Visa lawsuit in Berlin: Afghan judge wins constitutional complaint against the German Foreign Office

With its decision of December 4, 2025 (2 BvR 1511/25), the Federal Constitutional Court sent a clear signal to those affected by delayed visa decisions . The case centered on a constitutional complaint filed by an Afghan judge, his wife, and their four children, whose visa applications had remained unprocessed for years . The court, by way of an interim injunction , ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to process the applications immediately, thus lifting the previous blockage of the visa procedures. That the court partially upheld a constitutional complaint against the Federal Foreign Office in such a case is remarkable – constitutional complaints against authorities of the Federal Foreign Office are rarely decided on their merits and therefore represent a special legal exception.

Urgency and legal protection in the visa process

The complainants had been admitted under the "bridging list" program pursuant to Section 22, Sentence 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) , which regulates the temporary admission of particularly vulnerable persons. Although the Federal Ministry of the Interior declared their admission, the authorities had not yet issued the visas . The Higher Administrative Court had previously rejected the application for an order compelling the issuance of visas . The Federal Constitutional Court has now clarified: Even if the admission programs are politically suspended, applicants have an individual right to a decision on their visa applications . Delays without objective justification violate the right to effective legal protection under Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law.

Another defeat for the federal government in court

With this latest ruling, the German government has suffered another legal setback in its restrictive migration policy . Schengen border controls and the rejection of foreigners at the borders have already been declared unlawful by courts in the past . This case demonstrates once again that the current government regularly disregards applicable law in its restrictive stance on migration. It appears that, given the current political climate, this practice is unlikely to change. For those affected and their lawyers, therefore, judicial enforcement of rights remains an indispensable tool for reviewing administrative actions in the area of migration and enforcing legal requirements.

Visa lawsuits as an instrument for legal protection

From a legal perspective , this case illustrates how effective a visa lawsuit can be in expediting inadequate or delayed procedures . When applicants are effectively blocked by lengthy administrative processes or politically motivated suspensions, the possibility of legally enforcing their right to a decision offers a concrete way to secure their rights. The current ruling demonstrates that even in particularly complex individual cases, there is a legal right to expedited processing. For those affected and their lawyers, this is a landmark decision: it makes clear that the judiciary guarantees effective legal protection even in politically sensitive admission programs . Anyone in a similar situation can use this ruling to assess whether a visa lawsuit has a prospect of success in ending the stalled processing.

Conclusion

The Federal Constitutional Court's ruling underscores the importance of legal recourse in cases of delayed visa decisions. For lawyers and those seeking legal protection in the field of migration, this sends a practically relevant signal: a visa lawsuit can not only enforce the individual rights of applicants but also compel the administration to comply with statutory deadlines, such as in the case of an action for failure to act . Particularly in situations of acute danger, the urgency of swift decisions is legally recognized and supported (see our article on urgent cases ). The fact that the Federal Constitutional Court partially succeeded in a constitutional complaint against the Federal Foreign Office makes this case a rare and groundbreaking decision in the field of migration law.