REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Title III (Internal Borders) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
Date: 2010-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, border control, customs document, customs formalities, external border of the EU, foreign national, internal border of the EU

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.10.2010 
COM(2010) 554 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Title III (Internal Borders) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 
establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across 
borders (Schengen Borders Code)  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Title III (Internal Borders) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 
establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across 
borders (Schengen Borders Code)  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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, hereinafter ‘the SBC’ or ‘the Code’)1 entered into force on 
13  October  2006.  The  SBC  consolidated  and  further  developed  the  Schengen  acquis,  in 
particular  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Schengen  Convention2  and  the  Common  Manual.3 
Title  III  of  the  Code  confirmed  the  absence  of  controls  on  persons  crossing  the  internal 
borders between the Schengen Member States. The establishment of an area without internal 
borders,  in  which  the  free  movement  of  persons  is  ensured,  represents  one  of  the  most 
tangible achievements of the Union.  

The  Code  includes  criteria  to  determine  whether  the  exercise  of  police  powers  in  internal 
border  zones  has  an  effect  equivalent  to  border  checks.  Under  the  Code,  the  abolition  of 
internal  border  controls  also  obliges  Member  States  to  remove  obstacles  to  traffic  at  road 
crossing-points at internal borders. In exceptional circumstances involving a serious threat to 
the  public  policy  or  internal  security  of  a  Member  State,  border  control  at  internal  borders 
may be reintroduced for a limited period of time, in accordance with the procedure laid down 
by the Code.  

According to Article 38 of the SBC, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament 
and to the Council by 13 October 2009 a report on the application of Title III.  

The Commission addressed a questionnaire to Member States in order to obtain information 
on  the  application  of  Title  III.  This  report  has  been  prepared  on  the  basis  of  the  answers 
provided by twenty-three Member States. Two Member States (HU and MT) did not provide 
the requested information. This report also reflects information submitted to the Commission 
by citizens and Members of the European Parliament, pointing out alleged border checks at 
internal borders. 

2. 

ABOLITION OF BORDER CONTROLS AT INTERNAL BORDERS (ARTICLE 20) 

The Code confirms that internal borders may be crossed at any point without border checks on 
persons, irrespective of their nationality, being carried out. The abolition of border control at 

1 
2 

3 

OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p. 1. 
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the 
States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on 
the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239 of 22.9.2000, p. 19. 
OJ C 313 of 16.12.2002, p. 97. The Common Manual has been repealed by the adoption of the Code. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
internal  borders  also  entails  the  abolition  of  border  surveillance.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
obligation of carriers to return passengers transported by land, air or sea is not applicable to 
internal traffic connections within the Schengen area.4  

3. 

PRACTICAL  APPLICATION  OF  PROVISIONS  GOVERNING  CHECKS  WITHIN  MEMBER 
STATE TERRITORIES AND DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED (ARTICLE 21) 

3.1. 

EXERCISE OF POLICE POWERS (ARTICLE 21(A)) 

3.1.1.  LEGAL BASIS 

In principle, the crossing of an internal border between two Member States should be treated 
the same way as travelling between districts or regions within a Member State. However, in 
view  of  the  Member  States’  responsibility  for  maintaining  law  and  order  and  safeguarding 
internal security, they may carry out checks in accordance with a risk assessment throughout 
their whole territory including internal border zones. The frequency of such checks may differ 
depending on the specific area.  

Checks  on  persons  in  the  exercise  of  police  powers  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the 
Member  States  under  national  law  are  allowed  throughout  their  territory,  including  border 
areas,  insofar  as  the  exercise  of  those  powers  does  not  have  an  effect  equivalent  to  border 
checks. The Code contains a non-exhaustive list of criteria to assess whether the exercise of 
police  powers  is  equivalent  to  border  checks  or  not.  Accordingly,  police  measures  are  not 
considered to be equivalent to border checks if they: 

do not have border control as an objective, 

are based on general police information and experience regarding possible threats to public 
security and aim, in particular, to combat cross-border crime, 

are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at 
the external borders,  

are carried out on the basis of spot-checks. 

3.1.2.  APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA 

In order to show that internal borders and border areas are not zones where checks cannot be 
carried  out,  several  criteria  have  thus  been  established  which  allow  assessing  the  (non-) 
equivalence  to  border  checks.  Border  zones  may  present  a  particular  risk  for  cross-border 
crime, so the frequency and intensity of police checks may be higher than in other parts of the 
territory.  However,  these  checks  must  be  targeted  and  based  on  concrete  and  factual  police 
information and experience as regards threats to public security and must not be systematic. 
The  police  information  must  be  based  on  facts  and  constantly  reassessed.  Consequently, 
checks must be carried out on a random basis according to the assessment of the risk.  

4 

Article  26  of  the  Schengen  Convention  and  the  Council  Directive  2001/51/EC  of  28  June  2001 
supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement 
of 14 June 1985, OJ L 187 of 10.7.2001, p. 45. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Most  Member  States  state  that  they  carry  out  non-systematic,  random  police  checks  on  the 
basis  of  risk  assessments  of  the  security  situation  (in  particular,  the  risk  of  irregular 
immigration  or  breaches  of  criminal,  security  or  traffic  law),  information  exchanged  at 
national,  regional  or  local  level,  and  profiling.  These  checks  are  often  the  result  of 
international cooperation between neighbouring countries (regular meetings and exchange of 
police information through national contact points) and may take the form of joint patrols set 
up under agreements on police cooperation.  

While  it  is  easy  to  determine  that  a  check  is  carried  out  to  enforce  traffic  law  and  not  as  a 
border check, e.g. when car drivers coming from a discotheque located in the vicinity of the 
internal  border  are  required  to  undergo  breath  tests,  which  might  include  the  necessity  to 
determine  a  person’s  identity,  it  is  more  difficult  to  assess  the  nature  of  checks  that  aim  to 
enforce immigration law. 

Another important element is the objective of a check, which may concern goods rather than 
persons as such. The objective of the check is decisive in order to assess possible breaches of 
the Schengen Borders Code or the EU provisions on the free movement of goods. Conversely, 
it  is  not  relevant  which  national  body  carries  out  a  check,  since  Member  States  may  assign 
different  responsibilities  to  different  authorities,  e.g.  a  customs  officer  may  be  entitled  to 
verify the legality of a stay and a police officer may be entitled to verify goods.  

3.1.3.  FREQUENCY OF CHECKS — NON-SYSTEMATIC CHECKS 

An important element in determining whether or not the exercise of police checks constitutes 
border  checks  is  therefore  the  frequency  of  checks  carried  out  in  internal  border  zones, 
compared  to  other  parts  of  the  territory  confronted  with  a  similar  situation.  However,  most 
Member States do not have data available on the frequency of checks in border areas. Some 
consider that it is not possible to compare the frequency of checks in border zones and in the 
rest  of  their  territory,  as  practice  and  priorities  in  the  border  areas  differ.  Several  Member 
States state that the frequency of police checks in the vicinity of internal borders is the same 
as in their whole territory.  

A  strict  definition  of  the  appropriate  frequency  and  regularity  with  which  checks  may  be 
carried out is not possible since this should reflect the security situation in the territory of the 
Member  State  concerned.  Although  a  high  frequency  of  checks  may  give  an  indication,  it 
remains  difficult  to  assess  in  individual  cases  whether  this  has  an  effect  equivalent  to 
systematic border checks.  

3.1.4.  VERIFICATION OF THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA  

On  22  June  2010,  in  a  benchmark  judgment5  the  European  Court  of  Justice  clarified  that 
national legislation conferring on the police authorities of a Member State the competence to 
check  the  identity  of  persons  present  exclusively  in  a  20-km  internal  border  zone, 
independently of their behaviour and any particular circumstances presenting a risk to public 
order, for the purpose of verifying compliance with the obligation to hold or carry papers and 
documents required by law, without providing for the necessary framework to guarantee that 
the practical implementation of this competence does not have an effect equivalent to border 
checks,  is  in  breach  of  Article  67(2)  TFEU  as  well  as  Articles  20  and  21  of  the  Schengen 
Border Code.  

5 

Joint Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10, Melki and Others. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
In  the  light  of  this  judgment,  the  Commission  requests  Member  States  to  adapt  accordingly 
any national legislation conferring specific competences on national police authorities within 
internal border zones.  

The Commission is of the opinion that in order to assess whether or not police checks have an 
effect  equivalent  to  border  checks,  it  needs  more  information  from  Member  States  on  the 
reasons  and  frequency  of  checks  carried  out  in  internal  border  zones.  This  information  is 
necessary  in  order  to  monitor  the  situation  in  internal  border  zones  and  to  address  citizens’ 
complaints  and  questions  addressed  by  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  to  the 
Commission  that  travellers  are  regularly  or  even  systematically  checked  in  certain  internal 
border zones. In this respect, it should be noted that some Member States have difficulties in 
assessing the purpose  of  checks systematically carried out by their neighbours on their own 
citizens when crossing the common internal border.  

Therefore,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  carefully  assess  complaints  and  to  address 
Member  States  in  order  to  obtain  explanations.  If  the  explanations  are  not  satisfactory,  the 
Commission will use all available means, including the launching of infringement procedures, 
in order to ensure the correct application of Union law.  

Accordingly,  the  Commission  will  request  Member  States  to  provide  statistics  on  police 
checks carried out within their territories and in the border zones in particular.  

In order to verify in practice the frequency of checks and the general information triggering a 
specific  check,  the  Commission  envisaged  carrying  out  unannounced  on-site  visits  in  its 
proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify 
the  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis.6  The  Commission  will  maintain  the  concept  of 
unannounced  visits  in  the  updated  proposal  following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon 
Treaty.7 

Finally, in case the need arises to carry out regular and systematic checks as a response to the 
security  situation  in  their  territories,  Member  States  shall  envisage  the  temporary 
reintroduction of border control at the internal borders in accordance with Article 23 et seq. of 
the Code. 

3.2. 

SECURITY CHECKS ON PERSONS (ARTICLE 21(B)) 

The abolition of border control at internal borders is without prejudice to security checks on 
persons carried out at ports and airports by the competent authorities under the law of each 
Member  State,  by  port  or  airport  officials  or  carriers,  provided  that  such  checks  are  also 
carried out on persons travelling within a Member State. The personnel of airports, ports or 
carriers verify the identity of passengers in the course of security checks either at check-in or 
upon  entry  into  the  secured  zone  of  the  airport  or  before  boarding  the  aeroplane,  or  in  a 
combination of any of these checks. While the Commission does not contest that these checks 
can be carried out in combination, it nevertheless recommends not doing so since such checks 
are often perceived by citizens as obstacles to their right to free movement. 

These  checks  should  only  verify  the  identity  of  the  traveller  against  a  travel  document.  EU 
citizens can identify themselves on the basis of their passport or identity card. Carriers are not 

6 
7 

COM(2009) 102 final. 
The Commission will present the revised proposal in October 2010. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
obliged to, but may, accept other documents like driving licences, bank cards etc., as these are 
not  identity  documents.  Third-country  nationals  can  identify  themselves  on  the  basis  of  a 
passport. The checks should not verify whether the third-country national is in possession of a 
visa or residence permit, as they are mere identity checks for commercial or transport security 
reasons. Member States cannot request any additional check to be carried out and carriers are 
not subject to any liability when transporting persons who might not meet the conditions of 
entry or stay in other Schengen Member States. Also, carriers cannot themselves oblige third-
country  nationals  to  prove  the  legality  of  their  stay  by  showing  a  visa  or  residence  permit. 
Including such an obligation in the contract with the traveller would circumvent the abolition 
of border control at internal borders. 

3.3. 

OBLIGATION TO HOLD OR CARRY PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS (ARTICLE 21C) 

The abolition of border control at internal borders does not affect the possibility for a Member 
State to provide by law for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents. If Member 
States  impose  such  an  obligation,  it  must  be  applied  throughout  their  territory  or  in  the 
external  border  zones.  It  cannot  be  limited  to  the  internal  border  zones  only,  as  that  would 
necessarily lead to checks carried out only in these internal border zones, which would have 
an effect equivalent to border checks. 

3.4. 

OBLIGATION TO REPORT PRESENCE (ARTICLE 21(D)) 

Finally, the abolition of border control at internal borders does not preclude the obligation on 
third-country nationals to report their presence on the territory of any Member State pursuant 
to  the  provisions  of  Article  22  of  the  Schengen  Convention.  Some  Member  States  do  not 
implement  this  provision  (SE,  EE,  DE,  FI,  LT,  DK,  NO),  others  acknowledge  the  practical 
difficulties in verifying compliance, while others consider it useful to help obtain data on the 
number of third-country nationals present on their territory. The Commission is of the opinion 
that the implementation of this provision is difficult in practice and questions whether from a 
cost/benefit  perspective  this  reporting  obligation  has  any  impact  on  identifying  illegal 
immigrants. The Commission will thus propose an amendment to the Schengen Convention in 
order  to  rule  out  an  obligation  on  third-country  nationals  to  report  their  presence  upon 
entering the territory of Member States. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  OBLIGATION  TO  REMOVE  OBSTACLES  TO  TRAFFIC  AT 
ROAD CROSSING-POINTS AT INTERNAL BORDERS (ARTICLE 22) 

Under Article 22 of the SBC, Member States shall remove all obstacles to fluid traffic flow at 
road crossing-points at internal borders, in particular any speed limits not exclusively based 
on road-safety considerations. At the same time, Member States should provide for facilities 
for  checks  in  the  event  that  internal  border  controls  are  temporarily  reintroduced  in 
accordance with Articles 23–31 of the Code.8  

The Commission  has received numerous complaints from citizens pointing  to the continued 
presence of obstacles to fluid traffic flow at certain road crossing-points at internal borders, in 
particular  old  infrastructure  (e.g.  buildings,  control  booths,  roofs  over  the  road  or  mobile 

8 

Since Schengen Associated Countries are not members of the Customs Union, customs controls are still 
carried out at their borders with Schengen Member States, and these associated countries are allowed to 
maintain the appropriate infrastructure, including the resulting speed limits. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
equipment  such  as  plastic  cones,  barriers,  reduction  of  the  number  of  lanes,  traffic  lights  or 
road signs) and consequent considerable limitations on speed.  

In most cases, the majority of obstacles that could be immediately dismantled were removed 
by  Member  States  just  after  internal  border  controls  were  lifted.  Some  obstacles  have  been 
removed  gradually  due  to  technical  difficulties,  and  certain  obstacles  are  still  maintained. 
Member States who joined the Schengen area in December 2007 implemented this obligation 
in  several  phases  according  to  the  degree  of  difficulty  involved  in  removing  such  obstacles 
(i.e. most obstacles such as road signs were removed immediately after the lifting of internal 
border controls, while the removal or adaptation of large-scale infrastructure is still ongoing). 
In general, costs, property rights constraints, the planning of future refitting or major works 
linked to the reorganisation of road crossing-points have been identified as the most frequent 
reasons  for  delays  in  implementing  this  obligation.  The  Commission  regrets  that  this  also 
applies  to  certain  Member  States  who  have  been  members  of  the  Schengen  area  for  a 
considerable  time.  In  order  to  ensure  the  correct  application  of  Union  law,  the  Commission 
has launched one infringement procedure for failure to comply with Article 22. The procedure 
is still ongoing.  

Some  Member  States  (PT,  CZ,  EL,  EE,  FR,  AT,  FI,  LT,  LV,  SI,  LU)  have  kept  the  old 
infrastructure  at  certain  road  crossing-points in  the  event  of  the  temporary  reintroduction  of 
border  control.  Some  also  maintain  the  infrastructure  for  the  exercise  of  customs  control  or 
checks  on  lorries  (LU),9  while  others  plan  to  use  mobile  equipment  if  border  control  is 
reintroduced (CZ, FR, LT, LV). Other Member States (DE, PL, DK, IT) have dismantled all 
infrastructure  where  possible  and  merely  use  mobile  equipment  for  the  temporary 
reintroduction of border control. The Commission considers that permanent infrastructure for 
the cases of a reintroduction of border control may be maintained to the necessary extent, as 
long as it does not represent an obstacle to fluid traffic flow and speed limits are not reduced. 
In any case, the Commission underlines that facilities for the reintroduction of border controls 
can  also  comprise  mobile  infrastructure  and  equipment,  which  might  even  be  more  cost-
efficient than the maintenance of permanent infrastructure. 

Most  Member  States  assert  that  speed  limits  are  based  exclusively  on  road-safety 
considerations  (e.g.  technical  state  of the road, construction works on the road, or when the 
road  crossing-point  is  situated  in  an  urban  area  or  in  mountainous  terrain).  However,  the 
Commission  considers  it  unacceptable  for  some  Member  States,  in  particular  when  the  old 
infrastructure  is  still  present  at  crossing-points,  to  maintain  speed  limits  (together  with 
removable obstacles such as plastic cones or barriers), in some cases even as low as 10 km per 
hour, or to keep certain lanes closed for ‘traffic security’ reasons. The objective of Article 22 
is to render the traffic flow fluid at road crossing-points at internal borders. For this purpose, 
apart  from  the  obligation  to  remove  speed  limits  not  exclusively  based  on  road-safety 
considerations,  other  measures  have  to  be  taken,  in  particular  concerning  the  existing 
infrastructure.  The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  maintenance  of  large-scale 
infrastructure  cannot  be  used  as  an  argument  for  road-safety  considerations.  It  is 
understandable that the infrastructure at former border crossing-points would not allow speed 
limits to be increased to the maximum allowed on the given road category. However, after the 
abolition  of  internal  border  controls,  the  situation  at  former  border  crossing-points  must  be 
adapted. This also applies when larger projects are planned in order to refit the areas of former 

9 

The Commission stresses that customs checks on lorries must be carried out in compliance with Union 
law governing free movement of goods and transport. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
road  border  crossing-points  while  the  old  infrastructure  is  maintained  in  the  meantime.  The 
Commission  stresses  that,  in  these  cases,  Member  States  also  have  to  take  all  necessary 
temporary measures in order to ensure fluid traffic flow.  

Finally, while a Member State may use the remaining infrastructure at a former road border 
crossing-point at an internal border for police checks (cf. 3.1), these former border crossing 
points  cannot  be  the  sole  location  for  carrying  out  such  checks.  In  addition,  the  practical 
advantages of the location cannot be the determining reason for carrying out police checks.  

5. 

TEMPORARY  REINTRODUCTION  OF  BORDER  CONTROL  AT  INTERNAL  BORDERS 
(ARTICLES 23 – 31) 

5.1. 

PROCEDURE 

Since the entry into force of the SBC, twelve Member States have temporarily reintroduced 
controls  on  persons  at  internal  borders  both  in  view  of  foreseeable  events  and  for  reasons 
requiring urgent action (FR, ES, DE, AT, IT, DK, FI, EE, LV, MT, NO, IS). Neighbouring 
countries have submitted information on their cooperation during the reintroduction of border 
control (PT, PL, CZ, SK, SI, NL, LU, CH). None of the Member States has reported using the 
provisions for prolongation of a planned temporary reintroduction of internal border control. 
Annex I lists Member States’ notifications of the temporary reintroduction of border control at 
their internal borders, including reasons and duration.  

The Commission observes that the timeframe (between notification by Member States and de 
facto reintroduction  of  internal border control for foreseeable events) for issuing its opinion 
for the purpose of formal consultation between the Member States and the Commission is too 
short10.  Moreover,  the  notifications  often  do  not  contain  sufficient  information  to  allow  the 
Commission to issue an opinion. Hence, the Commission has so far not issued any opinion.  

Furthermore, the information supplied on temporary reintroduction is often very general and 
does not allow for a full assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken with regard to 
the  threat  to  public  policy  or  internal  security.  The  Commission  requests  Member  States  to 
supply  more  substantial  information  as  soon  as  available,  as  well  as  appropriate  updates  in 
order to allow it to fully assess the appropriateness of the envisaged measures. To this end, the 
Commission  will  provide  a  standard  form  for  reporting  on  the  temporary  reintroduction  of 
internal  border  controls.  Nevertheless,  on  the  basis  of  the  available  information,  the 
Commission  considers  that  Member  States  have  not  abused  the  possibility  to  reintroduce 
border controls.  

During  the  implementation  phase,  the  difficulties  reported  by  Member  States  relate  to  the 
need  to  reallocate  human,  material  or  technical  resources  according  to  the  situation  at  the 
borders. In most cases, the cooperation with neighbouring countries during the reintroduction 
of  border  control  has  been  considered  positive.  In  particular,  early  consultations  and  the 
coordination  of  planned  measures  (in  particular  for  operational  support)  with  neighbouring 
countries  as  well  as  regular  contacts  and  exchange  of  information  between  authorities  at  all 
levels contribute to the success of the operations. In some cases, operational cooperation starts 
already  with  a  joint  risk  assessment  and  may  take  the  form  of  joint  checks  using  joint 
checkpoints or the deployment of liaison officers. Installations at the crossing points are also 

10 

In some cases the notification was only sent a few days before the reintroduction of border control. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
adapted to the reintroduction of border controls on both sides of the border (e.g. placement of 
speed limit signs or mobile barriers). However, some Member States have raised the need to 
be better involved in the process in order to be able, in particular, to inform the public.  

5.2. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

According to Article 28, where border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant 
provisions of Title II are to apply mutatis mutandis. The applicable provisions have not been 
further detailed in order to allow Member States to address the situation and carry out border 
checks in a flexible way, with an intensity proportionate to the threat. Measures taken during 
the reintroduction of border control have to be restricted to what is necessary for the public 
policy or internal security of the Member State. Depending on the threat, not all persons need 
necessarily be checked at the borders. Checks must be carried out in a proportionate manner 
in  terms  of  time  and  location  and  based  on  risk  analysis  and  available  intelligence 
information, and targeted on the reason for the reintroduction of border control.  

Member  States  may  decide  to  what  extent  they  need  to  reintroduce  border  surveillance  as 
well.  

Decisions  to  refuse  entry  may  only  be  taken  for  the  reasons  linked  to  the  reintroduction  of 
border control. The standard form set out in Part B of Annex V to the SBC cannot be given to 
EU  citizens,  as  EU  citizens  may  be  refused  entry  solely  on  grounds  of  public  order,  public 
security or public health and subject to the procedural safeguards of Directive 2004/38/EC.11 
If  third-country  nationals  are  refused  entry  on  account  of  illegal  stay,  procedures  should  be 
launched  in  accordance  with  Directive  2008/115/EC.12  When  border  control  is  temporarily 
reintroduced,  internal  borders  do  not  become  external  borders;  thus,  certain  provisions  like 
stamping of passports (Article 10 of the SBC) or carriers’ liability do not apply. In addition, 
the  Commission  recalls  that  FRONTEX  cannot  be  involved  in  operations  during  the 
reintroduction of internal border control, given that its mandate is limited to external border 
control.  

5.3. 

INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC 

The Code provides for an obligation to fully inform the public on the planned reintroduction 
of  border  control  at  internal  borders,  without  prejudice  to  security  considerations.  Member 
States  implement  this  obligation  differently  according  to  the  nature  of  the  event  (planned 
reintroduction or urgent action). An information campaign is launched in advance, depending 
on  the  time  available  and  using  all  available  media  (e.g.  TV,  radio,  newspapers,  internet  or 
press  services  of  the  national  authorities  involved).  Citizens  are  mainly  informed  about  the 
obligation  to  carry  travel  documents  when  crossing  the  border  and  on  the  reasons  for  and 
extent of the checks. In general, it appears that the public has been sufficiently informed in 
most cases. No Member State (except FI) has had recourse to the confidentiality clause under 
Article 31, although this provision is considered very important if the need for its application 
arises. 

11 

12 

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of 
citizens  of  the  Union  and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the 
Member States, OJ L 158 of 30.4.2004, p. 77. 
Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on 
common  standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals,  [to  be  transposed  by  Member  States  by  24  December  2010  at  the  latest],  OJ  L  348  of 
24.12.2008, p. 98. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
The Commission is of the opinion that in general, the current legal framework governing the 
temporary  reintroduction  of  border  control  at  internal  borders  is  sufficient,  but  calls  upon 
Member States to provide more substantial information on time.  

6. 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The Commission regrets that the deadline for the submission of this report could not 
be met due to the late submission of information by several Member States. 

The Commission has identified three specific issues of concern in the application of 
Title III:  

is  ensured  represents  one  of 

The  setting  up  of  an  area  without  internal  borders  where  the  free  movement  of 
persons 
tangible 
accomplishments of the Union. Any restrictions, such as police checks in the vicinity 
of  internal  borders,  are  perceived  by  citizens  as  hampering  their  right  to  free 
movement.  Persons  cannot  be  checked  solely  because  they  are  crossing  an  internal 
border, neither at the border nor in the border areas.  

the  most  substantial  and 

The Commission is concerned by the difficulties reported by travellers in connection 
with  alleged  regular  and  systematic  checks  carried  out  in  certain  internal  border 
zones.  The  Commission  is  closely  monitoring  the  situation  in  the  internal  border 
zones. For this purpose, it will continue to carefully assess citizens’ complaints and 
address Member States in order to obtain explanations. In order to ensure the correct 
application  of  Union  law,  the  Commission  is  ready  to  use  all  available  means, 
including the launching of infringement procedures, whenever such action proves to 
be necessary.  

Accordingly,  the  Commission  will  request  Member  States  to  provide  statistics  on 
police checks carried out throughout their territories and in particular in the internal 
border zones.  

The Commission recalls that if the security situation calls for Member States to carry 
out regular and systematic checks, they shall envisage the temporary reintroduction 
of border control at internal borders in accordance with Article 23 et seq. of the SBC.  

In  its  proposal  for  a  revised  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism,  the  Commission 
envisages  carrying  out  unannounced  on-site  visits  in  order  to  verify  the  absence  of 
checks at internal borders.  

The Commission also stresses that Member States whose national legislation confers 
specific competences on national police authorities within the internal border zones 
are requested to adapt it to the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Melki case as soon 
as possible. 

2.2 

Member States must remove all obstacles to fluid traffic flow at road crossing-points 
at internal borders, and in particular any speed limits not exclusively based on road-
safety  considerations.  The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  maintenance  of 
large-scale infrastructure, frequently accompanied by significant speed limits, cannot 
be used as an argument for road-safety considerations.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

2.3 

The  Commission  insists  on  timely  notification  of  any  planned  reintroduction  of 
internal border controls and requests Member States to provide detailed information 
in accordance with Article 24 in order to allow the Commission, when necessary, to 
give  its  opinion,  and  in  order  to  proceed  to  formal  consultations  between  Member 
States and the Commission.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

ANNEX I 

Member States’ notifications of the temporary reintroduction  
of border control at internal borders  
pursuant to Article 23 et seq. of the Schengen Borders Code 

Member 
State 

Duration 

Reasons 

France  

21/10/2006, 08h 
— 20:00 

Youth  Days  of  radical  young  Basques  in  Saint-Pée-sur-
Nivelle  and  demonstration  organised  in  Bayonne  by  the 
support committee of Philippe Bidart. 

FR-ES  land  border  (border  crossing  point  on  the  highway 
A63 in Biriatou, St Jacques bridge, Béhobie bridge, Hendaye 
station) 

Finland 

9–21/10/2006 

Informal  meeting  of  Heads  of  States  and  Government  in 
Lahti. 

Controls  mainly  at  Helsinki-Vantaa,  Turku  and  Tampere-
Pirkkala airports and the ports of Helsinki, Hanko and Turku, 
FI-SE and FI-NO land borders 

Finland 

13–29/11/ 2006  EUROMED meeting in Tampere. 

Controls  mainly  at  Helsinki-Vantaa,  Turku  and  Tampere-
Pirkkala airports and the ports of Helsinki, Hanko and Turku, 
FI-SE and FI-NO land borders  

France  

12–16/02/2007  Conference  of  Heads  of  States  of  Africa  and  France  in 

Cannes (13-16/2/2007). 

FR-IT  border 
notification)  

(detailed 

information  provided 

in 

the 

Germany 

25/5–9/06/2007  G8 

Summit 

in  Heiligendamm/Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania (6-8/6/2007) 

Land, air and sea borders 

Iceland 

2–3/11/2007 

Participation  of  MC  Hells  Angels  at  the  inauguration  of  the 
Icelandic Motorcycle club in Reykjavik (1-4/11/2007). 

Air  borders  (14  flights  checked  from  SE,  DK,  FI,  DE  and 
NO) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Austria 

02/06/2008–
01/07/2008 

European  Football  Championship  EURO  2008,  AT  —  CH 
(7/6-29/6/2008). 

Land and air borders 

France  

27/09/2008, 08h 
— 18:45 

Demonstration  on  27  September  at  16:00  in  Bayonne, 
supervised by Batasuna. 

Five FR-ES border crossing points (Hendaye: highway A63, 
St Jacques international bridge, Béhobie international bridge, 
Hendaye station, port of Hendaye) 

Finland 

24/11/2008–
5/12/2008 

Meeting  of  Council  of  Ministers  of  OSCE  in  Helsinki  (4-
5/12/2008). 

Controls  mainly  at  Helsinki-Vantaa  airport  and  at  ports  of 
Helsinki and Turku 

Iceland 

05-07/03/2009  Visit of MC Hells Angels to the Icelandic Motorcycle club in 

Reykjavik. 

Air borders (16 flights checked from SE, DK, NL, FR, DE, 
and NO) 

Germany 

20/03/2009–
5/04/2009 

NATO  Summit  in  Strasbourg,  Baden-Baden  and  Kehl  (3-
4/4/2009). 

Land, air and sea borders 

France 

30/03/2009–
5/04/2009 

NATO Summit in Strasbourg (3-4/4/2009) 

Land and air borders with BE, LU, DE, CH, IT and ES 

Italy 

28/06/2009–
15/07/2009 

G8 Summit in L’Aquila (10-12/7/2009)  

Land, air and sea borders 

France 

19/09/2009, 13h 
— 19:40 

Demonstration by Batasuna in Bayonne.  

Five FR-ES border crossing points (highway A63, St Jacques 
international bridge , Béhobie international bridge, Hendaye 
station, port of Hendaye)  

Spain 

26-27/09/2009 

Celebration of ‘Basque Warrior day’ in the Basque Country 
and Navarra (ES) and in Pyrénées-Orientales (FR) 

ES-FR  land  borders  in  the  provinces  of  Guipuzcoa  and 
Navarra  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
France 

27/09/2009 

50th Anniversary of ETA. 

FR-ES land borders, BCP border complex from Hendaye to 
Arneguy (14 border crossing points). 

Norway 

27/11/2009–
12/12/2009 

Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony in Oslo (10/12/2009). 

NO–DE,  NO–DK  borders  and  NO  and  other  Schengen 
countries targeted flights  

Denmark 

1-18/12/2009  

UN  Climate  Change  Conference 
18/12/2009). 

in  Copenhagen  (7-

Malta 

5-18/04/2010 

Visit of Pope Benedict XVI (17-18/04/2010) 

DK-DE and DK-SE borders 

Malta  International  Airport  and  Valletta  Sea  Passenger 
Terminal 

Estonia 

17-23/04/2010 

Informal meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Tallinn (22-
23/04/2010). 

Land,  sea  and  air  borders  (detailed  information  provided  in 
the notification) 

France 

28/05-
02/06/2010 

Franco-African Summit in Nice (31/05-01/06/2010). 

Latvia 

24/05-
01/06/2010  

FR-IT  border 
notification) 

(detailed 

information  provided 

in 

the 

NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Riga (28/05-01/06/2010). 

LV-EE,  LV-LT 
international airport 

land  borders,  Riga  port  and  Riga 

EN 

14 

   EN