Written by: Nicolas Garon 

As the spectacular Olympic Summer Games recently drew to a close in Paris, a unique observation of one of the most crucial logistical endeavors took place behind the scenes: visa affairs.

With 206 countries competing in the 2024 Summer Olympics and spectators filling the boulevards and stadiums across France, each waving colorful flags, one might wonder: how does one manage immigration for all these visitors to Paris?

To begin with, France is part of the Schengen Area, meaning that to visit France for tourism, you need a Schengen visa. This visa allows for free movement within the Schengen Zone, which includes 29 European countries. Since the Schengen visa permits travel across these member states, the issuance of a Schengen visa is governed by a unified visa code. This code outlines agreed-upon principles, but individual countries, including France, may have additional national requirements and procedures.

For instance, while certain policies are set by the visa code, deviation respective to individual sovereignty is permitted. For example, member states like France can impose their own procedure for non-judicial appeals, which nationals need transit visas for France, in addition to the EU-wide list, etc. Given that admitting a person into one Schengen member state allows entry to all others, thus, can affect all others, the Schengen visa process is stringent. The EU tries to maintain a posture in which no easy entry can be made, to avoid mass migration.

Although you can appeal a consular visa decision, the process is challenging. Consular decisions are largely final, and while appeals are possible, the chances of success are low. Visa officers have subjective criteria. For proof, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on December 19, 2013, that authorities only need to assess whether there are reasonable doubts about the applicant’s intention to return, rather than being certain of it. However, some countries are more prone to facing this scrutiny universally.

Take for example Iran—a country where severe, tyrannical human rights abuses may lead to the perception that any and all of the citizens, if given the opportunity, would not return home. Western nations often act to prevent this possibility. Unfortunately, Iran is not the only country with this migratory pressure, and some of these pressures are a direct result of actions taken by the west.

Despite these challenges, citizens from these countries continue to participate in the Olympics and Paralympics and travel to places like Paris.

Paris, as the host city for the Olympics, faces what I call the “host country effect.” This means that, with the benefits of being the Olympic host, Paris will have to handle visa applications from athletes, journalists, spectators, and families from nearly every country in the world, all applying at once. These visas must be adjudicated timely and fairly to ensure that everyone arrives on time and to avoid national embarrassment, such as an athlete being refused entry or the negative optics if fans from certain countries are unable to attend.

Additionally, these visas need to be adjudicated fairly, considering the rest of the Schengen countries, as well as the government of Tahiti, where Olympic surfing events will take place. The Ministry of the Interior and Overseas Territories will be involved in this process.

The “host country effect” and its implications on the adjudicating host country were first observed in the United Nations Headquarters agreement. When the UN selected New York City as its headquarters, the U.S. recognized that “persons of many political backgrounds would need to be admitted to the United States on United Nations business” (as noted in the U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual). Consequently, the U.S. agreed not to impede travel to the UN for these individuals and to exclude many ineligibilities that apply to ordinary short-term applicants.

Diplomats and intergovernmental staff typically receive special visa privileges, and interestingly, the EU visa code extends specific procedures for Olympians and Paralympians. According to Annex XI of the EU visa code, “Member States hosting the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games shall apply the specific procedures and conditions facilitating the issuing of visas.”

In exploring how this policy is implemented, I found that for the 2024 Paris Olympics, visas were available online for the first time, potentially reducing logistical burdens for applicants and easing the workload on understaffed consular posts. Months back, I wrote about how the EU’s push to digitize visas could significantly alleviate logistical burdens for applicants and reduce the workload on understaffed consular posts. This digital shift promises to streamline the application process, making it more efficient and less cumbersome for both applicants and consular staff.

VFS Global was used for Olympic, French visas. VFS, a private company which handles visa application booking and logistics (before it reaches adjudication,) for several European nations including France, illustrated the different procedures for various categories related to the Olympics. VFS mentioned different categories for visa applicants going to the Olympic Games. The first category is the “Olympic and Paralympic Family,” which includes anyone for whom an accreditation application is submitted to the Olympic or Paralympic Committee (OCOG). This group comprises members of the Olympic and Paralympic Committees, athletes, accompanying persons, media, and official guests. They receive the most benefits. The second category consists of guests of the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (OCOG). This group receives specific privileges, but these are fewer compared to those granted to the Olympic and Paralympic Family. The last category is spectators who wish to attend the Games as regular attendees.

Accredited persons, known as the “Olympic Family,” including members of the Olympic and Paralympic Committees, athletes, accompanying persons, media, and official guests, benefit from no appointment requirement, the ability to apply outside their consular jurisdiction, and exemption from visa or service fees. They must present a “Certificate” from the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (OCOG) and their travel document, which is returned to them.

Persons invited by the OCOG must complete a visa application with France-Visas, make an appointment if required, and present a “Letter of Invitation” from the OCOG. They are also exempt from visa and service fees. Volunteers, however, must pay visa and service fees, and they need to present a “Letter of Attestation of Voluntary Service” from COJO, their travel document, and supporting documents.

Spectators received no benefits and were not unique in consideration procedures.

Despite these provisions, one hundred media members from Belarus and Russia faced visa denials, reflecting ongoing political tensions between the EU and Russia and Belarus. This situation is comparable to previous instances, such as the ban on Iranians traveling to Slovakia for tourism, Poland restricting Russian diplomatic movement inside their country, restrictions imposed on Russians traveling to many European countries, visa denials for Russian journalists attached to FM Sergey Lavrov’s trip to the US, and the challenges faced by adversarial UN applicants in securing American visas.

With knowledge of how hard Schengen visas are to get for some nationals, and how immensely international Olympic spectators are, I wanted to know whether special leniency was extended to spectators from countries facing migratory pressure.

A diplomatic source from France revealed that they have created somewhat of an “Olympic Consulate” in Nantes, France.

The source told me that the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior and Overseas Territories, and the organizing committee (COJOP/Paris 2024) have been working closely together on consular affairs. Furthering that these two ministries share responsibility for issuing visas for the Olympic and Paralympic family, which includes athletes, coaches, medical staff, representatives of the sports world (including the International Olympic and Paralympic Committees), and accredited journalists.

To meet the exceptional needs of the event and fulfill our commitments as a host country and to our European partners, a specific mechanism called the “Olympic Consulate” was established. Operating since January 2024 and based in Nantes, the “Olympic Consulate” processes and handles most visa applications for the Olympic and Paralympic family in collaboration with the organizing committee. Experienced agents from both ministries, supported by occasional reinforcements, staff this consulate.

The source went on to mention that this ad hoc system, designed to handle large-scale projects like this, facilitates shared processing of accreditation and visa applications, reducing the burden on the consular network and service providers who are mainly responsible for collecting biometric data from the Olympic and Paralympic family.

I inquired whether visa leniency was extended to third-country nationals to prevent absences. The response indicated that while the diplomatic and consular network contributes to processing some visa applications, particularly for official delegations and tourists, there are no exemptions from security checks. All required security checks will be performed, and visas cannot be issued if there are security objections.

This approach demonstrates an effective strategy for managing large-scale events by creating a specialized committee to handle substantial tasks. It also underscores the importance of host country visa management and its implications.

The move towards digital processes highlights a positive shift for the future of Schengen visas, improving logistics for both the government and applicants. Waiving appointment requirements, allowing applications outside consular jurisdiction, and eliminating visa fees address significant logistical challenges. As the world continues to embrace digital visa adjudication, many traditional requirements may become obsolete.

While it is unfortunate that some nationals were denied visas, likely due to their nationality, and that spectators did not receive special considerations, a centralized visa adjudication system could offer a more efficient alternative to individual consular posts managing their own applications. This could reduce suspicion and improve efficiency in high-pressure and high-fraud environments.

Author: Nicolas Garon