Administrative Court of Bremen, Judgment of January 24, 2022, Case No.: 4 K 461/20
If the required verification of an applicant’s identity and nationality for naturalization cannot be achieved through the submission of official documents or other evidence, the applicant’s statements may suffice if, upon comprehensive consideration, the identity and nationality are sufficiently established to the satisfaction of the court.
In this case, the plaintiff, who has been living in Germany since 1985, did not possess a birth certificate, and his nationality was unknown. He applied for naturalization in 2016 and again in 2018 under § 10 para. 1 StAG. Both applications were denied in 2020 on the grounds that the plaintiff’s nationality and identity were not sufficiently clarified. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the rejection on March 9, 2020.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff was born in Beirut in 1983 and entered Germany in 1985 with his parents using forged passports. His father then informed the relevant authority of what was believed to be the correct family name. Both parents were stateless, and the plaintiff did not have a birth certificate.
In 1991, the plaintiff received a residence permit, which was continuously extended. In 1998, the city of Hanover recorded an unverified birth date for the plaintiff in 1983 in his foreigner’s file. In 2007, the plaintiff approached the Palestinian General Directorate in Berlin to clarify his identity, and they confirmed in writing that he was of Palestinian origin. However, he was not issued a passport or birth certificate as he had never been registered in Palestine nor had he lived there.
Foreigners‘ Authority Accepted the Applicant’s Identity Details for the Settlement Permit
Despite this, he was granted a settlement permit in 2011. The authority noted that all possible means of verifying the plaintiff’s identity had been exhausted. In October 2015, he received a German travel document for foreigners. After marrying his wife, a German citizen, the plaintiff first applied for German citizenship in 2016 under § 10 para. 1 StAG. The defendant argued that there were indications of various nationalities for the plaintiff. In 2018, the plaintiff submitted a second naturalization application.
The authority then requested that he cooperate in obtaining his birth certificate or negative certificates from all countries that could potentially recognize him as a national, according to the authority’s assessment.
On March 5, 2020, the plaintiff received the rejection notice for his 2016 and 2018 applications. The rejection was based on the claim that the applicant’s identity was still not sufficiently clarified, and he had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to resolve the matter.
Judgment of the Administrative Court of Bremen:
The Administrative Court of Bremen Sided with the Applicant
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the authority to grant him German citizenship, overturning the rejection notice. The court found that the plaintiff had a right to naturalization under § 10 para. 1 StAG. He had already exhausted all reasonable means to clarify his identity and nationality, which were sufficiently established based on his statements.
All the requirements for naturalization under § 10 para. 1 StAG were met, so the court required the defendant to grant the plaintiff German citizenship. The only question in this case was whether the plaintiff’s identity and nationality were sufficiently clarified to meet the requirements of § 10 para. 1 StAG. All other conditions for naturalization under § 10 para. 1 StAG were unproblematic.
Court’s Considerations
The court’s reasoning was based on a judgment by the Federal Administrative Court from September 23, 2020, Case No.: 1 C 36/19. The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the requirement for clarified identity and nationality under § 10 para. 1 StAG can be met not only by submitting a passport. Instead, it is necessary to balance the security interests of the Federal Republic of Germany with the interests and rights of the naturalization applicant. While a passport is the preferred method, if this is not possible, other public documents and any evidence permitted under § 26 para. 1 sentences 1 and 2 VwVfG, such as unofficial documents or other evidence, are sufficient. As a last resort, identity can exceptionally be proven through the applicant’s own statements if they are substantiated by a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and the applicant’s overall submission.
Court Convinced of the Applicant’s Statements
The court must be convinced, based on a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and the applicant’s overall submission, that the identity and nationality have been sufficiently established. This is considered true when the court, based on § 108 VwGO, is convinced with a degree of certainty adequate for practical life, which silences doubts without excluding them completely. It is necessary for the available evidence to be consistent and in harmony with the applicant’s statements when viewed as a whole.
The requirement to submit official documents can only be waived if the applicant has cooperated in clarifying their identity and nationality to the extent objectively possible and subjectively reasonable, as required under § 37 para. 1 sentence 2 StAG in conjunction with § 82 para. 1 AufenthG.
The court found that the conditions presented in this judgment were met in this case, and further cooperation beyond what had already been done would be unreasonable for the plaintiff.
During the oral hearing, the plaintiff credibly stated that his parents had never registered him after his birth, so a birth certificate could not exist. The plaintiff also proved that he had unsuccessfully contacted the Palestinian General Directorate, and it was unreasonable to expect him to register in Palestine due to the security situation there. The defendant’s claim that there were indications of other nationalities for the plaintiff was not based on factual, substantiated evidence and therefore did not obligate the plaintiff to undertake the significant effort of further investigations. The plaintiff had even unsuccessfully attempted to obtain negative certificates from these states.
Regarding the plaintiff’s identity, he had used the surname provided by his father since entering the country and had been assigned a birth date by the German authorities, which he had used since. Through this, he had been given a kind of identity by the German authorities, which was thereby clarified.
The court saw no need or possibility for further clarification of the plaintiff’s identity and considered it sufficiently established under § 10 para. 1 StAG.
Source: Administrative Court of Bremen
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.