Antisemitic, racist and other motives showing contempt for human dignity

A small criminal fine is not always harmless for naturalisation. If an offence was committed from antisemitic, racist or other motives showing contempt for human dignity, and the criminal court established that motive, the usual minor-offence thresholds do not apply. Alongside the severity of the sentence, the reasons for the judgment therefore matter to the legal assessment. A distinction must also be made between a criminal conviction and the independent requirements concerning commitment to the constitution.

For naturalisation as of right, § 10 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 5 StAG generally requires the absence of criminal convictions. § 12a paragraph 1 relaxes this requirement: certain juvenile court measures, criminal fines of up to 90 daily units and, subject to additional requirements, short prison sentences are disregarded. This relaxation is intended to prevent every minor criminal offence from excluding naturalisation.

A hypothetical example illustrates the distinction: a single conviction of 30 daily units for insult may be disregarded under the general rules. If, however, the court finds that the insult was racially motivated, the low number of daily units cannot justify treating it as harmless. The naturalisation authority must take the particular statutory rule into account. What is decisive is the motive established by the court, not merely the description “insult”.

Paying the criminal fine does not remove this obstacle either. Payment enforces the sentence; it does not make the conviction disappear from the register or from the legal assessment. The article on criminal fines, prison sentences and minor-offence thresholds explains the general thresholds and the additional requirements for prison sentences in detail.

The wording of § 12a requires the relevant motive to have been established in the judgment. A criminal complaint, a police assessment or an allegation by the public prosecution office is not equivalent to this. They may prompt further examination, but do not replace the judicial finding required by law.

The judgment does not have to state expressly that naturalisation will subsequently be excluded. The nationality authority assesses that legal consequence. What matters is whether the court's findings reveal the relevant motive. The decision must therefore be read as a whole: findings of fact, assessment of the evidence and sentencing reasons can together show which motivation the court relied on.

Conversely, the authority must not simply fill a gap with its own assumption. If the indictment contains a corresponding allegation but the judgment does not adopt it, this difference must be respected. The same applies where a court expressly does not confirm certain allegations or the conviction concerns only a different part of the events.

Where there are several motives, we assess their legal significance; personal anger or another conflict does not automatically exclude a relevant motive. A motive showing contempt for human dignity does not automatically lose its significance because additional reasons were present. The assessment must establish which motivation the court actually found to be connected to the offence. A political belief mentioned merely in passing must be distinguished from an established motive for the particular offence. A later blanket explanation cannot replace the findings in the judgment.

§ 32b StAG requires a special enquiry for a list of criminal offences. It concerns final convictions that would otherwise be disregarded under the general minor-offence rules. These include certain offences involving expression, assault, threatening behaviour and criminal damage, among others. The authority asks the responsible public prosecution office whether corresponding motives were established in the judgment. The public prosecution office must respond without delay.

The enquiry is not itself a finding of a disqualifying motive. Its very purpose is to clarify this question. On receiving such notification, we first establish which conviction is meant and which documents the authority holds. The mere fact that an enquiry is being made does not yet mean that the application will be refused.

Nor does the list in § 32b limit the substantive scope of § 12a. It governs the offences for which the special enquiry is mandatory. Corresponding motives may also be relevant to other offences. If there are specific indications, further investigation of the facts may be necessary; the general rules on data exchange between authorities remain applicable.

If the prosecutor’s information is unclear or you consider it inconsistent with the decision, we start with the complete judgment documents. Explaining a specific passage and its meaning is more helpful than making a general claim that the sentence was, after all, minor. The low sentence does not answer the question of motive.

The special enquiry under § 32b StAG was introduced with the 2024 reform. This does not mean that motives showing contempt for human dignity had always been harmless before: the exception to the exemption in § 12a already existed. The new procedural rule is intended to ensure its reliable application. For an application made today, the current substantive requirements and the present duty to investigate must therefore be considered together.

Older texts expressly refer to xenophobic motives alongside racist motives. According to the application guidance, removing this additional word in the reform was not intended to relax the substance of the rule; the guidance explains that the term is included within racist motives. An older judgment therefore does not become irrelevant merely because it uses an earlier statutory expression. The established facts and their classification under today's law remain decisive. AH-StAG 2025, number 12a.1.2

A penal order must not be overlooked because no trial took place. Under § 410 paragraph 3 StPO, a penal order against which no objection was lodged in time has the same effect as a final judgment. When assessing motive, its content and the legally relevant findings must be examined carefully. The absence of detailed reasons for a judgment justifies neither automatically giving the all-clear nor freely adding a finding about motive.

As long as the criminal proceedings are ongoing, § 12a paragraph 3 StAG will normally be the first relevant provision. The decision on naturalisation is generally suspended until the proceedings have concluded or, in the event of a conviction, until it becomes final. The naturalisation authority should not anticipate the criminal court's outcome. A judgment that can still be challenged and a final conviction must therefore be distinguished.

Under juvenile criminal law, the type of sanction also matters. Educational and disciplinary measures are not youth custodial sentences. The particular exception in § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 2 requires a conviction imposing a criminal fine, a prison sentence or a youth custodial sentence. Someone who has received a direction from a juvenile court, for example, must therefore not automatically be treated in the same way as a person on whom a youth custodial sentence was imposed. Independent constitutional grounds for exclusion may nevertheless need to be examined.

The criminal-law assessment does not answer every question. § 10 paragraph 1 StAG expressly makes clear that acts motivated by contempt for human dignity conflict with the guarantee of human dignity and the free democratic basic order. There are also the declaration of commitment to Germany's special historical responsibility and the grounds for exclusion under § 11 StAG.

The absence of a relevant conviction therefore does not automatically mean that all constitution-related requirements are met. Conduct may be significant under these provisions even where § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 2 does not apply because there is no conviction. Conversely, the authority must not conflate the different statutory requirements. For every adverse decision, the facts required under the relevant provision and the appropriate legal standard must be identified.

A general assumption based on origin, religion or nationality does not replace this individual assessment. Context must also be considered when examining statements. The naturalisation authority must assess specific acts and declarations; membership of a population group is not a criminal-law finding about motive.

The overview of commitment to the constitution and grounds for exclusion explains how the constitutional declaration, historical responsibility and possible grounds for exclusion relate to one another. It also shows why a signature alone does not resolve every substantive question.

An apology, compensation for damage or a visible change may be significant personally and legally. However, they do not retrospectively undo a motive for an offence established by a court. § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 2 contains no general power to reapply the minor-offence threshold because of positive later development. Where independent grounds for exclusion are involved, questions of credibly distancing oneself may become relevant separately; that is a different stage of the assessment.

Nor does a longer interval since the offence automatically remove a conviction that may still be used. The expungement rules under register law are particularly important. Under § 51 BZRG, a conviction that has been expunged or is due for expungement, and the underlying offence, generally may no longer be used to the person's detriment. Statutory exceptions, for example on compelling grounds of state security, must be examined separately.

The obstacle must therefore be described neither as having no consequences nor categorically as lifelong. A reliable assessment requires the judgment, the register status and a correct calculation of the relevant periods. The article on certificates of conduct, the Federal Central Criminal Register and expungement explains the details. A clear certificate of conduct alone is not sufficient for this assessment.

For the review, we compile the complete criminal decision, information on its finality and any subsequent court decisions. For a criminal fine, the number of daily units is decisive; a payment receipt alone explains neither the motive for the offence nor the content of the conviction. For foreign-language decisions, a legal classification and an appropriate translation are also needed.

The parent article on criminal-law decisions taken into account places this particular assessment of motive within the other requirements. It is especially helpful where there are also further convictions, measures of rehabilitation and prevention or proceedings that have not yet concluded.