Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic regime introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States
Date: 2009-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, border control, drafting of EU law, enlargement of the Union, external border of the EU, frontier worker, occupational migration

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.7.2009 
COM(2009) 383 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic regime introduced by 
Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic regime introduced by 
Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

On 20 December 2006, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 
1931/2006  laying  down  rules  on  local  border  traffic  at  the  external  land  borders  of  the 
Member States (LBT Regulation)1. This Regulation allows the Member States to derogate, for 
persons  living  in  a  border  area,  from  the  general  rules  on  border  checks  laid  down  in  the 
Schengen  Borders  Code2,  in  order  to  prevent  the  creation  of  barriers  to  trade,  social  and 
cultural  interchange  or  regional  cooperation  with  neighbours.  In  implementing  the  local 
border  traffic  regime,  the  Member  States  may  conclude  bilateral  agreements  with 
neighbouring  countries  aimed  at  addressing  specific  needs  in  relation  to  their  respective 
neighbours, as these needs vary because of different local, geographical, social and economic 
situations.  These  bilateral  agreements  should  comply  fully  with  the  parameters  set  for  local 
border traffic regimes by the LBT Regulation. The parameters, and in particular the definition 
of the local border area, were set after difficult negotiations in the Council and are considered 
to  represent  the  delicate,  right  balance  between  facilitation  for  those  living  in  a  border  area 
who need to cross the border frequently and the security requirements of the whole Schengen 
area. 

Under  the  terms  of  Article  13  of  the  LBT  Regulation,  Member  States  must  consult  the 
Commission  before  concluding  any  bilateral  agreement  on  local  border  traffic,  in  order  to 
check its compatibility with the Regulation. If the Commission considers the agreement to be 
incompatible,  it  notifies the Member State  concerned. The Member State must then take all 
appropriate  steps  to  amend  the  draft  agreement  within  a  reasonable  period  in  order  to 
eliminate the incompatibilities established. The same principles for consultation between the 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  apply  to  bilateral  agreements  which  pre-date  the  entry 
into force of the LBT Regulation and need to be adapted to that Regulation. 

It is worth underlining that once it has legislated in a particular field, the Community acquires 
exclusive  external  competence  in  the  field  covered  by  the  legislation.  Consequently,  the 
Member  States  lose  the  power  to  negotiate  agreements  with  third  countries  in  the  field 
covered by the relevant legislation (the ERTA doctrine). It is possible to derogate from this 
principle  if  the  Community  law  instrument  by  which  the  external  competence  is  acquired 
specifically  authorises  the  Member  States  to  conclude  such  agreements.  Such  authorisation 
operates as a  re-delegation  of  powers which, in principle, have been lost to the Community 
and, as such, must be interpreted restrictively. 

1 
2 

OJ L 29, 3.2.2007, p. 3 
Regulation  (EC)  No  562/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  March  2006 
establishing  a  Community  Code  on  the  rules  governing  the  movement  of  persons  across  borders 
(Schengen Borders Code); OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Under Article 18 of the LBT Regulation, the Commission is obliged to report to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic 
regime  two  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation.  The  present  report  fulfils  this 
obligation.  

2. 

FACILITATION MEASURES SET OUT IN THE LBT REGULATION 

The  LBT  Regulation  sets  out  a  number  of  measures  to  facilitate  matters  for  local  border 
residents compared with standard procedures and checks applicable to the crossing of external 
borders, defined in the Schengen Borders Code. These facilitation measures include: 

–  A derogation from the entry conditions of the Schengen Borders Code including from the 

visa requirement. 

Local  border  area  permit  holders  are  exempted  from  (i)  the  visa  obligation  (if  such  an 
obligation  exists)  and  (ii)  the  need  to  have  sufficient  means  of  subsistence,  both  for  the 
duration  of  the  intended  stay  and  for  the  return.  At  the  border  crossing  point,  supporting 
documents to prove the purpose of the stay may not be required. 

–  90 days of uninterrupted stay. 

Holders of local border traffic permits may stay on the territory of the relevant neigbouring 
country without any time restrictions, except that each uninterrupted stay may not exceed 90 
days.  That  is  a  derogation  from  the  standard  rule  of  the  Schengen  Borders  Code  that  limits 
short stay to a maximum of 90 days in 180 days. 

–  Local border traffic permits may be issued free of charge. 

–  The permits may be issued for a period of validity of between 1 and 5 years. 

–  Special border crossing points could be set up for the local border traffic. 

–  Specific lanes could be reserved for border residents at ordinary border crossing points.  

–  Persons who regularly cross an external land border and who, by reason of their frequent 
crossing of the border, are well known to the border guards, may be subject only to random 
checks. 

–  Local border traffic permit holders are exempt from the passport stamping obligation when 

crossing the border.  

–  To benefit from the local border traffic regime, the residents of the local border area must 

fulfil several conditions, including: 

•  the requirement of having been resident in the local border area for a minimum of 

1 year; 

•  possession of a valid travel document; 

•  not being the subject of a Schengen Information System alert; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  producing  evidence  of  their  status  as  border  residents  and  reasons  for  frequent 

border crossings; 

•  not being considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health 

or the international relations of any of the Member States. 

3. 

CONSULTATIONS  BASED  ON  ARTICLE  13  OF  THE  LBT  REGULATION.  STATE  OF 
PLAY. 

Since May 2007 (when the first request for consultation was made), the Commission has been 
involved  in  consultations  with  a  number  of  Member  States.  These  consultations  entail 
exchange  of  information  and  informal  advice,  experts'  meetings  between  officials  of  the 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  as  well  as  formal  exchange  of  correspondence  on  the 
compatibility of draft bilateral agreements with the LBT Regulation. The following bilateral 
agreements were the subject of consultations: 

•  Hungary – Ukraine  

Hungary  was  the  first  Member  State  to  send  a  draft  agreement  for  consultation  to  the 
Commission, in May 2007. The Commission stated that the definition of the border area in the 
draft agreement was incompatible with the LBT Regulation (the local border area extended to 
over  50  kilometres).  Hungary  was  requested  to  amend  the  draft.  Hungary  informed  the 
Commission that the agreement had entered into force on 11 January 2008. After its entry into 
force  the  final  version  of  the  agreement  was  sent  to  the  Commission  without  including  the 
changes  requested,  and  discussions  continued  with  the  Commission.  In  January  2009, 
Hungary  informed  the  Commission  that  Hungarian  missions  in  Ukraine  have  issued  34  000 
local border traffic permits since the date of application of the Agreement and the local border 
traffic  regime  has  been  operating  smoothly.  Around  80%  of  the  applicants  for  local  border 
traffic  permit  possessed  a  Hungarian  visa  previously.  According  to  information  provided  to 
the Commission by the Hungarian government, and based on a census of 2001, the Hungarian 
minority  of  Ukraine  consists  of  156  600  persons,  largely  concentrated  in  the  Zakarpatska 
Oblasthy  bordering  Hungary  and  Romania.  This  results  from  historical  reasons  with  the 
redefinition  of  Hungarian  borders  in  the  last  century.  84%  of  this  Hungarian  minority  are 
concentrated close to the Hungarian-Ukrainian border, living within 20 km distance from it, 
95%  of  this  population  lives  within  a  50  km  distance.  The  persons  concerned  have  become 
acquainted  with  the  possibilities  of  the  local  border  traffic  permit  and  they  largely  use  it  to 
ease everyday life. Most of them have family members living in Hungary and often need to 
travel  to  Hungary  to  engage  in  small-scale  business  activity  or  to  receive  higher  education. 
Only one case of misuse of the LBT permit has been recorded. 

•  Poland – Ukraine 

In January 2008, Poland transmitted a first draft bilateral agreement for consultation. During 
the consultation process, two incompatibilities came to light: the scope of the border area (50 
km  instead  of  30  km)  and  the  requirement  to  be  in  possession  of  travel  medical  insurance 
imposed on the beneficiaries of the local border traffic regime. Poland has been requested to 
amend  the  relevant  parts  of  the  agreement  before  it  enters  into  force.  In  February  2009, 
Poland  informed  the  Commission  about  the  modifications  introduced  into  the  agreement. 
Concerning the scope of the border area, Poland has modified the agreement in line with the 
request of the Commission. However, the agreement has not been modified with regard to the 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
requirement to possess travel medical insurance. In March 2009, the Commission invited the 
Polish authorities  to amend the relevant parts of the agreement. The agreement  entered  into 
force on 1 July 2009 without the requested modification.  

•  Lithuania – Belarus 

In  January  2008,  a  draft  agreement  between  Lithuania  and  Belarus  was  transmitted  to  the 
Commission  for  consultation.  The  Commission  found  an  incompatibility  related  to  the 
requirement to possess travel medical insurance (similar to the PL-UA agreement). Lithuania 
has been requested to modify this part of the agreement. 

•  Lithuania – Russian Federation 

In  April  2009,  a  draft  agreement  between  Lithuania  and  the  Russian  Federation  was 
transmitted to the Commission for consultation. Only minor suggestions have been addressed 
to  Lithuania  in  order  to  ensure  the  full  compliance  of  the  draft  agreement  with  the  LBT 
Regulation.  After  an  exchange  on  the  practical  aspects  of  the  future  implementation  of  the 
draft agreement, the Commission concluded that the draft agreement will be fully compatible 
with the LBT Regulation if it is implemented in accordance with the additional information as 
provided by the Lithuanian authorities.  

•  Latvia – Russian Federation  

In  January  2008,  a  draft  agreement  between  Latvia  and  the  Russian  Federation  was 
transmitted  for  consultation.  Consequently,  Latvia  has  been  asked  to  explain  the  process  of 
issuing local border traffic permits by the Russian Federation in the form of visas. . In June 
2009, Latvia submitted a revised draft, which introduced a specific local border permit, which 
took  into  account  the  concerns  expressed  on  the  visa  format.  However,  the  modified  draft 
contains  the  requirement  to  be  in  possession  of  travel  medical  insurance.  In  addition,  the 
border area consists of administrative units on Russian territory which go beyond the scope of 
the local border area. Latvia has been requested to modify these points. 

•  Slovakia – Ukraine  

In March 2008, Slovakia transmitted the first draft bilateral agreement to the Commission for 
consultation. During this process the Commission considered that the draft agreement was not 
compatible with the LBT Regulation as the local border traffic area exceeded what is allowed 
under the LBT Regulation. Slovakia modified the agreement and it entered into force on 27 
September  2008.  Subsequently,  in  November  2008,  the  Slovak  authorities  provided  the 
Commission with a map of the local border area. Although the map clearly indicates that the 
local border area was modified, the Commission's initial assessment is that the changes made 
by the Slovak authorities in the final version of the agreement may still not be sufficient to 
make this bilateral agreement fully compatible with the LBT Regulation as regards the scope 
of the border area. By June 2009, 466 local border traffic permits had been issued, while 54 
applications had been refused. 

•  Poland – Belarus 

In  April  2008,  the  draft  agreement  between  Poland  and  Belarus  was  also  transmitted  to  the 
Commission  for  consultation.  As  this  agreement  was  virtually  identical  to  the  one  between 
Poland and Ukraine, the same two incompatibilities were also found: the scope of the border 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
area (50 km instead of 30 km) and the requirement imposed on the beneficiaries of the local 
border traffic regime to be in possession of travel medical insurance. In this case also, Poland 
has been requested to amend the relevant parts of the agreement. End of April 2009, Poland 
transmitted  a  modified  draft  agreement  which  took into account  the comments  made  on  the 
border area while maintaining the requirement of travel medical insurance. End of June 2009, 
Poland has been requested to amend the agreement accordingly.  

•  Bulgaria – Serbia 

In July 2008, a first draft of the agreement between Bulgaria and Serbia was transmitted to the 
Commission.  The  Commission  provided  Bulgaria  with  a  first  set  of  comments  on  several 
aspects, notably: the definition of border residents and the status of EU nationals in the border 
area, entry conditions for border residents, the scope of the LBT permit, security features and 
technical requirements. 

•  Bulgaria – FYROM 

In July 2008, a first draft of the agreement between Bulgaria and FYROM was transmitted to 
the  Commission.  The  Commission  has  provided  Bulgaria  with  a  first  set  of  comments 
concerning  the  same  aspects  as  those  dealt  with  in  relation  to  the  draft  agreement  between 
Bulgaria and Serbia.  

•  Romania – Ukraine 

In August 2008, a first draft of the agreement between Romania and Ukraine was transmitted 
to the Commission. The Commission has provided Romania with a first set of comments on 
several aspects such as: the status of the river Danube in the local border traffic arrangements, 
the limitations of the border zone, possibilities to impose fees for the permits, etc. In March 
2009  Romania  presented  a  modified  Agreement  which  the  Commission  considered  to  be 
compatible with the LBT Regulation. 

Existing bilateral agreements which pre-date the entry into force of the LBT Regulation 

•  Slovenia – Croatia 

In  December  2007,  Slovenia  officially  transmitted  the  bilateral  agreement  on  border  traffic 
cooperation between Slovenia and Croatia which has been in force since 2001. In the process 
of evaluation, the Commission noted several incompatibilities, notably: limitation only to the 
citizens of the contracting parties, not covering other EU nationals and persons enjoying the 
Community  right  of  free  movement;  the  lack  of  a  requirement  for  a  minimum  period  of 
residency  in  the  border  area;  no  relevant  security  features;  an  inadequate  validity  period, 
unclear  conditions  for  issuing  permits,  lack  of  a  clear  prohibition  on  the  entry  of  persons 
subject to an alert in databases. It was also impossible to clearly determine the extent of the 
local  border  traffic  area  and  its  compatibility  with  the  LBT  Regulation.  In  March  2008, 
Slovenia was requested to amend this agreement in order to bring it into line  with  the LBT 
Regulation. End of November 2008, Slovenia acknowledged that indeed several provisions of 
its  bilateral  agreement  need  to  be  adapted.  As  far  as  the  border  area  is  concerned,  Slovenia 
explained that the border area encompasses an area of approximately 10 km from the border 
itself. After having analysed the maps submitted by Slovenia, the Commission assessed that 
the local border area appears to be in compliance with the LBT Regulation.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Slovenia  informed  that  it  contacted  Croatia  about  the  need  to  adapt  the  agreement  in  a 
meeting  in  December  2007.  However,  no  clear  information  on  the  timetable  for  the 
adjustments  needed  was  given.  Thus,  in  April  2009,  Slovenia  was  requested  to  provide  the 
Commission  with  a  schedule  for  the  implementation  of  modifications  related  to  the  issues 
which remain  not  compatible with the LBT Regulation,  such as the introduction of security 
features in the issued permits  or granting rights to obtain LBT permits by eligible nationals 
other that Croatians and Slovenians.  

4. 

FACILITATION MEASURES APPLIED BY THE MEMBER STATES 

The Member States have applied the facilitation measures set out in the LBT Regulation to a 
differing extent. In none of the consulted bilateral agreements has the full range of facilitation 
measures been used. Most Member States apply stricter requirements than those laid down by 
the LBT Regulation. The following refers to agreements that have entered into force as well 
as the drafts listed in the previous section. 

•  90 days of uninterrupted stay  

With one exception, all agreements set additional restrictions regarding the period of stay in 
the  border  area,  i.e.  90  days  within  180  days.  In  one  instance,  the  Member  State  concerned 
also  reduced  the  period  of  uninterrupted  stay  to  30  days.  However,  regardless  of  the 
circumstances  it  is  not  clear  how  these  Member  States  actually  verify  the  length  of  stay, 
considering that passports are not stamped when the border is crossed. 

•  Period of residence in the local border area set at 1 year 

In all agreements, the minimum period of residence is longer than the one year required by the 
LBT Regulation. In five of the agreements the required minimum period of residence in the 
border area is set at three years. 

•  Local border traffic permits issued free of charge 

Only one agreement provides that all local border traffic permits will be issued free of charge 
as permitted by the LBT Regulation. The charge for issuing permits in the other agreements 
varies between 20 and 35 Euros. 

•  LBT permits may be issued for a period of validity up to 5 years 

With one exception, all agreements provide for a possibility to issue the permits for up to 5 
years. 

5. 

DIFFICULTIES  ENCOUNTERED  WHEN  ANALYSING  THE  DRAFT  BILATERAL 
AGREEMENTS 

During  consultations  with  the  Member  States,  two  major  issues  on  the  interpretation  of  the 
LBT Regulation have been noted: 

•  The definition of the local border traffic area 

According to Article 3(2) of the LBT Regulation:  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
'border area’ means an area that extends no more than 30 kilometres from the border. The 
local administrative districts that are to be considered as the border area shall be specified by 
the States concerned in their bilateral Agreements, as referred to in Article 13. If part of any 
such district lies between 30 and 50 kilometres from the border line, it shall nevertheless be 
considered as part of the border area." 

Certain agreements (as indicated in section 3) have described the local border traffic area in 
such a way that effectively the local border area is set at 50 kilometres from the border (not 30 
km as required by the LBT Regulation). The Member States concerned argue that there is an 
ambiguity, at least in the English text of the LBT Regulation, whether the word "it" refers to 
the  district  chosen  or  to  the  part  of  the  district  within  the  50-kilometre  line.  If  it  means  the 
district chosen, it could be argued that, provided that at least part of the district is in the zone 
between 30 and 50 kilometres, the entire zone up to 50 km may be treated as being part of the 
border area.  

However,  the  Commission  does  not  support  such  an  interpretation.  In  the  first  place,  the 
French version – "toute partie d'une de ces communes située à plus de 30 mais à moins de 50 
kilomètres  de  la  ligne  frontalière  est  néanmoins  considérée  comme  appartenant  à  la  zone 
frontalière"  –  makes  it  clear  that  only  the  part  of  the  district  within  50  kilometres  of  the 
border may be regarded as part of the border area.  

In the second place, it is apparent from Article 3(2) read as a whole that the intention of the 
legislator  was  in  principle  to  limit  the  local  border  area  to  30  kilometres.  Therefore,  in 
principle, the administrative units to be taken into account for the local border traffic regime 
should  have  a  local  administrative  structure  remaining  within  the  30-km  zone  and  not  a 
regional,  sub-state  structure  like  "départements",  "provinces"  or  "województwa"  which  (by 
their nature) go far beyond 50 km and would thus in all cases allow coverage of the full 50-
km zone along the whole border. This would be manifestly incompatible with the compromise 
achieved in the European Parliament and the Council, which limited the area to 30 kilometres. 

The  purpose  of  the  derogation  granted  by  the  last  sentence  -  covering  parts  of  the  local 
districts  lying  between  30  and  50  km  -  is  to  prevent  a  situation  in  which  part  of  an 
administrative district is partly within and partly outside this border area. 

Accordingly,  local  extensions  to  the  border  area  are  permitted  where  the  relevant 
administrative district straddles the 30-kilometre line with the effect that the district is partly 
within the 30-kilometre zone and partly within the zone between 30 and 50 kilometres from 
the border.  

This rule, in turn, means that a Member State wishing to conclude a bilateral agreement must 
choose  administrative  districts  which  are  at  least  partially  within  the  30-kilometre  zone  and 
which do not extend beyond the 50-kilometre zone, thus ensuring that the entire district may 
be designated as border area.  

Consequently,  any  administrative  unit  which  starts  at  the  border  but  goes  beyond  50  km  is 
automatically excluded. 

A  further  important  point  to  note  is  that  in  relation  to  certain  third  countries,  i.e.  Russian 
Federation  and  Ukraine,  there  is  also  another  instrument  that  should  be  used  and  applied  in 
the  case  of  people  who  need  to  frequently  cross  the  border  and  who  live  outside  the  local 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
border  traffic  area.  This  instrument,  namely  the  visa  facilitation  agreement,  allows  certain 
categories of people to be issued free of charge with multi-entry visas valid for up to 5 years.  

•  A travel medical insurance requirement 

Certain Member States (as indicated in section 3) have inserted a provision requiring the local 
border traffic permit holders to present proof of travel  medical insurance when crossing the 
border.  The  Member  States  concerned  argue  that  such  insurance  is  needed  to  protect  the 
public health establishments (mainly hospitals) in the border area from a potential increase in 
the  cost  of  medical  care  provided  to  the  third-country  nationals  benefiting  from  the  local 
border traffic scheme.  

It is possible that a financial burden may be created in the border area when nationals from the 
neighbouring  third  country  need  to  be  given  emergency  medical  care  and  leave  thereafter 
without paying (this problem does not exist for “ordinary” medical care, because such care is 
given  only  if  payment  is  guaranteed  via  health  insurance  or  other  means).  However,  this 
problem could be solved in other ways e.g. via an agreement between the health authorities of 
the countries concerned like it is implemented between Hungary and Ukraine. 

The  introduction  of  a  travel  medical  insurance  as  requirement  for  the  issuance  of  a  local 
border  traffic  permit  raises  concerns  for  the  following  reason:  Article  13  of  the  LBT 
Regulation  authorises  Member  States  to  conclude  bilateral  agreements.  This  authorisation 
may  be  interpreted  only  as  permission  to  conclude  an  agreement  that  strictly  complies  with 
what  is  clearly  allowed  by  the  Regulation.  Neither  Article  4  nor  Article  9,  which  aim  at 
facilitating  travel  by  simplifying  the  entry  conditions  and  conditions  for  issuing  the  local 
border  traffic  permit  and  exclude  in  particular  the  need  to  provide  proof  of  means  of 
subsistence, mention the possibility of requiring travel medical insurance. Thus, to introduce 
such  a  requirement  in  the  relevant  bilateral  agreement  would  conflict  with  the  LBT 
Regulation. In addition, local border  traffic  permit  holders  are  expressly  exempted  from  the 
visa  obligation  and  the  Common  Consular  Instructions  stipulate  that  an  obligation  to  have 
travel medical insurance may not be imposed on this category of third-country nationals.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the available information and above analysis, the Commission draws the following 
conclusions:  

•  The current text of the Regulation was the outcome of intense negotiations in and between 
the institutions, and was considered to strike the delicate, right balance between facilitating 
personal contacts in the border area and maintaining a high level of security. 

•  MS should be encouraged to take full advantage of other instruments available to facilitate 
cross-border  contacts.  For  example,  in  the  case  of  Ukraine  and  the  Russian  Federation 
there is a visa facilitation agreement which enables certain categories of persons, who need 
to travel frequently, to obtain multi-entry visas valid for up to 5 years. 

•  The mechanism of consultation has been put in place in order to ensure full compatibility 
of bilateral local border traffic agreements with the parameters set by the LBT Regulation. 
Consultations with the Member States have been relatively intensive. However, the results 
of  these  consultations  are  not  always  satisfactory  as  some  Member  States  are  neglecting 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
the last phase of this procedure, i.e. "correction", before signing the bilateral agreements, 
as regards provisions incompatible with the LBT Regulation.  

•  Only  three  bilateral  local  border  traffic  agreements  have  entered  into  force  since  the 
adoption  of  the  LBT  Regulation,  between  Hungary/Ukraine  (since  11  January  2008), 
Slovakia/Ukraine  (since  27  September  2008)  and  between  Poland/Ukraine  (since  1  July 
2009).  It  is  therefore  difficult  to  draw  practical  conclusions  based  on  such  limited 
evidence, in particular as regards the total number of people benefiting from the regime, or 
to know whether the relevant facilitation measures or conditions have proved problematic. 
There were however no reports from the Member States that there was a wide misuse by 
owners of LBT permits or that the agreements raised some security risks for the Schengen 
area. 

•  In  principle,  the  Commission  considers  that  this  report  comes  too  early  to  reconsider 

Regulation No 1931/2006 as regards the parameters set for the bilateral agreements.  

–  Concerning travel medical insurance; it is possible that a financial burden may be 
created  in  the  border  area  when  nationals  from  the  neighbouring  third  country 
need to be given emergency medical care and leave thereafter without paying (this 
problem  does  not  exist  for  “ordinary”  medical  care,  because  such  care  is  given 
only if payment is guaranteed via health insurance or other means). However, this 
problem could be solved in other ways (e.g. via an agreement between the health 
authorities  of  the  countries  concerned).  Further  experiences  in  implementing  the 
agreements  based  on  the  current  LBT  Regulation  will  help  in  assessing  the 
potential size of the problem.  

–  With regard to the border area, at this stage, the Commission would be prepared to 
consider allowing some flexibility on delimitation of the border area in a bilateral 
agreement  if  the  definition  provided  by  the  LBT  Regulation  were  to  lead  in 
individual cases to situations which are against the spirit of the Regulation, which 
provides  for  an  exceptional  extension  of  the  border  area  in  order  not  to  split  a 
community  artificially.  Moreover,  when  monitoring  the  application  of  the  LBT 
Regulation, the Commission will pay particular attention to the parameters for the 
delimitation of the local border area. The Commission would therefore welcome a 
discussion  with  the  Member  States  on  whether  the  Regulation  is  considered 
sufficiently  flexible  to  accommodate  particular  situations  arising  in  relation  to 
specific  border  regions,  and  is  ready  to  reflect  on  the  need  for  proposing 
amendments to the Regulation in the light of that discussion. 

–  More  comprehensive  information  will  gradually  become  available  as  more  and 
more agreements are implemented in practice. The Commission is ready to submit 
a  new  report  on  the  implementation  and  functioning  of  the  local  border  traffic 
regime to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of 2010.  

EN 

10 

   EN