Ruling: Work as part of school education does not require a work permit.

Many foreign trainees , advice centers, and immigration authorities remain uncertain about whether a work permit is required for vocational training at a school . A recent ruling by the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg on November 12, 2025 (Case No. 12 S 1888/25) now provides important clarity: School-based vocational training does not constitute employment in the sense of immigration law – and therefore does not require a work permit. This decision has far-reaching practical implications, particularly for nursing, social work, and other school-based training programs.

Practical components of school training do not require a work permit.

The Higher Administrative Court of Mannheim explicitly clarifies in its ruling that vocational training at a school, according to Section 2 Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the Vocational Training Act (BBiG), is not considered gainful employment within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) – even if individual training phases are company-based . The decisive factor is the clear distinction between:

• school-based vocational training

• company-based vocational training

• other off-site training

While vocational training in a company regularly constitutes employment in the sense of immigration law, this is not the case with purely school-based training. This applies even if practical training phases are included – for example, in hospitals, nursing homes , or social institutions.

Practical activities remain part of the school education.

The court's clarification regarding practical training is particularly important: Even if a significant part of the training takes place practically in the company, it remains school-based training for immigration purposes if the following conditions are met:

Practical activities are legally integrated into school education.

The school manages and organizes the content of the practical phase.

There is a close interrelationship between theory and practice.

The practice is used exclusively for training purposes.

In these cases, the employment does not require a permit .

Even training allowances do not change the legal situation.

Another point of the decision is particularly relevant in practice:

Even if an employment contract is concluded between the trainee and a company and a training allowance is paid, this does not create a work permit requirement, provided that the training remains a school-based education in its legal nature.

In the underlying proceedings, the plaintiff – a prospective geriatric care assistant – had applied for a work permit as a precautionary measure. This was due to a clause in her training contract stipulating that the conclusion of the contract was subject to the condition precedent of a "valid temporary residence permit with a suitable work permit" (a so-called suspensive condition ).

Conclusion: Work permit for school

Especially in the nursing sector, which is urgently in need of new recruits, this decision is of enormous importance. It significantly facilitates access to training for foreign nationals and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. For foreign trainees, educational institutions, nursing facilities, and counseling centers, this decision is a major milestone. It creates legal certainty and prevents unnecessary – and often burdensome – application procedures with immigration authorities for vocational schools.

You might also be interested in:

• Court rulings in migration law