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.
The plaintiff presented a birth certificate to establish his identity.
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.
The defendant therefore requested that the action be dismissed.
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.
Court also considered the plaintiff's identity to be non-existent
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.
However, the man was unable to produce any such official document. He did not present a passport and his alleged birth certificate was issued by a law firm, which makes it unsuitable for this reason alone. Furthermore, the court was not convinced by the man's statements regarding the origin of the birth certificate.
It also clarified that previously obtained residence permits and settlement permits cannot serve as proof of identity.
Certificate of citizenship from the Ugandan embassy is not sufficient
The certificate of nationality from the Ugandan embassy is also not sufficient, as it can be assumed that it did not check the applicant's personal details itself.
According to the court, the fact that the man has always given the same personal details in all administrative proceedings since entering the country does not remove the need to clarify his identity. The naturalisation authorities should not be satisfied with the plaintiff's own statements, but should rather demand proof of identity.
The court is therefore convinced that the identity of the applicant has not yet been established. It therefore sees no scope for discretionary naturalisation.
Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to naturalisation and the action is dismissed by the court.
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.