa at the German Embassy in Pristina. However, the immigration authority denied consent, and the embassy rejected the visa application, citing the applicant’s failure to demonstrate the required German language proficiency.

Wife lacks basic German language skills but still applies for interim relief

In response, the applicant filed a lawsuit and an urgent application for the issuance of a visa for spouse reunification.

Decision of the Administrative Court of Berlin:

Wife fails to demonstrate a claim for relief and urgency

The Berlin Administrative Court ruled that the applicant had not substantiated either a claim for an injunction or a reason for an injunction.

The Administrative Court of Berlin ruled that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated either a claim for relief or urgency. Under Section 123(1) Sentence 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO), the court can issue an interim order to establish a preliminary status in a disputed legal matter if this is necessary to prevent significant disadvantages or imminent harm.

The obligation of the respondent to issue a visa requested by the applicant would at least partially anticipate the decision in the main proceedings. In view of the fundamental prohibition of an interim injunction anticipating the decision in the main proceedings, a favourable decision in such cases can only be considered in exceptional cases with regard to the constitutional guarantee of effective legal protection (Art. 19 para. 4 GG), if, according to the summary examination to be carried out in interim legal protection proceedings, which is generally only necessary, a victory in the main action is to be expected with a high degree of probability and the applicant for legal protection would suffer serious and unreasonable disadvantages if the requested injunction were refused, which could no longer be subsequently reversed by the decision in the main action.

The applicant requires a residence permit in accordance with § 4 Para. 1 AufenthG. For her intended permanent residence in Germany, a visa to be issued prior to entry in accordance with § 6 Para. 3 AufenthG is required. The granting of this visa is governed by the provisions applicable to residence and settlement permits (Section 6 (3) sentence 2 AufenthG).

The legal basis for issuing the visa for the purpose of the applicant joining her German husband living in Germany is § 27 in conjunction with §§ 28, 5 AufenthG. The applicant does not fully fulfil the conditions required under these provisions.

Lack of basic German language skills negates the claim for relief

According to Section 28(1) Sentence 5 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), in conjunction with Section 30(1) Sentence 1 No. 2 AufenthG, the applicant must demonstrate basic German language skills to obtain a residence permit for family reunification. The applicant had admittedly not demonstrated these basic language skills.

The applicant could not successfully invoke the exceptions provided under Section 28(1) Sentence 5 of the Residence Act, which applies to spouses who cannot meet the language requirements due to physical, mental, or psychological conditions. The medical certificates provided by the applicant were insufficient to establish such a condition.

The submitted medical certificates do not substantiate an exception to the language requirement

The medical certificates submitted by the applicant did not prove any physical, mental, or psychological condition that would prevent her from acquiring basic German language skills. Furthermore, the certificate from the German language center contradicted the claim that she was unable to learn the language for health reasons.

"No physical or mental disorder can be detected."

The admission certificate of the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic of the University of Kosovo states in the submitted translation that the applicant has significant disorders in verbal communication, which are irremediable and permanent due to her state of health. The applicant was referred to a psychologist.

The certificate from the Neurology Clinic of the University of Kosovo states the following in the submitted translation:

"Contact with the patient is easily established and only maintained with difficulty (the patient has verbalisation difficulties). In the psychological assessment, mnestic dysfunctions are noticeable, i.e. poor attention, perception and concentration, there are signs of forgetfulness. Emotional instability can be observed. In the Bender Gestalt test, she shows motor incoordination during the reproduction of figures, but there are no signs of pathological production."

Apart from the fact that a physical, mental or psychological illness or disability, due to which the applicant could not acquire simple German language skills, was not credibly established, the certificate submitted by the "Centre for the German Language D..." contradicted the applicant's submission that she could not acquire the language skills for health reasons. The submitted translation of this certificate states:

"As her German teacher, I could not and cannot promise that I can prepare her for the A1 exam because of the obstacles mentioned above. However, Mrs Ze... has so far learnt the most important things of everyday life in the German course, such as: talking about herself; she can talk about her husband, where he lives, what he does; about the family, weather, time and so on."

Wife also fails to demonstrate that she had unsuccessfully tried to learn the language for more than a year

The applicant's reference to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court (judgement of 4 September 2012 - 10 C 12/12 - juris, para. 28 et seq.), according to which the constitutional interpretation of Section 28 para. 1 sentence 5 AufenthG requires that the language requirement prior to entry be waived if efforts to acquire the language are not possible, not reasonable or not successful within one year in the individual case, does not lead to the assumption of a claim for an order.

The applicant had not credibly demonstrated that it was impossible or unreasonable for her to learn the language or that her efforts had not been successful within a year.

As stated above, the medical certificates do not prove that the applicant is unable to learn the language for health reasons. Other reasons that would justify the unreasonableness or impossibility of language acquisition were neither presented nor apparent.

Sufficient efforts by the applicant to acquire simple German language skills within one year were not credibly demonstrated. Although the applicant submitted two certificates stating that she had taken part in a German course from March 2012 to June 2012 and had been attending another German course since October 2012, this was not sufficient to establish credibility. The certificate for the first German course does not contain a date of issue. Furthermore, it is not clear in which institution the course was supposed to have been completed and with what result, and whether it met the needs of the applicant, who was learning a foreign language for the first time. The certificate for the second German course at the "Centre for the German Language D..." also contains no date of issue. The applicant did not counter the objection raised by the defendant that she was not aware of the language school. Finally, it was not recognisable to what extent and with what commitment the applicant had taken part in the course and whether she was still doing so.

The wife had also not been able to credibly demonstrate the urgency (reason for the order).

The applicant also failed to demonstrate urgency. While it is true that the applicant could not live with her husband in Germany during the pending main proceedings, the court found no reason why the couple could not maintain their marital relationship through extended visits in Kosovo, given the husband’s circumstances.

Although it is not possible for the applicant to live together with her German husband in Germany for the duration of the pending main proceedings, it is not currently impossible for them to live together. It is not apparent that it would not be reasonable and possible for the applicant and her German husband, who comes from Kosovo, has relatives living in Kosovo, is not gainfully employed in Germany and does not appear to have any other obligations, to maintain the marital partnership for the duration of the proceedings in the form of longer visits by the husband to Kosovo.

Source: Administrative Court of Berlin

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *