Italian Embassy in Tehran and business visas: Court annuls refusal based on generic migration risk and Swiss 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 14 May 2026, general register number 7093 of 2024) provides important clarification on the limits of consular discretion in business visa procedures, particularly in cases involving migration risk assessments and information-sharing mechanisms between Schengen States.
The case concerned the refusal of a business visa issued by the Italian Embassy in Tehran, Iran, to an Iranian businesswoman invited to Italy in connection with the textile industry fair ITMA Milano 2023. According to the applicant, she acted as general manager of an Iranian company operating as a commercial agent for several European textile machinery producers, including an Italian company that had requested her presence in Italy to assist Iranian clients visiting its exhibition stand.
The application had already generated previous litigation. An earlier refusal issued by the Embassy in Tehran had been annulled by the same administrative court because of procedural defects linked to the violation of Article 10-bis of Law No. 241/1990 concerning prior notice requirements.
Following that judgment, the Embassy reopened the procedure but once again denied the visa.
This second refusal relied on several elements: the applicant’s alleged lack of sufficient ties to Iran, the absence of family and property connections, doubts concerning the business relationship with the Italian company, and, most importantly, the existence of a prior Swiss Schengen refusal and a reference to a so-called “local alert list” maintained by Swiss authorities.
The Court ultimately annulled the refusal.
From a legal perspective, the judgment is particularly significant for two reasons.
First, the Court reaffirmed the importance of genuine procedural participation in visa procedures. The judgment emphasized that the mechanism established by Article 10-bis of Law No. 241/1990 cannot be reduced to a merely formal exercise. When applicants submit observations following a notice of intended refusal, the administration must provide a real and intelligible explanation addressing those arguments.
According to the Court, the Embassy’s final decision failed to meet this standard because it merely used generic formulae without adequately explaining why the applicant’s observations and supporting documentation had been rejected.
The Court explicitly stated that procedural participation loses its meaning when the administration formally activates dialogue while substantively ignoring the applicant’s arguments.
Second, and even more importantly, the judgment addressed the use of alerts and information-sharing mechanisms within the Schengen system.
The Embassy justified the refusal partly on the basis of a Swiss alert reportedly associated with the applicant. However, the Court found the administration’s reasoning insufficient because it failed to clearly identify the nature of the alert, its legal basis, and the specific reasons underlying the objection raised by the Swiss authorities.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied heavily on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Article 32 of the Visa Code (Regulation EC No. 810/2009). The European Court has clarified that when a Schengen visa refusal is based on objections raised by another Member State, the applicant must be informed of both the identity of that State and the specific grounds underlying the objection.
This requirement is directly linked to the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The judgment therefore confirms that references to generic security or migration concerns are not sufficient. Consular authorities must provide enough information to enable the applicant to understand the actual basis of the refusal and to exercise the right of defence effectively.
The Court also highlighted another important aspect: under current European legislation governing the Schengen Information System, alerts issued by one State do not automatically prevent another State from carrying out an independent assessment of the applicant’s situation.
In support of this position, the Court referred to recent Italian Constitutional Court case law recognizing the need for individualized assessment even in the presence of Schengen-related alerts.
This principle significantly limits the possibility for consular authorities to rely mechanically on foreign alerts without conducting an autonomous evaluation.
In the specific context of the Italian Embassy in Tehran, the judgment reflects the broader difficulties surrounding visa management in politically sensitive regions, where migration concerns, security cooperation, and diplomatic relations intersect with the rights of applicants engaged in legitimate professional and commercial activities.
For an international audience, the case illustrates a broader structural tension within European migration governance: the balance between inter-state security cooperation and the procedural rights of visa applicants.
Ultimately, the decision confirms that while consular authorities retain broad discretionary powers in assessing business visas, such discretion must remain transparent, individualized, and compatible with European standards of procedural fairness and judicial protection.
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.