Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:346
Date: 2014-05-21
Language of the case: Latvian
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 4 September 2014 1. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Visa policy — Community code on visas — Regulation No 810/2009 — Entry conditions for third-country nationals — Valid uniform visa affixed to a travel document which has been cancelled — Authority of a third country not competent to annul such a visa (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 810/2009, Arts 24(1), 32(1) and 34(1) and (2)) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Differences between the various language versions — Account taken of the general scheme and purpose of the rules at issue 3. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Community Code on movement across borders — Entry conditions for third-country nationals — Requirement of a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document — No requirement of a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 562/2006, Arts 5(1) and 13(1)) 4. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Community Code on movement across borders — Entry conditions for third-country nationals — National rules making those nationals subject to the presentation of a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 562/2006, Art. 5(1) and 13(1)) 1. On a proper construction of Articles 24(1) and 34 of Regulation No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), the cancellation of a travel document by an authority of a third country does not mean that the uniform visa affixed to that document is automatically invalidated. A uniform visa thus remains valid at the very least until expiry of the period of validity fixed, when the visa was issued, by the competent authority of the issuing Member State, unless it is annulled or revoked before the expiry of that period, pursuant to Article 34 of the Visa Code. However, under Article 34(1) and (2) of the Visa Code, annulment or revocation of a uniform visa requires the adoption of a specific decision to that effect by the competent authority of the issuing Member State or of another Member State. An authority of a third country is therefore not competent to annul a uniform visa. Moreover, the only ground for annulling a visa which directly concerns the travel document is, pursuant to Article 32(1)(a)(i) of the Visa Code, the situation in which the travel document presented at the time when the visa was issued was false, counterfeit or forged. It follows that the cancellation, after the visa has been issued, of the travel document to which the visa is affixed is not one of the reasons that may justify annulment of the visa by a competent authority. (see paras 32, 33, 35, 36, operative part 1) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 43) 3. On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation No 265/2010, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, the entry of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States is not subject to the condition that, at the border check, the valid visa presented must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document. (see para. 56, operative part 2) 4. Article 5(1) of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation No 265/2010, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which makes the entry of third-country nationals to the territory of the Member State concerned subject to the condition that, at the border check, the valid visa presented must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document. A Member State does not have discretion allowing it to refuse a third-country national entry to its territory by applying a condition that is not laid down in the Schengen Borders Code. (see paras 69, 70, operative part 3)