There are court judgements that read as dryly as an instruction manual. And then there are those cases in which the sober passages between the operative part and the reasons suddenly take on a depth - as soon as you realise the life story behind them. The decision of the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg of 26 September 2025 clearly belongs to the second category. At first glance, it is about a temporary injunction, A1 language skills, Section 30 AufenthG and the question of when a language certificate loses its validity. But if you take a closer look, you realise that it's actually about something very human. It's about the stresses and strains of long separations. About the vulnerability of family ties. And about the question of how law and reality wrestle with each other - and how a court is sometimes the only place where someone can finally untie the knot.<\/p>\n
In this text, I would like to explain what the proceedings were about, why the decision is so important and what practical benefits it has for people who are stuck in family reunification. At the same time, I don't want to present the case as a mere legal construction, but as what it essentially is: the story of a couple trying to get together.<\/p>\n
The starting point is quickly told. A man from Nigeria and his German wife have been fighting for years to finally be able to live together in Germany. In 2021, he provided proof of the required German language skills at A1 level at the Goethe-Institut Dakar - with 86 out of 100 points, well above the minimum level. But the years passed. Like so many such procedures, the visa process dragged on unpleasantly. Documents had to be checked, the embassy demanded further documentation and at some point everything got bogged down in bureaucratic delays.<\/p>\n
After four years, the authorities finally said: The certificate was outdated, it only had \u201elittle significance\u201c and language skills would \u201egenerally fade\u201c if they were not used. The Berlin Administrative Court initially followed this argument. However, the Higher Administrative Court clearly stated that the mere passage of time is not enough to practically negate a person's language skills.<\/p>\n
The authorities had no concrete evidence that the applicant had lost his language skills. No interviews, no tests, no indications from embassy staff. Only the assumption - and the statement that A1 skills \u201ecan fade\u201c. But the court demanded more than assumptions. And it realised what actually sounds obvious: a language certificate is not fresh milk that has a natural expiry date.<\/p>\n
Of course, knowledge can fall out of practice. But they do not automatically disappear after four years, especially not if they have been acquired once with good performance. And above all: if the authority has doubts, it must clearly justify them - and not refer to the time out of convenience.<\/p>\n
This passage of the decision clearly shows how much the court endeavours to take a realistic view. It is not blind to the challenges in West Africa, where language courses and examinations are not offered across the board. It recognises that an applicant cannot take new tests at will if the nearest examination centre is in a neighbouring country.<\/p>\n
The judges here demonstrate something that is not always self-evident in administrative law decisions: empathy. Not the kind of empathy that distorts decisions - but the kind that ensures that the application of the law does not get stuck in abstract theory.<\/p>\n
In addition to the language issue, another aspect was crucial: the wife's state of health. She was increasingly suffering from the psychological strain of the long-term separation. And she had a history of cancer, the recurrence of which could not be ruled out according to medical opinion. The doctors warned that the constant stress could have a negative impact on her recovery and stability.<\/p>\n
It was precisely here that the court consistently took action. The Administrative Court had made a relatively generalised assessment of the health situation and did not see any sufficiently concrete disadvantages. The OVG, on the other hand, took the medical certificates submitted seriously. And it clarified - in line with the constitutional nature of family reunification:<\/p>\n
An imminent, irreversible deterioration in the health of a German wife is a weighty reason to intervene by way of a temporary injunction.<\/p>\n
Article 6 of the Basic Law protects the family. And this protection is not just a moral appeal, but a legal guideline that takes effect as soon as family ties are jeopardised by state proceedings. This principle is indispensable, especially in proceedings involving separation, waiting times and existential burdens.<\/p>\n
Perhaps it can be described like this: Article 6 of the Basic Law is like a lifeline that is thrown out when people are in danger of drowning in a bureaucratic maelstrom. It does not serve to soften the rules. But it does ensure that rules do not blindly roll over people.<\/p>\n
The decision has several practical consequences and can certainly be seen as a signal. It shows:<\/p>\n
Language certificates do not automatically lose their significance.<\/strong> Authorities must prove concrete doubts, not abstract ones.<\/strong> The personal situation must be seriously assessed.<\/strong> Courts do not shy away from prejudging main issues in summary proceedings<\/strong>, if there is otherwise a risk of irreparable damage.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The decision is an example of how case law bridges the gap between the legal text and the reality of life.<\/strong> Many people who are stuck in the family reunification process wonder why a supposedly simple application turns into a years-long labour of love. Anyone who has ever experienced how a document check works in West Africa quickly understands how complex the processes are. It involves documents that are checked on site, authorities that do not always work digitally, embassies with limited capacities and a German administrative system that in some places is more reminiscent of the mechanics of an analogue typewriter than of modern IT processes.<\/p>\n The decision mentions that the authority needed two years to examine the documents. Two years - for documents that had already been submitted. This detail alone shows the extent to which those affected in such proceedings are dependent on factors that they cannot control.<\/p>\n This makes it all the more important to know what steps you can take yourself so that you are not completely at the mercy of the inertia of the system:<\/p>\n Possible steps for those affected<\/strong><\/p>\n Obtain legal support at an early stage<\/strong>, to avoid mistakes that cost time.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Submit evidence in a clean, complete and structured manner<\/strong>, so that no additional claims arise.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Submit all receipts for personal expenses in good time<\/strong> - in particular health certificates.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Copy and digitally save proof of language skills<\/strong>, to avoid ambiguity.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Enquire regularly<\/strong>, but always objectively and verifiably (e.g. by e-mail).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Submit acceleration requests<\/strong>, if delays appear incomprehensible.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n In case of doubt, apply for interim legal protection<\/strong>, if the situation becomes unacceptable.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Procedures are like rivers: You can't completely control their course, but you can prevent yourself from drowning in them.<\/p>\n The decision reads like a gentle plea for humanity in the law. You can sense between the lines that the court has not simply applied paragraphs mechanically, but has endeavoured to understand the reality of the life of a married couple who for years could only communicate across continents.<\/p>\n Personally, I often think of an image when making such decisions: a visa procedure is like walking through a fog. You can't see the way clearly, you don't know how much further there is to go and you can only hope that there will be a clearing at some point. For many couples, this fog is overwhelming. It swallows up time, strength, energy - and sometimes even hope.<\/p>\n This decision was a clearing.<\/p>\n Not in the sense of a final happy ending - that remains reserved for the main proceedings - but in the sense of a moment when someone says: We see you. We recognise the burden. And we intervene.<\/p>\n For the German wife, the decision means much-needed relief. For the applicant, it means the chance to finally arrive. And for many other couples, it means hope that their proceedings will also be examined fairly and carefully.<\/p>\n The decision of the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg is more than just a legal dispute about the validity of a language test. It is an example of how case law strikes a balance between legal requirements and the responsibility not to lose people in the bureaucratic jungle. It shows that courts are quite prepared to speak plainly when authorities rely too much on abstract assumptions. And he provides encouragement that even lengthy proceedings can still take a turn for the better.<\/p>\n Tip for those affected and interested:<\/strong> I have been supporting people in similar situations for years and know how difficult the uncertainty can be. But I also know that many paths can be shortened with good advice. And sometimes a well-prepared application or a targeted urgent application can achieve exactly what has been achieved in this case - a real prospect of a life together.<\/p>\n If you have any questions or need support, I will be happy to assist you.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The decision of the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg of 26 September 2025 sets important standards for family reunification procedures. The court clarifies that an A1 language certificate that is several years old does not lose its validity simply because time has passed. It also emphasises the protection of the marriage under Article 6 of the Basic Law and recognises the considerable health burdens of the German wife as an urgent reason for an order. The decision shows how closely legal requirements and human life situations are intertwined. For those affected, it offers orientation, hope - and practical starting points for their own proceedings.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11619,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-auslaenderrecht-anwalt"],"yoast_head":"\n
If you have an A1 certificate, you need not fear that it will become worthless simply because of the passage of time.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Simply saying \u201eA1 skills fade quickly\u201c is not enough. Administrative action needs substance.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Health burdens in particular - especially for German family members - must not be trivialised.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
And that is a reassuring thought for people who feel lost in the visa jungle.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/span>4 A look behind the scenes: Why procedures take so long and what can be done about it<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
<\/span>5. why this decision is not only important from a legal point of view, but also from a human point of view<\/span><\/h1>\n
<\/span>Final thoughts and a practical tip<\/span><\/h1>\n
If you or your relatives are involved in a similar procedure - don't wait until the burden becomes too great. Get support early on, seek advice and document any delays. Especially when it comes to family reunification, the better prepared you are, the lower the risk of getting stuck in the fog.<\/p>\n