Poland's border checks: Beginning of the end of Schengen? – DW – 07/07/2025

DW

12 hours ago

Border controls are creeping back across Europe, known as a free-travel zone. But are they solving anything?
When Poland introduced border checks with Germany and Lithuania this week, it wasn't the first time that a Schengen country took such a step. These measures are typically justified as necessary to curb irregular migration, combat human smuggling, or address national security concerns. But for many analysts, it may be one of the clearest signs yet that the European Union's borderless travel area, seen as a symbol of integration and common identity, is under increasing strain.
According to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the controls are temporary and aimed at stopping human trafficking and irregular migration. Yet the move comes just weeks after Germany itself ramped up checks along all its land borders, including with Poland, under the new conservative government of Chancellor Friedrich Merz. For many observers here in Brussels, the tit-for-tat measures reflect a deeper shift away from European solidarity and toward national self-interest.
Created in the 1990s, the Schengen Area allows passport-free travel across 29 European countries, covering most of the EU plus several non-members like Norway and Switzerland. It facilitates the free movement of over 450 million people and underpins Europe's single market by eliminating internal border checks for goods, services, and labor. For businesses, commuters, and travelers alike, Schengen is one of the EU's most practical achievements.
In an interview with DW, Birte Nienaber, Associate Professor at the University of Luxembourg, underlined that Europe is seeing a slow erosion of border-free moment in Europe, one frontier at a time.
Davide Colombi, a migration researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) based in Brussels, agrees that the recent Polish-German dispute fits a broader European pattern.
France has maintained border checks since the 2015 terrorist attacks. Austria first introduced controls on its borders with Slovenia and Hungary in September 2015, at the height of the refugee crisis, and has renewed them every six months since, citing migration pressures and internal security.
Slovenia introduced checks with Croatia less than a year after the latter joined Schengen, citing increased migration and concerns over organized crime. And Germany, which had long resisted tightening its internal borders, began expanding them last autumn, a move the European Commission has so far not formally challenged. Under EU law, such checks are only allowed in exceptional circumstances and must be temporary.
"These border controls are purely political symbolism, without a real effect of curbing migration," says Professor Nienaber. She emphasizes that with the rise of far-right forces in Europe, populist narratives are gaining grounds across all parties. Centrist leaders face pressure to show "toughness" on migration — and border controls are a visible measure popular with the public.
But how effective are they really? Official statistics cast doubt on the pertinence of border checks inside the Schengen area. German police say that in the first month of enhanced border operations this spring, just 160 asylum seekers were turned away. Polish media reports that Germany returned around 1,000 migrants to Poland between May and mid-June, a figure not significantly different from previous years.
"Smugglers or those trying to enter irregularly know exactly how to avoid official checkpoints," said migration expert Nienaber. "The controls don't stop them. They only create the illusion of control."
Researcher Colombi agreed that such policies are more about optics than outcomes. He underlined that EU member states have so far failed to prove the necessity for the controls in, for instance, curbing migration, or preventing terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, border communities, especially in regions like Luxembourg, Austria, and Poland, are already feeling the negative effects: longer wait times, disrupted supply chains, and growing economic stress on cross-border local businesses. A detailed European Parliament study estimated that reinstating internal border checks leads to substantial time losses: 10–20 minutes for cars and 30–60 minutes for heavy vehicles, and costs the transport sector around €320 million — and that's only accounting for delays, not the broader economic fallout.
The economic cost is therefore not trivial. Schengen affects the free movement of goods, services, capital and people: the four pillars of the EU single market. Prices could rise, supply chains could slow, and cross-border jobs and businesses could be lost.
A Bulgarian logistics association recently estimated border delays previously cost the sector €300 million ($352 million) annually. Since Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen this year, cross-border traffic has significantly increased and become more efficient. In the first three months of 2025 alone, traffic between the two countries rose by 25%, with over 160,000 vehicles crossing compared to 128,000 in the same period the year before, according to Romania's Road Administration Agency.
The average wait times at crossings have dropped from over 10 hours to less than two. For regional hauliers and border towns that rely on smooth trade flows, this has meant faster deliveries and a revived economic outlook. A return to hard borders, experts warn, could undo that progress, hitting not just supply chains, but also the livelihoods of thousands who depend on seamless daily crossings.
EU law allows internal border checks in exceptional cases: they must be limited to six months with clearly justified renewals. Yet several member states have simply continued extending them. France's controls have been in place almost continuously for nearly a decade. Austria, Denmark, Sweden and now Germany have also operated under long-term exceptions.
"We can see that these border checks are becoming permanent in some member states. That was never the intent of the Schengen agreement," says researcher Colombi.
He explains that the European Commission has faced criticism for not enforcing limits more robustly, for instance through infringement procedures. This could risks opening the floodgates for others, creating a domino effect.
The EU and its leaders are aware of the risks. If internal border checks become permanent, the Schengen system could unravel entirely.
This would not only disrupt the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, key pillars of the EU single market, but also undermine the legal integrity of EU treaties, increase costs for businesses, slow supply chains, potentially erode citizens' trust in the European project itself.
The Commission is now working to update the Schengen Borders Code and launch two digital border management tools: the Entry/Exit System (ESS) and the ETIAS, a visa-waiver screening platform. Both are designed to better track non-EU nationals entering the zone and reduce the perceived need for internal checks.
The Commission says these reforms represent an evolution of Schengen, not its breakdown. But Colombi argues that if Schengen is to survive, it will need more than legal tweaks or digital tools.
Rather, he says, "we need political courage, the rebuilding of mutual trust between member states and enforcement by the European Commission." Above all, the subject of migration should be de-politicized, shifting the public debate away from ineffective measures such as border controls.
Both experts are skeptical that this will happen anytime soon. With far-right parties reshaping political narratives in many countries, the pressure to reassert national sovereignty is only growing, Nienaber explains. She warns that if governments continue to use internal border controls as political instruments, rather than last resort security tools, the Schengen Area could soon fall to pieces.
Should Schengen fall apart, the economic damage could be severe. Reinstated border checks would slow down the flow of goods, disrupt just-in-time supply chains, and increase transport costs, particularly in logistics-heavy sectors like agriculture, retail, and manufacturing. Cross-border workers would face longer commutes, while small businesses in border regions could lose vital customers. For everyday citizens, it could mean longer queues at borders, higher prices in stores, and diminished access to services and job markets across borders.
But the symbolic loss could be just as profound, says Colombi: "Schengen is one of the most visible signs of a common European identity and a flag-ship achievement." Should Schengen fall, it's most tangible way to experience the EU as a transnational project for citizens would fall, too.
To prevent that, both experts argue that the EU and its member states must recommit to the core idea behind Schengen: that Europeans should be able to move freely, without fear, delay, or political posturing, across their shared continent.