Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a paperless environment for customs and trade COM(2005) 609 final — 2005/0247 (COD)
Date: 2006-09-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: customs document, customs inspection, customs regulations, electronic document, exchange of information, systems interconnection

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/47

The statistical

institutions of the Member States are to
5.3
transmit the basic information to Eurostat in accordance with
common parameters and in a common technical format (Art. 5
and Annex I).

The draft Regulation does not require Member States to
5.6
undertake surveys solely for the purpose of establishing the
correction coefficients to be applied to the remuneration and
pensions of Community officials and other servants (Art. 10).

The statistical units are those defined in Council Regu-
5.4
lation (EC) No 696/1993 or others to be established at a later
date (Art. 6), and the Commission and the Member States are to
set up a quality control system (Art. 7).

Eurostat calculates PPPs once a year (Art. 8) and will be
5.5
responsible for publishing these at an aggregated level for each
Member State (Art. 9).

Temporal and spatial adjustment coefficients. PPPs are
5.7
calculated from the national annual average prices (Article 2
(2)). Given that ‘data collection may be limited to one or more loca-
tions within the economic territory’ and furthermore ‘to a specific
period of time’, Member States should apply a temporal adjust-
ment coefficient (dating back no more than one year) and a
spatial adjustment coefficient (dating back no more than six
years) (Annex I Methodology, sections 2 to 4).

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council on a paperless environment for customs and trade

COM(2005) 609 final — 2005/0247 (COD)

(2006/C 318/08)

On 17 January 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Burani.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September (meeting of 13 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 190 votes with three abstentions.

1. Introduction

of the single window and the one-stop shop into practice.
These two objectives will make customs procedures easier, faster
and less costly for operators, and facilitate risk management
controls by customs authorities.

1.1
The Commission's proposal concerns a new electronic
customs project which should ultimately make the European
customs system fully automated, interoperable, secure, accessible
and efficient, on a completely electronic and paperless basis.
This is the necessary adjunct to implementation of the new
Community Customs Code proposed by the Commission (1), on
which the EESC has issued a separate opinion.

Adopting the proposed computerised system requires a
1.2
joint and coordinated effort by all the Member States, with
respect not just to customs, but also to border agencies other
than customs, which will have the task of putting the concepts

(1) COM(2005) 608 final.

The Member States have already invested substantially in
1.3
setting up computerised customs systems, but there are consid-
erable differences between these, in terms both of their level of
sophistication and of rules and data used. Thus the current state
of harmonisation is inadequate, and there is the even more
serious problem, as yet unresolved, of lack of interoperability
between systems.

C 318/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

Interoperability will allow information to be exchanged
1.4
between customs authorities in the different countries. Eviden-
cing concern for citizens, the proposal also makes it possible to
provide interfaces with trade, not just to allow implementa-
tion of
the single window principle, but also to guarantee
exchange of information. When it is fully effective, the new
computerised system will represent a decisive step towards
realising a single internal market, with only external borders —
if only where customs are concerned. It is also important to
remember that the global nature of markets means relations
with third countries must be taken into account, a factor that is
not mentioned in the Commission document.

The EESC welcomes the main innovations introduced
2.3
with the system proposed by the Commission: networking of
national systems, the setting-up of an interface for operators
based on a single window, the possibility of submitting customs
clearance requests electronically and integrated risk management
are undeniably major advances, provided the costs to the tax-
payer and to operators are sustainable. It would therefore be as
well to consider the impact of these radical changes on customs
officials (resources, training, career paths, adaptation).

2. General comments

The Commission notes that the computerisation objec-
2.1
tives for interoperable systems could also have been achieved by
setting up a centralised customs system. However, it says that
such a solution is not possible for various reasons, including the
difficulty of transferring responsibility from the Member States
to the Commission, which would go against the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality. However, the real reason is
probably that the Member States are loath to relinquish their
prerogatives, knowing that a portion of customs revenues falls
directly under the Community budget. The EESC believes that
Community customs management should be one of the long-
term objectives of the Union; this has advantages in terms of
simplicity, reliability and cost, as well as the possibility of inter-
connecting with other EU and third country systems. With the
potential delays to the implementation of the basic systems
developed by each of 25 member countries, there is a need to
evaluate whether it would not be preferable to implement fully
automated systems such as the Automated Import System and
Automated Export System linked through a Single European
Access Point.

The Commission's initiative is necessary in the first place
2.2
because introduction of the new Customs Code requires that
procedures be consistent with the new rules. It is also one of a
series of measures adopted in various sectors in the context of
eEurope and eGovernment (2); more specifically it follows up on
the commitments made in 2003 in the Commission's commu-
nication to the Council on ‘A simple and paperless environment
for Customs and Trade’ (3). However, those commitments were
already made — at least with regard to introducing a paperless
environment — in the ‘Customs 2007’ programme (4) and
confirmed in the 2004 changes to the Customs Code regu-
lation (5).

(2) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, COM(2003) 567 of 26.9.2003.

(3) COM(2003) 452 of 24.7.2003, quoted in the EESC opinion on the

Customs Code.

(4) COM(2002) 26 of 21.3.2002, subject of EESC opinion in OJ C 241 of

7.10.2002.

(5) COM(2003) 452 of 4.8.2003, subject of EESC opinion in OJ C 110 of

30.4.2004.

2.4
However, the EESC wishes to make some comments on
the integration of computer systems and their complementarity.
The Commission aims to achieve full interoperability of customs
systems: this means that customs authorities must be able to
exchange information with each other and with ‘other authori-
ties involved in the international movement of goods’. This defi-
nition clearly does not include authorities responsible for
collecting VAT; however, a link between customs and VAT staff
could be useful, at least in certain cases and for certain goods,
in order to control counterfeiting of origin marking. This is
nothing new, of course, but it is a phenomenon that is on the
increase: goods imported from third countries are often circu-
lated (with payment of VAT) within the Community bearing
labels of European origin or false ‘European’ labels.

2.5
The EESC would also draw attention to the second recital
of the proposal for a decision: ‘The pan-European eGovernment
action … requires measures to increase the efficiency … to
help combat fraud, organised crime and terrorism ….’ The
intention is clear; what is less clear is how the objective can be
achieved by the provisions contained in the proposal. Collection
of customs data cannot be used for other purposes without
setting up a system for communicating with other systems.

2.5.1
In December 2004 the Council adopted the Hague
Programme based on a Commission assessment (6) and a Euro-
pean Parliament recommendation of 14 October 2004. This
programme sets out a series of measures and actions to
strengthen EU security, with a view to ‘securing police, justice
and judicial cooperation’. A follow-up document (of 10 June
2005) presented an action plan for implementing the Hague
Programme, which referred to a Council of Justice and Home
Affairs ministers resolution of 30 March 2004 on customs
cooperation, and a communication on the fight against cross-
border trafficking in restricted or prohibited goods. In another
follow-up document (7) customs cooperation was again cited as
a priority issue. All
the projects envisaged in the above-
mentioned documents concern the availability of information

(6) COM(2004) 401 final.
(7) COM(2005) 184 final.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/49

the projects under way,

for law enforcement purposes, a matter which is also mentioned
in the Hague Programme. Given the overall context and the
nature of
it seems obvious to the
Committee that in designing a computerised customs system
intended to last, it is essential to ensure that, when the system
starts operating or at a later point, the customs database inter-
acts with other systems, especially with internal, European
and third country security systems. Respect for privacy, profes-
sional secrecy and data protection must, of course, always be
paramount.

This concern is not raised at all

2.5.2
in the Commission
document, except in the quote in point 2.5 above. Nor, on the
other hand, does the Commission's explanatory memorandum
anywhere mention the Hague Programme; the section ‘Consis-
the Union’
tency with the other policies and objectives of
mentions only the Lisbon strategy and the eEurope and
eGovernment initiatives. Notwithstanding Article 3(d) — which
is discussed below — such a major omission cannot be coinci-
dental, and the Commission should clearly explain the reasons
for it. In any case, the fact remains that it would not be accep-
table to simply postpone an initiative which should be adopted
without delay.

two years;

2.5.3 When it was drawing up this document, the Commis-
it
sion organised six seminars in the space of
consulted users; and it discussed the matter in the Customs
Code Committee, the Customs 2007 electronic customs group
and the Trade Contact Group. But
there is no mention of
contacts with Europol, OLAF or other directorates-general of
the Commission. A system cannot be planned solely according
to the requirements of its direct users; if it must be designed to
connect with other systems, there must be an understanding of
their characteristics and needs. The EESC thinks that the reserva-
tions it expressed in its opinion on the Community Customs
Code are now being borne out in so far as there is no proper
awareness of the interdependence between different public
administrations in the fight against crime.

2.5.4
A complete change in approach along the lines indi-
cated in the previous point would probably be difficult owing to
the time constraints fixed by the programme with respect to
implementation. However, it would surely be possible now to
provide for security measures for ‘sensitive goods’ (e.g. arms,
explosives, nuclear materials, machines and equipment for the
chemicals, nuclear or defence industries, narcotics, alcohol and
tobacco). Such measures could form the basis for surveys that
would be forwarded to the relevant authorities automatically or
on request.

ensure system interoperability, a single interface and customs
portals. This cost is estimated at EUR 180 million, divided into
incremental annual appropriations, starting at EUR 4 million in
2006 and rising to EUR 111 million from 2011. The EESC
endorses this, but is puzzled by the decision to charge the cost
of national customs portals to the Community budget. Even
though portals are in principle available to all operators,
whether national or from another EU country, it is likely that
each will be used principally by national operators. It would
therefore make more sense for the cost of portals to be borne
by individual Member States rather than by the Community. Of
course, the terms would be different if the Commission were
talking about European portals, which it does not refer to expli-
citly.

2.7
As regards implementation deadlines, the Commission
has drawn up a list of milestones which are mandatory for all
the Member States. These are based on the date of publication
of the Decision in the OJ: three years for adopting interoper-
able automated customs clearance systems, registration systems
for economic operators and information portals; five years for
setting up a network of single access points and an integrated
tariff environment corresponding to Community standards; and
six years for providing single window services. The EESC
considers these deadlines, especially the first one, to be rather
optimistic: three years is not a long time bearing in mind that
this has to include several months for testing the programmes
and sharing information with the other parties involved. More-
over, not all Member States have the same level of computerisa-
tion or availability of financial and human resources. If failure
by one or more Member States to meet the deadlines forced the
Commission to grant extensions, this would jeopardise the effi-
ciency of the system and above all its credibility. Therefore the
current Multi-Annual Strategic Plan (MASP) needs to be revised
taking into account:

— the need for all Member States to have fully implemented

the system before it goes live, and

— the need for business to have a minimum of 12 months in
which to prepare systems, after receipt of full requirements
Industry and trade
from customs in their Member State.
should not be obliged to submit the Summary declarations
for imports and exports before homogenous systems are
fully operational.

3. Specific comments

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the finan-
2.6
cial burden on the Community budget is that required to

3.1
Article 2: Objectives. The objectives include seeking a
common approach to the control of dangerous and illicit goods.
It would be advisable to re-formulate this objective in the light
of the EESC's suggestion in point 2.5.4.

C 318/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

Article 3: Data exchange. Under Article 3(d), customs
3.2
systems must allow data to be exchanged with ‘other administra-
tions or agencies involved in the international movement of
goods’. The EESC has already expounded its views on the inade-
quacy of this definition (see point 2.5 ff.). If the Committee's
suggestion that the Hague Programme be included under the
heading ‘Consistency with the other policies and objectives of
the Union’ is taken on board, the wording of this point must be
adapted accordingly. Whatever happens,
the text must be
worded more clearly so that it is not open to interpretation: it is
not clear whether it refers to ‘administrations … involved in the
international movement of goods’, as an alternative to ‘agencies’,
or whether the reference is to ‘administrations’ in general; if the
latter is the case, it should be clearly specified that by using this
term the Commission wishes to signal a new approach that is
consistent with the Hague Programme. The current rather vague
wording and its interpretation leave too much room for uncer-
tainty.

Article 4: Systems and services, and timetable. As
3.3
noted in point 2.7 above, the deadlines for implementing the
system seem over-optimistic: the Commission should discuss
them again, from a technical point of view, with the Member
States and with their bodies that are directly involved, so as
to be sure that all those concerned explicitly guarantee they are
capable of completing the tasks within the required time frame.

Article 9: Resources. The article divides responsibility
3.4
for
the human, budgetary and technical resources required
between the Commission and the Member States: the former is
responsible for the Community components and the latter for
the national components. The article is correctly formulated,
but it must be read in conjunction with Article 10 as regards
the meaning and substance of the terms ‘Community compo-
nents’ and ‘national components’.

3.5
Article 10: Financial provisions. This article is also
properly formulated, but its interpretation might be proble-
matic. The third paragraph states that the Member States shall
bear the costs of the national components, ‘including interfaces
with other governmental bodies and economic operators’.
It
must be assumed that portals — which generally operate in the
language of the Member State and are tailored to the needs of
that country's economic operators — will be considered

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

national components. However, the explanatory memorandum
(see point 2.6 above) states that portals are regarded as Com-
munity components, which would not be an obvious interpre-
tation to anybody reading only the text of the article. The EESC
thinks that this point should be revised:
if the
EESC's comments are accepted, and otherwise at least in form,
for the sake of transparency.

in substance,

3.6
Article 12: Reports. Member States must submit a
report by 31 December each year on progress made and results
achieved. The Commission in turn sends a consolidated report
to the Member States by 31 March each year, which should
include the results of any monitoring visits and other controls.
There is nothing exceptionable about this in principle, but the
Committee wonders what the implications of ‘monitoring visits’
are and whether their results should be made public.

3.7
Article 13: Consultation with economic operators.
This article states that the Commission and the Member States
shall ‘regularly’ consult economic operators at all stages of the
preparation, development and deployment of the systems and
services provided for. Consultation is to take place through a
mechanism which brings together a representative selection of
economic operators on a regular basis. The EESC considers this
type of mechanism to be consistent with normal Community
practice and with the principles of consultation and transpar-
ency; however, experience shows that consultation must not
draw attention to too many disparate demands and contradic-
tions that might create obstacles which would take a long time
to overcome and require unreasonable compromises. The
consultative phase should therefore be compatible with the need
to reach a prompt decision.

Article 14: Accession and candidate countries. This
3.8
article states that the Commission shall inform accession and
candidate countries about initiatives taken and progress made in
the various phases, and allow them to take part. The wording
here is vague: it is not clear whether the countries in question
may take part actively or only as observers; whether they are
allowed to introduce parallel customs systems with a view to
their accession; and in such cases whether they would be
entitled to funding from the Community budget. The EESC asks
that the wording of this provision be made more transparent.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND