News

On 22 July 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) delivered its decision in case 2 BvR 319/26, concerning the withdrawal of admission commitments previously issued to Afghan nationals under Germany’s humanitarian admission programme “Human Rights List”.

In September 2021, the Federal Ministry of the Interior informed the complainants that they would be admitted to Germany under § 22 sentence 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG). Following the decision of the new German Government to terminate the voluntary admission programmes, including those concerning Afghanistan, the Federal Ministry of the Interior declared approximately 640 admission commitments issued under the Human Rights List and the bridging programme “invalid and expired”, without carrying out an individual assessment. On that basis, the complainants’ visa applications were subsequently rejected.

The Federal Constitutional Court held that, although the complainants did not have a constitutional right to the requested visas, the blanket withdrawal of their admission commitments violated the prohibition of arbitrariness under Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 20(3), of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). It recognised that the Ministry enjoys broad political discretion in deciding whether to maintain or withdraw an admission commitment. However, once an admission commitment concerning a specific individual has been communicated to that person, this discretion is narrowed and the authorities must take their individual circumstances and interests into account before withdrawing it.

The Court therefore overturned the decision of the Higher Administrative Court and referred the case back for a new decision. It clarified that the Ministry may still withdraw the admission commitments, provided that it does so following an individual assessment in accordance with the constitutional prohibition of arbitrariness. The Court further held that Germany must continue supporting the complainants in Pakistan until either a visa is granted or the Ministry adopts a constitutionally compliant decision withdrawing their admission commitments.

On 14 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) promulgated its country guidance judgment in AH, AK & AJ (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI)Iraq CG UKUT 00150 (IAC), replacing all previous Iraq country guidance, including SMO & KSP. The decision provides updated binding guidance on returns via the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), identity documentation, internal travel and Article 3 ECHR risk.

The case concerned three Iraqi nationals of Kurdish ethnicity from the Disputed Territories, who were challenging their removal from the UK to Iraq on the basis that they lacked the identity documents needed to return and travel safely and therefore would face a real risk of ill-treatment upon return.

The Tribunal held that despite there continues to be an internal armed conflict in parts of Iraq, the level of indiscriminate violence does not reach the threshold to constitute serious harm under Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and that the general living conditions in Iraq do not in itself reach the threshold of Article 3 ECHR.

Regarding the Iraqi identity documentation system, the Tribunal held that the Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) is no longer issued and has been replaced by the biometric Iraqi National Identity Document (INID), and that, in principle, an INID is necessary in order to live and travel within Iraq without encountering treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

In relation to return, the Tribunal confirmed that Iraqi nationals may in principle be returned to Erbil or Sulaymaniyah, including former residents of the Disputed Territories, and that individuals lacking CSID or INID documentation may receive a temporary airport letter to facilitate onward travel for re-documentation. It held that the real risk under Article 3 ECHR arises primarily during internal travel within Iraq, particularly at checkpoints, and depends on the route taken, available documentation, and access to family or local support. The absence of recognised identity documents may, in certain circumstances, create a real risk of ill-treatment. It further held that the feasibility of internal relocation must be assessed on an individual basis, and while relocation within the Kurdistan Region of Iraq may be viable for returnees with adequate documentation and family support, it may be unduly harsh where such factors are lacking.  

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants could in principle obtain identity documentation through family assistance or Embassy procedures, and that return and internal movement would not necessarily give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

On 26 March 2026, the CJEU delivered its judgment in the case  C-819/25 (PPU) [Gonrieh] originating from the preliminary reference by the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles) regarding the scope of the Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification (the FRD), concerning the Member States’ obligations in the context of issuing family reunification visas, in particular where the beneficiary is required to appear in person but is unable to leave a third country due to life-threatening situation.

The Court clarified that Article 13(1) FRD, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 4, 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, requires Member States, after accepting an application for family reunification, to authorise the entry of the family member and to grant “every facility for obtaining the required visas.” This obligation entails removing unjustified administrative obstacles and applying rapid and efficient administrative procedures to enable the issuance of visas, including, inter alia, facilitating personal appearances through accessible consular services, issuing emergency travel documents, and minimizing the number of appearances required.

However, the Court held that Article 13(1) does not impose obligations extending to diplomatic or consular relations with third countries. In particular, a Member State is not required to organise or ensure the transfer of a third-country national to its consular post, nor to contact third countries to facilitate that transfer, in situations where the person is unable to travel. Such measures would fall outside the scope of the Directive and concern matters which are not covered by EU law under Article 51 of the Charter. It further clarified that provisions concerning diplomatic and consular protection, including Article 20(2)(c) and Article 23 TFEU and Article 46 of the Charter, apply only to Union citizens and, in certain cases, their family members, and not to third-country nationals seeking family reunification under Directive 2003/86.

The Court emphasised that this interpretation is consistent with the objective of Directive 2003/86, which is to promote family reunification and protect third-country nationals, including minors, while distinguishing between administrative facilitation and measures requiring external intervention. Therefore, the refusal to provide evacuation or diplomatic assistance does not constitute a failure to implement EU law, and the obligations under Article 13(1) are limited to the administrative sphere.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 5 March 2026, the Advocate General Rimvydas Norkus issued his opinion in the case C-819/25 (PPU) [Gonrieh]. The case related to the preliminary reference by the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles) regarding the scope of the Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification (the FRD), concerning the granting of a visa for family reunification which requires the beneficiary to appear in person for its issuance, while the person is unable to leave the third country where they reside and is facing life-threatening conditions. The questions referred enquired whether EU law applies only to the decision to grant the visa, or also to ensure that the person can effectively receive it and, whether Member States are obliged to provide assistance to enable the beneficiary to obtain the visa under such circumstances, including where their physical departure from the third country is impossible due to imminent danger.

The Advocate General considers that the implementation of EU law does not conclude with the decision of granting the visa. Relying on Article 13(1) of the FRD, which requires Member States to authorise entry and to grant “every facility for obtaining the required visas”, he concludes that the obligation extends until the issuance of the visa. That provision, read in light of the objective of the Directive to ensure the effectiveness of family reunification and recital 13 requiring efficient procedures, imposes a duty of active and continuous administrative cooperation. Accordingly, where a Member State requires the beneficiary’s personal appearance to verify identity, EU law and therefore the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, pursuant to Article 51(1) thereof, applies until the administrative formalities necessary for issuing the visa are completed. Limiting EU law to the mere approval of the visa would undermine the effectiveness of the right to family reunification.

However, the Advocate General makes a distinction between administrative facilitation and diplomatic or consular intervention. He considers that Article 13(1) does not require a Member State which has granted visas to nationals of a third country in the context of family reunification to include them in an evacuation process put in place by that Member State or to inform the authorities of any third country preventing these beneficiaries from travelling to the Union that the latter have a visa to stay in the Member State in question.  Accordingly, while Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/86 requires Member States to grant every facility for obtaining the required visas and to ensure through effective administrative measures that the visa is actually issued, it does not impose an obligation to adopt external, diplomatic or evacuation measures to secure the beneficiaries’ departure from a third country.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team