Examination by the authority

After submission, we support your application through the authority's assessment, prepare responses to enquiries and explain the legal significance of new requirements. It considers the applicant's information alongside official documents, information from other authorities and, where necessary, further investigations. A complete set of documents is important for this process, but does not in itself mean that a positive outcome is certain.

The first step is to identify and allocate the application. The authority must be able to establish who is seeking naturalisation, who is acting for them and whether it is the competent authority. An application may therefore initially be registered administratively before detailed examination of its substance begins. An allocated file reference helps with communication but says nothing about which requirements have already been checked.

Documents are also examined to see whether they can be used. Illegible files, missing pages or attachments that cannot be identified may lead to a request for further documents. For families, it must be clear which documents relate to which person. Checking authority to represent someone is not merely a formality: a declaration for a child must come from a person entitled to make it, while a young person aged 16 or over who generally has the capacity to act can act independently.

There is no nationally binding schedule requiring every individual condition to be examined in the same order. Some questions can be clarified in parallel; others depend on earlier findings. A local online procedure can organise receipt and the collection of documents, but it does not replace legal assessment. The article on submitting an application explains the differences between transmission, receipt and a complete submission.

The principle of investigation by the authority requires it to establish the facts relevant to the decision on its own initiative. It determines the investigations needed and must also take account of circumstances in the applicant's favour. This is described in § 24 VwVfG; for state and municipal authorities, the relevant state's procedural law applies. An authority may not focus exclusively on adverse considerations.

There are also specific duties to cooperate. Many decisive facts concern a person's private circumstances: previous periods of residence, family relationships, income or difficulties obtaining official documents. It is often impossible to establish these reliably without information and evidence from the person concerned. § 34 StAG refers to § 82 of the Residence Act for this purpose.

The two sides therefore have different responsibilities. The applicant must present their circumstances clearly and provide the necessary evidence that is available. The authority must assess those contributions, identify unresolved questions and apply the law correctly. Investigation by the authority does not mean applicants can remain inactive. Conversely, cooperation does not mean an authority may transfer all responsibility for establishing the facts to them.

An ordinary naturalisation application seeks to acquire German citizenship. It does not have to fail simply because someone without legal knowledge has cited an inappropriate provision. Unless the request has been expressly limited, the authority must examine which relevant statutory routes may apply to the facts presented. Entitlement to naturalisation, special family-related provisions and discretionary naturalisation must be distinguished.

For naturalisation by entitlement, meeting all the requirements generally gives rise to a legal entitlement. Discretionary naturalisation has a different legal structure. It is not an automatic substitute whenever a condition for naturalisation by entitlement is missing. Its own requirements must be met and the relevant discretionary considerations taken into account. Routes to German citizenship explains these distinctions.

Administrative guidelines and information sheets can help standardise processing, but they do not take precedence over the law. Particularly with older forms, it is therefore necessary to check whether a requirement stated there still applies. The general period of residence for naturalisation by entitlement is five years; a previous special three-year rule for exceptional integration achievements has been abolished. This does not automatically abolish special family-related provisions.

The authority must be able to establish reliably who is being naturalised and which nationality they currently hold. A residence title held for many years does not necessarily settle these questions conclusively. It may be based on details adopted in another procedure only provisionally or for a different purpose. Having already passed the naturalisation test does not replace this examination either.

We therefore submit documents with their context explained so that the authority can assess the information coherently. Do names, dates of birth and other details agree? Are there explainable differences in transliteration? Which authority issued a document, and on what basis? Formal confirmation of authenticity can strengthen its evidential value, but does not automatically make every fact stated in it beyond challenge.

Where primary documents are missing, evidential requirements may be eased subject to a graduated set of conditions. The staged model for establishing identity distinguishes five levels and requires an examination of whether obtaining documents is possible and reasonable. This question is explored in the article on identity and existing nationality. For the course of the proceedings, the essential point is to explain any difficulty obtaining documents specifically and for the authority to assess available alternatives appropriately.

The examination of residence duration concerns previous lawful habitual residence. Separately, there is the question of whether the person currently has a right of residence sufficient for the relevant basis of naturalisation. A previous residence title may matter when calculating the period, even if that same title would not be sufficient at the time of the decision. These two questions must not be confused.

Longer stays abroad or interruptions can also prompt enquiries. It is necessary to clarify when the travel took place, its purpose and whether the person's centre of life remained in Germany. An extract from the population register is an indication but not necessarily the complete answer. A continuing residence title and continuing habitual residence are not identical either.

Where a permit extension is pending, we document its procedural status clearly. A naturalisation application does not replace a necessary application for an extension. Simply relying on naturalisation being completed soon and omitting other steps required under residence law can create new difficulties. The authority must be able to assess the actual current situation, not merely an anticipated future development.

The financial examination is not about a salary figure in isolation. Relevant factors include income, the needs to be taken into account, family maintenance obligations and applicable statutory exceptions. Employment contracts, payslips, tax documents and benefit decisions provide different kinds of information. A single particularly good month does not replace a clear account of ongoing circumstances.

Any state payment received must be classified according to its legal basis. Not every benefit is a benefit under SGB II or SGB XII. Conversely, a new name does not change the legislation under which it falls. Since 1 July 2026, the SGB II benefit has been called Grundsicherungsgeld; authorities remain permitted to use the term Bürgergeld until the end of 2026. This follows from §§ 19 and 65a SGB II in the official collection.

For older applications, we also assess whether a special transitional rule applies. § 40a StAG concerns applications submitted on or before 23 August 2023 and the more favourable earlier subsistence requirements specified there. It does not generally preserve all the requirements applicable to every older application. The article on income and securing your livelihood explains the substantive examination in detail.

The authority examines whether the required German language proficiency and knowledge of Germany are present, or whether a statutory concession or exemption applies. Different forms of evidence may be relevant. An existing certificate must belong to the person concerned and actually substantiate what is required. Where a health-related obstacle is claimed, its specific significance for the particular requirement matters.

Personal declarations of commitment must in turn be distinguished from evidence of language proficiency and knowledge. Passing a test does not replace every required declaration. Conversely, for people who lack the capacity to act independently, it is necessary to examine carefully which statutory requirements apply at all. Age thresholds and exceptions may be structured differently for different requirements.

An appointment in person may be used to compare originals, record declarations or discuss unresolved questions. The invitation alone does not allow any firm conclusion about the eventual outcome. Before the appointment, we clarify the expected documents and declarations with you. We explain unclear statements before signature; signing without understanding is not a substitute for clarification.

The examination includes possible grounds for exclusion. Statutory enquiries to other authorities are therefore not in themselves a sign of suspicion in the individual case. Under § 37 StAG, a routine enquiry is made to the authorities for the protection of the constitution for applicants aged 16 and over. Register information and other legally permitted data transfers may also be relevant.

Information about criminal matters must then be assessed under nationality law. A clear private certificate of conduct does not prove that the naturalisation authority has no access to any other register information. Conversely, not every criminal decision that becomes known automatically leads to exclusion. The statutory rules on convictions that may be taken into account and ongoing investigations must each be applied separately.

A request for further information can have different causes. An attachment may actually be missing, existing evidence may be out of date, or its contents may not answer a particular question. A contradiction between several documents can also create a need for further clarification. It therefore makes sense to identify the specific question before simply sending the same file again.

In our response, we distinguish resolved issues from outstanding ones:

• An official document is still missing: Explain the obstacle to obtaining it and the steps already taken.

• More time is needed: Request an extension in good time rather than assuming one without confirmation.

• Doubts about a requirement: Question its necessity objectively without stopping all communication.

We also bring favourable changes into your proceedings. A new employment contract, a passed test or clarified parental responsibility may resolve an outstanding question. At the same time, significant changes to information already provided must be reported. The related article on establishing the facts, requests for further information and changes in personal circumstances describes how to present such additions clearly.

Ultimately, the authority must assess whether the legal requirements are met on the basis of the facts established. The number of documents submitted is not decisive in itself. Several documents that all repeat the same unverified detail may be less informative than a single reliable piece of evidence. Conversely, different, mutually consistent items of evidence may together resolve an outstanding question.

If a decisive requirement remains unresolved despite sufficient investigation, this may prevent a positive outcome. This must be distinguished from a situation in which an authority has not yet assessed available suitable evidence or has overlooked a relevant explanation. A focused submission or access to the file can help identify the difference. Not every negative assessment is already a formal refusal decision.

If refusal is proposed, we carefully examine the reasons, the facts relied on and any response deadlines. Once a decision has been issued, the applicable legal remedies must be used. When proceedings stall or refusal is threatened provides further guidance on this stage. The legal options depend on the specific communication, not just its heading or the tone of an email.

A positive assessment of individual requirements is generally not an independent assurance that the entire naturalisation will later be completed regardless of changes. A legally binding assurance must come from the competent authority and satisfy the prescribed formal requirements. This is illustrated, for example, by Article 38 BayVwVfG: a promise to issue a particular administrative act in the future must be in writing to be effective. The applicable administrative procedure law is decisive. If the factual or legal basis subsequently changes in such a way that the authority would no longer be permitted to give the assurance, or would not have given it, the assurance ceases to bind it under this provision. Further planning therefore requires examination of the precise content of a written message: does it merely confirm receipt, that a request for further information has been satisfied, or the completion of part of the examination, or does it contain a binding determination?

After refusal, we assess the available legal remedy and its deadline rather than merely continuing the previous correspondence. New evidence and a legal remedy serve different purposes. Anyone who merely sends in new payslips must not assume that this also preserves the deadline for bringing a court action or lodging an administrative objection. The status of the substantive examination and the position regarding legal remedies must now be considered together.