🚨 CRITICAL READING NOTICE — BEFORE READING ON

This article is a purely legal-informational account of Swiss migration law in force in relation to Schengen overstays. SIP gives NO individual advice, NO recommendation to self-report and NO strategy for avoiding detection. Anyone currently affected by a Schengen overstay should, before any contact with the authorities, seek legal advice from a lawyer specialising in Swiss migration law. See sections 7 and 15.

Crisis-Card C5 — emergency referral at the end of this article.

1. Overview — what is a Schengen overstay?

The Schengen area currently comprises 26 states with largely control-free internal borders. Switzerland has been fully integrated into the Schengen association since 12 December 2008 (accession to the operational application of the Schengen acquis). As a result, entry into Switzerland from a third country is governed by the common Schengen body of rules, in particular the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) and the Visa Code.

1.1 The 90/180 rule

Third-country nationals — that is, persons with a nationality outside the EU/EFTA — may stay for a maximum of 90 days within any moving 180-day period in the entire Schengen area. This applies both to:

  • third-country nationals subject to a visa requirement holding a Schengen Type C visa (short-stay visa),
  • visa-exempt third-country nationals (e.g. nationals of Brazil, Argentina, Canada, the USA, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc.) in the context of a tourist or business stay not subject to authorisation.

The 90 days are counted cumulatively across all Schengen states. A person who spends 40 days in France and then 35 days in Switzerland has, within the 180-day window, used up 75 of 90 days.

1.2 Definition of overstay

A Schengen overstay exists where a third-country national remains in the Schengen area after expiry of the permissible 90 days (or after expiry of a Schengen visa of shorter validity), without:

  • a national residence title (e.g. a Swiss L/B permit) having been granted,
  • a visa-extension application with suspensive effect being pending,
  • an asylum application having been filed, or
  • another legal status covering the continued stay.

1.3 How is an overstay discovered?

Discovery typically occurs:

  • on departure via a Schengen external-border crossing point (e.g. Zurich, Geneva, Basel airports) by comparing the entry stamp with the departure date;
  • during checks by the police or migration authorities within the country;
  • at the next entry into a Schengen state through an entry in the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II);
  • when applying for a new visa, a permit or family reunification, through a file search.

With the gradual introduction of the EU's Entry/Exit System (EES) — an automated recording of the entries and exits of third-country nationals at the Schengen external borders — monitoring of the 90/180 rule is being further strengthened. The EES replaces the manual stamping of passports with a central electronic registration; overstays thereby become systematically and cross-border detectable. The exact commissioning timetable and the implementation status relevant for Switzerland are continually adjusted; the current particulars are to be taken from the official information of the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) (see section 14.1).

The European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) provided for in parallel will, in addition, oblige visa-exempt third-country nationals to obtain a prior electronic travel authorisation; here too, the relevant start of application is to be taken from the official SEM information.

2. Art. 115 FNIA — criminal sanctions (text of the law)

The central criminal-law provision for illegal stay and illegal entry is Art. 115 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (FNIA, SR 142.20).

Art. 115 FNIA — Unlawful entry or exit, unlawful stay and gainful employment without a permit

para. 1: Any person who:

a. violates the entry regulations under Article 5;

b. stays unlawfully in Switzerland, in particular after expiry of the stay not subject to authorisation or of the authorised stay;

c. engages in gainful employment without a permit;

d. enters or leaves Switzerland otherwise than via a prescribed border crossing point (Art. 7),

shall be liable to a custodial sentence of up to one year or a monetary penalty.

para. 2: The same penalty applies where the foreign national, after leaving Switzerland or the international transit zones of the airports, enters or makes preparations to enter the national territory of another state in violation of the entry provisions applicable there.

para. 3: If the offence is committed through negligence, the penalty is a fine.

para. 4: Where removal or expulsion proceedings are pending, criminal proceedings instituted solely on account of an offence under paragraph 1 letters a, b or d are stayed until the legally binding conclusion of the removal or expulsion proceedings. […]

The Art. 5 FNIA referred to in the text of the law governs the general entry requirements (valid travel document, where applicable a visa, secured departure, sufficient financial means, no entry ban); Art. 7 FNIA concerns the border crossing via the authorised border crossing points. The element relevant to the classic overstay is Art. 115 para. 1 let. b FNIA (unlawful stay after expiry of the stay not subject to authorisation or of the authorised stay).

Important: the threatened penalty comprises a custodial sentence of up to one year or a monetary penalty; in the case of negligence, a mere fine. In practice, simple overstay constellations are frequently decided by summary penalty order of the cantonal public prosecutor's office — that is, without an oral main hearing. An objection may be lodged against a summary penalty order within the statutory time limit; if it is not lodged, the summary penalty order becomes legally binding and is equivalent to a legally binding judgment.

3. Three-tier practice in sanctioning

From the published cantonal practice, a rough three-tier heuristic can be derived. This is an observation of administrative practice, NOT a guaranteed scheme and NOT a promise that a particular tier treatment will be applied in an individual case.

Tier 1 — minor overstay (1 to approx. 3 days)

  • Often due to a flight cancellation, illness, a missed connection or a miscalculation of the day count
  • Typical sanction: administrative fine in the range of CHF 300-500, issued at the airport or by the cantonal migration office
  • As a rule no SIS II alert
  • As a rule no longer-term entry ban
  • Future visa applications: mostly not blocked, but the incident must be disclosed

Tier 2 — moderate overstay (several days to weeks)

  • Typical sanction: summary penalty order of the public prosecutor's office with a monetary penalty (e.g. 10-30 daily penalty units of CHF 30-100, suspended or unsuspended)
  • SEM entry ban for Switzerland under Art. 67 FNIA, as a rule 1 to 5 years
  • SIS II alert possible, depending on the accompanying circumstances (in particular in the case of repeated violations, suspicion of undeclared work, earlier incidents)
  • Representation by a lawyer urgently indicated in objection and appeal proceedings

Tier 3 — serious overstay (months or years)

  • Ordinary criminal proceedings with a possible custodial sentence of up to one year (often suspended)
  • Procedural costs, fees, where applicable assumption of the removal costs
  • SIS II alert and entry ban typically 5 years or longer
  • In the event of a criminal conviction for a catalogue offence, an expulsion order under Art. 66a of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC, SR 311.0) additionally comes into consideration. Important: a pure overstay under Art. 115 FNIA does not count among the catalogue of mandatory expulsion under Art. 66a SCC; an expulsion order presupposes a corresponding, as a rule more serious, triggering offence. The discretionary expulsion order under Art. 66abis SCC remains at the court's discretion.
  • Greatly aggravated future permit and visa prospects — including in all other Schengen states

4. SIS II — the second-generation Schengen Information System

4.1 What is SIS II?

The Schengen Information System (SIS II) is a central database operated by all Schengen states, which stores, among other things, entry bans. An alert in SIS II under Art. 24 of the SIS II Regulation ((EC) No 1987/2006, replaced by (EU) 2018/1861) has the effect that the person concerned can be refused entry at any Schengen external border — that is, not only in Switzerland, but also in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.

4.2 Consequence of a SIS II alert

  • Entry ban in all 26 Schengen states for the duration of the alert (typically 3-5 years, in serious cases up to 10 years or longer)
  • Obligation to disclose data to consular representations when applying for visas
  • Possible additional entries in national databases (e.g. the Swiss ZEMIS/SYMIC)

4.3 FAC case law — no automatic SIS entry in the case of a minor overstay

The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) has clarified in its case law that a SIS II alert is not without further ado admissible for every overstay. In particular, in the case of a misconduct that is penalised in criminal law merely by a fine, the assumption — required for an alert — of a threat to public order or security within the meaning of Art. 24 of the SIS Regulation ((EU) 2018/1861) regularly is lacking. The FAC therefore examines the proportionality of the alert in the individual case and requires a threat assessment going beyond the mere stay violation.

The relevant FAC case law on entry bans and SIS alerts is accessible via the official decisions database of the Federal Administrative Court (Division VI, migration law) as well as via the relevant specialist literature (cf. sections 14 and 17).

5. Geographical practice variation within Switzerland

Cantonal practice in the case of Schengen overstays varies considerably. The following overview reflects the tendencies documented in the published practice and legal literature — it is no guarantee for an individual case.

5.1 Geneva

  • Tendency towards individual-case consideration — in particular in the case of medical emergencies, flight cancellations or documented delays through no fault of the person concerned
  • Where there is an understandable reason, frequent limitation to a pure minor fine without an entry ban
  • Cantonal migration authority with a relatively coherent practice

5.2 Zurich

  • Tendency towards rigid application of the sanction mechanism
  • Minor cases are regularly penalised by administrative fines at the airport
  • In the case of moderate overstays, summary-penalty-order practice consistently applied

5.3 Bern, Basel, Vaud

  • Variable practice depending on the migration office and the public prosecutor's office
  • Basel-Stadt has a relatively broadly designed return counselling service (see section 10)
  • Vaud with a coherent but strict application

5.4 Other cantons

For the other cantons — in particular Ticino, Valais, Aargau and St. Gallen — there is no uniformly documented practice that could be reliably generalised. Sanctioning depends on the respective public prosecutor's office and the cantonal migration office. In the individual case, the practice of the competent canton of residence or of apprehension is always decisive; reliable information is given only by a migration-law lawyer practising in the respective canton (see section 14).

5.5 Note on proportionality and fault

Across all cantons the following applies: sentencing (Art. 47 SCC) and the determination of the entry ban and the duration of the alert are governed by fault and proportionality. An overstay that is through no fault of the person concerned, short and plausibly justified (e.g. on account of a flight cancellation or a medically certified inability to travel) is weighted differently in law than a long, knowing stay with gainful employment. This weighting, however, is carried out by the authorities and the courts in the individual case and cannot be guaranteed in advance.

6. Art. 67 FNIA — entry ban

In parallel with the criminal sanction under Art. 115 FNIA, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) can impose an administrative-law entry ban under Art. 67 FNIA. This is to be distinguished from the criminal sanction:

  • Addressee: SEM (not the public prosecutor's office)
  • Legal remedy: appeal to the FAC
  • Duration: as a rule a maximum of five years (Art. 67 para. 3 FNIA); in the case of a serious threat to public security and order, the duration may exceed five years
  • Scope of effect: in the case of Schengen-relevant violations with a SIS alert — the entire Schengen area

SEM practice frequently combines the entry ban with a SIS alert. The procedure is governed by the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA, SR 172.021); the appeal against the SEM ruling must be addressed to the Federal Administrative Court within the statutory time limit. Depending on the constellation, the procedure can be legally demanding — representation by a lawyer is urgently advised.

7. 🚨 CRITICAL WARNING — NO documented "safe disclosure" path in Switzerland

This section is the most important in this article.

7.1 There is NO formal "self-reporting procedure" in migration law

In Swiss tax law, the voluntary disclosure exempt from penalty under Art. 175 para. 3 DTA (Federal Act on Direct Federal Taxation, SR 642.11) exists — a once-in-a-lifetime disclosure which, under strict conditions, grants impunity for the tax evasion. This institution concerns tax law exclusively. A comparable institution does NOT exist in migration law — its mention here serves solely for delimitation and must not be transferred to the Schengen overstay.

  • There is no statutorily anchored "self-disclosure" procedure at the SEM or at cantonal migration offices that ensures automatic impunity or a guaranteed lenient outcome in the case of a Schengen overstay.
  • Making contact with the authorities is a procedural choice with an open outcome: it can lead to a minor fine, a multi-year entry ban or criminal proceedings — depending on the canton, the duration, the accompanying circumstances, the purpose of the stay and individual authority practice.

7.2 What SIP does NOT do

In relation to Schengen overstay cases, SIP expressly does not provide:

  • ❌ no recommendation to self-report,
  • ❌ no "safe-harbor" suggestion,
  • ❌ no strategy for avoiding detection,
  • ❌ no appeal strategy against SIS II alerts,
  • ❌ no positioning advice vis-à-vis the authorities,
  • ❌ no risk-benefit weighing between "departing and remaining silent" vs "disclosure".

7.3 What SIP recommends

Anyone currently affected by a Schengen overstay — regardless of the phase (still in the country / departed / before re-entry) — should:

  1. IMMEDIATELY seek legal advice from a migration-law lawyer, before contact is made with the SEM, the cantonal migration office, the police or other authorities.
  2. In an acute case, consult Crisis-Card C5 in the SIP app (Schengen overstay emergency notices).
  3. Secure all relevant documents (passport, entry stamp, flight tickets, medical certificates in the case of medical delays).

8. Possible paths after an overstay — a purely factual listing

This is a factual listing of the options documented in practice — NO recommendation and NO order of preference. Which path is opportune in the individual case is to be clarified exclusively by an individual-case analysis carried out by a lawyer.

8.1 Departure before discovery

The person concerned leaves the Schengen area before any formal objection. At the departure control, the overstay may be established — with the corresponding sanctions (see sections 3 and 4). A "quiet departure" without official consequences is not assured, and on a later re-entry or on an application for a permit, the archived data may lead to consequences.

8.2 Making contact with the SEM or the cantonal migration office

Proactive disclosure is a possible procedural choice with an open outcome. It does not automatically lead to impunity. Accompaniment by a lawyer is here indispensable.

8.3 Application for the subsequent granting of a permit (hardship case, Art. 30 para. 1 let. b FNIA)

In very rare constellations — in the case of a long-standing stay, deep rooting in Switzerland and extraordinary personal or humanitarian reasons — a hardship-case application under Art. 30 para. 1 let. b FNIA comes into consideration. The cantonal authority decides on the grant subject to the approval of the SEM; there is no enforceable legal claim. See the hardship-case provision under Art. 30 FNIA for the legal requirements.

Important: a hardship-case application is not the "saving plan B" for a tourist overstay. The requirements are very high, the grant rate low.

8.4 Asylum application

Anyone who must seriously fear persecution within the meaning of Art. 3 AsylA (Asylum Act, SR 142.31) in their state of origin can file an asylum application. A Schengen overstay is not a ground for asylum and must not be used as a means of legalising an economically motivated stay; a manifestly unfounded asylum application entails its own legal consequences. The asylum question is to be strictly separated from the overstay question and belongs to an independent legal examination.

8.5 REAG/GARP return assistance

See section 9 — these programmes are not intended for tourist overstayers.

8.6 Application for the lifting of an existing entry ban

After an entry ban has been issued, an application for early lifting can be filed after the expiry of a certain time limit or where circumstances have changed (Art. 67 para. 5 FNIA). This is an independent procedure and requires representation by a lawyer.

9. REAG/GARP — voluntary return assistance

9.1 What is REAG/GARP?

REAG (Reintegration and Emigration Programme for Asylum-Seekers in Germany — historical name, continued in Switzerland for years as a federal programme) and GARP (Government Assisted Repatriation Programme) are return-assistance programmes financed by the Confederation and implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM Switzerland).

9.2 Who is eligible?

As a rule, only the following are eligible:

  • asylum seekers with a pending or negatively decided asylum procedure,
  • persons provisionally admitted (F permit),
  • in individual cases, persons in a hardship-case constellation or recognised refugees on voluntary return,
  • certain special groups under federal directive.

9.3 Who is NOT eligible?

  • Tourist overstayers with third-country nationality without an asylum procedure are NOT covered by REAG/GARP.
  • EU/EFTA citizens.
  • Persons with a valid national permit (B/C).

See the Asylum Act glossary for detailed terminological delimitations in asylum law.

9.4 Point of contact

  • International Organization for Migration (IOM), country office Switzerland in Bern — current address and contact details via the official IOM Switzerland website (switzerland.iom.int).
  • Cantonal return counselling services (see section 10), which as a rule form the first point of contact for admission to the programme.

Important: return assistance covers the organisational and financial support of departure and reintegration. It does not replace the criminal-law and migration-law advice on the consequences of a Schengen overstay.

10. Cantonal return counselling services — variable reach

Cantonal return counselling services support persons in voluntarily returning to their state of origin. The reach varies considerably between the cantons.

10.1 Zurich — asylum only

The return counselling service of the Canton of Zurich serves, according to published information, exclusively persons from the asylum sphere — that is, asylum seekers, persons provisionally admitted and recognised refugees on voluntary return. Tourist overstayers are not served here.

10.2 Basel-Stadt — broader reach

The return counselling service of Basel-Stadt is addressed, according to published information, in principle to foreign persons who wish to return voluntarily to their country of origin — that is, potentially also to persons without an asylum background. The service makes multilingual information materials available. The exact circle of addressees and the counselling offer are to be taken from the official website of the Canton of Basel-Stadt.

Important: the counselling typically covers organisational support (travel documents, flight booking, reintegration funds). It does not replace the criminal-law and migration-law advice on the consequences of a Schengen overstay.

10.3 Other cantons

In the other cantons (including Bern, Geneva, Vaud, Ticino, St. Gallen, Aargau, Lucerne, Fribourg, Valais) there are return counselling services with a varying circle of addressees and scope of services. Whether a particular service also serves persons outside the asylum sphere is to be clarified in the individual case directly with the respective cantonal service; an overview of the cantonal return counselling services is accessible via the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM).

11. Consequences for future residence options

11.1 Future Schengen visas and permits

A documented overstay — even in the minor range — can be legally relevant in future visa applications and permit proceedings. When applying for a visa, earlier violations must be stated truthfully; false statements can independently fulfil the element of deception and lead to further-reaching sanctions.

11.2 Tier 1 (minor fine without a SIS entry)

In practice, a pure administrative fine for a 1-3-day overstay typically does not constitute a permanent obstacle to future visa applications — provided that the incident is declared truthfully on the application form and the justification (e.g. flight cancellation) is plausible.

11.3 Tier 2 (entry ban, where applicable a SIS entry)

For the duration of the entry ban, entry into Switzerland — and, in the case of a SIS II entry, into the entire Schengen area — is blocked. After expiry, visa applications may be filed again, but must disclose the historical incident.

11.4 Tier 3 (criminal proceedings, multi-year entry ban)

Considerable aggravation of future permit and visa prospects — even after expiry of the entry ban. In the case of a criminal conviction with an entry in the criminal record, possible consequences for entry and visa procedures in third countries (e.g. US ESTA, United Kingdom, Canada) are additionally to be considered; their requirements are governed by the respective national law and are not the subject of this account.

The administrative practice decisive for the granting of visas in the case of earlier stay violations is set out in the SEM directives and handbooks (in particular in the visa area) and accessible via the official SEM website (see sections 14.1 and 17).

12. EU/EFTA citizens — the special case of the AFMP

For nationals of the EU and EFTA states, the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP, SR 0.142.112.681) between Switzerland and the EU applies. These persons have — where the conditions are met — a right to reside in Switzerland.

12.1 No "Schengen overstay" in the classic sense

Since EU/EFTA citizens travel within the framework of the free movement of persons, the 90/180 rule of the Schengen short stay does not apply to them in the same form. They can, in principle, on the basis of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, stay for up to three months without a permit in Switzerland; for job-seeking, free-movement law provides for a residence option going beyond that, tied to conditions. The details are governed by the Ordinance on the Introduction of the Free Movement of Persons (OFMP/OLCP, SR 142.203) in execution of the AFMP; see the AFMP/OFMP glossary.

12.2 Obligation to register — a different legal consequence

EU/EFTA citizens who stay longer than three months must register with the residents' registration office of the canton of residence and apply for a corresponding AFMP permit (L, B, C, G). A violation of this registration obligation may have administrative-law consequences, but does not fall under Art. 115 FNIA, because EU/EFTA citizens are partly excluded from the scope of the FNIA (Art. 2 para. 2 FNIA in conjunction with the AFMP).

See the B residence permit, Section 5, for details on the AFMP registration obligation and cantonal practice.

13. Sans-papiers and Schengen overstay

13.1 Conceptual delimitation

Sans-papiers is a collective term for persons who stay in Switzerland without a valid residence title. Reliable figures are by their nature lacking; various studies and estimates assume an order of magnitude in the low six-figure range. Anyone wishing to rely on a specific figure should pay attention to the underlying study and its reference year. Part of this group has fallen into irregularity through expired visas or stays not subject to authorisation.

13.2 Hardship-case regularisation — Art. 30 para. 1 let. b FNIA

For sans-papiers, in narrowly defined constellations, the possibility of a hardship-case regularisation under Art. 30 para. 1 let. b FNIA in conjunction with Art. 31 OASA (Ordinance on Admission, Residence and Gainful Employment, SR 142.201) exists. It is a discretionary decision of the authorities without a legal claim; the requirements are high:

  • a multi-year stay in Switzerland,
  • demonstrated integration (language, economic self-sufficiency, social relationships),
  • no serious criminal misconduct,
  • extraordinary personal circumstances that make a return unreasonable.

See the hardship-case provision under Art. 30 FNIA for the full account.

13.3 Special risk

Persons who are currently staying as sans-papiers in Switzerland and who are dealing with the question of a disclosure to the authorities should MANDATORILY seek legal advice before any contact with the authorities. The risks of a failed hardship-case submission (removal, entry ban) are considerable.

Counselling services with sans-papiers expertise (selection):

  • Sans-papiers contact points in various cantons (including Zurich, Geneva, Basel, Bern, Lausanne)
  • Solidarité sans frontières
  • SOS Asile (Geneva)
  • Further cantonal counselling services with a sans-papiers focus

The services named here are a non-exhaustive selection. Offer, jurisdiction and availability change; the respective current points of contact are to be inquired about via the official cantonal services and the umbrella organisations.

14. Important contacts — authorities, counselling, legal help

14.1 Authorities

  • State Secretariat for Migration (SEM): https://www.sem.admin.ch/
  • Cantonal migration offices (canton of residence — full list on the SEM website)
  • Federal Administrative Court (FAC) — for appeals against SEM rulings

14.2 Lawyers

  • Specialised migration-law lawyers: search via the public cantonal bar register of the cantonal bar associations (entry in the cantonal register within the meaning of the Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers, LLCA, SR 935.61) or via subject-specific lawyers' associations for migration law.
  • A curated lawyers' list with a migration focus going beyond the cantonal registers is deliberately not printed here, so as not to express a recommendation of individual law firms.

14.3 Counselling services (free of charge / low-threshold)

  • AsyLex — free online legal advice with a focus on asylum and migration law; the exact scope of advice (in particular whether pure overstay constellations outside the asylum context are covered) is to be clarified directly with the service.
  • SOS Asile (Geneva)
  • Caritas Switzerland and cantonal Caritas offices
  • HEKS / EPER
  • Counselling services for sans-papiers (organised cantonally)

14.4 Emergency

  • Crisis-Card C5 in the SIP app (Schengen overstay emergency notices) — referral to 24/7 emergency contacts and first measures.

15. Anti-scope — what this article and SIP expressly do NOT provide

For Schengen overstay constellations, SIP expressly makes the following clear:

  • ❌ No recommendation to self-report: SIP does not recommend voluntarily disclosing oneself to the SEM or the cantonal migration office. This procedural choice has open outcome prospects and belongs in individual legal counselling.
  • ❌ No safe-harbor suggestion: there is no documented path that, in the case of a Schengen overstay, automatically or guaranteed leads to impunity or to a lenient outcome.
  • ❌ No avoidance strategy: SIP gives no indications for avoiding contact with the authorities, departure checks or SIS II recording.
  • ❌ No appeal strategy: strategic decisions on objections, appeals and legal remedies against entry bans or SIS alerts belong in the hands of a lawyer.
  • ❌ No positioning or negotiation advice vis-à-vis the authorities.
  • ❌ No risk weighing between different procedural paths.

What SIP provides: a purely legal-informational account of the law in force, an indication of relevant points of contact, a referral to qualified legal advice.

16. Cross-references

17. Sources and legal bases

  • FNIA, SR 142.20 — Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration; relevant in particular are Art. 5 FNIA (entry requirements), Art. 7 FNIA (border crossing), Art. 30 para. 1 let. b FNIA (hardship case), Art. 67 FNIA (entry ban) and Art. 115 FNIA (criminal sanctions) — https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2007/758/de
  • OASA, SR 142.201 — Ordinance on Admission, Residence and Gainful Employment; relevant in particular is Art. 31 OASA (serious personal hardship case)
  • OFMP/OLCP, SR 142.203 — Ordinance on the Introduction of the Free Movement of Persons (execution of the AFMP, including EU/EFTA job-seeking)
  • AsylA, SR 142.31 — Asylum Act; relevant in particular is Art. 3 AsylA (definition of refugee)
  • SCC, SR 311.0 — Swiss Criminal Code; relevant in particular are Art. 47 SCC (sentencing) as well as Art. 66a SCC and Art. 66abis SCC (expulsion order)
  • DTA, SR 642.11 — Federal Act on Direct Federal Taxation; relevant (only for tax-law delimitation) is Art. 175 para. 3 DTA (voluntary disclosure exempt from penalty)
  • APA, SR 172.021 — Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (appeal proceedings against SEM rulings)
  • LLCA, SR 935.61 — Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers (cantonal bar registers)
  • AFMP, SR 0.142.112.681 — Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons Switzerland-EU — https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2002/243/de
  • Schengen Borders Code — Regulation (EU) 2016/399
  • SIS Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006, replaced by Regulation (EU) 2018/1861
  • EU Visa Code — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
  • SEM — directives and handbooks (in particular the visa and entry-ban area) — https://www.sem.admin.ch/
  • FAC case law on migration law (official decisions database of the Federal Administrative Court; specialist portal) — https://migrationsrecht.iusnet.ch/

18. Currency and reservation

Statute-in-force at writing: 01.01.2024 (FNIA, OASA in the version in force at the editorial date)

Last reviewed: 2026-06-03

Stale threshold: 90 days — after which a re-audit is required (in particular on account of the EES/ETIAS rollout, possible adjustments to the SIS Regulation and cantonal practice changes).

Final reminder — Crisis-Card C5

Anyone acutely affected by a Schengen overstay (still in the country, at the border, before re-entry) should, BEFORE ANY CONTACT WITH THE AUTHORITIES, seek legal advice. In this constellation, SIP gives no individualised advice and no recommendation to self-report. The procedural paths have open outcome prospects and belong mandatorily in individual legal counselling.