Einreiseverbot
DE EN BKS
Menü
Entry ban

Administrative penalties and the entry ban: what matters

Administrative penalties and the entry ban: how administrative offences feed into the risk assessment under section 53 FPG and how section 60 FPG opens a shortening.

Mag. Mirela Saric
Your contact person

Mag. Mirela Saric

Attorney at law · German and BCS

Mirela Saric assists clients in immigration matters with a clear structure: review the decision, secure deadlines, define the strategy and act quickly. She advises in German and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.

Call directly +43 662 6280000 WhatsApp Send email Book initial consultation (72 euros)
3 July 2026 · Mag. Mirela Saric, Attorney at Law

Not every entry ban rests on a criminal conviction. Administrative penalties and administrative offences can also be relied on by the authority. For those affected the question arises what weight such breaches actually have in the proceedings.

What is decisive is the risk assessment under section 53 FPG. It estimates future conduct and at the same time determines the duration of an entry ban. Administrative penalties feed into this assessment, but their weight depends on type, seriousness and temporal connection.

The short self-check below helps you place your own situation. We then show how administrative penalties feed into the assessment and by what route a later shortening or lifting is possible.

Place your situation

What weight do administrative penalties have in the assessment?

Answer one or two questions about the breaches relied on. You will receive a first orientation on the risk assessment.

Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.

01 Question 1

On what does the authority base the risk assessment?

Administrative penalties and administrative offences can feed into the assessment under section 53 FPG. Type and weight are decisive.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

A single, minor breach often supports an assessment only weakly.

Where the authority relies on a single, more distant and minor breach, the risk assessment under section 53 FPG should be reviewed critically. An assessment must rest on a comprehensible factual basis and estimate future conduct. Conduct without complaint since then can speak against a continuing risk.

A shortening or lifting of the entry ban runs through section 60 FPG where the relevant circumstances have changed. An ordered presentation of the development is the basis for this.

02

With an accumulation, the careful classification of each incident matters.

Where the authority sees a pattern in several administrative penalties, each individual offence must be classified separately. What is decisive is whether the overall picture actually supports a continuing risk under section 53 FPG or whether individual incidents were overrated. The duration set must also match the seriousness.

Set out the development and any improvements. Where the circumstances have changed, a later shortening or lifting under section 60 FPG comes into consideration.

03

Where the reasoning is vague, the factual basis should be clarified.

Where the decision remains unspecific on the risk assessment, it must be examined exactly which facts the authority relies on. An assessment under section 53 FPG must rest on evidenced circumstances and may not build on mere assumptions. Unclear or disputed allegations should be questioned critically.

Obtain access to the file and order the individual points. That is the basis for challenging the assessment and the duration in the proceedings.

Administrative penalties in the risk assessment

The authority bases an entry ban on a risk assessment. It judges whether the person concerned poses a future danger to public order or security. Administrative penalties and administrative offences can feed into this judgment, provided they carry corresponding weight. What this judgment means is explained by the entry on the threat assessment.

What is decisive is not merely that a breach exists, but how it is to be classified. The type and seriousness of the offence, any accumulation and the time gap play a role. A single, minor and more distant breach supports an assessment differently than repeated breaches in a short time.

The assessment must rest on a comprehensible factual basis. A blanket or vague reasoning is open to challenge in the proceedings. It is therefore worth examining exactly which circumstances the authority relies on and how it weighted them.

Significance for duration, shortening and lifting

The risk assessment determines under section 53 FPG not only the whether but also the duration of the entry ban. The lower the weight of the breaches relied on, the more critically a long set duration should be questioned. The duration must match the actual seriousness of the circumstances and be proportionate. More on the term itself is explained by the entry on the entry ban.

Where the relevant circumstances change, for example through conduct without complaint over a longer period, a shortening or lifting comes into consideration. This route runs through section 60 FPG. It requires that the basis of the original assessment has comprehensibly changed.

An appeal against the decision of the BFA goes to the Federal Administrative Court. It should question the classification of the breaches and the setting of the duration concretely and evidence the development since then.

Important on classification: Obtain access to the file early and classify each breach relied on individually. A blanket assessment is open to challenge where the weight of the breaches does not support it. At the same time evidence the development since then. When in doubt arrange an initial consultation (72 euros) quickly.

FAQ

Administrative penalties and the entry ban.

Can administrative penalties justify an entry ban? +

Administrative penalties and administrative offences can feed into the risk assessment under section 53 FPG. Their weight depends on type, seriousness, any accumulation and the time gap. What is decisive is whether the overall picture comprehensibly supports a continuing risk.

Does a single breach work differently than an accumulation? +

Yes. A single, minor and more distant breach supports an assessment differently than repeated breaches in a short time. Conduct without complaint since then can speak against a continuing risk. Each incident must be classified separately and in context.

Can an existing entry ban be shortened later? +

Where the relevant circumstances have changed, a shortening or lifting comes into consideration. This route runs through section 60 FPG. It requires that the basis of the original risk assessment has comprehensibly changed, for example through conduct without complaint over a longer period.

Go deeper

Related topics and terms

Lifting an entry ban

When an entry ban can be shortened or lifted.

Threat assessment

How the assessment estimates future conduct.

Entry ban

What an entry ban means and how its duration is set.

Topics
Entry banAdministrative penaltiesThreat assessmentFPG

Entry ban, return decision, a running appeal deadline?

In immigration law, deadlines and the right argumentation decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.

+43 662 6280000 [email protected] Book initial consultation (72 euros)
Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg