Which criminal-law decisions are taken into account?

For naturalisation, the question is not simply whether someone has ever had contact with the police or a court. What matters is the type of decision, whether it has become final and whether it may still be used. A penal order can be just as relevant as a judgment following a trial. Discontinuance subject to a payment condition, by contrast, is not a criminal fine. Further distinctions apply to juvenile proceedings and measures of rehabilitation and prevention. This article explains how to classify decisions before calculating the specific severity of the sentence.

A complete assessment therefore requires more than the name of the offence. The operative part of the decision states the type and severity of the legal consequence. The reasons may provide information about particular motives for the offence. Later orders may show that an aggregate sentence was formed or a suspended sentence was remitted. Certification that the decision is final, in turn, establishes whether it can still be challenged through ordinary remedies.

We distinguish the finding of an offence, the legal consequence imposed and its subsequent enforcement. For example, paying a criminal fine does not turn it into a discontinuance of proceedings. Equally, a conviction does not automatically disappear because no prison sentence was enforced. Different documents may be needed for each level.

A final criminal judgment constitutes the relevant decision of the criminal court. In its basic rule, nationality law does not make a general distinction between intentional and negligent offences. A conviction for a negligent traffic offence can therefore, in principle, also need to be examined. Whether it ultimately has to be disregarded is a separate question.

The naturalisation authority does not normally conduct a second criminal trial. Someone who believes the judgment to be factually wrong cannot make it irrelevant simply by giving a different account in their naturalisation application. Objections to the criminal court's decision generally belong in the criminal procedural remedies provided for that purpose. For naturalisation, it is nevertheless necessary to establish the correct decision, its final scope and any prohibitions on its use.

For decisions that were later amended, we examine the relevant current judicial position. If an initial sentence is reduced on appeal or an allegation is dropped, the first decision must not simply continue to be used. The documents must show which version ultimately became authoritative.

A penal order is often issued without a trial. This is precisely why its significance is underestimated. Unless an objection is lodged in time, it has the same effect as a final judgment. The normal time limit for an objection is two weeks after service. These consequences follow from § 410 StPO.

For naturalisation, it is therefore irrelevant that the person concerned has never appeared in person before a criminal court. A final penal order imposing a criminal fine is a criminal conviction. Subsequent payment completes enforcement but does not remove the conviction itself. The minor-offence and expungement rules must then be examined separately.

For newly served penalty orders, we take account of the short deadline and clarify the implications for naturalisation. Whether an objection is advisable depends on the particular criminal proceedings and their possible consequences. A blanket recommendation to accept every penal order or challenge every one would be incorrect. We review the document in full in good time, particularly if the allegation, sentence or service is unclear.

An acquittal does not result in a conviction and sentence. Discontinuance by the public prosecution office or the court is generally not such a conviction either. The reasons differ: proceedings may end for lack of sufficient grounds for suspicion, be discontinued because culpability is minor, or be concluded subject to conditions where the relevant requirements are met.

Under § 153a StPO, it is particularly important to distinguish between provisional and final conclusion. A payment condition is not a criminal fine expressed in daily units. However, fulfilment of the condition and the final notification about the proceedings may be necessary for the naturalisation process to continue. § 153a StPO

Discontinuance is also no reason to describe proceedings inaccurately as never having existed when answering enquiries. What must be disclosed depends on the statutory duty to cooperate, the specific question and any prohibitions on using the information. For matters abroad, § 12a paragraph 4 StAG contains an express disclosure obligation. We describe the actual outcome precisely and substantiate it with the appropriate decision.

A particular situation is a warning with a sentence reserved under § 59 StGB. The court finds the person guilty and determines a possible criminal fine, but initially reserves the decision to impose that sentence. The figure stated in the decision must therefore not be added to other sentences as though it were an already imposed fine without examination. Nor is this an acquittal or a warning issued under juvenile criminal law.

We examine the precise form of the decision and subsequent procedural developments. A later decision may show whether the matter remained at the warning stage or the reserved sentence was imposed. We therefore include the current judicial position in the assessment alongside the original document. A general certificate confirming that payment conditions have been fulfilled does not answer this question. Nor can automatic immediate naturalisation be inferred from the term reserved sentence; the applicable criminal-law requirements and the other requirements for naturalisation must still be examined separately.

A judgment may concern several allegations and reach different outcomes for each. For example, it may acquit on one allegation and impose a criminal fine for another. Both the shorthand acquitted and the sweeping statement convicted on all counts would then be inaccurate. The same applies where part of the proceedings was discontinued and the remainder concluded by penal order. For naturalisation, what matters is the conviction that actually remains and its final scope. We therefore consider all decisions concerning the same proceedings rather than selecting only favourable pages or one discontinuance order. A complete account also makes it easier to identify errors in the allocation of individual allegations.

An administrative fine for an administrative offence is not a criminal fine imposed by a criminal court. Even if the amount is high or the matter has been reviewed in court, that does not automatically make it a conviction within the meaning of the criminal-law obstacle to naturalisation. The legal nature of the sanction matters more than the amount paid.

The same applies to an additional tax demand, a demand to repay social benefits or a civil claim for damages. Such decisions may be based on circumstances that are also being investigated under criminal law. However, they do not replace a criminal judgment. Conversely, repayment of a claim does not render a separate fraud conviction irrelevant.

We classify payment demands by their respective legal basis. Does the document say administrative fine notice, penal order, repayment notice or bill of costs? Were separate criminal proceedings conducted? Distinguishing these prevents either unproblematic matters from being treated as convictions or genuinely relevant criminal decisions from being overlooked.

The Youth Courts Act distinguishes educational measures, disciplinary measures and youth custodial sentences. These terms describe different legal consequences. Educational measures may include directions, for example. Disciplinary measures include warnings, conditions and short-term youth detention. § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 1 StAG generally requires these measures to be disregarded.

A youth custodial sentence, by contrast, is a deprivation of liberty under § 17 JGG. It is not disregarded merely because the person was young when the offence was committed or because the juvenile court pursues educational aims. A suspended youth custodial sentence also remains a youth custodial sentence in law. Youth Courts Act

Where the imposition of a youth custodial sentence is suspended under § 27 JGG, this creates a particular interim situation. § 12a paragraph 3 StAG also requires suspension of the naturalisation decision in this case. This must be distinguished from probation where a youth custodial sentence has already been imposed. Criminal fines, prison sentences, juvenile criminal law and minor-offence thresholds explains the details and their effects.

A person may have committed an unlawful act without having criminal responsibility. Where the statutory conditions are met, a measure of rehabilitation and prevention may then be ordered instead of a sentence. § 10 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 5 StAG expressly refers to this situation. The absence of a criminal fine or prison sentence therefore does not automatically mean that there is no obstacle to naturalisation here.

These measures include placement in a psychiatric hospital, withdrawal of a driving licence and a ban on practising a profession. They are listed in § 61 StGB. A measure of this kind must not be equated with medical treatment: ordinary voluntary therapy is not a measure ordered by a criminal court.

For withdrawal of a driving licence or a corresponding professional ban ordered independently because the person lacked criminal responsibility, § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 5 StAG allows a case-by-case decision. By contrast, the limit of 90 daily units for criminal fines cannot be converted into a period of placement in an institution. These sanctions are governed by different statutory standards.

The position differs where a person with criminal responsibility is sentenced to a criminal fine and also has their driving licence withdrawn. Such an ancillary measure does not create an independent bar if the conviction is disregarded under the applicable rules.

The distinction has practical significance: a traffic offence resulting in a small criminal fine must not be treated in the same way as an independent measure ordered because of a lack of criminal responsibility merely because withdrawal of the driving licence was also ordered. The sentence must first be examined, including other convictions and particular exclusions. Only then can the legal consequence be classified correctly.

We also distinguish a driving ban from revocation of a driving licence. The fact that both can temporarily prevent a person from driving does not make these legal mechanisms identical. The specific terminology and legal basis in the operative part of the decision are therefore important.

A low sentence is not always sufficient for a conviction to be disregarded. For an unlawful antisemitic or racist act, or one otherwise showing contempt for human dignity, § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 2 StAG excludes the usual favourable treatment if a criminal fine, a prison sentence or a youth custodial sentence was imposed and a corresponding motive was established in the judgment.

This does not depend solely on the name of the offence. Even an ordinary assault or criminal damage offence may have been committed from such a motive. The findings in the reasons are therefore relevant alongside the operative part of the decision. Conversely, mere suspicion about the motive does not replace the criminal court finding required by law for this exception to the exemption.

The nationality authority may and must obtain information from the public prosecution office in accordance with the applicable rules. Antisemitic, racist and other motives showing contempt for human dignity explains the role of the offences listed in § 32b StAG.

For our review, we need the complete decision text and a reliable translation wherever possible. We formulate specific objections, such as a lack of opportunities to defend the case or a conviction for conduct that is not criminal in Germany. Merely referring to political conditions in the country of origin does not replace an examination of the individual proceedings. Convictions abroad provides further information.

Even a conviction that was originally relevant may later cease to be usable. § 51 BZRG is particularly important here. However, the absence of an entry in a private certificate of conduct does not mean that the conviction has been expunged or is eligible for expungement. Equally, the removal of the stigma of a youth custodial sentence does not automatically eliminate every substantive right to use it.

Once each individual decision has been classified, the overall assessment follows. Several sentences that may still be used may need to be added together; a later aggregate sentence order may replace earlier individual sentences. Newly opened proceedings can also temporarily prevent a final decision. The assessment therefore does not end with the single most favourable document.

For your application, we record decisions, proof of finality, remission orders and register issues separately. The article on multiple convictions and aggregate sentences explains the calculation that follows. For the procedural course and open investigations, see the parent article on criminal offences and ongoing investigations.