Administrative Court of Mannheim: Employer liability when employing illegal migrants

Imagine your company receives mail from the immigration authorities. It's not a query about a visa application, but a demand for payment of several thousand euros. The reason: you are being asked to cover the costs of deporting a former employee whose employment ended years ago. This situation is not a hypothetical nightmare scenario, but a harsh reality, as a recent ruling by the Administrative Court of Mannheim (VGH) on January 27, 2026 (Case No. 11 S 2163/25) clearly demonstrates. As a law firm, we are concerned that many employers underestimate the far-reaching financial risks associated with employing migrants without valid work permits (see our article on Section 4a of the German Residence Act ). While this ruling is not a groundbreaking legal development, it emphatically underscores the existing, strict legal framework and the importance of carefully examining residency status.

The deceptive security of the passage of time

Many companies feel secure when an employment relationship with a foreign national, who may not have possessed a valid work permit , ends. They assume that all responsibility ends with the termination of employment. This is a fatal misconception , as the recent ruling by the Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim demonstrates. In the underlying case, the company argued, among other things, that the deportation occurred years after the employment ended and was therefore unrelated to the previous work.

The Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim, however, clearly rejected this argument . The Senate unequivocally clarified that the liability of the (former) employer for deportation costs pursuant to Section 66 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) does not require a direct causal link between the unauthorized employment and the deportation. It is therefore not necessary that the deportation be due to the illegal employment.

The legal basis: Section 66 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Residence Act

The decisive legal provision is Section 66 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the Residence Act. This paragraph regulates liability for costs incurred when foreigners leave the country. It states that, in addition to the foreigner themselves , anyone who employed a foreigner who was not permitted to engage in gainful employment under the provisions of this law is also liable.

The legislature has made a conscious decision here: Liability is based solely on the fact of unauthorized employment. No fault on the part of the employer in the strict sense is required, nor does the employment have to be the cause of the subsequent deportation. The intention behind this is clear: The unauthorized employment of a foreigner always contributes to maintaining an unlawful situation. It creates an incentive for illegal entry and unauthorized residence. To counteract this, the legislature has placed an obligation on employers and imposed a significant financial risk on them.

The relevance for migrants with tolerated stay or temporary residence permit

This legal precedent is particularly relevant in the context of employing individuals with a temporary suspension of deportation (pursuant to Section 60a of the German Residence Act) or a temporary residence permit (pursuant to Section 55 of the German Asylum Act). These documents are not residence permits, but merely certify that deportation is temporarily suspended or that the asylum procedure is still ongoing.

Whether a person with a temporary residence permit or a temporary work permit is allowed to work depends on the individual decision of the immigration authorities . This must be explicitly stated in the documents. Employers must check these documents extremely carefully. The Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim also clarified in its ruling that the company's reference to a supposed "implied work permit" was of no help. Such a permit does not exist under immigration law. Only what is written in the documents is relevant . If an employer employs someone whose documents do not provide for a work permit, they are acting unlawfully – with all the resulting consequences.

The conditions for liability

In order for employer liability under Section 66 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Residence Act to apply, essentially two conditions must be met:

1. Unauthorized employment: The employer must have employed a foreigner who was not permitted to engage in gainful employment.

2. Continuous unlawful residence: The foreigner must have resided in Germany without a required residence permit throughout the period between the termination of employment and actual deportation.

If these two conditions are met, liability applies. The time factor is irrelevant. Whether deportation occurs days, months, or years after the end of the employment relationship is immaterial, as long as the stay in Germany was continuously unlawful during the intervening period. This was precisely the situation in the case decided by the Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim. The company could not demonstrate that the former employee had resided legally in Germany during that time.

Conclusion and recommendations

The decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim is a wake-up call for all employers who employ foreign workers, especially those with precarious residency status such as tolerated stay or temporary residence permits. It is not a new legal precedent, but rather a confirmation of the strict legal regulations of Section 66 Paragraph 4 Sentence 1 Number 1 of the German Residence Act.

The financial risk of liability for deportation costs persists even years after the termination of employment. There is no requirement of causation and no statute of limitations defense in the strict sense. Therefore, it is essential for companies to thoroughly examine and document the residence and work permit status of any foreign employee before hiring them . As a law firm, we strongly advise obtaining written confirmation of the work permit from the immigration authorities for individuals with tolerated stay or temporary residence permits and keeping this confirmation in their personnel file. Under no circumstances should you rely on verbal assurances or your own interpretation of the documents. The risks are too high, and the costs of deportation can severely impact a company. A thorough review beforehand is the best protection against unpleasant surprises in the future.

HRRF first reported on the verdict: https://hrrf.de/i233/

The full text of the judgment can be found here: https://www.landesrecht-bw.de/bsbw/document/NJRE001632975