Administrative Court of Augsburg, April 11, 2017, Case No.: Au 1 K 16.1553
The naturalization and the naturalization procedure are regulated under the Nationality Act (StAG). According to § 10 Abs. 1 StAG, a foreign national who legally resides in Germany and is capable of acting must be naturalized upon request if they declare their allegiance to the democratic constitutional order and affirm that they do not and have not supported anti-constitutional activities. Other requirements include having a permanent residence permit, sufficient language skills, securing one’s livelihood, and not having a criminal conviction.
However, naturalization can be revoked within five years according to § 35 Abs. 3 StAG if it was obtained through fraudulent deception, coercion, bribery, or deliberately false information.
The following case examines whether the revocation of the plaintiff’s naturalization was lawful and whether the plaintiff obtained his naturalization through deception.
Facts of the Case:
Naturalization Authority Seeks to Revoke Plaintiff’s Citizenship
The plaintiff challenged the revocation of his naturalization by the defendant.
The plaintiff was born in Germany in 1981 and initially held only Turkish citizenship. On December 15, 2011, he applied for naturalization and signed a statement agreeing to relinquish his previous citizenship if naturalization did not automatically result in its loss. On January 10, 2012, he received a naturalization assurance to proceed with the process of renouncing Turkish citizenship. On June 25, 2012, the plaintiff was informed that his naturalization would be granted once he provided proof from the Turkish authorities of the renunciation of his Turkish citizenship. He was required to submit this proof within six months.
Naturalization Authority Requests Proof of Renunciation
The plaintiff was repeatedly requested to submit the renunciation certificate on December 5, 2012, April 2, 2013, and February 5, 2014, but failed to comply. Instead, he demanded that the caseworker authenticate herself and questioned the authority’s competence. Consequently, on March 18, 2014, the plaintiff was given a deadline until April 30, 2014, to provide the Turkish renunciation certificate, with the threat of a fine. Enforcement attempts were unsuccessful.
On September 14, 2016, the defendant, as the responsible authority after the plaintiff’s move, notified the plaintiff of the intended revocation of his naturalization. On September 20 and 28, 2016, the plaintiff made unrelated demands and failed to provide a specific response to the revocation.
Naturalization Revoked Due to Fraudulent Deception
On October 13, 2016, the defendant revoked the plaintiff’s naturalization retroactively to July 3, 2012, on the grounds that it was obtained through fraudulent deception. The revocation was based on the plaintiff’s failure to fulfill the requirement of relinquishing his Turkish citizenship and his deliberate avoidance of providing the necessary certificate.
In exercising discretion, the authority considered that the plaintiff was born and integrated in Germany. Nonetheless, the naturalization had to be reversed to prevent dual citizenship.
Plaintiff Files Lawsuit Against Revocation at Administrative Court Augsburg
On November 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the revocation decision, arguing that the notice was not properly delivered since Deutsche Post AG, as a private company, was not authorized to perform official deliveries. He also claimed that the notice was invalid due to being signed „i.A.“ (on behalf of) and thus ineffective under §§ 125 ff. BGB.
Judgment of the Administrative Court Augsburg:
The court found the lawsuit admissible but unfounded.
The revocation notice was deemed lawful and did not violate the plaintiff’s rights.
The notice was properly delivered via postal delivery certificate by Deutsche Post AG according to Art. 41 Abs. 5 BayVwVfG in conjunction with Art. 2 Abs. 2 S. 1 in conjunction with Art. 3 BayVwZVG. The signature with „i.A.“ was also permissible. According to Art. 37 Abs. 3 BayVwVfG, a written administrative act must only identify the issuing authority and include the signature or name of the authority head, their representative, or their designee. This requirement was met.
According to § 35 Abs. 1 StAG, a wrongful naturalization can only be revoked retroactively if it was obtained through fraudulent deception, coercion, bribery, or deliberately false or incomplete information crucial to its grant. This was the case here.
Since the plaintiff had not yet renounced his Turkish citizenship, his naturalization could not be validly granted.
The naturalization violated § 10 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 4 StAG as the plaintiff had neither given up nor lost his Turkish citizenship. Although temporary dual citizenship might be tolerated, it was only intended as a transitional option by the competent authority. The authority had explicitly indicated that permanent dual citizenship was not permissible. The naturalization was thus considered unlawful from the outset.
The authority had assumed that the plaintiff would promptly renounce Turkish citizenship, which had not occurred for five years. The situation was comparable to cases where a naturalization applicant intends to immediately reclaim their previous citizenship after naturalization. The VGH Baden-Württemberg had ruled similarly, considering the naturalization as inherently unlawful if there was an internal reservation regarding the renunciation of previous citizenship (VGH Baden-Württemberg, Judgment of September 23, 2002 – 13 S 1984/01).
The exceptions under § 12 Abs. 1 StAG in conjunction with § 10 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 3, 4 StAG were also rejected. The court found that the plaintiff had fraudulently deceived the naturalization authority regarding his intent to relinquish Turkish citizenship.
Fraudulent deception occurs when the beneficiary influences the authority’s decision by creating or maintaining an error through concealing true facts or providing false information known or believed to be false. The plaintiff had made fraudulent statements to the authority by signing the naturalization application and presenting the renunciation permit while intending to retain Turkish citizenship. The overall situation supported the conclusion that the plaintiff had always intended to keep his Turkish citizenship. The authority had been misled about his willingness to relinquish his previous nationality.
Plaintiff had fraudulently deceived the naturalisation authority about his intentions to be dismissed
The applicant had maliciously, i.e. intentionally, made false statements to the authorities by signing the application for naturalisation and submitting the discharge permit. The overall situation also suggests that the plaintiff had wanted to retain his Turkish citizenship from the outset. In particular, since the defendant's representative had credibly argued that it was customary for the Turkish consulate to be sent the discharge certificate at the same time as the discharge permit, so that this could be handed over to the person concerned immediately after submission of the naturalisation. Accordingly, it was possible for the plaintiff to present this to the authorities in the shortest possible time if he actually wanted to.
The applicant had obtained naturalisation through this action. Naturalisation is only obtained within the meaning of § 35 para. 1 StAG if the deception was decisive for the decision of the authority, i.e. naturalisation would not have taken place if the authority had not been influenced in its decision but had known the true facts. This was the case here. Without the plaintiff's declaration of intent that he wanted to give up his Turkish citizenship and receive German citizenship instead
Source: Administrative Court of Augsburg
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.