UPDATE — this extends our earlier coverage: Ceuta Crossings Hit 60,000 as Sanchez Blames Mafias, France Tightens Its Border

Our earlier coverage tracked irregular crossings into Spain's North African enclave of Ceuta past 60,000, with Madrid blaming smuggling networks while France tightened checks on its own border with Spain.

What is new is that the dispute has moved from bilateral friction to an open challenge to Spain's place in the Schengen area. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Rome was ready to use "extraordinary measures... such as suspending the Schengen area with Spain," according to The Local. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said he was "in favour of closing the Schengen area to Spain," warning that "irregular and uncontrolled immigration poses a danger to national security" (Anadolu Ajansı; The Local), a position Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini echoed.

Finland and Austria have since joined Italy's position. Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said "Spain has completely failed to protect the Schengen Area's external border from infiltration" and that "countries that do not fulfil their obligation to protect the external border cannot be members of Schengen", per Anadolu Ajansı. Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker called the Ceuta scenes a "clear warning signal" and said Vienna would consider "temporary closures of Schengen borders if necessary" to protect its own territory (Anadolu Ajansı). Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen added that the EU should "consider all options, including a suspension of Schengen cooperation," according to The Local. Spain's Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares dismissed the calls as "partisan demagoguery" and demanded "European solidarity" instead (The Local); Madrid has summoned Italy's ambassador over the remarks, per Anadolu Ajansı. At least nine people have died attempting the crossing, The Local reports.

Can a member state be pushed out of Schengen?

Generally, no. There is no expulsion clause in the Schengen framework. As Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche, a law professor at Lyon 3 University, put it: "there is no provision in the Schengen framework for this kind of action. One state cannot unilaterally expel another from the area," as cited by The Local. She also noted the practical absurdity underlying the political rhetoric: Italy shares no internal border with Spain, "much less between Spain and Finland," so there is, strictly, nothing for either country to unilaterally close (The Local).

What the Code actually allows: Articles 25 to 28

The Schengen Borders Code (Regulation (EU) 2016/399, as revised) governs a narrower and different power: any Schengen state may temporarily reinstate checks at its own internal borders, not close another country's. Under Article 25, this requires a "serious threat to public policy or internal security" — including a sudden, large-scale unauthorised movement of third-country nationals, the category France has invoked. A state must notify the Commission and other member states of the scope, duration and justification; for foreseeable events checks are generally capped at 30 days, renewable, with tighter time limits than in the pre-2024 version of the Code. Article 27 gives the Commission the power to issue an opinion questioning necessity or proportionality — but not to block reintroduction. Article 28 allows a state to act immediately in urgent cases, notifying Brussels only afterwards. In every case, the decision to reimpose checks rests with the reintroducing state, not with the Commission or with other capitals.

  • If Italy, Finland or Austria actually file an Article 25 notification, it would apply only to their own borders with whichever neighbour funnels onward movement — not to Spain directly, since none border it.
  • If France's checks, already in place per our earlier reporting, are extended, Brussels can question but not reverse the extension.
  • If the Commission issues a critical opinion on any of these measures, it carries political weight but no binding force — enforcement would require a separate, slow infringement procedure.

Hypothesis: the Schengen-suspension rhetoric from Rome, Helsinki and Vienna is aimed less at Brussels' legal machinery than at domestic and inter-governmental signalling ahead of migration debates in the European Council, with Spain's own pre-election climate as an added target. Supporting this: none of the three governments has, per the sources reviewed, announced an actual Article 25 notification, and Basilien-Gainche's border-adjacency point (The Local) shows the demand is not one the Code could execute as framed. Against this: Meloni, Tajani and Frederiksen have each used the specific word "suspension," a level of specificity beyond routine criticism, per The Local.

Timeline and open questions

Unresolved: whether the European Commission issues any formal opinion on France's existing checks or on new notifications should Italy, Finland or Austria file them; whether Spain's government faces a formal no-confidence push tied to the crisis; and whether arrivals in Ceuta continue at a pace that would justify further national measures under Article 25's threshold.

This article is general information about EU law, not legal advice. Whether any specific measure is lawful depends on its notification, scope and duration, and on the Commission's and, ultimately, the Court of Justice's assessment.