COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions
Date: 2017-09-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: EFTA countries, EU Member State, EU programme, EU regional policy, European integration, cross-border cooperation, frontier region, internal border of the EU, regional development, regional disparity

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.9.2017  SWD(2017) 307 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions {COM(2017) 534 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4 

1.1  Key concepts .................................................................................................................... 5 

1.1.1  Border region .......................................................................................................................... 5 

1.1.2  Categorising of legal and administrative difficulties limiting interaction along EU land 
borders .................................................................................................................................................. 7 

1.2 

Taking stock: The Cross-Border Review 2015-2017 ...................................................... 8 

1.2.1 

Inventory and case studies ..................................................................................................... 9 

1.2.2  Public consultation ................................................................................................................ 10 

1.2.3  Workshops with stakeholders .............................................................................................. 10 

2 

Persisting difficulties and their impact........................................................... 12 

2.1 

Legal and administrative barriers - and ways to overcome them ................................... 12 

2.1.1  An issue in all EU land border regions ............................................................................... 12 

2.1.2  The nature and root-causes vary ......................................................................................... 13 

2.1.3  Some policy areas are more concerned than others ........................................................... 14 

2.1.4  Solutions exist - but take time, effort and commitment ..................................................... 16 

2.1.5  The need for multi-level governance ................................................................................... 18 

2.2 

The economic impacts - or: the cost of border obstacles ............................................... 19 

3 

What happens and what should be done? ...................................................... 23 

3.1  Deepening cooperation and exchanges .......................................................................... 23 

3.1.1  Establishing an on-line professional network on the Futurium platform ........................ 25 

3.1.2 

Implementing pilot projects to test new solutions .............................................................. 26 

3.2 

Improving the legislative process .................................................................................. 26 

3.2.1 

Identifying cross-border aspects in impact assessments .................................................... 27 

3.2.2  Providing more expertise and advice .................................................................................. 28 

3.3 

Enabling cross-border public administration ................................................................. 28 

3.3.1  Using the advantages of eGovernment in a cross-border context ..................................... 30 

3.4 

Providing reliable and understandable information and assistance ............................... 30 

3.4.1  Better information through the "Single Digital Gateway" ............................................... 31 

3.4.2  SOLVIT for a more harmonious Single Market across borders ...................................... 31 

3.5 

Supporting cross-border employment ............................................................................ 32 

3.5.1  Reinforced cooperation of employment services ................................................................ 36 

3.6 

Promoting border multi-lingualism ................................................................................ 36 

3.6.1  Promoting mobility across borders and language learning............................................... 39 

3.7 

Facilitating cross-border accessibility ............................................................................ 39 

3.7.1  Analysing existing cross-border rail connections and identifying missing links: ............ 41 

3.7.2  Encouraging better cross-border transport services ......................................................... 41 

3.8 

Promoting greater pooling of health care facilities ........................................................ 41 
2 

 
 
3.8.1  Mapping cross-border health cooperation in the EU ........................................................ 47 

3.9 

Considering the legal and financial framework for cross-border cooperation ............... 47 

3.9.1  Following the preparations of a "European Cross-Border Convention" ........................ 50 

3.9.2  Looking at possible contributions from future funding programmes .............................. 50 

3.10  Building evidence of cross-border interaction to inform decision-making ................... 50 

3.10.1  Implementing a pilot project on statistical evidence .......................................................... 52 

3.10.2  Promoting border-related, territorial research .................................................................. 52 

4 

Annex ................................................................................................................. 53 

Overview of case studies ........................................................................................................... 53 

3 

 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions 

The European Union (EU) has 40 internal land border1 regions, which represent 40% of 
the  Union's  territory  and  close  to  30%  of  the  EU  population.  However,  border  regions 
generally  perform  less  well  economically  than  other  regions  within  a  Member  State. 
Access to public services such as hospitals and universities is generally lower in border 
regions.  Individuals,  businesses  and  public  authorities  in  border  regions  face  specific 
difficulties when navigating between different administrative and legal systems2. 

According  to  Article  174  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU),  particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  border  regions,  when  developing  and 
pursuing  actions  leading  to  the  strengthening  of  the  Union’s  economic,  social  and 
territorial cohesion. 

In  its  Communication  'Boosting  growth  and  cohesion  in  EU  border  regions',  the 
Commission  is  proposing  a  set  of  actions  to  enhance  the  competitive  and  cohesive 
situation  of  border  regions,  notably  by  addressing  some  of  the  legal  and  administrative 
barriers currently hampering closer cooperation and interaction. 

This Commission staff working document which accompanies the Communication shall 
provide further insight into the issue by 

  Presenting key concepts and the elaboration process which started in 2015 ('cross-

border review'); 

  Providing additional information on the legal and administrative difficulties faced 

by EU border regions and their societal impact; and by 

  Underpinning the actions proposed by the Commission in the communication 

with further analysis and concrete examples. 

These examples are highlighted in grey boxes throughout the document. 

1 
2 

For scope and definition see chapter 1.1. 
‘Territories  with  specific  geographical  features’,  Working  Paper  No:  02/2009,  European 
Commission, DG REGIO: p. 5: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-papers/2009/territories-
with-specific-geographical-features . 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

Since  1990,  targeted  cohesion  policy  funding  through  the  Interreg  programmes  (also 
known  as  European  Territorial  Cooperation  programmes)  has  strived  to  address  the 
specificities  of  border  regions  including  those  with  European  Free  Trade  Association 
(EFTA)  countries.  Over  more  than  25  years,  thousands  of  projects  and  initiatives  have 
contributed  to  European  integration  in  border  regions.  The  work  continues  through  the 
further investment of just under EUR 6 billion from the EU budget for the period 2014-
2020. 

Interreg and barriers in border regions 

In  the  2007-2013  funding  period,  Interreg  cross-border  cooperation  programmes  (EUR   
5,574 bn EU budget) funded over 6,800 projects, with  a particular focus on innovation 
and  entrepreneurship,  environment,  transport,  tourism  and  culture.  The  ex-post 
evaluation  of  Interreg  (2016)3  revealed  that  programmes  also  contributed  to  wider 
effects,  notably  in  terms  of  alleviating  specific  barriers  to  cooperation  (mainly  cultural 
and distance barriers), and of better social integration. Interreg projects helped to reduce 
physical distance, cultural and mental barriers or language barriers.  

Whilst  some  barriers  (mainly  administrative  and  legal  barriers)  continue  to  hamper 
further territorial cooperation and integration, the ex-post evaluation found that existing 
borders were less and less seen as a barrier. Similarly, whilst the ex-post evaluation did 
find that, to a small extent, technological barriers were reduced, it did not find evidence 
that  economic  or  legal/institutional  barriers  were  reduced.  This  being  said,  it  is 
reasonable  to  consider  that  legal  barriers  (especially  those  related  to  health  services, 
labour  regulation,  taxes,  business  development),  and  barriers  linked  to  differences  in 
administrative cultures and national legal frameworks, were difficult for the programmes 
alone to address (as they required decisions beyond programme and project management 
structures). 

Both,  programme  evaluations  and  the  Cross-Border  Review  process4  conclude  that 
persisting  negative  effects  of  administrative  and  legal  difficulties  cannot  be  addressed 
through  financing  and  investments  alone.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission  intends  to 
define  paths  along  which  the  EU,  its  Member  States  and  regions  can  reduce  the 
complexity, length and costs of cross-border interaction and promote the better alignment 
of  services  along  borders,  where  appropriate.  In  doing  so,  the  EU  can  harness  the  full 
potential  of  its  internal  land  border  regions  and  offer  equal  opportunities  to  border 
citizens, thus contributing to the creation of growth and jobs across the Union. 

3 

4 

European  Commission,  Ex-post  evaluation  2007-2013  Work  Package  11  Ex  post  evaluation  of 
Cohesion  Policy  programmes  2007-2013,  focusing  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
(ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) 11 ETC, 29 July 2016: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/evaluations/2016/european-
territorial-cooperation-work-package-11-ex-post-evaluation-of-cohesion-policy-programmes-2007-
2013-focusing-on-the-european-regional-development-fund-erdf-and-the-cohesion-fund-cf . 
See chapter 2. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
 
1.1  Key concepts 

1.1.1  Border region 

In  the  context  of  this  staff  working  document  and  the  Communication  which  it 
accompanies, a "land border region" is defined as a NUTS level 3 region5 in the 28 EU 
Member States, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland with a terrestrial border within a 
width of 25 km at each side of the national border. 

Not in the scope are: 

  Land border regions with non-EEA/EFTA countries including Andorra, Monaco 
and  San  Marino  as  well  as  the  British  Overseas  Territory  of  Gibraltar,  as  they 
have a fragmented legal relationship to the Union; 

  Maritime  border  regions,  as  natural  (maritime)  barriers  create  a  territorial 
separation of the cross-border region and thus hampers more frequent exchanges6. 

Map 1 shows the geographical scope and location of EU land border regions. 

5 

6 

For statistical reasons, data and information is based on NUTS level 3 regions under the European 
Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics –http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts . 
See e.g.: 
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/resources/topics-of-
cooperation/themes/theme/show/cross-border-maritime-cooperation / . 

6 

 
                                                            
Map 1: Terrestrial border regions along internal EU28 and EFTA borders. 

7 

 
 
 
1.1.2  Categorising of legal and administrative difficulties limiting interaction along EU 

land borders 

The  difficulties  faced  by  EU  land  border  regions  are  usually  caused  by  laws,  rules  or 
administrative practices which limit the unhampered flow of goods, services, capital and 
people  and  which  obstruct  the  inherent  potential  of  border  regions  when  interacting 
across the border. The political, geo-physical, economic and socio-cultural dimensions of 
European  borders  create  a  variety  of  "closure  effects"  (obstacles7  or  barriers)  and 
"opening effects" that always exist in parallel8. 

Closure effects, emerging from local, regional, national or EU legislation as well as from 
different administrative practices can be observed in three general categories (which are 
used in the context of this document): 

  Legal barriers caused by the absence of Union legislation in policy fields where a 
Union  competence  exists  or  by  shortcomings  in  a  transposition  of  Union 
legislation into national law; 

  Legal barriers caused by incoherent or inconsistent domestic laws of EU-Member 
States in policy fields where no or only a partial Union competence does exist; 

  Administrative  barriers  caused  by 

inadequate  procedural  and/or  adverse 

behavioural aspects at the local, regional or national levels. 

As  figure  1  illustrates,  legal  and  administrative  barriers  can  have  both,  direct  negative 
effects and potential adverse, secondary effects, leading to an overall limitation of cross-
border integration and interaction. 

7 

8 

The European Court of Justice ruling of 28 April 2009 Case C-518/06 noted in relation to the term 
'obstacle'  or  'restriction'  that  "all  measures  which  prohibit,  impede  or  render  less  attractive  the 
freedom  of  establishment  or  the  freedom  to  provide  services  are  restrictions  to  the  relevant 
freedoms". 
This holistic perception of the "multidimensional reality" of European borders was developed in the 
context of the ESPON 2013 research project "GEOSPECS", Source: ESPON (2012): "GEOSPECS- 
European  Perspective  on  Specific  Types  of  Territories",  Applied  Research  2013/1/12,  Final 
Scientific Report (Version 20/12/2012). 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: Legal and administrative barriers and their impacts on cross-border integration. 

Source: Study 'Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions', Final Report, p. 47. 

1.2  Taking stock: The Cross-Border Review 2015-2017 

The  'Cross-Border  Review'  process  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission  between  2015 
and 2017. It was organised along three pillars: 

  The  first  pillar  and  the  backbone  of  the  exercise  was  a  study  providing  an 
inventory  of  over  200  well-documented  cases  of  legal  and/or  administrative 
barriers,  illustrating  the  direct  negative  effects  and  potential  adverse,  secondary 
effects  on  border  regions.  A  selection  of  these  was  taken  further  through  case-
studies describing how these obstacles were addressed on certain borders. 

  The  second  pillar  was  an  extensive  on-line  public  consultation  to  which  623 
replies from border citizens, public authorities, organisations and businesses were 
received. 

  Accompanying this process was a series of workshops with stakeholders, which 
provided continuous feedback on the results of the review and also represented its 
third pillar9. 

9 

More information is accessible under:   
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review/ . 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.2.1 

Inventory and case studies 

As  a  basis  for  the  review  process,  a  first,  Europe-wide10  inventory  of  legal  and 
administrative barriers11 was established. Based on literature review and online research 
of sources published after 2010, the inventory of the Cross-Border Review identified 239 
cases of legal and administrative obstacles. Due to limited information, it covers 37 out 
of  the  40  land  border  regions.  However,  the  number  of  obstacles  identified  for  each  of 
these 37 internal Union land borders is highly variable. 

The inventory showed that a multitude of legal and administrative obstacles exists on all 
borders and in the timeframe covered by this study12. They all have an adverse effect on 
the life of border citizens or deter them from fully harnessing the potential of their place 
of residence or work. The obstacles described in the inventory differ in their nature, their 
causes and impact on the border regions. 

Their documentation also varies, with North-Western and Northern Europe having many 
and  well  documented  obstacles,  while  few  obstacles  are  documented  in  Central  and 
South-Eastern  Europe.  This  difference  between  ‘existing’  and  ‘documented’  obstacles 
may  suggest  a  lower  level  of  awareness  of  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  at  some 
borders. 

The  observed  barriers  are  clustered  into  the  following  eight  wider  policy  areas:  (1) 
Industry  &  Trade,  (2)  Labour  Market  &  Education,  (3)  Social  Security  &  Health,  (4) 
Transport & Mobility, (5) Information & Society, (6) Environment, (7) Climate Change 
and (8) Policy Planning & Public Services. 

As  a  next  step,  15  case  studies  were  carried  out,  covering  the  five  policy  areas  most 
affected (Labour Market & Education, Social Security & Health, Transport & Mobility, 
Industry & Trade and Policy Planning and provision of Public Services). 

10 

11 

12 

Previously  established  inventories  remained  limited  in  their  geographical  scope  or  lacked  the 
necessary  level  of  detail  and  documentation.  In  2011,  the  Council  of  Europe  (CoE)  published  the 
EDEN-database, which presents the outcome of a survey among CoE-member countries on existing 
border  obstacles,  as  well  as  the  subsequently  elaborated  "Manual  on  removing  obstacles  to  cross-
border cooperation" (Council of Europe (2011): Preparation of the conference on removing obstacles 
and promoting good practices on cross-border cooperation. Replies to the questionnaire. Strasbourg, 
16 May 2011. Council of Europe (2012): Manual on removing obstacles to cross-border cooperation. 
Strasbourg,  November  2012.  EDEN-Database:  http://cbc.isig.it/search-the-database/).  While  it 
contains  valuable  information,  for  a  large  number  of  countries  the  border-specific  information  on 
obstacles was rather general (i.e. lacking description of legal or administrative sources, of the wider 
policy  background  or  of  adverse  effects)  or  even  not  existing  at  all.  Regionally,  good  inventories 
exist  in  a  number  of  border  regions,  such  as  the  Öresund  region,  within  the  Nordic  Council  of 
Ministers,  in  border  regions  of  the  Netherlands,  Germany  and  Belgium,  and  at  the  Franco-Belgian 
border. 
The inventory is accessible here: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-
territorial/cross-border/review . 
The  study  reviewed  sources  published  between  2010  and  2015.  Recent  events  in  relation  to  the 
European refugee crisis and the linked re-introduction of border controls along some internal border 
sections in five Schengen states were not taken into account. 

10 

 
                                                            
Each  case  study  focused  on  a  specific  obstacle  or  exceptionally  on  a  group  of  closely 
related  obstacles13.  An  important  objective  for  the  case  studies  was  to  elaborate  a  tool 
that  could  provide  interesting  points  of  reference  and/or  lessons  for  a  wider  policy  and 
practice  audience  beyond  the  illustrative  spatial  examples  used  to  illustrate  each  case 
study.  The  research  involved  consultations  with  the  Commission,  regional  and  local 
stakeholders. 

The  case  study  on  the  mobility  of  cross-border  workers,  illustrated  by  the  Danish-
Swedish border (the Öresund region), was completed as pilot case to aid the process. In 
general the availability of Union level contextual information has been strong and backed 
up  by  consultations  with  key  officials  in  the  Commission  and  agencies.  The  level  of 
information  on  cross-border  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  has  been  variable  and 
weak in relation to the impact of obstacles on cross-border cooperation. Documentation 
is often quite limited both at the Union and cross-border level. Despite the difficulty of 
identifying relevant actors, more than 200 people were consulted during the elaboration 
time, either individually or via focus groups. 

The list of case studies is set out in the Annex. 

1.2.2  Public consultation 

In  2015,  the  Commission  launched  a  public  consultation  to  gather  the  views  of 
individuals and stakeholders on the border obstacles. The public consultation was open 
for  three  months  and  received  623  replies  from  stakeholders  from  border  citizens, 
businesses and public authorities14. By listening to their opinions, it aimed to identify the 
main  obstacles  encountered  when  interacting  across  borders,  as  well  as  the  potential 
solutions.  Half  of  the  respondents  to  the  consultations  were  private  individuals  (48%), 
followed by those responding on behalf of a public authority (23%), those on behalf of an 
organisation  (13%)  and  those  on  behalf  of  a  business/private  company  (7%).  The 
remaining respondents were in the categories other (4%); self-employed individual (2%), 
academic/research institution (2%) and pan-European interest group (1%). 

1.2.3  Workshops with stakeholders 

Accompanying the process was a series of workshops with stakeholders, organised by the 
Commission.  The  four  workshops,  which  took  place  in  Brussels  between  September 
2015 and December 2016, provided continuous feedback on the results of the review and 
also represented its third pillar15: 

  The  first  workshop  served  as  a  presentation  of  the  work  ahead  and  the  expert 

consortium charged to produce the study, inventory and case-studies. 

13 

14 

15 

Although  initially  no  specific  policy  area,  and  no  specific  cross-border  region  should  have  been 
represented more than once, the weighting of the examples of the  inventory (more in Northern and 
Western Europe), led to the adoption of a more pragmatic approach. 
It has to be noted that the amount of responses to the public consultation is below the threshold to be 
considered statistically significant. Therefore the conclusions drawn are largely qualitative. 
Further  information,  participants'  lists,  videos  and  summaries  of  outcomes  are  available  under  the 
following webpage:   
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review . 

11 

 
                                                            
  The second workshop tried to identify a typology of obstacles and a methodology 
for  potential  solutions.  Experts  discussed  concrete  examples  of  legal  or 
administrative  border  obstacles  that  were  either  recently  solved  or  were  to  be 
solved in a short term, and drew conclusions on their characteristics. 

  The  third  workshop  focused  on  identifying  the  main  conclusions  from  the  case 
studies  presented  by  the  expert  consortium  and,  based  upon  this,  to  draw 
recommendations  that  could  relatively  easily  be  transferred  to  different  cross-
border regions (hence, not too border specific). 

  The fourth workshop focused on identifying possible solutions and suggestions to 
overcome  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  in  three  specific  areas:  engaging 
citizens and stakeholders; better regulation and policy coordination; and the role 
of Interreg. 

12 

 
 
2  PERSISTING DIFFICULTIES AND THEIR IMPACT 

2.1  Legal and administrative barriers - and ways to overcome them 

The  Cross-Border  Review  process  revealed  a  rather  large  number  of  difficulties  and 
barriers which hamper the development and interaction between land border regions. The 
results from all three pillars widely coincide: 

2.1.1  An issue in all EU land border regions 

The inventory illustrates that around 64% of all obstacles (or 152 cases) affect the entire 
length  of  land  borders.  These  are  most  often  obstacles  related  to  Member  State 
legislation (67 cases) and also administrative obstacles (58 cases). 

This  is  underpinned  by  the  public  perception:  the  public  consultation16  brought  to  light 
that  legal  and  administrative  barriers  were  perceived  as  the  most  relevant  obstacle by 
53% of respondents, with language barriers coming second with 38% (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: Relevance and frequency of obstacles. 

Source:  Summary  Report  on  the  online  public  consultation  "Overcoming  obstacles  in  border  regions", 
p. 12. 

There  is  also  a  strong  correlation  between  the  frequency  of  border  crossing  and  the 
obstacles perceived when interacting across the border. The more often a person crosses 
the  border,  the  less  likely  he/she  is  to  mention  lack  of  trust  as  an  obstacle.  The  same 
applies  for  language  barriers  and  sociocultural  differences.  On  the  contrary,  the  more 
often  a  person  crosses  the  border,  the  more  likely  he/she  is  to  mention  legal  and 

16 

For  detailed  results  of  the  public  consultation,  see:  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for 
Regional and Urban Policy: Overcoming obstacles in border regions. Summary report on the online 
public consultation 21 September 2015 - 21 December 2015. Luxemburg 2016: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/consultations/overcoming-obstacles-border-
regions/ . 

13 

 
 
                                                            
 
administrative  barriers  as  obstacles.  One  possible  explanation  is  that  the  frequency  of 
travel multiplies the opportunity to encounter such obstacles; in other words, obstacles of 
this  nature  are  more  strongly  felt  when  mobility  across  the  border  is  higher  and  more 
frequent.  

Language barriers were viewed by 38% of respondents as a relevant problem in border 
regions,  making  it  the  second  most  mentioned  type  of  obstacle.  Language  is  a  cross-
cutting obstacle, transcending the defined categories of this public consultation. Various 
groups  are  affected,  ranging  from  restricted  interaction  in  everyday  life,  to  hampered 
exchange of good practices between administrations.  

2.1.2  The nature and root-causes vary 

In  terms  of  their  nature,  the  most  numerous  obstacles  are  those  related  to  national 
legislation  (104  cases),  followed  by  administrative  obstacles  (99  cases).  Obstacles 
related  to  the  existence  of  EU  legislation  (or  lack  thereof)  are  much  less  frequent  (36 
cases).  Depending  on  the  nature  of  the  obstacle,  its  removal  or  alleviation  therefore 
requires action within and between  Member States at different governance  levels, or  at 
the Union-level.  

Figure 3: Legal and administrative barriers and their origins (239 cases in total). 

National and 
regional 
administrative 
practices  
(99 cases) 

National and 
regional legislation 
(104 cases) 

EU legislation  
(36 cases) 

Two  types  of  source-problem-effect  relationships  were  identified  when  assessing 
obstacles,  which  in  turn  impact  their  solutions:  straightforward  and  complex.  A 
'straightforward'  relationship  means  that  there  is  a  clear  relational  link  between  (1)  a 
specific inadequate provision in a concrete piece of legislation or a certain inappropriate 
administrative  practice,  (2)  the  difficulties  or  hindrances  this  provision  or  practice  is 
creating  for  cross-border  interactions  and  (3)  the  negative  direct  effects  or  adverse 
secondary effects which emerge for specific corporate actors or larger person groups or 
individuals  in  the  cross-border  area.  It  is  in  principle  quite  easy  to  conceive  and 
implement  a  solution  for  this  kind  of  obstacle,  if  the  concerned  and  competent 

14 

 
 
stakeholders  are  willing  to  take  action  on  the  issue  at  stake.  Once  the  source  is 
eliminated, also the problems and the adverse effects will disappear. 

For obstacles characterised by a 'complex' relationship, there are (1) various and more or 
less  closely  related  legal  or  administrative  aspects  which  together  are  creating  (2) 
difficulties  or  hindrances  for  cross-border  interactions  that  again  (3)  are  leading  to 
negative  direct  or  indirect  effects  in  the  cross-border  area.  Because  it  is  difficult  to 
disentangle  exactly  which  aspects  are  primarily  causing  a  given  problem  and  which 
aspects are additionally contributing to it, it is therefore also much more complicated to 
conceive  and  implement  a  solution  that  is  able  to  fully  eliminate  the  problem  and  the 
related adverse effects. 

The inventory also attempted to appraise the  negative direct and secondary effects of 
obstacles, as well as their wider impact on cross-border integration (sum of all negative 
direct effects and adverse secondary effects of an obstacle (see Figure 4 on page 15)17. 

A large majority of legal and administrative obstacles in the inventory has documented 
strong  negative  direct  effects  (182  cases),  and  56  cases  have  moderate  negative  direct 
effects18. Negative secondary effects were strong in 77 cases and moderate in 86 cases. In 
sum,  the  wider  negative  impact  of  the  border  obstacles  documented  in  the  inventory  is 
either  high  (143  cases)  or  moderate  (93  cases).  These  negative  impacts  lower  the 
intensity of cross-border interactions in virtually all dimensions of functional integration. 
Many  of  these  obstacles  have  a  wider  relevance  for  the  entire  Union  and/or  for  many 
other  Union  border  regions,  because  very  similar  problems  are  observed  at  a  large 
number of other internal Union borders. 

2.1.3  Some policy areas are more concerned than others 

More than 90% of the legal and administrative obstacles documented in the inventory fall 
into the following five policy areas, in order of decreasing significance:  

1.  Labour Market & Education 

2.  Social Security & Health 

3.  Transport & Mobility 

4.  Industry & Trade 

5.  Policy Planning & provision of Public Services. 

In  terms  of  public  perception,  employment  and  labour  market  has  also  emerged  as  a 
major concern for respondents. Legal and administrative barriers make it more difficult 

17 

18 

This is largely qualitative because the consulted sources rarely provide exact measurements or other 
quantitative  data,  and  some  adverse  aspects  are  of  an  intangible  and  thus  non-measurable  nature 
(e.g. inadequate administrative action, lack of cooperation or coordination etc.). 
The  level  of  the  impact  of  border  obstacles  on  the  border  region  (economically,  socially, 
environmentally  and  for  citizens  living  along  the  border)  was  categorised  according  to  a  simple 
scaling  system  (low/medium/high).  For  carrying  out  this  assessment  the  following  impact  and 
scoring  thereof  was  used:  The  primary  impact,  with  four  scores:  4=very  strong,  3=strong, 
2=moderate, 1=weak. The secondary impact, with four scores: 4=very strong, 3=strong, 2=moderate, 
1=weak. The aggregated total impact, with a scaling at three levels (i.e. high, medium, low) which 
results from the previously achieved total score. 

15 

 
                                                            
to be employed on one side of the border, while living on the other. One of the most cited 
concerns  is  the  lack  of  recognition  of  education  and  qualifications,  followed  by 
differences in social security, pension and taxation systems. For businesses, differences 
in  technical  standards  and  regulations  for  products  as  well  as  certain  services  act  as  de 
facto  barriers  for  entry  to  specific  markets  across  the  border.  Specific  issues  of  a  legal 
and  administrative  nature  that  came  up  most  frequently,  and  posed  problems  to  all 
categories  of  respondents,  were  the  different  taxation  and  social  security  systems, 
including  health  care  and  pension  systems.  In  particular  these  were  presented  as  major 
obstacles to workers' mobility. 

Figure 4: Types of legal and administrative barriers by policy area (absolute figures). 

Source: Study 'Easing legal and administrative obstacles in EU border regions', Final Report, p. 35. 

The  public  consultation  confirmed  that  despite  25  years  of  Interreg  funding  for  the 
development of cross-border cooperation, many obstacles in border regions go beyond its 
direct reach and pose a multitude of different challenges - across almost all parts of life 
of citizens. These are sometimes multidimensional, which means, for example, that the 
definition  and  origin  of  an  obstacle  differ  in  nature  -  for  instance,  in  some  cases 
the  difficult  physical 
transport  systems  (falling  under 
inadequate  cross-border 
accessibility  category)  are  explained  as  originating  in  a  lack  of  harmonisation  of 
technical  standards  (coming  under legal and  administrative barriers). Language  barriers 
and difficult physical access have been frequently mentioned as obstacles, which points 
to  the  persisting  need  to  invest  on  cross-border  mobility  in  border  regions,  as  well  as 
language and cultural learning. While lack of trust, as well as socio-cultural barriers, are 
perceived as relatively less relevant, they form nevertheless the backbone of cross-border 
cooperation. 

16 

 
 
2.1.4  Solutions exist - but take time, effort and commitment 

Where  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  were  successfully  overcome,  two  basic 
approaches  were  observed:  (a)  better  alignment  or  harmonisation  of  particular  legal 
provisions and/or their implementation practices in neighbouring countries, and (b) better 
information and communication on cross-border issues. Better alignment aims at closing 
the gaps or removing the contradictions between counterpart regulations on either side of 
a border, while better information and communication is about coping with the gaps and 
contradictions as long as they exist. 

In the public consultation, several possible solutions to legal and administrative barriers 
we  reported  -  mostly  about  encouraging  more  convergence  in  regulatory  frameworks, 
more flexibility and more information provision to individuals. A significant number of 
respondents  pointed  to  differences  in  the  implementation  of  EU  rules  (directives)  as 
creating legal and administrative obstacles, and pleaded therefore for better coordination 
and harmonisation of the implementation  of regulatory  arrangements in  border  regions, 
for example through more targeted impact assessments, with a view to promoting greater 
convergence.  At  the  same  time  respondents  also  asked  for  a  greater  flexibility  in  the 
general implementation of national/regional legislation in border regions, "freeing" it up 
from national legislation or adapting it to border regional conditions. 

In practice, several tools exist to ease or solve legal and administrative obstacles, once 
they were identified in a systematic way and placed on the political agenda:  

 

 

Interstate  agreements  (bilateral  or  multilateral,  at  national  or  regional  level)  which 
can address obstacles either in a preventive manner or in order to solve existing ones, 
Informal  cooperation,  which  is  typically  sector  oriented  (e.g.  transport)  or  business 
related (e.g. chambers of commerce), 

  Horizontal  cooperation,  (e.g.  Euregions,  Upper  Rhine  Conference,  Greater 

Copenhagen and Skåne Committee and others), 

  Cross-border  legal  entities  and  the  European  Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation 

 

(EGTC)19, 
'Innovative' instruments such as the 'mutual recognition principle' as developed by the 
European Court of Justice (ECJ)20 or eGovernment21. 

Although  the  border  obstacles  stem  in  most  cases  from  incompatibilities  between 
national legislations, their local manifestation is place-specific. A major implication of 
the  territorial  'embeddedness'  of  cross-border  obstacles  is  the  key  role  that  actors  and 
institutions from the border regions can play in the definition, assessment and solution of 
obstacles  relevant  to  their  region.  To  this  end  a  good  cooperation  climate,  permanent 
information exchange and a comprehensive survey of obstacles are necessary. Removing 

19 

20 

21 

Introduced  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 1082/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
5 July  2006  (OJ  L  210,  31.7.2006,  p. 19),  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 1302/2013  of 
17 December 2013 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303). 
Beck, J. (2015),Cross-Border Cooperation and the European Administrative Space – Prospects from 
the Principle of Mutual Recognition, International Public Administration Review, 13(2), p. 9-36. 
European  Commission 
transformation of government', COM(2016) 179 of 19 April 2016: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1503566265012&uri=CELEX:52016DC0179 . 

'EU  eGovernment  Action  Plan  2016-2020 - Accelerating 

the  digital 

17 

 
                                                            
 
or  easing  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  to  cross-border  interaction  is  therefore  not 
primarily  a  matter  of  new  or  better  legislation  at  Member  State  level  but  a  matter  of 
effective multi-level governance. 

Table: Summary of the main characteristics of possible tools for easing (legal/administrative) obstacles22. 

Tool 

State agreements 

Informal cooperation 

Horizontal cross-border 
cooperation 

EGTC 

Mutual c-b recognition 

eGovernment measures 

Simplicity 
and time for 
establishing 

Flexibility 
(versatility) 

‘Binding-
ness’ 

Effective-
ness (result 
potential) 

Sustain-
ability 

- - 

+ 

- 

+ 

- - 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

- 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ + 

- 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

- 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

Source:  Study  'Easing  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  in  EU  border  regions',  Conclusions  and 
Recommendations paper, p. 18. 

Legal and administrative obstacles are  recurrent phenomena, which are difficult to be 
solved once and for all. Long-term/sustainable institutions (at national, regional and local 
levels)  working  systematically  on  identifying  and  resolving  obstacles  as  well  as 
preventing new ones from arising are key for addressing successfully these phenomena. 

During the stakeholder workshops, it was emphasized that removing border obstacles is a 
dynamic  process,  as  often  a  removed  obstacle  leads  to  increased  cooperation  and 
deepened  integration,  which  in  turn  leads  to  the  emergence  of  new  obstacles.  The 
approach of the Nordic Council of Ministers was considered a best practice, in which the 
inventory of obstacles is constantly updated and there is a work plan to eliminate at least 
5-10 obstacles from the list each year. 

Stakeholders  also  stressed  that  the  awareness-raising  of  the  benefits  of  cross-border 
cooperation,  both  to  decision-makers  and  the  general  public,  should  be  an  overarching 
goal.  This  is  often  hampered  by  the  lack  of  data  on  actual  cross-border  interactions, 
which  could  be  addressed  at  the  European  level  (Eurostat),  in  close  collaboration  with 
national  statistical  offices.  Overall,  effective  multilevel  governance  was  identified  as  a 
key  to  solving  border  obstacles,  and  for  involving  stakeholders  at  all  levels;  fora  are 
needed  to  provide  platforms  for  exchange.  Information  provision  to  individuals, 
businesses and public administrations through one-stop-shops could be a solution to the 
lack  of  information  that  has  been  identified  as  another  common  problem.  Cross-border 

22 

The summary in the table rates the tools described above in terms of five criteria, namely 'Simplicity 
and time for establishment': How easy can the tool be applied and how fast can it be established to 
become operational? 'Flexibility (versatility)': How flexible, changeable is the tool during its use and 
how easy can it be adapted to changing needs and circumstances? ‘Bindingness’ – How much are the 
actions and results of the application of the tool binding for the partners (and beyond)? 'Effectiveness 
(result  potential)':  To  what  extend  is  the  tool  expected  to  be  effective/to  produce  positive  results? 
'Sustainability': To what extent is the tool expected to operate for a long term? For each criterion a 
simple  and  necessarily very general  rating scale  with  four  steps  has  been  applied: ++ very high,  + 
high, - low, -- very low. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                            
strategies  were  considered  a  potentially  useful  tool  for  a  more  coherent,  long-term 
development  of  the  border  region,  also  by  giving  a  clearer  mandate  to  solve  border 
obstacles to the actors involved. Harmonisation of legislation and better adapted impact 
assessments  with  a  strong  border  dimension  when  developing  new  legislation  were 
identified as crucial aspects. Finally, to better involve the general public in the process, 
the  'people'  dimension  when  working  with  border  obstacles  has  to  be  strengthened 
through people-to-people projects, language learning etc. 

2.1.5  The need for multi-level governance 

Due to the multitude and diversity of obstacles and the large number of Union citizens 
potentially affected  by them, the easing of legal  and administrative obstacles remains a 
European  issue.  These  obstacles  also  have  a  substantial  direct  effect  on  the  further 
development of the internal market. 

Since the majority of obstacles originate in differences between national legislation and 
administrative  procedures/habits,  the  solutions  are  to  be  found  at  the  level  of  national 
and sub-national governments and administrations. A coordinated support from both 
sides of the border is needed to improve the situation at the local level where the negative 
effects of obstacles are most strongly felt. 

One  of  the  conclusions  from  the  stakeholder  workshops  is  that  especially  Interreg 
programmes are important platforms for engaging citizens and stakeholders, and can 
also contribute to the funding of cross-border statistics and data to demonstrate the costs 
of cross-border obstacles. Overall, stakeholder emphasised the need for Interreg to focus 
more strongly on citizens and improving their lives, hence also take administrative and 
legal border obstacles better into account. 

19 

 
 
 
 
2.2  The economic impacts - or: the cost of border obstacles  

Reliable data on the prevalence, costs and other dimensions of cross-border obstacles as 
defined  in  1.1  is  hard  to  find.  Academic  research  on  the  'cost  of  non-Europe'  has  been 
undertaken  since  the  Cecchini  Report  in  April  198823,  which  estimated  that  the 
completion  of  the  Single  Market  would  increase  the  GDP  of  the  European  Community 
by around 4.5% and possibly up to 6.5%. More recent attempts to quantify the effect of 
border obstacles by Ilzkovitz et al.24, Boltho and Eichgreen25, Campos et al.26, Dunne27 
and Godel et al.28, estimate the losses due to the absence of integration between 2.2% and 
12% of the Union's GDP. 

In the run-up to the Communication which this Staff Working Document accompanies, 
and in order to address the lack of quantitative data concerning border obstacles and their 
related  costs,  the  Commission  contracted  an  expert  study,  conducted  by  Politecnico  di 
Milano, on the 'quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles 
in land border regions'29. More detailed analysis of this study can be found in the Annex. 
The  study  estimated  that  legal  and  administrative  barriers  had  a  high  impact  on  land 
border  regions,  leading  to  an  overall  GDP  loss  of  around  458  billion  euros.  In  relative 
terms it corresponds to about 3 % of total Union GDP, or 8.8% of total GDP produced in 
land border regions. These values correspond to the extreme situation where all legal and 
administrative  barriers  would  be  removed.  This  scenario  is  of  course  neither  attainable 
nor  desirable.  However,  if  only  20%  of  the  existing  obstacles  were  removed,  border 
regions would gain 2% in GDP or around 91 billion EUR in GDP. The estimated impact 
on job creation is equally important, with potentially over 1 million jobs to be created. 

Map  2  shows  the  percentage  GDP  loss  in  European  land  border  regions.  Major  losses 
(dark brown) are incurred by areas located along borders in central EU+EFTA countries 
(borders  between  Netherlands  and  Belgium,  France  and  Germany,  France  and 
Switzerland, Austria and Slovakia)30. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Cecchini, P., The European Challenge 1992: the benefits of a single market, Aldershot: Wildwood 
House, 1988. 
Ilzkovitz F., Dierx A., Kovacs V., Sousa N. (2007), 'Steps towards a Deeper Economic Integration: 
the  Internal  Market  in  the  21st  Century',  European  Economics  -  Economic  Paper  271,  Directorate 
General Economic and Monetary Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission. 
Boltho  A.  and  Eichengreen  B.  (2008),  The  Economic  Impact  of  European  Integration,  CEPR 
Discussion paper, n. 6820. 
Campos N., Corricelli F. and Moretti L. (2014), 'Economic growth and political integration: synthetic 
counterfactual evidence from Europe', mimeo. 
Dunne,  J.  (2015)  (ed).  'Mapping  the  Cost  of  Non-Europe,  2014-19',  European  Added  Value  Unit, 
Directorate  for  Impact  Assessment  and  European  Added  Value,  Directorate-General  for 
Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS): 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL-
EAVA_ET%282014%29510983 . 
Godel,  M.  I.,  Harms,  A.,  Jones,  S.,  and  Mantovani,  I.  (2016).  'Reducing  costs  and  barriers  for 
businesses  in  the  Single  Market',  European  Parliament's  Committee  on  Internal  Market  and 
Consumer Protection: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)578966 . 
Study  'Quantification  of  the  effects  of  legal  and  administrative  border  obstacles  in  land  border 
regions', Expert contract number 2016CE160AT091, Final Report 28 April 2017. 
Some  NUTS  level  3  regions  belong  to  two  or  more  land  border  regions.  In  these  cases,  the  color 
prevailing is that of the land border regions that comes first in alphabetical order. 

20 

 
                                                            
 
 
Map 2: Percentage GDP loss in EU land border regions. 

Source: Study "Quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles in land border 
regions", p. 11. 

There is substantial economic research on the effect of borders on economic interaction 
(the so-called "border effect", illustrated in figure 5 below). 

21 

 
 
 
Figure 5: Basic pattern of socio-economic relations existing in border areas and non-border areas. 

Gil-Pareja et al (2006) define the border effect as the negative impact of national borders 
on  trade  flows31.  It  can  also  be  seen  as  how  much  less  a  given  region  trades  with  its 
neighbour region on the other side of the border, compared with how much it would trade 
if there were no borders. Several cases of border effect have been estimated in different 
geographical  scopes.  Due  to  lack  of  regionalised  data,  in  few  cases  is  it  possible  to 
estimate  it  at  regional  level.  This  is  the  case  of  the  Spanish-Portuguese  border,  where 
according to Ferreira and Mourato, the border seems to be decreasing a region's trade by 
approximately  14  times32.  Similarly,  Gil-Pareja  et  al  concluded  that  "Basque  Country 
trades between 12 and 16 times more with the rest of Spain than it does with any other 
country". More frequently it is applied at national level. Vanagas found in 2013 that the 
average  border  effect  for  EU  countries  is  approximately  7.5,  and  that  harmonization 
through  Union  policies  had  a  significant  positive  impact  on  trade  among  its  Member 
States, especially for the most recent members33. On the French and German case, Helbe 
(2007) concludes that "France trades about eight times more and Germany about three 
times more with itself than with other EU countries compared to the predictions"34. The 
border effect is also noted outside the European context. The first major paper on border 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Gil-Pareja,  S.,  Llorca-Vivero  R.,  and  Martínez-Serrano  J.,  The  border  effect  in  Spain:  The  Basque 
Country case, Regional Studies Vol. 40, Issue 4, 2006. 
Ferreira, R. and Mourato J., 'Border Effect in Interregional Iberian Trade', Journal of Economics and 
Business Research, Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre, Portugal, Year XVII, No. 1, 2011, pp. 35-50: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303494465_Border_Effect_in_Interregional_Iberian_Trade . 
Vanagas,  M.  (2013),  'Border  Effects  Among  EU  Countries:  Do  National  Identity  and  Cultural 
Differences  Matter?',  Reinvention:  an  International  Journal  of  Undergraduate  Research,  Volume  6, 
Issue 2: https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/issues/volume6issue2/vanagas . 
Helble,  M.,  'Border  Effect  Estimates  for  France  and  Germany  Combining  International  Trade  and 
Intranational  Transport  Flows',  Review  of  World  Economics,  October  2007,  Volume  143,  Issue  3, 
pp. 433-463: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10290-007-0116-x . 

22 

 
 
                                                            
effect pointed out that trade amongst Canadian provinces was 22 times higher than with 
US states of similar size and distance35. 

The  reasons  behind  the  border  effect  are  diverse.  The  complexity  and  costs  of  doing 
business  across  the  border  are  part  of  them.  Perceptions  based  on  culture  (reflected  in 
consumer  choices),  business  traditions  and  business  cycles,  is  also  part  of  the 
explanation. Ferreira and Mourato state that "fear from the unknown, trading traditions 
and  lack  of  business  networks  are  some  of  the  factors  which  lead  potential  business 
between actors on different sides of the border not to occur"36. In a similar way Vanagas 
presented  consumer  preferences  as  one  of  the  potential  causes  of  border  effect.  In 
marketing  literature  this  is  presented  as  the  domestic  country  bias  in  consumer 
preferences. Analysing the border effect causes in the specific case of the EU, Chen has 
highlighted  technical  barriers  to  trade  (the  complexity  argument  above)  and  informal 
trade barriers as "product specific information costs"37. The later occurs for example "if it 
is more costly to obtain some information about the quality, or even the existence, of a 
foreign product as compared to a domestic product, we would expect this higher cost to 
reduce the quantities of foreign goods purchased"38. 

36 

35  McCallum,  J.,  'National  Borders  Matter:  Canada-U.S.  Regional  Trade  Patterns',  The  American 
Economic  Review,  Vol.  85,  No.  3  (Jun.,  1995),  pp. 615-623.  The  Results  were  later  confirmed  by 
Helliwell (1996); Hillberry (1998) Anderson and Smith (1999). 
Ferreira, R. and Mourato J., op. cit.  A similar argument is presented in Ferreira, R. (2016), "Iberian 
major  Regions  Interregional  Trade  across  the  Border",  in  Journal  of  Economics  and  Business 
Research XXII (2):2068-3537, December 2016, p. 28: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317000181_Iberian_major_Regions_Interregional_Trade_a
cross_the_Border . 
Chen, N.  'Intra-national versus international trade  in  the  European  Union: why do national  borders 
matter?',  Journal  of  International  Economics,  Volume  63,  Issue  1,  May  2004,  pp. 93-118: 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022199603000424 . 
Chen  (2004),  based  on  Rauch,  J.E.,  'Networks  versus  markets  in  international  trade',  Journal  of 
International Economics, 48(1) (1999), pp. 7–35. 

37 

38 

23 

 
                                                            
 
3  WHAT HAPPENS AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? 

This  chapter  highlights  areas  identified  in  the  Commission's  preparatory  work  with 
stakeholders  (study,  consultation  and  workshops)  as  having  great  potentials  to  remove 
further hurdles. It outlines the role of the Commission in taking positive steps both in its 
own actions and in support of other key players. 

Each  section  briefly  describes  the  issues  identified  and  uses  examples  and/or  good 
practices  to  illustrate  them.  It  also  offers  a  brief  insight  into  ongoing  measures  by  the 
Commission or national institutions and finally, where possible, proposes new actions by 
the Commission or recommends actions for Member States and other stakeholders. 

The implementation of the 10 actions listed below will be facilitated by the creation of a 
"Border  Focal  Point"  within  the  Commission.  The  functions  of  the  "Border  Focal 
Point" will be (1) ensuring that key future actions by the Commission take due account of 
a  cross-border  regional  dimension,  (2)  providing  Member  States  and  other  key  players 
with support to address legal and administrative border regional issues, notably relating 
to the transposition of EU directives or coordination requirements, (3) making sure that 
practical arrangements are in place for new actions as listed in the Communication, (4) 
sharing  experiences  and  good  practices  effectively  and  widely  among  relevant 
stakeholders. 

3.1  Deepening cooperation and exchanges 

New  initiatives  by  the  Commission  will  not  have  the  full  desired  positive  impact  in 
border  regions  if  effective  mechanisms  for  cross-border  cooperation  are  not  deepened. 
These  mechanisms,  whether  institutionalised  or  not,  need  to  reflect  the  multi-level 
government dimension of policy-making in the EU. 

A  number  of  such  cooperation  mechanisms  already  exist.  At  inter-governmental  level, 
the  Benelux  Union  and  the  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers  for  example  have  established 
processes to identify and address bi-lateral border barriers. 

The  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers,  regrouping  the  governments  of  Denmark,  Norway, 
Sweden, Finland and Iceland, as well as the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and  Åland is the 
official  organisation  for  Nordic  intergovernmental  co-operation.  Since  2008  there  has 
been  a  special  body  under  this  intergovernmental  framework  dealing  with  border 
obstacles - today known under the name the "Freedom of Movement Council". This body 
includes members from all the Nordic countries and autonomous regions, as well as the 
Secretary General and a representative from the Nordic Council (the inter-parliamentary 
organisation). The Freedom of Movement Council coordinates the Council of Ministers' 
work on border obstacles, and also maintains a database of obstacles. The information in 
the  database  is  collected  by  the  Nordic  information  services.  Each  member  of  the 
Freedom of Movement Council prioritises a handful of obstacles each year, making sure 
that  it  remains  a  priority  until  it  is  either  resolved  or  that  the  relevant  Government 
department concludes that it cannot be resolved. In 2015, ten of the 36 prioritised border 
obstacles  were  resolved  (an  additional  two  were  written  off  because  the  relevant 
24 

 
 
Government  departments  did  not  see  any  possibilities  to  ever  resolve  them).  In  2016, 
seven  prioritised  obstacles  were  resolved.  Hence,  the  institutionalised  systematic 
cooperation  and  prioritisation  work  shows  concrete  results.  Outside  of  this  framework, 
Nordic governments also work on a purely bilateral basis to solve border obstacles. 

The Benelux Union is a politico-economic union of three neighbouring states: Belgium, 
Netherlands and Luxembourg, which started as a customs union in 1944 and became an 
economic  union  in  1960.  The  Union  is  made  up  of  several  institutions,  including  the 
Benelux  Parliament,  the  Secretariat-General,  the  Council  of  the  Union,  and  the 
Committee  of  Ministers.  The  daily  operations  are  managed  by  the  Secretariat-General, 
while  the  executive  authority  rests  with  the  Committee  of  Ministers,  which  meets 
quarterly.  On  17  June  2008,  a  new  Benelux  Treaty  was  signed  by  which  cooperation 
focuses  on  three  key  themes:  the  internal  market  &  economic  union,  sustainable 
development and justice & home affairs. For instance, an expert group was recently set 
up to examine issues linked to the mutual recognition of diplomas and certificates – it is 
expected  that  the  group  will  formulate  recommendations  to  significantly  improve 
cooperation on this topic which will result in easier and faster procedures. 

At regional level, the Upper Rhine Conference and the Greater Copenhagen  and Skåne 
Committee  (previously  known  as  the  Öresund  Committee)  have  developed  effective 
ways  to  identify  local  obstacles  and  organise  a  response.  At  local  level,  the  InfoBest 
network of information offices along the France-Germany border has had a real impact 
for  commuters.  Individuals  can  also  effectively  organise  themselves  to  represent  their 
common  interests  as  can  be  seen  from  the  Groupement  Transfrontalier  Européen,  an 
association  which  represents  over  30,000  French  daily  commuters  on  the  border  with 
Switzerland. 

The  Upper  Rhine  Conference  is  the  institutional  framework  for  cross-border 
cooperation  in  the  Upper  Rhine  region  between  France,  Germany  and  Switzerland.  It 
originally derives from the 1975 Upper Rhine agreement and consists of several different 
bodies. The Steering Committee  is the coordinating decision-making body and  consists 
of  a  delegation  from  each  participating  country.  Apart  from  this,  twelve  thematic 
working  groups  with  have  been  established  which  consists  of  experts  in  the  different 
fields,  e.g.  education  and  vocational  training,  transport,  economic  policy  and  regional 
planning.  

The  Commission  encourages  Member  States  and  regions  to  take  action  in  order  to 
facilitate  cross-border  cooperation  and  to  establish  more  systematic  dialogues  about 
border  issues,  taking  also  into  account  that  cross-border  cooperation  between  Member 
States can be an explicit requirement under the EU legislation. This is often the case for 
example  in  the  EU  environmental  legislation  (e.g.  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

25 

 
 
 
Directive39,  the  Water  Framework  Directive40,  the  Noise  Directive41,  the  Waste 
Framework  Directive42,  and  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directive43)  as  cooperation  is 
essential  in  order  to  face  several  environmental  challenges.  Furthermore,  the  "Action 
Plan for nature, people and the economy"44 aimed at improving the implementation of the 
Birds45  and  Habitats46  Directives  includes  a  specific  action  to  promote  cooperation  at 
biogeographical  region  level  to  address  common  challenges,  including  on  cross-border 
issues. 

The  Commission  calls  upon  Member  States  and  regions  to  further  develop  regular 
dialogues  on  border  issues.  Essential  European  integration  notions  such  as  mutual 
recognition  or  alignment  of  rules  and  processes  should  receive  more  attention  from 
Member  States  and  regions.  They  are  invited  to  take  full  advantage  of  existing 
opportunities to conclude agreements or conventions. For example, the four EU macro-
regional strategies47 could provide an appropriate framework for cross-border institution 
building, as the concerned Member States have already established cooperation structures 
within  the  most  relevant  sectors.  Furthermore,  where  cooperation  is  an  explicit 
requirement  of  EU  legislation,  as  is  the  case  for  instance  in  many  environmental  legal 
acts, this should be used to full effect48. 

The following two actions will be implemented to deepen cooperation and foster 
exchanges: 

3.1.1  Establishing an on-line professional network on the Futurium platform 

To support this process and to ensure that good practices are shared, the Commission will 
establish an EU-wide online professional network where legal and administrative border 
issues  and  solutions  can  be  presented  and  discussed  among  border  stakeholders.  This 
network  will  use  Futurium  -  an  already  existing  online  platform  created  by  the 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19). 
Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2000 
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1). 
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the 
assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12). 
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste 
and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3). 
Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air 
quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1). 
EU Action Plan for nature, people and the economy: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/action_plan/index_en.htm . 
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the 
conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7). 
Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  of  21  May  1992  on  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of  wild 
fauna  and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). 
The  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  The  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region,  The  EU 
Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region and The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions - The  EU  Environmental 
Implementation  Review:  Common  challenges  and  how  to  combine  efforts  to  deliver  better  results 
(COM(2017) 63 final of 3 February 2017). 

26 

 
                                                            
 
Commission and will be moderated by the Commission via its Border Focal Point. The 
Commission  will  ensure  the  network  is  regularly  fed  with  recent  information  and 
documentation  and  that  good  practices  are  well  publicised  and  readily  available  via  an 
extensive library. Relevant events will be publicised. Dialogues among stakeholders will 
be  actively  generated.  The  key  objective  of  the  network  will  be  to  create  a  strong 
community  at  European  level  in  order  to  overcome  a  certain  isolation  mentioned  by 
many stakeholders. 

3.1.2 

Implementing pilot projects to test new solutions 

In addition, the Commission will announce an open call for pilot projects before the end 
of 2017. It will target public authorities wishing to resolve one or more border-specific 
legal or administrative problem(s). Projects could for example be focused on improving 
compatibility  of  administrative  systems,  facilitating  labour  mobility  through  enhanced 
opportunities for qualification recognition or ensuring harmonisation of legal standards.  
These  projects  will  serve  as  the  basis  for  exploring  innovative  ways  to  address  border 
issues.  Up  to  20  pilot  projects  will  be  selected  for  their  high  demonstration  value  and 
level of replicability. Their results will be summarised in a final compendium that will be 
widely distributed and used to foster greater awareness and capacity among key players. 
The  call  will  be  open  to  any  public  body  willing  to  engage  in  identifying  solutions  to 
border issues within their area of competence. Up to 20 pilot projects will be selected for 
their high demonstration value and level of replicability. 

3.2 

Improving the legislative process 

For  a  considerable  share  of  the  border  difficulties  identified,  root  causes  have  been 
attributed  to  the  existence  side  by  side  of  different  regulations  in  national  legal  and 
administrative systems. Even where there is a European legal framework, Member States 
sometimes  have  a  degree  of  flexibility  and  discretion  in  the  way  they  incorporate  this 
legislation  in  their  national  systems.  Often  certain  levels  of  standards  stipulated  in  EU 
law  are  incorporated  at  varying  degrees  of  stringency  in  various  Member  States.  As  a 
result,  when  two  different  systems  meet  along  internal  borders,  this  may  create 
complexity - and sometimes even legal uncertainty - and generate additional costs. 

Directive  2014/24/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February 
2014 on public procurement49 contains 19 instances where minimum standards apply, for 
example  a  minimum  number  of  days  for  certain  applications  or  other  actions,  or  a 
minimum  of  information  to  be  included  in  an  application  or  in  a  tender  or  other 
document. This creates 19 potential occasions where cross-border public procurement 
can  be  particularly  difficult,  as  certain  Member  States  will  apply  longer  deadlines  than 
others. 

49 

OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                            
In  its  Better  Regulation  package  adopted  in  201550,  the  Commission  has  proposed 
measures to ensure that territorial aspects are factored into policy options. This happens 
mainly  through  the  implementation  of  robust  impact  assessments  of  legislation  that 
include  territorial  elements.  The  Better  Regulation  Package  already  establishes  that 
impact  assessments  of  legal  or  financial  initiatives  should  consider  not  only  socio-
economic factors but also territorial ones51. 

When  it  comes  to  transposing,  applying  and  implementing  Union  law,  Member  States 
should  be  encouraged  and  helped  to  take  into  account  the  specificities  of  internal  land 
border regions, to coordinate and to exchange best practices in order to reduce the risk of 
obstacles  specific  for  such  regions.  Member  States  should  consider  introducing  a 
territorial dimension to the impact assessments foreseen in their legislative process. The 
Commission  will  support  these efforts  by  facilitating  coordination  where  requested and 
by sharing its methodological impact assessment tools. 

Based  at  the  University  of  Maastricht,  the  Institute  for  Transnational  and  Euregional 
Cross-Border  Cooperation  and  Mobility  (ITEM)  carries  out  cross-border  impact 
assessments  of  future  national  and  EU  legislation.  The  work  is  based  on  a  work 
programme  developed  together  with  national,  regional  and  local  border  stakeholders 
along  the  borders  of  the  Netherlands  with  Germany  and  Belgium  respectively52.  Each 
year, ITEM makes a selection  of the most  important  subjects  that are most suitable for 
research and in-depth  analysis. This  selection is made  on the basis of input  by ITEM’s 
stakeholders  via  a  survey.  This  input  is  collected  by  means  of  a  survey.  The  survey  is 
only  the  first  phase  of  the  process.  During  the  second  phase,  ITEM  establishes  a  final 
shortlist of dossiers. The third phase consists of carrying out the essential research for the 
selected dossiers as conducted by various ITEM researchers and experts. The final phase 
comprises  the  publication  and  dissemination  of  the  results  and  exchanges  with 
stakeholders. 

To increase the awareness for border issues in legislative processes, the following 
two actions will be implemented: 

3.2.1 

Identifying cross-border aspects in impact assessments 

The  Commission  will  make  further  efforts  to  identify  cross-border  impacts  whenever 
significant  through  the  application  of  existing  methods  and  tools.  Via  its  Border  Focal 
Point  and  the  professional  network  described  above,  the  Commission  will  seek  greater 
involvement by border stakeholders in this process.  

50 

51 

52 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  'Better  regulation  for  better 
results - An EU agenda', COM(2015) 215 final of 19 May 2015. 
Tool  #29:  Territorial  Impacts  of  the  toolbox  complementing  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document Better Regulation Guidelines (SWD(2015) 111 of 19.5.2015). 
Institute  for  Transnational  and  Euregional  Cross-Border  Cooperation  and  Mobility  of  Maastricht 
University: 
https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/research/institute-transnational-and-euregional-
cross-border-cooperation-and-mobility-item . 

28 

 
 
                                                            
3.2.2  Providing more expertise and advice 

To  support  Member  States  with  necessary  coordination  efforts  during  their  national 
transposition  process,  the  Commission's  Border  Focal  Point  will  organise  expertise  and 
advice  on  cross-border  regional  aspects.  This  will  build  a.o.  on  the  results  of  the  pilot 
projects mentioned above and on existing good practices. 

3.3  Enabling cross-border public administration 

EU Member States have different administrative cultures and systems. This diversity can 
be a constraint when different systems meet. Most administrative procedures tend to be 
of  a  national  nature  and  cross-border  procedures  are  less  widespread.  However,  border 
stakeholders  may  well require non-domestic procedures  on a regular  basis. The lack of 
common  approach  or  understanding,  and  the  limited  existence  of  mutually  recognised 
documents can lead to lengthy and costly procedures, even for key life events. 

For  example,  some  public  authorities  have  embraced  eGovernment  faster  than  others  - 
this can lead to difficulties in border interaction especially when documents or forms are 
needed. Where  eGovernment solutions  are being implemented, these  apply  more to  the 
domestic  context  than  to  a  cross-border  perspective.53  Interoperability  of  public 
authorities' eSystems is still limited. 

One  good  example  of  obstacles  is  the  digitisation  of  public  administration  and  its 
implications  for  cross-border  commuters  in  the  labour  market  at  the  Danish-German 
border. Digitisation of the public administration is highly advanced in Denmark where all 
communication with authorities has been digital by default since 2015. The majority of 
commuters  in  the  Danish-German  border  region  lives  in  Germany  and  work  in 
Denmark  and  the  digital  administration  can  pose  a  challenge  for  these  cross-border 
commuters.  The  main  obstacles  are  the  cultural  aspect,  procedures,  accessibility  and 
language.  German  citizens  are  not  as  used  to,  and  comfortable  with,  using  digital 
channels  as  Danish  citizens  are.  The  procedures  for  communication  with  the  public 
administration  and  access  to  digital  services  are  also  quite  rigid.  In  particular  the 
timeframe causes problems for German commuters. In some cases the systems are also 
only  available  in  Danish  or  English.  These  issues  have  been  addressed  by  the  Danish 
authorities  in  a  recent  report  where  they  propose  several  improvements  which  will 
require in addition to the will, above all, expertise and resources, for example, to create 
advisory and information services that can meet the challenges54. 

53 

54 

European  Commission  'EU  eGovernment  Report  2016'  shows  that  online  public services  improved 
unevenly,  Digital  Single  Market,  News,  Digibytes,  3  October  2016:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
single-market/en/news/eu-egovernment-report-2016-shows-online-public-services-improved-
unevenly . 
Digitalisierung  der  öffentlichen  Verwaltung  und  ihre  Folgen  für  die  Grenzpendler  auf  dem 
Arbeitsmarkt im deutsch-dänischen Grenzland:  
http://www.region.de/region/de/ueber_uns/publikationen/Publikationen_Arbeitsmarkt.php . 

29 

 
 
 
                                                            
In its eGovernment Action Plan 2016-202055, the Commission sets out a long-term vision 
inclusive  public  administrations,  providing  borderless, 
for  open,  efficient  and 
personalised  end-to-end  digital  public  services.  Although  of  a  general  nature,  the  plan 
proposes measures and tools which will be particularly relevant for border regions such 
as  the  once-only  principle  (i.e.  information  is  supplied  to  public  authorities  only  once 
regardless  of  country  of  origin)56  and  an  automated  translation  tool  for  public 
authorities57. 

The  Business  Mobility  benchmark  in  the  eGovernment  Benchmark  Report58  indicates 
that cross-border services are lagging behind services offered to country nationals. 25% 
of services required for foreign entrepreneurs to start their business in another country are 
available  only  on  paper,  meaning  that  there  is  no  information  -  let  alone  a  service  - 
available online. In contrast, entrepreneurs starting a business in their own country face 
such issues in only 2% of the cases. Foreign start-ups are also less able to find and access 
information on services (33% vs 39%) and using services across border is only possible 
in  27%  of  the  cases  (compared  to  46%  of  services  in  the  national  context).  A  possible 
solution  for  enabling  entrepreneurs  to  access  digital  public  services  in  other  Union 
countries is the implementation of the so-called 'Points of Single Contact'59. 

In  this  respect  the  use  of  electronic  identification  mechanisms  is  very  important.  To 
facilitate  cross-border  online  services,  the  eIDAS  Regulation  (EC)  No 910/2014  on 
electronic  identification  and  trust  services  was  adopted  in  July  201460.  It  ensures  that 
people and businesses can use their own national electronic identification schemes (eID) 
to  access  public  services  in  other  Union  countries  where  eIDs  are  available.  It  also 
creates a European internal market for electronic signatures, electronic seals, time stamp, 
electronic  delivery  service  and  website  authentication,  by  ensuring  that  they  will  work 
across borders and have the same legal status as traditional paper based processes. 

Under  the  Connected  European  Facility  (CEF),  the  Commission  has  deployed  five 
Digital  Service  Infrastructures  (DSIs)  Building  Blocks,  namely  eSignature,  eID, 
eDelivery, eTranslation, eInvoicing, and also Cyber Security. The Building Blocks which 
are  reusable  across  sectors  are  to  support  the  interoperable  delivery  of  cross-border 
services.  Whenever  Member  States,  regional  and  local  administrations  invest  in  digital 
public  services,  they  should  make  use  of  these  building  blocks  established  under  the 
CEF.  The  building  blocks  are  expected  to  become  de  facto  standards  underpinning  the 

55 

56 

European  Commission  'EU  eGovernment  Action  Plan  2016-2020  -  Accelerating  the  digital 
transformation of government', COM(2016) 179 of 19 April 2016: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1503566265012&uri=CELEX:52016DC0179 . 
European  Commission  'The  “Once-Only”  Principle  (TOOP)  Project  launched  in  January  2017', 
Digital  Single  Market,  Project  News  and  Results,  26/01/2017:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/once-only-principle-toop-project-launched-january-2017 . 

57  Machine 

translation  for  public  administrations - MT@EC:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/resources-

58 
59 
60 

partners/machine-translation-public-administrations-mtec_en . 
See note 52. 
Points of Single Contact: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/eu-go/index_en.htm . 
Regulation  (EU)  No  910/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014  on 
electronic  identification  and  trust  services  for  electronic  transactions  in  the  internal  market  and 
repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73): 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG . 

30 

 
                                                            
 
 
delivery of digital public services across borders. The building blocks can be combined 
with  each  other  and  integrated  in  more  complex  services  such  as  eHealth,  Electronic 
Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) and eProcurement. 

The strong evidence that eGovernment can provide a robust answer to questions linked to 
cross-border public administration (e.g. data exchange between administrations) leads the 
European  Commission  to  recommend  that  concrete  steps  are  taken  to  actively  promote 
existing  digital  solutions  among  border  stakeholders  and  among  administrations  most 
concerned  by  cross-border  data  exchanges.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  will  urge  its 
ongoing  and  future  eGovernment  projects  to  engage  the  stakeholders  of  the  border 
regions in order to deliver cross-border public services that meet the needs of individuals 
and businesses in border areas. 

To  help  enabling  cross-border  public  administration,  the  following  action  is 
proposed: 

3.3.1  Using the advantages of eGovernment in a cross-border context 

Member  States'  and  regional/local  authorities  need  to  rise  to  the  challenge  of 
eGovernment and take concrete steps that will make a difference to border citizens. The 
Commission will support this process by actively promoting existing e-solutions among 
border  stakeholders  and  among  public  authorities  most  concerned  by  cross-border  data 
exchanges.  The  Border  Focal  Point  will  establish  stronger  links  with  border  regions' 
administrations in order to support this process.  The on-line professional network to be 
established and moderated by the Commission will be used for this. 

3.4  Providing reliable and understandable information and assistance 

Resolving border obstacles will take time and sustained effort. In the meantime, access to 
available  and  reliable  information  and  problem-solving  services  on  life  or  work  on  the 
other side of the border is vital. Europe-wide services such as Your Europe or SOLVIT 
are useful in this context even if they are not border specific. The Your Europe Advice 
service,  started  in  November  1996,  is  a  free  advice  service  for  the  general  public61, 
managed by 65 legal experts from the European Citizens Action Service (ECAS) under 
contract  with  the  European  Commission.  The  service  is  available  in  all  24  official  EU 
languages, and in all EU Member States. In its 20 years of existence, tailor-made advice 
has  been  provided  in  over  210,000  cases.  Citizens  access  the  service  through  the  Your 
Europe  website,  where  they  can  find  information  about  various  aspects  of  living, 
travelling  or  doing  business  within  the  EU.  However,  the  advice  provided  covers  only 
domains  relating  to  EU  law.  Your  Europe  Advice  typically  answers  about  24,000 
enquiries  per  year  in  an  average  reply  time  of  3  to  4  working  days62.  Another  closely 
related  EU  service  is  SOLVIT63,  a  problem-solving  network,  dealing  more  specifically 

61 
62 
63 

Citizens of the EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, or residing in an EU Member State. 
Your Europe Advice: http://europa.eu/youreurope/advice/ . 
SOLVIT: http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm . 

31 

 
 
                                                            
with cases of possible misapplication of EU law between companies or individuals and 
national administrations. In such cases, the requests are forwarded to SOLVIT64. 

Preparatory  work  for  this  Communication  has  highlighted  concerns  by  individuals  and 
businesses at the lack of reliable information services which can lead to legal uncertainty 
that  hampers  cross-border  interaction  or  makes  the  implementation  of  cross-border 
projects longer and more costly. 

Initially  financed  by  Interreg,  the  Infobest65  network  of  one-stop-shops  in  the  Upper 
Rhine  tri-lateral  border  region  between  France,  Germany  and  Switzerland  currently 
provides  reliable  information  to  individuals  about  all  aspects  of  cross-border  life, 
including  employment  and  education  and  supports  cross-border  interface  with  the 
different  public  authorities.  Infobest  currently  has  four  local  focal  points,  covering  the 
entire Upper Rhine region. Bi-lingual staff helps citizens and businesses get in touch with 
administrations "on the other side", to find the right contacts and to overcome potential 
language barriers.  

The  following  two  actions  are  envisaged  to  provide  more  reliable  and 
understandable information and assistance: 

3.4.1  Better information through the "Single Digital Gateway" 

The  Commission  has  recently  proposed  the  "Single  Digital  Gateway"  (SDG)66  draft 
regulation  which  once  adopted  will  enable  individuals  and  companies  to  have  easier 
access,  through  a  single  digital  entry  point,  to  high  quality  information,  online 
administrative  procedures  and  assistance  services.  The  SDG  envisages  the  first 
application  of  the  once-only  principle  at  the  EU  level  by  enabling  the  exchange  of 
evidence directly between competent authorities from different Member States for a set 
of key procedures. It will also encourage feedback from its users to constantly evolve to 
meet their needs and to collect information about single market barriers. 

3.4.2  SOLVIT for a more harmonious Single Market across borders 

In  its  recently  adopted  Communication  "Action  plan  on  the  reinforcement  of  SOLVIT: 
bringing the benefits of the Single Market to citizens and businesses"67, the Commission 
commits to further reinforce SOLVIT with the Member States so that more individuals 
and businesses have their cross-border issues addressed. 

64 
65 
66 

67 

See note 62. 
Infobest: https://www.infobest.eu/ . 
Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  establishing  a  single 
digital  gateway  to  provide  information,  procedures,  assistance  and  problem  solving  services  and 
amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2012  of  2  May  2017:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017PC0256 . 
European  Commission  Communication  COM/2017/0255,  of  2  May  2017  Action  plan  on  the 
reinforcement  of  SOLVIT:  bringing  the  benefits  of  the  Single  Market  to  citizens  and  businesses: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0255 . 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.5  Supporting cross-border employment 

Preparatory work has identified labour mobility as the single most important area directly 
affected by border obstacles, in particular with regards to cross-border workers. In 2015, 
the total number of Union-28 cross-border workers68 active in another Union-28 country 
was  around  1.3  million,  making  up  0.6%  of  all  employed  across  the  EU-28.  Of  these, 
93% were working in an EU-15 Member State, with the remaining 7% working in EU-13 
countries.  Around  0.7  million  (51%)  were  residing  in  an  EU-15  Member  State  and 
around  0.6  million  (49%)  were  residing  in  an  EU-13  Member  State.  This  shows  that 
while  cross  border  workers  nearly  all  work  in  an  EU-15  Member  State,  they  reside 
roughly equally in EU-15 and EU-13 Member States. In 2014, the total number of EU-28 
cross-border workers was around 1.2 million, thus showing an increase of 8% in 201569. 
Higher shares of cross-border workers in relation to the overall domestic workforce were 
recorded in Slovakia for instance, where 5.6 % of workers cross the border for their job 
or in Estonia where the figure stands at 3.1%70. 

Labour mobility in border regions depends on a series of factors and policies beyond the 
concrete  situation  of  the  labour  market  (vacancies  available,  economic  activity, 
employment  rate,  etc.)  such  as  education  and  skills,  transport  and  infrastructure, 
administrative  procedures,  language,  cultural  and  socio-economic  links,  awareness  of 
opportunities, access to specific information, etc. 

A  number  of  tools  and  coordination  mechanisms  exist  at  European  level  to  facilitate 
cross-border work such as the European network of employment services (EURES), rules 
for the coordination of social security systems, the European Qualifications Framework 
which supports understanding and comparison of qualifications, the Europass Framework 
which  enables  individuals  to  communicate  their  skills  and  qualifications,  the  European 
classification  of  skills,  competences,  qualifications  and  occupations  and  the  European 
Professional  Card,  an  EU-wide  digital  procedure  for  the  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications. In terms of financing, both the EU programme for Employment and Social 
Innovation (EaSI) and the European Social Fund provide support for labour mobility in 
border  regions.  The  EURES  axis  of  the  EaSI  programme  supports  cross-border 
partnerships that provide cross-border workers and their employers with information and 
placement services. 

68 

69 

70 

Cross-border  workers  are  defined  as  EU/EFTA  citizens  who  live  in  one  EU  or  EFTA  country  and 
work  in  another,  regardless  of  their  precise  citizenship  (provided  they  are  EU-28/EFTA  citizens). 
Cross-border  workers,  also  called  frontier  workers,  move  across  borders  regularly  on  a  daily  or  at 
least weekly basis. 
Fries-Tersch,  E.  Tugran,  T.,  Bradley,  H.,  (2017),  The  2016  annual  report  on  intra-EU  labour 
mobility of the European Commission, Second edition: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7981&furtherPubs=yes . 
In absolute terms, the highest number of cross-border workers reside in France (364,000), Germany 
(229,000), Poland (138,000), Slovakia (132,000) and Belgium (100,000). Source: The 2015 Annual 
Report on Labour Mobility. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
EURES (European Employment Services) is a cooperation network formed by public 
employment  services.  Trade  unions  and  employers’  organisations  also  participate  as 
partners.  The  objective  of  the  EURES  network  is  to  facilitate  the  free  movement  of 
workers  within  the  Union  and  EFTA  countries71.  Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/589  'on  a 
European  network  of  employment  services  (EURES),  workers'  access  to  mobility 
services and the further integration of labour markets' was adopted on 13 April 201672. It 
provides for a sound basis to develop the EURES network expanding it to stakeholders 
outside  the  public  employment  services  and  improving  the  quantity  and  quality  of 
services. The regulation gives particular attention to facilitating mobility in cross-border 
regions  and  to  providing  services  to  frontier  workers.  It  also  includes  a  definition  of 
"frontier worker" and of "EURES cross-border partnerships", which are structures within 
the framework of EURES that address the specific needs for information and guidance to 
frontier  workers  as  well  as  placement  and  recruitment  services.  Moreover,  Article  27 
establishes  the  support  services  to  be  provided  in  cross-border  regions.  Through  the 
EURES axis of the Union programme for employment and social innovation (EaSI) on 
average  EUR  4  million    a  year  is  devoted  to  support  cross-border  partnerships  through 
calls for proposals. 

In  the  context  of  EURES,  several  best  practices  have  been  identified  such  as  the 
promotion  of    language  training  in  the  language  of  the  neighbouring  border  region  in  
schools, joint public employment services teams with case handlers from all the countries 
involved providing multilingual support to frontier workers, one-stop-shop solutions for 
information  and  guidance  to  frontier  workers  and  their  employers  with  dedicated  staff 
that can  guide  customers  to  the right  service and right information,  in  dual systems for 
vocational and education training, pupils following the theoretical part of the training in 
their  home  town  and  the  practical  part  of  the  training  across  the  border.  This  can  be 
supported  through  framework  agreements  on  cross-border  dual  vocational  educational 
training between the relevant authorities and with the cooperation of employers. 

Another  example  in  the  context  of  EURES  is  the  joint  monitoring  of  the  cross-border 
labour market resulting in cooperation agreements between employment services to work 
together on hard to fill vacancies and provide tailor made services such as coaching for 
job seekers. The coaching prepares them to understand the requirements of the vacancy, 
information 
the  preferred  way  of  presenting 
(administrative,  cultural)  that  ensures  good  integration  of  the  frontier  worker  in  the 
working environment of the neighbouring country. 

job  applications  and  any  useful 

The  Social  Security  and  Labour  Inspections  of  Galicia  and  that  of  North  Portugal73 
have  created  a  network  supported  by  the  local  EURES  cross-border  partnership,  which 

71 
72 

73 

EURES: https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=2547&acro=faq&lang=en . 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/589  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  April  2016  on  a 
European  network  of  employment  services  (EURES),  workers'  access  to  mobility  services  and  the 
further  integration  of  labour  markets,  and  amending  Regulations  (EU)  No  492/2011  and  (EU) 
No 1296/2013 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 107, 22.4.2016, p. 1). 
EURES Norte Portugal Galicia: http://www.eures-norteportugal-galicia.org . 

34 

 
 
                                                            
allows a faster resolution of obstacles to cross-border mobility of employers and workers. 
They have developed effective collaboration bridges between Social Security organisms 
and Labour Inspections in the cross-border region. The offer of the EURES partnership 
includes  the  posting  of  job  offers  from  across  the  cross-border  region,  the  counselling 
concerning  labour,  social  and  taxation  regulations  in  both  countries  as  well  as  training 
opportunities. 

The  reason  for  establishing  the  European  Qualifications  Framework  (EQF)  is  that 
differences  between  education  and  training  systems  in  the  Union  make  it  difficult  to 
assess  what  someone  holding  a  qualification  from  another  country  knows,  understands 
and  is  capable  of  doing  in  learning  or  work  contexts.  To  lift  these  obstacles  the  EQF 
helps  to  compare  national  qualifications  frameworks  or  systems,  ensuring  that  the 
learning outcomes of each qualification can be easily understood and compared. 

The  recently  adopted  revision  of  the  EQF  Recommendation  ensures  continuity  as  the 
referencing  of  national  qualifications  frameworks  to  the  eight  European  referencing 
levels of the EQF remains at the heart of the EQF process. It seeks to further developing 
the EQF, making it more effective in facilitating understanding of national, international 
and  third-country  qualifications  by  employers,  workers  and  learners.  The  aim  is  to 
contribute  to  a  better  use  of  available  skills  and  qualifications  for  the  benefit  of 
individuals, the labour market and the economy. 

Europass consists of a portfolio of five standard documents (Europass Curriculum Vitae, 
Europass  Language  Passport,  Europass  Mobility,  Europass  Certificate  Supplement, 
Europass  Diploma  Supplement)  used  by  people  who  wish  to  communicate  their  skills 
and  qualifications  in  a  clear  and  easy  way.  Europass  is  especially  helpful  when  people 
move between countries to learn or work. The documents makes it easier for employers, 
education and training providers and guidance practitioners to understand the skills and 
qualifications  from  other  Union  Member  States  as  information  is  presented  in  a 
consistent, standard layout in every country. 

Europass  has  played  an  important  role  in  supporting  mobility  within  and  between 
countries.  Since  2005,  Europass  has  had  more  than  127  million  website  visits;  over  39 
million document templates have been downloaded while more than 80 million Europass 
CVs  have  been  created  online.  Public  consultations  have  shown  that  the  Europass 
framework is appreciated for its closeness to individuals as it has in particular become a 
well-known tool for supporting individuals to communicate their skills. 

The  European  Skills/Competences,  qualifications  and  Occupations  (ESCO)  project  is 
part  of  Europe  2020  strategy.  ESCO  is  a  multilingual  classification  describing  and 
categorising skills, competences and qualifications needed for thousands of occupations 
in  all  economic  sectors.  It  is  a  common  reference  language  that  can  be  used  by  job 
seekers, employers, employment services, education and training providers and others in 
their  professional  and  academic  exchanges  and  introduces  more  transparency  in 
occupations and qualification profiles across Europe. 

To  reduce  language  barriers  the  classification  will  be  available  in  26  languages  and 
accessible  by  everyone  through  an  online  portal.  One  of  the  aims  of  ESCO  is  to  allow 

35 

 
 
employment services to exchange relevant labour market information across borders and 
facilitate  communication  between  labour  market  and  education  and  training  on  issues 
such as skills mismatching and better employability. 

Cross-border  commuting  in  the  Öresund  Region  between  Denmark  and  Sweden74  is 
characterised by a set of interlinked obstacles which are part of the current programme to 
address  all  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  in  the  region.  These  include:  taxation  of 
pensions,  unemployment  benefit  affiliation  and  restrictions  on  work  placements  across 
the border. 

The  case  highlights  in  particular  two  good  practice  examples  for  handling  these 
obstacles: (1) The role of cross-border organisations, such as the Freedom of Movement 
Council  within  the  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers,  and  the  interregional  cooperation 
through  the  Greater  Copenhagen  and  Skåne  Committee  (previously  known  as  the 
Öresund Committee) who identify obstacles and facilitate the process to resolve them. (2) 
Targeted  and  continuous  information  services,  which  can  help  improve  cross-border 
commuters' knowledge. 

However,  the  positive  effects  of  those  measures/tools  have  not  achieved  their  full 
potential in border regions. Among the most commonly identified difficulties for labour 
mobility  across  the  border  are:  completing  an  apprenticeship,  having  one's  skills  and 
competences  fully  recognised,  accessing  job  vacancies,  identifying  workers,  obtaining 
legal certainty on fiscal issues, obtaining professional insurance for medical staff, unduly 
complicated  procedures  to  obtain  professional  certificates.  Information  provision, 
including to individuals and employers, as well as data collection for decision-making are 
other areas to be improved. 

Another central topic revealed by the Cross-Border Review relates to social security, in 
particular for cross-border workers. The Union has a system of rules to coordinate social 
security  systems  in  order  to  protect  citizens’  social  security  rights  in  cross-border 
situations. These Union rules provide criteria to determine which system a mobile citizen 
is  subject  to.  For  instance,  they  ensure  that  an  individual  can  only  be  insured  in  one 
country at any one time, that his or her insurance periods can be added up to insurance 
periods  fulfilled  in  another  country  and  that  benefits  can  be  paid  in  another  Union 
country.  These  rules  have  existed  since  1959  and  have  been  regularly  modernised  to 
ensure that they are fit-for-purpose and respond to the social and economic reality in the 
Union. The Union has no power to harmonise national systems. Member States retain the 
prerogative to regulate who is to be insured under national provisions or which benefits 
are  granted.  As  a  result,  differences  remain  in  national  social  security systems,  and  are 
however  frequently  cited  as  placing  a  heavy  burden  on  cross-border  workers,  putting 
them at a disadvantage because of e.g. difficulties in claiming benefits, leading to a high 
level  of  insecurity.  Furthermore,  cross-border  workers  underline  a  general  lack  of 
knowledge about the rules that apply. This is why coordination and cooperation on social 
security is crucial in a cross-border context.  

74 

Case study in policy area 2 (Labour Market and Education): 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review . 

36 

 
                                                            
 
To  further  support  cross-border  employment  and  labour  mobility,  the  following 
action is planned: 

3.5.1  Reinforced cooperation of employment services 

Member States and regional authorities are encouraged to reinforce cooperation between 
public  employment  services  in  border  regions  including  joint  cross-border  employment 
services to improve access to information and to jobs in the cross-border labour market. 
Existing  practices  will  be  made  more  widely  available  to  all  using  the  proposed 
professional  network  mentioned  above  and  cooperation  among  stakeholders  will  be 
actively promoted. 

3.6  Promoting border multi-lingualism 

The wealth of cultures and traditions across Europe is a great asset. Multilingualism is a 
European  integration  goal.  The  ability  to  speak  foreign  languages  is  also  increasingly 
important  to  boost  employability,  mobility  and  competitiveness,  which  is  of  particular 
relevance in border regions. 

Yet, language has been highlighted as a source of difficulty by many during the public 
consultation  carried  out  under  the  Cross-Border  Review.  The  experience  of  border 
stakeholders often points to cases where the inflexible use of different languages on both 
sides of a border increases the administrative burden and hampers meaningful exchanges 
between public administrations and individuals. 

The  Commission  is  pursuing  a  strategy  endorsed  by  the  Council  and  based  on  the 
objective defined by the EU Heads of State and Government that all citizens should have 
the opportunity to learn two foreign languages from an early age75. In border regions one 
of  these  languages  can  ideally  be  the  language  of  the  neighbours.  There  are  good 
examples  of  such  strategies  at  regional  level,  for  example  the  "France"  strategy  of  the 
Saarland region in Germany76. 

The "France-strategy", adopted by the German Bundesland of Saarland in 2014, aims at 
making  the  region  "multi-lingual"  with  one  generation - by  2043.  The  regional 
government's ambitious plan is to make French its lingua franca in addition to German. 
With  the  strategy,  the  region  actively  promotes  a  bilingual  approach  at  all  levels  of 
administration. It is supported by a curriculum including compulsory French, starting in 
preschool.  As  a  result,  more  than  half  of  all  kindergartens  in  the  area  are  already 
bilingual. Multi-lingualism is also considered an economic success factor for the future, 

75 

76 

European Union – Council of the EU, Council conclusions on multilingualism and the development 
of language competences, May 2014:   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014XG0614(06) . 
School education Gateway, 'Border regions: learning the neighbour’s language', News, 7 September 
2009: 
https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/latest/news/border-regions-learning-the-n.htm . 

37 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
ensuring  better  access  to  markets  in  the  French-speaking  community  across  57 
countries77. 

Language learning is also an over-arching priority of the European funding programme 
for  education,  training,  youth  and  sport:  Erasmus+78.  The  programme  can  support 
regional strategies for comprehensive language learning through the funding of mobility 
for  purposes  of  learning,  training  or  volunteering  as  well  as  innovation  and  good 
practices  in  the  form  of  strategic  partnerships  between  stakeholders  in  both  the  private 
and the public sectors. For example, the  Saarland strategy mentioned above, has led to 
the  implementation  of  a  series  of  Erasmus+  financed  learning  mobility  actions  for 
preschool  staff,  facilitated  through  an  exchange  with  the  University  of  Lorraine  in 
Metz/Nancy79.  The  region  also  benefits  from  a  grant  for  a  larger  strategic  partnership 
with Luxembourg and Wallonia in Belgium. The aim is to create a joint regional area for 
vocational  education  and  training80.  A  youth  partnership  in  the  same  border  region  has 
the objective to stimulate awareness for environmental challenges among the citizens of 
the future81.  Other youth projects in  border  regions include trilingual  approaches in the 
Basque region in France and Spain82. 

Language  learning  at  an  early  stage  is  key  to  better  integration  and  cross-cultural 
understanding, notably in border regions. For this reason, the region of  Lower Austria 
launched  an  initiative  for  bi-lingual  kindergartens  and  schools  along its  borders  with 
Slovakia,  Hungary  and  the  Czech  Republic.  Financed  from  the  respective  Interreg 
programmes (2007-2013), the initiative promoted the neighbouring countries' languages 
in kindergartens and schools on the borders. For this purpose, a specific methodological-
didactic concept was developed. Furthermore, excursions to kindergartens "on the other 
side"  were  held,  thus  providing  the  contacts  and  foundations  for  more  intense 
cooperation. Through joint activities of kindergartens, the project enabled Slovak, Czech, 
Hungarian and Austrian children to get to know each other's language and customs and to 
gain  intercultural  competence.  In  addition,  the  parents'  and  the  kindergarten  teachers' 
knowledge about their neighbouring country was expanded which helped abolish mental 
barriers.  The  successful  initiative  is  continued  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period 
through Interreg. 

77 

78 
79 

80 

81 

82 

results:  http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus 

France Saarland Strategy October 2016: 
https://www.saarland.de/dokumente/ressort_finanzen/MFE_Frankreich_Startegie_LangDIn4S_UK_
Lay2.pdf . 
European Commission, Erasmus+: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/ . 
European  Commission,  Erasmus+,  Project 
plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/a45d9f22-00f1-4121-
b67a-9fc3a653e54d . 
European  Commission,  Erasmus+,  Project 
plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/6b7b9d11-fcb6-40e4-
bf27-68f534ef98f1 . 
European  Commission,  Erasmus+,  Project 
plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/6b444dbc-fd32-452c-
afbf-908907da0356 . 
European  Commission,  Erasmus+,  Project 
plus/projects/eplus-project-details-page/?nodeRef=workspace://SpacesStore/3acbf064-2949-425a-
b30b-8034b2050a99 . 

results:  http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

results:  http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

results:  http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

38 

 
 
                                                            
 
In  France  and  its  border  regions,  good  practices83  that  have  been  funded  by  Interreg 
programmes  include  the  "Trilingua"  project,  putting  in  place  an  arrangement  for 
German-language  teaching  in  the  Moselle-Est  region.84  Another  one  is  the  "Sesam'GR" 
project, providing training for youth to work in a cross-border context85 and the "Lycée 
Germano-Luxembourgeois", hosting 267 pupils from the regions of Saarland, Rhineland-
Palatinate,  Lorraine  and  Luxembourg.86  In  the  Upper  Rhine  region,  among  others  a 
bilingual  nursery,87  and  European  campus  (EUCOR),  grouping  together  the  five 
universities  of  Basel,  Freiburg,  Haute-Alsace,  Karlsruhe  and  Strasbourg  with 
approximately 15,000 scientists, 11,000 doctoral students and 115,000  overall students, 
promote  language  learning  and  multilingualism.88  On  the  French-Spanish  border,  there 
are  two  such  institutions,  the  primary  school  of  Perthus89  and  the  "Campus 
Eurorégional".90  

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

Espaces Transfrontaliers, Education, formation, langues: 
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/themes/themes/theme/show/education-formation-
langues and  
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/themes/education-formation-langues/education-
formation-langues-3/ . 
Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, Trilingua:  
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/projets/projects/project/show/trilingua-reseau-
dechange-dassistants-educatifslocuteurs-natifs-entre-les-ecoles-elementaires-e/ . 
Projet SESAM’GR:   
http://www.moselle.fr/SiteCollectionDocuments/VivrelaMoselle/EducationJeunesse/SESAMGR_fic
he.pdf . 
Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, Création d’un lycée germano-luxembourgeois: 
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/projets/projects/project/show/creation-dun-lycee-
germano-luxembourgeois/ . 
Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, La maison de la petite enfance transfrontalière:   
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/actualites/des-projets-transfrontaliers-au-service-de-la-
population-locale/la-maison-de-la-petite-enfance-transfrontaliere-a-strasbourg-
kehl/?print=y&cHash=7234bcf88a166bb1fad6768a53255626 . 
http://www.interreg-rhin-sup.eu/projet/eucor-le-campus-europeen-structures-
transfrontalieres/?cat=233-207 and http://www.eucor-uni.org/fr . 
Espace Transfrontaliers, Projects, Ecole Transfrontalière du Perthus: 
http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/projets/projects/project/show/ecole-
transfrontaliere-du-perthus/ . 
Ehubaq: http://www.ehubaq.eu/ . 

39 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
To promote multi-lingualism in border regions, the following action is foreseen: 

3.6.1  Promoting mobility across borders and language learning  

Member  States,  regions  and  municipalities  are  urged  to  use  life-long  learning 
opportunities to step up efforts to promote bilingualism in border regions. Existing good 
practices  should  be  a  source  of  inspiration  and  will  be  further  promoted  by  the 
Commission.    Existing  funding  instruments  such  as  Erasmus+  or  the  Interreg  cross-
border cooperation programmes will be used to support this where appropriate. 

3.7  Facilitating cross-border accessibility 

Transport is  a  key  enabler  of  economic,  social  and  cultural  exchanges  between  regions 
across  national  borders.  Especially  public  transport  services  will  not  only  help  tapping 
potentials  for  integration  but  also  for  enhancing  the  sustainability  of  cross-border 
connectivity.  Lacking,  insufficient  or  low-quality  public  transport  services  still  are  a 
reality  for  many 
levels: 
1) infrastructure connections, 2) service provision 3) services quality. Especially smaller 
scale railway connections are lacking or inoperative in a number of cases along internal 
Union  borders;  owing  to  a  range  of  difficulties  (e.  g.  diverging  priorities  and/or 
infrastructural 
legal/ 
procedural/organisational approaches). 

in  border  regions.  This  concerns 

individuals 

constraints 

standards, 

budgetary 

different 

three 

or 

Given  the  trans-national  dimension  of  transport,  specific  legislation  (e.g.  on  TEN-T, 
which specifically aims at bridging missing links and removing bottlenecks, particularly 
in  cross-border  sections91  and  which  -  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  core 
network  -  builds  on  a  coordinated  development  of  infrastructure,  in  particular  in  cross-
border  sections)92  includes  provisions  for  the  Commission  to  stimulate  and  facilitate 
cooperation  between  Member  States.  This  may  serve  as  an  example  for  other  policy 
fields beyond transport. 

TEN-T infrastructure cross-border projects seem to be particularly impacted by complex 
regulatory  and  administrative  arrangements.  A  study93  has  been  recently  conducted  to 
identify barriers in the regulatory and administrative procedures to effective and efficient 
planning and implementation of TEN-T core network projects. 

Currently, the Commission is looking for ways of streamlining the implementation of the 
TEN-T core network projects. This will concern the organisation of different procedures 

91 

92 
93 

Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11  December  2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport 
network (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1). 
Article 42(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. 
Study 
network 
the 
projects,˚MOVE/B3/2014-751,  Final  report  including  Annex  1  and  the  Annex  on  waterborne, 
December  2016:  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-12-permitting-facilitating-
ten-t.pdf  and:  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-12-permitting-facilitating-ten-t-
annexes-1-to-6.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-12-permitting-
facilitating-ten-t-annex-on-waterborne.pdf . 

of  TEN-T 

preparation 

facilitating 

permitting 

core 

and: 

and 

on 

40 

 
 
 
                                                            
as  well  as  providing  clarification  where  needed,  while  sticking  to  the  objectives  of  the 
different  EU  policies.  The  need  of  simplifying  the  regulatory  framework  has  been 
recalled  in  the  recent  Staff  Working  Document94  accompanying  the  'Mobility  Package' 
adopted  on  31  May  201795.  It  underlines  the  fact  that  investment  in  transport 
infrastructure  is  largely  dependent  on  regulatory  framework  and  administrative 
procedures  necessary  for  authorising  infrastructure  projects.  These  are  key  elements 
enabling swift project implementation, in particular in a cross-border context. 

Co-funding of infrastructure projects has been made available in the framework of TEN-
T policy. The 4th Railway Package (adopted in 2016) foresees the increased role of the 
European Union Agency for Railways in removing national technical and safety rules 
and thereby facilitating regional cross-border rail connections. It also establishes the legal 
basis for a common approach to the award of cross-border railway services, to become 
binding in 2019. 

Uncertainties  regarding  the  economic  viability  may  also  be  an  important  obstacle  -  for 
public  authorities,  infrastructure  managers  and  transport  operators  -  to  the  provision  of 
cross-border  infrastructure  and  services.  This,  however,  is  also  interrelated  with  other 
issues addressed in the Communication this Staff Working Documents accompanies. The 
award of public service contracts in the railway sector calls for a common approach on 
both sides of the border and is unlike public transport services in general, still subject to 
derogation. More attractive and up-to-date public transport service offers, both between 
regions  across  borders  or  services  within  cross-border  conurbations,  could  also  be 
boosted: e.g. enhanced cross-border connectivity, information and route planning as well 
as integrated ticketing. 

To make cross-border transport services more attractive and abreast of new technological 
and  societal  developments,  multi-modal  travel  information  services  shall  therefore  be 
stimulated: For example, the Delegated Regulation supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of EU-wide 
multimodal  travel  information  services,  intends  to  provide  appropriate  framework 
conditions  enabling  the  co-operation  of  all  the  relevant  stakeholders  along  the  travel 
information  value  chain.  It  establishes  the  specifications  necessary  to  ensure  the 
accessibility, exchange and update of standardised travel and traffic data and distributed 
journey planning for the provision of multimodal travel information services in the EU. 

In  the  tri-lateral  border  region  between  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium 
(Euroregio Meuse-Rhine) public transport providers have developed a common platform 
with  integrated,  combined  timetables,  joint  pricing  and  a  modernised  ticketing  system. 
With 'euroticket' for 18 euros (for a day) all the bus and train lines in the Euroregio can 

94 
95 

SWD(2017) 177 final of 31 May 2017. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'Europe on the move an agenda 
for  a  socially  fair  transition  towards  clean,  competitive  and  connected  mobility  for  all', 
COM(2017) 283 final of 31 May 2017: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0283 . 

41 

 
                                                            
 
be used. On the National days of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany one ticket can 
be used by two persons. 

However, the organisation and implementation of cross-border public transport services 
is  a  competence  that  lies  at  national,  regional  and  local  level.  From  market  research  to 
information  provision  and  integrated  ticketing,  much  still  needs  to  be  done.  The 
European Commission supports a number of initiatives in this field through the Interreg 
cross-border cooperation programmes (see: KEEP database of projects96). 

The  following  two  actions  will  be  implemented  to  create favourable conditions  for 
better cross-border mobility and accessibility: 

3.7.1  Analysing existing cross-border rail connections and identifying missing links: 

The Commission undertakes a study of missing rail links along internal EU borders. The 
study will be available and disseminated in 2018. The overall objective of this study is to 
conduct  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  all  cross-border  rail  transport  connections,  which 
assesses  the  current  situation  for  all  internal  EU  land  border  regions  and  identifies 
missing links that could be considered for investment in the future. As part of this study, 
an  inventory  of  existing  and  missing  cross-border  rail  connections  is being  established. 
Finally, policy recommendations for future developments as well as investment estimates 
will be presented.  The results of the study and the associated recommendations will be 
widely  publicised  via  the  Border  Focal  Point.  Relevant  dialogues  with  transport 
stakeholders will be fostered. 

3.7.2  Encouraging better cross-border transport services 

The  organisation  and  implementation  of  cross-border  public  transport  services  is  a 
competence  that  lies  at  national,  regional  and  local  level.  Member  States,  regions  and 
municipalities  are  therefore  urged  to  step  up  their  efforts  to  provide  individuals  with 
better  quality,  more  integrated  public  transport  services.  The  Border  Focal  Point  will 
make good practices available and provide expert advice where possible. 

3.8  Promoting greater pooling of health care facilities 

Encouraging  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  to  improve  complementarity  of 
their health services in border regions is a priority for the EU97. This general mandate has 
been spelled out in the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive (2011/24/EU)98, while Union 

96 
97 

98 

https://www.keep.eu/keep/ . 
Besides provisions mentioned in the Treaty itself, one can highlight the Directive on the application 
of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (2011/24/EU) and the EU-Regulation on coordination of 
social security systems (883/2004), see complete references in footnotes 98 and 99. 
Directive  2011/24/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2011  on  the 
application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 45). 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
rules  on  the  coordination  of  social  security  systems  (Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004)99 
also enhance cooperation between Member States' authorities as regards healthcare. The 
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is based on the mandate to adopt measures in the field of 
social  security  necessary  to  provide  freedom  of  movement  for  workers  (Article  48 
TFEU). 

The  Cross-Border  Healthcare  Directive  establishes  rules  to  facilitate  access  to  safe  and 
high  quality  cross-border  healthcare  and  promotes  cooperation  in  healthcare  between 
Member  States,  which  is  of  particular  relevance  for  border  regions.  While  there  is  no 
obligation for Member States to engage in cross-border collaboration, the Commission is 
entrusted  with  the  mandate  to  “encourage  cooperation  between  Member  States  in  the 
areas set out in Chapter IV of this Directive and […], in accordance with Article 168(2) 
TFEU,  take,  in  close  contact  with  the  Member  States,  any  useful  initiative  to  facilitate 
and promote  such  a cooperation” (Recital 51 of  Directive 2011/24/EU).  In  accordance 
with  Article  10(3)  of  that  Directive  the  Commission  “shall  encourage  Member  States, 
particularly  neighbouring  countries,  to  conclude  agreements  among  themselves”,  and 
also, in particular, "to cooperate in cross-border healthcare provision in border regions". 
One way for the Commission to do so is “by identifying major obstacles to collaboration 
between  healthcare  providers  in  border  regions,  and  by  making  recommendations  and 
disseminating  information  and  best  practices  on  how  to  overcome  such  obstacles” 
(Recital 51 of that Directive). 

Under  Regulation  (EC)  No 883/2004,  a  person  wishing  to  get  planned  healthcare  in 
another  Union  Member  State  should  apply  to  the  competent  institution  for  prior 
authorisation.  Under  the  Cross-Border  Healthcare  Directive,  if  a  patient  is  entitled  to  a 
given  treatment  in  their  home  system  then  they  may  claim  reimbursement  for  that 
treatment  when  they  receive  it  in  another  Member  State.  They  are  entitled  to  be 
reimbursed up to the amount that their home system would have paid had that treatment 
been received at home. 

These  two  legal  instruments  provide  the  Union's  legal  framework  on  patients'  mobility 
and  the  coordination  of  social  security  rules  when  it  comes  to  healthcare  benefits  in 
cross-border  situations.  However,  they  follow  different  structures  and  principles  on 
providing  reimbursement  of  cross-border  healthcare.  Therefore,  in  their  practical 
implementation  at  national  and  regional  levels,  certain  difficulties  tend  to  arise  from  a 
cross-border  regional  context.  These  include  e.g.  different  and  complex  procedures  of 
prior  authorisation  of  healthcare  services  and 
their  payments/reimbursements; 
administrative  burden  for  patients  in  dealing  with  cross-border  consultations  with 
specialists; incompatibilities in the use of technology and in the sharing of patients' data; 
lack of unified accessible information, which also includes a lack of information in the 
patients'  language100.  Thus,  the  limited  accessibility  from  both  sides  of  the  border 

99 

Regulation (EC) 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the 
coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1). 

100  Gesundheit Österreich Forschungs- und Planungs GmbH, Study on better cross-border Cooperation 

for high-cost Capital investments in health, November 2016, e.g. pp. 97-108: 
https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/cross_border_care/docs/hci_frep_en.pdf . 

43 

 
                                                            
 
hampers the full use of the health care facility. Emergency and rescue services are also 
sometimes impeded in carrying out their cross-border interventions. 

Apart  from  the  inconvenience  caused  for  the  border  patient,  investing  in  health 
infrastructure  risks  becoming  partially  a  lost  investment,  because  of  the  limited 
accessibility  from  both  sides  of  the  border  that  hampers  the  full  use  of  the  health  care 
facility. 

For residents of the twin city of Valga-Valka between Estonia and Latvia101, the nearest 
hospital  on  the  Latvian  side  is  50  km  away,  while  the  nearest  hospital  on  the  Estonian 
side  is  just  3  km  away.  However,  access  to  hospital  services  in  Estonia  for  Latvian 
residents  remains  unduly  complicated.  Obstacles  include  the  lack  of  accessible 
information,  cumbersome  procedures  for  consultation  with  specialists  and  complex 
healthcare service payment procedures. There are as yet no agreements in place at either 
the national or municipality level to facilitate guaranteed medical assistance between the 
twin-towns, despite attempts to do so. 

The  two  existing  Union  legal  frameworks  mentioned  above  do  provide  the  opportunity 
for Member States to conclude bilateral agreement on patients' mobility and coordination 
of  social  security  rules  when  it  comes  to  healthcare  benefits  in  cross-border  situations, 
using  tools  from  one  or  both  legislation  to  get  easier  access  to  patients  to  cross-border 
healthcare. Examples of this already exist: 

Starting  as  an  Interreg  project,  the  nowadays  institutionalised  agreement  establishing 
seven organised cross-border health care zones on the Franco-Belgian border102 has 
been used by more than 20,000 patients who have received health care closer to home in 
the  neighbouring  country.  This  is  a  good  practice  in  dealing  with  the  issue  of  different 
and  complex  procedures  of  healthcare service payments/reimbursements. In  these areas 
(referred to as Zones Organisées d'Accès aux Soins Transfrontaliers- ZOAST) residents 
of six border territories can receive health care on both sides of the border in designated 
health  care  institutions  without  any  administrative  or  financial  barriers.  Since  2008 
emergency medical services on both sides of the border are working together to reduce 
response time. In late 2011 another framework agreement was signed between the French 
government  and  the  regional  government  of  Wallonia  to  accommodate  mainly  French 
people  with  disabilities  in  Walloon  facilities.  Many  of  the  health  care  cooperation 
projects were supported by the Interreg programmes103. 

Map 3 shows the ZOAST along the Franco-Belgian border. 

101  Case study in policy area 3 (Social Security Systems), Obstacle N.82 in the inventory: 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review/ . 

102  Espace Transfrontaliers, La Communauté de santé transfrontalière: 

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/ressources/themes/sante/sante-4/ . 

103  Expert  Panel  on  Effective  Ways  of  Investing  in  Health  (EXPH)  opinion  on  Cross-border 

Cooperation, 29 July 2015 p. 30: 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/expert_panel/sites/expertpanel/files/009_crossborder_cooperation_en.pdf . 

44 

 
                                                            
 
 
 
Map 3: Map of the ZOAST. 

Another  good  practice  of  cross-border  health  cooperation  is  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund co-financed cross-border hospital in Cerdanya on the border between 
France and Spain: 

The Cerdanya hospital forms part of a wider cross-border health care project seeking to 
ensure the availability of health care to the local population. It serves not only as a setting 
for the treatment of acute medical problems, but also as the core of a network of cross-
border  health  services.  Co-financed  under  Interreg  by 
the  European  Regional 
Development Fund, the hospital has been equipped with 64 beds, 32 rooms, 3 operating 
rooms,  1  birthing  room  and  additional  multi-purpose  facilities.  Launched  in  September 
2008, the cross-border hospital project is the result of a successful partnership between 
the  European  Grouping  for  Territorial  Cooperation  of  the  cross-border  Hospital  of 
Cerdanya and the Health Department of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain). The project 
led  to  the  creation  of  a  separate  cross-border  organisation  for  the  construction  and 
management of this establishment. The area of Cerdanya is inhabited by approximately 
30,000  people,  a  number  which  rises  to  150,000  during  peak  tourist  periods104.  In 

104 

See footnote 101. 

45 

 
 
                                                            
practical  terms,  the  hospital  resolved  a  number  of  secondary  issues,  such  as  the 
recognition of birth and death certificates on both sides of the border. 

Other  existing  best  practices  co-financed  under  Interreg  and  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund, which could serve as models for emulation more broadly in the EU 
are the Integrated Approach to Improve Emergency Medical Assistance in Cross-Border 
between  Italy  and  Slovenia  (IntegrAid),  the  International  Academy  for  Health 
Professionals  (EEIG),  also  known  as  Sanicademia  -  a  euroregional  academy  for  health 
professionals  of  the  Italian  Regions  of  Friuli  Venezia  Giulia  and  the  Veneto,  and  the 
Austrian  Land,  Carinthia  -  and  the  cooperation  between  the  Children's  Hospital  in 
Helsinki University and Estonia. 

A bilateral agreement between Denmark and Germany105 has extended the use of the 
Danish  reporting  system  at  an  operational  level,  as  it  was  previously  impossible  to 
navigate between the two IT-systems. The incidence of malignant neoplasms in Denmark 
has  risen  during  the  last  decades.  However  the  treatment  capacity  in  Denmark  was 
limited when it came to radiotherapy. Before 2006, in Denmark only six hospitals were 
equipped with radiotherapy departments which caused long travelling times and waiting 
lists  for  Danish  cancer  patients.  As  the  administrative  region  of  Southern  Denmark  is 
adjacent to the German border, treatment in Germany can noticeably decrease travelling 
times.  Against  this  background  the  cooperation  between  the  German  Malteser  St. 
Franziskus hospital in Flensburg and the Region of Southern Denmark was started as a 
pilot  programme  in  1998.  In  2001  a  cooperation  contract  was  signed  which  includes 
radiotherapy  for  diverse  cancer  for  up  to  300  Danish  patients  per  year.  Although  the 
cooperation was planned to be an interim solution it is still ongoing, primarily due to the 
advantage  of  shorter  travelling  times  for  Danish  patients.  In  2007,  the  cooperation  was 
extended  via  co-financing  through  Interreg  towards  the  provision  of  chemotherapy  for 
Danish patients and the development of a CB mammography screening was also planned.  
The incentives for the cooperation include the compensation of non-existing resources in 
Denmark, faster supply of radiotherapy for Danish  cancer patients and reduction of the 
travelling  time  for  Danish  cancer  patients,  a  competitive  advantage  for  the  Flensburg 
hospital, and financial incentives as the collaboration contributed to the expansion of the 
radio-therapy station in Flensburg due to enlarged group of patients. 

105  This cooperation exists between “The Malteser Hospital” in Flensburg (Germany) and the Region of 
Southern  Denmark.  The  cooperation  focuses  on  cost-intensive  medical  equipment  necessary  for 
radiotherapy, e.g. linear accelerators and the presence of radiotherapy stations. 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
To further promote the pooling of health care facilities and to facilitate cross-border 
health care, the following action is envisaged: 

3.8.1  Mapping cross-border health cooperation in the EU  

A  comprehensive  mapping  of  cross-border  health  cooperation  across  the  EU  by  the 
Commission  will  identify  good  practices  and  analyse  future  challenges106.  It  will  be 
available in 2018 and shared with stakeholders via the Border Focal Point. The European 
Commission will during 2018 also organise a strategic event with health care and border 
stakeholders  to  highlight  good  practices  of  cross-border  health  cooperation  and  explore 
ways in which this can be further developed throughout the Union. 

3.8.2  Report on cross-border Healthcare Directive 

In  2018  the  Commission  will  publish  an  implementation  report  on  the  operation  of 
Cross-Border Healthcare Directive which will include elements linked to the situation in 
border regions. 

3.9  Considering the legal and financial framework for cross-border cooperation 

The  EU  has  introduced  a  number  of  legal  and  financial  tools  to  facilitate  cooperation 
across European borders. 

In  terms  of  funding,  many  EU-funded  programmes  make  important  contributions  to 
cross-border  cooperation.  Interreg,  also  known  as  European  Territorial  Cooperation 
(ETC), is one of the two goals of the Union's Cohesion Policy and provides a framework 
for the implementation of joint actions and policy exchanges between national, regional 
and  local  actors  from  different  Member  States.  In  the  current  and  fifth  programming 
period stretching between 2014-2020, Interreg has a total budget of EUR 10.1 billion, of 
which  EUR  6.6  billion  are  invested  for  60  cross-border  cooperation  programmes  along 
38 internal Union borders107. 

Besides Interreg, LIFE, Horizon 2020108, and EURES are important drivers of horizontal 
cooperation  among  border  regions.  For  example,  within  the  LIFE  Programme  (the 
Financial Instrument for the Environment and Climate Action) 2014-2020, the Integrated 
project  (IP)  'PREPAIR'109,  which  concerns  air  quality,  a  field  where  cross-border 
cooperation is particularly important, and which, among others, aims at strengthening the 

106 

107 

See  request  for  Specific  Services  No CHAFEA/2016/Health/22  for  the  implementation  of 
Framework  Contract  No EAHC/2013/Health/01  –  lot  2-  health  economics–  Study  on  cross-border 
cooperation: capitalising on existing initiatives for cooperation in cross-border regions. 
Interreg : European Territorial Co-operation: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/ . 

108  Horizon  2020,  the  biggest  programme  of  the  Union  dedicated  entirely  to  Research  and  Innovation 
(R&I),  promotes  advances  in  science  with  nearly  EUR  80  billion  of  funding  over  7  years  (2014-
2020): https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020 . 
PREPAIR - Po regions engaged to policies of air: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_i
d=6102 . 

109 

47 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
coordination  and  cooperation  among  regional  authorities  in  Italy  and  Slovenia  in  this 
sector. 

The  Investment  Plan  for  Europe  will  equally  contribute  to  the  development  of  border 
regions.  The  Plan's  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments,  recently  re-enforced  and 
extended, further incentivises the support for cross-border investment projects in view of 
their importance for Europe by defining such projects as additional per se. Also, as part 
of  the  second  pillar  of  the  Plan,  the  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub110  provides 
advice  and  technical  assistance  for  investment  projects,  including  specifically  cross-
border  projects,  while  the  European  Investment  Project  Portal111  helps  projects  meet 
potential  investors.  Finally,  the  Plan's  third  pillar  dedicated  to  removing  barriers  to 
investment will help provide a more favourable environment for cross-border investment 
projects112. 

In  terms  of  labour  market  policy,  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  can  support  the 
transnational mobility of job seekers from 2014 onwards through financing for example 
language  and  orientation  trainings,  the  costs  of  the  transnational  mobility  itself  (travel 
costs), their integration in the host country etc. Transnational mobility activities  can be 
programmed under the specific investment priority (8)(vii), where they concern EURES 
(financing  the  activities  of  the  EURES  national  networks),  or  under  any  different 
investment priority depending on the specific objective to which they contribute. 

As  far  as  legal  instruments  are  concerned,  Euroregions,  Eurodistricts  and  EGTCs  are 
good practices involving partners from both sides of the border to solve obstacles locally 
–  and  creating  frameworks  for  improved  cross-border  cooperation.  Often  these  local 
solutions  are  sector  specific  and  rely  mostly  on  better  and  more  reliable  information 
provision  to  citizens.  Good  examples  include  the  INFOBEST  offices  on  the  French-
German  border,  and  the  'Groupement  Transfrontalier  Européen',  an  association  of 
French  commuters  to  Switzerland.  The  first  Euroregion  was  set  up  in  1958  at  the 
German-Dutch  border.  Due  to  the  active  promotion  by  the  Council  of  Europe  and  the 
Commission,  more  than  160  Euroregional-type  structures  have  been  created  between 
member  regions  and  territories  since  then.  Their  legal  set-up  ranges  from  associations 
and  foundations  to  EGTCs  or  other  formalised  agreements113.  Eurodistricts  are  most 
often created in cross-border conurbations, like the Strasbourg-Orthenau Eurodistrict114. 
An  EGTC  is  a  legal  instrument  created  on  the  basis  of  the  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1082/2006115,  and  allows  public  entities  from  both  sides  of  the  border  to  come 
together under a new single entity with full legal personality116. 

110  The European Investment Advisory Hub: http://www.eib.org/eiah/ . 
111 

European Investment Project Portal (EIPP): https://ec.europa.eu/eipp/desktop/en/index.html . 
Investment  plan:  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment/investment-
plan_en . 

112 

113  Espaces Transfrontaliers, Eurorégions:  

http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/resources/territories/euroregions/ . 

114  Eurodistrict: http://www.eurodistrict.eu/fr . 
115 
See complete reference in footnote 19. 
116  EGTC Platform: https://portal.cor.europa.eu/egtc/Pages/welcome.aspx . 

48 

 
                                                            
 
The Eurometropolis Lille - Kortrijk – Tournai117 is the largest cross-border metropole 
in  Europe.  The  3,500  km²  large,  bi-lingual  region  embraces  the  Lille  metropolis,  the 
southern and central parts of West Flanders, and Western Hainaut. The Eurometropolis 
was  the  first  EGTC  established  in  Europe,  following  a  long  tradition  of  cross-border 
cooperation.  It  brings  together  all  French  and  Belgian  government  levels  via  14 
institutions, working together to erase the "border effect" and make day-to-day life easier 
for  its  2.1  million  inhabitants.  Today,  the  EGTC  acts  as  a  hub  for  all  cross-border 
information,  activities  and  services,  supporting  their  exploitation  and  development  and 
sometimes  even  adapting  them.  Institutions,  companies,  artists,  associations  and  clubs, 
various organisations, etc. are all invited to coordinate and pool their projects, allowing 
them to speak with one voice. 

To  create  legal  certainty  and  joint  frameworks,  the  EGTC  or  the  European  Economic 
Interest  Group  (EEIG)118  are  important  tools.  However  they  are  not  necessarily  always 
suitable  to  resolve  legal  and  administrative  obstacles.  Despite  their  existence, 
implementing  cross-border projects still remains a real challenge, as  the time it took  to 
successfully extend the tram line from Strasbourg (F) to Kehl (DE) illustrates119. 

A number of Member States are considering the merit of a new instrument which would 
make it possible, on a voluntary basis and agreed by the competent authorities in charge, 
for  the  rules  of  one  Member  State  to  apply  in  the  neighbouring  Member  State  for  a 
specific project or action limited in time, located within a border region and initiated by 
local and/or regional public authorities. 

From  July  2016  to  July  2017,  the  Working  Group  on  Innovative  Solutions  to  Cross-
Border  Obstacles,  co-chaired  by  France  and  Luxembourg,  with  the  support  of  the 
Transfrontier Operational Mission (La MOT) investigated the feasibility and design of a 
new legal tool, which was first presented under the Luxembourg Presidency in 2015120. 
The  working  group  brought  together  Member  States  and  partner  countries,  local  and 
regional stakeholders as well as representatives of EU institutions to discuss a systematic 
approach  to  overcoming  border  obstacles.  The  aim  of  the  process  is  to  prepare  a  new 
tool, the so-called European Cross-Border Convention (ECBC). 

The ECBC would be a voluntarily applicable, bottom-up legal tool, available to local and 
regional  authorities  and  stakeholders  to  initiate  a  procedure  for  solving  administrative 
and legal obstacles. In practice it would allow, after validation by the competent national 
authority (and if necessary transposition into national law) to apply the administrative or 
legal rules  and provisions of another country  in a  defined area  of application along the 
border. The ECBC would have the following advantages over existing tools: it would be 

117  Eurometropolis: http://www.eurometropolis.eu/ . 
118  European  Economic  Interest  Grouping  (EEIG),  introduced  by  the  Council  Regulation  (EEC) 

119 

120 

No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985. 
Strasbourg Eurométropole/ 
http://www.strasbourg.eu/en/grands-projets/projets-deplacements-urbains/extension-tram-kehl .  
Input  paper  for  the  Informal  Ministerial  Meeting  on  Territorial  Cohesion  under  the  Luxembourg 
http://www.amenagement-territoire.public.lu/fr/eu-presidency/Informal-Ministerial-
Presidency/ 
Meetings-on-Territorial-Cohesion-and-Urban-Policy-_26-27-November-2015_-Luxembourg-
City_.html# . 

49 

 
                                                            
 
quicker and more efficient compared to intergovernmental agreements, it would provide 
a  higher  administrative  and  legal  certainty  to  stakeholders  involved,  compared  to  the 
bottom-up approach of many initiatives in cross-border areas. The tool would also limit 
the  administrative  burden  to  the  Member  States  as  existing  mechanisms,  structures  and 
institutions  could  be  integrated  into  the  tool’s  procedure.  These  existing  mechanisms, 
structures  and  institutions  could  be  used  at  every  step  of  the  procedure  to  facilitate  the 
process  of  finding  a  solution.  The  instrument  would  not  compete  with  existing 
instruments or  solutions, and it goes beyond the scope of the EGTC Regulation, which 
specifies  that  the  regulatory  and  policy-making  powers  of  legal/regional  authorities 
cannot be subject of an EGTC convention. The ECBC on the other hand would offer the 
concerned  authorities  a  solution  for  the  limited  application  of  foreign  rules  and 
provisions in a domestic context. 

To further enhance the legal and financial framework for cross-border cooperation, 
the following two actions are envisaged: 

3.9.1  Following the preparations of a "European Cross-Border Convention"  

The  Commission  services  closely  follow  the  work  undertaken  by  Member  States  as 
described  above.  Taking  into  account  the  evidence  provided  by  the  pilot  projects 
mentioned  above  in  section  3.1,  the  Commission  will  consider  options  to  take  this 
instrument forward.  

3.9.2  Looking at possible contributions from future funding programmes 

Member States and the European institutions will engage early in a dialogue to explore 
how future funding programmes can make a more strategic contribution to the prevention 
and resolution of border obstacles and the development of cross-border public services. 

3.10  Building evidence of cross-border interaction to inform decision-making 

Collecting  data  and  evidence  on  border  obstacles  is  the  first  necessary  step  towards 
resolving  them  but  only  limited  resources  are  invested  in  collecting  and  analysing 
information  on border  difficulties and complexities. Excellent  examples exist in  France 
(see  the  Mission  Opérationnelle  Transfrontalière121)  and  in  Hungary  (see  the  Central 
European  Service  for  Cross-Border  Initiatives122).  Regional  observatories  can  be  found 
for instance in the Upper Rhine or the Grande Region. More such types of initiatives are 
needed across Europe. 

The  data  portal  for  the  Greater Region  –  in  and  around  Luxembourg  –  collects  data 
from national and regional statistical offices to provide policy-makers with evidence of 
cross-border  flows  and  territorial  trends  in  an  area  characterised  by  high  levels  of 

121  Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière: www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org . 
122  Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives: www.cesci-net.eu . 

50 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
interaction (e.g. 200,000 cross-border workers). Since 1995, a political "summit" brings 
together  political  leaders  of  all  involved  regions  in  Germany,  France,  Belgium  and 
Luxembourg.  The  basis  for  joint  decisions  in  the  Greater  Region  is  provided  through 
statistical data from five statistical offices. The information is also publicly available123. 

Statistical  and  geospatial  data  describing  cross-border  flows  and  phenomena  is  not 
always  sufficiently  available  or  standardised  to  allow  policy-makers  to  take  informed 
decisions.  Member  States,  under  the  coordination  of  the  European  Statistical  Office 
should  explore  innovative  data  collection  methodologies  (e.g.  geo-referencing  or 
geocoding) ready for cross-border analysis such as grid-based data. 

The European Commission has launched a one-year pilot project in 2017 with a group of 
8 statistical offices to test the potential use of labour force survey data, administrative and 
census data, and mobile phone data124. 

The  Commission  also  works  with  the  Monitoring  Committee  of  the  European 
Observation  Network  for  Territorial  Development  and  Cohesion  (ESPON)  Interreg 
programme  (part-financed  by  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund)  to  further 
promote territorial research linked to border regions. 

The Commission is also building upon successful territorial research activities funded by 
the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) 
and Horizon 2020. Moreover, the Knowledge Centre on Territorial Policies (KC TP) set 
up  by  DG  Joint  Research  Centre  and  DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  develops 
meaningful and territorially relevant information and analytical tools. 

Financed  under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological 
Development  (FP7),  the  KTIECBR  (Knowledge  Transfer  and  Innovations  in 
European  Cross  Border  Regions)125  project  focused  on  the  cultural  and  cognitive 
differences between managers and customers (shoppers and tourists) from both sides in 
border regions between Finland and Sweden as well as on the special characteristics of 
tourism  innovation  and  knowledge  transfer  between  cross  border  small  tourism 
businesses  in  two  cross-border  regions.  There  were  perceived  differences  between 
customers and managers from Tornio-Haparanda (i.e. between customers and managers, 
self-identified  as  belonging  to  Finnish  or  Swedish  culture).  Surprisingly,  customers' 
perceived differences were found to be similar to those of visitors (non-residents), which 
could  indicate  that  cross-border  regions  could  represent  other  mainland  regions  in 
Sweden  and  Finland.  The  project  also  concluded  that  a  more  fine-grained  approach  is 
needed  for  understanding  and  improving  knowledge  transfer  between  neighbouring 
national cultures in cross-border regions. 

123  Grande Région: http://www.grande-region.lu/portal/de/ . 
124  European  Commission,  Study,  'Collecting  solid  evidence  to  assess  the  needs  to  be  addressed  by 

Interreg cross-border cooperation programmes', Study, Luxembourg, November 2016: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2016/collecting-solid-
evidence-to-assess-the-needs-to-be-addressed-by-interreg-cross-border-cooperation-programmes . 
Innovations 

(Knowledge  Transfer  and 

in  European  Cross  Border  Regions): 

125  KTIECBR 

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/59915_en.html . 

51 

 
 
                                                            
 
The  following  two  actions  will  be  implemented  to  broaden  the  evidence  base  for 
better informed decision-making: 

3.10.1  Implementing a pilot project on statistical evidence 

The  Commission  is  financing  a  one-year  pilot  project  with  statistical  offices  to  test  the 
potential  use  of  labour  force  survey  data,  administrative  and  census  data,  and  mobile 
phone  data.  This  collaborative  work  with  Member  States  should  be  pursued  and  re-
enforced based on the outcome of the pilot project available in 2018. The Border Focal 
Point will ensure that the project results are widely disseminated and that identified good 
practices  are  made  available  to  all  border  stakeholders  via  the  online  professional 
network to be set up. 

3.10.2  Promoting border-related, territorial research  

The  Commission  is  working  with  the  European  Observation  Network  for  Territorial 
Development  and  Cohesion  (ESPON)  cooperation  programme  to  further  promote 
territorial research linked to border regions. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  develop  meaningful  and  territorially  relevant 
information and analytical tools in the framework of the Knowledge Centre on Territorial 
Policies  (KC  TP).  Based  upon  the  support  of  two  key  analytical  tools  (namely:  the 
Regional Economic model RHOMOLO and the LUISA Territorial Modelling Platform) 
the  KC  TP  will  contribute  to  increase  the  availability  of  indicators  at  high  spatial  and 
thematic granularity to evaluate and foster positive impacts of cross-border issues such as 
spill-overs, proximities, technological contaminations and labour market dynamics. The 
KC  TP  Territorial  Dashboard  will  be  the  main  instrument  for  the  dissemination  and 
analysis  of  territorial  features.  This  work  will  be  used  by  the  Border  Focal  Point  to 
promote  informed  decision-making  in  response  to  challenges  faced  by  border 
communities. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
4  ANNEX 

Overview of case studies 

Case study 
number 

Policy Area 

Industry/trade: Exportation of goods and cross-border provision 
of commercial services, including e-commerce 
Industry/trade: Border-regional business activities and cross-
border development of entrepreneurship  
Labour market/education: Mobility of cross-border workers 
(commuter flows) 
Labour market/education: Mobility of trainees, students and 
teachers 

Labour market/education: Recognition of diploma or 
professional qualification certificates 

Specific cross-border 
illustration 

Ireland - United 
Kingdom 

Bulgaria - Greece 

Denmark -  Sweden 

Germany - The 
Netherlands 
Spain - Portugal 
Belgium - Germany –
 France - Luxembourg 
(Grande Region) 
Belgium - Germany –
 France - Luxembourg 
(Grande Region) 

Estonia - Latvia 

Finland - Sweden 

Social security systems: Access to social insurance system (e.g. 
retirement pensions, disability insurance, survivor benefits, 
unemployment insurance etc.) 
Social security systems: Access to health care services (i.e. 
primary, secondary and tertiary care) and medical treatment 
Social security systems: Access to health care services (i.e. 
primary, secondary and tertiary care) and medical treatment 
Transport: Scope and quality of regional/local and cross-border 
transport infrastructures and of related maintenance services 
(e.g. snow removal on roads and rail tracks etc.) 
Transport: Public transport by bus, rail, light rail or metro (e.g. 
quality service offer, density of connections, harmonisation of 
tariffs & schedules etc.) 
Transport: Scope and quality of regional/local and cross-border 
transport infrastructures and of related maintenance services 
(e.g. snow removal on roads and rail tracks etc.) 
Policy planning/public services: Spatial planning and cross-
border territorial development planning 
Policy planning/public services: Emergency and rescue services  Slovakia - Hungary 
Policy planning/public services: Public security and crime 
prevention (police cooperation) 

Germany - Poland 

Germany - Poland 

Austria - Slovenia 

Germany - France 

Belgium - France 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 
15 

53