SIS Alerts and Entry Visa Refusals: Italian Courts Move Against Automatic Denials
A recent judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio may significantly reshape the relationship between Schengen Information System alerts and entry visa refusals across Europe.
In its decision published on May 6, 2026, the court annulled a study visa refusal issued by the Italian Consulate in Istanbul against a foreign student who had been flagged in the SIS database by Greece.
For years, many European administrations treated SIS alerts almost as automatic grounds for denying visas or residence permits. In practice, once a person was flagged in the Schengen system by one Member State, consular authorities in another State often rejected the application without carrying out a detailed individual assessment.
The recent Italian ruling signals a possible shift away from that approach.
The court held that the Italian administration could not deny the visa solely because of the existence of the SIS alert. Instead, authorities must verify whether the applicant actually represents a current threat to public order or public security.
The judgment relies heavily on EU Regulation number 1861 of 2018, which governs the functioning of the Schengen Information System. In particular, Article 27 of the regulation establishes a consultation mechanism between Member States before refusing or granting long-term visas or residence permits to individuals flagged in the SIS.
According to the court, the regulation does not impose automatic refusals. On the contrary, it requires a concrete and individualized evaluation of the foreign national’s situation.
The decision also echoes the reasoning adopted by the Italian Constitutional Court in judgment number 6 of 2026, which criticized the idea that SIS alerts should automatically prevent the issuance of immigration documents.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that European law increasingly requires proportionality and individual assessment rather than rigid administrative automatism.
This evolution could have major consequences not only for study visas, but also for work visas, family reunification procedures, residence permits, and broader immigration policies within the Schengen area.
The ruling is particularly important because it challenges a long-standing administrative culture centered on security-based presumptions. Under the new interpretation emerging from Italian courts, the existence of an SIS alert is no longer sufficient by itself. Authorities must explain why the person constitutes a genuine and current danger.
For immigration lawyers and policymakers across Europe, the case may represent the beginning of a broader redefinition of the balance between border security and individual rights within the Schengen system.
Fabio Loscerbo, Attorney at Law
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428