The temporary reintroduction of Schengen border controls — once reserved for genuine emergencies— has increasingly become a convenient tool for governments eager to display resolve on migration, crime, or simply to calm domestic anxieties.
The consequence is visible to anyone crossing a border on their morning commute: queues where none existed, ID checks that once seemed unthinkable, and the gradual normalisation of practices Schengen was designed to abolish.
The contradiction is stark.
Politicians proudly invoke Schengen as a symbol of European unity, yet many quietly undermine it through repeated extensions of temporary controls that now look permanent in all but name.
The legal framework remains intact; the lived experience does not.
Is the spirit of Schengen still alive? Formally, yes. Substantively, it is under serious strain.
The project that once embodied Europe’s confidence in openness now reflects its fears. Schengen’s future will depend on whether Member States choose to defend free movement as a cornerstone of European integration — or continue to erode it in the name of short-term political reassurance.
On its 40th anniversary, Schengen does not need mere commemoration. It needs political courage.
Currently, 10 Schengen states have decided to reintroduce their Schengen borders: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden.
Among them, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden appear to maintain controls on a quasi-permanent basis.
Before reintroducing or prolonging internal checks, a government must assess not only whether the measure will work, but also whether it risks unduly restricting free movement — the very essence of Schengen. The grounds for such measures are tightly defined:
In 2024, the Schengen Borders Code was revised to close loopholes and restore credibility.
The reforms clarified that, after the initial two-year limit is reached, a member state may request only one final extension — of up to one year. After that, the legal ceiling is absolute: three years and no more.
Yet in practice, several governments are shrugging off these limits.
The result is a legal paradox: while the Schengen system formally restricts long-term internal border checks, some member states have turned “temporary” controls into an open-ended policy.
What was designed as an emergency tool is now edging dangerously close to a routine — and, to many, it amounts a quiet to the quiet dismantling of one of the EU’s most celebrated freedoms.
The pattern of reinstating Schengen border controls can be traced through three main phases: the refugee crisis, the wave of terrorist attacks, and the Covid-19 pandemic.
What is worrying is that this practice appears to be continuing. There seems to be insufficient scrutiny of the reasoning underlying the recurring decisions by some member states to close their borders.
The preamble of the Schengen Agreement states that “The ever closer union of the peoples of the member states of the European communities should find its expression in the freedom to cross internal borders for all nationals.”
Travelling freely across borders is not merely a valuable instrument for enhancing cross-border cooperation and reinforcing the single market — it is a fundamental right that must be protected and upheld (Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) which gives meaning to the essence of the EU citizenship, and is intrinsically linked to the roots of the European identity.
Frequent or unjustified border controls can weaken the credibility and implementation of EU legislation, creating conditions where Schengen states place their national priorities above the common rules established at the EU level.
The European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) has long been committed to empowering citizens to exercise their rights to free movement, notably through its Your Europe Advice service.
With over 30 years of experience in this field, we increasingly witness the growing challenges faced by citizens when crossing Schengen borders.
As restrictions continue to mount, ECAS remains vigilant in monitoring developments and advocating for the full and effective exercise of freedom of movement.
We believe that being forced to navigate physical borders within the Schengen Area — and the escalating reliance on temporarily reinstated border controls — threatens the very essence of freedom of movement, weakens the spirit of Schengen, and ultimately undermines the EU’s identity and the shared sense of belonging that lies at the heart of European integration.
Claire Morot-Sir has been programme director for EU rights at European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) since 2022. She holds a master’s degree in EU law and, prior to joining ECAS, worked as a legal adviser in the private sector focusing on international mobility.
Claire Morot-Sir has been programme director for EU rights at European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) since 2022. She holds a master’s degree in EU law and, prior to joining ECAS, worked as a legal adviser in the private sector focusing on international mobility.