The Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) within the Administrative Court of Malmö (Forvaltningsrätten i Malmö) recently delivered a judgment concerning Section 12 of the Swedish Citizenship Act (Medborgarskapslagen, 2001:82). The case concerned the so-called three-year residency rule which allows non-Nordic nationals to acquire citizenship of Sweden after three years of residence, if they are married to a Swedish citizen.
The applicant, a third-country national, had lived in Sweden for more than three years and was married to an EU/EEA citizen who became a citizen of Sweden in 2024. The Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) had rejected his application for citizenship of Sweden, insisting on a five-year residence requirement under Section 11 of the Act, and applying an additional ‘two-year rule’ for naturalised spouses – a requirement not found in the Act, but used in administrative practice, based on a guiding decision by the defunct Used in administrative practice, based on a 1996 guidline from the now-defunct Immigration Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden). The applicant appealed, arguing that Section 12 of the Act should apply, and not Section 11.
The Administrative Court of Malmö annulled the Migration Agency’s decision, holding that Section 12 of Act must be applied generously to applicants in such situations, and not Section 11 nor adherence to non-statutory guidelines. The national court stated that while the ‘two-year rule’ for naturalised spouse has been used in practice, it was not a legal requirement, and had no legal basis. Instead, the national court stated that the Migration Agency must conduct a holistic assessment of individual circumstances, consistent with the purpose of Section 12 of the Act.
Background and Facts
The appellant, a third-country national born in 1995, challenged a decision of the Migration Agency, which had denied his application for citizenship of Sweden. The Migration Agency based its decision on the general rule in Section 11 of the Swedish Citizenship Act, which requires non-Nordic applicants to have resided in Sweden for five years before naturalisation. However, Section 12 of the Act provides for an important distinction: applicants who have lived in Sweden for at least three years, and are married to a citizen of Sweden, may be granted citizenship of Sweden.
The appellant had resided in Sweden since 2021, over three years at the time of his application, and had been married since 2020 to an EU/EEA citizen, who became a citizenship of Sweden in 2024. Despite this, the Migration Agency rejected the application under Section 11, declining to apply Section 12, arguing that the applicant did not meet the five-year requirement (Section 11), and that his spouse had not been a Swedish citizen for just two years, a condition applied in administrative practice, but not found in law.
The applicant appealed the decision of the Migration Agency, challenging an understanding of the Migration Agency that the spouse must have been a citizen of Sweden for two years as lacking legal basis, and contending that his application justified applying Section 12 of the Swedish Citizenship Act, rather than Section 11.
Judgment of the Administrative Court of Malmö
The Administrative Court of Malmö began by outlining the relevant provisions of the Swedish Citizenship Act. Section 11 established the general five-year residence requirement for non-Nordic nationals seeking Swedish citizenship. Section 12, however, allows for applicants married to citizens of Sweden to obtain citizenship with three-years of residence.
The central issue in this case was whether a requirement – applied in practice – that a naturalised spouse must have been citizen of Sweden for two years, was legally relevant or not. The national court stressed that this so-called ‘two-year rule’ is not found in the statute, but is merely an administrative guideline.
The national court emphasised that the Migration Agency must apply Section 12 consistently, and without arbitrariness. While prior case law indicated that a person married to a citizen of Sweden for two years and resident for three years may indeed fall within Section 12, these were indicative benchmarks, rather than binding rules.
Accordingly, the national court held that the Migration Agency must interpret Section 12 generously and conduct a holistic assessment of individual circumstances. In this case, the national court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant’s spouse was originally an EU/EEA citizen before becoming a citizen of Sweden, noting that such a background supports integration, and supported the application of Section 12 in this case.
The national court concluded that there were grounds for the Migration Agency to apply Section 12 rather than Section 11 of the Swedish Citizenship Act. It therefore annulled the Migration Agency’s decision, and remitted the case back to the Migration Agency for consideration, in light of the judgment.
The Migration Agency applied for leave to appeal the judgment to the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationöverdomstolen) within the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm (Kammarrätten i Stockholm) (UM 6290-25), but it was denied, meaning the judgment of the Administrative Court of Malmö stood.
Analysis
This judgment is significant because it confirms that applications for citizenship of Sweden under Section 12 of the Swedish Citizenship Act must be interpreted generously to applicants. The national court’s reasoning reinforces that the purpose of Section 12 is to recognise the enhanced integration that typically follows marriage to a Swedish citizen. Whether the spouse is Swedish by birth or through naturalisation should not, in itself, create an additional barrier, particularly when the naturalised spouse was previously an EU/EEA citizen.
Crucially, the national court clarified that the so-called ‘two-year rule’ for naturalised spouses, applied by the Migration Agency in this case, is not a statutory requirement but merely an administrative guideline. The national court stressed that the Migration Agency must avoid mechanical decision-making, and instead conduct a holistic assessment of each applicant’s circumstances, namely, in line with the purpose of the Swedish Citizenship Act.
In practical terms, this judgment signals that the Migration Agency must adopt a more generous and flexible interpretation of Section 12, and cannot treat non-statutory guidelines as hard rules.
For applicants to become citizens of Sweden, the judgment strengthens the argument that meeting the three-year residency requirement, combined with marriage to a Swedish citizen, should generally suffice, even when the spouse has not been Swedish for two full years.
Read the judgment
The judgment of the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) within the Administrative Court of Malmö (Forvaltningsrätten i Malmö) in UM 16670-24, delivered on 3 June 2025, can be requested from the national court here.