Wrong exit date in the EES: correct it before an entry-ban decision

A short stay is assessed by comparing entry and exit days with the residence rules applicable to the individual case. An exit date recorded too late or not recorded at all can extend the stay shown in the file. Whether an overstay actually occurred also depends on the visa, residence title, purpose of stay and the other journeys in the relevant period.

The EES date is therefore an important starting point, but it does not replace a review of the complete travel chronology. Prepare a table showing every border crossing, the travel document used and the date supported by the evidence. This makes it possible to identify whether the calculation rests on one incorrect record.

Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 requires the responsible Member State to review data when it is factually inaccurate or incomplete, or when it was processed in breach of the Regulation. Where necessary, the data must be rectified, completed or deleted without delay.

The request should describe the discrepancy precisely. Identify the recorded entry, the date said to be correct and the facts supporting that date. A general statement that the border was crossed on another day makes the review more difficult.

The request should identify the EES record clearly and list the evidence in chronological order. State expressly that the date is being used for a 90/180-day assessment and a pending immigration decision. Keep a copy of the request and proof of transmission.

Under Article 52 of the EES Regulation, a third-country national may submit requests for access, rectification, completion or deletion to the competent authority of any Member State. The request is to be answered within 45 days of receipt. Additional review and contact periods apply where the request is made to a Member State other than the responsible Member State. Competence and procedural status therefore need to be clarified immediately.

Inform the immigration authority that intends to draw consequences from the alleged overstay. The data request does not replace a statement in the immigration proceedings. It ensures that the disputed record and the supporting documents are known before the decision is made.

Useful documents for an initial review include passport pages with entry or exit stamps, boarding passes, booking confirmations and tickets, border confirmations, accommodation records and visa or residence-title documents. The key issue is the link to the particular border crossing. Depending on the journey, an individual document may be only one indication.

Also provide the authority's allegation, the stay calculation and any request for a statement. In a short chronology, mark the date shown in the EES, the date shown by the evidence and the number of stay days affected by the discrepancy.

Section 53 FPG links an entry ban to a return decision and relevant facts. A data correction therefore does not automatically rule out every measure. The authority must, however, examine the factual basis before deriving an overstay and further immigration consequences from a wrong exit date.

An entry-ban decision should not be built on an unchecked timeline. If the exit demonstrably occurred earlier or is missing from the EES, the authority should include the correction request, the evidence and the corrected calculation in its assessment.

If the authority does not react in time or has already issued a decision, the data request and the review of the decision must be pursued separately. Read the operative part, reasons, departure period and appeal information in full. The articles on deportation, return decisions and entry-ban enforcement and on separating the operative points of a BFA decision help with this first review.

The legal basis for this article is Articles 35 and 52 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 and section 53 FPG in the Austrian Legal Information System. The specific legal consequence depends on the decision, evidence and procedural status.