Naturalization Ban under § 35a StAG: Ten-Year Bar for Deception

Through the Act on the Determination of Safe Countries of Origin by Statutory Ordinance and on the Abolition of the Legal Representative in Deportation Custody and Departure Custody (Gesetz zur Bestimmung sicherer Herkunftsstaaten durch Rechtsverordnung und zur Abschaffung des anwaltlichen Vertreters bei Abschiebehaft und Ausreisegewahrsam; short: Sicherer-Herkunftsstaaten-Gesetz, Safe Countries of Origin Act) of 22 December 2025 — by way of its Article 3 (BGBl. 2025 I Nr. 364, issued 23 December 2025, in force 24 December 2025) — § 35a StAG was inserted as a new provision into the Nationality Act. The provision bars naturalization for ten years where the naturalization has been incontestably withdrawn under § 35 StAG, or where the competent authority determines, in the ongoing procedure, that an applicant has fraudulently deceived, threatened, or bribed — or has intentionally made incorrect or incomplete statements regarding material requirements. The correction of 27 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 49) clarified the intent standard: mere negligence does not suffice. The declaratory decision under no. 2 is immediately enforceable; an objection and an action have no suspensive effect. As of April 2026, administrative-court case law specific to § 35a does not yet exist.

§ 35a StAG contains a ten-year ban during which a fresh naturalization is excluded. The provision was inserted by Article 3 of the Safe Countries of Origin Act (official title: Gesetz zur Bestimmung sicherer Herkunftsstaaten durch Rechtsverordnung und zur Abschaffung des anwaltlichen Vertreters bei Abschiebehaft und Ausreisegewahrsam) of 22 December 2025 (BGBl. 2025 I Nr. 364, issued 23 December 2025) and entered into force on 24 December 2025. The Bundestag passed the act on 5 December 2025 (bill: Bundestag printed paper 21/780; the ban under § 35a StAG goes back to the recommendation for a decision of the Interior Committee, BT printed paper 21/3079). A correction in the Federal Law Gazette of 27 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 49) formulated the intent requirement more clearly (see Section 4).

The full wording of § 35a para. 1 StAG (version in force):

"Naturalization is barred for a period of ten years if

1. the naturalization has been incontestably withdrawn under § 35, or
2. the competent nationality authority determines in the naturalization procedure that an applicant, in order to procure a naturalization for themselves or for another, has fraudulently deceived, threatened, or bribed, or has intentionally made or used incorrect or incomplete statements regarding material requirements of the naturalization."

§ 35a para. 2 StAG adds: "The declaratory decision under number 2 is immediately enforceable; an objection and an action have no suspensive effect."

The provision is a sanction with a preventive thrust: anyone who obtains, or attempts to obtain, a naturalization by deception is to be barred from making a fresh application for a decade. The legislature introduced this consequence into the Nationality Act for the first time; comparable barring effects did not previously exist.

§ 35a para. 1 StAG recognizes two alternative triggers. Both lead to the same ten-year barring effect.

Route 1 — Incontestable Withdrawal under § 35 StAG (no. 1)

Where a naturalization that has already been granted is finally withdrawn, the ban begins automatically. Withdrawal under § 35 StAG presupposes that the naturalization was unlawful from the outset and was obtained by fraudulent deception, threat, bribery, or intentionally incorrect or incomplete statements (§ 35 para. 1 StAG). Under § 35 para. 3 StAG, withdrawal is possible only up to the expiry of ten years after the naturalization was announced; under § 35 para. 4 StAG it takes effect retroactively, so that, once the withdrawal notice becomes final, the person concerned is treated as never having been naturalized.

The ten-year ban under § 35a para. 1 no. 1 StAG attaches to the incontestability of the withdrawal notice — that is, to the moment at which the withdrawal can no longer be challenged by objection, action, or appeal to a higher administrative court.

Route 2 — Administrative Determination in the Ongoing Procedure (no. 2)

The second variant is novel: the competent naturalization authority determines in the ongoing application procedure that the applicant has, with respect to material requirements, fraudulently deceived, threatened, bribed, or intentionally made or used incorrect or incomplete statements. This determination is issued separately — typically together with the rejection of the naturalization application, but, where applicable, also in a self-standing notice.

The central difference from Route 1: a naturalization need not have come about. Even in the application procedure — that is, before the naturalization certificate is handed over — the ban can be triggered. Under § 35a para. 2 StAG the declaratory decision is immediately enforceable: an objection and an action have no suspensive effect. The barring effect therefore takes hold irrespective of whether the applicant lodges a legal remedy.

Start and End of the Period

The ten-year ban begins:

• for no. 1, with the incontestability of the withdrawal notice,
• for no. 2, with the announcement of the declaratory decision (finality is not required, since § 35a para. 2 StAG orders immediate enforceability).

During the period, all naturalization provisions are barred — naturalization by legal entitlement under § 10 StAG, spousal naturalization under § 9 StAG, discretionary naturalization under § 8 StAG, and naturalization of persons living abroad under §§ 13–15 StAG. After the ten years have elapsed, a fresh application can be made, provided the remaining requirements are met.

The original version of § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG (BGBl. 2025 I Nr. 364) contained a linguistic imprecision that was corrected in the correction of 27 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 49). The version in force requires, in plain terms, "intentionally incorrect or incomplete statements" — mere negligence, oversight, or translation errors in the application form are not sufficient to trigger the ban.

What Intent Means in the Statutory Elements

Intent is, in the general sense, the knowledge and volition of realizing the objective statutory elements. Applied to § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG, this means: the applicant must know that the statements made are incorrect or incomplete and must at least accept the incorrectness or incompleteness approvingly.

The interpretation of the concept of intent in a comparable context has been shaped several times by the Federal Administrative Court in relation to the sister provision § 35 StAG. In the BVerwG, judgment of 29 May 2018 — 1 C 15.17, the court identified the statutory elements "fraudulent deception" and "intentionally incomplete statements" as the legal basis of withdrawal; because of the identical wording, the interpretive standards are structurally transferable to § 35a no. 2 StAG — even though the BVerwG has not yet been able to develop its own case law on the new provision. In the BVerwG, judgment of 9 September 2014 — 1 C 10.14, the court took a position on identity deception: the deliberate concealment of one's own identity is regularly an intentionally incorrect statement regarding a material requirement.

Distinction from Negligence

In administrative practice the distinction is relevant, because many naturalization procedures involve constellations in which applicants may arrive at inaccurate statements without intent — for instance, because translations from the country of origin are not known, school or vocational certificates cannot be clearly assigned, or civil status documents show differences in spelling. Such constellations do not fall under § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG in the version in force. Anyone who flags the uncertainty of a data point in the self-declaration — for example, by a note "to the best of knowledge" or by enclosing supporting documents — documents the absence of the intent component. The administrative burden of proof for intent lies with the authority; where there is doubt, triggering the ban is ruled out.

§ 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG covers only statements regarding material requirements of the naturalization. What counts as material attaches to the substantive elements of the respective basis for entitlement. In the most frequent constellation — naturalization by legal entitlement under § 10 StAG — following the settled statutory elements and settled administrative practice, the following data points in particular are to be regarded as material:

• Identity and nationality — name, date of birth, place of birth, previous nationalities. Incorrect statements in this area have been classified as central several times in the BVerwG case law on § 35 StAG (cf. BVerwG 1 C 10.14 on identity deception).
• Periods of residence and residence titles — date of entry, type and duration of the residence title, any stays abroad exceeding six months.
• Proof of livelihood — income, assets, and social-benefit statements, insofar as they are relevant to the forecast under § 10 para. 1 no. 3 StAG.
• Prior convictions and criminal proceedings — convictions above the de minimis threshold under § 12a StAG, ongoing investigative or criminal proceedings.
• Commitment and declaration of allegiance — incorrect statements about extremist connections, antisemitic, racist, or anti-human activities.
• Language and test certificates — forged certificates or certificates obtained through another person's identity.

Not "material", by contrast, are typical ancillary data: telephone number, differing maternity/paternity details recorded in old identity documents, minor divergences in address details over time. A blanket list is not possible; in a dispute, the connection to the specific entitlement provision decides.

The case law issued on the sister provision § 35 StAG — for example, BVerwG, judgment of 19 April 2011 — 1 C 2.10 on the consequences of withdrawal, or BVerwG, judgment of 11 November 2010 — 5 C 12.10 on proportionality — can be drawn upon in interpreting the "materiality" element. Case law specific to § 35a is still outstanding.

§ 35a para. 2 StAG expressly orders: "The declaratory decision under number 2 is immediately enforceable; an objection and an action have no suspensive effect." The provision thereby displaces the regular suspensive effect of § 80 para. 1 VwGO. What does this mean within the procedural framework?

Suspensive Effect as the Administrative-Law Standard

Under § 80 para. 1 VwGO (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, Code of Administrative Court Procedure), an objection and an action for annulment against an administrative act have suspensive effect. The authority may not enforce the notice until the decision on the legal remedy has been made. This suspensive effect is an expression of the rule-of-law requirement of effective legal protection (Art. 19 para. 4 GG). § 80 para. 2 VwGO lists exceptions — no. 3 covers statutorily ordered immediate enforcement, which § 35a para. 2 StAG takes up.

Consequence for the Ban

Where the declaratory decision under § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG is issued, the ban takes effect immediately — even if the person concerned lodges an objection or an action. A fresh naturalization is excluded during the legal-remedy proceedings, irrespective of the prospects of success of the remedy.

Interim Legal Protection under § 80 para. 5 VwGO

In terms of administrative procedural law, in such constellations the application for an order of suspensive effect under § 80 para. 5 VwGO is available. On application, the administrative court can decide that the suspensive effect of the objection or of the action be ordered, where the applicant's interest in a stay outweighs the authority's interest in enforcement. The precise assessment in the individual case — prospects of success in the main proceedings, gravity of the alleged act, proportionality of the barring effect — belongs in the hands of lawyers admitted to the bar. This article describes the institution in descriptive terms and gives no recommendation as to whether it should be brought in a concrete case.

Note (RDG compliance, prominent before Section 6). The following sections describe procedural courses and legal remedies purely descriptively. A concrete recommendation as to whether an objection, an action, or an application for interim relief should be brought in the individual case is expressly a matter for lawyers admitted to the bar. civitas. is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Where the text points to procedural steps, this is done solely to inform about the institutional options.

§ 35 StAG (withdrawal of an unlawful naturalization) and § 35a StAG (the ban) operate on two overlapping levels.

§ 35 StAG — Withdrawal of Existing Naturalizations

§ 35 StAG enables the authority to withdraw a naturalization that was obtained by fraudulent deception, threat, bribery, or intentionally incorrect or incomplete statements. Under § 35 para. 3 StAG, withdrawal is possible only up to the expiry of ten years after the naturalization was announced — older sets of facts are time-barred by operation of law. Once the withdrawal becomes final, under § 35 para. 4 StAG the person is treated retroactively as not naturalized.

Double Consequence after Withdrawal

Where a naturalization is incontestably withdrawn under § 35 StAG, the ten-year ban under § 35a para. 1 no. 1 StAG takes hold automatically. The person concerned is thereby doubly affected:

• retroactively treated as not naturalized (§ 35 para. 4 StAG),
• prospectively barred from a fresh naturalization for ten years (§ 35a para. 1 no. 1 StAG).

Independent Ban under No. 2

No. 2 operates independently of this: even in the ongoing procedure — that is, before any naturalization — the authority can trigger the barring effect where the statutory elements are met. Anyone who was never naturalized can nonetheless fall within the ban.

Proportionality Questions

The case law issued on withdrawal under § 35 StAG — notably BVerwG, judgment of 11 November 2010 — 5 C 12.10 on the proportionality of fraudulently obtained naturalizations — discusses the circumstances under which withdrawal under § 35 StAG is proportionate. This discussion could carry over to the ban under § 35a, because a comparable sanction effect is at issue there. Whether the administrative courts will apply the § 35 proportionality standards one-to-one to § 35a remains reserved for the further development of the case law.

The passage of § 35a StAG was part of the Safe Countries of Origin Act of 22 December 2025 (issued 23 December 2025). The parliamentary process is documented in the Bundestag press text for calendar week 49/2025; the act was passed with the votes of the governing majority, with criticism from the opposition parliamentary groups.

In the Bundesrat the act passed without objection; it was executed on 22 December 2025 and issued in the Federal Law Gazette on 23 December 2025. The correction of 27 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 49) clarified the intent requirement in para. 1 no. 2 in linguistic terms — an indication that the original version was perceived as not sufficiently clear in its statutory elements.

A pending constitutional complaint against § 35a StAG is, as of April 2026, not publicly recorded; a search of the decision and case records of the Federal Constitutional Court yields no corresponding hits. Should this situation change, the focus of the submission would foreseeably be the compatibility with Art. 16 para. 1 GG (protection against deprivation of nationality) as well as Art. 19 para. 4 GG (grant of effective legal protection — in view of the statutorily ordered immediate enforceability). An independent substantive assessment of this question does not belong within the scope of this article.

The first administrative-court decision on the merits concerning § 35a StAG has, as of April 2026, not yet been handed down. Initial factual decisions are expected over the course of 2026, once the authorities have issued the first ban notices and legal remedies become pending. This article will be updated within the framework of the monthly review of sources.

The most effective "avoidance strategy" against a ban is a complete and factually correct application. The following points summarize — without any advisory character — the state of administrative practice.

Careful Identity Clarification

According to the BVerwG case law issued on the sister provision § 35 StAG (for example BVerwG 1 C 10.14), identity deception is a central sanction element. Anyone who submits passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate, and, where applicable, further civil status documents in the form currently available to them, and actively flags ambiguities — for example, differing spellings between various documents — documents the absence of an intention to conceal.

Completeness Regarding Criminal Proceedings

On the question of prior convictions or pending proceedings, a complete self-declaration is required. The authority regularly obtains an unrestricted disclosure from the Federal Central Register as well as an ECRIS query; divergent self-declarations thereby stand out. The de minimis threshold of § 12a StAG (90 daily rates, three months on probation, educational measures) applies to naturalization by legal entitlement — self-declarations regarding penalties below this threshold are nonetheless to be made transparently.

Consistency of Residence Details

Periods of residence, stays abroad exceeding six months, and changes of domestic residence are cross-checked via the Central Register of Foreigners (Ausländerzentralregister, AZR), the registration register, and the residence-title file. Discrepancies lead to additional requests. A chronological compilation of the residence biography prepared in advance reduces the risk of contradictory statements in individual application fields.

Language and Test Certificates

Language certificates from examination centers recognized in Germany (Goethe-Institut, telc, ÖSD) and test certificates from a BAMF-approved test center are known to the authority. Forged certificates or certificates obtained through another person's identity are a classic intent element and are covered by § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG.

Proof of Livelihood

Self-declarations regarding income, assets, and social benefits must be consistent with the notices from the Jobcenter / social welfare office as well as with the tax assessments. In the case of fluctuating or atypical income situations — self-employment, top-up benefit recipients (Aufstocker), maternity-protection periods — an explanatory annex is advisable.

"To the Best of Knowledge" Commitment

Where a data point cannot be clarified unambiguously (for instance because original documents cannot be obtained), the self-declaration can be provided with a corresponding note. The written flagging "to the best of knowledge from the available documents" or similar documents the absence of the intent component; it does not replace the substantive duty, but it reduces the authority's doubts about the sincerity of the self-declaration.

A complete preliminary plausibility review of the documents — through a structured self-check tool chain such as civitas. or through a law firm admitted to the bar — can reduce the formal risk. A substantive guarantee against triggering the ban is not possible in doing so; the authority decides on the fulfilment of the statutory elements in the exercise of its dutiful discretion.

The following options are the institutional routes that administrative procedural and administrative litigation law recognize in constellations of a ban determination. An assessment in the individual case — prospects of success, proportionality, procedural strategy — is a matter for lawyers admitted to the bar.

Objection and Action

Against the declaratory decision under § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG, the regular legal remedies of administrative procedural law are admissible. In some federal states (e.g. Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate) an objection can first be lodged; in most federal states the objection procedure has been abolished and the action for annulment to the competent administrative court is the only legal remedy. The time limit is regularly one month from announcement; it is a preclusive time limit. For further depth on the handling of refusal notices in the naturalization procedure, see the article Rejection and Objection.

Interim Legal Protection under § 80 para. 5 VwGO

Under § 35a para. 2 StAG the ban is immediately enforceable. Anyone seeking the suspension of immediate enforceability can file an application for an order of suspensive effect under § 80 para. 5 VwGO with the administrative court. The court decides in a summary procedure on the basis of a balancing of interests: the prospects of success of the main case, the gravity of the alleged breach of law, and the proportionality of the barring effect are load-bearing criteria. The application for interim relief is possible in parallel with the action in the main case.

Burden of Proof and Cooperation

In the main case, the authority bears the burden of proof for the existence of intent and of the statutory elements. Under § 26 VwVfG (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, Administrative Procedure Act) the applicant is obliged to cooperate, insofar as the facts are attributable to their sphere. In the action and interim-relief proceedings, statements, supporting documents, and, where applicable, witnesses are regularly obtained.

Access to the Files

Under § 29 VwVfG, the applicant has a right of access to the files as soon as legitimate interests are asserted. Access to the files is regularly a precondition for substantiating the grounds of an action or an application for interim relief.

Legal Representation

The legal complexity of the ban constellation — statutory elements, proof of intent, proportionality, interim legal protection — regularly makes legal representation advisable in this constellation. civitas. accompanies the ordinary naturalization procedure digitally and checks the completeness of the application documents; representation against a ban determination belongs in specialized legal hands and is not provided by civitas. Where needed, civitas. refers to its own partner lawyer network.

Since when has the ban under § 35a StAG applied?

§ 35a StAG entered into force on 24 December 2025. The provision was introduced by the Safe Countries of Origin Act of 22 December 2025 (BGBl. 2025 I Nr. 364, issued 23 December 2025). A correction in the Federal Law Gazette of 27 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 49) clarified the intent requirement in linguistic terms.

How long does the ban last?

Ten years from the occurrence of the statutory elements: for no. 1, from the incontestability of the withdrawal under § 35 StAG; for no. 2, from the announcement of the declaratory decision. After the ban has elapsed, naturalization can be applied for again if the remaining requirements are met.

Is a negligent misstatement sufficient for the ban?

No. The version in force of § 35a para. 1 no. 2 StAG requires intent — knowledge and volition of the incorrectness or incompleteness. Mere negligence, oversight, or translation errors do not suffice. The authority bears the burden of proof for intent.

What counts as a "material requirement" of the naturalization?

In particular, identity, nationality, periods of residence, livelihood, prior convictions, commitment to the free democratic basic order, and the language and test certificates. Telephone numbers or minor address divergences are regularly not "material" within the meaning of the provision.

What happens to family members who were co-naturalized?

§ 35 para. 5 StAG contains rules on the protection of third parties and on the best interests of the child. The ban under § 35a para. 1 no. 1 StAG attaches to the incontestable withdrawal; whether and to what extent the barring effect carries over to co-naturalized family members is to be examined by the authority in the individual case and, in a dispute, clarified before the administrative courts.

Does an objection against the ban determination have suspensive effect?

No. § 35a para. 2 StAG orders immediate enforceability; an objection and an action have no suspensive effect. Anyone seeking a stay can file an application under § 80 para. 5 VwGO with the administrative court. The assessment in the individual case is a matter for lawyers admitted to the bar.

Are there already administrative-court judgments on § 35a StAG?

As of April 2026: no case law specific to § 35a StAG. The provision has been in force since 24 December 2025; initial factual decisions are expected over the course of 2026. The case law issued on the sister provision § 35 StAG (BVerwG 1 C 15.17, 1 C 10.14, 1 C 2.10, 5 C 12.10) is structurally transferable to § 35a no. 2 because of the identical statutory elements.

Is a constitutional complaint against § 35a StAG pending?

As of April 2026: a specifically pending constitutional complaint against § 35a StAG is not recorded in the public records of the Federal Constitutional Court. A later clarification of the constitutional questions — in particular the compatibility of immediate enforceability with Art. 19 para. 4 GG — is not ruled out.

If a naturalization is withdrawn under § 35 StAG, does the ban under § 35a run automatically?

Yes. § 35a para. 1 no. 1 StAG attaches the ban automatically to the incontestability of the withdrawal notice; a separate administrative decision on the barring effect is not required.

What role does civitas. play in avoiding a ban?

civitas. accompanies the preparatory application: complete document collection, plausibility review, consistency check of the self-declarations. civitas. cannot provide a substantive guarantee against triggering the ban — the authority decides in the exercise of its dutiful discretion. Representation against a ban determination that has already been issued belongs in specialized legal hands; where needed, civitas. refers to its own partner lawyer network.