COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Second report on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic regime set up by Regulation No 1931/2006
Date: 2011-02-09
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 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.2.2011 
COM(2011) 47 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Second report on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic regime 
set up by Regulation No 1931/2006 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Second report on the implementation and functioning of the local border traffic regime 
set up by Regulation No 1931/2006 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The 2006 Regulation laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of 
the Member States1 allows derogating,  for  persons  living in  a  border area, from  the general 
rules  on  border  checks  set  out  in  the  Schengen  Borders  Code.  The  aim  is  to  avoid  creating 
barriers  to  trade,  social  and  cultural  interchange  or  regional  cooperation  with  neighbouring 
countries.  The  Regulation  authorises  Member  States  to  conclude  bilateral  agreements  with 
neighbouring non-EU countries, provided these agreements fully comply with the parameters 
set by the Regulation. 
In its first report on the functioning of the local border traffic (LBT) regime2, the Commission 
stated  that  ‘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.’ 

The Commission asked Member States for information on the application and effects of the 
local border traffic regime. This second report has been drawn up on the basis of the answers 
provided by eighteen Member States. Six Member States (NL, IT, CZ, EL, CY and BG) did 
not reply. However, Member States which do not have external land borders, or which do not 
intend  concluding  LBT  agreements,  made  no  general  comments  on  the  implementation  and 
functioning of the LBT regime.  

2. 

CONSULTATIONS BASED ON ARTICLE 13 LBT REGULATION 

This section provides an update on the state of play regarding bilateral agreements since the 
first report in July 2009. 

2.1. 

Agreements in force 

Since  the  Regulation  was  adopted,  four  LBT  agreements  have  entered  into  force:  Hungary-
Ukraine in January 2008, Slovakia-Ukraine in September 2008, Poland-Ukraine in July 2009 
and  Romania-Moldova  in  October  2010.  Only  the  Romania-Moldova  agreement  fully 
complies with the LBT Regulation. The other agreements either have a border area that goes 
beyond  what  is  allowed  by  the  Regulation  (HU-UA;  SK-UA,  albeit  in  a  limited  area),  or 
require travel medical insurance contrary to the Regulation (PL-UA). 

In addition, Slovenia and Croatia have a bilateral agreement on border traffic cooperation that 
dates from 2001 and that is incompatible with the Regulation in several important respects3. 
The Commission has repeatedly asked Slovenia to amend the agreement in order to bring it 

1 
2 
3 

Regulation No 1931/2006 of 20 December 2006; OJ L 29, 3.2.2007, p.3. 
COM (2009) 383 final of 24 July 2009. 
For details, see first LBT report, COM (2009) 383, p. 6-7. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
into line with the Regulation. However, the Commission has not been informed of any such 
amendment, nor has it received a timeframe for any planned amendment. 

The LBT agreement between Austria and Liechtenstein will lapse, as Liechtenstein is about to 
join the Schengen area. 

2.2. 

Agreements that will soon enter into force 

•  Poland-Belarus 

The  Commission  was  consulted  on  a  draft  agreement  and  indicated  that  the  travel  medical 
insurance required for border crossings was not compatible with the Regulation. No map of 
the  Belarusian  border  area  was  provided,  so  it  was  impossible  to  assess  whether  that  area 
complies with the Regulation. The draft agreement has not been amended. Poland and Belarus 
signed  the agreement  on  12  February 2010. The ratification procedures are ongoing in  both 
countries. The agreement is expected to enter into force in early 2011. 

•  Latvia-Belarus 

In  August  2009,  a  draft  agreement  between  Latvia  and  Belarus  was  transmitted  for 
consultation.  The  Commission  noted  two  incompatibilities  with  the  Regulation:  the 
requirement to possess travel medical insurance as well as the lack of an obligatory condition 
to prove residence in the border area and legitimate reasons for frequent border crossing. In 
December  2010,  Latvia  informed  the  Commission  that  the  agreement  was  signed  on  23 
August 2010 and that Latvia had ratified in October 2010. The draft agreement has not been 
amended. 

•  Lithuania-Belarus 

The Commission was consulted on a draft agreement and considered that it complied with the 
Regulation.  Lithuania  and  Belarus  signed  the  LBT  agreement  on  20  October  2010. 
Ratification procedures are ongoing. The agreement is expected to enter into force in 2011.  

•  Norway-Russian Federation 

The Commission was consulted on a draft agreement and assessed it as complying with the 
Regulation. Norway and the Russian Federation signed the LBT agreement on 2 November 
2010.  Ratification  procedures  are  ongoing.  The  agreement  is  expected  to  enter  into  force  in 
2011. 

2.3. 

Other consultations  

The Commission had been consulted on the draft agreements between Latvia and the Russian 
Federation,  between  Lithuania  and  the  Russian  Federation  and  between  Romania  and 
Ukraine. These agreements were found compatible with the Regulation, but they have not yet 
been signed. 

In  October  2008  the  Commission  commented  on  draft  agreements  between  Bulgaria  and 
Serbia and between Bulgaria and FYROM, but since then it has not been further consulted on 
these drafts. 

3. 

FUNCTIONING OF THE LBT REGIME IN PRACTICE 

3.1. 

Facilitation measures used by Member States in bilateral agreements 

In its first report the Commission found that the LBT agreements lay down stricter conditions 
than  those  that  would  be  allowed  by  the  LBT  Regulation.  It  also  found  that  none  of  the 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
agreements in force or signed use the full range of facilitation measures. Nothing has changed 
since then to alter this assessment. 

In particular, restrictions are foreseen regarding how long a person can stay in the EU. Where 
the  Regulation  allows  a  person  to  stay  in  a  Member  State  for  up  to  three  months  within  a 
given period, certain (draft) agreements reduce the maximum stay to 15 days within a given 
period,  or  to  90  days  within  180  days.  Three  agreements  require  the  person  to  have  been 
resident  in  the  border  area  for  three  years;  the  others  require  only  a  one-year  period  of 
residence, in accordance with the Regulation. Lastly, the LBT permits are not issued free of 
charge, as the Regulation allows, but subject to a fee of between 20 and 35 Euros. 

3.2. 

Use made of the bilateral agreements by border residents 

In  order  to  have  an  overview  of  how  citizens  use  the  local  border  traffic  agreements,  the 
Commission asked Member States to send it information on the numbers of permits issued in 
relation  to  the  total  eligible  population,  the  number  of  applications  refused  and  why,  the 
length of the stay and the number of abuses/withdrawals. 

3.2.1.  Number of permits issued 

Number of permits  Period4 

Total 
population 

eligible 

issued 
to 

Permits 
compared 
eligible 
population 

Hungary 

58 055  

1/2008- 5/2010   400 000 
450 000 

– 

approx. 13 % 

Poland 

31 652  

7/2009– 3/2010  1.2 million  

approx. 2.7 % 

Slovakia 

1 106  

9/2008 -6/2010   415 000  

approx 0.3 % 

Romania 

20.308 

10/2010-
12/2010 

1,2 million 

approx. 2 % 

Slovenia 

15 623 valid border 
passes currently 

250 000  

approx. 6.2 % 

There  is  a  high  uptake  by  people  living  in  areas  bordering  Romania,  because  of  strong  ties 
between  Romania  and  Moldova,  and  Hungary,  because  most  of  these  people  belong  to  the 
Hungarian ethnic minority and have strong ties to Hungary. People living near the borders of 
Slovenia  and  Poland  make  less  use  of  LBT  permits,  and  people  living  near  the  Slovakian 
border use them least of all. 

3.2.2.  Applications refused 

Hungary refused 838 applications from December 2007 to May 2010, solely on the basis of 
SIS alerts or bans on entering and staying in the country. Poland rejected 272 applications in 
the period July 2009 to March 2010, mainly on the basis of SIS alerts, but also because the 
person's current permit was still valid. Slovakia refused 169 applications in the period from 
September  2008  to  June  2010,  mainly  because  applicants  did  not  give  any  well-founded 
economic  reason  for  frequent  border  crossings,  as  required  by  the  agreement.  Romania 
refused 972 applications from October to December 2010, mainly because applicants did not 

4 

Time periods differ due to different entry into force of the agreements. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
give  any  well-founded  reason  for  frequent  border  crossings  or  were  considered  to  present 
risks related to irregular immigration. 

The percentage of applications refused thus ranges from 13 % (SK), to 4,7 % (RO) to 1.4 % 
(HU)  and  0.85 %  (PL).  It  can  thus  be  considered  as  relatively  high  in  Slovakia,  low  in 
Romania and very low in the other two Member States. The main reasons for refusal are SIS 
alerts or that applicants are unable to provide legitimate reasons for frequent border crossing. 

Slovenia informed the Commission that it does not make formal refusals: instead, applicants 
withdraw their application if they are informed that they do not meet the necessary conditions. 

3.2.3.  Duration of stay and number of crossings 

The LBT Regulation allows for a maximum of three months of uninterrupted stay. Since this 
was a subject of discussion during the negotiations in 2006, the Commission was interested in 
receiving information on how long LBT permit holders stayed in each country. Since the LBT 
Regulation also exempts permit holders from having their passports stamped, it was obviously 
impossible to collect this information by comparing entry and exit stamps. 

In  order  to  verify  that  LBT  holders  comply  with  the  three-month  rule,  Hungary,  Poland, 
Slovakia  and  Romania  use  their  national  entry-and-exit  systems,  which  allow  the  length  of 
stay to be calculated. These Member States were therefore able to provide useful information 
on the number of crossings and the average length of stay.  

Hungary does not have details regarding the number of crossings, but noted that the permits 
are used daily or every second day in practice, with an average stay of one day. During the 
period  July  2009  to  February  2010,  there  were  approximately  1  550  000  crossings  with  an 
LBT permit. In terms of the aggregate duration of stay within a period of six months from the 
first entry, permit holders almost always stay for the maximum period of three months. 

Poland  registered  883  696  LBT  crossings  during  the  period  July  2009  to  April  2010,  with 
numbers tending to rise. The average number of visits to Poland per LBT permit is 20.4 and 
the average stay is around six hours. 

Slovakia reported that LBT permits holders usually stay one or two days. 

Romania did not send information on duration of stay and numbers of crossings in practice.  

Slovenia  has  no  exact  information  on  the  frequency  of  LBT  crossings.  Holders  of  LBT 
permits are allowed to stay for up to seven consecutive days in the designated border area, but 
most of them return on the same or the following day. 

From  the  above  information,  it  is  clear  that  LBT  holders  cross  the  respective  borders  very 
regularly to stay for just a few hours or one or two days at a time. The LBT regime, where 
applied,  thus  fulfils  its  purpose  of  allowing  interchange  and  cooperation  across  the  borders 
and genuinely makes life easier for people living in the border areas. 

3.2.4.  Cases of abuse and withdrawals of permits 

Hungary  has  fined  16  Ukrainian  nationals  for  overstaying  during  the  period  January-April 
2010, and has refused entry in 1231 cases because the persons concerned had already stayed 
for three months within a six-month period. Two permits were withdrawn in 2009 and four in 
the first five months of 2010. In addition, 18 permits were deemed invalid, since the holders 
had been banned from entering and staying in Hungary after the permits were issued. 

Poland has detected 15 cases of abuse in the period July 2009 to April.2010. They involved 
nine  persons  staying  outside  the  LBT  area,  five  persons  who  stayed  after  expiry  of  the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
permitted period and one case of illegal involvement in economic activities in Poland. These 
cases  of  abuse  resulted  in  decisions  ordering  the  persons  concerned  to  leave  Poland  and 
revoking  their  LBT  permits.  From  July  2009  to  March  2010,  39  decisions  were  taken  to 
withdraw  LBT  permits,  representing  1 %  of  the  total  number  of  permits  issued  during  that 
period. 

Slovakia  detected  one  case  of  abuse  during  the  period  September  2008  to  June  2010.  It 
resulted  in  the  person  concerned  being  expelled.  During  the  same  period,  11  permits  were 
withdrawn. 

Slovenia  detected  11  cases  of  LBT  abuse  in  2009,  which  involved  smuggling,  illegal 
immigration  and  stays  outside  the  designated  border  area.  Sanctions  are  based  on  national 
legislation and include temporary seizure of the permit. 

Austria  reported  one  detected  case  of  abuse  of  an  LBT  permit  issued  by  Slovakia  to  a 
Ukrainian  national.  In  addition,  Austrian  officers  participating  in  joint  operations  have 
detected several cases of abuse (overstaying) by Ukrainian nationals with LBT permits issued 
by Hungary. Other Member States5 have not detected any cases of abuse. 

Slovakia also reports that Ukrainian nationals were detected with LBT permits from several 
Member  States,  which  are  being  used  to  cross  certain  internal  borders  (HU-SK,  PL-SK). 
Slovakia took measures to penalise such conduct. The Commission takes the view that such 
internal crossings do not contravene the LBT regime, as long as the persons concerned stay 
within the respective border areas. 

Romania  has  detected  27  cases  of  abuse  between  October  and  December  2010.  22  permits 
were withdrawn and five return decisions issued. 

The  Commission  concludes  from  the  above  figures  that  relatively  few  abuses  occur  in  the 
practical implementation of the LBT agreements. In particular, there is no evidence that LBT 
holders would systematically travel to other Member States in violation of the rules. 

4. 

SPECIFIC ISSUES IN FOLLOWING UP THE PREVIOUS REPORT 

4.1. 

Definition of the border zone 

4.1.1.  General 
Poland6  has  called  for  a  change  in  the  way  the  Regulation  defines  the  border  area7.  Poland 
considers  that  the  current  definition  leads  to  the  division  of  integrated  areas  and  excludes 
political and economic centres. 

Defining the eligible border area was one of the most difficult points during the discussion of 
the  draft  Local  Border  Traffic  Regulation  in  2006.  While  cross-border  movements  should 
indeed  be  facilitated,  the  security  requirements  of  the  entire  Schengen  area  also  had  to  be 
considered,  as  the  LBT  regime  is  an  exemption  from  the  general  rules  for  external  border 
crossings. 

5 
6 

7 

BE, CH, DE, EE, ES, FR, LT, LV, MT, NO, PT and SE. 
Most recently through a letter of Minister for Foreign Affairs Sikorski and Minister of Internal Affairs 
and Administration Miller sent to Member States and the Commission in September 2010. 
Article  3  point  2  of  the  regulation  reads:  ‘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;’. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission indicated that it was willing to discuss whether the definition of the border 
area was flexible enough. However, no such discussion arose and no Member State other than 
Poland requested changes to the definition of the border zone in reply to the questionnaire for 
this  report.  Indeed,  one  Member  State  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  definition  should  not  be 
amended  and  that  the  Commission  should  be  vigilant  in  checking  that  bilateral  agreements 
comply with the Regulation, especially as regards the designation of the border area.  

The Commission therefore concludes that the current definition of the border area (as a 30-km 
zone which may exceptionally extend to up to 50 km) remains a fair compromise. 

4.1.2.  The Kaliningrad region 

The  Kaliningrad  region  of  the  Russian  Federation  became  an  enclave  within  the  EU  as  a 
consequence  of  the  EU  enlargement  in  2004.  It  has  a  population  of  almost  one  million 
inhabitants, of whom about 430 000 live in the capital, Kaliningrad. 
In recent months, Poland8 (not only unilaterally but also jointly with the Russian Federation9) 
has  called  for  amendments  to  the  local  border  traffic  Regulation  ‘tailored  to  the  specific 
situation of the Kaliningrad region’. 

Poland holds that strict compliance with the Regulation would divide the Kaliningrad district 
into  three  areas  –  one  covered  by  a  local  border  traffic  agreement  with  Poland,  one  by  an 
agreement  with  Lithuania and  one without any agreement at all as it lies outside the border 
area. Poland thus calls for the Regulation to be amended to allow the inclusion of the entire 
Kaliningrad district. 

The  Commission  reminds  Member  States  that  the  EU  has,  over  the  past  few  years,  taken  a 
number  of  concrete  initiatives  that  demonstrate  its  willingness  to  facilitate  movement  for 
Kaliningrad  residents.  Such  initiatives  include  the  Facilitated  Transit  Document  (FTD)  and 
Facilitated  Rail  Transit  Document  (FRTD)10,  which  have  simplified  travel  between 
Kaliningrad  and  mainland  Russia,  and  the  2007  EU-Russia  Visa  Facilitation  Agreement11 
which  facilitates  the  issuance  of  short-term  visas  for  all  Russian  nationals  travelling  to 
Schengen  countries.  The  Commission  has  recommended  renegotiating  the  Visa  Facilitation 
Agreement,  to  improve  the  way  it  operates  and  to  introduce  further  facilitations  for  all 
citizens, including residents of Kaliningrad.  

However, given the specific position of Kaliningrad, the Commission considers that it may be 
justifiable to amend the LBT Regulation so that the entire Kaliningrad district can be treated 
as  a  border  area.  This  would  prevent  an  artificial  division  of  that  region  whereby  some 
inhabitants  would  not  enjoy  facilitations  for  local  border  traffic.  It  would  also  allow  for 
enhanced  regional  cooperation.  The  Commission  is  thus  open  to  discussing  such  an 
amendment with Member States and the European Parliament. 

In the meantime, the Commission encourages Poland and the Russian Federation as well as 
Lithuania and the Russian Federation to conclude bilateral agreements under the terms of the 
current  Regulation,  which  would  immediately  facilitate  movement  for  residents  of 

8 

9 

10 
11 

Letter  of  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  Sikorski  and  Minister  of  Internal  Affairs  and  Administration 
Miller sent to Member States and the Commission in September 2010. 
Declaration by Polish and Russian Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Sikorski and Lavrov ‘on functioning 
of the rules of the Local Border Traffic regarding the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation and 
the adjacent territories of the Republic of Poland’ of 6 April 2010. 
Regulation No 693/2003 of 14 April 2003, OJ L 99, 17.4.2003, p. 8. 
OJ L 129, 17.5.2007, p 27. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Kaliningrad. It strongly advises against concluding agreements that do not respect the terms 
of the Regulation.  

4.2. 

Travel medical insurance 

Since  2008  Poland  has  also  been  asking  for  an  amendment  that  would  require  LBT  permit 
holders to have travel medical insurance. Indeed, all agreements which Poland has negotiated 
already  include  such  a  requirement.  The  concern  is  that,  in  the  absence  of  such  insurance, 
LBT permit holders would cross the border only to use emergency medical care. 

The  Commission  stated  in  its  first  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  that 
requiring  travel  medical  insurance  in  the  bilateral  agreement  would  conflict  with  the  LBT 
Regulation. Neither Article 4 nor Article 9 mentions the possibility of requiring travel medical 
insurance. The aim of these articles is to facilitate travel by simplifying the entry conditions 
and the conditions for issuing the local border traffic permit. They exclude, in particular, the 
need  to  provide  proof  of  means  of  subsistence.  Moreover,  the  Visa  Code  obliges  visa 
applicants  to  have  travel  medical  insurance,  but  local  border  traffic  permit  holders  are 
expressly exempted from the visa obligation. Finally, Member States whose LBT agreements 
(in conformity with the Regulation) do not require travel medical insurance have reported no 
cases of LBT permit holders without medical insurance using emergency health care during a 
stay on their territory. 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  Commission  maintains  its  opinion  that  other  solutions  should  be 
considered, such as concluding a bilateral agreement between the Member States and the third 
country concerned on reimbursing any medical costs incurred. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The Local Border Traffic regime has been in existence for four years, and there are still only 
four  LBT  agreements  in  force  that  were  negotiated  under  the  Regulation.  However,  three 
more  agreements  –  between  Poland  and  Belarus,  Lithuania  and  Belarus  and  Norway  and 
Russia  –  are  expected  to  enter  into  force  over  the  next  few  months.  This  shows  that  the 
countries  concerned  consider  the  regime  useful  for  increasing  cross-border  trade,  social  and 
cultural interchange and regional cooperation. 

From  the  relatively  limited  information  available,  the  Commission  concludes  that  the  LBT 
regime  is  working  well  in  practice,  since  it  makes  life  significantly  easier  for  people  living 
near the external land borders and there is little evidence that the regime is being abused. 

The Commission therefore believes that the LBT Regulation strikes the right balance between 
facilitations  and  the  security  concerns  of  the  Schengen  area  as  a  whole.  Consequently,  the 
Commission is not considering amending the LBT Regulation either in order to redefine the 
border  area  or  to  require  travel  medical  insurance.  The  Commission  therefore  requests 
Member States with agreements that do not conform to the Regulation to amend these, in line 
with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  13  of  the  Regulation.  If  these  agreements  are  not 
amended,  the  Commission  will  be  obliged  to  make  use  of  its  powers  under  the  Treaty  to 
ensure consistent and correct implementation of EU law. 

In  the  specific  case  of  Kaliningrad,  the  Commission  is  in  favour  of  amending  the  Local 
Border  Regulation  so  that  it  covers  the  entire  Kaliningrad  district,  subject  to  a  favourable 
outcome of the discussion between Member States and the European Parliament. 

EN 

8 

   EN