Refusing to Shake Hands at German Naturalization: Why It Can Cost You Citizenship

Yes, refusing to shake a female official’s hand at a naturalization appointment in Germany can become grounds for denying citizenship — but formally, the reason isn’t the gesture itself, it’s the conclusion that the applicant doesn’t recognize equal rights between men and women.

In short

• Refusing to shake a female official’s hand became the formal basis for a citizenship refusal — the case went to an administrative court.
• The assessment rests on Article 3 of Germany’s Constitution and a provision of the Citizenship Act on recognizing equality between men and women.
• The hearing ran for five days; one judge questioned the applicant for nearly three-quarters of an hour, then two more judges questioned him further.
• The court also asked about religious practice — not as a separate topic, but to understand any link between the applicant’s views on women and his religion.
• The court ultimately ruled in the applicant’s favor: citizenship will be granted, followed by standard administrative steps.

How an unshaken hand became grounds for a citizenship refusal

The applicant met every naturalization requirement, yet was refused: at his appointment with the authority, he declined to shake the hand of the official handling his case. This refusal to shake hands became the formal basis for denying citizenship — and the case ended up in court.

This refusal to shake hands became the formal basis for denying citizenship — and the case ended up in court.

The issue isn’t the gesture itself. A handshake here works as an indicator authorities use to gauge whether a man recognizes a woman as his equal. What’s actually being tested is the applicant’s willingness to recognize the equality of men and women — a value enshrined in the constitution. If an applicant shakes hands with men but pointedly refuses to do so with a female official, the authority reads this as a refusal to honor that equality in practice, not just in words.

The legal basis: Article 3 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Citizenship Act

Equality between men and women is enshrined in Article 3 of Germany’s Basic Law — this is the norm underlying the assessment of an applicant’s conduct during naturalization. Formally, the issue isn’t the handshake itself, but what the gesture reveals about whether the applicant accepts equality between men and women.

The specific legal basis comes from the Citizenship Act: it directs authorities to assess whether an applicant accepts gender equality. Whether an applicant shakes hands with everyone or makes an exception for women is exactly the kind of conduct this provision allows officials to weigh. Higher courts have already built up case law on this question, and both the applicant and the court hearing this case drew on that precedent.

How today’s requirement differs from the old “adaptation to German conditions” rule

Older legislation, in force roughly 20 years ago, required that a foreigner or citizenship applicant adapt to German conditions — Einleben in die deutschen Verhältnisse. That concept included handshaking: refusing one was formally counted as a sign of non-adaptation. That provision has since been repealed — current law no longer contains a direct requirement to shake hands.

The wording has changed, but the substance of the assessment remains similar: the law now looks not at the gesture itself, but at what stands behind it — the applicant’s willingness to recognize equality between men and women.

How the court hearing in a naturalization refusal case unfolds

The administrative court hearing in this naturalization refusal case ran for five days and took place over video link — a common practice for such cases by now. The presiding judge questioned the applicant for nearly three-quarters of an hour right at the start of the proceedings.

The questions came again and again, circling the same ground: whether the applicant truly had nothing against women, whether he would allow his wife to work, to meet other men, to make decisions about her own life. After the main questioning, two more judges — lay assessors — addressed the applicant with further questions. It amounted to a cross-examination: despite the pressure, the applicant stayed calm and answered consistently from his own convictions — the same answer to different phrasings of the same question.

It amounted to a cross-examination: despite the pressure, the applicant stayed calm and answered consistently

What questions the court asks to test attitudes toward gender equality

The presiding judge built her questioning around a single theme — the applicant’s real attitude toward women’s equality within the family. Among the questions:

• whether the applicant would allow a woman (a hypothetical wife) to work, and whether he had “anything against women”;
• who would decide the woman’s profession, if she did go to work;
• whether a daughter would have the same rights as a son.

The questions repeated in different phrasings throughout most of the questioning — the judge kept returning to the theme of equality, checking whether the applicant’s answer stayed consistent.

After the presiding judge, two more judges addressed the applicant. One asked about religious practice — whether the applicant prays, which mosque he attends. The second judge asked questions in the same direction, also touching on the applicant’s religious background.

Formally, all of this was a check on whether the applicant’s position conflicts with Article 3 of the Constitution on equal rights for men and women. The questions about religion didn’t arise as a separate topic, but as the court’s attempt to understand whether the applicant’s views on women’s position were tied to his religious beliefs.

When an applicant’s views become a real obstacle to citizenship

If it were reliably established that a candidate considers women less worthy than men, that would be a problem for a positive naturalization decision. Participants in the case discussion took this position, while acknowledging that reaching a definitive judgment is impossible.

What raises real concern isn’t the beliefs themselves, but their consequences: if those views lead to a woman being oppressed within a relationship, that’s regarded as the worst possible outcome. It’s no coincidence that over the past ten or eleven years, many women have fled their countries precisely to escape oppression — whether from the state or from men.

But here lies the core difficulty: how can anyone actually establish that a person truly holds such views? Behavior unfamiliar in a German context doesn’t always signal hostility to constitutional values. An older person who moved from a country with different norms of interaction between men and women may simply feel thrown off by a situation considered ordinary here — that’s closer to uncertainty than rejection of equality.

Drawing the line between unfamiliar behavior, genuine hostility to the constitution, and plain uncertainty is the main difficulty courts face in assessing such cases.

The role of religious reasons and candor at the authority’s appointment

Beyond questions about equality, one of the judges separately asked the applicant how he practices his religion: whether he prays and which mosque he attends. The questions about religion weren’t an end in themselves: the court wanted to know whether the applicant’s religious position was tied to a refusal to recognize women’s equal rights within the family.

The case also points to a broader takeaway for people with a migration background going through an appointment with an authority, a court, or a similar procedure where the outcome depends on an official or judge. If, internally, a person doesn’t reject equality between men and women and doesn’t hold views hostile to the constitutional order, it’s worth saying so directly rather than dodging the question. Openness at such an appointment lowers the other side’s distrust — staying silent or giving an evasive answer works against the applicant far more than an honestly stated position.

How the case ended and what happens after the ruling

The court ruled in the applicant’s favor — he will be granted citizenship. In the coming weeks, the standard administrative steps that typically follow such a ruling will take place: processing and issuing the naturalization documents.

This outcome doesn’t erase what the case revealed: a seemingly minor detail of behavior — refusing to shake a female official’s hand — turned into an actual citizenship refusal. The court’s ruling in the applicant’s favor doesn’t change what this case showed: even someone with a good reputation and no signs of hostility to the constitutional order can have a detail of behavior like this lead to a refusal that then has to be challenged in court.

even someone with a good reputation and no signs of hostility to the constitutional order can have a detail of behavior like this lead to a refusal that then has to be challenged in court

Frequently asked questions

Does the requirement to recognize gender equality apply only to Muslims or people from the Middle East?

No, Article 3 of the Constitution and the relevant provision of the Citizenship Act are universal and formally not tied to an applicant’s religion or country of origin. In this case, questions about religion came up not because Islam itself raises suspicion, but because the court was trying to understand whether the applicant’s specific views on women’s position were tied to his religious beliefs.

Can someone whose behavior is simply unfamiliar in a German context be refused citizenship through no fault of their own?

Unfamiliar behavior on its own isn’t equated with hostility to constitutional values — the court has to distinguish the confusion of someone who moved from a different cultural environment from genuine rejection of equality. But in practice this line is hard to draw, which is exactly why such cases end up in lengthy court proceedings.

Can a citizenship refusal issued by an individual official, rather than a court, be challenged?

Yes — that’s exactly what happened in this case: the refusal issued by the authority was challenged by the applicant in administrative court, which heard the case over five days and ultimately ruled in his favor. It shows that an official’s decision at the appointment isn’t final and can be reviewed by a court.