Review: What was behind theNaturalization?
Naturalization was regulated in Section 10 (3) of the StAG. It was intended to enable particularly well-integrated foreigners to obtain Naturalization more quickly. Instead of the regular residence period of five years, three years of legal residence were sufficient, provided that additional integration achievements—such as language skills at C1 level and social engagement—were demonstrated.
However,Naturalization politically controversial from the outset. Critics considered the shortened period of residence to be too brief to ensure sustainable integration.
Just a few months after it came into force, the law came under political pressure. On October 8, 2025, the Bundestag finally decided to abolishNaturalization. Since then, the regular minimum residence requirement of five years has applied to all applicants, regardless of their degree of integration. The law did not provide for any transitional arrangements.
This was precisely the point at which the Polish citizen's lawsuit came into play. His application forNaturalization submitted under the old law, but was rejected under the new law.
The case:Naturalization the old legal situation
The plaintiff submitted his application for Naturalization in April 2025. At that time,Naturalization wasNaturalization in effect. However, the responsible district did not initially decide on the application.
After publicNaturalization on the planned abolition ofNaturalization in June 2025 and with no decision still having been made, the man filed a Lawsuit for failure of act. With such a lawsuit, applicants can force a decision if an authority fails to respond for more than three months.
However, while the court proceedings were ongoing, the legal situation changed:Naturalization abolished, and the new law came into force at the end of October. The plaintiff's application for naturalization was then rejected because he had not yet completed the five years of legal residence now required. He continued to appeal against this decision.
The man argued that his application forNaturalization be assessed according to the old legal situation that applied when he submitted his application. Otherwise, his trust in the existing legal situation would be disappointed (protection of legitimate expectations). In addition, as an EU citizen, he felt disadvantaged compared to other groups of people (EU prohibition of discrimination).
IsNaturalization possible? This is what the court decided
The Trier Administrative Court dismissed the man's claim. In its ruling of December 3, 2025, the judges clarified that the law applicable to the assessment of a claim for naturalization is generally the law in force at the time of the oral hearing, not at the time of the application.
If the law changes during ongoing proceedings, the new law generally applies. This also applies if the change has a negative effect on the applicant.
Exceptions are only possible if the law expressly provides for transitional provisions or if application of the new law would be inadmissible for reasons of protection of legitimate expectations. In the court's opinion, neither of these circumstances applied in this case.
Court: No protection of legitimate expectations and no discrimination
In his lawsuit, the man invoked the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. He argued that he should have been able to trust that his application would be decided under the old legal situation (i.e., under theNaturalization). The court did not agree.
The judges classified the application of the new law as a so-called "unechte Rückwirkung" (false retroactivity). This means that a new law is applied to a case that has already begun but has not yet been concluded—in this case, the naturalization application that has not yet been decided. Such retroactivity is generally permissible.
It would only be inadmissible if the person concerned could not have anticipated the change in the law and their trust is more important than the legislator's objective.
However, in the court's view, the abolition ofNaturalization had been publicly debated for weeks. Furthermore, the judges considered that the public interest outweighed the individual interest in faster Naturalization.
Brief explanation:
- What is a pseudo-retroactive effect? A new law is applied to a case that has already begun but has not yet been concluded (for example, an application forNaturalization that had not yet been decided at the time of the change in the law). A pseudo-retroactive effect is generally permitted.
- When is it not permitted? Only if the person concerned could not have anticipated the change in the law and their trust is more important than the objective of the law.
- Why was she allowed to be here? The abolition ofNaturalization publicly discussed, so it was widely known and foreseeable. In addition, the public interest in a longer period of residence prevailed.
The court also did not see any violation of the EU prohibition of discrimination. The new regulation applies equally to all applicants for naturalization, regardless of their nationality.
Conclusion: What does the ruling mean for other naturalization applications?
The ruling makes it clear that the possibility of Naturalization after three years will no longer exist as of October 2025. Anyone who hasNaturalization an application forNaturalization in good time but for whom a decision has not yet been made can no longer derive any rights from the previous regulation.
The decisive factor is always the legal situation applicable at the time of the official or court decision – not at the time of application. The only exception is if the law provides for a transitional arrangement. However, the legislatorNaturalization notNaturalization a transitional arrangement forNaturalization .
