On 24 November 2025, ITEM together with the Brussels Hub of UM organised a workshop in Brussels to discuss the findings of the joint ITEM-TEIN report on effects of internal border controls, and the future of the Schengen area for border regions.

In 2024, two prominent reports of Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi highlighted the importance of completing the European Single Market for Europe’s competitiveness. In his report, Letta emphasises that Schengen is one of the cornerstones: “We must prevent dysfunctions in the Schengen system to jeopardise the Single Market.” Internal border controls must be seen as a threat to the Single Market and the future of European competitiveness.

In 2025, Schengen turned 40. “In an area where persons may move freely, the reintroduction of border control at internal borders should remain an exception. Border control should not be carried out or formalities imposed solely because such a border is crossed”, recalls recital 21 of the Schengen Borders Code. Yet, rarely has the list of notified border controls been so long. While a border-free Schengen zone is regarded as precondition to the future of the Single Market, scholars speak of the trends of re-bordering and re-nationalisation, where the management of borders has become normalised. What can we learn from this juxtaposition of policy narratives and the reality on the ground? What needs to change in order to complete the single market and enable Europe’s drive for increase competitiveness?

Under the lead of ITEM, the expertise centre for cross-border cooperation and mobility at Maastricht University, experts from different border regions involved in the TEIN-network have analysed the cross-border impact of the reintroduction of border controls in the Schengen zone:

• Rhine border between Germany, France and Switzerland – The Euro-Institut and GFGZ
• The border between France and Spain – MOT
• The border between Hungary and Austria – CESCI
• The border between Luxembourg and Germany – Uni-GR Center for Border Studies
• The borders in the Benelux area plus NRW – ITEM

The event brought together policymakers at national, regional and European level, a video message from MEP Raquel Garcia Hermida-van der Walle, as well as researchers, experts and regional stakeholders, discussing the conclusions of the research and the real-world consequences of setting up barriers to the single market.

Read the report → https://crossborderitem.eu/wp-content/uploads/Border-controls-cross-border-regions-europe-ITEM-TEIN-25comp.pdf

 

The State of Schengen

The ITEM-TEIN report warns for a normalisation of the use of internal border controls as a reaction to various threats and developments and most prominently migration and asylum. While border controls were mainly found to be ineffective for regulating migration and asylum, Member States are more eager to rely on border controls as first measure of choice with migration as main argument. While in legal sense, there is only one definition of ‘border controls’, the case studies also showed a wide variety of methods of border controls. Most Member States apply flexible on-the-spot border controls, being increased in capacities or not, whereas Germany also introduced permanent control posts at certain borders. Also, instructions and possibilities for cross-border cooperation or coordination appear to be different across borders.

As a result, the workshop discussed the term ‘border control’ and the difference between the possibilities under Article 23 SBC and Article 25 SBC. It became clear that politically there is also a change of view regarding border controls. Where both the Commission and Member States used to be very strict and principal on reinstalling border controls, the current trend is more on making sure that effects and disruptions due to border controls are minimised. As such, the meaning of the term ‘border control’ has changed in political sense. Nevertheless, it was stressed that the division between the (im)possibilities and current practices under Article 23 SBC and Article 25 SBC (border controls) could be better monitored and assessed, as control methods under Articles 23 and 25 SBC were found to be equal to each other. This may result in a devaluation of the term ‘border controls’.

Impact

The method, the duration and the uni-/bilateral character of border controls are found to be strongly related to the experienced impact in cross-border regions and on mobility. Several researchers confirmed that the intensification of border controls by Germany since May 2025 did increase the impact. The Dutch case showed traffic jam data and related economic and operational costs, as well as local nuisance. The Luxembourg-Germany case study highlighted the psychological effect on pupils of a cross-border school, when confronted with the border guards. The Strasbourg-Kehl case showed changes mobility patterns across the cross-border bridges. Also in the case of France-Spain, a certain decrease in cross-border mobility was noted and feeling of ‘a step backwards’ regarding the cross-border project. Finally, the Austria-Hungary case was a prime example of how long-term border controls impact the perception of cross-border citizens and weakens the cross-border cooperation between local actors in general.

In general, the discussion highlighted the different narratives, perspectives and priorities placed between governance levels, line ministries and departments, dealing with cross-border regions on the one hand or Schengen and border controls on the other hand. The importance of cross-border regions and free mobility for regional development and equal opportunities compared to the capitals, were discussed. It is the inequality that border controls emphasise. On the other hand, other stakeholders highlight the legal possibility to reintroduce border controls, and that border controls as such do not affect the right of EU citizens to be mobile across the EU. The workshop tried to bring these two perspectives closer to each other, emphasising the role of the newly established cross-border impact assessment in the framework of the Schengen Borders Code.

Cross-Border Impact Assessment

Since the revision of the Schengen Borders Code, there is a “cross-border impact assessment” as part of the proportionality test. From the case studies, two Member States have made their notification public and referred to border regions. However, the cross-border impact assessment in the SBC was only applied superficially without concrete measures/evaluation methods. Thus, the research concludes that this additional safeguard for border regions did not result in significant impact for border regions. Even more, the report signals that effects are asymmetrical: it is often the neighbouring region across the border that is affected by the decision to reintroduce border controls. However, all Member States have demarcated their ‘cross-border region’ to the national boundaries. The workshop highlighted that this is a fundamental problem, as Member States should, especially, include the impacts on the other side of the border in their impact assessment.

Concluding

This research and workshop emphasised a bottom-up approach, with the experiences in the cross-border regions placed centrally. Based on the findings in the different case studies and the overall evaluation of European Integration, socio-economic development and Euregional cohesion, the report formulates the following recommendations:

1. Enforce the temporary nature of border controls, as time is found to be relevant for impacts on Euregional cohesion;
2. Redefine ‘cross-border regions’ based on a true cross-border concepts, such as Euroregions, Interreg areas or other cross-border functional demarcations;
3. Make the different methods applied in border controls better visible, comparable and assessable;
4. Provide Member States more guidance on how to properly assess cross-border impacts;
5. Invest in better data collection of economic, social and territorial impacts of border controls.