Multiple convictions, aggregate sentences and slightly exceeding the threshold

Several minor sentences can together create an obstacle to naturalisation. The statutory minor-offence threshold is generally not applied separately to each judgment. Instead, criminal fines and prison sentences that may be taken into account are added together, unless a lower aggregate sentence imposed by a court is decisive. If the result is only slightly above the threshold, a case-by-case decision may be possible. The figures must be examined first, followed by the personal circumstances. Good integration does not retrospectively change the severity of the sentences imposed.

Before adding sentences together, it must be established which sanctions may be taken into account. Criminal fines and prison sentences must be distinguished from administrative fines, discontinuance subject to conditions, and educational and disciplinary measures. A payment to a charitable organisation, for example, may be a condition attached to discontinuance of proceedings, in which case it is not a criminal fine expressed in daily units.

Prohibitions on use must also be clarified beforehand. Convictions that have been expunged or are eligible for expungement generally may no longer be used to the person's detriment. However, the fact that a decision is old or does not appear in a private certificate of conduct is not enough. The precise position under register law is decisive.

Decisions must also be available in their final form. A later judgment may change an earlier sentence; an aggregate sentence order may combine individual sentences. Adding arbitrary figures from different stages of the files can therefore produce an incorrect result. Which criminal-law decisions are taken into account? explains the basic classification.

§ 12a paragraph 1 sentence 3 StAG provides that multiple criminal fines or prison sentences within the meaning of the minor-offence rule referred to there must be added together unless a lower aggregate sentence is formed. Adding them together is not a matter of unfettered discretion. The authority must not omit an earlier sentence merely because the most recent decision, considered on its own, imposes a low sentence. § 12a StAG

The threshold for criminal fines is generally 90 daily units. Two convictions of 40 and 50 daily units that may still be used total 90. The amount therefore remains within the ordinary threshold. This still requires that there is no particular exception to the exemption because of motives showing contempt for human dignity, or any other independent ground for exclusion.

Two convictions of 60 and 50 daily units, by contrast, total 110. The fact that each is below 90 on its own does not mean that the total can be disregarded. In this situation, a further assessment of whether the threshold has been exceeded only slightly is necessary. The two outcomes must therefore not be reduced to the general statement that each individual sentence is small enough.

The calculation does not start afresh with every naturalisation application. Nor is adding sentences together ruled out because the offences were committed in different cities or a considerable time apart. What matters is whether the respective convictions may still be taken into account at the relevant time.

A sentence imposed before the start of the residence period required for naturalisation is therefore not automatically irrelevant. Length of residence and the absence of criminal convictions are different requirements. The Nationality Act contains no general rule restricting the criminal-law assessment to the last five years.

Equally, an unsuccessful earlier application does not erase the criminal history. When a new application is made, the current position must be examined again. It may have changed because of expungement, amended decisions or new convictions. What matters is this actual change, not merely the allocation of a new administrative case reference number.

An aggregate sentence is formed by a criminal court under criminal-law rules. It is not merely another term for adding all the individual sentences together. Under § 54 StGB, an appropriate aggregate sentence is determined starting from the highest individual sentence and generally remaining below the sum of the individual sentences. The person and the individual offences are considered together in this assessment. § 54 StGB

This can be significant for naturalisation. For example, if individual sentences of 40 and 40 daily units are combined by a final court decision into an aggregate criminal fine of 60 daily units, the aggregate sentence is decisive for the offences included in it. The old individual sentences must not also be added, thereby counting the same matter twice.

The position is different for a further conviction that was not included in the aggregate sentence. If the aggregate sentence of 60 daily units is joined by a further 40 daily units, the total for nationality-law purposes is generally 100. The aggregate sentence order must therefore make clear which earlier decisions it actually covers.

Even after convictions have become final, an aggregate sentence may be formed retrospectively where the requirements of § 55 StGB are met. In particular, the chronological order of the offences and decisions and the enforcement status matter. Not every sequence of convictions can subsequently be converted into a more favourable aggregate sentence. § 55 StGB

The naturalisation authority must not impose such an aggregate sentence itself. Nor can it merely estimate what sentence a court might have formed. Where a corresponding criminal court decision exists, it must be taken into account correctly. If there is none, the statutory rule on adding sentences together remains decisive, unless taking a sentence into account is excluded for other reasons.

A request to examine the formation of an aggregate sentence therefore belongs in the criminal-law context. Its prospects of success depend on the specific decisions. Merely hoping for a later reduction is not evidence that the naturalisation requirement has already been met.

Where a criminal fine and a prison sentence coincide, § 12a StAG contains its own conversion rule: one daily unit corresponds to one day of imprisonment. This rule enables different types of sentence to be assessed consistently. It changes neither the criminal judgment nor the amount of money actually payable.

A simplified example: a criminal fine of 40 daily units that may be taken into account coincides with a prison sentence of six weeks, or 42 days. The calculation produces 82 days. The example uses a prison sentence above the statutory minimum of one month under § 38 StGB. However, favourable treatment also requires the conditions of the prison-sentence rule to be met, in particular suspension on probation and remission after the probation period has ended. The conversion does not replace these conditions.

This must be distinguished from imprisonment in default of payment where a criminal fine cannot be recovered. § 43 StGB currently provides a different ratio for that purpose: two daily units correspond to one day of imprisonment in default. This enforcement-law standard must not be transferred to the calculation under the StAG. § 43 StGB

If a sentence or the sum of the sentences exceeds the statutory threshold only slightly, § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 4 StAG provides for a case-by-case decision. This involves two separate steps. First, the excess must be quantitatively slight. Only if this initial requirement is met is a decision made on whether the sentence can be disregarded despite exceeding the threshold.

This also makes clear why the provision does not allow a general balancing exercise for sentences of any severity. The legislature deliberately restricted the scope for discretion to small excesses. Only within this range can factors such as the context of the offence, developments since the offence and the prognosis for future conduct be meaningfully weighed.

The Federal Ministry of the Interior's application guidance identifies no more than 21 additional daily units or three additional weeks of imprisonment as a slight excess. For criminal fines, this gives an indicative range up to 111 daily units. This is an administrative clarification of the statutory concept, not a new statutory minor-offence threshold. AH-StAG 2025, number 12a.1.4

The distinction has a direct effect. At 90 daily units, statutory disregard may apply. At 100 or 110 daily units, a reasoned case-by-case decision is still required, even within the indicative range described. A statement that up to 111 daily units are always harmless would therefore be wrong.

It has not been conclusively determined for every conceivable intermediate figure whether it can still count as a slight excess. Exceeding the threshold by one third, however, is no longer slight. Anyone seeking to argue beyond the administrative guidance can therefore assume neither an automatic exception nor a threshold that can be extended without limit. The requirements of the individual case must be examined legally.

Where discretion is available, the focus is on the particular person and the course of events. Relevant factors may include the type of offence, particular circumstances in which it arose, conduct since the decision, identifiable risks of reoffending and demonstrable social development. The application guidance specifically mentions a favourable social prognosis and otherwise good integration.

We base the assessment on meaningful facts about your specific situation. A stable daily life, fulfilment of court-imposed obligations or a credible process of addressing the causes can support the account. General claims that the person has learnt from everything are less informative than concrete developments. At the same time, the authority must take both adverse and favourable circumstances into account according to their legal weight.

If the application is refused, we examine at which stage the authority finds the requirements unmet. If the authority already considers the excess not to be slight, the dispute concerns the initial statutory requirement. If, by contrast, it accepts that the excess is slight, it must exercise the discretion available and consider the relevant circumstances. Reasons that merely repeat the number above 90 do not answer this second question.

Courts fully review the concept of a slight excess. In reviewing the subsequent discretionary decision, they examine in particular whether the authority recognised its discretion, took the relevant facts into account and respected the statutory purpose. A duty to make a new decision is not yet an obligation to grant naturalisation. Actions to compel an administrative decision and review of discretion explains the differences.

The exception for low sentences does not help where § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 2 StAG applies because an antisemitic, racist or other motive showing contempt for human dignity was established in the judgment. In such cases, even a numerically small excess does not provide an ordinary route through the slight-excess rule.

Equally, a lower aggregate sentence does not automatically remove the legal significance of the motives established. Alongside the final total, the assessment must take the relevant findings into account. The article on motives showing contempt for human dignity covers the details. For prison sentences, the requirements concerning probation and remission also continue to apply; a favourable figure alone is not enough.

Where several convictions are recorded in the register, they can affect one another's expungement. § 47 paragraph 3 BZRG generally provides that an entry may be expunged only when the requirements are met for all registered convictions. A new minor sentence can therefore prevent an older, more substantial conviction from already ceasing to be taken into account. § 47 BZRG

The expungement question therefore requires a separate calculation before sentences are added together. It would be wrong to remove an older sentence solely because of its age. It would be equally wrong to continue adding a conviction that is actually eligible for expungement merely because an old copy of the file exists. § 51 BZRG generally protects against such detrimental use.

Nor can the removal of the stigma of a youth custodial sentence simply be equated with expungement. Certificates of conduct, the Federal Central Criminal Register, expungement and disclosure obligations explains which entries may still be used and which disclosure obligations apply.

We arrange all relevant judgments, penalty orders and aggregate-sentence orders chronologically for the review. For each decision, we record the type and severity of the sentence, its final status and any probation and remission. It must also be clear which individual sentences were absorbed into which aggregate sentence. This helps avoid counting the same matter more than once.