Increased workload is not a sufficient reason for slow processing by the immigration authority.

Administrative Court of Weimar, June 11, 2024, Case No.: 1 K 135/24 We

According to Section 75 of the Administrative Court Procedure Code (VwGO), a lawsuit for inaction can be filed if an authority has not made a decision on an application or objection within a period of three months without sufficient reason. The period usually begins from the time the application or objection is received by the responsible authority.

In the context of immigration law, this can be relevant, for example, when an application for a residence permit, asylum, or other immigration-related decisions is not processed within the prescribed period. If the authority does not respond within this period, the applicant can file a lawsuit to obtain a court decision. In this ruling, the court dealt with whether the authority was excused for processing the plaintiffs‘ applications so late.

Facts of the Case:

On September 15, 2023, the plaintiffs applied for naturalization with the defendant, a German naturalization authority, submitting a comprehensive set of documents. These documents contained all the necessary information and evidence required to process the naturalization application. After the plaintiffs received no feedback on their application for an extended period, their representative contacted the defendant via email on November 15, 2023, to inquire about the status of the process.

However, the defendant only responded on January 4, 2024, almost two months later, with a letter merely confirming the receipt of the application. Furthermore, they informed the plaintiffs that due to significant backlogs in processing naturalization applications, very long processing times, potentially taking several months, were currently to be expected.

Given this communication and the fact that more than three months had already passed since the application was filed without a decision being made, the plaintiffs decided to file a lawsuit for inaction with the Administrative Court of Weimar on January 23, 2024. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had remained inactive without sufficient reason and that the long processing time was unjustified. They pointed out that simply citing general overload, as caused by the refugee crisis since 2015, the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020, and the Ukraine crisis from 2022, could not serve as sufficient justification for the delay.

Defendant’s Application

In response to the lawsuit, the defendant applied on March 5, 2024, to suspend the proceedings for an appropriate period of at least four months under Section 75 Sentence 3 VwGO (Administrative Court Procedure Code). The defendant justified this application by citing an extraordinarily high workload due to significantly increased case numbers and existing staff shortages. They pointed out that the volume of consultations and applications in naturalization authorities had increased significantly nationwide since 2020 and 2021. This development was mainly attributed to the increasing number of refugees since 2015. Moreover, the applications had become increasingly complex, as many were submitted by foreign refugees and asylum seekers without valid identification documents, which greatly complicated the review and processing.

The defendant further emphasized that they were making intensive efforts to increase the urgently needed staff. New staff had already been hired, and three additional caseworkers were expected to start working soon. However, the training period for the new employees had to be considered, which could further delay processing times. The defendant also referred to an upcoming legal amendment that would likely lead to a further increase in naturalization applications. The wave of refugees from Ukraine since 2022 also contributed to the high number of applications.

The defendant also argued that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any special urgency for their application. They referred to a ruling by the Higher Administrative Court of Saarland from November 2, 2023, which dealt with a similar situation.

Plaintiffs‘ Response

The plaintiffs requested the denial of the defendant’s application to suspend the proceedings. They argued that the continuous increase in a public authority’s workload and its general overload, whether due to employee illness, vacation, or other organizational issues, did not constitute sufficient reasons to justify inaction. Such internal problems had to be managed through appropriate organizational measures within the authority. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant should have acted as early as 2020, when the increase in application numbers was clearly evident, by promptly increasing staff to meet the rising demands. The plaintiffs did not recognize any increased complexity in the applications, as claimed by the defendant.

Legal Assessment by the Court – Authority Did Not Respond in Time

The court ruled that the defendant’s application to suspend the proceedings under Section 75 Sentence 3 VwGO was unfounded. According to Section 75 Sentences 1 and 2 VwGO, a lawsuit for inaction can be filed after the expiration of three months from the application date if the application has not been decided upon within a reasonable period without sufficient reason. The court found that, in this case, there was no sufficient reason for the delay in the defendant’s decision.

A sufficient reason under Section 75 Sentence 3 VwGO can only be recognized if it aligns with the legal order and can be considered sufficient in light of the value decisions of the Basic Law, particularly the fundamental rights. The court noted that an authority’s overload due to a temporary flood of applications, such as following a legal amendment, could only be recognized as a sufficient reason if the overload was not of a prolonged duration and no structural organizational deficit was present. Normal absences, such as due to illness, must be managed organizationally. However, if an authority is permanently overloaded, or if the workload continuously increases without adequate response, no sufficient reason under Section 75 VwGO exists.

Court Identifies Structural Organizational Deficit

In this case, the court concluded that such a permanent overload of the defendant’s naturalization authority had been evident since 2020. The defendant had not responded in time to this overload by hiring sufficient staff or taking other organizational measures. The fact that the defendant planned to hire additional caseworkers in 2024 did not convince the court that these measures were timely or sufficient to address the backlog. The training periods for new staff were foreseeable and should have been factored into the planning.

Further Considerations by the Court

The court found that the defendant had not taken any significant steps to process the plaintiffs‘ naturalization application until the lawsuit for inaction was filed. Neither the required official queries were conducted nor the application was checked for completeness. The long delay until the mere acknowledgment of receipt of the application also contradicted the defendant’s claim that processing was complicated by particularly high complexity.

The court also dismissed the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any special urgency for their application. Given the long processing time, which had already far exceeded the three-month period stipulated by Section 75 VwGO, it was no longer reasonable to expect the plaintiffs to wait further months for a decision. The defendant failed to process the plaintiffs‘ application within a reasonable period, even though it was filed in September 2023.

Conclusion – Immigration Authority Did Not Provide a Satisfactory Explanation for the Delayed Processing

The court concluded that the defendant was unable to provide a sufficient reason for the delay in deciding on the plaintiffs‘ naturalization application. The reliance on general overload and staff shortages was not sufficient to justify suspending the proceedings. Therefore, the court rejected the defendant’s application to suspend the proceedings and obligated the defendant to decide on the plaintiffs‘ naturalization application promptly.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely processing of applications by administrative authorities and sets clear limits on the reliance on internal organizational difficulties as an excuse for delays. It ensures that applicants are not subjected to unreasonable waiting times, especially in cases where no extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances are present.