b-solutions, solving border obstacles : a compendium 2023-2024.
Date: 2024-10-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU Member State, European integration, cross-border cooperation, cross-border dimension, cross-border transport, frontier region, frontier worker, institutional cooperation, legal cooperation, obstacle to development, regional cooperation, regional development

b-solutions: 
Solving Border 
Obstacles. 
A Compendium 
2023-2024

Written by the Association of European Border Regions
August – 2024

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Directorate D, European Territorial Cooperation, Macro-Regions,  
Interreg and programmes implementation I
Unit D.2. – Interreg, Cross-Border Cooperation, Internal Borders
Contact: Ricardo Ferreira 
E-mail: Ricardo.Ferreira@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission
B-1049 Brussels 

 
b-solutions: 
Solving Border 
Obstacles. 
A Compendium 
2023-2024

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information 
centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: european-union.
europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en

On the phone or in writing
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service:
–   by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
– via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is 
available on the Europa website at: european-union.europa.eu

EU publications 
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple 
copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your 
local information centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 
EU law and related documents

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in 
all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

EU open data  
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU 
institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, 
for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides 
access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

IMPRINT

Printed by Gutenberg Beuys Feindruckerei GmbH in Germany          
Graphic Design: Anna Landskron-Neumeier, (www.surfacegrafik.de)

Manuscript completed in August 2024

This document should not be considered as representative of the European 
Commission and AEBR’s official position.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024

© Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) and European Union, 2024

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH AEBR 

The Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)

The Commission’s reuse policy is implemented under Commission Decision 
2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents  
(OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/833/oj).

Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the 
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed,  
provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European 
Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective 
rightholders. 

PDF ISBN 978-92-68-20386-6 doi:10.2776/623896 KN-09-24-688-EN-N

This publication was written and prepared by Caitlin Boucher, Dorothee Fischer, 
Kersti Wissenbach (Legado Sharpe&Fischer, dorotheefischer.com), Mariane 
Bloudeau, Cathrin Cordes, Anna Cinzia Dellagiacoma, Martin Guillermo-
Ramírez, Caitriona Mullan (AEBR), in collaboration with Beniamino Brunati, 
Ricardo Ferreira, Clara Menasseyre (European Commission).

Administration:
Enscheder Straße 362 
D-48599 Gronau (Germany) 
Tel.: +49 2562 70219 
Fax: +49 2562 70259 info@aebr.eu

Project Office: 
AEBR c/o BISDN
Körnerstraße 7 
10785 Berlin (Germany)
Tel.: +49 1764 2090666 
b-solutions@aebr.eu 

AEBR Antenna in Brussels: 
Office of Extremadura 
Av. de Cortenbergh 89, 2° 
B-1000 Brussels (Belgium)
Tel: +32 (0)2 736 59 50 
Fax: +32 (0) 2 736 60 10 
extremadura.bruselas@gobex.es

Index

X
E
D
N

I

Preface European Commission   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Preface Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Analysis of obstacles and proposed solutions: b-solutions’ objective 1   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

Institutional Cooperation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17     
Funding systems inhibit innovation through testbeds   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18  
Boosting Minho River cross-border sharing services   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21  
3Land-Bridge over the Rhine — the way to the state treaty   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24  
Rebuilding of the shelter “Europahütte – Rifugio Europa”   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
Cross-border cooperation for winter road maintenance in the Pyrenees   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Cross-border Public Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
Sharing freshwater across the border   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
6 
Road to health: European solutions for cross-border rescue driving   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
7 
Funding of youth psychiatric care across Dutch-German border   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
8 
9 
Animal health law exemptions between Netherlands and Germany   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
10    Horse-riding fee   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52 
11  Public services and cross-border mobility   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
Franco-Belgian mutual recognition of lifeguards   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
12 
13  EGTC as subsidising authority   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
14  Limitations to cross the Nymfaia – Makaza Pass  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64

Employment and Education   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
15   Cross border DUAL VET Euroregion Galicia Norte Portugal   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70
16  Mapping cross-border skills involving employers: Building and Construction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
17  Cross-border employment at the Croatian-Hungarian borders   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
18  Non-recognition of incapacity and disability at work between France and Germany   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81
19  Non-recognition of incapacity and disability at work between France and Luxembourg   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  85
20  Non-recognition of incapacity and disability at work between France and Belgium  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  89
21  Non-recognition of incapacity and disability at work between France and Switzerland   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
22  Deductibility of private pension contributions in Denmark   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  97
23  Applicable Labour Law for Telework   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .  100
24  Limitations in cross-border (further) education  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  104
France-Spain tax and administrative limits   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  108
25 
Joint Degree : reinforced cross-border student mobility   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  112
26 

Green   

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  117
27  Conservation of biodiversity on the Mura River   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  118
28 
Improvement of ecological continuity   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .  122
29  Alternative uses for processing and exchanging sheep’s wool   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  126
30 
Inter-communal cooperation Twence municipalities and Münster   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  130
31  Cross-border public transport – safety belts   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  133

5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32 
Franco-Belgian small islands and stagnant meander on the Lys river   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  137
33  Cross Border Energy Region Ralingen – Rosport-Mompach   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  141
34  Obstacles for cross-border transport of recyclable plastic waste between Belgium  

and Germany   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  145

Following through for impact: b-solutions’ objective 2   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  151

35  Analysis of cross-border obstacles in the field of trade of local agricultural products   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  153
36  Cross-border healthcare between the twin cities of Valga and Valka   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  159
37 
Financing cross border pupil’s education   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  166
38  Perceived border obstacles linked to wood construction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  171
39  Tour guide practice and their activity on both sides of the Hungarian and Croatian border   . . .  175
40  Analysis of legislative borders in employment, especially in the agricultural field in Romania 

and Hungary   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  180
41  GO! Borderless Square   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  184 
42  Corona Pandemic and Home Office – Consequences for the social security and 

taxation of cross-border workers   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  190
43  Hiring of cross-border workers with two jobs   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  194

Conclusions   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201

References   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  206

Legal references   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  210

6

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preface European 
Commission

E
C
A
F
E
R
P

Freedom of movement is one of the most successful and tangible achievements of the European Union 
throughout the decades. However, while EU citizens enjoy the right to move freely across the Union, 
those living near a border often face challenges that those living in the heartlands and in capital cities are 
unaware of. They regularly encounter a range of obstacles arising from the border itself; often invisible, 
but capable of hindering quality of life and preventing regions from tapping into their full potential. EU 
cohesion policy has sought to address these imbalances across regions, but challenges remain. Since 2018, 
the b-solutions initiative has enabled public authorities in border regions to identify and resolve such 
obstacles, with 165 cases tackled to date.

The current compendium is the fourth published in the framework of this project, marking yet another 
important milestone in the journey towards more cohesive and integrated border regions. Not only does 
it showcase the power of shared commitment through 34 new cases, but it also includes an element of 
innovation with the cases dealt with under b-solutions’ objective 2. The reading of these 9 additional cases 
will further inspire you to explore how some of the proposed solutions were effectively implemented as a 
follow-up. 

Overall, the cases included in this compendium demonstrate the importance of doing more to remove 
“border obstacles”, as the compendium shows how those obstacles impact the everyday lives of citizens. 
You will discover that workers living close to the Franco-German border and who are recognised as 
incapacitated in their home country are not often able to have this status recognised in the country where 
they work, affecting their access to social security benefits. In the Flanders-Netherland border region, 
differing water management rules mean that farmers on one side are restricted from collecting water 
during dry periods, while their neighbours are not. On another border, Dutch families living on the 
German side face difficulties in getting reimbursed for psychiatric care for their children received in the 
Netherlands, due to complex and differing national policies. Addressing such cases highlights the urgent 
need for more coordinated cross-border cooperation. 

As we look ahead, the European Commission remains steadfast in its commitment to promoting territorial 
cooperation and cohesion across Europe. Through initiatives such as b-solutions, we will continue to 
tackle border obstacles and help drive forward the EU’s vision of a more connected, inclusive, and prosperous 
Europe. 

All the work towards finding solutions to border obstacles within this project would not have been 
possible without the active involvement and the expertise of the Association of European Border Regions 
(AEBR). Its team has worked hard throughout the process, from finding cases in need of support to 
assigning experts to analyse them, and to communicating them in the series of compendia, of which this 
is the latest volume. My most sincere gratitude goes to them, as well as to the experts that have analysed 
the cases in depth and proposed solutions, and to all the public authorities that have trusted this initiative 
to be a game changer for cross-border interactions in their region.

I am proud to introduce this compendium, which highlights the recent achievements of the b-solutions 
initiative while inspiring future efforts to foster closer cooperation across borders. I am confident that the 
cases presented here will serve as valuable examples for stakeholders and policymakers alike, encouraging 
further cooperation to the benefit of all European citizens.

Jean-Pierre Halkin
Head of Unit, Interreg, Cross-Border Cooperation, Internal Borders

7

Preface Association of 
European Border Regions 
(AEBR)

In my commitment to Gelderland and the Netherlands, I witness daily how important it is 
to engage and collaborate with our neighbors in Germany. Cooperation allows us to share 
knowledge, gain competitive edge, and ultimately make progress. Through our Germany–
Netherlands Interreg program, many projects have successfully enhanced cross-border con-
nections for citizens. This includes initiatives such as shared services like the Cross-Border 
Information Point, as well as improvements in local train services and cycling infrastructure. 
At the same time, entrepreneurs receive support to conduct research and drive innovation, to 
name just a few examples.

Having grown up myself very close to the German border, I am fully aware of the impor-
tance of allowing people to use the services in their regions to the fullest extent. Looking at 
the b-solutions cases included in this new compendium, I deeply acknowledge the need for 
children to be able to use psychiatric services they feel more comfortable with, in their own 
language, regardless of the country in which their parents are registered for social services.

This example shows that despite the headway made so far, we need a more substantial politi-
cal will to truly empower our citizens to experience the promises of the European Union and 
move across national borders freely.

As a politician and Regional Minister of the Province of Gelderland, I acknowledge how 
important Europe is for the Netherlands and Gelderland. At the same time, I am conscious 
that cooperation among neighbouring regions is fundamental to fulfilling the European proj-
ect. Only by working together we are able to create fully integrated and functional cross-
border areas where all citizens enjoy all services equally, and businesses can count on seamless 
infrastructure and easily accessible opportunities. 

I hope the many examples provided through this compendium and the previous three vol-
umes, with 165 cross-border obstacles analysed, will inspire more politicians and actors of 
cross-border cooperation to support and promote collaboration across national boundaries. 
The first set of nine cases promoted further (objective two) shows how complex situations 
can also be tackled and solutions envisaged. Successful cross-border cooperation offers us the 
tool to pass on an European Union that the next generation will be thankful for, as our pre-
decessors did for us by breaking the first barriers. The b-solutions project shows us now how 
to do it.

Helga Witjes 
Regional Minister, Province of Gelderland (NL)
Vice President of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)

8

Introduction

N
O

I
T
C
U
D
O
R
T
N

I

Solidarity and cohesion are central values of the EU, and European border regions have 
benefitted from policies that have been implemented to act upon these values. Thanks to the 
Cohesion Policy1, EU structural support has addressed economic, social and territorial dis-
parities for several decades, thus helping regions reach their full potential. The Single Market, 
free movement of goods, capital, services and people, the border-free Schengen area, and the 
continuous enlargement of the Union have brought European citizens closer together. In 
doing so, they have enabled greater mobility and increasingly granted them equal opportunities 
not only in the EU at large, but also in border regions.

These policies have not only enhanced economic growth, but they have also fostered a sense 
of connection and unity among European citizens. Border citizens, institutions, and companies 
are increasingly interacting across the border every day. More people cross the border to go 
shopping, do business, study, and work (or telework); SMEs have improved their access to 
new markets; and public authorities are cooperating more with their peers across the border 
to face common challenges and deliver joint services. All these processes enhance European 
integration from the bottom up. 

Recently, the EU has faced numerous challenges: the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, 
and growing Euro-scepticism, which threaten democracy. Yet, the EU has demonstrated 
remarkable resilience and a determination to protect the integrity of the European project. 
The strength and sustainability of links amongst cross-border regions are at the forefront  
of solid European construction. These promote daily relationships in every aspect of life and 
strengthen institutional trust2, which is essential to address common challenges. Cross-border 
public services, for example, enhance effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of resources. 
However, the system is imperfect; many national regulations still collide at the borders and 
create difficulties in implementing cross-border actions in many fields, as the b-solutions project 
has highlighted since 2018.

European integration: a success story

Cooperation across national boundaries is a core element of European integration, which is 
especially tangible and impactful in border regions. It helps border regions overcome barriers 
and connects territories across national borders. It facilitates the inclusion of more citizens 
in experiencing the benefits of EU membership. It is efficient in releasing the full innovation 
potential of the entire territory of Member States, for the benefit of all. The EU Interreg 
Initiative3 has boosted cooperation between regions and municipalities all over Europe since 
1990. Through its projects, Interreg has supported outcomes in economic, social, civic and 
cultural life. This relevant instrument for territorial cooperation has multiplied interactions 
between institutions, enterprises, and citizens across national borders, and has effectively 
contributed to building and consolidating trust in and across border regions. 

1 

2 

3 

 Cohesion Policy is the EU main investment policy targeting all regions and cities in the EU. More information at https://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en. 
 Medeiros, E., Guillermo Ramírez, M., Trillo Santamaría, J.M. (2024) Cross-border Institutional Trust in Post-pandemic Times. The Role of 
EU b-solutions Initiative, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2024.2352431.
 Interreg is the key EU territorial cooperation instrument. More information: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/
european-territorial_en. 

9

A further step in strengthening cooperation and integration across borders was triggered by a 
European legal instrument to establish territorial cooperation entities within public law. 
Since 2006, the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)4 have enabled public 
authorities from two or more Member States to institutionalise collaboration, adding new 
cross-border cooperation structures and building on the experience of the Euroregions and 
Eurodistricts since the late 1950s.

Today, some of the pioneering Euregions have become EGTCs, while others have not, but 
most of them remain working after decades. Over eighty EGTCs are currently registered as 
active; most of them are cross-border in nature and involved in building up integrated, functional 
or interdependent spaces where citizens and businesses might find new opportunities and 
services. In most cases, they have increased their portfolio, strengthened specific thematic 
approaches, and networked. Doing so, they have benefitted the cross-border regions where 
they are based and the overall European cross-border cooperation interest.

Further endeavours addressing EU border regions have been developed following the 
Commission’s Communication on Border Regions in 20175 and the follow-up report in 20216. 
They resulted in the establishment of a Border Focal Point in the Directorate-General for 
Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission (DG REGIO), and in the consoli-
dation of an experts’ network which meets regularly through thematic ‘Beyond Borders 
Breakfast Debate’, among other initiatives. Closer to the ground, a few more actions support 
cross-border regions to become more resilient to crises, better prepared to plan and react  
to new challenges, and to identify obstacles to cooperation (and propose solutions) through 
various initiatives, including b-solutions. All these efforts have brought tangible progress  
to border regions and paved the way towards improved transport links, increased access to 
healthcare, education and other basic services, and more connected labour markets. Some 
two million people commute daily to the neighbouring region within the Schengen area, and 
about 3.5 million people cross one of the 38 internal borders of the EU every day for different 
purposes. These figures might grow, as well as the need for information, harmonisation or, at 
least, coordination between the variety of public administrations involved in regulating many 
everyday aspects for these cross-border commuters. Enhanced cross-border cooperation 
would also affect one third of the EU population living in border regions.

The new Cohesion Report7 shows progress in economic and social convergence, especially in 
border regions. Here, growth in GDP per capita recorded higher scores than the EU  
average over the period 2001–20218. This progress supports the EU’s priority of a prosperous 
and competitive Europe9.

Life in border regions has substantially improved thanks to EU integration, and cross-border 
cooperation facilitates positive integration. In this sense, future policies deepening cooperation 
among cross-border regions can further benefit the whole of the EU and its citizens.

4  More information: https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/egtc.aspx. 
5 

 European Commission (2017), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 20 September 
2017 Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions. COM/2017/0534 final.
 European Commission (2021), Report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions EU Border regions: living labs of European integration. COM(2021) 393 final, Brussels, 14 July 2021.
 European Commission (2024), Ninth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Publications Office of the EU, Luxembourg, 
March 2024.
Ibid., pp. 110 -111.
 EU priorities are set in the strategic agenda and guide the work of the EU institutions for the institutional cycle 2024-2029. More 
information at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/strategic-agenda-2024-2029/. 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10

Room for improvement: tackling legal and administrative obstacles

Evidence shows10 that alleviating legal and administrative obstacles is essential to enhancing 
economic, social and territorial cohesion among EU countries, and especially between border 
regions. The lack of coherence in applicable legislation on every side of a national boundary, 
different administrative procedures for a given service in neighbouring countries and the lack 
of legal options for cross-border interactions still hamper the implementation of many joint 
initiatives. This disadvantage affects border regions, slowing down or freezing the implemen-
tation of certain projects and creating frustration. Consequently, border regions cannot exploit 
their full development potential and, in fact, face economic loss11.

In response, the European Commission, with the support of the European Parliament, the 
European Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, 
has prompted many initiatives to reduce the effect of legal and administrative obstacles. In 
2015, the European Commission launched a consultation to start an inventory of obstacles 
hindering cross-border cooperation through the Cross-Border Review12. Other initiatives 
followed:

•   the development of specific actions to provide legal support to public authorities to  

explore possible solutions;

•   the introduction of an Interreg Specific Objective (ISO) 1, A better cooperation governance, 

which, among other actions, also offers support to resolve legal and administrative  
obstacles in border regions;

•   a proposal for a tool to help Member States resolve obstacles affecting border regions and 

facilitate cooperation13.

All these measures should remove hampering factors, drive border regions forward, and boost 
overall national and European growth, competitiveness and prosperity.

b-solutions: supporting the resolution of border obstacles since 2018

b-solutions. Solving Cross-Border Obstacles is one of the actions launched by the European 
Commission to support local and regional authorities in overcoming legal and administrative 
obstacles that hinder cross-border cooperation. Managed by the Association of European 
Border Regions (AEBR) on behalf of DG REGIO, the b-solutions team has analysed 165 
legal and administrative obstacles across border regions so far.

Many local and regional authorities in most European border regions have received bespoke 
support. A growing pool of 140 cross-border and legal professionals who have expressed  
interest in participating makes it possible to resource suitable experts. These experts are matched 
with the selected b-solutions cases to analyse the root causes of every obstacle, outlining the 
legal and administrative framework that generates the negative impact. Once the background 
is understood, they suggest possible solutions to resolve the obstacles. This targeted approach 
has allowed the participating local actors to gain a deeper insight into every situation. It has 
also facilitated a better understanding of cross-border cooperation dynamics at the macro level. 

10   European Commission and Gallup International (2020), Cross–border cooperation in the EU, Publications Office of the European 

Union, Luxembourg.

11   Camagni R., Capello R., Caragliu A., Toppeta A. (2017), Quantification of the effects of legal and administrative border obstacles in land 

border regions, ABC Department, Politecnico di Milano.

12   More information: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/review_en.
13   European Commission (2023), Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to 

resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2023) 790 final).

N
O

I
T
C
U
D
O
R
T
N

I

11

The analyses consistently highlight the importance of collaboration between border stakeholders 
and national authorities for successful cross-border cooperation.

The outcomes of the individual analyses by the legal experts are available for researchers, 
scholars, policymakers, analysts, practitioners, and anyone interested in building better 
knowledge to improve policies for meaningful cross-border cooperation. In the following 
pages, this fourth b-solutions compendium14 presents 34 new cases selected in 2023 and 
2024, making a total of 165 obstacles identified, analysed and published. A few more are 
under identification and processing, and a b-solutions 3.0 has been proposed to the European 
Commission’s DG REGIO. Therefore, the call for proposals has been kept open on the 
dedicated website, as well as the open call for experts. 

This publication includes summaries of the experts’ full reports, providing relevant information 
on the legal or administrative framework in which every obstacle arises and outlining the 
solutions suggested by every expert. Each summary includes a link to the full report.

The cases were identified along 20 different borders and were submitted by public entities at 
local or regional levels and cross-border structures alike. The obstacles concern the imple-
mentation of the European Green Deal (8 cases), labour market and education across borders 
(12), the provision of cross-border public services (9) and institutional cooperation (5). 
This diversity shows the impact of legal and administrative divergences across borders. They 
are mostly complex obstacles, and implementing the solutions requires demanding proce-
dures and time, which frequently overwhelms local stakeholders. Recognising these challenges, 
DG REGIO and AEBR expanded their efforts with b-solutions 2.0 to move implementation  
of various solutions forward. To this end, b-solutions resources were invested to support further 
interaction with relevant stakeholders, the appointment of additional expertise, provision 
of mentoring support for host organisations and technical experts alike, and the organisation 
of working sessions with relevant authorities with the appropriate competences. This work is 
ongoing, and an example of this element of b-solutions 2.0 can be found in the second part of 
this compendium. Nine cases developed under this specific initiative’s objective are presented.

Boosting solutions forward with objective 2

The first b-solutions calls for proposals highlighted many solutions identified by the experts. 
Very few were caused by a lack of understanding of existing possibilities, and they were 
solved; others had to do with the different implementations of the EU common legislations, 
the acquis communautaire. However, most had to do with legislation colliding across the 
border. Thus, additional intervention and support were necessary to embed these solutions in 
an applied context and continue their path towards, for example, a modification of legal acts 
by the respective parliament or a bilateral agreement between the responsible (usually national) 
authorities. This is not an easy task, and requires knowledge, perseverance and time.

The matter of animation and acceleration of solutions requires the facilitation and brokerage 
of multiple stakeholders in a multilevel governance context, as well as a developmental 
methodology over time. To enable this, further action is required to progress with identified 
solutions through processes involving key actors at local, regional, national, and sometimes 
EU levels. To this end, b-solutions has offered additional support to the representatives of the 
cases since 2022 through objective 2. A selection of these cases features in this compendium, 
though there is a growing number in the pipeline, demonstrating the first outputs of this 

14   All b-solutions publications are accessible here: https://www.b-solutionsproject.com/library. 

12

more extensive process, which is gathering momentum across a range of cases. This additional 
support includes providing more expert time to engage with key actors and produce governance 
documentation, such as bilateral agreements and legislative amendments, or revise procedural 
guidelines. 

Objective 2 of b-solutions also includes the possibility of organising a workshop or a round-
table event to assist with the exchanges and discussions on any aspect of interest towards 
implementing a given solution. Another form of support for cases aiming to progress towards 
an effective solution to the obstacle is provided through AEBR’s in-house expertise, research 
and mentoring. AEBR also assists with profiling and participating in the host organisation’s 
workshop activity, as well as providing advocacy support for key stakeholder engagement and 
follow-up at all levels of stakeholder involvement – local, regional, national and EU levels.
This compendium showcases nine cases developed under objective 2 of b-solutions. The process 
outcomes largely focus on the rapid progression of the solution into an implementable format 
and brokerage of consensus among the key stakeholders. This endorsement is required for the 
solution to be formally adopted or embedded sufficiently to deliver the change identified in 
the initial expert report.

In this phase, b-solutions’ participants are not only assisted in ensuring all possible readiness 
for implementation of legal or administrative innovation, but also in animating, influencing and 
building the necessary depth of relationships between stakeholders. This enables the necessary 
decision-making capacity for the solution to take hold. b-solutions’ objective 2 strives to secure 
concrete outputs and the acknowledgement of the obstacle, its solution and its impact 
among relevant stakeholders. However, actual implementation can only be realised if there is 
political commitment and determination of actors at local, regional, national and European 
levels. To achieve this, b-solutions objective 2 aims to bring cases to the point where all potential 
enablers to implementation have been addressed. This includes considering any challenges 
beyond the control of the stakeholders. The goal is to build the necessary capacity to ensure 
solutions are sustainable and have a lasting impact.

Overcoming border obstacles is possible, and solidarity and innovative policies enabled by 
the European Union’s integration process have initiated and fuelled progress. b-solutions and 
this compendium offer a unique insight into the status quo and the extent of cooperation 
across borders in the current legislative framework, but also demonstrate existing gaps and 
challenges which need to be integrally addressed at the EU level or one by one at every inter-
national boundary. 

With this publication, policymakers are invited to learn from the knowledge gained and take 
action on missing steps to advance the progress achieved so far. By innovating further cross-
border legal frameworks, they can empower border actors to finally implement the proposed 
solutions. A reading of the cases presented in this compendium, especially those under 
objective 2, will indicate the extent of efforts still required to make life in EU border regions 
more equal. b-solutions is a unique pathfinding EU initiative dedicated to the challenges faced 
by border regions and their citizens, their economies, and their public administrative and 
services systems. It builds not only a comprehensive evidence base of border solutions but also, 
with the approach of b-solutions objective 2, works actively to accelerate their implementation. 

As an investment by the European Commission, the project continues to demonstrate the 
value and relevance for a third of the total population of the EU of continuing to strive  
to deliver the necessary economic, social and territorial cohesion that is at the centre of the 
European Union’s priorities.

N
O

I
T
C
U
D
O
R
T
N

I

13

Analysis of obstacles and 
proposed solutions: 
b-solutions’ objective 1

X
E
D
N

I

Institutional Cooperation 

17

Funding systems inhibit innovation 
through test beds

ADVISED ENTITY
Svinesundskommittén/Svinesundskomiteen (Svinesund Committee) – Norway–Sweden

EXPERT
Espen Egseth

NORWAY

SWEDEN

Stockholm

Oslo

Strömstad

Göteborg

18

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

CONTEXT

Norway and Sweden are dedicated to supporting innovation and start-ups, including the use 
of ‘test beds’ to conduct research on innovative products, technologies or services. However, 
during the implementation of the Interreg project ‘Bioeconomy regions’ in Scandinavia, a 
Swedish company aiming to test a new product using a test-bed centre in Norway could not 
make use of the facility. The company was unable to find a Norwegian partner and could not 
obtain funding in Norway because of the national funding rules. Different administrative 
structures for innovation funding programmes in Norway and Sweden currently hinder foreign 
entities from obtaining such financing. The national funding programmes are often not open 
to foreign companies and the application criteria are not clear, which in turn limits innovation 
and cross-border cooperation between Norwegian and Swedish companies.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The obstacle stems from administrative restrictions in both Norway and Sweden that make 
it difficult for foreign companies to obtain financial support for research and innovation 
purposes.

•   Both Norway and Sweden have state institutions through which nationally based companies 

can receive assistance and funding. In Norway, these are Innovasjon Norge (Innovation 
Norway), Norges forskningsråd (The Research Council of Norway) and Selsßkapet for 
industrivekst (Siva)1. In Sweden, Vinnova, Tilväxtverket (The Swedish Agency for Economic 
and Regional Growth) and RISE Research Institutes of Sweden are the three main 
institutions2. Most of these national funding programmes require the company applying for 
assistance to be nationally established or registered.

•   There is a general lack of information regarding the rules and exceptions for foreign 

companies that wish to apply for assistance.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   Analyse the feasibility of modifying the current national funding programmes in terms 
of the award criteria to also include companies located on the other side of the Norway–Swe-
den border. However, this solution may be difficult to achieve, as the majority of such pro-
grammes are financed through annual allowances in each country’s state budget and generally 
do not allow for support to foreign companies. In addition, the decision would need to be 
made at the national parliamentary level and would require strong political commitment, 
which might prove to be challenging.

•   Create new funding programmes, which would not aim to compete with existing pro-

grammes but instead serve as a complementary instrument to foster greater collaboration be-
tween the two Nordic countries:

  –   Norway and Sweden could establish a joint funding programme for Norwegian and Swed-

ish companies to apply for and receive support on equal terms;

  –   border regions in Norway and Sweden could be defined as one region (including the 

neighbouring territory) to allow Norwegian and Swedish regions to apply for and receive 
support on equal terms;

  –   already established cross-border public bodies between Norway and Sweden, such as the 

Svinesund Committee3, could manage or administer joint funding programmes.

1 

2 

3 

 Innovation Norway (https://www.innovasjonnorge.no/en/start-page/), the Research Council of Norway 
(https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/) and Siva (https://siva.no/english/).
 Vinnova (https://www.vinnova.se/en/), The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (https://
tillvaxtverket.se/tillvaxtverket/inenglish.2908.html) and RISE Research Institutes of Sweden (https://www.
ri.se/en/about-rise/about-rise).
 The Svinesund Committee is an organisation established between the Norwegian region of Viken fylkes-
kommune and the Swedish region of Västra Götalandsregionen, with the purpose of fostering political 
collaboration to create work and development opportunities. For more information, see https://svinesund-
skommitten.com/en/.

19

 
•    Modify the funding structure for test beds. The test-bed initiatives could receive direct 

funding, which would come from both countries. In this way, Norwegian and Swedish com-
panies could apply for funding for such services on equal terms, regardless of whether this is 
carried out in Norway or Sweden.

•   Allow companies to receive financial support nationally, but spend the funds across the 
border. If companies received funding from a national entity, they would not be obliged to 
use the funds in that same country. For example, a Swedish company awarded funds from a 
Swedish state institution would be free to purchase services for test-bed projects in Norway.
•   Allow companies to establish a local presence in the other country to meet the funding 
criteria. Certain national funding programmes would only require a company to have a 
branch or establishment in the country, regardless of their nationality.

•   Improve information sharing and awareness of funding criteria and test beds. To tackle 
the issue of the lack of information or awareness about test-bed centres and how the funds 
may be spent once received, information must be made more accessible.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Svinesund Committee aims to conduct further research on this topic, with the assistance 
of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) under objective 24 of the b-solutions 
initiative. An external expert has been asked to assist in the implementation of the proposed 
solutions. At the same time, a workshop is expected to be organised in Oslo in September or 
October 2024, with the assistance of AEBR.

Once these actions have been completed, the present case could serve as inspiration in 
other European border regions for making more efficient use of research and innovation 
infrastructures through cross-border cooperation and multilateral agreements.

© Viken Video Foto, 2017–2018

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ 
110_Report_Svinesund-Commitee_Egseth.pdf 

4  For information on objective 2, see page 12 of this publication.

20

Boosting Minho River cross-border 
sharing services

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation of the Rio Minho – Spain–Portugal

EXPERT
Carmen José López Rodríguez

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

COVELO

SPAIN

Vigo

MONDARIZ

MONDARIZ- 
BALNEARIO

PONTEAREAS

A CAÑIZA

CRECENTO

O PORRIÑO

AS NEVES

ARBO

SALVATERRA 
DE MINO

SALCEDA 
DE 
CASELAS

TUI

MELAÇO

OIA

TOMIÑO

VALENÇA
Valença

MONÇAO

O ROSAL

VILA NOVA 
DE CERVEIRA

PAREDES DE COURA

ARCOS DE VALDEVEZ

CAMINHA

VIANA DO CASTELO

PONTE DE LIMA

PONTE DE BARCA

PORTUGAL

21

 
CONTEXT

In the densely populated Rio Minho area between Spain and Portugal, a cross-border electronic 
bicycle (e-bike) system was established under a shared management scheme to provide a 
sustainable mobility alternative for citizens and to better connect the various municipalities. 
This service was conceived as a pilot scheme to promote cooperation in the cross-border region. 
However, there are tax-related regulatory issues at the national level that could prevent this 
public service from thriving, and there is duplication of the administrative and financial 
obligations between the two countries. Finding a solution to these obstacles would make the 
shared service more efficient.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Two main obstacles have been observed:

•   The value added tax (VAT) rates differ. When it comes to cross-border transactions, the 
VAT rate of the country where the service is provided is typically applied. However, as the 
e-bike system operates in both Spain and Portugal and the bikes can be rented on both sides 
of the border, it is difficult to determine which VAT rate to apply. 

  –   At the EU level, Council Directive 2006/112/EC1 establishes a common system of VAT. 
However, determining the VAT rate falls within the national competence of each country.
  –   At the national level, VAT in Spain is regulated through Law 37/19922, in which Article 90 
establishes the standard VAT rate at 21 %. In Portugal, VAT is regulated through the VAT 
code3, in which Article 18 outlines the different VAT rates applicable to services, which 
differ from the Spanish rate and vary depending on the types of goods or services.

•   Tax rules complicate the shared management of the e-bike system. The system is managed 
by the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) of the Rio Minho, which is a 
European entity with its own legal personality4.

  –   At the EU level, Directive 2006/112/EC references the concept of ‘permanent establishment’ 
in Article 43, which is relevant in that each permanent establishment (in this case the EGTC) 
must manage its VAT based on its operations in the country in which it is established.
  –   In order to operate in both countries, the EGTC, with its headquarters in Portugal, had to 
establish a secondary office in Spain to comply with VAT requirements. When a company 
operates in several countries and is subject to VAT, each permanent establishment is 
typically treated as a separate entity for tax purposes, requiring VAT declaration and 
payment obligations by each establishment in each country. This has led to concerns about 
the duplication of administrative and tax-related efforts.

  –   Spain and Portugal have a bilateral agreement in place to avoid double taxation and 

prevent tax evasion5. However, the agreement does not apply in this case, as VAT is not 
within its scope.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

 Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax 
 (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1).
 Law 37/1992 of 28 December on value added tax, Official Journal of Spain (Boletín Oficial del Estado) 
No 312, 29 December 1992.
 VAT code, approved by Decree-Law No 394/84 of 26 December, Official Journal of Portugal (Diário da 
República) No 297/1984, 1º Suplemento, Series I, 26 December 1984.
 The EGTC Rio Minho is a public law entity established on 24 February 2018 under the provisions of Regula-
tion (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European 
grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19), modified by Regulation (EU) 
No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, 
simplification and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such groupings  
(OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303).
 Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to avoid double taxation and prevent 
tax evasion in matters of income taxes and protocol, signed in Madrid on 26 October 1993: Official Journal 
of Portugal (Diário da República) No 24/1995, Series I-A, 28 January 1995, and Official Journal of Spain 
(Boletín Oficial del Estado) No 266, 7 November 1995.

22

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

© EGTC Rio Minho, 2022

Take inspiration from other instruments or solutions. The VAT mini one stop shop (MOSS) 
scheme relating to VAT on digital services6 aims to simplify the obligations of companies or 
entities that sell services remotely or provide services whose recipients are final consumers in 
different EU Member States. It operates as a ‘one-stop shop’ that allows VAT to be settled in a 
single country when operating in several.

•    While the scheme is not yet applicable to services such as cross-border bicycle rental, it could 

serve as inspiration for a solution to the obstacle. In this sense, a similar regulatory mechanism 
for other types of cross-border services, such as the e-bike system, could be developed. Such a 
mechanism would enable the system to be operated more efficiently and would reduce some 
of the administrative burden and duplication of efforts faced by the EGTC.

•   The MOSS scheme has been incorporated into the legal systems of both countries. In this 

regard, the foundations have been laid to implement a similar scheme that would allow this 
type of cross-border public service to submit a monthly or quarterly VAT declaration or 
settlement electronically to the tax administration of the Member State in which it operates.

WHAT’S NEXT

The EGTC Rio Minho intends to run a workshop to present the report to all interested parties. 
The presentation will involve local officials from tax agencies, and participation is encouraged 
by other public institutions, social entities and citizens.

TO LEARN MORE

6 

 The MOSS scheme is regulated by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 
2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value 
added tax (OJ L 77, 23.3.2011, p. 1; https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-digital-
services-moss-scheme/index_en.htm).

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/118_Report_River-
Minho-EGTC_Lopez-Rodriguez.pdf 

23

 
3Land bridge over the Rhine –  
The way to the state treaty

ADVISED ENTITY
Eurodistrict Trinational de Bâle / Trinationaler Eurodistrict Basel – France–Switzerland

EXPERT
Michael Frey

Village-Neuf

GERMANY

FRANCE

Weil am Rhein

Huningue

St. Luis

Basel

Osnabruck

KREIS 
COESFELD

KREIS BORKEN

KREIS 
WARENDORF

SWITZERLAND

24

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

CONTEXT

As part of the ‘3Land’ project1, a group of project partners from France, Germany and 
Switzerland2 is planning to build a cross-border bridge over the Rhine River to connect the 
cities of Huningue, France, and Basle, Switzerland. The planned bridge will be used by tram 
passengers, pedestrians and cyclists, aiming to further improve mobility for citizens and boost 
cross-border cooperation in the region. However, there are a number of legal and administrative 
issues that must first be addressed. There are also different national and local rules on the 
construction of the bridge that could hinder the development of the project.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The bridge project has several obstacles to overcome, as cross-border infrastructure such as 
bridges is handled by national authorities on each side of the border. As a consequence, the 
project should be underpinned by an international treaty. Differences in the national rules 
in France and Switzerland on the authority to conclude bilateral treaties and uncertainties 
about which legal framework applies further complicate the planning of the bridge.

•   At the international level, an international treaty  would be required to regulate the construction 
and operation of a cross-border bridge. While the organisations involved in the project have 
already concluded a tri-national planning agreement3, this agreement represents a political 
declaration of intent, which does not suffice as legal authorisation under international law. 
France must follow EU regulations and cannot deviate from them, but Switzerland, as a non-
EU country, can diverge from internal regulations to apply EU law through international 
treaties as long as Swiss national law is respected.

•   At the national level, the legal frameworks for construction of the bridge vary in each country, 
especially in terms of practical matters such as permits and planning approvals, as well as safety 
and maintenance regulations, among others. Border and customs controls could also potentially 
be obstacles when it comes to cooperation between an EU Member State and a non-EU country.
•   At the subnational level, there are significant differences between French and Swiss competences.
  –   In Switzerland, while the conclusion of international treaties is the responsibility of the 

Confederation, Article 56(1) of the Swiss Federal Constitution4 allows the cantons to con-
clude treaties with foreign countries within their jurisdiction. However, the jurisdiction for 
a combined tram, bicycle and pedestrian bridge is not clearly regulated. Generally, the 
federal government is not the competent authority for the planning and construction of a 
bridge. The canton of Basel-Stadt and the transport services agency of Basle (Basler 
Verkehrsbetriebe) are responsible for the tram infrastructure. While the federal government 
would still be responsible for granting authorisation if the bridge were exclusively meant for 
rail or tram traffic, the canton would be responsible for a bridge for cyclists or pedestrians.
  –   In France, while international treaties are usually concluded by the state, under Article L 1115–1 
to 7 of the general code of regional and local authorities (code général des collectivités terri-
toriales), regional authorities can conclude treaties with foreign local authorities, as long as 
they respect the constitutional principle of free administration (libre administration) according 
to Article 72 of the French Constitution. Therefore, while the regional authorities have 
the competence to conclude cross-border agreements that serve regional or local interests, 
customs issues at the external border with Switzerland fall within the competence of the state. 
As a result, construction of the bridge would require an international agreement between 
France and Switzerland.

1 

2 

3 

4 

 3Land is an initiative started in 2011 by the neighbouring cities of Basle (Switzerland), Weil am Rhein (Germany) 
and Huningue and Saint-Louis (France) to develop a cross-border urban district (https://3-land.net/en/).
 Project partners include the city of Huningue, the city of Saint-Louis, the intercommunal structure Saint-Louis  
Agglomération and the territorial collective Collectivité européenne d’Alsace in France; the city of Weil am 
Rhein and the district of Lörrach in Germany; and the canton of Basel-Stadt in Switzerland.
 3Land, Tri-national planning agreement 2022–2025 on cooperation for the development of the area around the 
border triangle between Palmrain Bridge and Dreirosen Bridge, 2022.
 Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999, Official compilation of federal legislation 
1999 2556 1 (Federal Decree of 18 December 1998, Federal Council Decree dated 11 August 1999 – Official 
compilation of federal legislation 1999 2556; Federal Gazette 1997 I 1, 1999 162 5986).

25

 
© Eurodistrict Trinational de 
Bâle – Julien Kauffmann, 2023

© Eurodistrict Trinational de 
Bâle – Julien Kauffmann, 2022

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The following legal roadmap aims to guide the process and identifies a deliverable for each 
phase. The tri-national planning agreement previously concluded between the organisations 
involved in the 3Land project provides the basis for the following steps:

•   prepare a letter of intent for the construction of the bridge between the canton of Basel-Stadt 

and the Saint-Louis Agglomération, including a joint cost–benefit analysis;

•   engage local and regional cross-border bodies from different political levels to sign a 

supporting resolution;

26

•   conclude a bilateral treaty between France and Switzerland, modelled on existing treaties 

between Germany and Switzerland and Germany and France that can serve as a reference5, 
such as the Freiburg Agreement6 and an agreement on the construction of a bridge over the 
Rhine7;

•   conclude an administrative planning agreement between the canton of Basel-Stadt and the 
French Regional Directorate for the Environment, Development and Housing (Directions 
Régionales de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement);

•   establish a joint commission for coordination, in which the parties would agree on specific 
planning and construction responsibilities and costs, as well as a basic agreement with the 
provisions for competition;

•  coordinate the implementation of national planning and authorisation procedures;
•   implement construction monitoring and supervision, which requires the commissioning of 

an authority under whose law the building tender was issued;

•   promote joint acceptance by the partners involved;
•  come to an agreement on maintenance measures.

It is worth noting that, considering the location and involvement of the three countries, 
a trilateral treaty and subsequent financing for projects could be feasible. However, the 
benefits, such as potential co-financing by German partners, must be weighed against possible 
disadvantages.

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

WHAT’S NEXT

The results of the report were shared with the 3Land project’s political steering group in spring 
2024 and were met with great interest. The draft text of the treaty prepared by the legal expert 
will serve as a basis for further discussions, with the possibility of engaging in negotiations 
at the national level. However, the report also highlighted the complexity of the upcoming 
process. In order to prepare for initial discussions at the national level, the roadmap will be 
examined in greater depth as part of b-solutions objective 28. In particular, the legal expert will 
assist the 3Land project partners in drafting a declaration of intent for the planning of the 
Rhine bridge, which is a crucial step towards solidifying plans at the regional level.

5  Please refer to the original expert report for a detailed description of the agreements.
6 

 Agreement of 12 June 2001 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Gov-
ernment of the French Republic on the construction and maintenance of border bridges over the Rhine 
which are not under the responsibility of the contracting parties, Federal Law Gazette II, 2002, p. 2324.
 Agreement of 8 June 2005 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss 
Federal Council, acting on behalf of the Canton of Aargau, on the construction and maintenance of a 
Rhine bridge between Laufenburg (Baden-Württemberg) and Laufenburg (Aargau), Federal Law Gazette 
II, 2006, p. 1137.
 For information on objective 2, see page 12 of this publication.

7 

8 

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/131_ 
Report-ETB_Frey.pdf 

27

 
 
Rebuilding of the shelter  
“Europahütte – Rifugio Europa”

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation of the European Region Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino –   
Italy–Austria

EXPERT
Otto Mahlknecht

GERMANY

Innsbruck

TYROL

AUSTRIA

SWITZERLAND

SOUTH 
TYROL

Bozen/Bolzano

Trento

TRENTINO

ITALY

28

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

CONTEXT

An alpine shelter known as ‘Europahütte – Rifugio Europa’ is located exactly on the border 
between Italy and Austria and has been standing for more than a century. It is jointly managed 
between entities in Italy and Austria. However, the shelter is damaged and needs to be rebuilt, 
which raises doubts about which national legal system to apply for its reconstruction and for 
the award of the building contract, as the new building will be located on both Italian and 
Austrian territory. Legal clarification and close cooperation between the parties involved on 
both sides of the border is therefore necessary for the effective rebuilding and management of 
the shelter.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The obstacle is due to uncertainty over which national legal framework applies under 
construction law and whether public procurement law is applicable. A contract was 
concluded in 2024 between the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol and the 
section of the Landshut district of the German Alpine Club (DAV Landshut) for cooperation 
between these two co-owners in the construction of the new building. The Autonomous 
Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol aims to commission DAV Landshut as the main contractor 
for the project, but the process is complex, as the building will be located on both sides of 
the border. The main question to answer is as follows: can DAV Landshut use its voluntary 
guidelines1 for the construction of mountain huts and the Austrian legal system for new 
constructions while Italian territory is also involved?

•   Applicable building law. As it is a matter of public law that cannot easily be waived, 
construction of the shelter must comply with both Italian and Austrian building and 
administrative regulations. It is also stipulated that the stricter national legislation must be 
applied to the entire building; for example, the fire protection regulations in Italy are the 
stricter and therefore must be followed. The building authorisation procedures must also be 
carried out in parallel.

  –   In the province of Tyrol (Austria), because the shelter is located on the border, the 
Innsbruck district authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck) is responsible for 
issuing the building permit in this case, rather than the municipality, in accordance with 
Section 7(1) of the State Border Act2 for construction projects on the border. Meanwhile, 
in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol (Italy), according to Article 76 
of the Provincial Law of 10 July 20183, unless a construction project is deemed of 
‘supra-municipal or provincial interest’, the local municipality is the competent building 
authority. In this case, the province and the municipality collaborate to ensure compliance 
with building and administrative regulations.

•   Law applicable to the award of the contract. There is a question regarding whether public 

procurement law is applicable. On the Italian side, Article 2(3) of the South Tyrolean 
Provincial Law on Public Procurement4 stipulates that, if the contract value exceeds 
EUR 1 million and if the entities have an interest or contribution of at least 50 %, then the 
public procurement law would also apply to associations under private law, such as DAV 
Landshut. In this case, the share of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol is 
only 48 %, so this provision does not apply. Similarly, the Austrian Federal Procurement 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 DAV Landshut has published a handbook to provide information on laws, regulations and deadlines to be 
observed in the operating licence procedure in Austria. The handbook can be accessed, in German, at  
https://www.alpenverein.de/verband/huetten-und-wege/nachhaltiger-huettenbetrieb/huettenbau-und- 
huettenbetrieb-recht-und-richtlinien.
 Federal Act of 30 November 1973 on the implementation of intergovernmental agreements on the surveying 
and marking of the state border and on the regulation of certain matters of the state border (State Border Act), 
Federal Law Gazette, No 9/1974.
 Provincial Law of 10 July 2018, No 91 (space and landscape), Supplement 3 to the Official Gazette of 12 July 
2018, No 28.
 Provincial Law of 17 December 2015, No 16 (provisions on public procurement), Supplement 3 to the Official 
Gazette of 22 December 2015, No 51.

29

 
Act5 contains a comparable regulation in Section 4(3) with a 50 % threshold for interests 
or contributions. Therefore, DAV Landshut is not subject to public procurement law in 
either of the two countries, which means that all contracts for the construction of the 
new shelter will be awarded under private law.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   Harmonisation of building permit procedures in EU Member States. At the EU level, a 
legal framework is already in place to harmonise building regulations, construction product 
standards and construction quality standards. Based on the framework outlined below, the 
EU could also harmonise building permit procedures among Member States, which would 
provide a solution to cross-border cases such as this.

  –   Building regulations. EU directives and regulations are in place that establish minimum 
requirements for construction works, such as Regulation (EU) No 305/20116 laying down 
harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and Directive 
2010/31/EU7 on the energy performance of buildings.

  –   Construction product standards. There are numerous standards to ensure that products 
manufactured and approved in one Member State can also be freely marketed in another, 
such as the abovementioned Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.

  –   Construction quality standards. Under the EU treaties, in particular Articles 26 and 114 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)8, the EU can enact 
measures to create and maintain a single internal market, providing the legal basis for the 
competence to harmonise construction law. In addition, under Article 194 of the TFEU, 
environmental and energy efficiency can provide the basis for EU legislation in the con-
struction sector in terms of quality standards.

•   Bilateral agreements between neighbouring Member States. Bilateral agreements between 
Italy and Austria could lay down simplified building authorisation procedures in the border 
area, especially when there are close ties that reflect integration and cooperation between two 
border territories and the entities involved in managing public buildings, which is true in the 
case of the shelter.

•   Joint public procurement of public works contracts through bilateral agreements.  

Article 39(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement9 enables contracting authorities 
from different Member States to jointly award a public contract, provided that the countries 
conclude an agreement determining the responsibilities, applicable national provisions,  
management and organisation of the procedures, among others. In order to implement Arti-
cle 39(4) of the directive, which would benefit border regions in particular when it comes to 
managing shared public works, such an agreement should be concluded between the Member 
States. This solution would enable the joint public procurement of public works in general.

WHAT’S NEXT

The next step is to request the building authorisation through separate procedures in Italy and 
Austria. Following the planning, DAV Landshut will also be responsible for the reconstruction 
of the shelter. It was contractually agreed that South Tyrol would assist the tender and the 
construction project, and  is contributing administrative expertise for the construction process 
on the Italian side. Finally, the renovation work will start.

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

 Federal Act on the Award of Contracts (Federal Procurement Act 2018 – BVergG 2018), Federal Law Gazette, 
No. 65/2018.
 Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down 
harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/
EEC (OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 5).
 Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy perfor-
mance of buildings (OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 13).
 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47).
 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public pro-
curement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65).

30

 
 
© Euregio – Stefan Graziadei, 2021

© Euregio – Stefan Graziadei, 2022

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ 
134_Report_EGTC-Tyrol-South-Tyrol-Trentino_ 
Mahlknecht.pdf 

31

 
Cross-border cooperation for winter 
road maintenance in the Pyrenees

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation of the Pirineos/Pyrénées – Spain–France

EXPERT
Géraldine Bachoué-Pedrouzo 

FRANCE

Bielsa-Aragnouet 
Tunnel

Jaca

Espacio 
Portalet

SPAIN

32

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

CONTEXT

Along the highest crossings in the Pyrenees between Spain and France, namely the mountain 
pass Espacio Portalet and the Bielsa–Aragnouet tunnel, Spanish and French staff collaborate to 
keep routes open and safe during winter, despite heavy snow. Cross-border services are therefore 
crucial for maintaining these areas because of their low population density. The European Grouping 
of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) of the Pirineos/Pyrénées is key in this effort, although it 
faces challenges, such as insurance, training and equipment discrepancies. Harmonising frame-
works is essential to improving winter road services and ensuring safe cross-border mobility.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Despite the formal agreement to collaborate on winter maintenance areas on the two border 
crossings, formalised through the EGTC, no framework agreement on the cross-border 
management of winter services has been established for the whole of the border covered by 
the EGTC, nor for the whole of the Franco-Spanish border. Only the Portalet area is covered 
by an agreement set up by the EGTC assembly to establish coordination rules between the services 
located on either side of the border, supplemented by a winter viability protocol to ensure that 
the Portalet trans-Pyrenean route is maintained. For the rest of the area covered by the EGTC, 
i.e. around the Bielsa tunnel, the absence of a specific agreement explains the implementation 
of different standards. As a result, in the Bielsa-Aragnouet area, there are legal or administrative 
uncertainties and operational obstacles, leading to disruptions in winter maintenance services.

In the absence of a single standard, road safety and the safety of road infrastructure are determined 
by local or national standards. As a consequence, each side of the Pyrenees follows national or 
localised procedures for intervention on mountain roads and in the tunnel crossing the border. 
For instance, Spanish and Aragonese legislation1 thus applies to the Spanish section of the Bielsa–
Aragnouet tunnel and the road to Bielsa, and the French section is subject to French regula-
tion2. The coordination of the whole territory by the EGTC is made all the more difficult by 
the fact that each border area has its own avalanche triggering and intervention protocol, one 
for the Aragon side, one for the commune of Laruns and one for the commune of Aragnouet. 
This causes legal or administrative uncertainties and operational obstacles, resulting in disrupted 
winter maintenance services, including:

•   the role of the EGTC, regarding intervention in snow clearance and local avalanche risk  

forecasting around the Col du Pourtalet mountain pass and the Bielsa tunnel;

•   the lack of authorisation to use the equipment of teams located on the other side of the border, 

if necessary;

•   the lack of clarity on insurance issues for staff, equipment, and users of the border crossing;
•   the lack of mutual recognition of vehicle suitability tests, road safety and equipment require-

ments;

•   the difficulty to receive immediate information on weather and traffic conditions;
•   the lack of obligation for GPS applications to provide real-time traffic information based on 

the recommendations of the EGTC and its members;

•   differences in the Spanish and French avalanche trigger and intervention plans.

A number of additional obstacles have been identified that are caused and mutually reinforced 
by administrative, cultural and economic difficulties, in particular:

•   language and other cultural disparities, complicating everyday collaboration and the trans-

mission of information to users of the border crossing points; 

•   safety risks and road blockages caused by improper use of winter equipment by road users, 

epecially in the Bielsa–Aragnouet tunnel;

1 

2 

 Law 8/1998 of 17 December on Aragonese roads, Official Journal of Spain (Boletín Oficial del Estado), No  23, 
27 January 1999.
 Article R.118-1-1 of the French Roadway Code.

33

 
•   the lack of a direct communication bridge between teams, despite the EGTC’s role of coordi-

nator and disseminator of information; 

•   unreliable coordination and communication between the EGTC Pirineos/Pyrénées, civil 

protection services and police on both sides of the border;

•   cost-cutting measures and financial difficulties in retraining staff and renewing service vehicles.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Possible legal solutions3 can be implemented by the EGTC or initiated by the EGTC and/or its 
members.

An agreement4 has already been signed by the EGTC assembly to establish the rules for coordi-
nation between the Aragon Conservation Service and the Pyrénées-Atlantiques Conservation 
Service for the maintenance of the Portalet trans-Pyrenean route between Laruns (France) and 
Biescas (Spain). This agreement is completed by a winter maintenance protocol5, which is of 

© AECT Pirineos-Pyrénées –  
Andrés Olloqui and Santi Fábregas

3 

4 

5 

 Solutions in the scope of the summary focus on road maintenance only. Please refer to the original expert 
report for other solutions, such as coordinated interventions in the event of avalanches and procedures to be 
standardised and regulated.
 Agreement of the assembly of the Espacio Portalet EGTC for the establishment of coordination rules between 
the conservation service of the autonomous community of Aragon and the conservation service of the 
Pyrénées-Atlantiques department, Winter maintenance 2018-2019. Espacio Portalet EGTC, 15 December 
2018. 
 Protocol for the winter viability of the Portalet, for the establishment of rules for coordination between the  
services of the Autonomous Community of Aragon and the services of the Department of Pyrénées-Atlantiques, 
signed on 15 November 2021 at the Col du Pourtalet, 16 pages.

34

N
O

I
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

L
A
N
O

I
T
U
T
I
T
S
N

I

particular importance since it has made it possible to set up a cross-border winter road centre. 
These commitments to cooperate are accompanied by a protocol for triggering avalanches (PIDA), 
supplemented by another one for the use of the Daisybell device for triggering avalanches on 
the section of line concerned6. 
Possible legal solutions include therefore the reproduction of this model for the Bielsa-Arag-
nouet cross-border area, in addition to extending operating contracts7, and inserting cross-bor-
der clauses in contracts related to insurance, equipment and staff to ensure seamless operations 
across borders8.

The following regulatory solutions are proposed.

•   Extend the cooperation agreement about winter viability covering the Espacio Portalet to 
the Bielsa-Aragnouet cross-border area, including the tunnel, and strengthen the coordination 
role of the EGTC in this area by giving it the same coordination powers on all the routes 
covered by the agreement establishing the EGTC.

•   Include cross-border concerns in the various winter service documents, such as in the new 

General Road Plan of Aragón (Plan General de Carreteras de Aragón).

•   Formalise a Spain–France framework agreement on cross-border cooperation on a winter 
service on pre-identified cross-border routes. The agreement would serve as a basis for the 
stakeholders concerned to adopt a joint strategy for mobility, safety, territorial development, 
employment and training of winter service teams.

Administrative solutions include:

•   enhancing coordination between the Bielsa–Aragnouet route and Espacio Portalet contracts 

to avoid duplication of efforts and improve resource sharing;
•  simplifying the public procurement procedure for the EGTC;
•   formulating a joint strategy and communication plan for winter emergencies, promoting 

the concept of a cross-border public winter service;

•   establishing a partnership agreement between the two countries, specifying equipment use 
and personnel, even authorising the joint use of non-common equipment, to improve safety 
and operational efficiency; this implies consideration of the training of teams for the use of 
the equipment, in terms of mutual recognition of skills and expertise and joint training 
courses;

•  implementing an IT bridge for rapid cross-border information sharing.

Other solutions could mitigate or resolve the cross-border obstacle. These include practical 
measures that could be implemented, such as:

•   introducing a ‘winter traffic driving and equipment’ module in driving-licence training 

courses focused on the Pyrenees;

•   raising awareness among European insurance companies about cross-border vehicle  

breakdowns to facilitate towing and quick reimbursement;

•   enhancing cross-border training for winter service teams, focusing on language and  

technical skills;

•   improving the dissemination of winter-driving information and real-time updates on  

meteorological and traffic conditions, and emergency operations;

6  https://www.espalet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ProtocoloDaisybell.pdf. 
7 

 Two contracts have been established for the conservation, maintenance and operation of the Espacio Portalet 
and the Bielsa–Aragnouet tunnel and their access points. More details can be found in the original report.
 More solutions and details can be found in the original expert report.

8 

35

 
•   extending telecommunications/mobile/GPS to eliminate the possibility of signal loss in 

cross-border areas;

•   implementing a permanent feedback system for recording, analysing and reporting  

significant incidents.

WHAT’S NEXT

The EGTC Pirineos/Pyrénées has identified three concrete activities to focus on: (1) promote 
and maintain cross-border cooperation actions and projects in the field of winter road  
maintenance, (2) encourage and promote exchanges and meetings between stakeholders regarding 
cross-border winter road maintenance and (3) extend or establish protocols and collaboration 
agreements between stakeholders. Key stakeholders to be involved have been identified, including 
the EGTC Pirineos/Pyrénées, the Pyrénées-Atlantiques Departmental Council, the Hautes-
Pyrénées Departmental Council, the Government of the Spanish region of Aragon, the Govern-
ment of France, the Government of Spain, and various local entities (town councils, regions, 
etc.) along the Spain–France border.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ 
157_Report_AECT-Pirineos-Pyrenees_Bachoue-5.pdf

36

Cross-border  
Public Services

Sharing fresh water across  
the border

ADVISED ENTITY
Province of West-Vlaanderen – Belgium–Netherlands

EXPERTS
Loth Van der Auwermeulen and Steven Van Garsse, Hasselt University

NETHERLANDS

NORTH SEA

ZEELAND

Brugge

OOST-VLAANDEREN

Gent

WEST-VLAANDEREN

BELGIUM

38

CONTEXT

There is a long history of water management at the border between the Flemish Region 
(Belgium) and the Netherlands, where climate change and its impact on fresh water are 
currently major challenges. Public actors on both sides of the border wish to pursue unified 
cooperation structures and legal frameworks to shift from fragmented to more coordinated 
cross-border water management. However, this is a legally complex matter that requires 
clarification in order to move forward. Farmers on Flemish territory are no longer allowed 
to collect water during dry periods, while neighbouring Dutch farmers can. To remedy this, 
greater policy coherence and a cross-border agreement concerning the sharing of fresh water 
are needed.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

There are two main obstacles stemming from legal uncertainties in existing bilateral 
agreements on water policy in the border area and potentially conflicting national water 
policy regulations.

•   There is no solid cross-border structure on sharing fresh water between the two 

countries.

  –   At the EU level, there are two directives that aim to harmonise national water policy 

rules1. As a result, legal and administrative differences arise, as each Member State chooses 
how to incorporate these directives and implement its own national water policies. Since 
both countries’ national laws are valid at the same time, actors wishing to cooperate must 
jointly determine which national law to apply.

  –   Though efforts have been made by various cross-border working groups, these groups 
have only a consultative scope and there is no guarantee of effective policy coherence. 
Institutionalisation and full integration of shared water management between the two 
countries is not possible without first removing the administrative and legal barriers.

•   The national legal frameworks are considered obstacles. At the national level, two 

legal agreements currently in force between Belgium and the Netherlands are hindering 
cooperation in water sharing: the 1839 agreement2 and the 1920 agreement3. Since 
they reflect historical contexts rather than the challenges faced today regarding water 
management, they cannot be interpreted in a way that aligns with the current legal 
framework.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The following solutions aim to provide guidelines on establishing a legal structure 
facilitating cross-border cooperation and resolve the legal obstacles through alignment of 
the national laws.

•   A comparative table has been created that outlines the different EU and international-level 
regulatory frameworks for cross-border cooperation between actors in Flanders and the 
Netherlands, covering the proposed instrument, aim, potential partners and degree of policy 
cohesion4.

1 

2 

3 
4 

 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 
2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2007 on the assessment and man-
agement of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27).
 Treaty between the Netherlands and the state and between the Netherlands and Belgium of 19 April 1839, 
Belgian Official Gazette (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge), No 26, 1839 (authors’ own translation).
 The agreement between Belgium and the Netherlands is not published.
 Please see the original expert report for a detailed overview of the table.

39

 
 
© Provincie  
West-Vlaanderen,  
2015

© Provincie  
West-Vlaanderen,  
2007

40

© Provincie West- 
Vlaanderen Wolf & Wolf,  
2020

  –   Based on the European Outline Convention5, a bilateral agreement on cross-border water 
management could be concluded between the minister(s) in charge of water management.

  –   Based on Regulation (EC) No 1082/20066, a European Grouping of Territorial 

Cooperation could be created.

•   Based on the Economic Union of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (Benelux) 

Treaty on Cross-border and Inter-territorial Cooperation7, three cooperation structures could 
be established: a Benelux Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, an administrative agreement 
and a joint body.

•   To overcome the obstacles caused by the 1839 and 1920 agreements, the conclusion of 
a new bilateral agreement to modify or repeal them would be necessary. The agreement 
could be limited to removing the legal obstacles to cross-border cooperation in water policy 
and could legally preserve cross-border cooperation, in line with the European Outline 
Convention.

•   To overcome the obstacle caused by the national legal frameworks, coordination at the 
political level is recommended. This can be achieved through international agreements 
concluded by the Benelux Committee of Ministers8. Within this specific context of local 
actors within the Benelux region, the Benelux decision based on Article 6(2)(a) of  the Treaty 
Establishing the Benelux Union9 allows for the alignment of policies on both sides of the 
border10.

Best practices developed at the Benelux level can serve as inspiration for an overarching 
regulatory initiative to facilitate cross-border cooperation at the EU level.

WHAT’S NEXT

The results of the report have been presented to partners of the Interreg project ‘WIJ-Water’11 
for feedback and will be integrated into the actions of the project, which was recently approved 
by the Interreg Vlaanderen–Nederland programme12. The overall objective of the solutions 
is to continue the cross-border cooperation initiated by the Interreg project ‘WIJ-Water’ in a 
sustainable way after the end of the project period. The solutions will focus on cross-border 
cooperation and the required agreements, serving as a starting point for the project’s aim of 
sharing fresh water across the border within the Scheldemond Euroregion. This experience can 
serve as a best practice for sharing fresh water in other European border regions.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

5 

6 

7 

8 

 Council of Europe, European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between 
Territorial Communities or Authorities, European Treaty Series No 106, 22 December 1981.
 Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 
2006 on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, 
p. 19).
 Benelux Treaty on Cross-border and Inter-territorial Cooperation, Benelux Official Journal, 
21 February 2014, pp. 3–38.
 ‘The Committee of Ministers is the highest decision-making body of the Benelux 
Union. It consists of at least one representative at ministerial level from all three coun-
tries.’ (https://www.benelux.int/en/information-for-citizens/benelux-union/our-
organisation/#:~:text=Court%20of%20Justice-,The%20Benelux%20Committee%20of%20
Ministers,for%20cooperation%20across%20the%20Benelux).
 Treaty Establishing the Benelux Union of 17 June 2008, entered into force 1 January 2012.

9 
10   However, Article 4 of the Benelux Convention on Nature Conservation and Landscape 

TO LEARN MORE

Protection, signed in Brussels on 8 June 1982, provides the legal basis for the Benelux decision 
on this specific legal matter.

11   https://interregvlaned.eu/wij-water/over-ons.
12   https://interregvlaned.eu.

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ 
127_Report_Provincie-West-Vlaanderen_Hasselt.pdf 

41

 
 
Road to health: European solution 
for cross-border rescue driving

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Tyrol–South Tyrol–Trentino Euroregion – Italy-Austria

EXPERT
Michael Pichler

GERMANY

Innsbruck

TYROL

AUSTRIA

SWITZERLAND

SOUTH 
TYROL

Bozen/Bolzano

Trento

TRENTINO

ITALY

42

CONTEXT

In the EU, non-harmonised regulations in traffic law have led to difficulties in transporting 
patients in border areas. For instance, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, an Italian province 
bordering Austria, faces challenges because many residents are German speakers who prefer to 
receive medical treatment in Innsbruck, which has the closest German-speaking Austrian 
hospital. Improving cross-border medical transport is therefore essential, especially when 
dealing with language differences and specific medical needs. However, transporting patients 
across national borders can be problematic due to differing regulations, such as vehicle weight 
limits and licensing requirements for volunteer rescue vehicle drivers.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Italy and Austria have incorporated the EU directive addressing driving licences into 
national law in different ways with regard to the weight of rescue vehicles, the type of licence 
required and the age requirements for drivers of rescue vehicles. As a result, there are now 
significant obstacles to the cross-border movement of ambulances between the two countries.

•    At the EU level, Directive 2006/126/EC1 stipulates general rules on driving licences, but 
does not lay down specific rules for rescue vehicles. As a result, Austria and Italy have 
transposed the directive differently.

•    There is a difference in the requirements for driving a vehicle weighing more than 

3.5 tonnes, which covers many modern ambulances. In Italy, drivers of heavy vehicles must 
possess a driver qualification card in addition to the standard  driving licence, pursuant to 
Chapter II of Legislative Decree No 286 of 21 November 20052, which implements the 
directive. However, a circular issued by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport3 clarifies 
that an exemption applies to the driving of vehicles used for emergency services and rescue 
missions. This exemption also applies to volunteer ambulance drivers. In contrast, there are no 
such exceptions in Austria. Therefore, Italian volunteer ambulance drivers face legal uncertainties 
and even liability issues if they cross the border into Austria for a rescue mission.

•   The national regulations on the maximum age for rescue vehicle drivers vary between 
the two countries. In Italy, driving a passenger transport vehicle is allowed only up to the 
age of 68, regardless of the driving licence category. In Austria, driving rescue vehicles is 
unrestricted until the age of 60; for those over 60, medical certificates and driving tests are 
required every two years, but there is no upper age limit. This difference in the regulations 
can also cause problems for Italian ambulance drivers crossing into Austria.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

A modified EU directive on driving licences should ensure that Member States recognise each 
other’s rules on licence requirements for driving rescue vehicles.

•   In March 2023, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a new directive on 
driving licences, and this is currently being negotiated4. An addition to draft Article 6(2)  
or a new Article 6(3), which would replace Article 7(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC, could 
read as follows: ‘Member States may introduce different rules for the driving of types of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving 
licences (OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18).
 Legislative Decree No 286 of 21 November 2005, Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, No 6, 9 January 
2006.
 Circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport Div. 77898/8.3 of 10 August 2007, with reference to 
Article 16 of Legislative Decree No 286 of 21 November 2005.
 European Commission, Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving 
licences, amending Directive (EU) 2022/2561 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation 
(EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2006/126/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EU) No 383/2012 (COM(2023) 127 
final), 2023.

43

 
 
motor vehicles used by or under the control of the armed forces, civil protection or rescue 
organisations that are recognised by the other Member States.’ This would clarify that 
specific driving licence rules for rescue service vehicles are to be recognised by other Member 
States, which would, in this case, prevent Italian ambulance drivers from encountering legal 
difficulties when crossing the border into Austria.

•   In addition, the following wording should be included in recital 18 of the new directive: ‘In 
view of the increasingly frequent occurrence of natural and environmental disasters and the 
need for rapid cross-border assistance in the area of civil defence and civil protection, as well 
as rescue services, also with regard to the promotion and support of voluntary work, it 
appears necessary that the regulations made by the individual Member States for driving civil 
defence, civil protection and any other danger prevention service vehicle provided by non-
profit organisations or associations that are approved in that Member State are recognised by 
the other Member States and tolerated in their territory.’

WHAT’S NEXT

The issue was raised at a high-level meeting at the European Grouping of Territorial 
Cooperation Tyrol–South Tyrol–Trentino European Region liaison office in Brussels in 
November 2023 on the contribution of volunteers for resilient societies5, at which b-solutions 
was mentioned.

The White Cross of South Tyrol, which is the most prominent rescue organisation in South 
Tyrol, and the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Tyrol–South Tyrol–Trentino 
European Region will continue to monitor the development of the new directive and will 
undertake a review as soon as the final document is available.

TO LEARN MORE

© weisseskreuz – crocebianca

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 
2024/08/146_EGTC-Tyrol_Pichler.pdf 

5 

 https://www.europaregion.info/en/brussels/events/veranstaltung/qualified-volunteering-skills-for-resilient-
societies/.

44

Funding of youth psychiatric care 
across the Dutch-German border

ADVISED ENTITY
Karakter Child and Adolescent Psychiatry – Netherlands

EXPERTS
Anton Bouwmeister and Marlene Plaß, De Kempenaer Advocaten

NETHERLANDS

Nijmegen

GERMANY

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

45

 
 
CONTEXT

Many Dutch families live on the German side of the Germany–Netherlands border. For youth 
psychiatric care, these families often seek help for their children and  adolescents on the Dutch 
side to avoid the language barrier in Germany. However, they are only partially reimbursed 
or not reimbursed at all by the Dutch and German authorities that are financially responsible 
for youth psychiatric care and treatment in Germany and the Netherlands. This results in 
significant administrative and financial obstacles. Reducing the legal and administrative barriers 
and expanding the recognition of treatments would improve psychiatric care for children and 
adolescents in the border region.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Dutch and German regulatory frameworks regarding access, scope of services and 
reimbursement for youth psychiatric treatments differ greatly and are often incompatible. 
The following two scenarios demonstrate this obstacle.

•   Dutch children live in Germany and are socially insured in the Netherlands (situation 1).
  –   For a Dutch family living in Germany, if both parents work in the Netherlands, then 

the Dutch social security system also applies to the child in accordance with Article 11 
of Regulation (EC) No 883/20041. As a consequence, the child is generally entitled 
to all psychiatric services listed in the Dutch general insurance catalogue. In this case, 
reimbursement for the child’s psychiatric treatments on the Dutch side of the border is 
not possible through the German health insurance system, as both parents and child are 
socially insured in the Netherlands.

  –   However, as of 2015, youth psychiatric care in the Netherlands is no longer financed 
through the general health insurance system according to the Dutch Youth Act 
(Jeugdwet)2. Now, under the ‘residence principle’ of the act, specialised psychiatric youth 
care is covered by the Dutch municipalities, whereas only a small proportion of psychiatric 
care for young people remains covered by health insurance (e.g. treatment of minor mental 
health problems). However, the Youth Act is only applicable if the child is registered in the 
Dutch Personal Records Database (Basisregistratie Personen)3, so they would have to be a 
Dutch resident in order to receive reimbursement for specialised psychiatric care.
•   Dutch children live in Germany and are socially insured in Germany (situation 2). 
  –   If a Dutch family lives in Germany and the parents also work in Germany, then the 
German social security system applies, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation 
(EC) No 883/2004. A Dutch child would be likely to seek psychological treatment in 
the Netherlands rather than in Germany because of the language barrier. However, the 
family cannot receive reimbursement for treatment received in the Netherlands, since 
the national health insurance scheme in the Netherlands does not cover specialised 
youth psychiatric treatment. Under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, costs of 
treatment are reimbursed based on whether conditions are covered by the insurance of the 
country where the treatment takes place.

  –   However, under Directive 2011/24/EU4  on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, 
treatment and reimbursement in the Netherlands is indeed possible: according to 
Section 27(1) of the Fifth Social Code (Fünftes Sozialgesetzbuch)5, youth psychological 
treatment is included in the benefits package offered by the German statutory health 

1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coor-
dination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
 Dutch Youth Act (Jeugdwet), 14 March 2014,   Official Gazette of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (2014, 105).
 The Dutch Personal Records Database contains the personal data of people who live in the Netherlands  
(residents) and of people who live abroad (non-residents).
 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).
 Fifth Book of the Social Code, enacted on 20 December 1988, Federal Law Gazette I, pp. 2477 and 2482; last 
amended by Article 3 of the Act of 30 July 2024 (Federal Law Gazette 2024 I No. 254).

46

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

© Seventyfour, 
stock.adobe.com

© Synthex,  
stock.adobe.com

47

 
 
insurance schemes, thus fulfilling the requirements under Article 7(1) of Directive 
2011/24/EU. However, requesting reimbursement is often an administrative burden, and 
only a small part of the total costs may be reimbursed, as reimbursement corresponds to 
the amount the person is entitled to in their Member State of affiliation, which in this case 
is Germany.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   In situation 1, in order to bridge the legal gap created by the Dutch Youth Act, a solution 
must preferably be found at the political level. Therefore, organisations in the border re-
gions, such as the Rhine-Waal Euroregion (Euregio Rhine-Waal)6, could initiate discussions 
with the Dutch municipalities on this issue and request an exception to the residence 
principle of the Dutch Youth Act, at least for children who are socially insured in the 
Netherlands.

•   In situation 2, there are two feasible solutions.
  –   A practical solution would be for Karakter, the Dutch psychiatric youth care organi-
sation (and advised entity in this case), to open an office on the German side of the 
border with Dutch-speaking employees. This would remove the need for reimbursement 
through Directive 2011/24/EU, as the cross-border aspect would no longer exist, and  
resolve the issue of a language barrier. To this end, Karakter would have to make arrange-
ments with the German health insurance providers (Krankenkassen) to ensure that its  
treatments are included among the benefits in the German health insurance scheme and 
can be reimbursed.

  –   If opening an office in Germany is not an option for Karakter, then a solution should be 

sought under Directive 2011/24/EU. Based on Article 10(3) of the directive, in which 
cross-border healthcare agreements are encouraged, the competent German health insur-
ance providers could conclude cooperation agreements with the foreign service providers – 
in this case, the Dutch youth psychiatric care organisations, such as Karakter. Such an 
agreement would simplify the reimbursement process and improve communication and 
information sharing among the institutions involved by clarifying reimbursement rules.

WHAT’S NEXT

The advised entity plans to engage in discussions with the Rhine-Waal Euroregion and 
policymakers to improve awareness of the reimbursement challenges in cross-border care. 
As part of objective 27 of b-solutions, the next steps will be to work together with experts to 
hopefully reach an agreement on reimbursements with the municipalities. This will enable 
Dutch healthcare institutions to provide mental healthcare to Dutch children and adolescents 
living in Germany. To achieve this, the advised entity will conduct a stakeholder analysis and 
set up a meeting with key stakeholders.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/149_Report-Karakter_ 
dekempenaer.pdf

48

6 

 The Rhine-Waal Euroregion is a Dutch–German public body promoting cross-border cooperation between 
local authorities and territories in Germany (districts of Kleve and Wesel and the cities of Duisburg and Düs-
seldorf ) and the Netherlands (including a large portion of the province of Gelderland, the regions of Arnhem-
Nijmegen, west Veluwe and south-west Gelderland, parts of north-east Brabant, and the northern part of the 
province of Limburg) (https://www.euregio.org/).

7  For information on objective 2, see page 12 of this publication.

Animal Health Law exemptions  
between Netherlands and Germany

ADVISED ENTITY
Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park – Germany–Netherlands

EXPERTS
Anton Bouwmeister and Lotte Braakhuis, De Kempenaer Advocaten

GERMANY

NETHERLANDS

LIMBURG

NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA

Roermond

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

49

 
 
© Dusko, stock.adobe.com

CONTEXT

Recreational horse riding is a popular activity in the Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park, which 
spans the border of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the Dutch province 
of Limburg. The German district Viersen, the Northern and Central Limburg Route Office 
(Routebureau Noord- en Midden-Limburg), the tourism management organisation Limburg 
Marketing and the Maas-Swalm-Nette border park (Grenspark Maas-Swalm-Nette) are 
planning to create a common bridleway (horse riding trail) network. However, this activity 
faces challenges, particularly because the EU Animal Health Law1 requires a veterinarian-issued 
health certificate for animals crossing national borders. The effort, planning and expenditure 
required to obtain the health certificate make crossing the border on horseback less attractive 
and restrict a key recreational activity in the park.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The main obstacle2 stems from the EU legal requirement to carry a health certificate for 
horses crossing the border. According to the Animal Health Law, it is obligatory to carry a 
health certificate for animals that represent a health risk or are considered to be highly valuable. 
Article 143 of the law sets out this requirement for animals with hooves. Therefore, when 
crossing the border, a horse must be accompanied by a health certificate issued in the country 
where the animal resides.

There are two key reasons why obtaining the certificate can be challenging.

•   Varying costs and competent authorities across countries. In the Netherlands, the 
certificate is issued by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority 
(Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit), signed by an internal veterinarian upon examination 
of the animal. Costs are between EUR 250 and EUR 300, and it usually takes 2 days at 
most from the time of application to the examination and the issuing of the certificate. 
In Germany, the certificates are issued by the district veterinarian offices, and the cost of 
approximately EUR 100 is based on the general administrative fee schedule of the state of 
North Rhine-Westphalia.

1 

2 

 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible 
animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (Animal Health Law)  
(OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1).
 Another obstacle is that horses need a licence plate with a valid sticker when riding in the open countryside in 
North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany); see case ‘Horse riding fee’.

50

•   Complex validity rules. The delegated act supplementing the Animal Health Law indicates 
a validity of 10 days for the general health certificate for horses3. In addition, the Animal 
Health Law allows for only unidirectional border crossing. This means that, for the horse to 
return to its stable, another certificate is required. A 30-day validation period can be granted 
based on the EQUI-INTRA-IND model4 if the animal is accompanied by its single lifetime 
identification document, which includes a validation mark or valid licence. In this case, 
multiple border crossings in both directions are possible.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Three possible partial solutions to the challenges caused by the Animal Health Law 
have been identified. As an overarching mechanism to support these solutions, clear and 
accessible information for potential visitors will be vital to ensuring that they understand the 
requirements when using the bridleway network across borders.

•    Article 139 of the Animal Health Law provides for a derogation from the animal health 
certification requirements for ‘near-border’ recreational use, sporting and cultural events, 
work and grazing, where Member States have agreed to this. The law does not define what 
‘near border’ means. However, in a different context, the European Commission defines 
‘border area’ as ‘an area that extends no more than 30 kilometres from the border’, which can 
serve as a point of reference5. If such a derogation agreement were in place between Germany 
and the Netherlands, people keeping their horses in stables within areas defined as border 
areas in the agreement would not have to acquire the health certificate to make use of the 
bridleways in the recreational area. Germany has already concluded similar agreements with 
Denmark and France, which can serve as blueprints for an agreement between Germany and 
the Netherlands.

•   A practical solution would be to set up a horse rental service in the border region, 

which could provide horses with valid health certificates. This would remove the burden 
from visitors, as the horse stables would have to acquire the certificates. In addition, if the 
abovementioned derogation agreement were granted, it would cover horse stables, which 
would therefore not have to acquire the certificates at all.

•   Building the bridleways in a way that allows for horse riding activities without having 
to cross the border could be a structural solution. This would allow people to enjoy the 
bridleways while riding their own horses, even if the horses were not kept in the border area 
and therefore would not benefit from the derogation.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

WHAT’S NEXT

The Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park team will suggest that the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries, Food Security and Nature (Ministerie van Landbouw, Visserij, Voedselveiligheid en 
Natuur) and the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Bundesministerium für 
Ernährung und Landwirtschaft) conclude an agreement to apply the derogation allowed in the 
Animal Health Law. Multiple stakeholders, including regional and national horse riding associ-
ations, will be involved in the application process and the competent ministries will be 
consulted.

3 

4 

5  

 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/688 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation 
(EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards animal health requirements 
for movements within the Union of terrestrial animals and hatching eggs (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, p. 140), 
Article 91(3). A delegated act is a non-legislative act adopted by the Commission to supplement or 
amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act.
 Model animal health certificate for the movement between Member States of an individual equine animal 
not intended for slaughter. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/403 of 24 March 2021 
laying down rules for the application of Regulations (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2017/625 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council as regards model animal health certificates and model animal health / 
official certificates, for the entry into the Union and movements between Member States of consignments 
of certain categories of terrestrial animals and germinal products thereof, official certification regarding 
such certificates and repealing Decision 2010/470/EU (OJ L 113, 31.3.2021, p. 1).
 European Commission, ‘Glossary – Border area’, undated (https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/
european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossary/border-area_en).

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/
2024/08/151_EDITED_Report_ 
Maas-Swalm-Nette_Bouwmeister-and- 
Braakhuis_animal-law.pdf 

51

 
 
Horse riding fee

ADVISED ENTITY
Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park – Germany–Netherlands

EXPERTS
Anton Bouwmeister and Lotte Braakhuis, De Kempenaer Advocaten

GERMANY

NETHERLANDS

LIMBURG

NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA

Roermond

52

CONTEXT

The Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park is a popular cross-border recreational area for horse riding. 
It spans the border of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the Dutch province of 
Limburg; different laws apply on each side of the border. The German district Viersen, the 
Northern and Central Limburg Route Office (Routebureau Noord- en Midden-Limburg), the 
tourism management organisation Limburg Marketing and the Maas-Swalm-Nette border park 
(Grenspark Maas-Swalm-Nette) are planning to create a common bridleway (horse riding trail) 
network. Horse riders must pay a riding fee (Reitabgabe) to use the recreational routes on the 
German side, but not on the Dutch side, often leading to fines for riders unaware of the difference. 
The park administration aims to find ways to make the park equally accessible to everyone.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

The requirement to pay a riding fee on the German side of the park is a key obstacle1 to the 
cross-border use of the bridleways in the Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park.

•   At the state level, Article 62 of the Nature Conservation Act of North Rhine-Westphalia 
(Landesnaturschutzgesetz Nordrhein-Westfalen)2 requires horses to have a licence plate with 
a valid sticker (vignette), which needs to be renewed every year, in order to ride in the open 
countryside or forest. To obtain this licence plate, a riding fee must be paid in accordance with 
to Article 17 of the Ordinance on the Implementation of the Nature Conservation Act of 
North Rhine-Westphalia (Verordnung zur Durchführung des Landesnaturschutzgesetzes), which 
amounts to EUR 25 for individuals or EUR 75 for riding stables, per licence plate and 
calendar year. The fee is used to create and maintain bridleways and for related services.
•   The requirement to apply for the licence plate and pay the riding fee applies to all users of 
the bridleways, regardless of their place of residence, so it must also be paid by Dutch 
horse riders who want to ride on the German side of the park. Therefore, although this does 
not violate the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality pursuant to 
Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union3, it still imposes an 
administrative burden on cross-border horse riding.

•   The licence plates can be requested in any district (Kreis) of North Rhine-Westphalia. The 
application procedure is fully digitalised in the three German districts across which the 
nature park is located, and the licence plates are usually sent by postal mail within 2 or 
3 days of the application. This makes the process of acquiring the licence plates relatively easy 
for Dutch citizens as well. However, it does require some planning, thus limiting the 
opportunity to go horse riding in the park spontaneously. In addition, as such a law does not 
exist on the Dutch side of the park, and carrying a riding vignette is not standard practice 
across the Netherlands, Dutch riders might not be aware of the German regulation, which 
could lead to unexpected fines if they cross over to the German side of the bridleway 
network.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Three possible solutions to issues with use of the cross-border bridleways in the Maas-Swalm-
Nette Nature Park have been identified. Suggestions include legal adjustments at the federal 
state level and informational administrative steps to facilitate use of the cross-border bridleways.

•   Changing the Nature Conservation Act of North Rhine-Westphalia so that the 

requirement of the licence plate and riding fee is abolished altogether would completely 
eliminate the obstacle. However, this might prove to be difficult in practice, since the 

1 

2 

3 

 Another obstacle is the EU legal requirement to obtain a veterinarian-issued health certificate for animals cross-
ing national borders; see case ‘Animal health law exemptions between Netherlands and Germany’.
 Nature Conservation Act of North Rhine-Westphalia of 21 July 2000, Law Gazette of North Rhine-Westphalia, 
p. 568, as amended on 5 March 2024 (Law Gazette of North Rhine-Westphalia, p. 156).
 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 June 2019, Austria v Germany, C-591/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:504.

53

 
 
legislation is not conflicting with any other regulations, which makes summoning the 
political will for amendments unlikely. It would also be a lengthy process whilst the actors 
involved look for a short-term solution.  

•   Creating awareness and establishing easy and quick procedures for foreign riders to 
acquire licence plates. The park management should provide informational flyers in the 
visitor centres on both sides of the border and publish information in local newspapers and 
dedicated horse riding magazines. In addition, they should set up clearly visible information 
boards near the border that inform the bridleway users of the need to acquire a licence plate 
when crossing into Germany. Bridleway routes that avoid crossing the border into Germany 
should also be clearly marked, thus ensuring that Dutch horse riders without licence plates 
can take these alternative routes to avoid a fine. Letting riders use a QR code to apply for the 
licence from within the park, and then issuing the licence electronically, could speed up the 
procedure.

•   Establishing ways to borrow a licence plate. Since the licence plates are assigned to the 

horse owner rather than the animal, borrowing the plates from someone else would be legally 
possible. However, this harbours a risk, because the full responsibility would remain with the 
owner of the licence plate. To avoid this, the three German districts involved could provide 
several licence plates for borrowing, as this is already a well-established practice in a nearby 
district4. As an alternative, riding stables could also rent out horses with valid licence plates.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Maas-Swalm-Nette Nature Park team will be extensively involved in awareness-raising 
activities addressing the legal requirement to pay the fee and will help visitors fulfil it. The park 
team will also try to establish cooperation between local entrepreneurs to facilitate the short-
term provision of licence plates for visiting riders.

© Cross-border nature park 
Maas-Swalm-Nette

TO LEARN MORE

© Valerii Honcharuk,  
stock.adobe.com

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ 
152_EDITED-Report_Maas-Swalm-Nette_ 
Bouwmeister-and-Braakhuis_horse-riding-fee.pdf

4 

 This is the case in the district Warendorf. For more information, see https://serviceportal.kreis-warendorf.de/
detail/-/vr-bis-detail/dienstleistung/401/show.

54

Public services and  
cross-border mobility 

ADVISED ENTITY
Municipality of Ventimiglia – Italy

EXPERT
Michele Vellano

ITALY

FRANCE

ALPES 
MARITIMES

Menton

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

LIGURIA

Ventimiglia

55

 
 
CONTEXT

Approximately 5 000 residents of Italy’s Ventimiglia basin in the Liguria region commute to 
France for work on a daily basis, while a similar number of people from the French commune 
of Menton and the French Riviera cross into Italy during the tourist season. However, the 
cross-border public transport services, such as ferries and buses, are inadequate1, as current 
urban planning does not account for these types of transport, causing a particular burden 
during the summer months when commuting coincides with an increase in tourists. Imple-
menting effective cross-border public services between Ventimiglia and the neighbouring 
French municipalities federated in the French Riviera Agglomeration Community (Communauté 
d’agglomération de la Riviera française) (CARF) would facilitate the movement of residents 
and visitors, thus significantly reducing road traffic, congestion and pollution.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The cross-border mobility challenges in the France–Italy border region are due to various factors 
at the technical, regulatory and administrative levels. While the issue for cross-border public bus 
services stems from an EU regulation, the problem for cross-border ferry services is a practical one.

•   Although there are local public bus lines in the neighbouring areas of Menton (France) and 
Ventimiglia (Italy), establishing continuous cross-border local public transport services is 
complicated by Regulation (EC) No 1073/20092, which implements common rules on 
access to the international market for coach and bus services. According to Article 15 of the 
regulation, ‘cabotage transport’, which refers to services involving the embarkation and 
disembarkation of passengers within the same Member State as part of an international 
transport service, is generally prohibited for regular services with a set frequency and 
route with multiple stops within an urban area. This limitation, which seeks to safeguard 
local public transport from competition from carriers based in other Member States, means 
that all local buses stop at the border.

•   There is currently no regular public or private sea transport service available between 
the ports of Menton and Ventimiglia. However, the reason for this is not a legal issue. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/863 enshrines the freedom to provide maritime transport 
services and essentially stipulates that all EU shipping companies can transport passengers 
to any port, irrespective of whether the destination is in a country other than the country of 
departure. Unlike transport by road, international maritime transport does not require 
additional authorisation from the host country. However, unpredictable weather conditions 
from October to April make regular sea transport between Menton and Ventimiglia unprofitable.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 permits an exception to the prohibition on 
cross-border cabotage for regular services where the competent authorities have concluded 
a bilateral or multilateral agreement. In this case, CARF would be the competent authority 
on the French side, whereas the region of Liguria would be the Italian counterpart.

  –   Existing agreements in other border regions could serve as best-practice examples. Such an 
agreement would be in line with the recently concluded Quirinal Treaty at the national 
level, which, among other purposes, aims to foster a cross-border transport network.

1 

2 

3 

 Public train transport is also deficient in the cross-border region, but was excluded from this report owing to 
its regulatory and technical specifics.
 Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on  
common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation 
(EC) No 561/2006 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 88).
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide 
services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries  
(OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1).

56

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

© nata_rass, stock.adobe.com

  –   On the basis of the agreement, a cross-border urban mobility plan integrating the urban 
transport networks operating in the area could be initiated. A simple solution would be  
for the existing French bus line to also serve the stops on the Italian side. Establishing a 
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation that could function as the management 
body of a future urban mobility network would further facilitate the growing connection 
between the municipalities.

•   Since there is no legal obstacle to the development of maritime transport services, a practical 
solution would be for the region of Liguria and CARF to authorise a private operator to 
provide cross-border ferry services; alternatively, they could announce a public tender. 
Given the weather constraints, a seasonal sea transport service that operates only in sum-
mer would be most effective. A ferry shuttle can relieve congested road traffic, especially 
during the tourist season, as shown by the example of the Nave bus, which, although not 
cross-border, connects the district of Pegli with the city centre of Genoa, Italy, by sea4. This 
could relieve the road network, which is especially burdened with traffic during the tourism 
season5.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Municipality of Ventimiglia and CARF, partner of the advised entity, aim to work together 
to plan the next steps in relation to the solutions identified.

4 

5 

 The service exists thanks to the joint efforts of the Metropolitan Transport Authority (Azienda Metropolitana 
Trasporti), the Liguria Via Mare Consortium (Consorzio Liguria Via Mare), the Liguria region and the  
Municipality of Genoa.
 This option was analysed in a previous b-solutions case: ‘SeaFlix – Cross-border mobility’ (European Commission, 
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, B-solutions: Solving border obstacles – A compendium of  
43 cases: Annex, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, pp. 80–82).

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/156_Municipality- 
of-Ventimiglia_Vellano.pdf 

57

 
 
Franco–Belgian mutual  
recognition of lifeguards

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Eurometropolis  
Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai – Belgium–France

EXPERTS
Alfonsine Camiolo and Céline Laforsch

NORTH SEA

BELGIUM

FLANDERS

Kortrijk

Tournai 

Lille

WALLONIA

UPPER 
FRANCE

FRANCE

58

CONTEXT

In the cross-border region of Belgium and France, the European Grouping of Territorial  
Cooperation (EGTC) Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai aims to make the territory and 
its services more accessible to all citizens. In the past, French public and private schools close  
to the border have been able to use Belgian swimming pools for swimming lessons. However, 
this is no longer possible because French school law requires lifeguards to have specific qualifications 
that the Belgian lifeguards do not possess. The lack of recognition of qualifications hinders the 
ability to use the closest facilities regardless of the side of the border on which they are located.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The obstacle lies in the different national requirements for lifeguard qualifications in 
Belgium and France; the EU directive on the recognition of professional qualifications1 does 
not apply in this case.

•   In Belgium and France, the legal requirements for working as a lifeguard at a public 
swimming pool differ, as do lifeguards’ areas of responsibility. In Belgium, lifeguards 
must obtain several certificates on theoretical and practical skills in rescue techniques and are 
responsible only for supervising swimmers. Without additional training, they are not autho-
rised to give swimming lessons2. On the other side, in France, lifeguards are responsible for 
supervising and rescuing swimmers and for teaching swimming, and they must have the 
qualifications required by the French Sports Code (Code du sport)3.

•   As this case concerns swimming as part of the school curriculum, the French legislation on 
teaching swimming in schools4 must also be observed when French schools use swimming 
pools in Belgium for educational purposes. One requirement is that the local authority re-
sponsible for the swimming facility must enter into an agreement with the academic inspector 
of the French national education authority to determine under which terms and obligations 
the swimming activity takes place. In addition, a lifeguard with the French qualifications 
required for this profession must be present as a supervisor, even though they are not involved 
in the teaching, which is undertaken by the sports teacher. However, Belgian lifeguards do 
not fulfil these qualification requirements.

•   At the EU level, Directive 2005/36/EC governs the recognition of regulated professional 

qualifications across Member States. However, the directive is only applicable in cases where 
the lifeguard crosses the border to exercise their profession in another Member State and is 
therefore not applicable to this situation, where pupils cross the border in the context of edu-
cational activities such as swimming classes.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

In order to enable recognised qualified supervision of French pupils by Belgian lifeguards, the 
following solutions were identified at the EU, operational and international levels.

•   At the EU level, the profession of lifeguard should be included in the automatic recognition 
system set out in Article 21 of Directive 2005/36/EC. Although the directive is not appli-
cable in this case, this would still be helpful, as it would require all Member States to agree 

1 

2 

3  

4 

 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition 
of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22).
 Walloon government decree determining the sectoral conditions relating to covered and open swimming pools 
used for purposes other than purely private within the family circle, where the surface area is less than or  
equal to 100 m2 or the depth less than or equal to 40 cm using a disinfection process other than chlorine or 
in combination with chlorine of 13 June 2013, Belgian Official Gazette (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge), 
12 July 2013.
 Please refer to the original expert report for information on the national legal requirements for lifeguards in 
Belgium and France.
 Articles L212-1 to L12-14,  Article A212-1 and Appendix II-1 of the French Education Code (Code de 
l’éducation).

59

 
 
© Eurometropolis 
Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai, 2018

on minimum training requirements for lifeguards and to compare training content and skills, 
making it easier for French authorities to approve the services of Belgian lifeguards in school 
swimming lessons.

•   As an operational solution, a cross-border project or working group should examine the 

comparability of Belgian and French lifeguard qualifications. This initiative would determine 
if the lifeguard skills and teaching abilities are equivalent in the two countries, potentially 
allowing the French national education authority to recognise Belgian lifeguard qualifications. 
If discrepancies are found, the project could identify specific skills gaps and suggest supple-
mentary training modules for Belgian lifeguards.

•   At the international level, extending the Karlsruhe Agreement of 23 January 19965 to Belgium 
or the Walloon Region offers a possible solution. The Karlsruhe Agreement facilitates and 
promotes cross-border cooperation between French, German, Luxembourg and Swiss local 
authorities and public bodies. On the basis of the Karlsruhe Agreement, French and German 
municipalities and authorities have reached an agreement at the local level that allows French 
schools to use German swimming pools for their swimming lessons6. Given the many cross-
border interactions in the Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai Eurometropolis, it would make sense for 
Belgium as a whole, which also borders Germany and Luxembourg, or simply the Walloon 
Region to join this international treaty.

WHAT’S NEXT

The EGTC Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai aims to better understand the content of 
the Karlsruhe Agreement, which Belgium would have to sign to achieve the ideal solution 
of an agreement between all stakeholders concerned. It will then determine if the agreement would 
effectively solve the issue in question, alongside other potential cross-border challenges. Establishing 
a working group consisting of several elected officials from the regions of Flanders, Wallonia 
and Upper France is also  envisioned to address the obstacles identified in 2005 by the Belgian–
French parliamentary working group7 and updated in 20158.

5 

6 

7 

8 

 Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Government of the French Republic, the Government 
of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Swiss Federal Council, acting on behalf of the cantons of Solothurn, 
Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Aargau and Jura, on cross-border cooperation between local authorities and public 
bodies of 23 January 1996, entered into force 1 September 1997, German Federal Law Gazette on 21 August 
1997.
 Tripartite agreement for the organisation of school swimming activities as part of a cross-border partnership 
between the Verbandsgemeinde of Bad-Bergzabern, the town of Wissembourg and the Bas-Rhin Departmental 
Education Services Directorate of 24 November 2022. Please refer to the original expert report for the full 
agreement text.
 The Belgian–French parliamentary working group, composed of six members of each country’s parliament, 
aims to identify administrative and legal obstacles and solutions to cross-border cooperation, and advocate  
governance arrangements for the EGTC Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai (http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.
org/en/resources/territories/territory-factsheets/territories/territory/show/groupe-de-travail-parlementaire-
franco-belge).
 Transfrontier Operational Mission, ‘MOT study on French-Belgian cross-border cooperation’, 2014 (http://
www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/news/news/news/show/etude-de-la-mot-sur-la-cooperation-transfrontaliere-
franco-belge/).

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/ 
08/160_Report-ELKT_Laforsch-Camiolo.pdf

60

EGTC as a subsidising authority

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Linieland van Waas en Hulst – Belgium–Netherlands

EXPERT
Martijn De Bruijn

ZEELAND

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

NETHERLANDS

Hulst

Sint-Gillis-Waas 

Stekene

Beveren

BELGIUM

FLANDERS

61

 
 
CONTEXT

The park Grenspark Groot Saeftinghe, spanning the Belgium–Netherlands border, covers 
municipalities and provinces from both countries under the European Grouping of Territorial 
Cooperation (EGTC) Linieland van Waas en Hulst. This EGTC oversees part of the park’s 
team and supports nature-inclusive agriculture projects. As new innovation funds for water and 
climate are being launched by both Belgium and the Netherlands, the EGTC is well positioned 
to engage in grantmaking thanks to its strong local roots and understanding of regional chal-
lenges. However, despite the EGTC’s legal capacity to manage grants, challenges arise in deter-
mining its eligibility to legally administer funding to Dutch and Flemish farmers in the border 
regions because applications are processed separately by the Dutch and Flemish authorities based 
on farmers’ regions of residence. As a Belgian public entity, the EGTC is not recognised as a 
subsidising authority under Dutch law.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The EGTC Linieland van Waas en Hulst has legal authority in both Belgium and the Netherlands, 
allowing it to facilitate and promote territorial cooperation in general. National regulations on 
the Dutch and Flemish sides also permit EGTCs to provide grants, but roles and specific tasks 
must be clearly defined and agreed. However, the following ambiguities complicate the issue.

•   The Dutch province of Zeeland’s grant regulation requires grants to benefit Zeeland, 

thus complicating the process of Flemish farmers acquiring funding.

•   According to Article 6(1) of the EGTC regulation1, supervision of the EGTC’s management of 
public funds is organised by the competent authorities in the Member State where the EGTC 
has its registered office, which is Belgium for EGTC Linieland van Waas en Hulst. Coordi-
nation between Dutch and Flemish audit authorities would be essential for proper oversight.
•   Differing financial justification requirements between the Flemish Region of Belgium and 

the Netherlands complicate joint grant calls.

The EGTC faces additional administrative and operational challenges that limit its capacity.

•   It currently lacks the specific legal and financial knowledge to manage the entire grant process 
independently. Investing in this expertise is necessary but challenging due to competition for 
skilled personnel and the inherent financial and legal risks involved in initial iterations of the 
grant scheme.

•   A full mandate would increase the EGTC’s capacity but also expose it to significant risks and 

reliance on external partners for legal and technical expertise.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

For the EGTC to act as a granting body, under the condition that Dutch grants go to Dutch 
farmers and Flemish grants go to Flemish farmers, the following solutions are suggested as ways 
to ensure it performs its role effectively. These take into account that the EGTC could play 
different roles in grantmaking and that, depending on the role chosen, different administrative 
steps will be required.

•   A kick-off meeting should be organised between all parties involved on the Dutch and Flemish 
sides. These include the province of Zeeland and the Port of Antwerp-Bruges as grant providers, 
the EGTC for its role in grant provision and the Flemish government, which provides the 
public law framework for the EGTC. The meeting should clarify:

  –    the implications of the different roles the EGTC could perform in the grant process;
  –   which role it is desirable for the EGTC to fulfil; 
  –   which administrative arrangements should then be made to achieve this.

1 

 Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European 
Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19).

62

•   An agreement should be established between the EGTC and the province of Zeeland on 

their separate responsibilities for matters concerning the Zeeland grant scheme.

•   If the EGTC’s role would involve tasks implementing the Zeeland grant scheme, the prov-
ince of Zeeland should give the EGTC Linieland van Waas en Hulst the mandate to im-
plement the innovation grant scheme.

•   Switch Point Border Obstacles2 should be informed of the process in case support is needed 

to reach an administrative agreement.

WHAT’S NEXT

For future calls, the EGTC aims to assess its potential role in the granting of funds, with the 
options of a substantive guiding, legal-technical or all-encompassing function. To this end, the 
EGTC will consult authorities and stakeholders, present the outcomes of this research and de-
cide which tasks should be performed by the EGTC. As a second step, the EGTC will establish 
a framework to carry out its tasks, together with an analysis of its internal capacity. This frame-
work will be discussed with the same stakeholders. The EGTC hopes this process will result in 
an agreement through which it can fulfil its role as a subsidising authority.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

© Elise Haentjes, 2023

TO LEARN MORE

2 

 This project, co-financed by Interreg, aims to address cross-border obstacles by providing opinions to the border 
region council of Flemish and Dutch administrators. More information is available at https://interregvlaned.
eu/schakelpunt-grensbelemmeringen/over-ons.

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/163_Report-
EGTS-Linieland_De-Bruijn.pdf 

63

 
 
Limitations to cross the  
Nymfaia-Makaza pass 

ADVISED ENTITY
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Xanthi – Greece

EXPERTS
Eugeniy Ivanov and Themistoklis Chatzikonstantinou

BULGARIA

Smyolan

Makaza-Nymfaia  
border crossing point

Drama

Xanthi

GREECE

64

CONTEXT

The Makaza–Nymfaia border crossing between Bulgaria and Greece is one of the busiest cross-
border points, handling nearly half a million passengers annually, primarily from Bulgaria 
Greece and Romania. Despite the crossing’s importance, only light vehicles weighing under 
3.5 tonnes and microbuses have been permitted to cross since its opening, which has limited 
cross-border business and tourism. This becomes especially problematic during the summer 
months, when tourists from Bulgaria, Romania and other countries visit Greece for holidays, 
with heavy traffic on both sides of the border. The restriction is due to inadequate infrastructure, 
such as the absence of separate bus lanes and control scales for heavier trucks, resulting in long 
queues during peak times.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

The obstacles at the Makaza–Nymfaia border crossing point stem from a combination of legal 
restrictions and inadequate infrastructure. Plans to improve infrastructure have been under 
discussion since 2022, but there is a lack of funding, technical solutions and implementation 
procedures.

•   Border crossing is governed by the agreement on joint border crossing control between  
Bulgaria and Greece1. In accordance with this agreement of 2008, the ‘one-stop control’ 
principle is applied, and both entry and exit controls at the Makaza–Nymfaia  border check-
point are carried out on the Bulgarian side of the border.

•   In a letter dated 2 September 2013 and addressed to the Directorate-General for Border 

Police of the Bulgarian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
set out regulations on the eligibility of vehicles to pass the border checkpoint, referring to 
legislation already in force2. This letter clarified that only passenger vehicles with no more 
than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat (class M1) and cargo vehicles with a maxi-
mum weight of 3.5 tonnes (class N1) are allowed to pass the checkpoint3.

•   Article 17, paragraph 10, of the Bulgarian Ordinance on Border Checkpoints4 mandates 

comprehensive checks, including total weight, axle load and dimensions of road vehicles, 
which cannot be properly performed without appropriate infrastructure.

•   The current infrastructure at the Makaza–Nymfaia border is not equipped to handle heavy 
vehicles. There are no specialised lanes for buses or control scales for heavier trucks, and the 
lane capacity is insufficient to process large vehicles efficiently.

•   There is only one lane on the approach to the Makaza checkpoint from the Greek side, 

which hinders the implementation of Article 17, paragraph 10, of the Bulgarian Ordinance 
on Border Checkpoints.

•   Bulgarian regulations5 stipulate the order of passage of vehicles at border checkpoints: buses, 
cars then trucks. However, this is not applied in practice at the Makaza–Nymfaia border 
owing to its limited infrastructure and high traffic volume.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Government of the Republic of 
Greece on joint border crossing control, signed in Sofia on 29 April 2008 by the Bulgarian Minister of Interior 
and the Romanian Minister of Internal Affairs.
 Instruction No 8121z-1492 of 4 November 2022 on the order and organisation of border checks at check-
points, Article 55, paragraph 4 (previous version Instruction No 8121z-813 of 9 July 2015); Ordinance 
on Border Checkpoints, Article 17, paragraph 10, adopted by Decree of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers 
No 104 of 20 May 2002.
 Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a 
framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate 
technical units intended for such vehicles (framework directive) (OJ L 263, 9.10.2007, p. 1).
 Ordinance on Border Checkpoints, adopted by Decree of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers No 104 of 
20 May 2002.
 Instruction No 8121z-1492 of 4 November 2022 on the order and organisation of border checks at check-
points, Article 55, paragraph 4 (previous version Instruction No 8121z-813 of 9 July 2015).

65

 
 
© Anthi Panagiotou –
Borders Greece,  
Nymfaia – Bulgaria, 
Makaza, 2024

66

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

Both the Bulgarian and Greek authorities are in favour of strengthening cross-border infra-
structure. The Greek government has announced measures and the Bulgarian National Customs 
Agency has drafted terms of reference for initiating a public procurement process to renovate 
the cross-border point. These provide a promising basis for the solutions proposed by the experts, 
which are as follows.

•   Upgrade existing infrastructure to accommodate buses and trucks, including extensive 

improvements to road connections, checkpoints and parking areas and the construction 
of additional lanes. This would require a research and planning phase to assess current 
infrastructure and traffic flows. Moreover, funding from national and international sources – 
such as the European Regional Development Fund – would have to be secured and the necessary 
permits and legal clearance would need to be obtained. A public tender would be required 
to award the construction works to qualified companies.

•   Establish a task force involving ministries from both countries to harmonise regulations, 
oversee infrastructure improvements and streamline customs and border control pro-
cesses. This would be useful to re-examine the reasons for the ban on crossings by trucks and 
buses, update regulations if necessary and coordinate efforts to implement infrastructure 
upgrades.

•   Implement advanced technologies to ensure efficiency, safety and security at the border. 
These include automatic number plate recognition systems, biometric checks, intelligent 
transport systems6 and digital traffic management platforms.

•   Diversify transport options to reduce dependence on the Makaza–Nymfaia border crossing. 
Encourage use of alternative means of transport, including by enhancing rail connections, 
developing joint transport projects between Bulgaria and Greece, evaluating new routes and 
establishing smaller satellite border stations.

•   Foster collaboration between the Bulgarian and Greek authorities to develop joint transport 

projects and enhance overall cross-border cooperation.

S
E
C
I

V
R
E
S

C
I
L
B
U
P

R
E
D
R
O
B
-
S
S
O
R
C

WHAT’S NEXT 

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Xanthi will prioritise strengthening the collaboration 
between the Bulgarian and Greek authorities. With this aim in mind, a meeting will be 
organised to bring together local authorities from both sides of the border to analyse the case 
and discuss potential solutions. Moreover, the case will be shared with the Bulgarian Ministry 
of Interior and the Greek Ministry of the Interior.

TO LEARN MORE

6 

 European Commission, ‘Smart mobility’, undated (https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/ 
intelligent-transport-systems_en).

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/165_Report-CCI-Xanthi_
Ivanov-and-Hadjiconstantinou.pdf

67

 
 
Employment and 
Education 

69

Cross-border dual VET Euroregion 
Galicia Norte Portugal

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia Norte Portugal – Portugal–Spain

EXPERT
Carmen José López Rodríguez

ATLANTIC 
OCEAN

A CORUNA

LUGO

Santiago de 
Compostela

PONTEVEDRA 

SPAIN

Vigo

OURENSE

ALTO MINHO

CÁVADO

Porto

AVE

ALTO TÂMEGA

TERRAS DE 
TRÁS-OS-MONTES

ÁREA 
METROPOLITANA 
DO PORTO

TAMEGA 
E SOUSA

DOURO

PORTUGAL

70

CONTEXT

In the border region between the autonomous community of Galicia, Spain, and the north of 
Portugal, the dual vocational training scheme known as FP Dual enables trainees to gain pro-
fessional certifications by combining employment in a company with training in an educational 
centre. However, the mobility of students and young people in dual vocational education and 
training (VET) is currently limited, as there are different procedures for accrediting non-university 
education in each country. These procedures can be time consuming and costly. Economic 
incentives for companies to hire trainees also differ greatly between the two countries. Therefore, 
tackling these obstacles would help improve cross-border labour mobility and increase oppor-
tunities for young people beyond university education.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•   The lack of automatic recognition or standardisation of non-university training among 
the neighbouring countries limits cross-border training opportunities. Obtaining  
recognition for vocational training can be costly and time consuming, as the process for 
accrediting qualifications varies depending on the profession.

  –    At the EU level, Directive 2005/36/EC1 on the recognition of professional qualifications 

allows EU Member States to establish the minimum requirements to guarantee the quality of 
professions and training. Annex V of the directive lists the professions that are automatically 
recognised. Dual vocational training qualifications are not included in this list.

  –    Spain and Portugal have their own national schemes for vocational training. Yet, despite 

the progress made through various European and cross-border initiatives to promote such 
training2, the different procedures and bureaucratic processes for recognising equivalent 
qualifications in each Member State still present obstacles.

•   There is no procedure or mechanism that allows for deductions in social security contri-
butions or economic incentives for companies in the neighbouring country. The main 
incentive for companies to host trainees and apprentices throughout their dual vocational 
training is the provision of economic benefits. However, the practices in each country are 
very different, and benefits cannot be transferred across national borders.

  –   In Spain, companies benefit from a significant reduction in social security contributions 
to compensate for the cost of hiring trainees and apprentices, and they receive incentives 
from the government to provide training. In Portugal, however, it is the student that receives 
economic assistance from the government, in the form of a scholarship, or transport, food 
and accommodation assistance, among other forms of assistance. In certain circumstances, 
a company may receive economic incentives to hire trainees. However, this practice is not 
as common as it is in Spain. In this regard, companies in Spain and apprentices from Portugal 
are discouraged from hiring trainees from across the border and carrying out an appren-
ticeship in the neighbouring country, respectively.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   There are two solutions to improve the mutual automatic recognition of dual vocational 

training.

  –   Conclude a bilateral agreement between Spain and Portugal that standardises training 

pathways and establishes reciprocity in recognising qualifications. While both legally and 
technically possible, this proposed solution is complex and would require significant legis-
lative efforts.

1 

2 

 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition 
of professional qualifications, OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22.
 This includes several communications of the European ministers of education and training and the European 
Commission, the European qualifications framework, Europass and the European credit transfer system for 
vocational education and training. For more information, refer to the original expert report.

71

 
 
 
  –   Create a cross-border dual VET diploma approved by the competent entities in each 

country. It is worth noting that the Xunta de Galicia (regional government in Spain) and 
the Portuguese Institute of Employment and Vocational Training (Instituto do Emprego e 
Formação Profissional) are currently part of a working group to address this issue. They 
have established mutual recognition for certain professional vocational training courses, 
for example in the tourism and automobile industries, among others.

•   There are two solutions to align deductions in social security contributions and eco-
nomic incentives for companies that hire trainees from the neighbouring country.
  –   Make use of a variety of EU funds, such as those allocated through the Interreg VI 

programme, of which Galicia–North Portugal Euroregion is a recipient (3). Under specific 
objective 4.2 (on education, training and lifelong learning), the programme includes cross-
border actions to support both vocational and dual vocational training. Achieving this ob-
jective would require the adaptation of programmes and redirection of funds for this pur-
pose, to ensure that economic incentives are aligned in each country for the FP Dual 
vocational training programmes.

  –   Stipulate a bilateral agreement between Spain and Portugal to establish a mechanism 

for the mutual recognition and application of the benefits from each country.

Inspiration can also be drawn from other dual training programmes. An example of a good 
practice is the dual vocational training project between the secondary school and vocational 
training institute IES Comte de Rius in Tarragona, Spain, and BASF, a European multinational 
company that has plants in both Germany and Spain (4). Spanish trainees carry out paid in-
ternships in industrial chemistry at the company’s facilities in both Germany and Spain, with 
the opportunity to secure an employment contract in Germany following the training period.

WHAT’S NEXT

The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) Galicia Norte Portugal will con-
tinue working to resolve the issues together with the competent administrations. The EGTC is 
working on a series of proposals for a cross-border dual VET programme for the Galicia–North 
Portugal Euroregion and is in discussions with the employment department of the regional 
government of Galicia and the new delegate of the Portuguese Institute of Employment and 
Vocational Training.

© Cultura Allies,  
stock.adobe.com

3 

4 

 Information on the Interreg Spain–Portugal programme is available at https://interreg.eu/programme/interreg-
spain-portugal-poctep.
 For more information on the dual training programme (in Spanish), see https://www.basf.com/es/es/careers/
FP-dual-2024.html.

72

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

© Carlos Barquero,  
stock.adobe.com

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/99_Report_GNP_ 
Lopez-Rodriguez.pdf

73

 
 
 
Mapping cross-border skills  
involving employers:  
Building and construction

ADVISED ENTITY
Friuli-Venezia Giulia autonomous region – Italy

EXPERT
Ivan Curzolo

ITALY

AUSTRIA

FRIULI 
VENEZIA 
GIULIA

SLOVENIA

Trieste

74

CROATIA

CONTEXT

The construction industry is important for the local economy in the cross-border region between 
Italy and Slovenia, employing thousands of people. However, the industry is facing a general 
labour shortage and a lack of sufficiently skilled workers. Additional analysis of information from 
the building and construction sector on both sides of the border is necessary to enable the 
identification of the required skills, but such data at the local level are scarce. In the interest 
of cooperation, an analysis of needs and gaps must also be carried out to improve training 
opportunities and skills-based job matching.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

At the EU level, the regulatory framework and guidance aim to promote harmonised rules 
and practices in the construction sector across all EU Member States. The European Construction 
Sector Observatory1 analyses practices and informs policymakers for the construction sector. 
Together with the ‘Construction 2020’ communication and action plan2, which addresses issues 
such as the lack of qualified workers and the ageing workforce, the observatory is part of the 
European Commission’s efforts to support this sector.

At the local level, four main obstacles have been identified that are rooted in differences at 
the national level, which affect the mapping and integration of workers in the cross-border 
Italy–Slovenia territory.

•   Lack of available data. The relevant data and indicators in the construction sectors in Italy 
and Slovenia are collected at different levels of governance as a result of the different adminis-
trative systems in each country. In Slovenia, disaggregated data are available at the national 
level but are scarce at the local level, while in Italy data are collected at the regional level (in 
particular, for the Friuli-Venezia Giulia autonomous region) rather than on a national scale. 
The construction value chain in general is affected by the lack of such data, which in turn has 
an impact on several related industries.

•   Gaps in skills mapping and training. A skills and job survey3 conducted by the European 
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training revealed significant gaps related to training 
for construction workers. For example, workers’ skills are not being fully harnessed and a new 
generation of workers to replace those retiring is required. The survey also signalled that a 
large-scale effort to reskill and upskill workers will be necessary to meet new demands within 
the industry, such as the increasing use of technology and digitalisation. At the local cross-
border level, addressing these challenges requires improving skills categorisation and integrating 
sectoral curricula.

•   Problems arising from the posting of workers, especially in the cross-border area. Flows 
of workers are not adequately monitored from one country to another, leaving room for 
potential non-compliance with labour rules and the risk of unreported employment and more 
occupational accidents. Posting workers may also cause unfair competition and differences 
in salaries. This situation must be further analysed and monitored in order to ensure that the 
rules are correctly enforced.

•   Language barriers and cultural differences. These hinder the success of cross-border job 
matching initiatives, and the integration of construction workers in the workplace in the 
host country.

1 

2 

 The observatory regularly carries out assessments of the construction sector in the 27 Member States and the 
United Kingdom. The results of these are available at https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/ 
construction/observatory_en.
 Commission communication – Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its 
enterprises (COM(2012) 433 final) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:043
3:FIN:EN:PDF).

3  https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/skills-developments-and-trends-construction.

75

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

 
 
 
© Ivan Curzolo, 2012

76

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   Standardising the data should be the first step towards facilitating job placement and  

providing better training opportunities. An efficient system is needed to observe and monitor 
flows of cross-border workers in the sector. To this end, the following methodological  
approaches are suggested.

  –   Creating a common methodology, as was developed as a pilot action as part of the 

Euradria cross-border partnership Italy–Slovenia project4.

  –   Building evidence of cross-border interactions through the joint monitoring of data. 

This includes identifying flows of cross-border workers through cooperation with statistical 
offices. It also involves developing the cross-border data collection process by establishing 
networks between statistical offices and regional data portals with responsible authori-
ties across borders, including at the national level. An example is the European Cross-Bor-
der Monitoring Network5, established in Germany. Moreover, the joint monitoring of data 
would require awareness raising and the engagement of national public bodies.

•   To address skills and training gaps, the following three actions are essential:
  –  identifying the skills needed and assessing skills gaps in the sector;
  –   bringing together actors in the construction industry and vocational education and 

training providers;

  –   promoting comparable curricula in different countries, with the goal of improving 

trainees’ and workers’ mobility.

•   Initiatives that provide a roadmap for addressing skills and training gaps are the European 

Construction Blueprint project6 and the Skillco project7.

•   Awareness-raising and cooperation among the competent national authorities in Italy and 
Slovenia is recommended to improve the posting of workers. Relevant studies have been  
conducted with regard to posted workers, including an analysis by the European Labour 
Authority8. The analysis identified key strategies to enhance cross-border cooperation and 
information sharing between labour associations, trade unions and enforcement authorities. 
Establishing an EU-wide system for exchanging data on labour and social security laws on 
posted workers is also recommended.

•   Harmonising the technical language used in the construction sector along the Italy–

Slovenia border would help promote job matching and overcome the language barrier. An 
initiative to translate the technical language in the Italian legislation into Slovenian in the 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia autonomous region could be further developed and replicated in other 
border areas.

WHAT’S NEXT

The aim of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia autonomous region is to harness the results to gather more 
data on the cross-border construction industry. This pilot action was integrated into the activities 
of the Euradria 24/26 project (co-funded by the EU), which began in April 2024. This initiative 
will help provide a clear understanding of the current situation in the construction sector on 
both sides of the border, supporting further analysis and activities related to skills mapping, 
identifying gaps, recognising qualifications across borders and addressing related obstacles.

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

 The Euradria–EURES cross-border partnership addresses obstacles to job mobility in the cross-border region 
through data collection and analysis. For more information, see https://www.crossborderjob.eu.
 The European Cross-Border Monitoring Network is an initiative of the German Federal Institute for Research 
on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development bringing together national and regional representatives 
in charge of territorial observation in Germany and their neighbouring countries to improve the collection 
of cross-border statistics. More information is available at https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/research/
specialist-articles/spatial-development/network-crossborderdata/main.html.
 The Construction Blueprint (or Skills Blueprint for the Construction Industry) project is an EU co-funded 
project for implementing a new strategic approach to improving sectoral cooperation on skills, involving sectoral 
representatives and vocational education and training and higher education providers. More information is 
available at https://constructionblueprint.eu/context/.
 Skillco is an EU co-funded project addressing education and unemployment in the construction sector. More 
information is available at https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/slovenia-construction-sector-skillco-project.
 The results of the strategic analysis conducted by the European Labour Authority are accessible at https://www.ela.
europa.eu/en/news-event/newsroom/report-digitally-accessible-and-understandable-information-promoting-cross.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/104_Report_
FVG_Curzolo.pdf 

77

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

 
 
 
Cross-border employment at the 
Croatian-Hungarian border

ADVISED ENTITY
Pannon European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation – Croatia–Hungary

EXPERTS
Dubravka Lacković Smole, Crowe Tax and Accounting d.o.o, and Katalin Fekete,  
Central European Service for Cross-border Initiatives (CESCI)

AUSTRIA

HUNGARY

SLOVENIA

ZALA MEGYE

KOPRIVNIČKO- 
KRIŽEVAČKA  
ŽUPANIJA

SOMOGY 
MEGYE

Kaposvár

Szekszárd

Pécs

BARANYA MEGYE

CROATIA

VIROVITIČKO- 
PODRAVSKA  
ŽUPANIJA

OSJEČKO-
BARANJSKA 
ŽUPANIJA

SERBIA

78

CONTEXT

Pannon European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is a cross-border entity registered 
in Hungary and therefore operates under Hungarian jurisdiction but also has branch offices in 
Croatia. The EGTC currently employs two Croatian nationals who reside and work in Croatia. 
However, the national provisions of Croatia and Hungary are not aligned on employment  
rules, tax and social security contributions, nor do they take into account the cross-border context. 
This creates an obstacle to cross-border employment. As an ad hoc solution, an agreement 
was reached between the EGTC and the employees in which the employees receive their gross 
salary from Hungary but pay taxes and social security contributions only in Croatia. However, 
this does not resolve uncertainties for the EGTC regarding its duties as an employer. Because of 
the lack of clarity and fear of penalties, employers are often hesitant to hire employees from the 
other side of the border, which hinders cross-border mobility and employment opportunities.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The obstacle stems from the lack of clear agreements between Croatia and Hungary on 
how to apply EU and national rules regarding tax residence, employment and social security 
contributions. While the free movement of EU citizens is guaranteed among Member States 
under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, there is still uncer-
tainty when workers reside in one country but work for an organisation in another country.

•   In terms of EU legislation, several regulations and concepts apply in this case. However, in 

practice such rules may be open to interpretation.

  –   The Rome I regulation1 allows the parties to an employment contract to choose which 

national law should apply when more than one country is involved. When choosing, it 
must be kept in mind that labour laws in each country vary significantly. In the absence 
of a choice, the principle of lex loci laboris applies, in which the employment contract is 
governed by the law of the country where the employee routinely works. In the case of the 
EGTC, the employment contracts are governed by Hungarian law.

  –   Regulation (EC) No 883/20042 stipulates that employees working in more than one EU 

country can only be insured in one country. If they carry out a substantial part of their 
work in their country of residence, like the two Croatian employees of the EGTC who only 
work from Croatia, they are covered by that country’s national social security system.
•   At the national level, under the Croatian Labour Act3, the Croatian employees are subject to 
the ‘principle of the more favourable law’. If any of the rights or obligations of the employees 
are more favourable in Croatia, such as annual leave or severance payments, they are entitled 
to such benefits in Croatia, and the less favourable Hungarian law is not applied4.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The Pannon EGTC, acting under Hungarian jurisdiction, can employ staff permanently in 
Croatia. However, changes should be made to employment contracts and practices so that the 
EGTC fulfils its obligations as an employer. To this end, a roadmap with specific operational 
steps was created5.

1 

2 

3 

4 

 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law 
applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6.
 Regulation (EC) No 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.
 Labour Act of 1 January 2023, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, Nos 93/14, 127/17, 98/19, 151/22 
and 64/23.
 The Croatian employees are permanently located in Croatia, so they are not considered posted workers in the 
sense of the EU legal framework and the national legislation implementing the framework.

5  Please refer to the original expert report for the detailed version of the roadmap.

79

 
 
 
© Pannon EGTC, 2016

© Pannon EGTC, Andrea Mütter, 2022

•   Taxation rules. Under the Croatian Income Tax Act6, a person’s tax residence is defined as the 
country in which they have resided for at least 183 days within 1 or 2 calendar years. In 
addition, under the double tax treaty7 between Croatia and Hungary, the income of a Croatian 
resident earned from employment in Hungary may be subject to Hungarian income tax, 
unless they spend less than 183 days per year in Hungary. Therefore, the Croatian employees 
in this case are indeed considered tax residents of Croatia, so their income is taxed and pay-
ment obligations are set under Croatian rules. In order to ensure that their salaries, taxes and 
contributions are correctly calculated and paid, the employer, although based in Hungary, 
is already registered with the competent authority in Croatia and could hire a payroll service 
provider in Croatia. This provider could calculate and directly pay the employees’ salaries, 
taxes and contributions. In addition, the payroll service could provide the employees with the 
mandatory monthly salary slips, fulfilling an obligation of the employer in this respect.
•   Employment rights. Under the ‘principle of the more favourable law’, if certain rights or 

obligations are more favourable for the employee under the Croatian Labour Act, an annex or 
accompanying letter must be attached to the Hungarian employment contract and should 
include all relevant provisions. In this way, Pannon EGTC in Hungary can directly employ 
Croatian citizens, making their employment contracts subject to Hungarian jurisdiction and 
entitling them to Croatian employment rights if they are more favourable under Croatian 
jurisdiction.

•   Social security contributions. According to the social security agreement8 between Croatia 
and Hungary, the obligation of employees to make social security payments is based on the 
rules of the country in which the business activity or employment is carried out. As the Croatian 
employees perform all of their work in Croatia, their pension and health insurance contribu-
tions are regulated by Croatian law. In addition, because they reside in Croatia on a permanent 
basis, they must pay pension contributions to the Croatian Pension Insurance Institute9 and 
make health insurance payments to the Croatian Health Insurance Fund.

WHAT’S NEXT

Pannon EGTC is registered with the Croatian Tax Administration and is in possession of a 
Croatian tax number. With the help of its Croatian members, Pannon EGTC is in contact 
with the Croatian Pension Insurance Institute and the Croatian Health Insurance Fund to apply 
for registration with them.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/122_Report_Pannon-
EGTC_CESCI-and-Crowe.pdf 

80

6 

7 

8 

 Income Tax Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, Nos 115/16, 106/18, 121/19, 32/20, 42/20 and 
114/22.
 Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Hungary for the avoidance of double taxation 
with respect to taxes on income and on capital, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia – International  
Agreements, No 11/97.
 Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Hungary on social security, Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Croatia, No 11/2005.

9  Croatian Pension Insurance Institute is referred as Croatian Pension Fund in the original expert report. 

Non-recognition of incapacity and 
disability at work between France 
and Germany 

ADVISED ENTITY
Frontaliers Grand Est – France

EXPERT
Eddie Pradier, TRISAN / Euro-Institut

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

BELGIUM

Charleville-Mézières

LUXEMBOURG

GERMANY

GRAND EST

Metz

Châlons-en-Champagne

Nancy

Bar-le-Duc

Troyes

Chaumont

FRANCE

Strasbourg

Épinal

Colmar

SWITZERLAND 

81

 
 
 
CONTEXT

The Grand Est region of France shares a border with four countries (Belgium, Germany,  
Luxembourg and Switzerland), and a significant number of cross-border commuters live in one 
country but work in another. Along the Germany–France border, some frontier workers are 
officially recognised as incapacitated1 in their state of residence but not in the neighbouring 
country where they work, or vice versa. This can cause financial and personal difficulties.  
Ensuring that their invalidity status is mutually recognised among the neighbouring countries 
would benefit these cross-border workers and improve the coordination of the social security 
and employment systems to which they belong.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•   Cross-border workers face obstacles when seeking to obtain invalidity status in their 

country of employment or residence, since recognition of their status is based on different 
approaches in Germany and France. For example, in France, a person is entitled to  
invalidity benefits when their ability to work or their income is reduced by at least two thirds. 
In Germany, invalidity status is granted when they are only able to work up to 3 hours per 
day (total invalidity (volle Erwerbsminderung)) or 6 hours per day (partial invalidity (teilweise 
Erwerbsminderung)). The different national approaches also result in the following problems.

  –   Lengthy or complex administrative procedures. Once an application for invalidity  

status is submitted, it can take a year or longer to receive a response regarding the decision 
to issue funds. One of the reasons for this is the procedure for processing claims. While  
it is only necessary to submit a single application, multiple parties in several countries are 
involved. This adds to the administrative burden. Other factors that slow down the process 
include a lack of information from applicants, the need for multiple exchanges of large 
numbers of data, the need to translate documents and staff shortages.

  –   Financial problems. While waiting for their claim to be processed, applicants face a lack 
of income while they are unable to work. This leads to financial difficulties. In addition to 
a loss of income, they may not be able to receive an invalidity pension in either of the 
countries in which they have paid social security contributions, as receiving an invalidity 
or disability pension in one of the two countries may result in them being denied other 
types of benefits in the other country, such as sickness or unemployment benefits.
•   The EU regulatory framework allows the automatic and reciprocal recognition of inva-

lidity benefits, but the French and German national legal frameworks do not.

  –   At the EU level, under Regulation (EC) No 883/20042, cross-border workers are entitled 
to invalidity benefits in either their country of residence or their country of employment. 
Article 46(3) of the regulation provides for the automatic recognition of such benefits 
between EU Member States, but this depends on the two states acknowledging the com-
patibility of their legislation. However, this is not the case between Germany and France. 
In addition, while Article 8 of the regulation provides for coordination or recognition 
mechanisms under bilateral or multilateral agreements between Member States outside 
the scope of the regulation, no such agreements exist between these two countries.

1 

2 

 This summary only addresses the legal obstacles concerning invalidity, whereas more information on the legal 
obstacles arising from the recognition of disability status in a cross-border context can be found in the full 
report.
 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coor-
dination of social security systems, OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

82

© Leonid Andronov,  
stock.adobe.com

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

© standret,  
stock.adobe.com

83

 
 
 
  –    At the national level, the different rules in the states do not allow the automatic recog-
nition of invalidity in a cross-border context, as Germany and France have two very 
distinct concepts of invalidity in terms of the applicable legal framework, entitlement to 
benefits and the competence of the players involved. In Germany, invalidity benefits are 
managed by Deutsche Rentenversicherung, a network of regional and federal pension 
funds3. However, in France, the administrative formalities of invalidity benefits are handled 
by health insurance bodies, while for medical formalities claims are processed by the 
medical services in the applicant’s department of residence4.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•   In the long term, for claims for invalidity benefits involving several countries, the deci-
sion of one country to recognise invalidity status should be automatically accepted by 
the other countries. As mentioned above, Article 46(3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 
already contains a clause providing for automatic recognition, which means the two countries 
can choose to acknowledge compatibility between their legislation. Alternatively, a bilateral 
agreement pursuant to Article 8 of the regulation could be concluded. Both of these options 
would require Germany and France to harmonise their invalidity laws. However, achieving 
this is highly unlikely, given the different approaches to recognising invalidity status in the 
two countries.

•   Two practical, more short-term solutions are therefore proposed.
  –   Provide more information to frontier and cross-border workers. Inform workers about 
obtaining invalidity benefits, for example by developing an informational brochure on the 
subject. As part of this action, organisations such as Frontaliers Grand Est5, the Infobest 
network6 and TRISAN7 could inform the public, together with the competent authorities.
  –   Increase exchanges and information sharing among the competent authorities. They 

could meet regularly at the local level to improve coordination and communication among 
them. Such exchanges could help disseminate best practices and provide solutions to ob-
stacles on a case-by-case basis.

WHAT’S NEXT

The report will be sent to regional representatives, members of parliament, the European  
Commission and European authorities in order to establish their positions on the issue. Efforts 
will be made to strengthen public information.

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

 If the applicant lives outside Germany, the Rhineland-Palatinate pension fund (Deutsche Rentenversicherung 
Rheinland-Pfalz) manages the benefits. If the applicant lives in Germany, benefits are managed by the federal 
pension fund (Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund).
 For residents of the Grand Est region, the competent body is the International Invalidity Pensions Department 
(Pensions d’invalidité à l’international) of the Primary Health Insurance Fund of Bas-Rhin (Caisse Primaire 
d’Assurance Maladie du Bas-Rhin), which handles the administrative processes. For those living outside France, 
the National Centre of Foreign Residents (Pôle National pour les résidents étrangers) is the competent institution, 
managed by the Regional Health Insurance Fund (Caisse régionale d’assurance maladie d’Ile de France).
 Frontaliers Grand Est is an association set up by the Grand Est region to facilitate professional mobility on 
both sides of borders. More information is available at https://frontaliers-grandest.eu/.
 Infobest is a point of contact for all cross-border issues relating to France, Germany and Switzerland, facilitating 
and promoting living together in the France–Germany–Switzerland Upper Rhine region. More information is 
available at https://www.infobest.eu/de.
 TRISAN (Trinationales Kompetenzzentrum für Ihre Gesundheitsprojekte) is a trinational competence centre 
for cross-border cooperation in the healthcare sector supported by the Interreg Upper Rhine programme (on 
which information is available at https://www.interreg-oberrhein.eu). More information on the centre is  
available at https://www.trisan.org/english.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/142_Report_CRD-
EURES_Trisan-FR-DE-1.pdf 

84

Non-recognition of incapacity and 
disability at work between France 
and Luxembourg

ADVISED ENTITY
Frontaliers Grand Est – France

EXPERT
Jean-François Devemy, InterRegioNovation

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

BELGIUM

Charleville-Mézières

LUXEMBOURG

GERMANY

GRAND EST

Metz

Châlons-en-Champagne

Nancy

Bar-le-Duc

Troyes

Chaumont

FRANCE

Strasbourg

Épinal

Colmar

SWITZERLAND 

85

 
 
 
© karaboux, stock.adobe.com

CONTEXT

The Grand Est region of France shares a border with four countries (Belgium, Germany,  
Luxembourg and Switzerland), and a significant number of cross-border commuters live in 
one country but work in another. In the case of the France–Luxembourg border, people living 
in France and commuting to work across the border comprise about half of Luxembourg’s 
cross-border workforce1. There have been cases in which frontier workers have been officially 
recognised as disabled or incapacitated2 in their state of residence, but not in the neighbouring 
country where they work, or vice versa. This can cause financial and personal difficulties.  
Ensuring that disability or invalidity status is mutually recognised in France and Luxembourg 
would benefit cross-border workers and improve the coordination of social security and em-
ployment systems.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•   The obstacle is rooted in the difference between each country’s method of evaluating  
invalidity status. Discrepancies exist between the procedures in France and Luxembourg  
regarding invalidity pensions/benefits in the following three circumstances: deciding to grant 
the benefits, determining the level of invalidity, and deciding the level of financial or material 
compensation the beneficiary receives.

  –   In Luxemburg, invalidity or incapacity status is granted when the individual’s capacity to 
work is reduced by at least 30 %. However, those claiming a pension must reside in 
Luxembourg.

  –   In France, invalidity status is divided into three categories: incapacity with the possibility 
of working under certain conditions, complete incapacity, and complete incapacity with 
the need for additional daily assistance.

1 

2 

 Data on cross-border labour mobility in France and Luxembourg are collected by the Interregional Labour 
Market Observatory and are accessible at https://www.iba-oie.eu/fr/themes/mobilite-des-frontaliers/ 
luxembourg/emploi-frontalier-et-evolution.
 It is important to note the difference between invalidity pensions, aimed at compensating for invalidity  
(incapacity for work), and disability benefits, aimed at compensating for incapacity in general, regardless of 
employment status. This summary only addresses the legal obstacles concerning invalidity, whereas more  
information on the legal obstacles arising from the recognition of disability status in a cross-border context  
can be found in the full report.

86

•    In terms of the level of financial or material compensation, both countries have a dual 
compliance system in place, facilitated through medical evaluation and administrative  
compliance checks. However, there are notable differences.

  –   In Luxembourg, when granted a pension for invalidity, the beneficiary can also receive 

other income from work up to one third of the amount of the minimum social wage3 per 
year. When the maximum limit for other income is surpassed, the pension amount is  
reduced. The pension amount (revenus pour salariés handicapés) is based on the minimum 
living income, with an additional sum provided per family.

  –   In France, the invalidity pension is determined based on a rate corresponding to each of 

the three categories of invalidity status described above. It considers the 10 best years of the 
recipient’s income, establishing a minimum and maximum pension amount. In addition 
to the invalidity pension, a benefit known as the adult disability allowance (Allocation aux 
Adultes Handicapés) can be granted by the French departments to adults with a level of 
incapacity of 80 % or more.

•     The EU’s regulatory framework allows the automatic and reciprocal recognition of  
invalidity and disability benefits, but the national legal frameworks in France and  
Luxembourg do not.

  –   At the EU level, under Regulation (EC) No 883/20044, cross-border workers are entitled 
to invalidity benefits in both their country of residence and the country in which they 
work. Article 46(3) of the regulation provides for the automatic recognition of such benefits 
between EU Member States, but this depends on the two states acknowledging the com-
patibility of their legislation in Annex VII.

  –   However, this is not the case between France and Luxembourg. Legislation adopted in 
Luxembourg (a law of 12 September 2003 and a regulation of 7 October 2004)5 meant 
that concordance was subject to re-examination, in light of changes made to the national 
legislation in Luxembourg. Since the regulation was last updated, the two countries have 
not been listed in Annex VII, so concordance has not existed.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•     Modification of Annex VII of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 through administrative  

coordination or a political regulatory decision. There are two options:

  –   a simple administrative procedure envisaged in Title IV of the regulation (‘Administrative 
commission and advisory committee’), and in particular Article 72(a), giving the Adminis-
trative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems6 (the body responsible 
for the regulation) the power to interpret the provisions of the regulation;

  –   a high-level political decision, involving the central administrations in France and Luxem-

bourg, to re-examine the content of Annex VII, or change the wording of Article 46, to 
foster better coordination between national legislation.

•     Adaptation of national legislation or administrative policy. This would require changes in 
policies and practices among the medical and administrative entities in both France and Luxem-
bourg, and would only be made possible through engaging with the central administrations in both 
countries. A general guide or a circular could be issued with the new methodology to be applied.

•     Introduction of a bilateral agreement between France and Luxembourg, based on the 
example of the 1997 Luxembourg–Portugal agreement7. Rather than adding the two 
countries to Annex VII of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, a bilateral agreement acknowledging 
compatibility between their legislation could be concluded.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

3  This refers to the national minimum wage. 
4 

5 

6 

7 

 Regulation (EC) No 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.
 Grand-Ducal Regulation of 7 October 2004 implementing the law of 12 September 2003 relating to persons 
with disabilities (consolidated version, applicable as of 1 January 2019), Mémorial, A167, 13 October 2004.
 The commission is attached to the European Commission and consists of a government representative from 
each Member State (see Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004).
 Agreement of 10 March 1997 between the Portuguese Republic and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on 
the recognition of decisions taken by institutions of one contracting party by the institutions of the other 
contracting party concerning the state of invalidity of pension applicants, Journal of the Republic I-A, No 289, 
16 December 1997 (Portugal), and Mémorial, ST1997100, 10 March 1997 (Luxembourg).

87

 
 
 
•     Court and trial procedures based on the European Court of Human Rights8 and/or EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights9. A case could be brought before the national or European 
courts on the basis of the principles of equity and non-discrimination. Both of these principles 
are enshrined in the national legislation of France and Luxembourg. Regarding the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, the rights under Articles 1, 15, 21 and 26 could be affected, 
and the citizens involved could address the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of 
Article 14 of the charter and Article 1 of Protocol No 12 (on discrimination)10. In the event 
of court and trial procedures, the advised entity, Frontaliers Grand Est, could provide 
support.

WHAT’S NEXT

The report will be sent to French and Luxembourgish decision-makers and European authorities 
in order to establish their positions on the issue. Efforts will be made to strengthen public 
information.

© megaflopp,  
stock.adobe.com

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/143_Report-CRD-
EURES-FR-LU_Devemy.pdf

88

8 

 The European Court of Human Rights is an international court of the Council of Europe set up in 1959.  
It rules on individual or state applications alleging violations of civil or political rights set out in the European 
Convention on Human Rights.
 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391.

9 
10   Protocol No 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Council 

of Europe Treaty Series, No 3, Rome, 4 November 2000.

Non-recognition of incapacity and 
disability at work between France 
and Belgium

ADVISED ENTITY
Frontaliers Grand Est – France

EXPERTS
Isabelle Andoulsi and Petra Wilson, Health Connect Partners

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

BELGIUM

Charleville-Mézières

LUXEMBOURG

GERMANY

GRAND EST

Metz

Châlons-en-Champagne

Nancy

Bar-le-Duc

Troyes

Chaumont

FRANCE

Strasbourg

Épinal

Colmar

SWITZERLAND 

89

 
 
 
CONTEXT

The Grand Est region of France shares a border with four countries (Belgium, Germany,  
Luxembourg and Switzerland), and a significant number of cross-border commuters live in one 
country but work in another. In the case of the border between France and the Walloon Region 
(Belgium), border workers with disability, invalidity or incapacity status face difficulties due to 
the lack of harmonisation of the national legislation on social security. In particular, workers 
may be granted assistance in their country of residence but not in the neighbouring country 
where they work, or vice versa. This can cause financial and personal difficulties. Ensuring that 
their status is mutually recognised in Belgium and France would benefit these cross-border 
workers and improve the coordination of the social security and employment systems.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•     While EU regulations allow the coordination of social security systems, there is no auto-
matic recognition between the EU Member States of incapacity or disability status at work.
  –   At the EU level, under Regulation (EC) No 883/20041, cross-border workers are entitled 
to invalidity or disability benefits in either their country of residence or the country in 
which they work. Article 46(3) of the regulation provides for the automatic recognition 
of such benefits between Member States, but this depends on the two states acknowledging 
the compatibility of their legislation in Annex VII. Belgium and France do not acknowledge 
compatibility.

•     Belgium and France have different conditions under which a worker can request compen-
sation for invalidity or disability. In addition to differences in the deadlines for applications, 
there are differences in the amounts granted and in the years of social security contributions 
required to apply for the benefits.

•     The terminology and concepts of incapacity, invalidity and disability at work differ 

between the legislation of the two countries. The same concepts are used to classify different 
situations and schemes in Belgium and France, and each country has its own method of 
determining incapacity, invalidity and disability status. While there are two main bilateral 
framework agreements in place between Belgium and France2, neither addresses the issue of 
incapacity or disability at work.

  –   In France, a distinction is made between the concepts of unfitness to work (the worker is 
not able to do their job because of their state of health and because the job cannot be 
adapted or changed); incapacity for work (the person cannot work because of an accident 
or an illness, either temporarily or permanently, with partial or total incapacity); invalidity 
(the worker has suffered an accident or an illness that is not work related); and disability 
(the person has a certain degree of disability, regardless of their employment status)3. The 
last three concepts are addressed in the French Social Security Code4, and individuals to 
which they apply have the right to receive financial support. The amount of compensation 
they receive is based on rates set for those with temporary and permanent invalidity status.
  –   In Belgium, however, the concept of ‘unfitness to work’ does not exist in the national social 
security legislation or system, and the concepts of incapacity and invalidity are understood 
differently from in France. The terms ‘incapacity’ and ‘invalidity’ mean the same thing in 
Belgium, but are used to refer to different periods and therefore affect the amount of com-
pensation beneficiaries are granted. The concept of incapacity applies during the first year 
that the person is unable to work, while the concept of invalidity applies as of the second 
year. In addition, unlike France, Belgium does not have a social security code. This results 
in fragmented social security provisions with frequently amended laws and royal decrees.

1 

2 

 Regulation (EC) No 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.
 The Franco-Belgian framework agreement on cross-border health cooperation, signed on 30 September 2005; 
and the Franco-Belgian framework agreement on the reception of people with disabilities, signed on  
21 December 2011.

3  Please refer to the original expert report for a more detailed description of the concepts.
4 

 Social Security Code (Code de la sécurité sociale) (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LE-
GITEXT000006073189).

90

© nocidar,  
stock.adobe.com

© PheelingsMedia,  
stock.adobe.com

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

91

 
 
 
ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•     Conclude a new bilateral agreement to adopt a common definition of the terms ‘incapacity’ 

and ‘invalidity’ for cross-border workers. This solution would provide special rules and 
guidance for workers residing in one country and working in the other, and could be either 
adopted in a limited sense to compensate for injuries or illness in the workplace or broadly 
adopted. It could also be limited to a geographical region, for example applying to people 
residing a certain distance from the border, or limited to those who have worked across the 
border for a minimum length of time.

•     Amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to ensure that key concepts such as incapacity 
and invalidity are mutually recognised between the Member States. In accordance with  
Article 46(3), the binding nature of the degree of invalidity of a claimant depends on con-
cordance between the legislation of Member States on conditions related to the degree  
of invalidity. Amending Article 46(3) and reassessing concordance between the legislation 
could reduce the possibility of receiving contradictory decisions from national institutions, 
and help determine if the approach to ensuring concordance among national legislation is 
still relevant at a time when professional mobility across EU borders is becoming the norm.

WHAT’S NEXT

The report will be sent to French and Belgian politicians and European authorities in order to 
establish their positions on the issue. Efforts will be made to strengthen public information.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/144_Report-CRD-
EURES-FR-BE_HCP.pdf 

92

Non-recognition of incapacity and 
disability at work between France 
and Switzerland

ADVISED ENTITY
Frontaliers Grand Est – France

EXPERT
Eddie Pradier, TRISAN / Euro-Institut

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

BELGIUM

Charleville-Mézières

LUXEMBOURG

GERMANY

GRAND EST

Metz

Châlons-en-Champagne

Nancy

Bar-le-Duc

Troyes

Chaumont

FRANCE

Strasbourg

Épinal

Colmar

SWITZERLAND 

93

 
 
 
© Boris Stroujko, stock.adobe.com

CONTEXT

The Grand Est region of France shares a border with four countries (Belgium, Germany, 
Luxembourg and Switzerland), and a significant number of cross-border commuters live in one 
country but work in another. In the case of France and Switzerland, border workers with invalidity 
status face difficulties due to the different invalidity pension systems in each country. In par-
ticular, workers may be granted assistance in their state of residence but not in the neighbouring 
country where they work, or vice versa. Ensuring that more information is available and  
encouraging improved coordination between the authorities would help tackle the obstacles 
to receiving assistance.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•     Cross-border workers face obstacles when seeking invalidity status in their country of 

employment or residence, since recognition of their status is based on different approaches 
in France and Switzerland.

•     While EU regulations enable the coordination of social security among EU Member States, 
there is no automatic recognition of invalidity status between France and Switzerland.
  –   At the EU level, under Regulation (EC) No 883/20041, cross-border workers are entitled 
to invalidity benefits in either their country of residence or the country in which they 
work. In addition to Member States, the regulation applies to Switzerland, according to 
Annex 2 of the agreement between Switzerland and the EU on the free movement of people2. 
On the one hand, Article 46(3) of the regulation provides for the automatic recogni-
tion of invalidity benefits between France and Switzerland, but this depends on the two 
states acknowledging the compatibility of their legislation in Annex VII. France and 
Switzerland do not acknowledge compatibility. On the other hand, while Article 8 of the 
regulation provides for coordination or recognition mechanisms under bilateral or 
multilateral agreements between Member States outside the scope of the regulation, no 
such agreements exist between these two countries.

1 

2 

 Regulation (EC) No  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.
 Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Swiss  
Confederation, on the other hand, on the free movement of persons, OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 6.

94

© Studio Romantic,  
stock.adobe.com

•     At the national level, the different rules do not allow the automatic recognition of  
invalidity, as France and Switzerland have two very distinct concepts of invalidity.

  –   Invalidity benefits are managed very differently in France and Switzerland. In Switzer-
land, the invalidity insurance system3 is administered at the canton level and includes a 
special scheme for cross-border workers still employed at the time of claiming benefits. 
In France, the administrative formalities of invalidity benefits are managed by health  
insurance bodies, while for medical formalities claims are processed by the medical services 
in the applicant’s department of residence4. In addition, invalidity status in France is 
granted if a person’s capacity for work or earning capacity is reduced by at least two thirds. 
Meanwhile, in Switzerland, the level of invalidity is assessed in terms of loss of income 
and is calculated by comparing the income that the person could have earned with their 
reduced earnings as a result of their invalidity status. A person is entitled to a pension  
under Swiss law only if they have a degree of invalidity of at least 40 %.

  –   The type of pension payments and benefits also differs in the two countries. In France, 
invalidity benefits consist solely of pension payments, and the person applying must 
meet certain criteria regarding age and period of social security contributions. Switzerland, 
however, offers different types of benefits for invalidity, with pension payments issued 
only as a last resort. Vocational reintegration measures take precedence over pension payments, 
and are generally accompanied by daily allowances. Reintegration measures are primarily 
work related and the person must actively participate in the measures to participate in 
working life.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

3 

4 

 The invalidity insurance (IV/AI) system is organised around 26 offices at the canton level, in addition to a  
27th IV/AI disability insurance office for people living abroad. The IV/AI office in the workers’ canton of 
employment is responsible for processing their claim and determining their level of invalidity, while the office 
for people living abroad is involved only in calculating the amount of and paying the pensions of those abroad.
 For residents of the Grand Est region, the competent body is the International Invalidity Pensions Department 
(Pensions d’invalidité à l’international) of the Primary Health Insurance Fund of Bas-Rhin (Caisse Primaire 
d’Assurance Maladie du Bas-Rhin), which handles the administrative processes. For those living outside France, 
the National Centre of Foreign Residents (Pôle National pour les résidents étrangers) is the competent institution, 
managed by the Regional Health Insurance Fund (Caisse régionale d’assurance maladie d’Ile de France).

95

 
 
 
•     The different approaches also result in lengthy and complex administrative procedures. 

While it is necessary to submit only a single application, multiple parties in several countries 
are involved. This adds to the administrative burden and is not always understood by applicants. 
Once an application for invalidity is submitted, it may take a year or more to receive a response 
regarding the decision to issue the funds.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•     The decision of one country to recognise invalidity status should be automatically accepted 
by the other countries. As mentioned above, Article 46(3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 
already contains a clause providing for automatic recognition, for which the two countries 
could choose to acknowledge compatibility between their legislation. To this end, it would 
be enough for France and Switzerland to mutually do so, in accordance with Annex VII of 
the regulation. However, it should be noted that achieving this is highly unlikely, given the 
very different approaches to recognising invalidity status in the two countries.

•     Provide more information to cross-border workers on obtaining invalidity benefits, for  
example by developing an informational brochure on the subject. Organisations such as 
Frontaliers Grand Est5, the Infobest network6 and TRISAN7 could inform the public,  
together with the competent authorities. It would be helpful to send a letter to applicants 
informing them that their application will be processed by several authorities in different 
countries.

•     Increase exchanges and information sharing among the competent authorities, who 

could meet regularly at the local level to improve coordination and communication among 
them. Such exchanges could help disseminate best practices and provide solutions to obstacles 
on a case-by-case basis, with the hope of fostering long-term cooperation among the authorities.

WHAT’S NEXT

The report will be sent to French and Swiss politicians and European authorities in order to 
establish their positions on the issue. Efforts will be made to strengthen public information.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/145_Report_
CRD-EURES_Trisan-FR-CH.pdf 

96

5 

6 

7 

 Frontaliers Grand Est is an association set up by the Grand Est region to facilitate professional mobility on 
both sides of borders. More information is available at https://frontaliers-grandest.eu/.
 Infobest is a point of contact for all cross-border issues relating to France, Germany and Switzerland, facilitating 
and promoting living together in the France–Germany–Switzerland Upper Rhine region. More information 
is available at https://www.infobest.eu/de.
 TRISAN (Trinationales Kompetenzzentrum für Ihre Gesundheitsprojekte) is a trinational competence centre 
for cross-border cooperation in the healthcare sector supported by the Interreg Upper Rhine programme (on 
which information is available at https://www.trisan.org/english). More information on the centre is available 
at https://www.trisan.org/english.

Deductibility of private pension 
contributions in Denmark

ADVISED ENTITY
Regionskontor & Infocenter, Sønderjylland–Schleswig region – Denmark–Germany

EXPERT
Martine Stagelund Hvidt

HADERSLEV

TØNDER

DENMARK

AABENRAA

SØNDERBORG

Padborg

GERMANY

KREIS 
NORDFRIESLAND

STADT 
FLENSBURG

KREIS 
SCHLESWIG
FLENSBURG

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

97

 
 
 
CONTEXT

The cross-border commuting of workers in the Sønderjylland–Schleswig region between Denmark 
and Germany is a common phenomenon. The region is characterised by a vibrant cross-border 
labour movement, with 13 273 cross-border commuters in 2022. Of these, the vast majority 
commute from Germany to Denmark. However, differing tax deduction regulations for pen-
sions in Germany and Denmark have a negative impact on pension plans, specifically concerning 
private pensions and the tax deductibility of private pension contributions for German commuters. 
To combat this, the Regionskontor & Infocenter for the Sønderjylland–Schleswig region1 was 
established to provide guidance and consulting to cross-border commuters, businesses providing 
related services and all people who wish to exercise their right to free mobility.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

While pension contributions can be deducted in both countries, Denmark imposes certain 
conditions. Danish law differentiates between full and limited tax liability2. Individuals subject 
to full tax liability are taxed on all income, including income earned outside Denmark, if they 
reside in Denmark or stay in the country for 6 consecutive months (full tax liability). Individuals 
earning income from Denmark but not residing in the country are taxed only on their Danish 
income (limited tax liability).

Following the publication of an opinion by the Court of Justice of the European Union3, 
which provided clarity on the application of EU law to national tax systems (particularly in the 
context of pensions and cross-border taxation), Denmark amended the Danish Pension Tax Act 
(Bekendtgørelse af lov om beskatningen af pensionsordninger m.v.)4 and introduced a set of rules, 
the lex specialis, to ensure fair conditions for cross-border workers. These general rules for cross-
border workers (grænsegængerreglerne) are regulated in Article 5a of the Withholding Tax Act5. 
The rules provide two options for cross-border workers – full or limited tax liability – allowing 
certain deductions. The ongoing challenges faced by cross-border workers subject to limited 
tax liability highlight how certain obstacles are disrupting tax coherence and fairness.

•   In order for special cross-border rules allowing certain deductions to apply to workers, 75 % 

of their income must be earned in Denmark.

•   Workers starting work later in the year have difficulty in earning 75 % of their income in 

Denmark, disqualifying them from benefits.

•   Article 15D(3) of the Danish Pension Tax Act6 requires individuals to have not had tax liability 
in Denmark in the 3 years before moving to Denmark to qualify for pension deductions.
•   Deducting or exempting contributions to the foreign pension scheme from Danish taxable 
income is only possible if the worker has a pension scheme established with a pension insti-
tution in an EU or European Economic Area country approved within Article 15C of the 
Danish Pension Tax Act.

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

 Sønderjylland–Schleswig is the regional centre for cross-border cooperation between municipalities and local 
authorities along the Denmark–Germany border. More information is available at https://www.region.dk/
region/de/ueber_uns/organisation/regionskontor.php.
 Danish Pension Tax Act (Bekendtgørelse af lov om beskatningen af pensionsordninger m.v.), Consolidated Act 
No 1327, 10 September 2020.
 Opinion of Advocate-General Stix-Hackl of 1 June 2006, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom 
of Denmark, C-150/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:357.
 See footnote 2.
 Withholding Tax Act (Bekendtgørelse af kildeskatteloven), Consolidated Act No 460, 3 May 2024.
 Danish Pension Tax Act (Bekendtgørelse af lov om beskatningen af pensionsordninger m.v.), Consolidated Act 
No 1327, 10 September 2020.

98

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Several legal solutions were identified that could break down the barriers posed by the current rules.

•  The Danish Pension Tax Act could be modified.
  –   Amend Article 15D(3) to allow all cross-border commuters to qualify for pension contri-

bution deductions, regardless of previous limited tax liability.

  –   Amend Article 15C to make contributions to German pension schemes deductible by 

recognising foreign pension institutions with home-country licences. Specifically, recognise 
Riester pension schemes7 as equivalent to Danish schemes after initial evaluation.

•   Introduce a retaxation agreement for pension amounts previously deducted or disregarded 

when tax residence is transferred to another EU Member State. Germany and Denmark 
could agree on a system to tax pension amounts that have previously been deducted or disre-
garded. This approach would ensure coherence and symmetry in the tax system.

•   Introduce pan-European pension products in the Danish market to facilitate movement 
within the EU, in line with Regulation (EU) 2019/12388. A related platform9 is already in 
development, with the potential to be rolled out in 2024–2025. The approval of foreign pan-
European pension products will depend on meeting Danish Pension Tax Act requirements.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Regionskontor & Infocenter considers sharing the report with the Danish Ministry of 
Taxation as its preferred first step. If the ministry cannot identify a solution based on the report, 
the next step will be to share the report with the European Commission in order to decide if 
Denmark fully or partially complied with its obligations deriving from the Court of Justice of 
the European Union’s ruling in Case C-150/04, Commission v Denmark10. The case involved a 
dispute on Danish tax legislation that limited the deductibility or exemption from taxable in-
come of contributions paid to a pension scheme if the pension institution was not established 
in Denmark.

© Regionskonor, Christiane Ritter 2020

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

7 

8 

9 

 The Riester pension is a privately financed pension in Germany that is subsidised by state allowances 
and the deduction of special expenses.
 Regulation (EU) 2019/1238 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on a 
pan-European personal pension product (PEPP), OJ L 198, 25.07.2019, p. 1.
 The platform pensions.dk is managed by Pensions Organisation for Financing Pensions, a non-profit 
association of the Pan-European Pension Fund managing employer-mandated pension schemes. 
It includes information for registered members about pension plans available in Denmark, and is 
accessible at https://pensions.dk/.

10   See footnote 3.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 
2024/08/147_Report_Region- 
Sonderjylland-Schleswig_Stagelund-Hvidt.pdf

99

 
 
 
 
Applicable labour law for telework

ADVISED ENTITY
Regionskontor & Infocenter, Sønderjylland–Schleswig region – Denmark

EXPERT
Bassah Khalaf

HADERSLEV

TØNDER

DENMARK

AABENRAA

SØNDERBORG

Padborg

GERMANY

KREIS 
NORDFRIESLAND

STADT 
FLENSBURG

KREIS 
SCHLESWIG
FLENSBURG

100

CONTEXT

Technological and organisational changes in the workplace highlight the need to expand labour 
law protections, particularly in the context of homeworking arrangements. The COVID-19 
pandemic has cemented the use of a home office set-up as a permanent and practical aspect of 
flexible work, offering benefits such as cost savings for companies and less commuting for em-
ployees. However, when employees work across national borders (e.g. in the case of a Danish 
employee working from Germany), challenges emerge due to workers’ ambiguous legal status 
and unclear regulations on the labour laws applicable to telework. This hinders the mobility of 
cross-border workers along the Denmark–Germany border. Establishing a clear legal frame-
work for telework would enhance employers’ competitiveness in the labour market and expand 
opportunities for potential employees.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

EU labour law emphasises the principle of freedom of movement for workers, protected under 
Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and reinforced by Regulation 
(EU) No 492/20111 and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It ensures 
that all workers enjoy the same treatment, regardless of the location of their work. The EU 
complements national policies on working conditions by establishing minimum standards for 
working time, holidays, part-time work and the posting of workers through directives based on 
Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, there is a lack 
of regulation of cross-border telework. Because the labour market systems in Denmark and 
Germany are very different, the legal status of employees working from home for an employer 
on the other side of the border is unclear.

•   The 1980 Rome Convention2 establishes a choice of legal system for determining the 
law applicable to contractual obligations in the EU without harmonising substantive 
laws. The Rome Convention is applicable to Denmark and Germany3. However, Germany 
has not implemented Article 7(1), which allows a country to apply the rules of another 
country with which the contract is linked – in this case, the country of residence of the em-
ployee working from home – instead of the law generally applicable to the employment con-
tract. This creates problems where both Denmark and Germany have rules for specific work-
related issues, as it remains unclear which law to apply. Among the issues that are differently 
regulated, statutory law guarantees uniform dismissal protection for all workers in Germany, 
whereas in Denmark such rights are usually set out in a collective agreement.

•   The differences between Danish and German labour laws pose practical challenges for 

employees working from home across borders. The key differences are as follows.

  –   Dismissal protection. In Germany, dismissal protection is strongly regulated by law,  
ensuring consistent rights for all employees. In contrast, Denmark relies on collective 
agreements for this, and dismissal protection is only regulated for white-collar employees, 
under the Danish Civil Service Act (Funktionærloven)4. In addition, notice periods also 
vary between the two countries.

  –   Minimum wage. Germany has a statutory minimum wage (currently set at EUR 12.41 

per hour (as of 2024)), governed by the Minimum Wage Act (Mindestlohngesetz)5. Denmark 
does not have a statutory minimum wage, relying instead on collective agreements to set 
wage standards.

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

 Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of 
movement for workers within the Union, OJ L 141, 27.05.2011, p. 1.
 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated version), OJ C 27, 
26.1.1998, p. 34.
 For all Member States except Denmark, the Rome Convention has since been replaced with Regulation  
(EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to 
contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6.
 Civil Service Act (Funktionærloven), Official Gazette of Denmark, No 1002, 24 August 2017.
 Minimum Wage Act of 11 August 2014 (Mindestlohngesetz), Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1348, as last amended 
by Article 2 of the Act of 28 June 2023, Federal Law Gazette 2023, No 172.

101

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

 
 
 
© Regionskonor, 
Peter Hansen, 2011

102

© Regionskonor, 

Peter Hansen, 2011

  –   Working hours. While both countries have a limit of 48 hours per week, including over-
time, in practice working hours in Denmark often average around 37 hours per week. 
Germany’s average is higher, at 40 hours per week.

  –   Holidays and public holidays. Denmark offers more generous holiday entitlements, with 
25 days of annual leave and 11 public holidays, than Germany, which provides 20 days of 
annual leave and up to 13 public holidays.

  –   Maternity leave. Specific provisions for maternity leave differ between Denmark and  
Germany, affecting the rights and entitlements of employees who become parents.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Several actions could be implemented to address these obstacles.

•   The European Commission and the European Council could propose an initiative for a 
European charter for labour in the EU, establishing minimum standards to ensure fair 
employment and prevent exploitation in telework.

•   The concept of a digital frontier worker could be introduced at the EU level, thus expanding 
the existing status of cross-border workers who cross national borders for work within the EU.
•   Specific working and employment conditions for homeworking, including telework-related 
accidents, could be included in the framework agreement on cross-border telework6.
•   Although changes to national regulations in both countries to align the legal frameworks 

on labour law would be helpful, this does not seem feasible, as the systems of the two countries 
are too different. While Denmark relies on a flexible system based on collective agreements, 
the German labour market is much more heavily regulated by law.

•   Common rules could be established to protect employees who work from home through 
a bilateral agreement. A Danish–German agreement could draw inspiration from the EU 
framework agreement on cross-border telework, or it could declare the framework agreement 
applicable to cross-border telework between Denmark and Germany.

•   An official information portal could be created by the relevant authorities in Denmark  

and Germany, providing information about mandatory labour law provisions and case-law in 
both countries and thus guiding employers and employees on the topic of homeworking 
across borders.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Regionskontor & Infocenter plans to focus on acquiring information that clarifies the  
applicable law for German–Danish shared rules to be enforced by the authorities and the relevant 
labour law regulations. Moreover, it will decide the official names and descriptions of the 
minimum standards. The German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has already 
been approached as a first step.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

6 

  The framework agreement on cross-border telework, formally the framework agreement on the 
application of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 in cases of habitual cross-border 
telework, was concluded by several Member States to provide for the possibility of derogating 
from provisions of the regulations on the coordination of social security systems. It was designated 
to enter into force on 1 July 2023 by the signatories. It should be noted that Denmark has not 
signed the framework agreement. The agreement is available at https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/sites/
default/files/content/docs/en/international/framework_agreement_on_cross-border_telework.pdf.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/148_Report_Region-
Sonderjylland_telework_Khalaf.pdf 

103

 
 
 
Limitations in cross-border  
(further) education

ADVISED ENTITY
Allgäu GmbH – Gesellschaft für Standort und Tourismus – Germany

EXPERTS
Erich Dallhammer and Roland Gaugitsch, Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (ÖIR)

GERMANY

Kempten

ALLGÄU

AUSSERFERN 

VORARLBERG

AUSTRIA

LIECHTEN- 
STEIN

TYROL

SWITZERLAND

104

© Allgäu GmbH – Dominik Gebhardt, 2021

© Allgäu GmbH – Lucian Marian, 2024

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

CONTEXT

In the Allgäu–Tyrol border region between Germany and Austria, there is a high demand for 
highly skilled labour. However, employers face difficulties in filling these positions. Vocational 
education and training have been identified as essential in order to overcome this challenge 
and to attract and retain skilled workers, assisted by the shared cultural and linguistic ties between 
the two countries. However, due to the different vocational education systems and legal frame-
works in each country, along with application deadlines and difficulties in obtaining recognition 
for diplomas, students and professionals are often discouraged from seeking specialised training 
courses and job opportunities on the other side of the border. Therefore, removing barriers 
to cross-border training would boost the labour market by helping bridge the gap between 
skilled workers and potential employers.

105

 
 
 
OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Differences in education systems, qualifications and recognition processes are barriers to 
further education and employment in Germany and Austria. The recognition of professional 
qualifications is governed by a fragmented mix of EU directives, bilateral agreements and na-
tional regulations, which makes the harmonisation of training and qualifications extremely 
difficult.

  –   At the EU level, Directive 2005/36/EC1 on the recognition of professional qualifications 
and non-binding initiatives such as the European qualifications framework2, among other 
frameworks3, facilitates the recognition of professional qualifications. However, despite 
these frameworks and due to the wide diversity of education programmes, titles and diplo-
mas, several obstacles remain that hinder the free movement of citizens, as guaranteed by 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. For regulated professions in which 
an individual recognition process is required, and even where EU law recognises different 
national education systems as compatible, the local and regional professional entities 
can impose additional requirements. This is the case, for example, for doctors in Tyrol, 
who need to be registered as members of the local doctors association (Ärztekammer) to be 
eligible to work. Registration has its own requirements, further complicating matters. In 
unregulated professions, employers’ scepticism about the equivalence of foreign diplo-
mas also remains a challenge and can affect their decision to hire employees from across 
the border.

  –   At the international level, Germany and Austria have implemented bilateral agreements4, 
which contain lists of recognised qualification certificates, to assist in the recognition pro-
cess. However, these bilateral agreements have not been updated for 15 years, so they 
do not reflect the progress made in the development of vocational qualifications.

•   At the national level, a major challenge is the division of competence in each country. 
While in Germany the general education system is almost entirely the responsibility of the 
16 federal states (Länder), in Austria this responsibility is shared between the federal govern-
ment and the states. This results in significant differences for specialised school systems, in 
particular vocational training schools, between Austria and Bavaria5. For example, students 
graduating from a vocational secondary school in Bavaria are able to continue their educa-
tion only at specific higher education facilities and are not qualified to undertake university 
degrees. Students graduating from similar institutions in Austria have access to all kinds of 
tertiary education facilities.

•   Other administrative and practical challenges are as follows.
  –   Length of recognition procedures. Different graduation and application deadlines for 

further education and slow administrative processes of universities for the recognition and 
acceptance of students from abroad can discourage students and hinder their mobility.
  –   Knowledge gaps. There is a general lack of awareness about the equivalence and value of 
foreign qualifications among employers, employees, students and education providers.

1 

2 

 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition 
of professional qualifications, OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22.
 The European qualifications framework is a tool developed by the European Commission, representatives of 
participating countries, and stakeholders from the world of education and training, employment and civil society 
to make national qualifications easier to understand and more comparable. More information is available at 
https://europa.eu/europass/en/compare-qualifications.

3  Please refer to the original expert report for a full list of EU-level initiatives.
4 

 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Austria and the Government of the Federal Republic 
of Germany on co-operation in vocational education and training and on the mutual recognition of the 
equivalence of vocational examination certificates, Federal Legal Gazette, No 308/1990, as amended in Federal  
Legal Gazette III, No 2/2008; Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Austria and the Government  
of the Federal Republic of Germany on Equivalences in Higher Education, Federal Legal Gazette III, 
No 6/2004.
 Because in Germany the federal states (Länder) are responsible for organising the education system, specific 
reference is made to the education system of Bavaria in this case.

5 

106

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

•  Solutions at the EU level:
  –   expand the scope of the professional qualifications directive (Directive 2005/36/EC) to in-

clude additional professions;

  –   re-evaluate the value and potential of the roll-out of the European credit system for voca-
tional education and training6 or a similar system, which would benefit cross-border 
region

•  Solutions at the national and state levels in Germany and Austria:
  –   raise awareness and provide information to stakeholders in the border region;
  –   explore possibilities for harmonising rules for accessing tertiary education for graduates 

who lack the certificates required to access higher education;

  –   explore the possibility of continuously updating the bilateral agreements on the recogni-

tion of diplomas, engaging the relevant authorities;

  –   address incompatibilities in the validation of degrees recognised in each country;
  –   review financial support schemes for education and training, which could include joint fi-
nancing sources at the regional level to provide targeted support in the border region.

•  Solutions at the regional level:
  –   improve opportunities for access to higher education and share information in regional 
schools and higher education institutions, preferably at least 1 year before graduation so 
that students have sufficient time to learn about the opportunities and requirements;
  –   establish a regional information hub to provide guidance on cross-border education and 

employment opportunities, specifically for cross-border students, jobseekers and 
employers;

  –   take advantage of existing structures and events, such as job fairs and academic fairs, to 

share information on cross-border education and employment opportunities;

  –   explore opportunities offered by the Bavaria–Austria Interreg programme7, which has a 

specific focus on cross-border training and cooperation to address skills gaps in the region;

  –   improve cooperation between the players in the education sector and the labour market 

involved in supporting jobseekers and the reskilling of workers;

  –   conduct a thorough analysis to identify areas in which barriers to cross-border education 

and employment are most relevant and set out actions to tackle them;

  –   establish regular exchanges with regional actors, which can be informal and non-official.

For a more detailed description of the proposed solutions, please see the original expert report.

WHAT’S NEXT

To overcome barriers, communication between the institutions of the two countries will be 
encouraged. A networking event for entities in the field of further education was organised in 
July 2024 to discuss the next steps with cross-border institutions and information will be dis-
seminated. 

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

6 

 The European credit system for vocational education and training is one of the instruments of the EU set up 
to help individuals in the transfer, recognition and accumulation of their assessed learning outcomes. More 
information is available at https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/projects/european-credit-system-vocational-
education-and-training-ecvet.

7  More information, in German, is available at https://www.interreg-bayaut.net/.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/154_Report_ 
Allgau-GmbH_OiR.pdf 

107

 
 
 
 
France-Spain tax and  
administrative limits

ADVISED ENTITY
Eurorégion Pyrénées–Méditerranée – Spain–France

EXPERT
Amparo Montán Montesinos

FRANCE

NOUVELLE-AQUITAINE

EUSKADI

NAVARRA

Hendaye

OCCITANIE

Perpignan

ANDORRA

ARAGÓN

CATALUNYA

SPAIN

ISLAS BALEARES

108

CONTEXT

Direct taxation on personal income and corporate profits is not directly governed by EU law. 
As a result, there are major differences in individual income tax rates between EU Member 
States. Depending on their residence, employees working for the same organisation and carrying 
out the same tasks are subject to different tax rates. This results in significant disparities and 
unequal earnings. To create a more appealing cross-border labour market, it is essential to develop 
a tax system that better addresses the needs of cross-border employees.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

This problem becomes particularly evident for Spanish employees working for the European 
groupings of territorial cooperation (EGTCs) Eurorégion Pyrénées–Méditerranée and Eurorégion 
Nouvelle-Aquitaine Euskadi Navarre, located in France. Therefore, particular prominence is 
given to the case of Spanish cross-border workers employed in France. Spain and France signed 
a bilateral treaty to avoid double taxation in 19951, which declares two bilateral agree-
ments, of 19612 and 19733, applicable to border regions. As a general rule, the 1995 bilateral 
tax agreement stipulates that, for cross-border workers, the overall income is taxable in their 
country of residence. However, multiple conditions apply and allow exceptions.

•   The status of cross-border workers applies only to French and Spanish nationals who live and 
work in the zone within 20 km from the border. For cross-border workers residing beyond 
this limit, taxes on working income are due in their employer’s country (as specified in Article 15 
of the 1995 agreement).

•   In accordance with Article 4 of the same agreement, Spanish residents beyond the 20 km 

zone who are employed in France are taxed on their global income in Spain and on French-
earned salaries in France, with a possible deduction applied when declaring taxes in Spain.

  –   Further exemptions and deductions depend on the local legal frameworks, because the 

Spanish constitution acknowledges the taxing authority of the territories of Bizkaia, Araba, 
Gipuzkoa and Navarre, and specific provisions apply in these territories. These provisions 
may be different from those that apply in Aragon, Catalonia and the Balearic Islands. For 
example, Spanish tax law provides an exemption for annual income up to EUR 60 100 if 
the employer is based abroad and taxes are paid in the employer’s country, with exceptions 
in Gipuzkoa, Araba and Navarre4.

  –   A lack of effective coordination between authorities has led to the diversification of tax 

regimes applied to the status of cross-border workers along the border, as only the provinces 
of Gipuzkoa and Navarre regulate the conditions of becoming a cross-border worker5. 
This results in additional confusion for the workers, and legal insecurity.

As a consequence, various tax regimes apply to cross-border workers.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

 Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to avoid double taxation and prevent 
tax evasion and tax fraud on the personal income and property taxes, Official State Gazette, No 140, 12 June 
1997, p. 12729, signed on 10 October 1995.
 Supplementary agreement between Spain and France concerning frontier workers of 25 January 1961, Official 
State Gazette, No 69, 21 March 1962, p. 3862.
 Agreement between Spain and France for the avoidance of double taxation on income and wealth taxes of 
27 June 1973, Official State Gazette, No 109, 7 May 1975, p. 9592.
 A resident of Gipuzkoa, Araba or Navarre working and being taxed in France will benefit from the exemption 
only if they have been sent to France by a company/organisation based in Gipuzkoa, Araba or Navarre, in 
view of transnational service provision. For details, please see the original report.
 Spain and France have not agreed on a common document to determine the conditions for cross-border 
workers. Currently, only the authorities of Gipuzkoa and Navarre have regulated conditions, and therefore 
different provisions apply only to residents of these provinces. More details can be found in the original report.

109

 
 
 
© Eurorégion Nouvelle-Aquitaine  
Euskadi Navarra, De Bailliencourt, 2017

© Eurorégion Pyrénées Méditerranée, 2023

110

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

To solve the problem of non-harmonised rules for direct taxation at the Spain–France border, 
solutions could be implemented at various levels. Measures adopted to standardise taxation for 
cross-border workers in several other cross-border regions in the EU provide a useful basis for 
decision-making in this case6.

•   At the bilateral level, amending the 1995 Spain–France treaty would remove many ambi-

guities. The revised treaty should:

  –   include a provision declaring the agreements of 1961 and 1973 inapplicable;
  –   enhance coordination between Spain and France regarding personal income tax, particularly 

the cross-border regime;

  –   extend the cross-border area to a realistic distance, accounting for teleworking and the 

high mobility of workers;

  –   provide the opportunity to include a compensation system for individuals facing higher 
tax burdens due to cross-border employment, following the example of other EU cross-
border taxation models7.

•   At the strategic level, a thorough analysis of the imbalances caused by the taxation systems of 
the two countries is needed to determine whether the current system leads to de facto double 
taxation.

•   At the administrative level, several solutions would benefit cross-border workers and the European 

groupings of territorial cooperation, including:

  –   introducing exemptions for incomes taxed in another country for Spanish residents, including 

those of Bizkaia, and assessing similar tax exemptions for residents in Gipuzkoa, Araba and 
Navarre;

  –   where organisations have offices on both sides of the border, employing staff on one side of 

the border and then relocating them to the office on the other side;

  –   establishing dual official headquarters, one on each side of the border, to enable recruitment 

on both sides under their respective legal frameworks.

•   An additional operational solution would be to implement a project under the Interreg 

Spain-France-Andorra programme8, through which all competent tax authorities along the 
Spain–France border could discuss the various tax issues. The Cross-Border Facilitation 
Tool9, newly proposed by the European Commission, should be taken into account in this 
regard.

WHAT’S NEXT

The advised entity will promote the administrative procedure for the exemption of incomes to 
the agents concerned and to the various structures currently affected on the border. Thus, 
professionals residing in Spain will pay income tax only on the income from their work in 
France and will declare income from work in Spain only above a certain threshold.

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

6 
7 

 Please refer to the original report for a detailed description of examples of best practices.
 Examples of compensation systems are regimes adopted along the Belgium–Netherlands and the  
Germany–Netherlands borders. Details are presented in the original report.

8  More information is available at https://www.poctefa.eu.
9 

 Commission communication – Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context 
(COM(2023) 790 final).

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/155_Report-Euroregion- 
Pyrenees-Mediterranee_Montan.pdf 

111

 
 
 
Joint degrees: Reinforced cross- 
border student mobility

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai – Belgium–France

EXPERT
Michael Frey

NORTH SEA

BELGIUM

FLANDERS

Kortrijk

Tournai 

Lille

WALLONIA

UPPER 
FRANCE

FRANCE

112

CONTEXT

Joint university programmes have the potential to enhance academic diversity by integrating 
perspectives and skills from multiple countries. It is for this reason that the European grouping 
of territorial cooperation (EGTC) Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai, composed of 157 
French, Walloon and Flemish municipalities, aims to promote joint degree initiatives in the 
region. However, current endeavours to achieve this have been hampered by legal and administrative 
challenges that require simplification and harmonisation. These processes can be conducted 
through collaborative efforts among educational institutions, national and regional governments, 
and European entities. Such coordination would enable academic cooperation to reach its full 
cross-border potential.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The main obstacles to cross-border higher education in the Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–
Tournai stem from significant differences in national higher education systems between 
Belgium and France. Despite European efforts to harmonise standards through the Bologna 
process1, EU Member States interpret and implement these standards differently. This can 
result in discrepancies in credit recognition, which complicates the mutual recognition  
of diplomas. A number of additional obstacles hinder the expansion of the university network  
in the Belgium–France border region.

•    Administrative differences, for example in semester periods, university funding and the 

legal status of students and university staff, are an obstacle.

•   Diverging competencies in higher education in Belgium and France pose challenges.  

Belgium operates under a decentralised regional system with a high level of autonomy, while 
France’s system is more centralised and is state controlled.

•   The absence of a legal basis for the participation of students in courses from other universities 
that are not linked to the Erasmus+ programme2 also hinders students’ mobility in the 
Belgium–France border region. Practical difficulties arise from uncoordinated teaching 
periods, thus complicating students’ participation in courses across borders. This can 
hinder the recognition of achievements. Financial support for individual student mobility is 
insufficient, further exacerbating the issue.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The legal assessment3 revealed that, despite the structural differences between the legal frame-
works for higher education in Belgium and France, cross-border cooperation between univer-
sities and higher education institutions can be improved by establishing a solid legal basis4. 
Such a framework should include the franchising of study programmes5, validation of curricula 
and systematic recognition of qualifications obtained at partner institutions. The Lisbon Con-
vention of the Council of Europe6, ratified by Belgium and France, provides the backbone, 
stipulating in Section 5 that academic achievements obtained in one contracting state should 
be recognised in all contracting states. Against this background, three solutions can be identified.

1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

 The Bologna process is a series of reforms enacted by participating countries to bring more coherence to 
higher education systems across Europe. More information is available at https://education.ec.europa.eu/
education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-higher-education/bologna-process.
 Erasmus+ is the EU’s programme supporting education, training, youth and sport in Europe. Among other 
things, it offers mobility and cooperation opportunities in higher education. More information is available at 
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu.
 Refer to the original report for a full analysis of relevant national, European and international public law.
 For inspiration, detailed examples of existing cooperation programmes among universities in cross-border 
areas are given in the original report.
 Franchising study programmes means that one higher education institution (the franchisor) authorises 
another higher education institution (the franchisee) to deliver its approved academic programmes.
 Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region  
(Lisbon Convention), European Treaty Series, No 165, 11 April 1997.

113

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

 
 
 
•   Sign a comprehensive cooperation agreement between universities and relevant authorities 
at the national and regional levels to address the legal complexities of the network of uni-
versities. The agreement should include all stakeholders from the higher education sector, as 
well as cross-border institutions, and should be open to institutions outside the cross-border 
area7.

•   In the medium term, establish an EGTC as the basis for cooperation among universities.
•   Create an Interreg project as a structure for coordinating the implementation of joint initiatives 

under the Interreg VI France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen programme8.

The following measures should be undertaken as part of the solution.

•   Foster individual student mobility:
  –   establish a shared database of courses open to students from partner universities, ensuring 

easy access and improving the visibility of available courses;

  –   implement a recognition process for academic credits earned at partner institutions, with 

comparability being recorded in a publicly available database;

  –   ensure students from partner universities have equal access to essential university facilities, 

such as libraries and cafeterias;

  –   develop a comprehensive cross-border mobility guide, outlining procedures and require-
ments for participating in mobility programmes, inspired by existing models such as the 
student mobility guide of the European Confederation of Upper Rhine Universities9.
•   Develop joint degree programmes by expanding existing study programmes to include 
joint seminars, summer schools, integrated study programmes and collaborative doctoral 
degree procedures.

•   Introduce the concept of staff mobility, including by:
  –   establishing agreements between institutions to facilitate staff mobility, ranging from 

short-term job shadowing and exchanges to longer-term secondments;

  –   considering the legal aspects of employment status and compensation for participating 

staff.

•   Create a cross-border regional university or a virtual university campus among partici-
pating institutions, with a common course database accessible to all students and the intro-
duction of a joint student ID, granting rights and benefits (local transport tickets, etc.) in all 
participating universities. To establish such a university or campus, the necessary measures 
include10:

  –   formulating agreements among participating institutions;
  –   investing in digital infrastructure and platforms to support online learning.

WHAT’S NEXT

Following its general assembly in July 2024, the EGTC considered the following as next steps: 
(1) seek political and technical support to further examine the topic on the basis of the b-solutions 
expert’s report, involving the EGTC and academic organisations; (2) promote knowledge of the 
existing training courses in the region by creating a basic guide to higher education and (inter-
active) map of higher education and/or specific training courses, starting in 2025, and create a 
common database through an Interreg microproject; and (3) encourage the identification of 
Belgian–French cooperation between schools, university colleges and universities.

 Refer to the original report for detailed suggestions.
 More information is available at https://www.interreg-fwvl.eu.
 https://www.eucor-uni.org/en/.

7 
8 
9 
10   For more details, please see the original report.

114

© RUT MIIT – Unsplash, 2021 

© Kenny Eliason – Unsplash, 2021

N
O

I
T
A
C
U
D
E

D
N
A

T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/162_Report_Eurometropolis- 
Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai_Frey.pdf

115

 
 
 
Green

Conservation of biodiversity on the 
Mura River

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation of the Mura Region – Croatia–Hungary

EXPERTS
Norbert Jankai, Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI)

SLOVENIA

MURA RIVER

Bánokszentgyörgy

HUNGARY

Bázakerettye

Kerkaszentkirály

Muraszemenye

Kistolmács

Valkonya

Eszteregnye

Zajk

Murarátka
Letenye

Rigyác

Petrivente

Szepetnek

Tótszerdahely

Tótszentmárton

Semjénháza

Domašinec

Goričan

Molnári

Donji Kraljevec

Fityeház

Orehovica

Prelog

Sveta Marija

Kotoriba

Murakeresztúr

Donja 
Dubrava

Donji 
Vidovec

Legrad

CROATIA

Ludbreg

118

CONTEXT

The Mura and Drava Rivers run along the cross-border region between Croatia and Hungary 
and are home to a wealth of biodiversity and several Natura 2000 protected areas1. There is a 
high level of cooperation among the municipalities of this cross-border region for the preservation 
of these natural areas, focused on boosting economic development, environmental protection 
and quality of life through sustainable tourism. However, the differing national rules and the 
lack of a joint management body present an obstacle. To better protect and manage this natural 
area and promote sustainable water tourism activities, the barriers to coordination and joint 
management must be resolved.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•   At the international level, both Croatia and Hungary are signatories to environmental conser-
vation and biodiversity conventions2. Bilateral agreements are also in place, such as the agree-
ment on cooperation for water management3 and the agreement on cooperation for environ-
mental protection and nature conservation4. The two countries have also established a 
Mura–Drava–Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (MTBR)5.

•   At the EU level, numerous EU directives aiming to ensure biodiversity by protecting natural 

habitats and wild flora and fauna have been implemented in both countries6. 

•   At the national level, there are varying levels of environmental protection in Croatia and 
Hungary due to the different national legal frameworks. In general, the Hungarian nature 
conservation rules are stricter than the Croatian rules, as Hungary classifies the core area of 
the biosphere reserve on its side as ‘highly protected’. Although the basic rules are harmonised 
between the two countries, because they were drafted in the light of the EU legal framework, 
there are differences in the everyday operations of the nature sites as a result of the discrepan-
cies in the national environmental protection rules and practices. 

  –   For example, permits for water transport are different on each side of the border. While 

Croatian permits for boat traffic may be used along the entire river, Hungarian permits are 
valid for only certain stretches of the river. 

  –   As another example, on the Croatian side, while Natura 2000 sites are managed to ensure 
nature conservation, there is no active park ranger network. However, on the Hungarian 
side, a fully operational park ranger network has been established with the authority to 
enforce environmental rules.

•   The Mura River region lacks a joint management organisation, and cross-border cooper-
ation in this area has been carried out only on an ad hoc project basis. While the MTBR 
has a steering committee in place to oversee projects and activities, composed of representatives 
of the members, this body is currently not responsible for coordinating joint actions between 
the two countries.

1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

 Natura 2000 is a network of protected areas and consists of Special Areas of Conservation under 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) and Special Protection Areas under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version) 
(OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7).
 Please see the original expert report for the full list of relevant international conventions.
 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of the Republic of 
Croatia on cooperation in the field of water management, signed in Pécs, Hungary, on 10 July 1994.
 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of the Republic of 
Croatia on cooperation in the field of environment protection and nature conservation, signed on 26 January 
2006.
 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of the Republic of 
Croatia on cooperation in the field of water management, signed in Pécs, Hungary, on 10 July 1994; agreement 
between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of the Republic of Croatia on 
cooperation in the field of environment protection and nature conservation, signed on 26 January 2006; and 
the establishment of the Mura–Drava–Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve on 15 September 2021.

6  Please refer to the original expert report for a detailed overview of the relevant EU directives.

N
E
E
R
G

119

© Mura Region EGTC

120

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

•   Authorities in Croatia and Hungary have devised case-by-case solutions for the differing 
environmental regulations, managing to overcome the lack of harmonisation between such 
regulations to preserve natural areas. This has been done by applying their respective national 
laws. While project-based work in both countries has been effective, it may be necessary to 
revisit this issue in the future to ensure continuity of the joint management. 

•   Three joint organisations are currently operational, or have the potential to be operational, 

responding to the lack of a joint management organisation.

  –   The Hungarian–Croatian Joint Committee on Environment and Nature Protection, 
composed of representatives of the relevant ministries and institutions, is responsible for 
coordination and project activities. The committee meets at least once per year and may 
invite advisory experts to its meetings.

  –   The Standing Hungarian–Croatian Committee on Water Management, which comprises 

several subcommittees, each focusing on a subject area, plays an important role in the  
coordination of specific everyday issues. However, due to its functions and structure, it 
may not be suited to the role of an overall joint management body.

  –   The MTBR Steering Committee is considered to be the body best placed to carry out 

conservation management activities in the Mura River area. However, the committee does 
not yet have a permanent working system, and it is recommended that the relevant parties 
hold a workshop to discuss the barriers to regulatory harmonisation. 

WHAT’S NEXT 

The work of the initiative will continue. For example, one new project has as one of its outputs 
the establishment of a ‘restoration task force.’ The task force, whose objectives will be aligned 
with those of the  MTBR, is expected to liaise with the MTBR Steering Committee. The aim 
of the working group is to determine how the restoration goals of the MTBR could be fulfilled to 
promote collaboration between the actors of the participating countries. The European Grouping 
of Territorial Cooperation of the Mura Region is currently bringing together stakeholders 
involved in the issue, with whom further contact will be made in the coming months. If the 
consultation is successful, a working group could be formed within the project, which would 
serve as an advisory board of the MTBR.

N
E
E
R
G

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/139_Report-
EGTC-Mura_CESCI.pdf 

121

Improvement of ecological 
continuity

ADVISED ENTITY
Doubs Horloger Regional Nature Park – France

EXPERT
Clarisse Kauber, Euro-Institut

DOUBS RIVER

FRANCE

Saignelégier

Les Fontenelles

DOUBS HORLOGER  
REGIONAL NATURAL PARK

DOUBS REGIONAL  
NATURAL PARK

SWITZERLAND

DOUBS 
RIVER

122

   
CONTEXT

The Doubs Regional Nature Park in Switzerland and the Doubs Horloger Regional Nature 
Park in France are located on each side of the Doubs River. The parks share the objective of 
improving environmental cooperation and aim to achieve ‘ecological continuity’, namely 
connecting several protected areas to facilitate the movement of species. However, there are 
notable differences between the French and Swiss environmental protection systems. Under-
standing the organisational differences between the two countries would not only enable the 
development of coherent and effective policies on each side of the border but would improve 
joint coordination. In turn, cooperation would result in more effective environmental policies 
when aiming to protect the same species (e.g. gentians, red kites) and habitats (e.g. grasslands, 
karst environments) across the national borders.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

France and Switzerland are both party to several international conventions on the environment, 
wildlife and nature preservation1, and each has a number of national regulatory, property and 
contractual arrangements in place to protect natural areas. 

•   France and Switzerland have very different environmental protection mechanisms at 

various governmental levels, which affects how natural areas are protected and managed. 
This is due to their differing systems of governance. While France is a unitary state, in that 
the legal framework originates in the French Parliament, at the national level, and is applied 
throughout the country in a top-down manner, Switzerland is a confederation, made up of 
26 cantons, each of which has its own legislative powers, and follows a bottom-up governance 
approach.

  –   In Switzerland, each level of government (federal, canton and municipal) has an authority 
responsible for protected areas and its own criteria for designating such areas. Article 78 
of the Swiss Constitution2 designates the cantons as responsible for protecting nature areas, 
while the confederation (federal level) may support these efforts and legislate for their 
protection. In addition to the varying levels of government dealing with the environment, 
there are also associations working on natural and protected areas, and private landowners 
and farmers are involved to ensure compliance with the rules and maintain the areas.
  –   In France, in contrast to Switzerland, the competent authorities for protected areas are 

either national ministries or national public agencies. A number of public actors are involved 
at the state level, along with authorities at the regional, departmental, intermunicipal and 
municipal levels, to which certain powers are transferred from the central level (decentrali-
sation). In addition, and like Switzerland, environmental associations as well as private 
landowners and farmers are also involved.

•   The lack of a mutual understanding between the two systems is also rooted in the differ-
ences in the terminology and typology of protected areas used3. For example, the term 
‘protected area’ has a different meaning in each country. In France, it is a geographical area 
in which threats are removed or limited by regulations and tools to control the activities 
concerned, while, in Switzerland, it refers to the legal status of a natural area, that is, whether 
it is mentioned in nature or protection laws. Even the concept of a regional nature park 
differs greatly between the two countries, referring to protection in France and to prevention 
in Switzerland.

N
E
E
R
G

1  See the full list of international conventions in the original expert report.
2 

 Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999, Official Compilation of Federal Legislation 
1999 2556.
 For the full typology list, please see the table ‘Analysis of differences and nuances of vocabulary’ in the original 
expert report.

3 

123

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

For better coordination and to improve ecological continuity, the two parks could carry out the 
following actions.

•   Create an interactive map of the parks’ protected areas. A common map of the protected 

areas of the two parks could be created from the respective geoportals, indicating in each case 
the relevant habitats and/or landscapes.

•   Exchange information on strong protection status. The parks could exchange information 
on the list of areas not yet under ‘strong protection’ status on each side of the border, which 
could also be included on the interactive map.

•   Aim for ecological continuity. Both parks could adopt the Swiss concept of ‘ecological in-

frastructure’ or the French concept of ‘ecological continuity’4 to identify key species, and thus 
promote cross-border coordination, for example on forest reserves or wildlife inventories.
•   Improve international visibility. Seeking international designations for the protected areas 
could have a positive impact on tourism and could carry political weight. For example, the 
labels ‘UNESCO Biosphere Reserve’ and ‘Ramsar Wetland’ have the same scope in both 
countries. 

•   Learn from one another. The two parks and their stakeholders should engage in discussions 
to compare the results of monitoring in protected areas, to jointly prepare for consultation 
and agreements with private landowners in protected areas and to propose arrangements for 
maintaining and restoring biotopes and implement climate change adaptation measures. 
•   Improve cooperation structures. A France–Switzerland committee could be set up to moni-
tor protected areas, chaired by representatives of the stakeholders involved. The two parks 
could also set up an Interreg France–Switzerland project5 to finance this, as they have already 
jointly applied for the ‘integrated territorial cooperation plan’ under Priority 5 of Inter-
reg VI France-Switzerland – reduction of obstacles at the France–Switzerland border – in 
which establishing a monitoring system for protected areas could serve as a work package.

4 

 Ecological infrastructure aims to protect and restore natural environments, and provide nature with a 
functional, high-quality network of natural and semi-natural habitats. Ecological continuity refers to the 
preservation and restoration of environments that are sufficiently well connected to be used by species to carry 
out their life cycle.

5  Https://www.interreg-francesuisse.eu.

124

WHAT’S NEXT 

The results of this report were presented at the France–Switzerland meeting of the border 
territories of  Arc Jurassien6, an area that includes three French departments and four Swiss 
cantons, and coordinates cooperation at the regional level in four specific territories: North 
Franche-Comté and Canton of Jura, Doubs urban area and Doubs parks, Mont d’Or and 
Chasseron local area, and Haut-Jura and Vallée de Joux. The Doubs Regional Nature Park and 
Doubs Horloger Regional Nature Park will ensure greater diffusion, and the results will be 
shared with the competent authorities in France and Switzerland to highlight the issue. The 
report findings will also be used in the development of the territorial strategy as part of the im-
plementation of Priority 5 – reduction of obstacles at the France–Switzerland border – of the 
Interreg France-Switzerland programme, which was selected in May 2024 and will begin in 
September 2024.

© PNR du Doubs Horloger, 2023

6  Https://www.arcjurassien.org/. 

N
E
E
R
G

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2024/08/150_Report_Doubs- 
Horloger-RNP_Euro-Institut.pdf 

125

Alternative uses for processing and 
exchanging sheep’s wool

ADVISED ENTITY
Association Regio Zugspitzregion e.V. – Germany

EXPERT
Urs Kramer

GERMANY

BAVARIA

Garmisch-Partenkirchen

TYROL

Kematen

AUSTRIA

126

   
CONTEXT

The Austria–Germany border region has substantial potential for producing high-quality 
fertilisers from animal by-products, such as sheep’s wool. The border region yields several 
tonnes of sheep’s wool that does not adhere to the quality standards that apply to products such 
as clothing, toys and carpets but which could be used as natural fertiliser for gardening and 
agricultural businesses. However, complex sterilisation and organic waste disposal regulations 
complicate cross-border production of and trade in animal-derived fertilisers such as sheep’s 
wool pellets or raw sheep wool fertiliser. Eliminating these regulatory bottlenecks could enhance 
the circular economy in the border area.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The main obstacle is that the relevant EU regulations on the use and processing of sheep’s 
wool are complex and lack clarity, which makes cross-border trade between Germany and 
Austria unprofitable. In turn, this has created complications for sheep’s wool farmers who seek 
to recycle the tonnes of wool that is unsuitable for high-quality products and to sell it as 
fertiliser across the border.

•   At the EU level, Regulation (EC) No 1069/20091 and its implementing Commission 

Regulation (EU) No 142/20112 lay down complex rules for the production and 
transport of fertilisers from animal by-products such as sheep’s wool. For example, the 
wool, whether used raw or in the form of pellets, must undergo certain processing steps, 
such as washing at high temperatures to ensure that it is free of pathogens and bacteria. 
Neither Germany nor Austria has enacted diverging national legislation, and so the EU rules 
are applicable in both countries. Although these restrictions limit the free movement of 
goods between Germany and Austria, which is otherwise guaranteed by Article 34 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, they are ultimately justified because they 
are necessary for the protection of human health in the sense of Article 36 of the treaty.
•   The high cost to process sheep’s wools makes the sheep’s wool pellet presses unprofitable. 
Sheep’s wool is processed into pellets to increase the effectiveness of fertilising effects of 
the wool. However, because of the high cost of transport, for sheep farmers from the southern 
German district of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, who do not have close access to a press within 
Germany, the most cost-effective option would theoretically be the use of a press in 
neighbouring Tyrol in Austria.

•   There is a lack of clarity regarding the use of unprocessed wool as fertiliser. As an 

alternative to using processed sheep wool in pellet form as fertiliser, sheep’s wool can also be 
used raw for this purpose. Neither Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 nor Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 contains explicit provisions on the use of unprocessed wool, 
but it can be inferred that it must be ‘non-hazardous’. This requires the wool to undergo 
certain hygiene measures, and a veterinarian must determine, in each individual case, whether 
the unprocessed wool can be considered non-hazardous. Special provisions also exist for 
the import, export or transit of untreated wool3. 

1 

2 

 Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying 
down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, 
p. 1).
 Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) 
No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal 
by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Direc-
tive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that 
directive (OJ L 54, 26.2.2011, p. 1).

3  Article 25 No 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011.

127

N
E
E
R
G

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

As the two EU regulations are binding for Germany and Austria, and there are no deviating 
national or federal laws, the solutions focus on how the complex legal requirements can be 
made more transparent for sheep farmers and fertiliser manufacturers in the border region. 
Measures to reduce complexity include the following.

•   Compiling a document providing information on the legal standards for the production 
and transport of processed and unprocessed wool fertilisers, thus making this information 
accessible to all actors involved. The document should include information on which 
veterinary checks are necessary and which requirements the wool must fulfil to pass the 
checks4. Said document should be made available via the website of the responsible federal 
ministries and distributed to the responsible veterinarian offices, which, in turn, can share 
the information with the farmers. 

•   Setting up a dedicated information office at the federal level or assigning this role to the 

veterinarian offices. 

•   Establishing exchanges between the competent authorities of both countries. To enable a 

nationwide distribution of wool, such exchanges should take place at the federal level. 

WHAT’S NEXT 

As a first step, the association Regio Zugspitzregion e.V., whose mandate is to promote the 
economic, social and cultural well-being of the inhabitants of the district of Garmisch-
Partenkirchen, will consider the creation of an informational document, compiling all relevant 
aspects in an accessible manner. The association will seek to make the document available  
on the website of the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Bundesministerium 
für Ernährung und Landwirtschaf) and issue it to the responsible veterinarian office. Setting 
up an official information point at the federal level will also be considered. 

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/153_Report-
Regio-Zugspitzregion_Kramer.pdf 

128

4  For a compilation of relevant information, please refer to the original report.

© Bernadette Wimmer, 2009
© Petra Dolenga, 2024

N
E
E
R
G

129

Inter-communal cooperation 
Twence municipalities and Münster

ADVISED ENTITY
Municipality of Enschede – Netherlands

EXPERTS
Martin Unfried and Pim Mertens, Institute for Transnational and Euregional  
cross border cooperation and Mobility (ITEM)

NETHERLANDS

ZUIDOOST 
DRENTHE

NORDOOST 
OVERIJSSEL

OVERIJSSEL

TWENTE

Hengelo

Enschede

ACHTERHOEK

GRAFSCHAFT 
BENTHEIM

LANDKREIS 
OSNABRÜCK

KREIS 
STEINFURT

NORTH 
RHINE-WESTPHALIA

KREIS BORKEN

KREIS 
COESFELD

Münster

KREIS 
WARENDORF

GERMANY

130

   
CONTEXT

For many years, the German city of Münster and the Dutch city of Enschede, alongside 14 
other Dutch municipalities from the Twente region, have collaborated on circular economy 
and sustainability projects. Only 75 km apart, they utilise one another’s waste treatment facilities. 
However, challenges have arisen because of a Dutch cap on the import of residual municipal 
waste, hindering Münster’s ability to become a shareholder in the Dutch waste management 
company Twence B.V. and, consequently, weakening cross-border cooperation. Establishing 
legislative conditions that support a sustainable cross-border circular economy driven by inno-
vation is essential to address waste management in the border region. 

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

In 2018, 12 Dutch municipalities and the city of Münster entered into a cross-border cooperation 
agreement in the area of cross-border waste management based on the Anholt Treaty of 19911. 
The Dutch municipalities are shareholders in the public waste treatment company Twence B.V., 
which also incinerates waste from Münster as part of a cross-border partnership between the 
municipalities, while, in turn, Münster’s public waste management company AWM (Abfall-
wirtschaftsbetriebe Münster) processes biowaste from the Dutch side into biogas and compost. 
To further strengthen cross-border cooperation in the waste management sector between the 
municipalities along the Germany–Netherlands border, Münster aims to become a shareholder 
in the Dutch company Twence B.V.; however, this is being hindered by Dutch rules that restrict 
transnational waste import.

•   In accordance with Article 16 of EU Directive 2008/98/EC2, the Dutch government has 
proposed the option to introduce an import cap on combustible waste with its national 
waste management plans3, allowing the Dutch government to refuse foreign waste if there is 
a risk of displacing Dutch combustible waste from an incinerator to landfill.

•   The potential interruption of waste transport from Münster to Enschede jeopardises the 
development and strengthening of the cross-border waste management network.  
Under the Circular Economy Law of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (Landeskreis-
laufwirtschaftsgesetz), the city of Münster is legally obligated to show evidence of a guarantee  
in its municipal waste management plan that waste treatment is secured for a minimum period 
of 10 years. As the Dutch government classifies residual waste from Münster as any  
foreign waste, this makes it subject to a potential import cap, and the potential refusal to 
treat the waste is a concern for the city of Münster. This uncertainty could present an obstacle 
to the city becoming a shareholder in Twence B.V.

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

As the primary impediment is the uncertainty with respect to the long-term sustainability of 
cross-border waste transports, the main objective of the suggested solution is to establish 
structural cross-border cooperation between Münster and the municipalities of the Twente region. 
This can be achieved as follows.

N
E
E
R
G

•   Introducing a derogation from the import cap in the case of Münster and the Dutch 

partners on the basis of a public law agreement. The agreement would, as part of a struc-
tural regional cross-border cooperation among municipalities, exclude the waste transported 
from Münster to the Dutch treatment facilities from the calculation for the import cap. As a 

1 

2 

3 

 The agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and the states 
of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia concerning transboundary cooperation between territorial 
communities or authorities of 23 May 1991 (the Anholt Treaty) entered into force in 1993.
 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).
 National waste management plans are decisions adopted by the government based on Article 10.3 of the Dutch 
Environmental Law (Wet milieubeheer). The third plan (Landelijk afvalbeheerplan) is available at https://lap3.nl/. 

131

© Frank Siebelt, 
Twence, 2023

consequence, notification of cross-border waste transport would not be rejected on the basis 
of a potential import cap.

•   Safeguarding structural cross-border networks with the revision of the national waste 

management plan. The Dutch government is currently revising the third national waste 
management plan. A new plan, the circular materials plan, is envisioned for 20254.  
To take into account the special situation on the German–Netherlands border region, when 
revising the plan, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management should 
exclude the volume of waste that is transported from Münster to waste treatment facilities 
in the Twente region from the calculation for the Dutch import cap. The change in  
the calculation method for the import restriction can be made through a simple ministerial 
decision (besluit), as the third national waste management plan is an executive action itself. 
The city of Münster would therefore be able to demonstrate a reliable and stable waste dis-
posal plan.

WHAT’S NEXT 

The authors of the report have already brought the case to the attention of the Dutch Ministry 
of Infrastructure and Water Management. The ministry will contact the regional government 
in Münster or the federal government in Düsseldorf. The case and the suggested solutions have 
been brought to the attention of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 
which is responsible for cross-border cooperation. A solution is being sought by the partners.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/158_Report_
Enschede_ITEM.pdf 

4 

 The circular materials plan is currently being written. It is the successor to the third national waste manage-
ment plan . From 2025, the plan will support the transition to a circular economy. Information about the 
progress of the circular materials plan is available at https://circulairmaterialenplan.nl/#PagCls_2661772.

132

Cross-border public transport – 
Safety belt

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai – Belgium–France

EXPERT
Jean-François Clouzet

NORTH SEA

BELGIUM

FLANDERS

Poperinge

Hazebrouck

Kortrijk

Tournai 

Lille

N
E
E
R
G

UPPER 
FRANCE

FRANCE

WALLONIA

133

CONTEXT

European transport policy aims to facilitate the free movement of people and goods, recognising 
transport’s role in enhancing citizens’ living environments and economic competitiveness. To 
avoid road accidents, safety is a central issue in transport policies. To this end, European regula-
tions have improved road safety through technical harmonisation, such as the use of seat belts. 
However, as road safety remains primarily under national jurisdiction, challenges for harmonisa-
tion of this issue arise, especially in cross-border regions. The coach line connecting the French 
commune of Hazebrouck and the city of Poperinge located in the Belgian province of West 
Flanders is an example of such a situation.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

At the EU level, wearing a seat belt is considered essential to ensuring personal safety, as 
reflected in Regulation (EU) 2019/21441. However, Directive 2003/20/EC2 allows exemptions 
for public service buses in local transport, including vehicles used for the carriage of passengers 
and comprising more than eight seats, in addition to the driver’s seat. This creates challenges for 
cross-border coach transport between the French commune of Hazebrouck and the Belgian 
city of Poperinge, as Belgium and France have transposed the directive into their national 
laws in different ways. 

•   Article 35 of the Belgian Highway Code3 mandates seat belt use for drivers and passengers in 
vehicles with installed seat belts. However, there are exceptions for seats that are not fitted 
with seat belts, which is generally the case for Belgian coaches.

•   In contrast, seat belts are obligatory for French coaches based on Decree No 2014-7844 and 
Articles R. 317-24 and R. 317-24-1 of the French Highway Code5, and exceptions apply 
only to urban public transport vehicles designed mainly for standing passengers or public 
services in built-up areas that are obliged to stop frequently.

•   Thus, in the absence of an obligation in Flanders to fit seat belts in coaches, Flemish 
coach operators cannot make cross-border coach journeys to France. Non-compliance 
with seat belt regulations could result in liability claims for operators and penalties for drivers 
and passengers.

•   The high cost of retrofitting buses to meet differing national seat belt requirements, 

such as those of Belgium and France, poses a significant financial challenge for operators. 
This expense limits investment capabilities and operational flexibility, with an impact on 
cross-border mobility solutions.

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

 Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on type-
approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical 
units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and 
vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 631/2009, (EU) No 406/2010, (EU) 
No 672/2010, (EU) No 1003/2010, (EU) No 1005/2010, (EU) No 1008/2010, (EU) No 1009/2010, 
(EU) No 19/2011, (EU) No 109/2011, (EU) No 458/2011, (EU) No 65/2012, (EU) No 130/2012, (EU) 
No 347/2012, (EU) No 351/2012, (EU) No 1230/2012 and (EU) 2015/166 (text with EEA relevance) 
(OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 1).
 Directive 2003/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 April 2003 amending Council 
Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of 
safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes (OJ L 115, 9.5.2003, p. 63).
 Royal Decree of 1 December 1975 laying down general regulations on road traffic police and the use of public 
roads.
 Decree No 2014-784 of 8 July 2014 on the safety of public road passenger transport and containing various 
provisions relating to road transport, Official Journal of the French Republic, No 158, 10 July 2014.
 French Highway Code version in force since 27 August 2020.

134

© Geike Verniers – Unsplash, 2023

N
E
E
R
G

© Lisanto – Unsplash, 2021

135

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

The solution is for the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) Eurometropolis 
Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai to coordinate with the French local authorities and the prefect to 
create an operational and legal framework that will allow the Flemish bus operator to also 
operate in France. Retrofitting Belgian coaches with seat belts would result in significant costs 
for Belgian operators. Subcontracting an operator that complies with the French regulations 
would also bear contractual risks. Therefore, neither of these two practical solutions is ideal.

•   A legal solution that conceives the border region as a field of experimentation, on the other 

hand, is promising. Such an experimental solution could be implemented in two ways.
  –   On the basis of an administrative arrangement based on Article 37-1 of the French 

Constitutional Act of 20036, French transport organising authorities (Autorité Organisatrice 
de Transport) at the metropolitan and departmental levels, as well as at the prefect level, 
could agree on an experimental protocol. This would allow exceptions to the French seat 
belt obligations over a short period of time, and for specific purposes and territories, 
through an agreement signed between local administrations.

  –   On the basis of the experimentation clause under Article 72-4 of the French Constitution, 
local and regional authorities could derogate from the seat belt obligations for a limited 
time period, or for specific purposes and territories as well. This would provide greater legal 
certainty, but the procedure would also be more complex, as the central government 
would have to be involved.

•   Both experimental solutions would require a cross-border extensive urban area and a set 

of operating standards to be defined. The EGTC Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai 
has the political legitimacy to propose and coordinate such an experiment, acting as a 
facilitator for cross-border initiatives, which can help mitigate any competitive concerns 
that might arise from a Flemish operator entering the French market. The EGTC could also 
provide a link between the different governance levels involved on the French and Belgian 
sides, thus positioning the initiative as a collaborative effort. 

•   In the long term, the EGTC could even take on the function of a cross-border transport 

organising authority, which would require strong political will.

WHAT’S NEXT

The EGTC Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai aims to be able to develop cross-border 
public transport connections via bus routes or trains in the near future, but this will require 
careful planning. Buses should complement the local train service (Service Express Métropolitain) 
with the aim of improving travel across the Belgium–France border. The EGTC Eurometropolis 
Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai envisages a fully connected area, with one unique entity governing the 
cross-border operation of all public transport. To achieve this, a more in-depth and all-encom-
passing analysis of the residential area and the cross-border urban area is necessary. Moreover, the 
EGTC is considering creating a group comprising French and Belgian members of parliament 
to focus on solving the obstacles.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/159_EDITED-
Report-ELKT_-Clouzet.pdf 

136

6 

 Constitutional Act No 2003-276 of 28 March 2003 on the decentralised organisation of the Republic, Official 
Journal of the French Republic, No 75, 29 March 2003.

Franco-Belgian small islands and 
stagnant meanders on the Lys river

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai – Belgium–France

EXPERT
Thomas Perrin

NORTH SEA

BELGIUM

FLANDERS

Menin

Wervik 

Kortrijk

Bousbecque

Tournai 

Lille

Deûlemont

UPPER 
FRANCE

FRANCE

N
E
E
R
G

WALLONIA

137

© Eurometropolis  
Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai, 2024

138

CONTEXT

The canalisation of the River Lys, which serves as a natural border between Belgium and 
France, led to the creation of small islands that are physically located in one country but legally 
belong to the other. This is notably the case for the section known as Lys mitoyenne, which lies 
between the municipalities of Deûlémont on the French side and Menin on the Belgian side, 
where there are a dozen cross-border islets, some of which have infrastructures or landscaped 
areas, while others are undeveloped. The islets are central to two concurrent dynamics: on one 
side, the adaptation of the river to allow for a drastic increase of freight transport capacity and, 
on the other side, land restoration efforts to establish an ecological corridor. Preventing pollution 
and improving living conditions on the islets requires coordination between the authorities of 
both countries, but their respective responsibilities are unclear. Establishing a clear and lasting 
management solution for these small islands would facilitate smoother cross-border collaboration.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The adjoining Lys area is faced with two substantially different objectives. The first is to upgrade 
the River Lys to European gauge standards as part of the Seine–Scheldt wide-gauge European 
link, an inland waterway infrastructure project1 that aims to increase cargo transport capacity 
from its current value of 5 million tonnes to 12 million tonnes by 2030. The second objective 
is to improve the environment and to promote sustainable development by encouraging recrea-
tional use of the waterways. Balancing these objectives is hampered by the fact that the distri-
bution of responsibilities across the islets is unclear among the municipalities. 

•   The Treaty of Limits (Traité de limites)2 from 1820, which established that the border 

between Belgium and France should follow the natural course of the river, has not been 
updated to reflect the canalisation. This causes management challenges, as the accumula-
tion of sludge from the dredging of the Lys has created islets physically attached to a commune 
that is located in France, while the river in the particular stretch of territory belongs to Belgium. 
The municipalities therefore do not have the authority to intervene on the islets, even though 
they are directly affected. This is the case for the municipalities of Bousbecque on the French 
side and Wervik on the Belgian side. 

•   Having a multitude of stakeholders at different governance levels, each with different 
priorities and regulatory frameworks, results in a fragmented management landscape, 
which ultimately means that neither municipality can intervene on the islets located on 
their respective territories. For example, three different bodies already operate at the inter-
state level: the French–Belgian Parliamentary Working Group3, the Joint Working Group 
on Border Demarcation4 and the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) 
Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai5. Furthermore, numerous bodies and authorities are 
involved at the regional level (the municipalities, the Belgian regions and the French prefectures, 
as well as three different navigation authorities), leading to complex problems with regard 
to access and use, security and police powers in these territories. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

 The Seine–Scheldt network project is a major European project between Belgium and France and is co-financed 
by the European Union. It is based on large-gauge waterway network development connecting the Seine/Oise 
basins to the Scheldt/Meuse basins. More information is available at https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/
download/692b459f-4b0f-4c21-a39c-30d68057f6da_en?filename=seine_scheldt.pdf&prefLang=pt. 
 Treaty of Limits between His Majesty the King of France and His Majesty the King of Belgium, signed in 
Kortrijk on 28 March 1820.
 In 2005, a French–Belgian Parliamentary Working Group was put in place to identify obstacles to cross-border 
cooperation on the Belgium–France border, find concrete solutions and propose an institutional organisation 
of governance for the Belgium–France Lille conurbation. More information is available at http://www.espaces-
transfrontaliers.org/en/resources/territories/territory-factsheets/territories/territory/show/groupe-de-travail-
parlementaire-franco-belge/.
 A mixed Belgium–France border delimitation commission is convened when required for maintenance of 
the limits of the border and disputes concerning the border, in accordance with the provisions of the Kortrijk 
Boundary Treaty of 28 March 1820. See Bulletin 2-17: Session of 1999–2000 – Questions asked by the senators 
and answers given by the ministers, Belgium Minister of the Interior, accessible at https://www.senate.be/
www/?MIval=/Registers/ViewReg&COLL=B&PUID=33575451&TID=33608650&POS=1&LANG=fr.
 Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai guidebook Collective Management of a Cross-border Space (https://www.
eurometropolis.eu/upload/attach-document/gestion-collective-dun-espace-public-transfrontalier.pdf ).

N
E
E
R
G

139

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

Four possible solutions at different levels are envisioned, of which signing a multiparty cross-
border cooperation agreement for the islets of the Lys is considered to be the most efficient and 
feasible option. 

•   A project-level solution involves establishing an Interreg project under the Interreg 

France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen programme6 to address issues related to the islets through 
joint management. This project would allow territorial authorities and operators from both 
countries to conduct preliminary soil pollution studies, create a tailored revegetation plan, 
and develop joint cycling paths and footpaths in shared management. The project requires 
co-financing from stakeholders and the appointment of a lead partner, leveraging the experience 
of stakeholders with previous Interreg projects. However, it should be noted that Interreg 
projects are time-bound and focus on specific, temporary actions. 

•   A structuring solution involves signing a multiparty cooperation agreement under the 
2002 Belgian–French agreement on cross-border cooperation between local authorities 
and local public bodies, the so-called Brussels Agreement7. This would include all relevant 
Belgian and French territorial authorities from the regional and municipal levels, as well as 
operators, detailing responsibilities for the development and management of the islets. Such 
an agreement offers flexibility to accommodate the priorities of various stakeholders, 
and practicality for specifying timelines, actions and the distribution of funding. In addition, 
it would also be in the spirit of the European Commission’s new proposal for a ‘Cross-Border 
Facilitation Tool’ to overcome legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context8.
•   A consolidating solution involves creating a dedicated body, such as a European Cross-
border Cooperation Grouping under the Brussels Agreement9, with legal personality 
and budgetary autonomy. This would allow Belgian and French stakeholders to collaborate 
under an established legal framework. Alternatively, an existing cross-border entity such as 
the EGTC Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai could be given this competence.

•   A transformative solution involves modifying the Belgium–France border along the River 
Lys to align with the canalised course of the river, reallocating islets to their nearest 
territories. This can be achieved by either changing the entire borderline or swapping islets 
on a case-by-case basis, starting with Bousbecque and Wervik. This is a long-term process 
requiring an intergovernmental agreement and extensive negotiations, and could be achieved 
through either the Joint Working Group on Border Demarcation or the French–Belgian 
Parliamentary Working Group.

WHAT’S NEXT 

The EGTC will continue working to make progress on the solutions. The report will be made 
available to the partners to secure a solid understanding by all stakeholders, and a solution to 
develop a cross-border cooperation agreement for the islets of the Lys will be sought.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/161_Report-
ELKT_Perrin.pdf

140

6 
7 

8 

9 

 Https://www.interreg-fwvl.eu/. 
 Agreement between the Government of the French Republic, of the one part, and the Government of the 
Kingdom of Belgium, the Government of the French Community, the Government of the Walloon Region 
and the Flemish Government, of the other part, on cross-border cooperation between local authorities and 
local public bodies of 16 September 2002 (Brussels Agreement).
 Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve 
legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context (COM(2023) 790 final).
 A European Cross-border Cooperation Grouping (Groupements européens de coopération transfrontalière) is a 
local grouping for cross-border cooperation set up by local authorities and local public bodies with a view to 
carrying out tasks and services of interest to each of them. It is enabled by Article 11 of the Belgian–French 
agreement on cross-border cooperation.

Cross-border Energy Region 
Ralingen – Rosport-Mompach

ADVISED ENTITY
Municipality of Ralingen – Germany

EXPERT
Thomas Stumm, EureConsult S.A.

LUXEMBOURG

Ralingen

Rosport-Mompach

GERMANY

N
E
E
R
G

141

CONTEXT

The neighbouring municipalities of Ralingen (Germany) and Rosport-Mompach (Luxembourg) 
have a long history of cooperation and are currently working together on the shared use of 
locally available renewable energy sources. The establishment of a borderless energy region between 
the two municipalities has been planned for 2025, with the goal of achieving an independent 
energy supply based on 100 % local renewable energy sources, to be made available primarily 
to the local residents in the border area. However, legal and administrative obstacles must be 
overcome to successfully establish the borderless energy region as a new participant in the EU’s 
internal energy market.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

•   Germany and Luxembourg have not fully transposed into national law the relevant EU 
directives on energy policy and have transposed them differently. The renewable energy 
directive1 and the internal electricity market directive2 define the key elements of a renewable 
energy community (REC) and a citizens energy community (CEC) that can be established 
within each Member State. RECs and CECs are open to cross-border participation, and so 
Member States are free to decide whether or not to transpose the provision on cross-border 
participation into their national legislation. 

  –   The ambiguities in the directives on energy policy create uncertainty. For example, the 
directives do not clarify what is meant by ‘cross-border participation’ and do not provide 
a legal definition of a ‘cross-border energy community’ (CBEC). As a result, the transposition 
of the directives is not sufficiently regulated, and this could hinder or even prohibit cross-
border participation (e.g. transposition of the provision on one side of the border but not 
on the other side; no transposition on both sides of the border; or transposition on both 
sides of the border but with different definitions/conditions for participation).

  –   The EU concepts of an REC and a CEC have not been fully transposed into national law 

in either country. In addition, the provisions relating to an REC transposed in German 
and Luxemburgish laws differ from one another. Neither country has transposed the 
optional provision of cross-border participation, which would have otherwise allowed 
the establishment of a CBEC.

•  Limited usefulness of existing legal instruments to enable cross-border cooperation. 
  –   The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is limited as a legal entity. 
One of the main challenges for the borderless energy region is finding a suitable legal  
instrument to create a legal entity that will manage the governance structure and business 
model of a new CBEC. Under Regulation (EC) No 1082/20063, the concept of an EGTC 
was created to facilitate cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation between 
Member States or their regional and local authorities. To set up a CBEC, the municipali-
ties of Ralingen and Mompach aim to involve a wide range of different local actors from 
both sides of the border, and to encourage the direct and active participation of citizens. 
However, an EGTC excludes the participation of citizens and allows the participation 
of private actors only under certain conditions, making it difficult to use as a suitable 
legal instrument for the purpose of a borderless energy region.

  –   The Local Grouping for Cross-border Cooperation (Grenzüberschreitender Örtlicher 

Zweckverband (GÖZ)) is also limited as a legal instrument. The Karlsruhe Agreement4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the 
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82).
 Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules 
for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (recast) (text with EEA relevance) 
(OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 125).
 Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European 
grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19).
 Law of 12 May 1997 approving the agreement between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Federal Republic 
of Germany, the French Republic and the Swiss Confederation, acting on behalf of the cantons of Solothurn, 
Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Aargau and Jura on cross-border cooperation between local authorities and local 
public bodies, done at Karlsruhe on 23 January 1996, Official Journal of Luxembourg, Mémorial A, No 38, 
27 May 1997.

142

© Ernst Hilges, 2019

aims to promote cross-border cooperation between French, German, Luxembourgish and 
Swiss regional authorities and local public bodies. Based on this international agreement, a 
cooperation agreement was concluded between the municipalities of Ralingen (Germany) 
and Rosport-Mompach (Luxembourg), establishing the two municipalities as a GÖZ for 
cooperation in sports and cultural activities. However, the municipalities cannot use a GÖZ 
to create a legal entity for their borderless energy region if they plan to include a broad 
membership structure and active citizen participation, as, according to Article 2 of the 
Karlsruhe Agreement, a GÖZ excludes the participation of citizens and private actors.

•   Legal uncertainties related to local cross-border electricity production, supply/trade and 

consumption affect the governance and business model of the borderless energy region. 
  –   The EU regulatory framework makes it difficult to determine the necessary physical inter-

connections, such as a direct cross-border grid connection, which are required to enable 
local cross-border electricity provision and trade5. Because of these restrictions, the local 
cross-border supply of electricity can take place only under certain circumstances and  
requires further clarification.

  –   The electricity production process may raise additional energy law issues on both sides of 
the border because it is unclear how the different actors involved, which include citizens, 
energy providers and private actors, will participate in this process.

  –   There are legal uncertainties regarding energy sharing between the future members or share-
holders of the borderless energy region. While energy sharing within a nationally established 
energy community (as an REC or a CEC) is allowed under EU law and Luxembourg law, 
Germany has not yet transposed these provisions into national law.

N
E
E
R
G

5 

 Local cross-border electricity provision and trade is understood here as an activity of the borderless energy 
region, and involves selling  electricity generated from renewable energy sources in the region to both members 
of the energy region, the two municipalities and non-members (i.e. external final electricity consumers).

143

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

•   Revise EU and national frameworks. It is recommended that the gaps at the EU and 
national levels on the use of renewable energy and the internal electricity market are 
addressed, to be achieved in the medium to long term. This solution would require modify-
ing the Commission’s 2023 proposals6 for reforming the design of the EU electricity market 
and a future revision of the recently adopted renewable energy directive7, as well as a more 
coordinated transposition of future energy-related EU directives between neighbouring 
Member States.

•   The most feasible solution is to establish a legal entity for the future governance and 
business model of the borderless energy region, on the basis of a private law solution. 
Two EU legal instruments are suitable for this purpose: the European Economic Interest 
Grouping8 and the European Cooperative Society9. Both legal instruments allow for the 
direct participation of a wide range of local actors from both sides of the border (e.g. munici-
palities, local small and medium-sized enterprises, associations and citizens)10. However, 
owing to the complexity of these legal instruments, the two municipalities should seek addi-
tional legal advice to assess the options.

•   It is also recommended that both municipalities jointly submit a project proposal to the 

Interreg VI Greater Region programme11 to assess the legal, technical and economic feasibility 
of cross-border energy sharing.

WHAT’S NEXT 

As the lead technical advisor, the Bingen University of Applied Sciences (Germany) will support 
the municipalities of Ralingen and Rosport-Mompach in resolving the technical, organisational 
and economic aspects of the cross-border energy region initiative. To this end, it envisages 
engaging the services of a legal advisor to formulate a detailed plan. To finance the activities, 
the advised entities aim to apply for funding, either through the Interreg VI Greater Region 
programme or from other sources.

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/166_Report_
Ralingen_Eureconsult.pdf 

144

6 

7 

8 

9 

 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations 
(EU) 2019/943 and (EU) 2019/942 as well as Directives (EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 to improve the 
Union’s electricity market design (COM/2023/148 final).
 Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending 
Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion 
of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/6522 (OJ L, 2023/2413, 
31.10.2023).
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping 
(EEIG) (OJ L 199, 31.7.1985, p. 1).
 Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society 
(SCE) (OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 1).

10   Please refer to the original expert report for a detailed overview of each legal instrument.
11   Https://interreg-gr.eu/.

Obstacles for cross-border  
transport of recyclable plastic waste 
between Belgium and Germany

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Euregio Meuse-Rhine – Belgium–Germany

EXPERT
Thomas Stumm, EureConsult S.A.

NETHERLANDS

GERMANY

PROVINCIE LIMBURG (B)

Hasselt

Maastricht

PROVINCIE 
LIMBURG (NL)

Aachen

Liège

Eupen

PROVINCE DE LIÈGE (B)

DEUTSCHSPRACHIGE 
GEMEINSCHAFT (B)

BELGIUM

REGION AACHEN- 
ZWECKVERBAND (D)

N
E
E
R
G

145

© Ostbelgien, Dominik Ketz

CONTEXT

The transportation of plastic waste across borders is closely regulated because of its potential to 
foster a circular economy, while, at the same time, posing significant environmental and health 
risks. The Euregio Meuse-Rhine, encompassing parts of Belgium, Germany and the Nether-
lands, seeks to develop a cross-border plastic recycling value chain by establishing a network of 
‘smart specialised plastic recycling hubs’. These hubs would involve the cross-border import and 
export of specific plastic waste from the neighbouring border regions. However, currently, the 
regulatory complexities obstruct effective cross-border cooperation. Resolving these legal and 
administrative challenges would facilitate the creation of the recycling hubs network.

OBSTACLE AND THE LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The management of plastic waste across multiple countries is regulated under the following 
frameworks: the Basel Convention1 under the United Nations Environment Programme2, the 
operational control system of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) and the EU supervision and control system under Regulation (EC) No 1013/20063 
(waste shipment regulation (WSR))4. 

As a result, issues with cross-border plastic waste shipments within the EU, such as waiting 
times and the costs of shipments, stem from differing administrative practices among  
EU Member States rather than legal gaps in the WSR or its international frameworks.

1 

2 

3 

4 

 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 
22 March 1989, UN Environmental Programme (Agenda Item 3), UN Doc. UNEP/Z/6 (1989), reprinted in 
28 ILM 657 (1989). Texts and annexes revised in 2019.
 Approved by the European Council with 93/98/EEC: Council Decision of 1 February 1993 on the conclusion, 
on behalf of the Community, of the Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous 
wastes and their disposal (Basel Convention) (OJ L 39, 16.2.1993, p. 1).
 Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on  
shipments of waste (OJ L 190, 12.07.2006, p. 1).
 The WSR, in force until 2026, has been replaced by Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 on shipments of waste,  
effective from 20 May 2024, with the new rules applying from 2026. 

146

•   Different rules for plastic waste shipments with complex technical and procedural requirements 
apply to various categories and flows of plastic waste between Belgium and Germany. These 
rules are enforced through existing administrative procedures, posing a number of obligations 
to Euregio Meuse-Rhine’s cross-border plastic recycling ambitions. 

  –   In Germany, the Federal Waste Shipment Act5 regulates the implementation of the EU 

directive at the federal level, while its enforcement and control lie with the federal states 
(Länder). Each federal state has its own regulatory authority responsible for waste  
management. 

  –   In Belgium, two regional laws, in Wallonia and Flanders, regulate the implementation of 
the EU directive and define the regional administrative procedures. The first is the Decree 
of the Flemish Government establishing the Flemish regulations concerning the sustainable 
management of material cycles and waste of 20126. The second is the Decree of the  
Walloon Government on waste shipments of 20077.

  –   Waste operators wishing to export hazardous plastic waste require prior consent from the 

competent authorities in both Belgium and Germany, following the prior written notification 
and consent procedure8. In the case of transit through the Netherlands, additional consent 
is needed from the competent Dutch authorities. 

  –   In the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia, plastic by-products are consid-
ered exchangeable products, whereas, in Flanders, Belgium, they are classified as 
waste. This discrepancy complicates cross-border shipments of plastic by-products between 
North Rhine-Westphalia and Flanders, and affects operators differently depending on  
the direction of shipment.

•   The procedural framework for shipments of waste between Member States enshrined in the 
recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2024/11579 on shipments of waste, the ‘new waste 
shipment regulation’ (WShipR), could lead to challenges in the future for the planned 
‘smart specialised plastic recycling hubs’.

  –   The WShipR bans export of plastic waste for disposal to countries outside the OECD. 
Because of the lack of sufficient treatment capacity in the region and the high costs of  
recycling plastic, the ban is expected to force countries to store and incinerate waste locally 
if other Member States do not consent to importing the waste shipment.

  –   The WShipR added new hurdles within the envisaged procedures. The processing time of 
the notification procedure has been extended to 10 working days, compared with 3 days 
under the WSR, and up to two further requests for information may be made after receipt 
of the notifier’s response. The procedure of general information now also applies to down-
stream facilities in the country of destination, in which checks will examine how residual 
waste is treated. 

  –   The new regulation also imposes the additional obligation to pre-sort waste, as different 
procedures for shipment apply to waste destined for disposal10 and ‘green-listed’ non-
hazardous waste for recovery.

7 

6 

5 

 Act implementing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 
2006 on shipments of waste (1) and the Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary 
movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (2), Waste Shipment Act (AbfVerbrG), date of issue: 19 July 
2007, last amended by Article 4 of the Act of 2 March 2023 (Federal Law Gazette, No 56, 2023).
 Decree of the Flemish Government establishing the Flemish regulations concerning the sustainable  management 
of material cycles and waste of 17 February 2012, B.S.23/05/2012, referred to as ‘VLAREMA’.
 Decree of the Walloon Government on waste shipments of 19 July 2007 (Moniteur Belge, 27 July 2007), 
amended by the Walloon Government Decree of 4 April 2019 (Moniteur Belge, 5 June 2019).
 The prior written notification and consent procedure are explained in the original expert report. The procedure 
and corresponding competent authorities vary depending on the scenarios: if the waste is exported from North 
Rhine-Westphalia to Wallonia or Flanders, or the other way around, and on the category of plastic waste.
 Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments 
of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1013/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024).
10   Including waste destined for hazardous or mixed waste destined for recovery.

8 

9 

N
E
E
R
G

147

ROADMAP TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 

EU legislative changes are very difficult, and amendments in the medium term are unlikely, 
given that the revision of the WSR has been completed and the WShipR has recently entered 
into force. As national-level regulations are closely aligned with EU law, internal country-level 
adjustments are equally unlikely. However, certain future changes are promising:

•   A comprehensive long-term solution for the administrative handling of cross-border plastic 
waste shipments could involve applying Article 30 of the WSR and the nearly identical 
Article 31 of the WShipR. Article 31(1) allows Member States to establish bilateral agree-
ments that relax the notification process for transporting specific waste flows across 
borders to the nearest appropriate facility situated in the border region between the two relevant 
Member States. However, some clarifications would be required:

  –   Owing to its geographical situation, the trilateral Euregio would require various agreements: 
three bilateral waste shipment agreements (Belgium–Germany, Belgium–Netherlands 
and Germany–Netherlands) and potentially transit agreements. 

  –   The current problem of the different classification of plastic by-products from the recycling 

process would need to be resolved in the bilateral Belgium–Germany agreement.
  –   Instead of having multiple bilateral agreements, it would need to be explored with the 

European Commission whether or not, as an exception, a single framework agreement on 
specific plastic waste flows could be concluded for the Euregio Meuse-Rhine.

  –    Qualified negotiation partners in each country would have to be identified.

If successful, this approach could be expanded to neighbouring countries or regions near the 
Euregio Meuse-Rhine, such as Luxembourg and Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany. Further-
more, it could potentially inspire the development of comparable intergovernmental agreements 
among other borders.

WHAT’S NEXT 

As a next step, the advised entity will contact the competent authorities mentioned in the report, 
both bilaterally and in a multilateral setting, with the aim of following up on the suggestion 
that specific agreements be concluded for the cross-border area, in accordance with Article 30 
of the WSR and Article 31 of the WShipR. The advised entity will also closely follow the intro-
duction of a fully digital authorisation procedure initiated by the WShipR, which will enable 
electronic submission and the exchange of information11. 

TO LEARN MORE

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2024/08/169_Report_
EMR_Stumm.pdf 

148

11  Details in the original report by the expert.

N
E
E
R
G

149

Following through 
for impact: 
b-solutions’ objective 2

152

Analysis of cross-border obstacles 
in the field of trade of local  
agricultural products

ADVISED ENTITY
Pannon European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Croatia-Hungary 

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Katalin Fekete and Norbert Jankai, Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI)

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Katalin Fekete and Norbert Jankai, Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI)

AUSTRIA

HUNGARY

SLOVENIA

ZALA MEGYE

KOPRIVNIČKO- 
KRIŽEVAČKA  
ŽUPANIJA

SOMOGY 
MEGYE

Kaposvár

Szekszárd

Pécs

BARANYA MEGYE

CROATIA

VIROVITIČKO- 
PODRAVSKA  
ŽUPANIJA

OSJEČKO-
BARANJSKA 
ŽUPANIJA

SERBIA

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

153

 
NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case focuses on enabling cross-border trade of agri-food products and supporting small 
agri-food producers to access the benefits of the EU Single Market. In 2018, it was selected as 
one of the pilot actions to be developed in the context of b-solutions. The aim was to support 
the implementation of actions aimed at solving legal or administrative obstacles to cross-border 
cooperation1. The case addresses institutional cooperation obstacles in the cross-border region 
between Hungary and Croatia as the cause of the barriers to trade experienced by small agri-food 
producers. The core challenge in this case was that regulatory obstacles to cross-border trade 
arose from differences between the two Member States’ legislation relating to food safety 
regulations for small producers. 

The advised entity for the case is Pannon European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (Pannon 
EGTC)2, which covers over 60 local and county-level municipalities along the Croatian- 
Hungarian border. This rural region is primarily composed of small villages, where agriculture 
plays a significant role in the local economy. Cross-border trade and opportunities for small 
food producers are therefore key elements of the economy of this rural border region. 

Both Croatia and Hungary are committed to supporting local food products and family farms 
through specific legislation. However, in practice, their legislative frameworks diverge. Croatian 
legislation aligns closely with EU regulations3, while Hungarian legislation established its own 
rules governing the direct supply by the producer of small quantities of primary products. The 
Hungarian law responds to the final objective to disseminate local products as widely as possible 
within the country4. These differences result in barriers to cross-border trade of local products. 
Issues include tax differences and non-harmonised trading permit procedures, particularly 
regarding food hygiene and safety rules for small quantities of local products. In addition, 
administrative challenges such as a lack of information and language barriers hinder cooperation 
among small producers and family farmers. For consumers, this situation may limit access to 
a wider range of local products. Regulatory bodies face the challenge of navigating different 
national standards within the broader framework of EU regulations.

HARMONISING TRADE BY BUILDING ON EXISTING STRUCTURES

In a first phase of b-solutions, through the implementation of the pilot action, EGTC Pannon set 
up a number of measures intended to overcome the above-mentioned obstacles. These included:

•   Stakeholder workshops to identify problems and needs of local producers and market operators;
•   The analysis of a survey distributed among over 200 local farmers in Croatia and Hungary to 

assess expectations for the development of a local product market;

•   The analysis of relevant legislation, policy documents, physical conditions for the set-up of 
cross-border markets, administrative procedures and applicable tax rules for each country;
•   Drafting policy recommendations for legal amendments. Additionally, these recommendations 
were discussed with regional actors, development agencies, and ministry representatives from 
both countries in the course of the pilot action’s implementation;

1 

 For more information about b-solutions’ Pilot Actions, please see the publications Association of European 
Border Regions and European Commission (2020), b-solutions: Solving Border Obstacles A Compendium of 
43 Cases and its Annex, available here: https://www.b-solutionsproject.com/library.

2  For more information on Pannon EGTC, see https://www.pannonegtc.eu/.
3 

 The Croatian legislation directly applies the EU legislation, the transposition of which is provided for by the 
Law on Food Hygiene and Microbiological Criteria for Food (OG, No. 83/22) and the Regulation on the  
registration and approval of establishments and on registration of food business operators (OG, No. 123/19 
and 3/21.), in which the definition of “local product trade” and “local tourist product” is limited to the territory 
of the Republic of Croatia.
 Relevant laws for Hungary are FVM Decree 52/2010 (30.IV.) on the conditions of small-scale food production, 
production and sale apply to the sale of local products (Hungarian Journal No 66, 30 April 2010, pp.14360-
14369) and AM Decree 20/2021 (17.V.) on the production and placing on the market of foodstuffs and 
materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (Official Journal of Hungary No 90, 17 
May 2021).

4 

154

•   The production of a bilingual information package designed to support local producers selling 
in the cross-border territory. This provides key information regarding crossing points, the 
location of markets, rules on sales applicable in the two countries, and country-specific infor-
mation on tax rules. Finally, Pannon EGTC oversaw the production of a brochure with 
this information to be distributed to local farmers.

The policy recommendations which this pilot action produced were organised in four work 
packages, and suggested initiatives to facilitate cross-border trade of local farm products. They 
included:

•   Package 1: Intergovernmental cooperation. Actions envisaged within this package included 
standardised and bilingual administration, including operational templates, harmonised reg-
istration and records, uniform food hygiene and safety standards as well as streamlined VAT 
procedures. In addition, the package identified the option of amending Hungarian regula-
tions to allow Croatian products to be sold in small producers’ markets. It also promoted the 
acceptance of food safety and hygiene certifications across borders through bilingual docu-
mentation, and facilitated exchanges among competent authorities.

•   Package 2: Joint legislation for the cross-border sale of food products. This law would 

simplify cross-border sales for local producers on both sides of the Hungarian-Croatian bor-
der. While continuing to comply with the current legal framework in both Member States, 
the law would enforce special reciprocal rules for cross-border sales. These rules would allow 
sales via approved agents and permit local producers to resell one another’s products. They 
would also facilitate online sales and mobile markets by modifying legislation. The package 
also promoted joint facilities for processing particular food products which were in demand 
among the local consumer base. Finally, the package contained a provision which would 
enable small-scale producers to participate as subcontractors in collaborative/consortium 
approaches to public procurement.

•   Package 3: Financial aid for cross-border selling. It included three key measures: first, to 
offer financial support for investments and cross-border sale activities; second, to establish a 
compensation system for additional costs incurred by producers in the course of achieving 
compliance in producing for a cross-border market; and third, to standardise tax allowances 
and VAT rates across borders to make sales more attractive. In addition, the package involved 
supporting infrastructure such as processing facilities to support the production of primary 
agri-food products, local product shops/outlets, marketplaces, and knowledge centres.

•   Package 4: Promoting local agri-food products through marketing campaigns, knowledge 
exchange, and community engagement. It also aimed to raise awareness among producers 
and consumers about the benefits and availability of local products.

EGTC Pannon collaborated with local authorities at county-level from both Croatia and Hun-
gary to implement the pilot action. On the Croatian side, local development agencies helped 
organise the workshops and assisted with the survey. In Hungary, local agricultural chambers 
helped arrange the workshops and supported the survey distribution. Additionally, local market 
operators assisted with paper-format surveys on market days. 

The pilot action achieved its objective by developing policy recommendations to facilitate cross-
border sales. However, as with all solutions identified through research, it was noted that the 
involvement of policymakers is needed for actual implementation.

155

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

 
IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

The study under objective 2 of b-solutions, in moving the case closer to implementation, sug-
gests that Croatia and Hungary should leverage their Joint Economic Committee (JEC)5 to 
address cross-border trade barriers. The JEC includes representatives from relevant ministries 
and local/regional authorities in both Member States. The benefit of the JEC as a potential 
vehicle for influencing the full implementation of the solution is, first, that it is a pre-existing 
governance and cooperation mechanism formally endorsed by both Member States, and sec-
ond, that it consists of all relevant stakeholders, legislators, and practitioners affected by cross-
border barriers.

For this case, the competent bodies for cross-border marketing of local products in the Repub-
lic of Croatia include the Directorate of Animal Health and Food Safety and the Directorate of 
Agriculture, Plant Production and Markets of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of 
Health, and the State Inspectorate responsible for food safety supervision and plant health su-
pervision. The competent bodies for the cross-border marketing of local products in Hungary 
include the Food Chain Supervision Department, the International Relations Department, the 
Department for Cooperation in the Carpathian Basin of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the 
National Food Chain Safety Office (NÉBIH).

CESCI’s experts proposed a horizontal linking of skills and competences of the relevant stake-
holders across countries and sectors.

Unpacking opportunities for cross-border sales

To move towards implementation, CESCI’s experts suggested a roadmap to reduce the legal 
and administrative obstacles hindering cross-border sales by local farmers:

•   A joint proposal for cross-border sale of products. This should be discussed with local actors, 
such as the chambers of agriculture and LEADER groups6, and then with relevant authorities 
and legislators;

•   A grassroots initiative for local political actors (mayors, county presidents, representatives of 

farmers’ organisations) to express their political will to promote cross-border sales in the form 
of a joint Declaration of Intent;

•   Forwarding the joint Declaration of Intent to the ministries previously designated as the 
competent Hungarian and Croatian bodies, as well as to the co-chairs of the intergovern-
mental joint committees (Economic and Minority Joint Committees) between the two coun-
tries. The Declaration of Intent should include its own road map for a multi-level solution, 
outlining milestones such as:

•   examination of the possibility of creating a national law/regulation with specific rules for 

cross-border sales by the legislators of the two countries;

•   advancement of proposals to reduce administrative obstacles and ensure bilingualism in as 
many places as possible by authorities and organisations concerned (LEADER, EGTC).
•   Local EGTCs providing regular assistance for local product communities, producers and 
consumers, including organising regular meetings, to overcome the information gap;

•   Identifying products that could be complementary on the other side of the border to over-

come different farm structures and farming methods;

5 

6 

 See Government Decision 2019/2002 (I. 31.) on the establishment of the Joint Intergovernmental Cooperation 
Committee between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Croatia.
 LEADER is a European programme with the aim of using the local development method to engage local 
actors in the design and delivery of strategies, decision-making and resource allocation for the development of 
their rural areas. Private enterprise and community groups can apply for funding projects under the LEADER 
programme. More information is available at https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/leader-clld_en.html.

156

•   Applying interoperability and mutually recognising previously harmonised standards that are 
applied by both Member States under the relevant EU legislation. For example, operating 
conditions for markets, records to be kept by producers, and the compulsory registration and 
scope of official certificates;

•   Addressing administrative barriers (bilingual forms, conditions for online sales, standardisa-
tion of forms and registers, etc.), the costs of which could be financed by additional EU 
funds.

As previously mentioned, the experts suggest pursuing harmonisation through the JEC. Ac-
cording to CESCI’s experts, legislative harmonisation would yield positive expected results, 
especially after having obtained the necessary approval by the relevant departments of the Min-
istries of Agriculture in Croatia and Hungary. Among the desired outcomes, they seek:

•   Simplified conditions for EU-standardised production plants producing traditional products, 

enabling cross-border trading of local products.

•   Mutual acceptance of official certificates for local producers, ensuring product traceability. A 
producer registered in one country would be accepted as a registered operator in the other, 
thus eliminating the need for a second check.

•   Implement uniform reduced VAT rates and exemption categories for the supply of local 

products.

•   Harmonise and mutually recognise public health rules and market operator registers, includ-
ing details such as name, address, farm, production, place of production, registration num-
ber, and products sold.

•   Reduce administrative barriers through the development of an app to provide information to 

consumers and producers, and offer online access to bilingual forms and registers.

In the framework of the objective 2 study, CESCI’s experts included a draft of the Declaration 
of Intent in Hungarian, Croatian, and English to advance the identified solutions and enable 
cross-border marketing of local products. If signed, this would advance collaboration among 
local actors, with the declared objectives to support actions implementing a cross-border farm-
ers’ market. The signed Declaration of Intent would also advance the JEC’s involvement in the 
solution, setting the item on its agenda.

Experts of CESCI, along with Pannon EGTC and Mura Region EGTC, which faces a similar 
obstacle, organised a professional event on cross-border trade of local products in Lenti, 
Hungary, on 30 May 2023, supported by b-solutions and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade of Hungary. Local Croatian and Hungarian actors, including farmers, LEADER organi-
sations, mayors, and representatives of agricultural companies exchanged experiences with the 
aim to summarise existing obstacles and discussing possible solutions. Raising decision-makers’ 
awareness of the existing legal obstacles was a key objective of the event. As an outcome of the 
event, participants agreed to leverage the Joint Economic Committee and the relevant minis-
tries. The actions are expected to bring forward the legislative proposals to exploit the potential 
economic boost for the border region.

Strengthening regional relationships on many levels

The project benefits a wide range of groups and sectors. Overall, increased cooperation and 
reduced barriers provide the potential to foster better regional relationships and economic 
growth. 

•   Primary producers, family farms and small farmers in Croatia and Hungary will benefit 

from reduced administrative and legal obstacles, increased market access, and financial sup-
port; 

•   Consumers will benefit from increased availability of local, high-quality products and aware-

ness-raising efforts to promote local produce; 

•   The cross-border regions of Croatia and Hungary will see improved cross-border trade and 

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

157

 
economic collaboration. In turn, this will result in local markets on both sides of the border 
benefitting from a broader range of products and increased economic activity; 

•   At the institutional level, local and regional authorities, development agencies, agricul-
tural chambers, and market operators in both countries can benefit from streamlined 
processes and enhanced cooperation. Enhanced frameworks and recommendations to sup-
port cross-border trade require varying levels of political commitment. Once achieved, they 
will assist in creating more effective and supportive regulations.

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION 

This case is an example of a solution that can bring the benefits of the EU single market to the 
grassroots economies of border regions in a cross-border area, which relies heavily on agri-food 
within its rural economy. The case demonstrates the opportunities that neighbouring Member 
States have to enhance subsidiarity by working together on common priorities which ben-
efit both of their economies. For the agri-food sector and rural SMEs in border regions, the 
case also highlights the importance of paying attention to how regulatory borders can either 
enable or hinder trade and economic opportunities. The development of solutions can also have 
a multiplier effect for individual Member State economies in that, for Member States bordering 
one another, a solution applied in one border region can be explored and adapted for use on a 
border with another Member State. This is the value of b-solutions, not only for the specific 
individual cases identified, but as a source of support for modelling solutions which can be 
adapted or inspire finding solutions in other border regions across the EU and on its peripher-
ies. 

Very often, regulatory differences at the national level can have unintended consequences for 
the local economies of border regions. However, a cross-border collaborative approach between 
Member States and their regional and sectoral stakeholders can often identify and implement 
the necessary solution with a little extra focus. The example of the work done in this case is 
particularly important for small agri-food producers and farmers in peripheral regions through-
out the EU. Similar measures can help access the benefits of a single market, and to experience 
a just transition. As a result, this would aid in achieving Europe’s aim to be closer to citizens, 
delivering a green transformation and a just transition for all. Both countries are famous for 
their gastronomy, and for both countries, food is an important part of their culture. 

Paying additional attention to how regional SMEs and citizens in border regions are affected by 
unintended differences in regulatory frameworks at the national level can deliver added value 
for all involved. Looking to the future of the single market and EU cohesion, such simple cases 
can also have the effect of offering the chance for young people – especially those from rural 
regions – to develop economic opportunities in their region of origin. This would finally 
deliver a future based on economic prosperity and social wellbeing.

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/
sites/futurium/files/crossmarkets_
policy_recommendation_eng.pdf

158

Cross-border healthcare between 
the twin cities of Valga and Valka

ADVISED ENTITIES
Valga Municipality – Estonia and Valka Municipality – Latvia

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Annika Jaansoo

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Daiga Behmane and Alina Dudele, Riga Stradinas University

ESTONIA

Valka

Valga

LATVIA

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

159

 
NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case addresses obstacles to accessible healthcare in the cross-border area of the twin cities 
Valga in Estonia and Valka in Latvia, where many patients cross the border for healthcare  
purposes. The case, at its core, is about how a cross-border approach can secure the viability  
of health services offered and geographically accessible to the cross-border patient population 
catchment, on the basis that it is precisely the cross-border nature of this catchment which 
makes a service viable in terms of public resource investment. 

The case is also a demonstration of how the principle of proximity of clinical care in border 
areas often implies the need for a cross-border approach, in that a patient’s nearest point of care 
in a border region may be in a hospital or medical centre/clinic across the border. In many  
circumstances, proximity of a point of care can be a matter of life and death, not only in general 
emergency care, but it is also crucial for maternity care, paediatric care, and cardiac care, to 
name a few. Furthermore, geographical distances and barriers for patient travel often hinder 
positive health outcomes. For example, in a region where car ownership is very low and/or  
public transport options or schedules are limited, travelling longer distances for care within a 
country can be unaffordable or unachievable for some. This means that people may miss out  
on timely healthcare access, with potentially negative health outcomes as a result.  

The case also explores issues which extend beyond access and proximity to healthcare in a border 
region. These include the financing of healthcare, reciprocal cooperation and reimbursement 
between national health insurance funds, and models of financing that support the viability of 
services in a particular geographical location (in this case, a border hospital in a twin city). In 
other words, these are issues which involve more efficient and at-scale organisation of resources 
for healthcare, while simultaneously avoiding the undue administrative burden falling on the 
patient. 

The case also considers a needs-based approach to the future development of services for the 
population’s health, through shared approaches to financing of care at Valga Hospital. It has led 
to the networking of stakeholders in the cross-border area who continue to work together and 
are eager to jointly explore how cross-border cooperation in healthcare in the region can reach 
its full potential, including how Interreg may be able to play a role. 

Context for the initial case study

During the Soviet era, two hospitals were constructed approximately two kilometres apart in Valga 
(Estonia) and Valka (Latvia). Following independence, Valka’s hospital reduced its operations, 
leaving Valga Hospital as the main facility in the area of the twin cities. Today, it serves a 
combined population of around 18,000 from the twin towns and an additional 30,000 from 
the surrounding area, in line with the typical hospital capacity in both Estonia and Latvia. 
Valga-Valka looks and feels like a single city. The national border between Latvia and Estonia 
runs through the middle of the city. The hospital, located in Valga on the Estonian side, is 
geographically accessible from both countries. Latvian residents are able to legally access Valga 
Hospital under the EU Directive on the Rights of Patients in Cross-Border Healthcare (Direc-
tive 2011/24/EU1) and the EU Social Security Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 883/20042). 
Despite these enabling frameworks at EU level, disparities in healthcare costs and approaches 
to reimbursement mechanisms remain substantial practical barriers for citizens wishing to 
access healthcare closer to home and in the right place at the right time. 

1 

2 

 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, 04.04.2011, p. 45–65.
 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the 
coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland), OJ L 166, 
30.04.2004, p. 1–123.

160

Latvian residents can receive necessary medical treatment at Valga Hospital free of charge under 
EU Regulation 883/2004. However, planned (i.e., non-emergency) medical treatments require 
upfront payment with subsequent reimbursement from the Latvian Health Insurance Fund,  
in accordance with EU Directive 2011/24. As with many border regions where neighbouring 
health system fees create disparities, the higher cost of such medical services in Estonia imposes 
a significant financial burden on Latvian patients. Reimbursement only covers the equivalent 
of Latvian prices for health services, leaving a considerable portion of costs unpaid. This cost 
difference and the complex reimbursement process deter Latvian residents from choosing Valga 
Hospital for planned treatments, leading to underutilisation of its services, and the risk of 
further shrinkage of available services for patients on both sides of the border. To ensure the 
long-term viability of Valga Hospital for the whole region, and to maintain its ability to sustain 
services for the population on both sides of the border, increasing the number of Latvian patients 
utilising its services is crucial. A shrinkage or withdrawal of services at the hospital would cause 
a myriad of health implications for both Latvian and Estonian patients who use and depend on 
the hospital. Ensuring access to timely healthcare interventions (the right care in the right place 
and at the right time) should be considered, as it is more cost-effective to health systems in the 
long term. 

In addition, the hospital’s ability to serve the entire region effectively depends on a model that 
considers patients from both sides of the border. The difference in healthcare costs constitutes 
the primary administrative challenge, but additional obstacles further complicate cross-border 
healthcare provisions. These include language barriers, the need for dual documentation due 
to Latvia’s non-digitised healthcare and prescription system, and the fact that the hospital’s cor-
porate governance is based on a single-jurisdictional model and thus Latvian authorities are 
not decision-making stakeholders in the hospital’s governance or financing arrangements. 

A roadmap for cross-border healthcare

With the original b-solutions case study, a three-step roadmap was initially recommended to 
overcome administrative and financial barriers to cross-border healthcare access.

Step 1) Latvia could acquire a stake in Valga Hospital to foster mutual interest and enable Latvian 
input on the use of funds, service quality, and cross-border healthcare provision. The decision 
regarding which Latvian organisation should become a shareholder would be left to the Latvian 
stakeholders (Valka Municipality, Latvian Ministry of Health) to determine and agree upon. 
The mayor of Valga Municipality has indicated a willingness to reduce the municipality’s share 
in Valga Hospital to accommodate an increased share for Latvian stakeholders.

Step 2) Granting Valga Hospital a special status would enable it to better plan, based on 
lump-sum funding, a regulatory option available under healthcare laws in both countries. This 
diverges from the typical service-based budgeting model in Estonia and Latvia, where hospitals 
receive funding from the national health insurance funds based on services provided. Such a 
measure would streamline financial forecasting, which is currently particularly challenging for 
smaller hospitals providing services across borders.

Step 3) Establishing agreements between Valga Hospital and the national health insurance 
funds of both Estonia and Latvia, which is permitted under respective national laws, would 
simplify billing processes. Specifically, services rendered at Valga Hospital would be paid  
for by the Estonian National Health Insurance Fund. This would remove the burden of admin-
istration of cross-border care for the patient and eliminate the need for patients to pay upfront 
and apply for reimbursement. It would also facilitate greater coordination between the funds of 
both countries.

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

161

 
 
IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

Following the initial case study and before the work under b-solutions objective 2 was carried 
out, a bilateral agreement was put in place whereby the Latvian Ministry of Health agreed to 
fund the provision of several key diagnostic services at Valga for patients from Valka. In practice, 
this partially implemented “step 3” described above. The agreement is due for review by 2025. 

Objective 2 focused on steps 2 and 3 set out in the initial case study, rather than step 1. A particular 
priority identified by the advised entities was to implement this solution for a broader range of 
healthcare services by expanding the terms of the agreement to cover other services. It was decided 
that a cost-benefit analysis would assist in providing some rationale for the potential value to 
patients, and to longer-term healthcare expenditure for the extension of the range of services 
accessible at Valga, including for Latvian patients.  

In implementing the solution, a research team comprised of health management and health 
economics experts from Riga Stradinas University carried out a mixed-method study to support 
a cost-benefit analysis to inform the advancement of any of the solutions. The study aimed to 
derive concrete proposals for improved cross-border collaboration concerning access to health-
care services for residents of the Valka region. The findings were translated into a cross-border 
healthcare initiative document. This document comprises an analysis of key health needs among 
the cross-border regional population and of healthcare utilisation in the Valka region (Latvia) 
and in the Valga Hospital (Estonia). Additionally, it provides two assessments; first, of access to 
healthcare for residents of the Valka region, both in general and stratified by different social 
groups, and second, of indirect costs associated with the lack of accessibility of healthcare services 
in the Valka region.

Desktop analysis was combined with a population survey, and focus group discussions provided 
detailed information regarding the barriers to access to services for the residents of the Valka 
region. The findings reinforced the importance of creating a regional strategy for healthcare 
in Latvia that addresses both the establishment of appropriate fees and the challenges of these 
remote regions. The following concrete proposals have been derived from the research and 
encompass a whole systems approach to improving cross-border access to care, as well as sup-
porting positive qualitative conditions for cross-border care provision in the region.

Proposals related to cross-border care provision include the following:

•   Continue the provision of healthcare services at the Valga hospital and extend the range 
of services provided under the scope of the agreement between the National Health Service 
(NHS) of Latvia and the Valga hospital (Estonia);

•   Create a special coordination body led by the Valka municipality to coordinate efforts  
between said municipality, the Latvian and Estonian national health services, the Latvian 
Ministry of Health, Valga hospital and Vidzeme hospital, the nearest multi-profile emergency 
treatment facility in Latvia. This body shall develop a sustainable cross-border healthcare 
pathway for the Valka region inhabitants, including all levels of care;

•   Harness possible IT solutions to improve data exchange between the Latvian and Estonian 

healthcare systems; 

•   Find an AI-supported solution to overcome language barriers for consultations and exchange 

of medical documentation;

•   Consider hiring a care coordinator at the Valga hospital who could handle care pathways, 

information and communication issues for the Valka region inhabitants;

•   Explore the improvement of medical care practices and organisation, information exchange 

and communication between healthcare specialists in Latvia and Estonia; 

•   Improve the availability of information on the service structure and provision for inhabitants 

of the Valka region;

•   Continuously monitor the process and outcomes of the implemented actions in cooperation 

with the Riga Stradinas University (RSU) and its online research team.

162

Proposals related to Latvian healthcare organisation and provision include the following:

•   Create an additional payment scheme for Latvian service providers to cover the additional 
burden of costs associated with the service provision in remote areas with low population 
density; 

•   Evaluate the possibilities of increasing the productivity and cost-effectiveness of the services 
provided by the Valka polyclinic, including support for doctors’ general practices, nurses, 
and medical assistants;

•   Facilitate the creation of joint teams of general practitioners with shared medical equipment 

to ensure availability of the essential examinations; 

•   Foster the implementation of e-health solutions to improve accessibility of healthcare  

services (online consultations, telemedicine, etc.).  

Additional lessons learned from the process of implementation of this case solution

This stage of b-solutions identified and increased engagement towards a solution to the obstacle. 
During the process, it also became clear that the exploration of the full range of solutions  
associated with a coordinated approach to cross-border healthcare between Latvia and Estonia 
could be an ongoing process, and that there is both goodwill and mutual understanding of 
the challenges and opportunities. There is also enthusiasm amongst various stakeholders to con-
tinue this journey together. Final decisions to adopt recommended solutions depend on political 
will and also on an understanding of how the solutions in this case can actually demonstrate 
solutions to challenges experienced by both health systems. 

To support a solution, further recommendations include:

•   Early intervention and prevention, following the Integrated Care model of clinical care. This 
can provide earlier intervention, access to healthcare closer to home, and support clinical 
cooperation across institutions. As such, it is worth noting when considering the health of 
residents of the border region.

•   The specific opportunity for border regions to work with each other on models of comple-
mentarity which also provide innovation for health systems. In this regard, cross-border 
healthcare cooperation can offer significant inspiration to Member States’ health systems, 
and can also provide them with models of cross-border shared services. 

•   In the framework on b-solutions objective 2, a workshop was held on 14 March 2024 to bring 
together a wide range of stakeholders at the local, regional, cross-border and national levels, 
including healthcare organisations and professionals. The discussions were well-informed; all 
participants showed a desire to support the process of improving access to healthcare in the 
cross-border area and recognised potential constraints when resources are limited. 

•   During the workshop, it was agreed that a multi-stakeholder working group would be estab-
lished to advance the recommendations from the Riga Stradinas University report and to 
explore the potential for additional institutional cross-border healthcare collaboration in the 
region. The workshop acknowledged that establishing such a group would align with the key 
recommendations of the AEBR study ‘Cross Border Patient Mobility in Selected EU Regions’3, 
which was undertaken by DG SANTE as part of the European Commission’s evaluation of 
EU Directive 2011/24 on patient’s rights in cross-border healthcare4. The study makes a range 
of recommendations about stakeholder collaboration to improve the qualitative conditions 
in which patient mobility takes place, which include the establishment of multi-stakeholder 
‘collaboratives’ for greater evidence-informed cooperation. 

3 

4 

 European Commission: Cross Border Patient Mobility in Selected EU Regions (2022), accessible at https://health.
ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/crossborder_patient-mobility_frep_en.pdf; see Fig 4.2 for a full summary of 
recommendations.
 For an overview of Directive 2011/24/EU, please see https://health.ec.europa.eu/cross-border-healthcare/ 
overview_en.

163

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

 
It was also agreed that connection should be sought with the Interreg Estonia-Latvia programme5 
to explore whether additional healthcare cooperation in the region could be piloted, with the 
assistance of Interreg funding. The discussion of the case and its possible solutions created the 
opportunity to bring relevant stakeholders together with local democratically-elected representa-
tives of the municipalities, who also have a role to play in advocating for the needs of citizens 
within the framework of the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Local Self-Government6. 
Local senior healthcare leaders, both managerial and clinical, also participated and provided 
invaluable perspectives on opportunities to work together to improve patient care in the cross-
border region.

The benefits of the working group to be created include the promotion of collaborative multi-
level approaches beyond the straightforward issue of reimbursement for healthcare, which was 
the foundation of this case. The potential scope of cooperation that the group could explore 
could extend across a range of institutional, clinical, financial, and infrastructural areas relevant 
for future healthcare access in the region. The group could animate and provide a platform for 
a network of actors who are willing to cooperate in the long run towards improving the popu-
lation’s health. Finally, it can provide an important point of engagement for other healthcare 
actors at EU and national level, whose work is relevant for cross-border healthcare in the region, 
such as from the Latvian and Estonian health insurance funds who act as National Contact 
Points (NCP) for implementing and reporting on the EU Directive on patients’ rights in cross-
border healthcare (2011/24/EU). The input of the NCPs at the b-solutions workshop in Valga-
Valka was well-received and represented an important connection across workstreams relevant for 
patients in the cross-border area. The Estonian and Latvian NCPs are, at the time of publica-
tion, preparing to engage with regional cross-border stakeholders in a future event, which will 
see the formal launch of this working group later in 2024. 

At the time of this publication, AEBR continues to engage with stakeholders in the region on 
an ongoing basis.

Improved healthcare in the region

If implemented, these recommendations would make healthcare in the Valka region more inte-
grated, efficient, and accessible, ultimately benefiting the residents and all parties involved in 
healthcare provision and administration.

Residents of the region will enjoy enhanced access to a broader range of healthcare services at 
the Valga hospital. Moreover, improved care coordination and reduced language barriers will 
improve access to vital information about available healthcare services and support accessibility.
Healthcare providers on both sides of the border will be able to streamline processes and benefit 
from an improved data exchange between the two healthcare systems. They will also benefit 
from new collaboration and resource sharing opportunities. Developing models and pathways 
of integrated care between general practitioners (family doctors) in primary care and secondary 
care specialists will be possible, as well as shared approaches to investment in and utilisation of 
medical equipment.

The Latvian and Estonian NHSs and Ministries of Health will benefit from the resulting in-
creased productivity and cost-effectiveness of healthcare services, as well as from smoother and 
more efficient healthcare delivery.

Collaboration in healthcare in this cross-border region could also involve the exploration of 
cross-border shared services models. A key innovation in the current discourse and practice 

5  Https://estlat.eu/en.
6 

 The Charter, ratified in 1988, provides principles for self-government to local authorities. More information 
is available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/european-charter-of-local-self-
government#.

164

related to cross-border shared services in healthcare is the concept of the cross-border patient 
catchment as the basis of viable investments in shared healthcare facilities or services. 

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION

This case is an example of how the cross-border health cooperation agenda can deliver important 
benefits closer to citizens. Cross-border healthcare and shared services are important compo-
nents of the European project, and contribute to address regional disparities and release the full 
potential of border regions as living laboratories of innovation and European integration.  
Resilience of healthcare systems, including those in border regions, is crucial for recovery and 
stability, and to address the challenges that our health systems may face in the years ahead. 

This case, and the discussions it has stimulated, also point to how healthcare in border regions 
can be improved through multilevel cooperation among stakeholders. Ultimately, creating 
access to healthcare in border regions and improving the health outcomes of border region 
populations means that 30 % of the EU population will benefit from improved access to 
healthcare. Border regions and how they function will continue to be a key domain of EU 
cohesion and integration. The benefits for Member States of organising resources together in 
innovative ways for their shared border regions are considerable, and carry significant meaning 
for that large percentage of EU citizens who live in border regions. Healthcare is one such 
domain in which cross-border approaches to shared challenges can deliver significant outcomes 
for citizens. 

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/
system/files/ged/jaansoo_valga_
municipality.pdf

165

 
Financing cross-border pupils’ 
education

ADVISED ENTITY
Communauté de communes Pyrénées Haut-Garonnaises – France

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Petia Tzvetanova and Thibault Devillard, Mission Opérationelle Transfrontalière (MOT)

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Géraldine Bachoué-Pedrouzo

GOURDAN-
POLIGNAN

FRANCE

SAINT- 
BÉAT-LEZ

SPAIN

BAGNÈRES- 
DE-LUCHON

166

NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

The Community of Communes of the Haute Garonne Pyrenees territory (Communauté de 
Communes Pyrénées Haut-Garonnaises – CCPHG), located along the Garonne River in France, 
shares strong linguistic and cultural ties with the adjacent Val d’Aràn in Catalonia, Spain. The 
proximity of these regions has created functional interdependencies. In particular, access to 
local schools for children in the cross-border area is a strategic issue for the development of the 
CCPHG territory, as school closures could lead to population decline and reduced economic 
activity.

Yet, the enrolment of pupils residing in Spain and attending French schools is problematic due 
to the lack of a formal financial agreement between French and Spanish municipalities. In 
France, municipalities share financial responsibility for schools, according to Article L212-8 of 
the French Education Code1. However, no such mechanism exists for cross-border students; 
therefore the municipalities cannot adequately fund the schools in relation to such students. 
Informal donations from Spanish families have temporarily alleviated the issue, but this system 
is unsustainable, especially with increasing enrolment demands. A formal framework is needed 
to ensure continued access to education for cross-border students.

Cross-border cohesion through a shared schooling area and the promotion of languages 

The original case study recommends two solutions. First, French and Spanish border municipali-
ties could establish a conventional agreement to create an integrated cross-border schooling 
area. This agreement would allow children to enrol in schools across the border and include a 
financial compensation mechanism between the municipalities. Articles 2 and 4 of the Treaty 
of Bayonne2 could support this agreement and would ensure that Spanish authorities can enrol 
French children in Spanish primary schools and vice versa. A similar agreement for secondary 
schools could be made between the French national education services and the relevant Spanish 
authorities. This would provide reciprocal enrolment possibilities for students on both sides of 
the border.

The second solution involves developing cross-border projects that promote national and 
regional languages to strengthen mobility and multilingualism. This can be achieved through 
school exchange projects and by leveraging regional and European funding, such as the Erasmus+ 
programme. Although this does not directly resolve enrolment issues, it fosters cross-border 
cooperation and language learning, supported by academic authorities and cross-border actors 
like the Pyrenees-Mediterranean Euroregion.

IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

As a first step towards the implementation of the recommended solutions, a pilot document has 
been prepared. It presents new avenues for reflection, paying specific attention to the applicable 
legislation. The findings confirm that a cooperation agreement between the entities concerned 
on both sides of the border could address the obstacle. Such solution would regulate the arrange-
ments for enrolment and financial compensation for the schooling of Spanish children not 
residing in France. 

1 

2 

 Article L212-8 of the Education Code, Official Journal of the Republic of France of 7 August 2015. Accessible 
at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038901931.
 Treaty between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on transfrontier cooperation between territo-
rial communities, signed at Bayonne on 10 March 1995, United Nations Treaty Series No. 33640.

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

167

 
     
However, the analysis revealed that more is needed:

•   If no conventional agreement is finally adopted, it is necessary to evaluate whether the current 
law has been fully exploited. It is also important to consider if there are ways to improve the 
existing situation without a new convention.

•   If a conventional agreement is pursued, technical questions must be addressed. These include 
determining which authorities are competent to sign it and the desired level of cooperation 
or integration, based on the type of framework agreement.

Potential legal solutions for cross-territorial education

Building on the original report, the expert has assessed the impact that certain legal provisions 
from the French, Spanish, Catalan, Aranese, European or international legal order could have 
on the case. These provisions can be used to recognise territorial specificity, to enhance the right 
to cross-border schooling, and to establish or facilitate cross-border cooperation in education3. 

Based on these findings, the expert has derived a multi-step solution. This solution aims to 
achieve cross-border school exchanges, a specific cross-border cooperation, and a common 
cross-border school curriculum. The proposal envisages many steps, namely:

•   Concluding a framework agreement between the French Republic and the Kingdom of 

Spain to promote cross-border school exchanges in the Upper Garonne and Aranese territory. 
Such an inter-State agreement would be enabled by the Treaty of Barcelona’s Article 30(2)4, 
which supports cross-border school exchanges by promoting the creation and provision of 
common public services, including in education, and by Article 3 of the Madrid Framework 
Convention5. It would facilitate the participation of local authorities in cross-border school 
cooperation and provide a general framework for specific local agreements.

•   Establishing a cooperation agreement between relevant administrative entities, which can 
regulate enrolment and compensation. This model, as per Article 1 of the Additional Proto-
col to the Madrid Framework Convention6, promotes cross-border cooperation between 
schools and local authorities across national borders. It aims to foster robust pedagogical and 
linguistic cooperation. Local authorities would play a pivotal role in providing cultural 
guidance and material, financial, and human support. The agreement could initially focus on 
financing schooling for children from Val d’Aràn in schools within the Community of Pyrénées 
Haut-Garonnaises communes.

•   Local stakeholders could establish a cross-border school to enhance educational collabora-
tion. This initiative would be particularly beneficial in rural and mountainous areas where 
shared resources could optimise public spending. It would also foster a cohesive cross-border 
community based on common interests, culture, and languages. This initiative would involve 
the direct participation of local authorities, who would contribute complementary aid and 
support intercultural and bilingual pedagogy alongside the competent school authorities. 
The most ambitious option would establish a formally recognised cross-border school en-
dorsed by national ministries, which would require innovative bilingual education as well as 
substantial administrative and financial support from Member States.

3 

4 

5 

6 

 Refer to the Annex of the original report for a full legal assessment of the situation under objective 2, accessible 
at https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Annex-report-21_Financing-cross-border-pupils- 
education.pdf. 
 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain, signed  
19 January 2023 at Barcelona.
 European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, 
Madrid, 21.10.1980, European Treaty Series No. 160.
 Additional Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial 
Communities or Authorities, 09.11.1995 European Treaty Series – No. 159.

168

Collaboration for a joint future: From learning to action

To implement these opportunities and enact collaboration between the respective authorities, 
the expert puts forward clear actions. As a first step, the expert suggests setting up a working 
group or bilateral school cooperation council. This working group would include representatives 
from relevant authorities on both sides of the border (CCPHG, municipalities, schools, the 
French State, French authorities responsible for education, the General Council of Aràn, the 
Catalan Department of Education, and the Spanish State). The working group should focus on 
the following actions:

•   Identify Real Needs: Determine if the focus should be on financial compensation or pooling 

educational resources and curricula.  

•   Assess Collaboration Possibilities: Evaluate stakeholder readiness and willingness to invest 

in the initiative.

•   Formalise Collaboration: Decide on the type of agreement to adopt, i.e., facilitating cross-
border trade, organising financial arrangements for cross-border schooling, or setting up a 
cross-border curriculum. Key elements of the cooperation agreement include:

  –   Identifying signatories and local/regional authorities;
  –   Clear objectives and actions, with a timeline;
  –   Financial commitments in monetary, human resources, or equipment terms;
  –   Potential additional funding sources.
•   Seek Approval: Present the cooperation agreement and draft resolution to the municipal 
council of signatory municipalities, the community council of CCPHG, and the General 
Council of Aràn.

•   Conduct a Feasibility Study: If a cross-border curriculum is considered, compare the French 
and Catalan school systems, involving representatives from both sides. Study schooling or-
ganisation, curricula, timetables, and school calendars. Visit existing cross-border schools to 
learn about best practices.

•   Explore Alternative Solutions: If the idea of a cross-border school is too ambitious, use the 
Barcelona Treaty to develop bilingual and bicultural arrangements, such as ‘LabelFrancÉducation’ 
and international sections, ensuring robust language learning programmes.

•   Ensure Continuity of Schooling: Prioritise Spanish students who completed French elemen-
tary education for enrolment in French secondary schools, coordinating with secondary 
education stakeholders.

•   Seek Institutional and Civil Society Support: Engage with Euroregion Pyrenees-Mediterranean, 
the Public Office for the Occitan Language (Office public de la langue occitane), the Spanish 
Embassy’s Office for Education, parents’ associations, and Occitan language promotion groups.

•   Survey Financing Options: Assess financial contributions from potential signatories and 
explore additional funding. Utilise Erasmus+ for mobility projects and apply for Interreg 
funding from the POCTEFA programme7 for cross-border curriculum initiatives.

To further consolidate the solutions, the expert also indicates additional possibilities:

•   Formalise cooperation and establish a Governance Body: Form a steering committee and 
thematic workshops to oversee cross-border cooperation, prioritising school education within 
a broader strategic framework.

•   Develop a Strategic Reflection: Integrate cross-border schooling into a comprehensive strategy 
for cross-border public services, aligning with current and future European programming.

7 

 Https://www.poctefa.eu/.

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

169

 
A unified strategy – benefitting the many, not the few

A unified school strategy will be an advantage to the region at large, as a well-educated population 
can contribute to economic development and social cohesion in the border regions. Concrete 
benefits can be identified for various groups:

•   Students and families will gain improved access to more diverse and high-quality education 
that pools resources and expertise from both sides of the border. The agreement would secure 
continuity in education for students who may need to cross borders, ensuring a smooth 
transition and consistent educational standards.

•   Schools will be able to share educational resources, curricula, and best practices, improving 

teaching and learning experiences.

•   Educators can benefit from professional development opportunities and collaborative projects 

with their counterparts across the border.

•   Local and Regional Authorities will benefit from improved cross-border cooperation, leading 
to more efficient use of resources and better educational outcomes. Joint financial arrange-
ments and pooling of resources could lead to cost savings and more effective use of funding.
•   Community ties can be strengthened through cross-border educational initiatives, as they 

foster a sense of shared identity and cooperation.

Ultimately, the implemented strategy will ease the lives of residents and businesses within the 
cross-border region. It will foster common values and shared identity, address the complexities of 
managing shared resources and spaces, and enhance excellence within the cross-border territory.

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION 

Cross-border educational access for children and young people is the bedrock of any cross-border 
region’s future competitiveness, cohesion and opportunities. Diversity and multilingualism lie 
at the heart of the European project and its economy. This is also the case for creative and em-
powering approaches to these issues in the natural intercultural context provided by border 
regions.

Educating children across borders and cultural boundaries brings about a significant added 
value for European social cohesion. Border regions benefit from the additional social capital and 
skill set for innovation, which lie in intercultural competency and multilingualism. Ensuring 
these in future cross-border regional workforces is key to European competitiveness, across the 
single market and also on a global stage. Integrating skills, culture and communities across 
borders provides strength for the European project. 

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/Report_21.pdf

170

     
Perceived border obstacles linked to 
wood construction 

ADVISED ENTITY
Svinesundskommittén/Svinesundskomiteen (Svinesund Committee) – Norway-Sweden

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Kjell Nilsson 

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Kjell Nilsson 

NORWAY

SWEDEN

Oslo

Göteborg

Stockholm

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

171

 
NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

The Svinesund Committee1 is a cross-border cooperation committee established between the 
Norwegian region of Viken fylkeskommune and the Swedish region of Västra Götalandsregionen. 
Its purpose is to foster political collaboration to create work and development opportunities. 
The committee involves seven Swedish and seven Norwegian municipalities, as well as the regions 
of Viken and Västra Götaland, and operates on behalf of its members and the Nordic Council 
of Ministers. 

Under its Interreg project ‘Green growth wood – rethinking wood’2, the Svinesund Committee 
has focused on promoting the use of wood in the construction sector, as an environmentally 
friendly and climate-neutral material. In addition, both Norway and Sweden have strong wood 
construction traditions, and wood production and the growth of wood markets are key for a 
green transition across the member countries of the Nordic Council of Ministers, as well as  for 
the European Union as a whole.    

However, differing building regulations and requirements for wood construction in relation to 
planning and building in Norway3 and Sweden4 complicate cross-border trade and business 
opportunities. These differences hinder regional integration and create additional resource-
related burdens on the sector. The main barriers include:

•   A lack of information and limited access to essential details about construction sector 

regulations and requirements for wood products in the context of country-specific building 
regulations. As a result, it is difficult for Swedish entrepreneurs to submit tenders in Norway.     

•   Differing administrative procedures and regulatory requirements create confusion for 
those attempting cross-border business or wishing to procure wood construction products 
and related services on a cross-border basis. It is challenging to determine applicable rules on 
transport, certificates, professional requirements, and labour laws, since authorities in each 
country often interpret the rules differently.     

•   Informal networks and differing work cultures in each country make mutual coordination 

difficult, despite some adaptation by companies and operations.

Towards a common market for wood construction through harmonisation and informa-
tion access

The original b-solutions case study recommended a roadmap arranged in three work packages:

Work Package 1: Harmonise building regulations across Nordic countries5     
This work package would be led and facilitated by the Nordic Council of Ministers through its 
research institute Nordregio. It involves setting up the following task forces, with each including 
national authority representatives, legal experts, and relevant industry and organisational stake-
holders:

•   Accessibility and Universal Design
•   Eurocodes, Dimensioning, Construction Product Regulations (CPR)
•   Energy, Isolation, Carbon Emissions, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
•   Fire Protection, Safety, Worker Protection
•   Hygiene and Health Aspects (noise, daylight, ventilation, radon)

1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

 For more information, see https://svinesundskommitten.com/en/. 
 In Swedish, Grön Tillväxt – Trä, accessible (in Swedish and Norwegian) at https://www.interreg-sverige-
norge-2014-2020.com/?portfolio=6865. 
 Act of 27 June 2008 No. 71 relating to Planning and the Processing of Building Applications (Planning and 
Building Act). Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71.
 Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Svensk författningssamling (SFS) 2010:900. Available at: https://www.
riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/plan--och-bygglag-2010900_sfs-2010-900.
 The expert emphasised the importance of moving beyond the bilateral focus and including all Nordic countries 
in this process.

172

  
This two-year work package would commence with a detailed survey assessing the countries’ 
regulatory differences. National experts would then create an evidence-based recommendation, 
which, after task force approval, would be submitted to the Council of Ministers for Regional 
Policy. 

Work Package 2: Establish a common Nordic Information Portal for Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises (SMEs)
A common portal, established at Info Norden6, the information service of the Nordic Council 
of Ministers, would supplement existing portals like Øresunddirekt7 and Grensetjänsten8. The 
portal would provide information on recruitment, trade, and business set-up rules in other 
Nordic countries, including administrative procedures and relevant forms.

Work Package 3: Enhance support for SMEs in border regions to stimulate regional inte-
gration
This package proposed strengthening the Norway-Sweden border service’s cooperation with 
existing cross-border committees, and conducting pilot projects with SMEs and large companies 
from both countries to enhance resources and tackle border barriers. 

IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

In an initial phase of the implementation, a strategic roundtable workshop was held in Oslo  
in March 2023. This was planned and held with the involvement of the Nordic Council of 
Ministers. The workshop included delegates from all of the countries which are members of  
the Nordic Council of Ministers. While the case study and its recommendations focused on 
Sweden and Norway, the discussions highlighted the added value of harmonising building  
regulations and wood trade regulations for the entire Nordic region.     

Participants discussed the economic benefits of removing barriers to wood trade for the con-
struction industry, and the positive impact on the built environment agenda in all member 
countries. The discussions also covered the technical aspects of a harmonisation process, identi-
fying next steps. There was a general consensus to continue focusing on harmonising wood 
construction regulations, following the model and options identified through b-solutions. 

The recommendations from the original report were upheld in discussions at the roundtable. 
Since the roundtable in Oslo in 2023, the sponsor organisation and other stakeholders have 
advanced discussions on the issue and expanded the range of stakeholder organisations involved. 
In addition, they have published information on the case in technical journals across the 
Nordic countries. They will pursue further actions to advance the opportunities highlighted by 
this case for the Nordic and EU economies.     

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION 

This case highlights the relevance of cooperation between Member States to maximise the  
benefits of the EU single market, and the added value of the European Economic Area. It 
represents a model of positive economic cooperation on an external EU border. Harmonising 
construction wood trade regulations across Sweden, Norway and other Nordic Council 
countries provides a strong enabler for a shift to sustainable construction, and stimulates a value 
chain of skills, knowledge, and economic ecosystems. 

 Https://www.norden.org/en/info-norden. 
 Https://www.oresunddirekt.dk/dk.

6 
7 
8  Https://www.grensetjansten.com.

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

173

 
 
This shift will not only benefit the construction economy in the Nordic region, but also has a 
positive impact on the European context: 

•   First, it demonstrates how Member States, working in macro-regions of Europe, can model 

ways of delivering competitiveness and smart economic growth.       

•   Second, the case suggests how scaling the productive capacity of a macro-region (in this case, 
for wood as a sustainable construction material) can help to supply other markets, in the  
EU and among the countries of the European Economic Area (EEA), with the necessary 
means or products for a significant shift, such as the green transition.  

This case indicates how to harmonise laws between Member States, and therefore remove trade 
barriers to cross-border markets. In turn, harmonisation in the wood construction sector would 
help grow a market for sustainable products across borders. Lastly, the implementation of the 
solution would add value to the competitiveness of SMEs in border regions as well as benefit 
the EU Single Market and the European Economic Area.

The case also has important implications for the growth of cross-border labour markets and 
the labour mobility, enhancing the overall impact of national economic growth for individual 
Member States.

Ultimately, this case is relevant for the EU priority of a Greener Europe, for cross-border  
economic cooperation on internal and external EU borders, and to bring Europe closer to its 
citizens by creating economic systems which benefit everyone, including those in border  
regions.

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/Report_40.pdf

174

Tour guide practice and their activity 
on both sides of the Hungarian and 
Croatian border 

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Mura Region – Croatia-Hungary 

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Norbert Jankai and Gyula Ocskay, Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI)

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Katalin Fekete and Norbert Jankai, the Central European Service for Cross-border Initiatives (CESCI)

SLOVENIA

MURA RIVER

Bánokszentgyörgy

HUNGARY

Bázakerettye

Kerkaszentkirály

Muraszemenye

Kistolmács

Valkonya

Eszteregnye

Zajk

Murarátka
Letenye

Rigyác

Petrivente

Szepetnek

Tótszerdahely

Tótszentmárton

Semjénháza

Domašinec

Goričan

Molnári

Donji Kraljevec

Fityeház

Orehovica

Prelog

Sveta Marija

Kotoriba

Murakeresztúr

Donja 
Dubrava

Donji 
Vidovec

Legrad

CROATIA

Ludbreg

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

175

 
NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case, supported by experts from the Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives 
(CESCI), addresses regulatory obstacles which can be tackled through institutional cooperation 
in relation to the accreditation of tour guides in the water sport segment of a growing green 
economy in the Hungarian-Croatian border area. 

The Mura River area is rich in natural resources and has been a UNESCO Biodiversity Reserve 
with additional protection since September 2022. It offers significant ecotourism opportunities, 
particularly through kayak and canoe tours on the rivers, which can drive sustainable economic 
development. As such, tour guiding in the region will foster an important section of an emerging 
regional economy which has a strong sustainability and green transition element. 

However, this region faces challenges in fully exploiting its tourism potential due to regulatory 
discrepancies. 

•   The authorisation process to develop water tourism activities is complex due to the river area’s 
transboundary nature, and especially the external Schengen border situation of the river at 
the time of first report1. Additionally, the lack of harmonised regulations on river tourism 
and information regarding the different rules makes it difficult for tour operators to comply 
with both legislations. Although Hungary2 and Croatia3 have national regulations for these 
activities, they are often incomplete and under the purview of various legislative authorities, 
requiring both updating and improved integration. This lack of a coordinated regulatory 
framework is mainly related to the training system and authorisation procedures for water 
tourism tour guides, as trainings vary greatly and certificates of qualifications are not mutually 
recognised by the two countries. Moreover, it complicates liability issues for water tour  
operators. For instance, current laws such as the Hungarian Navigational Code do not clearly 
define the liability of tour operators, leading to frequent lawsuits related to water tourism 
accidents in Europe.

•   Additionally, constant changes of the border lines in the river due to natural movements of 
the riverbed can complicate safe travel, tourism and environmental preservation, despite the 
region’s protected status and growing tourism interest.

•   The fast-flowing Mura River and the variable conditions of the Drava River, including sudden 
water level changes due to hydroelectric operations and the presence of dangerous driftwood, 
create significant risks for boating and bathing, necessitating local knowledge for safe naviga-
tion. 

There is an urgent need for clear regulations, standardised training requirements, and validated 
quality assurance systems. Establishing uniform rules for cross-border tour operators would 
greatly benefit the local tourism economy. However, existing legal and administrative obstacles 
must first be identified and removed. The experts identified three obstacle clusters:   

1)  Gaps in training and the lack of recognition of qualifications between Hungary and Croatia;     
2)  Legal and administrative differences between the Croatian and the Hungarian procedures 

for licence acquisition;

3)  Differences in the conservation of nature and diverging procedures to request permission to 

organise activities in a protected natural area.

For each cluster, the experts proposed the following possible case study recommendations in 
order to address them. 

1 

2 
3 

 Croatia was not part of the Schengen area at the time the original report was written (2021). However, Croatia 
joined the Schengen area on 1 January 2023.
 Decree 57/2011. (XI. 22.) NFM on the rules of transport by water.
 Law on Inland Navigation and Ports of October 2007, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, 71-05-03 / 
1-07-2. 

176

     
  
Harmonisation steps towards sustainable river tourism 

Solutions identified to address the lack of appropriate training and cross-border recognition of 
qualifications were as follows:

•   The Hungarian Canoe Federation4 could help align the different Hungarian and Croatian 

training systems. Differences can be compensated by cooperating between the Chambers of 
Commerce and Industry and becoming mutually familiar with the national trainings;

•   Trainings could be included in the respective professional training registries. Alternatively,  

a framework for a joint agreement on cross-border training could be formulated.

Potential solutions identified to address bureaucratic ambiguities and to enable a culture of 
improved collaboration were as follows:

•   Applying special rules for border rivers in both countries to facilitate cross-border water tour-

ism and to clarify and define the relevant procedures;

•  Reassessing and facilitating permit provisions, from seasonal to permanent options;
•   Reducing restrictive bureaucratic rules related to water hikers, and develop a one-stop-shop 

for law enforcement, nature conservation and water management procedures;

•  Establishing a common procedural system for licence acquisition;
•   Strengthening working relationships between authorities through workshops by the joint 

committee.

Potential solutions aimed at addressing nature conservation aspects with a vision for the future 
included a focus on:

•   Reinforcing the application of nature conservation requirements by deepening engagement 
of the Hungarian Green Authority, the National Park, and the involvement of additional 
authorities of other countries of the Mura Biosphere Reserve;

•   Integrating a more even territorial distribution in planning processes to minimise impact on 

the biosphere.

These two solutions on nature conservation were not developed within the scope of objective 2. 

IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

To address the recommendations identified in the original report, the experts have prioritised 
two solution areas: addressing the safety of river tourists, tour organisers and trainers, and the 
creation of unified rules. A multistakeholder roundtable in October 2023 addressed these 
concerns.            

The CESCI experts propose adopting the ELESA model (European Learning Syllabus for 
Outdoor Animators) to create uniform training conditions which clearly define the legal 
basis for professional guided tours. ELESA is an extensive initiative derived from two previous 
projects on vocational and higher educational training in the outdoors: the European Qualifi-
cation Framework for Outdoor Animators (EQFOA)5 and ‘Professionalising training and mobility 
for outdoor animators in Europe, bridging the gap between sector competences and learning 
outcomes’ (CLO2)6 projects. Over 17 years, ELESA has facilitated the EU-level harmonisation 
of secondary outdoor training across 16 countries, including Hungary. 

4 
5 

6 

 Https://kajakkenusport.hu/.
 The EQFOA project was funded by the European Union and implemented from 2006 to 2008. It focussed 
mainly on the description of the functions of and the competences required by an ‘Outdoor Animator’.  
As one of its outcomes, it created a Competence Framework. For more information, see https://epale.
ec.europa.eu/en/resource-centre/content/elesa-european-learning-syllabus-outdoor-animators.
 The CLO2 project was funded by the European Union and implemented from 2008 to 2010 with the key 
objective to refine the Competence Framework developed during the previous EQFOA project. For  more 
information, see https://ec-oe.eu/ec-oe-home/ec-oe-projects/clo2/.

177

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

 
This training concept, available in eight languages, offers a solution to be applied across borders, 
with significant contributions from recreational professionals, trainers, decision-makers, and 
market participants. It offers a special training programme for professional outdoor animators, 
focusing on three main market aspects: entertainment, safety, and technical performance.

The curriculum comprises 12 modules and is aligned with the European Qualifications Frame-
work (EQF) at Level 5, ensuring comprehensive training in both soft and technical skills.  
The ELESA project addresses sector-specific gaps and obstacles in the European outdoor 
sector, providing higher training standards than the current regulations. Sport federations and 
Member States can adopt the modules, ensuring a harmonised approach to outdoor animator 
training. During a professional workshop organised by CESCI on 11 October 2023 in Tótszer-
dahely, Hungary, Croatian and Hungarian tour guides and training providers expressed their 
willingness to join the ELESA project, affirming its applicability and suitability.

The experts derived a set of policy recommendations from the research and roundtable  
outcomes:

•   Define minimum competence standards and adapt existing training courses accordingly;
•   Define safety conditions to serve as a training foundation;
•   Align national regulations with ELESA modules to achieve harmonisation;
•   Provide ELESA certification for tour guides in both countries and enact mechanisms for 

previous graduates to receive certification of their education/degree;

•   Put in place a minimum standard for knowledge assessment.

CESCI experts have also defined a number of policy propositions for minimum standards 
for water tour guides:

•   Introduce a standardised first aid training;
•   Clarify liability and quality assurance ambiguities;
•   Identify training institutions; 
•   Establish minimum standards, including quality measures, maintenance schedules and  

authorisation for usable equipment;

•   Integration of all measures in the Hungarian Navigational Code. 

Implementing these recommendations would result in a harmonised and coordinated accredited 
training system for water tour guides on the Croatian- Hungarian border. To embed this solution, 
supported by b-solutions, legislators and training organisers should cooperate. They need to 
formulate and implement the policy advice and, consequently, enable an interoperable training 
system. This includes setting minimum standards and common training principles, as well  
as clear regulations for personal safety and liability issues. 

Navigating safety on the Mura River – a great win for all stakeholders

Implementing the expert recommendations will benefit multiple stakeholders, including:

•   The tourism industry overall will offer safer and more reliable services through the  
enhanced training standards. Harmonised regulations will simplify cross-border tour  
operations. This might ultimately foster growth across the sector.     

•   Tourists will enjoy safer water tours led by certified guides.
•   Training institutions will benefit from adopting the ELESA models by gaining a clear 

framework for curriculum development, enhancing their reputation through standardised, 
high-quality training programmes.     

•   Water tour guides and organisers will receive standardised, high-quality training, improving 
their skills and knowledge, whilst the ELESA-based certification will enhance their employ-
ability. 

178

All of these measures may potentially lead to overall growth in tourism, thus stimulating the 
local economy in the border region. 

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION

This case supports two Cohesion Policy priorities: a Greener Europe and a Europe closer to 
citizens. The solution represents a deepening of a single market for skills, which is the neces-
sary ‘other side of the coin’ to the EU Single Market for goods and services. It models measures 
to build a cross-border workforce, which supports a major segment of the regional economy 
focused on sustainable tourism and the just transition. In creating more economic opportuni-
ties for citizens in the border region, the solution brings the economic benefits of Europe clos-
er to ordinary citizens. It helps build a sustainable economy, where SME development and rural 
innovation can thrive.
The case also shows how neighbouring Member States can work together to release the full 
potential of not only natural tourism assets, but of a latent sectoral workforce which is cross-
border by nature, thus benefitting both Member States in equal measure. It also highlights the 
region’s offerings to the international sustainable tourism market. 

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/Report_28.pdf

179

 
 
Analysis of legislative borders in 
employment, especially in the  
agricultural field 

ADVISED ENTITY
Gate to Europe European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) – Hungary-Romania 

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Norbert Jankai, Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI)

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Katalin Fekete and Norbert Jankai, Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI)

Újfehértó

HUNGARY

Hajdúhadház

Nyíradony

Carei

Valea lui Mihai

Cherechiu

Săcueni

ROMANIA

Derecske

180

NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case addresses institutional cooperation obstacles in the territory of the Gate to Europe 
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), including 35 local authorities situated 
along the Romanian-Hungarian border. This region, characterised by small cities and villages, 
relies heavily on agriculture. Each side specialises in distinct agri-food products: the Hungarian 
side in vegetables and Romania in fruit, especially in the Érmellék area, renowned for its wine. 

Despite supportive EU regulations and simplified rules for small-scale farmers, there are no      
standard rules across the EU in this regard. The challenge for regional border economies is the 
lack of regulatory harmonisation of this market between Member States. Cross-border direct 
sales of small-scale food are not legally carried out yet due to the non-harmonised procedures 
between Member States focusing on the protection of products originating in-country. Several 
legal and administrative obstacles hinder the agricultural economy and cross-border coopera-
tion in the Gate to Europe EGTC region, such as the following:

•   Varying national regulations apply to farmers from the opposite side of the border1, 
making the border-crossing process and the trade of local products difficult to navigate. 
Farmers often lack information on the required documents, facing different demands from 
border authorities and the National Tax Office representatives. 

•   Obtaining trading permits involves navigating distinct and complex regulations in both 

countries, further complicating agricultural trade. 

•   Language barriers add another difficulty, particularly for Hungarian citizens. Although 
many people in the Romanian territories of the Gate to Europe EGTC are bilingual, the 
language gap remains a significant obstacle.

Overcoming regulatory hurdles – supporting local farmers in the border region
The experts recommended addressing these issues through harmonised regulations and im-
proved communication to enhance economic opportunities and foster better cross-border rela-
tions. They propose to:

•   Establish bilateral agreements for local products in line with EU harmonisation rules and 

align national legal schemes accordingly; 

•   Modify legislation to reduce transport and tax barriers, ensuring compliance with EU 

harmonisation rules, and conduct impact assessments;

•   Establish corporate enterprises or involve local enterprises to minimise tax risks and 
manage economic relations more effectively, reducing bureaucratic obstacles for local 
farmers;

•   Address areas such as taxes and legal requirements in the Member State where the product 

originates, to avoid financial and bureaucratic obstacles; 

•   Propose efficient cross-border marketing procedures based on a comparative analysis of 

regulations and sales processes;

•   Distribute informative leaflets and host thematic workshops to facilitate knowledge  

exchange and legal understanding of cross-border administrative issues;

•   Develop a regulatory framework for local product sales in border areas to address differing 

terms for placing goods on the market;

•   Lobby for expanded EU support and preferential borrowing to increase production efficiency 

and attract local farmers.

1 

 Refer to the original report for a detailed legal analysis of European and national legislations, https://www.aebr.
eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Report_29.pdf.

181

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

 
IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

Building on the recommendations laid out in the original report, the experts ran an online 
consultation process, involving Hungarian and Romanian LEADER2 group representatives 
and subject matter experts. This process included mapping relevant Hungarian, Romanian, 
and EU legislation and gathering stakeholder opinions. Moreover, an expert workshop titled 
‘Local products, sustainable and resilient territorial food systems and cross-border cooperation’ 
was organised on 23 May 2023. The workshop highlighted the need to activate local political 
advocacy to bring intergovernmental attention to the issue. From these gatherings, the experts 
have proposed a roadmap that allows for harmonisation between countries and sectors, linking 
the skills and competences of the stakeholders concerned.

As a first step, the experts have identified a suitable regulatory framework for harmonisation-
oriented advocacy activities. Hungary and Romania operate a Joint Economic Committee 
(JEC) under an international agreement3, aimed at promoting long-term cooperation in agri-
culture and food processing. The agreement encourages broadening and deepening cooperation 
by strengthening links between economic decision-makers, government institutions, professional 
organisations, and chambers. The JEC meetings involve representatives from the competent 
ministries and can include local and regional authorities, ensuring comprehensive stakeholder 
representation. Both countries follow a shared legal basis in food hygiene, given that both have 
adopted national legislation in the field of food hygiene in accordance with Regulation (EC) 
No 852/20044 and Regulation (EC) No 853/20045. This facilitates mutual recognition of regu-
lations. 

Regional actors can initiate a JEC meeting through a Declaration of Intent sent to the Hungarian 
and Romanian co-chairs of the committee. The experts have prepared a Declaration proposition 
in Hungarian, Romanian, and English in order to facilitate this6. The declaration reinforces 
the intentions expressed by both countries to strengthen the local agricultural market. It 
includes concrete intentions expressed by both parties, such as:

•  Collaborate to support sustainable smallholder and traditional food systems;
•  Develop a direct marketing scheme for registered local products on a cross-border basis;
•   Support the cooperation of LEADER groups on both sides of the border with common 

funding for their joint strategy;

•   Include the item on specific national legislation in the agenda of the next Hungarian-Romanian 
Joint Economic Committee meeting, inviting relevant agricultural legislative departments;

•  Examine the interoperability of the regulatory issues;
•  Discuss the proposed solutions to the administrative obstacles;
•   Agree on the role of an intermediary organisation responsible for marketing local products in 

the border region.

Once the Declaration is adopted by the co-chairs, a recommendation for the legal amendments 
can be submitted for inclusion in the JEC’s agenda. The experts suggest the following amendments 
and have provided a comprehensive letter of recommendation in Hungarian, Romanian, and 
English:

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

 LEADER is a method to enhance local development to engage local actors in the design and delivery of strate-
gies, decision-making and resource allocation for the development of their rural areas. For more information, 
see https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/leader-clld_en.html.
 Agreement on economic co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Govern-
ment of Romania, Budapest on April 26 of 2005.
 Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the 
hygiene of foodstuffs, OJ L 139, 30.04.2004, p. 1–54.
 Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down 
specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, OJ L 139, 30.04.2004, p. 55–205.
 Refer to the Implementation Report for the full text of the declaration.

182

•   Mutual acceptance of official certificates: both countries would recognise one another’s  

certificates and registers of local producers, ensuring product traceability;

•   Establishment of a single exemption category for producers: application of uniform reduced 

VAT rates and exemption categories for local product supplies;

•  Mutual recognition of public health rules for market sales and of market operator registers;
•   Reduction of administrative barriers: provide online bilingual information to consumers and 

producers, and access to bilingual forms and registers.

Key lessons from strategy towards implementation of the solution

Many solutions require specific political commitments and ratification in order to become 
common practices in a cross-border region. However, this case has indicated that existing 
mechanisms or provisions (such as, in this case, the JEC) can sometimes allow for resolution of 
the obstacle within existing and established governance processes for cross-border cooperation 
and development. These mechanisms can be deployed in tandem in neighbouring Member States. 

Harmonising cross-border local farming – a benefit for all

The proposed Joint Political Declaration will benefit multiple stakeholders in the Romanian-
Hungarian border region:

•   Local and Regional Economies: The support for local food systems will stimulate economic 
growth in the border area by creating jobs and fostering regional income through shorter 
distribution channels and local spending.

•   Farmers and Producers: Smallholder farmers and traditional producers will benefit from 
simplified marketing conditions, mutual recognition of official certificates, reduced VAT 
rates, and fewer administrative barriers, enhancing their ability to trade across borders.

•   Consumers: Regional consumers will gain access to healthy, locally-produced food, strengthening 

food self-sufficiency and fostering trust between producers and consumers.

•   Local and Regional Authorities: These entities will receive support in developing cross-

border marketing and sustainable food systems, aiding the sustainable development of the 
rural economy.

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION 

Any solution which allows for small farmers and SMEs in border regions to access the benefits of 
an EU single market is in fact also bringing the benefits of a Europe closer to citizens, which is 
a key priority of Cohesion Policy. Furthermore, this case also relates to sustainable and small-scale 
food production systems, thus proving relevant to food security as well as the objective of a 
Greener Europe.

This solution addresses barriers to economic development in a border region and demonstrates 
the key role of Member States in creating national regulatory frameworks that consider the 
practical needs of border regions. This is particularly relevant in regions where the movement of 
goods, services, people, and skills has historically been cross-border. 

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/Report_29.pdf

183

 
GO! Borderless Square 

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation GO – Italy-Slovenia 

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Mitja Ozbič 

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Mitja Ozbič 

NOVA 
GORICA

BELGIUM

GORIZIA

SLOVENIA

ITALY

FRANCE

ŠEMPETER -
VRTOJBA

184

NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case addresses institutional cooperation obstacles in the cross-border region between Italy 
and Slovenia, aiming to overcome challenges for the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) 
2025, awarded to the twin cities of Gorizia in Italy and Nova Gorica in Slovenia. The initiative’s 
centrepiece is piazza Transalpina/Trg Evrope (‘Europe Square’), symbolising collaboration 
between the two municipalities and EU member states. The square, straddling the Italy-Slovenia 
border, necessitates navigating different administrative procedures and legal requirements 
for events, leading to confusion and increased administrative burdens. Coordination among local 
authorities is therefore essential. 

Safety and technical regulations – the bottlenecks for sharing the square

The primary obstacle in organising cross-border events between Italy and Slovenia involves 
national safety and technical regulations, such as health and fire safety, structural requirements 
for stages, and public safety. While local authorities manage permits for commercial activities 
and public space use, national laws govern critical aspects such as security services and stage 
construction, limiting the ability to apply or modify regulations from the other country. Dual 
administrative requirements are complex and time-consuming, posing a major hurdle for event 
organisers, particularly smaller associations and nonprofits. Organisers must navigate different 
rules for traffic management, permits, noise levels, emergency services, fire safety, structural 
safety, copyright issues, and security. Digital identification issues further complicate interactions: 
the Slovenian state portal for public administration services, e-uprava, recognises Italian identity 
cards for online identification, but Italy’s online state portal SUAP (One-stop shop – Sportello 
Unico per le Attività Produttive) does not accept Slovenian identification. Language barriers also 
pose challenges, as documentation and websites are only in the official languages of each respective 
country, which affects the Slovenian minority in Italy and Italian organisers dealing with Slovenian 
authorities, resulting in obstacles for cultural institutions and promoters. 

European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) GO1, together with the municipalities 
of Nova Gorica and Gorizia, identified a five-step plan to streamline administrative process-
es for events on the border square, each varying in complexity and implementation time:

1   A bilingual handbook with links to all relevant public offices and webpages needed for event 

organisation shall be formulated. 

2   A software tool to resolve e-identification challenges, to be integrated into the EGTC GO 

website as of 2023 to send event data to national systems.  

3   Standard administrative packages shall be created, including pre-selected, verified services 

(e.g., security, emergency health units) to simplify processes, adhering to Directive 2014/24/
EU2 for joint procurement by municipalities.

4   Using public tenders through EGTC GO shall facilitate annual public event organising 

within the ECOC 2025 timeframe.

5   The ideal, though most challenging solution, is to establish a dedicated legal zone for the 
square, managed by EGTC GO, addressing differing technical and security regulations. 

1  Https://euro-go.eu/en/.
2 

 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public  
procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance, Official Journal L 94, 28.3.2014, 
p. 65–242.

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

185

 
IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

Weighing up existing deadlines, four final implementation steps have been prioritised: 

•   Implement the second solution by creating a single web page, aligned with the Slovenian 

e-uprava and Italian SUAP pages. This involves participating in meetings to evaluate feasibility 
and select the best option.

•   Implement the third solution by developing pre-prepared administrative cross-border 
packages. This includes attending meetings, consulting with relevant authorities, and pro-
ducing necessary documentation, such as various “management packs” tailored to event sizes.

•   Implement the fourth solution involving time-limited concessions for the square. This 

requires attending meetings, exploring feasibility with authorities, and preparing documenta-
tion to assist in setting up the first annual tender process for one-day or multi-day events.
•   Implement the fifth solution by defining a roadmap for the special legal zone. This involves 
exploring solutions, such as developing a joint international protocol for events and activities 
on the European market, establishing a uniform procedure and legislation.

In preparation for implementing the solutions as outlined above, a number of activities have 
been undertaken in a concerted effort to navigate the intricate regulatory landscapes and foster 
effective cross-border cooperation for upcoming events. 

•   On 31 January 2023, a meeting was held with the Municipality of Nova Gorica and the 

public company responsible for authorising events on public spaces, Mestne storitve d.o.o.3, 
to discuss mandatory procedures for organising events on the shared square. The meeting 
focused on coordinating activities between administrations, reviewing proposed solutions 
outlined in the first report, and addressing implementation challenges.

•   Throughout April and May 2023, individual and joint coordination meetings took place 

with technical experts, the EGTC, and the Italian local work security department responsible 
for overseeing events on the square.

•   On 8 June 2023, a meeting was held with two technical experts to discuss their comparative 

analysis of technical aspects related to event organisation on the border.

•   Coordination efforts were made in June 2023 to discuss Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedures 
INL 2022/21944, with recommendations to the Commission on amending proposed 
mechanisms for resolving legal and administrative obstacles in cross-border contexts. 
Legislation similar to the proposed ‘European Cross-Border Mechanism – ECBM’5 was 
deemed as particularly useful for the case by the expert, who therefore examined its potential 
impact on the organisation of the event if implemented.

Notably, two technical experts have conducted a regulatory and factual analysis. A schematic 
analysis contains the key requirements to be considered for the organisation of cross-border 
events. A second analysis details 17 types of standard events that commonly occur on the 
square and are planned for the future, particularly for the European Capital of Culture 2025 in 

3 
4 

5 

 Http://www.mestne-storitve.si/ (website only accessible in Slovenian).
 European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2023 with recommendations to the Commission on 
amending the proposed mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context 
(2022/2194(INL)). 
 The European Cross-Border Mechanism (‘Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND OF THE COUNCIL on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border 
context’ (COM/2018/373 final) of 29 May 2018 is accessible at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=COM:2018:373:FIN) is a legislative proposal launched by the European Commission in 2018 in 
an effort to foster the solution of legal and administrative obstacles hindering cross-border cooperation. The 
initial proposal was amended by the European Parliament in September 2023 with a counter-proposal (see 
footnote 4). In December 2023, the European Commission has presented a new proposal for a ‘Regulation 
on Facilitating Cross-Border Solutions’ (‘Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in 
a cross-border context’ (COM(2023) 790 final) of 12 December 2023 is accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/sources/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/proposal-facilitating-cross-border-solutions_
en.pdf ). More information on the proposal can be read in the compendium’s conclusions.

186

Nova Gorica – Gorizia. These events are analysed based on seven parameters, including the 
number of participants/spectators, road closings on both sides of the border, administration of 
food and drinks, fixed sustainable structures, sound and visuals, and standard duration of the 
events. 

The analysis produced a detailed description of all regulations and compliance procedures 
for organising events on the borderless square. 

In response to the insights gained from this process, the initial proposals outlined in the first 
report have undergone significant adjustments during the implementation phase. Four steps 
were taken to facilitate the organisation of cross-border events on the square: 

1   Creation of bilingual instructions for event organisers, which were subsequently published 

on the EGTC website and shared with relevant public institutions. The instructions have been 
successfully translated into both languages, aiding event organisers. 

2   Software innovation: To overcome software challenges related to the acceptance of identification 
of each country, the EGTC GO website now facilitates data entry per national rules into 
both managing systems: e-uprava and SUAP. The EGTC is now engaged in a public tender 
process to develop the webpage for the ECOC event with the objective of including the same 
functionality.  

3   Creation of a special legal zone: A special legal zone would allow for unified regulations for 
event organisers. Under a similar proposal, event organisers or service providers could, for 
example, adhere to their respective national regulations, irrespective of where specific event 
components occur or services are rendered within the defined borderless square area. The 
idea of a special legal zone is based on the European Commission’s proposal for the European 
Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) of 20186, a proposal that the experts involved sought to 
support. The expert has prepared a set of rules based on the Treaty of Osimo of 19757 and a 
proposal for its creation was sent to stakeholders (Region Friuli Venezia Giulia and the Slovenian 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs), requesting to replicate duty-free zone principles to simplify 
regulatory compliance across the square. 

Notably, some of the solutions aimed for in the original proposal could not be implemented; 
for example, the recommended preparation of administrative packages with pre-selected, veri-
fied services tailored to different event aspects. Due to procedural complexities and resource 
constraints within public administrations, this solution has not been further developed. Simi-
larly, the solution to hold an annual tender for the use of public spaces on the square could not 
be implemented due to the time constraint, due to staffing shortages and the need for a legisla-
tive act to transfer the necessary mandate. The tender would have helped by using a straightfor-
ward tender procedure to manage a selection and control procedure. A concession mechanism, 
along with associated administrative procedures, would offer an optimal solution to the identi-
fied challenges. Ideally, the EGTC would function as the concessionaire, consolidating proce-
dures from individual municipalities. 

The following additional implementation steps had been planned at the time the report was 
submitted: 

•   Discussions on the FCBS Regulation with the EU Parliament Rapporteur in the Committee 

on Regional Development, putting forward recommendations to the Commission on 
amending the proposed mechanism for resolving legal and administrative obstacles in a 
cross-border context.

6 

7 

 The European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) proposal of 2018 was replaced by the Facilitating Cross-
Border Solutions proposal of 2023, accessible here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/
ip_23_6463. 
 Treaty  between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Italian Republic on the delimitation of the 
frontier for the part not indicated as such in the Peace Treaty of 10 February 1947 (with annexes, exchanges 
of letters and final act). Signed at Osimo, Ancona, on 10 November 1975.

187

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

 
•   Proposing and supporting the technical specifications required for the development of a legal 

zone, as envisioned in solution 3. 

To progress on this, EGTC GO organised a public event on 27 September 2023 in Gorizia, 
presenting:

–   The results of the analysis of the b-solutions case implemented by the EGTC GO for the 

cross-border Piazza Transalpina/Trg Evrope Square.

–   Best practices from across Europe in resolving legal and administrative obstacles in cross-

border cooperation.

–   Recommendations to the Commission to amend the FCBS mechanism.
–   Proposed solutions for the borderless square.

A big win for everyone involved

Key insights derived from the context analyses resulted in the need to deviate from some of the 
initially planned solutions as presented above. The different solutions proposed aim to benefit 
various stakeholders involved in organising the cross-border events:

•   With regard to the first solution, event organisers benefit from clear instructions in both Italian 
and Slovenian, facilitating the organisation process by providing comprehensive procedural 
details, contacts in relevant public offices, national rules, necessary documents, and links to 
official webpages.

•   The new software solution will benefit organisers, as it facilitates compliance with national 
rules. This solution enhances efficiency by electronically sending data to respective national 
systems, streamlining administrative procedures.

•   The administrative packages, although not yet developed yet, would help organisers by 
pre-arranging essential services and enhancing streamlined collaboration with competent 
public bodies. 

•   The annual public tender spaces can support event promoters by ensuring they meet all 

requirements through pre-checks and support from EGTC GO.

•   The long-term solution of establishing a legal zone would assist all event promoters by simpli-
fying compliance through establishing unique rules applicable to the square, irrespective of 
national boundaries. 

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN COHESION POLICY

This case is relevant for cohesion and integration for the following reasons:

–   It integrates technical and regulatory specifications in a way which creates economic oppor-

tunities for SMEs operating in the cultural and arts sectors;

–   It enables a cross-border city to host a major EU cultural event, which contributes to increased 

cross-border tourism and place-based cultural products;

–   It symbolises the kind of work that can be done to give expression to a fundamental cohesion 

dynamic; namely, places which come together across borders to celebrate culture;

–   It is a symbol of the conciliation and stability across EU borders made possible by cultural 
cooperation, celebration of culture, creation of access to culture and its opportunities for 
social and economic wellbeing, and improving the lives of people in border regions;

–   The case further contributes to deepening the EU single market for services in the field of 

arts, culture and entertainment;

–   The case also represents how b-solutions can enable and enhance the delivery of major 

trans-European initiatives such as the European Capitals of Culture – and in doing so, 
make a contribution to the European project which reaches well beyond the solution to the 
specific technicalities of the case. 

188

As a result of this case, events will be staged in the piazza Transalpina/Trg Evrope square with 
ease, which enhances the future capacity of the city to host events. Therefore, b-solutions has 
also contributed to enabling a legacy for the city, of the investments made for its year as Capital 
of Culture. This case is a beautiful example of how a cross-border body in the region (EGTC) 
worked in the spirit of cross-border cooperation to solve a cross-border obstacle, which 
enables the city to not only make a contribution to the EU cultural project, but also in doing 
so, to embody the spirit of diversity, solidarity and mutual support across borders, as well as 
creativity; the very basis for the foundations of the EU project. 

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 
2023/12/97_EDITED_Report-EGTC-GO- 
Mitja-Ozbic-1.pdf

189

 
Corona Pandemic and Home Office – 
Consequences for the social security 
and taxation of cross-border workers  

ADVISED ENTITY
Grenzinfopunkt Aachen-Eurode – Germany  

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Marjon Weerepas, Martin Unfried and Pim Mertens, Institute for Transnational and Euregional  
cross border cooperation and Mobility (ITEM)

EXPERTS UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Martin Unfried and Pim Mertens, Institute for Transnational and Euregional cross border cooperation  
and Mobility (ITEM)

NETHERLANDS

GERMANY

PROVINCIE LIMBURG (B)

PROVINCIE 
LIMBURG (NL)

Aachen

PROVINCE DE LIÈGE (B)

REGION AACHEN- 
ZWECKVERBAND (D)

DEUTSCHSPRACHIGE 
GEMEINSCHAFT (B)

BELGIUM

190

NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case addresses cross-border obstacles related to employment and education, particularly the 
issue of frontier workers who work from home in the Euroregion Meuse-Rhine, the border 
region of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant 
increase in remote work; a change that was meant to stay. For frontier workers, this means 
shifting their workplace from the country of employment to the country of residence. This shift  
has an impact on tax liability, insurance obligations, and pension accruals. This poses challenges 
for both workers and employers, potentially hindering the free movement of workers.

Temporary measures during COVID-19 provided some relief, but are not sustainable without 
amending the current tax treaties and Regulation (EC) No 883/20041. These changes are cru-
cial to allow frontier workers to work from home. Key obstacles include: 

•   Tax liability: Temporary measures exempting frontier workers from normal tax rules imple-
mented during the crisis were set to expire, reverting tax liability to the country of residence 
for the days worked at home. In addition to dual reporting requirements, this created an 
administrative burden. Frontier workers could lose tax benefits available in their country of 
employment if they do not meet specific criteria.     

•   Social Security: Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 stipulates that if more than 25% of work is 

performed in the country of residence, the social security obligation shifts from the country of 
employment to the country of residence. This shift can result in incongruencies between labour 
law and social security law, thus complicating matters such as long-term sickness benefits.     

•   Permanent Establishment (PE) concerns related to the assumption that working from 

home could create a PE for the employer in the country of residence, leading to additional 
tax obligations. Whilst the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) clarified that temporary home working due to COVID-19 typically does not establish 
a PE, this is not clear for post-pandemic scenarios.

The experts propose a set of concrete recommendations to address the obstacles for frontier 
workers in home office situations:

•   Establish a uniform definition for working from home, focusing on situations involving a 

single employer.     

•   Synchronise social security and tax measures by continuing the fiscal measures implemented 

during the COVID-19 crisis.     

•   Further examine the Paletta I and Paletta II2 judgments to clarify the application of social 

security law when labour law from another Member State applies.     

•   Advocate for collaboration between the OECD and the Administrative Commission3 to  

create a structural scheme for working from home.

•   Explore whether Articles 8(2) and 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 can be used to 

increase the 25% threshold for working from home to 40%, addressing insurance obligations 
more effectively.

1 

2 
3 

 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the 
coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland), OJ L 166, 
30.04.2004, p. 1–12.
 Case C-45/90, Paletta I, ECLI:EU:C:1992:236 and Case C-2206/94, Paletta II, ECLI:EU:C:1996:182.
 The Administrative Commission is a body set up within Regulation 883/2004 for the coordination of social 
security systems. It comprises a representative of the government of each EU country and a representative of 
the Commission and is responsible for dealing with administrative matters, questions of interpretation arising 
from the provisions of regulations on social security coordination, and for promoting and developing collabo-
ration between EU countries.

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

191

 
IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

Regulations on home working are evolving, with political initiatives like the draft initiative 
“Werken waar je wilt” (Work where you want) in the Netherlands and the earlier proposal  
“Mobile Arbeit” (Remote work) in Germany. However, little attention is given to the particular 
obstacles arising in home office situations in cross-border contexts. In the process to identify 
solutions, ITEM organised a roundtable in June 2022 involving major Dutch employers of the 
cross-border workforce, members of the Dutch parliament, representatives of different minis-
tries, and cross-border workers. Furthermore, in October 2022, a conference in Brussels with 
the Benelux Union discussed the impact of the current framework on companies, cross-border 
workers, and regional economies. Employers, employees, and experts highlighted that the 
existing legal uncertainty is already causing significant concern, adversely affecting the appeal 
of the cross-border labour market. 

The Initiative Report emphasises the high levels of cross-border employment in Germany,  
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. In border regions, cross-border commuters can 
constitute up to 50% of the workforce in areas such as Maastricht/Aachen. Dutch companies, 
in particular, lead in the home office scheme, impacting the German border region. Yet, legal 
and administrative uncertainties discourage both cross-border workers and companies, reducing 
the attractiveness of cross-border commuting.      

Lessons down the road 

Progress has been made towards overcoming key obstacles:     

•   A solution to the cross-border social security challenges is in sight. In March 2023, a 
draft framework agreement on cross-border telework4 was agreed on as part of an ad-hoc 
working group of the Administrative Commission, based on Article 16 of Regulation (EC) 
883/2004. The framework agreement proposed that cross-border workers could spend up to 
50% of their working time at home without changing their social security affiliation.

•   Taxation issues remained unresolved at the time of publication of this report. Temporary 
measures expired in July 2022, reinstating previous bilateral tax rules, which could result in 
dual tax liability for cross-border commuters who work from home. At the time of publica-
tion, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium are discussing an adjusted “home office 
threshold” in tax treaties, but progress is slow. The current legal uncertainty discourages 
cross-border work, highlighting the need to adapt tax regulations to the new reality.

Existing bilateral agreements between Austria and Germany, France and Switzerland, and 
Luxembourg and its neighbouring countries provide useful examples for coordinating between 
tax and social security rules. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) also 
stresses the need for a tax arrangement, whether solutions should be implemented at the national 
or EU/OECD level, with bilateral solutions potentially offering quicker responses.

Who/what will benefit from this solution? 

This solution will benefit cross-border workers and employers, small and medium-sized enter-
prises (SMEs), and public and private institutions attracting cross-border employees.     

4 

 For more information on the Framework agreement on cross-border telework, see https://socialsecurity.
belgium.be/en/internationally-active/cross-border-telework-eu-eea-and-switzerland.

192

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION

This case highlights the importance of strategic cross-border organisations like Grenzinfopunkt 
Aachen-Eurode and Euregio structures such as Euregio Maas-Rhein, in advocating for and  
collaborating on key structural issues. The involvement of the Benelux Union demonstrates 
how robust solution-focused cross-border cooperation can have a broader strategic impact 
across the EU. Strategic territorial collaborations are essential to address common needs of 
macro-economic regions within the EU. 

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2022/01/34_Report-GrenzInfoPunkt.pdf

193

 
Hiring of cross-border workers 
with two jobs   

ADVISED ENTITY
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Hospital de Cerdanya / Hôpital de Cerdagne – Spain-France 

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 1
Maria Garayo Maiztegui 

EXPERT UNDER OBJECTIVE 2
Maria Garayo Maiztegui 

FRANCE

ANDORRA

Puigcerdà

SPAIN

194

NATURE OF THE INITIAL OBSTACLE: FINDINGS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY 
WITH OBJECTIVE 1 

This case focuses on the institutional cooperation obstacles faced by Europe’s first cross-border 
health centre, Cerdanya Hospital. Located on the French-Spanish border, the hospital is jointly 
financed by the public health services of Spain and France, through the Catalan Health Service 
(Sistema Sanitari Integral d’utilització pública de Catalunya – SISCAT) and the Regional 
Health Agency of Occitania (Agence Régional de Santé Occitanie). The cross-border hospital is 
established as a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) and is subject to Euro-
pean1 and Spanish legislation.

As the first of its kind in Europe, the hospital faces legal and administrative difficulties in the 
regular management of services. The absence of a bilateral legal instrument for the provision of 
cross-border health services adds to the challenge. The hospital employs healthcare professionals 
under different regimes, a field regulated by European Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and 
987/20092, which stipulate criteria for social security affiliations, complicating the adoption of 
a unified staff recruitment model. 

As an EGTC registered in Spain without an establishment in France as well, the hospital en-
counters obstacles when it comes to employing workers under the French social security 
scheme. Depending on their activities and employment status, French professionals working 
at the hospital may be subject to either French or Spanish social security systems. This creates 
challenges for the hospital in Spain, as it has to deal with French tax obligations.   

In addition, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I)3 allows the hospital to hire French professionals 
under Spanish law. However, it still needs to comply with French mandatory social protection 
laws. The management model struggles to recruit French healthcare professionals, offer attractive 
working conditions, and manage shortages in both the Catalan and French health systems. The 
hospital adheres to European regulations and operates on a company labour agreement to address 
these issues.

To address these obstacles and ensure uniform working conditions, legal and administrative 
recommendations have been provided, including the following:

•   Promote a bilateral agreement between France and Spain, allowing exceptions to Regulations 
883/2004 and 987/2009 and therefore simplifying the administrative procedures for health 
professionals working in both countries4;

•   Define the scope and modalities of the service provision by French professionals in the hospital’s 

management model;

•   Develop an information tool (guide or web application) detailing the social, labour, and fiscal 

regimes for health professionals to aid planning, management, and onboarding;

•   Create a model employment contract for French health professionals, integrating French 

legal requirements;

•   Establish dialogue with social security authorities to simplify recruitment procedures and 

improve cooperation;

•   Appoint a representative in France to manage social and tax obligations for employees  

governed by French law, reducing human resource (HR) workload.

1 

2 

3 

 Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as 
regards the clarification, simplification and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such  
groupings, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303–319.
 Regulation (EC) No 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. 1–123; Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, OJ L 284, 
30.10.2009, p. 1-42.
 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law 
applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 04.07.2008, p. 6–16.

4  Refer to the original report for a full legal assessment of the situation. 

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

195

 
   
 
IMPLEMENTING THIS SOLUTION: LEARNING AND IMPACT WITH OBJECTIVE 2

The hospital has prioritised the development of an internal guide on the social and fiscal 
regime of health and non-health workers. The guide supports the human resource department 
of the hospital in managing cross-border workers and informs healthcare professionals residing 
in France and working exclusively in Catalonia, or in both France and Catalonia, of the par-
ticularities of their situation. It covers applicable legislation, employer obligations, administrative 
procedures, and the role of relevant authorities in France and Spain. The guide helps to unpack 
the various regimes at play, addressing:

•  Legislation applicable to the hospital and the worker;
•  Obligations of the hospital as an employer;
•  Administrative procedures applicable to employer and worker;
•  Competent authorities in France and Spain.

In summary, the guide provides the following insights.     

Employment regime for frontier workers:

•   To work in Spain, frontier workers at Cerdanya Hospital with qualifications from outside of 

Spain must have their degrees accredited by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, 
and obtain a foreign identification number (NIE).

•   Frontier workers are subject to the labour laws of the country where they work, regardless of 
their residence or their employer’s domicile. Specific rules apply for social security benefits. 
Thus, a Cerdanya Hospital worker living in France is subject to the same labour laws as those 
residing in Catalonia. The hospital must register the worker with social security and manage 
social security contributions.

•   The employment contract between the Cerdanya Hospital and a frontier worker is governed 
by the law5 where the work is performed. This ensures the worker receives rights and conditions 
from Catalonia’s labour standards, sectoral agreements, and any future company agreements, 
without undermining rights granted by Spanish law.

•   Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and No 987/2009 govern the coordination of social security 
systems, including social benefits and schemes, within the EU. A frontier worker affiliated 
with the Spanish social security system is entitled to benefits provided by Spain and can access 
various social security benefits in their country of residence, coordinated under European 
regulations. These benefits include healthcare, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave, accident 
benefits, unemployment, and pensions. There are specific procedures for claiming benefits, as 
well as coordination between Spain and the worker’s country of residence, in accordance 
with the European regulations.

Tax Regime for Frontier Workers:

•   The tax regime for frontier workers between France and Spain is governed by national and 
international laws, with international agreements taking precedence. Key legal frameworks 
include the 1995 Agreement between France and Spain on double taxation avoidance and 
tax evasion prevention, Spanish Royal Legislative Decree 5/2004 (IRNR) and related decrees, 
and the French General Tax Code (Code General des Impôts – CGI);

•   To determine tax residency, the Convention states that a person is a resident of a State if they 

are taxed there due to domicile, residence, place of management, or similar criteria. 

  –   Under French law, a person is a tax resident if they live regularly in France with their family 
or alone, work primarily in France and have most of their economic interests in France;

  –   Under Spanish law, a person is a tax resident if they stay in Spain for more than 183 days 

in a calendar year and have their main economic activities or interests in Spain;

5 

 In this case, Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015, of 23 October 2015, approving the consolidated text of the  
Law on the Statute of Workers) and the Catalan SISCAT Convention 2021-2024.

196

 
  –   If a person is considered a resident in both France and Spain, residency is determined by 

the State where they have a permanent address, or the State which is the centre of vital 
interests, habitual living, nationality, or mutual agreement, if none of these apply.

•   French residents are taxed on all global income.
•   Income must be declared, including that which is exempt but considered for tax calculation.
•   Remuneration from Spanish public entities like the Cerdanya Hospital is typically taxed in 
Spain. An exception applies if a worker is a French resident and national, without Spanish 
nationality, and would carry out the work in France. In this case, the remuneration is taxed 
in France.

•   Pensions from public service in Spain are also primarily taxed in Spain, unless the recipient is 

a French resident and national.

Legal Obligations for Cerdanya Hospital and frontier workers:

•   Cerdanya Hospital as an employer must withhold and deposit income tax on payments to 
frontier workers. The hospital must also submit declarations and summaries of these with-
holdings, maintain documentation, and issue certificates to employees. 

•   Frontier workers must file Spanish Non-Resident Tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta de No Residentes 
– IRNR) declarations for Spanish income, unless exempt. They must provide necessary tax 
documentation to employers when changing their residence. They have to declare all income 
in France and claim tax credits for taxes paid in Spain. Income taxed in both countries allows 
for tax credits in France for taxes paid in Spain. Credits are limited to the amount of French 
tax corresponding to the income.

Applicable Legislation for Multi-Activity Workers:

•   For a multi-activity worker engaged in employment and/or self-employment in two or more 
EU Member States, EU Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 determine their applicable 
social security scheme. Criteria such as working time or income help establish where the 
substantial economic activities occur. The designated institution in their country of residence 
determines this, issuing a temporary A1 certification. This certification proves that the worker 
pays social security contributions in another EU country. The A1 certification is valid for 
12 months and renewable annually, regardless of the duration of the activity. Employers outside 
the relevant Member State must comply with obligations of the applicable social security 
legislation.

Labour Regime for Multi-Activity Workers:

•   Article 13 of EU Regulations 883/2004 also states that persons who pursue activities in 
two or more Member States are subject to the legislative framework of the country in which 
they primarily work and reside. For example, if a worker is employed in both France and 
Spain but resides in France, French labour law applies as if all activities and income were 
conducted solely in France. 

•   Exceptions to this rule may be granted through agreements between French and Spanish 

authorities, adjusting legal obligations for affected individuals. 

•   Cerdanya Hospital, despite lacking a base in France, must adhere to French social security 

and labour laws, fulfilling obligations such as payroll and benefits.

Tax Regime for Multi-Activity Workers:

•   Multi-activity workers are assigned to a single social security system, either French or Spanish. 
However, their income is subject to different national and international tax provisions. For 
instance, a multi-activity worker residing in France but working in Spain is governed by Spain’s 
non-resident income tax laws and the Double Taxation Convention between France and 
Spain. This tax framework parallels the one applied to frontier workers residing in France.

197

2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

 
Key lessons from the insights gained through the production of the guidelines

Complex regulations on tax and social matters pose significant challenges for hiring and 
managing  workers at the cross-border Cerdanya Hospital. Employers struggle to understand 
and implement the relevant procedures due to differing rules on both sides of the border. 
These regulation affect workers’ daily professional and personal lives, including access to services, 
benefits and tax payments.

While European regulations have advanced, the guide highlights a need for cooperation agree-
ments between Spanish and French authorities to simplify administrative procedures. Such 
agreements would help make professional and family life more manageable in the border area. 
The expert emphasised that this remains an unresolved issue, pointing to the need for agree-
ments that extend beyond existing European and national standards.

Who will benefit from this solution?

Residents of the cross-border region, workers and patients at the Cerdanya Hospital who rely 
on the cross-border workforce will benefit from this solution. The solution can be of interest 
and beneficial to not only the regions along both sides of the Spain-France border, but also to 
central authorities in both Member States. Given the potential impact on their respective 
populations, addressing barriers to cross-border labour mobility is important. Low numbers of 
cross-border workers may not reflect a lack of demand. Often, administrative or institutional 
obstacles (the two are often interrelated) dissuade both workers and employers. 

RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND COHESION 

This case is relevant for bringing Europe closer to citizens in border regions by providing a 
practical solution for cross-border employment. It enables labour mobility, cross-border work-
forces, economic growth, and in particular, the growth of SMEs. It also strengthens the single 
market for services and fosters a more connected Europe.     

The cross-border hospital at Cerdanya is not only a trailblazer for cross-border healthcare 
cooperation in the EU, it is also an animator and catalyst for a cross-border regional services 
economy. As such, it also demonstrates the added value of the development of cross-border 
healthcare catchments and economies as a dimension of cross-border integrated social and economic 
development. This indicates the relevance of cross-border health in the context of cross-border 
spatial planning as a catalyst for inclusive growth and sustainability of border regions.

LINK TO THE  
ORIGINAL REPORT

https://www.aebr.eu/wp-content/ 
uploads/2023/12/140_Report_EGTC-
Cerdanya-hospital_Garayo.pdf

198

 
2

E
V

I
T
C
E
J
B
O

199

 
Conclusions

This publication presents summaries of the 34 cases selected and analysed in the framework 
of the b-solutions initiative in 2023 and the first half of 2024. In total, 165 cases across the 
EU have been supported by b-solutions since the start of the initiative. Here, we have also 
presented a first selection of ongoing cases that have moved forward to implement a suggested 
solution. Overall, b-solutions shows strong evidence that cross-border cooperation is practised 
in a variety of fields and in most EU internal border regions, with a diverse degree of com-
plexity. These cases highlight the barriers and limitations that citizens, businesses, and local 
authorities in border regions face in fulfilling their needs while also recommending solutions 
to respond to these needs and solve obstacles. These cases highlight that: 

•   overcoming border obstacles is indeed possible;
•   solving legal and administrative barriers is necessary to guarantee full access to services, 

infrastructures and opportunities in border regions; 

•   the current legislative framework at the EU level is not sufficient for enabling effective 

cross-border cooperation;

•   there are major benefits to Member States exercising active subsidiarity and working with 
their regions to resolve obstacles at their borders in ways which benefit citizens and whole 
economies.

With about one-third of EU citizens living in border regions, where borders strain and restrict 
legislation and administrative processes, well-functioning cross-border cooperation is vital for 
European integration. The reward is a more cohesive Europe, which enables the benefits of 
the European project to reach all citizens more equally and to add value to national and EU 
priorities as a whole. 

UNDERSTANDING THE NEEDS OF BORDER REGIONS

Seventy-three per cent of the solutions suggested by experts in the 34 b-solutions cases included 
in this compendium require changes to the current legal framework (25 cases). Two cases 
call for an amendment of the applicable administrative procedures, while 21 % involve  
operational solutions (7 cases).

Furthermore, 79 % of the proposed solutions require intervention from national authorities 
(27 cases). Of these, 21 % also require modifications in European laws. Whereas one case  
(3 %) only requires improvements in EU legislation, 18 % (6 cases) could be solved solely by 
local actors involved in cooperation.

This data suggests that more substantial commitment from national authorities is imperative 
for matters that affect border regions, since structural and institutional cross-border cooperation 
alone might solve these obstacles. In most cases, the input of competent national ministries is 
crucial in the proposed solutions to enable the necessary adaptations to the law, nationally or 
internationally, via bilateral agreements. For example, such agreements could empower young 
people to carry out training in a neighbouring country by ensuring their skills are recognised 
and that they, as well as the host institutions, are supported financially during such training. 
The involvement of relevant Member State bodies is also a prerequisite to building cross-border 

S
N
O

I
S
U
L
C
N
O
C

201

infrastructure, such as a pedestrian bridge to cross the Rhine, which separates France from 
Switzerland.

At the same time, the need for improved operational solutions that local actors can initiate 
and deliver, demonstrating potential and innovation, indicates a robust ongoing demand for 
capacity-building in cross-border cooperation at the regional level. As cooperation across 
borders is becoming more complex, local and regional authorities need greater knowledge, 
time, staff, and increased financial resources. The challenges identified through b-solutions 
often require well-informed local expertise to work alongside national authorities. This will 
add value for all in seeking solutions that can only be resolved by regions and central, national 
governments working together. The understanding of regional actors about how issues play 
out on the ground in border regions is a knowledge asset which can benefit all. 

CUMBERSOME PROCEDURES TO FINALLY ACHIEVE SOLUTIONS

An innovation in b-solutions 2.0 (2022-2024) has been the objective 2 strands, designed to 
provide additional support to local actors to work towards the implementation of certain 
solutions for cross-border obstacles. This approach, showcased in nine cases, reveals the com-
plexity of delivering and embedding solutions in practice. Solutions are tailored to each 
case’s specific legal framework, and therefore require the involvement of an array of competent 
authorities, in most cases both at the local and national levels, as well as several at the Euro-
pean level.

Additionally, each solution contains multiple stages: consensus building among all stakeholders 
involved, preparing a solution that addresses potentially conflicting interests, allocating 
responsibilities to a cross-border entity, exchanging data, overcoming language barriers, informing 
and involving those benefiting from the solution, and monitoring and improving the docu-
mentation and entities responsible for the solution. Achieving these steps requires trust, mutual 
understanding and shared objectives among all parties involved. 

Implementing these measures is often a long-term process, which can progress only as fast as 
all competent actors are available and willing to follow up on every case, coordinate with one 
another, and respond to the demands. This means that the political will to carry out solutions 
and the institutional trust to do so jointly with their neighbours must be prioritised so that 
these issues remain visible in the political agenda. Supporting committed stakeholders through 
mentoring, advice and engagement has been a key feature of b-solutions under objective 2. 

EVIDENCE GAINED THROUGH FOUR COMPENDIUMS AND 165 CASES

The present compendium is the latest in a series of four, which can be found in the b-solutions’ 
library1. In total, 165 cases have been analysed, creating a unique source of information to 
shed light on the reality that local stakeholders and citizens face in border regions. In turn, this 
provides a portrait of how the European project can be enhanced by strengthening coopera-
tion across borders, involving systems based on principles of good democratic governance. The 
trends observed in the four compendiums are repeated throughout these publications and 
are affirmed by the first cases developed under b-solutions’ objective 2: 

•   Frequently, obstacles are caused by:
  –  conflicting or overlapping national legal frameworks;
  –  differing, complex, time-consuming, costly administrative practices or procedures;
  –   national or European laws failing to consider the relevance of the cross-border dimension 

in border regions;

  –   lack of coordination among stakeholders across the border; 

1 

 Access b-solutions’ library at https://www.b-solutionsproject.com/library to read previous publications.

202

  –   lack of implementation of existing agreements or legal provisions; 
  –   lack of reliable and up-to-date information;
  –   lack of knowledge and communication.

•   Solutions must:
  –  be tailored to the specific legal, social and economic framework of the territory;
  –   be supported by political leaders willing to implement the measures necessary to remove 

or at least reduce these obstacles; 

  –  to the extent possible, engage authorities at the national level in the countries involved; 
  –   comprise multiple stages, if necessary; from amending or creating new legal frameworks 

to enabling the operational set-up of the final solution.

The extensive experience gained throughout b-solutions spurred us to advance policy recom-
mendations that draw from these analyses and envisage practical cross-border cooperation. 
To facilitate integration across borders, we recommend the following:

•   Encourage and enable multi-level engagement and responses: Local and regional authorities 
from border regions should be able to engage in dialogues with national authorities when 
needed. Direct communication and collaboration would allow them to address the issues 
and devise solutions in a multi-level governance model. Many Member States have already 
established governance mechanisms to look at joint issues (e.g., trade, economic cooperation) 
with neighbouring countries, and these platforms are extremely beneficial spaces for the 
inclusion of perspectives from the border regions across a range of sectors. 

•   Ensure political commitment to cross-border cooperation: Politicians should be aware of 
and committed to promoting cross-border cooperation and establishing open communication 
channels with their colleagues on the other side of the border.

•   Promote capacity building of local stakeholders in border regions: Regular training for 
actors involved in regional planning and cross-border cooperation is crucial. This training 
should improve their understanding of cross-border cooperation practices and their role in 
addressing issues faced by national governments which require collaborative approaches.

•   Enhance use of technical and financial support: Many tools exist to foster cross-border 

cooperation, such as Interreg funding and its Interreg-specific objective “Better cooperation 
governance”. Legal options for establishing cross-border structures, such as European 
Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs), European Economic Interest Groupings 
(EEIG), and structures under the Madrid Outline Convention of the Council of Europe 
and its Additional Protocols. Other examples include the b-solutions initiative and actions 
by DG Regio’s Border Focal Point, such as the implementation of various series of pilot 
actions addressing cross-border resilience or spatial planning. Local actors need to be familiar 
with these tools in order to be able to harness their full potential.

Overcoming border obstacles and limiting their adverse effects is possible. As part of the 
b-solutions initiative, this publication aims to support actors in border regions in using available 
possibilities to resolve their limitations to cross-border cooperation.

CLOSING B-SOLUTIONS 2.0: A SNAPSHOT OF CROSS-BORDER  
COOPERATION IN 2024

Approaching the closure of b-solutions 2.0 at the end of September 2024, we observe how 
this initiative has filled a critical gap in cross-border cooperation, embedding solutions  
within broader contexts. Effective progress requires evidence-based solutions and whole 
system approaches to address specific problems in border regions.

S
N
O

I
S
U
L
C
N
O
C

203

By providing tailored assistance that looks specifically at the situation that local authorities, 
project partners, citizens, or businesses face, and unveiling its complexity, b-solutions is a 
unique tool for exploring the potential of cross-border cooperation that has not yet been 
exploited. It has also successfully initiated and fostered new working relationships between 
stakeholders at different levels of local, regional, national and EU governance, whose involvement 
is necessary for solutions to be implemented. 

In the framework of b-solutions 2.0, a total of 75 obstacles have been collected and analysed 
in objective 1, revealing a great variety of situations that create disadvantages for people 
living in cross-border regions. For example, a lack of financial support to undertake an intern-
ship in the neighbouring region, insufficient regulatory frameworks on rescue assistance that 
hinder firefighters’ interventions on the other side of the border, or schools being prevented 
from using swimming pool facilities in the neighbouring country’s municipalities because 
the lifeguards’ diplomas are not recognised.

In effect, solutions to these obstacles offer a handful of options, such as the amendment of 
specific articles of the respective law, the establishment of a bilateral agreement to structure 
cooperation around specific issues, the harmonisation of procedures, the use of standardised 
data to enable joint monitoring, effective coordination among competent authorities, infor-
mation-sharing, and the set-up of cross-border entities responsible for cross-border issues. 
However, as it became clear through implementing b-solutions’ objective 2, a significant challenge 
lies in making the proposed solutions a reality. This often requires multiple combinations of 
these measures to be effective, and always calls for dialogue and consensus among the many 
actors involved; in most cases from different decision-making levels. As a result, solutions are 
complex, long-term, and require the commitment of resources over time to achieve them. 

These findings illustrate how there is still a need to support actors involved in cross-border 
cooperation. b-solutions’ remains a fundamental tool for empowering local actors in border 
regions to improve their knowledge and capacities to cooperate across borders. In addition, 
b-solutions’ message still needs to permeate among politicians and decision-makers. As such, 
raising awareness of the obstacles preventing border regions from harnessing their potential, 
as well as the measures needed to help solve the impasse, are still relevant objectives for 
AEBR and the European Commission. 

WHAT IS NEXT? STRIVING FOR INTEGRATED CROSS-BORDER REGIONS

b-solutions is just a drop in the ocean; a European legal framework is needed to solve most 
obstacles if functional cross-border areas – with smart information and mobility networks, 
without barriers to work, study or do business – are to be achieved. This requires the determinant 
participation of national authorities to build up operational and resilient cross-border areas 
within an integrated and efficient Union. However, support for cooperation continues to be 
necessary, and the b-solutions initiative should continue identifying obstacles and pushing 
solutions forward while expanding its scope of action. 

The b-solutions initiative will expand its scope of action and focus on three main objectives:

•   provide bespoke analyses of concrete legal or administrative obstacles faced and suggest 

potential solutions to solve them;

•   provide support to formulate a solution and guide it towards implementation, including 
informing relevant authorities through ad hoc interventions, such as co-organised work-
shops; 

•   support the development of pilot actions for the beneficiaries to autonomously set up 

measures to solve a legal or administrative obstacle.

204

In parallel, the b-solutions initiative will continue shedding light on the key needs of local 
authorities and actors of cross-border cooperation, strengthening arguments for new tools to 
facilitate the uptake of solutions. In this sense, b-solutions is to be understood and used along 
with other available relevant instruments, including:

•   Interreg funds, which can also be used to solve certain legal and administrative obstacles 

through the specific objective ‘Better cross-border governance’;

•   The establishment and strengthening of cross-border entities such as Euroregions, EGTCs 

and others, to enable coordination on cross-border cooperation issues;

•   International, national and local initiatives that promote cross-border cooperation practices, 

knowledge and training; and

•   Guidelines and roadmaps for cross-border cooperation, such as the “Cross-border Gover-
nance Framework and Tool”2 published by the OECD and the European Commission in 
2024. 

Ultimately, the aim is to obtain a legal framework that enables local actors in border regions 
to solve legal and administrative obstacles in ways that respond to the unique needs of those 
regions. This will help create integrated areas where citizens can truly enjoy public services 
without discrimination. An essential step in this direction is the new proposal for a ‘Regulation 
on Facilitating Cross-Border Solutions’3 launched by the European Commission in December 
2023. This proposal addresses two main needs of local authorities in border regions:

•   It offers a direct communication channel between local actors and the competent national 

authorities through Cross-Border Coordination Points (CBCP).

•   It introduces a standard procedure that allows for the implementation of a solution to the 

identified obstacle via the Cross-Border Facilitation Tool.

In light of the 165 cases collected in the framework of the b-solutions initiative between 2018 
and 2024, the proposed regulation would successfully address many legal and administrative 
obstacles that hinder public administrations, citizens and businesses from cooperating across 
borders. It would undoubtedly drive many proposed solutions towards their effective imple-
mentation.

Overcoming border obstacles and making integrated cross-border regions a reality lies now 
with policymakers, who have the ultimate capacity to take the next steps to advance the 
European project. 

2 

3 

 OECD and European Commission (2024), Cross-border Governance Framework and Tool, accessible at  https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/
en/border-focal-point-network/news/cross-border-governance-framework-and-tool.
 The legal text ‘Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a 
mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context’ (COM(2023) 790 final) of 12 December 2023 is 
accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/proposal-facilitating-cross-border-
solutions_en.pdf. 

S
N
O

I
S
U
L
C
N
O
C

205

References 

BASF Dual training programme (in Spanish), https://www.basf.com/es/es/careers/ 
FP-dual-2024.html.  

Belgium Federal Public Service – Social security, Framework agreement on cross-border telework,
https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/en/internationally-active/cross-border-telework-eu-eea-and-
switzerland. 

Benelux, the Benelux Committee of Ministers, https://www.benelux.int/en/information-for-
citizens/benelux-union/our-organisation/#:~:text=Court%20of%20Justice-,The%20
Benelux%20Committee%20of%20Ministers,for%20cooperation%20across%20the%20
Benelux.  

CEDEFOP – European Center for the Development of Vocational Training, European credit 
system for vocational education and training (ECVET), https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/
projects/european-credit-system-vocational-education-and-training-ecvet. 

CEDEFOP- European Center for the Development of Vocational Training, Skills 
developments and trends in construction, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/skills-
developments-and-trends-construction.

Construction Blueprint Project: Skills Blueprint for the Construction Industry,  
https://constructionblueprint.eu/context/. 

EGTC GO, https://euro-go.eu/en/.  

EGTC Pannon, https://www.pannonegtc.eu/. 

Eucor – The European campus, https://www.eucor-uni.org/en/.

EURADRIA CBP ITALY-SLOVENIA, EURES cross-border partnership,   
https://www.crossborderjob.eu/.

Eurometropolis Lille Kortrijk-Tournai, Guidebook “Collective management of a cross-border 
space”, https://www.eurometropolis.eu/upload/attach-document/gestion-collective-dun-
espace-public-transfrontalier.pdf.

Europass,Compare national qualifications frameworks across Europe,
https://europa.eu/europass/en/compare-qualifications.

European Commission, Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border 
context, COM/2023/790 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023PC0790. 

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council, Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its 
enterprises, COM(2012) 433 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
COM:2012:0433:FIN:EN:PDF. 

European Commission, Cross-Border Patient Mobility in Selected EU Regions. Final Report 
(2022), written by the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR/AGEG),  
https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/crossborder_patient-mobility_frep_en.pdf. 

206

European Commission, Erasmus +: EU programme for education, training, youth and sport, 
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu. 

European Commission, European construction sector observatory (ECSO),  
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/construction/observatory_en.  

European Commission, Glossary: border area, https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/
european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossary/border-
area_en. 

European Commission, Intelligent transport systems, 
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/intelligent-transport-systems_en. 

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on driving licences, amending Directive (EU) 2022/2561 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council and repealing Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council and Commission Regulation (EU) No 383/2012, 1.3.2023, COM(2023) 127 final.

European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council amending Regulations (EU) 2019/943 and (EU) 2019/942 as well as Directives 
(EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 to improve the Union’s electricity market design, 
COM/2023/148 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20
23%3A148%3AFIN. 

European Commission, SC on PAFF, AHW A.05 – certification of horses moved between 
Member States, https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3a6a3b36-1dec-410a-ac5c-
2cd39af4a646_en?filename=reg-com_ahw_20220707_horse-certification_eur.pdf. 

European Commission, Seine–Scheldt network project, https://transport.ec.europa.eu/
document/download/692b459f-4b0f-4c21-a39c-30d68057f6da_en?filename=seine_scheldt.
pdf&prefLang=pt. 

European Commission, Smart mobility, https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/
intelligent-transport-systems_en.

European Commission, The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area,  
https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-
higher-education/bologna-process. 

European Labour Authority, Report: digitally accessible and understandable information, 
promoting cross-border cooperation on enforcement and information exchanges needed to 
encourage workers and employers to follow posting rules in the construction sector, published on 
20 September 2023, https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/news-event/newsroom/report-digitally-
accessible-and-understandable-information-promoting-cross.

European Network for Rural Development, LEADER, https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/leader-
clld_en.html. 

European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2023 with recommendations to the 
Commission on amending the proposed mechanism to resolve legal and administrative 
obstacles in a cross-border context (2022/2194(INL)).   

European Region Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino, Qualified Volunteering – Skills for resilient 
societies, https://www.europaregion.info/en/brussels/events/veranstaltung/qualified-
volunteering-skills-for-resilient-societies/. 

European Union, CLO2 project, https://ec-oe.eu/ec-oe-home/ec-oe-projects/clo2/. 

European Union, QFOA project, https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en/resource-centre/content/elesa-
european-learning-syllabus-outdoor-animators. 

Frontaliers Grand Est, https://frontaliers-grandest.eu/.

S
E
C
N
E
R
E
F
E
R

207

German Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, European Cross-Border 
Monitoring Network, https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/research/specialist-articles/spatial-
development/network-crossborderdata/main.html. 

Geographic information system for the Grande Région (GIS-GR / SIG-GR),  European 
Cross-Border Monitoring Network, https://www.sig-gr.eu/fr/sig-gr/cooperations/European_
cross-border_monitoring_network.html.

Grensetjänsten, Information service and Norwegian-Swedish authority cooperation,  
https://www.grensetjansten.com.

Handbook of the Alpine Clubs – Legal framework for Category I mountain huts in Austria, 
https://www.alpenverein.de/verband/huetten-und-wege/nachhaltiger-huettenbetrieb/
huettenbau-und-huettenbetrieb-recht-und-richtlinien. 

Hungarian Canoe Federation, https://kajakkenusport.hu/. 

Infobest, https://www.infobest.eu/de. 

Info Norden, https://www.norden.org/en/info-norden. 

Innovation Norway: https://www.innovasjonnorge.no/en/start-page/.

Interreg programme Germany/Bavaria – Austria, https://www.interreg-bayaut.net/. 

Interreg programme Estonia – Latvia, https://estlat.eu/en. 

Interreg programme France – Wallonie – Vlaanderen, https://www.interreg-fwvl.eu.

Interreg programme France – Switzerland, https://www.interreg-francesuisse.eu. 

Interreg programme Grande Région – Großregion, https://interreg-gr.eu/.

Interreg programme Netherlands – Vlaanderen, https://interregvlaned.eu/. 

Interreg programme Spain-France-Andorra (POCTEFA), https://www.poctefa.eu/.

Interreg programme Spain – Portugal (POCTEP), https://interreg.eu/programme/interreg-
spain-portugal-poctep.

Interreg programme Sweden – Norway, https://www.interreg-sverige-norge-2014-2020.
com/. 

Interreg Upper Rhine programme, https://www.interreg-oberrhein.eu. 

Interreg project “WijWater”, https://interregvlaned.eu/wij-water/over-ons.

Interregional Labour Market Observatory, Data on cross-border labour mobility in France and 
Luxembourg, https://www.iba-oie.eu/fr/themes/mobilite-des-frontaliers/luxembourg/emploi-
frontalier-et-evolution. 

Jurassian Arc, https://www.arcjurassien.org/. 

Kreis Warendorf, Riding licence plate, https://serviceportal.kreis-warendorf.de/detail/-/vr-bis-
detail/dienstleistung/401/show. 

Mestne storitve d.o.o, http://www.mestne-storitve.si/ (website only accessible in Slovenian).

Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT), French-Belgian parliamentary working 
group, http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/bdd-territoires/territories/territory/show/
groupe-de-travail-parlementaire-franco-belge.

Øresunddirekt, https://www.oresunddirekt.dk/dk. 

Pension Denmark, https://pensions.dk/. 

Project Interreg Flanders-Netherlands, Switching point Border barriers, https://interregvlaned.
eu/schakelpunt-grensbelemmeringen/over-ons.

Project 3Land: a cross-border district, https://3-land.net/en/.  

208

Project SKILLCO – an innovative project for facing skills gaps in the construction industry, 
https://www.skillco.eu/content/about. 

Project winter maintenance 2018-2019,  Daisybell Protocol, https://www.espalet.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/ProtocoloDaisybell.pdf.    

Region Sønderjylland-Schleswig, Regionskontor & Infocenter, https://www.region.dk/
region/de/ueber_uns/organisation/regionskontor.php. 

Research Council of Norway: https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/.

Rhine-Waal Euroregion, https://www.euregio.org/.

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, https://www.ri.se/en/about-rise.

SIVA, the company for industrial growth: https://siva.no/english/.

Svinesund Committee, https://svinesundskommitten.com/en/. 

Tillväxtverket, Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, https://tillvaxtverket.se/
tillvaxtverket/inenglish.2908.html.

Transfrontier Operational Mission, MOT study on French-Belgian cross-border cooperation, 
2014, http://www.espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/news/news/news/show/etude-de-la-mot-
sur-la-cooperation-transfrontaliere-franco-belge/.

Transfrontier Operational Mission, Belgian–French parliamentary working group, http://www.
espaces-transfrontaliers.org/en/resources/territories/territory-factsheets/territories/territory/
show/groupe-de-travail-parlementaire-franco-belge.

Trisan: trinational competence center for cross-border cooperation in the healthcare sector, 
https://www.trisan.org/english.  

Vinnova: Sweden’s innovation agency, https://www.vinnova.se/en/.

S
E
C
N
E
R
E
F
E
R

209

Legal References 

References cover all regulations mentioned in the case summaries produced in the framework 
of the initiative.

European Union  

Additional Protocol to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation 
between Territorial Communities or Authorities, 09.11.1995 European Treaty Series – 
No. 159.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/688 of 17 December 2019 supplementing 
Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards 
animal health requirements for movements within the Union of terrestrial animals and 
hatching eggs (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, p. 140), Article 91(3).

Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation 
(EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules 
as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption 
and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt 
from veterinary checks at the border under that directive (OJ L 54, 26.2.2011, p. 1).

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 
26.10.2012, p. 47).

Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the 
European region (Lisbon Convention), European Treaty Series, No 165, 11 April 1997.

Council Decision (93/98/EEC) of 1 February 1993 on the conclusion, on behalf of the 
Community, of the Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous 
wastes and their disposal (Basel Convention) (OJ L 39, 16.2.1993, p. 1).

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value 
added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1).

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).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European 
Cooperative Society (SCE) (OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 1).

Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of 
freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between 
Member States and third countries (OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1).

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest 
Grouping (EEIG) (OJ L 199, 31.7.1985, p. 1).

Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 
2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 
98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council 
Directive (EU) 2015/6522 (OJ L, 2023/2413, 31.10.2023).

210

Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on 
common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU 
(recast) (text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 125).

Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 
2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (OJ L 328, 
21.12.2018, p. 82).

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 
on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65).

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).

Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on 
the energy performance of buildings (OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 13).

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 
2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version) (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7).

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 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2007 on 
the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27). 

Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 
establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, 
components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (framework directive) 
(OJ L 263, 9.10.2007, p. 1).

Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 
on driving licences (OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18).

Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 
on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22).

Directive 2003/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 April 2003 
amending Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member 
States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes (OJ L 115, 
9.5.2003, p. 63).

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). 

European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial 
Communities or Authorities, Madrid, 21.10.1980, European Treaty Series No. 160.

Framework Agreement on the application of Article 16 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 
883/2004 in cases of habitual cross-border telework, https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/sites/
default/files/content/docs/en/international/framework_agreement_on_cross-border_
telework.pdf. 

Judgement of the Court of Justice of 18 June 2019, Austria v Germany, C-591/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:504.

Judgement of the Court of 2 May 1996: Brennet AG v Vittorio Paletta, Case C-206/94.
European Court Reports 1996 I-02357.

Judgement of the Court of 3 June 1992: Alberto Paletta and others v Brennet, Case C-45/90. 
European Court Reports 1992 I-03423.

S
E
C
N
E
R
E
F
E
R

L
A
G
E
L

211

 
Protocol No 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, Council of Europe Treaty Series, No 3, Rome, 4 November 2000.

Opinion of Advocate-General Stix-Hackl of 1 June 2006, Commission of the European 
Communities v Kingdom of Denmark, C-150/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:357.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 
2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 
2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L, 
2024/1157, 30.4.2024).

Regulation (EU) 2021/403 of 24 March 2021 laying down rules for the application of 
Regulations (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council as regards model animal health certificates and model animal health / official 
certificates, for the entry into the Union and movements between Member States of 
consignments of certain categories of terrestrial animals and germinal products thereof, 
official certification regarding such certificates and repealing Decision 2010/470/EU (OJ L 
113, 31.3.2021, p. 1).

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 
2019 on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, 
components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general 
safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation 
(EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations 
(EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 631/2009, (EU) No 406/2010, 
(EU) No 672/2010, (EU) No 1003/2010, (EU) No 1005/2010, (EU) No 1008/2010, 
(EU) No 1009/2010, (EU) No 19/2011, (EU) No 109/2011, (EU) No 458/2011, (EU) No 
65/2012, (EU) No 130/2012, (EU) No 347/2012, (EU) No 351/2012, (EU) No 1230/2012 
and (EU) 2015/166 (text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 1).

Regulation (EU) 2019/1238 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 
2019 on a pan-European personal pension product (PEPP), OJ L 198, 25.07.2019, p. 1. 

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 
on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of 
animal health (Animal Health Law) (OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1).

Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  
17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of 
territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and improvement 
of the establishment and functioning of such groupings (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303).

Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 
2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, OJ L 141, 27.05.2011, p. 1.

Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for 
Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 77, 23.3.2011, p. 1. 

Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 
2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and 
repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 5).

Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  
21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus 
services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 88).

Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  
21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived 
products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 1).

212

Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  
16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 
883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, OJ L 284,30.10.2009, p. 1-42.

Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 
2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 04.7.2008, p. 6-16. 

Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 
2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19).  

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 
2006 on shipments of waste (OJ L 190, 12.07.2006, p. 1).

Regulation (EC) No 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).

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 
2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, OJ L 139, 30.04.2004,  
p. 55–205.

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 
2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, OJ L 139, 30.04.2004, p. 1–54.

1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated 
version), OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 34.

Belgium 

Walloon government decree determining the sectoral conditions relating to covered and open 
swimming pools used for purposes other than purely private within the family circle, where 
the surface area is less than or equal to 100 m2 or the depth less than or equal to 40 cm using 
a disinfection process other than chlorine or in combination with chlorine of 13 June 2013, 
Belgian Official Gazette (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge), 12 July 2013.

Decree of the Flemish Government establishing the Flemish regulations concerning the 
sustainable  management of material cycles and waste of 17 February 2012, B.S.23/05/2012, 
referred to as ‘VLAREMA’.

Decree of the Walloon Government on waste shipments of 19 July 2007 (Moniteur Belge,  
27 July 2007), amended by the Walloon Government Decree of 4 April 2019 (Moniteur Belge, 
5 June 2019).

Royal Decree of 1 December 1975 laying down general regulations on road traffic police and 
the use of public roads.

Bulgaria 

Instruction No 8121z-1492 of 4 November 2022 on the order and organisation of border 
checks at checkpoints, Article 55, paragraph 4 (previous version Instruction No 8121z-813 
of 9 July 2015).

Ordinance on Border Checkpoints, Article 17, paragraph 10, adopted by Decree of the 
Bulgarian Council of Ministers No 104 of 20 May 2002.

Croatia 

Income Tax Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, Nos 115/16, 106/18, 121/19, 
32/20, 42/20 and 114/22.

Labour Act of 1 January 2023, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, Nos 93/14, 127/17, 
98/19, 151/22 and 64/23.

Law on Inland Navigation and Ports of October 2007, Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Croatia, 71-05-03 / 1-07-2. 

S
E
C
N
E
R
E
F
E
R

L
A
G
E
L

213

 
Law on Food Hygiene and Microbiological Criteria for Food, Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Croatia, (OG, No. 83/22).

Regulation on the registration and approval of establishments and on registration of food 
business operators, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, (OG, No. 123/19 and 3/21).

Denmark 

Civil Service Act (Funktionærloven), Official Gazette of Denmark, No 1002, 24 August 2017.

Danish Pension Tax Act (Bekendtgørelse af lov om beskatningen af pensionsordninger m.v.), 
Consolidated Act No 1327, 10 September 2020.

Withholding Tax Act (Bekendtgørelse af kildeskatteloven), Consolidated Act No 460, 3 May 
2024. 

Germany 

Federal Act on the Award of Contracts (Federal Procurement Act 2018 – BVergG 2018), 
Federal Law Gazette, No. 65/2018.

Fifth Book of the Social Code, enacted on 20 December 1988, Federal Law Gazette I,  
pp. 2477 and 2482; last amended by Article 3 of the Act of 30 July 2024 (Federal Law 
Gazette 2024 I No. 254).

German Federal Waste Shipment Act implementing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1) and  
the Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary movements of 
hazardous wastes and their disposal (2), Waste Shipment Act (AbfVerbrG), date of issue:  
19 July 2007, last amended by Article 4 of the Act of 2 March 2023 (Federal Law Gazette, 
No 56, 2023).

Minimum Wage Act of 11 August 2014 (Mindestlohngesetz), Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1348, 
as last amended by Article 2 of the Act of 28 June 2023, Federal Law Gazette 2023, No 172.

Nature Conservation Act of North Rhine-Westphalia of 21 July 2000, Law Gazette of North 
Rhine-Westphalia, p. 568, as amended on 5 March 2024 (Law Gazette of North Rhine-
Westphalia, p. 156).

Spain 

Law 8/1998 of 17 December on Aragonese roads, Official Journal of Spain (Boletín Oficial del 
Estado), No 23, 27 January 1999.

Law 37/1992 of 28 December on value added tax, Official Journal of Spain (Boletín Oficial 
del Estado) No 312, 29 December 1992.

Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015, of 23 October 2015, approving the consolidated text of the 
Law on the Statute of Workers) and the Catalan SISCAT Convention 2021-2024.

France 

Constitutional Act No 2003-276 of 28 March 2003 on the decentralised organisation of the 
Republic, Official Journal of the French Republic, No 75, 29 March 2003.

Decree No 2014-784 of 8 July 2014 on the safety of public road passenger transport and 
containing various provisions relating to road transport, Official Journal of the French 
Republic, No 158, 10 July 2014.

French Education Code (Code de l’éducation).

French Roadway Code.

Social Security Code (Code de la sécurité sociale).

214

Hungary 

AM Decree 20/2021 (17.V.) on the production and placing on the market of foodstuffs and 
materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (Official Journal of 
Hungary No 90, 17 May 2021).

Decree 57/2011. (XI. 22.) NFM on the rules of transport by water.

FVM Decree 52/2010 (30.IV.) on the conditions of small-scale food production, production 
and sale apply to the sale of local products (Hungarian Journal No 66, 30 April 2010, 
pp.14360-14369).

Government Decision 2019/2002 (I. 31.) on the establishment of the Joint Intergovernmental 
Cooperation Committee between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Croatia.

Italy 

Circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport Div. 77898/8.3 of 10 August 2007, 
with reference to Article 16 of Legislative Decree No 286 of 21 November 2005.

Legislative Decree No 286 of 21 November 2005, Official Gazette of the Italian Republic,  
No 6, 9 January 2006.

Provincial Law of 10 July 2018, No 91 (space and landscape), Supplement 3 to the Official 
Gazette of 12 July 2018, No 28.

Provincial Law of 17 December 2015, No 16 (provisions on public procurement), 
Supplement 3 to the Official Gazette of 22 December 2015, No 51.

Luxembourg 

Grand-Ducal Regulation of 7 October 2004 implementing the law of 12 September 2003 
relating to persons with disabilities (consolidated version, applicable as of 1 January 2019), 
Mémorial, A167, 13 October 2004.

Law of 12 May 1997 approving the agreement between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, 
the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Swiss Confederation, acting 
on behalf of the cantons of Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Aargau and Jura on 
cross-border cooperation between local authorities and local public bodies, done at Karlsruhe 
on 23 January 1996, Official Journal of Luxembourg, Mémorial A, No 38, 27 May 1997.

Netherlands 

Circular Materials Plan (CMP), https://circulairmaterialenplan.nl/#PagCls_2661772. 

Dutch Youth Act (Jeugdwet), 14 March 2014, Official Gazette of the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands (2014, 105).

Rijkswaterstaat on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Dutch 
national waste management plan 3 (Landelijk afvalbeheerplan 3 – LAP3), https://lap3.nl/. 

Norway

Act of 27 June 2008 No. 71 relating to Planning and the Processing of Building Applications 
(Planning and Building Act).

Austria 

Federal Act of 30 November 1973 on the implementation of intergovernmental agreements 
on the surveying and marking of the state border and on the regulation of certain matters of 
the state border (State Border Act), Federal Law Gazette, No 9/1974.

S
E
C
N
E
R
E
F
E
R

L
A
G
E
L

215

 
Portugal 

Decree-Law No 394/84 of 26 December, Official Journal of Portugal (Diário da República) 
No 297/1984, 1º Suplemento, Series I, 26 December 1984.

Sweden 

Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Svensk författningssamling (SFS) 2010:900.

Switzerland 

Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999, Official Compilation of 
Federal Legislation 1999 2556.

International agreements 

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of 
the Republic of Croatia on  the establishment of the Mura–Drava–Danube Transboundary 
Biosphere Reserve on 15 September 2021.

Agreement of the assembly of the Espacio Portalet EGTC for the establishment of 
coordination rules between the conservation service of the autonomous community of 
Aragon and the conservation service of the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department, Winter 
maintenance 2018-2019. Espacio Portalet EGTC, 15 December 2018. 

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Government of the 
Republic of Greece on joint border crossing control, signed in Sofia on 29 April 2008 by the 
Bulgarian Minister of Interior and the Romanian Minister of Internal Affairs.

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Austria and the Government of the 
Federal Republic of Germany on cooperation in vocational education and training and on 
the mutual recognition of the equivalence of vocational examination certificates, Federal 
Legal Gazette, No 308/1990, as amended in Federal Legal Gazette III, No 2/2008.

Agreement of 8 June 2005 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany 
and the Swiss Federal Council, acting on behalf of the Canton of Aargau, on the 
construction and maintenance of a Rhine bridge between Laufenburg (Baden-Württemberg) 
and Laufenburg (Aargau), Federal Law Gazette II, 2006, p. 1137.

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of 
the Republic of Croatia on cooperation in the field of environment protection and nature 
conservation, signed on 26 January 2006.

Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Hungary on social security, 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, No 11/2005.

Agreement on economic co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Hungary 
and the Government of Romania, Budapest on April 26 of 2005.

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Austria and the Government of the 
Federal Republic of Germany on Equivalences in Higher Education, Federal Legal Gazette 
III, No 6/2004.

Agreement between the Government of the French Republic, of the one part, and the 
Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Government of the French Community, the 
Government of the Walloon Region and the Flemish Government, of the other part, on 
cross-border cooperation between local authorities and local public bodies of 16 September 
2002 (Brussels Agreement).

Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and 
the Swiss Confederation, on the other hand, on the free movement of persons, OJ L 114, 
30.4.2002, p. 6.

216

Agreement of 12 June 2001 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany 
and the Government of the French Republic on the construction and maintenance of border 
bridges over the Rhine which are not under the responsibility of the contracting parties, 
Federal Law Gazette II, 2002, p. 2324.

Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Government of the French Republic, 
the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Swiss Federal Council, acting 
on behalf of the cantons of Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Aargau and Jura, on 
cross-border cooperation between local authorities and public bodies of 23 January 1996, 
entered into force 1 September 1997, German Federal Law Gazette on 21 August 1997.

Agreement of 10 March 1997 between the Portuguese Republic and the Grand Duchy of 
Luxembourg on the recognition of decisions taken by institutions of one contracting party 
by the institutions of the other contracting party concerning the state of invalidity of pension 
applicants, Journal of the Republic I-A, No 289, 16 December 1997 (Portugal), and 
Mémorial, ST1997100, 10 March 1997 (Luxembourg).

Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Hungary for the avoidance 
of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital, Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Croatia – International Agreements, No 11/97.

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of 
the Republic of Croatia on cooperation in the field of water management, signed in Pécs, 
Hungary, on 10 July 1994. 

Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and 
the states of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia concerning transboundary 
cooperation between territorial communities or authorities of 23 May 1991 (Anholt Treaty) 
entered into force in 1993.

Agreement between Spain and France for the avoidance of double taxation on income and 
wealth taxes of 27 June 1973, Official State Gazette, No 109, 7 May 1975, p. 9592.

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 
Their Disposal, 22 March 1989, UN Environmental Programme (Agenda Item 3), UN Doc. 
UNEP/Z/6 (1989), reprinted in 28 ILM 657 (1989). Texts and annexes revised in 2019.

Benelux Convention on Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection, signed in Brussels 
on 8 June 1982.

Benelux Treaty on Cross-border and Inter-territorial Cooperation, Benelux Official Journal, 
21 February 2014, pp. 3–38.

Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to avoid double 
taxation and prevent tax evasion and tax fraud on the personal income and property taxes, 
Official State Gazette, No 140, 12 June 1997, p. 12729, signed on 10 October 1995.

Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to avoid double 
taxation and prevent tax evasion in matters of income taxes and protocol, signed in Madrid 
on 26 October 1993: Official Journal of Portugal (Diário da República) No 24/1995, Series 
I-A, 28 January 1995, and Official Journal of Spain (Boletín Oficial del Estado) No 266,  
7 November 1995.

Franco-Belgian framework agreement on the reception of people with disabilities, signed on 
21 December 2011.

Franco-Belgian framework agreement on cross-border health cooperation, signed on  
30 September 2005.

European Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122), Strasbourg 15/10/1985 – 
Treaty open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe, entered into force 
on 01/09/1988.

S
E
C
N
E
R
E
F
E
R

L
A
G
E
L

217

 
Supplementary agreement between Spain and France concerning frontier 
workers of 25 January 1961, Official State Gazette, No 69, 21 March 1962, 
p. 3862.

Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the French Republic and the 
Kingdom of Spain, signed 19 January 2023 at Barcelona.

Treaty Establishing the Benelux Union of 17 June 2008, entered into force  
1 January 2012.

Treaty between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on transfrontier 
cooperation between territorial communities, signed at Bayonne on 10 
March 1995, United Nations Treaty Series No. 33640.

Treaty  between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Italian 
Republic on the delimitation of the frontier for the part not indicated as 
such in the Peace Treaty of 10 February 1947 (with annexes, exchanges of 
letters and final act). Signed at Osimo, Ancona, on 10 November 1975.

Treaty between the Netherlands and the state and between the Netherlands 
and Belgium of 19 April 1839, Belgian Official Gazette (Belgisch Staatsblad / 
Moniteur belge), No 26, 1839 (authors’ own translation).

Treaty of Limits between His Majesty the King of France and His Majesty 
the King of Belgium, signed in Kortrijk on 28 March 1820.

Tripartite agreement for the organisation of school swimming activities as 
part of a cross-border partnership between the Verbandsgemeinde of Bad-
Bergzabern, the town of Wissembourg and the Bas-Rhin Departmental 
Education Services Directorate of 24 November 2022.

218

-

N
N
E
-
8
8
6
-
4
2
-
9
0
-
N
K

ISBN 978-92-68-20386-6

The fourth compendium of b-solutions includes 34 cases from 2023 and 2024, illustrating 
legal and administrative obstacles that hinder cross-border cooperation in Europe.  
With detailed information on the involved entities, pertinent legal provisions, and tailored 
solutions, the summaries offer valuable insights and recommendations to make cross-border 
interactions easier.

The compendium also showcases the necessary steps to implement solutions in a cross-border 
context, based on nine cases which have received additional support within the framework 
of b-solutions.

Visit 
https://www.b-solutionsproject.com/
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/
https://www.aebr.eu/ 

Exchange on 
https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/border-focal-point-network

Like 
  Association of European Border Regions – AEBR / AGEG / ARFE
  @SocialnetAEBR
  Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) 

Share 
#EUBorderRegions
#bsolutions
#CrossBorderCooperation