When the procedure becomes the problem: two recent decisions that reshape access to immigration in Europe

When the procedure becomes the problem: two recent decisions that reshape access to immigration in Europe
May 12, 2026
6
 min read

When it comes to immigration, public discussion usually revolves around substantive rules—who is entitled to what, what documents are required, what integration criteria must be met. But in our day-to-day work with clients, the weakest link in an immigration project is rarely the law itself. It is access to the procedure: securing an appointment at the consulate, opening a case on the online platform, getting the system to recognize an application that has already been submitted.

Within a few weeks of each other, two decisions—one from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the other from the French Conseil d’État—placed this issue at the center of the legal debate. And together, they outline more clearly what the state must (and is not required to) do to ensure this access. It is worth understanding both.

The Gonrieh case: the CJEU defines the outer limits of the state’s obligation

On March 26, 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled on case C-819/25 PPU (Gonrieh): a Palestinian refugee in Belgium, who managed to leave Gaza in 2024 with one of his children, left behind his wife and four other children when the Rafah crossing was closed. He applied for family reunification; after several legal back-and-forths, visas were granted, but on the condition that family members appear in person at a Belgian consular post for identity verification.

However, the family was in Gaza, under bombardment, with no physical possibility of leaving. The question put to the CJEU was straightforward: does Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/86 (which obliges Member States to grant “every facility for obtaining the required visas”), read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, oblige Belgium to organize or facilitate the evacuation of these persons to a consular post?

The Court held that the obligation to “provide every facility” refers to the processing of the visa application, not to a positive obligation to ensure the safe passage of family members through a third country, nor to negotiate their departure with foreign authorities. The State must keep the procedure open and process the application with due diligence, but the operational burden of physically reaching the consular post remains with the applicant family.

It is important to note the context: this decision aligns with the Court’s previous case law (the Afrin case, C-1/23 PPU, of April 18, 2023), which had already established that Member States may not, without exception, physical presence for the initial submission of the family reunification application, and must allow for alternative means (email, proxy) when travel is impossible. The Gonrieh case, therefore, is not a reversal; it marks the limit of the Member States’ obligations. The State must accept the application remotely; however, it is not required to provide or be responsible for transportation.

The ANEF case: the Conseil d'État outlines the French State’s domestic obligation

A little over a month later, on May 5, 2026, the Conseil d'État—the government body that serves as the supreme administrative court and advisor to the executive branch in France—issued Decision No. 502860, which addressed a problem that anyone attempting to renew a residence permit in France knows all too well: the chronic malfunctions of the ANEF (Administration Numérique pour les Étrangers en France) platform, which, since 2021, has become the mandatory channel for most residence permit applications.

Prompted by a coalition of associations (including Cimade, Secours Catholique, Emmaüs, and the Fédération des Acteurs de la Solidarité), the Conseil d’État acknowledged what foreigners and lawyers had been documenting for years: inaccessible accounts, applications that cannot be completed, identification numbers the system does not recognize, and a lack of response months after submission. 

The consequences are tangible: job loss, suspension of social benefits, threat of eviction, disruptions in a legal status that should have been nothing but continuity.

The decision establishes a principle that seems obvious, but which had to be stated by France’s highest administrative court: when the use of a digital public service is mandatory, the State must ensure that users can effectively carry out their administrative procedures

The ANEF’s malfunctions, according to the Court, “are such as to abnormally limit users’ right of access or to compromise their ability to exercise the rights granted to them by law.”

The Conseil d'État gave the Ministry of the Interior six months to correct the problems. And it emphasized a point that often goes unnoticed by clients: when someone applies to renew their residence permit with a complete application before it expires, the administration is required to issue an attestation de prolongation de l'instruction and to renew it for as long as the review process lasts. 

Today, this document is often not issued on time, and even when it is, it does not provide full access to social benefits and housing, unlike the old receipts. It is precisely this gap that hinders many ongoing migration projects. 

Two decisions, one message

Looking at the two decisions together, a picture emerges that is worth noting:

Externally (Gonrieh), the Member State must keep the procedure accessible and process the application diligently—including by accepting alternative submission methods when in-person travel is impossible. But it has no positive obligation to ensure the applicant’s physical arrival at the consular office.

Domestically (ANEF), the State is responsible for the effective functioning of the access channel that it itself has made mandatory. If the platform crashes, it is the State’s problem, not the foreign national’s.

What this means in practice—especially for France

For those planning a migration project involving France, three practical points emerge from these decisions:

1. Applications for family reunification with relatives in conflict zones (or areas with difficult access to French consular offices) remain possible, but the burden of organizing travel and producing the necessary documentation falls largely on the applicant. Alternative methods for initial submission exist, but physical presence for biometric verification at some point in the process is practically inevitable.

2. Those already in France with a residence permit need, more than ever, to plan for renewal in advance. The Conseil d’État’s decision is good news, but the six months the government has to fix the ANEF system are counted starting in May 2026—meaning that disruptions will continue throughout this period. Submitting the application in advance (ideally 3 to 4 months before the expiration date), keeping proof that the file was submitted complete and on time, and formally requesting the attestation de prolongation de l'instruction is no longer just “recommended” but has become a basic protective strategy.

3. System outages at ANEF now have clear legal backing. This changes the dynamics of appeals: it is no longer the foreign national who must prove that the platform failed; it is the State that has the obligation to ensure it functions properly. Anyone stuck in a renewal process with complete documentation can (and should) invoke this decision to support requests for preliminary injunctions, administrative appeals, and complaints filed with the Défenseur des droits.

A personal take

There is something these two decisions reveal that often baffles those just beginning the immigration process: being entitled to a residence permit or a visa does not mean the path to obtaining it is, in fact, open. There are legal rules, and there are barriers to access. The two worlds do not communicate as much as they should—and it is precisely in this gap that many people waste time, energy, and, in the worst cases, their very right.

European and French case law is slowly beginning to treat access to the procedure as an autonomous right, rather than a mere procedural step. This is an important development. But it does not change the fact that, in the short term, those who prepare in advance, document every step, anticipate deadlines, and understand where their process might stall have a better chance of reaching the end of the road with their rights intact.

Share this post
Hanna Fedalto
Articles

More from our blog

Explore articles on immigration law and relocation strategy