Justice Minister Hubig wants to reform court procedures: Opportunities for visa law?

Imagine you have a top-tier job offer in Germany, your bags are packed, but your visa is rejected without any valid reason. Appealing to the Berlin Administrative Court is often your last hope. But once there, the harsh reality of the rule of law sets in: an average processing time of 14.2 months . For a skilled worker or a family seeking reunification, a year of uncertainty is an eternity that can shatter life plans. But there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. With the new draft bill from the Federal Ministry of Justice under Minister Stefanie Hubig, dated February 2, 2026, the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) is set to undergo a major overhaul. As a law firm specializing in visa law , we see this not just as a legal adjustment, but as a genuine opportunity for our clients to obtain their rights more quickly.

Streamlined structures for an overburdened justice system

The core problem in many visa cases has been the personnel and structural overload of the chambers . The draft legislation boldly addresses this issue. A key change concerns Section 6, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO ). Previously, probationary judges could only decide cases after a full year of service as a single judge. In practice, this often meant that proceedings were unnecessarily delayed until the necessary personnel were available. The reform proposes shortening this period to six months. While this may sound technical, it has enormous implications: More judges will be able to decide visa cases independently sooner. Furthermore, the panels at the Higher Administrative Courts and even the Federal Administrative Court are also to be reduced in size. If senates decide cases more frequently with three judges instead of five, this will significantly increase the rate of resolution .

The relevance of the party presentation should be increased.

A critical point of the draft bill is the planned amendment to Section 86 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) . The principle of official investigation is traditionally considered the cornerstone of administrative proceedings – it obligates the court to comprehensively investigate the facts of the case ex officio, so as not to be solely reliant on the submissions of the authorities. The draft now proposes to legally curtail this obligation: In the future, the court will no longer be required to conduct investigations that are not prompted by explicit submissions from a party or "other concrete indications."

We view this development with great skepticism. The Ministry's justification, that it wants to prevent "unlimited investigations," completely misses the mark when it comes to the reality of visa law. In practice, we are already witnessing an administrative court system that hardly conducts any independent investigations in visa matters . All too often, the courts rely uncritically on the files of German diplomatic missions abroad or the often sweeping assessments of the security authorities.

Instead of encouraging the courts to delve deeper into the issues, the legislature is now legitimizing procedural passivity. For our clients, this means a de facto deterioration : The burden of actively and proactively introducing even the smallest piece of evidence into the proceedings is almost entirely shifted onto the plaintiff. What the ministry is selling as "strengthening the parties' right to present their case" is, in reality, a relief for the judiciary at the expense of those fighting for their entry into the country against an overpowering bureaucracy. If the courts further reduce their oversight function, the visa application process before the administrative court risks becoming a mere formality, where the principle of official investigation exists only on paper . We see a danger here that the substantive truth will have to take a back seat to procedural efficiency.

Stronger sanctions against arbitrary actions by authorities

Another aspect of the draft bill concerns the enforcement of judgments against public authorities pursuant to Section 172 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO ). Up to now, enforcement has often failed due to administrative inertia and a system of coercive fines that operated on the principle of "left pocket, right pocket." The reform aims to improve this: The maximum coercive fine is to be increased from €10,000 to €25,000. Furthermore, the money will no longer go to the tax authorities, but to charitable organizations, in order to exert genuine economic pressure on ministries and embassies.

However, we must temper expectations: This change will have little impact on the average visa application. In our daily practice, we observe that administrative courts exhibit remarkable reluctance to impose enforcement measures against government agencies. A great deal usually has to happen before a court decides to formally compel an authority to implement a ruling. Generally, vague assurances from government representatives about "ongoing processing" are sufficient for judges to refrain from imposing sanctions.

Increasing the maximum fine to €25,000 may sound impressive on paper, but as long as judicial psychology is characterized more by leniency towards the administration than by consistent enforcement, this reform will remain a paper tiger . For the majority of plaintiffs, who are simply waiting for their visa to be issued after winning their case, this isolated measure will hardly speed up the procedural process. The problem is not the amount of the fines, but rather the will of the judiciary to hold the state, as a party to litigation, as accountable as a private citizen.

Digital objection and the "suspension order"

However, introducing the option of submitting an objection via email makes sense . This simple email approach breaks down the rigid structures of Sections 70(1) and 3a of the German Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) . In a globalized world where our clients are often thousands of kilometers away from the nearest German authority, abolishing the requirement of written form in favor of digital communication is an act of modernization.

Furthermore, the so-called "suspension order" is enshrined in law for expedited proceedings . This ensures our clients immediate, preliminary legal certainty in critical situations—such as threatened rejections or the imminent expiration of deadlines—until the court has ruled on the actual expedited application. It creates clarity where procedural gray areas previously existed.

Conclusion: Planned judicial reforms likely to have little impact on visa law

The reform of the Administrative Court Procedure Act initiated by Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig is a double-edged sword for visa law. Without question, the structural adjustments, particularly the faster appointment of single judges pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act and the reduction in the size of the panels, are a long-overdue signal against the unacceptable processing times of over 14 months. Those waiting for a visa don't need fundamental legal debates in large panels, but rather timely decisions.

But the price for this efficiency is high . The planned weakening of the duty of official investigation in Section 86 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) is, in our view, a retreat of the rule of law from its own complexity. If courts in the future investigate the facts of a case even less frequently on their own initiative, the success of a lawsuit will depend even more heavily on how comprehensive and professionally the parties' submissions are prepared. The judiciary is relieving itself of this burden at the expense of the plaintiffs. The media-savvy increase in coercive fines in Section 172 of the VwGO will also be ineffective in practice as long as the courts shy away from consistently applying these instruments against state authorities.

Our conclusion: While the reform brings modern conveniences such as email appeals and faster proceedings, it simultaneously places a significantly heavier burden on applicants and their lawyers regarding the presentation of the facts. At a time when courts are increasingly relying on the administrative files, highly specialized legal representation is more important than ever to avoid being lost in the "new," faster procedure. We will critically monitor the implementation of the draft and adapt our strategies accordingly to ensure that your mobility does not fall victim to procedural cost-cutting.