Action for failure to act regarding naturalization

The action for failure to act (Untätigkeitsklage) in naturalization proceedings has gained massive importance over the last two years. Due to the modernization of nationality law in 2024 and the associated reduction in residency requirements, the number of applications has skyrocketed. Many naturalization authorities in Germany are overwhelmed by this flood, leading to processing times of often two or three years. Consequently, affected individuals are increasingly asking whether and when legal action under Section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) is promising to expedite the process.

A central point of contention in current case law during 2024 and 2025 is the interpretation of the indeterminate legal concept of “sufficient reason” (zureichender Grund). By law, an action for failure to act may be filed no earlier than three months after the application is submitted. However, the authority can justify the delay if it can present a sufficient reason for the lack of a decision. For a long time, mere administrative overload was considered such an obstacle. However, recent jurisprudence from the Higher Administrative Courts (OVG), such as those in North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt, has undergone a significant reversal. The judges clarify that permanent overload due to staff shortages or organizational deficits does not, in principle, constitute a sufficient reason.

In several rulings in 2025, the OVG North Rhine-Westphalia emphasized that the right to effective legal protection under Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law also requires a decision within a reasonable timeframe. If an authority is unable to adapt its structures to increasing application numbers over several years, this constitutes a structural organizational deficit that must not be to the detriment of the citizen. According to the current view, a sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 75 VwGO only exists if the delay is caused by the complexity of the individual case, a lack of cooperation by the applicant, or unforeseeable, short-term events. General understaffing, which has been known for years, is no longer sufficient for justification.

Despite this citizen-friendly trend in the higher courts, some administrative courts of the first instance continue to react hesitantly. In Bavaria, for example, courts sometimes tend to stay proceedings in accordance with Section 75, sentence 3 VwGO and grant the authority an additional period of several months, provided the authority can prove it is making serious efforts to improve the situation. Nevertheless, the legal hurdle for authorities remains high: they bear the full burden of proof as to why exactly a decision could not yet be made in this specific case.

In summary, it can be stated that an action for failure to act can be useful as soon as the statutory three-month blocking period has expired. While the lawsuit does not always lead to an immediate judgment, it forces the authority to actually handle the file and take a position before the court. In practice, it is often shown that the pressure of ongoing court proceedings alone leads to applications suddenly being processed with priority. As the courts apply increasingly strict standards to the authorities’ justifications, the lawsuit significantly improves the applicants’ position and prevents their request from being lost in the mass of unfinished files.

Have you been waiting longer than three months for a decision? I would be happy to help you assess the chances of success for an action for failure to act in your specific case. Contact me for an initial consultation!