File an objection against the obligation to attend an integration course

An integration course obligation is an administrative act by which the immigration authorities require a foreign national to participate in a state-funded integration course . The integration course is necessary, for example, for obtaining a permanent residence permit , but can also be relevant in the context of labor migration. An obligation to participate can exist, for instance, when a foreign national who is permanently resident in Germany is granted a residence permit for employment purposes for the first time ( § 44 AufenthG ). This can be very burdensome for the foreign national, as the integration course represents a significant time commitment. In these cases, it is worthwhile for employees to consider filing an objection against the integration course obligation.

What is the integration course?

This course typically comprises 700 teaching hours and aims to promote linguistic, social, and cultural integration . However, the obligation to attend is contingent upon the legal requirements of Section 44a of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) being met and participation being individually meaningful and reasonable . It may only be imposed if there is a legal entitlement to participate or if there are special integration policy reasons; at the same time, the authorities must consider the individual's personal circumstances (see Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim, judgment of June 12, 2013, case no. 11 S 208/13 ). It is precisely here that many errors occur in practice. Authorities frequently resort to blanket obligations without first examining whether the residence permit even falls within its scope or whether a personal need for integration is evident. Thus, an instrument intended to provide targeted support occasionally becomes a bureaucratic burden – and legally contestable.

Objection to mandatory integration course

An objection can be lodged against such an integration course obligation . The objection is directed against the administrative act and compels the authority to conduct a renewed, comprehensive review . This legal remedy serves to review both the formal and substantive legality. Even formal errors can justify an objection: a missing or incorrect instruction on legal remedies extends the deadline, a lack of justification violates Section 39 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG), and an incorrect legal basis regularly renders the decision unlawful. Substantively, it must be examined whether the legal requirements are met at all .

However, the objection also opens the possibility of asserting the individual's personal circumstances . Participation is inadmissible if it would be permanently unreasonable. This unreasonableness can arise from the individual's professional situation, time constraints, or organizational reasons. Full-time employment, fixed-term contracts, or a planned short-term stay in Germany can mean that the 700 hours of instruction cannot realistically be completed (see Working Time Act ). Likewise, a demonstrably low need for integration within the meaning of Section 4 Paragraph 2 of the Integration Ordinance (IntV) – for example, in the case of university graduates or individuals in qualified employment – precludes both the right to and the obligation to participate (cf. Hamburg Higher Administrative Court, decision of April 26, 2023, file no. 6 Bf 243/22.Z). In these cases, the authorities may not impose a course obligation because integration can be expected even without state support . If there is no long-term interest in residence, for example, in the case of temporary residence permits or clearly temporary employment, an obligation is also precluded.

Conclusion: Contradiction regarding mandatory integration courses for employees

The legal construct of objection serves to correct administrative decisions that were made across the board or without regard to individual circumstances . It allows for a legal assessment of the integration course obligation in light of residency law, reasonableness, and the individual's projected capacity for integration. For those affected, this means they can effectively defend themselves against inaccurate or excessive course requirements. For the authorities, the objection makes it clear that integration policy requires individual case review and cannot be managed solely through standardized forms.