Relocation and visa: The “6-month rule” – a practical problem for mobile applicants

Those who travel frequently, work internationally , or often relocate their primary residence repeatedly encounter a hurdle in the German visa application process : the so-called "six-month rule ." In practice, as lawyers, we regularly see German embassies and consulates rejecting applications on the grounds that the applicant has not yet resided in the respective country for six months and therefore does not fall under their jurisdiction . For those affected, this is not only frustrating but often existentially problematic – because the next application deadline is then frequently months away or in a different country. From a legal perspective, it is therefore worthwhile to examine the rationale behind this practice and why it is not legally sound in such a blanket manner.

Local jurisdiction is not determined by length of stay.

First, it should be noted that the Residence Act itself does not contain a rigid rule regarding the local jurisdiction of German diplomatic missions abroad. Rather, the decisive factor is the administrative regulation pertaining to the Residence Act (in particular Section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act ). According to this regulation, the diplomatic mission in whose consular district the applicant has their habitual residence generally decides . By its very nature, habitual residence is determined by a certain degree of permanence . However, problems arise when this open-ended formulation is interpreted as a supposedly fixed six-month limit. This is precisely where the shortening of the rule begins.

The usual place of residence is not solely a temporal criterion.

The concept of "habitual residence" is not solely based on the duration of the stay. Rather, the decisive factor is whether a person resides in a place under circumstances that indicate they are not merely staying there temporarily (e.g., as a tourist). It is therefore about a certain degree of stability of residence, not simply the length of stay.

While a period of approximately six months can be used as a guideline (see, for example, the choice of six months in Section 51 Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act ), this is not absolute . A stay can also be considered permanent if it is foreseeable at the beginning of the stay that it will last at least six months. A stay is not automatically "only temporary" simply because the six months have not yet expired.

Crucially, neither police registration nor formal legality of residence is a mandatory requirement. Even individuals without secure residency status can establish habitual residence as long as their stay is not expected to end in the foreseeable future. This distinction is frequently overlooked in administrative practice.

A blanket assessment of the stay is problematic.

If foreign missions base their decisions solely on the fact that an applicant has "not yet been in the country for six months," the legal standard is being unduly narrowed. The administrative regulations governing visa law ( Visa Handbook ) require an assessment of the specific circumstances of each individual case : purpose of stay, expected duration, and actual living conditions. A schematic approach does not meet this requirement. A blanket assessment is particularly unrealistic for internationally mobile individuals— entrepreneurs , freelancers , skilled workers , or families with multiple residences. It leads to a situation where responsibilities are passed back and forth between embassies without anyone actually feeling accountable.

Flexibility is legally provided for – and expressly desired.

Furthermore, there is another, often overlooked point: Even if a foreign mission lacks local jurisdiction, the visa application process is not necessarily blocked . Administrative regulations explicitly stipulate that a mission lacking jurisdiction can issue a visa with authorization from the actually competent authority or the Federal Foreign Office. This authorization can be granted informally and, for reasons of the rule of law, is intended to be applied flexibly. Practical examples of this include applying for visas from Afghanistan in Pakistan or the previously common practice of applying for Syrian visas in Lebanon. Particularly in large, geographically extensive countries or in cases of special personal circumstances, a generous approach is expressly provided for .

Conclusion: The "6-month rule" is not dogma

From a legal perspective, it's important to note that the frequently cited "six-month rule" is not a rigid legal dogma , but at most one indicator among several. Anyone who interprets it as an absolute prerequisite for the jurisdiction of a foreign mission misunderstands the purpose of the regulations concerning habitual residence. For applicants, this means that a negative response from the embassy is not always the final word. A case-by-case, flexible review is not only possible, but legally required. This is precisely where legal advice comes in – to challenge blanket rejections and restore the process to a sound legal footing.