Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, 8 January 2025, Ref.: OVG 6 L 1/25
The decision of the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Berlin-Brandenburg of 8 January 2025 with the file number OVG 6 L 1/25 highlights an important problem in the visa procedure for family reunification. The applicant's appeal against the suspension of her proceedings was rejected. In this blog article, we summarise the most important aspects of the case and analyse the implications for those affected.
1. Case Background
The applicant, an Iranian national, submitted an application for a family reunion visa to the German Embassy in Tehran via her lawyer on 28 October 2023. As her application was not processed within the statutory deadline, she filed an action for failure to act with the Berlin Administrative Court (VG) on 14 February 2024.
The Administrative Court suspended the proceedings until 30 April 2025, as the applicant had not yet received a hearing date. With her appeal, she wanted to have the decision cancelled or the deadline shortened.
2. The decision of the Higher Administrative Court
The OVG Berlin-Brandenburg dismissed the appeal and confirmed the suspension of the proceedings. The main reasons given were:
- Simply exceeding the time limit in accordance with Section 75 (2) VwGO does not automatically mean that a decision is ready.
- A suspension is permitted if there is a justifiable reason for the delay, such as a necessary personal interview to establish identity.
- The high application effort and the limited capacities of the embassy justify the use of an online registration system.
3. Arguments of the applicant and their assessment
The applicant put forward several arguments, but these were not considered sufficient by the court:
- The urgency of family reunification: The invocation of Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law (protection of the family) was not recognised as a sufficient interest in urgency.
- Unequal treatment of Iranian applicants: The complaint argued that Afghan applicants were given preferential treatment. However, the court considered this to be speculative.
- Efficiency of online registration: The applicant argued that online registration did not constitute a genuine application, but this did not convince the court.
4. Legal basis and significance of the decision
The judgement is based on several legal standards, including:
- § Section 75 (3) VwGO - Allows the procedure to be suspended if there are comprehensible reasons for the delay.
- Art. 6 para. 1 GG - Protection of marriage and family, which must, however, be weighed up in the context of administrative procedures.
- Art. 19 para. 4 sentence 1 GG - Guarantee of legal protection, which requires that justified concerns are provided with substantiated reasons for urgency.
5. Implications for applicants
The decision shows that visa applicants need to be patient and adapt to the existing processes. Important findings from the judgement are:
- Online registration is mandatory: Use of the system is considered reasonable.
- Reasons of urgency must be proven in detail: General references to the importance of family reunification are not enough.
- Legal action is possible, but involves hurdles: Actions for failure to act can be useful, but should be well prepared.
6. Tips for those affected
If you find yourself in a similar situation, consider the following tips:
- Careful documentation: Collect all relevant documents and give specific reasons for the urgency.
- Obtain legal advice: An experienced lawyer can help you develop the best strategy.
- Be patient: Processing times can be long, but a systematic approach can help.
7. Conclusion
The decision of the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg makes it clear that visa applicants for family reunification cannot expect automatic prioritisation. The existing administrative processes and capacity bottlenecks must be accepted unless there are demonstrable and weighty reasons of urgency.
However, the decision can also be criticised. On the one hand, it could be argued that the importance of family reunification enshrined in the Basic Law was not sufficiently taken into account. Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law guarantees the special protection of marriage and family, which could justify faster processing in cases such as this. The court's assumption that all applicants must be treated equally could lead to individual cases of hardship not being adequately taken into account.
The question also arises as to whether the online registration system actually offers an efficient and fair way to submit applications. Applicants without digital access or with language barriers could be at a disadvantage, which in turn violates the principle of equal opportunities.
It remains to be seen whether future decisions in similar cases will produce more differentiated solutions that ensure a fairer balance between administrative practicability and individual fundamental rights.
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.