Commentary on the decision CE, 5 May 2026, no. 502860, F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des Acteurs de la Solidarit\u00e9 and others <\/p>\n
In a decision handed down on 5 May 2026 (CE, 5 May 2026, no. 502860, F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des Acteurs de la Solidarit\u00e9 and others), the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat, referred to by several associations defending the rights of foreign nationals and supporting people in precarious situations (notably the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des Acteurs de la Solidarit\u00e9, la Cimade, France Terre d\u2019Asile, le Secours Catholique, and Forum R\u00e9fugi\u00e9s), ordered the State to adopt a series of measures designed to guarantee normal access to the digital administration service for foreign nationals in France (ANEF, Administration num\u00e9rique pour les \u00e9trangers en France). <\/p>\n
This decision reaffirms the obligations incumbent upon any authority administering a digitised public service. It marks an important milestone in the case-law construction of a right to effective access to digital public services, particularly where use of such services is mandatory. <\/p>\n
I. Reaffirming the Principles: Effective Access to Public Services <\/p>\n
The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat bases its reasoning on the fundamental principles governing public services. It recalls that any public service operator is required, in order to serve the general interest for which the service was established, to guarantee users\u2019 right of access under normal conditions, in compliance with the principle of equality, to ensure continuity of service, and to make the adaptations required by the principle of adaptability. <\/p>\n
The administrative court adds a further requirement: the correction of malfunctions that abnormally restrict users\u2019 right of access or compromise the exercise of rights recognised by law. Where, as in the case of ANEF, use of an online service is mandatory, the administration must ensure that users can effectively carry out their procedures. <\/p>\n
With specific regard to ANEF, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat highlights the diversity and complexity of the situations faced by applicants for residence permits, as well as the direct consequences of system failures on the right to remain, the right to work, and access to social entitlements. In accordance with Article R. 431-2 of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreign Nationals and the Right of Asylum (CESEDA), the administration is required to provide assistance and an alternative solution where use of the online service is not possible. <\/p>\n
While the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat acknowledges the efforts already made by the Minister of the Interior (support arrangements, a contact centre reachable by email and telephone, digital access points, and fallback solutions), it nonetheless finds that the service suffers from malfunctions seriously affecting the exercise of certain rights by applicants. <\/p>\n
II. The Injunctions Issued by the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat <\/p>\n
The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat identifies four categories of failures and responds to each with corresponding injunctions, accompanied by specific deadlines for compliance (six or twelve months). <\/p>\n
A. The Issuance and Renewal of the Instruction Extension Certificate (API) <\/p>\n
Under Article R. 431-15-1 of the CESEDA, the administration is required to issue an instruction extension certificate (attestation de prolongation de l\u2019instruction, API) once the application file is complete, prior to the expiry of the previous residence permit, and to renew it if the review process continues. This issuance is not conditional on any specific step being taken by the applicant. <\/p>\n
The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat finds, however, that in far too many cases this certificate is neither issued nor renewed in a timely manner, resulting in interruptions to the right to remain. It therefore orders the State, within a period of six months, to take all necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this obligation. <\/p>\n
B. Recognition of the Rights Attached to the Certificate <\/p>\n
The court identifies a regulatory inconsistency: although the instruction extension certificate establishes the continuation of the right to remain, it is not recognised by applicable texts as a document granting access to social benefits and housing, unlike certain acknowledgement receipts issued by other authorities. This inconsistency leads some organisations to refuse to accept these certificates, despite ministerial guidance indicating that they should produce the same effects as a receipt. <\/p>\n
The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat therefore holds that the regulatory texts must be brought into conformity in order to guarantee users\u2019 access to their social entitlements. It further orders, within six months, that the certificate issued pending the delivery of an accepted residence permit be amended to clearly state the rights attached to it, including in particular the right to engage in a professional activity. <\/p>\n
C. The Simultaneous Filing of Multiple Residence Permit Applications <\/p>\n
The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat notes that ANEF does not allow, for technical reasons, the simultaneous or successive filing of multiple residence permit applications on different grounds while the administration has not yet ruled on the first application. No legal provision, however, precludes such a possibility, which remains available for procedures conducted outside ANEF. <\/p>\n
This limitation may have significant consequences: the refusal of a first application can trigger an obligation to leave the territory and prevent the examination of another right to remain. The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat therefore orders the administration to update the online service within twelve months to enable users to assert all of their rights. <\/p>\n
D. Correcting and Updating Application Files <\/p>\n
Finally, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat finds that ANEF does not always allow users to correct errors or update their files. This concerns in particular cases where a renewal is wrongly refused because the administration has failed to record the return of a previous residence permit, changes of address during the review process, or the addition of new supporting documents. <\/p>\n
The court orders the administration, within six months, to allow users to flag errors, amend their information, and supplement their files. <\/p>\n
III. Scope of the Decision <\/p>\n
This decision extends well beyond the specific case of ANEF. By consolidating the requirement of effective access to digitised public services, the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat sends a clear message to all public authorities that rely on mandatory online services: digitalisation must not become an obstacle to the exercise of rights, and the quality of public services engages the State\u2019s responsibility, including in its digital form. <\/p>\n
The decision continues the line of case law from the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat concerning mandatory online services, but gives it greater precision by imposing concrete, measurable obligations with defined deadlines. The administrative court thereby strengthens its supervisory role over the very design of the State\u2019s digital tools, requiring that they be adapted to the legal and factual realities of the users they serve. <\/p>\n
For applicants for residence permits and their advisers, this decision constitutes an important legal lever. It opens the door to new claims based on the structural failings of a mandatory online service, and provides solid grounds in cases of interruption to the right to remain or inability to assert a social entitlement due to an administrative malfunction. <\/p>\n
It remains to be seen, in the months ahead, how effectively the ordered injunctions are implemented and how the online service concretely evolves. The practical impact of the decision will be measured by the extent to which ANEF is brought into genuine compliance with the requirements set out by the court.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Commentary on the decision CE, 5 May 2026, no. 502860, F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des Acteurs de la Solidarit\u00e9 and others In a decision handed down on 5 May 2026 (CE, 5 May 2026, no. 502860, F\u00e9d\u00e9ration des Acteurs de la Solidarit\u00e9 and others), the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat, referred to by several associations defending the rights of foreign nationals […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5848"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5848\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5850,"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5848\/revisions\/5850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bluebridgelaw.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}