4

My mother in law (Russian national) has a Schengen visa issued by Austria. The itinerary says she is entering Germany initially then travels to Austria in a few hours and stays there as her main destination.

We would now like to change this to a direct Austrian entry. Am I right in assuming that there will be no problem at the border since, while we dropped the point-of-entry country, it is not the one that issued the visa and so it's fine to just enter Austria with an Austrian-issued visa?

A side question is, is it also OK to add another country (Italy) and stay there for a few days longer than Austria, thereby making Italy the main destination? Obviously still within the original visa validity time frame!

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

She can make minor adjustments to her itinerary. She should not change the entire premise of her trip. So can she say honestly that the premise did not change, and if she did so would that be believed by the next visa official?

Is she doing anything in Austria that is clearly the main purpose of the trip? Business meeting, family visit, going to the opera? Then it should be fine.

But the safe bet is to spend more time in Austria.

Improve this answer
2

The answer to both questions is the same: as long as your main destination doesn't change, you are fine. So the first is OK, especially so because it might even arise from the airline routing you differently. The second is not OK. You will be questioned why did you ask for an Austrian visa if your main destination is Italy.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Whether the second is "not OK" depends to an extent on what the traveler is going to the various countries for. It is perfectly possible for a country to be a main destination even though there is some other country more time is spent in.
    – hmakholm left over Monica
    Commented May 22, 2017 at 11:22
  • Further to @HenningMakholm's comment, there's not even any rule preventing a legitimate change in the itinerary after receiving a visa. The problem is that the change might lead an official to suspect fraud. For example, it is probably difficult to prove that the itinerary in the initial application was not fictitious. On the other hand, if there's a compelling reason for the change that can be shown with documentary evidence, there's little reason to fear. But of course that is unlikely, so it's safer just to keep the added trip to Italy shorter than the time in Austria.
    – phoog
    Commented May 22, 2017 at 14:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .