Summary

• eu-LISA submitted a court claim on 22 December 2025 following delays in delivering the Entry/Exit System.
• The proceedings concern a consortium involving IBM Belgium, Atos Belgium and Leonardo.
• The claim concerns historical delivery issues, while the agency says the system is operational and the proceedings do not affect its current operation.

The European Union agency responsible for its digital border systems is pursuing legal action against three technology contractors over delays to the Entry/Exit System, bringing a long-running dispute about public procurement and software delivery into an Estonian court.

eu-LISA filed the claim on 22 December 2025, according to the agency’s annual financial accounts. The proceedings concern a consortium comprising IBM Belgium, Atos Belgium and Italian defence technology company Leonardo, which received the original contract to implement and maintain the system’s central infrastructure.

The lawsuit came to wider attention through reporting on 9 November 2026, although the underlying claim was lodged nearly eleven months earlier. The Financial Times reported that the dispute followed repeated delays, disagreements over contractual deadlines, and challenges to financial penalties imposed during development.

The agency has distinguished the legal proceedings from the current operation of the Entry/Exit System, which entered service progressively in October 2025 and was fully deployed across participating Schengen countries in April 2026. The European Commission has said that it is not a party to the proceedings.

Delivery delays became a contractual dispute

The consortium received a six-year contract in 2019 to develop and maintain the central Entry/Exit System. Its original value was approximately €142 million, rising to around €212 million in 2021, according to reporting on the dispute.

The system was initially expected to launch in 2022, but its introduction was repeatedly postponed. Correspondence examined by the Financial Times indicates that the contractors and eu-LISA disagreed over responsibility for missed deadlines and the feasibility of revised delivery schedules.

In October 2021, IBM Belgium and Atos Belgium challenged a financial penalty imposed by eu-LISA, disputing its basis and calculation. The companies cited external circumstances, including disruption associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. All three contractors subsequently contested new deadlines in February 2022.

Those exchanges establish the existence of competing positions rather than responsibility for the delays. No judicial finding on contractual liability has been reported, and the case remains unresolved.

The agency’s own accounts provide direct confirmation that legal action was taken. In a section concerning supply chain risks, eu-LISA records that delays in delivery prompted it to activate contractual and legal remedies to protect its financial interests.

It also states that the proceedings were at too early a stage to assess their likely outcome reliably. The financial disclosure does not establish the damages sought or the respective responsibilities of the parties.

Large public technology programmes can involve changing requirements, dependencies between suppliers and public authorities, and technical problems that become visible only during integration. Establishing liability in such circumstances depends on the contractual obligations, evidence of performance and any provisions governing delays or changes to delivery.

The border platform is now operating

The Entry/Exit System records information about eligible non-EU nationals making short visits to the Schengen area. It replaces manual passport stamping with electronic records covering identity, travel documents, fingerprints, facial images, and entry and exit events.

The technology is designed to identify overstays, strengthen identity verification and assist authorities in administering external border controls. It combines central European information systems with national border infrastructure and equipment installed at airports, ports and land crossings.

The system began progressive operation on 12 October 2025 and reached full deployment on 10 April 2026. That rollout followed years of technical preparation involving central infrastructure, biometric matching services, national systems and arrangements for carriers.

Operational difficulties have nevertheless been reported at individual border locations. These include malfunctioning fingerprint equipment, unreliable self-service kiosks and passenger queues, with staffing arrangements also affecting the time required to complete checks.

It is important to separate those reported difficulties from the contractual allegations now before the court. Problems associated with local hardware or staffing are not necessarily evidence of defects in the central system, and the agency maintains that the litigation does not affect its current operation.

The system has particular relevance to British travellers entering the Schengen area for short stays. People travelling on UK passports may be required to provide biometric information when registering under the new arrangements, while electronic records allow authorities to monitor permitted stays.

Public technology accountability continues after launch

eu-LISA manages the central system, but national authorities operate the equipment and procedures through which information is collected. This distribution of responsibilities can make a programme difficult to assess through a single measure of delivery performance.

Even where central infrastructure is operational, customers and public authorities depend on ongoing technical support, maintenance, security updates and integration with other systems. Contractual disputes over the development phase can therefore continue while a platform is providing essential services.

The agency’s financial accounts also refer to continuing development of the Entry/Exit System, including its planned integration with the European Travel Information and Authorisation System and wider interoperability arrangements.

These programmes form part of a broader effort to connect European border and security information systems, requiring coordination across institutions and national administrations. Experience with delayed delivery will be relevant to how future contracts allocate responsibility for dependencies and implementation risks, although the outcome of the current litigation has yet to be determined.

eu-LISA’s claim will ultimately be considered under the applicable contractual and legal framework. The Estonian proceedings have not produced a publicly reported judgment, while the Entry/Exit System continues to operate across participating countries.