Litigation costs, reimbursement of costs and legal aid

When we take court action against the refusal of your naturalisation or because a decision is still outstanding, we discuss the financial consequences with you. Court costs, your own lawyer's fees and any costs of the other side that you may have to reimburse are separate items. Legal aid can provide access to the courts, but it does not remove every cost risk. We therefore combine our assessment of the prospects of success with a clear cost calculation.

The fees for the administrative naturalisation procedure must be distinguished from the costs of court proceedings. A naturalisation fee already paid does not cover a later court action. Conversely, a court costs bill does not automatically include the administrative fees. The earlier stage is covered in the article on fees and other costs of a naturalisation application.

For your cost planning, we distinguish three main groups:

Not every authority instructs an external lawyer. A second complete lawyer's bill therefore does not automatically arise on the other side. However, if such representation is used and its statutory costs are recoverable, they form part of the potential risk. Personal time spent and general frustration with the proceedings, by contrast, are not compensated at a flat rate as though they were a lawyer's fee.

The court determines the value in dispute under the relevant statutory provisions. The usual benchmark is not a binding promise about fees in every case; the specific relief sought and the court's assessment are decisive.

Where several family members bring an action, the value in dispute may increase. The lower administrative fee for the joint naturalisation of minor children cannot simply be transferred to the law on court costs. A separate dispute over a fee assessment must also be valued differently from a claim seeking the grant of citizenship. For our calculation, we therefore establish who is involved and which specific claims will be made.

A reduction may be justified in a discretionary joint naturalisation case limited to obtaining a lawful decision. A value of 5,000 euros may therefore be appropriate for a minor child bringing such an action, while 10,000 euros may be used for a parent's claim to naturalisation by entitlement. This distinction rests on the legal relief sought, not simply on age or on the description of the case as an action for failure to act.

For ordinary first-instance proceedings before the administrative court, item 5110 of the schedule of costs under the GKG generally provides for a fee multiplier of 3.0. For a value in dispute of 10,000 euros, a single fee under the fee table in Annex 2 GKG is 283 euros. This table amount is the basis for the following calculation.

This results in 849 euros in court fees for that starting scenario. The calculation applies to a single person, the assumed value in dispute and the general first-instance fee provision. It does not yet include a lawyer's remuneration, additional court expenses or separate interim or appeal proceedings. For older proceedings, transitional provisions determining which version of the fee rules applies may be relevant.

If proceedings end in a way for which the law provides favourable treatment, the court fee may be reduced. Item 5111 lists certain situations, such as a timely withdrawal or a court settlement. Where the parties declare that the matter has been resolved, the reduction applies in particular if no costs decision is made or if that decision follows a previously notified costs agreement or undertaking to bear costs. If the court must itself assess a disputed allocation of costs, resolution of the matter alone is not enough. The whole of the proceedings must also be concluded in the relevant way. A prior ordinary judgment or a decision without an oral hearing (Gerichtsbescheid) excludes this reduction; the expressly listed judgments based on an acknowledgement of the claim or a waiver are exceptions.

If the conditions in item 5111 are met, the multiplier falls to 1.0 and therefore to 283 euros in this example; additional expenses must still be considered separately. Not every resolution of a case automatically leads to the same reduction in costs. The question of who pays the remaining costs must also be distinguished from their amount.

Your own lawyer's remuneration may be governed by the German Lawyers' Remuneration Act (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz) or by a valid remuneration agreement. For statutory fees, the value in dispute, the type of proceedings and the fee-triggering events that actually occur are particularly important. A case may, for example, give rise to a procedural fee and a hearing fee; a settlement may trigger an additional fee. Not every fee arises in every course of proceedings.

When agreeing our fees, we clarify which work is covered: only the first instance, an urgent application too, a later application for leave to appeal or all further representation. Otherwise, a general statement about “the costs of the action” may combine different services. Earlier out-of-court work can also affect the calculation under the fee rules.

If the claimant wins, the other side generally reimburses the statutory recoverable costs, not necessarily every agreed fee. Any remuneration exceeding that amount may remain payable by the client. The basis for reimbursement of necessary expenses is § 162 VwGO. Costs of a preceding administrative objection procedure are subject to additional requirements: for legal representation in that procedure, the court must recognise that instructing a representative was necessary.

Under § 154 VwGO, the unsuccessful party generally bears the costs of the proceedings. A party that wins in full therefore normally obtains an entitlement to reimbursement of necessary costs. This is not compensation for every burden caused by the dispute, but a cost consequence limited by law.

In the event of partial success, costs may be apportioned or offset under § 155 VwGO. Where costs are offset, each side generally bears its own out-of-court costs and half the court costs. The appropriate proportion depends on what was sought and what was actually achieved.

This is relevant, for example, where only a fresh decision by the authority is secured instead of the immediate naturalisation requested. That does not produce the same allocation of costs in every case. For this purpose, we examine the specific relief sought, the operative judgment and the extent of success. The distinction between the possible court outcomes is explained in greater detail in the article on actions seeking an order to grant naturalisation and review of discretion.

Naturalisation or another relevant decision by the authority during court proceedings may change the procedural position. If your goal has been achieved, we assess how to end the proceedings and the cost consequences before withdrawing the claim. For a withdrawal, § 155 paragraph 2 VwGO generally places the costs on the person withdrawing. In failure-to-act proceedings, we also assess whether the special rule in section 161(3) VwGO applies. It is therefore not correct either to say that withdrawal always means bearing your own costs or that declaring the matter resolved automatically secures their reimbursement.

Where both sides declare that the matter has been resolved, the court decides on costs under § 161 paragraph 2 VwGO, taking account of the factual and legal position reached up to that point. Paragraph 3 contains a special rule for actions for failure to act: the defendant bears the costs if the claimant was entitled to expect a decision before bringing the action.

This provision is not blanket insurance against costs once three months have elapsed. Whether a decision could already be expected depends on the particular course of events and the reasons for the delay. If essential documents are only submitted after proceedings begin, that may be significant for the costs question. If the dispute over the substantive entitlement to naturalisation continues after a later refusal, the general rules on success and costs must also be taken into account.

When negotiating a settlement, we include an express agreement on costs. Without such an agreement, the statutory default rule in § 160 VwGO may apply. A substantively attractive result may have different financial effects depending on whether each side bears its own costs or the authority assumes particular costs.

The judgment or final order first determines who bears what proportion of the costs. This does not always establish the precise amount to be paid. Recoverable expenses are subsequently quantified and examined in the procedure for assessing costs. The legal basis is § 164 VwGO.

For assessment of recoverable costs, we organise invoices and evidence of necessary expenses. Where costs are apportioned, it is examined which amounts must be taken into account on each side and, where necessary, offset. A bill from the court treasury, the lawyer's claim for remuneration and the order assessing costs serve different purposes. The options for challenging them are also governed by different provisions.

Through § 166 VwGO, the legal aid rules in the Code of Civil Procedure apply to administrative court proceedings. Under § 114 ZPO, legal aid may be available where someone cannot meet litigation costs, can meet them only in part or can pay only in instalments, the intended legal action has sufficient prospects of success and does not appear unreasonable in the statutory sense.

Low income alone is therefore not enough. The court also examines the proposed legal action. Conversely, sufficient prospects of success do not require a guarantee of winning. However, the application must make clear what the entitlement consists of and why the court proceedings are suitable for enforcing it.

The financial assessment takes account of income, assets, statutory allowances and recognised financial burdens. There is no fixed general net-income threshold. Housing costs, maintenance obligations and other eligible expenditure can change the assessment. Existing legal expenses insurance or an enforceable entitlement to funding from another person may also matter. We clarify with you what insurance cover is available by examining the policy terms and the coverage decision.

The ability to fund litigation must be distinguished from securing subsistence under naturalisation law. Legal aid is granted under procedural law. It is not itself a benefit under SGB II or SGB XII whose receipt falls directly within the corresponding condition in § 10 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 3 StAG. Applying for it alone therefore does not mean that naturalisation is excluded.

The underlying financial circumstances may nevertheless be relevant to both assessments. If you receive benefits for living expenses, we separately assess what they mean for your citizenship entitlement, including statutory exceptions and any transitional rules. The grant of legal aid does not replace that examination, just as an entitlement to naturalisation does not automatically establish that litigation can be funded.

Since 1 July 2026, the relevant SGB II benefit has been called Grundsicherungsgeld. Under § 65a paragraph 4 SGB II, authorities may continue to use “Bürgergeld” until the end of 2026. For naturalisation, the statutory type of benefit is decisive, not merely the heading on a decision. For more detail, see Income and securing subsistence.

We clarify with you how to present the proposed proceedings and your financial circumstances clearly in a legal aid application. The prescribed form must normally be submitted with supporting evidence. This may include proof of income, benefit decisions, details of accounts and assets, rent, maintenance and other financial burdens. Simply referring to low income or providing a single bank statement does not replace a complete declaration.

If our representation is also to be funded, we clarify with you the conditions for court appointment and for our taking on your case. Although representation by a lawyer is generally not mandatory before the administrative court, appointment may nevertheless be made under § 121 paragraph 2 ZPO if representation appears necessary or the other side is represented by a lawyer. The representative must be willing to take on the case; the grant of legal aid alone does not instruct a particular law firm. We therefore expressly distinguish approval of court costs from our acceptance of your instructions.

An application for legal aid does not stop a running deadline for bringing a court action or appeal. For an appeal that has not yet been funded and requires mandatory representation, special rules on reinstatement of the time limit may be relevant. Timely and complete steps are required. Anyone who simply waits for the decision on the aid application risks losing access to the remedy.

Legal aid may be granted without personal payments or subject to instalments. Under the statutory rules, no more than 48 monthly instalments are generally payable. Financial circumstances may be reviewed later. § 120a ZPO provides in particular for adjustments following significant changes; an adverse change is generally excluded once four years have passed since the proceedings ended by a final decision or otherwise.

During the relevant period, there are duties to report changes, particularly significant improvements in financial circumstances and a new address. A deterioration may also justify asking for an existing instalment obligation to be reviewed. The official information sheet on legal aid explains the necessary information and duties.

§ 123 ZPO is particularly important: the grant of aid does not remove the obligation to reimburse the other side's costs. A person who loses may therefore owe recoverable costs to the other side despite receiving legal aid. Under § 119 ZPO, aid must also be granted separately for each court instance; first-instance approval is not an unlimited commitment covering all further proceedings.

An additional application for interim relief is a separate set of proceedings and may trigger additional fees. A lower value in dispute is not guaranteed: where delivery of the naturalisation certificate is sought, the full value of 10,000 euros may be used because the relief anticipates the outcome of the main proceedings.

Appeals and further legal remedies also require a fresh assessment of fees, funding and prospects of success. Before you decide, we discuss the intended outcome, costs you must initially bear and possible reimbursement if successful. This allows judicial protection to be planned financially without confusing possible success in court with complete freedom from costs.