Ongoing criminal proceedings can temporarily hold up naturalisation even where there has not yet been a conviction. This does not mean that the naturalisation authority already considers the accused guilty. In principle, it must wait for the outcome of the criminal proceedings. What matters is the precise stage of the proceedings, the way in which they may be concluded and whether they can have any relevance to naturalisation at all. Clarifying the details is therefore more useful than a general statement that there are “problems with the police”.
Why even an investigation can prevent a decision
§ 12a paragraph 3 StAG provides for the naturalisation decision to be suspended if the applicant is under investigation on suspicion of a criminal offence. Where there is a conviction, the waiting period generally continues until it becomes final. The provision aims to ensure that a potentially relevant criminal decision is not established only after naturalisation.
The presumption of innocence continues to apply. Suspicion is not a finding of guilt, and suspension is not a criminal sanction. The naturalisation authority is specifically not required to decide for itself in advance whether the offence was committed. It awaits the proceedings provided for that purpose before making a final assessment of the criminal-law requirement for naturalisation.
If other obstacles exist independently of the criminal proceedings, they must be assessed separately. Failure to meet a requirement is not remedied by the existence of criminal proceedings as well. Conversely, an unresolved suspicion of an offence must not automatically be treated as an established conviction that prevents naturalisation.
When an investigation exists
Accused, witness or victim?
We first clarify your role in the proceedings. Being questioned as a witness or having reported an offence yourself does not in itself make you an accused person. Nor does a police reference number alone prove that criminal proceedings are being conducted against you. If correspondence is unclear, we first establish the capacity in which you are involved.
A criminal investigation may begin as soon as the police take specific investigative measures against a suspected person. Charges do not already have to have been brought, nor does a court hearing have to have been scheduled. Equally, suspension does not require the applicant to admit the allegation. What matters is whether proceedings are actually being conducted against them.
The word “report” initially describes only a communication to the prosecution authorities. For naturalisation, it must be clarified whether it has led to an investigation against the person concerned and whether that investigation is still ongoing. If the discussion concerns only potential future dangers, without an investigation into an offence already suspected of having been committed, that does not automatically meet the same conditions.
Distinguishing criminal offences from administrative offences
Proceedings solely concerning a fine for an administrative offence do not fall within the criminal-law suspension rule. An ordinary warning fine or administrative fine for a traffic violation must therefore not simply be treated like an investigation into a criminal offence. Allegations such as drink-driving or driving without a driving licence may be different.
The fact that a matter has a financial aspect is not decisive either. A demand for repayment of social benefits is initially a matter of administrative law. Any investigation into fraud initiated alongside it is a separate criminal matter. The authority needs to know what actually happened and how it is legally classified, rather than relying solely on terms such as “repayment” or “penalty”.
How long suspension lasts
The law does not specify a standard waiting period of a few weeks or months. The decisive point is the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. If charges are brought, the proceedings do not end simply because the investigation file is now with the court. The duty to wait generally also covers the intermediate stage and the trial.
Where there is a conviction, it is generally necessary to wait until it becomes final. As long as an appeal can still change the judgment, its eventual significance for naturalisation may also remain unresolved. A judgment, a penal order, an appeal lodged and a final decision therefore describe different stages of proceedings.
A penal order can become final without a trial. Under § 410 StPO, the time limit for an objection is generally two weeks after service. If no objection is lodged in time, the penal order has the same effect as a final judgment. The sanction imposed must then be examined for the further naturalisation application; the matter is not harmless simply because no court hearing took place.
Withdrawing a report of an offence does not automatically end proceedings either. Whether the investigation continues depends on criminal procedural law and the type of offence. A private agreement or a statement by the person who reported the offence is therefore no substitute for a notification from the authority or court confirming that the proceedings have actually ended.
What different forms of discontinuance mean
Discontinuance without a conviction
If proceedings are discontinued for lack of sufficient grounds for suspicion under § 170 paragraph 2 StPO, there is no conviction. The same applies to other final forms of discontinuance without a finding of guilt. The relevant notification is important for the naturalisation authority so that it can see that the previous procedural obstacle has ceased to exist.
Not every discontinuance has the same basis in criminal procedure. Discontinuance on grounds of the minor nature of the offence is different from an acquittal. For the requirement of not having been sentenced to a disqualifying penalty, however, the key point is that discontinuance does not constitute such a conviction. Other statutory requirements, such as grounds for exclusion relating to the constitutional order, remain subject to separate assessment.
Provisional discontinuance subject to conditions
Misunderstandings arise particularly often in connection with § 153a StPO. Under this provision, proceedings may initially be discontinued provisionally, subject to conditions or instructions. A payment, community service or another obligation still has to be fulfilled. While that step remains outstanding, the initial notice of discontinuance must not be confused with final closure.
Only once the relevant conditions have been fulfilled and the conclusion of the proceedings is correspondingly established can this be relied on to resume the naturalisation procedure. Evidence of compliance and, where possible, confirmation from the public prosecutor's office or the court are useful for this purpose. A bank transfer alone does not always establish whether all conditions were fulfilled completely and on time.
A payment made as a condition of discontinuance is not a criminal fine calculated in daily units. It must therefore not simply be included when adding together criminal convictions. The legal basis of the payment is decisive. Costs or compensation can also impose a financial burden without constituting a criminal conviction.
Provisional discontinuance for other reasons
Proceedings may also be provisionally suspended, for example because an obstacle prevents them from being conducted. Such a decision does not finally resolve the allegation. The word “discontinued” must therefore be read together with the legal basis and the full text of the decision. An up-to-date confirmation of the status is particularly helpful for older or foreign proceedings.
The special position under juvenile criminal law
§ 12a paragraph 3 sentence 2 StAG expressly mentions deferral of the decision to impose a youth custodial sentence under § 27 JGG. In this situation, guilt is established, but the decision on whether to impose a youth custodial sentence is initially deferred, subject to the statutory requirements. This is not the same as a custodial sentence that has already been imposed but whose enforcement is suspended on probation.
For naturalisation, the subsequent outcome in the juvenile court must be awaited and correctly classified. Youth custodial sentences, educational measures and disciplinary measures have different consequences. Where discontinuance depends on educational measures or instructions, it must likewise be clarified whether the conditions for final closure have already been met.
Simply stating that the matter involved “juvenile criminal law” or “only probation” is therefore insufficient. The precise decision is needed. The different sanctions and their thresholds are explained in the article on criminal fines, custodial sentences and juvenile criminal law.
A final judgment does not resolve every question about waiting
If a short custodial sentence suspended on probation becomes final, the wait for the outcome of the criminal proceedings ends. However, this does not yet mean that all the requirements of the minor-offence rule for naturalisation are met. For a custodial sentence of up to three months, § 12a paragraph 1 additionally requires remission of the sentence after the probation period has expired. Further waiting then has a different basis from suspension because of an unresolved allegation. This distinction helps when making a targeted status enquiry: is confirmation that the decision is final missing, is the probation period still running, or is only the remission order outstanding?
Can proceedings that are clearly harmless be exempted?
The statutory starting point is the duty to wait. Your own expectation of a low sentence does not in itself remove that duty. During an investigation, the allegation, the extent of the events or the legal assessment may change. Other convictions and particular motives for the offence must also be taken into account before a sanction can be classified as certainly harmless.
An exception may be possible in narrowly defined circumstances where it is certain that the potential outcome could not be taken into account. This must be established on the basis of the specific legal and factual situation. Without a reliable basis, the statement “It will be no more than a small fine” is not sufficient.
For foreign proceedings, it is particularly important to examine whether the underlying conduct would be punishable in Germany at all. If the proceedings cannot, from the outset, result in a conviction that may be taken into account, this may weigh against suspension. However, uncertainty on that point is not automatically to be resolved in favour of immediate naturalisation.
Foreign investigations and current case law
Investigations and criminal proceedings pending abroad must also be disclosed in the application under § 12a paragraph 4 StAG. Any potential subsequent conviction is subject to the additional requirements of paragraph 2: criminal liability under German law, proceedings that comply with the rule of law and a proportionate sanction. These standards also matter when considering whether the unresolved matter may continue to hold up the decision.
If suspension is to be dispensed with because a possible subsequent conviction would have to be disregarded, that conclusion must be certain. The naturalisation applicant remains required to cooperate to a reasonable extent. Significant unresolved facts may operate to their disadvantage.
The article on convictions abroad provides a detailed assessment of foreign judgments. Open proceedings must neither be equated with a completed conviction nor treated as irrelevant without examination.
What is useful during the waiting period
In our notification to the naturalisation authority, we identify the known file reference, responsible prosecuting body and current procedural status. It does not have to contain an unexamined admission of guilt. Exercising rights of defence under criminal procedure and providing accurate information about the existence of proceedings are different matters.
Once a final decision is available, we submit it with a clear link to the relevant case. It is important that the authority can match the conclusion to the correct matter. For a conviction, proof that it is final and the full decision are helpful; for § 153a StPO, confirmation that the conditions have been fulfilled and the matter finally concluded is useful.
During the waiting period, we also check which other documents need updating. These may include income evidence, residence titles and information about family circumstances. The end of criminal proceedings therefore does not automatically result in naturalisation on the same day. Initially, it removes the specific reason for which the decision was suspended.
If you receive benefits or lose your job while waiting, we assess subsistence separately. Since 1 July 2026, the SGB II benefit has been called “Grundsicherungsgeld”; authorities may continue to use “Bürgergeld” until the end of 2026. For § 10 StAG, the decisive factor remains the statutory reference to benefits under SGB II and SGB XII. The change of name does not alter the criminal-law suspension rule. The current wording and transitional provisions are contained in the Federal Employment Agency's official collection of SGB II legislation.
How we seek a decision after criminal proceedings end
We first establish whether the authority has received confirmation that the case has ended and what information it still needs. A targeted status enquiry can identify the specific reason for suspension and ask the authority to check whether it has ceased to apply. This is more informative than an enquiry referring only to the total processing time so far.
An action for failure to act does not remove a lawfully existing criminal-law obstacle. The usual three-month period in § 75 VwGO is a procedural requirement for bringing proceedings, not a deadline after which open criminal proceedings become irrelevant. If there is sufficient reason for the absence of a decision, the administrative court may also suspend its proceedings and set a time limit. This judicial suspension must be distinguished from the naturalisation authority's duty to wait under § 12a paragraph 3 StAG. § 75 VwGO
Conversely, criminal proceedings that ended long ago do not justify unlimited further delay on the same pretext. Judicial review therefore depends substantially on whether the alleged reason for suspension still exists and what effect it has on the decision.
After a final conviction, we assess the minor-offence threshold, aggregation, particular motives and possible deletion. If proceedings end without a conviction, this aspect of the assessment generally falls away. The other naturalisation requirements must still be met in both cases. This makes it possible to determine whether the next step is a request to resume processing, the submission of further evidence or addressing a specific legal obstacle.
The overview of criminal offences and ongoing investigations connects these procedural questions with the assessment of decisions that have already been concluded.