Residence permit for a language course according to § 16f AufenthG
Learning German in Germany - without directly taking up a course of study or vocational training - is still legally possible. The appropriate residence permit for this is the residence permit according to § 16f AufenthG for language courses that not serve to prepare for studies. The provision is the successor to the former Section 16 (5) Residence Act, to which many older articles and judgements - including the proceedings of the Cuban plaintiff described below - still refer.
The right of residence has been reformed several times since 2020. Of particular importance for language courses are the introduction of Section 19f AufenthG with special grounds for refusal in cases of suspected visa abuse and the abolition of the remonstration procedure against visa refusals as of 1 July 2025.
The following article presents the current legal situation, categorises an older decision by the Berlin Administrative Court from 2011 and uses current case law to show what is important in practice.
1. legal basis: § 16f AufenthG
1.1 Content of the standard
§ Section 16f AufenthG is now entitled „Language courses and school attendance“. According to paragraph 1, a foreigner can be granted a residence permit
-
to participate in language courses that not serve as preparation for studies, or
-
to participate in a school exchange programme.
The residence permit for the language course entitles the holder to work up to 20 hours per week; employment beyond this is not permitted. Some stricter rules apply to school attendance (no access to the labour market, change of purpose only in exceptional cases).
The essential point is: § 16f is a Discretionary provision („may be granted“). There is no automatic legal entitlement to entry and residence for the language course, even if all formal requirements are met.
1.2 General requirements
As with any residence permit, the general conditions for granting a residence permit set out in Section 5 of the Residence Act also apply, in particular: secure means of subsistence, clarified identity and nationality, passport requirement, visa requirement and no interest in deportation.
Two points play a particularly important role in practice when it comes to visas for language courses:
-
Secure livelihood - usually by means of a blocked account or a formal declaration of commitment by a person living in Germany.
-
Willingness to return - The diplomatic missions abroad check very carefully whether the applicant can plausibly demonstrate that he or she will return to his or her country of origin after the end of the course.
2 What is considered a „language course“ within the meaning of § 16f?
The administrative practice and the application instructions of the Federal Ministry of the Interior regularly require a residence permit in accordance with Section 16f to be Intensive language course:
-
daily lessons,
-
at least 18 lessons per week,
-
time-limited course,
-
Focus on the acquisition of comprehensive German language skills (usually up to B2/C1).
Evening or weekend courses lasting a few hours a week do not reach this threshold. Even sporadic course attendance is not sufficient. This was made clear once again by the VG Aachen in a decision dated 11 November 2024, where the applicant failed, among other things, because he was only able to provide evidence of one course with two days of lessons per week; this did not constitute an intensive language course within the meaning of the administrative regulations.
It is also important to distinguish it from preparatory language courses. Such courses do not fall under § 16f, but under § 16b AufenthG (residence for study purposes). In some cases, other requirements apply (e.g. admission to a preparatory college or proof of higher education entrance qualification).
3. discretion of the authorities and grounds for refusal according to § 19f AufenthG
3.1 Suspicion of abuse as a typical reason for rejection
Even if the material requirements are met, the visa can be refused under Section 16f. The central provision today is Section 19f AufenthG. According to this provision, a residence permit may be refused if there are concrete indications that the foreigner will use the residence permit for purposes other than those for which it was applied (e.g. for work or permanent settlement).
The court decision of the VG Berlin of 29 January 2021 (Ref. 12 K 416.19 V) makes it clear how far the scope of assessment of the foreign missions goes in this respect:
The applicant had registered for an intensive German course of 20 hours per week and paid a deposit - the formal requirements for a language course within the meaning of Section 16f were met. The embassy nevertheless rejected the application because it assumed that the actual purpose of the stay was not the language course, but a longer-term relocation to Germany. The court confirmed the rejection: the suspicion of a misappropriation of the purpose of the stay was a permissible reason for rejection and judicial review was limited to ruling out procedural errors, misapplication of the law or arbitrariness.
In practice, this means that anyone who only uses a language course as a „door opener“ for completely different plans is in a bad position - and it is enough if this impression is created by the overall circumstances.
3.2 No strict requirement and significance of the visa requirement
The fact that Section 16f does not provide a genuine legal entitlement is confirmed by a decision of the Cologne Administrative Court dated 6 February 2025 (Ref. 11 L 2510/24). The proceedings concerned an applicant who travelled to Germany without the required national visa and later invoked various residence permits in accordance with Sections 16a, 16b and 16f. The court clarified that neither vocational training nor language courses nor studies in this constellation establish a „strict legal entitlement“; therefore, the authorities could not waive the visa requirement in accordance with Section 5 (2) sentence 2 AufenthG.
The decision underlines the fact that anyone wishing to start a language course in Germany should generally must take the route via the national visa and do not hope for a later change of purpose from within Germany.
4 The older decision of the VG Berlin 2011 - what still applies?
The decision of the VG Berlin of 15 July 2011 (Ref. 35 K 253.10 V) cited by you was still based on the then version of Section 16 (5) AufenthG. In terms of content, this provision largely corresponds to today's § 16f Para. 1: It concerned an „isolated“ language course that did not directly serve to prepare for studies.
The case: A Cuban national had already successfully completed a language course in Germany in the past and had returned to Cuba on time. She applied for a further visa for the language course. The embassy refused because it did not consider the course necessary and suspected a pretextual motivation.
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and emphasised, among other things:
-
The German state has its own interest in the spread of the German language.
-
If an intensive language course is seriously planned and funding is secured, the authority's discretion may be reduced to „zero“ in individual cases.
-
The mere assumption that the language course is only a pretext is not sufficient without concrete evidence.
These basic ideas can still be utilised in 2025, especially the reference to the public interest in language courses. However, the legal framework has changed:
-
Today, Section 19f of the Residence Act contains an explicit catalogue of grounds for refusal, in particular the suspicion of abuse.
-
More recent case law - such as the court ruling by the VG Berlin from 2021 - tends to interpret this reason for refusing authority-friendly from.
In counselling practice, the 2011 decision can therefore be seen more as an aid to argumentation in order to be able to rely on a Discretionary reduction in favour of the applicant but not as a guarantee that the visa will be issued.
5. procedural law: from remonstration to direct action
The original article rightly pointed out that applicants could appeal against a visa refusal by submitting a remonstration to the embassy. As a rule, this instrument has been a thing of the past since 2025:
-
The Federal Foreign Office has initiated the remonstration procedure for the 1 July 2025 abolished worldwide.
-
Remonstrations were in any case not regulated by law, but were a voluntary legal remedy granted by the authorities.
-
After a rejection, the only option left today is regularly the option of, to submit a new application or Direct complaint to the Berlin Administrative Court to raise.
For language course visas, this means that good preparation of the initial application is more important than ever. Anyone wishing to lodge a complaint must observe the one-month time limit for lodging a complaint set out in the information on legal remedies and should realistically assess the chances of success (cost risk).
6. practical advice for future applicants
The current legal situation and case law provide some clear guidelines for visa and residence permit applications under Section 16f AufenthG:
-
Choose an intensive course carefully
-
Daily lessons, at least 18 lessons per week,
-
Course duration clearly limited (typically 6-12 months),
-
ideally already (partially) paid and with written confirmation of enrolment.
-
-
Proof of livelihood and accommodation
-
Blocked account or declaration of commitment,
-
Rental agreement or binding accommodation confirmation, if applicable.
-
-
Making the prospect of return plausible
-
professional ties in the home country,
-
family ties,
-
Possibly proof of planned use of the language skills (e.g. professional qualification, planned studies in the home country).
-
-
Tell a consistent story
Contradictions between the visa application, documents and later statements (e.g. in emails to the embassy or in the interview) are often interpreted by the authorities as an indication of a hidden intention to stay - as several recent decisions show. -
Check alternatives
Depending on your life plans, it may make sense to check whether a residence permit for training or study purposes (Sections 16a, 16b AufenthG) or as a skilled worker (Sections 18 et seq. AufenthG) is more realistic. In some cases, these titles are geared more towards a longer-term perspective and can be better justified from a professional point of view.
7. conclusion
The residence permit for language courses in accordance with Section 16f AufenthG will continue to be an important instrument for building up German language skills in Germany in 2025, but remains a Classic discretionary decision.
Older case law - in particular the Cuban plaintiff's case from 2011 - shows that courts were already reminding embassies of the public interest in the German language back then. The more recent decisions, such as the VG Berlin from 2021 and the decision of the VG Aachen from 2024, also make it clear that the hurdles have risen: An intensive course, a secure livelihood, a credible willingness to return and a coherent overall picture are essential.
The abolition of the remonstration procedure has also significantly increased the importance of a well thought-out initial application and a careful procedural strategy. Anyone planning a language course in Germany should be familiar with the legal framework - and if in doubt, seek expert advice at an early stage.
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.
The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and on the basis of the legal situation applicable in November 2025. The subject matter is complex and subject to constant change; in particular, amendments to the law and new case law may change the situation presented here. No liability is therefore accepted for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided; this article does not replace individual legal advice.
If you need legal advice, please call us without obligation on 0221 - 80187670 or send us an e-mail to info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.
