Enter custom title (optional)
This topic is locked
Last reply was
3.3k
20

These should be the "official rules" and thus identical throughout Schengen. But of course, this is quite a special case, and I doubt border controllers in general have thought about it. It would be interesting to see the replies of other officials throughout Schengen in addition to the Finnish response, though. I invite you all to harass your local governments about this!

While at it, one should still be able to trim the itinerary in #17 by re-entering Schengen already on day 181, after just a night outside. And a caveat: the document I was sent consistently speaks about "half-year periods", not 180 day periods, adding to the confusion. But I'm not going to ask them to clarify this point further, lest they officially flag me as anally retentive :-)

Report
21

@mpjohans. You would think the interpretation would be identical throughout Schengen, wouldn´t you? I would have thought so anyway. In fact Bjoern and one other regular (whose name I can´t remember) contacted two countries´ immigration departments about this issue a few months ago and got very different replies.

Report
22

Yeah tony_b, I thought it would! Apparently it is not so clear-cut, after all, which shouldn't perhaps be that surprising :-) Post #118 in the FAQ covers this in detail. The new wording of the agreement (regulation (EC) No 562/2006) now defines the time as "For stays not exceeding three months per six-month period", but doesn't explicitly define how this period should be calculated. This apparently still leads to several possible, and actual, interpretations...

Report
23

@mpjohans. Thanks for the link. George5 (on that linked thread) really knows the Schengen rules very well. If anyone knows the answer, it would be him.

Report
24
  • deleted -

Edited by: mattoni

Report
25

Thanks, mattoni! That, especially the last section, seems to validate the itinerary in #17. Assuming that "it is for the Community legislature to amend that provision" has not been acted upon...

Report
26

#25 - sorry, I posted too quickly, I subsequently just reviewed #118 of the FAQs by George5 who has already mentioned the ruling I referred to earlier. The ruling of the ECJ no. 241/05 probably is outdated now as a new regulation 562/2006 is in force. It has a different wording, so everything's open to interpretation again...

(To anyone confused: I thought that I've solved the riddle in #24 by pointing out the above ruling of the European Court of Justice, but it is outdated and hence not useful at all, so I deleted my entire post to prevent further confusion.)

Report
27

George5 wrote:

There is some confusion about the 90/180 day rule due to the fact that orginally the Schengen agreement stated in Article 20:

"Aliens not subject to a visa requirement may move freely within the territories of the Contracting Parties for a maximum period of three months during the six months following the date of first entry"

This agreement has since been superceded by Council regulation 562/2006 when the Schengen agreement became part of the European Union treaties. The new version reads (in article 5) :

"For stays not exceeding three months per six-month period, the entry conditions for third-country nationals shall be the following:"

This regulation no longer has a reference to the "first entry", which means that you now have a sliding scale, and you now have to look at he last 180 days.

Since European Union regulations are notoriously complex and there aren't always up to date versions available (you usually have to take the first version and then work yourself through subsequent amendments) border police may not always completely understand the current state of the law.

However generally speaking the following is true:

1) You may stay up to a total three months in a six-month period (usually interpreted to mean 90 out of 180 days)
2) In respect to short term visits, the Schengen member states function as a unified immigration area. This means that moving amongst the member states is similar e.g. to moving from one US state to another.
3) Long term visas are separate from stays under the Schengen system and time spent in a particular member country whilst holding a national visa does not count towards your 90 day quota.
4) A national visa permits travel for a maximum of 90 days per semester to other Schengen countries.
5) If you stay longer than 90 days then you are overstaying. Currently overstayers from countries not requiring visas often - but not always - slip through as SIS II is not yet operational and border police often cannot be bothered to match up all the different entry & exit stamps. If and when SIS II does operate, an overstay will almost certainly be detected.
6) Regardless of these rules, there is no right to enter the Schengen countries unless you hold a passport of an EU or EEA/Swiss country. If border police have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are circumventing or abusing the system they have the right to refuse you entry.
___________________

The following are my own comments, not those of George5
As you can see it is indeed a sliding scale not a 'first entry' date that counts. So the suggestion in #17 is not doable. It is 90 in every 180 CALENDAR day period. That is what the sliding scale part changes. What it does allow is by keeping track of your entry and exits you could for example spend every second 30 days (or 10 or 20 or 40 or 60 or any number between 1 and 90 for that matter) in Schengen if you then spent an equal amount of time outside of Schengen. So 30 in, 30 out, 30 in, 30 out, 30 in, 30 out, forever if you want. At no time will you have been in more than 90 days in the last 180 days.

But what you also have to note as George5 points out, not all border immigration officers are clear on the rules just like anyone else. So while you would be in the right doing 30 in, 30 out forever, it doesn't mean you might not get refused entry at the border or questioned on exit. It just means you could win a legal case if necessary. It is interesting to note that the Finnish Foreign Ministry and a Finnish border guard apparently aren't aware of the change in 20ll. Five years after the change. LOL

The other factor to keep in mind is that the Schengen rule requires YOU to prove you have not overstayed, it does not require them to prove you have. A case of guilty until you prove your innocence if accused.

The final factor (also as noted by George5) is that you can be refused entry regardless of the rules if an Immigration Officer decides s/he has suspicions about you. You have no RIGHT of entry.

Report
28

I've had to look into this a bunch recently for my girlfriend and I've actually found some info that conflicts with travelinstyle and George5. I think that it would be 6 months from the date of first entry, not "any 6 month period" as the prior posters are suggesting.

If I go to the EU visa handbook dated March 19, 2010 (http://www.bfm.admin.ch/content/dam/data/migration/rechtsgrundlagen/weisungen_und_kreisschreiben/weisungen_visa/vhbI/visahandbuchI-e.pdf). On page 62, under section 7.9 - Verification of the length of previous and intended stays, it states "the term "first entry" is to be understood as the very first entry into the territory of the Member States and then any other first entry taking place after the expiry of periods of six months following the date of very first entry. This means that continuous or successive stays of three months in total may be allowed during successive periods of six months."

The visa handbook also refers to Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 which established the EU Community code on Visas. Article 2 (page L 243/4) in the definitions says "2. ‘visa’ means an authorisation issued by a Member State with a view to:
(a) transit through or an intended stay in the territory of
the Member States of a duration of no more than three
months in any six-month period from the date of first
entry in the territory of the Member States;"

Not sure if I'm looking at it the right way but it seems pretty straightforward to me that the clock starts from the date of first entry.

Report
29

If you Google 'Regulation (EC) no 810/2009 you will find the regulation in its entirety jimimbo. Here it is: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF

If you then scroll down you will find:

+"Objective and scope
1. This Regulation establishes the procedures and conditions
for issuing visas for transit through or intended stays in the
territory of the Member States not exceeding three months in
any six-month period."+

Note that as pointed out by George5 regarding the earlier 2006 Regulation, the term 'first entry' is no longer included.

If you look at page 1 of the document you link to you will see that it also says the exact same thing as item 1.

The later reference you refer to and quote uses the old wording which confused people. Note the use of the word "successive"

Successive stays may be allowed in successive periods of 6 months. Each day of the year begins a successive period of 6 months if you want it to. That's the sliding scale issue that is so hard for people to get their head around and is equally as hard I suppose for Immigration people to get their head around.

The "any other first entry" wording is also a clue. Every time you enter Schengen it is a new first entry. So you can stay 90 days in the 180 following days from your 'very' first entry and you can stay 90 days in the 180 following days from your 'next' (any other) first entry and you can stay 90 days in the 180 following days from your 'next' (any other) first entry, etc. etc.

This constitutes successive stays in successive periods of 6 months.

What you cannot do is stay 1 day depart for 90 then return for 89 and say those 89 were in a six month period which ends today and I am now going to stay another 90 days in the 6month period beginning tomorrow which will let me stay for 179 consecutive days. You cant combine the last 89 days of one period and the first 90 days of the next 6 months in othe words. That would contravene the very simple (updated wording) " For stays not exceeding three months per six-month period"

Report
Pro tip
Lonely Planet
trusted partner