Case C-575/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Valsts robežsardze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Articles 24(1) and 34 — Uniform visa — Annulment or revocation of a uniform visa — Validity of a uniform visa affixed to a travel document which has been cancelled — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Articles 5(1) and 13(1) — Border checks — Entry conditions — National legislation requiring a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document)
Date: 2014-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, administrative formalities, area of freedom, security and justice, border control








C_2014395EN.01000801.xml










10.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/8






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Valsts robežsardze
(Case C-575/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Articles 24(1) and 34 - Uniform visa - Annulment or revocation of a uniform visa - Validity of a uniform visa affixed to a travel document which has been cancelled - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Articles 5(1) and 13(1) - Border checks - Entry conditions - National legislation requiring a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document))
(2014/C 395/09)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Air Baltic Corporation AS

Defendant: Valsts robežsardze

Operative part of the judgment







1)


On a proper construction of Articles 24(1) and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 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.










2)


On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 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.










3)


Article 5(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, 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, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, 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.






(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.