Challenges

‘If the spirit of Schengen leaves our lands and our hearts, we will lose more than Schengen’, warned Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in the European Parliament in 2015 in the face of increasing border controls.

The Schengen system is called into question when member states are no longer willing to maintain freedom of movement within the Schengen Area and start reintroducing border controls. On the 40th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement, 11 of 29 member states are carrying out such internal border checks: Slovakia, Germany, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, France and Sweden.

Schengen guarantees the free movement of people between the member states without border controls. This can only be restricted under certain conditions within the framework of the European treaties: for foreseeable events (e.g. sporting events), in cases for which immediate action is required to respond adequately to a threat and when exceptional circumstances jeopardise the overall functioning of the Schengen Area.

Controls must be temporary and applied as a last resort in exceptional situations. While reintroduction of border controls is a prerogative of the member states, the European Union and the other member states must be informed. These criteria are laid down in the Schengen Borders Code.

Until 2015, internal border controls were reintroduced almost exclusively for a few days around major events such as high-level political meetings. The map shows how this has changed since then:

Irregular migration, terrorism, pandemic, changing geopolitical conditions, but also insufficient control of the Schengen external borders – the reasons why states reintroduce border controls are manifold, but generally reflect a changing security discourse and a changing relationship between member states and the European Integration project. The logic of the justifications has changed in recent years from threat-based to risk-based security arguments.

The reasons given for the reintroduction of border controls often include a critique of the principles of free movement, which has become increasingly politicised in recent years. The rise of internal border controls should be seen in the context of a changing discourse within the European Union, which increasingly frames problems at the national level rather than through European cooperation. Political movements calling for more national border protection are gaining strength in almost all member states.

Reintroducing border controls is often a source of tension between the member states concerned - whether between Italy and France at the Ventimiglia border, or between Germany and Austria at the Walserberg border crossing, where holidaymakers' cars and transporters' lorries get stuck in traffic jams. In some cases, however, the countries also cooperate on border protection, such as Italy and Slovenia, which have joint border patrols to prevent illegal entry.

Legal and public controversies exist around the legality of many reintroductions of internal border controls under European law. The European Court of Justice ruled in 2022 that Austria's practice of border control was illegal because the same justification could not be used repeatedly to extend the maximum six-month period for which border controls were allowed (this period changed in 2024, see below). Now, states are using slightly different justifications to extend border controls for years. The European Commission demands compliance with the Schengen Borders Code, but has not yet reprimanded any state or asked the European Court of Justice to review its implementation.

In recent years, two historical moments in particular have changed the principle of free movement of persons in the Schengen Area: the so-called ‘migration crisis’ in 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

How did the ‘migration crisis’ in 2015 affect Schengen?

Without any doubt, the most significant paradigm shift in the willingness of European governments to control their internal borders again took place in 2015/2016. Back then, an unusually large number of people sought protection in the European Union due to complex and multiple crisis phenomena, particularly as a result of the Arab Spring and the Syrian war. In response, several Schengen states re-established control over their borders on a large scale.

In 2015, hundreds of thousands of people arrived on the Balkan route, from Turkey via Greece to Central Europe, often by foot. In March 2016, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia closed their borders one after the other. This interrupted the old Balkan route and created a new Balkan route further west. People seeking protection now tried to reach Croatia via Albania, Montenegro or Bosnia or directly cross the Adriatic Sea to reach Italy.

In the Greek town of Idomeni on the border with Macedonia, an informal tent camp was set up, and in 2016 up to 14,000 people lived here in the smallest of spaces and in catastrophic hygienic conditions. After various riots between migrants, Macedonian officials and Greek police, the camp was evacuated in April 2016.

In direct connection with this becoming known as the ’refugee crisis’, nine Schengen countries reintroduced internal border controls (see map above).

The states justified the border closures with ‘unprecedented influx of person’, ‘unexpected migratory flow’ and an associated ‘continuous threat’. It was argued that this was a last resort because their reception capacities were reaching their limits and security could not be guaranteed. They also referred to border controls introduced by other Schengen members, as well as the failure of other member states to protect the external borders.

The Council of the European Union subsequently agreed to register refugees in hotspots in Greece and Italy. Above all, Europe attempted to massively reduce the number of refugees arriving, through an enormous reinforcement of external borders, the construction of border fences, such as between Hungary and Serbia, and through agreements with third countries. The EU Turkey Statement can be mentioned here in particular, through which irregular migrants entering Europe were to be taken back by Turkey in exchange for financial and political advantages (see the chapter on Development).

Even after the number of arrivals had fallen significantly again, some countries, such as Germany, France and Denmark, maintained permanent controls at some of their borders. The Schengen system did not fully return to the old practice.

Dear colleagues, Schengen is one of the most cherished achievements of European integration, and the Danish Government supports the goal of returning to an area without internal border controls as soon as possible.However, the current threats to the public order and internal security caused by terrorists who are using the possibility to move freely within the Schengen territory … do not allow us to get ‘back to Schengen’ at this point in time.

Inger Støjberg, Danish minister of Immigration and Integration, 12 October 2018

What effect did the COVID-19 pandemic have on the Schengen Area?

Since March 2020, not only have border controls been reintroduced in the Schengen Area, but some internal borders have been completely closed to combat Covid-19. Covid-19-related border closures and border controls in the Schengen Area took place in several waves until mid-2022 (see map above).

At the height of the pandemic, 18 member states temporarily reintroduced border controls. People were turned back at borders, with only a limited number of grounds for entry and a limited number of border crossings available. Health checks were carried out at the borders. Cars and lorries were backed up; at the land border between Germany and Poland, the queue was 70 kilometres long in March 2020.

The states initially introduced the border closures unilaterally, without the consent or coordination of neighbouring countries, and with a variety of different criteria and regulations which led to tensions. They also suspended flights from and to non-Schengen countries in a unilateral and uncoordinated manner. However, as the pandemic progressed, the European states increasingly coordinated their measures. Luxembourg, Greece and Liechtenstein were the only countries that did not close their borders at any time.

Controls and closures have particularly affected people in border regions and have led to considerable restrictions and problems in certain sectors such as healthcare, logistics and agriculture, in which the intensive cross-border movement of people and goods is vital.

During the coronavirus pandemic, protests against border closures and entry restrictions took place in some border regions, such as at crossings between Germany and Poland. Many people also sent messages of solidarity and greetings to people on the other side of the border, whom they were no longer able to reach as usual.

We don't want our lives to be torn in two.

Marta Szuster, organiser of a protest action on the border between Germany and Poland.

The problems for people in border regions were partially resolved during the course of the pandemic through agreements on easier border crossings for certain groups of people, but nationally oriented legislation remained a challenge. The travel industry was particularly affected by border closures across Europe.

Effects of border closures on various professions:

The pandemic did not only mean border closures or national unilateral action, it also had an integrative effect. Patients in border regions were transferred to neighbouring hospitals in other countries, vaccines were jointly acquired, an EU-wide Digital COVID certificate was implemented and the European Union took on joint debt for the first time to set up a coronavirus relief fund.

Which attempts are being made to preserve Schengen?

The experiences gained since 2015 have normalized border controls in the Schengen Area. However, today's border controls are different from those of the pre-Schengen era: they are usually selective rather than systematic, and the countries introducing them promise to minimise disruption to regular border traffic.

Charles Elsen, first Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs of the Council of the European Union and, in this capacity, responsible for the integration of the Schengen acquis into EU law, expresses doubts about the usefulness of internal border controls:

‘If the spirit of Schengen leaves our lands and our hearts, we will lose more than Schengen,’ warned Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in 2015. ‘The climate that seems to prevail among heads of state and government and the lack of European solidarity pose a mortal danger to the European Union’ urged former Commission President and mastermind of the single market Jacques Delors in 2020 at the age of 94. Representatives of the European institutions are naturally at the forefront of efforts to call for a return to a Europe without border controls, associating this with discourses on European identity and prosperity.

In the case of the free movement of people within the Schengen Area, which Europeans continue to value very highly (see the chapter on Development), many politicians and civil society actors are also vehemently in favour of its continued existence - on both a large and small scale.

At a political level, the problem of border controls ought to be solved structurally through a new Schengen Borders Code. A reform process was initiated in 2021 at the proposal of the European Commission and successfully concluded in July 2024 following negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council.

The revised Schengen Borders Code aims to provide member states with alternatives to reintroducing border controls, to further promote cooperation and data exchange, to introduce harmonised travel restrictions at external borders in the event of public health emergencies and to allow for better coordination of essential internal border controls. Internal border controls can now be extended to two years, but require an extended justification.

Yet one year after the Schengen Borders Code was updated, member states still carry out numerous checks at the internal borders of the Schengen Area. Moreover, the Schengen system continues to place responsibility for control on the member states located at the external borders. This represents a threat not only to effectiveness of controls but also to the cohesion of the European Union. By imposing a disproportionate burden on peripheral member states, in addition, this system puts particular pressures on already fragile countries.

Èlisabeth Guigou, who was involved in the Schengen negotiations in the 1980s as an adviser to President François Mitterrand and then as French Minister for European Affairs, analyses the current problems of the Schengen system historically and in a wider political context:

’We must not allow the 40th anniversary of Schengen to become a mourning ceremony this year. It must be a big party!’ says Léon Gloden, Minister for Home Affairs of the country where the small town of Schengen is located. So Luxembourg has organised a big celebration of the anniversary with many celebrities, in an attempt to show other countries that this European achievement of free movement of people should be preserved.