COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Union Single Window Environment for Customs and amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU customs procedure, administrative cooperation, customs cooperation, customs regulations, electronic government, exchange of information, information system

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.10.2020  SWD(2020) 237 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  establishing the European Union Single Window Environment for Customs and amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 {COM(2020) 673 final} - {SEC(2020) 360 final} - {SWD(2020) 238 final} - {SWD(2020) 239 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The  legal  basis  for  the  EU  to  act  is  provided  by  Articles  33,  114  and  207  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the  European Union1  (TFEU). Articles  33 and 114 give  the European Parliament and 
the Council the right to take measures to strengthen customs cooperation between Member States 
and between Member States and the Commission to ensure the proper functioning of the internal 
market. In addition, the choice of Article 207 as a legal basis relies on the premise that the scope of 
the initiative extends beyond cooperation between customs authorities to include trade facilitation 
as an important aspect of trade policy.  

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

Article 33 TFEU calls for EU action on customs cooperation. This cooperation is carried out under the 
EU Customs Union, which is an exclusive competence of the EU. For the internal market (Article 114 
TFEU),  the  EU’s  competence  is  shared.  For  the  common  commercial  policy  (Article  207  TFEU),  this 
competence is exclusive.  

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in 
Article  3  TFEU2.  It  is  the  specific  legal  basis  which  determines  whether  the  proposal  falls  under  the 
subsidiarity  control  mechanism.  Article  4  TFEU3  sets  out  the  areas  where  competence  is  shared 
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU4 sets out the areas for which the Unions 
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 25: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

Extensive  public  and  targeted  consultations  were  carried  out  and  the  results  fed  into  the  impact 
assessment (IA) report.  

The Inception Impact Assessment was published on 4 May 2018. Its purpose was to: (i) outline the 
problem; (ii) list the policy options for targeted EU-level action; (iii) assess the potential impact of the 
initiative  on  other  policy  areas;  and  (iv)  outline  the  main  features  of  the  consultation  strategy. 
Stakeholders  had  until  1  June  2018  to  provide  feedback,  and  a  total  of  five  contributions  were 
submitted. 

The public consultation ran from 9 October 2018 to 17 January 2019. A questionnaire was available 

1 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 115, 09.05.2008, p. 47). 
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
online  in  all  official  EU  languages  (except  for  Irish,  due  to  resource  constraints).  It  consisted  of  24 
questions focusing on respondents’ profiles, experiences with cross-border operations and opinions 
on potential policy measures. A synopsis of the consultation is available on the Europa website6. The 
consultation showed that there is widespread agreement about the existence and seriousness of the 
problems identified and welcomed EU action to address these problems. In total, 371 valid responses 
were  received,  most  of  which  were  from  businesses.  The  potential  objectives  for  a  new  initiative 
were considered important by over 90% of respondents. All proposed changes triggered by new EU 
action  were  expected  to  have  very  positive  impacts  on  business  operations,  particularly  on:  (i) 
reducing  administrative  burden;  (ii)  the  equal  treatment  of  economic  operators;  and  (iii)  the  fight 
against fraudulent activities. 

Much of the data was collected through  the Customs 2020 project group that was set up to study a 
possible  framework  to  develop  an  EU  Single  Window  environment  for  customs  including  the  legal 
context. Launched in December 2016, the project group continued to meet regularly until June 2019, 
combining  the  expertise  of  customs  and  IT  delegates  from  19  Member  States  administrations  and 
representatives of six trade associations. The project group mainly discussed and analysed challenges 
to and trends associated with the single window concept at both national and EU level. The goal was 
to  assess  the  gap  between  the  current  situation  faced  by  administrations  and  economic operators 
and  future  possibilities.  The  project  group’s  collaboration  efforts  resulted  in  a  problem  definition, 
policy objectives and policy options that were used in the IA report.  

More  detailed  feedback  and  evidence  was  collected  from  a  sample  of  eight  Member  States  in  the 
form  of  case  study  visits.  Each  visit  comprised  10-15  interviews  with  customs  authorities,  partner 
competent authorities and individual businesses. 

Additional  data  was  collected  at  a  high-level  seminar  on  the  EU  Single  Window  environment  for 
customs  hosted  by  the  Romanian  Presidency  in  May  2019  with  the  participation  of  senior 
management officials from national customs administrations, candidate countries, representatives of 
trade  associations  and  keynote  speakers  from  the  US  Customs  and  Border  Protection  Agency  and 
international organisations. A series of workshops were held to address the relevance of the policy 
options in the government-to-government and business-to-government context, with informal polls 
conducted to obtain feedback on the identified policy options. 

An  overall  synopsis  report  presenting  the  outcome  of  the  different  consultation  activities  and 
showing  how  the  input  has  been  taken  into  account  is  attached  as  Annex  2  to  the  Staff  Working 
Document (SWD) on the IA report.  

Chapter 3 of the SWD on the IA report and Section 2 of the proposal’s explanatory memorandum 
contain a section on the principle of subsidiarity as presented in question 2.2 below.  

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

The complex regulatory set up and the continuous introduction of new regulatory requirements for 
international  trade  across  different  policy  areas  (health  and  safety,  environment,  agriculture, 
fisheries,  market  surveillance,  cultural  heritage,  etc.)  has  led  to  insufficient  coordination  and 
fragmented  interoperability  between  customs  and  the  competent  authorities  in  charge  of  these 
requirements.  The  ultimate  consequences  of  this  are  inefficient  clearance  processes  (both  for 

6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1739-EU-Single-Window-

environment-for-customs 

2 

 
 
                                                           
 
authorities and economic operators) and the ineffective application of EU rules.  

The issues at stake concern not only the Customs Union, but also the internal market across a range 
of policy areas related to cross-border operations regulated by EU law. The identified problems are 
inherently transnational, involving the movement of goods across borders and EU-wide effects of any 
error or fraud taking place in an individual Member State.  They would limit the benefits of gradual 
digitalisation and modernisation of processes related to the clearance of certain goods.  

The EU, given its responsibility for the Customs Union and for the harmonisation of the non-customs 
regulatory requirements in question, is well placed to address the problems by coordinating action, 
tackling  fragmentation  and  generating  economies  of  scale.  Moreover,  in  the  absence  of  this 
proposal, existing and expected action at different levels has proved to be inadequate on its own.  

In particular, the proposal’s objectives cannot be achieved effectively and efficiently by the Member 
States alone for the following reasons: 

A central infrastructure (EU CSW-CERTEX) to interconnect the national customs environments of the 
27  Member  States  to  the  existing  EU  non-customs  systems  that  store  the  information  on  EU  non-
customs formalities enforced by customs, will generate substantial economies of scale compared to 
developing  the  necessary  national  connections.  This  central  infrastructure  will  provide  common 
services,  such  as  business  and  technical  transformation,  to  render  the  customs  and  non-customs 
domains interoperable. The increasing digitalisation of EU non-customs regulatory requirements will 
make the efficiency of a central connector more relevant in the future.  

In addition, the  need to strengthen and harmonise the  enforcement of  EU non-customs legislation 
across EU borders will be better achieved by standardising the automated exchanges of information 
between EU non-customs systems and national customs environments. This is especially important in 
the case of authorisations or quotas issued by non-customs authorities that can be used to import or 
export  the  authorised  quantities  of  goods  split  among  multiple  customs  declarations.  These  are 
typically valid EU-wide, meaning that the relevant consignments may be cleared in different Member 
States. Before releasing the declared quantities into the EU, customs authorities need to know that 
the remaining quantity has not already been used in the clearance of other consignments. Manual 
monitoring or individual automated controls based on the nationally-available information are both 
time-consuming and insufficiently accurate, making it difficult to prevent the fraudulent use and re-
use  of  these  authorisations  and  quotas.  Automated  quantity  management  at  EU  level  requires 
standardised  data  to  be  shared  in  real  time  throughout  the  EU.  This  could  only  be  effectively 
achieved by mandatory EU action as set out in the proposal.  

Finally, measures to streamline the reporting requirements of economic operators to fulfil customs 
and  EU  non-customs  formalities  affecting  the  international  trade  in  goods,  should  be  harmonised 
across  the  EU  to  achieve  a  level  playing  field  for  trade.  The  underlying  data  rationalisation  and 
harmonisation process should be performed at EU level as it involves data sets and formats regulated 
in EU legislation.   

Given  its  role  in  modernising  the  Customs  Union  and  better  enforcing  customs  and  non-customs 
regulatory  requirements  at  the  border,  the  EU  is  in a  unique  position to  reassess  the  fundamental 
practices  and  procedures  of  the  current  fragmented  model  of  regulatory  compliance.  EU  action  in 
this  area  will  improve  compliance  of  regulatory  requirements  with  EU  legislation  and  further 
facilitate  the  cross-border  movement  of  goods.  This,  in  turn,  will  bring  a  clear  added  value  to  the 
interaction  between  customs  and  partner  competent  authorities  and  the  day-to-day  activities  of 
economic  operators.  Ultimately,  EU  action  will  generate  significant  social  and  environmental 
benefits, as well as economic benefits across the EU.  

2.3 Based  on  the  answers  to  the  questions  below,  can  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  be 

3 

 
 
achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The identified problems are widespread in the EU as they involve international trade in specific goods 
subject  to  EU  non-customs  regulatory  requirements  in  areas  such  as  health  and  safety,  the 
environment,  agriculture,  fisheries,  cultural  heritage,  market  surveillance,  etc.  Due  to  the 
transnational  nature  of  these  problems,  action  at  national  level  will  only  partially  achieve  the 
objectives of this proposal, and it will come at a much higher cost and with less harmonisation in the 
enforcement of non-customs formalities. National single window initiatives in a few Member States 
have helped to address the identified problems, but they face several issues which suggest that the 
benefits  would  be  limited.  These  issues  range  from  the  lack  of  EU-wide  quantity  management  to 
significant  variations  in  policy  priorities  and  regulatory  reporting  arrangements  between  Member 
States. Given its responsibility for the Customs Union and the effective application of internal market 
rules,  the  EU  is  well-positioned  to  address  these  problems  and  achieve  the  proposal’s  policy 
objectives by coordinating action, tackling fragmentation and generating economies of scale. 

(a)  Are  there  significant/appreciable  transnational/cross-border  aspects  to  the  problems  being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

The identified problems are inherently transnational, as they involve the cross-border movement of 
goods,  and  any  error  or  fraud  taking  place  in  an  individual  Member  State  can  have  an  EU-wide 
impact. The problems affect an estimated 39,7 million of the most sensitive movements each year, 
which in addition to customs formalities are subject to non-customs regulatory requirements in areas 
such  as  health  and  safety,  the  environment,  agriculture,  fisheries,  cultural  heritage,  market 
surveillance,  etc.  Due  to  insufficient  interoperability  and  coordination  among  authorities,  many  of 
these movements are processed in inefficient ways conducive to error and fraud. 

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty7 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

The absence of EU-level action will leave the identified problems unresolved, undermining the EU’s 
core  objectives,  such  as  security,  public  safety  and  environmental  protection,  and  making  it  more 
difficult to ensure the effective application of internal market rules.  

National action will only partially achieve the proposal’s objectives, and it will come at a much higher 
cost  and  with  less  harmonisation  in  the  enforcement  of  non-customs  formalities.  This  will  lead  to 
uneven  EU  protection  and  a  potential  distortion  of  competition.  In  particular,  automated  quantity 
management at EU level will be very difficult to achieve, which will increase the risk of fraud and lead 
to  gaps  in  the  enforcement  of  customs  rules  -  even  in  those  Member  States  with  national  single 
window  initiatives.  Only  a  harmonised  enforcement of  EU  regulatory  formalities  at  the  border  will 
guarantee  the  equal  treatment  of  economic  operators  throughout  the  EU,  as  it  will  improve  the 
transparency  of  the  relevant  customs  activities,  thereby  raising  consumer  confidence  in  market 
products. 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Several  Member  States  such  as  France,  Italy  and  Spain,  have  made  significant  progress  in 
interconnecting  national  customs  systems  to  either  national  and/or  EU  non-customs  systems, 
enabling  the  automated  verification  of  non-customs  regulatory  compliance.  These  initiatives  have 

7 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

4 

 
 
                                                           
helped to address the identified problems, but due to the following issues, these benefits are limited.  

First, the necessary resources are unavailable in most Member States.  

Second, the current patchwork arrangements means that EU-wide quantity management is lacking. 
This  opens  the  door  to  fraud  and  contributes  to  the  inconsistent  enforcement  of  EU  legislation  in 
some areas.  

Third, the scope of national initiatives varies and usually only includes a few non-customs regulatory 
requirements, based on national priorities, leaving most problems unaddressed.  

Finally,  with  no  harmonised  measures  to  facilitate  and  streamline  customs  and  EU  non-customs 
requirements  by  trade,  economic  operators  could  face  a  complex  situation  due  to  potential 
variations in regulatory reporting arrangements in different Member States. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The sheer volume of regulatory requirements affecting international trade in certain goods and the 
complex framework to manage them at EU, national and - in some Member States - regional or local 
level  suggests  that  the  magnitude  of  the  problems  varies  by  Member  State  depending  on  their 
trading profiles, both in terms of type and volumes of goods traded. The level of incentive to invest in 
solutions  that  simplify  and  streamline  processes  therefore  differs  between  countries.  However,  as 
the  identified  problems  affect  all  Member  States,  EU  regulatory  action  is  necessary.  The  proposed 
solution therefore focuses only on EU regulatory formalities for which the information is stored in an 
EU-wide system that the  27 national customs systems connect to in a uniform  way. Consequently, 
the interconnection of customs systems to national, regional or local systems that store information 
on  non-customs  regulatory  requirements  falls  outside  the  scope  of  the  proposal  and  is  left  to  the 
discretion of the Member States.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

The problems are widespread across the EU as they involve the international trade in specific goods 
subject  to  EU  non-customs  regulatory  requirements  in  areas  such  as  health  and  safety,  the 
environment, agriculture, fisheries, cultural heritage, market surveillance, etc. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

No.  The  proposal  provides  a  way  to  achieve  the  objectives  that  represent  important  economies of 
scale  compared  to  individual  national  initiatives.  First,  it  is  only  focused  on  EU  non-customs 
regulatory formalities for which the relevant information required by customs to release the goods is 
available  at  central  level  in  EU  non-customs  systems.  Therefore,  putting  in  place  a  central 
infrastructure (EU CSW-CERTEX) that provides a single interface between national customs and these 
systems  is  cheaper  than  developing  individual  national  connections  to  each  of  them.  A  significant 
portion of the investments needed to develop the EU Single Window environment for customs and in 
particular its central component (EU CSW-CERTEX) will be borne by the European Commission.  

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

Most  Member  States  are  favourable  to  the  proposed  system  of  interconnectivity  and  digital 
administrative  cooperation.  On  the  regulatory  requirements  covered  (EU  formalities  managed 
through EU systems), there is broad agreement among the Member States that the benefits will be 
significant.  Criticism  is  limited  to  two  aspects:  (1)  for  those  Member  States  that  already  have 

5 

 
 
 
advanced digital initiatives, the mandatory use of EU CSW-CERTEX could undermine the efforts that 
have  already  been  made;  and  (2)  some  Member  States  feel  that  to  justify  the  costs  of  their 
connection it would be important to prioritise high-volume regulatory requirements, rather than all 
requirements falling within its scope. 

Member  States  also  saw  the  benefits  of  the  proposal’s  additional  measures  to  simplify  reporting 
formalities  for  trade.  Nevertheless,  some  Member  States  voiced  their  concerns  that  the  technical 
solutions would be costly and difficult to prioritise over the coming years due to the focus on other IT 
projects,  such  as  those  required  as  part  of  the  Union  Customs  Code  work  programme.  A  few  also 
expressed worries about the organisational challenges related to the envisaged coordinating role for 
national customs authorities.  

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

The objectives of the proposal can be better achieved at EU level. Establishing a central module to 
facilitate  digital  cooperation  and  information  exchange  between  the  national  single  window 
environments for customs and EU non-customs systems, together with the  increasing digitalisation 
of  EU  non-customs  formalities  will  render  the  customs  and  non-customs  domains  interoperable, 
reduce  administrative  burden  for  all  affected  stakeholders,  and  generate  substantial  economies  of 
scale.  Isolated  national  initiatives  will  not  achieve  the  same  level  of  benefits  and  the  costs  will  be 
significantly  higher.  EU  action  in  this  area  will  significantly  improve  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market by enhancing and harmonising the enforcement by customs of EU non-customs requirements 
imposed  on  the  international  trade  in  goods.  This,  in  turn,  will  bring  a  clear  added  value  to  the 
interaction  between  customs  and  partner  competent  authorities  and  the  activities  of  economic 
operators. Ultimately, EU action will generate significant social and environmental impacts, as well as 
substantial economic benefits across the EU. 

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

Yes,  clear  benefits  are  expected  for  Member  State  administrations,  economic  operators  and  the 
general public. The initiative will save customs administrations significant time and resources in the 
clearance of goods subject to non-customs regulatory requirements, as the system interconnections 
and  electronic  data  sharing  will  enable  automated  controls  and  reduce  reliance  on  manual 
documentary  checks.  This  will  also  benefit  economic  operators  as  it  will  reduce  the  time  and 
resources  spent  on  documentary  controls.  In  addition,  a  harmonised  simplification  of  reporting 
requirements will facilitate trade compliance by reducing duplication, time and compliance costs for 
economic operators. 

The benefits will be especially pronounced for regulatory formalities where quantities of authorised 
goods can be split across multiple customs declarations thanks to the introduction of an automated 
quantity  management  at  EU  level.  This  will  enable  the  automated  verification  of  ‘write-offs’ 
throughout  the  EU,  preventing  any  goods  over  the  authorised  quantity  from  being  cleared. 
Moreover,  standardising  the  exchange  of  information  between  customs  and  non-customs  systems 
will be an opportunity to enhance and harmonise the enforcement of EU non-customs legislation by 
national  customs  administrations  across  the  EU.  This  will  help  protect  public  health  and  safety, 
improve security, preserve cultural heritage and protect animal welfare and the environment.  

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

Yes. The central infrastructure (EU CSW-CERTEX) will provide common services such as business and 

6 

 
 
interoperable. 
technical  transformation  to  render  the  customs  and  non-customs  domains 
Furthermore, the increasing digitalisation of EU non-customs regulatory requirements will make the 
efficiency  of  a  central  connector  more  relevant  in  the  future.  This  will  generate  substantial 
economies of scale compared to developing individual national connections to each EU system. 

The proposed action will significantly improve  the  functioning of the internal market by enhancing 
and  harmonising  the  enforcement  by  customs  of  EU  non-customs  requirements  imposed  on 
international trade. It will help strengthen the single market by eliminating possibilities for distorted 
competition.  Ultimately,  the  public  will  benefit  from  better  compliance  with  and  enforcement  of 
these  regulatory  requirements  which  are  designed  to  protect  public  health  and  safety,  increase 
security, preserve cultural heritage and protect animal welfare and the environment. 

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

Broader  harmonisation  and  better  enforcement  of  EU  non-customs  formalities  at  the  border  will 
better  protect  the  EU  and  reduce  possibilities  for  distorted  competition.  More  efficient  customs 
clearance processes throughout the EU will be achieved at a lower cost given the economies of scale 
generated by EU action.   

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

Yes. The direct economic impacts are high in terms of trade facilitation and reducing administrative 
burden,  particularly  by  saving  time  and  making  clearance  simpler  and  more  automated.  Isolated 
national  initiatives  will  not  achieve  the  same  level  of  benefits  and  the  costs  will  be  significantly 
higher.  In  terms  of  environmental  and  social  impacts,  only  EU  action  enabling  the  monitoring  of 
authorised  quantities  and  quotas  at  EU  level  could  deliver  on  the  objectives,  by  improving  the 
enforcement of multiple policy measures conceived to protect people and the environment.  

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

Yes. The 2008 e-Customs Decision8 on a paperless environment for customs and trade called on the 
Member  States  and  Commission  to  ‘endeavour  to  establish  and  make  operational  a  framework  of 
single  window  services’.  However,  the  evaluation  of  the  e-Customs  Decision  in  20149  found  these 
provisions insufficiently concrete and recommended the adoption of a new legal instrument for the 
single  window.  This  proposal  aims  to  provide  a  comprehensive  framework  to  support  the 
establishment of an integrated and coherent environment for customs single window services in the 
EU and put in place concrete provisions that are directly applicable in all Member States.   

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any  impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal  and  a  statement  allowing  appraisal  of  the  compliance  of  the  proposal  with  the 
principle of proportionality? 

8   Decision No70/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on a paperless environment 

for customs and trade, OJ L 23, 26/01/2008, p. 21-26. 

9   Evaluation  of 

the  electronic  customs 

implementation 

in 

the  EU, 

final 

report 

(21 

January  2015).  

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/docs/body/ecust_evaluation_final_en.pdf  

7 

 
 
                                                           
In  line  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  the  scope  of  this  proposal  is  limited  to  non-customs 
regulatory  formalities  laid  down  in  EU  legislation  for  which  an  EU  electronic  system  is  in  place  to 
store relevant information required by customs to verify compliance with the respective measures. 
The  interconnection  of  these  systems  to  the  national  single  window  environments  for  customs 
systems  through  the  EU  CSW-CERTEX,  and  the  electronic  information  exchanges  prescribed  in  the 
proposal  are  necessary  to  improve  and  ensure  a  consistent  enforcement  of  these  regulatory 
formalities  throughout  the  EU.  This  is  notably  the  case  when  the  legislation  allows  authorised 
quantities of goods to be split across multiple customs declarations that can be lodged EU-wide, or 
prohibits the import or export of goods subject to quotas after a certain threshold is reached. While 
customs  authorities  need  to  verify  the  quantities  used  in  the  clearance  of  previous  consignments, 
manual  checks  are  both  time-consuming  and  insufficiently  accurate.  These  problems  cannot  be 
solved without new EU action, partly because they relate to EU formalities. On the other hand, the 
rules presented in this proposal to harmonise the national single window environments for customs 
are necessary to achieve a level playing field for economic operators when fulfilling their regulatory 
requirements.   

3.2 Based  on  the  answers  to  the  questions  below  and  information  available  from  any  impact 
assessment,  the  explanatory  memorandum  or  other  sources,  is  the  proposed  action  an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The  scope  of  this  proposal  covers  EU  non-customs  regulatory  formalities  for  which  the  relevant 
information  required  by  customs  to  release  the  goods  is  available  in  EU  non-customs  systems.  A 
central  module  (EU  CSW-CERTEX)  will  connect  these  systems  to  the  national  customs  systems, 
allowing  the  automated  verification  by  customs  of  these  formalities  and  also  automated  quantity 
management  at  EU  level.  The  electronic  information  exchanges  prescribed  in  the  proposal  are 
necessary  to  ensure  an  EU-wide  enforcement  of  the  regulatory  formalities  included  in  its  scope. 
Likewise,  procedural  rules  to  harmonise  the  national  single  window  environments  for  customs  are 
essential  for  creating  a  level  playing  field  for  economic  operators  when  fulfilling  their  regulatory 
requirements.  As  evidenced  in  the  findings  of  the  SWD  on  the  IA  report,  the  costs  related  to  the 
proposed measures are commensurate with the policy objectives to be achieved. A regulation is the 
most suitable instrument for a central solution that introduces an obligation for the Member States 
and  the  European  Commission  to  connect  their  respective  systems  to  it,  and  lays  down  rules 
governing digital cooperation and information exchange between national and EU components. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes.  As  indicated  above,  the  scope  of  the  proposal  is  limited  to  EU  non-customs  regulatory 
formalities for which the relevant information for customs to release the goods is available at central 
level in EU non-customs systems. The proposed solution will provide national customs with a single 
interface  to  these  systems  so  that  verification  of  these  formalities  by  customs  and  quantity 
management at EU level are both automated. EU formalities that are not digitalised at EU level and 
national  regulatory  requirements  are  not  covered  by  the  proposed  EU  action  as  there  is  no  clear 
evidence that this will bring tangible benefits.   

(b)  Is  the  form  of  Union  action  (choice  of  instrument)  justified,  as  simple  as  possible,  and 
coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued  (e.g.  choice  between  regulation,  (framework)  directive,  recommendation,  or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

Yes.  The  proposal  pivots  on  the  establishment  of  a  central  module  (EU  CSW-CERTEX)  that  will 
connect national customs systems to the EU non-customs systems. A regulation is the most suitable 

8 

 
 
instrument  for  a  central  solution  that  introduces  an  obligation  for  the  Member  States  and  the 
European Commission to connect their respective systems to it, and lays down rules governing digital 
cooperation and information exchange between national and EU components.  

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

Yes. The proposal is limited to non-customs regulatory formalities regulated at EU level and managed 
with  the  support  of  an  EU  system.  For  EU  non-customs  formalities  managed  through  national 
systems or not digitalised at all, as well as for any national regulatory requirements, the objectives of 
enhanced  cooperation  and  interoperability  between  customs  and  non-customs  authorities  may  be 
achieved  more  efficiently  at  national  level,  and  therefore  they  remain  outside  the  scope  of  this 
proposal.  

(d)  Does  the 

initiative  create  financial  or  administrative  cost  for  the  Union,  national 
governments,  regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

Yes. One-off implementation and recurrent costs will be  borne  by the EU and  national authorities. 
Implementation costs  include  IT  spending,  process  change  management, training  and  support,  and 
are  expected  to  be  phased  over  a  period  of  7  years.  The  ensuing  recurrent  costs  will  include 
maintenance, periodic updates, support and day-to-day operations. The estimated costs (in €m, low 
and high ranges except for EC costs) are: 

for  gradual 

Total 
implementation 
years 1-7 

EC 
Total  MS 
authorities  
Total 

64.38 to 127.73  

64.73    Annual total once 
fully operational, 
from year 8 
onwards 

EC 
Total MS 
authorities  
Total 

12.26 to 18.10 
These  costs  are  commensurate  with  the  objectives  to  be  achieved.  Once  fully  implemented,  the 
proposed measures are expected to generate significant direct economic impacts, totalling €209.4m 
to €311.5m annually, showing its proportionality. 

129.11 to 192.46 

6.35  
5.91 to 11.75 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

The proposal prescribes the connection of the national single window environments for customs to 
the central module (EU CSW-CERTEX) and the necessary set of functions or services that the national 
environments need to facilitate information exchanges within the overall environment. The internal 
organisation  of  the  national  environments  and  their  operational  practicalities  are  left  to  the 
discretion of the Member States.  

9