Administrative Court of Stuttgart, 14.11.2017, Ref.: 11 K 7574
Section 9 (1) of the Nationality Act (StAG) states that spouses or registered partners of Germans shall be naturalized under the conditions of Section 8 StAG if they lose or renounce their previous nationality, or if a reason for accepting multiple nationalities exists according to Section 12 StAG, and if it is ensured that they integrate into German living conditions, unless they do not have sufficient knowledge of the German language (§ 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 6 and para. 4) and do not meet an exception under § 10 para. 6. Naturalization based on marriage to a German is a discretionary naturalization.
If, at the time of the decision on the naturalization application, there is no marital cohabitation, an atypical case may exist that eliminates the legal claim to naturalization under Section 9 (1) StAG and allows the naturalization authority to refuse naturalization at its discretion. A marital cohabitation no longer exists if the spouses live separately on a permanent basis, with the decisive factor being the end of the actual bond between the spouses.
However, it is clear that an unlawful naturalization or an unlawful approval for retaining German nationality can only be revoked if the administrative act was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, threat, or bribery, or by intentionally incorrect or incomplete information that was material to its issuance, cf. Section 35 (1) StAG.
In the following judgment, the Administrative Court of Stuttgart clarifies that the manner in which the spouses live together is a matter of their own responsibility. The specific arrangement of the marital community is part of their protected private sphere and is therefore subject to only limited control. Thus, a deception does not exist simply because the arrangement of the marriage does not correspond to the typical ideal image. Rather, Article 6 of the Basic Law (GG) protects a variety of possibilities for arranging a marriage.
Introduction: Lawsuit against the Revocation of Naturalization
The plaintiff, a Moroccan national born in 1977, filed a lawsuit against the revocation of his naturalization into the German state. The plaintiff was married to a German national in 2012 and entered Germany in 2013 with a visa for family reunification. He received a residence permit and applied for naturalization in June 2015, which was completed on March 18, 2016, by handing over the certificate of naturalization. Shortly after the naturalization, the couple separated, raising the suspicion that the plaintiff might have obtained his naturalization through false information. This led to the revocation of naturalization by the Main-Tauber district office, against which the plaintiff is now taking legal action.
Background: Relationship, Naturalization, and Sudden Separation
Prior to naturalization, the plaintiff and his wife declared to the authorities on February 10, 2016, that they were living together as a couple with no intention of separation. Shortly after the naturalization, on April 25, 2016, however, the wife informed the district office that the plaintiff had moved in with her mother and intended to file for divorce. In a letter dated April 26, 2016, the plaintiff confirmed the separation. The wife claimed that she had only learned shortly before the marriage that the plaintiff was still married to a Norwegian national. Additionally, she alleged that the plaintiff had exploited her financially and behaved distantly on a regular basis. She accused him of having entered the marriage merely for strategic reasons to obtain German citizenship.
Investigations and Revocation of Naturalization
Following the wife’s allegations, the Main-Tauber district office initiated an investigation and concluded that the plaintiff had obtained his naturalization through intentionally false information. The district office argued that the marriage was no longer a genuine cohabitation by the time of naturalization and that the plaintiff had deceived the authorities about it. Consequently, the district office revoked the naturalization retroactively to March 18, 2016, in a notice dated November 21, 2016. The plaintiff was ordered to return the naturalization certificate, failing which a fine would be imposed. On December 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed an objection, denying that he had made false statements. He argued that the marriage had been harmonious until the separation and that he had intended to maintain the marital cohabitation. However, the objection was rejected on May 3, 2017, on the grounds that the marriage had already effectively failed by the time of naturalization and continued only formally.
Court Proceedings: Plaintiff’s Lawsuit and Defense
On May 18, 2017, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the revocation of his naturalization. He denied that his wife had financially supported him or that he had provided incomplete information about his previous marriage. He stated that the marriage had been intact and that they had led a normal married and family life until the separation. The plaintiff explained that the separation was not initiated by him, but by his wife, who had turned to another man. The defendant, the district office, maintained that the marriage had already broken down before the naturalization and continued only formally to enable the plaintiff’s naturalization.
Evidence Gathering and Court Ruling
The Administrative Court of Stuttgart conducted an evidence hearing and questioned the plaintiff’s former wife as a witness. Both the plaintiff and his former wife confirmed that the marriage could be considered intact until about a month after the naturalization. The former wife stated that she only assumed the separation after the naturalization. The court found that there was no permanent separation at the time of naturalization. The marriage still existed as a cohabitation at the time of naturalization. Therefore, there was no fraudulent misrepresentation, and the plaintiff’s naturalization was not unlawful. The reasons presented by the defendant, particularly the plaintiff’s lack of financial contribution to household costs, were not considered sufficient evidence by the court to conclude that the marriage had failed at the time of naturalization. The court referred to Article 6 (1) GG, which protects marriage and family, and determined that the arrangement of marital cohabitation is up to the spouses.
Conclusion and Legal Consequences: Ruling in Favor of the Plaintiff
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and overturned the revocation notices from the Main-Tauber district office and the objection notice from the Stuttgart regional council. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s naturalization was lawful and that the revocation was not justified because the marriage still existed at the time of naturalization. The defendant’s argument that naturalization was fraudulently obtained through false information was untenable because the marriage was still intact as a personal relationship. The court emphasized that the existence of a marital cohabitation should not be judged by idealized standards. The ruling clarified that a perfect marriage is not required for naturalization, but only that such a marriage exists at the time of naturalization. Since this condition was met, the court ruled that the revocation of naturalization was unlawful.
Source: Administrative Court Stuttgart
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email to info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.