top of page
flag-germany.jpg

Case study: Action for failure to act regarding naturalization in Berlin

Practical tip from a lawyer: When is it worthwhile to file an action for failure to act regarding naturalizations in Berlin?

What is the problem with unprocessed naturalization applications in Berlin?

  • The Berlin citizenship authority (State Office for Immigration (LEA)) is struggling with a massive flood of applications for naturalization.

  • Although the naturalization process has been digitized and new departments have been established, it still takes a very long time.

  • Particularly problematic are cases in which people still have their job when applying for citizenship, but then lose it during the naturalization process.

Here's how lawyers solve the problem:

  • The simplest solution for excessively long naturalization procedures is usually to start with a letter from a lawyer requesting processing.

  • However, the lawyer's letter only promises a prospect of success if all the prerequisites are still met (especially if a job is still available).

  • If the lawyer's letter is also unsuccessful, the only remaining option is an action for failure to act. This action can compel the authority to decide on the application.

  • In most cases, an action for failure to act does not result in a judgment, but the authority offers the prospect of naturalization if the action is withdrawn and the plaintiff bears the costs (so-called "Berlin settlement").

A. Facts
What had happened?

The client, a citizen of the United States of America , submitted an application for naturalization to the Mitte district office in Berlin several years ago. During a personal appointment, the client submitted all required documents and paid the application fee. Receipt of the application was confirmed to him in writing by the Mitte district office.

Despite the application being submitted correctly and all obligations to cooperate being fulfilled, the application was not processed substantively for almost three years. The client received neither follow-up questions nor a decision; he only had confirmation of receipt and appointment details.

In 2023, the client was informed that, as a result of an organizational restructuring , the State Office for Immigration (LEA) in Berlin would be handling his naturalization application from January 1, 2024. Further processing by the Mitte district office would cease.

Following the transfer of responsibility to the LEA (State Office for Citizenship and Immigration), the client received further notification in 2024 stating that his application would now be handled by the newly formed Department S (responsible for citizenship matters). However, due to significant staff shortages, the transfer of responsibilities, and the pending reform of the Citizenship Act, processing would continue to be delayed indefinitely.

After months of further inaction and in light of an upcoming extended trip abroad, the client decided not to let the matter rest any longer. He therefore retained a lawyer specializing in immigration law from VISAGUARD to enforce his rights in order to complete the naturalization process promptly.

B. Legal solution
How did the VISAGUARD lawyer resolve the case?

The appointed lawyer initially contacted the State Office for Immigration out of court. In several letters, he formally requested the office to process the naturalization application, setting a deadline and pointing out that the processing time had already been significantly exceeded. The State Office for Immigration did not respond to these out-of-court requests. To further expedite the process, the lawyer also resubmitted the naturalization application via the official contact form of the State Office for Immigration, documented the process, and again set a reasonable deadline for processing. This attempt also went unanswered.

After the deadline had expired and taking into account the considerable processing time that had already elapsed, the lawyer, on behalf of his client, finally filed an action for failure to act pursuant to Section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) with the Berlin Administrative Court. According to Section 75, sentence 1, VwGO, an action may be brought if a decision on an application has not been made on the merits within a reasonable period without sufficient reason – a condition that was undoubtedly met here.

Contact Us

Do you have questions about residency law? Are you looking for a lawyer specializing in German immigration and visa law? We are happy to assist you with residency proceedings before embassies, immigration authorities, and administrative courts. Contact us to book an online appointment with a German immigration lawyer!

During the legal proceedings, it became apparent that the State Office for Immigration was already prepared for similar actions for failure to act. It presented the client with a so-called "Berlin settlement offer": In this offer, the immigration authorities offered to complete the client's naturalization process promptly, provided the client covered the resulting court costs. After careful legal review and weighing the pros and cons, the client agreed to this pragmatic settlement proposal. Subsequently, the client was assigned a naturalization appointment within a few weeks, during which the process (naturalization and issuance of the naturalization certificate) was successfully concluded.

C. Conclusion
What can be learned from this case?

This case exemplifies the practical significance of the action for failure to act under Section 75 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) in naturalization proceedings. Despite a formally complete application, significant delays can occur due to organizational restructuring, staff shortages, or political reform processes, placing an unreasonable burden on the applicant. However, this organizational negligence on the part of immigration authorities must not and cannot be to the detriment of the applicants.

Early out-of-court intervention and the subsequent legal enforcement of the right to a decision led to a swift and effective solution. Filing an action for failure to act exerted the necessary pressure on the authority to expedite processing, even though all previous attempts at out-of-court contact had gone unanswered.

The case also demonstrates the necessity of professional legal representation in administrative proceedings, especially for applications of vital or significant personal importance, such as naturalization. Furthermore, it demonstrates the practical relevance of so-called pragmatic settlement solutions in administrative court proceedings, which – with careful legal consideration – enable a timely and appropriate resolution in the client's best interest.

You might also be interested in

[1] Hailbronner/Kau/Gnatzy/Weber, Nationality Law, 7th edition 2022

[2] Uwe Berlit, Joint Commentary on Nationality Law (GK-StAR), 1st edition 2000 (last supplement LBW 14.02.2025)

[3] Judgment: regarding an action for failure to act before the expiry of the three months, see GH Munich BayVBl. 1980, 376; VG Kassel NVwZ 1985, 217; VGH Kassel NVwZ 1988, 266; BeckOK VwGO/Peters VwGO § 75 Rn. 10, 11

[4] Judgment: regarding the burden of proof in cases of inaction by the authorities, see Saxon Higher Administrative Court, decision of 14 February 2023 – 3 E 2/23 –, juris para. 9 with further references

[5] Judgment: on the standard of organizational deficit in cases of inaction, see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 16 January 2017 – 1 BvR 2406/16 –, juris para. 9 with further references; Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 27 July 2017

[6] Judgment: regarding the relevant date for calculating the time limit under Section 75 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO), see Weimar Administrative Court, decision of 11 June 2024, file number 1 K 135/24 We

[7] Section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure as promulgated on 19 March 1991 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 686), as last amended by Article 9 of the Act of 20 May 2026 (Federal Law Gazette 2026 I No. 152)

[8] Section 10 of the Nationality Act in the consolidated version published in the Federal Law Gazette Part III, Classification Number 102-1, as last amended by Article 3 of the Act of 22 December 2025 (Federal Law Gazette 2025 I No. 364; 2026 I No. 49)

bottom of page