Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2013) COM(2006) 201 final — 2006/0075 (COD)
Date: 2006-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, customs cooperation

C 324/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme for customs in the Com-
munity (Customs 2013)

COM(2006) 201 final — 2006/0075 (COD)

(2006/C 324/26)

On 22 June 2006 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

The Committee Bureau instructed the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption to
prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Ms Batut as
rapporteur-general at its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, and adopted the following
opinion by 108 votes in favour, with four abstentions.

1. Introduction

In all countries,

the customs administrations protect
1.1
national economic interests and traditionally make on-the-spot
seizures of goods in transit using procedures based on the prin-
ciple of immediate intervention. Following the establishment of
the Common External Customs Tariff in the 1960s, the creation
in 1993 abolished border controls
of
between the EU Member States, making the free movement of
goods and services possible. Intra-Community trade in goods,
the volume of which has practically doubled since the removal
of the internal borders, makes up the largest share of Member
State trade.

the internal market

1.2
The national customs administrations operating within
the European Community remained virtually unchanged for
many years. The structure of the customs authorities and their
staff were organised on a national level in each Member State.

The activity of

the customs authorities has, however,
1.3
become less clearly defined in the wake of the creation of the
European Union, the digital revolution and the development of
networks, where borders do not apply. The Commission's
‘Customs 2013’ proposal advocates the more active integration
of customs practices, in line with the objectives of the Lisbon
Strategy, without integrating the customs administrations them-
selves, whose national role remains fundamental. Nonetheless,
the interests to be protected are those of the Union and the citi-
zens and consumers who live there.

2. Background of the proposal

2.1 Customs 2000

As early as 1995,

2.1.1
the European Commission put
forward a five-year programme called Customs 2000 which was
subsequently followed by Customs 2002. Over time, the national
customs authorities were to start working as a ‘single adminis-
‘The trading area
tration’ with regard to the procedures used.

without
internal customs frontiers within the 15 Member States
requires uniform customs clearance for equivalent transactions in all
places in the customs area’. The methods advocated were coopera-
tion, the uniform application of customs law within the EU and
at its perimeters, the creation of a communications network
accessible to all economic stakeholders, the improvement of
customs administrations and their staff, and the development of
IT systems and electronic customs clearance systems (1).

2.2 Customs 2002

2.2.1
Customs 2002 set up a Customs Policy Group and
Customs Committee in 2002, bringing together the various
approaches of the representatives of the Commission and of the
Member States with regard to methods, measures, assessments,
the modernisation of procedures,
investments,
counterfeiting,
monitoring
support for candidate countries and the exchange of customs
officials.

IT platforms,
standards,

cooperation against

2.2.2
At the time, the EESC endorsed the creation of an IT
customs communications system at EU level with ‘the active
involvement of business and professional circles — firms, associations,
Consultative Customs Committee, ESC — in the official decision-
making process’ which ‘encourages mutual understanding and prevents
unnecessary difficulties in implementation’. It highlighted the poten-
tial simplification that this would introduce. At that time, the
Committee recommended examining the possibility of
the
Commission pooling information at central
level, and estab-
lishing a European Community customs investigation service
(EUROCUSTOMS, similar to EUROPOL) over the medium term,
taking account of
the ‘undeniable need for 'a common core of
in customs law and procedure for customs officials in the
training'
‘besides respecting the subsidiarity principle,
Member States’ which,
should take account of
the different careers open to customs offi-
cials’ (2). The decision-making institutions did not act on the
Committee's recommendations.

(1) OJ L 33 of 4 February 1997 and OJ L 13 of 19 January 2000.
(2) OJ C 174/14 of 17 June 1996.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/79

2.3 Customs 2007

subsequently

A new five-year programme,

entitled Customs
2.3.1
2007 (3), was
adopted, which revised and
expanded the previous programme. Its objective was not limited
solely to trade and customs activity but also focused on the
need to protect the EU's financial interests and on the creation
of a secure, risk-free environment for its citizens. The globalisa-
tion of the world's economy proceeds apace, along with the
upheavals that this entails. Customs has an important role to
play in the regulation of the commercial environment. Rapid
advances in technology have made the ambition of integrated
customs procedures achievable. The objective of Customs 2007
is to ensure that all EU Member States implement Community
legislation in the field of customs policy in a consistent and
professional manner. Accordingly, best practices, exchanges of
personnel, seminars and follow-up activities occupy an impor-
tant place in this process, alongside increased use of IT.

For its part, the Committee recommended that

2.3.2
‘the
Commission should play a more pro-active role in monitoring stan-
dards of control in Member States’ and that ‘this could be achieved, in
part, by the appointment of a system of Community-wide customs
inspectors’ (4).

2.3.3
In its opinion, the EESC acknowledged that one of the
objectives of enhanced customs services could be to improve
the competitive environment for business and foster employ-
ment, whilst supporting legitimate commercial and trading
activity. It believed there was a need for a means of monitoring
progress in the early stages and taking corrective action if neces-
sary. Its recommendations were taken on board (5).

2.3.4
The intermediary report showed that, as a rule,
operators and stakeholders were generally satisfied with the
Customs 2007 programme, but that it would be necessary to
reconcile the Community's ambition to foster commerce with
existing security requirements, and that there was some concern
regarding the computerisation of customs. The programme
significantly contributed to the aim of the national customs
authorities to work as a single administration.

2.4 2006

2.4.1
published in 2006:

Three major European texts on customs were

— the proposal for a Regulation on Modernised Customs Code;

— the proposal for a Regulation on Paperless environment for

customs and trade;

— the document presently being examined in this opinion.

2.4.2
The Community Customs Code, which is to be
modernised by a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council and on which the EESC issued an opinion on 5 July
2006, is also a key reference document for understanding the
Customs 2013 programme, which aims to help keep legislation
in step with evolving markets and technologies, and successive
EU enlargements. IT use is becoming increasingly widespread;

(3) COM (2002) 26 final — 2002/0029 (COD).
(4) OJ C 241/8 of 7 October 2002.
(5) Idem footnote 4.

smaller businesses. Moreover, non-tariff

administration will have to be on line; computerised procedures
that were previously optional are now compulsory under the new
code, making the task easier for large operators, possibly at the
expense of
related
measures have come to the fore, covering issues such as
combating counterfeiting, security, controlling illegal immigra-
tion, money laundering and drug trafficking, hygiene, health,
the environment and consumer protection, as well as measures
relating to VAT and excise collection. The Member States
continue to be the driving force behind the plan; they bear the
costs of the scheme — particularly as regards IT interoperability
— and their customs authorities are empowered to carry out all
manner of controls; nonetheless, the Commission is gradually
increasing its own regulatory powers (Art. 196 of the proposed
regulation) particularly with regard to the customs systems, the
Member States and international agreements. The modernised
code will redefine the roles and the status of all stakeholders
involved in customs procedures.

2.4.3
introduction of a paperless environment.

The requirement to be online will, naturally, lead to the

2.4.3.1
The proposal for a decision on electronic customs
administration provided for a series of measures and timelines
for making the electronic customs systems of
the various
Member States compatible with one another, thereby creating a
single shared IT portal. Communication would thus become
more efficient between operators and the customs authorities,
and help speed up the exchange of information between these
authorities. Paper versions of documents would only be drawn
up in exceptional circumstances. The Commission also plans to
set up a single interface that would allow reliable operators (inter-
vening parties and ‘recognised operators’ — Articles 2, 4, 13
and 16 of the proposal for a regulation on the modernised
Customs Code) to have dealings with only one institution and
not, as is currently the case, a variety of border control authori-
ties.
related information,
would thus only be transmitted once. This would mean the
inspection of goods by customs authorities and others (police,
the
border police, veterinary and environmental services) at
same time and in the same place, in accordance with the ‘one-
stop’ principle.

Information, particularly customs

2.4.4
In its opinion of 13 September 2006, the EESC stated
that Community customs management should be one of the
long-term objectives of the European Union: ‘this has advantages
in terms of simplicity, reliability and cost, as well as the possibility of
interconnecting with other EU and third country systems’.

3. Customs 2013 Programme

cost

Interoperability,

reduction, best practices:

3.1
the
Customs 2013 Programme currently being examined represents
the continuation of the previous programmes outlined above
and is the successor to Customs 2007. Its aim is to contribute
to further progress in this area which is characterised both by
fragmented yet closely interlinked procedures and by modern

C 324/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

procedures that aim to speed up the trade in goods and to facili-
tate trade and the freedom to trade, whilst maintaining controls.
The European Commission (6) believes that customs is the only
means of providing an overall and cross-sectoral snapshot of the
economy. The situation is much more complex than previously
due to the interaction between flows of goods and persons.
According to its representatives, managing this complex situa-
tion will necessitate a flexible approach and means in order to
ensure the competitiveness of the EU's businesses both on the
internal and the global markets.

3.1.1
The new programme's period of application runs from
1 January 2008 to 31 December 2013, a six year period,
bringing its duration in line with the multi-annual
financial
framework.

3.1.2
The objectives of the programme outlined in Article 4
(1) of the proposal, aim, through assistance to its addressees, to:

a) guarantee that the customs activities match the needs of the

internal market, including supply chain security;

b) ensure interaction and performance of

the
customs administrations as efficiently as though they were
one administration;

the duties of

c) provide necessary protection for the financial interests of the

Community;

d) strengthen the security and safety of citizens;

e) prepare for enlargement, including the sharing of experience
and knowledge with the customs administrations of
the
countries concerned.

3.1.3

Joint actions and IT actions

The actions to be undertaken to implement the programme
(Art. 2) reflect and build on those put in place by Customs
2007 and adopt a twin-track approach based on: material
resources (hardware and software) and human resources (joint
action and training):

a) communication and information-exchange systems;

b) benchmarking;

c) seminars and workshops;

d) project groups and steering groups;

e) working visits;

f) training activities;

g) monitoring actions;

h) any other activities required for the realisation of the objec-

tives of the programme.

Accordingly, they aim to create a computerised, pan-European
customs system.

3.1.4
The addressees of the actions (Article 3 — partici-
pants) are primarily the Member States, and then, given the role

of customs in the international economy, to varying degrees the
candidate countries, potential candidates, countries linked to the
European Union through the European Neighbourhood Policy,
and third countries.

3.1.5
in the proposal.

The various stakeholders are defined in several articles

Recital 6 (7) states that there is a need to ‘strengthen
3.1.5.1
relations between the customs administrations of the Community, as
well as with business, legal and scientific circles, or other opera-
tors engaged in foreign trade’. The 2013 programme should allow
people representing these groups or entities to participate,
if
necessary, in activities covered by the programme.

3.1.5.2
The following should be considered to be stake-
holders: firstly, national administrations, as defined in Article 2
(2), namely ‘the public authorities and other bodies in the partici-
pating countries which are responsible for administering customs and
customs related activities’; next, at Community level, the Commis-
sion, assisted by the ‘Customs 2013 Committee’ (Art. 19),
the Customs Policy Group made up of the various national
institutions, then, in accordance with Article 14, ‘representatives
of international organisations, administrations of third coun-
tries, economic operators and their organisations who may take
part in activities organised under the programme whenever this is
essential’ to carry out the objectives mentioned in Articles 4 and
5. Lastly, ‘the Commission may make the communication and infor-
mation exchange systems available to other public service for
customs or non-customs purposes provided that a financial contribu-
tion is paid to the programme’ (Art. 7(6)). Taken as a whole, and
considering the regulatory role that customs plays in interna-
tional commerce, there is a substantial number of stakeholders.

3.1.5.3
Finally, the Commission suggests that the ‘implemen-
tation of this Community programme should rest on recourse
to service suppliers by means of technical and administrative
assistance contracts’ (8) and,
‘reserves itself the
possibility of examining whether certain tasks of implementa-
tion of
this programme could be entrusted to an executive
agency’.

in the future,

3.1.6 The budget

3.1.6.1
Interoperability will facilitate the exchange of infor-
mation between different countries' authorities; through inter-
faces with commercial operators, Customs 2013 contributes to
the implementation of the decisions on the Modernised Customs
Code and Paperless customs. Once it is fully operational, the new
computerised system will complete the single internal market,
whose only borders will be the external ones. The 2013
programme takes into account the global dimension of markets
and the relationship with third countries which may become
‘participating countries’ and be eligible for aid.

(6) Hearing of 18 September 2006 of TAXUD — A/2 — Directorate

General for Taxation and the Customs Union.

(7) COM(2006) 201 final, p. 11.
(8) In: Explanatory memorandum, 4) Budgetary implication.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/81

is primarily

Implementing the programme

the
3.1.6.2
responsibility of the participating countries (11th recital). The
total
funding from the EU budget amounts to EUR 323.8
million (explanatory memorandum, point 4, and Article 16(1)),
but this will not cover the full cost, which will largely be borne
the aid provided by the
In theory,
by the Member States.
Customs 2013 programme would represent EUR 2 million per
Member State per year over six years, but the ‘participating
countries’ will be greater in number than the 27 Member States.

3.1.6.3
participating countries in the following way (Article 17):

The costs will be shared between the EU and the

— ‘2. The Community shall bear the following expenditure:

a) the cost of the acquisition, development, installation,
maintenance and the cost of the day-to-day operation
of the Community components of the communica-
tion and information exchange systems set out in
Article 7(3);’

and the costs of organising meetings required for
purposes of joint actions;

the

— ‘6. Participating countries shall bear the following expendi-

ture:

a) the cost of the acquisition, development, installation,
maintenance and the cost of the day-to-day operation
of the non-Community components of the communi-
cation and information exchange systems set out in
Article 7(4);

b) the costs

relating to the initial and continuing
training, including the linguistic training, of their offi-
cials.’

3.1.7 Staff

3.1.7.1
The draft emphasises the need for robust training
and skills to make the whole thing work. The needs of national
customs staff in this area are taken into account by Article 12
of the draft. The idea is that ‘structured’ cooperation between
national
training bodies responsible for training in customs
administrations will set off a chain reaction: programmes and
‘to
‘training standards’ will be drawn up at Community level
provide a common core of training for officials relating to the full
range of customs rules and procedures so as to enable them to acquire
the necessary professional skills and knowledge’ (Article 12(a)). The
training courses provided may be opened up to officials from
other countries (Article 12(b)), and the core tools will have to
be fully integrated within their national training programmes by
national customs authorities (Article 12(2)), who of course are
also to ensure that ‘their officials receive the initial and continuous
training necessary to acquire the common professional skills and knowl-
edge’ and linguistic training, at their own expense (Article 12(2)).

Thus, the training itself will not be provided by the
3.1.7.2
EU, but the content will be. The Commission opts for a tree
structure, but does not rule out,
‘where appropriate’, ‘the develop-
ment of the necessary infrastructure and tools for common customs
training and customs training management’ (Article 12(1)(c)).

3.1.7.3
In addition, in order to achieve the complementarity
already advocated by the EESC, the draft mentions ‘the considera-
tion of the opportunities to develop training activities with other public
services’ (Article 12(d)). Thus, the cost of the acquisition, develop-
ment,
training systems and
modules could, to the extent that they are common to all parti-
cipating countries, be financed by the programme (Article 17
(d)).

installation, and maintenance of

3.1.8 The Commission's role

3.1.8.1
This is at the heart of the tree structure. There is no
Community structure, but the Commission is the central stake-
holder. It will itself determine who are the approved operators
for whom the criteria are not yet defined (Article 196 of the
Modernised Community Customs Code, MCCC), which public
services other than customs could have access for non-customs
purposes (explanatory statement to Article 7) to secure data,
training, what new private operators (legal and scientific areas)
could get involved.

4. General comments by the Committee

4.1
The Committee regrets that, despite the obviously inter-
connected nature of the above-mentioned dossiers and their
importance both for authorities and for the women and men
who serve them, they were presented by the Commission over
the course of 2006 in no particular order, even though they
deal with issues that are neither urgent nor entirely new, but are
all interlinked.

4.2
It thus regrets even more deeply that it had to rush to
draft this opinion for reasons linked to the current budget
preparation agenda when, as has already been said, this proposal
has to be seen in a very wide context, the impact of which in
relation to this procedure was entirely predictable.

The EESC believes that it would inevitably be damaging
4.3
if customs union, which has been the spearhead of European
economic integration, were now to fall behind the world of
international trade that it is supposed to regulate and which is
in a state of constant change. IT is of course part of its armoury
and the infinite possibilities it offers must serve both operators
and supervisory authorities. Consequently,
the Committee
supports
the Customs 2013 programme and the budget
increase enabling aid to participating countries to continue,
inter alia to modernise their tools, make stakeholders accoun-
table and train their officials.

C 324/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Sharing knowledge, joint actions, follow-up actions: these
4.4
are good things both for the proper functioning of interoper-
ability and for helping stakeholders to get to know one another,
but which will be reserved for a small number of customs offi-
cers.

4.5
The EESC notes that, as it requested in the past in respect
of previous programmes, an evaluation process is to be put in
place. It supports this, but regrets that, for the time being, there
is no indication as to what indicators will be used.

fight against fraud by means of electronic checks can work effec-
tively and in an equivalent way in all the participating countries
with few officials. The Committee believes that the number of
checks always depends on political decisions and the desired
relationship between free trade and public safety, but is aware
that their implementation depends on officials and the resources
available to them. Moreover, the balance between freedom and
security is lost if the desire to free up trade by a de facto reduc-
tion in the number of checks and the staff who carry them out
overrides security imperatives, which the EESC notes are not
in the draft. The Union defines customs
mentioned in detail
policy, but national authorities are responsible for running their
structures; they could advantageously reorganise these without
destroying them.

4.6

However, the Committee has some reservations:

4.6.1
‘There is a need for customs action to give priority to
improve controls and anti-fraud activities’ but, at the same time,
‘minimise the cost of compliance with customs legislation for economic
operators’, ‘ensure an efficient management of the control of goods at
the external borders and protect the citizens of the Community as
regards safety and security of
(3rd
recital).

the international supply chain’

4.7

However, the EESC believes:

4.7.1
That proposing the objective of ‘provid[ing] an equivalent
level of protection to the citizens and economic operators of the Com-
munity at any point in the Community customs territory’ (see 2nd
recital) is a laudable objective, but an insufficient one for the
taxpayer, the operator and, above all, the citizen, if ‘equivalence’
is not synonymous with ‘excellence’ of the highest level. Safety,
for example, is a teddy bear that has been inspected in accord-
ance with EU standards and has thus been authorised to enter
the EU because the customs officers have established that its
eyes cannot be torn out and will thus not choke a child. The
text of the proposal posits the principle of control and safety
without going into detail; it should be equivalent at any point in
the territory, and also be as good as possible.

4.7.2
The objective of reducing administrative costs and
automating tasks by means of expensive computer systems,
when coupled with the obligation on Member States' budget
authorities to comply with the maximum levels of public deficit
and debt permitted by the Treaties, may lead managers of
national authorities to reduce staffing levels independently of
one another, thus making cooperation difficult, and/or to exter-
nalise their costs by means of a degree of privatisation, which
may cause legal uncertainty for operators and citizens vis-à-vis
services with significant powers.

4.7.3
That the freeing up of trade that is being sought may
lead to an increase in fraud (legal commercial goods) and traf-
ficking (illegal goods), against which there would be fewer
physical checks; it would have been useful to demonstrate if the

The Committee stresses that, on two earlier occasions
4.7.3.1
in relation to the above-mentioned previous texts on customs, it
advocated a certain degree of centralisation of action and of
structures. However, since 2005 (9), the European Commission
has gone down the road of a network based on greater coopera-
tion between national customs computer systems, believing that
this should lead to increased checks at the same time as simpli-
fying procedures. Interoperable, paperless procedures in practice
mean significant restructuring of customs services at national
level, with the closure of offices open to those making declara-
tions and a commensurate reduction in the intervention force
available to customs in the event of a public health (mad cow
disease) or security (terrorism) emergency, and upheaval
for
staff.

The Committee also repeats a criticism made when
4.7.3.2
the previous texts were published (10): ‘there is no proper awareness
of the interdependence between different public administrations in the
fight against crime’, though this may be mitigated here by the fact
that provision is made for a possible opening to other public
services (Article 7(6)).

In general

4.7.3.3
terms, recognising the pivotal role in
worldwide trade of the Customs Union and the national admin-
istrations that enforce it ought perhaps to have led the Commis-
sion to state that this role can only be devolved to the public
authorities.

4.7.3.4
The interim evaluation report for Customs 2007 has
highlighted the severity of the language problem that hinders
customs officers
the EESC
believes that this is not sufficiently taken into account in the
2013 programme, which leaves it up to participating countries.
This issue should be a European concern.

trans-national activity;

in their

(9) Communication from the Commission on Fiscalis 2013 and Customs

2013. COM(2005) 111 final, 6.4.2005.

(10) COM(2005) 608 final.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/83

Against the backdrop of a globalised economy, the
4.7.3.5
Commission could have included a reference to an action with
respect to educating third countries and emphasised prevention
and training for national authorities of certain countries that are
known for harbouring fraudulent channels (in particular coun-
terfeit goods) so that they are able to see the extent to which
this harms their own economies and to teach them techniques
for carrying out internal checks on this phenomenon.

5. Specific comments

5.1 Article 3 of the proposal: Participation in the programme

The Commission proposal sets out the actions to be
5.1.1
carried out on both the old and the new borders of the Union
and with the ENP countries and to increase cooperation with
non-EU countries. They could be involved in certain activities
under certain conditions. The Committee believes that this is
very important to ensure the fastest possible compliance with
the principle of equivalent treatment if and when these coun-
tries join the EU. However, the conditions that must be met in
order for them to receive aid under Customs 2013 are not
specified in the text.

5.2 Article 5(1)(i): Improving cooperation

5.2.1
The Commission rightly wants ‘to improve cooperation
between customs administrations of the Community and third
countries’. It might perhaps have mentioned the World Customs
the international organisations that
Organisation as one of
might take part in the programme (Article 14).

request Member States to alter their decisions. It will decide on
which public and private services will participate in Customs
2013 and will thus, free of charge or on a fee-paying basis,
benefit from its databases, and on what the conditions are for
eligibility for aid under the programme (participating countries).

5.3.3 Whilst it is aware that such an undertaking needs to
have an efficient driver, the Committee wonders to what extent
the integrated system will be publicly accountable, and would
like everything possible to be done to avoid ending up with a
network in the hands of super-technicians that would turn the
tree structure into a nebulous one over which citizens and their
representatives would cease to have any control. It believes that
dismantling customs organisations and handing their tasks to
independent or private organisations such as agencies or to sub-
contractors would constitute an additional risk.

5.4 Article 17 The budget

Implementing the programme is primarily the respon-
5.4.1
sibility of the participating countries (11th recital). The total
funding from the EU budget amounts to EUR 323.8 million
(explanatory memorandum, point 4, and Article 16(1) and, as
stated above, this will in theory represent only EUR 2 million
per Member State per year over six years. The biggest contribu-
tion to finally achieving an integrated European customs service
will come from the Member States who manage the staff and
the infrastructure, both from the public and private sectors.

The Committee notes that

5.4.2
text does not
specify the technical distribution of sums allocated that the
Impact Assessment (11) study put at EUR 259.6 million for IT and
only EUR 57.4 million for activities aimed at people.

the draft

5.3 Articles 3, 10, 14, 19, 6th recital

5.5 Article 8 and Article 12(d) Training activities

These set out

the stakeholders who, alongside the
5.3.1
Commission, the Customs 2013 Committee (Article 19) and
national authorities will make the programme work by conti-
nuing actions already undertaken. The type of contribution they
will make and the relationships they will have to one another is
not precisely set out in the text. Whilst providing expertise,
some of them remain ‘indebted’ users; participating countries
are not all on the same level. Representatives of international
organisations, of third country authorities, of economic opera-
tors and their organisations (Article 14) can participate in the
programme, but only Member States will be part of ‘project
groups… and steering groups which shall perform activities of a
coordinating nature’ (Article 10).

5.3.2 Where the texts are not specific,
the Commission
decides. In accordance with the Modernised Customs Code, it
will determine the conditions
for becoming an approved
operator; in accordance with Article 194 thereof, it can decide
alone to change the standards for interoperability of customs
systems, and determine itself the instances in which it wishes to

in the Member States,

The EESC believes that,

5.5.1
the
people who work in business and for operators, as well as in
the customs authorities, will be faced with an acceleration of the
reforms that have already been started and that, despite the
training that they will be offered, some of them, including offi-
cials, should have the option of benefiting from some kind of
social package if they are unable to cope with the changes. This
should be offered for a transition period that takes account of
the period in history during which this programme is being
implemented (the baby boomer generation leaving the labour
market).

5.5.2
In addition, in order to achieve the complementarity
already advocated by the EESC, the draft mentions ‘the considera-
tion of the opportunities to develop training activities with other public
services’
the
Commission had specified which services, and which partici-
pants in the programme were to provide the training.

It would have been helpful

(Article 12(d)).

if

(11) Commission staff working document Customs 2013 — Impact Assess-

ment, p.30 — document Commission SEC(2006) 570.

C 324/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

5.6 Article 13: Monitoring actions

5.6.1
As knowing one's interlocutor leads to greater trust
and greater efficiency in cross-border relations, the Committee
believes that these joint visits should be for the most part be
made by rank and file officers, and not just by the customs
services, as was the case in the old Mattheus programme.

6. The Committee's recommendations

In 2005, the Commission Communication announcing
6.1
the Customs 2013 programme said that the future programme
should ‘allow for co-financing from first and third pillar
programmes’ on the grounds that it was impossible to confine
customs actions to a specific pillar. However, this is not the case
for Customs 2013. This seems to be at odds with the task that
falls in part to customs to fight large-scale trafficking and to
human and territorial safety, a mission that comes under the
JHA pillar. The Committee would like this possibility of finan-
cing based also on the third pillar to be looked at in order to
facilitate complementarity between anti-fraud services and to
avoid duplication of costs.

6.2
The EESC believes that it is necessary to look at how
customs law — where common law is inadequate — can be
developed to reflect the way customs now operate, in particular
in the areas of computer fraud, piracy, and of penalties: the
Union will have a single market, an interoperable customs
network, authorities working in unison, common definitions of
offences, but customs penalties that remain different, which
would only lead to diversion of traffic and thus different treat-
ment according to the point of entry to the customs territory,
which would defeat the object of the whole programme.

Brussels, 26 October 2006

Replacing the Mattheus programme with working visits
6.3
demonstrates the abandonment of the notion of interchange-
ability of officials within the territory of Europe that motivated
the said former programme. Mobility is now across
the
network, but the Committee believes that working visits should
not be any shorter than the exchanges that took place in the
past and should be carried out by as many officials as possible
so that
to know their counterparts and their
methods.

they can get

The EESC believes that research should be done into how
6.4
the programme might contribute to the provision of assistance,
during the 2008-2013 transition period, to staff affected by the
restructuring brought about by the introduction of permanently
computerised customs services in Member States; if necessary,
through some form of social package.

The Committee would like the following to be clarified

6.5
for the public in the Customs 2013 programme:

a) the position of actions by customs, with details of the public
services that may be given access to their commercial or
other data, whether free of charge or otherwise;

b) the position of European customs vis-à-vis other customs

systems in the world (in relation to security issues);

c) the (qualitative and quantitative) degree of cooperation
expected from potential candidate countries, neighbouring
countries and third countries, and the part of the budget that
will be devoted to this;

d) the nature and the expected role of international organisa-
tions that may take part in activities organised under the
programme.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS