Administrative Court of Stuttgart, May 15, 2017, Case No. 11 K 5863/16
In order to become a German citizen, a foreign national must undergo naturalization. The requirements for this are regulated by the Nationality Act (StAG) and the Residence Act (AufenthG). In addition to various other conditions listed in these laws, proof of identity is always required. Although this is not explicitly stated in § 10 I 1 StAG, it is implied because personal details form the basis for verifying the other requirements. For example, to assess § 10 I 1 Nr. 5 StAG, which examines whether the person has a criminal record, it is essential to clearly establish who the person is. Moreover, it is generally intended to prevent individuals from operating under multiple identities. However, proving one’s identity is not always straightforward. Typically, a national passport serves as proof. Other suitable documents include a birth certificate, driver’s license, service ID, military ID, registration certificate, school certificate, or other official documents.
The Administrative Court of Stuttgart (VG Stuttgart) clarified in a ruling that a non-official birth certificate alone is not sufficient as proof of identity. Additionally, using the same personal details consistently does not, by itself, establish identity.
Facts of the Case:
In this case, the parties dispute the naturalization claim of a Ugandan national. The plaintiff is the man seeking naturalization; the defendant is a district administrator.
The man arrived in Germany from Uganda in February 1995 and repeatedly applied for asylum. All applications were rejected. Initially, his stay in Germany was tolerated until he received a residence permit in 2006, which was extended several times. In 2013, he was granted a settlement permit. He then applied for naturalization, presenting various documents, including a certificate of good conduct and proof of passing a naturalization test.
Zur Identitätsfeststellung legte der Kläger eine Geburtsurkunde vor.
For identity verification, the plaintiff provided a birth certificate, including a 2014-issued birth certificate, proof of permanent employment, a declaration of loyalty to the district office in Ludwigsburg, and details about his family and schooling in Uganda.
Despite this, the district office rejected the application, stating that the man’s identity was not sufficiently clarified. He was unable to provide documents related to his schooling and a certificate of baptism. There were also discrepancies in his family details. The authority doubted the authenticity of the birth certificate, and a Ugandan national passport was missing. A dated certificate from the Ugandan embassy, suggesting the man’s Ugandan citizenship, was deemed insufficient.
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
The man argued that his identity was proven with the birth certificate and the embassy’s certificate. Due to his disability, financial constraints, and fear of political persecution, he could not obtain a passport from Uganda. He also consistently used the same personal details throughout the procedures.
He requested that the court mandate the district administrator to grant him naturalization.
The district office maintained its stance that the birth certificate alone did not prove identity. It suggested that a trip to Uganda to obtain a passport was reasonable. Additionally, the man lacked sufficient knowledge of the democratic constitutional order, as he could not convincingly answer questions about the German Constitution and its fundamental rights.
The district office also considered the birth certificate not an official document but one issued by a law firm, which undermined its credibility.
Der Beklagte beantragte somit die Abweisung der Klage.
Ruling of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart
The Administrative Court of Stuttgart rejected the claim, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for naturalization under § 10 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StAG. The court found the plaintiff lacked sufficient knowledge of the democratic constitutional order.
Moreover, the court deemed the plaintiff’s identity not sufficiently established. The documents provided were not deemed suitable for proof of identity. The court noted that documents must clearly establish personal details without the risk of confusion, such as identity cards, passports, or other official documents. Since the plaintiff could not present an official document and his birth certificate was from a law firm, the court was not convinced of its authenticity.
Gericht sah Identität des Klägers ebenfalls als nicht gegeben an
The court clarified that previous residence and settlement permits could not serve as proof of identity. The certificate from the Ugandan embassy was also deemed insufficient, as it did not verify the plaintiff’s personal details. The court ruled that the identity of the plaintiff was not established, leaving no room for discretionary naturalization. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim for naturalization was denied, and the lawsuit was dismissed.
Der Mann konnte jedoch kein solches amtliches Dokument vorlegen. So hat er keinen Reisepass vorgelegt und seine angebliche Geburtsurkunde wurde von einer Anwaltskanzlei erstellt, was sie schon deshalb ungeeignet macht. Des Weiteren überzeugten die Angaben des Mannes bezüglich der Entstehung der Geburtsurkunde das Gericht nicht.
Es stellte außerdem klar, dass die vorher erlangten Aufenthaltserlaubnisse und die Niederlassungserlaubnis nicht als Identitätsnachweis fungieren können.
Staatsangehörigkeitsbescheinigung der ugandischen Botschaft sei nicht ausreichend
Auch die Staatsangehörigkeitsbescheinigung der ugandischen Botschaft reiche nicht aus, da davon auszugehen ist, dass sie die Personalien des Klägers selbst nicht überprüft hat.
Dass der Mann in allen Verwaltungsverfahren seit seiner Einreise stets die gleichen Personalien angegeben hat, lässt laut Gericht die Klärungsbedürftigkeit der Identität nicht entfallen. Die Einbürgerungsbehörden dürften sich nicht mit eigenen Angaben des Klägers begnügen, sondern müssten vielmehr Identitätsnachweise verlangen.
Somit ist das Gericht davon überzeugt, dass die Identität des Klägers noch nicht nachgewiesen ist. Es sieht daher auch keinen Spielraum für eine Ermessenseinbürgerung.
Ein Anspruch auf Einbürgerung besteht folglich für den Kläger nicht, und die Klage wird vom Gericht abgewiesen.
Source: Administrative Court of Stuttgart
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.