Air Baltic Corporation AS v Valsts robežsardze.
Date: 2014-09-04
35. Moreover, it follows from Article 34 of the Visa Code that, where a competent authority annuls a uniform visa, its basis for doing so must coincide with one of the grounds for refusal provided for in Articles 32(1) and 35(6) of the code (see, to that effect, judgment in Koushkaki , C‑84/12, EU:C:2013:862, paragraphs 42 and 43). Accordingly, the only ground for annulling a visa which directly concerns the travel document is, pursuant to Article 32(1)(a)(i) of that 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.
43. The need for a uniform interpretation of a provision of EU law requires that, where there is divergence between the various language versions, the provision in question be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see, to that effect, the judgments in DR and TV2 Danmark , C‑510/10, EU:C:2012:244, paragraph 45, and in Bark , C‑89/12, EU:C:2013:276, paragraph 40).
50. As regards, secondly, the objectives pursued by the Schengen Borders Code, it can be seen from recital 6 thereto that border control should help to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings, and to prevent any threat to the internal security, public policy, public health and international relations of Member States. Furthermore, Article 2(10) of that code states that border checks are carried out to ensure that persons may be authorised to enter the territory of the Member States or authorised to leave it.
51. In order to attain those objectives, Article 7(3) of that code provides that, on entry and exit, third-country nationals are to be subject to thorough checks, which are to include examination of the entry and exit stamps on the travel document of the third-country national concerned, in order to verify, by comparing the dates of entry and exit, that the person has not already exceeded the maximum duration of authorised stay in the territory of the Member States.
62. Moreover, the view that the list of entry conditions laid down in Article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code is exhaustive is supported by the fact that, under Article 13(1) of the code, entry to the territories of the Member States is to be refused in the case of a third-country national who does not fulfil all the entry conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that code and who does not belong to the categories of persons referred to in Article 5(4), whilst, under the second subparagraph of Article 13(2) of the code, the precise reasons for the refusal must be given by means of the standard form set out in Part B of Annex V thereto (see, by analogy, the judgment in Koushkaki , EU:C:2013:862, paragraph 38).
66. The interpretation to the effect that the Schengen Borders Code does no more than oblige the Member States to refuse entry to their territory in certain specific situations, without thereby harmonising the entry conditions to that territory, is therefore incompatible with the very objective of that code (see, by analogy, the judgment in Koushkaki , EU:C:2013:862, paragraph 50).
67. Moreover, the Court has held that the arrangements put in place by the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 are intended to ensure a high and uniform level of checks and surveillance along external borders which is the corollary of the freedom to cross internal borders within the Schengen Area (judgment in Commission  v Spain , C‑503/03, EU:C:2006:74, paragraph 37), thanks to compliance with harmonised rules for external border controls which are laid down in Articles 6 to 13 of the Schengen Borders Code (see, to that effect, the judgment in ANAFE , C‑606/10, EU:C:2012:348, paragraphs 26 and 29).
68. Moreover, even though, under Article 30 of the Visa Code, mere possession of a uniform visa does not confer an automatic right of entry, the objective of facilitating legitimate travel, which is referred to in recital 3 to that code, would be jeopardised if it lay within the discretion of the Member States to refuse entry to a third-country national holding a uniform visa by adding an entry condition to those listed in Article 5(1) of the Schengen Borders Code, when even the EU legislature did not consider it necessary for such a condition to be satisfied for entry into the territory of the Member States (see, by analogy, the judgment in Koushkaki , EU:C:2013:862, paragraph 52).