Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has the EU delayed EES rollout and why?
Executive Summary
The EU’s Entry/Exit System (EES) experienced multiple postponements from its early target dates and moved to a phased, progressive rollout that culminated in a start in October 2025; this is not a single one-off “delay” but a sequence of reschedulings and a deliberate six-month ramp-up to avoid congestion at busy crossings [1] [2] [3]. Member‑state readiness, technical problems and specific national precautions — notably at Channel ports and for car passengers — drove decisions to stagger implementation, producing continued localized hold‑backs and operational hiccups during the live rollouts [4] [5] [6].
1. How the calendar slipped and why the timeline matters
The EES was repeatedly pushed beyond initial plans, with formal references showing targets in 2022, May 2023, late‑2023 and late‑2024 before the consolidated start date of 12 October 2025, followed by a six‑month period envisaged to reach full replacement of manual stamping by April 2026; this pattern reflects systemic scheduling slippage rather than a single administrative reversal and explains why stakeholders have repeatedly described a “delay” [1] [2]. The EU’s shift to a progressive start gave member states a legally framed six months to deploy the system after the start date, acknowledging divergent national readiness and making the timing of when particular border types (air, sea, land, Channel ports) would operate under EES contingent on local capacity and testing results [7] [2]. That legal and operational phasing matters because it transforms a binary “launched/not launched” verdict into a staged operational reality that can look like both a launch and a delay depending on the crossing or traveler cohort involved [7] [3].
2. Technical failures, queues and frontline realities after launch
When the EES began rolling out in October 2025, it quickly generated technical glitches and long queues at various airports and crossings, with some passengers experiencing waits up to ninety minutes and staff resorting to manual processing where kiosks failed or were understaffed; these operational issues show that meeting an official start date did not guarantee immediate, seamless operations on the ground [6]. Reports highlight automated kiosk failures, fingerprint and facial recognition bottlenecks, and insufficient training for border staff, which compounded traveler delays and prompted immediate calls for technical fixes and increased staffing to stabilize throughput—an expected consequence of a complex IT system brought into live use across numerous states [6]. These practical failures reinforce why authorities opted for a phased approach: to limit risk of widespread congestion while ironing out software, hardware and training problems in situ [3].
3. National choices: Channel ports, cars, coaches and trucks
Implementation was uneven by transport mode and location, with Channel ports specifically postponed until November 2025 to avoid severe congestion at high‑traffic crossings such as Dover and the Eurotunnel, and separate decisions delaying full checks for car passengers while lorry and coach drivers moved ahead in some jurisdictions; France and other authorities explicitly favored caution to prevent chaos at peak travel times [3] [5]. This selective activation explains contradictory headlines: some analyses stated the EU “delayed” the rollout overall, while others documented that the EU formally launched EES but allowed member states to sequence activation by crossing type—effectively a hybrid of delay and staged introduction [4] [5]. The result is that travelers experienced a patchwork of rules depending on transport mode and specific border crossing, feeding public confusion and raising political scrutiny in affected regions [5] [3].
4. Who bears responsibility: EU institutions vs member states
The decision-making combined EU‑level scheduling and member‑state operational discretion: the Commission proposed the progressive start to manage risk and provide legal room for phased deployment, while national authorities cited readiness and technical concerns when pausing or reshaping activation schedules at sensitive crossings [7] [3]. Analyses point to coordination shortfalls among key countries — Germany, France, Netherlands — and technical challenges in IT integration as core drivers of postponements that look like EU delays, but many concrete choices to delay specific checkpoints came from national border authorities seeking to avoid immediate disruption [4] [7]. This duality means accountability is split: the EU set the framework and ultimate start dates, while member states controlled the tempo and operational rollouts at individual borders, yielding a shared but asymmetrical responsibility for the visible delays and glitches [2] [4].
5. What to watch next: fixes, fuller rollout and political pressures
Going forward, the key indicators will be system stability, reduced queue times, completion of the six‑month phased deployment and whether remaining transport modes (notably car passengers at certain ports) are fully switched to EES without repeat postponements; the EU timeline anticipates full replacement of manual stamping by 10 April 2026 if the six‑month phase holds, but localized holdouts could extend effective delays [2] [1]. Expect continued scrutiny from national authorities and travelers as technical patches, staff training and capacity upgrades are implemented; political pressure will rise if congestion persists at economically critical crossings, and that pressure could prompt further piecemeal pauses or accelerated resource injections, depending on national priorities and budgetary constraints [6] [3].