Alleged budget problems: State Office for Immigration is issuing fewer electronic residence permits (eAT).

Imagine you've waited months for your appointment at the Berlin State Office for Immigration (LEA), paid the fees, and submitted all the required documents. You're expecting the state-of-the-art, biometric document in credit card format ( electronic residence permit (eAT) ) that's supposed to make everyday life in Germany easier. But instead of the familiar plastic card, the official opens your passport and affixes a traditional visa sticker . What sounds like a bureaucratic throwback to the 1990s is currently a reality in the capital. This news is causing uncertainty on the streets of Berlin and in the HR departments of large companies: Why are there no more electronic residence permits? Is this document even legally valid? As a law firm, we're taking a look behind the scenes of the Berlin administration and examining the legal shortcomings of this practice.

The legal obligation to have a card according to § 78 of the Residence Act

From a purely legal perspective, the current practice in Berlin is more than questionable. Let's take a look at the law: According to Section 78 Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), residence permits are generally issued as independent documents with an electronic storage and processing medium. The legislator deliberately established the plastic card format (eAT) as the standard to increase security against forgery and to ensure EU-wide standardization . This is not merely a recommendation or a discretionary decision by the authorities, but a legal obligation. The law simply does not provide for any political leeway to arbitrarily resort to adhesive labels for regular, ongoing use. Nevertheless, current practice in Berlin deviates significantly from these requirements, which places an obligation on us as lawyers to inform our clients about the implications of this deviation.

Budget issues and logistical puzzles in administration

Budgetary constraints are often cited privately as the reason for abandoning the plastic cards . However, this justification is hardly comprehensible to us as legal experts. The costs for producing the electronic residence permit are covered by the fees paid by applicants. Anyone applying for a residence permit pays a designated fee, which is intended, among other things, to cover precisely these production costs at the Federal Printing Office. That an authority is now switching to stickers for financial reasons suggests a misappropriation or mismanagement of funds, which is detrimental to the legal certainty of those affected. If the infrastructure for the plastic cards exists and citizens are paying for them, reverting to stickers remains a logistical and administrative puzzle that doesn't reflect well on a modern metropolis like Berlin.

Practical hurdles: If the bank rejects the sticker

The consequences of this practice are by no means merely aesthetic; they can lead to significant problems in everyday life . While border police can usually handle the stickers in passports without issue when entering the Schengen Area, the situation is different in private legal transactions. Many banks, mobile phone providers, and insurance companies have completely switched their identification processes to the electronic residence permit (eAT). A sticker in the passport, where the supplementary sheet with the employment conditions is often printed directly on the second side of the sticker, frequently leads to rejections in automated processes or by trained personnel . In our consulting practice, we repeatedly see cases where account openings fail or loan agreements fall through because the other party insists on the physical card. In a digitized world, the sticker seems like a foreign element and unnecessarily puts people legally residing in Germany in the difficult position of having to explain themselves.

Legal recourse: Is it worth taking the case to administrative court?

Since issuing the card is mandatory according to Section 78 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) , there is a legal entitlement to the plastic card . As a law firm, we could theoretically enforce this entitlement in court. However, the crucial question is one of proportionality and time expenditure. Legal proceedings before the administrative court typically last many months, often even years. By the time a judgment is reached, the validity of the visa in question may have already expired. We therefore advise you to carefully consider the options: If you are not absolutely dependent on the card's electronic functions or planning a specific legal transaction that requires the card, accepting the sticker is usually the less stressful option. The sticker is legally valid, even if it does not conform to the formal requirements that we as legal professionals would prefer.

Conclusion: Pragmatism trumps regulations

In summary, Berlin is taking a unique approach here, one that rests on shaky legal ground. The disregard for Section 78 of the Residence Act is a damning indictment of administrative efficiency, but will remain the reality for many expats in the short term. Anyone who receives a sticker should carefully check that all information and the supplementary sheet are printed correctly to avoid at least formal errors when looking for work. However, if your rights are severely restricted due to the lack of an electronic residence permit (eAT) – for example, through the denial of essential financial services – legal advice may be advisable to increase pressure on the authorities.

Have you or your employees already had experience with the new (old) adhesive stickers in Berlin, or do you need support in communicating with the LEA (State Office for Migration and Refugees)? We would be happy to review your individual case and support you in protecting your rights vis-à-vis the immigration authorities.