iData, TLScontact, VFS Global and others: How does the collaboration between external service providers and embassies work?

Imagine you're planning an important business trip or the long-awaited family reunification in Germany. You expect governmental sovereignty, discretion, and legal precision. But instead of a German embassy, you suddenly find yourself in a purely private office complex belonging to a globally operating service provider . Amidst ticket machines and paid "VIP services," the nagging question arises: Who's really pulling the strings here? Outsourcing visa processing to external service providers (e-services) is common practice, yet reports of unreliability, technical glitches, and a lack of transparency persist. As a law firm, we repeatedly witness applicants falling through the cracks in this web of governmental responsibility and private profit maximization.

The legal framework: When the state delegates tasks

The legal basis for this procedure is not merely an administrative decision, but is firmly anchored in law. For Schengen visas, Article 43 of the Visa Code forms the foundation, while for national visas, Section 73c of the Residence Act is decisive. These regulations allow the Federal Foreign Office to outsource the processing of applications under a so-called concession agreement . The economic aspect is interesting: this cooperation incurs no costs for the German state. Instead, the applicants alone bear the financial burden of the service fee. For reasons of efficiency, individual contracts are not concluded for each small embassy, but rather entire world regions are put out to tender centrally. What sounds like sound economic sense on paper often leads in practice to a noticeable distance between the actual decision-making authority and the person who needs the visa .

Where the powers of service providers end

It is a common misconception that staff at Visa Application Centers (VACs) can decide the fate of an application. The legal boundary here is very clear: sovereign powers cannot be delegated . An external service provider provides information about requirements, schedules appointments, checks the completeness of documents using checklists, and collects biometric data such as fingerprints. This data is then forwarded to the embassy or consulate. However, the actual review, the legal assessment, and the final decision on granting or denying a visa remain solely the responsibility of the seconded officials from the embassies and consulates . Furthermore, the service providers have no access to sensitive databases such as the Visa Information System (VIS) or the Schengen Information System (SIS) . Nevertheless, the potential for errors in data collection by external service providers should not be underestimated, as the groundwork for a later rejection can be laid at this stage.

The duty of embassies to monitor: Out of sight, not out of mind

Outsourcing does not absolve German diplomatic missions of their responsibility. Legally, this is referred to as ongoing organizational responsibility . The embassy is obligated to continuously monitor the quality of work at the application center. This is done through monthly audit days, during which data entry errors are systematically recorded, as well as through unannounced on-site inspections, which must take place at least once per quarter. In particularly critical cases, the authorities are even permitted to employ "test applicants"—so-called mystery shoppers—to covertly assess service quality and compliance with legal requirements . Therefore, if you feel that your application was handled unprofessionally, the embassy is legally obligated to investigate these issues.

Conclusion: A system with systemic weaknesses

Outsourcing visa processing to external service providers has become an integral part of modern consular work, but it remains a double-edged sword. While embassies benefit from reduced logistical burdens, applicants often face a confusing and confusing process . Although the legal framework of the Visa Code and the Residence Act is strictly defined, the quality of implementation depends entirely on the rigorous oversight of the Federal Foreign Office. As a law firm, we advise you to critically examine the work of these service providers and not be misled by their private-law approach. Ultimately, the decision regarding your entry into the country remains a sovereign state function, for which the embassy bears full legal responsibility.