Aktualisiert am:
Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court, October 19, 2022, Case No.: 11 A 272/20
Facts and Background
The plaintiff, a Ukrainian national, was born on January 7, 1982, in Ukraine. In December 1995, he entered the Federal Republic of Germany with his mother and brother as a Jewish immigrant from the former Soviet Union. In 1998, he received a permanent residence permit. Despite successfully completing secondary school in 1999 and beginning an apprenticeship as a carpenter, he had to abandon the training due to illness. Subsequently, the plaintiff developed a drug addiction that significantly affected his life in the following years. Despite multiple attempts, he repeatedly failed to complete any further education or training.
Criminal Convictions
The plaintiff was repeatedly convicted of criminal offenses, primarily theft. By August 2019, his criminal record included 13 entries, including several prison sentences:
2004: The plaintiff was sentenced to six months imprisonment for theft with weapons. The suspension of the sentence was later revoked.
2005: He was sentenced to eleven months imprisonment for theft in six cases, including one particularly severe case.
2009: Another conviction led to a one year and three months imprisonment for theft with weapons and other thefts in particularly severe cases.
2013: The plaintiff received a suspended sentence of one year and five months for aggravated robbery.
2019: He was most recently sentenced to a total of one year and three months imprisonment, as well as another seven months imprisonment, including for aggravated theft.
Drug Issues and Treatment Attempts
The plaintiff suffered from a long-standing drug addiction and underwent inpatient treatment in 2008, which was terminated by the clinic. In 2013, he completed another therapy, after which he remained drug- and crime-free for three years. However, he could not maintain a stable, drug-free life, leading to further criminal convictions and eventually a longer prison sentence, which he served from November 2019 to August 2021.
In a statement regarding the social and legal prognosis in February 2020, the prison noted that the plaintiff had little social contact and that his professional integration was questionable. Although the plaintiff was willing to undergo therapy, his social and economic integration was considered uncertain.
Administrative Order and Deportation
On March 3, 2020, the responsible authority issued an administrative order expelling the plaintiff from the Federal Republic of Germany and imposing a seven-year ban on entry and residence. The authority justified the expulsion by citing the particularly serious interest in expulsion arising from the plaintiff’s multiple criminal convictions, especially the three convictions to prison sentences of more than one year in 2009, 2013, and 2019. Additionally, the plaintiff’s ongoing drug use and unsuccessful or interrupted therapies were also considered serious grounds for expulsion.
The authority determined that the plaintiff’s interest in remaining in Germany, supported by his permanent residence permit, did not outweigh the interest in expulsion. The relationship with his mother, who also lives in Germany, did not change this, as she had not had a stabilizing influence on the plaintiff in the past. The seven-year ban on entry and residence was intended to allow the plaintiff to complete a two-year successful therapy in Ukraine and then use the remaining five years to build a stable life there.
Objection and Lawsuit
On April 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an objection against the administrative order, arguing that he was making efforts to overcome his drug addiction through therapy. He had already reduced his methadone dosage to a minimum, demonstrating his willingness to undergo therapy. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that he had no contacts in Ukraine and had only been there once since entering Germany, in 2012, for his father’s funeral for four days. The close bond with his mother, as well as the pandemic-related visitation restrictions during his imprisonment, were also presented as arguments.
In September 2020, the prison confirmed that the plaintiff was willing to undergo therapy and was independently seeking a therapy placement. However, it remained unclear whether economic integration was possible. The defendant rejected the objection on November 11, 2020, arguing that successful drug therapy was not expected, as the plaintiff had not shown any success in this regard over the past four years. Furthermore, economic integration of the plaintiff was not expected, as he had neither completed any training nor engaged in any employment.
On December 17, 2020, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit.
Further Developments and Statements
During the legal proceedings, several statements were made regarding the plaintiff’s social and legal prognosis. The prison again commented in April 2021, noting that the plaintiff had abandoned his plan to undergo therapy. It was noted that the plaintiff was unable to integrate economically or socially and that further criminal behavior could not be ruled out.
After his release from prison in August 2021, the plaintiff voluntarily entered a self-help facility where he underwent cold turkey detoxification and participated in work therapy. The facility confirmed that the plaintiff had made progress, but he abandoned the therapy in February 2022. The plaintiff submitted several negative drug tests; however, in September 2022, he was found with a small amount of cocaine, which he intended to consume.
Court Decision and Rationale
The court dismissed the lawsuit and confirmed the legality of the deportation. It found that the plaintiff’s criminal convictions, particularly the convictions to prison sentences of more than one year, justified a particularly serious interest in expulsion under Section 54(1) No. 1a lit. d) of the Residence Act. The numerous convictions to imprisonment and fines also constituted a serious interest in expulsion. The court was convinced that the plaintiff still posed a threat to public safety, as he had not been able to remain drug-free or live a crime-free life despite periods of abstinence and therapy.
In its reasoning, the court further stated that the plaintiff’s particularly serious interest in remaining in Germany, which was partly based on his permanent residence permit and long-term stay in Germany, was insufficient to outweigh the particularly serious interest in expulsion. The fact that the plaintiff had spent two-thirds of his life in Germany and maintained close family ties in Germany could not outweigh his repeated and serious misconduct.
The court recognized that the deportation represented a significant interference in the plaintiff’s life, but this was considered proportionate to ensure public safety and order. The risk of relapse and the associated commission of further offenses was still deemed present, particularly since the plaintiff was again caught using drugs and had not successfully completed his therapies.
Entry and Residence Ban
The court also confirmed the seven-year ban on entry and residence that was imposed along with the deportation. When determining the duration of the ban, it was taken into account that the plaintiff would need time to complete therapy in Ukraine and to build a new life there. The plaintiff’s family ties in Germany were also considered, but they were not deemed sufficient to justify a shorter duration of the ban.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was unfounded and that the deportation and the entry and residence ban were lawful. It determined that the deportation was proportionate and served the purpose of protecting public safety and order. The plaintiff was considered to pose a continued risk to society due to his inability to remain drug-free and live a crime-free life despite undergoing therapy.
Important Notice: This content has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, liability and warranty must be excluded.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.
