VG Magdeburg: Travel document for Armenians?

He came to Germany when he was almost three years old, finished school here, completed an apprenticeship as an automotive mechatronics technician, and has been working at the company where he trained ever since. Even the hardship commission spoke in his favor. And yet, for years his residency depended on a single document: the Passport . Because Armenia, his parents' homeland, only issues a national passport to young men if they have completed their military service or at least registered militarily . The immigration office considered this reasonable. The Magdeburg Administrative Court disagreed and, in its judgment of July 22, 2026 (Case No. 9 A 120/25 MD), ordered the city to issue the young man a travel document for foreigners.

What was the case about?

The plaintiff, an Armenian national, entered Germany with his parents in 2005. At the time, his parents provided false personal information and claimed to be Russian citizens. He applied for citizenship ; the asylum procedure was unsuccessful. Since 2006, the plaintiff had been living in Germany with a temporary suspension of deportation pursuant to Section 60a Paragraph 2 of the German Residence Act. At the end of 2023, he applied for a travel document for foreigners because the Armenian embassy could not issue a travel document without a military service record or certificate of military registration. issues a passport . The immigration office refused, and the state administrative office rejected the appeal.

When are foreigners entitled to a travel document?

Anyone staying in Germany must generally have a valid [document/passport/etc.]. Possess a passport (§ 3 para. 1 Residence Act). According to § 5 para. 1 Residence Ordinance, a travel document can be issued to foreigners if the person concerned can prove that they do not possess a passport. A person who possesses a passport or passport substitute and cannot obtain it in a reasonable manner. The crucial point is regulated by Section 5 Paragraph 2 Number 3 of the Residence Ordinance: In particular, fulfilling military service obligations is considered reasonable, unless this is unreasonable for compelling reasons. Military service obligations in the country of origin are therefore generally not grounds for a German passport substitute.

The The court emphasizes, however, that "compelling reasons" is an indeterminate legal concept that is fully subject to judicial review. A comprehensive assessment of all circumstances of the individual case is required (Federal Administrative Court, decision of June 20, 2011, 1 B 1/11). The court uses the following as a benchmark: The court considered the provisions of the German Military Service Act, in particular the grounds for exemption and deferment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Military Service Act. This also applies to Germans under Section 7 Paragraph 1 Numbers 7 and 8 of the Passport Act. Given that a passport can be refused, it is not unreasonable for a state to link the issuance of a passport to military service.

Which arguments did the court reject?

It is remarkable how many obvious arguments failed. The threat of war in the border region with Azerbaijan was insufficient because no concrete danger was apparent and the security situation had improved after the peace process in August 2025. The pacifist conviction also failed, since Armenia offers an alternative military or labor service of 30 or 36 months, respectively. The fact that this lasts significantly longer than the basic military service, which has been reduced to 18 months since January 1, 2026, does not, in the court's view, make it unreasonable.

Even the indefinite one An employment contract was of no help. Unlike ongoing vocational training or a doctorate, which, according to the legal principle of Section 12 Paragraph 4 of the Compulsory Education Act (WPflG), can justify a deferral, a regular employment relationship does not exempt one from civic duties. The threatened job loss is deemed acceptable, especially since a qualified automotive mechatronics technician has good job prospects. For employers, this means: A job alone protects one Skilled worker not before being referred to military service.

Why did the plaintiff still win his case?

The decisive factor was Article 8 of the ECHR. The court considered the plaintiff a "de facto national": 21 years of uninterrupted residence since early childhood, secondary school leaving certificate, completed vocational training, independent He had a secure livelihood , excellent German language skills, and no criminal record. The fact that he had only been tolerated for a long time did not preclude this, especially since the His residence permit application had failed precisely because he failed to comply with the passport requirement, and the false information provided by his parents could not be attributed to him. In contrast, only a formal link remained to Armenia: no relatives there, membership in the Yazidi minority, his mother and siblings in Germany, and his father in Russia.

Regardless, the The court also deemed military service unreasonable on grounds of proportionality because the plaintiff does not speak Armenian and would neither understand nor be able to follow instructions in that language. The authorities based their decision on the plaintiff's biography. The family was judged based on their language skills. The court evaluated the files and came to the opposite conclusion.

The ruling also clearly rejects a typical suggestion from the authorities: that the plaintiff could only travel briefly for his conscription medical examination, for example in vacation , the Collect your passport and return without military service. A German authority cannot advise anyone to commit a crime in their home country.

Why is a residence permit not sufficient?

The authority stated that, after issuing the The applicant lacks a legitimate interest in obtaining a residence permit . The court disagreed: A residence permit issued as a substitute for identification under Section 48 Paragraph 2 of the Residence Act only serves as identification within Germany. A travel document, on the other hand, is a fully valid passport substitute that allows border crossings. This is more than a mere formality, as fulfilling the passport requirement is a general prerequisite for almost every residence permit under Section 5 Paragraph 1 Number 4 of the Residence Act and also plays a role in subsequent applications. Naturalization plays a role.

What does the ruling mean for those affected and their employers?

The decision doesn't only affect Armenians. We regularly encounter similar situations in countries that link passport issuance to military service or registration. Many affected individuals wait, hoping the problem will resolve itself with age. Others submit a brief application and fail due to the burden of proof, as Section 5 Paragraph 1 of the German Residence Ordinance (AufenthV) requires proof that the applicant has completed military service or registration. Obtaining a passport is unreasonable. We are familiar with this pattern from hundreds of immigration proceedings: Immigration authorities reject older embassy letters as "outdated" and criticize the lack of "proactive efforts," just as in this case. Anyone who fails to document their contacts with the embassy completely and up-to-date is essentially providing the authorities with the reason for their rejection.

Crucially, it's also essential to provide concrete evidence of the employee's ties to their home country: school certificates, vocational training certificates, employer references, and an honest assessment of language skills in the country of origin. Standard information from the internet is of little help here, as the legal system makes a fine distinction between education, doctoral studies, and regular employment. Therefore, HR departments whose employees cannot travel abroad to visit clients due to a missing passport or who fear for their residency permits should consider an early review. We analyze which line of argument will prevail in each individual case and, if necessary, support the process all the way to the final appeal. Court .

It should be noted that an appeal against the judgment can be filed with the Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt. Whether the decision will become legally binding remains to be seen.

Conclusion

The Magdeburg Administrative Court initially confirmed the strict stance: Military service in the country of origin is generally considered reasonable, and neither fear of war, nor pacifism, nor a secure job automatically alters this. However, those who are de facto residents of Germany and have deep roots in the country can invoke Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and are entitled to a travel document for foreigners. This opens up a viable option for young adults who grew up here and for employers who want to retain such employees. If the embassy offers you the Passport refused or the If the immigration office has rejected your application for a travel document, contact us: We will review your documents and develop a strategy that will stand up to the authorities and, if necessary, to appeal. Court exists.