Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Union legal framework for customs infringements and sanctions
Date: 2013-12-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative offence, administrative procedure, administrative sanction, customs cooperation, customs fraud, customs harmonisation, customs inspection

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.6.2014  
COM(2013) 884 final/4 

2013/0432 (COD) 

CORRIGENDUM : 
This document corrects document COM(2013)884 final of 13.12.2013. 
Concerns all linguistic versions. 
The first two paragraphs of point 3.2, concerning subsidiarity, were replaced by three new 
ones. 
The text shall read as follows :  

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the Union legal framework for customs infringements and sanctions  

{SWD(2013) 513 final} 
{SWD(2013) 514 final} 
{SWD(2013) 515 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

1.1. 

General context 

Despite the fact that customs legislation is fully harmonised, its enforcement, which ensures 
compliance  with  the  customs  rules  and  the  lawful  imposition  of  sanctions,  lies  within  the 
ambit of Member States' national law. Consequently, customs legislation enforcement follows 
28 different sets of legal rules and different administrative or legal traditions. This means that 
Member  States  can  impose  sanctions  that  seem  appropriate  to  them  as  penalties  for 
infringements  of  certain  obligations  stemming  from  the  harmonised  Union  customs 
legislation.  

Such sanctions differ in nature and severity according to the Member State that is competent 
for  it.  Namely,  they  are  of  different  types  (e.g.  fines,  imprisonment,  confiscation  of  goods, 
temporal  or  permanent  disqualification  from  the  practice  of  industrial  or  commercial 
activities), irrespective their nature, and even when assuming the same type and nature, like 
for instance a fine, have different levels/ranges from Member State to Member State. 

An overview of the situation regarding Member States' customs infringements and sanctions 
systems  took  place  through  a  Project  Group  established,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  by  the 
Commission with 24 Member States1, under the Customs 2013 Program. This Project Group 
analysed the 24 national regimes for customs infringements and related sanctions and reported 
back to the Commission. Several substantial differences were noted: 

Table 1 – Differences in Member States' customs sanctioning systems 

The  nature  of  national  sanctions  for 
customs infringements 

16 out of 24 Member States provide for both 
criminal and non-criminal sanctions. 

8 out of 24 Member States only have criminal 
sanctions. 

Financial thresholds to distinguish between 
criminal  and  non-criminal  infringements 
and sanctions 

Member  States  whose  systems  foresee  both 
criminal  and  non-criminal  infringements  and 
sanctions  have  different  financial  thresholds 
to  decide  on  the  nature  of  the  customs 
infringement  –  whether  criminal  or  non-
criminal-  and  therefore  the  nature  of  the 
financial 
customs 
thresholds vary between 266 EUR and 50 000 
EUR. 

sanction.  Thus 

the 

Member  States'  requirements  to  establish 
the  economic  operator's  liability  for  the 

11 out of 24 Member States consider that an 
liable  for  certain 
is 
economic  operator 

1 

Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
customs infringement 

Time limits: 

-to initiate a customs sanction procedure 

-to impose a customs sanction 

-to execute the customs sanction 

Legal Persons' liability 

Settlement  

law  breach, 

customs  infringements  whenever  there  is  a 
the 
customs 
presence of intent, negligence or elements of 
careless  or  reckless  behaviour  (strict  liability 
infringements). 

irrespective  of 

13  out  of  24  Member  States  cannot  sanction 
an  economic  operator 
for  a  customs 
infringement  without  the  presence  of  intent, 
negligence or elements of careless or reckless 
behaviour.  

The  large  majority  of  Member  States  have 
time limits to initiate a sanction procedure, to 
impose a customs sanction and to execute it. 
These time limits vary from 1 to 30 years. 

1  out  of  24  Member  States  does  not  employ 
any  time  limit  at  all  –  it  can  initiate  the 
sanction  procedure  or  impose  a  sanction  at 
any time. 

An  economic  operator  who  is  a  legal  person 
can be held liable for a customs infringement 
in 15 out of 24 Member States. 

In  9  out  of  24  Member  States  legal  persons 
cannot be held liable for infringements. 

Settlement refers to any procedure within the 
legal  or  administrative  system  of  a  Member 
State that allows the authorities to agree with 
an  offender  to  settle  the  matter  of  a  customs 
infringement as an alternative to initiating or 
completing customs sanction procedures. 

15  out  of  24  Member  States  have  this 
procedure for customs infringements. 

(Source:  Report  from  the  Project  Group  on  Customs  Penalties  –  Annex  1B  of  Impact  Assessment  for  a 
legislative act laying down a Union legal framework on customs infringements and sanctions) 

These differences in infringements to the customs legislation and sanctions have implications 
at several levels: 

-  from  an  international  point  of  view,  the  different  sanctioning  systems  existing  in  the 
Member States raise some concerns in certain WTO Member States regarding the compliance 
of the European Union with its international obligations in this field; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
-  within  the  European  Union,  the  different  enforcement  of  customs  legislation  makes  the 
effective management of the customs union harder, as the same non-compliant behaviour may 
be treated in very different ways in each Member State as the previous table shows; 

-  for  the  economic  operators,  the  differences  in  the  treatment  of  infringements  of  Union 
customs legislation have an impact on the level playing field which should be inherent to the 
Internal Market, thus providing an advantage for those who breach the law in a Member State 
with lenient legislation for customs sanctions. This situation also has an impact on the access 
to customs simplifications and facilitations or to the process of being granted the AEO status 
as  the  criterion  referring  to  compliance  with  customs  legislation  and  the  absence  of  serious 
infringements as a condition for obtaining the AEO status, is interpreted in a different way by 
national legislations. 

In  order  to  tackle  those  problems,  the  proposal  sets  a  common  legal  framework  for  the 
treatment  of  customs  infringements  and  sanctions,  bridging  the  gap  between  different  legal 
regimes  through  a  common  platform  of  rules  and  thus  contributing  to  an  equal  treatment 
between  economic  operators  in  the  EU,  as  well  as  the  effective  protection  of  the  Union's 
financial interests and law enforcement in the field of customs. 

1.2. 

Legal context 

Customs legislation referring to the trade in goods between the customs territory of the Union 
and  third  countries  is  completely  harmonised  and  has  been  assembled  in  a  Community 
Customs  Code  (CCC)2  since  1992.  A  major  overhaul  of  this  Code  was  carried  out  in 
Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 2008 
laying  down  the  Community  Customs  Code  (Modernised  Customs  Code  or  MCC)3,  now 
recast and repealed by Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  9  October  2013  laying  down  the  Union  Customs  Code  (UCC)4,  aiming  at  the 
adaptation  of  customs  legislation  to  the  electronic  environment  of  customs  and  trade,  to 
promote  further  the  harmonisation  and  uniform  application  of  customs  legislation,  and  to 
provide Union economic operators with the appropriate tools for developing their activities in 
a global business environment. 

This harmonised customs legislation needs to be strengthened with common rules regarding 
its enforcement. The need to take some steps in this direction has already been pointed out by 

2 

3 

4 

applied 

from  1 

January  1994, 

The Community Customs Code, established by Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 
and 
in  OJ  L  302,  19.10.1992,  p.  1:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992R2913:20070101:EN:PDF  
Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying 
down  the  Community  Customs  Code  (Modernised  Customs  Code),  in  OJ  L145,  4.6.2008,  p.1: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:145:0001:0064:EN:PDF  
Regulation No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down 
the Union Customs Code (recast) in OL L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1 (corrigendum in OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, 
p. 90): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:269:0001:0101:EN:PDF  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the European Parliament in two reports5,  one from 2008  and another  from 2011, calling for 
harmonisation in this field. 

All  this  efforts  are  supported  on  the  general  obligation  foreseen  by  the  Treaty6  for  Member 
States  to  "take  any  appropriate  measure,  general  or  particular,  to  ensure  fulfilment  of  the 
obligations  arising  out  of  the  Treaties  or  resulting  from  the  acts  of  the  institutions  of  the 
Union".  This  obligation  includes  sanctions,  without  differentiating  between  those  of  a 
criminal and non- criminal nature. 

More specifically the Modernised Customs Code and the Union Customs Code include for the 
first time a provision7 concerning administrative customs penalties.  

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

2.1. 

Consultation with interested parties 

Four consultation tools were used, none of them being public consultations (given the specific 
and  technical  nature  of  customs  infringements  and  sanctions),  and,  following  the  request  of 
the stakeholders, with a confidential treatment of the responses. 

– 
A  questionnaire  was  addressed  to  the  customs  administrations  of  Member  States 
concerning their national customs infringements and penalties systems and answers from 24 
Member  States  were  collected  as  has  been  previously  stated  in  this  memorandum.  The 
comparison  of  the  data  gathered  showed  the  relevant  differences  among  the  customs 
sanctioning systems of the Member States. 

– 
A  High  Level  Seminar  on  Compliance  and  Compliance  Risk  Management  with  the 
participation of customs administrations from all Member States and Candidate Countries and 
representatives of economic operators was held in Copenhagen on 20-21 March 2012, where 
the  issue  of  customs  offences  and  penalties  was  acknowledged  as  an  element  of  a 
"compliance" scheme, and an issue to be further explored. 

– 
A  first  stakeholder  consultation  with  DG  TAXUD's  consultative  body  on  customs 
issues  (the  Trade  Contact  Group  (TCG))  was  carried  out.  The  TCG  includes  Union-level 
representatives  of  45  European  trade  associations,  including  SMEs,  involved  in  customs 
related activities. As a response to this consultation, the majority of the associations present at 
the meeting expressed their overall agreement on the relevance of DG TAXUD's initiative for 
their business activities. 

5 

6 
7 

Report  from  the  Committee  on  International  Trade  on  implementing  trade  policy  through  efficient 
import  and  export  rules  and  procedures  (2007/2256(INI)).  Rapporteur:  Jean-Pierre  Audy  and  Report 
from  the  Committee  in  the  Internal  Market  and  Consumer  Protection  on  modernisation  of  customs 
(2011/2083(INI)). Rapporteur: Matteo Salvini 
Article 4.3 of TEU 
Article 21 MCC, becoming Article 42 UCC. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 
A second stakeholder consultation was carried out through another questionnaire, and 
was  sent  to  SMEs  through  the  Enterprise  Europe  Network,  concerning  the  effects  that  the 
different infringements and sanctions systems in force in different Member States in the area 
of  customs  legislation  have  on  the  commercial  activity  of  companies  dealing  with 
import/export activities. 

2.2. 

Impact Assessment 

The  Commission  conducted  an  impact  assessment  of  policy  alternatives  (available  at:…). 
Four  policy  options  were  analysed:  A  –  baseline  scenario;  B  –  a  modification  of  the 
legislation  within  the  Union  legal  framework  in  force;  C  –  a  legislative  measure  on  the 
approximation of the types of customs infringements and non-criminal sanctions and D – two 
separate  legislative  measures  aiming  at  approximation  of  customs  infringements  and  non-
criminal sanctions on the one hand and criminal customs infringements and sanctions on the 
other hand. 

After  considering  the  possible  options,  the  impact  assessment  concludes  that  a  legislative 
measure that would identify customs obligations to which special protection should be given 
through the establishment of non-criminal sanctions for any breaches of them (option C), is to 
be preferred.  

The  resubmission  of  the  impact  assessment  received  a  positive  opinion  of  the  Impact 
Assessment Board on 14 June 2013. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1. 

The legal basis 

The proposal is based on Article 33 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU). 

Article  33  TFEU  states  that  customs  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  between  the 
latter and the Commission should be strengthened within the scope of the application of the 
Treaties. 

According to the Code,  a  decision  taken by a Member State is applied in all other  Member 
States  and  therefore  requires  consultation  between  the  authorities  to  enhance  its  uniform 
application. 

Likewise  the  introduction  of  certain  facilitations  and  simplifications  in  the  Union  customs 
legislation  and  the  AEOs  access  to  them,  is  a  strong  reason  to  further  strengthen  the 
cooperation between Member States. In particular the assessment of the criteria required to be 
granted  the  AEO  status  and  in  particular  the  criterion  related  to  the  absence  of  any  serious 
infringement or repeated infringement by the AEO requires comparable sanctioning systems 
throughout the EU in order to ensure a level playing field between economic operators. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Therefore  the  approximation  of  customs  infringements  and  sanctions  shall  not  only  require 
customs  cooperation  between  Member  States  but  also  shall  contribute  to  the  correct  and 
uniform application and enforcement of the Union customs legislation. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity, proportionality and the respect for fundamental rights 

The functioning of the customs union, which is the pillar of the internal market, is based on 
common rules and procedures which ensure the implementation of  EU tariff and trade policy 
measures  related  to  trade  of  goods  between  the  EU  and  third  countries.  The  effective 
enforcement of this harmonised legislation is of utmost importance to the proper functioning 
of both the customs union and the internal market. Currently, this enforcement lies within the 
ambit of Member States' national law. As a consequence, there is a wide divergence of rules 
among  Member  States  regarding  customs  infringements  and  sanctions.  This  entails  that 
economic  operators  breaching  Union  customs  legislation  are  subject  to  different  systems  of 
infringements and sanctions depending on the Member State where the breach takes place.  

Against  this  background,  this  directive  aims  to  provide  for  a  list  of  customs  infringements 
common  to  all  Member  States  and  establish  the  basis  for  effective,  dissuasive  and 
proportionate sanctions to be imposed by Member States to ensure an effective enforcement 
of the harmonised customs legislation necessary for the effective functioning of the customs 
union.  

Those objectives cannot be ensured through action by individual Member States and can only 
be  met  by  the  Union,  in  particular  because  of  the  important  divergences  in  national 
legislations.  Consequently,  as  the  objectives  of  this  directive  cannot  be  suficiently  achieved 
by the Member States, action by the Union is necessary in accordance with the principle of 
subsidiarity laid down in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union.  

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) of the Treaty on 
European Union, this proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. 
The  content  of  this  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  requirements  enshrined  in  the  European 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights.  Particularly,  certain  provisions  under  the  chapter  of 
procedural  rules  have  been  inserted  in  line  with  the  principle  of  the  right  to  good 
administration and fair trial, but also in the light of the principle ne bis in idem. 

3.3. 

Choice of instruments 

This proposal for an approximation of national laws in the area of customs cooperation in the 
Union, will take the form of a Directive which Member States will have to transpose in their 
national legislation. 

3.4. 

Specific provisions 

The  proposal  addresses  infringements  linked  to  the  obligations  stemming  from  the  Union 
Customs Code. To do so, it includes a common list of different infringements (strict liability, 
committed  with  negligence  and  committed  with  intent)  breaching  the  rules  of  the  Union 
Customs Code and as such encompasses all possible situations that persons may face in that 
respect  when  dealing  with  customs  authorities.  The  proposal  considers  as  infringement  not 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
only the complete performance of the behaviours listed in the proposal but also its intentional 
attempt. 

In  parallel  to  those  conducts,  this  proposal  also  establishes  a  common  scale  of  effective 
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions linked to the infringements and relevant circumstances 
that  should  be  taken  into  account  by  the  competent  authorities  from  Member  States  when 
determining the type and level of sanctions for customs infringements which contribute to the 
adaptation  of  the  sanction  to  the  specific  situation.  The  combination  of  the  scale  of  the 
sanctions along with the relevant circumstances permits to establish several levels of severity 
in  order  to  respect  the  principle  of  proportionality  of  the  sanctions.  Moreover,  the  proposal 
defines  certain  cases  where  a  behaviour  falling  in  the  categories  defined  as  strict  liability 
infringements by this proposal shall not be considered as such when they are due to an error 
on the part of the competent customs authorities. 

The  proposal  refers  to  the  liability  of  persons  playing  a  relevant  role  in  the  commission  of 
customs  infringements  with  intent,  stating  an  equivalent  treatment  to  that  of  the  persons 
committing the infringement to those inciting, aiding or abetting these infringements. It refers, 
as  well,  to  the  liability  of  legal  persons,  as  customs  infringements  can  also  result  from 
conducts attributable to legal persons. 

Finally the proposal includes some necessary procedural provisions in order to avoid overlap 
of sanctions for the same facts and persons. In particular it concerns the time limit within the 
competent  authorities  must  initiate  the  procedure  against  the  person  responsible  of  the 
infringement,  the  possibility  of  suspending  the  sanctioning  proceeding  in  those  cases  where 
criminal  proceedings  are  being  carried  out  with  regard  to  the  same  facts  and  the  territorial 
competence by defining  which  Member State is considered competent to deal  with  the case 
when the infringement involves more than one Member State. 

The implementation of those articles in the national legislation of Member States will ensure a 
homogeneous treatment of economic operators regardless the Member State where they fulfil 
their customs formalities and commercial operations. It will also ensure the compliance with 
the international obligations stemming from the Kyoto Convention.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

The proposal will not have an impact on human resources and on the European Union budget 
and is therefore not accompanied by the financial statement foreseen under Article 31 of the 
Financial  Regulation  (Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget 
of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002). 

This proposal has no budgetary implications for the Union. 

5. 

EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS 

It  is  important  for  the  Commission  to  ensure  the  correct  transposition  of  the  Directive  to 
national legislation. In order to achieve this and given the different structure of the national 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
legal  orders,  Member  States  should  communicate  the  exact  reference  to  the  national 
provisions  and  how  it  transposes  each  specific  provision  of  the  Directive.  This  does  not  go 
beyond  what  is  necessary  for  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  the  Directive's  main  aim,  an 
effective implementation and enforcement of Union customs legislation in the customs union, 
is achieved. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
2013/0432 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the Union legal framework for customs infringements and sanctions  

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 33 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

8 

9 

Provisions in the field of the customs union are harmonised by Union law. However, 
their enforcement lies within the scope of Member States' national law. 

Consequently,  customs  infringements  and  sanctions  follow  28  different  sets  of  legal 
rules. As a result of that, a breach of Union customs legislation is not treated the same 
way throughout the Union and the sanctions that may be imposed in each case differ in 
nature and severity depending on the Member State that is imposing the sanction. 

That  disparity  of  Member  States'  legal  systems  affects  not  only  the  optimal 
management  of  the  customs  union,  but  also  prevents  that  a  level  playing  field  is 
achieved  for  economic  operators  in  the  customs  union  because  it  has  an  impact  on 
their access to customs simplifications and facilitations. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  952/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council8 
(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Code”)  has  been  conceived  for  a  multinational 
electronic  environment  where  there  is  real  time  communication  between  customs 
authorities  and  where  a  decision  taken  by  a  Member  State  is  applied  in  all  the  other 
Member  States.  That  legal  framework  therefore  requires  a  harmonised  enforcement. 
The Code also includes a provision requiring Member States to provide for effective, 
dissuasive and proportionate sanctions. 

The legal framework for the enforcement of Union customs legislation provided for in 
this Directive is consistent with the legislation in force regarding the safeguarding of 
the  financial  interests  of  the  Union9.  The  customs  infringements  covered  by  the 
framework  established  by  this  Directive  include  customs  infringements  that  have  an 
impact on those financial interests while not falling under the scope of the legislation 
safeguarding  them  by  means  of  criminal  law  and  customs  infringements  that  do  not 
have an impact on the financial interests of the Union at all.  

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying 
down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1). 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the 
Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (COM(2012)363). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

A  list  of  behaviour  which  should  be  considered  as  infringing  Union  customs 
legislation  and  give  rise  to  sanctions  should  be  established.  Those  customs 
infringements  should  be  fully  based  on  the  obligations  stemming  from  the  customs 
legislation  with  direct  references  to  the  Code.  This  Directive  does  not  determine 
whether  Member  States  should  apply  administrative  or  criminal  law  sanctions  in 
respect of those customs infringements. 

The first category of behaviour should include customs infringements based on strict 
liability, which does not require any element of fault, considering the objective nature 
of  the  obligations  involved  and  the  fact  that  the  persons  responsible  to  fulfil  them 
cannot ignore their existence and binding character. 

The  second  and  third  category  of  behaviour  should  include  customs  infringements 
committed by negligence or intentionally, respectively, where that subjective element 
has to be established for liability to arise. 

Inciting  or  aiding  and  abetting  a  behaviour  being  a  customs  infringement  committed 
intentionally  and  attempt  to  commit  certain  customs  infringements  intentionally 
should be considered customs infringements. 

(10) 

In  order  to  ensure  legal  certainty,  it  should  be  provided  that  any  act  or  omission 
resulting from an error on the part of the customs authorities should not be considered 
a customs infringement. 

(11)  Member States should ensure that liability can arise for legal persons as well as natural 
persons for the same customs infringement where the customs infringement has been 
committed for the benefit of a legal person. 

(12) 

In order to approximate the national sanctioning systems of the Member States, scales 
of  sanctions  should  be  established  reflecting  the  different  categories  of  the  customs 
infringements  and  their  seriousness.  For  the  purpose  of  imposing  effective, 
proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions,  Member  States  should  also  ensure  that  their 
competent  authorities 
into  account  specific  aggravating  or  mitigating 
circumstances when determining the type and level of sanctions to be applied. 

take 

(13)  The  limitation  period  for  proceedings  concerning  a  customs  infringement  should  be 
fixed at four years from the day on which the customs infringement was committed or, 
in case of continuous or repeated infringements, where the behaviour constituting that 
infringement  ceases.  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  limitation  period  is 
interrupted  by  an  act  relating  to  investigations  or  legal  proceedings  concerning  the 
customs  infringement.  Member  States  may  lay  down  cases  where  that  period  is 
suspended.  The  initiation  or  continuation  of  these  proceedings  should  be  precluded 
after an expiry period of eight years, while the limitation period for the enforcement of 
a sanction should be of three years. 

(14)  A suspension of administrative proceedings concerning customs infringements should 
be  provided  for  where  criminal  proceedings  have  been  initiated  against  the  same 
person  in  connection  with  the  same  facts.  The  continuation  of  the  administrative 
proceedings after the completion of the criminal proceedings should be possible only 
in strict conformity with the ne bis in idem principle. 

(15) 

In  order  to  avoid  positive  conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  rules  should  be  laid  down  to 
determine which of the Member States with jurisdiction should examine the case. 

(16)  This  Directive  should  provide  for  the  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  the 

Commission to ensure effective action against customs infringements. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(17) 

(18) 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  investigation  of  customs  infringements,  the  competent 
authorities  should  be  allowed  to  temporarily  seize  any  goods,  means  of  transport  or 
any other instrument used in committing the infringement. 

In  accordance  with  the  Joint  Political  Declaration  of  Member  States  and  the 
Commission of 28 September 2011 on explanatory documents10, Member States have 
undertaken  to  accompany,  in  justified  cases,  the  notification  of  their  transposition 
measures  with  one  or  more  documents  explaining  the  relationship  between  the 
components  of  a  directive  and  the  corresponding  parts  of  national  transposition 
instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of 
such documents to be justified. 

(19)  Since this Directive aims to provide for a list of customs infringements common to all 
Member States and for the basis for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions 
to  be  imposed  by  Member  States  in  the  area  of  the  customs  union,  which  is  fully 
harmonised,  those  objectives  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States 
based  on  their  different  legal  traditions,  but  can  rather,  by  reason  of  the  scale  and 
effect, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance 
with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European 
Union.  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article, 
this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives. 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Subject matter and scope 

1. 

2. 

This  Directive  establishes  a  framework  concerning  the  infringements  of  Union 
customs legislation and provides for sanctions for those infringements. 

This  Directive  applies  to  the  violation  of  the  obligations  laid  down  in  Regulation 
(EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013, 
laying down the Union Customs Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and of 
identical  obligations  laid  down  in  other  parts  of  the  Union  customs  legislation  as 
defined in Article 5(2) of the Code. 

Article 2 

Customs infringements and sanctions 

Member States shall lay down rules on sanctions in respect of the customs infringements set 
out in Articles 3 to 6. 

Article 3 

Strict liability customs infringements 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  following  acts  or  omissions  constitute  customs 
infringements irrespective of any element of fault: 

10 

OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

failure  of  the  person  lodging  a  customs  declaration,  temporary  storage 
declaration,  entry  summary  declaration,  exit  summary  declaration,  re-export 
declaration or re-export notification to ensure the accuracy and completeness of 
the  information  given  in  the  declaration,  notification  or  application  in 
accordance with Article 15(2)(a) of the Code; 

failure  of  the  person  lodging  a  customs  declaration,  temporary  storage 
declaration,  entry  summary  declaration,  exit  summary  declaration,  re-export 
declaration  or  re-export  notification  to  ensure  the  authenticity,  accuracy  and 
validity of any supporting document in accordance with Article 15(2)(b) of the 
Code; 

failure of the person to lodge an entry summary declaration in accordance with 
Article 127 of the Code, a notification of arrival of a sea going vessel or of an 
aircraft  in  accordance  with  Article  133  of  the  Code,  a  temporary  storage 
declaration in accordance with Article 145 of the Code, a customs declaration 
in accordance with Article 158 of the Code, a notification of activities in free 
zones  in  accordance  with  Article  244(2)  of  the  Code,  a  pre-departure 
declaration in accordance with Article 263 of the Code, a re-export declaration 
in  accordance  with  Article  270  of  the  Code,  an  exit  summary  declaration  in 
accordance  with  Article  271  of  the  Code  or  a  re-export  notification  in 
accordance with Article 274 of the Code; 

failure of an economic operator to keep the documents and information related 
to the accomplishment of customs formalities by any accessible means for the 
period of time required by customs legislation in accordance with Article 51 of 
the Code; 

removal of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union from customs 
supervision without the permission of the customs authorities, contrary to the 
first and second sub-paragraphs of Article 134(1) of the Code; 

removal  of  goods  from  customs  supervision,  contrary  to  the  fourth  sub-
paragraph of Article 134(1) and Articles 158(3) and 242 of the Code; 

failure  of  a  person  bringing  goods  into  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union  to 
comply  with  the  obligations  relating  to  the  conveyance  of  the  goods  in  the 
appropriate place in accordance with Article 135(1) of the Code, or to inform 
customs  authorities  when  the  obligations  cannot  be  complied  with  in 
accordance with Article 137(1) and (2) of the Code; 

failure of a person bringing goods into a free zone, where the free zone adjoins 
the  land  frontier  between  a  Member  State  and  a  third  country,  to  bring  those 
goods directly into that free zone without passing through another part of the 
customs territory of the Union in accordance with Article 135(2) of the Code; 

failure  of  the  declarant  for  temporary  storage  or  for  a  customs  procedure  to 
provide  documents  to  the  customs  authorities  where  Union  legislation  so 
requires  or  where  necessary  for  customs  controls  in  accordance  with  Article 
145(2) and Article 163(2) of the Code; 

failure of the economic operator responsible for non-Union goods which are in 
temporary  storage  to  place  those  goods  under  a  customs  procedure  or  to  re-
export them within the time limit in accordance with Article 149 of the Code; 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(k) 

(l) 

failure of the declarant for a customs procedure to have in their possession and 
at  the  disposal  of  the  customs  authorities,  at  the  time  when  the  customs 
declaration or a supplementary declaration is lodged, the supporting documents 
required  for  the  application  of  the  procedure  in  question  in  accordance  with 
Article 163(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 167(1) of the Code; 

failure  of  the  declarant  for  a  customs  procedure,  in  the  case  of  a  simplified 
declaration  pursuant  to  Article  166  of  the  Code  or  of  an  entry  into  the 
declarant’s  records  pursuant  to  Article  182  of  the  Code,  to  lodge  a 
supplementary  declaration  at  the  competent  customs  office  and  within  the 
specific time-limit in accordance with Article 167(1) of the Code;  

(m)  removal  or  destruction  of  means  of  identification  affixed  by  customs 
transport  without  prior 
authorities 
authorisation  granted  by  the  customs  authorities  in  accordance  with  Article 
192(2) of the Code; 

in  goods,  packaging  or  means  of 

(n) 

(o) 

failure of the holder of the inward processing procedure to discharge a customs 
procedure within the time limit specified in accordance with Article 257 of the 
Code; 

failure  of  the  holder  of  the  outward  processing  procedure  to  export  the 
defective  goods  within  the  time  limit  in  accordance  with  Article  262  of  the 
Code; 

(p) 

construction of  a  building in a  free zone without the approval of the customs 
authorities in accordance with Article 244(1) of the Code; 

(q)  non-payment of import or export duties by the person liable to pay within the 

period prescribed in accordance with Article 108 of the Code. 

Article 4 

Customs infringements committed by negligence 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  following  acts  or  omissions  constitute  customs 
infringements where committed by negligence: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

failure of the economic operator responsible for non-Union goods which are in 
temporary  storage  to  place  those  goods  under  a  customs  procedure  or  to  re-
export them within the time limit in accordance with Article 149 of the Code; 

failure  of  the  economic  operator  to  provide  customs  authorities  with  all  the 
assistance necessary for the completion of the customs formalities or controls 
in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Code; 

failure  of  the  holder  of  a  decision  relating  to  the  application  of  customs 
legislation  to  comply  with  the  obligations  resulting  from  that  decision  in 
accordance with Article 23(1) of the Code; 

failure  of  the  holder  of  a  decision  relating  to  the  application  of  customs 
legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising 
after  the  decision  was  taken  by  those  authorities  which  influences  its 
continuation or content in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code; 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

failure of the economic operator to present the goods brought into the customs 
territory of the Union to the customs authorities in accordance with Article 139 
of the Code; 

failure of the holder of the Union transit procedure to present the goods intact 
at  the  customs  office  of  destination  within  the  prescribed  time  limit  in 
accordance with Article 233(1)(a) of the Code; 

failure of the economic operator to present the goods brought into a free zone 
to customs in accordance with Article 245 of the Code; 

failure  of  the  economic  operator  to  present  the  goods  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
customs  territory  of  the  Union  to  customs  on  exit  in  accordance  with  Article 
267(2) of the Code; 

unloading  or  trans-shipping  of  goods  from  the  means  of  transport  carrying 
them without authorisation granted by the customs authorities or in places not 
designated or approved by those authorities in accordance with Article 140 of 
the Code; 

storage of goods in temporary storage facilities or customs warehouses without 
authorisation  granted  by  the  customs  authorities  in  accordance  with  Articles 
147 and 148; 

failure of the holder of the authorisation or the holder of the procedure to fulfil 
the  obligations  arising  from  the  storage  of  goods  covered  by  the  customs 
warehousing procedure in accordance with points (a) and (b) of Article 242(1) 
of the Code. 

Article 5 

Customs infringements committed intentionally 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  following  acts  or  omissions  constitute  customs 
infringements where committed intentionally: 

(a)  providing customs authorities with false information or documents required by 

those authorities in accordance with Articles 15 or 163 of the Code; 

(b) 

the  use  of  false  statements  or  any  other  irregular  means  by  an  economic 
operator in order to obtain an authorisation from the customs authorities: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

to  become  an  authorised  economic  operator  in  accordance  with  Article 
38 of the Code, 

to make use of a simplified declaration in accordance with Article 166 of 
the Code,  

to make use of other customs simplifications in accordance with Articles 
177, 179, 182, 185 of the Code, 

to  place  the  goods  under  special  procedures  in  accordance  with  Article 
211 of the Code; 

(c) 

introduction  or  exit  of  goods  into  or  from  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union 
without  presenting  them  to  customs  authorities  in  accordance  with  Articles 
139, 245, or Article 267(2) of the Code; 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

failure  of  the  holder  of  a  decision  relating  to  the  application  of  customs 
legislation  to  comply  with  the  obligations  resulting  from  that  decision  in 
accordance with Article 23(1) of the Code;  

failure  of  the  holder  of  a  decision  relating  to  the  application  of  customs 
legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising 
after  the  decision  was  taken  by  those  authorities  which  influences  its 
continuation or content in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code;  

processing of goods in a customs warehouse without an authorisation granted 
by the customs authorities in accordance with Article 241 of the Code; 

acquiring  or  holding  goods  involved  in  one  of  the  customs  infringements  set 
out in point (f) of Article 4 and point (c) of this Article. 

Article 6 

Incitement, Aiding, Abetting and Attempt 

1. 

2. 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that inciting or aiding and 
abetting an act or omission referred to in Article 5 is a customs infringement.  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an attempt to commit 
an  act  or  omission  referred  to  in  points  (b)  or  (c)  of  Article  5  is  a  customs 
infringement. 

Article 7 

Error on the part of the customs authorities 

The acts or omissions referred to in Articles 3 to 6 do not constitute customs infringements 
where they occur as a result of an error on the part of the customs authorities. 

Article 8  

Liability of legal persons 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  legal  persons  are  held  liable  for  customs 
infringements committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or 
as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal 
person, based on any of the following:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a power of representation of the legal person; 

an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; 

an authority to exercise control within the legal person.  

Member States shall also ensure that legal persons are held liable where the lack of 
supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the 
commission  of  a  customs  infringement  for  the  benefit  of  that  legal  person  by  a 
person under the authority of the person referred to in paragraph 1.  

Liability of a legal person under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the 
liability of natural persons who have committed the customs infringement. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Sanctions for customs infringements referred to in Article 3 

Article 9 

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed 
for the customs infringements referred to in Article 3 within the following limits: 

(a)  where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from 

1 % up to 5 % of the value of the goods;  

(b)  where  the  customs  infringement  is  not  related  to  specific  goods,  a  pecuniary 

fine from EUR 150 up to EUR 7 500. 

Article 10 

Sanctions for customs infringements referred to in Article 4 

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed 
for the customs infringements referred to in Article 4 within the following limits: 

(a)  where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up 

to 15 % of the value of the goods;  

(b)  where  the  customs  infringement  is  not  related  to  specific  goods,  a  pecuniary 

fine up to EUR 22 500. 

Article 11 

Sanctions for customs infringements referred to in Article 5 and 6 

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed 
for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 5 and 6 within the following limits: 

(a)  where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up 

to 30 % of the value of the goods;  

(b)  where  the  customs  infringement  is  not  related  to  specific  goods,  a  pecuniary 

fine up to EUR 45 000. 

Effective application of sanctions and exercise of powers to impose sanctions by 
competent authorities  

Article 12 

Member States shall ensure that when determining the type and the level of sanctions for the 
customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6, the competent authorities shall take into 
account all relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate: 

(a) 

(b) 

the seriousness and the duration of the infringement; 

the  fact  that  the  person  responsible  for  the  infringement  is  an  authorized 
economic operator; 

(c) 

the amount of the evaded import or export duty; 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(d) 

the  fact  that  the  goods  involved  are  subject  to  the  prohibitions  or  restrictions 
referred to in the second sentence of Article 134(1) of the Code and in Article 
267(3)(e) of the Code or pose a risk to public security; 

(e) 

the level of cooperation of the person responsible for the infringement with the 
competent authority; 

(f) 

previous infringements by the person responsible for the infringement.  

Article 13 

Limitation 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  limitation  period  for  proceedings  concerning  a 
customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is four years and starts to run on 
the day on which the customs infringement was committed. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that,  in  the  case  of  continuous  or  repeated  customs 
infringements,  the  limitation  period  starts  to  run  on  the  day  on  which  the  act  or 
omission constituting the customs infringement ceases. 

Member States shall ensure that the limitation period is interrupted by any act of the 
competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to an investigation or 
legal proceedings concerning the same customs infringement. The limitation period 
shall start to run on the day of the interrupting act. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  initiation  or  continuation  of  any  proceedings 
concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is precluded after the 
expiry of a period of eight years from the day referred to in paragraph 1 or 2. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  limitation  period  for  the  enforcement  of  a 
decision imposing a sanction is three years. That period shall start to run on the day 
on which that decision becomes final. 

Member  States  shall  lay  down  the  cases  where  the  limitation  periods  set  out  in 
paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 are suspended. 

Article 14 

Suspension of the proceedings 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  administrative  proceedings  concerning  a  customs 
infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 are suspended where criminal proceedings 
have been initiated against the same person in connection with the same facts. 

that 

Member  States  shall  ensure 
the  suspended  administrative  proceedings 
concerning  a  customs  infringement  referred  to  in  Articles  3  to  6  are  discontinued 
where the criminal proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 have finally been disposed 
of.  In  other  cases,  the  suspended  administrative  proceedings  concerning  a  customs 
infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 may be resumed.  

Article 15 

Jurisdiction 

18 

EN 

   EN 

 
1. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  they  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  customs 
infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6 in accordance with any of the following 
criteria: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the customs infringement is committed in whole or in part within the territory 
of that Member State;  

the person committing the customs infringement is a national of that Member 
State; 

the goods related to the customs infringement are present in the territory of that 
Member State. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  in  case  more  than  one  Member  State  claims 
jurisdiction over the same customs infringement, the Member State in which criminal 
proceedings are pending against the same person in connection with the same facts 
exercises jurisdiction. Where jurisdiction cannot be determined pursuant to the first 
subparagraph, Member States shall ensure that  the  Member  State whose  competent 
authority first initiates the proceedings concerning the customs infringement against 
the same person in connection with the same facts exercises jurisdiction.  

2. 

Article 16 

Cooperation between Member States 

Member States shall co-operate and exchange any information necessary for the proceedings 
concerning an act or omission constituting a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 
6, in particular in case more than one Member State has started proceedings against the same 
person in connection with the same facts. 

Article 17 

Seizure 

Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have the possibility to temporarily 
seize any goods, means of transport and any other instrument used in committing the customs 
infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6. 

Article 18 

Reporting by the Commission and review 

The Commission shall, by [1 May 2019], submit a report on the application of this Directive 
to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States 
have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Directive. 

Article 19 

Transposition 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  by  [1  May  2017]  at  the  latest. 
They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 20 

Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 21 

Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

20 

   EN