Ruling: Can a travel document for foreigners be obtained through expedited legal proceedings?

If you are a highly qualified professional or young professional living in Germany, your professional mobility is often your most valuable asset . An expired passport can quickly become a threat to your livelihood. Those attempting to obtain a new document through their embassy often encounter significant administrative hurdles or political blockades in some countries of origin – particularly in parts of Africa or Asia. In practice, immigration authorities often react in a standardized manner: without written proof of a refusal from the embassy, no German replacement passport will be issued. However, a recent ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court (VG 30 L 219/25) demonstrates that those affected do not have to passively accept this bureaucratic vicious cycle. Under certain conditions, a travel document for foreigners can be successfully obtained through preliminary legal proceedings.

Why do authorities often refuse to issue travel documents to foreigners?

In principle, German immigration law stipulates the passport requirement (§ 3 AufenthG). Obtaining a national passport always takes legal precedence. A German travel document for foreigners according to § 5 para. 1 of the Residence Ordinance (AufenthV) is designed as a legal exception and may only be issued if the applicant cannot obtain their document through reasonable means. In practice, this leads to a significant obstacle. The Berlin State Office for Immigration ( LEA ) routinely requires proof of unsuccessful attempts to obtain a passport. However, since repressive or dysfunctional embassies rarely issue such rejections in writing, foreign academics and expats often find themselves in a dead end. They are left without a passport , unable to travel for work, and in the worst-case scenario, even risk losing their residence permit .

How can we break the "written language trap" of messages?

The Berlin Administrative Court's ruling makes it clear: The authorities' rigid demand for a written embassy refusal does not hold up in court . In preliminary injunction proceedings, any evidence is generally admissible to demonstrate the unreasonableness of obtaining a passport.

If the embassy refuses to provide you with written confirmation, we can substantiate their obstructionist stance with other, strategically prepared evidence. In the case at hand, the court accepted a sworn affidavit from a witness who had accompanied the applicant to the embassy. In our practice, we recommend comprehensive documentation.

• Detailed notes on the consultation,

• Email histories regarding attempted appointment bookings,

• Proof of registered mail to the embassy,

• As well as emails or records that document the administrative obstacles placed in the employee's way.

When is the right time for an expedited procedure?

Legal proceedings under Section 123 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) always require a so-called ground for an injunction. This means that there must be a particular urgency; waiting for years of main proceedings must be unreasonable. For the application for preliminary relief to be successful, the professional disadvantages must be concretely demonstrable, and there must be a threat of significant harm. General intentions, such as "wanting to travel soon," are not sufficient for the judges. However, if you, as a young professional or specialist, advise international clients or work on projects abroad, we must submit these appointments, project contracts, or urgent requests from your employer to the court .

Practical tip from our law firm: Often, a legally enforceable, decisive judgment is not absolutely necessary in the end. Frequently, simply filing an urgent application with the court is enough to generate the necessary attention from the LEA (State Office for Immigration and Asylum ). This procedure creates a completely new basis for negotiation, which in many cases leads the immigration authorities to back down even before the court makes a decision.

How is the hurdle of "anticipating the main issue" overcome?

Administrative courts are extremely reluctant to grant preliminary injunctions because the provisional obligation to issue a passport effectively prejudges the decision in the main proceedings. This is legally permissible only in very limited exceptional cases.

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) permits this preliminary ruling, however, if the applicant faces irreversible and severe disadvantages without legal recourse. At this point, we weigh the affected fundamental rights in our argument . If a highly qualified professional – as in the Berlin case – holds a permanent residence permit under Section 18c Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Residence Act, the infringement of the freedom to choose and practice one's profession (Article 12 of the Basic Law) caused by the state-imposed travel ban is particularly serious. The authority's discretion in court proceedings is then reduced to zero – the travel document must be issued for reasons of proportionality.

Conclusion

The ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court demonstrates that highly qualified professionals from countries with complex document and passport systems are not defenseless against administrative practices. Those who strategically prepare their legal action, creatively and comprehensively document the unreasonable passport procurement process, and precisely quantify the potential professional damages have the best chance of success in expedited proceedings. As a specialized law firm, we support you and your HR department in legally safeguarding your mobility and residence permit in Germany.