Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, March 28, 2022, File No.: 19 A 2172/20
In the aforementioned ruling, the plaintiff appealed a decision from the Administrative Court of Aachen to the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia. The Administrative Court of Aachen had ruled that the plaintiff’s illiteracy did not excuse her from the requirement to demonstrate sufficient language skills and knowledge of German legal and social order as part of the naturalization process.
Upon reviewing the first-instance ruling, the Higher Administrative Court concluded that there were no serious doubts about the correctness of the Administrative Court of Aachen’s decision:
Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff had applied for naturalization in Germany with the naturalization authority. She excused her lack of sufficient German language skills and knowledge of the German legal and social order by stating that she was illiterate and, due to anxiety disorders, depression, and personality disorders, was unable to acquire these skills.
Plaintiff Submits Medical Certificates Regarding Depression, Anxiety Disorders, and Personality Disorder:
She submitted a certificate dated March 23, 2022, in which her doctor confirmed that managing participation in a language course and examination situation was difficult and rapid learning and secure application of a foreign language were not possible.
In a later certificate dated July 15, 2020, the doctor confirmed that the plaintiff was completely unable to participate in a language or integration course.
Naturalization Authority Insists on Sufficient German Language Skills:
After the naturalization authority rejected the application due to the lack of language skills, the plaintiff sued at the Administrative Court of Aachen. After the Administrative Court of Aachen ruled in favor of the naturalization authority and not the plaintiff, the plaintiff applied for the admission of her appeal at the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia.
Decision of the Higher Administrative Court:
The Higher Administrative Court decided that the plaintiff did not conclusively question the Administrative Court of Aachen’s assessment in her appeal submission.
The Administrative Court had rightly decided that the plaintiff could not be exempted from the naturalization requirements under § 10 Abs. 1 Sentence 1 Nos. 6 and 7 StAG. § 10 Abs. 6 StAG obliges a waiver of these naturalization requirements if the foreign national cannot meet them due to a physical, mental, or emotional illness or disability, or due to age.
Plaintiff Did Not Submit Conclusive Medical Certificates:
It is the applicant’s duty, according to § 37 Abs. 1 Sentence 2 StAG in conjunction with § 82 Abs. 1 AufenthG, to sufficiently substantiate the actual requirements under § 10 Abs. 6 StAG. If claiming an illness-related inability, this must generally be proven by a specialist’s certificate. The certificate must clearly show at least on what basis the specialist made their diagnosis and how the illness manifests in the specific case, especially in terms of how it affects the applicant’s ability to learn the German language. The medical findings to be disclosed should include details on how long and how frequently the patient has been in medical treatment, what kind of examination was conducted, and whether the complaints described by the patient were confirmed by the findings.
Furthermore, the certificate should provide insight into the severity of the illness, its need for treatment, and the previous course of treatment (medication and therapy).
The certificates submitted by the plaintiff did not meet these requirements. The plaintiff did not address the relevant comments of the Administrative Court to avoid repetition. The certificate from the psychiatrist and psychotherapist Dr. med. N.-C. dated July 15, 2020, provided no information beyond noting her initial presentation on March 20, 2020. It did not specify how often the plaintiff had been in medical treatment or the basis for the diagnosis. For example, it lacked details on the intervals of consultations with the plaintiff and medical visits and whether the findings were based on the plaintiff’s, her husband’s, or the doctor’s own examinations. Additionally, the doctor did not explain how the diagnosed anxiety disorder, chronic depression, and personality disorder specifically hindered the plaintiff in learning the German language.
Conflicting Medical Certificates:
In her earlier certificate dated March 23, 2020, the doctor had confirmed that managing participation in a language course and examination situation was difficult and rapid learning and secure application of a foreign language were not possible. The basis for the further conclusion in the certificate dated July 15, 2020, that the plaintiff was entirely unable to participate in a language or integration course could not be determined from the certificate, especially since the doctor had initially stated that anamnesis with the plaintiff, who spoke only Assyrian, was hardly possible and finally only considered it „questionable“ whether the plaintiff could learn a foreign language. As previously noted by the Administrative Court, § 10 Abs. 1 Sentence 1 No. 6 StAG does not require rapid learning of the German language or its secure mastery, nor participation in a language course, but only sufficient knowledge of the German language that meets the requirements of § 10 Abs. 4 StAG.
In the absence of a conclusive medical certificate demonstrating the plaintiff’s illness-related inability to acquire sufficient German language skills, there was no reason for evidence collection on the actual requirements of § 10 Abs. 6 StAG, and the plaintiff’s corresponding evidence requests or suggestions were unsubstantial.
The Administrative Court had already correctly addressed this contrary to the plaintiff’s objection. The plaintiff did not need to obtain a medical expert opinion to substantiate her claims regarding illness-related limitations but only needed to present conclusive certificates from her treating doctors.
Lack of Education and Illiteracy Generally Not an Excuse:
The plaintiff’s lack of education and illiteracy did not justify waiving the naturalization requirements of § 10 Abs. 1 Sentence 1 Nos. 6 and 7 StAG. Illiteracy is not considered an illness or disability under § 10 Abs. 6 StAG.
The plaintiff also did not substantiate that she was unable to learn to read and write due to a mental illness or disability. Regarding the submitted certificate from the psychiatrist and psychotherapist dated July 15, 2020, in which the doctor stated that „a poor prognosis for literacy must be assumed,“ the above remarks about learning the German language apply accordingly.
§ 10 Abs. 6 StAG is not to be applied in favor of applicants who are illiterate. The same applies to the personal and family circumstances mentioned in the admission application as an unspecified hindrance. There is no regulatory gap to be closed by analogy or extended interpretation. Unlike § 9 Abs. 2 Sentence 4 AufenthG, § 10 Abs. 6 StAG does not contain a provision for waiving sufficient knowledge of the German language and the legal and social order in Germany to avoid hardship in cases where no illness or disability is present.
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.