What reasons did member states give for delaying the Entry/Exit System rollout?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
EU member states and EU institutions gave a mix of practical readiness and technical reasons for delaying the Entry/Exit System (EES): officials repeatedly cited IT problems and the need for additional infrastructure such as automated barriers and biometric registration points [1] [2]. Several reports also attribute delays to member states — especially smaller airports and key countries at busy ports — not being ready to implement the system across all crossings, prompting the Commission to propose a phased roll-out and temporary derogations [3] [4] [5].
1. Implementation hit by “unexpected technical challenges” — the Commission’s line
EU communications and media coverage point first to technical problems: the Commission and reporting outlets described “unexpected technical challenges” and IT issues that prevented the originally scheduled launch and pushed EES into 2025 [1] [2] [6]. Official EU material later framed the response as a deliberate shift to a progressive start of operations to manage those technical risks and reduce disruption [5].
2. Infrastructure gaps: barriers, booths and biometric capture at borders
Multiple outlets note that delays stem from physical and operational infrastructure not yet in place — automated barriers, registration booths and the arrangements to capture fingerprints and facial images at all land, sea and air external border points are incomplete. Reporters and the Commission linked those installation needs directly to postponements [2] [7].
3. Member states’ readiness — “key countries aren’t ready” and pressure from ports
Industry and specialist reporting highlights that certain member states, and especially busy Channel and port operators, told the EU they were not prepared for a full, simultaneous switch-on. Commentaries say that pressure from national authorities and operators — who warned of delays and operational strain — was a major factor in moving to a phased introduction [3] [4] [8].
4. Operational concern about processing times and passenger flow
Analysts and legal commentators warned that biometric registration will increase processing time at busy terminals, with particular concerns about vehicle passengers and terminals like Dover and Eurotunnel where logistics are complex. Those operational risk assessments are repeatedly cited as reasons to postpone and trial the system gradually [7] [9].
5. Political and legal workaround: phased roll-out and temporary derogations
Faced with readiness gaps, the Commission formally proposed a progressive start and later the Parliament and Council adopted a regulation on temporary derogations to permit staged operations rather than a single cut‑over. The EU website records the Commission’s proposal and the later agreement to allow progressive introduction [5].
6. Linkage to ETIAS and knock‑on scheduling effects
Several sources make clear that EES delays ripple into ETIAS (the EU travel authorisation system); ETIAS’s timetable depends on EES going live, so member states’ unreadiness and technical problems that delayed EES also imperil ETIAS launch plans [3] [10] [11].
7. Where reporting diverges and what’s not fully explained
Public reporting overlaps on technical and readiness drivers but differs on emphasis: some pieces emphasize “IT issues” [2] [6], others point to political pressure from member states and operational actors [4] [3]. KPMG’s alert notes that on one key announcement day the reason for the delay “was not elaborated” — in short, available reporting records both stated reasons and left gaps where the EU did not fully explain the decision [12].
8. Implicit agendas and stakeholders to watch
Industry and port operators have clear incentives to slow or reshape the rollout to avoid congestion and costs; member states have incentives to seek exemptions or delays to protect local operations. The Commission’s push for a progressive start serves both to absorb technical risk and to defuse political pressure from national authorities and transport operators [8] [5] [7].
9. Bottom line for policymakers and travellers
The documented reasons for delaying EES are technical (IT) failures, incomplete physical infrastructure for biometric capture, uneven preparedness across member states — especially at busy ports and smaller airports — and consequential political pressure that led to a legislated, phased approach [1] [2] [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention any single, definitive incident as the sole cause; instead they show a combination of IT, infrastructure and readiness pressures producing successive postponements [12].