CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOR AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This document aims to inform the public and stakeholders on the Commission’s future legislative work so they can provide feedback on the Commission’s understanding of the problem and possible solutions and give us any relevant information that they may have, including on impacts of the different options.

Title of the initiative

European Border and Coast Guard – update of EU rules

Lead DG (responsible unit)

Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs, Unit B1 Schengen & External Borders

Type of initiative

Proposal for a regulation

Indicative timetable

Q3 2026

Additional information

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/agencies_en#frontex-the-european-border-and-coast-guard-agency 

This document is for information purposes only. It does not prejudge the final decision of the Commission on whether this initiative will be pursued or on its final content. All elements of the initiative described, including its timing, are subject to change.

A. Political context, problem definition, legal basis and subsidiarity check

Political context

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) has been operating since 1 May 2005. Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 (the EBCG Regulation) sets out the legal framework under which Frontex supports EU Member States in the protection of the EU’s external borders and return operations from Member States to third countries.

Frontex is an EU decentralised agency and is part of the European Border and Coast Guard, which also includes the national authorities of EU countries responsible for border management, including coast guards, and the national authorities responsible for returns.

The EBCG Regulation also created the so-called standing corps, which is the EU’s first uniformed service consisting of border guards and return specialists available to support national authorities in their daily tasks.

High-quality, integrated management of the EU’s external borders is a prerequisite for free movement within the Schengen area. In 2024, the Schengen area was once again the world’s most visited destination. This significant flow of passengers was managed through the daily work of over 120 000 European border and coast guards. At the same time, migratory pressures at the external borders remain high owing to geopolitical and security conflicts, including tactics to instrumentalise migration for political purposes. The EU’s external borders are also exposed to growing and more complex security threats as well as to the smuggling of illicit goods, such as drugs and firearms, which is often linked to organised crime.

The effective implementation of the returns of third-country nationals who have no right to stay in the EU also remains a challenge. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the average return rate stood at almost 33%. However, in recent years, only around one in five of those ordered to leave the EU were effectively returned.

In July 2024, Commission President Von der Leyen committed in her political guidelines to strengthening Frontex by tripling the standing corps to 30 000 and equipping it with state-of-the-art technology for surveillance and situational awareness, along with its own equipment and personnel to ensure it can protect our borders in all circumstances with strong governance and the full respect of fundamental rights. The political guidelines also put high on the agenda the improvement of search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean and a new common approach on returns.

Problem the initiative aims to tackle

In 2023, the Commission carried out the evaluation of the existing legislation and found that, while Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 was generally fit-for-purpose, there were some gaps in the legal framework. Member States in the Council also stressed the need to address these gaps and called for a reflection on possible targeted amendments to the Regulation.

The key areas to be tackled are:

1.Lack of clarity on some of Frontex’s tasks: Frontex has a wide range of possibilities to support national authorities in managing borders. However, experience has shown that some of these tasks are not regulated sufficiently. In particular, the rules governing Frontex’s cooperation with third countries are not suited to the diversity of third countries that it has to work together with. Moreover, they are not sufficiently flexible, which limits Frontex’s ability to adjust its operational support to emerging needs. Frontex also plays a key role in improving the EU’s awareness of events taking place at the external borders. However, the rules on processing relevant data, including personal data, are complex, but also incomplete, and hinder Frontex’s work on situational awareness, cross-border crime prevention and return activities. Furthermore, the Regulation does not sufficiently define the role of Frontex in combating cross-border crime and does not provide for any role for Frontex in supporting Member States in the implementation of EU visa policy.

2.Limited effectiveness of Frontex in the area of return: Frontex has an increasingly important role to play in supporting Member States in returning third-country nationals who have no right to stay in the EU. However, this support is currently limited by a range of challenges, including as regards the appropriate representation of return authorities in the Agency’s Management Board, insufficient human and budgetary resources and the fact that return operations are not subject to vulnerability assessment. Moreover, Frontex does not have the mandate to support return operations from third countries to other third countries, which limits its ability to effectively support the EU’s migration management.

3.Insufficient harmonisation in the implementation of European integrated border management: to manage the EU’s external borders effectively, border guards must be trained to work in accordance with similar standards across Europe. However, currently there are significant discrepancies in the training of border and coast guard officers. Moreover, the operational procedures and standards across Member States diverge a lot. This hampers cooperation between Member States and with Frontex, reduces the effectiveness of EU-level coordination and impedes the development of a unified, high-standard border management culture in Europe.

4.Frontex faces obstacles to the effective use of its staff and technical equipment: Frontex’s support to Member States has increased significantly in recent years. However, structural and practical challenges remain which hinder the effectiveness of the standing corps and undermine the optimal use of technical assets (e.g. patrol cars, vessels). These obstacles include: (i) difficulties with the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel; (ii) partly unsuited staff rules applicable to border guards; and (iii) procurement and deployment-related challenges regarding technical assets. Together, these factors undermine Frontex’s readiness and hamper its ability to address changing dynamics at the external borders swiftly and effectively.

5.The governance of Frontex needs to be adjusted to the evolving role of the Agency with a view to ensuring strategic coherence and ownership across the EU: currently, the governance and oversight structures of Frontex correspond to other EU decentralised agencies. Assigning more tasks and operations to Frontex calls for an assessment of whether the governance structure needs to be strengthened, both as regards the oversight by Member States and EU institutions and internally, within Frontex, including the roles of the Fundamental Rights Officer, the Data Protection Officer and other internal control structures.

Basis for EU action (legal basis and subsidiarity check)

Legal basis

The legal basis of Frontex is Article 77(2)(b) and (d) and Article 79(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These provisions pertain to policies on border checks, asylum and immigration (Title V, Chapter 2 TFEU). Frontex is currently governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/1896.

Practical need for EU action

The effective implementation of integrated border management at the EU level addresses challenges that Member States cannot tackle effectively alone. The evaluation of the EBCG Regulation has shown that Frontex provides critical support in areas such as situational awareness, returns, joint operations and training – enhancing capacity, coordination and consistency across the EU. Its role in return operations, risk analysis and rapid deployments adds operational strength where national resources are limited. EU-level action is appropriate to enhance the integration of the EU’s external border management. It ensures the protection of fundamental rights and facilitates cooperation with third countries, delivering strategic benefits that go beyond what individual Member States can achieve independently.

B. Objectives and policy options

The objective of any upcoming initiative will be twofold:

1)to address the gaps identified in the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 and to prepare and equip Frontex for its increased role as the operational arm of the EU in border management, ensuring a high level of security at the EU’s external borders in response to the new operational challenges;

2)to deliver on the EU objective related to development and effective implementation of integrated border management across the EU.

The identified gaps and new operational challenges can be addressed to some extent by stepping up efforts by Frontex and the Member States to cooperate better on return operations and deployments, including on the prioritisation and expansion of operations in third countries as well as in relation to combating cross-border crime. Further operational guidance could be developed in these areas. Cooperation with other EU agencies could also be enhanced. Frontex and Member States could also take measures within the limits of the current mandate, to improve the EU’s situational awareness as regards events at the external borders. Depending on available resources, Frontex could also step up its support to Member States in returns. Frontex could try to reallocate its existing human and budgetary resources within the existing framework to cater for concurrent operational priorities.

More ambitious solutions could include proposing legislative measures in order to improve the rules on:

(I)the scope of activities in third countries under status agreements, working arrangements and/or on ad hoc activities outside of these instruments, in order to have more tailored offer for cooperation;

(II)Frontex’s tasks with respect to countering cross-border crime;

(III)processing of operational personal data with respect to crime detection;

(IV)cooperation with relevant international organisations;

(V)situational awareness to enable, among other things, a faster and better response to hybrid threats.

Moreover, new provisions could be proposed to involve Frontex in supporting Member States in the implementation of EU visa policy and return operations between third countries. Legislatives measures could also be considered to enhance Frontex’s human and budgetary resources, based on operational needs, while improving its ability to cater for concurrent operational priorities.

The implementation of European integrated border management could be improved by stepping up efforts to harmonise operational guidelines applicable both to the border management staff of Frontex and Member States and to technical equipment (e.g. drones, patrol vessels). In addition, the common minimum standards for border management could be developed further to reduce discrepancies and ease cooperation between the Member States and Frontex. These efforts could be complemented by measures taken jointly by Frontex and Member States to improve and harmonise the training of border guards and return specialists. Frontex and Member States could also integrate further their planning related to human resources and technical equipment needs, recruitment and acquisition. The Agency's Management Board could enhance its governance and oversight roles, for example by diversifying its composition, increasing the frequency of its meetings, or establishing more support groups and committees.

Alternatively, more ambitious solutions could include reconsidering the standing corps to enhance the integration between Frontex and the competent authorities of the Member States, possibly leading to increasing the number of the standing corps. The new framework could promote an EU career system based on harmonised training, better staff mobility between national authorities and Frontex, and enhanced common standards for border management across the EU. Moreover, the planning and acquisition of equipment could be improved with a view to developing more synergies and providing Frontex with more effective means to support Member States at the external borders and in returns. The role of the standing corps and Frontex in supporting the Member States could be enhanced by increasing their operational independence and improving the conditions for the long-term management of the workforce, paired with stronger governance, plus internal and external oversight mechanisms.

C. Likely impacts

More efficient management of the external borders and returns, more clarity as to the role of Frontex in addressing security threats, including combating cross-border criminality, should have positive economic and social impacts by ensuring conditions for the Schengen area to persist, where individuals and businesses can benefit fully from the freedoms offered in the area without internal border controls. A stronger Frontex, with improved human and technological capabilities, should enable the more efficient use of public resources in the EU for migration and security. This could be achieved with better planning, coordination and economies of scale. More uniform use of the standards in the areas covered by the European integrated border management should also have a positive impact in terms of compliance with fundamental rights.

D. Better regulation instruments

Impact assessment

An impact assessment will be conducted that will feed into the Commission’s proposal. The impact assessment will pay particular attention to simplification initiatives and possible measures to reduce the administrative burden.

An external contractor is carrying out a preparatory study to collect the evidence necessary for the Commission’s impact assessment. The results of the study are expected in the first quarter of 2026. The contractor will also engage with stakeholders through additional surveys, interviews and workshops.

Consultation strategy

The Commission will consult as widely as possible to gather key information and ensure that the impact assessment reflects the general public interest.

In addition to this call for evidence, the Commission will launch a public consultation that will be available online on the Have your Say page and will be open for at least 12 weeks. The public consultation questionnaire will be available in all 24 official EU languages; responses to the public consultation can be submitted in any of these languages.

A factual summary report of the contributions to the public consultation will be published on the consultation page eight weeks after the public consultation closes. A synopsis report, summarising all consultation activities, will be made available as an annex to the impact assessment.

Targeted stakeholder consultations are also planned for this initiative, in particular with Frontex, EU institutions, Member States and other key stakeholders.

Why are we consulting?

Through this consultation, the Commission would like to gather:

·stakeholder views on the current and emerging problems and challenges related to Frontex’s tasks, activities, deployments, structure and governance;

·stakeholder views on possible policy approaches and options to address such problems and challenges, and on their potential impacts;

·evidence and data underpinning those views.

Target audience

The target audience includes, in particular:

·EU Member States, including their competent authorities;

·EU institutions, bodies, agencies and offices;

·authorities for fundamental rights and data protection;

·international organisations;

·civil society organisations;

·competent authorities in third countries;

·academic experts, think tanks and research institutions;

·industry representatives;

·the general public.