COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Schengen governance - strengthening the area without internal border control
Date: 2011-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU police cooperation, Frontex, Schengen Information System, border control, derogation from EU law, external border of the EU, internal border of the EU, rule under emergency powers

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.9.2011 
COM(2011) 561 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Schengen governance - strengthening the area without internal border control 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

1.1. 

An area without internal border control 

Free movement is a defining principle of the European Union and the ability to move within 
the European Union (EU) without facing border checks at internal borders is one of its most 
successful achievements. Many people use this freedom, making more than a billon journeys 
within the EU every year, and public opinion consistently ranks freedom to travel as among 
the most important benefits brought about by the Union1. Moreover, an area without internal 
border controls is central to the success of the single market, including the free movement of 
workers, goods and services, and Europe’s continued efforts to boost economic growth.  

The Schengen area is based on a body of rules (the Schengen acquis) which encompasses not 
only  the  abolition  of  border  control  at  internal  borders  and  common  rules  on  the  control  of 
external  borders  but  also  a  common  visa  policy,  police  and  judicial  cooperation,  common 
rules on the return of irregular migrants and the establishment of common data-bases such as 
the Schengen Information System (SIS). 

The  fundamentals  of  Schengen  cooperation  are  sound  but  recent  developments  have 
highlighted the need to ensure that the Schengen area can cope effectively with strains which 
may  be  placed  on  it  by  weaknesses  at  its  external  borders  or  by  external  factors  beyond  its 
control.  The  Union  response  must  address  these  diverse  challenges  while  safeguarding  the 
citizen’s right to free movement.  

Accordingly, in its May Communication on Migration2, the Commission pointed to the need 
for a coordinated Union-level response to such situations and indicated that it might propose 
an  appropriate  mechanism  as  well  as  other  means  to  ensure  a  coherent  implementation  and 
interpretation of the Schengen rules. 

In  like  manner,  the  European  Council  of  23-24  June  20113  called  for  a  mechanism  to  be 
'introduced in order to respond to exceptional circumstances putting the overall functioning of 
Schengen cooperation at risk, without jeopardising the principle of free movement of persons.' 
The Commission was invited to submit a proposal to this end in September 2011. 

This Communication and the accompanying legislative proposals4 respond to that request as 
well as to the call from the Justice and Home Affairs Council in June for enhanced political 
guidance  on  Schengen  cooperation5  and  to  the  European  Parliament’s  resolution  in  July6 
which required that any new mechanism should focus on enhancing the freedom of movement 
and reinforcing EU governance of the Schengen area. 

EU citizens expect to be able to enjoy the right of freedom of movement and to travel freely 
in a safe, border-free Europe. Criminal, terrorist or other threats should not be allowed to put 
this  in  jeopardy.  At  the  same  time,  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  must  be  able  to  react 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Eurobarometer, 'Public Opinion in the European Union – Spring 2011', pp. 31-32. 
COM (2011) 248 of 4.5.2011 
EUCO 23/11 of 24.06.2011 
COM(2011)559 and COM(2011)560 
11476/11 [ASIM 64 COMIX 395] 
P7_TA(2011)0336  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
rapidly  and  effectively  to  serious  threats  to  public  policy  and  internal  security.  With  this 
comprehensive  package  of  inter-linked  measures,  the  Commission  seeks  to  establish  a 
coordinated, EU-based response which ensures that the fundamental principles of Union law 
and  in  particular  the  right  of  free  movement  are  safeguarded,  and  which  would  allow  all 
European interests to be taken into account in securing the Schengen area, while setting limits 
to  unilateral  national  initiatives  which,  in  isolation,  can  never  be  an  effective  response  to 
common  threats.  Ensuring  that  the  exceptional  and  temporary  reintroduction  of  border 
controls at internal borders is decided upon in accordance with the Community method, and 
taking  into  account  the  Commission's  general  accountability  towards  the  European 
Parliament, is an essential and indispensable element of this package of measures. 

2. 

STRENGTHENING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHENGEN AREA 

The free movement of citizens within the area without internal border controls is based on a 
system  which  relies  on  mutual  trust  that  each  participating  State  will  be  ready  and  able  to 
implement the various legislative instruments comprising the Schengen acquis.  

The  European  Union  has  already  put  in  place  tools  to  support  Member  States  to  help  them 
meet their obligations and to react to critical circumstances which might put Schengen at risk 
For  example,  Member  States  can  seek  financial  and  practical  support  from  the  Commission 
via the EU Funds. Frontex can organise joint operations or deploy Rapid Border Intervention 
Teams.  Member  States  can  also  address  other  Member  States,  Europol  or  the  European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO) for further assistance. More detail is given in Annex 1. 

In  addition,  as  stated  in  its  May  Communication  on  migration7,  the  Commission,  together 
with  the  Member  States,  will  continue  its  work  on  guidelines  to  ensure  a  coherent 
implementation of the Schengen rules. The process was launched with an expert meeting in 
July  2011.  The  experts  will  identify  shortcomings  and  areas  where  there  might  be  need  for 
further clarification on the Schengen acquis, for example on the issuing of travel documents 
and residence permits. 

These tools can not, however, of themselves alone ensure that the Schengen rules are applied 
in  a  consistent  manner  by  each  Member  State.  The  means  to  check  this  is  the  Schengen 
evaluation  mechanism,  used  to  monitor  the  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  and  issue 
recommendations  on  any  shortcomings.  The  current  mechanism,  relying  on  an  inter-
governmental  system  of  peer  review,  is  not  strong  enough  to  effectively  remedy  all 
weaknesses. That is why the Commission proposed a Union-led approach last year8.  

At the heart of this new approach is the possibility for announced or unannounced visits to a 
given Member State by Commission-led teams to take place, with experts from other Member 
States  and  Frontex,  to  verify  the  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis.  A  report  drawn  up 
following  each  visit  would  identify  any  shortcomings  with  clear  recommendations  for 
remedial  action  and  deadlines  for  implementing  them.  The  evaluated  Member  State  would 
then  have  to  establish  an  action  plan  setting  out  how  it  intends  to  address  these 
recommendations.  Union-level  checks  on  the  action  plan’s  implementation  could  include 
further visits.  

7 
8 

COM(2011)248 
COM (2010) 624 of 16.11.2010. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
These  changes  will  improve  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  system  but  they  do  not  address 
situations  where  these  steps,  even  combined  with  the  measures  described  in  Annex  1,  are 
insufficient  to  remedy  a  Member  State's  deficiencies  in  implementing  the  acquis  and,  in 
particular, in controlling its external borders.  

Therefore, where measures taken at the Union or national level do not improve the situation, it 
might be necessary to reintroduce border control at internal borders with the failing Member 
State, where the situation is such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal 
security at the Union or national level. Such an action would only be taken as a measure of 
last resort, and only to the extent and for the duration necessary to mitigate in a proportionate 
manner the adverse consequences of the exceptional circumstances. The inclusion of such an 
possibility in the Schengen governance system would also serve as a preventive measure, with 
deterrent effect. 

For that reason, the Commission is amending its 2010 proposal to address this situation.  

3. 

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY RESULT IN THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF 
INTERNAL BORDER CONTROLS AS A MEASURE OF LAST RESORT 

How the re-introduction of internal border controls works today 

Under  the  Schengen  Borders  Code9,  a  Member  State  may  temporarily  re-introduce  border 
controls at their internal borders in exceptional circumstances, where 'there is a serious threat 
to  public  policy  or  internal  security'.  If  the  threats  motivating  the  re-introduction  are 
foreseeable,  the  Member  State  in  question  must  notify  other  Member  States  and  the 
Commission 'as soon as possible' with all relevant information about the scope and duration of 
the re-introduction, and the reasons for doing so. The Commission may issue an opinion on 
the  notification,  which  may  result  in  consultations  between  Member  States  and  the 
Commission. In urgent cases, the re-introduction may be effected immediately.  

The  Commission  reported  in  October  201010  that  this  possibility  to  re-introduce  internal 
border  controls  had  been  used  22  times  since  the  Code's  entry  into  force  in  October  2006. 
Since  the  publication  of  the  report,  internal  border  controls  have  been  re-introduced  by 
Member States on a further four occasions, most recently by Norway and Sweden in response 
to  the  terrorist  incidents  in  Norway.  In  most  cases,  though,  the  re-introduction  of  border 
controls  has  been  used  to  enable  police  authorities  to  manage  the  security  implications  of 
major sporting events, political demonstrations, or high-profile political meetings. A unilateral 
re-introduction  of  border  controls  has  never  exceeded  30  days,  and  has  usually  been  for  a 
much shorter period. 

However, the information Member States are required to provide to other Member States and 
the Commission often does not arrive in sufficient time, or contain sufficient details, to enable 
the Commission to usefully issue an opinion concerning the notification. 

Need for a European Union-level mechanism  

9 
10 

OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p. 1. 
COM(2010)554 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Since the free movement of persons within the area without internal borders is a key Union 
achievement, the benefits of which are enjoyed by all the persons living in this area, it should 
as a general rule require a decision to be taken at the Union level, rather than for such decision 
to be taken unilaterally at the national level. 

A  coordinated,  EU-based  response  would  allow  all  European  interests  to  be  taken  into 
account.  Such  a  response  would  address  situations  where  a  Member  State  faces  a  serious 
short-term, largely localised, threat to public policy or internal security, as well as situations 
with wider and longer-term implications. In both instances, a coordinated European response 
is warranted, as it is inherent in any decision to reintroduce internal border controls – even for 
a limited period of time and within a limited geographic area – that the human and economic 
implications  will  be  felt  beyond  the  State  resorting  to  such  measures.  The  case  for  such  a 
coordinated  European  approach  is  all  the  more  compelling  where  a  section  of  the  external 
border  comes  under  unexpected  and  heavy  pressure,  or  where  a  Member  State  has  been 
persistently failing to control its section of the external border.  

Border control should only be reintroduced as a last resort in these circumstances, and only 
after other measures have been taken to stabilise the situation at the relevant external border 
section either at the European level, in a spirit of solidarity, and/or at national level, to ensure 
better compliance with the common rules. 

Proposed  reinforced  EU-based  approach  for  exceptional  re-introduction  of  internal  border 
controls 

A serious threat to public policy or to internal security will remain the only grounds for the 
reintroduction  of  internal  border  controls.  The  strict  criteria  for  the  exceptional  derogation 
from  the  area  without  internal  borders  are  not  being  loosened  and  will  be  applied  to  every 
scenario in which such a measure is contemplated. This will be the case for events like major 
sporting events or high level political meetings, but also for events requiring immediate action 
such as terrorist or other criminal attacks such as the recent atrocity in Norway. 

The adverse consequences of either a Member State's persistent failure to adequately protect a 
part  of  the  EU's  external  border,  or  of  a  sudden  and  unexpected  inflow  of  third-country 
nationals at a part of that border, could both, under certain circumstances, be characterised as 
constituting such a threat. Annex 2 summarises the main types of situation that may arise. 

The  main  rule  under  the  reinforced  EU-based  approach  would  be  that  any  decision  on  the 
reintroduction  of  internal  border  controls  would  be  taken  by  the  Commission  as  an 
implementing act involving the Member States accordingly. The European Parliament would 
be duly informed of such measures. The decision would determine the scope and duration of 
the reintroduction of controls,  and would be for renewable periods of up to 30 days, with a 
maximum  duration  of  six  months.  Exceptionally,  this  six  month  limit  would  not  apply  to 
situations where the reintroduction of internal border controls results from an adverse finding 
under the Schengen evaluation mechanism on account of a Member State's persistent failure 
to adequately protect its section of the external border. 

In urgent situations, however, Member States could still take unilateral action to reintroduce 
internal  border  controls,  but  only  for  a  limited  period  (five  days),  any  extension  of  which 
would need to be decided under the new EU procedure for implementing acts.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
When deciding on the temporary reintroduction of border control an assessment must be made 
of the necessity of resorting to such a measure in order to mitigate the threat to public policy 
or internal security at the Union or national level giving rise to the request or initiative for the 
reintroduction  of  border  control  at  internal  borders,  as  well  as  an  assessment  of  the 
proportionality of the measure to that threat. This assessment must be based on the detailed 
information  submitted  by  the  Member  State  or  States  concerned  or  any  other  relevant 
information. In making such an assessment, the following considerations must in particular be 
taken into account: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the likely impact of any threats to public policy or internal security at the Union or 
national level, including threats posed by organised crime or terrorist activities;  

the  availability  of  technical  or  financial  support  measures  which  could  be  or  have 
been resorted to at the national and/or European level, including assistance by Union 
bodies such as Frontex or Europol, and the extent to which such measures are likely 
to adequately remedy the threats to public policy or internal security at the Union or 
national level;  

the  current  and  likely  future  impact  of  any  serious  deficiencies  related  to  external 
border control or return procedures identified by Schengen evaluations in accordance 
with the Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism 
to verify the application of the Schengen acquis;  

the  likely  impact  of  such  a  measure  on  free  movement  within  the  area  without 
internal border controls. 

The reintroduction of internal border controls is clearly a measure of last resort which could 
only  be  contemplated  where  all  other  measures  have  proved  incapable  of  effectively 
mitigating the serious threat identified.  

It should be emphasised that, where internal border controls are introduced, the Member State 
concerned remains bound by its obligations to ensure the right of persons entitled to freedom 
of movement under the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and under Directive 
2004/38 on the right of  citizens  of  the  Union  and their family members  to  move and reside 
freely  within  the  territory  of  the  Member  States.  Even  in  the  event  of  the  temporary 
reintroduction of border control at internal borders, Union citizens and their family members 
can  thus  enter  the  territory  of  another  Member  State  on  the  simple  presentation  of  a  valid 
passport  or  ID  card.  All  procedural  safeguards  enjoyed  by  a  Union  citizen  and  their  family 
members  remain  in  place.  Third  country  nationals  legally  staying  within  the  Schengen  area 
will  also  be  able  to  continue  to  travel  on  the  basis  of  their  travel  document  and,  where 
necessary, their valid visa or residence permits. 

4. 

EU OVERSIGHT OF SCHENGEN GOVERNANCE 

As the area without internal border control represents one of the most valued freedoms of the 
European  Union  for  the  persons  living  or  travelling  in  this  area,  the  EU  institutions  should 
therefore safeguard this freedom without compromising the ability of Member States and the 
EU to deal effectively with serious threats to security or public policy. So it is important to 
maintain a constant dialogue between the main political stakeholders on the functioning of the 
Schengen  area  and  the  challenges  it  faces.  A  reinforced  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism, 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
combined with an EU-based mechanism for responding to exceptional threats, are legislative 
tools which will improve the effectiveness of the Schengen area as well as the transparency of 
its operation. 

Besides  these  legislative  instruments,  regular  reporting  to  the  European  Parliament  on  the 
outcome  of  the  different  monitoring  visits  in  the  context  of  the  operation  of  the  Schengen 
Evaluation  Mechanism,  and  immediate  information  provided  to  the  European  Parliament 
concerning  any  step  taken  that  might  lead  to  the  possible  re-introduction  of  border  control, 
will improve accountability and democratic control. In addition, the Commission will present 
a biannual overview to the European Union institutions on the functioning of Schengen. This 
will provide the basis for a regular debate in the European Parliament and in the Council and 
contribute to the strengthening of political guidance and cooperation in the Schengen area. 

The Commission will also explore ways to improve public awareness about the way in which 
Schengen operates including through ensuring that adequate information is provided when an 
exceptional decision is taken to temporarily reintroduce border controls. 

5. 

CONCLUSION  

The  Schengen  area  is  vital  for  everyone  living  in  Europe.  The  Commission  proposes  to 
strengthen  the  Schengen  acquis  by  means  of  a  governance  system  capable  of  responding 
effectively,  and  in  a  timely  and  coordinated  Union-wide  way,  to  exceptional  circumstances 
and  challenges  which  might  put  the  overall  functioning  of  Schengen  at  stake.  The 
Commission also proposes to initiate a more regular and structured political dialogue between 
the European Institutions on the functioning of the Schengen area. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Annex 1 

EU MEASURES TO ASSIST MEMBER STATES IN MANAGING THEIR EXTERNAL BORDERS 

A Member State can call on practical and financial support to address a critical situation or a 
deficiency at its external borders from the following sources: 

Frontex assistance 

Frontex is the EU agency whose dedicated mission is to support Member States in controlling 
their external borders. The additional material means available to Frontex following the recent 
revision  of  its  governing  Regulation,  as  well  as  the  extension  of  its  mandate  which  this 
revision has brought about, will serve to enhance Frontex's capability to assist Member States 
facing particular challenges in the management of their external borders or in coping with the 
consequences of a large influx of migrants within a short space of time. 

The  practical  assistance  includes  Joint  Operations  aimed,  for  example,  at  patrolling  the 
external borders for the common interests of all Member States. An example is the ongoing 
'Hermes' joint maritime operation in the southern Mediterranean, launched in February 2011 
in  the  framework  of  the  European  Patrols  Network,  the  primary  objective  of  which  is  to 
control  immigration  flows  from  North  Africa  to  Italy  and  Malta.  The  ongoing  'Poseidon' 
operation  along  the  Greek-Turkish  land  and  sea  borders  is  another  example  of  such  a  joint 
operation.  

Assistance  from  Frontex  may  also  take  the  form  of  the  deployment  of  Rapid  Border 
Intervention  Teams  (RABITs),  following  a  request  by  a  Member  State.  Such  teams  were 
deployed  along  the  Greek-Turkish  land  border  from  November  2010  until  March  2011. 
RABITs consist of border guards from a number of EU Member Sates under the operational 
command  of  the  host  Member  State.  Following  the  revision  of  the  Frontex  Regulation,  the 
possibilities for assistance by Frontex have been rationalised and enhanced via the possibility 
to request deployment of European Border Guard Teams (EBGTs).  

Frontex  may  also  provide  capacity-building  assistance  to  a  Member  State  to  enable  it  to 
reinforce its technical and human resource capabilities to manage its borders or to meet other 
aspects of its obligations under the Schengen acquis, for example with regard to the return of 
irregular migrants. For example, Frontex has provided such assistance to Greece to develop its 
capacity to manage the return of irregular migrants. 

EU Funding 

Financial solidarity between the Member States of the European Union in the area of border 
management is granted through the European Border Fund (EBF). Funding which may have a 
direct or indirect impact in assisting Member States to cope with the influx of migrants is also 
available under the other migration-related EU funds, notably the Return Fund, the European 
Refugee Fund and the European Integration Fund. Funds are available as part of the annual 
disbursements  for  activities  organised  at  the  national  level  (using  national  allocations)  or 
across  a  number  of  Member  States  ('Community  actions'),  or  in  the  form  of  emergency 
disbursements,  and  are  managed  by  the  Commission.  Italy  has,  for  example,  been  granted 
emergency funding under the EBF (and the ERF) in 2011, which is helping it to cope, at least 
partially,  with  the  consequences  of  the  large  inflow  of  North  African  migrants  it  has  been 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
faced  with  this  year.  Over  the  past  few  years,  Greece,  Malta,  Spain  and  Italy  have  also 
received support via "specific actions" of the EBF to address weaknesses at border points. 

In  the  Communication  "A  dialogue  for  migration,  mobility  and  security  with  the  southern 
Mediterranean countries", the Commission took the view that sound border management will 
be  possible  only  if  adequate  EU  financial  resources  are  mobilised.  Moreover,  the 
Commission,  in  the  Communication  "A  budget  for  Europe  2020"  has  proposed  a  very 
significant  increase  in  funding  dedicated  to  home  affairs  policies,  amounting  to  a  total  of 
some 8.2 billion Euros for the 2014-2020 period, in order to ensure that migration issues are 
tackled appropriately and in a timely manner. 

Other support measures 

Depending  on  the  circumstances  being  faced  by  the  Member  State  in  question,  and  in 
particular if a large number of asylum seekers have arrived in that State, it may be useful to 
seek assistance from the EASO, perhaps in the form of Asylum Support Teams who could, for 
example,  provide  technical  advice  concerning  the  reception  or  processing  of  claimants. 
Greece  has  received  this  kind  of  capacity-building  assistance  from  the  EASO  in  recent 
months, with a view to strengthening the main aspects of its asylum system. 

Likewise, if the challenges faced by the Member State in question have a criminal dimension, 
it may be appropriate to seek assistance from Europol. If, for example, criminal networks are 
involved in smuggling or trafficking migrants, Europol may be able to assist in devising and 
implementing  effective  measures  against  such  networks.  Europol  has  been  assisting  Italy  in 
recent  months  by  providing  risk  assessment  concerning  the  extent  to  which  the  volatile 
political  situation  in  the  region  might  be  exploited  by  criminal  or  terrorist  networks.  It  has 
also been providing assistance to Italy on the ground on Lampedusa, ensuring real-time access 
to criminal data-bases and assisting in the gathering of information.  

In certain circumstances, one or more Member States may be in a position to provide ad hoc 
assistance  to  a  Member  State  in  difficulty,  particularly  if  the  assisting  Member  State  is 
directly  affected  by  the  crisis  situation  in  the  other  State,  perhaps  because  they  are  a 
neighbouring  State,  or  if  they  possess  some  particular  capability  or  expertise  that  might  be 
useful to the Member State in difficulty.  

Cooperation with third countries 

The EU and its Agencies are in a position to take a variety of steps to cooperate and enter into 
dialogue with third countries of origin or transit, with a view to assisting in reinforcing border 
control and stemming the flow of irregular migration to the Union. Such assistance may, for 
example, take the form of financial or material assistance to the third country in question, for 
example, to assist that country in coping with a humanitarian crisis. Likewise, the assistance 
to  Member  States  by  intervening  with  third  countries  could  take  the  form  of  discussions 
regarding  readmission  of  irregular  migrants  originating  from  that  third  country,  or  it  could 
consist  in  the  provision  of  technical  migration-management-related  assistance  or  the 
implementation of a Regional Protection Programme. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Annex 2 

MAIN  KINDS  OF  EXCEPTIONAL  SITUATIONS  IN  WHICH  TEMPORARY  RE-INTRODUCTION  OF 
INTERNAL BORDER CONTROLS MIGHT BE CONTEMPLATED 

In order to illustrate how the new regime for the temporary and exceptional reintroduction of 
internal  border  controls  would  operate  in  practice,  what  follows  is  a  non-exhaustive 
description  of  the  main  kinds  of  situations  in  which  such  measures  might  be  considered,  as 
well as an indication of the procedural steps that would be resorted to in such a case. 

Foreseeable events with a largely localised short-term impact 

Where  the  event  giving  rise  to  a  need  to  reintroduce  internal  border  controls  is  foreseeable, 
the Member State would notify the Commission and other Member States at least six weeks in 
advance with all relevant information relating to the reasons for doing so, and regarding the 
planned scope and duration. If the event in question is only foreseeable less than six weeks 
before  the  re-introduction  measure  needs  to  be  taken,  then  it  should  be  notified  as  soon  as 
possible. This would be followed by a Commission decision as an implementing act, taken via 
the examination procedure in which the necessity and proportionality of the planned measures 
would be assessed (Article 5 of the Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  laying  down  the  rules  and  general  principles  concerning 
mechanisms  for  control  by  Member  States  of  the  Commission's  exercise  of  implementing 
powers11). 

Experience shows that this type of scenario corresponds to the situations most likely to give 
rise to decisions on the reintroduction of internal border controls, for example in relation to 
major sporting events, political demonstrations, high-profile political meetings and so forth. 

Urgent unforeseen, short-term events 

Some events giving rise to a need to take drastic short-term measures to safeguard security or 
other critical public interests, including the possible reintroduction of internal border controls 
for a limited period, are by their nature unforeseeable. This could be the case, for example, in 
the event of terrorist attacks or other major criminal incidents, where there is a need to take all 
possible measures to ensure the prompt apprehension of the perpetrators. 

In such circumstances, Member States may immediately reintroduce internal border controls 
for a period of up to five days. If they wish to prolong it beyond this period, they must notify 
the  Commission  and  Member  States  accordingly.  Such  an  extension  can  be  decided  upon 
promptly via a special urgency procedure as laid down in Article 8 of the above mentioned 
Regulation No 182/2011. 

A persistent deficiency to manage a section of the Union's external border 

In  certain  circumstances,  it  may  be  necessary,  as  a  last  resort  after  having  exhausted  other 
measures,  to  mitigate  the  adverse  impact  of  the  failure  by  a  Member  State  to  control  its 
section of the external borders by resorting to the temporary reintroduction of some internal 
border controls. 

The deficiencies in border management would be identified in the report prepared as part of 
the  evaluation  mechanism  which  would  include  recommendations  on  how  to  address  the 
deficiencies. The Member State concerned would be required to draw up an action plan aimed 

11 

OJ L 55 of 28.2.2011, p. 13. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
at  fulfilling  these  recommendations,  and  its  implementation  would  be  monitored  by  the 
Commission.  The  Commission  could  request  the  Member  State  concerned  to  take  certain 
specific  measures  such  as  requesting  support  from  Frontex  or  closing  a  specific  border 
crossing point for a period of time with a view to rectifying certain weaknesses. However, if 
these  measures  are  proving  ineffective  in  addressing  the  deficiencies,  and  insofar  as  the 
deficiencies constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or 
national  level,  the  Commission  could  decide  on  the  temporary  reintroduction  of  internal 
border controls. Before taking such a serious step, the Commission would take full account of 
the necessity and proportionality of doing so, including an assessment of its likely impact on 
the free movement of persons within the Schengen area. 

Events with a potentially wide impact in the short or longer-term  

Situations  might  arise  where  a  large  number  of  third  country  nationals  cross  the  external 
border  of  one  or  more  Member  States.  This  might  result  in  unexpected  and  significant 
secondary movements of third country nationals found to be staying irregularly in the territory 
of other Member States. In such a situation, and insofar as the circumstances would be such as 
to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national 
level, the temporary reintroduction of some internal border controls might be considered as a 
last  resort.  A  Member  State  wishing  to  reintroduce  internal  border  controls  in  such 
circumstances  could  make  a  request  to  the  Commission  in  the  manner  described  above  for 
foreseeable  events.  The  Commission,  before  taking  such  a  decision  would  need  to  consult 
Member States and stakeholders concerned and to be convinced that this would be the only 
measure likely to be effective, having considered all other measures including those described 
in Annex 1.  

The  crossing  of  the  external  border  of  a  large  number  of  third-country  nationals  might,  in 
certain  circumstances,  justify  the  immediate  reintroduction  of  some  internal  border  controls 
for a period of time, in order to ensure that the necessary measures can promptly be taken to 
safeguard  public  policy  and  internal  security  at  the  Union  or  national  level.  In  such 
circumstances, a Member State could reintroduce internal border controls for a period of up to 
five  days  in  the  manner  described  above  for  unforeseen  events.  If  it  wishes  to  prolong  the 
reintroduction  beyond  this  period,  it  must  notify  the  Commission  and  Member  States 
accordingly,  and  an  extension  can  be  granted  at  the  Union  level  via  the  special  urgency 
procedure laid down in Article 8 of Regulation No 182/2011. 

The  re-introduction  of  some  targeted  controls  on  selected  internal  borders  could  ensure  that 
third  country  nationals  found  to  be  staying  irregularly  are  apprehended  and  returned, 
preferably  voluntarily,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  Directive  2008/115  (the  Return 
Directive),  either  directly  to  their  country-of-origin,  or  to  the  Member  State  through  which 
they  have  transited  if  this  is  possible  because  of  the  existence  of  a  bilateral  agreement 
providing  for  the  possibility  of  such  returns.  It  could  also  allow  the  activities  of  criminal 
networks  to  be  disrupted,  especially  if  large  numbers  of  the  migrants  in  question  are 
considered likely to be the subject or victims of organised smuggling or trafficking within the 
Union, or to be involved themselves in criminal activity. 

EN 

11 

   EN