Cologne Administrative Court, Ref. 11 K 3947/21, judgement of 16.10.2025
The judgement of the Administrative Court of Cologne from 16.10.2025 (11 K 3947/21) is remarkable in several respects: It obliges the authorities to naturalise and at the same time deals in great detail with a new regulation that has been central since 2024 - namely the question of when the applicant for naturalisation is „exempted“ from the requirement to provide for their livelihood if they have been in full-time employment for at least 20 months in the last 24 months (Section 10 (1) sentence 1 no. 3 letter b StAG). The Chamber also categorises the role that retirement provision plays for self-employed persons - and why this question is ultimately secondary under the new exemption regulation. The fact that the court has allowed an appeal on the grounds of fundamental importance and that a lower instance is already pending at the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (19 A 3124/25) emphasises the practical relevance for many ongoing proceedings.
What was it about?
The applicant is a Pakistani national (born in 1984). He travelled to Germany in 2008, initially unsuccessfully applied for asylum and was granted a residence permit in accordance with Section 28 (1) sentence 1 no. 1 AufenthG from 2010 due to his marriage to a German national; the residence permit was extended until 2020. In 2017, the applicant applied for naturalisation. Among other things, he submitted B1 language certificates (DTZ), participation in an integration course and a naturalisation test; no criminal record was evident. He worked in the catering sector and took over the „W.“ business on his own in 2017; in addition, he occasionally held other jobs. It is undisputed that the claimant had never applied for social benefits.
After no decision was made in the naturalisation procedure for years, the applicant filed an action for failure to act in 2021. The authorities then rejected the application in a decision dated 7 October 2021. Reasoning: Living expenses for the claimant, his wife and one child had not been sufficiently proven; in particular, tax assessments and evidence of pension provision had not been submitted. In the court proceedings, the claimant subsequently submitted income tax assessments (2017-2022) and business analyses (BWA) for 2023, 2024 and 2025 (up to July). He also submitted documents on pension entitlements from the statutory pension insurance and newly concluded private insurance policies (including private pension insurance/private pension, occupational disability). In the meantime, the claimant had two children; one had (also) acquired German citizenship.
The authorities maintained their rejection, but increasingly shifted the focus to the „sustainable“ livelihood, in particular to what they saw as insufficient pension provision for the self-employed applicant. In addition, shortly before the hearing, it expressed doubts about the applicant's knowledge of German and understanding of the content of his commitment to the free democratic basic order and Germany's special historical responsibility. The court heard the plaintiff during the hearing for information purposes.
Core of the decision: The current legal situation is decisive - and the new exemption provision can supersede the forecast for old-age provision
The court first clarifies that the current legal situation at the time of the oral hearing is decisive in the case of an action to compel naturalisation. In the proceedings, this occurred during a phase in which the new version of Section 10 (1) StAG, which has been in force since 27 June 2024, was already applicable. The newly structured livelihood provision in Section 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 3 StAG was therefore central: the principle remains that livelihoods must be secured without benefits under SGB II or SGB XII. However, the expressly named exceptions, in particular letter b, are new and highly relevant in practice: The requirement is waived if the foreign national is in full-time employment and has been so for at least 20 months within the last 24 months.
The court affirmed the plaintiff's other naturalisation requirements: identity and nationality were clarified by a current passport; the plaintiff had an unlimited right of residence (settlement permit). The requirements regarding confession and loyalty were also considered to be fulfilled after the questioning at the hearing. The judgement emphasises that mere formal lip service is not sufficient, but that the applicant does not have to „recite“ the content in legal terms. The decisive factor is a core understanding that is orientated towards the level of education and individual abilities and, if necessary, can be tested at a low threshold without overstretching the requirements. At the hearing, the plaintiff was able to explain fundamental rights and core elements of the democratic constitutional state in a comprehensible manner and also demonstrated a sufficient understanding of Germany's historical responsibility. The doubts expressed by the defendant were thus dispelled.
The court also considered German language skills to be sufficient: A valid B1 certificate has an indicative effect. Doubts are only sufficient if there are concrete indications of significant discrepancies or a loss of language skills. In the court's opinion, the fact that a conversation about the complex content of the declarations of confession could not be fully mastered in detail without an interpreter is not sufficient evidence that the language level B1 no longer exists overall. The decisive factor was that the plaintiff was basically able to cope in everyday life and in an official context and was able to answer key parts of the hearing without an interpreter.
However, the focus is clearly on Section 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 3 StAG: securing a livelihood and the relationship between principle and exception.
Current livelihood: Yes - but pension provision is problematic in terms of prognosis (if only the principle were to be examined)
The court differentiates: According to the subsequently submitted documents and the submitted BWAs, the livelihood of the now family of four currently appears to be secured. The court works with a needs approach based on SGB II (standard needs, accommodation, insurance, etc.). In view of the proven profits from self-employment (in particular 2023/2024 and 2025 to July), the current maintenance security is comprehensible.
At the same time, however, the Chamber makes it clear that if the principle of Section 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 3 (first half-sentence) were to be used as the sole basis for securing a livelihood and the sustainability/forecast component developed by case law were to be applied, the applicant could have problems. Reason: old-age provision is generally to be taken into account as part of the sustainable means of subsistence for naturalisation applicants who are able to work, especially in a „middle phase of life“. In practice, it is often expected of self-employed persons that - depending on their age and employment history - at least comprehensible private provision efforts are recognisable. The court takes a very specific look at the private pension contracts submitted by the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion that the current contributions (in the order of 50 euros per month) would probably not cover the family's needs in the future; in addition, the plaintiff himself was unable to submit a comprehensible calculation of the expected pension amount. Disability insurance would not help in this respect because it covers a different risk and does not replace an old-age pension.
These passages are valuable for legal practice because they show how courts examine and justify the „pension provision track“ in classic constellations: not schematically according to „60 months of pension contributions = enough“, but on the basis of the plausibility of the overall coverage.
The decisive turning point: Section 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 3 letter b StAG - full-time 20/24 months - supersedes the forecast
Ultimately, however, this is no longer relevant. The court is convinced that the plaintiff falls under the exception of Section 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 3 letter b StAG: He has been working exclusively on a self-employed basis and full-time since March 2022 and has therefore worked full-time for at least 20 months in the last 24 months since September 2023. For the full-time definition, the court carries out a plausibility check for self-employed persons: The decisive factor is the actual scope of work in relation to the type of activity, opening hours, business structure and turnover/profits generated. The plaintiff described in a comprehensible manner that the business (restaurant) has long opening hours almost six days a week and that he regularly works in the business himself. This was sufficient for the court.
Now comes the central dogmatic point: The court interprets the exemption provision in such a way that if letter b is met, the entire requirement of securing a livelihood is waived - i.e. not only the part „without social benefits“, but also a future-related prognosis element including a retirement provision assessment. The Chamber bases this on the wording („this condition is waived“), systematics (semicolon separation), meaning and purpose as well as legislative materials. Particularly important: The exception is based on the past (20 months of full-time employment in the last 24 months) and aims to illustrate „sufficient economic integration“ precisely through sustained employment, not through a detailed financial forecast for the future. Therefore, according to the court, there is no room for an additional retirement provision check that goes beyond the wording if the exception is fulfilled.
Also noteworthy is the court's reference to a possible valuation problem in the event of a contrary reading: If the exception were to „excuse“ only the receipt of social benefits and otherwise require a complete economic examination, this could lead to absurd results in which someone without social benefits would be worse off than someone with supplementary social benefits. The Chamber expressly rejects this approach.
Finally, the transitional law also plays a role: although the application for naturalisation was already submitted in 2017, the court applies the new version because it is more favourable in this specific case. Under the old legal situation, the prognosis for retirement provision would have been a real risk; under the new legal situation, the exception applies.
Result and practical significance
The Cologne Administrative Court orders the authorities to naturalise the plaintiff. The appeal is allowed due to its fundamental importance - specifically on the interpretation of the exemption provision, which has only been in force since 2024 and is relevant in practice on a massive scale. This is precisely where the signalling effect lies: anyone who has been predominantly in full-time employment (including self-employment) in the last 24 months can invoke a legal privilege that can make a comprehensive economic forecast for the future - including retirement provision - unnecessary.
For naturalisation applicants, this means that well-documented full-time employment for more than 20 months in the last 24 months can be a decisive lever when authorities are building up questions of livelihood and pension provision over the years. This means for legal practice: In many cases, it is worth focussing early on the factual requirements of the exception (scope of work, time period, evidence) instead of getting lost exclusively in forecasting debates about private pension instruments. At the same time, however, it remains clear that anyone who does not fulfil the exception must continue to expect a classic sustainability check - and should not underestimate pension provision issues.
Note: This article is intended to provide general information and does not replace legal advice in individual cases. The specific file situation, the current legal situation and the practice of the competent naturalisation authority are decisive.
