The problem has a name: administrative language
Official texts are not hard to understand because the content is complex. They are hard to understand because a language culture has grown up that mistakes precision for impenetrability. Convoluted sentences, passive constructions, abstract nouns and technical terms with no explanation: this is not a question of style. It is a barrier.
The consequences are measurable: queries tie up staff, incorrect applications cause duplicated work, and objections cost many times more than the original administrative act. And among the people affected, a feeling takes hold that their own state does not take them seriously. How I turn administrative language into clear, understandable text.
Three examples from practice
The following examples show what changes when you turn administrative language into clear, understandable text. The content stays identical. The sentences get shorter, the structure clearer, the verbs active. No loss of information, but a considerable gain in clarity.
Example 1: Notice of a social benefit
“On the basis of your application of 12 March 2026, having regard to standard requirement level 1 as laid down in Section 27a of the Twelfth Book of the Social Code (SGB XII), together with the reasonable expenditure on accommodation and heating pursuant to Section 35 SGB XII, a total monthly requirement in the amount of EUR 1,136.00 is hereby granted to you, whereby the attributable income pursuant to Sections 82 et seq. SGB XII in the amount of EUR 320.00 is deducted, such that a monthly disbursement amount in the amount of EUR 816.00 results.”
“You applied for social assistance on 12 March 2026. We have reviewed your application.
This is how your benefit is made up:
- Your monthly requirement is EUR 1,136.00.
- From this we deduct your attributable income: EUR 320.00.
- You receive EUR 816.00 per month.
The calculation is governed by the Social Code (SGB XII), Sections 27a, 35 and 82.”
What has changed: The content is the same. The amount is the same. The legal basis is still there. But instead of a single sentence of 67 words, there are now five sentences with a clear structure: What was applied for? What is the outcome? How was it calculated? The legal basis moves to the end, where it belongs – as a reference, not as a precondition for understanding.
Example 2: Request to cooperate
“You are hereby requested to submit the documents required to establish the facts pursuant to Section 60(1) of the First Book of the Social Code (SGB I), in particular the proof of income for the last three months as well as a current registration certificate, to the responsible case officer by 30 April 2026 at the latest, failing which the award of benefit pursuant to Section 66(1) SGB I may be refused or withdrawn in whole or in part.”
“We need some documents from you. Please send us the following by 30 April 2026:
- your proof of income for the last three months
- a current registration certificate
If we do not receive the documents in time, we may have to reduce or stop your benefit (Section 66 SGB I).”
What has changed: A threat buried in a rambling sentence becomes a clear request with a specific deadline and specific documents. The consequence stands on its own as a separate sentence at the end – not as a subordinate clause that gets lost in the passive voice. Importantly: the legal basis is shortened, but still referenced correctly.
Example 3: Notice of the right to appeal
“An objection to this notice may be lodged with the above-named authority in writing or by being recorded for the file within one month of notification.”
“Do you disagree with this notice? Then you can lodge an objection. You have one month to do so, counting from the day you received this notice.
Send your objection in writing to the address at the top of this letter. You can also come in person and have your objection recorded on the spot.”
What has changed: Outside legal circles, no one understands “lodged by being recorded for the file”. The improved text says exactly the same thing: send it in writing or come in person. Opening with a question gives the reader their bearings. And the start of the deadline is explained, not merely stated.
Why this is not a question of style
Impenetrable administrative language is a structural problem. It affects more than people with limited German or reading difficulties. It affects everyone who does not work with official language every day – in other words, almost everyone.
The Online Access Act (Onlinezugangsgesetz, OZG) and the Federal Government's e-government strategy are digitalising administrative processes. But a digitalised notice that is just as impenetrable as its paper predecessor has only changed medium. Clear administrative language is not a nice-to-have. It is a precondition for digitalisation to work at all.
The examples above show simplified standard language. Easy Language (Leichte Sprache) goes a step further: shorter sentences, simpler words, larger type, images as a comprehension aid, and a review by the target group. For the websites of federal authorities, the BITV 2.0 requires explanatory notes in Easy Language on the home page and in the accessibility statement.
The three most common mistakes when optimising text
- Leaving out the legal safeguards. Writing clearly does not mean cutting the legal basis. It belongs in the text – but in the right place and in a readable form.
- Shortening only the worst sentences. Improving individual sentences achieves little if the overall structure stays unclear. Clarity comes from good structure, not just from shorter sentences.
- Running it through ChatGPT. AI can shorten sentences. But it cannot judge whether a text remains legally correct, whether the tone fits the institution, or whether the target group will actually understand it. That calls for professional quality assurance.
Sources
- Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache / Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach: “Wie denken die Deutschen über die Rechts- und Verwaltungssprache?” (What do Germans think about legal and administrative language?), representative survey – gfds.de
- BITV 2.0, Annex 2: duty to provide Easy Language for public bodies of the Federal Government – gesetze-im-internet.de
- Online Access Act (Onlinezugangsgesetz, OZG): duty to digitalise administrative services – gesetze-im-internet.de
- Fourth Bureaucracy Relief Act (Viertes Bürokratieentlastungsgesetz, BEG IV), Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 323 – recht.bund.de
- Federal Office of Administration (Bundesverwaltungsamt): handbook “Bürgernahe Verwaltungssprache” (Citizen-friendly administrative language) – University and State Library Bonn
Do your official texts need an overhaul?
I review your notices, forms and letters for clarity and turn them into texts that work.
Request a quote