In the dispute over the naturalization of descendants of persecuted Jews has stated, the Federal constitutional court the long-standing practice of German authorities to be unconstitutional. The judges allowed the constitutional complaint of the daughter of a Jewish emigrant as obviously justified; the refusal of a naturalisation is in breach of the value decisions of the basic law.
editor in the policy.F. A. Z.
a 1967 in the United States-born woman, whose father had been deprived of 1938, as a Jew of German citizenship, had Appealed, whereupon he fled to America. As the daughter in Germany, sought to re-naturalisation, refused their request on the grounds that you can gain, the illegitimate child of German nationality without citizenship of her father, would not have, since the citizenship was passed according to the then law only to legitimate children.
The Federal office of administration used in the case of the naturalization of the descendants of Nazi victims over the decades, an extremely restrictive practice. Many applications have been rejected with the reference to the exact wording of article 116 of the basic law, of a right to naturalisation, then, if the individual or their ancestors as the German nationality of the Persecuted was deprived of. The emigrants, for example, before the formal "withdrawal accepted" a different nationality and a German passport "," abandoned, refused by the authorities of the applications.
Also, prior to 1953, the children born of persecuted women, the right was withdrawn because the nationality was given at the time of your birth only through the father. Just last summer, the Federal government had responded to the Ministry of the interior to the growing public pressure and a more generous naturalisation practice in a decree regulated. Especially in the Wake of the Brexits more and more offspring had been working with the Jewish emigrants with a German passport. Many of those Affected do not insist on a legal regulation of the so-called Reparation for naturalisation, there is also the decree of the Ministry recorded in all cases.
reparation does not take a "restrictive interpretation"
clear The judges found that article 116 of redress, nation-serving socialist injustice, what is a "contrary to a restrictive interpretation of" in principle. It is contrary to the value decisions of the basic law, if not more valid descent rules will be parked, which is about illegitimate children discriminated against. Article 6 call for the equal treatment of all children regardless of their family status, article 3 prohibits is already a difference of treatment on grounds of sex.Updated Date: 17 June 2020, 17:20