Administrative Court of Aachen, Judgment of May 16, 2022, Case No.: 9 K 1741/17
A naturalization can be revoked under Section 35(1) of the Nationality Act (StAG), for example, due to a lack of loyalty to the constitution of the naturalized person, based on antisemitism or extremism. However, this is only possible if the naturalization was obtained through fraudulent deception, threats, bribery, or deliberately false or incomplete statements that were essential for the naturalization. It should be noted that under Section 35(3) of the StAG, revocation can only occur within ten years after the naturalization has been granted.
Facts of the Case:
In this case, the naturalization of a German citizen of Syrian origin was revoked due to extremist activities.
The plaintiff, born in 1991, challenged the revocation of his naturalization, which had been granted in 2012.
The plaintiff had applied for naturalization in Germany on December 1, 2011. He stated that he held Moroccan citizenship, had lived in Germany since birth, and had completed his schooling in Germany. At the time of application, he was studying computer science at a university of applied sciences and receiving BAföG financial aid.
Plaintiff’s Loyalty Declaration
When applying, the plaintiff submitted a statement of allegiance to the free democratic basic order, referred to as a „Loyalty Declaration“: „I declare that I do not pursue or support, nor have I pursued or supported, any activities that are directed against the free democratic basic order, the existence, or the security of the Federation or a Land.“ The plaintiff signed this declaration.
The security checks revealed no concerns, and the naturalization was granted, allowing dual citizenship. On May 2, 2012, the plaintiff received the certificate of naturalization after taking the solemn oath as required under Section 16 of the Nationality Act (StAG).
In September 2012, the plaintiff traveled to Alexandria, Egypt, and in February 2013, from there to Syria.
Investigations and Allegations
On October 7, 2013, the Ministry of the Interior and Municipal Affairs of North Rhine-Westphalia (MIK) first contacted the immigration office regarding the plaintiff and requested his basic personal data and the date of naturalization in connection with a „departure incident.“
Eventually, the Federal Prosecutor General initiated an investigation against the plaintiff, including for membership in a non-European terrorist organization. There was suspicion that the naturalization was based on a „false loyalty declaration.“ The plaintiff was the domain owner of the website www.dawaeu.de, which under „partner links“ referred to other Salafist websites.
By letter dated March 13, 2017, the authority informed the plaintiff that it intended to revoke the naturalization, as it had been obtained through fraudulent deception and deliberately false or incomplete statements. The plaintiff was already an active member of a radical Islamic organization at the time of naturalization.
Revocation of Naturalization
By order dated March 30, 2017, the authority revoked the plaintiff’s naturalization. The primary reason was that the naturalization had been obtained through fraudulent deception.
Lawsuit Against the Revocation
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this revocation order on April 3, 2017.
In his lawsuit, the plaintiff argued that the burden of proof for the deception about his loyalty to the constitution lay with the defendant, but no evidence had been provided. He claimed not to have deceived the defendant and had not undergone any special questioning but had merely signed the entire naturalization application, which also included the pre-printed „Loyalty Declaration.“ The plaintiff also emphasized the importance of freedom of religion and expression.
Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that his return to Germany demonstrated his ideological disassociation from the groups in question. He explicitly distanced himself from a Salafist interpretation of Islam and its militant interpretation. He also regularly participated in the de-radicalization program „Islamism“ of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and began a training program in September 2022.
Ruling of the Administrative Court of Aachen
The Administrative Court of Aachen found the revocation of naturalization to be lawful.
The legal basis for the revocation of naturalization is Section 35(1) Alt. 1 of the StAG. According to this, a wrongful naturalization can only be revoked if the administrative act was obtained through fraudulent deception, threats, bribery, or deliberately false or incomplete statements that were essential to its issuance.
The plaintiff’s naturalization was unlawful because it violated Section 11 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the StAG. This paragraph excludes naturalization if there are factual indications that the foreigner pursues or has pursued activities against the free democratic basic order, unless the foreigner has credibly demonstrated that they have turned away from such activities.
The court was convinced that the plaintiff had supported anti-constitutional activities as a member of a Salafist group. Politically and jihadist Salafist activities are considered to be against the free democratic basic order. It was assumed that the plaintiff was aware of and supported the Salafist orientation of the DAWA EU group.
The plaintiff did not credibly demonstrate that he had turned away from extremist activities. His denial of support actions and downplaying of Quran distribution events undermined his credibility.
Flawless Exercise of Discretion in Revoking Naturalization
The court found that the authority had exercised its discretion correctly in revoking the naturalization. The defendant had correctly weighed the public interest in reversing the wrongful naturalization against the plaintiff’s private interest in retaining German citizenship. There were no errors in the exercise of discretion.
The authority had adequately considered and balanced the private interests of the naturalized person and the public interests. The plaintiff’s integration had not been successful due to his terrorist past.
Finally, the revocation period under Section 35(3) of the StAG was also observed.
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.