morganable Technology / Innovation
The European Union has taken technology companies IBM, Atos and Leonardo to court over delays in developing its digital border management system, raising fresh concerns about the challenges involved in delivering large-scale technology projects.
Lagos —
The European Union has taken legal action against three major technology companies following years of delays in the development of its digital Entry/Exit System (EES).
The case involves IBM, French information technology company Atos and Italian defence contractor Leonardo, which were responsible for delivering important parts of the project.
The legal action was brought by eu-LISA, the European Union agency responsible for managing large-scale information technology systems used across the bloc. The dispute centres on delays in delivering the infrastructure required to operate the digital border system.
The development became public on November 9, 2026, following reports about the legal proceedings. Although the case was filed in Estonia on December 22, 2025, it has attracted renewed attention because of the importance of the system to European border management.
The EES was developed to change how European authorities record the movement of travellers entering and leaving the Schengen Area. Instead of relying mainly on traditional passport stamps, the system uses digital records, facial photographs and fingerprints to monitor eligible non-European travellers.
The project was expected to improve border monitoring, reduce identity fraud and help authorities identify visitors who remain in the region beyond their permitted period.
However, delivering the system proved more difficult than expected. The disagreements between the agency and the technology companies eventually resulted in legal action.
Understanding the Digital Border System
The Entry/Exit System is an important part of Europe’s effort to modernise border management through digital technology.
The system covers 29 Schengen countries and records information about non-EU nationals who enter and leave the region for short stays. These records include travel document details, photographs and fingerprints.
Previously, border officials relied heavily on passport stamps to determine when visitors entered or left the region. However, manual records can be difficult to monitor across several countries.
By introducing electronic records, European authorities hope to make it easier to identify visitors who exceed their permitted stay.
The system also helps authorities compare travellers’ identities against their travel records. This is important because identity fraud can make it difficult for border officials to determine whether someone is travelling with genuine documents.
For example, a visitor who enters the Schengen Area under a short-stay arrangement has a permitted period within which to remain. The digital system helps authorities monitor the period and identify possible overstays.
However, the system is not designed to replace border officers. Instead, it provides digital information that can support their decisions and make border checks more organised.
Why the Technology Companies Are Facing Legal Action
The European Union awarded a contract in 2019 to a consortium involving IBM Belgium, Atos Belgium and Leonardo.
The companies were expected to develop and maintain the central technology infrastructure required for the system.
However, the project experienced repeated delays, with disagreements emerging between the contractors and eu-LISA over deadlines, responsibilities and financial penalties.
According to reports, the original contract was worth approximately €142 million before its value increased to around €212 million in 2021.
The disagreements continued as the project moved through different stages of development.
In October 2021, IBM and Atos challenged a financial penalty imposed over delays. They argued that some of the difficulties were connected to external circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic.
In February 2022, all three companies also challenged revised deadlines introduced by eu-LISA.
These disagreements eventually developed into a legal dispute.
The case was filed in an Estonian court, where eu-LISA is based. The legal action seeks to address the delays and protect the agency’s financial interests.
However, the companies’ individual responsibilities and the final outcome of the case will depend on the legal process.
The development also highlights the difficulty of managing major technology contracts involving several organisations. When different companies are responsible for separate parts of a system, delays in one area can affect the entire project.
Technical Problems During Implementation
The delays were not the only challenges associated with the digital border system.
Its rollout also experienced technical difficulties, particularly at some European airports and border crossing points.
Reports identified problems involving biometric equipment, including fingerprint scanners and self-service kiosks.
These devices are important because they allow travellers to provide the information required for digital registration.
When the equipment fails, border officials may have to carry out additional checks or use alternative procedures.
This can increase waiting times and create pressure at busy airports.
During the rollout, technical problems contributed to long queues at some European airports. Travellers also experienced delays that affected their journeys.
These challenges showed that introducing a digital system requires more than developing software and installing equipment.
Authorities must also ensure that the devices work properly, staff understand how to use them and travellers can complete the registration process without unnecessary difficulties.
Furthermore, the system must remain reliable when large numbers of people arrive at the same time.
A failure at a busy border crossing can affect hundreds or thousands of travellers within a short period.
Therefore, testing, maintenance and technical support remain important parts of successful digital infrastructure.
What the Legal Dispute Means for the System
The legal action has raised questions about accountability in large public technology projects.
Governments and public institutions increasingly depend on private technology companies to develop systems used for transportation, security, healthcare and public administration.
These projects often involve large budgets and several years of technical work.
When contractors fail to meet agreed deadlines, the consequences can extend beyond financial losses. Public services may also experience disruption, while citizens and visitors may have to deal with unreliable systems.
The European case demonstrates why clear contracts, realistic deadlines and effective project monitoring are necessary.
However, the legal dispute does not mean that the EES has stopped operating.
The European Commission and eu-LISA have stressed that the proceedings concern delays during the system’s development and do not affect its current operation.
The system is now fully operational across the participating countries, according to eu-LISA.
This distinction is important because the legal dispute concerns the responsibilities of the companies involved in building the system rather than a decision to suspend its use.
Lessons for Countries Investing in Digital Infrastructure
The development also offers useful lessons for countries planning large technology projects.
Nigeria, for example, continues to invest in digital public services, electronic identity systems, financial technology and telecommunications infrastructure.
Such projects can improve service delivery when they are properly designed and maintained.
However, the European experience shows that governments must pay attention to implementation, not just the announcement of new technology.
Before launching major digital systems, public institutions need to establish clear responsibilities for contractors, set achievable deadlines and carry out proper testing.
They must also consider how the technology will perform when many people use it simultaneously.
Data protection is another important consideration. Systems that collect fingerprints, photographs and personal information must have strong safeguards against unauthorised access and misuse.
Public confidence can also decline when people experience repeated technical failures or do not understand how their information is being used.
Therefore, transparency and accountability should remain central to digital transformation programmes.
A Wider Warning for the Technology Industry
The dispute involving IBM, Atos and Leonardo highlights the growing responsibilities of technology companies in delivering critical public infrastructure.
As governments depend more on digital systems, technology contractors are expected to provide reliable services that can support millions of people.
However, large projects can become difficult to manage when technical requirements change, deadlines are missed or disagreements emerge between contractors and public agencies.
The European Union’s legal action sends a strong message about the importance of meeting contractual obligations.
Although the final outcome of the case remains to be determined, the development reinforces the need for stronger project management and accountability across the technology industry.
Ultimately, digital transformation should not be measured only by the number of systems introduced.
Its success should also depend on whether those systems work reliably, protect personal information and make public services easier to access.
