Administrative Court of Appeal Munich, March 11, 2019, Case No. 19 BV 16.937
Marriages or kinship relationships between Germans and non-EU foreigners are sometimes only entered into in order to enable the foreigner to reside legally in Germany. The Residence Act (AufenthG) regulates when a foreigner is allowed to reside in Germany. Family reunification with Germans is possible under § 28 AufenthG, but can be refused in cases of abusive marriages or kinship relationships under § 27 Ia AufenthG. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal Munich (VGH München) ruled that the abusive recognition of paternity by a German does not constitute a case of § 27 Ia No. 1 AufenthG.
Facts of the Case:
Plaintiff sued the immigration authority for the issuance of a residence permit due to a German child
In the present case, the question is whether the plaintiff, a Vietnamese national, has a claim to the issuance of a residence permit under § 28 I No. 3 AufenthG. The plaintiff has been residing in Germany without a right of residence since 2005. In 2006, she gives birth to a child whose father, a German national, had already recognized paternity before the birth. This leads to the child acquiring German nationality. In the following years, the plaintiff receives several temporary residence permits, until the immigration authority suspends the procedure due to doubts about the biological paternity.
Due to doubts about the biological paternity, this was challenged by the immigration authority
The doubts about the biological paternity prompt the authority to challenge the paternity. The plaintiff refuses a DNA test. Ultimately, the challenge is withdrawn because the decisive norm is unconstitutional. The plaintiff then applies for the reopening of the residence permit procedure and refers to § 28 I No. 3 AufenthG. She argues that the refusal ground pursuant to § 27 Ia AufenthG, which was introduced in the meantime, is not applicable, as it is not established that the kinship relationship was entered into solely for the purpose of obtaining a residence permit.
The initially called administrative court dismissed the lawsuit
The administrative court dismissed the lawsuit on March 24, 2016. It considers the refusal ground of § 27 Ia AufenthG to be fulfilled. The plaintiff appeals against this and requests that the judgment of the administrative court be overturned and that the immigration authority be obliged to issue her a residence permit.
The plaintiff then appeals
The immigration authority requests the dismissal of the lawsuit and refers to § 27 Ia No. 1 AufenthG, as it does not recognize the paternity of the German national W.
Decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal Munich
VGH München obliged the immigration authority to naturalize the plaintiff
The Administrative Court of Appeal Munich grants the plaintiff’s appeal, amends the judgment of the administrative court and obliges the immigration authority to issue the plaintiff a residence permit. The VGH finds that the requirements of § 28 I No. 3 AufenthG are met and that no other provisions stand in the way.
The court saw a regulatory gap and called on the legislator to take action
The VGH Munich analyzes whether § 27 Ia No. 1 AufenthG is applicable, which it denies. This norm aims to prevent abuse in the recognition of paternity in order to obtain a right of residence. The VGH finds that in cases like the present one, where the kinship relationship is not established by the recognition of paternity but by a lived mother-child relationship, it cannot be applied.
The court explains that a direct or analogous application of the norm is not possible, as this would violate the principle that a recognition of paternity can only be disregarded if it has been successfully challenged. Moreover, there is a lack of an unintentional regulatory gap that could justify an analogous application.
Since § 27 Ia No. 1 AufenthG is inapplicable to the constellation at issue, the VGH calls on the legislator to take action if he also wants to cover such cases.
Source: VGH München
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.