EU sues IBM, Atos and Leonardo over border system
EU-Lisa accuses the consortium of delays in developing the European Entry/Exit System.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The European Union has taken IBM, Atos and Leonardo to court over delays in developing the European Entry/Exit System. The case became public on Monday, but according to EU-Lisa it had already been filed with a court in Estonia on 22 December 2025.
EU-Lisa, the European agency for large-scale IT systems in the fields of justice and security, filed the case against the three companies, which together formed a consortium for implementing and managing the system. This is shown by documents and reporting from The Guardian and Reuters.
The Entry/Exit System, or EES for short, was introduced in October 2025 for travellers from outside the Schengen area. During checks, facial images and fingerprints, among other data, are recorded. According to that description, the system is intended to digitise the registration of entries and exits and strengthen border security.
According to EU-Lisa, the legal dispute concerned delays during the system’s development and delivery. The European Commission stresses that it is not a party to the case and that the proceedings do not concern EES’s current operation.
According to The Guardian, its introduction led to long waiting times at some airports. The Guardian writes that passengers missed flights during peak periods and that waiting times of up to three hours were reported. According to the article, staff shortages at the border, as well as technical problems, played a role.
According to reports, EU-Lisa said the lawsuit would not affect the system’s operation, which the agency says is operational across Europe. The proceedings are therefore primarily a dispute over contractual performance and financial interests, not a decision to suspend EES.
For Dutch travellers, the distinction is practically relevant. Checks may affect the flow of passengers at the external border when travelling to other Schengen countries, but according to the available information the lawsuit itself changes nothing about the system’s requirement or operation.
The outcome could, however, affect the allocation of costs and responsibility in major European IT projects. There is also still uncertainty about the amount of the damages claim and the substantive positions of IBM, Atos and Leonardo.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- EU-Lisa has brought a case against IBM, Atos and Leonardo over delays in developing EES.
- EES registers travellers from outside the Schengen area using facial images and fingerprints, among other data.
- The European Commission says it is not a party and links the proceedings to development delays, not to the system’s current operation.
Left
Arguments The introduction of biometric border controls requires strict public oversight, clear privacy safeguards and transparency about errors and responsibilities. If travellers miss flights because of a system delay, the consequences must not be silently passed on to citizens and border staff.
Values Privacy, public accountability, equal treatment and protection against technological concentrations of power.
Consequences Greater oversight or a more cautious rollout could delay implementation, but could also limit errors, exclusion and uncertainty about liability.
Centre
Arguments The system may be necessary for reliable registration at the external border, but major European IT projects must be contractually manageable, explainable and tested. A lawsuit can provide clarity without immediately shutting down the system.
Values Legal certainty, feasibility, security and institutional responsibility.
Consequences An independent assessment could lead to recovery plans, better contracts and temporary operational measures.
Right
Arguments An effective external border requires fast and reliable checks; failing technology and long queues undermine that very aim. Under this approach, the companies that built the system should be held financially and legally accountable.
Values Security, border control, and national and European control over access.
Consequences Stricter liability could discipline future suppliers, but too much bureaucracy or delay could further weaken border control.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The reporting clearly distinguishes between the lawsuit over development and the operational functioning of EES. Details about damages, liability and the legal outcome are missing and have not been presented as facts.
- confirmed EU-Lisa has sued IBM, Atos and Leonardo. — Reported by The Guardian and Reuters on the basis of EU documents. source
- confirmed The case was filed with a court in Estonia on 22 December 2025. — According to The Guardian, EU-Lisa gave this date and location. source
- confirmed EES was introduced in October 2025. — Mentioned in The Guardian’s reporting. source
- confirmed According to the Commission, the lawsuit does not concern EES’s current operation. — According to The Guardian, the Commission made this distinction explicit. source