The 28th edition of the Beyond Borders Breakfast Debate, organised by the Border Focal Point Network, was successfully held on 16 April 2026. The debate focused on the revised Schengen Borders Code and its specific relevance for EU border regions, raising awareness of the safeguards and procedural considerations applicable when temporary internal border controls are reintroduced, particularly in regions identified as significantly affected.
Our host, Karen Clements, Deputy CEO at low Associates, moderated the discussion, welcoming speakers from DG REGIO, DG HOME, ITEM - Maastricht University, CESCI, and the Bratislava Self-Governing Region. She highlighted the core topic of the revised Code – reconciling crisis management capacity with the fundamental Schengen objective of free movement – and encouraged active participation through polls and the chat.
The first speaker, Mr Robert Spisiak, Acting Deputy Head of Unit for Interreg Cross-Border Cooperation at DG REGIO, underlined that Schengen is one of the most valuable achievements of European integration. For border regions, however, it is much more than that: it means being able to cross a border to go to work, attend school or university, access healthcare, meet partners, or simply run a business. He noted that the reintroduction of internal border controls in recent years has been a real concern for the cross-border cooperation community, as even temporary controls can create delays, complicate routines, and make cooperation harder in places where working across borders is normal.
The next speaker, Mr Jorrit Rijpma, Legal and Policy Officer in the Schengen External Borders Unit at DG HOME, presented the main elements of the 2024 revision of the Schengen Borders Code. He explained that the revision was necessary due to massive events experienced in Europe such as the COVID-19 epidemic, the refugee crisis and instances of instrumentalisation of migration. While the basic right of member states to reintroduce internal border controls as a measure of last resort to address serious threats to public policy or internal security remains, the new code introduces extended deadlines, stricter reporting and monitoring obligations, and more attention to mitigating measures and the functioning of cross-border regions. Crucially, member states must now specify in their notifications the impact on free movement and on cross‑border regions, and these reporting obligations increase over time. Member States have also had to notify the Commission, in close cooperation with their neighbours, of their cross-border regions. Currently, 10 member states have internal border controls in place, and the Commission has taken the approach that the revised Code means a “clean slate”, with the clock starting anew for each member state.
Next, Mr Pim Mertens, Scientific Coordinator at the Expertise Centre ITEM, Maastricht University, presented the main findings from the ITEM/TIME report on the ex‑post evaluation of the revised Schengen Borders Code. He noted that since 2016, member states have submitted nearly 500 notifications for internal border controls – up from below 100 before COVID and warned that we are seeing a clear normalisation of border controls as an instrument. Key findings of the study include wide variation in methods, from risk‑based spot checks to fixed border posts, with the Netherlands and Belgium using different legal articles despite similar practices. Mobility is significantly impacted, with waiting times of 10‑45 minutes on the France‑Germany Rhine bridges and hours on the Austria‑Hungary motorway. On the Germany‑Netherlands border alone, nearly 2.000 traffic jams resulted in 4 million hours of queuing in one year. Student mobility has declined due to fear of police controls, and impacts are felt asymmetrically, mainly on the other side of the border, yet national assessments only look at their own territory. Mertens called for enforcing the temporary nature of controls, redefining cross‑border regions functionally, and improving data collection to include territorial and mental impacts.
Ms Viktória Borsos, Senior GIS Expert at CESCI, and Mr Gyula Ocskay, Secretary General of CESCI, presented the CESCI map of cross‑border regions developed under Article 40(2b) of the revised Schengen Borders Code. Ms Borsos showed that the picture is highly uneven. Most member states notified border regions rather than cross‑border regions, using domestic administrative units instead of functional areas based on social and economic ties. Several mismatches and data gaps exist in the form of non-designation of cross‑border areas and exclusion of territorial units by one country which were included by the bordering countries.
Mr Ocskay emphasised that cross‑border regions have been defined according to a domestic logic, meaning the functional and socio‑economic ties between the two sides of the border have been neglected. He noted that essential travellers, including frontier workers who commute daily, cross borders regardless of administrative units. During COVID, for example, 70% of nurses commuting to Luxembourg came from France, yet the current definitions would fail to protect such essential cross‑border mobility. Mr Ocskay also highlighted the symbolic meaning of border controls, which carry a political and symbolic weight that fosters more sceptical attitudes towards European integration. When national governments claim they need to close borders to protect citizens, it is very damaging to the European project.
Finally, Mr Zoltán Čunderlík, Head of Unit of Tourism, Cross-Border Cooperation and Local Economy, Bratislava Self-Governing Region, brought the perspective of a region at the intersection of Slovakia, Austria, and Hungary. He described how thousands of people cross borders daily for work, education, healthcare, and business, not as an exception but as part of everyday life. He welcomed the revised Code’s emphasis on proportionality and mitigation measures, but noted that the key question is how these principles will be applied in practice. Even small delays can have a major cumulative impact on workers, students and integrated supply chains, and border controls affect not only economic life but also the social fabric of cross‑border regions.
Following the interventions of the speakers, a lively discussion ensued, boosted by questions and comments from debate participants in the online chat. Participants explored the different approaches member states take to managing border security, noting that various tools exist under both the Schengen Borders Code and national legislation. The discussion also touched on the importance of defining cross‑border regions in a way that reflects real commuting patterns, with many calling for closer bilateral cooperation between neighbouring countries. The European Commission was recognised for its ongoing efforts to issue guidance on alternative measures and to facilitate dialogue between member states. Work on formulating opinions regarding prolonged controls is currently underway.
The two poll questions that were featured on the debate were:
- What is most impacted when internal border controls are reintroduced? In this poll question, participants clearly identified daily commuting for work or study as the most impacted, followed by movement of goods and economic activity.
- Which mitigation measure would be most effective for border regions? In the second poll question, the most effective measure that participants selected is exemptions for local residents, followed by temporary local transport or service alternatives, dedicated fast lanes for cross‑border commuters, and simplified documentation checks and procedures.
- Logga in för att kommentera