REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) No 608/2013
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, customs inspection, customs territory (EU), database, fraud, illicit trade, intellectual property

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.5.2017  COM(2017) 233 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) No 608/2013  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Infringements  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (IPR)  are  a  widespread  and  ever  increasing 
phenomenon worldwide. International trade in counterfeit products represents up to 2.5% of 
world  trade,  or  as  much  as  EUR  338  billion,  based  on  the  latest  available  data  from  20131. 
The impact of counterfeiting is particularly high in the European Union, with counterfeit and 
pirated products amounting up to 5% of imports, or as much as EUR 85 billion. 

A fundamental component of the EU system to enforce IPR at the border is Regulation (EU) 
No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning the 
customs  enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights2,  hereinafter  called  Regulation  (EU) 
No 608/2013. It entered into application on 1 January 2014. 

Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 states that "…the Commission shall submit to the 
European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation. If 
necessary, that report shall be accompanied by appropriate recommendations. 

That  report  shall  refer  to  any  relevant  incidents  concerning  medicines  in  transit  across  the 
customs  territory  of  the  Union  that  might  occur  under  this  Regulation,  including  an 
assessment of  its  potential  impact  on  the  Union  commitments  on  access  to  medicines  under 
the  ‘Declaration  on  the  TRIPS  Agreement  and  Public  Health’  adopted  by  the  Doha  WTO 
Ministerial  Conference  on  14  November  2001,  and  the  measures  taken  to  address  any 
situation creating adverse effects in that regard."  

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 is accompanied by the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR 
infringements for the years 2013 to 20173, for which the Commission submits to the Council 
an annual summary report and will also submit a final report by the end of 2017. 

The present document aims at reporting on the feedback gathered by the Commission on the 
implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  since  1  January  2014.  As  regards 
implementation by Member States, the report covers a three-year period from 1 January 2014 
to  December  2016,  whereas  the  detailed  figures  on  actions  taken  at  EU  borders  cover  the 
years 2014 and 2015, as statistics for 2016 were not yet available at the time when this report 
was prepared. 

Section 2 explains the methodology used to prepare the report. 

1 Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods: Mapping the Economic Impact, OECD/EUIPO (2016). 
https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-
web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/Mapping_the_Economic_Impact_study
/Mapping_the_Economic_Impact_en.pdf. 
2 Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning the 
customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (OJ L 
181, 12.6.2013, p. 15-33). 
3 Council Resolution establishing the EU Customs Action Plan to combat intellectual property rights (IPR) (OJ C 
80, 19.3.2013, p.1). 

2 

 
                                                            
Section  3  describes  the  EU  legislative  framework  and  focuses  on  the  major  novelties 
introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

Section 4 provides an overview of the comments made by the private sector. 

Section  5  analyses  how  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  has  been  implemented  by  Member 
State,  with  a  specific  focus  on  the  novelties  and  the  optional  elements  introduced  by  such 
Regulation.  It  also  includes  figures  on  the  concrete  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
608/2013.  

Section 6 details the conclusions. 

2.  METHODOLOGY 

The following means and tools were used to prepare the report: 

- 

- 
- 

support  visits  to  Member  States  and  consultation  of  Member  States  on  the  issue  of 
medicines; 
consultation of stakeholders; 
download of information  from the central database of the Commission,  the so-called 
COPIS Database (anti-Counterfeit and anti-Piracy Information System).  

2.1  Support visits to Member States and consultation of the Member States on the issue 

of medicines 

The  EU  Customs  Action  Plan  to  combat  IPR  infringements  for  the  years  2013  to  2017 
foresees  a  number  of  actions  to  be  performed  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  State 
customs  administrations in  order  to ensure the effective implementation of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 608/2013. 

One  action  relates  to  the  conduct  of  support  visits,  over  the  years  2015-2017,  by  the 
Commission  and  national  IPR  experts  to  the  28  Member  States,  in  order  to  establish  a 
dialogue with the authorities in charge of implementing Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, so as 
to: 

- 
- 

gather information on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013; 
facilitate the exchange of experiences and best practices. 

In 2015 and 2016 the Commission, together with IPR experts from the Member State customs 
authorities, conducted 24 support visits to the following countries: BE, NL, FI, EE, SI, HR, 
LV,  LT,  MT,  IT,  EL,  CY,  SE,  DK,  DE,  AT,  SK,  CZ,  HU,  PL,  ES,  PT,  FR  and  LU.  These 
visits were used to prepare the present document. For the Member States still to be visited in 
2017, namely BG, IE, RO and UK, the Commission invited the customs authorities to fill in 
the  questionnaire  used  on  the  occasion  of  the  support  visits,  in  order  to  enable  all  Member 
State customs authorities to express their views on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 
608/2013. The completed questionnaires from those Member State customs authorities were 
received in the course of 2016. 

3 

 
  
On the occasion of the first meeting of the Customs Expert Group (IPR enforcement section), 
which  was  held  on  11  July  2016,  the  Commission  also  asked  Member  State  customs 
authorities to report to the Commission any relevant incidents concerning medicines in transit 
across  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union  that  might  have  occurred  under  Regulation  (EU) 
No 608/2013.  

2.2  Consultation of stakeholders   

The EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2013 to 2017 has set 
up  a  group  gathering  the  Commission,  EU  customs  authorities,  right-holders  and  other 
stakeholders in the context of its action 1.3.24. The group meets once a year.  

On the occasion of the 4th meeting of this group, which was held in Brussels on 12 July 2016, 
the Commission invited right-holders and other stakeholders to report on the implementation 
of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, with a specific emphasis on the following provisions, which 
are of direct interest to them: 

- 

chapter  II  concerning  the  applications  for  actions  (linked  to  the  content  of  the 
applications for actions as detailed in Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 
1352/2013);  

-  Article  19  concerning  inspection  and  samplings  of  goods  whose  release  has  been 

suspended or which have been detained; 

-  Article  21  concerning  the  permitted  use  of  certain  information  by  the  holder  of  the 

decision; 

-  Articles  23  (standard  procedure  for  the  destruction  of  goods  and  initiation  of 
proceedings) and 26 (procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments); 

-  Article 28 concerning the liability  of the holder of the decision; 
-  Article 29 concerning the costs. 

By  the  end  of  September  2016,  eight  answers  had  been  received  from  the  following 
associations:  European  Express  Association  (EEA),  Union  des  Fabricants  (UNIFAB), 
European  Communities  Trade  Mark  Association  (ECTA),  European  Federation  of 
Pharmaceutical  Industries  and  Associations  (EFPIA),  European  Semiconductor  Industry 
Association  (ESIA),  International  Trademark  Association  (INTA),  Business  Action  to  Stop 
Counterfeit  And  Piracy  (BASCAP),  the  European  Association  of  Trade  Mark  Owners 
(MARQUES).  

The Commission thanks these associations for the comments sent. 

2.3  Use of COPIS (Download of information from COPIS) 

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 foresees that for the purpose of ensuring the processing of the 
information transmitted by the Member States to the Commission and relating to the decisions 

4 Action 1.3.2 from the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements aims at installing a dialogue 
between customs authorities and rights holders and stakeholders on customs enforcement of IPR. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
granting  applications  as  well  as  to  the  suspension  of  the  release  of  the  goods  or  their 
detention,  the  Commission  shall  establish  a  central  database.  The  central  database  COPIS 
became operational on 1 January 2014. It is under permanent development. 

The  Commission  has  access  to  the  information  contained  in  COPIS  as  appropriate  for  the 
fulfilment of its legal responsibilities in applying Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

For the preparation of the present report, the Commission extracted the required information 
from COPIS, concerning notably: 

- 

- 
- 

the number of Application for Actions (AFA) per type of intellectual property rights 
covered by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 (see Annex 1); 
the results of the use of the "standard procedure"; 
the use of the "small consignment procedure" (see Annex 2). 

3. 

EU LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 

3.1  Context 

The  EU  started to  regulate  border  enforcement  of  IPR  at  Union  level  as  early as  1987  with 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3482/865,  laying  down  measures  to  prohibit  the  release  of 
counterfeit goods for free circulation. Since then, three regulations6 have followed with a view 
to adjusting the scope and procedures to the evolution of fraud trends. The last revision, which 
led to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, took notably into account the growing 
trade in counterfeit goods as a result of the growing e-commerce trade.  

Like  previous  EU  Regulations  in  the  field,  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  implements  the 
border  enforcement  measures  contained  within  the  Agreement  on  Trade-Related  aspects  of 
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was approved by the EU Council in 1994 as part 
of the multilateral negotiations of the Uruguay Round and concluded in the framework of the 
World  Trade  Organisation  (WTO).  The  Regulation  even  implements  the  non-binding 
requirements of TRIPS in terms of border enforcement such as controls on counterfeit goods 
in export and transit, thereby reflecting the EU’s commitment to high protection of IPR. 

The objective is to prevent goods infringing IPRs from being ‘placed on the internal market’ 
and to adopt measures for that purpose ‘without impeding the freedom of legitimate trade’. 

5 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3842/86 of 1 December 1986 laying down measures to prohibit the release for 
free circulation of counterfeit goods (OJ L 357, 18 December 1986, p.1). 
6 Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for 
free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 
341, 30.12.1994, p. 8), Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against 
goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods 
found to have infringed such rights (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7) and Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

5 

 
                                                            
 
 
 
Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  solely  contains  procedural  rules  for  customs  authorities. 
Accordingly, this Regulation does not set out any criteria for ascertaining the existence of an 
infringement of an IPR, which is defined in the concerned substantive law. 

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013  empowers  EU customs authorities to  detain goods which are 
suspected  of  infringing  an  IPR  conferred  by  EU  or  national  IP  laws  and  which  are  under 
customs control or customs supervision. 

Control by customs authorities must be based on risk analysis and should be proportionate to 
the  risk.  It  is  therefore  essential  that  customs  have  at  their  disposal  sufficient  and  relevant 
information from the right-holders to properly organise their risk analysis. 

The  customs  authorities  may  act  upon  “application  for  action”  (AFA)  requested  by  right-
holders, or at their own initiative so called “ex-officio”. 

An  AFA  must  be  submitted  to  customs  authorities  by  persons  entitled  to  initiate  legal 
proceedings for the determination of an IPR infringement. National AFAs are submitted in a 
Member State and request its customs authorities to take action in that Member State. Holders 
of  IPR  based  on  Union  law  producing  effects  throughout  the  Union  may  submit  a  Union 
AFA, which will produce effects in more than one Member State. 

The application and extension forms are established in Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 1352/2013 of 4 December 20137. 

Customs authorities take the decision to grant or to reject the AFA. 

Where the customs authorities suspend the release or detain suspected goods, they notify the 
holder of the decision granting the application and the declarant or holder of the goods. Under 
the "standard procedure", upon confirmation in writing by the holder of the decision that, in 
his  conviction,  an  IPR  has  been  infringed  and  upon  express  or  deemed  agreement  of  both 
parties, the suspected goods can be destroyed. Otherwise, the goods are released, unless the 
holder  of  the  decision  notifies  the  customs  authorities  that  he  has  initiated  proceedings  to 
determine whether an IPR has been infringed. The deadline for agreeing to destruction or for 
informing customs on the initiation of proceedings amounts to 10 working days (3 days in the 
case of perishable goods) and can, in case of initiation of proceedings, where appropriate, be 
extended by a maximum of another 10 working days. 

Where detained suspected goods are not covered by an AFA (ex-officio action), the customs 
authorities  have  to  notify  the  detention  to  the  persons  concerned,  providing  them  with  the 
opportunity to submit an AFA. 

Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 also foresees a simplified procedure for small parcels carried 
by post or courier ("small consignment procedure"), applicable upon request by the holder of 

7 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 of 4 December 2013 establishing the form provided 
for  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  customs 
enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L, 18.12.2016, p.10). 

6 

 
                                                            
the decision granting the application, in which the goods may be destroyed with the express or 
presumed agreement of the sole declarant or holder of the goods.  

AFAs and detention information are managed through COPIS. Based on the data transmitted 
by the Member State customs authorities via COPIS, the Commission publishes on a yearly 
basis the results of customs actions at the EU external borders8. 

3.2 New features introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013  

The  major new features introduced by Regulation  (EU)  No 608/2013,  which complete the 
scheme already contained in past regulations, are the following: 

-   Extension  of  the  rights  and  infringements  covered  by  customs  actions:  in  order  to 
strengthen the enforcement of IPR, customs intervention has been extended to other type of 
rights and other type of infringements than those covered in Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003.  
The other types of protected rights are trade names, topographies of semiconductor products 
and  utility  models.  The  Geographical  Indications  covered  now  encompass  not  only 
agricultural, but also possible future non-agricultural products and the Regulation specifically 
mentions the geographical indications as provided for in Agreements with third countries. The 
scope of the Regulation has also been extended to cover more infringement cases, namely all 
possible  trademark  infringements  (such  as  confusingly  similar  trademarks  and  well-known 
trademarks),  and  not  only  counterfeit  goods  as  in  previous  Regulations,  as  well  as 
infringements via circumvention devices (devices which are primarily designed, produced or 
adapted  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  or  facilitating  the  circumvention  of  technological 
measures that prevent or restrict acts in respect of works which are not authorised). 

-   The scope and specificity of information to be provided within the AFA has been extended 
in comparison with the previous Regulation. 

-   The  simplified  procedure  for  destruction  has  become  the  mandatory  standard  procedure. 
Under this procedure, which already existed as an optional procedure under Regulation (EC) 
No  1383/2003,  upon  confirmation  in  writing  by  the  holder  of  the  decision  that,  in  his 
conviction,  an  IPR  has  been  infringed  and  upon  express  agreement  of  both  parties,  the 
suspected goods can be destroyed without there being any need to determine whether an IPR 
has been infringed. It provides for a quick and cost-effective destruction of goods. Already in 
the  past  this  had  been  a  successful  tool  in  the  practical  management  and  handling  of  “clear 
cases”  of  IPR  infringements;  making  it  the  standard  procedure  proves  it  has  been  equally 
successful in all Member States. 

Contrary  to  the  simplified  procedure  described  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  1383/2003,  the  new 
standard procedure does not request that the holder of the decision obtains directly the written 
agreement from the holder of the goods/declarant to abandon the goods for destruction, but it 
is  now  the  customs  authority  which  is  responsible  for  notifying  the  holder  of  the 

8 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/customs-controls/counterfeit-piracy-other-ipr-violations/ipr-
infringements-facts-figures_en 

7 

 
                                                            
 
goods/declarant  and  the  customs  authority  may  deem  the  agreement  of  the  holder  of  the 
goods/declarant to have been given where he has not explicitly opposed the destruction. 

-   The specific small consignment procedure was introduced to address the increasing trend 
towards  small  consignment  of  counterfeit  and  pirated  goods,  usually  entering  the  Union 
through  the  postal  service  or  via  a  commercial  courier  company,  and  to  reduce  costs  and 
administrative burdens for the handling of such  cases  to  a minimum. It applies to  the small 
consignments  as  defined  in  Article  2(19)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/213,  namely  postal  or 
express courier shipments containing a maximum of three units or having a gross weight of 
maximum two kilograms.  

-   “Deemed agreement”: both the standard and the small consignment procedure foresee the 
possibility of using the deemed agreement of the holder of the goods/declarant instead of his 
explicit  agreement  to  destruction.  In  other  words,  where  the  declarant  or  the  holder  of  the 
goods  has  not  confirmed  his  agreement  to  the  destruction  of  the  goods,  nor  notified  his 
opposition to destruction to the customs authorities within the defined deadline, the customs 
authorities  may  deem  the  declarant  or  the  holder  of  the  goods  to  have  confirmed  his 
agreement to the destruction of the goods. 

-   Costs: given that customs authorities take action upon application, Article 29 of Regulation 
(EU)  No  608/2013  provides  that  customs  authorities  may  decide  that  the  holder  of  the 
decision should reimburse all the costs incurred by the customs authorities in taking action to 
enforce  his  intellectual  property  rights.  This  remains  the  decision  of  the  Member  State 
customs authorities. 

-   Article  22  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  introduces  a  provision  on  the  sharing  of 
information  and  data  with  the  relevant  authorities  in  third  countries,  with  a  view  to 
contributing in this manner to combating international trade in goods infringing IPR. In order 
to  activate  the  procedure,  the  Commission  shall  adopt  implementing  acts  defining  the 
elements  of  the  necessary  practical  arrangements  concerning  the  exchange  of  data  and 
information. 

-   Customs enforcement of IPR within the European Union entails the exchange of data on 
decisions relating to AFA. The exchange of such data as well as of customs actions had to be 
made available via a central electronic database. To that end, the central database COPIS was 
established by the Commission and has been operational since 1 January 2014. 

4.  COMMENTS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR 

Associations of right-holders and of express courier companies praise most of the novelties 
introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 and give a generally positive feedback  on its 
functioning.  

The inclusion of additional IP rights within the domain of customs control is deemed helpful, 
enabling an alignment between Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 and Directive 2004/48/EC on 
the  enforcement  of  IP  rights,  and  minimising  the  discrimination  against  IPR  other  than 
trademarks. 

8 

 
The  lodging  of  AFAs  is  not  considered  overly  complex.  The  Union  AFA  procedure 
(submitting  in  one  Member  State  and  spreading  to  the  other  Member  State  by  the  Member 
State having granted it) is also considered helpful.  

The  new  standard  procedure  with  its  “deemed  agreement  option”  seems  to  be  particularly 
appreciated and considered a very practical tool.  

In general, the answers received reveal a positive view on the way customs authorities fulfil 
their duties with regard to the Regulation.  

Issues which raise some concerns are the following: 

-   The  information  to  be  submitted  in  the  AFA  would  not  always  be  clearly  defined  (for 
instance, what is to be considered as an “authorised distributor”?) or the information referred 
to  would  be  obsolete  and  would  not  take  into  account  modern  global  sourcing  and  supply 
chain  practice  or  even  for  some  could  be  difficult  to  collect  (place  of  production,  involved 
companies,  traders,  etc.).  In  addition,  the  distinction  between  the  mandatory  and  optional 
fields in the forms annexed to the implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 would not be 
reflected in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

As regards the update of the information contained in the AFA, it would not appear efficient 
that the holder of the decision has to report to customs authorities any modifications to any 
information referred to in Article 6 (in view of the significant extent of information required 
in the said Article).  

Some  answers  suggest  simplifying  the  language  regime  for  Union  AFA  by  accepting 
submission either in English, French or German across the 28 Member States. 

-   The return of the samplings as foreseen in Article 19(2) would not be possible in all cases, 
as conduct of analysis often incurs a damaging of the samples.  

If samples cannot be provided by customs authorities within the first ten working days, it is 
suggested  that  the  ten-day  deadline  for  the  holder  of  the  decision  to  initiate  proceedings  be 
extended accordingly. 

-   The  ten-day  deadline  to  initiate  proceedings  would  be  too  short  (standard  procedure  - 
Article  23).  Some  answers  suggest  that  the  holder  of  the  decision  should  be  given  the 
opportunity  to  initiate  legal  proceedings  during  a  lapse  of  time  which  should  be  calculated 
from the day of the customs notification of the objection to the destruction by the holder of 
the  goods/declarant  (and  not  from  the  notification  of  the  suspension  of  the  release  or  the 
detention of the goods). 

-   The storage of the goods (whose release has been suspended or which have been detained 
at the premise of an express courier company) would incur additional indirect costs. 

-   The costs of destruction (Article 29) would be difficult to assess in advance (notably in the 
small consignment procedure as the holder of the decision is not consulted on each detention) 
and  would  be  increasing.  Some  answers  suggest  that  the  holder  of  the  decision  should  be 

9 

 
given the opportunity to determine the conditions of storage and destruction in a cost-effective 
way  or  that  the  costs  related  to  action  concerning  counterfeit  goods  should  be  paid  by  the 
infringer/the  importer  or  to  put  the  burden  on  the  intermediaries  (consignor/shipper/ 
transporter). 

As  regards  the  small  consignment  procedure,  while  certain  answers  consider  it  very  useful, 
others conclude that it cannot be used for certain kinds of products (like medicines, as there is 
an  obligation  for  the  pharmaceutical  industry  to  report  detentions  of  medicines  to  the 
authorities, or semi-conductors as infringement is complex to assess) or that it cannot be used 
at all as it would not ensure in return a sufficient level of information on the detentions made.   

-   The list of allowed uses of information transmitted by customs authorities to the holder of 
the decision would lack clarity in its wording. 

-   Concerning  the  “early  release  of  goods”  procedure  and  the  definition  of  guarantee,  the 
price  of  the  licence  obtained  from  the  right-holder's  website  should  not  be  considered  a 
reasonable guarantee.  

-   Concerning the liability of the holder of the decision, no general comment was made. Few 
answers refer to the liability in relation with the specific issue of the non-return of samples, 
the main idea being that the holder of the decision should not be considered liable for samples 
not  being  returned,  or  being  damaged,  except  in  the  case  where  the  holder  of  the 
goods/declarant opposes the destruction and the goods in question are subsequently found not 
infringing an IPR. 

The  answers  provided  also  raise  some  questions  of  interpretation  on  certain  aspects  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013,  which  have  been  or  will  be  addressed  directly  with  the 
stakeholders.  

Lastly, the answers provided refer to a lack of common EU-wide implementation on certain 
issues, like the information which is considered to be mandatory in an AFA, the deadline to 
request  a  renewal  of  the  customs  decision  granting  the  AFA,  the  way  to  implement  the 
standard procedure (including on transmission  of information  to the holder of the decision), 
the reason recognised as being valid for not initiating proceedings, the implementation of the 
small consignment procedure (which would not be applied by all Member States), the lack of 
use of the information given by the holder of the decision in the AFA and contained in COPIS 
for risk analysis purposes.  

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES 

While customs legislation is adopted at EU level, its implementation is the responsibility of 
the  Member  States  via  their  national  customs  administrations.  Member  States  also  have  the 
competence  over  the  organisation  of  their  customs  administration,  including  on  the 
organisation  of  training  of  customs  officials.  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013,  however, 
indicates  in  its  recital  7  that  Member  States  should,  in  cooperation  with  the  Commission, 
provide  appropriate 
the  correct 
implementation of this Regulation.  

training  for  customs  officials 

to  ensure 

in  order 

10 

 
The  reading  of  the  questionnaire  and  the  exchange  of  views  conducted  during  the  support 
visits  enabled  a  discussion  on  the  administrative  organisation  of  the  customs  departments 
dealing  with  IPR  enforcement,  be  it  at  central  or  local  level  (including  human  resources 
involved,  training  provided,  use  of  database,  etc.),  on  the  cooperation  with  the  various 
stakeholders and on the implementation of all procedures foreseen by the Regulation. 

Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  contains  both  mandatory  and  optional  provisions.  The  latter 
leave to the Member States the decision to use one or the other option. This is the case with 
the  decision  to  use  the  “deemed  agreement”  mentioned  in  both  the  standard  and  the  small 
consignment procedure (Articles 23 and 26), the decision to ask the holder of the decision to 
bear  the  costs  incurred  by  the  customs  action  (Article  29)  and  the  decision  whom  to  notify 
between  the  holder  of  the  goods  or  the  declarant  for  both  the  standard  and  the  small 
consignment procedure (Articles 17 and 26). The support visits gave the opportunity to gather 
a global picture of the choice made by Member States vis-à-vis the flexibility offered by the 
Regulation.  

5.1   Human resources/organisational aspects 

Member States face increasingly limited resources in the field of customs. 

Human resources dedicated to IPR are very much linked to the level of priority given to IPR 
in each Member State, to the number of AFA received at national level, to the organisation of 
the  IPR-competent  customs  department  (IPR  CCD  -  department  in  charge  of  handling  the 
Applications for Action) and to its role.  

In most Member States, the IPR CCD is located at central level.  

Its role can be defined in such a way that it implies a very high centralisation of the IPR tasks 
within  the  Member  State  (including  the  level  of  handling  the  procedures  of  notification  to 
right-holders  and  holder  of  the  goods/declarant  for  detentions  initiated  by  the  local  customs 
offices).  

The  staffing  of  the  IPR  CCD  can  vary  from  a  team  of  maximum  20  members  to  a  single 
person. 

Examples of the roles dedicated to a very large IPR CCD, playing a rather centralised role, are 
as follows: 

-   Consultation in the preparation phase of EU Legislation on IPR or of national IPR acts; 

-   Drafting internal instructions to provide explanations on Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 to 
local customs offices or on the concepts linked to IPR infringements; 

-   Handling  of  AFA  –  support  to  right-holders  in  the  preparation  of  the  AFA,  adoption  of 
decision granting or refusing the AFA and registration of AFAs in the concerned database; 

-   Supervision of the database; 

11 

 
-   Service provider for  right-holders and economic representatives (the IPR CCD plays the 
intermediary  role  between  the  right-holders  and  the  local  customs  office,  in  order  to 
centralise the contacts with the right-holders); 

-   Support of customs offices, with IPR actions (explanations on content of AFA, support in 
ex-officio  procedure,  support  in  early  release  of  the  goods  by  defining  the  guarantee  to  be 
provided by the declarant); 

-   Infringement: ex-officio actions, identification of the right-holders concerned; 

-   Contribution to risk management; 

-   Training (at the national  customs high school  -  Conception of  learning content/material, 
Creating learning content, Training); 

-   Public relations activities: 

•   Publishing statistics (on a yearly basis); 

•   Press inquiries, interviews; 

•  Sensitising  of  consumer  and  economy  (round  tables,  press  conferences,  lectures, 

brochures); 

•   Cooperation with national and international associations. 

In the majority of cases, however, the IPR CCD plays mainly the role of handling the AFA.  

In some Member States, IPR specialists are posted at local level (main offices encountering 
IPR cases). 

Training  on  IPR  is  foreseen  in  all  Member  States,  be  it  during  the  initial  (for  all  customs 
officials)  or  the  vocational  training  phase  (for  IPR  experts).  The  e-learning  training  module 
developed  in  cooperation  between  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  EUIPO  is  used  in 
some  cases.  There  is  a  recurrent  demand  from  many  Member  States  to  receive  help  with 
training on IP substantive law. 

5.2 Cooperation with stakeholders 

5.2.1   Public sector 

Cooperation  between  customs  authorities  and  other  authorities 
in  IPR 
enforcement  is  not  foreseen  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013,  but  was  evoked  during  the 
support  visits,  as  it  is  an  element  which  is  essential  to  enhance  global  results  on  IPR 
enforcement.  

intervening 

On average, the level of cooperation between the customs authorities and the other authorities 
involved in IPR enforcement was described as medium to low. The different competences and 
roles attributed to the various authorities may explain the situation. 

12 

 
 
In the Member States reporting good cooperation, this is organised via agreements installed at 
national  level  (via  cooperation  instances  set  up  at  policy  level  between  different  ministries, 
also including sometimes an operational component).  

The cooperation between authorities is to be further addressed via a knowledge building event 
organised in cooperation with the EUIPO. 

5.2.2   Private sector 

In  general,  cooperation  between  the  customs  authorities  and  the  right-holders  or  their 
representatives is described as good, even if in some cases difficulties have been reported (see 
AFA section below). 

Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 foresees that Member States shall ensure that the 
holders  of  decisions  comply  with  the  obligations  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/213, 
where appropriate by laying down provisions establishing penalties. For the time being, few 
(6) Member States have adopted (or already had) national legislation on penalties as defined 
in  Article  30.  In  case  of  incidents  with  holders  of  decision,  most  Member  States  favour 
seeking first the dialogue in order to find acceptable solutions. 

5.3   Application for Action (content/quality of information) 

The  administrative  enforcement  system  for  customs,  put  in  place  via  Regulation  (EU)  No 
608/2013,  functions  on  the  basis  of  the  request  right-holders  have  to  lodge  with  customs 
authorities. The entire customs action derives from these AFA. It is therefore essential that the 
information they contain is of sufficient quality to enable efficient customs intervention. This 
holds  true  especially  in  the  case  of  Union  AFAs  issued  by  one  Member  State  which  are  to 
apply in other Member States. 

Most Member State customs authorities consider that, on average, the AFAs they receive still 
lack the necessary quality information. 

This leads, in a low percentage of cases, to refusal of the decision granting the AFA. 

In the autumn of 2016, a Customs 2020 seminar between Member State customs authorities 
was  organised  on  IPR  customs  enforcement/  Harmonisation  in  the  process  of  granting  and 
handling AFA/ liability of customs administration vis-à-vis the AFA. 

On  that  occasion  it  was  recommended  that  an  AFA  should  always  contain  the  following 
mandatory elements:  

Information on identification of original and infringing goods; 
Security features; 

- 
- 
-  Distribution/supply chain information. 

13 

 
It was also recommended, in order to enhance the quality and content of the AFA, to ensure a 
better promotion of the "Manual for the Completion of Applications for Action and Extension 
Requests"9. 

Member  States  have  highlighted  the  discrepancies  between  some  of  the  form  boxes  and 
COPIS fields. This will be addressed by the Commission in a future release of COPIS. 

5.4   Use of procedure 

5.4.1   Standard procedure (Article 23) 

The "standard procedure" is used in all Member States. In most Member States the procedure 
is used from the beginning to the end. In one Member State, the detention procedure is started 
under  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  but  then  always  pursued  under  the  national  criminal 
procedure,  said  to  supersede  the  administrative  procedure  foreseen  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 
608/2013.  Article  1(6)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013  indicates  that  it  shall  not  affect 
national or Union law on intellectual property or the laws of the Member States in relation to 
criminal proceedings. 

Some Member States may need to update the way they implement the standard procedure, in 
order to fully adapt to the details of the procedure defined in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

5.4.2   Small consignment procedure (Article 26) 

All Member States use the "small consignment procedure" with the exception of two Member 
States,  which  base  their  actions  on  small  consignments  on  criminal  proceedings.  Four 
Member  States  have  had  no  seizure  so  far  with  the  "small  consignment  procedure"  even 
though they use it, one of them explaining the lack of results by the lack of human resources 
engaged to implement the procedure. 

The  general  reply  by  customs  authorities  to  the  question  why  some  right-holders  do  not 
request  the  "small  consignment  procedure"  was  that,  in  certain  cases,  in  view  of  the  costs 
involved and the lack of information (as they will not be notified of the detention) they refrain 
from opting for the procedure. 

5.4.3   Notification to the declarant or the holder of the goods (Articles 17 and 26)  

In  general,  being  it  under  the  “standard  procedure”  or  the  “small  consignment  procedure”, 
when a customs declaration is lodged, customs authorities notify the declarant directly on the 
occasion of the control performed (as the declarant is often present). 

5.4.4   Use of the “deemed agreement” (Articles 23 and 26) 

The  deemed  agreement  is  widely  used  for  the  standard  procedure  (by  around  60%  of  the 
Member States in all cases where the declarant or the holder of the goods have not confirmed 

9 See http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/customs-controls/counterfeit-piracy-other-ipr-
violations/defend-your-rights_en 

14 

 
 
                                                            
their  agreement  to  destruction  of  the  goods  nor  notified  their  opposition  it,  and  by  another 
30% in certain cases only). For the small consignments procedure, it is used by around 57% 
of  the  Member  States  in  all  cases  where  the  declarant  or  the  holder  of  the  goods  have  not 
confirmed their agreement to destruction of the goods nor notified their opposition to it. Two 
Member States have opted not to use it at all, in one case following a policy decision, in the 
other case as it is not authorised by a transversal administrative rule. 

The  use  of  the  deemed  agreement  has  not  led  to  any  major  concern  in  the  Member  States 
using  it  and  is  considered  essential  by  those  who  apply  it  for  the  effective  use  of  the  small 
consignment procedure. 

5.4.5  Costs (Article 29) 

Around  85%  of  the  Member  States  ask  the  holder  of  the  decision  to  bear  the  costs  for  the 
destruction under the standard procedure.  

Around 46% of the Member States ask the holder of the decision to bear the costs both for the 
destruction under the standard procedure and the small consignment procedure. 

Two  Member  States  bear  the  costs  incurred  by  their  actions  on  storage  and  destruction  of 
goods under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 for the standard procedure. 

Some Member States act on an ad hoc basis concerning the cost for the destruction under the 
small consignment procedure. 

5.4.6   Early release of goods (Article 24) 

to  determine  whether  a  design,  patent,  utility  model, 

Article 24 foresees that, where the customs authorities have been notified of the initiation of 
topography  of 
proceedings 
semiconductor product or plant variety has been infringed, the declarant or the holder of the 
goods may request the customs authorities to release the goods or put an end to their detention 
before the completion of those proceedings,  provided that the declarant or  the  holder of the 
goods has provided a guarantee sufficient to protect the interest of the holder of the decision. 

The early release of goods does not apply to trade marks, which represent the vast majority of 
customs seizures (in 2014 and 2015, 94% of all goods detentions concerned trade marks).This 
is probably why the procedure has been very rarely used across the Union (on one occasion 
by one Member State and on a more regular basis by another one).  

5.5   Use of COPIS 

COPIS  became  operational  on  1  January  2014.  Since  then,  customs  authorities  have  taken 
steps  to  adapt  to  it.  Modifications  to  the  first  release  of  the  tool  were  made  to  ease  its  use. 
Even though Member States recognise the improvement given to COPIS in the past two years, 
there  are  still  some  general  concerns  about  the  efficiency  and  user-friendliness  of  certain 
functions of the database. Further modifications to COPIS are in development to ensure that it 
responds better to the needs of the customs authorities. 

15 

 
Throughout  the  development  of  the  COPIS  database  project,  requests  have  been  made  for 
COPIS to allow for the electronic submission of AFA. As the Enforcement Data Base (EDB), 
a  database  developed  by  the  European  Observatory  on  IPR infringements,  contains  relevant 
information  for  the  submission  of  AFAs,  that  database  has  been  considered  as  a  suitable 
source  for  the  delivery  of  the  required  AFA  information  in  an  electronic  format.  Further  to 
contacts  between  the  Commission  and  the  European  Observatory  on  IPR  infringements,  a 
proposal to implement the functionality of the 'pre-AFA' within COPIS was developed to ease 
the work of both the applicants and the customs authorities.  

Work  on  the  development  of  a  trader  portal  for  the  submission  of  an  electronic  AFA  is  in 
progress and will lead in future to a paperless AFA. 

The operational connection between COPIS and EDB is in place since 1 July 2015. For the 
applicant, this connection will reduce the burden of multiple submissions of information. 

21 Member States use COPIS for the management of AFAs and infringements. 

6  Member  States  use,  for  the  management  of  AFAs  and  infringements,  national  systems 
which are automatically linked to COPIS. 

One  Member  State  uses  only  for  infringements  a  national  system  which  is  automatically 
linked to COPIS but uses COPIS for the management of AFAs. 

Some  Member  States  give  full  access  to  COPIS  to  their  customs  officials;  others  give  a 
limited  access  to  it,  promoting  rather  the  use  of  their  national  database  in  case  a  national 
database exists on IPR within the customs administration. This may be the source of mistakes 
in the transfer of information and certainly leads to additional workload. 

Many  Member  States  report  a  difficulty  to  use  the  information  given  by  the  holder  of  the 
decision in the AFA and contained in COPIS for risk analysis purposes. 

5.6  Implementation by the Commission  

As  foreseen  in  Article  6,  paragraph  1  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013,  a  Commission 
Implementing  Regulation10  establishing  the  form  provided  for  in  Regulation  (EU)  No 
608/2013 was adopted on 4 December 2013. An update is foreseen in 2017. 

The  Commission  has  not  yet  adopted  any  implementing  acts  as  referred  to  in  Article  22  of 
Regulation (EU) No 608/213. 

5.7  Results at the EU borders for 2014 and 2015 

The  annual  publication  of  the  report  on  EU  customs  enforcement  of  intellectual  property 
rights11 at the EU external borders provides an opportunity to measure the scale of customs 

10 Commission Implementing  Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 of 4 December 2013 establishing the forms 
provided for in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning 
customs enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 341, 18.12.2013, p.10-31). 

16 

 
                                                            
actions to enforce IPR. The report contains statistical information about the detentions made 
under  customs  procedures  and  includes  data  on  the  description,  quantities  and  value  of  the 
goods,  their  provenance,  the  means  of  transport  and  the  type  of  IPR  that  may  have  been 
infringed. 

The  statistics  are  established  by  the  Commission,  based  on  the  data  transmitted  by  the 
Member State administrations via COPIS. 

5.7.1  General results 

2012 

DETENTIONS 
90.473 
Cases 
Not available 
Procedures 
39.917.445 
Articles 
Domestic retail value  € 896 million 

2013 

86.854 
Not available 
35.940.294 
€ 768 million 

2014 

95.194 
105.488 
35.568.982 
€ 617 million 

2015 

81.098 
95.313 
40.728.675 
€ 642 million 

Each detention is referred to as a case that may contain one or more articles. Each case may 
contain  articles  of  different  product  categories  and  from  different  right-holders.  In  COPIS, 
Member States register each case with information per category of goods and per right-holder. 
For  each  category  of  goods  and  each  right-holder  a  detention  procedure  will  be  initiated, 
which explains why there are more procedures than cases. 

According to the 2015 report on EU customs enforcement of IPR at the EU external borders, 
the volume of goods infringing IPR seized at the border increased by 15% between 2014 and 
2015. 

5.8   Results on medicine in transit  

The  Commission  asked  Member  State  customs  authorities  to  report  to  the  Commission  any 
relevant  incidents  concerning  medicines  in  transit  across  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union 
that might have occurred under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013.  

27  Member  States  reported  that  no  relevant  incidents  had  occurred  on  the  control  of 
medicines in transit across the customs territory of the Union.  

One  Member  State  reported  a  detention  case  on  medicines  in  transit  concerning  medicines 
covered by a patent, where the information on the shipment contained clear indications  that 
the goods were destined for the internal market and therefore the goods were detained. These 
goods were finally destroyed with the agreement of both parties involved. 

11 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/customs-controls/counterfeit-piracy-other-ipr-
violations/ipr-infringements-facts-figures_en 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
5.9  Application  for  Actions  and  seizures  relating  to  the  intellectual  property  rights 

covered by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 

The  rights  newly  covered  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  608/2013,  namely  the  utility  models,  the 
trade  names  and  the  topographies  of  semi-conductors  have  not  generated  a  high  number  of 
AFAS. 

On 15 September 2016, trade names were covered by 8 active AFAs and utility models by 15 
active AFAs. Topographies of semi-conductor have not generated any AFA.  

Consequently,  the  number  of  detentions  of  goods  infringing  the  newly  added  rights  is  quite 
low. 

For example, in 18 cases goods were detained on the basis of a suspicion of an infringement 
of  a  trade  name  and  in  two  cases  goods  were  detained  on  the  basis  of  a  suspicion  of  an 
infringement  of  a  utility  model.  No  detentions  were  made  for  goods  on  the  suspicion  of  an 
infringement of the topography of semi-conductors.  

No detentions were made for circumvention devices. 

Concerning the rights which were already covered under Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, the 
number of AFAs covering geographical indications remains low.  

5.10  Results of the use of the “standard procedure”  

In 2014, 69.12% of all cases were handled under the "standard procedure" and 30.88% under 
the "small consignment procedure". 

This has led to the following results: 

−  goods  were  destroyed  under  the  "standard  procedure"  after  confirmation  by  the  right-

holder and agreement of the holder of the goods (58.43%); 

−  goods  were  destroyed  under  the  "small  consignment  procedure"  after  agreement  of  the 

holder of the goods (27%); 

−  a court case was initiated by the right-holder to determine the infringement (6.14%); 

−  goods were released as they appeared to be non-infringing original goods (2.8%); 

−  goods were released because the right-holder did not react to the notification by customs 

(5.5%); 

−  a  settlement  out  of  court  was  reached  between  the  right-holder  and  the  holder  of  the 

goods, after which the goods were released (0.11%). 

In 2015, 72.14% of all cases were handled under the "standard procedure" and 27.86% under 
the "small consignment procedure". This has led to the following results: 

18 

 
−  goods  were  destroyed  under  the  "standard  procedure"  after  confirmation  by  the  right-

holder and agreement of the holder of the goods (59.93%); 

−  goods  were  destroyed  under  the  "small  consignment  procedure"  after  agreement  of  the 

holder of the goods (22.05%); 

−  a court case was initiated by the right-holder to determine the infringement (9.21%); 

−  goods were released as they appeared to be non-infringing original goods (2.77%); 

−  goods were released because the right-holder did not react to the notification by customs 

(5.75%); 

−  a  settlement  out  of  court  was  reached  between  the  right-holder  and  the  holder  of  the 

goods, after which the goods were released (0.29%). 

5.11  Use of the “small consignment procedure”  

On  15  September  2016,  48%  of  the  national  AFAs  contained  a  request  to  use  the  small 
consignment procedure (726 out of 1502), while 33% of the Union AFAs also contained such 
a request (393 out of 1184). 

In total, 41% of the AFA contain a request for the use of the small consignment. 

Private  sector  representatives  explained  that  for  a  certain  kind  of  rights  (for  which 
infringements are too complex to assess and for which they consider the expertise of the right-
holder  as  essential),  the  use  of  the  small  consignment  procedure  is  not  deemed  appropriate 
and therefore not opted for. 

In 2015, in slightly more than 22% of the detentions initiated, the goods were destroyed under 
the  procedure  for  small  consignments.  In  2014,  the  destruction  under  the  same  procedure 
represented 27% of the result of all detention cases. 

For the complete details of the 2014 and 2015 reports see TAXUD website: 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/customs/custom
s_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2015_ipr_statistics.pdf 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/2016_ipr_statistics.pdf 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

At this stage, the Commission considers that the implementation of Regulation No 608/2013 
is functioning satisfactorily. It provides for a wide range of protection and procedures which 
are correctly used across the 28 Member States. 

There is certainly a need to reinforce the efforts made in certain areas such as: 

19 

 
 
 
- 

- 

the  quality  of  the  information  contained  in  the  Applications  for  Action,  notably  the 
Union AFA; 

the  use  of  the  standard  procedure  in  coherence  with  the  details  of  the  procedure 
defined in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

This  will  be  further  discussed  in  the  context  of  the  actions  foreseen  by  the  EU  Customs 
Action  Plan  to  combat  IPR  infringements  for  the  years  2013/2017  and  in  the  follow-up 
exercise to the Customs 2020 Seminar on Application for Actions. 

Small  consignment  functioning  and  handling  certainly  remains  a  challenge  as  sales  over 
internet are constantly increasing, notably sales of IPR infringing products. Work on this issue 
will be pursued in the already existing working group on small consignment, whose activities 
will be resumed in 2017. 

The concerns raised by the private sector will also be discussed with Member State customs 
authorities with a view to assessing if they are well established and if solutions could then be 
envisaged. 

The Commission concludes that, for the time being, there would be no justification to revise 
any provisions of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. 

The EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2013-2017 will be 
assessed later this year. It may be opportune, in order to better address the challenges the EU 
is facing with IPR infringements, to consider a future global action plan on EU enforcement 
of  IPRs,  which  would  encompass  not  only  customs  actions,  but  also  the  actions  presently 
covered by the July 2014 Communication “Towards a renewed consensus on the enforcement 
of Intellectual Property Rights: An EU Action Plan”12 as well as the activities developed by 
the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights. 

12 COM (2014) 392: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
European Economic and Social  Committee : Towards a renewed consensus on the enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights: An EU Action Plan 

20 

 
 
                                                            
Annex 1 

Number  of  Application  for  Actions  (AFAs)  per  type  of  rights  –  Situation  on  15  September 
2016 

Active 

Expired  Revoked  Total 

Geographical indications 
For  aromatised  drinks  based  on  wine 
products 
For  products  listed  in  agreements  with  3rd 
countries 
For agricultural products and foodstuff 
For spirit drinks 
For wine 
National GI for other products 
Design 
Registered community design 
Unregistered community design 
International registered design 
National design 
TM 
EU trademark 
International trademark 
National trademark 
Copyright and related right 
Patent 
National patent 
Union patent 
Utility model 
Supplementary certificate for medicines 
Supplementary certificate for plan protection 
product 
National plant variety right 
Community plant variety right 
Trade name 
Topography of semiconductor product 

0 

1 

5 
2 
3 
0 

627 
11 
109 
128 

2326 
1053 
1220 
206 

115 
110 
15 
23 
4 

8 
1 
8 
0 

0 

0 

0 
1 
2 
0 

398 
11 
73 
63 

1596 
832 
771 
103 

72 
75 
10 
17 
12 

8 
1 
10 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

58 
0 
4 
2 

118 
55 
20 
7 

6 
6 
0 
0 
1 

2 
0 
0 
0 

0 

1 

5 
3 
5 
0 

1083 
22 
186 
193 

4040 
1940 
2011 
316 

193 
191 
25 
40 
17 

18 
2 
18 
0 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 

Number  of  Application  for  Actions  (AFAs)  containing  a  request  to  use  the  “small 
consignment procedure” - Situation on 15 September 2016 

Active 

Expired  Revoked 

Total 

Number of AFAs : 
NAFA 
UAFA 
Total 

AFAs with small consignment procedure: 
NAFA 
UAFA 
Total 

% NAFAs with SC of total: 
% UAFAs with SC of total: 
% AFAs with SC of total: 

1502 
1184 
2686 

726 
393 
1119 

48% 
33% 
41% 

2395 
406 
2801 

510 
152 
662 

21% 
37% 
24% 

82 
103 
185 

30 
15 
45 

3979 
1693 
5672 

1266 
560 
1826 

22