EU home affairs ministers failed to reach consensus on the proposed EU Digital Identity Framework and the revision of the Schengen Borders Code at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 5 June 2026, with member states pulling in opposite directions on both files.
On digital identity, Germany, backed by Austria and the Netherlands, pushed back against the Commission's proposal for mandatory e-ID wallets for all citizens, arguing it could infringe on privacy and impose disproportionate costs on smaller member states. They called for a more flexible opt-in approach. France and Spain, in contrast, advocated for a harmonised mandatory system to ensure interoperability across the bloc. European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson defended the proposal as essential for digital sovereignty and security, but acknowledged concerns about implementation timelines. The divide pits privacy and cost concerns against the goal of seamless cross-border digital services. For EU citizens, a mandatory system would guarantee access to digital public services anywhere in the EU, but could raise privacy risks; an opt-in approach preserves choice but risks fragmentation. Tech companies developing e-ID solutions face uncertainty over which standard to invest in, potentially delaying innovation.
On Schengen, a split emerged between southern member states (Italy, Greece, Malta) demanding stronger burden-sharing mechanisms for migration management, and northern states (Denmark, Sweden, Finland) insisting on stricter border controls to prevent secondary movements. Southern states argue that frontline countries bear a disproportionate burden, while northern states fear that lax controls could lead to uncontrolled migration flows. The disagreement affects border authorities, who face conflicting operational demands, and migrants, whose treatment and mobility depend on the outcome. The Council presidency noted that no consensus was reached on either file and that both would be referred to the next presidency for further negotiations, leaving the legislative process in limbo.