The ECBP succeeded the EGTC Platform established by the CoR in 2011 and aims to bring together as many cross-border actors as possible. It was launched in 2024 at the Art of Cooperation Conference in Budapest. The CoR, the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region and AEBR co-organised the Annual Meeting in Gorizia in 2025, and the 2027 edition will take place in Strasbourg, co-organised by the CoR and the MOT. Pavel Branda chairs the ECBM steering committee, supported by the COTER Secretariat, which also includes representatives of the AEBR, the MOT and CESCI.
Two side events opened the series of events in the morning of 10 June: the closing conferences of the Cross-Border Data Collection 2.0 project, which is about to release its final report, and the BorderLabs CE projects.
In the afternoon, after the welcoming speech by Pavel Branda, Chair of the ECBP, Katalin Fekete (CESCI) summarised the results of an online survey of EGTCs on their preferences and needs. In addition to the status of CB workers raised during the previous meeting in Gorizia, two topics gained the most support: access to funding and visibility. Xavier Connill, Co-Director of the Cerdanya Hospital EGTC, explained the EuroEGTC project on cross-border workers, implemented by three EGTCs at the FR-ES border. One of the main outcomes of the ECBP annual meeting was the establishment of a dedicated working group on this issue.
The panel on access to funding beyond Interreg included testimonies on resource diversification by the Euregio Meuse-Rhine EGTC (Michael Dejozé) and the Interregional Alliance for the Rhine Alpine Corridor EGTC (Marie-Eve Reinert), with a policy approach by DG REGIO (Nathalie Verschelde) and Interact (Ivana Lazič).
Regarding visibility, representatives of three EGTCs (Xavier Bernard-Sans, Secretary General of the EGTC Euroregion Pyrenees Mediterranean, Bernd Finger, EUCOR EGTC and Romina Kocina, EGTC GO) were accompanied by Annika Jaansoo (University of Twente) and Sabine Zillmer (Spatial Foresight).
In the final panel, Gabriella Saputelli (ISSIRFA) presented the recently published analysis of EGTCs with Italian members. Raffaele Viaggi (MOT) spoke about an ongoing project to collect data and information on EGTCs across France. Finally, Kitti Dubniczki (CESCI) presented the online EGTC Monitor, providing comprehensive information on the operation of the Hungary-related EGTCs.
The EGTC Award Ceremony and the subsequent reception closed the first day. In 2026, the Award was bestowed on the EGTC Senza Confini (IT/AT) for facilitating cross-border rescue by enabling automated direction of 112 calls in the border area. An honorary mention went to the Euroregion Nouvelle Aquitaine–Euskadi–Navarra for facilitating cross-border workers’ access to information and assistance.
The second day began with greetings from Zsuzsanna Fejes, President of CESCI, Pavel Branda, and (via video message) Raffaele Fitto, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. The first panel, moderated by Martín Guillermo Ramírez, AEBR Secretary General, focused on the future of the Interreg programme. MEP Marcos Ros Sempere delivered a video message, along with online contributions from MEP Pascal Arimont (both Interreg co-rapporteurs at the European Parliament) and Hugo Sobral, Deputy Director-General of DG REGIO. Nikoletta Horváth, from the Hungarian Managing Authority, highlighted the national aspects, and Pablo Hurtado Pardo, Director General of Extremadura, Spain, conveyed the regions’ voice.
In the second panel, networks supporting cross-border cooperation and integration introduced their activities, enabling networking with cross-border structures that often lack information on these initiatives. Marco di Donato (Policy and Project Manager) and Adriana Peres Fortis (Project Manager of the CBI Groningen) introduced EUREGHA, which unites regional authorities working on cross-border health. Ms Peres Fortis also announced the organisation of the 2029 European Health Summit and invited ECBP members.
Referring to projects implemented by network members in recent years, Anne Thevenet, Director of the Euro-Institut in Kehl, presented the history and activities of the Transfrontier Euro-Institute Network (TEIN), providing scientific evidence for cross-border cooperation. Four further presentations popularised initiatives working with cross-border data. Matteo Berzi (Project Manager of the EU Joint Research Centre) presented the ACROSS portal, which provides comprehensive information on cross-border projects, structures, obstacles, and services in Europe. Claire Duvernet (BBSR) presented the European Cross-Border Monitoring Network, which facilitates cross-border data sharing between Germany and its neighbours. Máté Farkas (EUROSTAT) introduced the subgroup of experts dealing with cross-border functional urban areas. Sabrina Mansutti (ÖIR) summarised the results of the Cross-Border Data Collection 2.0 project implemented in close cooperation with the national statistical offices.
The third panel targeted the recently re-established border checks in 10 countries, in light of the amended Schengen Borders Code. Jorrit Rijpma (DG HOME) gave an overview of the Code and its implications for border-check practices. Martin Unfried (ITEM, Maastricht University) presented the main outcomes of a 2025 territorial impact assessment project on temporary border checks along seven Schengen internal borders. Arola Urdangarin Ferreira (Basque Government) spoke about the effects of controls at the French-Spanish border, which Valentin Furnari reflected on behalf of the French Ministry of the Interior. Matteo Bianchi, Rapporteur on the territorial dimension of the EU-Switzerland relationship, conveyed the Committee of the Regions’ messages.
Pavel Branda closed the event by launching the ECBP working group on the status of cross-border workers, and Gyula Ocskay (CESCI) passed the torch to Jean Peyrony (MOT), co-organiser of the 2027 edition of the ECBP annual event.
Main messages and lessons
(We have borrowed Gyula Ocskay’s analysis of the Annual Meeting, reproduced here with minimal modifications) At the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the EGTC Regulation (2006), this event highlighted the tool’s specific role and added value in territorial cooperation. As Annika Jaansoo highlighted, EGTCs make EU integration tangible. Romina Cocina outlined the embeddedness of the groupings in the territory they represent, which enables them to provide evidence about and strategic aims for the cross-border region (observatory and laboratory) and to play an intermediary role between different levels of authority.
When assessing the tool in the context of the Euregion Maas-Rhine, Martin Unfried identified three dimensions where the instrument is expected to add value. The political dimension is clearly justified as the EGTC has a mandate to represent the territory. Equally, the grouping has an advantage in terms of administrative burdens, as, for instance, it can hire employees across the border much more easily than domestic institutions. However, they consider the added financial value of EGTCs not very strong, which might create path dependency tied to Interreg calls. At the same time, as several examples show, the groupings can diversify their funding by involving direct EU funds like Horizon, LIFE, CERV, or even the Connecting Europe Facility. The Euregio Maas-Rhine itself endeavours to establish independent institutions and structures that facilitate cross-border integration through its own fundraising activities and by involving the relevant national authorities. By doing so, the EGTC can become a catalyst for cross-border institutionalisation beyond the Interreg scheme.
The EGTCs repeatedly claim recognition from national and EU-level authorities. “We are not existing but only here” – as Xavier Bernard-Sans stipulated, referring to the ECBP. He also noted that the EGTC instrument is hardly identifiable by the populations of the regions he represents. Accordingly, they amended the name of their EGTC to include the term ‘Euroregion’. Several speakers echoed this point: it is easier to enumerate the activities realised than to define what an EGTC is. Ivana Lazič referred to this phenomenon by alluding to the tool’s innovative character, which funding instruments have not followed. As Gyula Ocskay reflected, the groupings are not recognised as cross-border European entities but as domestic institutions based on the country of registration, which, according to Dirk Peters, the author of the Regulation, is not acceptable, as the groupings must have “the most extensive legal capacity” in each affected country. Michael Dejozé takes the same position in every case and every project: the EGTC Euregion Maas-Rhine is a body working for three countries, and the authorities must acknowledge it as an independent legal entity in all of them. At the same time, this approach proved exceptional during the discussion, not the rule across Europe.
The problems were grouped by Nathalie Verschelde under three categories: a) ignorance, when the authorities are not aware of the existence of the groupings; b) resistance, when they are, but they don’t want to involve them in decision-making; and c) IT-reliance, referring to the barriers generated by the domestically designed IT platforms, neglecting potential stakeholders based in another country. She encouraged platform members to organise themselves, collect evidence to underline their needs, and have national and EU institutions hear their voices. Once they are present, the Commission can support their efforts. The biggest challenge for the groupings and other cross-border structures is to reach beyond the box and deliver their messages to “outsiders”. As Dirk Peters insisted, “We are always sitting among friends, but we have to talk to others”.
Consequently, both the EGTCs and the Platform need to improve their visibility through effective communication. Sabine Zillmer and Romina Cocina agreed on the appropriate targeting: “Who do we want to address and with which messages?” In this context, communication with residents increases credibility, while messages targeting national and EU institutions may improve recognition of the EGTCs as effective and significant structures. To do this, the groupings need to develop networks within their regions. Xavier Bernard-Sans proposed contacting universities, entrepreneurs, decision-makers, and, first and foremost, youth.
MEP Pascal Arimont also highlighted the need to communicate with EU institutions under the proposed new Interreg (ERDF–CF) Regulation. Among other things, the voice of the regions is undervalued by the centralising tendencies of the programming process at both the national and EU levels. To counter these tendencies, regional actors should be given more competences. As Nikoletta Horváth exemplified, in the Hungary-Slovak Interreg CBC Programme, EGTCs manage the small project fund, implement complex project packages (called ‘territorial action plans’), and are involved in the design and the implementation of the programme. She also emphasised that Interreg is much more than a programme: it is a practical, visible integration tool where trust plays a crucial role. Accordingly, she alluded, with criticism, to the Performance Framework Regulation, which neglects this aspect when defining performance through tangible results. Martín Guillermo-Ramírez (AEBR) also outlined Interreg’s role in dismantling mental barriers. On this point, Pascal Arimont said the European Parliament would like to introduce a more flexible approach for Interreg. At the same time, as Hugo Sobral pointed out, Interreg must also contribute to EU-level objectives, and this must be measurable. He also insisted on a transition from a project-based logic to a functional approach that can generate clear cross-border integration.
As several speakers have put it, the current border control practices of some Schengen Member States significantly hinder stronger integration. Although the Schengen Borders Code treats border checks as a last resort, six governments have kept them in effect since 2015, turning temporary checks into a new normal. As Arola Urdangarin Ferreira warned, national security must not be positioned against freedom of movement. According to Matteo Bianchi, free movement improves the living conditions for millions. At the same time, citizens’ security concerns push national governments to tighten controls along state borders. Mr Bianchi proposed improving border control along the external Schengen borders: “The stricter the control is at the external borders, the more open can stay the internal ones.” Martin Unfried added practical recommendations. First, Member States should conduct an ex-ante impact assessment for every piece of domestic legislation, whether it affects people at the border. Second, they should consider asymmetric effects. For instance, long queues and waiting times occur in neighbouring countries if a government reintroduces border checks. Finally, the definition of cross-border regions should be taken seriously. As the map presenting the notified cross-border regions according to the amended Code, plotted by CESCI, MOT and AEBR, shows, Member States applied a domestic approach by identifying border regions instead of cross-border ones, and neglected the cross-border functional ties referred to by Mr Sobral. As a result, in a future pandemic, derogations for the movement of essential workers might differ widely from country to country, paralysing effective service provision.
Jorrit Rijpma confirmed that the Commission, within the confines of its competences, is committed to striking a compromise between security concerns and the desire for free movement across internal Schengen borders, through its opinions, encouraging Member States to apply mitigating and alternative measures. As he noted, the procedures established by the amended Schengen Borders Code have already led to closer cooperation among national police authorities. The testimonies showed that improving cross-border (and, through this, European) integration requires multi-level coordination.
The event, whose next edition will take place in France in 2027 (at the 30th anniversary of the Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière), presented a good example of this coordination: the Platform justified its legitimacy. However, the stakeholders expect further achievements in the future.
Back to overview