Commitment to the constitution and grounds for exclusion

Anyone seeking naturalisation must acknowledge the fundamental rules of living together in a democracy. These include human dignity, equal rights and a willingness to resolve political conflicts within the free constitutional legal order. The naturalisation authority therefore examines both personal declarations and possible grounds for exclusion. A signature alone is not enough if specific facts contradict the commitment declared. Conversely, origin, religion or an unpopular political opinion do not in themselves establish a ground for exclusion.

Naturalisation as of right under § 10 StAG contains positive requirements: the applicant must declare a commitment to the free democratic basic order and make the other declarations required by law. Alongside this, § 11 StAG identifies circumstances in which naturalisation is excluded. This second assessment cannot be dealt with simply by completing the form in full. The two provisions interact, but serve different purposes. §§ 10 and 11 StAG

Three questions help to clarify the position. First: does the person understand and uphold fundamental democratic values? Second: what actual activities, memberships or statements are involved? Third: is there a specific ground for exclusion, such as being married to several spouses at the same time or conduct that disregards equal rights for women and men? Only by answering these separately can a reasoned decision be reached.

The other requirements for naturalisation continue to apply alongside these. Language skills, periods of residence or financial independence do not replace a commitment to the constitution. Equally, a convincing commitment does not mean that a criminal conviction which can lawfully be taken into account automatically becomes irrelevant. There is no points system under which particularly strong achievements in one area offset a statutory ground for exclusion in another.

For your application, we examine the positive requirements in § 10 StAG and the separate exclusions in § 11. The individual commitments are strictly personal; exceptions apply to people who do not yet have legal capacity to act in these proceedings. A young child, for example, is therefore not required to make their own declaration of political values. The linked article on the content of the declarations addresses the precise questions of age and representation. A joint family application also does not mean that the political views of one parent are attributed to every family member: the assessment concerns each individual person.

§ 11 sentence 1 number 1a StAG covers factual indications that a declaration of commitment is untrue in substance. The law thus distinguishes between a sincere declaration and a mere formality. Someone who professes equal human rights while treating certain groups as fundamentally without rights cannot rely solely on the signed form.

An interview may also reveal that a term has not been understood. Difficulty with language must first be distinguished from rejection of the substance. Someone who cannot explain the word “opposition”, for example, but clearly describes how other parties may criticise and replace the government shows something different from someone who denies political opponents any right to participate.

Exclusion under § 11 sentence 1 number 1 StAG does not require a criminal conviction. It may apply where there is already a fact-based suspicion of relevant support. Nevertheless, mere supposition is not enough. The authority must be able to identify the circumstances supporting the suspicion and their connection to the person concerned.

Support can be financial, organisational or publicity-related. Even someone without a membership card can further an organisation's activities. Conversely, not every encounter, attendance at an event or act of assistance automatically amounts to support for extremist aims. All the circumstances must be assessed, particularly what the person could recognise and what they intended.

We carefully distinguish clearly extremist organisations from associations containing different currents. The person's own role, the specific period and their actual actions matter more than a sweeping label. The article on extremist activities and acts of support explains how this assessment and a subsequent renunciation work.

Being married to several spouses at the same time constitutes an express ground for exclusion. A second marriage following a valid divorce from the first is a different matter. Where foreign documents are involved, it may therefore be necessary to clarify when a marriage began or ended and what effect the decision has in Germany. Separation alone does not end a marriage.

The person's own conduct in relation to equal rights for women and men also matters. The provision does not require everyone to lead the same private life. A voluntarily agreed division of paid work and childcare calls for a different assessment from enforcing a claimed male decision-making authority through coercion. What matters is whether the conduct disregards equal legal status and self-determination.

A further exclusion concerns particularly serious public interests in expulsion. Here, the Nationality Act refers specifically to § 54 subsection 1 number 2 or 4 AufenthG, in particular conduct that threatens security and political or religious violence. Not every ground for expulsion under residence law falls within this reference. An expulsion order does not actually have to have been issued for exclusion under nationality law to apply. These connections are discussed in polygamy, equal rights and public interests in expulsion.

A minor fine may be disregarded under § 12a StAG when assessing the requirement relating to criminal convictions. This does not mean that the underlying conduct is irrelevant to every requirement for naturalisation. For example, conduct may also raise questions about attitudes that deny people's equal human worth or disregard for equal rights. However, the authority must independently assess the conditions of the other ground for exclusion in each case.

Conversely, a police suspicion is not a conviction. Where investigations are ongoing, the law generally provides for the naturalisation decision to be suspended. The discontinuance of criminal proceedings and an acquittal must be taken into account according to what they actually establish. They must neither be presented as convictions nor equated, without examination, with the complete resolution of every security-related issue. The overview of criminal offences and ongoing investigations provides further information.

Security screening is part of the standard procedure. Under § 37 StAG, the constitutional protection authorities are involved in identifying certain grounds for exclusion. Such an enquiry therefore does not in itself mean that the person concerned is suspected of misconduct. It must be distinguished from a specific allegation requiring an individual response.

If the authority raises a particular activity, a structured clarification helps: what exactly is alleged to have happened, and when? Which person or organisation is involved? What document forms the basis? Is it the person's own statement or a quotation? Are there difficulties with identical names, translations or the timing attributed to events? A general assurance of always having lived peacefully often does not answer these specific questions.

These documents may be particularly relevant to our assessment:

• complete letters setting out the specific allegation and the response deadline;

• any available documents relating to membership, resignation or activities;

• complete messages or publications, including their context;

• court decisions and evidence that they are final and binding;

• marriage and divorce documents where civil status is at issue.

We limit information about uninvolved third parties to what the specific assessment requires. What matters is the facts that are actually relevant to the applicant's own application. Where information in the records is contradictory, examining the case file may be more important than repeatedly submitting general evidence of integration.

Past contact with an extremist organisation does not necessarily mean lifelong exclusion. However, there is no general period after which all support automatically becomes harmless. Renunciation within the meaning of the law requires a credible change; the passage of time is only one factor. Formal resignation and the actual end of support may also occur at different times.

This must be distinguished from statutory prohibitions on using convictions that have been expunged or are eligible for expungement. These protect against the indefinite adverse use of concluded criminal matters. Whether such a restriction applies must be examined in the specific case. An old criminal file must not simply be relied upon on the basis that, for constitutional loyalty, every aspect of the past remains relevant forever.

Before responding to serious allegations, we identify the issue: are we disputing a fact, explaining an established act or presenting a subsequent renunciation? These approaches cannot simply be substituted for one another. A careful, truthful account allows favourable circumstances to be considered and the statutory limits of the assessment to be asserted.

Where material information is false, three different consequences must be distinguished:

The time limit for withdrawal and the duration of a bar are therefore not a single waiting period. Nor does a false declaration become inconsequential because the subsequent fine is low. Incorrect or incomplete information explains the conditions and available legal remedies. The separate provisions of §§ 35, 35a and 42 StAG govern these matters.