Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt, Decision of 20.01.2021, Case No.: 2 L 102/19
One way to establish permanent residency in Germany is by obtaining a settlement permit (Niederlassungserlaubnis). This permit is subject to certain requirements, such as holding a residence permit beforehand or paying mandatory contributions to the statutory pension insurance for 60 months.
Another prerequisite for obtaining a residence permit (whether a temporary residence permit or a settlement permit) is securing one’s livelihood. This requirement is outlined in § 5 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), which specifies the general conditions for issuing a residence permit.
However, consideration is given to those who cannot meet this requirement due to illness. For instance, exceptions can be made if an individual is unable to fulfill this condition due to a physical, mental, or emotional illness. The same applies to the payment of mandatory contributions to the pension insurance.
In the present case, a plaintiff was granted a settlement permit due to her inability to work because of illness, despite not having paid the required pension contributions. However, following an appeal by the immigration authority, this ruling was overturned because the plaintiff’s illness had not prevented her from taking up employment subject to social security contributions during the first seven years of her lawful stay in Germany.
Facts of the Case:
Kosovar Plaintiff Repeatedly Granted Residence Permits on Humanitarian Grounds
The plaintiff, born in 1961 and a citizen of Kosovo, entered the Federal Republic of Germany on December 13, 1999, with her husband and three children. The family’s asylum applications were rejected by the BAMF on May 14, 2002. The Magdeburg Administrative Court, in a ruling on July 2, 2003, ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recognize that the plaintiff’s husband met the conditions of § 53 Abs. 6 of the Aliens Act (AuslG), but the rest of the lawsuit was unsuccessful. The plaintiff’s deportation was suspended starting on January 26, 2006. She was initially not allowed to work, but later, from January 23, 2007, she was permitted to work by the immigration authority, and then again not permitted to work. Between 2008 and 2011, the plaintiff was repeatedly granted a residence permit, most recently on March 7, 2014, under § 25 Abs. 4 Satz 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), valid until March 7, 2015. This residence permit was subsequently extended several times. All residence permits and the interim certificates issued under § 81 Abs. 5 AufenthG allowed the plaintiff to work.
Application for Settlement Permit Under § 26 Abs. 4 AufenthG Denied
The plaintiff’s application for a settlement permit, submitted on April 18, 2016, was denied by the defendant on February 16, 2018, because the plaintiff’s livelihood was not secured (§ 9 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 2 AufenthG). This requirement could not be waived under § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 6 AufenthG. A job center assessment found that the plaintiff could work less than three hours per day and less than 15 hours per week, with this reduced capacity expected to last up to six months according to the social medical report.
Plaintiff Considered Partially Capable of Work Despite Limitations
Despite this assessment, the plaintiff was still considered partially capable of work. The report also indicated that medical rehabilitation could restore sufficient work capacity, and significant weight loss could positively impact her health. Moreover, the plaintiff had not paid the required 60 months of pension insurance contributions as mandated by § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 3 AufenthG. The exception under § 9 Abs. 6 Satz 2 AufenthG did not apply. It was not in line with the legislator’s intent to reward nearly ten years of reliance on public funds and non-payment of mandatory pension contributions with a settlement permit.
The plaintiff’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Saxony-Anhalt State Administrative Office on October 8, 2018.
Plaintiff Filed Lawsuit with the Administrative Court Against the Rejection
On November 6, 2018, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, arguing that her medical certificates and documents demonstrated that she was involuntarily prevented from taking up employment due to her health condition. The certificates indicated severe rheumatoid disease and confirmed the severity of her condition. Another certificate documented a treatable herniated disc. In the meantime, the Federal Employment Agency determined in a social medical report dated October 6, 2017, that the plaintiff was no longer able to work and was therefore no longer employable in the labor market. The report noted severe functional disorders of the nervous and musculoskeletal systems. Another certificate from the H-Specialist Clinic confirmed an extensive and multiple illness profile.
The plaintiff requested that the decision of February 16, 2018, as amended by the objection decision of the Saxony-Anhalt State Administrative Office on October 8, 2018, be annulled and that the defendant be ordered to issue her a settlement permit, or alternatively, that the defendant be ordered to reassess the application in accordance with the court’s legal opinion.
Administrative Court Orders Immigration Authority to Grant Settlement Permit
The Administrative Court ordered the defendant to issue the requested settlement permit. The court found that the plaintiff met the conditions of § 9 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 as well as Nr. 4 to 9 AufenthG, which was evident from the administrative records and not disputed by the defendant. The requirements of § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 2 and 3 AufenthG, which the plaintiff admittedly did not meet, could be waived under § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 6 in conjunction with Satz 3 AufenthG. The relevant point in time for this exception was when the settlement permit was granted. The plaintiff’s illness or disability prevented her from meeting the integration requirement of securing her livelihood independently or continuing to pay mandatory contributions to the pension insurance for an unforeseeable period, at least longer than six months. This was supported by numerous medical statements. The most recent social medical reports by the Federal Employment Agency had consistently indicated a limitation of less than six months for nearly two years. The defendant’s discretion under § 26 Abs. 4 Satz 1 AufenthG was therefore reduced to zero. No factors were evident that would argue against the plaintiff’s established residence in Germany.
Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt: Appeal Court Decides Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to a Settlement Permit
The appeal filed with the Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt was successful. The Senate decided on the defendant’s appeal without an oral hearing, as it unanimously considered the appeal well-founded and did not deem an oral hearing necessary.
The defendant’s admissible appeal was well-founded.
The Administrative Court had wrongly obliged the defendant to issue the requested settlement permit. The plaintiff had no claim to the grant of a settlement permit (§ 113 Abs. 5 Satz 1 VwGO) nor to a reassessment of her permit application (§ 113 Abs. 5 Satz 2 VwGO).
Plaintiff’s Livelihood Was Not Secured
The plaintiff could not independently secure her livelihood, as she and her husband were demonstrably receiving benefits under SGB II, and there were no indications that she had taken up or would take up permanent employment in the future.
Mandatory Pension Contributions Were Not Sufficiently Paid
The plaintiff also had not made 60 months of mandatory contributions to the statutory pension insurance as required by § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 3 AufenthG. Even if the contributions made by the employment agency and the employer were considered sufficient, only 56 months of contributions had been paid.
Illness Not Considered as an Exception
The exception under § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 6 AufenthG did not apply, as the plaintiff’s illness was not the cause of the failure to make the mandatory contributions. There was no evidence that the plaintiff was prevented from taking up employment subject to social security contributions before the relevant date of the decision on the permit application due to her illness.
Conclusion
The appeal court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to a settlement permit because the requirements of § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 2 and 3 AufenthG were not met, and the exception provisions did not apply. The judgment of the Administrative Court was overturned, and the plaintiff’s lawsuit was dismissed.
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 at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.