SIS review period: extension and deletion check for an entry alert

Article 39(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 provides that an alert must not be stored longer than required for the purpose for which it was entered. Article 39(2) sets the regular review point at three years after entry in the SIS. If the national decision underlying the alert is valid for more than three years, the alert is reviewed within five years.

For a refusal-of-entry alert, this is a duty to review continued storage. It does not mean that the underlying entry ban ends after three or five years. It also does not permit a blanket extension. Under Article 39(3), Member States may provide for shorter review periods under national law.

A reliable timeline therefore needs two dates: the SIS entry date and the duration of the national decision. A later amendment or cancellation of that decision may affect whether continued storage remains justified.

During the review period, the issuing Member State may retain the alert beyond the review point. Article 39(4) requires a comprehensive individual assessment. Continued storage must be necessary and proportionate for the purpose of the alert. The decision must be recorded and notified to the CS-SIS.

This creates a concrete question for the authority: which current circumstances justify continued storage? The original entry and the original decision do not automatically remain sufficient over time. The relevant circumstances are those that still support the purpose of the alert.

The extension of an SIS alert must be separated from shortening the entry ban. The SIS review concerns storage in the information system. A change to the Austrian ban follows the applicable national procedure.

Under Article 39(5), an alert is automatically deleted after the relevant review period unless the issuing Member State has notified the CS-SIS of an extension based on an individual assessment. The CS-SIS alerts the issuing Member State four months before the programmed deletion.

Article 39(7) provides an additional deletion control. If a SIRENE Bureau recognises that an alert has fulfilled its purpose and should be deleted, it asks the authority that entered it to respond. That authority has 15 calendar days from receipt to confirm deletion or state reasons for retaining the alert. If there is no response, the SIRENE Bureau ensures deletion in accordance with national law.

An old border notification therefore does not prove that a valid extension exists. The current record, the documented decision and the deletion check are decisive.

Article 53 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 provides for the rights of access, rectification of inaccurate data and erasure of unlawfully stored data. An access request should identify the suspected record and the suspected error as clearly as possible. A general request to delete an entry ban does not by itself answer the question of the SIS review period.

If another Member State issued the alert, a non-issuing Member State may communicate information only after giving the issuing Member State an opportunity to comment. This can affect the response time. Any full or partial restriction of access is governed by the conditions in Article 53(3) and should generally be explained.

Article 54 provides a remedy for access, rectification, erasure, information or compensation matters. Keep the request, response, proof of delivery and reasons together so that the issue remains clear.

Section 53 of the Austrian FPG concerns the Austrian entry ban and its legal conditions. The SIS alert makes a measure visible to authorities in other Schengen States. The two levels may interact, but they are different questions.

An expired SIS review period does not automatically cancel an entry ban that remains substantively valid. Conversely, an SIS alert should not remain solely because an entry ban once existed. Lifting or shortening the Austrian ban must be assessed separately under the applicable route, including section 60 FPG where relevant.

If the issue follows imprisonment and a residence title in another EU State, the consultation and the national decision also need to be classified. The article on imprisonment and an EU residence title addresses that different starting point. If no voluntary departure period was granted, see the article on the immediate checks after a return decision without a period.

For a reliable review, collect the complete Austrian decision, proof of service and every later decision on amendment, cancellation or shortening. Also useful are the border or visa notice, an access request, the authority response and proof of when you learned of the SIS hit.

Arrange the documents chronologically. Mark the SIS entry date, the start and end of the national ban, the review point, any extension decision and the date of a later check. If a document only mentions an entry ban, do not infer the SIS entry date without confirmation.

A short comparison is often useful: what does the decision say, what does the current hit show and what response has the competent authority given? The unresolved difference determines the next request.