Security checks, data exchange and access to files

For your naturalisation case, we also assess which information from other bodies matters to the decision and whether file access or correction is needed. The authority may, and must, also take account of information from other public bodies. Statutory provisions establish the basis and limits for this. Access to the file helps you understand the actual basis for the decision and address errors or misunderstandings specifically.

Naturalisation requires the statutory conditions to be met and no relevant grounds for exclusion to exist. Some information is already held by other authorities: information about residence rights, registration details, criminal decisions or security-related findings. Naturalisation authorities do not have to obtain this information exclusively from the declarations of the person concerned.

Involving another body is therefore not in itself an indication of individual misconduct. A statutory routine enquiry is carried out even in cases where no adverse indications are yet known. Conversely, the absence of further enquiries to the applicant does not prove that all checks have already been completed. The correspondence visible to the applicant reflects only part of the processing.

We distinguish for you between obtaining information and its legal assessment. A data record or a communication from an authority may prompt further examination. Whether it actually creates an obstacle to naturalisation, however, is determined by nationality law. Examination by the authority remains an independent decision-making task and is not replaced by the mere existence of a register match.

Under § 37 StAG, nationality authorities transmit personal data to the authorities for the protection of the constitution for applicants who have reached the age of 16. The enquiry serves to identify certain grounds for exclusion under § 11 StAG. It does not require the naturalisation office to have already identified a specific suspicion of extremism.

The age threshold concerns this statutory routine enquiry. It does not mean that younger children are naturalised without checks in all other areas, or that every adult is automatically under particular suspicion. Nor should the routine enquiry be equated with security vetting for a particular occupation. The reason, scope and legal basis are different in each case.

The authorities for the protection of the constitution inform the requesting body in accordance with the special processing rules that apply to them. If adverse information is communicated, it is then necessary to clarify precisely what it shows and whether the statutory grounds for exclusion are met. Names, periods and actual conduct must be attributed to the correct person. Mere similarity of names does not answer these questions.

An electronic naturalisation application and a digital security enquiry between authorities are two different processes. The first concerns the applicant's access to public administration. The second concerns communication between state bodies. An online application therefore does not reveal which technical channels are used for the security examination in the background.

The nationality reform provided for an expanded digital procedure for involving other authorities, whose entry into force was made dependent on a separate announcement that the technical requirements had been met. The currently consolidated § 37 StAG continues to contain the routine enquiry to the authorities for the protection of the constitution. Planned procedures or deadlines in a version not yet brought into force must therefore not be presented as a current entitlement to completion of a security check.

In particular, a response deadline mentioned in a reform text cannot be used to infer a general deadline for the entire naturalisation process. Even when one piece of information has been received, other requirements may remain unresolved. For progress updates, we ask about the specific outstanding step; we infer no general completion deadline from the word “digital”.

§ 31 StAG permits the processing of personal data insofar as this is necessary to perform tasks under nationality law. The provision concerns not only the initial collection but also subsequent processing steps. Additional requirements apply to particularly sensitive data. The authority may not collect arbitrary information simply because someone has submitted an application.

§ 32 StAG governs transmission by public bodies. Data may be transmitted in response to a request; under the statutory conditions, there are also duties to provide information without a prior enquiry. Particular statutory restrictions on processing must still be observed. This provides neither unlimited access to all official files nor data processing dependent solely on voluntary consent.

This distinction matters in practice. Withdrawing voluntary consent does not automatically end all processing permitted by law. Conversely, blanket consent is not a licence to collect irrelevant data. Anyone wishing to know why particular information is needed can ask about its purpose, legal basis and connection with the naturalisation examination.

Alongside information from other bodies, there is the register maintained by the Bundesverwaltungsamt under § 33 StAG. It records certain decisions, particularly those concerning nationality certificates, the existence or statutory loss of nationality, and a bar on naturalisation. Where there is such a bar, its start and end are also among the details provided for by law. This register must therefore be distinguished from the complete local naturalisation file: it does not record every request for further information or the content of every personal discussion.

For our review, we therefore distinguish the different information sources. If an earlier decision is cited, its actual content and legal effectiveness must be clarified. A register extract does not replace examination of the underlying decision. In the event of mistaken identity or an incorrect date, correction may be relevant both in the local file and at the body maintaining the register. Moving home does not erase existing decision data or end a statutory bar.

We assess the scope of a register response and its legal usability separately. Rules on deletion of entries, special restrictions and the requirements of the Nationality Act remain relevant. Information known to the authority does not automatically lead to refusal. Conversely, a known conviction must not be treated as unimportant solely because it is absent from the private certificate of conduct.

For certain final convictions, § 32b StAG provides for an additional enquiry to the public prosecutor's office. It concerns the offences listed in the law and convictions that would otherwise be disregarded under § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 1 StAG. The enquiry establishes whether the judgment found antisemitic, racist or other motives showing contempt for humanity. It is therefore not required indiscriminately for every conviction. The enquiry clarifies a particular statutory issue and does not constitute a new criminal prosecution by the naturalisation authority.

A criminal investigation initially means that a suspicion of criminal conduct is being examined. It must be distinguished from a final conviction. Nevertheless, it can have immediate consequences for naturalisation proceedings: under § 12a paragraph 3 StAG, the decision must generally be suspended while investigations are ongoing until the proceedings have concluded and, in the event of a conviction, until it becomes final.

Suspension is not a finding of guilt and does not automatically mean a final refusal. For the subsequent course of the case, it may be decisive whether the criminal proceedings are discontinued, end in acquittal or conclude with a conviction. The naturalisation authority then needs accurate, up-to-date information. An old notification that proceedings were opened must not be left unaddressed as though it reflected an unchanging procedural position.

Foreign convictions and foreign investigations or criminal proceedings must also be considered separately. The law contains specific rules on disclosure and assessment in this respect. We assess events abroad for their relevance to your German naturalisation proceedings. The topic area on criminal offences and ongoing investigations discusses this in more detail.

The procedural right of access to files allows parties to inspect the files concerning their case insofar as this is necessary to protect their legal interests. The general model is set out in § 29 VwVfG; an official state provision appears in Art. 29 BayVwVfG. Details of state law and special protective provisions must be taken into account.

We use file access to clarify matters where the authority refers to unknown information, treats documents as missing or understands the facts differently. It is more than a general enquiry about the likely processing time. Its purpose is to make the information needed to pursue your legal interests available to you so that you can respond objectively.

The right generally belongs to the party to the proceedings and is not reserved exclusively for lawyers. An authorised lawyer can exercise it on the applicant's behalf. Access to your own naturalisation file does not, however, automatically open access to all the complete files of every security or law-enforcement authority involved. Separate access rules may apply to records held by those bodies.

We substantiate and specify our request for file access using the following details:

• Identification: The person, file reference and ongoing proceedings;

• Legal interest: For example, preparing a response to a particular communication from the authority;

• Outstanding questions: What the inspection is intended to clarify.

This makes the request understandable without requiring every unknown document to be identified individually in advance.

We specify the requested form, such as inspection on site or electronic copies. The form actually offered or available as of right depends on the applicable law, how the file is kept and any protective requirements. It does not give rise to an unrestricted right to have the entire original file sent to your home address.

The right of access is not unlimited. Draft decisions and work directly preparing a decision may be excluded during the proceedings. There are also grounds for protection, such as legitimate interests of third parties or certain state confidentiality interests. Security-related information in particular may therefore be subject to restrictions.

We examine the exact extent of any restriction on file access. If the ground for protection concerns only individual personal details, partial access or redaction may need to be considered. Simply labelling a matter “internal” does not establish which statutory limit applies. Applicants can ask for a clear explanation of which parts are being withheld and why.

Lawful confidentiality and the lawfulness of the later naturalisation decision are separate questions. Court proceedings have their own rules on producing files, accessing them and handling documents requiring confidentiality, particularly § 99 VwGO on the production of files and § 100 VwGO on access to court files. We assess remaining remedies where access is restricted, without promising full disclosure.

Alongside procedural access to the file, data protection rights may exist, such as access to information about personal data being processed or correction of inaccurate details. These have a different starting point from the right to know the contents of the procedural files relevant to your own naturalisation. A data protection request is therefore not automatically identical to a request for access to the file.

For a specific data error, we identify the incorrect entry and substantiate the accurate information. The issue may be a mistaken identity, an incorrectly recorded date or the conclusion of proceedings that has not been updated. It is often also necessary to clarify which body originally stored or transmitted the information. Article 19 DSGVO generally requires the controller to notify recipients of corrections; exceptions include, in particular, notifications that are impossible or involve disproportionate effort. Data subjects can request information about these recipients.

Nor does a right to erasure arise merely because the stored information is unwelcome. Statutory duties and retention obligations may prevent erasure. The data protection assessment must therefore remain specific. Alongside the General Data Protection Regulation, supplementary national and sector-specific rules must be considered.

If the naturalisation authority is waiting for another body, we enquire specifically about the outstanding step. It is useful to distinguish whether an enquiry has not yet been sent, a reply has not yet arrived or information already received has not yet been legally assessed. These situations require different responses.

The duration of a security check neither automatically justifies every delay nor automatically creates an entitlement to immediate naturalisation. For judicial protection, the stage of proceedings, the reason for the delay and the substantive requirements must be considered together. Delay and legal protection provides guidance on this.

We submit new documents about the conclusion of criminal proceedings or correction of a data error with a clear reference to your existing application. At the same time, your own information must remain truthful and up to date. Statutory enquiries do not release you from this duty to cooperate. Together, clear data, targeted access to the file and factual submissions make it possible to examine the actual basis for the naturalisation decision.