Cross-border mobility in times of COVID-19: Assessing COVID-19 Measures and their Effects on Cross-border Regions within the EU

Border Region

EU, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Germany, Czech Republic, Austria, Portugal, Spain

Language(s)

Anglais

Type

Note on a scientific paper, a conference paper, etc.

Main Category

Employment – Education – Economy

Governance – Power – Cooperation

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic severely affected the freedom of movement in the EU, especially problematic for cross-border regions. This report, written for DG SANTE in the context of EU-CITZEN, seeks to devote particular attention to the effects for border regions.

Summary

The aim of this contribution was to analyse the effects of travel measures taken in light of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Free Movement, specifically concerning cross-border regions. The report provided an in-depth examination of the principle of proportionality as well as case studies on several cross-border regions were conducted. Due to the specificalities of border regions and the great importance and habit of cross-border mobility within daily life, it was found that discoordination of national COVID-19 measures and (disproportionate) travel restrictions particularly impacted border regions.

Content

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Commission has taken an active role in seeking to balance the protection of public health and the continuation of the freedom of movement. Nevertheless, even if formal internal border controls and travel bans were lifted within the EU, some Member States continued to take measures. Whereas such measures were primarily aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19, some of these measures had detrimental effects to mobility. Considering the profound effect COVID-19 measures have had on cross-border regions, the present report seeks to devote particular attention to the position of these regions. It analyses the effects of measures taken in light of the COVID-19 pandemic specifically on cross-border regions. Particular attention is devoted to assessing the proportionality of measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19 in light of the intensity of cross-border life and work mobility. Accordingly, several steps of analysis are taken to examine the dynamic of COVID-19 measures and coordination efforts in cross-border regions, as well as the extent to which they achieve an adequate balance of interests in light of proportionality.

Section 2 elaborates on which types of COVID-19 measures have been taken (e.g. travel advice and entry restrictions) and how these may be distinguished. Member States issued travel advice often based on infection rates in other countries to dissuade citizens and residents from travelling to foreign areas. Second, other requirements such as testing, quarantine periods, and border controls imposed upon entry were some of the measures maintained by Member States. Some of these measures were liable to negatively affect cross-border mobility (i.e. resulting in entry restrictions). The restrictive effects of some measures in terms of mobility paired with a lack of coordination resulted in a patchwork of measures having a considerable impact on mobility, especially in cross-border regions. The COVID-19 measures in a selection of Member States at a designated point in time is also analysed here. An overview of measures is provided to indicate the variety of different COVID-19 measures across the EU.

Section 3 subsequently examines various legal and policy sources to gain an understanding of how the principle of proportionality should be applied to balance public health interests with those related to the freedom of movement.

In Section 4, the focus is shifted to the cross-border regions. Here, a selection of EU cross-border regions serve as case studies to examine the effects of COVID-19 measures and coordination efforts. More specifically, these case studies serve to explore how life in several European cross-border regions has been affected by the various measures aimed at combatting the COVID-19 crisis. The intensity of border crossings and geographical spread thereby provided the basis for the selection of the following cross-border regions: The Euregio Meuse-Rhine, the Nordic Countries, the German-Czech-Austrian Border, the Portuguese-Spanish Border, Hungary and surrounding border regions, and the Grande Région.

The last section, Section 5, evaluates and put forwards recommendations, on the basis of the examination of the case studies combined with the in-depth analysis of the principle of proportionality. The report reflects on the proportionality of measures taken that affected mobility and concludes the in-depth examination to provide guidance on how a balance may be struck between free mobility and safeguarding public health.

Content :

1.   Introduction
2.   Distinguishing Entry Restrictions & Travel Advice
2.1.   Travel-related COVID-19 Measures in a Selection of Member States
3.   The Proportionality of Measures related to Mobility: Legislation, Case Law and More
3.1.   Proportionality in the Area of Health at EU Level: Treaties & Case Law
3.1.1.   Proportionality in CJEU Case Law
3.1.2.   Beyond Proportionality: A Look into the Precautionary Principle
3.1.3.   COVID-19 Measures and Fundamental Rights: Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
3.2.   Developing Perspectives to Proportionality: The WHO and ECDC
3.3.   Limiting Freedom of Movement: The Schengen Borders Code, Directive 2004/38/EC, and Council Recommendation
3.3.1.   Restrictions to Free Movement through the Schengen Borders Code
3.3.2.   Directive 2004/38/EC: Restrictions to Free Movement Rights connected to EU Citizenship
3.3.3.   The Council Recommendation: Towards a European Risk Assessment and Approach for Entry Restrictions
3.4.   National Perspectives to Proportionality: Case Law, Policy & Practice
3.4.1.   The Legality of COVID-19 Legislation
3.4.2.   Quarantine Rules and Confinement considered from a National Law Perspective
3.4.3.   Measures Concerning Testing: National Courts’ Rulings
3.4.4.   Beyond Legality and Entry Restrictions: Looking into the Proportionality of other COVID-19 Measures
3.5.   Evaluating Proportionality of Entry Restrictions & Travel Advice
3.5.1.   Testing Requirements, Quarantine or Self-isolation
3.5.2.   Travel Advice
4.   Border regions in times of COVID-19
4.1.   The Euregio Meuse-Rhine: non-coordination of exemptions and a Belgian ban on non-essential travel
4.1.1.   Travel advice and Travel Bans
4.1.2.   Quarantine and test obligations
4.1.3.   The Effects in Border Regions and the Proportionality
4.2.   The Nordic Countries: Facilitation Measures for Cross-border Workers
4.2.1.   Travel Bans
4.2.2.   Requirements on Quarantine
4.2.3.   The Effect and Proportionality of the Measures
4.2.4.   Border between Finland and Estonia: a comparison between Nordic and Baltic approach
4.3.   The German-Czech-Austrian Border: Closed Borders & Waiting Lines
4.4.   The Portuguese-Spanish Border: Reintroduction of Border Controls
4.5.   Hungary and surrounding border regions
4.6.   Experiences from the Grande Région
4.6.1.   Teleworking: Agreements on social security and taxation
5.   Conclusion

Conclusions

Due to the specificalities of border regions and the great importance and habit of cross-border mobility within daily life, it was found that discoordination of national COVID-19 measures and travel restrictions particularly impacted border regions.

The Council Recommendation can be seen as an important turning point, seeking coordination and safeguarding common principles of EU law. Yet, the national implementation showed differences still impacting mobility. It should be encouraged to also consider the perspective of the cross-border regions in this respect, even in times where measures were greatly nationally steered from the capital cities further removed from the border regions – i.e. a bottom-up approach. The national steering also overruled local structures, worsening the established cross-border cooperation. Nevertheless, despite these challenges to cooperation in border regions, cross-border cooperation has also been sought and new structures have been established during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the importance of cooperation became evident, the level of success can be different.

In the report the balance between free movement rights on the one hand and the need for travel measures to protect public health on the other hand has been studied. Since the proportionality principle requires that the gain in the protection of public health outweighs the negative consequences of restricting free mobility, it is important that Member States both look at the epidemiological situation at local level abroad and reflect on their own epidemiological situation. It can be argued that entry restrictions are only proportionate if travellers come from a region that has a greater epidemiological risk. Another aspect is the efficiency and targeting of the studied entry restrictions. For these purposes, the issuance of more detailed data on (eu)regional level should be promoted, enabling policies to assess the local and cross-border situation on a regional level. On a practical level, the report discussed that less emphasises should be placed on the distinction between essential and non-essential travel reasons for border regions, but the cross-border characteristic of border regions should be more effectively acknowledged by for example time based exemptions.

Key Messages

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the great importance of cross-border cooperation. Not only on European level, but also on smaller multi- or bilateral level. It is important to have adequate multilevel governance structures, facilitating a coordinated response and dialogue across levels and borders, but also to keep in mind the existing structures and leaving sufficient space for regional specificities. It can therefore be recommended to have a more bottom-up approach, instead of top-down. The cross-border characteristics of border regions should also be respected as crucial element when designing policies.

Lead

Prof. dr. Hildegard Schneider

Author of the entry

Contributions

Dr. Lavinia Kortese

Pim Mertens

Suzanne Sivonen

Links