Since 1 January 2026, your French can decide whether you are allowed to stay in France. For British citizens, who have been third-country nationals since Brexit, the rule is now blunt: the first carte de séjour pluriannuelle<\/i>, the multi-year residence permit, requires proven French at level A2, and the first carte de résident<\/i>, the ten-year resident card, requires level B1. Miss the level, file the wrong certificate, or file nothing at all, and the préfet<\/i>, the State representative in your département<\/i>, can refuse the card. That refusal can arrive together with an obligation de quitter le territoire français<\/i>, an order to leave France, commonly called an OQTF. This guide explains, in plain English, which level applies to which card, which diplomas and tests count as proof, why files fail, and how to challenge a refusal in front of the French administrative courts.<\/p>\n
The official position is set out on the service-public.fr information page verified on 10 February 2026: since 1 January 2026, nationals of non-European countries who apply for a first multi-year residence card or a first resident card must prove their command of French, at A2 level for multi-year cards and B1 level for resident cards. That single sentence changes the daily life of thousands of British households, from young workers in Lyon to retired couples in the Dordogne. The rest of this article turns that sentence into a practical legal roadmap, with the exact statutory references and recent court decisions your lawyer will actually use.<\/p>\n
Start with your own status. The British government guidance for nationals living in France invites readers to check which visa or residence permit<\/a> they need to live in France. Once you have arrived, the same guidance adds: Once in the country, newcomers need to apply for a residence permit or validate their long-stay visa. Most Britons who moved after the end of the Brexit transition period hold standard French permits: a one-year temporary carte de séjour<\/i> first, then a multi-year card, then, after five years of lawful residence, a ten-year card. It is at those two upgrade steps that French now acts as a gatekeeper.<\/p>\n For the first multi-year permit, the service-public.fr page states: For a first multi-year card, applicants aged under 65 must show command of French at A2 level. A2 is the elementary level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, the Council of Europe scale universally called the CEFR: you can understand everyday expressions, communicate in simple tasks, and describe your background in basic terms. The page continues: with proficiency at or above A2 on the Council of Europe Common European Framework scale. Note the three key limits built into that sentence. It applies to a first application, not to every renewal. It applies if you are under 65. And it demands both written and oral command, so a purely conversational level with no written evidence may not be enough.<\/p>\n For the first ten-year resident card, the bar rises to independent use of the language. The official page explains: with proficiency at or above B1 on that same European scale. At B1 you understand the main points of clear speech on familiar matters, cope with most travel situations, produce simple connected text, and explain plans and opinions. The page lists the resident cards covered by the duty: spouse of a French national, parent of a French child, family reunification and spouse of a resident card holder, plus the EU long-term resident card after five years of regular residence with stable and sufficient resources, talent passport and EU Blue Card holders after five years, refugees and their families, and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and their families. Cards outside that list, along with permits that are not subject to the contrat d’intégration républicaine<\/i>, the republican integration contract known as the CIR, plus beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and their families and stateless persons and their families, are not covered by the language duty for the multi-year card.<\/p>\n The statutory backbone sits in the code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile<\/i>, the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum, universally shortened to the CESEDA. Article L413-7 of that Code<\/a> make the first issue of several resident cards conditional on republican integration, assessed in particular on the result in the civic examination and on knowledge of French enabling the applicant at least to understand sufficiently clear conversation, to produce simple and coherent speech on everyday subjects and to set out an idea succinctly. The same article closes with a sentence many retired Britons will welcome, quoted here exactly as it stands: “Les étrangers âgés de plus de soixante-cinq ans ne sont pas soumis à la condition relative à la connaissance de la langue française.” How judges apply that condition appears in a September 2024 Bordeaux refusal case examined in detail below. The conditions for issuing and renewing the multi-year card are detailed in Article L433-1 of the same Code<\/a> and, for the regulatory part, in Article R433-1<\/a>. Two warnings follow from this architecture. First, language is only one pillar of integration alongside personal commitment to republican principles and effective respect for them, so a language certificate alone never guarantees the card. Second, since January 2026 the language pillar has become a formal threshold with a number attached, A2 or B1, which makes refusals easier for the administration to justify and harder for applicants to contest without the right paper.<\/p>\n One more duty now sits beside the language test. The service-public.fr page warns: passing the civic examination is likewise mandatory for either card. This examen civique<\/i>, the civic examination, tests knowledge of republican principles, values and the practical organisation of life in France, and general information is published on the Interior Ministry platform on the Interior Ministry civic-training platform. British applicants should therefore budget time and preparation for two examinations, not one, and should treat the civic test as seriously as the language certificate, because either one missing means the file is incomplete.<\/p>\n French administration recognises only listed evidence, so the name on your certificate matters as much as your real ability. Article R413-15 of the CESEDA<\/a> lists what the applicant must supply for the integration assessment, and the current wording is worth quoting exactly because it now pairs the language proof with the civic examination: “Pour l’appréciation de la condition d’intégration prévue à l’article L. 413-7, l’étranger fournit : 1° Les diplômes ou, à défaut, la certification permettant d’attester sa maîtrise du français à un niveau égal ou supérieur au niveau B1 du cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues du Conseil de l’Europe tel qu’adopté par le comité des ministres du Conseil de l’Europe dans sa recommandation CM\/ Rec (2008) 7 du 2 juillet 2008, dont la liste est définie par un arrêté du ministre chargé de l’accueil et de l’intégration ; 2° Une attestation de sa réussite à l’examen civique conformément aux dispositions de l’article R. 413-12-1.” In plain terms, you attach a diploma or certification from the official list at the required level together with proof of success in the civic examination. The precise list of accepted language titles is fixed by ministerial order, and applicants should check that exact list before booking any examination.<\/p>\n In practice, four routes cover almost every British applicant. First, university diplomas: the diplôme universitaire<\/i> awarded through the ADCUEFE network of university French centres, the DUEF, at A2 or above for the multi-year card and B1 or above for the resident card. Second, the national diplomas issued by France Éducation international: the DELF, the diplôme d’études en langue française<\/i>, at the required level, its professional version the DELF Pro, and the DALF, the advanced diploma, which by definition exceeds both thresholds. Third, the TCF, the test de connaissance du français<\/i>, taken in an approved examination centre listed by France Éducation international, certifying written and oral command at the stated CEFR level. Fourth, a professional certification registered in the national framework, useful for applicants whose French was validated through work. Whichever route you choose, the certificate must state the CEFR level explicitly and cover both written and oral skills where the rules require both, because a certificate that mentions attendance without a level, or an oral-only attestation, invites a refusal.<\/p>\n Two exemptions deserve attention before you assume the duty applies to you in full. Applicants aged 65 or over at the date of a first multi-year or resident card application are outside the language duty, which matters enormously for retired British couples where one spouse is over the threshold and the other is not. Each file is assessed individually, so a mixed-age couple should organise two different strategies rather than one joint file. People living with a disability or a chronic health condition can, on a medical certificate following the official model, obtain adjusted test conditions where their state justifies it or, where taking any language test is impossible, be dispensed from producing the diplomas or certifications. The regulation itself provides, in that same article R413-15<\/a>, that persons with a disability or chronic ill health may, under the conditions fixed by joint ministerial order, “bénéficier d’aménagements d’épreuves pour l’obtention de la certification mentionnée au 1° et le passage de l’examen civique mentionnée au 2°” or “être dispensées de la production de ces diplômes, certifications ou attestations”, and the medical certificate must follow the model fixed jointly by the ministries, not an informal letter from a GP. The same article adds that applicants over 65 are not subject to the civic examination condition. Raise the health point early with the préfecture<\/i>, the local State office that receives applications, because organising an exemption after a refusal is far harder than requesting adjusted conditions before the examination.<\/p>\n British applicants lose the most time on five avoidable mistakes. Booking a general French course certificate that states hours of attendance but no CEFR level. Sitting the wrong version of the TCF, for example a version designed for nationality applications, and discovering the centre’s attestation does not match the residence-card list. Letting a certificate expire or applying with a result slip instead of the final diploma where the final diploma is required. Filing under a different spelling of your name from your passport, which leads the case officer to treat the certificate as relating to someone else. And preparing only the language proof while forgetting the civic examination, which is independently mandatory. Every one of these errors produces the same outcome: an incomplete file, months of delay, and in the worst cases a formal refusal that must then be challenged in court. Keep originals and certified copies of everything, keep proof of the date you filed, and keep the envelope or electronic receipt showing the préfecture<\/i> received the language evidence, because the date of filing can determine which rules apply to you.<\/p>\n Understanding the refusal starts with understanding the procedure inside the préfecture<\/i>. For the integration assessment, the administration must seek the opinion of the mayor of your commune of residence: “Pour l’appréciation de la condition d’intégration, l’autorité administrative saisit pour avis le maire de la commune dans laquelle l’étranger réside. Cet avis est réputé favorable à l’expiration d’un délai de deux mois à compter de la saisine du maire par l’autorité administrative.” In practice, silence from the town hall for two months counts as a favourable opinion, but an unfavourable mayoral opinion, for example after neighbours report that you speak no French at all, can weigh heavily. Introduce yourself to local life, register for the language provision offered under your CIR where it was offered, and keep every attendance certificate, because integration is assessed as a whole person picture, not as a single test score. That mayoral-consultation rule is recalled in the statement of the applicable law in CAA Bordeaux, 24 September 2024, No 24BX00308<\/a>.<\/p>\n The leading recent illustration of a refusal upheld for lack of language evidence comes from the Bordeaux administrative court of appeal on 24 September 2024, published at CAA de Bordeaux, 3rd chamber, 24 September 2024, No 24BX00308<\/a>. A Turkish national settled since 2010 and holding family-reunification permits sought the ten-year EU long-term resident card. The Gironde préfet<\/i> refused on 27 June 2023, the Bordeaux administrative tribunal confirmed the refusal on 21 December 2023, and the court of appeal rejected the appeal. The decisive finding deserves quotation: the préfet<\/i> had found that the applicant “n’a transmis aucun document justifiant de sa connaissance de la langue française”, and the court added that “elle ne justifie pas de sa connaissance de la langue française et ainsi de son intégration républicaine”. A sworn statement refusing polygamy dated 17 March 2023 was produced, but no language diploma at all, so the court held: “elle n’est pas fondée à soutenir que le préfet de la Gironde a commis une erreur manifeste dans l’appréciation de sa situation.” British readers should read that outcome as a warning and a lesson. A court will not save a file with zero language evidence, but the same reasoning shows that a file with a genuine certificate at the right level forces the administration to argue on different, much thinner ground.<\/p>\n The standard of review applied there, the erreur manifeste d’appréciation<\/i>, the manifest error of assessment, governs almost every challenge to a language-based refusal. The judge does not retake the language test or substitute personal judgment for the préfet<\/i>‘s; the judge checks whether the decision is tainted by a legal error, a procedural defect, a factual mistake, or an assessment so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it on the same file. That is a demanding test, but it is not empty. If you filed a valid B1 DELF and the refusal letter claims you proved nothing, that is a factual mistake. If the préfecture<\/i> applied the B1 threshold to a multi-year card where only A2 was due, that is a legal error. If the refusal ignores decisive evidence you actually filed, that can be a failure to examine your file. Each of these defects has annulled prefectoral decisions before the administrative courts, and each turns on paper you can organise today rather than eloquence at a hearing tomorrow.<\/p>\n A refusal rarely travels alone. In many files the préfet<\/i> joins to the refusal an order to leave France, and the Lyon administrative court of appeal described the classic combination in a 2023 case available at CAA de Lyon, 7th chamber, 21 December 2023, No 22LY03262<\/a>: the Savoie préfet<\/i> “lui a opposé un refus, fait obligation de quitter le territoire français dans un délai de trente jours et a fixé le pays de destination.” Thirty days to leave, with a designated country of return, concentrates the mind wonderfully, and it sets the litigation clock ticking. British applicants with French spouses, French children, years of lawful presence, stable work on an open-ended contract, tax paid in France and real involvement in local life should raise article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life, from the very first appeal. In a 2023 Nantes case published at CAA de Nantes, 3rd chamber, 27 October 2023, No 23NT01722<\/a>, counsel argued precisely that “l’obligation de quitter le territoire français porte une atteinte disproportionnée à son droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale”, and asked that the removal order and the country-of-return decision be annulled as a consequence of annulling the underlying refusal of stay. That two-step logic matters for Britons too: kill the refusal, and the removal order built on it normally falls with it.<\/p>\n Applicants for the EU long-term resident card hold one more statutory card to play. Article L426-17 of the CESEDA<\/a> provides: “L’étranger qui justifie d’une résidence régulière ininterrompue d’au moins cinq ans en France au titre d’une carte de séjour temporaire ou pluriannuelle ou d’une carte de résident, de ressources stables, régulières et suffisantes pour subvenir à ses besoins et d’une assurance maladie se voit délivrer, sous réserve des exceptions prévues à l’article L. 426-18, une carte de résident portant la mention " résident de longue durée-UE " d’une durée de dix ans.” Five years of uninterrupted lawful residence, stable regular and sufficient resources, and health insurance create a right to the card, subject only to the listed exceptions and, through the cross-reference recalled in the Bordeaux judgment<\/a>, to the integration conditions of article L413-7: “La décision d’accorder la carte de résident portant la mention " résident de longue durée-UE " prévue à l’article L. 426-17 est subordonnée au respect des conditions d’intégration républicaine prévues à l’article L. 413-7”. For a British family five years into lawful life in France, with payslips, tax notices, assurance maladie<\/i> cover and school certificates for the children, the file should therefore argue both halves together: the five-year right and the language proof that completes integration, so that the préfet<\/i> cannot isolate the language point from an otherwise exemplary record.<\/p>\n Speed matters more than brilliance in the first days after a refusal. A refusal letter states the remedies and their time limits on its final page, and those limits are strict: miss them and even the strongest file becomes inadmissible. The sensible sequence for most British applicants runs in three stages. First, a recours gracieux<\/i>, an informal written request asking the préfet<\/i> to withdraw the refusal, filed immediately and enclosing whatever the file lacked, typically the fresh language certificate at the correct level with proof of its authenticity. A gracious appeal involves no court fee, keeps the dialogue open, and sometimes produces a withdrawal where the defect was purely documentary, for example a DELF that arrived the week after the decision. It does not suspend a removal order by itself, so it must never be the only step where an OQTF sets a thirty-day clock. Second, an application to the tribunal administratif<\/i>, the administrative tribunal, asking for annulment of the refusal and, where the situation allows, an injunction ordering the préfet<\/i> to issue the card or at least to re-examine the file within a fixed time. The Bordeaux case shows both halves of that request in real life: the applicant asked the court to annul the refusal and “d’enjoindre au préfet de la Gironde de lui délivrer une carte de séjour ou de procéder au réexamen de sa situation”, as recorded in the Bordeaux judgment of 24 September 2024<\/a>, while also seeking costs against the State under the combined provisions of article L761-1 of the administrative justice code<\/a> and the legal aid statute. Third, where the tribunal rejects the claim, an appeal to the cour administrative d’appel<\/i>, the administrative court of appeal. There the timetable is famously short: “Le délai d’appel est d’un mois. Il court à compter du jour où le jugement a été notifié à la partie intéressée.” One month from notification of the judgment, with the notification itself required to mention the appeal right and the time limit, as the Lyon court recalled in CAA Lyon, 21 December 2023, No 22LY03262<\/a> when it declared a prefectural appeal admissible because it had been lodged through the Télérecours electronic application within that month. Diarise every notification date, keep every acknowledgment of receipt, and instruct counsel the day the judgment arrives, not the week after.<\/p>\n The content of the appeal file decides more cases than the hearing itself. Rebuild the language evidence from scratch: a new TCF result or DELF diploma at or above the level the card requires, with the awarding body, the CEFR level and the skills covered all visible on the document. Add a short sworn statement explaining in concrete terms how French is used day to day: working in French, dealing with the children’s school in French, managing administrative appointments in French. Then widen the lens to full integration, because the statute assesses the whole person. Payslips or an open-ended employment contract, French tax notices, proof of assurance maladie<\/i> health cover, the children’s school certificates, membership of local associations, and the mayor’s supporting letter where one can be obtained all help the judge see a settled life rather than a test score. Where the préfet<\/i> also ordered removal, plead the consequences expressly: years of lawful residence, a French spouse or French children, the impossibility of relocating the family to the United Kingdom without breaking schooling and employment, and the disproportionate interference with private and family life. Ask in terms for the removal order and the country-of-return decision to fall with the refusal, exactly the consequential annulment structure used before the Nantes court. And where the file was refused for want of any language document, be honest with the tribunal about the timeline: show when the test was booked, when the result arrived, and why the evidence could not be filed earlier, because judges distinguish applicants who neglected the duty from applicants caught by examination waiting lists.<\/p>\n Two practical points specific to British files close this section. First, couples should coordinate but file individually. Each spouse needs a personal certificate at the personal level the personal card requires, and the over-65 exemption, the disability adjustments and the card-specific thresholds can easily differ within one household. A refusal addressed to one spouse does not automatically condemn the other, and a well-built individual appeal can succeed while the partner’s parallel file follows its own course. Second, keep the paper chain immaculate from the first online application on the foreigners’ administration portal to the last court filing through Télérecours. The Lyon litigation turned in part on proof of notification dates through the electronic system, and limitation disputes are won with screenshots, acknowledgments and bailiff-grade records, not with memory. Where an OQTF accompanies the refusal, say so on the first page of every appeal and respect the removal timetable in parallel with the merits, because a tribunal cannot protect a applicant it believes is ignoring the procedural framework.<\/p>\n For British residents, French is no longer a social nicety but a residence condition with a number attached: A2 for the first multi-year permit, B1 for the first ten-year card, both since 1 January 2026, both for applicants under 65, both alongside the civic examination. The CESEDA provisions, the December 2025 orders listing the accepted diplomas and the recent appeal decisions all point in the same direction. The administration may lawfully refuse a card where no language evidence is filed, as the Bordeaux court confirmed, yet it must lose where the file contains a genuine certificate at the right level and the refusal misstates the facts or the law. The winning strategy is therefore unglamorous: identify the exact card and the exact level, sit the exact listed examination, file the exact listed diploma with the sworn statement, keep proof of everything, and, if a refusal still arrives, challenge it quickly through the gracious appeal, the administrative tribunal and, within one month of notification, the court of appeal, pleading full integration and family life alongside the certificate. Organised early, the language duty is a manageable administrative step. Ignored, it becomes the single document that costs a family its French home.<\/p>\n Telephone consultation: 80 EUR TTC. You speak within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm about your permit, your French certificate and your deadline for appeal. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> (Maître Reda Kohen) or write via the contact page<\/a> with your refusal letter and your language certificate attached.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Since 1 January 2026 British residents must prove A2 French for a first multi-year permit and B1 for a first resident card. Which certificates count, why prefectures refuse, and how to challenge a refusal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16316,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2130009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Which diplomas, tests and exemptions prove your level, and which mistakes waste months<\/h3>\n
II. How do you challenge a refusal based on your French after Brexit?<\/h2>\n
A. What the préfet checks, why files fail, and what judges actually punish<\/h3>\n
B. Which remedies work against the refusal: gracious appeal, tribunal, and the one-month appeal clock<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n