SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

READER QUESTIONS

Reader question: Can Britons living in EU spend more than 90 days in another Schengen country?

The EU's '90 day rule' governs how long non-European citizens can spend in the bloc without needing a visa and, since Brexit, this has also included UK nationals. But does it still apply if you live in an EU country?

Reader question: Can Britons living in EU spend more than 90 days in another Schengen country?
Photo: AFP

Question: I’m British and I have residency in Italy, but my daughter and her family live in France. I like to spend a good part of the year with them in France, but since Brexit will the 90-day rule apply to me?

This is just one of many questions The Local has received on this topic – from British (and other non-EU) citizens who are permanent residents of an EU country, asking whether the 90-day rule applies to them.

Brits who were already living in an EU country before December 31st 2020 are covered by the Withdrawal Agreement, which gives them the right to stay in the countries where they live under many of the same terms as they enjoyed when they were EU citizens.

However, there are several things that the Withdrawal Agreement doesn’t cover.

One of those is moving to a different EU country, which UK nationals will now require a visa for – full details on that HERE.

The other is how much time they can spend in other EU countries.

90-day rule

In this case non-EU residents of EU countries are covered by the 90-day rule, in the same way as visitors from the UK or the US are.  So in other words there is no different rule for those Britons who are resident in the EU.

You can read full details of how the 90-day rule works HERE but broadly, people covered by it can spend 90-days out of every 180 in an EU or Schengen zone country other than their own without the need for a visa.

The 90-day total applies to the whole EU/Schengen zone, so if you live in France you cannot spend 85 days in Germany and then go straight to the Netherlands for two weeks to enjoy the Eurovision Song Contest, as that would exceed your 90-day limit. 

The 90-day limit is also intended for visits only, so if you intend to do paid work while in another EU country then you may need a visa.

Enforcement

Several people have also quite rightly asked us how this could possibly be enforced, given that passports are not routinely checked when travelling within the Schengen zone?

For example, how could French authorities really enforce the 90-day rule on someone who has crossed over from Italy for a lengthy visit?

While it seems unlikely people would be caught they should be aware that while residents of EU countries won’t be subject to the same passport checks and stamping as people entering the Bloc, that doesn’t mean there are no passport checks.

Controls can still be carried out at Schengen borders if, for example, there is a security alert or border restrictions are tightened due to the pandemic.

You could also be asked to produce your passport while visiting an EU country at a police or security check.

One thing to consider is that if you are found to have spent too long in a country where you do not have residency status or a visa you can face some severe penalties.

You may be fined in the country where you are found to have breached the 90-day rule and even deported. Your passport could also be flagged as an over-stayer which can cause problems for future travel or residency/visa applications.

In a worst case scenario non-EU nationals who stay longer than 90-days without a residence permit or visa could end up with a re-entry ban to the Schengen area.

Member comments

  1. There are no borders so if you are driving within EU countries and are staying with friends or family how would the authorities know.

  2. If you were driving from France to Italy for example, with French plates, who is going to know if you are British. If you have a French ID card, you could show that if asked.

  3. Note that there are some work arounds for the 90/180 rule, at least for Australians and New Zealanders. In both these cases, there are bilateral agreements on visa waivers predating Schengen. For example, an Australian can spend 90 days in Germany (only Germany), then travel to a non Schengen country for a single day, then return to Germany for a new 90 day period (https://australien.diplo.de/au-en/service/01-visa/short-term-visa/2073662). This is entirely separate to the 90/180 requirement. I remember reading that a Kiwi managed to use these bilateral agreements to stay in Schengen countries for well over three years. However, seek confirmation from the relevant embassies before using these agreements- not unusual for the border officials to not have a clue

  4. I am a dual passport holder, US/British, and also have permanent residency in the Netherlands (with the ID) where I have lived for years. I like to spend chunks of time in Spain, and am very curious how things are going to work, if there will be any change in passport control within the Schengen Zone and how they would monitor the 90 day rule when passports are not checked. For example, since I am already living with Schengen, my passports will never be stamped on arrival in the Netherlands, and I assume when I land in Spain from another Schengen country there is no change? I am aware they may randomly check, especially for British passport holders, but could I not switch off sometime with my US passport or simply show my residency card from the Netherlands if asked? A bit confused how things are going to work in practice, if anyone knows if there are any changed to passport control within Schengen, that would be helpful to know.

  5. I got into a bit of trouble leaving Spain, a while back, as I was travelling on a NZ passport, but there had been no one to stamp it when I entered the EU (in France). It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

RESIDENCY PERMITS

Bank guarantee: Could Denmark change ‘demeaning’ family reunification rule?

A rule requiring Danes and foreign partners to deposit a large sum of money to qualify for family reunification is again in the spotlight after reports on its administrative costs.

Bank guarantee: Could Denmark change 'demeaning' family reunification rule?

In its policy paper from December 2022, the coalition government stated it wants to halve the “bank guarantee” (bankgaranti), a requirement which demands couples deposit a large sum of money with municipalities for the foreign (non-EU national) partner to be granted a residence permit under family reunification rules.

According to figures from the Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen), the bank guarantee, which must be paid in order for the foreign partner to be granted residence, is set at an eye-watering 110,293 kroner (€14,800) in 2023.

It is currently unclear when a bill will be tabled in parliament to implement the government’s planned reduction of the bank guarantee under Danish law. Minister for Immigration and Integration Kaare Dybvad Bek told newspaper Ekstra Bladet in January that a proposal could be ready for hearing “this spring”.

But it has become a renewed topic of discussion after broadcaster DR this week reported that Copenhagen Municipality has not once used any bank guarantee deposits within the last three years, but has spent 2.2 million kroner annually on administration of the rule.

The purpose of the bank guarantee is ostensibly to ensure that municipalities can draw from the fund to pay for costs such as unemployment benefits, if the family reunified person needs them.

But the requirement may have little practical effect because foreign nationals resident under family reunification rules are likely to lose their residence status anyway if unemployed, negating the need for social welfare benefits.

Copenhagen currently has around 4,000 active bank guarantees and the cost of administration of these deposits – around 2.2 million kroner per year – was spent without any of them being used, DR reports based on an access to public records request.

In Aarhus, the municipality uses resources approximate to one full-time employee per year on administration of the scheme, according to DR. Like in Copenhagen, there were no withdrawals in 2022. There were “few” cases where the money was used in Aarhus in preceding years according to the report.

“I’m a supporter of strict immigration rules but it should not be crazy,” the head of Copenhagen Municipality’s integration and employment committee Jens-Kristian Lütken, an elected official with the Liberal (Venstre) party, told DR.

“It looks that way from my chair when we are spending so much money on something where no one is being sanctioned,” he said.

Social Democratic councillor for social issues and employment in Aarhus, Anders Winnerskjold, told DR that “this is an example of something where we say ‘are we actually getting the benefit we think we are’, and we’re actually not because we’re spending more time on it than is needed in reality”.

“I basically agree that we should be careful about creating a flow of people that must be provided for by Danish taxpayers, and as such the intention behind the bank guarantee is good,” he said.

“But you have to say that we’re not really hitting the target here, so there must be other ways to solve this problem,” he said.

After 10 years – the usual point at which permanent residency can be granted – the bank guarantee is no longer required, but it must remain in place until this time.

An affected Danish national who spoke to The Local in 2021 described how the bank guarantee posed a hefty financial burden that made it harder for international couples to live up to the many other integration demands placed on third-country partners.

The bank guarantee has been criticised in the past for being unfit for purpose and an administrative burden for local authorities.

Organisation Marriage Without Borders (Ægteskab uden Grænser) says it wants the bank guarantee to be abolished and replaced with the same criteria used for family reunification under EU law.

“On a human level, there are many Danes who feel alienated and find the criteria demeaning because it means in practice that you must demonstrate that your partner is not a threat to Danish society,” the organisation wrote in a social media post.

“Even if the security guarantee is halved (as the government plans), there will still be Danes who ‘can’t afford love’, such as young students,” it also stated.

In a written comment to DR, Bek said that “foreigners who come to Denmark should be self-sufficient and not a burden to the state. The bank guarantee, which was introduced over 20 years ago, helps ensure that”.

“In addition to the preventative effect that the bank guarantee has, it also enables municipalities to recover potential future costs in the event that a family reunified person receives benefits,” he stated.

“It is obviously not a criteria for success that municipalities withdraw money from the bank guarantee. The criteria for success is the opposite: that family reunified persons continue to provide for themselves,” he added.

The minister has previously confirmed that the government wants to reduce the bank guarantee to enable people with lower disposable sums to apply for family reunification.

SHOW COMMENTS