Parallel residence permits: Berlin Administrative Court clarifies legal framework (VG 29 K 122/24)

published on 28 August 2025 | reading time approx. 3 minutes

In its judgment of 14 May 2025 (VG 29 K 122/24), the Berlin Administrative Court issued a landmark ruling: third-country nationals may, under certain conditions, hold multiple residence permits simultaneously. The decision builds on a longstanding legal debate initiated by the Federal Administrative Court in 2013 and clarifies the re-quirements for the concurrent issuance of residence titles. The court emphasized that the German Residence Act does not prohibit parallel residence permits and that such issuance is both permissible and necessary when the permits serve distinct legal purposes. This ruling has the potential to reshape administrative practice nationwide and strengthens the legal position of foreign nationals by offering greater flexibility and legal certainty.

Legal Background »
Overview of the Judgment of the Berlin Administrative Court »
Doctrinal Classification »
Administrative Practice and Technical Implementation »
Outlook and Migration Policy Relevance »
Conclusion »

By judgment of 14 May 2025 (VG 29 K 122/24), the Berlin Administrative Court held that third-country nationals may, under certain conditions, hold multiple residence permits concurrently. The decision revisits a legal debate initiated by the Federal Administrative Court in 2013 (BVerwG 1 C 12.12) and provides a concrete framework for the parallel issuance of residence titles.

The question of whether third-country nationals in Germany may simultaneously hold more than one residence permit has, to date, neither been clearly regulated by statute nor uniformly implemented in administrative practice. The Berlin Administrative Court has now issued a landmark ruling that may fundamentally alter existing practice. The judgment builds on the jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court and specifies the conditions under which the concurrent issuance of residence titles is both permissible and required.

Legal Background

The German Residence Act (AufenthG) provides for various types of residence permits, including the temporary residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis), the EU Blue Card (Blaue Karte EU), the settlement permit (Niederlassungserlaubnis), and the permanent residence permit-EU (Erlaubnis zum Daueraufenthalt-EU). In administrative practice, it has long been assumed that these permits are to be granted alternatively, but not cumulatively. This assumption is based on the principle of the unity of the purpose of residence, as set out in Section 7(1) sentence 2 of the Residence Act.

However, the Act does not contain an explicit provision prohibiting the concurrent issuance of multiple residence titles. As early as 19 March 2013, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG 1 C 12.12) held that the parallel issuance of residence permits is not inherently unlawful, provided that the respective permits confer distinct legal effects and the foreign national has a legitimate interest.

The Hamburg Administrative Court (VG Hamburg, 3 K 2768/21) emphasized that a foreign national may request the issuance of multiple residence permits based on different legal grounds in order to benefit from the respective advantages. Similarly, the Bayreuth Administrative Court (VG Bayreuth, B 6 K 20.594) held that an application for a residence permit under Section 25a AufenthG remains admissible even if another permit under Section 23a AufenthG has already been granted—particularly where the requested permit offers a more favorable legal status.

The Administrative Courts of Hannover (VG Hannover, 5 A 1392/21) and Dresden (VG Dresden, 3 K 1477/18) also confirmed that multiple residence permits may coexist, provided that the law does not explicitly prohibit such coexistence. It was highlighted that each permit has its own requirements and legal consequences and does not confer a new quality of residence, but rather enables the foreign national to benefit from the respective legal advantages.

As previously mentioned, the Federal Administrative Court’s decision (BVerwG 1 C 12.12) forms the basis of this jurisprudence and clarifies that, where the statutory requirements are met, multiple residence permits may be issued concurrently. The Darmstadt Administrative Court (VG Darmstadt, 6 L 849/19.DA) further supported this interpretation by applying the principle of most-favored treatment (Meistbegünstigungsklausel), under which different legal positions—such as freedom of movement and residence permits—may coexist on equal footing.

Taken together, these rulings demonstrate that the principle of the unity of the purpose of residence should not be understood as a rigid limitation. Rather, in conjunction with the principle of separation and the most-favored treatment clause, it allows for a flexible and foreigner-friendly interpretation of residence law. The judgment in VG 29 K 122/24 thus aligns with a series of decisions affirming the possibility of parallel residence permits and placing the foreign national’s right to choose and benefit from legal advantages at the center of residence law interpretation.

Overview of the Judgment of the Berlin Administrative Court

In case VG 29 K 122/24, a third-country national filed a lawsuit, having applied for an EU Blue Card in addition to an already granted settlement permit. The immigration authority rejected the application, referring to the alleged incompatibility of the two residence titles. The Berlin Administrative Court upheld the claim and found:

The Residence Act does not contain a prohibition on the parallel issuance of multiple residence titles.
Parallel possession is permissible and required if the titles produce independent legal effects.
The administration is obliged to carry out an individual case-by-case assessment and may not reject applications in a blanket manner.
The parallel issuance of residence titles can be technically documented by supplementary sheets to the residence permit – in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002.

Doctrinal Classification

The judgment strengthens the position that residence law is not to be interpreted monolithically, but rather in a differentiated manner. Parallel issuance of residence titles is particularly required when it serves the effective protection of rights – for example:

Mobility rights within the EU (e.g., through the EU Blue Card)
Permanent residence rights (e.g., through the settlement permit)
Protection against expiration in the event of temporary departure or loss of status
Combination of protection status and gainful employment

The decision is consistent with the EU principle of effectiveness and the principle of proportionality

Administrative Practice and Technical Implementation

Parallel possession of residence titles can be indicated by entries in the supplementary sheet to the electronic residence permit (eAT). Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002 explicitly provides that additional information may be included in a separate document. Thus, the technical implementation is already prepared under European law. This also corresponds to Section 78(1) sentence 3 nos. 8 and 12 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) as well as Section 59(2) in conjunction with Annex D 14a of the Residence Ordinance (AufenthVO).

Outlook and Migration Policy Relevance

The judgment of the Berlin Administrative Court has the potential to change administrative practice nationwide. It calls on authorities to conduct more differentiated assessments and to take greater account of the life realities of third-country nationals. At the same time, it raises the question of whether the legislator should take clarifying action to ensure legal certainty.

For migration policy, the judgment represents a step toward greater legal clarity, flexibility, and integration. It enables third-country nationals to strategically and securely structure their residence status without being disadvantaged by formal obstacles.

Conclusion

The judgment VG 29 K 122/24 is a milestone in the development of German residence law. It demonstrates that the right of residence must not be conceived in a one-dimensional manner, but must take into account multidimensional life realities. The parallel issuance of residence titles is not a contradiction, but rather an expression of a modern, constitutionally grounded migration law.