For a British citizen planning to settle in France after Brexit, a refusal based on health insurance is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It can prevent the move, interrupt a retirement plan, or leave a family unable to reunite. A French visa de long séjour is the French long-stay visa required for a stay of more than three months. A visitor visa is the route used by a person who intends to live in France without carrying on professional activity there. The insurance evidence for that route must be read alongside the applicant’s resources, accommodation, purpose of stay and intention not to work.

The first practical distinction is between a policy that merely covers emergency treatment or repatriation and a policy that covers the health risk for the whole planned stay. A UK Global Health Insurance Card (GHIC), an old European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), or a UK S1 form may be relevant to healthcare after residence is established, but none should be assumed to replace the evidence requested for the visa file. The French consulate can also consider whether the application is coherent: a policy limited to 90 days is difficult to reconcile with a twelve-month visitor application.

This article explains the legal test, the documents that make an insurance certificate persuasive, and the procedure after refusal. It focuses on the individual British applicant: residence, healthcare and the immediate appeal. It does not cover the purchase of French property or the creation of a company. If your preliminary question is whether you need a visa at all, read our guide to the 90-day rule and long-stay options for British citizens in France before rebuilding the file.

I. Why a French long-stay visa is refused for health-insurance reasons

A. What insurance must a British applicant prove for a visitor visa?

The starting point is the length of the planned stay. Article L. 312-2 of the French Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum, known in French as the CESEDA, states: Tout étranger souhaitant entrer en France en vue d’y séjourner pour une durée supérieure à trois mois doit solliciter … un visa de long séjour. The operative rule and its official text are available in Article L. 312-2 CESEDA. A British passport holder who plans to remain in France beyond the visa-free short-stay allowance must therefore identify the correct long-stay category before paying for insurance or filing the application.

The visitor category has its own conditions. Article L. 426-20 CESEDA provides for a one-year temporary residence card marked visiteur where the foreign national can live from personal resources, undertakes not to work in France and proves health insurance for the duration of the stay. Its central wording is: Il doit en outre justifier de la possession d’une assurance maladie couvrant la durée de son séjour. The full provision is available on Article L. 426-20 CESEDA.

That provision concerns the residence card, but it is central to the assessment of the visa that allows the applicant to enter France for that intended status. The administration normally reads the file as a whole. A visitor applicant should be able to show, consistently and in the same dates, that:

• the stay is genuinely longer than three months and has a clear private, family or retirement purpose;
• the applicant has sufficient resources for the planned period, without relying on employment in France;
• the accommodation is identified and credible;
• the applicant will not carry on professional activity in France; and
• the insurance certificate covers the health risk for the complete period requested.

The entry rule is not limited to the label printed on an insurance document. Article L. 311-1 CESEDA requires an entrant to hold the documents relating to the purpose and conditions of the stay, resources, the assumption of medical and hospital expenditure by an approved insurer and repatriation guarantees. The current text is available at Article L. 311-1 CESEDA. In practice, the policy should be capable of answering the following questions without interpretation by the consular officer:

1. Who is insured? The certificate should identify the applicant by name and, where available, passport number or date of birth.
2. Where does the cover apply? It should cover France for the whole intended period, not merely a first visit to the Schengen area.
3. When does it start and end? The dates should cover the proposed arrival and the complete period requested, including the final day. If a twelve-month visa is requested, a policy that ends after 90 days creates an obvious gap.
4. What does it cover? The wording should address illness, hospital treatment and the costs that may arise during the stay, rather than emergency transport alone.
5. What are the limits and exclusions? A high headline limit does not cure an exclusion for ordinary illness, pre-existing conditions, long-term treatment or hospitalisation.
6. Who pays and how? The certificate should explain whether the insurer pays providers directly or reimburses the policyholder, and whether a deductible or prior authorisation can leave the applicant exposed.
7. Does it cover the whole legal project? If the applicant says that the purpose is residence in France as a self-sufficient retiree, the insurance should be consistent with residence rather than a short holiday.

The document does not have to be written in technical legal language. It does need to be unambiguous. A short letter from the insurer, in French or accompanied by a reliable French translation where necessary, can explain the territorial scope, medical and hospital cover, exclusions, maximum stay and renewal mechanism. The applicant should retain the full policy wording, not only the one-page certificate, because the administration or the Commission for Appeals against Visa Refusal Decisions may need to understand an exclusion.

There is also a difference between health insurance and repatriation insurance. A repatriation policy may pay to return a traveller to the UK after an accident. That may be useful, but it does not automatically show that ordinary illness and hospital treatment in France are covered for a full long stay. Similarly, an annual travel policy can contain a maximum number of consecutive days abroad even when the policy itself is valid for one year. The duration of the contract and the maximum duration of each trip are separate questions.

The official French checklist for the visitor residence category refers to an attestation of health insurance covering the duration of the stay. That requirement appears in the current CESEDA Annex 10 document list. The applicant should use the list as a minimum, then add documents that resolve the particular weaknesses of the policy. A certificate saying “worldwide cover” without stating whether France is covered for a continuous twelve-month residence is less useful than a precise certificate that states France, the dates, the covered risks and the relevant limits.

For a British applicant, GHIC, EHIC and S1 documents require special care. GOV.UK explains that UK nationals living in France may access French healthcare through French social-security contributions, an S1 in eligible situations, or other routes, and it states that health cover may need to be shown before a person can register as a resident or apply for a visa. See the GOV.UK guidance on healthcare for UK nationals living in France. The same guidance distinguishes temporary use of a GHIC or EHIC from the arrangements for people who actually live in France.

A GHIC or EHIC is principally evidence for medically necessary state treatment during a temporary stay or in a specific protected situation. It is not a universal substitute for a private policy in a visitor visa file. An S1 can be powerful evidence for a person whose healthcare is funded by the UK under an applicable entitlement, but the applicant should show entitlement, registration or the precise legal basis on which the S1 will be registered. Saying “I will obtain an S1 later” does not necessarily prove that the visa condition is met on the date of the application.

This distinction does not mean that an applicant must buy unnecessary cover. It means that the evidence must match the legal route. The GOV.UK guidance on living in France directs British nationals to check French visa and residence requirements and confirms that the British Embassy cannot decide a French visa application. The French authorities decide the visa. The strongest file explains, with documents, how the applicant will be insured before French state registration or any later healthcare arrangement becomes available.

There is a further Brexit distinction. A British citizen who was already lawfully living in France before 1 January 2021 may have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement and a residence document under that regime. That is a different legal basis from a new move from the UK. A person who already holds a valid Withdrawal Agreement residence card should not automatically submit a new visitor visa application. The applicant should first identify whether the case concerns a new arrival, a renewal, a lost card, or a change of status.

Visa status and tax residence are separate questions. A long-stay visa does not, by itself, decide where a person is tax resident, while a person who actually establishes a French household or main place of stay may acquire French tax obligations. The French tax administration explains the relevant residence criteria in its official guidance for residents of France. That issue should be reviewed separately so that the visa file, the first tax return and the UK-France treaty analysis do not contradict one another.

B. How the consulate and the CRRV assess an incomplete or unreliable policy

A refusal letter may use a standard phrase such as “you do not have adequate and valid health insurance”. That phrase is not a conclusion that should be accepted without checking the file. It can refer to different defects: no insurance certificate, an expired certificate, a 90-day maximum, emergency-only cover, a territory that excludes France, a missing name, an unacceptable exclusion, or a policy that does not correspond to the requested visa period. The remedy depends on the actual defect.

The refusal must also be reasoned. Article L. 211-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration requires reasons for a refusal of authorisation and other adverse decisions. It says that applicants have the right to be informed of the reasons for adverse individual decisions, including refusals of an authorisation. See Article L. 211-2 CRPA. Article L. 211-5 adds: La motivation exigée par le présent chapitre doit être écrite et comporter l’énoncé des considérations de droit et de fait. The official text is at Article L. 211-5 CRPA.

The legal test is not whether the refusal letter is long. It is whether the applicant can understand the legal and factual reasons and answer them. A form that simply ticks a box may be vulnerable if it gives no intelligible explanation, but a court may accept a short statement when the decision refers to the applicable legal basis and the concrete facts. The distinction matters when drafting the appeal: a general complaint that the decision is unfair is weaker than a point-by-point demonstration that the policy covers precisely the risk said to be missing.

The CAA Nantes decision of 17 September 2024, no. 24NT00478, concerned a child’s long-stay visitor visa and an implicit CRRV refusal. The court recorded reasons relating to resources, insurance and the reliability of the information, and held that the reasoning was sufficient in that case. The official decision is CAA Nantes, 17 September 2024, no. 24NT00478. Its lesson is practical: the appeal must address every stated ground, not just the insurance checkbox. If resources or the purpose of the stay are also challenged, a new policy alone may not win the case.

The CAA Nantes order of 9 July 2021, no. 21NT01226, is particularly useful for understanding the difference between travel insurance and long-stay cover. The decision records that the policy supplied covered only emergency medical and hospital treatment and repatriation, with a ceiling of €30,000, and did not cover the illness and hospitalisation risk of a long stay. The court described the argument that the file was incomplete as serious enough to suspend the execution of the lower-court judgment. The official text is CAA Nantes, 9 July 2021, no. 21NT01226. The short quotation from the decision is: une attestation d’assurance voyage couvrant seulement les frais de rapatriement. That is not a safe basis for a twelve-month visitor application.

The case does not create a universal requirement that every policy must look the same. It shows why the wording matters. An emergency-only policy may be suitable for a short trip while failing the evidence needed for residence. The applicant should ask the insurer to confirm whether the policy covers non-emergency illness, hospitalisation and treatment during the entire proposed period, and whether any maximum consecutive-stay clause defeats the certificate.

The CAA Nantes judgment of 19 December 2025, no. 24NT02466, shows another important point. The applicant produced a new medical-insurance certificate during the CRRV appeal, covering 367 days. The court held, on the insurance ground, that the commission had made an error of assessment by treating the insurance as “adequate and valid” when the new certificate covered the relevant period. The court nevertheless upheld the overall refusal after accepting a different reason: the applicant had not shown the need for a stay of more than three months, having previously visited her sons with short-stay visas. Read the official decision at CAA Nantes, 19 December 2025, no. 24NT02466. The precise passage states: la commission de recours a entaché sa décision d’une erreur d’appréciation.

That judgment gives two safeguards for a British applicant. First, submit the corrected policy with the CRRV appeal and explain why it cures the refusal. Second, prove the independent necessity for a long stay. A retired person who wants to spend a year with family, manage an established French life, or live in France as a self-sufficient visitor should explain why a sequence of short visits is not the legal project. The file must not suggest that the visitor route is being used to disguise employment, permanent family reunification or another category with different conditions.

The CAA Nantes judgment of 6 December 2024, no. 23NT01805, also demonstrates the importance of the long-stay purpose. The case involved a visitor visa and the court examined whether the applicant had shown the need to reside in France for more than three months. The official text is CAA Nantes, 6 December 2024, no. 23NT01805. A corrected insurance policy cannot by itself prove that the visitor category is appropriate. A cover letter should connect the insurance, resources, accommodation and purpose into one credible account.

The same reasoning should be applied to family circumstances. The CAA Nantes judgment of 6 December 2024, no. 23NT02447, involved visitor visas and applicants who asserted that they had resources, would not work and had health insurance. It is available at CAA Nantes, 6 December 2024, no. 23NT02447. Where the actual aim is to join a spouse or dependent family member, the applicant should consider whether a family route is more coherent. A visitor visa file built around “I want to visit my children for a year” may be tested against the requirement to justify a genuine long-stay project.

The most common weaknesses to correct before appeal are therefore:

• a certificate that starts after the intended arrival date;
• a certificate that ends before the visa period ends;
• a 90-day maximum hidden in the policy terms;
• cover limited to accidents, emergencies or repatriation;
• an exclusion for pre-existing conditions that is not explained;
• no clear evidence of hospital and ordinary illness cover in France;
• a certificate in the wrong name or without a link to the passport;
• no French translation where the insurer’s wording is not intelligible to the decision-maker; and
• a policy that contradicts the stated intention to live in France for one year.

The applicant should preserve the original refusal, the France-Visas receipt, the policy schedule, the complete terms, payment proof, insurer correspondence and every exchange with the consulate. The date of notification controls the first appeal deadline. Do not wait for the insurer to send a perfect certificate if the deadline is approaching: file a properly reasoned appeal on time and add a clearly identified supplement if the rules and the receiving authority allow it.

II. How to challenge the refusal and rebuild the file

A. Which deadline, CRRV appeal and Nantes proceedings apply?

For a long-stay visa refusal, the first mandatory step is the Commission de recours contre les décisions de refus de visa d’entrée en France, usually abbreviated as CRRV. In English, this is the Commission for Appeals against Visa Refusal Decisions. Article D. 312-3 CESEDA states that the commission examines administrative appeals against long-stay visa refusals and that the appeal is a compulsory preliminary step before court proceedings. The official provision says: La saisine … est un préalable obligatoire à l’exercice d’un recours contentieux. See Article D. 312-3 CESEDA.

Article D. 312-4 CESEDA provides that administrative appeals must be made within 30 days from notification of the visa-refusal decision. Its wording is direct: Les recours administratifs doivent être formés dans un délai de trente jours. The current text is at Article D. 312-4 CESEDA. The official France-Visas procedure also explains that the long-stay CRRV appeal must be motivated, written in French and signed, and must precede any administrative-court claim. See the France-Visas English FAQ and the Service-Public guidance on long-stay visas.

The file should be sent to the address indicated by the current official instructions, with proof of delivery. Keep a complete copy of the signed appeal and the attachments in the same order as the index. The appeal should identify:

1. the applicant, passport number and contact details;
2. the consulate, application reference and date of the refusal;
3. the visa category and requested dates;
4. the legal and factual grounds for contesting the refusal;
5. the correction made to the insurance evidence;
6. the resources and accommodation supporting the long stay;
7. the reason the visitor category is appropriate; and
8. the precise outcome requested, namely withdrawal of the refusal and issue of the visa or, at minimum, a lawful reconsideration.

The CRRV appeal should not become a second application with no explanation. Its purpose is to show why the original decision was wrong on the documents available, or why the corrected evidence directly answers the stated defect. A good index can use headings such as “Policy duration”, “Medical and hospital cover”, “Territorial scope”, “Exclusions and deductible”, “Resources”, “Accommodation” and “Purpose of the long stay”. Each heading should point to a numbered exhibit.

If the consulate did not give a detailed written reason, request the reasons and still protect the deadline. For an implicit administrative rejection, Article L. 232-4 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration allows the person concerned to request the reasons within the litigation period. The rule says: les motifs de toute décision implicite de rejet devront lui être communiqués dans le mois suivant cette demande. See Article L. 232-4 CRPA. This request does not justify allowing the CRRV deadline to expire; it is a supporting procedural step.

The court with jurisdiction over consular visa disputes is the Administrative Court of Nantes. Article R. 312-18 of the Code of Administrative Justice assigns individual disputes relating to visas issued by consular authorities to Nantes. The official text is Article R. 312-18 CJA. If the CRRV rejects the appeal explicitly or by silence, the court claim must be prepared within the applicable time limit. The general two-month rule for a claim against a notified decision appears in Article R. 421-1 CJA, but the date and nature of the CRRV decision should be checked in the individual file rather than assumed.

The judicial claim should challenge the final CRRV decision, which normally replaces the original consular decision. The grounds may include an error of law, an error of fact, an error of assessment, insufficient reasoning, failure to consider the evidence, or disproportionate treatment of the applicant’s private and family life where relevant. The court will not award a visa merely because a new policy looks better. It will examine the case as at the date of the contested decision and the legal reasons relied on by the administration.

The applicant should distinguish three situations:

• If the policy never covered the required risk, the appeal should present a new policy but explain why the refusal misread or inadequately assessed the complete file.
• If the policy did cover the risk but the certificate was unclear, the appeal should provide the full terms, an insurer’s clarification and a French translation where necessary.
• If the policy is now correct but another ground remains, the appeal must also prove resources, accommodation, the purpose of the long stay and the absence of professional activity.

The British applicant should also avoid relying on the wrong authority. The British Embassy cannot overturn a French refusal. The CRRV and, after that, the Administrative Court of Nantes are the relevant French routes. The GOV.UK living-in-France guidance directs applicants with visa problems to the French visa service, the French consulate or an English-speaking lawyer in France. That division of responsibility should be reflected in the evidence and the timetable.

B. What evidence and urgent remedy can actually change the outcome?

The appeal should be built around an evidence table. For the insurance issue, the table can be structured as follows:

Question raised by the refusal	Evidence to attach	Explanation to give
Is the cover long enough?	Certificate and schedule showing the exact start and end dates	Explain how the dates cover the planned arrival and the complete visa period.
Is the cover medical rather than repatriation-only?	Policy wording and insurer letter	Identify illness, hospital treatment, emergency care and the relevant limits.
Is France covered?	Territorial clause and insurer confirmation	State expressly that France is covered for continuous residence, not only short travel.
Is the applicant identifiable?	Certificate matching passport and application	Resolve differences in names, initials, dates of birth or passport numbers.
Are exclusions material?	Exclusions, medical questionnaire and clarification	Explain whether pre-existing conditions, routine care or long-term treatment are excluded.
Can the applicant pay before any French registration?	Proof of payment and resources	Show that cover is effective before any later CPAM or S1 registration.
Does the policy match the visa category?	Cover letter, accommodation and financial documents	Connect the insurance to a genuine self-sufficient visitor project.

The phrase “private health insurance” is not enough. The applicant should identify the actual provider, policy number, period, currency, territorial scope, maximum benefit, deductible, claims procedure and exclusions. If the insurer only issues certificates in English, obtain a translation of the operative pages. If the policy is renewable monthly, obtain written confirmation that renewal is guaranteed or explain why the initial period satisfies the application. An officer should not have to infer the answer from marketing material.

The resources evidence should be equally precise. A British retiree can attach pension statements, bank statements, investment income, tax returns, a budget for rent and healthcare, and proof of accommodation. Convert figures carefully and explain recurring income. If a family member provides accommodation or support, attach the undertaking, identity document, proof of address and resources. Do not present a sponsor’s help as a substitute for the applicant’s own resources without explaining the legal and factual basis.

The long-stay purpose must be more than “I prefer France”. A visitor application can explain retirement, established family life, planned medical follow-up that is not the main medical-treatment visa route, language or cultural activity, or the practical organisation of an intended residence. The applicant should provide a coherent timetable: arrival, accommodation, insurance, financial arrangements, non-working status and return or renewal plan. A long stay is not automatically justified by the fact that the applicant owns or may later rent a property; ownership and a visa category are separate questions.

The applicant should address Brexit directly but accurately. A British citizen who lived in France before the end of the transition period may fall under the Withdrawal Agreement. A British citizen moving from the UK now usually needs the immigration route corresponding to the planned stay. A GHIC or EHIC may help with temporary necessary treatment, but it should not be described as a residence permit or as proof that the applicant can work or live indefinitely in France. An S1 should be supported by the UK entitlement and its French registration route. The more clearly the applicant separates temporary healthcare, UK-funded healthcare and private insurance, the less likely the file is to look contradictory.

Urgency requires a separate assessment. A CRRV appeal does not automatically suspend every practical consequence of a refusal. If a court claim has been filed and the applicant can show urgency and a serious doubt about the legality of the decision, a référé-suspension—an interim application seeking suspension—may be considered. Article L. 521-1 CJA provides that the urgent judge may suspend an administrative decision when urgency exists and there is a serious doubt about legality. The official text is Article L. 521-1 CJA. The application needs more than a general wish to travel: the evidence must show a concrete, immediate consequence and a serious legal argument.

In a visa case, urgency might involve a fixed medical, family or educational date, an expiring lawful status, or a time-sensitive event that cannot realistically be repaired by a later application. The judge will still require a serious argument on the merits. A corrected certificate, a refusal that ignores a decisive document, or a clear mismatch between the reason given and the policy may help. The applicant should not describe every inconvenience as an emergency.

If the court ultimately annuls the refusal and the decision necessarily requires the administration to act, an injunction may be requested. Article L. 911-1 CJA allows the court to prescribe the necessary execution measure when its decision requires a public-law body to take a defined step. See Article L. 911-1 CJA. The CAA Nantes decisions above show that applicants sometimes request an order to issue the visa, but the result depends on the reasons established in the individual case.

The most useful drafting sequence is therefore:

1. reproduce the refusal reason accurately, in the original wording and in an English explanation for the applicant;
2. identify the exact policy defect, rather than asserting that the insurer is reputable;
3. obtain a certificate and policy wording that cover the entire intended period;
4. obtain a short insurer letter answering the territorial, medical, duration and exclusion questions;
5. prove resources, accommodation and the absence of work;
6. explain why the visitor category, rather than another route, matches the real project;
7. file the signed CRRV appeal within 30 days and keep delivery evidence; and
8. prepare the Nantes court route before the CRRV response deadline approaches.

An applicant who has already received a refusal should not simply buy another policy and submit a fresh application without examining the time limit. A fresh application may be sensible in some cases, but it can leave the original refusal unchallenged and lose the opportunity to argue that the first decision was based on an adequate policy or an unexplained misunderstanding. The safer strategy depends on the refusal date, the visa category, the policy wording and any other grounds mentioned by the consulate.

The final review should ask four questions. Is every factual assertion supported by an exhibit? Does every exhibit answer a stated refusal ground? Are the dates consistent across the France-Visas form, insurance certificate, accommodation and financial statements? Does the file explain why a British citizen needs this particular French long-stay route after Brexit? If one answer is no, the appeal is not ready.

Need a quick opinion on your case

We offer telephone consultations within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm to review your French visa refusal, insurance certificate and CRRV deadline.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 (Maître Reda Kohen), or use the contact form for the French office.

Conclusion

A British citizen’s French long-stay visitor visa can be refused because the insurance document covers only emergencies, repatriation or a short trip, even when the policy is described as annual. The response must connect the legal category to the evidence: a policy covering the full period, medical and hospital risks in France, clear exclusions and a credible pre-registration arrangement. The applicant must also prove resources, accommodation, non-working status and the genuine need for a long stay.

The immediate procedural priority is the CRRV appeal within the applicable 30-day period after notification, followed by the Nantes administrative-court route if necessary. The verified CAA Nantes decisions show both sides of the risk: an inadequate policy can justify refusal, while a corrected policy can defeat the insurance reason but leave a different ground standing. A precise, indexed and timely appeal gives the applicant the best chance of turning the refusal into a lawful reconsideration or visa decision.