Administrative Court of Karlsruhe, 10.10.2012, Case No.: 4 K 2777\/11<\/p>\n
If a foreigner has a legal claim to a residence permit, such as a residence title, this permit may be issued as an administrative act with conditions attached.<\/p>\n
One such condition could be the obligation to participate in an integration course. This obligation is imposed when the immigration authority believes that the foreigner lacks sufficient language skills and societal knowledge.<\/p>\n
The legal basis for the obligation to participate in an integration course is found in Section 44a (1) of the Residence Act (AufenthG), particularly in Section 44a (1) No. 3 AufenthG. According to this provision, a foreigner is obligated to participate in an integration course if they are deemed to be in particular need of integration and the immigration authority requires them to do so.<\/p>\n
However, if the foreigner believes they are already well integrated and possess sufficient language skills to integrate into Germany, this obligation may be seen as an unnecessary burden. Such an integration course can last up to 700 hours, making it difficult to manage alongside full-time work. In such cases, a lawsuit can be filed against the obligation to attend the integration course. This was done in the following case by a Turkish wife and mother:<\/p>\n
The plaintiff in this case was a Turkish national who entered the Federal Republic of Germany on April 23, 1981, to join her Turkish husband. The couple had six children, all of whom held German citizenship. Since 1992, the husband had run a grocery store independently. Until a serious illness in 2007, the plaintiff had helped in the grocery store by cleaning and tidying up and had also managed the household. The plaintiff held a residence permit under Section 30 of the Residence Act, valid until November 11, 2012.<\/p>\n
By letter dated November 10, 2010, the Karlsruhe District Office informed the plaintiff that during her personal appearance on November 10, 2010, it was determined that she could not communicate in the German language in a simple manner. Therefore, it was intended to require her to attend an integration course pursuant to Section 44a (1) No. 3 of the Residence Act and to issue a corresponding fee-based order.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff objected to this obligation in writing, stating that she was 59 years old and had been suffering from a hemangioendothelioma of the liver since 2007. Recently, she had undergone major surgery. She was illiterate and mentally very strained and affected. A medical certificate was attached.<\/p>\n
As a result, the plaintiff was ordered to undergo a medical examination, which she complied with. The report from the Health Department at the Bruchsal branch of the Karlsruhe District Office, dated December 30, 2010, concluded that the plaintiff was still physically weakened at the time of the examination after significant physical illness with stressful therapies. The medical officer advised that the plaintiff be exempted from a language course for the next three months. After that, it was assumed that the plaintiff would be physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of attending an integration course.<\/p>\n
By letter dated February 9, 2011, the plaintiff\u2019s attorney reiterated her objections to attending an integration course and argued that she was entitled to a settlement permit regardless of her language skills.<\/p>\n
By order of the Karlsruhe District Office dated January 26, 2011, the plaintiff was required to regularly attend and successfully complete an integration course. She was also required to submit a confirmation from a language course provider regarding her proper registration and regular attendance of an integration course to the immigration authority by May 1, 2011, at the latest. Failure to do so would result in a penalty of \u20ac100.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff\u2019s attorney filed an appeal against this decision on February 11, 2011, stating that she could communicate in a very simple way in German. She understood words like potato, tomato, house, apartment, and kindergarten, enabling her to hold conversations while shopping, dealing with neighbors, and interacting with authorities. She also stated that she was able to communicate in the clinic. However, she mentioned that she could not understand the complicated German used by some officials. During a meeting between the plaintiff, her attorney, and the Karlsruhe District Office on July 19, 2011, it could not be clearly determined whether she had basic oral German skills. She failed to understand six out of thirteen questions.<\/p>\n
In a decision dated October 10, 2011, the Karlsruhe Regional Council amended item 1 of the January 26, 2011, order as follows: the appellant was required to properly attend the integration course and take the final test. The original order remained unchanged otherwise.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court of Karlsruhe against the amended order.<\/p>\n
In her lawsuit, the plaintiff argued that her integration had already been proven by the fact that she had participated in life in Germany for 30 years. She had given birth to six children, all of whom were integrated and paid taxes. Her children held German citizenship and had completed their education. Since 1992, her husband had run a grocery store, in which she had helped with cleaning and tidying. The language deficits she had were not due to a lack of integration but to the fact that she was illiterate and, due to her age, no longer capable of completing such a course. Given the special circumstances, it could not be expected that she attend an integration course. She also argued that the principle of non-regression under the ARB 1\/80 Association Agreement and the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) prevented the introduction of new language requirements, such as those for spousal reunification or language skills at level B1 for long-term residence permits. Furthermore, she argued that the proportionality principle derived from Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was violated. Unlike holders of a settlement permit (\u00a7 51 (5) AufenthG), she was not issued a certificate by the immigration authorities indicating how long she could stay abroad. As a result, she could not live with her husband, who intended to retire and live in Turkey for more than six months, despite having lived in Germany for 30 years without receiving a cent of welfare benefits and instead, together with her husband, having created jobs and paid taxes that financed many welfare recipients. During the oral hearing, she also argued that all of her children had university degrees and, because they were employed, she had to take care of her grandchildren. She did not want to attend an integration course, saying, \u201ethis does not make sense to me,\u201c and that such a course would cause stress and make her sick.<\/p>\n
The Administrative Court of Karlsruhe ruled that while the lawsuit was admissible, it was unfounded.<\/p>\n
The obligation to participate in an integration course found its legal basis in Section 44a (1) sentence 1 No. 3 of the Residence Act. According to this provision, a foreigner is required to attend an integration course if they are in particular need of integration and the immigration authority requires them to attend. These conditions were met in this case.<\/p>\n
The court found that the plaintiff was indeed in particular need of integration under Section 44a (1) No. 3 of the Residence Act. According to the legislator\u2019s view, integration is based on the principle of reciprocity and exchange between the immigrant and the host society. Immigration from abroad not only requires the foreigner to adapt to a new and unfamiliar environment but also requires additional orientation assistance from society.<\/p>\n
Utilizing available educational opportunities is a necessary, active contribution to integration. The legislator regulated integration in Chapter 3 of the Residence Act. Integration is promoted and demanded to enable legally and permanently resident foreigners to participate in economic, cultural, and social life in the Federal Republic of Germany (\u00a7 43 (1) AufenthG). A basic offering in this regard is the so-called integration course (\u00a7 43 (2) sentence 1 and (3) AufenthG), which aims to provide sufficient German language skills as well as knowledge of the legal system, culture, and history in Germany (\u00a7 43 (2) sentence 2 AufenthG). Foreigners are thus to be familiarized with living conditions in the Federal Republic to the extent that they can act independently in all matters of daily life without the help or mediation of others (\u00a7 43 (2) sentence 3 AufenthG).<\/p>\n
The law does not define under what conditions a foreigner is \u201ein particular need of integration.\u201c These are undefined legal terms subject to full judicial review. The competent authority has no discretion or margin of judgment in this regard. Both terms must be interpreted with the help of \u00a7\u00a7 43 ff. AufenthG and the provisions of the Integration Ordinance (IntV). Linguistically, the words \u201eparticularly\u201c and \u201ein particular need\u201c emphasize and, depending on the context, intensify the following adjective or verb. What matters is the specific circumstances of each case, so it is irrelevant whether different linguistic formulations should be interpreted differently. The term \u201ein particular need of integration\u201c also appears in \u00a7 44 (4) sentence 2 AufenthG regarding the integration of German nationals, from which, however, no, or only limited, conclusions can be drawn for \u00a7 44a (1) sentence 1 No. 3 AufenthG due to the specific target group. A case of particular need for integration is regulated in \u00a7 4 (3) IntV. According to this provision, a particular need for integration can be assumed, for example, when the foreigner, as the holder of parental custody for a child living in the Federal Republic of Germany, \u201ecannot communicate in German in a simple manner\u201c and has therefore not yet succeeded in integrating into the economic, cultural, and social life of the Federal Republic of Germany without state assistance. The term \u201ein particular\u201c should be understood to mean that the legislator has not exhaustively regulated the conditions for a particular need for integration but has only provided an example. \u00a7 4 (3) IntV links two aspects: the foreigner\u2019s inability to communicate in German in a simple manner and their consequent failure to integrate into the economic, cultural, and social life of the Federal Republic of Germany without state assistance. The phrase \u201ecannot communicate in German in a simple manner\u201c refers to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) used by the legislator in \u00a7 44a (1) sentence 1 No. 1.a) AufenthG and in the IntV concerning the goals of the integration course and the final test (\u00a7\u00a7 3 (2), 17 (1) sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 IntV), which classifies European language tests into six levels of difficulty. Level A1 requires the following: \u201eCan understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very simple sentences aimed at meeting concrete needs. Can introduce themselves and others and ask and answer questions about personal details, such as where they live, people they know, and things they have. Can communicate in a simple way, provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.\u201c<\/p>\n
The plaintiff has not proven that she can communicate at level A1, that is, in a simple manner in German. This conclusion is supported by the case file and her oral hearing. Her daughter reported in a letter that the plaintiff was illiterate. The letters in the file signed by her were likely written by one of her daughters, who also accompanied her to official appointments. The assessment of her German language skills on July 19, 2011, by the district office, during which she was often unresponsive when addressed in German, reinforced this view.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the plaintiff neither demonstrated nor is there any evidence that she is economically, culturally, and socially integrated. Her work in her husband\u2019s business carries little weight for her integration, as she only cleaned and tidied the store. Her contribution to the business and household may indicate some economic integration, but this alone is insufficient. Therefore, the argument that she and her husband pay taxes and have never received social assistance does not advance her case, as these alone do not constitute integration (\u00a7 43 (2) sentence 1 and (3) AufenthG, \u00a7\u00a7 3, 17 IntV). There are no indications that the plaintiff is socially and culturally integrated outside her family.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the plaintiff\u2019s participation in an integration course is neither impossible nor unreasonable under \u00a7 44a (2) No. 3 AufenthG due to her childcare responsibilities or health condition. This provision exempts foreigners from the obligation to attend an integration course if participation is permanently impossible or unreasonable. The legislative history of the predecessor rule to \u00a7 44a (2) AufenthG shows that the upbringing of one\u2019s children alone does not make course participation unreasonable, especially with the availability of complementary childcare. This reasoning applies even more to the upbringing of grandchildren. The legislator has adequately accounted for the protection of Art. 6 (1) of the Basic Law (GG) by creating women\u2019s integration courses with childcare facilities (\u00a7 13 (1) No. 2 IntV). The fact that this does not apply to the care of grandchildren is consistent with Art. 6 (1) GG, as the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren does not fall within the protection of Art. 6 (1) GG.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff\u2019s claim that she is ill, has undergone several major surgeries, and cannot learn the German language because it \u201edoes not go into her head\u201c\u2014in other words, that she is not capable of learning\u2014does not make participation unreasonable under \u00a7 44a (2) No. 3 AufenthG. The medical examination dated December 30, 2010, indicated that the plaintiff would be physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of attending an integration course after three months. Given the tailored course offerings, there are no reasons to conclude that participation would be unreasonable.<\/p>\n
Considering that the course offerings are tailored to illiterate individuals and those who have never attended school according to \u00a7 13 (1) sentence 3 Nos. 2 and 3 IntV in conjunction with \u00a7 14 (2) sentence 4 IntV, and that such courses are indeed offered, the plaintiff cannot successfully argue that learning sufficient German is impossible for her and causes stress that makes her ill.<\/p>\n
Her expressed unwillingness to participate in an integration course during the oral hearing does not justify the conclusion that participation is unreasonable or impossible. According to her own statements, her background and understanding of her role as a Turkish woman married to a Turkish man do not prohibit her from participating in an integration course, nor does the fact that she may have to travel alone to the course location and spend time outside her family. Her daughter testified during the hearing that the plaintiff independently shops and moves around outside her home, which she has done during doctor visits and other occasions.<\/p>\n
The official request to the plaintiff to take part in an integration course required by \u00a7 44a para. 1 sentence 1 no. 3 AufenthG was ordered by the contested decision of the defendant of 26 January 2011 in the form of the objection decision of the Karlsruhe Regional Council of 10 October 2011.<\/p>\n
The appeal authority correctly amended the initial decision and only required participation in the final test, not successful completion. Taking the final test is part of the integration course, which concludes with the scaled language test \u201eDeutsch-Test f\u00fcr Zuwanderer,\u201c which assesses language competencies in listening, reading, writing, and speaking at levels A2 to B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, and the national test for the orientation course (\u00a7 17 (1) Nos. 1 and 2 IntV).<\/p>\n
The plaintiff is not violated in her fundamental rights under Art. 6 (1) GG, Art. 2 (1) GG, or Art. 8 ECHR by the obligation to attend an integration course. The obligation to acquire sufficient language skills and knowledge of Germany\u2019s legal system, culture, and history (\u00a7 43 (2) sentence 2 AufenthG) pursues a legitimate goal by promoting the integration of foreigners (\u00a7 43 (1) AufenthG) and preventing forced marriages. The legal tools to achieve this goal are not manifestly unsuitable (see BVerwG, judgment of March 30, 2010 \u2013 1 C 8\/09 -, on \u00a7 30 (1) No. 2 AufenthG, followed by BVerfG, decision of March 25, 2011 \u2013 2 BvR 1413\/10 -, ).<\/p>\n
There is no violation of the special equality principle of Art. 3 (3) sentence 1 GG either in the introduction of \u00a7 44a AufenthG or its specific application. According to Art. 3 (3) sentence 1 GG, no one may be disadvantaged or favored because of their gender, descent, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, religious or political views. This prohibition of differentiation requires a causal link between the preference or disadvantage and the characteristics listed in Art. 3 (3) sentence 1 GG; the preference or disadvantage must therefore occur precisely because of one of these characteristics (see BVerwG, judgment of March 30, 2010 \u2013 1 C 8\/09 -, on \u00a7 30 (1) No. 2 AufenthG, followed by BVerfG, decision of March 25, 2011 \u2013 2 BvR 1413\/10 -, ). The foreigner obligated under \u00a7 44a (1) sentence 1 No. 3 AufenthG is not discriminated against based on their language, origin, or age; the introduction of the integration course serves their integration (\u00a7 43 (1) AufenthG).<\/p>\n
\u00a7 Section 44a (1) no. 3 AufenthG and Sections 10 et seq. IntV are also compatible with Art. 13 1\/80 ARB (a.A. Gutmann, InfAuslR 2005, 45 ff, 48). The scope of the standstill clause in Art. 13 1\/80, according to which the contracting parties may not introduce any new restrictions on the free movement of workers, is not limited to Turkish nationals already integrated into the labour market of a Member State. However, this provision only applies to workers and their family members whose residence and employment in \"its territory are lawful\" (EUGH, judgement of. 21.10.2003 - C-317\/01, C-369\/01 -, and judgement of 09.12.2010 - C-300\/09 and C-301\/09, C-300\/09, C-301\/09 -, para. 49 with further references).<\/p>\n
The provision does not apply to the plaintiff because she was not a worker herself and, as a family member of her husband (Art. 6 (1), 7 sentence 1 ARB 1\/80), no longer enjoys the protection of ARB 1\/80 because her husband has been self-employed since 1992, running grocery stores. Furthermore, Art. 13 1\/80 ARB is not violated because the introduction of an integration course does not constitute a \u201erestriction\u201c or \u201edeterioration.\u201c The requirement that a settlement permit is linked to \u201esufficient knowledge of the German language\u201c (\u00a7 9 (2) No. 7 AufenthG) or that the provision applicable to the plaintiff, \u00a7 104 (2) AufenthG, requires that foreigners \u201ecan communicate orally in German in a simple manner\u201c for the settlement permit is not a deterioration under the standstill clause triggered by the introduction of \u00a7 44a (1) sentence 1 No. 3 in conjunction with \u00a7 43 (2) and (3) AufenthG. The required language skills can also be demonstrated in other ways besides participation in an integration course. Moreover, \u00a7 9 (2) No. 7 AufenthG does not automatically link the rejection of a settlement permit to the refusal of a foreigner obligated under \u00a7 44a (1) sentence 1 No. 3 AufenthG to attend an integration course under \u00a7\u00a7 10 ff., \u00a7 17 (1) sentence 1 Nos. 1 and 2 IntV. Additionally, \u00a7 9 (2) sentences 3, 4, 5, and 6 AufenthG include important exceptions to the linguistic and cultural requirements.<\/p>\n
Source: Administrative Court of Karlsruhe<\/p>\n