Italian Consulate in Casablanca: Court annuls work visa refusal based on an unexplained Schengen alert
By Fabio Loscerbo (Lawyer based in Bologna, Italy)
This article is part of a series by Fabio Loscerbo examining national administrative practices, domestic judicial review, and their broader implications for European and international migration governance.
A recent judgment delivered by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio (TAR Lazio, Section V Quater, judgment published on 9 June 2026, general register number 13541 of 2025) provides important guidance on the relationship between Schengen alerts, consular decision-making, and the procedural rights of visa applicants.
The case concerned a refusal of a work visa issued by the Italian Consulate in Casablanca, Morocco. The applicant had obtained authorization to work in Italy but was denied a visa because of an alert entered by the Austrian authorities in the Schengen Information System (SIS).
The Schengen Information System is the principal information-sharing database used by European States participating in the Schengen area. It enables national authorities to exchange information relating to border management, security, immigration, and law enforcement. Alerts entered by one Member State may be consulted by authorities across the Schengen area and can influence decisions concerning visas, entry, and residence rights.
In the present case, the Austrian alert became the sole basis for the refusal issued by the Italian Consulate.
Following the refusal, however, the applicant successfully obtained the deletion of the Austrian SIS alert and subsequently requested the Italian authorities to reconsider the visa application. The request was rejected, leading to judicial proceedings before the Italian administrative courts.
The Court ultimately annulled the refusal.
The judgment is particularly significant because it addresses a recurring issue in European visa procedures: whether a consular authority may rely automatically on an alert issued by another Member State without independently examining the reasons underlying that alert.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied extensively on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly the judgment of 24 November 2020 in Joined Cases C-225/19 and C-226/19. According to that decision, when a visa refusal is based on an objection raised by another Member State, the applicant must be informed not only of the existence of the objection but also of the identity of the Member State concerned and the specific reasons underlying the refusal.
The purpose of this requirement is to guarantee the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Without knowing the actual basis of the objection, an applicant cannot effectively challenge the decision or defend his or her rights.
The Court found that these guarantees had not been respected.
The Italian Consulate in Casablanca merely referred to the existence of the Austrian SIS alert without explaining the substantive reasons that had led Austria to enter the alert. As a consequence, the applicant was deprived of the possibility of understanding the factual and legal basis of the refusal and of exercising his right of defence in a meaningful manner.
Equally important was the Court’s criticism of the lack of any meaningful investigation by the diplomatic authorities. The judges observed that the Consulate had neither sought clarification from the Austrian authorities nor engaged in any substantive dialogue with the applicant regarding the reasons for the alert. This omission became particularly significant once the applicant had succeeded in obtaining the cancellation of the SIS entry.
One of the most interesting aspects of the judgment is that the Court extended principles originally developed in relation to Schengen visas to a national work visa procedure.
The judges expressly held that the guarantees identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union should also apply in the context of national visas for subordinate employment. According to the Court, it would be unreasonable to afford a lower level of procedural protection merely because the application concerns a national visa rather than a Schengen visa.
The judgment also aligns with recent developments in Italian constitutional jurisprudence. Referring to Constitutional Court judgment No. 6 of 2026, the TAR recalled that the current European framework governing the Schengen Information System does not require automatic reliance on alerts entered by another State. On the contrary, national authorities are expected to carry out an individual assessment of the applicant’s circumstances and to determine whether the person actually represents a threat to public policy or public security.
This principle has important implications for consular practice.
The decision confirms that a SIS alert cannot be treated as a self-explanatory ground for refusal. Consular authorities must explain the reasons underlying the alert, ensure that applicants are able to understand the basis of the decision, and conduct an appropriate assessment of the individual case.
For an international audience, the judgment illustrates the growing importance of transparency and procedural fairness in visa decision-making. While information-sharing systems such as SIS play a central role in European migration governance, their use must remain compatible with fundamental rights and effective judicial protection.
Ultimately, the decision concerning the Italian Consulate in Casablanca sends a clear message: Schengen alerts may inform consular decisions, but they cannot replace reasoned decision-making, proper investigation, and respect for the applicant’s right to defence.
About the author
Fabio Loscerbo is an Italian lawyer based in Bologna, specialized in immigration and administrative law. His work focuses on visa procedures, residence permits, and judicial review of administrative decisions in migration matters. He is also registered in the European Union Transparency Register as a lobbyist in the field of migration and asylum (ID 280782895721-36) and promotes research and policy analysis through the ReImmigrazione project (www.reimmigrazione.com). His academic profile is available at: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
The views expressed are solely those of the author(s), not of the Center.