Visa Code Research Articles

Recent Court of Justice of the European Union jurisprudence relating to Visa Code Regulation 810/2009 in conjunction with Regulation 2019/1155 – balancing the complexity of cooperation mechanisms with the right of applicants to judicial review

Recent Court of Justice of the European Union jurisprudence relating to Visa Code Regulation 810/2009 in conjunction with Regulation 2019/1155 – balancing the complexity of cooperation mechanisms with the right of applicants to judicial review

Schengen and the Administration of Exclusion: Legal Remedies Caught in between Entry Bans, Risk Assessment and Artificial Intelligence

Abstract To create an area in which persons can move freely, the Schengen states committed to control their external borders to prevent irregular immigration and the entry of third-country nationals (TCN s) who are considered to be ‘a public order and security risk’. The exclusion of ‘unwanted aliens’ can be based on the mutual enforcement of national decisions, such as entry bans reported in the Schengen Information System, or objections against the issuing of a Schengen visa, based on the consultation procedure in the Visa Code. This contribution focuses on the right of TCN s to have access to effective remedies, both with regard to existing and newer mechanisms of exclusion. It argues that when dealing with the use of large-scale databases and risk assessment as basis for excluding admission, existing rules and case-law by the CJEU should be taken into account to ensure access to effective judicial protection for TCN s.

Visa Refusals to Foreign Scientists Participants in Megascience Experiments, other Scientific Events and the Right to Appeal: New in the ECJ Practice

The paper analyzes the provisions of the legislation and the latest court practice of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regulating the procedure for refusing to issue Schengen visas and other migration permits necessary for foreign scientists to participate in experiments using unique European mega-science facilities, as well as in other scientific events in the EU. The first section "Visa refusal and the right to appeal it in the EU: Historical and comparative legal aspects" examines the formation and initial content of the EU rules on the rationale and appeal of the refusal of Schengen visas, starting with the Schengen agreements of the 1980s and before the adoption of the 2009 EU Visa Code. The second section "Right to appeal against refusal of Schengen and equivalent visas" is devoted to the rules of the 2009 EU Visa Code regarding visas for short-term stays (up to 90 days within a period of 180 days), amended and supplemented by the 2017 EU Court of Justice prejudicial decision as in the case of "El Hassani" regarding the recognition of foreigners’ right to judicial appeal against a visa refusal and, in a broader context, "the right to a fair and adequate consideration of their application" for a visa. The subject of the third, final section "The right to appeal the refusal of visas for long-term stay and residence permits" are the provisions of the latest ECJ court practice (judgment in the case of "M.A." of 10.03.2021), which made it possible to challenge in the courts of the EU Member States refusals to issue even those migration permits that are issued in accordance with national law.

The Necessity for Alternative Legal Pathways: The Best Practice of Humanitarian Corridors Opened by Private Sponsors in Italy

AbstractThe scope of this Article is to understand to what extent a recent and fruitful private initiative sponsoring a safe alternative legal pathway spread from Italy, called “humanitarian corridors,” may in the future become a general and uniform alternative model for all the European Union States. Such a practice—which currently represents an exceptional route for vulnerable migrants to enter the country without harm after a security screening and to be materially supported by the same sponsors in the crucial initial phase of integration—is at present restricted to a relatively small number of beneficiaries, but it could potentially be extended to other States.In order to achieve this goal, it is argued that the present model should be slightly adjusted—especially with regard to the actual reference to Article 25 of the Visa Code as its legal basis. The latter seems difficult to be formally maintained after the much criticized 2017 judgment X and X v. Belgium, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union conferred to Member States a wide margin of discretion when requested to grant humanitarian visas by vulnerable people exposed to serious irreversible harm. Against this background, clear obligations to grant humanitarian visas to vulnerable people at risk already exist. This obligation stems from international law—both general and conventional—and constitutes the adequate legal basis both for States and civil society to act in a “multi-stakeholder alliance” to find solutions to the challenges and opportunities deriving from international migration, as indicated in the Global Compact for Migration.

AMMISSIONE DI STRANIERI SUL TERRITORIO NAZIONALE ATTRAVERSO ‘CORRIDOI UMANITARI’ CON SPONSOR PRIVATI

The scope of the present research is to understand to what extent a recent and fruitful private initiative sponsoring a safe alternative legal pathway ‘par avion’ recently spread from Italy and called “humanitarian corridors”, may in a future become a general and uniform alternative model for other European Union States. Such a best practice, which represents currently an exceptional route for vulnerable migrants mostly from Lebanon and Eritrea to enter the country without harm after a security screening and to be materially supported by the same sponsors in the crucial initial phase of integration, could potentially be extended to other EU States. Its legal basis should not be restricted to Article 25 of the Visa Code (recently interpreted by the EU Court of Justice as posing no obligation on Member States to grant humanitarian visa). There already exist clear obligations to grant humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people at risk stemming out from international law (both general and conventional) that do constitute the adequate legal basis both for States and civil society, to act in a “multi-stakeholder alliance” in order to find solutions to the challenges and opportunities deriving from international migration, as indicated in the 2016 New York Declaration.

«X and X v Belgium»: the need for EU legislation on humanitarian visa

This article examines the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of X and X v. Belgium (C-638/16 PPU). The issue at stake concerns an application for a visa with limited territorial validity (LTV) requested by a Syrian family at the Belgian embassy in Beirut in order to apply for asylum in Belgium. The article discusses the different interpretations given by the Advocate General and the Court of Justice and agrees with the AG that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights leaves a limited margin of discretion to Member Sates and imposes a positive obligation to issue a LTV Visa in cases like X and X. It also concludes that the judgment in question clearly shows the need for the EU to adopt legislation regulating the issuance of humanitarian visas under the Visa Code.

No Easy Way Out - Humanitarian Visas at the Nexus of Refuge, Migration and Development

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decided in his recent judgement X v Etat belge on 7 March 2017 that Member States do not have to issue humanitarian visas in their embassies. Humanitarian visas would have given refugees the possibility to travel to Europe regularly, thereby avoiding the dangerous irregular migration routes. This paper analyses the ECJ judgement and examines if humanitarian visas could still be a viable policy solution. The approach is twofold: first, the Court's decision will be contextualised with the ongoing reform discussions of the new EU Visa Code and an analysis of the respective institutional positions. Secondly, humanitarian visas will be embedded in an analysis of the overall EU refugee policy. While doing so, this paper aims to discuss underlying assumptions in the current asylum policy from a development economical, post-colonial, and ethical perspective.

The Court of Justice As a Progressive Force for Rights Recognition in EU Migration Law (Presentation Slides)

This paper looks into the role of the Court of Justice and the juridification of EU law and suggests that using the harmonization of EU immigration and asylum law as a driving force, the Court can be more than a liberal constraint to the sovereign ambitions of the member states and can act as a progressive factor for rights recognition.It is argued, based on the examination of the Court’s jurisprudence and focusing particularly on a series of rulings produced in 2014, that the CJEU might be exploring the limits of rights recognition in the field of migration. The Court’s reasoning, enriches the harmonization process and implies far-reaching present and future effects for migration and asylum policies in Europe.In particular, the Court has ruled that the Schengen Borders Code, the Visa Code and the Students Directive list exhaustive grounds for refusing visa and admission. Thus, the states have no discretion to refuse an applicant based on grounds not listed in the relevant EU instruments. As long as third country nationals fulfill the requirements set therein, they have the right to be admitted and to be issued a visa.The paper analyzes the far reaching consequences of the development of the Court’s case law, as they manifest themselves in questioning sovereign international law prerogatives of states to control immigration, and in the reading of a right to be granted asylum in Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Access to Europe in a Globalised World: Assessing the EU's Common Visa Policy in the Light of the Stockholm Guidelines

This paper is written against the background of the on-going evaluation of the EU Visa Code and an emerging paradigm shift in EU visa policy with visas becoming a tool for economic growth and job creation. The paper analyses, more particularly, current challenges for the proper functioning of the EU’s common visa policy by focusing on the three pillars on which this policy is based: its cornerstone, the Visa Code; consular cooperation on the ground, as an indispensable supplement of the latter; and, finally, the Visa Facilitation Agreements, a potential tool for its smooth operation in certain countries. Due to the limited mid-term review of the Stockholm Program, initially foreseen for 2012, the Stockholm guidelines for visa policy are integrated in the relevant analysis.

Legislative Update, EC Immigration and Asylum Law: The New Visa Code

Legislative Update, EC Immigration and Asylum Law: The New Visa Code

Legislative Update, EC Immigration and Asylum Law: The New Visa Code

Legislative Update, EC Immigration and Asylum Law: The New Visa Code