The declarations in the naturalisation procedure concern the foundations of living together in Germany. They require a sincere commitment to democratic rules and human rights, as well as to Germany's special historical responsibility. We therefore explain both the individual wording and the differences between a commitment to values, a declaration of loyalty and the solemn declaration when the certificate is handed over. They do not require support for a particular party's views or abandonment of one's own cultural background.
Four declarations with different purposes
Several statements made during the procedure are often grouped together under the term constitutional loyalty. Legally, they must be distinguished. § 10 subsection 1 sentence 1 number 1 StAG combines the commitment to the free democratic basic order with a declaration about the person's own current and past activities. Number 1a additionally requires a commitment to historical responsibility and peace. Before the certificate is handed over, the solemn declaration under § 16 StAG is also required. Nationality Act
The first commitment describes which basic order is recognised. The declaration of loyalty, by contrast, concerns facts from the person's own life: have they supported certain anti-constitutional activities or activities that threaten security? The additional commitment gives specific expression to Germany's historical responsibility. The final solemn declaration emphasises the obligation to respect the Basic Law and the laws. These elements are neither freely interchangeable nor fully replaced by passing the naturalisation test.
We explain the forms and the differences between the personal declarations. Where questions concern their own past, the actual circumstances must also be clear. We clarify uncertain points with you before you sign. A truthful and understandable declaration matters more than filling in every box as quickly as possible.
What defines a free democracy
Power for a limited term and political competition
Democratic state authority derives from the people. Elections must offer a genuine choice; governments must be capable of being replaced. Opposition parties and members of parliament must be able to scrutinise the government and campaign for different policies. These rules apply even when the political outcome of an election is contrary to one's own wishes.
A practical example is accepting a lost election: people may have the result reviewed through the legal procedures available and continue to campaign politically for their position. Someone who, in principle, accepts only election results that secure power for their own group, however, does not recognise democratic changes of government. The commitment concerns binding rules for everyone, not merely one's own chance to exert influence.
The law also protects against state power
The rule of law requires authorities to act within their statutory powers. Courts must be able to decide independently. No one is above the law merely because they hold political office. The legislature, too, is bound by the constitution. These constraints are precisely what enable individuals and minorities to assert their rights against a powerful majority.
Anyone who considers an official decision wrong may use an administrative objection or seek judicial protection, insofar as the relevant procedure provides for this. Such legal steps do not express a lack of loyalty. They form part of the recognised order. Attempting to override state decisions through violence, intimidation or a self-proclaimed parallel authority is a different matter.
Human dignity limits majority decisions
All human beings have equal fundamental worth. This does not depend on their passport, skin colour, religious beliefs, gender or usefulness to society. Democratic majorities may not dispose of this core principle as they please. The commitment therefore encompasses more than accepting regular elections: it includes respect for human rights and rejection of arbitrary rule.
The essential structural features are described in § 4 subsection 2 BVerfSchG. A legal lecture is not required to understand them personally. We discuss with you why government criticism is permitted, courts must be independent and religion cannot justify fewer rights; you need to understand and explain these principles yourself.
Religion, personal values and state law
Freedom of religion protects the practice of one's own faith as well as the decision to belong to no religion or to change religion. The state does not require a particular religious profession in the naturalisation procedure. Religious practice, cultural traditions and a connection to one's country of origin can coexist with a sincere commitment to the Basic Law.
What matters is how conflicts are handled. A personal religious conviction does not give anyone the right to take away another person's legally protected freedom. Someone may, for example, choose a particular way of life for themselves. That does not, however, authorise them to use coercion to dictate an adult family member's employment, choice of partner or religious decisions. The shared legal order also protects the freedom of a person who holds a different view within their family.
Historical responsibility without attributing personal guilt
The commitment under § 10 subsection 1 sentence 1 number 1a StAG relates to National Socialist tyranny and its consequences. The Basic Law was created against the background of these crimes. Recognising equal human dignity, protecting against arbitrary state action and safeguarding institutions that uphold freedom therefore also have a specific historical significance.
A person whose family came to Germany only later is not required to admit personal involvement in the crimes of that time. Historical responsibility instead means acknowledging the particular significance of this history for Germany. It has a present-day dimension: Jewish life must be protected and a recurrence of exclusion that denies people's equal human worth must be prevented.
The commitment therefore cannot be reduced to memorising particular dates. Someone who knows historical facts but at the same time justifies the persecution of people because of their Jewish identity does not fulfil its substance. Conversely, no one needs to be able to give a scholarly account of the whole of German history in order to understand and sincerely uphold the fundamental principle of protection.
Protecting Jewish life and political statements
The expressly stated protection of Jewish life concerns people and their ability to live safely and with equal rights. Antisemitic characterisations that treat Jewish people as a single hostile group contradict this protection. The same applies when individuals are held responsible for the actions of a foreign government solely because they are Jewish.
Political criticism, by contrast, must be assessed according to its actual content. Criticism of a government's decisions is not a ground for exclusion simply because of its subject matter. Relevant considerations include the statements used, the context and whether human rights are denied, antisemitic stereotypes of an enemy are spread or violence against people is justified. The protection of freedom of expression and the statutory requirements for naturalisation must both be respected.
For ambiguous statements, we establish the specific context rather than relying on blanket assessments. A complete post may have a different meaning from an isolated excerpt. At the same time, what is presented as a quotation may be adopted as the person's own statement through approving comments. If questions arise about a specific post, we work through its full context with you. A subsequent explanation must be consistent with the actual circumstances.
Peaceful coexistence and the prohibition of wars of aggression
The additional commitment also covers peaceful coexistence between peoples and rejection of wars of aggression. It reflects a fundamental value of the Basic Law. Article 26 is directed against acts intended to disturb peaceful relations between peoples, particularly preparations for a war of aggression. Basic Law, Article 26
This does not require approval of every foreign policy decision made by Germany. Diplomacy, sanctions, military support and the political assessment of international conflicts may be debated. Glorifying a war of aggression, justifying terrorist violence or calling for the annihilation of other people are different matters. Where specific allegations are made, the content, context and conduct attributable to the individual again matter.
Compassion for people in a war zone must also not be equated with support for an armed organisation. Humanitarian concerns can be pursued independently. The article on acts of support and credible renunciation explains in detail the limits that apply when organisational or financial assistance also actually furthers extremist activities.
What the declaration of loyalty requires regarding the past
The declaration of loyalty is not a general self-assessment of being a good person. It concerns activities defined by law, including those before the application was made. Membership may be relevant, as may an organisational role or targeted financial support. The fact that someone has not personally committed an act of violence does not fully answer these questions.
Anyone who previously supported relevant activities must distinguish between describing the past and their present attitude. The law permits a credibly demonstrated renunciation. An untruthful declaration that no such activities ever occurred is therefore neither necessary nor a legally secure solution. A genuine change and clear outward indications are decisive for renunciation.
We check whether similar names or changing labels actually refer to the same organisation. What matters for the assessment is the specific association, its orientation during the relevant period and the person's own contribution. A clear timeline helps distinguish actual connections from mere assumptions.
The personal interview and the naturalisation test
The naturalisation test generally demonstrates civic knowledge. The personal commitment additionally concerns the individual's own acceptance of the basic order. Passing the test therefore does not prevent the authority from asking questions about the person's understanding of the declarations. An in-person appointment may also be required where the application was initially submitted entirely digitally.
We address language misunderstandings openly and clarify the intended meaning. Anyone who does not understand a question can ask for it to be phrased more clearly. If an answer is recorded inaccurately in the minutes, a prompt, specific correction is advisable. An unfamiliar technical term, an imprecise answer and an actual rejection of democratic principles must be distinguished.
Concessions for language and the test do not replace a declaration of commitment
An exemption from the naturalisation test or a concession regarding proof of language skills does not by itself answer whether personal declarations must be made. § 10 subsection 6 StAG concerns language and knowledge requirements; the exception from personal declarations, by contrast, depends on legal capacity to act under § 34. A physical disability or advanced age does not automatically mean a lack of legal capacity to act. Equally, the appointment of a legal guardian must not be equated with legal incapacity without examination.
If illness makes the interview difficult, we explain the specific impairment and the access arrangements needed. A hearing or speech difficulty is different from a lack of understanding of the content of the declaration. The authority must examine the particular requirement affected. Concessions and exemptions for language and civic knowledge explains the different ways of providing evidence and obtaining an exception.
What we consider for minors and the final declaration
The declarations are personal in nature. Special rules apply to people who do not have legal capacity to act under § 34 sentence 1 StAG. The Federal Ministry of the Interior's application guidance exempts these people both from the declarations under number 1 and from the additional commitment under number 1a. This applies in particular to children under 16. A parent's signature alone cannot replace a child's strictly personal declaration of commitment. The wording of § 10 subsection 1 sentence 2 expressly mentions number 1 and number 7; inclusion of the additional commitment under number 1a here follows from the interpretation in the application guidance. AH-StAG 2025, number 10.1.1, paragraph 14
If the child turns 16 while the application is being processed, the previous exemption does not continue solely because of the application date. What matters is whether the person has legal capacity to act at the time of naturalisation. The young person will then generally have to make the declarations themselves; it is not necessary to wait until the general age of majority at 18. Age limits during the naturalisation procedure explains the consequences of different birthdays.
For applicants with legal capacity to act, the solemn declaration to respect the Basic Law and the laws follows before the certificate is handed over. Naturalisation takes effect only when the naturalisation certificate is handed over. The final ceremony does not replace the earlier assessment. Anyone who distinguishes the different declarations early on and understands their meaning can clarify questions during the procedure in a targeted way and avoid contradictory or incomplete information.