.png)
Case study: Action for failure to act regarding naturalization in Berlin
Case study: Action for failure to act for naturalization in Berlin
Share:
A. Facts
What had happened?
The client, a citizen of the United States of America , filed an application for naturalization with the Mitte District Office in Berlin several years ago. During a personal interview, the client submitted all required documents and paid the required application fee. Receipt of the application was confirmed in writing by the Mitte District Office.
Despite the proper application and fulfillment of all cooperation obligations, no substantive processing of the application was carried out for a period of almost three years. The client received neither follow-up questions nor any notification; all he had at his disposal was the confirmation of receipt and the appointment date.
In 2023, the client was then informed that, due to an organizational restructuring , the Berlin State Office for Immigration (LEA) would take over the processing of his naturalization application effective January 1, 2024. Further processing by the Mitte District Office would no longer take place.
After the transfer of responsibility to the LEA, 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 staffing shortages, the transfer of responsibility, and the upcoming reform of the Citizenship Act, processing would continue to be delayed indefinitely.
After months of further inactivity, and in view of an impending extended trip abroad, the client decided to take the matter further. He therefore engaged a VISAGUARD attorney specializing in immigration law to enforce his rights and complete the naturalization process promptly.
B. Legal solution
How did the VISAGUARD lawyer resolve the case?
The appointed attorney 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 pointed 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 attorney resubmitted the naturalization application via the LEA's official contact form, documented the process, and again set a reasonable deadline for processing. This attempt also remained unanswered.
After the deadline had expired and considering the considerable processing time that had already elapsed, the lawyer finally filed an action for failure to act on behalf of the client before the Berlin Administrative Court pursuant to Section 75 of the Administrative Court Act (VwGO) . Pursuant to Section 75, Sentence 1 of the VwGO, an action may be filed if a substantive decision on an application has not been made within a reasonable period of time without sufficient reason – a requirement that was undoubtedly met here.
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 we learn from this case?
This case exemplifies the practical significance of the action for failure to act under Section 75 of the Administrative Court Code (VwGO) in naturalization proceedings. Despite a formally complete application, significant delays can occur due to organizational restructuring, staffing shortages, or political reform processes, which place an unreasonable burden on the affected applicant. However, this organizational negligence on the part of immigration authorities need not and must not be to the detriment of the applicant.
The early out-of-court intervention and the subsequent judicial assertion of the right to a decision led to a swift and effective resolution. Filing the action for failure to act exerted the necessary pressure on the authority to ensure prompt processing, despite the fact that all previous out-of-court contact attempts had failed to respond.
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
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.