Naturalization rejected despite fulfilling the requirements
The plaintiff, a Lebanese citizen, has lived in Germany for twelve years and applied for a German passport in Lower Saxony in 2023. His documents were complete and he met all the requirements for Naturalization: valid national passport, Residence permit approved for Naturalization , B1 language certificate, passed naturalization test, secure livelihood and no criminal record. Security checks with the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the police also revealed no concerns.
At the appointment with the authorities, he was asked to take part in an oral interview. This was about the free and democratic basic order, with questions such as:
- What do you understand by democracy?
- What is the German constitution called?
- What do you understand by the concept of the rule of law?
- What words does the German national anthem begin with?
In addition to these substantive issues relating to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, the authorities also wanted answers to the following (actually inadmissible) questions, according to the court ruling:
- Do you watch German television? Even the news?
- What is currently being reported in the news?
- Which wars are currently being reported on?
- What is happening in Israel?
- What form of government does Germany have?
- What do you mean by freedom of the press?
Because the man was unable to answer some questions completely and to the satisfaction of the authorities, the Naturalization was refused.
The authorities justified their refusal by stating that the interview had revealed that the man was not sufficiently familiar with the free democratic basic order and therefore could not effectively declare his belief in it. In the opinion of the authorities, passing a naturalization test alone was not sufficient to prove his knowledge of the legal and social order.
The man filed a lawsuit. And the Braunschweig Administrative Court ruled in his favor.
Authority may only ask questions if there are concrete doubts
The Braunschweig Administrative Court made it clear in its ruling that the rejection of Naturalization was unlawful and not covered by the German Citizenship Act (StAG).
The authorities had asked the man questions for which there was neither a legal basis nor a specific reason. A refusal based solely on incompletely answered questions is therefore inadmissible - especially as the applicant met all the requirements for Naturalization and there were no security concerns or indications of anti-constitutional activities against him.
Important points of the judgment
Lack of written declaration of loyalty: The authorities argued that the plaintiff had not made an effective commitment to the free democratic basic order. In fact, he was not even presented with the legally required written declaration of allegiance.
Instead, the authorities conducted their own questioning. The court made it clear: without a written declaration of loyalty, a commitment to the basic order may not be assessed.
Additional questions only permitted if there is a specific reason: Since the reform of citizenship law in June 2024, the following applies: The commitment to the free democratic basic order must reflect an inner conviction. If the authorities have doubts about the applicant's loyalty to the constitution or if there are other grounds for exclusion(Section 11 sentence 1 no. 1a StAG), these must be based on objective facts.
Only then may the authority take further investigative measures and ask additional questions. According to the Braunschweig Administrative Court, questioning without a demonstrable reason is inadmissible.
There were no such indications in the case of the plaintiff. Passing the naturalization test(§ 10 para. 1 no. 7 StAG) is generally sufficient to prove knowledge of the basic order.
Judgment not yet final
The ruling is not yet legally binding. The Braunschweig Administrative Court has allowed an appeal to both the Higher Administrative Court and the Federal Administrative Court. This is important in this case, as it concerns the interpretation of federal law (i.e. nationality law). It is therefore possible that the two higher courts will still revise the judgment of the Braunschweig Administrative Court.
Nevertheless, applicants or their lawyers can already use the court's reasoning to lodge an objection with the authority in similar cases.
