The European Union has launched legal proceedings against three major technology companies over the troubled development of its Entry/Exit System (EES), a flagship project designed to modernise border controls across Europe’s Schengen area.
According to the Financial Times, the EU agency responsible for large-scale information technology systems, eu-LISA, has filed a lawsuit against IBM, France’s Atos and Italy’s Leonardo, following repeated delays in delivering the digital border management platform.
The dispute concerns one of the EU’s most ambitious security technology projects, intended to replace traditional passport stamps with electronic registration and biometric identification for travellers from non-EU countries.
Originally scheduled to become operational in 2022, the system suffered multiple postponements, rising costs and technical complications before its eventual deployment.
The legal proceedings come as European authorities continue to assess the consequences of delays that affected border infrastructure, airport operations and the wider implementation of the bloc’s digital security strategy.
From €142mn to €212mn: The Rising Cost of Europe’s Digital Borders
The contract to develop and maintain the EES central system was awarded in 2019 to a consortium involving IBM Belgium, Atos Belgium and Leonardo.
Initially valued at approximately €142mn, the agreement had increased to €212mn by 2021, representing a rise of nearly 49%.
The additional expenditure reflected the growing complexity of the project and changes introduced during its development.
However, the financial consequences extended beyond the original contract.
According to financial documents cited by the Financial Times, repeated delays forced eu-LISA to allocate additional resources to software maintenance, infrastructure and other operational requirements.
In 2023, the agency almost doubled its EES budget to approximately €40mn by reallocating funding from other projects.
These developments contributed to a prolonged disagreement over contractual responsibilities, financial penalties and the causes of the delays.
The €212mn figure represents the revised contract value, not the amount of damages being sought in the lawsuit.
Lawsuit Filed in Estonia After Years of Disputes
The legal action was filed in December 2025 in Estonia, where eu-LISA is headquartered.
A representative of Harju County Court confirmed to the Financial Times that the civil proceedings had been registered.
At the time of the report, no hearing had taken place or been scheduled.
The agency stated in its financial accounts that repeated delays in the delivery of the EES had prompted it to pursue available contractual and legal remedies to protect the EU’s financial interests.
The dispute had already escalated several years earlier.
Internal correspondence reviewed by the Financial Times revealed disagreements between eu-LISA and the technology consortium over delivery deadlines, contractual penalties and project management.
The correspondence illustrates how a major European infrastructure programme became the subject of an increasingly contentious relationship between its public-sector client and private contractors.
Contractors Challenge Penalties and Delivery Deadlines
In October 2021, the Belgian subsidiaries of IBM and Atos challenged both the legal basis and calculation of a financial penalty imposed by eu-LISA.
The companies argued that delays had resulted partly from external circumstances, including disruptions associated with the Covid-19 pandemic.
In February 2022, the consortium again questioned the feasibility of the agency’s proposed timetable.
In correspondence cited by the Financial Times, the contractors warned that adopting unrealistic schedules would not accelerate completion and could instead create further difficulties.
They also criticised aspects of the project’s overall governance and coordination.
In March 2022, an IBM representative agreed that certain payments could be withheld pending resolution of the disagreement over financial compensation.
These exchanges are relevant to the legal proceedings, although the courts have yet to determine the respective contractual responsibilities of the parties.
Airport Queues Expose the Challenges of Biometric Border Controls
The Entry/Exit System is a central component of the EU’s effort to modernise the management of its external borders.
It electronically records the arrival and departure of non-EU nationals travelling for short stays, replacing the traditional practice of stamping passports.
The system collects passport information, facial images and fingerprints, allowing authorities to monitor permitted periods of stay and identify potential identity fraud.
It is also intended to strengthen security and improve the exchange of information between participating European countries.
However, the system’s deployment during 2026 was accompanied by operational difficulties.
Several European airports experienced lengthy queues as travellers underwent the new biometric registration procedures.
Technical problems were also reported, including fingerprint scanners struggling to recognise prints under certain conditions.
The difficulties affected passengers, airlines and airport operators, while some national authorities continued acquiring and installing the necessary equipment.
The disruption highlighted the challenges of introducing a large-scale digital system across multiple jurisdictions with different operational requirements.
Russian Connection Raises Cybersecurity Questions
A separate but sensitive dimension of the EES controversy concerns allegations relating to software procurement through Russia.
The Financial Times previously reported that Atos had used its Moscow office in connection with software procurement for the European border system.
The revelations raised questions about the security implications of involving operations based in Russia in a project handling sensitive personal and biometric information.
The European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, found sufficient grounds for further examination of the allegations.
According to an internal report cited by the newspaper, OLAF indicated that the alleged Russian involvement, if established, could constitute a breach of contractual obligations.
The matter was subsequently referred back to eu-LISA.
Importantly, eu-LISA has stated that no security breach of the EES has been identified.
The allegations concerning procurement arrangements therefore do not establish that the system was compromised or that travellers’ personal data were accessed by unauthorised parties.
The cybersecurity questions are also separate from the legal proceedings concerning delays and contractual performance.
European Commission Insists the System Remains Operational
Despite the lawsuit, the European Commission and eu-LISA have maintained that the legal dispute does not affect the system’s current operations.
The agency has said that the EES is fully operational across Europe.
The Commission has clarified that the proceedings concern delays during the development phase rather than the present functioning of the platform.
The original contract expired in 2025, with implementation responsibilities subsequently transferred to a new consortium.
The three original contractors nevertheless retained certain responsibilities until August 2026.
Leonardo and Atos declined to comment on the litigation, while IBM did not respond to the Financial Times’ request for comment.
A Test of Accountability in Europe’s Digital Infrastructure
The case highlights broader challenges facing the European Union as it develops increasingly complex digital infrastructure across multiple member states.
Projects such as the Entry/Exit System require the integration of national border authorities, central databases, biometric technology and cybersecurity safeguards.
The EES connects border management operations across 29 European countries and processes information directly related to international travel, identity verification and public security.
Its development therefore involves not only technological complexity but also substantial legal, financial and institutional responsibilities.
The dispute between eu-LISA and the technology consortium raises questions about how contractual risks should be allocated when major public-sector technology programmes encounter delays.
It also highlights the importance of transparent procurement, realistic implementation schedules and effective oversight of contractors responsible for critical infrastructure.
The proceedings in Estonia will examine the contractual arguments and financial consequences of the project’s delayed delivery.
For now, the amount of any potential compensation remains unclear, and no judicial finding of liability has been reported.
The outcome will help clarify how responsibility for delays in major EU technology contracts is assessed, as European institutions continue investing in digital systems central to border security and public administration.
Source: pagenews.gr