Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael Kocsis

Freedom of Movement Across State Borders After the Schengen Agreement

Living reference work entry


The European Union was founded around the four freedoms: the freedom of goods, capital labor, and workers. Characterized as one of the European Economic Community’s fundamental objectives (Treaty of Rome 1957, Article 3), free movement of persons, as established in the constitutive treaties of the European Union, originally covered only individuals as employees or service providers. It went alongside the free movement of goods, which provided for the elimination of customs duties and quantitative restrictions, and the prohibition on measures having an equivalent effect within the Union (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2016), Articles 26 and 28–37. See Joined cases 2/62 and 3/62 (1962); Case 8-74 (1974); Case 120/78 (1979); Case 232/78 (1979); Joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 (1993)).

The rationale for this right was mainly economic: ensuring an efficient deployment of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Arbidāne I, Kuprijanova J, Garjāns J, Pokule V (2016) Possibilities of improvement of the preparedness of officers of the border control and immigration control structural units of the state border guard for Schengen evaluation on-site visits. Border Secur Manag 1(6):18–19Google Scholar
  2. Atiqullah Adil v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Case C-278/12 PPU, 19 July 2012Google Scholar
  3. Aziz Melki and Sélim Abdeli, Joined cases C-188/10 and C-189/10, 22 June 2010Google Scholar
  4. Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case C-413/99, 17 September 2002Google Scholar
  5. Biffl G (2012) Labour market integration of low skilled migrants in Europe: economic impact. Paper presented at the conference on managing migration and integration: Europe and the US, University of California- Berkeley, 9 March 2012Google Scholar
  6. Bulletin of the European Communities (1984) Conclusions of the Fontainebleau European Council, No 6. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 11–12Google Scholar
  7. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Protocols Annexes to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 Tables of equivalences, Official Journal C 202, 7 June 2016, p 1–388Google Scholar
  8. Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities – Dublin Convention, 15 June 1990, OJ C 254, 19 August 1997, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  9. Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 50, 25 February 2003, p 1–10Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Economic Community v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium, Joined cases C-2/62 and C-3/62, 14 December 1962Google Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, Case C-232/78, 25 September 1979Google Scholar
  12. Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard, Joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, 24 November 1993Google Scholar
  13. Craig P and de Búrca G (2015) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn). Oxford University Press.
  14. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30 April 2004, pp 77–123Google Scholar
  15. Estevens J (2018) Migration crisis in the EU: developing a framework for analysis of national security and defence strategies. Comp Migr Stud 6(1):1–21Google Scholar
  16. Eur-lex Summaries of EU Legislation (2009) The Schengen Area and Cooperation.
  17. European Commission (2013) ‘Smart Borders’: for an open and secure EuropeGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2017) Commission Recommendation of 12 May 2017 on proportionate police checks and police cooperation in the Schengen areaGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission, Migration and Home Affairs (2019). Accessed 14 Nov 2019
  20. European Commission (2019) Member States’ notifications of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders pursuant to Article 25 et seq. of the Schengen Borders CodeGoogle Scholar
  21. European Council (2016) EU-Turkey statement, 18 March 2016Google Scholar
  22. European Parliament (2013) Regulation (EU) No 1051/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstancesGoogle Scholar
  23. European Parliament Research Service (2015) The cost of non-Schengen: civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs aspects, Cost of Non-Europe ReportGoogle Scholar
  24. Eurostat (2017) People in the EU - statistics on origin of residents. Accessed 3 Dec 2019
  25. Fontainebleau Agreement 26 June 1984, Fontainebleau European Council (Presidency Conclusions), Bulletin of the European Communities EC 5-1984, point 1.1.2Google Scholar
  26. Frontex website (2020). Accessed 26 Apr 2020
  27. Giordano A (2016) The new political geography of migration in Europe between external borders and internal freedom of movement. Glasnik Srpskog Geografskog Društva 96(2):50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilmarsson Þ (2016) Iceland, economic integration and the European Union. Rev Int Comp Manag 17(4):373–391Google Scholar
  29. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, 23 February 2012, Application no. 27765/09Google Scholar
  30. Human Rights Watch (2019). Accessed 1 Dec 2019
  31. HRW (2020). Accessed 26 Apr 2020
  32. Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, 14 March 2017, Application No. 47287/15Google Scholar
  33. Independent Balkans News Agency (2019). Accessed 2 Dec 2019
  34. Jakulevičienė L (2018) Migration related restrictions by the EU Member States in the aftermath of the 2015 refugee “crisis” in Europe: what did we learn? Int Comp Jurisprud 3(2):222–230Google Scholar
  35. Jędrzejowska-Schiffauer I, Schiffauer P (2017) New constraints on mobility in Europe: policy response to European crises or constitutional ambiguity? J Int Stud 10(3):10–21Google Scholar
  36. Marhold H (2017) The European ‘area of freedom, security and justice’: its evolution and three fundamental dilemmas. L’Europe en Formation 381(3):9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mindus P (2017) European citizenship after Brexit. Freedom of Movement and Rights of Residence. Palgrave Macmillan.
  38. Parrot K (2018) Le code des visas, un rempart assumé contre les migrants en quête de protection internationale. Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigrésGoogle Scholar
  39. Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville, Case C-8-74, 11 July 1974Google Scholar
  40. Popa CE (2016) The challenges of the Schengen area. Expert J Econ 4(3):96–104Google Scholar
  41. Radionov N, Savić I (2019) The impact of irregular migrations, smuggling and human trafficking on the land transport industry: the Croatian case. Poredbeno Pomorsko Pravo 58(173):103–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ L 180, 29 June 2013, pp 31–59Google Scholar
  43. Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC, OJ L 251, 16 September 2016, pp 1–76Google Scholar
  44. Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624, OJ L 295, 14 November 2019, pp 1–131Google Scholar
  45. Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, Case C-120/78, 20 February 1979Google Scholar
  46. Rosca L, Pipa D, Bajraktari A (2018) The Schengen Area, a dream or reality? Relaţii Internaţionale Plus 2(14):303–314Google Scholar
  47. Schengen Visa Info (2019a) How traveling to the Schengen area will change in the next few yearsGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsai YC (2011) Freedom and security: the impact of Schengen information system on the internal security of the European Union. Networked Digital Library of Theses & DissertationsGoogle Scholar
  49. Van der Woude MAH, Van Berlo P (2015) Crimmigration at the internal Borders of Europe? Examining the Schengen governance package. Utrecht Law Rev 11(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Votoupalová M (2018) Schengen in crisis? Why subjective critique matters. Cent Eur J Int Secur Stud 12(3):10–34Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawCatholic University of LilleLilleFrance

Section editors and affiliations

  • Kevin W. Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada