The case arose following concerns that non-EU students whose visa applications are rejected often receive the refusal too late—typically between August and October—to lodge and conclude an appeal before the start of the academic year. In 2023, the Brussels Court of First Instance referred questions to the Court of Justice, seeking clarification on whether EU law requires Belgium to provide an exceptional appeal procedure in conditions of extreme urgency, and whether the appeal body should be empowered to substitute its own visa decision for the one annulled.

In its ruling, the Court held that Article 34(5) of Directive 2016/801, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not impose a specific appeal procedure in conditions of extreme urgency. However, it stressed that the right to an effective remedy must be guaranteed in practice. This includes complying with the 90-day deadline for deciding on complete visa applications and ensuring that the appeal procedure allows for the prompt adoption of a new decision where appropriate.

Addressing the second question, the Court found that Member States are not obliged to allow appeal judges to substitute their decision for that of the administration. Annulment remains sufficient, provided that it leads to a swift new decision by the authorities. What matters, the Court underlined, is that the conditions under which the appeal is exercised must allow for the adoption of a new decision within a short period, in line with the judgment annulling the initial refusal.

For further details, please read the judgment of the Court in Case C‑299/23.