Criminal fines, prison sentences, juvenile criminal law and minor-offence thresholds

A minor criminal conviction does not necessarily prevent naturalisation. The Nationality Act provides specific thresholds and exceptions. For criminal fines, the number of daily units matters; for short prison sentences, suspension on probation and remission of the sentence are also required. Under juvenile criminal law, the first step is to distinguish whether an educational measure, a disciplinary measure or an actual youth custodial sentence was imposed. The everyday description that a matter was only minor is not enough to classify it legally.

§ 12a paragraph 1 StAG exempts certain criminal-law decisions from their generally obstructive effect on naturalisation. If all the requirements of the relevant rule are met, the decision in question must be disregarded when assessing the absence of criminal convictions. In the standard statutory case, this is not a matter of optional leniency on the authority's part. § 12a StAG

However, the rule does not mean that the conviction is deleted from the register or is irrelevant to every other legal question. Its immediate purpose is to govern the treatment of the conviction in the naturalisation process. Other naturalisation requirements and particular grounds for exclusion must still be examined. Equally, a further conviction can change the previous assessment, because multiple sentences must generally be added together.

We begin the assessment with the type of sanction. Only then are the severity of the sentence, particular motives, further decisions and prohibitions on use examined. Someone who knows only the amount paid or the length of a probation period will often still be missing the information decisive to this assessment.

A criminal fine consists of two figures. The number of daily units reflects the criminal-law assessment of the appropriate sentence. The amount of each daily unit is based on the person's personal and financial circumstances. The two figures are multiplied to produce the amount payable. This system is governed by § 40 StGB.

Two simplified examples illustrate the difference: 60 daily units of 20 euros each amount to 1,200 euros. 120 daily units of 10 euros each also amount to 1,200 euros. Despite the identical total, only the first criminal fine falls within the ordinary threshold of 90 daily units. The second exceeds it substantially. Court costs or other additional payments do not change the number of daily units.

The statutory threshold includes exactly 90 daily units. Someone with just one such conviction therefore does not need to request an exception for exceeding the threshold on that basis alone. However, it remains necessary to examine, in particular, whether a relevant motive showing contempt for human dignity was established and whether there are other convictions that may be taken into account.

Two criminal fines must not each be assessed against the threshold in isolation. For example, 50 and 40 daily units together reach exactly 90. By contrast, 50 and 50 daily units total 100. In the second situation, automatic disregard under the ordinary threshold is unavailable, even though each individual sentence falls below it.

Where the threshold is exceeded only slightly, a case-by-case decision may be possible. This is a different legal stage from mandatory disregard up to the threshold. A detailed explanation with further examples is available under Multiple convictions, aggregate sentences and slightly exceeding the threshold.

Paying a criminal fine in full does not overturn the conviction. Payment by instalments likewise changes neither the original number of daily units nor the type of sanction. Proof of payment documents completion of enforcement but does not replace the penal order or judgment.

Where a criminal fine cannot be recovered, imprisonment in default of payment may be enforced. Under the current § 43 StGB, two daily units generally correspond to one day of imprisonment in default. This is a conversion for enforcement purposes. It must not be confused with the special rule for adding sentences together under the Nationality Act, which continues to equate one daily unit with one day of imprisonment when a criminal fine and a prison sentence coincide. § 43 StGB

The number of days actually spent in custody therefore cannot be used, without examination, to calculate a new, lower sentence for nationality-law purposes. What remains decisive is the sanction imposed by the final decision and the specific provision to be applied. Enforcement through imprisonment in default does not turn a criminal fine into an ordinary short suspended prison sentence within the meaning of the three-month rule.

Under § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 3 StAG, a prison sentence is generally disregarded only if it is no longer than three months, was suspended on probation and has been remitted after the probation period ended. These requirements apply together. Exactly three months is still within the threshold.

A two-month prison sentence that must actually be served therefore does not qualify for the ordinary exception merely because it is short. Conversely, a six-month suspended sentence is not disregarded simply because the person did not have to go to prison. Suspension on probation does not change the length of the sentence set in the judgment.

Probation offers the opportunity not to serve a prison sentence, subject to the statutory conditions. The conviction nevertheless remains. Once the probation period has ended, the sentence is remitted if the suspension is not revoked. The relevant remission is governed by § 56g StGB.

Alongside the passage of time, we examine whether the other conditions relevant to naturalisation have been met. The expiry of a period and a court order remitting the sentence are different forms of evidence. If the order is missing, we establish whether remission has taken place, is still being considered or remains unresolved because of other proceedings. Fulfilment of a probation condition does not automatically replace final remission of the sentence either.

Until all the requirements of the exception are met, there is no entitlement to have the prison sentence disregarded under this rule. We assess in light of the specific situation whether naturalisation proceedings are deferred until remission or a decision is made on the application. If new criminal investigations arise, the statutory suspension under § 12a paragraph 3 StAG also applies.

Classification under the Youth Courts Act generally depends on age at the time of the offence. Under § 1 JGG, juveniles are at least 14 but under 18; young adults are at least 18 but under 21. Whether juvenile criminal law was applied to a young adult must be determined from the particular decision. Their age when they later apply for naturalisation does not change the type of sanction imposed at the time. § 1 JGG

These age limits serve a different purpose from the general capacity to act independently in naturalisation proceedings from the age of 16. An applicant who is now an adult may submit an earlier juvenile court decision; a sixteen-year-old who already has independent procedural capacity remains a juvenile under criminal law. The right to submit a naturalisation application independently therefore does not mean that adult criminal law applies.

Juvenile courts can respond to an offence with measures that are not youth custodial sentences. Educational measures include, in particular, directions and certain forms of educational assistance. Disciplinary measures comprise warnings, conditions and short-term youth detention. § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 1 StAG generally requires these legal consequences to be disregarded.

A community service requirement is therefore not converted into daily units. Short-term youth detention is likewise not a youth custodial sentence, despite involving deprivation of liberty. What matters is the statutory classification of the measure ordered, not its everyday description as custody or punishment. The different instruments are set out in §§ 9 to 18 JGG.

Where several legal consequences are imposed together, we examine each one and their combined effect. A judgment may, for example, contain not only an educational direction but also a youth custodial sentence. Favourable treatment of one measure does not then remove the significance of the other. We therefore examine the full operative part of the decision.

A youth custodial sentence is a deprivation of liberty under the Youth Courts Act. Its statutory minimum is six months. It therefore already exceeds the three-month threshold in § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 3 StAG. The mere application of juvenile criminal law consequently does not create a general exception for youth custodial sentences.

A six-month suspended youth custodial sentence must not be equated with an educational measure that is disregarded either. Its educational purpose does not change the type of sanction ordered. The former special favourable treatment of certain youth custodial sentences of up to one year is not part of today's § 12a. Old information about the removal of the stigma of a conviction must therefore not be understood, without examination, as a promise concerning a current naturalisation application.

For naturalisation, the precise decision is therefore particularly important for young adults. Age and the court with jurisdiction do not, on their own, reveal which sanction was applied. Someone who knows only that the case was heard by a juvenile court needs the judgment before the effects can be assessed reliably.

Suspension of the imposition of a youth custodial sentence under § 27 JGG is a particular type of decision. It does not simply suspend an already determined youth custodial sentence on probation. § 12a paragraph 3 StAG expressly provides that the naturalisation decision must also be suspended in this situation. The subsequent outcome must therefore be awaited and documented.

This must be distinguished from the removal of the stigma of conviction following a youth custodial sentence. That improves its treatment under register law but does not automatically create a substantive prohibition on using it in the naturalisation process. A youth custodial sentence lawfully known to the authority may remain relevant until the applicable expungement or eligibility for expungement.

We compare any statement that the youth court has cleared everything with the precise order. It may refer to different legal processes with different consequences. An actual prohibition on use must be respected, but must not be equated with every favourable change under register law.

The usual thresholds do not apply where a person has been sentenced to a criminal fine, a prison sentence or a youth custodial sentence for an unlawful antisemitic or racist act, or one otherwise showing contempt for human dignity, and the corresponding motive has been established in the judgment. Even a small criminal fine can then prevent naturalisation.

The statutory exception to the exemption relates to the specified sentences. A purely educational or disciplinary measure does not become a youth custodial sentence merely through an evaluative description. At the same time, the underlying conduct may independently affect other naturalisation requirements. The different assessments must be kept clearly separate.

The article on antisemitic, racist and other motives showing contempt for human dignity explains what findings about motive are necessary and how the public prosecution office is involved. The statement that everything below 90 daily units is unproblematic would therefore be just as wrong as the blanket assumption that every minor conviction prevents naturalisation.

The thresholds explained here concern, in particular, regular naturalisation under §§ 8 to 10 StAG. The law contains separate rules for certain other routes to citizenship. For example, § 15 StAG refers to a different criminal-law threshold for naturalisation as reparation and expressly excludes the application of § 12a paragraph 1. Before the calculation, we therefore identify the provision governing your acquisition of citizenship. A threshold from a different procedure cannot be applied merely because the personal circumstances are similar.

For a criminal fine, the information needed includes, in particular, the number and amount of the daily units and whether the decision is final. For prison sentences, the decision suspending the sentence and the remission order are also required. In juvenile proceedings, the exact type of sanction must be identifiable. Further convictions and limitations under register law must also be included.

We work from the complete documents rather than replacing them with our own summaries. Proof of payment, for example, often contains insufficient information about the motive for the offence; a probation certificate may say nothing about other criminal fines. If a document is missing, it is possible to identify precisely which copy or confirmation is needed.

Only after this overview has been assembled can it be assessed whether a decision must be disregarded, whether a slight excess over the threshold needs to be examined or whether another obstacle exists. For the classification of unusual decisions, see Which criminal-law decisions are taken into account?. The distinction explained there between a sentence, a measure and discontinuance remains important even when all amounts have already been paid.