Italy: Schengen Alert Blocks Regularisation Application, Court Upholds Refusal

An Italian administrative court has upheld the refusal of an application to regularise undeclared employment because the applicant was listed in the Schengen Information System for the purpose of refusing entry.

In judgment no. 1265 of 1 July 2026, the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna rejected an appeal against a decision issued by the Police Headquarters in Modena.

The court held that the Schengen alert constituted a legal obstacle to the regularisation procedure and that the Italian authorities were not required to reassess the applicant’s personal dangerousness or review the legality of the decision adopted by France.

The alert had been entered by France

The case concerned an application submitted under the 2020 Italian regularisation programme for undeclared work.

The Police Headquarters rejected the application after finding that France had entered an alert concerning the applicant in the Schengen Information System on 19 March 2021.

The alert was intended to prevent the person’s admission into the Schengen area and had been confirmed by the competent French authority.

The applicant challenged the refusal, arguing that the alert resulted only from an administrative immigration violation connected to illegal entry into France.

He also claimed that the Italian authorities should have assessed his personal circumstances, the requirements for regularisation and the possible existence of serious reasons justifying the issue of a residence permit.

The court rejected those arguments.

The Schengen alert was considered an automatic legal obstacle

The judges relied on the special rules governing the 2020 regularisation procedure.

Under Article 103 of Decree-Law no. 34 of 2020, foreign nationals listed for non-admission under international agreements binding on Italy were excluded from the regularisation process.

For the court, the alert therefore represented a direct legal obstacle.

Once the authorities had verified the existence and continued validity of the alert, they had no ordinary discretion to approve the application.

The refusal was consequently treated as a mandatory decision rather than the outcome of a broader discretionary assessment.

Italy was not required to reassess the French decision

One of the central issues was whether the Italian authorities had to review the reasons behind the French alert.

The court answered no.

The Schengen system is based on cooperation and mutual trust between participating states. An alert entered by one country produces effects throughout the Schengen area.

The Italian Police Headquarters was therefore not required to determine independently whether the applicant posed a current threat to public order.

Nor was it competent to review whether the French measure had been correct or proportionate.

That assessment primarily belongs to the authorities and courts of the state that entered the alert.

An alert does not always mean criminal dangerousness

The judgment is important because a Schengen alert may arise from different situations.

It does not necessarily mean that the person has been convicted of a crime or represents a serious security threat.

An alert may also result from a return decision, an entry ban or a violation of immigration rules.

In this case, the applicant argued that the alert was linked to illegal entry into France.

The court nevertheless held that the legal effect depended on the type and validity of the alert, not on whether the underlying conduct amounted to a criminal offence.

As long as the alert remained active, the Italian authorities were required to recognise its consequences.

A residence permit may still be issued for serious reasons

The court also explained that the obstacle is not absolute in every circumstance.

A Schengen state may decide to issue a residence permit despite an alert, but only where serious reasons exist, particularly humanitarian reasons or obligations arising under international law.

Such reasons must be concrete and particularly significant.

They may include, depending on the circumstances, protection of family life, the interests of children, serious health conditions or obligations connected to the principle of non-refoulement.

However, the state cannot simply ignore the alert.

It must first consult the country that entered it.

The consultation procedure is intended to balance the foreign state’s decision with any legal obligation requiring another Schengen country to grant residence.

In the case examined by the court, no sufficiently serious reason had been demonstrated.

The authorities did not need to prove current dangerousness

The applicant also complained that the Police Headquarters had failed to assess whether he was currently dangerous.

The court held that such an assessment was unnecessary in this specific regularisation procedure.

The refusal did not depend on an independent finding that the person represented a danger. It depended on the existence of a legal condition expressly excluding access to the programme.

This distinction is significant.

Where the law directly treats a Schengen alert as an exclusion ground, the authorities do not have to reconstruct the applicant’s entire personal history or carry out a new public-order assessment.

The relevant questions are whether the alert exists, whether it is current and whether any exceptional serious reasons justify consultation and a possible derogation.

The applicant must challenge the alert in the correct country

The ruling does not mean that Schengen alerts are beyond legal challenge.

A person who considers an alert inaccurate, outdated or unlawful may request access to the relevant data and seek correction or deletion.

However, the challenge must generally be directed to the competent authorities of the country that entered the alert.

In this case, the applicant would therefore have needed to address the French authorities if he wished to contest the basis or continuing validity of the measure.

The Italian administration could verify the existence of the alert, but could not cancel or rewrite a decision entered by France.

A major practical issue for immigration lawyers

The judgment has important practical consequences.

When a residence or regularisation application is refused because of a Schengen alert, challenging only the Italian decision may not be enough.

The defence should first establish:

• which country entered the alert;

• the date and legal basis of the measure;

• the type of alert;

• whether it is still valid;

• whether there are grounds for correction or deletion;

• whether serious humanitarian or international-law reasons exist.

The legal strategy often has to proceed on two levels.

The alert must be challenged or removed in the state that entered it, while any exceptional grounds supporting a residence permit must be documented before the Italian authorities.

Mutual trust cannot eliminate individual rights

The judgment confirms the strength of the Schengen Information System within European immigration law.

A national authority cannot freely disregard an alert entered by another state. Otherwise, the entire system of shared border control would lose effectiveness.

At the same time, mutual trust cannot turn a digital record into an untouchable fact.

Alerts must remain accurate, current and proportionate. Individuals must have access to effective procedures for checking the data and requesting correction or deletion.

The decision therefore highlights two competing principles.

The first is the need for cooperation between Schengen states. The second is the individual’s right to challenge a measure that may prevent entry, residence or regularisation across much of Europe.

In the case decided by the court, the active French alert prevailed. The Italian authorities were therefore entitled to reject the regularisation application.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428