Budget savings: Only adhesive labels instead of plastic cards at the LEA?

In Berlin's migration community, there is a lively debate about the State Office for Immigration (LEA) reverting to using adhesive labels, even though plastic cards ( electronic residence permits (eAT) ) should actually be issued . We have already reported on this . The reason behind this development is as banal as it is alarming: it's about money. The Berlin Senate has implemented massive cuts as part of its budget consolidation efforts (see, among others, here ). Initially, the figure mentioned was one million euros, but current information from government sources indicates that the LEA will have to save a staggering three million euros by 2026. And this in a city whose foreign population will have grown to almost one million by mid-2025.

Why an adhesive label instead of a plastic card?

The reason for the sudden change of course is massive pressure to cut costs, which will hit the LEA (State Office for Migration and Refugees) hard in 2026. Since personnel costs are fixed and the number of cases – with almost one million foreign residents in Berlin – is constantly rising, the administration has hardly any room to maneuver. The solution proposed by the agency's management under Mr. Mazanke is as pragmatic as it is sobering : switching from the electronic residence permit (eAT) to adhesive labels saves a significant amount of money per case. A blank plastic card costs the LEA almost 40 euros when ordered from the Federal Printing Office. A sticker, on the other hand, costs only about 50 to 59 cents. The budgetary logic is particularly curious: although applicants usually pay over 90 euros in fees, this money ends up in the general coffers of the state of Berlin. The LEA itself sees none of this revenue but has to advance the cost of the cards from its own, now reduced, budget.

Who will receive a card and who will only receive a sticker?

The new practice regarding the adhesive labels follows a rather rigid pattern, primarily aimed at avoiding refund processes. Those who submit their application digitally and have already paid the full fee for an electronic residence permit (eAT) will generally still receive it. The reason is purely bureaucratic: refunding the overpaid fee would currently be simply too complex for the LEA system . Interestingly, however, the fees in the digital application processes have already been reduced to the level of the adhesive labels – a clear indication that the sticker is intended to become the new standard.

Those particularly affected by the "sticker offensive" are currently so-called "positive-status" citizens and people receiving social benefits. In these cases, the sticker is now being issued almost automatically. Colleagues have also reported that, regarding the issuance of EU Blue Cards, processing reports indicate that applications not submitted online will only be issued via sticker. The situation regarding permanent residence permits appears unclear; some within the agency suggest that a sticker is technically or legally unfeasible, while other departments are already experimenting with it.

Curious interim solutions and systemic hurdles

A particularly important aspect for daily consultations is the information that issuing an electronic residence permit (eAT) remains possible if explicitly requested . According to statements from the head of the authority, anyone who insists on the card "without justification" will receive it. However, internal warnings are already being issued that a "special fee notice" could be issued in such cases. Furthermore, subsequent changes to the appointment appear to pose challenges for the LEA's computer system, which is why deciding on the desired document format early on is advisable.

It is reported that while the LEA system reacts more complicatedly when the standard sticker procedure is deviated from, refusing the eAT without a valid reason (beyond mere cost-cutting) would be legally untenable. Therefore, if you are presented with a sticker at your appointment, you should politely but firmly insist on the issuance of an electronic residence permit in accordance with Section 78 of the German Residence Act .

Conclusion: An agency in survival mode

What we are currently witnessing at the LEA (State Office for Migration and Refugees) is an administration attempting to remain functional under impossible financial constraints. The return to the adhesive label is highly questionable from a legal standpoint, as Section 78 of the Residence Act stipulates the electronic residence permit (eAT) as the standard procedure. The planned amendment to the procedural guidelines (VAB) for Section 78a of the Residence Act is intended to retroactively legitimize this practice. Whether this will stand up in administrative courts remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the "Berlin way" of cost-cutting is causing considerable uncertainty among those affected and represents a step backward in document security.