Skip to content
The Visa Tales

Refused · Schengen

Schengen visa refused: what the number on your letter means

The consulate ticked a numbered box on a standard form, and that number is the whole decision. It tells you whether a document was missing, whether you were not believed, or whether there is nothing left to add.

Checked 30 August 2026Sources: EUR-Lex, European Commission

The short answer

Every Schengen refusal cites one of 17 numbered grounds from Annex VI of the Visa Code, and the number decides whether reapplying can work. Grounds 2, 3, 4, 15 and 16 mean something was missing, and you can fix those yourself. Grounds 10 to 13 mean the file was read and not believed, which more paper makes worse. You have a right of appeal under Article 32(3), against the country that refused you, under its law.

Which number is on your letter?

Take out the refusal. Below the boxes for your name and the consulate there is a line reading “This decision is based on the following reason(s)”, and one or more of the seventeen boxes under it will be ticked. Tick the same ones here.

10

The information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable

What the officer was reading

The most misread ground on the form, and the one most Indian applicants get. Read it beside ground 2: ground 2 says you did not send it, this one says you sent it and it was not believed. Nothing was missing. The officer read the file and the story it told did not hold together, usually because the trip does not match the person taking it: business-class flights and five-star bookings against a modest balance, a fortnight in four countries with a day in each, an itinerary somebody else clearly wrote.

What changes it

Not more paper. The file has to describe a trip the person in it would actually take, at a cost they would actually spend, for a reason they can explain in their own words. That usually means changing the trip rather than the documents, and it is the work this firm actually does.

What makes it worse: Refiling the same trip with more evidence attached. More support for a story that was not believed reads as more effort put into the story.

11

There are reasonable doubts as to the reliability of the statements you made

What the officer was reading

Ticked when something you stated does not match something else on the file or something the consulate can check. The form has a "please specify" line beside this ground, so unlike most of the others it should name what was doubted. Common versions are a declared employer the consulate could not verify, a host whose details do not check out, and a previous travel or refusal history that does not match the record.

What changes it

Read the specification on your own letter first, because it is the only ground that is obliged to give you one. Then evidence that specific statement from an independent source: an employer verifiable by phone at a published number, a host with documented status, a travel history that matches your passport.

What makes it worse: Answering a specified doubt with a general document pack. If the letter names the statement, the reapplication has to answer that statement.

12

There are reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of your supporting documents or the veracity of their contents

What the officer was reading

The consulate doubts a document you submitted is genuine, or that what it says is true. It is a step short of ground 1, which is about the travel document itself, and it is often about a bank letter, an employer letter or a hotel booking. Consulates verify these more often than applicants expect, including by telephoning the issuer.

What changes it

Establish the document independently. Bank statements pulled by the consulate’s own channels or carrying a verifiable reference; an employer letter on a number that answers; bookings made directly rather than through an agent’s block reservation. If a document was in fact not genuine, stop and take legal advice before you file anything else.

What makes it worse: Replacing a doubted document with a better-looking version of the same document. That is the fact pattern that turns a ground 12 into a ground 1.

13

There are reasonable doubts as to your intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa

What the officer was reading

The officer was not satisfied you would go home. It is a weighing exercise, not an accusation: what pulls you back to India against what holds you in Europe. First-time travellers with no visa history, single applicants with no dependants, and applicants with close family already settled in the destination country all attract it, and none of those is a defect on its own.

What changes it

Make the life you come back to as visible as the trip. Employment you return to with dated leave approval, dependants, property, a business someone is minding, treatment you are in the middle of. Where you have family in Europe, address the relationship directly rather than leaving the officer to draw a conclusion about why you did not mention it.

What makes it worse: For some readers this ground is correct, and the honest answer is not a better visitor application. If the real plan is to move, a visitor visa is the wrong instrument and the refusal has told you so.

Show the other grounds (13)

01

A false, counterfeit or forged travel document was presented

What the officer was reading

The consulate believes the passport or another travel document you presented is not genuine. This is the most serious box on the form and it is not a paperwork finding: it is an allegation about the document itself, and it can be made because of an agent who handled your file rather than anything you did.

What changes it

Nothing on this page. This is the one ground where you need a lawyer admitted in the country that refused you, before you write to anybody, because what you say next can be used in a criminal file as well as a visa one. We do not take these and we would be the wrong people if we did.

What makes it worse: Reapplying quickly to a different Schengen country. The refusal is recorded in the Visa Information System and the next consulate reads it before it reads you.

02

Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided

What the officer was reading

A missing-evidence finding, not a disbelief one. The file did not contain something that shows what the trip is: an itinerary, hotel bookings covering the nights, an invitation, a conference registration, a day plan. The officer is saying they could not tell what you were coming to do.

What changes it

Send what was missing and refile. Work out which night of the trip has no accommodation attached to it, or which leg has no booking, and fix that. This is the cheapest refusal to recover from and most people do not need help with it.

What makes it worse: Adding volume instead of the missing item. Forty more pages of bank statements do not answer a question about what you are coming to do.

03

You have not provided proof of sufficient means of subsistence for the stay, the return, or the transit

What the officer was reading

The money for the trip was not evidenced to the standard that State publishes. Thresholds are national, not Schengen-wide, so the figure you were measured against is on the website of the country that refused you and nowhere else.

What changes it

Find that country’s own published threshold, multiply by your nights, and evidence it with statements that cover the period the consulate asks for. Then refile. If a sponsor is paying, evidence the sponsor and the relationship rather than only the balance.

What makes it worse: Moving money in shortly before you refile. A balance that arrives a week before an application is the single most recognisable pattern there is, and it converts a ground 3 into a ground 10, which paper cannot fix.

04

You have not provided proof that you are in a position to lawfully acquire sufficient means of subsistence

What the officer was reading

A different question from ground 3, and the two are often ticked together. Ground 3 asks whether the money exists. This one asks where it comes from, and it is ticked when the income behind the balance is not documented: no payslips, no returns, no business accounts, a self-employed applicant with nothing showing the business earns.

What changes it

Evidence the income, not the balance. Salary slips and returns for a salaried applicant; registration, returns and audited accounts for a business; the sponsor’s income where somebody else is paying. Then refile.

What makes it worse: Treating a large balance as the answer to both grounds. An account with money in it and no visible source is exactly the file this ground exists to catch.

05

You have already stayed 90 days during the current 180-day period on the territory of the Member States

What the officer was reading

Arithmetic, not judgement. The 180-day window rolls backwards from each day of your intended trip, and on the dates you asked for you had no days left in it. Since the Entry/Exit System became fully operational on 10 April 2026 that sum is calculated automatically from your digital border record rather than by an officer reading stamps, which is why this ground has become harder to argue with.

What changes it

Recalculate the rolling window and apply for dates when you have days available. There is nothing to argue and nothing to prove; the fix is the calendar.

What makes it worse: Reading 90/180 as two fixed halves of the year. It is not a reset on 1 January or after six months; it is a window that moves with every day of your trip.

06

An alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System for the purpose of refusing entry

What the officer was reading

One Member State has entered you in the shared database as a person to be refused entry, and every other State reads it. The form names the State that entered it. The reason is usually a past overstay, a removal, or a criminal matter, and it may not be the country that just refused you.

What changes it

You have a right under EU data protection law to ask the State named on your form what it holds about you and to have it corrected or deleted if it is wrong. That is a request to that State’s own authority, and it is the step before any further application. Use a lawyer there.

What makes it worse: Applying to other Schengen countries in the hope one has not seen it. They all read the same database, and each refusal is added to your record.

07

One or more Member States consider you to be a threat to public policy or internal security

What the officer was reading

A security assessment, usually reached after the consulate consulted another State’s central authorities during the examination. The State holding the objection is not always named and the reasoning is generally not disclosed.

What changes it

A lawyer in the country that refused you, who can make the data-protection and appeal requests that get at what is actually held. This is not consultancy work and nobody who tells you otherwise has read the ground.

What makes it worse: Assuming it is an error and refiling. If the objection stands, the second refusal arrives faster and adds another entry to your record.

08

One or more Member States consider you to be a threat to public health

What the officer was reading

Rarely ticked, and defined narrowly by the Schengen Borders Code rather than at an officer’s discretion. It refers to diseases with epidemic potential as defined by the World Health Organization and to other infectious diseases subject to protection provisions applying to the State’s own nationals.

What changes it

A medical question before it is an immigration one. Get the treating documentation and, where the condition is treated or not communicable, medical evidence saying so, and take advice in the country that refused you.

09

One or more Member States consider you to be a threat to their international relations

What the officer was reading

The rarest ground on the form. It sits with grounds 7 and 8 and is decided at a level well above the consulate, usually after prior consultation between central authorities. The reasoning is not disclosed.

What changes it

A lawyer in the deciding country. There is no document you can add that answers this, and there is nothing useful an Indian consultancy can do with it.

14

Sufficient proof that you were not in a position to apply for a visa in advance, justifying application at the border, was not provided

What the officer was reading

This ground only appears where a visa was sought at the border itself rather than at a consulate, which is exceptional and reserved for unforeseen and imperative reasons. If it is ticked on a letter from a consulate in India, something has gone wrong with the form rather than with your file.

What changes it

If you did apply at a border, the answer is a normal application to the competent consulate before you travel. If you did not, write to the consulate and ask them to correct the notification, because a ground that does not apply to you should not be sitting on your record.

15

Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended airport transit was not provided

What the officer was reading

An airport transit visa ground, not a visitor one. It is ticked when the onward journey was not evidenced: the visa or permit for the final destination, or the confirmed onward booking that shows you are passing through rather than arriving.

What changes it

Attach the visa or residence permit for the final destination and the confirmed onward ticket, and refile. If your itinerary in fact leaves the international transit area, you needed a short-stay visa rather than a transit one, and that is a different application.

16

You have not provided proof of adequate and valid travel medical insurance

What the officer was reading

A checkable requirement, failed on a detail more often than on its absence. The Visa Code sets a minimum cover of EUR 30,000, valid across the whole Schengen area and for the whole period of the stay. Policies fail on cover, on dates that do not span the trip, on territorial limits, and on repatriation not being included.

What changes it

Buy a policy that names at least EUR 30,000 of cover, covers repatriation for medical reasons and emergency hospital treatment, is valid across all Member States, and runs the full length of the trip including the grace days. Then refile. This is the cheapest ground on the form to fix.

What makes it worse: Buying the cover only for the first leg. Where the visa is multiple-entry the declaration you sign says you understand cover is needed for later trips too.

17

Revocation of the visa was requested by the visa holder

What the officer was reading

Not a refusal at all. This ground records that the holder asked for their own visa to be revoked, which people do when a trip is cancelled and they would rather not hold an unused visa. Uniquely on this form, a revocation on this ground carries no right of appeal, because there is nothing to appeal against.

What changes it

Nothing to fix. If this is ticked and you did not ask for it, that is worth writing to the consulate about, because the record should say what actually happened.

There are only two kinds of Schengen refusal

Seventeen grounds, and almost all of them are one of two sentences. Which one you got decides everything about what to do next, and it is the distinction most people miss when they start assembling a bigger folder.

You did not provide it

Grounds 2, 3, 4, 15 and 16

An absence. The officer is naming a document the file did not contain, and adding it answers the ground completely. Nothing was doubted, so nothing has to be rebuilt.

We did not believe it

Grounds 10, 11, 12 and 13

A judgement. Everything arrived and it was not accepted, whether that was the purpose of the trip, a statement, a document, or that you would go home. More of the same evidence argues harder for a story that was already rejected.

The move that turns the first kind into the second

Over-documenting a modest trip. Business-class flights and five-star bookings attached to a self-employed applicant with a modest balance do not read as thorough; they read as staged. That is how a ground 3 refusal, which more paper genuinely fixes, comes back as a ground 10, which it does not.

For scale: Schengen consulates in India decided 1,148,001 applications in 2025 and refused 15.8% of them. Your own odds depended far more on which consulate read the file than on that average, and the per-consulate figures are on our Schengen visa page.

Your letter has to tell you how to appeal

Everyone refused a Schengen visa has a right of appeal. It runs against the Member State that took the decision, under that State’s own national law, and nowhere else. There is no Schengen-wide appeal body and no Schengen-wide deadline, which is why no honest page can publish one. What the Visa Code does require is that the form itself carries the answer, so the deadline you need is on the page in your hand rather than on anybody’s website.

Printed on every refusal form, below the seventeen boxes
  • the national law the appeal runs under
  • the authority the appeal is lodged with, and how to reach it
  • where to find the procedure to follow
  • the time limit for lodging it

Annex VI of the Visa Code. If those lines are blank on your letter, that is itself worth raising with the consulate, because the State is obliged to give you the information under Article 32(3).

Two further things the Code settles. The decision and its reasons must reach you on the standard form in Annex VI, in the language of the deciding State and in another official language of the Union. That is Article 32(2), and a refusal delivered as a phone call or a stamp without the form is not a refusal properly notified. A refusal is entered in the Visa Information System, so the next consulate you apply to sees it whichever country it belongs to. That is Article 32(5), and it is why applying to a different Schengen country in the hope of a clean slate does not work.

Appeal, reapply, or stop

Three answers, and which one you get is decided by the number rather than by how badly you want the trip. Two of the three do not involve us, and we would rather say so here than after you have paid for a consultation.

Ground 2 · Ground 3 · Ground 4 · Ground 15 · Ground 16

Something was not in the file

These grounds say a document was absent, not that anything you sent was doubted. The consulate is telling you what it did not receive. Find it, attach it, and lodge again; a refusal on one of these carries no mark against you and no waiting period.

Send it and refile. You do not need us.

Ground 1 · Ground 6 · Ground 7 · Ground 8 · Ground 9

There is nothing you can add

Forged documents, an alert in the shared database, security, public health, international relations. None of these turns on evidence you can gather, several are decided above the consulate, and what you say next can matter in more than a visa file. The right person is admitted to practise in that country. It is not us, and it is not any consultancy in India.

Take it to a lawyer in the country that refused you.

Ground 10 · Ground 11 · Ground 12 · Ground 13

The file was read, and it was not believed

Nothing was missing. The officer read what you sent and did not accept the story it told, or did not accept that you would go home at the end of it. More paper does not answer that, and sending more of it is the most common way a second refusal is earned. What answers it is a trip that fits the person taking it, evidenced in the order an officer reads.

This is the one worth a conversation.

Ground 5 · Ground 14 · Ground 17

And three that are none of the above

Ground 5 is the 90-in-180 sum, and the fix is the calendar rather than the file. Ground 14 belongs on a decision taken at a border, so on a letter from a consulate in India it is worth querying. Ground 17 is not a refusal at all: it records that you asked for your own visa to be revoked.

Arithmetic, a form error, and your own request.

One last thing, for the people ground 13 is about. Some of those refusals are correct: the officer read a plan to move rather than a plan to visit, and a visitor visa is the wrong instrument for that. If that is nearer the truth than you would put in an application, the route worth reading about is a permanent one, and Canada is where we hold an actual licence.

Where this comes from

Government and statute only. Every figure and deadline on this page traces to one of these, and they are the pages to check if something here has since changed.

Checked 30 August 2026 by The Visa Tales. We are an experienced consultancy on this route rather than an authorised representative, because no equivalent licence exists to hold: the RCIC designation on our Canadian pages is Canadian and does not reach here. The firm signs the verification instead of pointing at a licence that does not apply.

A refused Schengen visa

Send us the refusal. We will tell you whether refiling is worth it.

We read the ground that was ticked, tell you whether it is a document problem or a credibility one, and say what would have to be different. If the honest answer is that you can fix it yourself, or that you need a lawyer in Europe, that is the answer you get.

Schengen files are prepared and checked by our India team, and the firm signs the work rather than a licence. There is no Schengen equivalent of an authorised representative to hold: our RCIC licence, R710507, is Canadian, and it is what stands behind our Canadian pages rather than this one.

Three fields · about 30 seconds

We reply on WhatsApp first, and your number stays with the firm and is never shared.

This page is general information about how Schengen refusals work, not legal advice about your file. The Visa Code and national appeal rules change without notice, and appeal procedures are set by each Member State rather than by the Union. We are an experienced consultancy on this route and not an authorised representative: no equivalent licence exists in the Schengen system to hold, and the RCIC designation on our Canadian pages is Canadian. Last checked 30 August 2026.