Background
The applicant sought authorization from the Minden-Lübbecke district immigration authority to begin vocational training as a warehouse logistics specialist with a private employer. The authority had not exercised its discretion on the application under Section 4a(4) of the Residence Act, read together with Section 32 of the Employment Ordinance.
After proceedings before the Minden Administrative Court and the Higher Administrative Court for North Rhine-Westphalia, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint and requested interim relief. The training employer stated that the applicant could begin the position only through September 28, 2026. The record also indicated that a readmission request dated April 27, 2026 apparently remained unanswered.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court’s Second Senate granted interim relief and ordered the immigration authority to decide the employment-authorization application again without delay. The Court did not direct the authority to issue the permit and did not finally resolve the constitutional complaint.
Applying Section 32(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the Court found that the constitutional complaint was neither inadmissible from the outset nor manifestly unfounded. At minimum, the applicant’s entitlement to a decision free from errors in the exercise of discretion had not been satisfied because the authority had not yet exercised its discretion. In reconsidering the application, the authority must take account, among other matters, of the apparently unanswered readmission request.
The balance of consequences favored the applicant. If interim relief were denied and the constitutional complaint later succeeded, the opportunity to begin training by September 28 would already have been irretrievably lost. By contrast, the consequences of requiring reconsideration would be less serious if the Court later determined that the applicant had no right to a new decision. The order was final and not subject to appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The Court required an immediate new discretionary decision, not the issuance of an employment permit.
- An immigration authority does not satisfy an applicant’s right to a lawful discretionary decision when it has not exercised the relevant discretion at all.
- A rapidly expiring opportunity to begin vocational training can justify interim constitutional relief when later success could not repair the loss.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that German immigration authorities must genuinely exercise the discretion conferred by employment-authorization rules and consider material circumstances, including the status of readmission efforts. Failure to do so may support urgent judicial intervention.
It also illustrates the Federal Constitutional Court’s consequences-based approach to interim relief: where delay would permanently eliminate a time-sensitive training opportunity, an order requiring prompt reconsideration may be warranted even before the constitutional merits are finally decided.