Entry in the SIS (the Schengen Information System) can derail a foreign national’s professional, family and business plans throughout the Schengen Area. This is not merely a technical entry in a database. An active alert leads to refusal of entry at the border, makes it difficult to obtain residence permits and has consequences even in countries other than the one that issued the alert. A recent case involving one of our clients illustrates why a swift analysis of documents, accurately identifying the source of the alert and coordinated cross-border action are of crucial importance for deletion of data from the SIS.
From being refused entry to Germany to the Polish entry in the SIS – a case study
Our client, a Turkish national, was refused entry to Germany at Frankfurt Airport in March 2026. The documents provided indicated that the incident was linked to an alleged breach of the 90/180-day rule. The client was issued with a document regarding his stay in the transit area; however, he was not provided with a formally served decision prohibiting entry and residence, which would have formed the basis for a long-term restriction on his freedom of movement.
A few months later, in June 2026, whilst attempting to cross the Polish border, the client was once again refused entry. This time, the key factor was active SIS record and the corresponding entry in the national register of foreign nationals. The refusal was mandatory. Border officials, upon seeing the German alert regarding the refusal of entry and residence, could not treat the matter as a routine assessment of compliance with travel requirements. The consequences were immediate – the journey was cut short, the traveller was forced to return, and there remained uncertainty as to whether they would be able to enter Schengen countries in future.
The client’s German representative took action in Germany. Following an analysis of the case, the German authorities confirmed that the German SIS alert had been deleted. However, this did not resolve the issue. The Polish alert, created following the refusal of entry, required a separate investigation and removal by the competent Polish authority. It was this stage that was entrusted to our law firm.
Why does an entry in the SIS have such severe consequences for a foreign national?
The SIS is a common system used by the states participating in the Schengen acquis. In the area of border controls, it enables the exchange of information needed to make decisions on entry and residence. An alert concerning refusal of entry and residence is not a penalty in itself, but its practical effect is very severe. The data is visible to the authorised authorities of other countries, and its presence triggers a negative border decision.
Therefore, in SIS cases, three questions must be considered separately. Namely: whether there was a valid decision forming the basis for the alert, whether the alert itself was necessary and proportionate, and whether the grounds for maintaining it still exist. An error at any of these stages may justify a request for the deletion of the data. Of particular importance is the documentation of the service of the decision on the foreign national, their ability to understand its content, the continued validity of the grounds, and the relationship between alerts issued in different countries.
The legal basis for the deletion of data from the SIS in Poland – Articles 443 and 444 of the Act on Foreigners
The Polish Act on Foreigners provides for mechanisms to protect individuals whose details have been included on the list of undesirable foreigners or in the SIS. Article 443 regulates the transmission and deletion of data in relation to the Schengen Information System. In turn, Article 444 provides a foreign national with grounds to request the erasure of data if it has been recorded or is being stored in breach of the provisions of the Act or an EU regulation.
The point of reference remains Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The provisions governing alerts for the purposes of refusing entry and residence require that an alert be based on a valid decision, meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, and be removed once the grounds for it no longer apply. In our client’s case, the key argument was that the Polish entry was secondary to the German entry. Since the original entry had been deleted, it was necessary to verify whether there was still any valid justification for maintaining its effects in the Polish register and in the SIS.
What should you do if you’re refused entry? Contact the Border Guard and the Police
Following a refusal of entry or the disclosure of information regarding a SIS alert, the foreign national should ascertain as precisely as possible which authority carried out the action, what decision formed the basis for it, and where the data is currently being processed. One should not rely solely on a verbal explanation provided during the check. Of key importance are the documents handed to the foreign national, annotations in their travel document, reports, proofs of delivery and information about the authority that made the SIS alert.
If the incident took place at the Polish border, the first point of contact should be the relevant unit Border Guard. It is the commander of the Border Guard post who issues a decision refusing entry into the territory of the Republic of Poland, and this decision may be appealed to the Chief Commander of the Border Guard. Border procedures may include, amongst other things, document checks, questioning the foreign national and checking available registers and lists.
It is advisable, during the check or immediately afterwards, to ask for a copy of the decision and any other documents relating to the refusal of entry, to the extent permitted by the regulations. You should also note down the date and place of the check, the name of the Border Guard unit, the officer’s details or identification number, and keep tickets, booking confirmations, travel documents and correspondence with the authorities. Such well-organised documentation may later help to determine whether there was merely a one-off refusal of entry, or whether a decision was also issued resulting in an entry in the national register or the SIS.
It may be necessary to contact the Police in matters relating to the exchange of supplementary information concerning a SIS alert; however, not every Police unit is competent to decide on the removal of an alert. Tasks relating to SIS alerts for the purposes of refusing entry and residence are carried out by the Chief Commander of the Police with the assistance of Border Guard officers on duty at the SIRENE office. Therefore, simply reporting to the local police station does not usually replace a formal application to the relevant authority.
Application for the deletion of data from the SIS – how to prepare it?
If the issue concerns data included in the Polish register or in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry and residence, a foreign national may request access to the information, the rectification of the data, or its erasure. The application must identify the foreign national, specify the request precisely and state the grounds for it. In the case of a request for the erasure of data, it must be demonstrated that the data was entered or is being stored in breach of the provisions of the Act on Foreigners or Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Our work began by contacting the German representative and establishing the chronology of events. In cross-border cases, even a minor discrepancy – such as the date an entry was deleted, a passport number, the content of a border decision or the entity issuing the alert – can determine the validity of the argument. We compiled the documents relating to the refusals of entry, the correspondence and the German police’s ruling, and then assessed their relevance in the context of the Polish proceedings.
The law firm has prepared Application to the Head of the Office for Foreigners’ Affairs for the removal of data from the register of foreign nationals and from the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry and residence. At the same time, we drafted the statement of grounds and the cover letter. We pointed out that the client was in possession of a valid passport and a valid Schengen visa, and that the Polish alert was a consequence of an earlier German entry, which had already been deleted. The argument did not simply challenge the refusal at the border itself, but sought to demonstrate the absence of a current, independent basis for the continued processing of the data.
The selection of supporting documents was also crucial. The application was accompanied by, amongst other things, a signed form, an identity document, materials relating to the German proceedings and confirmation of the removal of the original entry, together with the necessary translations. Consistent evidence enables the authority to quickly reconstruct the sequence of events and assess whether the entry is merely an automatically maintained consequence of an event that no longer has any basis.
Practical risks involved in removing an entry from the SIS
The greatest risk is the assumption that the removal of an entry in one country automatically removes all its consequences in other systems and countries. This is not always the case. A secondary entry, a national register, a border decision or information provided to various authorities may require separate action. For this reason, a foreign national should keep full records of border checks, decisions, proof of service, travel documents and correspondence with the authorities.
The problem may also escalate over time. An active alert complicates travel, family visits, taking up employment and residence procedures. It is worth bearing in mind that regularising residence and work requires a careful assessment of the entire migration situation – we discuss the latest changes and their practical implications for employers and foreign nationals in this article Legalising the employment of foreign nationals in 2026 – what real changes does the migration pact bring?.
Comprehensive support for cross-border matters
A SIS case rarely occurs in a vacuum. It is often linked to planned employment, business activities, a family’s stay in another country, or an unexpected event requiring an immediate response. BKT Law Firm handles cross-border cases in a comprehensive manner: we analyse documents, coordinate communication with overseas legal representatives, draft correspondence and help to select a strategy that suits the client’s actual situation.
Our experience extends beyond immigration law. In international trade, businesses may need support if their account on a sales platform is blocked – we discuss this in our analysis Suspension of a seller’s account on the marketplace platform. We also assist people who have been affected by an unforeseen event whilst abroad, including in asserting their rights following an accident at work in Germany.
The common thread running through these cases is the need for swift action, thorough documentation and an understanding of the procedures in place on both sides of the border.
Do you need help with a SIS entry? Please contact BKT Law Firm
If you have been refused entry to Poland or another Schengen country, or if you suspect that your details are held in the Schengen Information System, we will analyse your situation, identify the competent authority for the removal of the entry and prepare a complete application together with a statement of reasons – including in coordination with a representative abroad.
Please contact BKT Law Firm regarding the removal of an entry from the SIS. The sooner we identify the source of the alert, the greater the chance of successfully restoring the ability to travel and reside legally.
