Brussels, 28/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - By sending a reasoned opinion to Spain on 27 June, the European Commission decided to press ahead with infringement proceedings for decisions refusing members of the family of EU citizens visas and entry to Spanish territory on the grounds that their names had been entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) for purposes of non-admission. If Madrid does not provide a satisfactory response within two months, the Commission may decide to take the matter before the European Court of Justice.
The infringement case began when the Commission received complaints from two nationals of third countries married to EU citizens and residing with their spouses in the United Kingdom and Ireland respectively. Both complainants had been refused visas and entry to Spain on the grounds that another Member State had alerted the SIS for the purposes of refusing them entry. The Commission decided to send a reason opinion against Spain setting out the following objections:
1) Members of the families of Union citizens enjoy the "traditional" right of freedom of movement and are covered by the directives on entry and residence. A decision restricting the free movement of such persons must comply with Directive 64/221 as interpreted by the Court of Justice. This means that the interested party must pose a current, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy. In theory, an alert for the purposes of refusing entry cannot therefore be issued for persons entitled to freedom of movement. There are a whole series of reasons which justify an SIS alert, but fail to meet the requirements of Directive 64/221.
2) The Commission argues that the Spanish authorities have undermined the complainants' fundamental right to free movement by automatically applying in their case an SIS alert issued by another Member State, without knowing the reasons behind it or requesting any information from the Member State concerned.
3) The Commission also considers that the Spanish authorities failed to observe the formal requirements arising from Directive 64/221 by merely informing the complainants of the existence of an SIS alert. It considers this does not satisfy the requirement laid down in Directive 64/221 that the person concerned must be informed of the grounds of public policy underlying the decision taken in his case, unless this is contrary to the interests of the security of the State involved.