COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL pursuant to Article 278a of the Union Customs Code, on progress in developing the electronic systems provided for under the Code
Date: 2020-12-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU customs procedure, activity report, customs cooperation, customs formalities, electronic government, information system, technological change

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.12.2020  SWD(2020) 339 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL pursuant to Article 278a of the Union Customs Code, on progress in developing the electronic systems provided for under the Code {COM(2020) 806 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 
1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

2.  COMPLETED PROJECTS .................................................................................................................... 6 

2.1 

2.2 

UCC REGISTERED EXPORTER SYSTEM (REX) ............................................................. 6 

UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS ............................................................................................... 7 

2.3 
UCC  DIRECT  TRADER  ACCESS  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  INFORMATION  SYSTEMS 
(UUM&DS) ......................................................................................................................................... 8 

2.4 
UCC  ECONOMIC  OPERATOR  REGISTRATION  AND  IDENTIFICATION  SYSTEM 
UPGRADE (EORI2) ........................................................................................................................... 9 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

UCC SURVEILLANCE 3 (SURV3) .................................................................................... 10 

UCC BINDING TARIFF INFORMATION (BTI) ............................................................... 11 

UCC AUTHORISED ECONOMIC OPERATORS (AEO) UPGRADE .............................. 13 

UCC INFORMATION SHEETS (INF) FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURES ........................... 14 

3.  ONGOING PROJECTS: DETAILED PLANNING AND PROGRESS INFORMATION ................................. 16 

3.1 
UCC  NOTIFICATION  OF  ARRIVAL  (NA),  PRESENTATION  NOTIFICATION  (PN) 
AND TEMPORARY STORAGE (TS) ............................................................................................. 16 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

3.8 

3.9 

UCC NATIONAL IMPORT SYSTEMS UPGRADE .......................................................... 28 

UCC SPECIAL PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... 33 

UCC GUARANTEE MANAGEMENT (GUM) ................................................................... 40 

UCC IMPORT CONTROL SYSTEM 2 (ICS2) ................................................................... 44 

UCC PROOF OF UNION STATUS (POUS) ....................................................................... 57 

UCC CENTRALISED CLEARANCE FOR IMPORT (CCI) .............................................. 58 

UCC NEW COMPUTERISED TRANSIT SYSTEM (NCTS) UPGRADE ......................... 65 

UCC AUTOMATED EXPORT SYSTEM (AES) ................................................................ 74 

4.  ANNEX 1 – PLANNING OVERVIEW – UCC WORK PROGRAMME PROJECTS .................................. 83 

5.  ANNEX 2 – ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & KEY TERMS ............................................................. 84 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Figures 
Figure 3-1: Project Status as per Survey – NA ...................................................................................... 18 
Figure 3-2: Project Status as per Survey – PN ...................................................................................... 20 
Figure 3-3: Project Status as per Survey – TS ....................................................................................... 20 
Figure 3-4: Summary of Responses per Milestone – NA ...................................................................... 24 
Figure 3-5: Summary of Responses per Milestone – PN ...................................................................... 24 
Figure 3-6: Summary of Responses per Milestone – TS ....................................................................... 24 
Figure 3-7: Percentage of Completion per Phase – NA ........................................................................ 25 
Figure 3-8: Percentage of Completion per Phase – PN ......................................................................... 26 
Figure 3-9: Percentage of Completion per Phase – TS ......................................................................... 27 
Figure 3-10: Summary of Survey Responses – National Import Systems Upgrade .............................. 30 
Figure 3-11: Summary of Responses per Milestone – National Import Systems Upgrade ................... 31 
Figure 3-12: Percentage of Completion per Phase – National Import Systems Upgrade...................... 32 
Figure 3-13: Project Status as per Survey – Component 1 National SP EXP ....................................... 34 
Figure 3-14: Project Status as per Survey – Component 2 National SP IMP ........................................ 35 
Figure 3-15: Summary of Responses per Milestone – SP – Component 1 Nat SP EXP ....................... 37 
Figure 3-16: Summary of Responses per Milestone – SP – Component 2 Nat SP IMP ....................... 38 
Figure 3-17: Percentage of Completion per Phase – SP – Component 1 Nat SP EXP ......................... 38 
Figure 3-18: Percentage of Completion per Phase – SP – Component 2 Nat SP IMP .......................... 39 
Figure 3-19: Summary of Survey Responses – GUM – Component 2 ................................................. 42 
Figure 3-20: Summary of Responses per Milestone – GUM – Component 2....................................... 43 
Figure 3-21: Percentage of Completion per Phase – GUM – Component 2 ......................................... 44 
Figure 3-22: Summary of Survey Responses – ICS2 – Release 1 ......................................................... 47 
Figure 3-23: Summary of Survey Responses – ICS2 – Release 2 ......................................................... 48 
Figure 3-24: Summary of Survey Responses – ICS2 – Release 3 ......................................................... 49 
Figure 3-25: Summary of Responses per Milestone – ICS2 – Release 1 .............................................. 53 
Figure 3-26: Summary of Responses per Milestone – ICS2 – Release 2 .............................................. 53 
Figure 3-27: Summary of Responses per Milestone – ICS2 – Release 3 .............................................. 53 
Figure 3-28: Percentage of Completion per Phase – ICS2 – Release 1................................................. 54 
Figure 3-29: Percentage of Completion per Phase – ICS2 – Release 2................................................. 55 
Figure 3-30: Percentage of Completion per Phase – ICS2 – Release 3................................................. 56 
Figure 3-31: Summary of Survey Responses – CCI – Phase 1 ............................................................. 60 
Figure 3-32: Summary of Survey Responses – CCI – Phase 2 ............................................................. 60 
Figure 3-33: Summary of Responses per Milestone – CCI – Phase 1 .................................................. 63 
Figure 3-34: Summary of Responses per Milestone – CCI – Phase 2 .................................................. 63 
Figure 3-35: Percentage of Completion per Phase – CCI – Phase 1 ..................................................... 64 
Figure 3-36: NCTS-P5 National Administrations entry into operations ............................................... 67 
Figure 3-37: Project Status as per Survey – NCTS – Component 1 or Phase 5 .................................... 68 
Figure 3-38: Project Status as per Survey – NCTS – Component 2 or Phase 6 .................................... 69 
Figure 3-39: Summary of Responses per Milestone – NCTS – Component 1 ...................................... 71 
Figure 3-40: Summary of Responses per Milestone – NCTS – Component 2 ...................................... 72 
Figure 3-41: Percentage of Completion per Phase – NCTS – Component 1 or Phase 5 ....................... 73 
Figure 3-42: AES-P1 National Administrations entry into operations .................................................. 75 
Figure 3-43: Project Status as per Survey – AES – Component 1 ........................................................ 77 
Figure 3-44: Project Status as per Survey – AES – Component 2 ........................................................ 77 
Figure 3-45: Summary of Responses per Milestone – AES – Component 1 ........................................ 79 
Figure 3-46: Summary of Responses per Milestone – AES – Component 2 ........................................ 80 
Figure 3-47: Percentage of Completion per Phase – AES – Component 1 ........................................... 81 
Figure 3-48: Percentage of Completion per Phase – AES – Component 2 ........................................... 82 
Figure 4-1: Planning Overview: UCC Work Programme Projects – Status Q4 2020 ........................... 83 

2 

 
 
 
 
Table of Tables 
Table 1: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – REX1 ................................................................... 6 
Table 2: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – UCC Customs Decision ...................................... 7 
Table 3: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – UUM&DS ........................................................... 8 
Table 4: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – EORI2 ................................................................. 9 
Table 5: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – SURV3 .............................................................. 10 
Table 6: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – BTI .................................................................... 12 
Table 7: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – AEO Upgrade .................................................... 13 
Table 8: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – INF .................................................................... 15 
Table 9: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – NA ..................................................................... 21 
Table 10: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – PN .................................................................... 22 
Table 11: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – TS .................................................................... 23 
Table 12: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – National Import Systems Upgrade .................. 31 
Table 13: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – SP – Component 1 Nat SP EXP ...................... 36 
Table 14: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – SP – Component 2 Nat SP IMP ...................... 37 
Table 15: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – GUM – Component 1 ...................................... 42 
Table 16: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – GUM – Component 2 ...................................... 43 
Table 17: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – ICS2 – Release 1 ............................................. 50 
Table 18: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – ICS2 – Release 2 ............................................. 51 
Table 19: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – ICS2 – Release 3 ............................................. 52 
Table 20: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – CCI – Phase 1 .................................................. 61 
Table 21: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – CCI – Phase 2 .................................................. 62 
Table 22: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – NCTS – Component 1 ..................................... 70 
Table 23: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – NCTS – Component 2 ..................................... 71 
Table 24: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – AES – Component 1 ........................................ 78 
Table 25: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – AES – Component 2 ........................................ 79 
Table 26: Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................ 85 

3 

 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  Union  Customs  Code  (UCC)  requires  the  European  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to 
upgrade some existing electronic systems and introduce a number of new systems for the  completion 
of a modern and digital environment of customs formalities. In total, the UCC requires the upgrading 
or creation of fourteen trans-European systems and three national systems.  

The UCC entered into force on 1 May 2016. The deadline for completion of the systems is set for the 
end of 2020, 2022 or 2025, depending on the system.   

In  view of the reporting requirement established by Article 278(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2019/632 
amending Regulation (EU) 2013/952, the Commission1 is committed to provide an annual report to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  progress  in  developing  the  electronic  systems  of  the 
UCC. The report assesses the progress of the Commission and the Member States in developing each 
of the electronic systems, taking particular note of the following milestones: 

(a)  The date of publication of the technical specifications for the external communication2 of the 

electronic systems; 

(b)  The period of conformance testing with economic operators; 
(c)  The expected and actual dates of deployment of the electronic systems.   

The legal deadlines for finalising the technical specifications and for deploying the electronic systems 
are laid down in the UCC Work Programme (UCC WP)3. The detailed planning per project, containing 
additional  milestones  such  as  for  the  business  case,  business  process  modelling,  vision  document, 
conformance testing, etc. are defined in the Multi-Annual Strategic Plan for Customs (MASP-C).  
The first UCC Annual Progress Report4 was published on 13/12/2019.  

In preparation for this year’s  UCC Annual Progress Report 2020, the Commission continued with 
the approach taken in 2019 and made use of the bi-annual national planning information provided by 
the  Member  States’  customs  authorities  and  the  projects’  state  of  play  provided  by  the  project 
managers in DG TAXUD. The annual report covers a reflection of the progress status achieved on 30 
June 2020 including a view on the expected progress by December 2020 in order to have a full picture 
of the progress made in 2020. The progress information was provided against the baseline milestones 
indicated in the UCC WP and MASP-C 2019. In addition, the Commission oversaw the collection of 
the additional progress reporting information by means of an EU survey launched in May 2020. The 
information gathered from the survey to which both the Member States and key stakeholders/project 
managers in the Commission responded, consists of progress information, qualitative comments and 
quantitative  measurements  of  the  assessment  of  complexity  and  risk  in  relation  to  the  seventeen 
projects listed in the UCC WP. Finally, also specific information was gathered from the more detailed 
project  reporting  and  monitoring  programmes  in  place  since  2020  for  the  core  decentralised  trans-
European systems in the area of transit and export. 

As background information it is important to recall that the seventeen electronic systems listed in the 
UCC Work Programme were divided into three categories:  

i) 

eleven  central  trans-European  systems  to  be  developed  or  upgraded  by  the 
Commission (often also requiring developments or upgrades by the Member States of 
their corresponding national systems);  

1 In the context of this report, ‘The Commission’ refers to the European Commission. 
2 External communication with the economic operators. 
3 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 of 13 December 2019 establishing the Work Programme relating to 
the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code, OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, 
p. 168-182, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019D2151. 
4 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0629 
Commission Staff Working Document:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1589134753023&uri=CELEX:52019SC0434 

4 

 
 
                                                      
ii) 

iii) 

three decentralised trans-European systems that have to be developed or upgraded 
by  the  Commission  but  have  a  major  national  component to  be implemented  by  the 
Member States; and  
three  national  systems  that  have  to  be  developed  or  upgraded  exclusively  by  the 
Member States. 

The progress information has been collected, analysed and reported in this accompanying Commission 
Staff  Working  Document,  which  presents  the  detailed  overview  of  the  progress  of  the  various 
individual projects as follows: 

  For  the  trans-European  systems,  the  analysis  and  reporting  refers  to  the  Commission’s 
activities  only  when  central,  while  for  the  systems  that  involve  national  input,  and  even  in 
some  cases  national  components,  the  analysis refers to  both  the  Commission’s and  Member 
States’ activities. For the national systems, only Member States’ activities are reported; 

  For projects that have already been initiated or entirely completed, an overview of the project 
progress,  a  summary  of  the  survey  responses,  as  well  as  a  visual  illustration  of  progress 
against planned milestones is provided; 

  For  projects  that  have  not  yet  been  initiated,  an  overview  of  the  planned  project  progress 

together with a summary of the responses from the survey is provided. 

By means of the survey, the Member States were also requested to give an indication of:  

  The degree of complexity of each project on a scale from 1 to 6, where: 1 and 2 refer to low 

complexity, 3 and 4 - medium complexity and 5 and 6 - high complexity.  

  The risk of not deploying the IT systems by the dates set in the baselines of the UCC WP and 

MASP-C 2019 according to three levels: low, medium and high.  

The  consolidation  of  the  survey  results,  including  the  abovementioned  indicators  of  complexity  and 
risk,  as  well  as  information  regarding  risks  for  delays  and  mitigating  measures  and  any  changes  in 
planning  in  comparison  with  the  planning  provided  in  2019,  are  the  main  outcomes  of  the  progress 
reporting  exercise  for  2020  and  are  included  in  this  Commission  Staff  Working  Document. 
Reporting information that summarises the current project status, key risks and mitigating actions is 
found in the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant 
to Article 278a of the Union Customs Code, on progress in developing the electronic systems provided 
for under the Code.  

In  the  sections  below,  there  is  first  a  representation  of  the  completed  projects,  followed  then  by  an 
overview of the ongoing projects. 

5 

 
 
 
 
2.  COMPLETED PROJECTS 

2.1  UCC REGISTERED EXPORTER SYSTEM (REX) 

The  UCC  Registered  Exporter  System  (REX)  is  a  trans-European  system  that  contains  information 
both on Registered Exporters established in GSP countries5 and on EU economic operators in partner 
countries  Switzerland,  Norway  and  Turkey  exporting  to  GSP  countries  and  certain  other  countries. 
The main purpose of the system is to replace the paper-based certification process by an IT-supported 
self-certification process. The system includes a central database that contains the registered exporters 
and  provides  the  Member  States  with  the  opportunity  to  enhance  their  national  systems  with  an 
automated verification of REX members. 

There are currently three releases planned. REX1 is the only release covered in the scope of the UCC 
Work Programme. No risks were identified during the implementation of REX16 and the project was 
successfully concluded on 1 January 2017.  

Some statistical information on the use of the REX system – situation on 15/06/2020:  

  44,524 active REX registrations in Member States and Partner Countries; 
  48,421 active REX registrations in the Beneficiary Countries (REX BC) module; 
  139 REX registrations added by OCTs; 
  549 T-REX system local users; 
  304 T-REX local administrators. 

2.1.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 1 compares the actual dates to those set in the UCC Work Programme (WP). Despite there being 
a slight delay in the finalisation of the Technical Specifications, REX was deployed on time. 

Table 1: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – REX1 

5 Countries benefiting from the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) that provides preferential access to 
the EU market. 
6 For the scope of EU GSP, in parallel with the GSP scheme for of Switzerland, and Norway as partner countries. 

6 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC Registered Exporter System (REX1)31/03/201530/06/2015100%31/12/2016100%01/01/201701/01/2017100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
2.2  UCC CUSTOMS DECISIONS 

The  UCC  Customs  Decisions  System  (CDS)  is  designed  to  achieve  harmonisation  of  the  processes 
relating to the application for a customs decision, the decision taking and the decision management. 
This  harmonisation  is  put  into  practice  via  the  standardisation  and  electronic  management  of  the 
application and decision/authorisation data across the Union. The system  covers all applications and 
decisions that may have an impact/are valid in more than one Member State. Member States also have 
the right to use the Customs Decisions System to manage their national customs decisions, if they so 
wish.  

In  regards  to  the  submission  of  an  application,  economic  operators  need  to  possess  an  “Economic 
Operator Registration and Identification” (EORI) number and then connect to the EU Trader Portal on 
the  Europa  website  by  authenticating  themselves  via  the  Uniform  User  Management  &  Digital 
Signature (UUM&DS) (see project 2.3. hereafter).  

The system is vital to ensure the Union-wide validity of applications and decisions and it simplifies the 
conduct of business for economic operators. It thus creates a level playing field among all economic 
operators  irrespective  of  their  size  and  ensures  that  all  EU  businesses  can  compete  in  the  global 
market.  

The  project  was  fully  deployed  on  02/10/2017.  The  Commission  published  training  modules,  user 
guides and an e-Learning module in support of the deployment and the usage of the system. The e-
Learning module is available on the Europa website, allowing economic operators to learn about the 
approach selected by each Member State (i.e. central, combined or hybrid).  

The Commission has implemented mitigating measures to correct IT implementation errors compared 
to  the  baseline  and  to  address  issues  regarding  the  User  Interface  (UI)  design  as  identified  by  the 
Member  States  and  to  address  differences  between  the  baseline  project  documentation  and  the 
legislation.  Further to the deployment of additional releases of CDS, some enhancements have been 
carried out to keep the Trader Portal on the Europa website efficient and up-to-date.  

Some statistical information on the use of the CDS – since the deployment on 02/10/17 till June 2020: 

  The  number  of  applications  grew  to  1,300  by  the  end  of  2017.  The  number  of  applications 
then  increased  to  15,300  by  the  end  of  2018.  Since  mid-2019  there  are  on  average  26 
applications submitted per working day, totalling up to approximately 32,000 applications by 
mid 2020; 

  60% of all applications were submitted by an economic operator and 40% by representatives; 
  Approximately  18,700  decisions  have  been  taken,  and  more  than  28,000  pre-existing 
authorisations were entered (in view of the UCC legal requirement to ensure the reassessment 
of authorisations by 01/05/2019).  

2.2.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  2  highlights  that  there  were  no  divergences  in  the  planning  compared  to  the  dates  set  in  the 
Work Programme.   

Table 2: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – UCC Customs Decision 

7 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC Customs Decisions31/12/201531/12/2015100%30/09/2017100%02/10/201702/10/2017100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
2.3  UCC  DIRECT  TRADER  ACCESS  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS (UUM&DS) 

The  Direct  Trader  Access  to  the  European  Information  Systems  system  comprises  Uniform  User 
Management and Digital Signature (UUM&DS) components. The system aims to provide a service for 
user-to-system  interfaces  targeted  to  the  electronic  customs  systems  provided  for  in  the  UCC.  In 
essence,  the  UUM&DS  system  facilitates  a  direct  and  EU  harmonised  trader  access  to  the  customs 
systems as stipulated in the UCC.  

Both  components  will  be  integrated  into  the  portals  of  all  pertinent  systems  on  deployment  of  the 
latter, providing support for issues regarding identity, access and user management. In this way, the 
processes will be fully compliant with security policies.  

The first deployment of the project was completed and implemented together with the UCC Customs 
Decisions system on 2/10/2017 as agreed in the context of the UCC Work Programme.  

The  system  has  also  been  incorporated  into  other  electronic  projects  such  as  UCC  Binding  Tariff 
Information (BTI), the UCC Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) and the new Information Sheets 
(INF)  system  for  special  procedures.  The  project  will  further  evolve  to  include  system-to-system 
interfaces and digital signature. Their use will be particularly relevant to the Import Control System 
(ICS2) and the Proof of Union Status (PoUS) system. 

All  Member  States  have  completed  the  connectivity  configuration.  The  Commission  has  delivered 
operational documentation to the Member States and has created an economic operator’s manual and 
Service  Desk  guidelines.  In  the  survey,  the  Commission  reports  no  risks  pertaining  to  on-time 
delivery.  The  system  is  now  in  place,  but  the  existence  of  multiple  stakeholders,  as  well  as  the 
complex integration of this system with other UCC projects mentioned above, may carry some risks 
for future projects.  

Some statistical information on the use of the UUM&DS – situation 24/09/2020: 

  The  number  of  UUM&DS  calls  for  the  CDS  trader  portal,  since  its  operation  on  1  October 

2017 are 392.000. 

2.3.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 3 highlights that there are no divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in the Work 
Programme.   

Table 3: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – UUM&DS 

8 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC UUM&DS31/12/201530/09/2015100%30/09/2017100%02/10/201702/10/2017100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4  UCC  ECONOMIC  OPERATOR  REGISTRATION  AND  IDENTIFICATION 

SYSTEM UPGRADE (EORI2) 

This  system  upgrade  provided  minor  changes  to  the  existing  trans-European  Economic  Operator 
Registration  and  Identification  system.  These  changes  enabled  the  registration  and  identification  of 
economic operators of the Union, as well as third-country operators and persons apart from economic 
operators. EORI2 has been in operation since 05/03/2018. 

Some statistical information on the use of the EORI2 system – situation 20/07/2020: 

  The total number of economic operators registered with a valid EORI as recorded in EORI2 is 

7,310,365. 

2.4.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 4 highlights that there are no divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in the Work 
Programme.   

Table 4: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – EORI2 

9 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC EORI230/06/201631/07/2016100%28/02/2018100%05/03/201805/03/2018100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5  UCC SURVEILLANCE 3 (SURV3) 

The  SURV3  system  introduces  an  upgrade  to  the  standard  exchange  of  information  in  the  earlier 
Surveillance  2  (SURV2)  system  to  align  the  system  with  UCC  requirements.  This  database  records 
and centralises all EU trade data (imports and exports) that national customs authorities provide on a 
daily  basis.  The  upgrade  implements  electronic  data-processing  techniques  and  establishes  adequate 
functionalities  needed  for  processing  and  analysing  the  full  surveillance  dataset  obtained  from 
Member States. The new system will improve the customs risk analysis, the fight against fraud, market 
analysis, post-clearance controls and statistical analysis. 

The system was successfully deployed on 01/10/2018. The data will be gathered via SURV-RECAPP 
in different formats until the moment that all the national systems are fully aligned to the UCC. 

2.5.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  5  highlights  that  there  were  no  divergences  in  the  planning  compared  to  the  dates  set  in  the 
Work Programme.   

Table 5: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – SURV3 

10 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC SURV330/09/201630/09/2016100%30/09/2018100%01/10/201801/10/2018100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6  UCC BINDING TARIFF INFORMATION (BTI) 

The project for a UCC Binding Tariff Information system aims to upgrade the existing trans-European 
(EBTI-3) database containing all binding tariff information that has been issued by customs authorities 
of  Member  States.  The  customs  authorities  concerned  must  then  record  their  decisions  in  the  BTI 
database.  Economic  operators  apply  for  binding  tariff  decisions  in  order  to  have  legal  certainty  that 
they are applying the correct classification to goods they are importing to or exporting from the EU.  

The changes covered the following aspects: 

(a)  Alignment of the EBTI-3 system to the UCC requirements; 
(b)  Alignment of the system to the new Customs Decisions system; 
(c)  Addition of declaration data required for surveillance purposes; 
(d)  Monitoring  of  the  usage  by  economic  operators  of  BTI  decisions,  which  is  compulsory  for 

Member States; 

(e)  Monitoring and management of the extended usage of BTI. 

The BTI project was divided into two phases: 

The  first  phase  consists  of  two  steps.  Step  1  aims  to  allow  Member  States  to  input  the  datasets  in 
customs declarations, as provided for under the UCC, until the deployment of the Automated Export 
System  (AES)  and  the  upgrade  of  the  National  Import  Systems.  Step  2  addresses  the  obligation  of 
Member States to control the BTI usage based on the newly required declaration datasets and on the 
alignment of the BTI system to the customs decisions process. 

The second phase implements the electronic means for economic operators to make BTI applications 
and  receive  decisions.  Economic  operators  will  thus  benefit  from  an  EU-harmonised  and  electronic 
trader interface for their applications and decisions. 

Concerning  the  status  of  the  project,  by  October  2017  both  steps  1  and  2  of  the  first  phase  were 
successfully completed. The second phase faced a delay of two quarters during the elaboration phase 
(vision  document,  technical  specifications  and  application  specifications).  Nevertheless,  the  overall 
planning  still  remained  on  target  and  the  system  entered  into  operation  on  01/10/2019.  The 
construction  of  the  access  for  this  system  to  the  EU  Customs  Trader  Portal  was  also  completed  on 
01/10/2019. 

Some statistical information on the use of the EBTI system – situation as of 01/10/2019: 

  The Trader Portal (central EU or national) is used by all traders in all Member States; 
  All BTI applications and decisions are sent electronically; 
  Eight  BTI  core  processes  consisting  of  more  than  20  sub-processes  have  been  digitalised 
(related to the BTI application, the issuing and invalidation of the BTI decision and the Right 
To Be Heard procedure); 

  More than 29,000 BTI applications (5,000 via the EU TP and 24,000 via the national TP) have 
been submitted by the traders and more than 33,000 BTI decisions (11,000 via the EU TP and 
22,000 via the national TP) were issued to the traders; 

  Other BTI related communications between traders and Decision Taking Customs Authorities 
(DTCA)  were  sent  electronically  via  the  EU  TP  (26,000  notifications,  10,000  BTI 
invalidations, etc.). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  6  highlights  that  there  were  no  divergences  in  the  planning  compared  to  the  dates  set  in  the 
Work Programme.   

Table 6: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – BTI 

12 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC BTI - Phase 1 - Step 130/06/201610/06/2016100%21/02/2017100%01/03/201701/03/2017100%UCC BTI - Phase 1 - Step 230/06/201602/09/2016100%25/02/2017100%02/10/201702/10/2017100%UCC BTI - Phase 230/06/201830/06/2018100%01/07/2019100%01/10/201901/10/2019100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
2.7  UCC AUTHORISED ECONOMIC OPERATORS (AEO) UPGRADE 

Following the legal changes adopted in the UCC, the Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) upgrade 
aims to improve the system of applications and authorisations for AEO status. The project consists of 
two  phases.  Phase  1  implemented  major  enhancements  to  the  existing  AEO  system,  in  light  of  the 
harmonisation of the decision-taking procedure for customs. Phase 2 implemented the electronic form 
with  a  view  to  provide  a  harmonised  interface  for  economic  operators  to  submit  their  AEO 
applications and to receive their AEO decisions electronically. The upgraded system was deployed in 
two releases: Part 1 for the submission of the AEO applications and the decision-taking process (Phase 
2 Part 1) and Part 2 for the other processes (Phase 2 Part 2). 

For  the  second  phase,  the  Commission  delivered  a  new  version  of  documentation  to  the  Member 
States at the end of March 2019. The Commission reported that implementation started on 25/01/2019, 
deployment preparation took place in June 2019 and conformance testing took place in July 2019. The 
first phase containing all features for the management of the Submitted Applications was delivered on 
01/10/2019.  The  consultation  of  Economic  Operator  System  (EOS)  artefacts  (EORI,  AEO 
Applications and AEO authorisations) was also made possible via the eAEO-STP. The second phase, 
introducing  the  entire  workflow  between  the  traders  and  customs  officers  was  completed  on 
16/12/2019. 

Some statistical information on the use of the AEO system – situation on 27/05/2020: 

  350 applications have been submitted; 
  800 Economic Operators have accessed the EU eAEO Trader Portal; 
  60+ processes have been digitalised; 
  700+ documents have been exchanged; 
  24  Member  States  are  leveraging  the  EU  eAEO  Trader  Portal  and  the  remaining  Member 

States are utilising their own National Trader Portal; 

  The  Online  User  Manual  for  the  eAEO  Trader  Portal  and  eAEO  eLearning  courses  for  the 

traders and Customs Officers are available.  

2.7.1 

 Overview of Project Progress 

Table 7 highlights that there are no divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in the Work 
Programme.   

Table 7: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – AEO Upgrade 

13 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC AEO Upgrade - Phase 131/03/201631/03/2016100%28/02/2018100%05/03/201805/03/2018100%UCC AEO Upgrade - Phase 2 - Part 131/12/201831/12/2018100%29/07/2019100%01/10/201901/10/2019100%UCC AEO Upgrade - Phase 2 - Part 231/12/201831/12/2018100%06/11/2019100%16/12/201916/12/2019100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
2.8  UCC INFORMATION SHEETS (INF) FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURES 

The  aim  of  the  UCC  Information  Sheets  (INF)  for  Special  Procedures  project  is  to  develop  a  new 
trans-European  system  to  support  and  streamline  the  data  management  processes  and  the  electronic 
handling of data in the domain of Special Procedures. This new system will harmonise the approach 
for  the  efficient  management  of  inward  and  outward  processing  procedures  and  improve  the 
monitoring  and  control  amongst  customs  offices.  Specifically,  some  of  the  expected  benefits  are  as 
follows: 

  Harmonised approach for the processing procedures and related information exchange across 

the EU; 

  Simplification  for  the  national  Customs  administrations  and  holders  of  authorisation  as  the 
complex paper-based procedures will no longer be necessary due to the electronic support of 
the INF system; 
Increased  accuracy  as  the  INF  data  will  be  processed  electronically  and  validated  against 
various databases; 
Improved  application  of  customs  policy  measures  and  facilitation  for  the  calculation  of 
customs duties; 

 

 

  Reduction  in  the  risk  of  undetected  fraud  and  irregularities  associated  to  the  current  paper-

based information exchange; 

  Cost optimisation for the implementation and operation of the INF system; 
  Assurance of information integrity as access will be granted based on specific roles and tasks 

of the competent authorities. 

The technical specifications were completed on 30/06/2018. For this project, the Commission used an 
iterative delivery method and deployed a pilot version, including the deployment of the EU Customs 
Trader Portal, on 15/01/2019. Thanks to the iterative approach, requirements for improvements on the 
graphical  user  interface  INF  trader  portal  for  economic  operators  could  be  collected  up  front  and 
changes to the processes and further improvements could be implemented prior to full deployment.  

To support the start of operations of the INF system several other actions were prepared, namely:  

a landing page on the Europa website7; 
a business and end user guide (accessible via the landing page);  
an e-learning module;  

- 
- 
- 
-  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s);  
- 

communication material;  

Notwithstanding  the  difficult  and  unforeseen  working  circumstances  during  the  2nd  quarter  of  2020 
requiring – due to the COVID-19 pandemic  - the cancellation of the planned physical meetings and 
training  sessions  with  the  stakeholders  of  the  system,  the  INF  central  system  was  successfully 
deployed on 01/06/2020.  

The  INF  Specific  Trader  Portal  (INF  STP)  component  was  also  successfully  integrated  into  the  EU 
customs  trader  portal  (EU  CTP)  and  deployed  on  01/06/2020.  The  EU  CTP  is  the  single  portal  at 
Union  level  to  provide  traders  unique  access  to  a  number  of  centralised  trans-European  systems 
(EBTI, AEO, INF). 

Although  most  Member  States  were  able  to  join  the  INF  system,  2  Member  States  have  reported  a 
delay due to problems related to the preparation of training for their staff and the trade community, 
lack  of  time  for  testing  and  issues  related  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  (FI  and  NL).  However,  they 
envisaged joining in the second half of 2020.  

7 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/inf-system-special-procedures_en 

14 

 
 
                                                      
Close  contacts  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  are  kept  to  provide  the  necessary 
support,  assistance  and  supervision.  A  project  group  with  Member  States  and  trade  associations  is 
holding regular meetings to address possible remaining business issues. 

Some statistical information on the use of the INF system: 

  From the start of operations on 01/06/2020 until 15/09/2020, 3,690 requests were inserted 
by economic operators, for which 2,730 INFs were treated and processed by the customs 
authorities.  
In the month of September 2020, there was an average of 55 requests per day and 50 INFs 
created  in  16  MS  and  the  UK.  The  National  Administrations  handling  most  INFs  have 
been Romania and Poland. 

 

2.8.1  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  8  highlights  that  there  were  no  divergences  in  the  planning  compared  to  the  dates  set  in  the 
Work Programme.   

Table 8: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – INF 

15 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC Information Sheets (INF) for Special Procedures30/06/201830/06/2018100%29/05/2020100%01/06/202001/06/2020100%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  ONGOING  PROJECTS:  DETAILED  PLANNING  AND  PROGRESS 

INFORMATION 

3.1  UCC NOTIFICATION OF ARRIVAL (NA), PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION 

(PN) AND TEMPORARY STORAGE (TS) 

The goal of this project is to define the processes at the national level in respect to the notifications 
known as Notification of Arrival (NA), Presentation Notification (PN) and Declaration for Temporary 
Storage (TS), as described in the UCC. This project will ensure the customs formalities related to the 
entry  of  goods  concerning  safety  and  security  exist  and  that  customs  supervision  begins  at  the 
appropriate  time  and  is  duly  performed.  It  also  aims  to  support  harmonisation  across  the  Member 
States  regarding  the  data  exchange  between  trade  and  customs.  Furthermore,  the  project  covers  the 
automation of processes at the national level.  

The development activities are a national responsibility (‘national development’) and are planned to be 
operational before the end of 2022. The processes and data requirements for the external domain have 
been defined and agreed upon on at the EU-level. A work package of an expert team in Member States 
collaboration  (ETCIT  WP2  –  Expert  Team  on  new  approaches  to  develop  and  operate  Customs  IT 
systems)  financed  by  the  Customs  Programme  has  been  put  in  place  to  define  and  agree  upon  the 
business process models and discuss the legal/business/functional requirements.  

The project is closely interlinked with other projects/systems such as the national import systems and 
the  Import  Control  System  2  (ICS2).  This  is  often  reported  by  Member  States  as  the  reason  for 
assessing  the  project  as  medium  to  highly  complex.  The  timely  delivery  of  the  required  national 
systems  by  all  Member  States  was  already  at  risk  in  last  year’s  report.  Some  additional  delays  in 
comparison  with  the  UCC  Annual  Progress  Report  2019  are  noted,  though  several  Member  States 
reported that measures are taken to have the deployment still on time. Besides the complexity of the 
project, other reasons are given such as resource constraints, further adaptations to the UCC Annex B, 
impact  and  re-planning  due  to  the  e-Commerce  file  and  Brexit,  and  also  the  specific  working 
circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Further intense collaboration work in the form of 
an Expert Team on new approaches to develop and operate Customs IT systems (ETCIT) is ongoing in 
order  to  share  expertise  and  resources  amongst  interested  Member  States  and  to  join  forces  in  the 
development work. However, it should be noted that as this type of collaboration is relatively new, the 
Member States are still learning along the way how to improve their working methods and find ways 
for  optimising  resources/joint  procurement/etc.  and  this  in  parallel  to  the  challenges  inherent  to  the 
project itself. 

3.1.1  Summary of Responses 

Notification of Arrival (NA) 

AT finds the NA project to have a medium (3) complexity rating with a high risk level. AT explains 
that  the  high  risk  is  caused  by  the  extensive  functional  interaction  and  the  tough  timing  between 
projects  in  parallel  (ICS2,  NA,  Adjustment  of  existing  import  application  and  the  eCommerce 
Programme). AT also mentions implications to the timeline caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, all 
milestones  could  be  impacted.  Despite  this,  AT  is  working  on  defining  national  user  requirements, 
technical specifications, conformance and user test preparation and training. 

BG  rates  the  complexity  level  as  high  (5)  but  with  a  low  risk  level.  Their  national  technical 
specifications  should  be  approved  by  the  end  of  2020.  BG  will  implement  NA  as  part  of  ICS2  – 
Release  2,  which  will  cover  the  implementation  of  the  complete  new  Entry  Summary  Declaration 
(ENS) obligations and related business and risk management processes for all goods in air traffic. 

CY denoted the project complexity as high (6) yet a low risk level. CY explained that the complexity 
is  caused  by  insufficient  resources,  dependencies  with  other  systems  and  the  development  of  other 

16 

 
 
projects in parallel. CY participates in the working group and has moved the deployment date so that it 
does not coincide with other core projects. 

CZ reports that the NA project as having a high (5) complexity and medium risk level. CZ also finds 
the application  complex and  has  indicated that it  requires  a  large  amount of financial resources.  CZ 
highlighted  a  risk  that  the  national  project  plan  may  have  to  be  updated  due  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic and delays it is causing. The changes will depend on the evolution of the situation. 

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  explained  that  this  message  will  be  updated  in  line  with  ICS2  –  Release  2.  The  preparation 
activities for Release 10.1 of their national IT system, ATLAS, has not yet started. External milestones 
affecting economic operators will be considered for the ICS2 – Release 2. 

ES rates the complexity level as medium (3) with a medium risk level. ES will not develop a national 
message but will use the NA integrated in Release 2 of ICS2. Therefore, their conformance tests will 
be integrated with the ICS2 – Release 2 planned for in 2022. 

FI notes the project as having a medium (3) complexity rating and a medium risk level, commenting 
that their plans have not changed. However, they anticipate several risks and due to this, changes in 
planning  will  most  likely  be  needed.  It  is  anticipated  that  the  volume  of  declarations  will  rise 
dramatically  for  Low  Value  Consignments  (LVC).  This  will  then  require  a  considerable  amount  of 
upgrades  to  the  platforms  and  supporting  IT  systems  in  addition  to  an  adjustment  to  the  internal 
processes in the Declaration Management System (DMS). Due to necessary changes, there has been a 
need to postpone the development of some functionalities in the national import system. This will also 
affect the planning and implementation of future UCC projects. The complete impact is not yet clear 
but risks concerning timetables and  resources have increased. Lastly, FI  mentions that the resources 
were already scarce from the beginning and that the additional effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are 
unclear. These comments apply to all UCC projects. 

GR  indicated  a  high  complexity  level  (6)  and  a  high  risk  level.  GR  indicated  that  the  project  is 
currently  delayed  compared  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  however  the  overall  delivery  is  still 
expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. GR is facing procurement 
delays. 

IE  notes  that  the  project  is  not  applicable  to  the  MS  as  arrival  data  are  directly  provided  to  their 
customs authorities by Airport and Maritime authorities and thus, carriers are not required to submit 
Notifications of Arrival. 

IT indicated a low complexity rating (2) and a medium risk level. IT identifies a risk pertaining to the 
economic operators, underlining that requests for changes might arise later in the process due to their 
lack of readiness. 

LV identifies the project as having a medium complexity rating (4) but with a low risk level. LV will 
be implementing NA as part of their national TS system. Necessary corrections will be performed in 
the context of the ICS2 implementation. 

NL  indicated  this  project  as  having  a  high  complexity  rating  (6)  and  medium  risk  level.  The 
complexity is caused by the large number of external stakeholders (e.g. carriers, freightforwarders and 
their software providers), and internal stakeholders (e.g. policy makers, risk analysts, control officers) 
with whom national requirements need to be defined. Furthermore, NL stressed that their process is 
vastly  different  from  the  process  that  is  prescribed  by  the  UCC.  This  complexity  could  cause  an 
impact  to  all  project  milestones.  NL  will  integrate  NA  into  ICS2  –  Release  2.  NL  also  iterated  that 
they use the Scaled Agile Framework8 (SAFe) development methodology for all UCC projects. They 
use features, which are part of the IT solution, and do not rely on technical specifications. A bundle of 

8 SAFe: www.scaledagileframework.com/ 

17 

 
 
                                                      
features adds up to the epic solution9. Given their development methodology, technical specifications 
are not applicable.   

PT rates the complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. PT indicated that the project is currently 
delayed  compared  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  however  the  overall  delivery  is  still  expected 
within  the  deployment  deadline  set  in  the  UCC  Work  Programme.  The  review of  Annex  B  DA/IA- 
UCC10 lead to uncertainty as to the correctness and applicability of the work already carried out and 
the  time/cost  associated  with  a  reassessment  of  this  work.  The  instability  of  Annex  B  data  also 
contributes to the complexity of activities developed and those still to be developed. This situation, in 
addition to the lack of consolidation of the data elements to be required (which, how and when) and 
the subsequent rules and conditions to treat them in the ‘global system’ contribute to the delay. The 
risk level mainly stems from a lack of resources in addition to the complexity of the required updates. 
PT  will  use  Agile  development  to  reduce  the  implementation  timeframe.  PT  plans  to  increase  their 
internal resources  and  to  continue to  support the  Commission’s  work  related  to  the  consolidation  of 
the UCC-IA/DA Annex B.  

SE  identified  the  project  as  a  medium  risk  rating  (3)  and  a  medium  risk  level,  commenting  on  the 
unstable  situation  regarding  processes,  the  European  Union  Customs  Data  Model  (EUCDM)  and 
Annex B. Currently their planning is not fully in line with the timelines set forth in the UCC Work 
Programme but since the project has not yet started they are unable to assess. 

SK rated the project’s complexity as low (2) with a low risk level. Currently their project is delayed in 
comparison  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  but  the  overall  delivery  is  still  expected  within  the 
deployment deadline stated in the UCC Work Programme. They have identified risks related to a lack 
of human and financial resources. No mitigation actions have been considered at this moment in time. 

Figure  3-1  provides  an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses  received  from  the  Member  States 
regarding the status of their project activities. 

Figure 3-1: Project Status as per Survey – NA 

Presentation Notification (PN) 

AT, CY, CZ, GR, IT, LV, NL, PT and SK provided the same comments as for NA.  

9  Epic  solution:  container  for  a  significant  solution  development  initiative  that  captures  the  more  substantial 
investments that occur within a portfolio - https://www.scaledagileframework.com/epic/ 
10  European  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2015/2446  of  28  July  2015  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union 
Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
BE finds that the project has a high project complexity (6) with a medium risk level. BE is taking the 
lead of the pilot project and has started with the technical specifications  required for the messages to 
the  traders.  SE  also  commented  that  they  were  participating  in  this  pilot.  Due  to  the  complexity  of 
managing  a  large  group  and  finding  compromises,  BE  anticipates  some  months  of  delay  in  the 
development.  BE  also  highlights  the  risk  that the  COVID-19  pandemic  may  also  affect the timeline 
however they are currently still on target. 

BG rates the project complexity level as high (5) yet with a low risk level. BG intends to implement 
PN as part of TS and their import declaration system.  

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  marked  the  project  as delayed in  comparison to  the  planning  in  the  2019 report, but the overall 
delivery date is still expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. The 
business roadmap of the national IT-System ATLAS had to be replanned due to various unexpected 
factors,  e.g.  the  implementation  of  the  eCommerce  initiative.  The  national  import  system  will  be 
implemented  as  part  of  the  national  IT-System  ATLAS  -  Release  10.1.  The  expected  date  of 
deployment is in December 2022.  

ES noted PN’s complexity rating as high (5) with a high risk level mainly due to the integration with 
eCommerce  by  the  beginning  of  2021.  ES  plans  to  use  an  iterative  development  methodology. 
Development has not yet started. However, the technical specifications are complete and progress is 
being made on the design. ES also noted that they plan to only test the functionality for eCommerce 
and for ICS2 – Release 1 and that additional conformance testing will be needed for the deployment of 
TS and ICS2 – Release 2. 

FI indicated that, in addition to the comments made for NA, the basic functionality already exists but 
that more features and intensive testing need to be performed.  

FR  assessed  the  PN  project  as  moderately  complex  (3)  with  a  low  risk  level.  FR  intends  to  use the 
application built on the Expert Teams on new approaches to develop and operate Customs IT systems 
(ETCIT), functional  and  technical specifications  are ongoing.  FR  actively  participates  to the  ETCIT 
working group. 

IE  rated  the  PN  project’s  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level.  Testing  and  refinement  of 
functionality and business rules is ongoing. Work is also continuing on providing a platform to allow 
testing  by  economic  operators  and  on  change  management  functions  including  engagement  with 
economic operators and customs officer training. IE mentioned that the project is currently delayed in 
comparison  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  but  the  overall  delivery  is  still  expected  within  the 
deployment deadline. The delay has been caused by instability of Annex B, deployment of resources 
to  Brexit-related  work  and  restrictions  imposed  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  IE  underlines  the  fact 
that mitigating measures will be considered if the project is delayed beyond the planned deployment 
date. 

RO indicated the project complexity as high (6) with a low risk level. RO explains that the PN project 
is  included  in  their  development  of  the  national  system  of  import  and  follows  the  implementation 
established for that system. 

Figure  3-2  provides  an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses  received  from  the  Member  States 
regarding the status of their project activities. 

19 

 
 
 
Figure 3-2: Project Status as per Survey – PN 

Temporary Storage (TS) 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, FR, GR, IE, IT, NL, PT, RO and SK provided the same comments as for 
PN. 

ES identifies the TS project’s complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. ES mentioned that their 
project is currently delayed in comparison to the planning in the 2019 report, but the overall delivery is 
still  expected  within the  deployment  deadline. Technical  specifications are  not defined  yet,  but  they 
still expect to have it operational before the end of 2022. Changes have been made to the conformance 
testing and deployment milestones.  

FI noted the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. In addition to the risks mentioned for 
NA, FI explained that the whole system will be built from scratch and that it will contain numerous 
integrations. FI has not started with the deployment of the Temporary Storage Declaration (TSD). 

LV  rated  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  but  with  a  low  risk  level.  As  from  24/09/2017,  their 
national TS system has been updated according to the UCC data elements. Additional functionality for 
movements between TS places (if located in LV) was added on 05/03/2018. LV also mentioned that 
further developments, such as EUCDM changes, will be implemented in the timeframe between 2021 
and 2023. 

SE  considers  the  project  to  have  a  medium  complexity  rating  (4)  with  a  medium  risk  level.  SE 
attributes the complexity of the project to the changes in the EU Customs Data Model (EU CDM) and 
the Annex B. SE further mentions that its system was ready for deployment in December 2018, but 
decided  to  wait  for  the  stabilisation  of  the  EU  CDM  and  a  formalisation  of  the  decision  regarding 
Annex B.  SE is participating in the Expert Teams on new approaches to develop and operate Customs 
IT systems (ETCIT) lead by BE.  

Figure  3-3  provides  an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses  received  from  the  Member  States 
regarding the status of their project activities. 

20 

 
 
 
Figure 3-3: Project Status as per Survey – TS 

3.1.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  9,  Table  10  and  Table  11  highlight  any  known  divergences  in  the  planning  compared  to  the 
dates set in the Work Programme.   

As regards the implementation of the Notification of Arrival, the following 9 Member States have a 
planned deployment date which is later than the deadline in the UCC Work Programme: BE, BG, DE, 
EE, ES, FI, FR, NL and RO. No planned date was provided by DK for the deployment of the NA. 

More specifically,  4  Member  States (BG,  DE,  ES  and  NL)  have  reported that  they  will  use the  NA 
integrated in ICS2 – Release 2 (planned deployment 01/03/2023) which will cause a delay limited to 
two months.  

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed their deployment date by more than one quarter: CZ, MT, RO and SK.  

The specific dates can be found in Table 9. CZ indicated that their national project plan is not yet final.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 9: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – NA 

As regards the implementation of the Presentation Notification, the following 3 Member States have 
indicated a planned deployment date for PN, which is later than the deadline in the Work Programme: 
BE, FR and NL.  

More  specifically,  NL  has  reported  to  integrate  PN  into  ICS2  –  Release  2  (planned  deployment 
01/03/2023) which will cause a delay limited to two months.  

No planned date was provided by DK for the deployment of the PN. 

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed  their  deployment  date  by  more  than  one  quarter:  CZ,  DE,  MT,  PL  and  SK.  The  specific 
dates can be found in Table 10 below. CZ indicated that their national project plan is not yet final. DE 
mentioned that the business roadmap of their national IT system, ATLAS had to be replanned due to 
various  unforeseen  factors,  e.g.  the  implementation  of  the  eCommerce  initiative.  However,  as 
reported, none of these postponements are currently leading to a delay of the deployment dates as set 
by the UCC Work Programme. 

ES  advanced  their  planned  deployment  date  one  year  earlier  (31/01/2022  to  15/02/2021)  due  to  the 
eCommerce project. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – PN 

As  regards  the  implementation  of  the  Temporary  Storage,  the  following  3  Member  States  have 
indicated a planned deployment date for TS, which is later than the deadline in the Work Programme : 
BE, FR and NL.  

More  specifically,  NL  has  reported  to  integrate  TS  into  ICS2  –  Release  2  (planned  deployment 
01/03/2023) which will cause a delay limited to two months. 

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed  their  deployment  date  by  more  than  one  quarter:  CZ,  DE,  MT,  PL  and  SK.  The  specific 
dates can be found in Table 11 below. CZ indicated that their national project plan is not yet final. DE 
mentioned that the business roadmap of their national IT system, ATLAS had to be replanned due to 
various unforeseen factors, e.g. the implementation of the eCommerce initiative, etc. 

23 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion AT01/09/2020100%01/03/202150%15/03/202180%BE04/01/202180%01/02/20230%01/03/20230%BG28/02/2018100%01/12/2018100%07/01/2019100%CY05/10/202050%02/06/202250%03/06/20220%CZ01/09/20210%29/04/20220%02/05/20220%DE31/03/202250%30/09/20230%31/12/20220%DK01/06/2021Not ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedEE31/12/2020100%31/12/2020100%31/03/202175%ES15/03/2020100%14/02/2021100%15/02/2021100%FI31/03/2020100%N/AN/A31/03/202195%FR30/09/202210%Not Provided0%31/12/20230%GR30/09/20210%31/12/2022N/A31/12/20220%HR01/09/202020%01/07/20220%01/12/20220%HU30/06/2022Not Provided30/11/2022Not Provided31/12/2022Not ProvidedIE04/10/2019100%30/10/2020100%02/11/2020100%IT15/07/20200%15/11/20210%31/12/20210%LT01/03/20210%30/09/20220%31/12/20220%LUNot ProvidedNot Provided01/03/2021Not Provided02/03/2021Not ProvidedLV05/06/2017100%22/09/2017100%24/09/2017100%MT31/08/2021Not Provided31/07/2022Not Provided01/10/2022Not ProvidedNLNot Provided0%Not Provided0%01/03/20230%PL01/04/202150%30/06/202210%01/10/20220%PT15/01/20220%15/11/20220%31/12/20220%RO30/09/202110%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%SENot Provided0%Not Provided0%01/05/20210%SI01/10/202030%01/02/20220%01/04/20220%SK01/01/20210%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%31/12/2022DeploymentConformance TestingProject NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsUCC Presentation Notification (PN)to be defined by MS and for Notification of Arrival in line with ICS2 planning 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – TS 

3.1.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-4,  Figure  3-5  and  Figure  3-6  summarise  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications, 
conformance  testing  and  deployment).  The  sum  of  each  bar  is  27  (responses  from  the  27  Member 
States). 

Technical Specifications

5 

5 

11 

Conformance Testing

1 

2 

Deployment

1 

1 

17 

19 

1 

2 

1 

5 

5 

5 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-4: Summary of Responses per Milestone – NA 

24 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion AT01/02/2021100%01/06/202250%01/06/202280%BE04/01/202175%01/02/20230%01/03/20230%BG28/02/2018100%01/12/2018100%07/01/2019100%CY05/10/202050%02/06/202250%03/06/20220%CZ01/09/20210%29/04/20220%02/05/20220%DE31/03/202250%30/09/20230%31/12/20220%DK26/10/2021Not Provided31/12/2022Not Provided10/10/2022Not ProvidedEE31/12/2020100%30/06/20210%01/06/20210%ES30/06/202050%30/01/20220%31/01/20220%FI31/12/2020100%N/AN/A31/12/202130%FR30/09/202210%Not Provided0%31/12/20230%GR30/09/20210%31/12/2022N/A31/12/20220%HR01/09/202020%01/07/20220%01/12/20220%HU30/06/2022Not Provided30/11/2022Not Provided31/12/2022Not ProvidedIE04/10/2019100%30/10/2020100%02/11/2020100%IT15/07/20200%15/11/20210%31/12/20210%LT01/03/20210%30/09/20220%31/12/20220%LUNot ProvidedNot Provided01/03/2021Not Provided02/03/2021Not ProvidedLV05/06/2017100%22/09/2017100%24/09/2017100%MT31/08/2021Not Provided31/07/2022Not Provided01/10/2022Not ProvidedNLNot Provided0%Not Provided0%01/03/20230%PL01/04/202190%30/06/202270%01/10/20220%PT15/01/20220%15/11/20220%31/12/20220%RO30/09/202110%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%SENot Provided0%Not Provided0%01/10/20210%SI01/03/202030%01/02/20220%01/04/20220%SK01/01/20210%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%DeploymentConformance TestingProject NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsUCC Temporary Storage (TS)to be defined by MS and for Notification of Arrival in line with ICS2 planning31/12/2022 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Technical Specifications

7 

8 

8 

Conformance Testing

4 

3 

14 

2 

Deployment

3 

4 

16 

4 

4 

4 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-5: Summary of Responses per Milestone – PN 

Technical Specifications

6 

9 

8 

Conformance Testing

3 

3 

Deployment

3 

2 

15 

18 

2 

4 

4 

4 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-6: Summary of Responses per Milestone – TS 

Additional  details regarding  the  specific  percentage  of  completion  per  milestone  can be  seen Figure 
3-7, Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9.  

Regarding  the  Notification  of  Arrival,  the  following  Member  States  have  not  yet  started:  CZ,  DE, 
EE, FI, GR, IT, LT, NL, PL, PT, SE and SK. BE, DK, HU, LU and MT did not provide information. 
Lastly, IE marked Notification of Arrival as Not Applicable. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

50% 

50% 

50% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

20% 

30% 

T
A

G
B

Y
C

S
E

R
F

R
H

V
L

O
R

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

I
S

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Figure 3-7: Percentage of Completion per Phase – NA 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Regarding the Presentation Notification, the following Member States have not yet started: CZ, GR, 
IT, LT, NL, PT, SE and SK. DK, HU, LU and MT did not provide information. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

80% 
80% 

75% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

95% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

50% 

50% 
50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

E
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

E
I

V
L

L
P

O
R

I
S

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

10% 

20% 

10% 

10% 

30% 

Figure 3-8: Percentage of Completion per Phase – PN 

27 

 
 
 
 
Regarding the Temporary Storage, the following Member States have not yet started: CZ, GR, IT, 
LT, NL, PT, SE and SK. DK, HU, LU and MT did not provide information.  

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

E
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

E
I

V
L

L
P

O
R

I
S

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

30% 

10% 

20% 

10% 

30% 

80% 

75% 

50% 

50% 
50% 

50% 

50% 

90% 

70% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

Figure 3-9: Percentage of Completion per Phase – TS 

28 

 
 
 
 
3.2  UCC NATIONAL IMPORT SYSTEMS UPGRADE 

The project will implement all processes and data requirements deriving from the UCC, which relate 
to the import of goods into the Union. The existing national import systems must be upgraded in line 
with these new UCC requirements. The upgrade mainly relates to the changes for the "Release for free 
circulation"  procedure  (standard  procedure  and  the  simplifications)  and  changes  in  the  related 
exchanges  of  information,  but  also  covers  the  impact  of  changes  in  other  electronic  systems.  This 
project covers the national customs declarations processing systems, as well as national accountancy 
and payment systems.  

Some Member States planned this project as a priority and have already upgraded their national import 
system in line with the UCC. Due to this early deployment, these Member States will need to make an 
additional effort for a second upgrade in view of the changes to be adopted early 2021 as part of the 
revised Annex B of the UCC delegated and implementing regulation.  

Other Member States have decided to concentrate first on other projects and wait for further progress 
in the specifications for the trans-European system related to import, being the Centralised Clearance 
at Import (CCI). In particular, those Member States that decided not to upgrade their existing national 
declaration system but to build a completely new one. 

The  availability  of  the  technical  specifications  provided  by  the  Commission  for  the  Centralised 
Clearance  at  Import  system  and  the  harmonisation  across  entry/import-transit-export/exit  (supported 
by the revision of the UCC annex B data requirements and the EU Customs Data Model) were crucial 
achievements in 2020 to push this project forward on a national level. 

Although  a  few  Member  States  have  reported  a  small  delay  in  the  interim  project  milestones  and  
progress  is  a  bit  doubtful  for  a  number  of  Member  States  that  didn’t  start  yet  with  the  technical 
specifications,  no  Member  States  reported  at  this  stage  a  delay  in  the  deployment  of  the  national 
import systems planned by 31/12/2022. Careful project risk  management by the Member States and 
supervision by the Commission, in its role of coordinator, is to be envisaged for the next two years.  

3.2.1  Summary of Responses 

AT rates the project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level. The milestone most at risk is 
deployment. AT is developing a new customs declaration system and the transformation process and 
integration with their existing application is complex. The restrictions put in place during the COVID-
19 pandemic have had an impact on the onboarding and project progress. AT is currently working on 
the technical specifications and requirements. Furthermore, the SAFe development methodology will 
now be used. 

BE indicated that the project has a high complexity rating (6) however, a low risk level. BE explained 
that  they  will  be  rewriting  their  whole  import  declaration  process  while  not  having  clarity  on  the 
impacts  that  other  projects,  like  UCC  Centralised  Clearance  for  Import  (CCI),  will  have  on  inter-
system  communication.  BE  is  currently  developing  the  system  that  will  be  used  for  eCommerce 
declarations,  which  will  later  be  expanded  to  handle  all  import  declarations.  Afterwards,  it  will  be 
adapted to handle the CCI declarations as well.  

BG’s  system  has  been  in  production  since  07/01/2019.  Maintenance  activities  are  ongoing  and  an 
upgrade to implement the review of Annex B (to be adopted early 2021), will be needed. 

CY denoted the project complexity as high (6) yet a low risk level. CY explained that the complexity 
is  caused  by  insufficient  resources,  dependencies  with  other  systems,  the  development  of  other 
projects  in  parallel  and  the  required  migration  from  an  existing  system.  CY  will  take  a  phased 
approach and has moved the deployment date so that it does not coincide with other core projects. 

29 

 
 
CZ rates the project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level. CZ has indicated that the project 
requires a large amount of financial resources. In addition, there is a risk that the national project plan 
may  have  to  be  updated  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  delays  it  is  causing.  The  required 
changes will depend on the development of the situation. 

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  marked  the  project  as delayed in  comparison to  the  planning  in  the  2019 report, but the overall 
delivery date is still expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. The 
business  roadmap  of  the  national  IT-System  ATLAS  had  to  be  replanned  due  to  various  unforeseen 
factors,  e.g.  the  implementation  of  the  eCommerce  initiative.  The  national  import  system  will  be 
implemented  as  part  of  the  national  IT-System  ATLAS  -  Release  10.1.  The  expected  date  of 
deployment is in December 2022.  

FI considers the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. Currently there is a risk that their 
deployment  and  integration  testing  will  be  impacted.  A  rescoping  exercise  is  ongoing  and  some 
components  have  already  been  postponed  to  Q4  2021.  This  will  also  affect  the  planning  and 
implementation of future UCC projects.  

GR rates the complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level. GR explains that there is no contract in 
place yet and that a new technical data sheet is being studied and drafted. 

HR  indicated  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  high  risk  level  citing  the  many 
interdependencies  among  systems.  Furthermore,  HR  explained  that  the  project  is  very  complex  and 
human  resources  are  limited  as  team  members  are  involved  in  other  MASP/national  projects.  The 
COVID-19  pandemic  has  also  raised  concerns  regarding  the  implementation  of  phase  1  of  the 
eCommerce project. 

IE  rated  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  high  risk  level.  Testing  and  refinement  of 
functionality and business rules is ongoing. Work is also continuing on providing a platform to allow 
testing  by  economic  operators  and  on  change  management  functions  including  engagement  with 
economic operators and customs officer training. IE mentioned that the project is currently delayed in 
comparison to the planning in the 2019 report, but the overall delivery is still expected within the UCC 
Work Programme deployment deadline. The delay has been caused by the instability of Annex B, new 
requirements  for  Low  Value  Consignments,  the  VAT  directive,  deployment  of  resources  to  Brexit-
related  work  and  restrictions  imposed  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  IE  underlines  the  fact  that 
mitigating measures will be considered if the project is delayed beyond the planned deployment date. 

LV  informed  that  their  national  import  system  has  been  aligned  with  UCC  DI/IA  Annex  B  and 
EUCDM  V2.0  as  from  03/06/2018.  Further  developments  such  as  EUCDM  changes,  eCommerce, 
integration with ECMS, are planned to be implemented in 2021-2023. 

PT rates the project complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. PT explains that the development 
of this system is not only related with the system itself, but also to the development of all national, 
central and other MS´s systems/modules. This increases the interdependencies and the complexity of 
the “global system”. The review of Annex B DA/IA-UCC makes it difficult to determine whether their 
work completed continues to be correct and applicable. Consequently, additional costs are created by 
the  need  to  reassess  the  aforementioned  developments  thus  further  adding  to  the  complexity  of  the 
deliverables.  The  deadline  for  the  end  of  the  work  related  to  the  harmonisation  /  modification  of 
Annex B - Columns H and I, was the end of 2019, however at the time of writing this report, the new 
version  of  Annex  B  is  still  not  approved.  PT  also  mentions  that  the  creation  of  new 
obligations/deadlines  for  Member  States,  like  reviewing  the  package  related  with  column  H7  to  be 
implemented in 2021, also creates a constraint in updating their national import system because they 
have developed a new system to deal with the eCommerce package. 

SI reports the project complexity as high (6) and a high risk level. SI was expecting the Commission to 
prepare  the  technical  specifications  for  the  import  declaration,  code  list  for  the  Automated  Import 
System  (AIS)  in  the  Central  Services  Reference  Data  2  (CSRD2),  etc.  SI  explains  that  they  have 
limited  human  resources  and  that  their  team  members  work  on  several  projects  simultaneously. 
Furthermore,  there  is  a  concern  over  financial  resources  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic  unfolds.  SI  is 

30 

 
 
convinced that the customs environment will be ready on time however, they have doubts regarding 
the testing readiness of the external environment (economic operators). 

SK’s system has been in production since 30/06/2019. An upgrade to implement the review of Annex 
B (to be adopted early 2021), will be needed. 

Figure  3-10  provides an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses received from  the  Member  States 
regarding the status of their project activities. 

Figure 3-10: Summary of Survey Responses – National Import Systems Upgrade 

3.2.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  12  highlights  any  divergences  in  the  planning  compared  to  the  dates  set  in  the  Work 
Programme.  

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed their deployment date by more than one quarter: DE, DK, MT and PL, however, for none of 
them  a  final  delay  in  the  date  of  deployment  beyond  the  date  set  in  the  UCC  Work  Programme  is 
marked. 

The specific dates can be found in Table 12 below. DE mentioned that the business roadmap of their 
national  IT  system,  ATLAS  had  to  be  replanned  due  to  various  unforeseen  factors,  e.g.  the 
implementation of the eCommerce initiative. 

31 

 
 
 
Table 12: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – National Import Systems Upgrade 

3.2.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-11  summarises  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications,  conformance  testing  and 
deployment). The sum of each bar is 27 (responses from the 27 Member States). 

Technical Specifications

9 

7 

6 

5 

Conformance Testing

7 

2 

Deployment

4 

5 

12 

13 

2 

4 

5 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-11: Summary of Responses per Milestone – National Import Systems Upgrade 

32 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion AT01/02/202180%01/06/20220%01/06/20220%BE01/01/202190%31/08/20220%01/09/20220%BG28/02/2018100%01/12/2018100%07/01/2019100%CY30/12/202080%01/06/20220%03/06/20220%CZ01/09/20210%29/04/20220%02/05/20220%DE31/03/202250%30/09/20230%31/12/20220%DK01/06/2021Not Provided31/12/2022Not Provided01/10/2022Not ProvidedEE30/06/2020100%31/12/2020100%01/07/202150%ES30/06/2020100%30/01/20220%31/01/20220%FI30/06/2019100%Not Provided50%31/12/201950%FR01/03/2021Not ProvidedN/AN/A30/09/2022Not ProvidedGR30/09/20210%N/AN/A31/12/20220%HR01/01/202020%01/06/20220%31/12/20220%HU30/06/2022Not Provided30/11/2022Not Provided31/12/2022Not ProvidedIE04/10/2019100%30/10/2020100%02/11/2020100%IT30/09/2019100%30/06/2021100%15/12/202085%LT01/03/20210%30/09/20220%31/12/20220%LUNot ProvidedNot Provided31/12/2022Not Provided02/01/2023Not ProvidedLV30/10/2017100%01/06/2018100%03/06/2018100%MT31/01/2022Not Provided30/06/2022Not Provided01/09/2022Not ProvidedNL01/01/20210%31/12/20220%01/04/202270%PL01/04/202190%30/06/202250%01/10/20220%PT01/06/20220%01/08/20230%31/12/20220%RO30/09/202150%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%SENot Provided0%Not Provided0%01/10/20210%SI01/07/2019100%31/12/2020100%03/01/202150%SKNot Provided100%30/06/2019100%30/06/2019100%Project NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsUCC National Import Systems UpgradeTo be defined by MS31/12/2022Conformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Additional details regarding the specific percentage of completion per milestone can be seen in Figure 
3-12.  The  following  Member  States  have  not  yet  started:  CZ,  GR,  HU,  LT,  LU,  MT,  NL  and  PT. 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

E
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
H

E
I

T
I

V
L

L
P

O
R

I
S

K
S

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

90% 

80% 

80% 

85% 

90% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

20% 

50% 

50% 

50% 
50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

Figure 3-12: Percentage of Completion per Phase – National Import Systems Upgrade 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3  UCC SPECIAL PROCEDURES 

This national project aims to accelerate, facilitate and harmonise Special Procedures across the Union 
by  means  of  providing  common  business  process  models.  The  national  systems  will  implement  all 
UCC  changes  required  for  all  the  special  procedures  (customs  warehousing,  end-use,  temporary 
admission  and  inward/outward  processing).  It  should  be  noted  that,  in  many  Member  States,  the 
implementation  of  this  project  occurs  within  the  context  of  the  upgrades  of  the  national  import  and 
export systems. 

In  terms  of  planning,  this  project  will  be  implemented  in  two  parts.  The  first  component  is  the 
"National  Special  Procedures  EXP"  (NSP  EXP)  with  the  view  to  providing  the  required  national 
electronic  solutions  for  the  export-related  special  procedure  activities.  The  second  component  is  the 
"National  Special  Procedures  IMP"  (NSP  IMP)  with  the  view  to  providing  the  required  national 
electronic solutions for the import-related special procedures activities. 

3.3.1  Summary of Responses 

Special Procedures EXP – Component 1 

AT rates the project complexity as medium (4) with a medium risk level. The milestone most at risk is 
deployment.  AT  is  developing  a  new  customs  declaration  system  and  the  transformation  and  the 
integration  with  their  existing  application  are  complex.  The  restrictions  put  in  place  during  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  have  had  an  impact  on  the  on  boarding  and  project  progress.  AT  is  currently 
working  on  analysing  and  elaborating  the  technical  specifications.  An  Agile  development 
methodology (SAFe) will now be used. 

BG,  IE  and  RO  rated  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5,  5  and  6  respectively)  however,  a  low  risk 
level.  The  Member  States  confirmed  that  they  will  implement  this  project  as  part  of  the  UCC 
Automated Export System (AES) project. 

CY denoted the project complexity as high (6) yet a low risk level. CY explained that the complexity 
is  caused  by  insufficient  resources,  dependencies  with  other  systems  and  the  development  of  other 
projects in parallel. CY explained that a phased approach will be taken and that the deployment date 
was moved so that it does not coincide with other core projects. 

CZ reports the project complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level stating that it requires a large 
amount of financial resources. CZ also highlighted a risk that the national project plan may have to be 
updated due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the delays it is causing. The changes will depend on the 
evolution of the situation. In line with their national project plan, they are preparing detailed national 
technical and functional specifications. No major changes were made to the planning and their national 
project plan is stable. 

EE indicated the project complexity as high (6) yet the risk level is low. Currently the preparation for 
the call for tender is ongoing. EE considers the project delayed in comparison to the planning in the 
2019 report, but the overall delivery is still expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC 
Work Programme. The procurement process is delayed, however, mitigation actions are considered. 

FI notes the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level, commenting that their plans have not 
changed however, they anticipate several risks and due to this, changes in planning will most likely be 
needed. The project to deliver AES will be organised during 2020 and SP  – Component 1 will be a 
part of it. The preliminary planning has already started. 

GR  indicated  a  high  complexity  level  (6)  and  a  medium  risk  level.  GR  indicated  that  the  project  is 
currently  delayed  compared  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  however  the  overall  delivery  is  still 
expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. GR is facing procurement 
delays. 

34 

 
 
 
HR  rated  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  medium  risk  level  citing  the  many 
interdependencies  among  systems.  HR  plans  to  complete  the  main  components  of  the  technical 
specifications and they have shortened the overall project duration by five months. HR plans to go into 
production on 01/01/2023. 

LV  noted  that  the  project  complexity  as  medium  (3)  with  a  high  risk  level  mentioning  that  there  is 
currently no budget allocated to support the development of AES. Once this is solved, LV will use an 
iterative  development  approach.  The  development  scope  and  plan  for  AES,  including  the  transition 
model and functionality, are under review.  

NL reported the project complexity as medium (4) with a low risk level. NL comments that an agile 
development approach will be used. They are currently describing project features based on the Design 
Document  for  National  Transit  Application  (DDNTA).  The  selection  of  the  IT  provider  for 
development is in progress. 

PL indicated the project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level explaining that this project 
includes the creation of a new national IT system for managing and settlement of SP and integration 
with  other  IT  national  customs  systems,  which  are  currently  being  expanded.  The  complexity  is 
particularly  due  to  the  integration  with  the  national  IMP  and  EXP  systems  in  the  field  of  online 
transfer of data from customs declarations. 

SI noted the project complexity as medium (4) with a high risk level, citing the COVID-19 pandemic 
as a major risk. This situation could cause the postponement of the deployment  date. Their external 
contractor is currently preparing the detailed technical specifications for AES. 

SK rated the project complexity as low (2) with a low risk level. Currently, their project is delayed in 
comparison  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  but  the  overall  delivery  is  still  expected  within  the 
deployment deadline stated in the UCC Work Programme. They have identified risks related to a lack 
of human and financial resources. No mitigation actions have been considered at this moment in time. 
The achievement of some milestones is dependent on the progress of other projects. System tests have 
recently  been  performed,  without  integration  with  other  systems.  Feedback  submitted  by  testers  is 
currently being analysed. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on their training plan. 

Figure 3-13 provides an overall summary of the responses received from the Member States regarding 
the status of their project activities. 

Figure 3-13: Project Status as per Survey – Component 1 National SP EXP 

Special Procedures IMP – Component 2 

AT, CY, GR, PL and SK provided the same comments as for Special Procedures - Component 1. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CZ has indicated the project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level. CZ reported no progress 
on Component 2 and stated their national project plan is not yet finalised. 

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  explained  that  they  will  implement  this  component  as  part  of  the  "National  Import  Systems 
upgrade",  which  will  be  covered  by  the  national  IT-System  ATLAS  -  Release  10.1.  The  expected 
deployment date is in December 2022. 

EE rated the SP – Component 2 project’s complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level regarding 
limited resources. System development is currently ongoing, with a plan to be complete by the end of 
2020.  

FI noted the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. A re-scoping exercise is ongoing. 
Simplifications  are  postponed  to  Q4  2021. This  will  also affect  the  planning  and  implementation  of 
future UCC projects.  

IE indicated the project complexity as high (5) yet with a low risk level. Testing and refinement of the 
system functionality, business rules, etc. is ongoing. Work is also continuing on providing a platform 
to allow testing by traders and on change management functions including engagement with trade and 
customs  officer  training.  IE  mentioned  that  the  project  is  currently  delayed  in  comparison  to  the 
planning in the 2019 report, but the overall delivery is still expected within the deployment deadline. 
The  delay  has  been  caused  by  the  instability  of  Annex  B,  new  requirements  for  Low  Value 
Consignments,  the  VAT  directive,  deployment  of  resources  to  Brexit-related  work  and  restrictions 
imposed  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  IE  underlines  the  fact  that  mitigating  measures  will  be 
considered if the project is delayed beyond the planned deployment date. 

LV’s  national  import  system  has  been aligned  with UCC  DA/IA  Annex  B  and  EUCDM  V2.0  as  of 
03/06/2018, 

PT made the same comments as in section 3.2 UCC National Import System Upgrade. 

RO  rated  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  yet  with  low  risk  level  as  SP  –  Component  2  will  be 
incorporated into their new national import system.  

SE  identified  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  and  with  a  medium  risk  level  commenting  on  the 
unstable situation regarding processes, EU CDM and Annex B. There is a risk that the conformance 
testing and deployment milestones are impacted. 

SI reports the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. SI was expecting the Commission 
to prepare the technical specifications for the import declaration, code list for the Automated Import 
System  (AIS)  in  Central  Services  –  Reference  Data  2  (CSRD2),  etc.  SI  explained  that  they  have 
limited  human  resources  and  that  their  team  members  work  on  several  projects  simultaneously. 
Furthermore,  there  is  a  concern  over  financial  resources  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic  unfolds.  SI  is 
convinced  that  the  customs  environment  will  be  ready  on  time  however  has  doubts  regarding  the 
testing readiness of the external environment (economic operators). 

Figure 3-14 provides an overall summary of the responses received from the Member States regarding 
the status of their project activities. 

36 

 
 
Figure 3-14: Project Status as per Survey – Component 2 National SP IMP 

37 

 
 
 
 
3.3.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  13  highlights  any  known  divergences  in  the  planning  of  the  UCC  Special  Procedures  EXP 
compared to the dates set in the Work Programme11.  

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed their deployment date by more than one quarter: LT, MT and SK. 

BG  moved  their  deployment  date  earlier  by  two  months  (01/08/2023  to  05/06/2023).  HR  and  FR 
moved their planned deployment dates earlier by six months, and NL and SE by one year. The specific 
dates can be found in Table 13 below. 

Table 13: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – SP – Component 1 Nat SP EXP 

11 Since the compilation of this data the following Member States have indicated in the context of the national project plans 
that they will bring forward their deployment dates for AES Component 1 which is linked to this project: AT, BE, BG, DK, 
FR, HR, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT and SK. 

38 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion AT01/08/202125%01/12/20220%01/12/20220%BE04/07/2020Not provided31/07/2022Not provided01/04/2022Not providedBG10/06/202290%31/05/20230%05/06/20230%CY10/01/202280%01/02/20230%02/02/20230%CZ30/03/202180%03/10/20220%03/10/20220%DE31/01/202075%31/07/202275%06/03/202190%DKNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedEE31/12/20200%30/09/20220%31/12/20220%ES31/12/2019100%30/06/20210%01/07/20210%FI31/03/20220%31/12/20220%31/03/20230%FR31/03/2021Not provided31/03/2023Not provided31/03/2023Not providedGR30/09/202110%N/AN/A31/12/20220%HR31/12/202130%30/09/20220%01/01/20230%HU31/05/2023Not provided01/11/2023Not provided01/12/2023Not providedIE30/09/20210%30/06/20230%31/10/20230%IT30/06/202010%30/06/20220%05/09/20220%LT01/03/20220%30/09/20230%01/12/20230%LUNot providedNot provided01/04/2023Not provided01/04/2023Not providedLV01/02/202210%31/08/20230%05/02/20234%MT31/01/2021Not provided31/12/2021Not provided31/01/2022Not providedNL01/01/20210%31/12/20220%01/04/20220%PL01/06/2021100%30/11/2020100%31/01/202180%PT15/12/20220%15/10/20230%01/12/20230%RO30/06/202010%30/06/20230%31/03/20230%SE01/05/20210%30/09/20230%01/10/20220%SI01/07/202090%20/05/20220%01/06/20220%SK01/10/20210%01/11/20230%01/12/20230%DeploymentProject NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingTo be defined by MS01/12/2023UCC Special Procedures (SP) - Component 1 – National SP EXP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
In comparison to the planned end dates provided in the 2019 report for the UCC Special Procedures 
IMP, the  following  Member  States  postponed their  deployment  date  by  more than  one  quarter:  CZ, 
DE, EE, MT, SE and SK. CZ indicated that their national project plan is not yet final. DE explained 
that this component will be implemented as part of the "National Import Systems upgrade", which will 
be covered by their national IT-System ATLAS - Release 10.1.  

Table 14: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – SP – Component 2 Nat SP IMP 

3.3.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-15  and  Figure  3-16  summarise  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications, 
conformance testing and deployment). The sum of each bar is 27 (all Member States). 

Technical Specifications

2 

11 

8 

Conformance Testing

1 

1 

Deployment

3 

18 

18 

1 

6 

6 

6 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-15: Summary of Responses per Milestone – SP – Component 1 Nat SP EXP 

39 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion AT01/02/202180%01/06/20220%01/06/20220%BE01/10/2019Not provided01/04/2020Not provided01/03/2020Not providedBG28/02/2018100%01/12/2018100%07/01/2019100%CY30/12/202080%01/06/20220%03/06/20220%CZ01/09/20210%29/04/20220%02/05/20220%DE31/03/20220%30/09/20230%31/12/20220%DK01/06/2021Not provided01/10/2022Not provided01/10/2022Not providedEE30/06/2020100%31/12/2020100%01/07/202150%ES31/12/2019100%30/06/20210%01/07/20210%FI30/06/2019100%N/AN/A31/12/202020%FR01/03/2021Not providedN/AN/A30/09/2022Not providedGR30/09/20210%N/AN/A31/12/2022Not providedHR01/08/20190%01/06/20220%31/12/20220%HU30/06/2022Not provided30/11/2022Not provided31/12/2022Not providedIE04/10/2019100%30/10/2020100%02/11/2020100%IT30/09/2019100%15/06/2021100%15/12/202085%LT01/03/20210%30/09/20220%31/12/20220%LUNot providedNot provided30/12/2022Not provided02/01/2023Not providedLV30/10/2017100%01/06/2018100%03/06/2018100%MT31/01/2021Not provided31/12/2021Not provided31/01/2022Not providedNL01/01/20210%31/12/20220%01/04/202270%PL01/06/2020100%30/11/2020100%31/01/202180%PT15/01/20220%15/11/20220%31/12/20220%RO30/09/202110%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%SENot provided0%Not provided0%01/10/20210%SI01/07/2019100%20/09/2020100%01/10/2020100%SK01/10/20200%01/11/20220%01/12/20220%Project NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingUCC Special Procedures (SP) - Component 2 – National SP IMPTo be defined by MSDeployment31/12/2022 
 
 
 
Technical
Specifications

Conformance
Testing

9 

3 

9 

7 

11 

3 

Deployment

4 

5 

12 

6 

6 

6 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Completed

In Progress

Delayed

Figure 3-16: Summary of Responses per Milestone – SP – Component 2 Nat SP IMP 

Additional  details  regarding  the  specific  percentage  of  completion  per  milestone  can  be  seen  in  the 
following figures. Regarding Special Procedures EXP - Component 1, the following Member States 
have  not  yet  started:  EE,  FI,  IE,  LT,  NL,  PT,  SE  and  SK.  The  following  Member  States  did  not 
provide information: BE, DK, FR, HU, LU and MT. 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

25% 

90% 

80% 

80% 

75% 
75% 

90% 

100% 

100% 
100% 

80% 

90% 

30% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

4% 

T
A

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

S
E

R
G

R
H

T
I

V
L

L
P

O
R

I
S

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

Figure 3-17: Percentage of Completion per Phase – SP – Component 1 Nat SP EXP 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
Regarding  Special  Procedures  IMP  -  Component  2,  the  following  Member  States  have  not  yet 
started:  CZ,  DE,  GR,  HR,  LT,  NL,  PT,  SE  and  SK.  The  following  Member  States  did  not  provide 
information: BE, DK, FR, HU, LU, and MT.  

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

T
A

G
B

Y
C

E
E

S
E

I
F

E
I

T
I

V
L

L
N

L
P

O
R

I
S

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

80% 

80% 

85% 

70% 

80% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

50% 

20% 

10% 

Figure 3-18: Percentage of Completion per Phase – SP – Component 2 Nat SP IMP 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
3.4  UCC GUARANTEE MANAGEMENT (GUM) 

The  UCC  Guarantee  Management  (GUM)  project  aims  to  assure  the  effective  and  efficient 
management  of  the  different  types  of  guarantees.  The  main  objective  is  to  ensure  that  the  data  of 
guarantees, which are used in more than one MS, are made electronically accessible to the MS where a 
customs  declaration  is  lodged  and  accepted  when  such  guarantee  is  used.  This  will  require  new 
interfaces between GUM and national systems. One advantage of the solution is that the traders can 
provide one guarantee that can be used across the Union. Moreover, the improved processing speed, 
traceability and monitoring of guarantees electronically between customs offices is expected to lead to 
a  faster  identification  of  cases  where  guarantees  are  deemed  invalid  or  insufficient  to  cover  the 
incurred or potential debt. 

The  system  is  comprised  of  two  components.  The  first  component  is  "GUM".  GUM  is  a  trans-
European system that will cover the management of the comprehensive guarantees that may be used in 
more than one Member State. Transit is an exception to the above and is handled as part of the NCTS 
project.  

At the moment of drafting this UCC annual report, the project initiation phase is still ongoing and the 
exact scope and implementation approach is taking form in the context of the approval of the business 
case  document.  Alternative  ways  of  re-using  a  part  of  an  existing  system  (such  as  the  Customs 
Decisions  System)  and  maintaining  more  processes  decentralised  at  national  level  (in  the  National 
Guarantee Management systems) are considered, mostly due to the uncertainty of the real interest from 
trade for such kind of comprehensive guarantees. A new survey was launched which contributed to a 
decision in favour of a light IT implementation option instead of building a new self-standing trans-
European system. 

This  decision  may  then  also  affect  the  second  component  of  the  project,  which  is  the  "National 
Guarantee Management" system. In addition to GUM, the electronic systems existing at the national 
level, which manage the valid guarantees in one Member State, are to be upgraded. 

3.4.1  Summary of Responses 

This project is still in the early stages of development with a decision on the implementation option 
just finalised. Based on the decision, a legislative change and project re-scoping and re-planning may 
be  needed.  Even  if  the  business  case  and  scope  discussions  are  putting  some  risks  of  delay  for  the 
project, it should be considered that going for the use of existing IT systems rather than developing a 
new one will most likely bring benefits in terms of development time and might not necessarily impact 
the planned start of deployment. The planning aspect will need to be carefully examined and addressed 
in the coming years by the Commission and the Member States to keep this project on track. 

GUM – Component 1 

The  European  Commission  sent  the  revised  business  case  for  external review  to  the  Member  States 
and  trade  associations  on  21  April  2020.  Following  this  review  the  business  case  was  approved  on 
25/09/2020. The chosen option to use the Customs Decisions System  might require less effort in the 
IT implementation but will on the other hand require a legislative change. This could potentially be a 
risk so it will become necessary to identify and initiate the required changes as early as possible. 

National GUM – Component 2 

National  GUM  –  Component  2  refers  to  the  development  of  Member  States’  National  Guarantee 
Management  systems,  which  will  potentially  link  to  GUM  –  Component  1,  again  depending  on  the 
solution  chosen.  This  work  can  mainly  be  done  in  parallel  with  GUM  –  Component  1.  There  is  a 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
project interdependency on the National Import System of each Member State, where they have multi-
Member States’ guarantees involved. 

AT and BG view the project complexity as medium (ratings of 3 and 4 respectively) however, with a 
low risk level since the National GUM – Component 2 project is dependent on the decisions taken at 
the level of the Commission. The countries are waiting for the technical specifications to be provided 
by the Commission. AT identified that they will be using the SAFe-Framework for development.  

EE  identifies  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  medium  risk  level,  identifying  a  lack  of 
resources as their main concern. 

ES  confirms  the  completion  of  their  national  guarantee  management  system,  which  went  live  on 
01/09/2016. Future modifications to ensure the link to GUM – Component 1 are foreseen. 

FI considers the project complexity as high (5) with a high risk level, commenting that it requires a 
large number of integrations. FI further reiterates the comments made in section 3.1. 

FR  indicates  the  project  complexity  as  medium  (4)  with  a  high  risk  level,  which  could  potentially 
affect their ability of achieving their planned dates for the Technical Specifications and Conformance 
Testing. Reasons for this delay are due to dependencies on their legal department and new resources 
that are being recruited. FR also noted that an iterative development approach would most likely be 
used. 

HR  rates  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  medium  risk  level,  stating  that  there  are  limited 
dedicated human resources.  

IE assesses the project complexity as high (5) but with a low risk level. Testing and refinement of the 
system functionality, business rules, etc. are ongoing. Work is also continuing on providing a platform 
to allow testing by traders and on change management functions including engagement with trade and 
customs officer training. Currently, they consider the project as delayed in comparison to the planning 
in the 2019 report, but the overall delivery is still expected within the deployment deadline. The causes 
of  delay  are  due  to  the  instability  of  the  data  in  Annex  B,  new  requirements  for  LVCs,  the  VAT 
directive,  redeployment  of  resources  to  other  projects  and  restrictions  imposed  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. IE iterated that mitigation measures are considered if the project becomes delayed beyond 
the planned deployment date. 

NL  considers  the  project  complexity  as  low  (1)  with  a  low  level  of  risk.  NL  explains  that  an  agile 
development approach will be used. This approach will start with describing a high-level design of the 
requirements (features) and IT solution, in the so-called ‘Epic’ format. The start date of the activity is 
still to be decided and is dependent on other priorities. 

PT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  high  level  of  risk,  as  this  project  is  the 
implementation of a completely new national system. PT identifies a risk due to a lack of resources 
however  confirms  that  an  Agile  development  approach  will  be  used  in  order  to  reduce  the 
implementation timeframe. 

SE  determines  the  project  complexity  as  medium  (3)  with  a  medium  risk  level.  SE  considers  the 
project as delayed in comparison to the planning in the 2019 report, however, the overall delivery is 
still  expected  within  the  deployment  deadline.  There  is  an  interface  to  the  new  national  import 
declaration  system  and  the  deployment  of  this  system  is  not  yet  stable.  They  are  investigating  the 
possibility to establish a temporary interface to their current import declaration system. 

SI considers the project complexity as medium (4) with a high risk level. The main risk is due to the 
COVID-19  pandemic.  The  potential  impact  is  unknown  however,  there  could  be  an  impact  on  the 
deployment date. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3-19  provides an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses received from  the  Member  States 
regarding the status of GUM – Component 2. 

Figure 3-19: Summary of Survey Responses – GUM – Component 2 

3.4.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 15 and Table 16 highlight any known divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in 
the Work Programme.  

Regarding  GUM  –  Component  1,  there  is  some  delay  in  the  initiation  of  the  project  due  to  the  re-
orientation  and  business  case  discussion,  however,  the  overall  delivery  is  still  expected  within  the 
deployment deadline. 

Table 15: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – GUM – Component 1 

Regarding National GUM – Component 2, compared to last year’s planning provided in their survey 
response,  SE  has  postponed  their  deployment  date  by  one  quarter  (01/10/2020  to  01/01/2021).  The 
project  is  delayed  in  comparison  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  but  the  overall  delivery  is  still 
expected within the deployment deadline. There is an interface to the new national import declaration 
system  and  the  deployment  of  this  system  is  not  yet  stable.  SE  is  investigating  the  possibility  to 
establish a temporary interface to their current import declaration system.  

44 

Target date from WPActual End Date2020 % of CompletionActual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WPActual Date2020 % of Completion UCC Guarantee Management (GUM) - Component 130/09/202201/08/20220%29/05/20250%02/06/202505/09/20230%Project NameTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – GUM – Component 2 

3.4.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-20  summarises  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications,  conformance  testing  and 
deployment) for the National GUM – Component 2. The sum of each bar is 27 (responses from the 27 
Member States).  

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

5 

5 

5 

3 

11 

14 

16 

2 

2 

6 

6 

6 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-20: Summary of Responses per Milestone – GUM – Component 2 

Regarding National GUM - Component 2, the following Member States have not yet started: AT, CY, 
DE, FI, GR, HR, NL, PT, RO, SI and SK.  

The following Member States did not provide information: BE, CZ, DK, HU, LU and MT.  

45 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion AT01/05/20230%01/09/20240%01/09/20240%BENot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedBG28/02/2018100%01/12/2018100%07/01/2019100%CY01/02/20230%01/09/20240%02/10/20240%CZ01/10/2022Not Provided31/05/2023Not Provided01/06/2023Not ProvidedDENot Provided0%Not Provided0%Not Provided0%DKNot ProvidedNot Provided01/05/2025Not Provided01/05/2025Not ProvidedEE01/12/2020100%01/09/20210%01/10/20210%ES30/06/2016100%01/07/2016100%01/09/2016100%FI31/12/20210%30/06/20250%02/06/20250%FRNot Provided10%Not Provided0%Not Provided0%GR31/12/20240%Not Provided0%31/03/20250%HRNot Provided0%Not Provided0%Not Provided0%HU30/11/2024Not Provided01/05/2025Not Provided01/06/2025Not ProvidedIE04/10/2019100%30/10/2020100%02/11/2020100%IT15/09/20195%15/12/20200%15/12/20200%LT01/11/202050%10/12/20200%01/02/20210%LUNot ProvidedNot Provided01/01/2025Not Provided01/01/2025Not ProvidedLVN/AN/AN/AN/A03/06/2018100%MT31/01/2022Not Provided15/12/2022Not Provided31/03/2023Not ProvidedNLNot Provided0%Not Provided0%Not Provided0%PL31/12/20210%30/09/20250%31/12/20230%PT15/01/20220%15/11/20220%31/12/20220%RO30/06/20240%31/03/20250%01/06/20250%SEN/AN/ANot ProvidedN/A01/01/20210%SI01/01/20220%20/05/20250%01/06/20250%SK01/09/20230%01/06/20250%01/06/20250%Technical SpecificationsConformance TestingProject NameRespondeeUCC Guarantee Management (GUM) - Component 230/09/2022Deployment02/06/2025 
 
 
 
 
 
LV  updated  their  National  Guarantee  System  together  with  their  National  Import  System  on 
03/06/201812. Also BG, IE and ES have implemented a national GUM system. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

G
B

E
E

S
E

R
F

E
I

T
I

T
L

V
L

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

10% 

5% 

50% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

Figure 3-21: Percentage of Completion per Phase – GUM – Component 2 

3.5  UCC IMPORT CONTROL SYSTEM 2 (ICS2) 

The  goal  of  the  UCC  Import  Control  System  2  (ICS2)  programme  is  to  strengthen  the  safety  and 
security of the supply chain for goods moved via all modes of transport. The aim is to do so through 
better  targeted  risk  based  controls  of  EU  customs  authorities  based  on  improved  Entry  Summary 
Declaration  (ENS)  data  quality,  data  filing,  data  availability  and  data  sharing  and  through  real-time 
collaborative  risk  analysis and  co-ordinated  safety  and  security  controls at  the EU  entry  points. The 
main  purpose  of  the  system  is  to  implement  the  new  requirements  resulting  from  the  UCC  and 
strategic objectives endorsed by the Member States in the Risk management strategy and action plan 
of 2014.  

This  multi-annual  programme  will  lead  to  a  complete  new  architecture  of  the  existing  ICS  trans-
European system. In terms of planning, the programme will be implemented in three releases. Release 
1 will cover the obligation on the relevant economic operators (postal operators and express carriers in 
air  transport)  to  provide  the  minimum  data  i.e.  ENS  pre-loading  dataset.  Release  2  will  cover  the 

12  LV  marked  the  Technical  Specification  and  Conformance  Testing  milestones  as  N/A.  Therefore,  they  are  not  visible  in 
Figure 3-21. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
implementation of new ENS obligations and related business and risk management processes for all 
the goods in air traffic. Release 2 is planned to cover also Safety and Security analytics capabilities, 
subject to the policy endorsement by the Member States scheduled for December 2020. Release 3 will 
cover the same implementation as Release 2 but for all goods in maritime and inland waterways, road 
and  rail  traffic  (this  also  includes  goods  in  postal  consignments  transported  in  these  means  of 
transport). 

3.5.1  Summary of Responses 

The  Commission  centrally  develops  common  components  (Shared  Trader  Interface  and  Common 
Repository) and the common functional system and technical specifications. The baseline functional 
and technical specifications for all three releases were completed on 30/06/2018.  

As  regards  implementation  of  the  ICS2  programme,  the  Commission  continued  with  ICS2  trans-
European  coordination  activities  throughout  the  year  2020.  Work  focused  on  ICS2  Release  1 
implementation  with  a  view  of  facilitating  operational  preparedness  by  Member  States  customs 
authorities, express carriers and EU postal operators as from 15 March 2021.  

The  Commission  provided  support  to  the  national  administrations  and  economic  operators  in  their 
development activities via a set of activities which continued in the year 2020 and include:  

  Creation  of  a  dedicated  forum  and  organisation  of  dedicated  webinars,  support  via 
frequently asked questions and organisation of regular ICS2 trans-European coordination 
plenary  meetings  with participation of  all  Member  States  customs  national  ICS2  project 
management  and  risk  management  representatives,  individual  economic  operators,  trade 
associations and international organisations;  

  Close and continuous monitoring, planning of national and trade project plans to ensure 
their  alignment  with  the  Commission’s  central  planning  across  relevant  IT  delivery 
milestones  (conformance  testing  campaigns,  end-to-end  testing,  dry  run  testing).  This 
consisted  of  continuous  support  to  coordination  of  conformance  test  activities  and 
stimulating  national  administrations  and  economic  operaotrs  to  co-ordinate  their 
individual projects;  

  Preparation  for  the  launch  of  communication  campaigns,  with  different  activities  
implemented  in  the  year  2020  and  throughout  the  ICS2  programme  implementation, 
including creation of ICS2 programme specific content on DG TAXUD webpage;  

  Preparation of the training material that will be based on the compendium of ICS2 Release 

1 common operational guidance.  

The Commission and the Member States categorise the complexity of ICS2  – Release 1 as high (6), 
mainly  due  to  the  very  high  required  availability  and  real-time  business  and  risk  analysis  processes 
that affects the infrastructure requirements. Furthermore, the Commission underlined the dependencies 
on  other  systems13,  as  well as  the  fact  that  conformance  testing  with  economic  operators  systems  is 
required.  A  number  of  Member  States  reported to  have  some  issues  on  the  national implementation 
side, in particular in view of the tight conformance testing framework.  

Taking into account that the Member States reported certain risks for timely implementation of ICS2 
Release  1  of  their  national  components,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  closely  monitor  overall  
progress of the project implementation on the side of the MS for release 1 based on the below results 
and tables and the additional info available on COM side. The Commission classifies the risk level as 
medium, reporting that on-time delivery is probable.  

13 UUM&DS, CCN2, TAPAS, CRS and TARIC3 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
ICS2 – Release 1 

AT considers the project complexity as medium (3) highlighting the high level of risk regarding the 
functional interaction and tight timeline between relevant projects. In addition to this, concerns with 
the  ongoing  COVID-19  pandemic  were  highlighted.  AT  mentioned  that  there  is  a  risk  that  all 
milestones could be impacted. Currently work is ongoing on the national user requirements, technical 
specifications, conformance testing, user tests, training and deployment preparation. 

BG indicates the project complexity as high (5) however with a low risk level. BG explains that it is 
necessary to upgrade their national import system, national risk analysis system and the national part 
of CCN in conjunction. BG has decided to use an agile/iterative approach for development. They have 
chosen  to  apply  an  adapted  and  combined  implementation  of  two  methodology  frameworks  – 
Adaptive  Development  Methodology  (ADM)  and  Rational  Unified  Process  (RUP).  ADM  is  for  the 
implementation and maintenance of the overall architecture while RUP is used to manage the software 
lifecycle  of  the  software  solution.  According  to  RUP,  the  inception  phase  was  completed  and  they 
should be in the transition phase by the end of 2020. 

CY notes the project complexity as high (6) yet with a low risk level. The reasons given for the high 
complexity rating being insufficient resources and the development of other projects in parallel. CY 
also  indicates  that  the  system  will  be  ready  by  the  end  of  June  2020  and  that  end-to-end  testing  is 
planned for Q4 2020. 

CZ considers the project complexity as high (6) with a medium level of risk. The main risk to their 
planning  is  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  However,  they  are  currently  in  the  development  phase  as  per 
their  national  project  plan.  They  reported  that  their  national  system  for  ICS2  –  Release  1  will  be 
available in a national test environment no later than September 2020. From October 2020, they will 
conduct conformance testing with the European Commission. 

ES identifies the project complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. ES noted that the complexity 
is due to the integration of multiple nodes and the fact that not all components are fully defined, such 
as  the  risk  analysis  process.  ES  further  explained  that  the  dates  of  conformance  testing  may  be 
impacted  if  not  all  components  are  ready  on  time  (UUM&DS,  CCN2,  etc.).  ES  are  using  an  Agile 
development  methodology  and  they  are  currently  preparing  the  message  interface  for  conformance 
testing. 

FI indicated the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level for all ICS2 releases. FI noted 
that deployment, including the presentation of goods, is completed and that testing is about to start. FI 
further reiterates the comments made in section 3.1. 

GR  indicated  a  high  complexity  level  (6)  and  a  high  risk  level.  GR  indicated  that  the  project  is 
currently  delayed  compared  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  however  the  overall  delivery  is  still 
expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. GR is facing procurement 
delays. 

HR highlighted the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level for all ICS2 releases. There 
are  many  interdependencies  among  supporting  systems.  The  main  risks  are  completing  the  tests  on 
time, the COVID-19 pandemic and a limited number of human resources.  

IT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level.  IT  explained  that  an  iterative 
approach is used and periodical releases have been planned. IT highlights a risk that the  COVID-19 
pandemic could cause a delay in Release 1, which could then affect Releases 2 and 3. 

LV noted the project complexity as high (6) yet with a low risk level. LV is employing an iterative 
development approach and will divide Release 1 into three phases. The first phase, which includes the 
new  IT  architecture,  the  general  database,  two  mock-up  web  services  and  the  starter  GUI,  was 
delivered.  The  second  phase,  which  includes  a  functional  GUI,  underlying  business  processes  and 
functional web services, is currently under development. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
LT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  medium  risk  level.  LT  highlighted  a  risk 
regarding a tight conformance testing timeframe. LT is using an iterative development approach. 

NL rated the ICS2 project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level. The complexity is due to 
the transnational (common) specifications of ICS2 (e.g. message structures, process flows) being quite 
complex. Furthermore, each Member State is required to define their national requirements together 
with  many  user  groups  (e.g.  policy  makers,  risk  analysts,  control  officers)  and  outside  of  their 
organisation (e.g. the postal operator). NL foresees a risk to the conformance testing because almost 
all stakeholders, including several development teams, are simultaneously required to run the tests and 
solve  the  test  findings.  This  will  require  extensive  communication  and  collaboration.  Lastly,  this 
project has a fixed deadline of 15 March 2021 and solving the test findings may require more time. NL 
expects to be solving potential conformance testing findings by October 2020 and to be ready for the 
end-to-end testing in November 2020. 

RO noted the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level indicating that the deployment date 
is at risk to be delayed beyond the deadline in the UCC Work Programme. The reasons RO mentioned 
were due to the lack of personnel, their organisational structure and ongoing activities related to the 
procurement  of  a  contractor.  RO  is  taking  actions  to  reduce  the  delay  as  much  as  possible. 
Furthermore,  considering  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  RO  has  requested  the  European  Commission  to 
consider delaying the deployment date. 

SI rated the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. SI is facing delays with an external 
contractor  in  addition  to  constraints  caused  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Despite  this,  development 
and conformance testing are ongoing. 

Figure  3-22  provides an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses received from  the  Member  States 
and the Commission14 regarding the status of each ICS2 release. 

Figure 3-22: Summary of Survey Responses – ICS2 – Release 1 

ICS2 – Release 2 

AT considers the project complexity as medium (3) with a low risk level. AT has started working on 
the technical specifications. 

BG rated the project complexity as medium (4) with a low risk level. BG is analysing the functional 
and  technical  specifications  provided  by  the  European  Commission,  which  will  be  further  enhanced 
with national requirements. 

14 The figure related to Conformance Testing includes the work from the Commission in regards to the preparation of the CT 
environment and coordination for Member States. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
CY states the same reasons for the high project complexity rating (6) yet low risk level as for Release 
1. CY also noted that a phased approach will be taken and the date of operations has been reassessed 
to ensure it will not coincide with other core projects. 

CZ considers the project complexity as medium (4) with a medium risk level. CZ finds the application 
complex and has indicated that it requires a large amount of financial resources. CZ highlighted a risk 
that the national project plan may have to be updated due to the COVID-19 pandemic and delays it is 
causing.  The  changes  will depend  on the  evolution  of  the  situation.  CZ  is  waiting  for  the  European 
Commission to provide the technical and functional specifications. 

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  mentions  that  ICS2  –  Release  2  will  be  implemented  in  the  major  release  of  their  national  IT-
System ATLAS (Releases 10.1) for which the preparatory activities have not yet started. The expected 
deployment date is Q1 2023. 

ES rated the project complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. ES indicated that they believe 
Release  2  will  be  more  complex  than  Release  1.  ES  plans  to  start  Release  2  after  Release  1  is  in 
production on March 2021. 

FI indicated the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. FI has not yet started work on 
Release 2 however explained that multi-filing will be demanding and that the size of the risk analysis 
request  messages  will  increase  drastically.  This  will  be  a  challenge  for  the  national  risk  analysis 
system. FI further reiterates the comments made in section 3.1. 

HR  noted  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  high  risk  level  as  they  do  not  currently  have 
national planning dates for Releases 2 and 3. 

LV considers the project complexity to be high (5) with a high risk level. LV explained that there is 
currently  no  budget  allocated  to  support  the  development  of  ICS2  –  Releases  2  &  3.  LV  did  note 
though,  that  ICS2  –  Release  2  would  use  the  database  and  GUI  that  were  already  deployed  in  the 
conformance environment for ICS2 – Release 1. 

LT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level.  LT  is  using  an  iterative 
development approach and has started working on the technical specifications. 

NL reiterates the same reasons for the high project complexity (6) and high risk ratings and explains 
that work has not yet started on Releases 2 & 3. 

Figure  3-23  provides an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses received from  the  Member  States 
and the Commission15 regarding the status of each ICS2 release. 

15 The figure related to Conformance Testing includes the work from the Commission in regards to the preparation of the CT 
environment and coordination for Member States. 

50 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3-23: Summary of Survey Responses – ICS2 – Release 2 

ICS2 – Release 3 

The comments for the following Member States are the same as for ICS2  – Release 2: CY, CZ and 
HR.  

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  mentions  that  ICS2  –  Release  2  will  be  implemented  in  the  major  release  of  their  national  IT-
System ATLAS (Releases 10.2) for which the preparatory activities have not yet started.  

LT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level.  LT  is  using  an  iterative 
development approach and has started working on the functional requirements. 

Figure  3-24  provides an  overall  summary  of  the  survey  responses received from  the  Member  States 
and the Commission16 regarding the status of each ICS2 release. 

Figure 3-24: Summary of Survey Responses – ICS2 – Release 3 

16 The figure related to Conformance Testing includes the work from the Commission in regards to the preparation of the CT 
environment and coordination for Member States. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
3.5.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table  17,  Table  18  and  Table  19  indicate  the  percentage  of  completion  as  of  the  end  of  2020  in 
comparison to the target dates set forth in the UCC Work Programme.  

The  target  date  set  for  the  technical  specifications  is  in  reference  to  the  common  technical 
specifications. Member States have reported the percentage of completion regarding their own national 
technical  specifications,  which  are  to  be  prepared  incrementally  for  the  three  releases.  The 
Commission will perform adjustments to the specifications for Releases 2 and 3 as per the MASP-C. 

The planned completion dates for the Conformance Testing are included for Release 1 based on the 
national plans submitted by the Member States at the end of July 2020. 

Table 17: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – ICS2 – Release 1 

52 

Target date from WP2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP2020 % of Completion European Commission100%01/06/2020100%80%AT100%18/12/202050%80%BENot Provided22/10/2020Not ProvidedNot ProvidedBG100%04/12/202045%10%CY100%30/07/2020100%100%CZ100%26/11/202070%90%DE75%19/11/2020100%90%DKNot Provided31/03/2021Not ProvidedNot ProvidedEE100%09/10/2020100%75%ES100%04/09/2020100%75%FI100%04/12/202040%95%FR100%27/08/2020100%100%GR100%28/01/20210%0%HR100%29/10/2020100%90%HUNot Provided12/02/2021Not ProvidedNot ProvidedIENot Provided24/09/2020Not ProvidedNot ProvidedIT100%15/01/202170%100%LT100%14/01/202180%80%LUNot Provided10/12/2020Not ProvidedNot ProvidedLV100%13/11/202050%85%MTNot Provided26/02/2021Not ProvidedNot ProvidedNL100%16/10/2020100%0%PL100%30/10/2020100%0%PT80%21/01/202180%50%RO100%28/01/20210%0%SE75%20/11/20200%0%SI100%21/01/2021100%0%SK80%19/02/202180%80%Project NameRespondeeUCC Import Control System 2 (ICS2) - Release 130/06/201815/03/2021Technical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 18: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – ICS2 – Release 2 

53 

Target date from WP2020 % of CompletionTarget date from WP2020 % of Completion Target date from WP2020 % of Completion European Commission100%0%0%AT30%0%0%BENot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedBG0%0%0%CY0%0%0%CZ0%0%0%DE0%0%0%DKNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedEE0%0%0%ES100%0%0%FI50%0%0%FR50%0%0%GR0%0%0%HR0%0%0%HUNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedIE0%0%0%IT0%0%0%LT30%0%0%LUNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedLV50%33%33%MTNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNL0%0%0%PL0%0%0%PT0%0%0%RO50%0%0%SE0%0%0%SI50%0%0%SK0%0%0%Project NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeploymentUCC Import Control System 2 (ICS2) - Release 230/06/2018N/A01/03/2023 
 
 
Table 19: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – ICS2 – Release 3 

54 

Target date from WP2020 % of CompletionTarget date from WP2020 % of Completion Target date from WP2020 % of Completion European Commission100%0%0%ATN/AN/AN/ABENot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedBG0%0%0%CY0%0%0%CZ0%0%0%DE0%0%0%DKNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedEE0%0%0%ES0%0%0%FI0%0%0%FRNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedGR0%0%0%HR0%0%0%HUNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedIE0%0%0%IT0%0%0%LT10%0%0%LUNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedLV50%33%33%MTNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNL0%0%0%PL0%0%0%PT0%0%0%RO0%0%0%SE0%0%0%SI0%0%0%SK0%0%0%UCC Import Control System 2 (ICS2) - Release 330/06/2018N/A01/03/2024Project NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsConformance TestingDeployment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.5.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure 3-25, Figure 3-26 and Figure 3-27 summarise the status per milestone (technical specifications, 
conformance  testing  and  deployment).  The  sum  of  each  bar  is  28  (responses  from  the  27  Member 
States plus the European Commission). 

Technical Specifications

18 

Conformance Testing

10 

9 

Deployment

3 

13 

6 

4 

3 

6 

6 

6 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-25: Summary of Responses per Milestone – ICS2 – Release 1 

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

2 

2 

7 

14 

21 

23 

5 

5 

5 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-26: Summary of Responses per Milestone – ICS2 – Release 2 

Technical Specifications

2 
[VALUE] 

Conformance Testing

2 

18 

19 

Deployment

21 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

6 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-27: Summary of Responses per Milestone – ICS2 – Release 3 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regarding ICS2 - Release 1, all Member States have started their technical specifications.  BE, DK, 
HU, IE, LU and MT did not provide information. See fig 3-28 below: 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

10% 

80% 

80% 

50% 

45% 

R
U
E

M
O
C

T
A

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
G

R
H

T
I

T
L

V
L

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

I
S

K
S

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

Technical Specifications

Deployment

Conformance Testing

40% 

50% 

50% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

70% 

75% 

90% 

90% 

75% 

75% 

95% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 

90% 

70% 

80% 
80% 

85% 

80% 
80% 

75% 

80% 
80% 
80% 

Figure 3-28: Percentage of Completion per Phase – ICS2 – Release 1 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Regarding ICS2 - Release 2, the only Member States which have started their technical specifications 
are AT, ES, FI, FR, LT, LV, RO and SI. BE, DK, HU, LU, and MT did not provide information. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

100% 

100% 

R
U
E

M
O
C

T
A

S
E

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

I
F

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

R
F

T
L

V
L

O
R

Technical Specifications

I
S

Conformance Testing

Deployment

30% 

30% 

33% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

Figure 3-29: Percentage of Completion per Phase – ICS2 – Release 2 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regarding  ICS2  -  Release  3,  the  only  Member  States,  which  have  started  their  technical 
specifications, are LT and LV. AT marked the release as N/A and BE, DK, FR, HU, LU and MT did 
not provide information. 

R
U
E

M
O
C

T
L

V
L

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

100% 

10% 

50% 

33% 

Figure 3-30: Percentage of Completion per Phase – ICS2 – Release 3 

58 

 
 
 
  
 
 
3.6  UCC PROOF OF UNION STATUS (POUS) 

PoUS is a new trans-European system, which is designed to allow storage, management and retrieval 
of certain types of documents (e.g. T2L, T2L/F, customs goods manifest) that traders provide to prove 
the Union status of their goods. The system will improve the uniformity of the procedures across the 
European  Union  and  contribute  to  the  establishment  of  a  more  consistent,  harmonised  and  thus 
simplified process related to customs clearance for Union goods.  

A system will be created that will include a Central Repository for the storage and exchange between 
Customs  Authorities  across  all  Member  States  of  data  and  documents  dealing  with  proof  of  Union 
status. 

The project is split into two phases: 

•  Implementing  the  electronic  T2L  (F)  document  with  all  the  necessary  functionalities 
(planned deployment 01/03/2024); 

•  Implementing  the  electronic  Customs  Goods  Manifest  (CGM),  including  the  information 
exchange  with  the  European  Maritime  Single  Window  environment  (planned  deployment 
02/06/2025). 

3.6.1  Summary of Responses 

The  Commission  reported  that  the  business  process  models  and  the  package  of  functional 
specifications  were  approved  by  the  Member  States  in  quarter  1  of  2020.  In  addition,  the  vision 
document was completed in Q3 2020. An agile development approach is in place to be used for the 
project. The project is progressing according to the planning set by the UCC Work Programme.  

Member States will have the option of using the central PoUS system or developing their own national 
application. From the 2019 survey results, several Member States conveyed their intention to use the 
system developed by the European Commission: BG, DE, EE, ES, FI, LT, LV, RO, SE and SI. DK 
expressed  the  view  that  Member  States  opting  to  use  the  Commission  system  will  be  subject  to the 
delivery dates indicated in the Work Programme. In terms of the overall project status, PT thought it 
might  be  necessary  to  develop  national  technical  specifications  for  the  purpose  of  communications 
with economic operators.  

Those Member States opting to develop national versions of PoUS identified risks for compliance with 
the timeline and the predicted milestones. The process of awarding the tender is still in progress for 
CY,  while  CZ  reported  that  the  business  documentation  was  recently  completed  and  the  technical 
documentation is still being finalised. CY views the risk as low and the project complexity as high (6). 
CZ  marks  both  project  complexity  (3)  and  the  risk  level  as  medium.  During  a  follow-up 
communication,  CZ,  along  with  other  Member  States,  indicated  that  they  would  follow  the  latest 
deadlines provided by the Work Programme, yet revealed that they had not yet appointed a National 
Project Manager. IE expressed the same willingness to readjust national planning deadlines to comply 
with the timeline. SK voiced a concern regarding the sufficiency and expertise of its human resources, 
identifying  the  project  as  medium  risk  with  a  medium  complexity  (3).  It  does  not  yet  foresee  any 
mitigating actions, as its impact analysis is still ongoing.  

3.6.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Taking  into  account  the  new  developments  during  the  second  half  of  2019  in  regards  to  the 
implementation  approach  for  the  PoUS  project,  it  is  not  possible  to  report  any  firm  divergences  in 
planning  compared  to  the  dates  set  in  the  Work  Programme.  In  the  final  version  of  the  UCC  Work 
Programme,  a  two-phased  approach  was  agreed  in  order  to  allow  the  customs  goods  manifest 
implementation to be linked to the European Maritime Single Window implementation. At the time of 
writing the report, National Planning information has not yet been collected per phase of the project.  

59 

 
 
 
60 

 
 
 
 
3.7  UCC CENTRALISED CLEARANCE FOR IMPORT (CCI) 

The UCC Centralised Clearance for Import (CCI) project aims to allow for goods to be placed under a 
customs  procedure  using  centralised  clearance,  enabling  economic  operators  to  centralise  their 
business  from  a  customs  point  of  view.  The  processing  of  the  customs  declaration  and  the  physical 
release of the goods will be coordinated between the related customs offices. 

The  implementation  of  the  concept  of  Centralised  Clearance  for  Import  (CCI)  by  a  new  trans-
European  System  will  strengthen  the  trade  facilitation  by  enabling  economic  operators  with  the 
“centralisation” of their business related to import and the reduction of the interactions with customs 
by  using  the  customs  office  of  supervision  as  the  main  contact  partner.  In  addition,  the  new  CCI 
system  will  introduce  harmonisation  and  standardisation  of  processes  and  electronic  exchange  of 
information  across  the  Union  for  centralised  clearance  at  import.  It  is  also  expected  to  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  for  the  customs  administration  with  automated  processes  and  to  allow  tax 
authorities to have better supervision and control on the collection of import VAT. 

In  terms  of  the  planning  approach,  as  a  trans-European  system,  the  project  contains  components 
developed centrally and nationally. The project will be implemented in two phases.  

Phase 1 will cover the combination of centralised clearance with standard customs declarations and 
with  simplified  customs  declarations  and  related  supplementary  declarations  (which  regularise 
simplified  customs  declarations).  In  addition,  this  phase  will  cover  the  placing  of  goods  under  the 
following  customs  procedures:  release  for  free  circulation,  customs  warehousing,  inward  processing 
and end-use. In regards to the types of goods involved, this phase will cover all types of goods with 
the  exception  of  excise  goods  and  goods  subject  to  common  agricultural  policy  measures.  The 
functional  specifications  for  CCI  Phase  1  were  completed  and  approved  in  Q4  2018.  The  technical 
specifications  were  completed  in  Q3  and  planned  to  be  approved  in  Q4  2020.  The  project  is 
progressing  according  to  the  planning  set  by  the  UCC  Work  Programme.  So-called  “forerunner” 
Member  States  have  been  identified  to  work  closely  with  the  Commission  for  the  development 
activities  and  with  a  view  to  start  operations  at  the start  of  the  deployment  window  planned  for  the 
project in the UCC Work Programme. 

Phase 2 will cover everything that is not covered by Phase 1, namely: 

  The  combination  of  centralised  clearance  with  customs  declarations  through  an  entry  in  the 

declarant’s records and related supplementary declarations; 

  Supplementary declarations regularising more than one simplified customs declaration; 
  The placing of goods under the temporary admission procedure and excise goods; 
  Goods subject to common agricultural policy measures; 
  Goods in the context of trade with special fiscal territories; 
  The communication of supporting/additional documents between the related customs offices.  

The Business Case document for Phase 2 was completed and approved during Q3 2019. The package 
of  L4  BPMs  and  functional  specifications  was  created  and  approved  by  Member  States  and  Trade 
Contact Group in August 2020. The next steps on Phase 2 will be the activities related to the design of 
the  IT  system  and  the  Technical  System  Specifications.  The  work  for  the  elaboration  of  the  Vision 
Document and Architecture Overview has been launched in view to be completed by Q4 2020. 

3.7.1  Summary of Responses 

The Commission finds both project phases low risk, however highly complex (6).  

CCI  is  the  first  trans-European system  using  the  new  network  architecture,  CCN2ng.  Other  projects 
supporting conformance testing activities need to be aligned with the new architecture and approach. 
Currently, all Phase 1 activities are synchronised and managed between the various responsible project 
teams. At the time of writing this report the Technical System Specifications for CCI Phase 1 are in 
the final stage of external review and approval by the Member States and Trade Contact Group.  

61 

 
 
 
BE  considers  the  project  complexity  to  be  medium  (4)  with  a  low  risk  level.  BE  indicates  that  the 
implementation period for Phase 1 of the project is tight considering the number of IT systems which 
need  to  be  implemented  in  the  same  timeframe.  It  was  also  noted  that  the  procedures  to  be 
implemented in Phase 2 are more complex than the ones in Phase 1.  

BG noted the project complexity as high (6) with a low risk level. BG reports that Phase 1 has been 
implemented at the national level as part of its national import system, while for Phase 2 the planning 
has not yet started. Therefore, BG has assessed the complexity as high but the risk low. 

CY identifies the project complexity as high (6) with a low risk level for both project phases. The high 
complexity is due to insufficient resources, dependencies with other systems and the development of 
other projects in parallel. Modifications have been made in the planning so that the date of operation 
does  not  coincide  with  other  core  projects.  Additionally,  a  phased  approach  will  be  undertaken  for 
both phases. 

CZ  judges  the  project  complexity  as  medium  (3)  with  a  medium  risk  level.  Regarding  Phase  1,  CZ 
finds it difficult to assess the complexity as the business documentation17 was recently approved. CZ 
further  reports  that  it  participated  in  the  Project  Group  (PG)  for  the  preparation  of  the  above 
documents, and is now waiting for next steps to be defined by the IT PG. This might lead to a delay in 
the deployment. Regarding Phase 2, CZ again faces difficulty in accurately assessing the complexity. 
Additional details will be received in future Customs Business Group (CBG) meetings. The risk CZ 
identifies for  Phase  2  pertains to the business  and  IT  documentation that is still not  available and it 
states that this might interfere with their ability to meet the milestones. 

DE did not provide a complexity assessment however indicated that the project had a low risk level. 
DE  mentions that  both  phases  will  be  implemented in  the  major  release  of  their national  IT-System 
ATLAS  (Releases  10.2  and  10.3)  for  which  the  preparatory  activities  have  not  yet  started.  The 
expected deployment date is Q2 2024 for Phase 1 and Q2 2025 for Phase 2. 

ES, FI, and HR identify the project as having a high complexity rating (6) and a high risk level as it 
pertains to a brand new trans-European system for import. FI further reiterates the comments made in 
section 3.1. 

NL identifies the project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level. It was mentioned that the 
development and testing could only be planned once the technical specifications are approved. Other 
Member States such as PT have indicated that they also use an Agile development approach to help 
reduce the implementation timeframe. 

PT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  yet  with  a  low  risk  level.  PT  finds  that  since  this 
project  will  be  developed  and  implemented  within  the  National  Import  System,  which  is  highly 
complex,  the  integration  of  CCI  -  Phase  2  will  also  be  complex. The  development  of  this  system  is 
linked to the development of all national, central and other Member States’ systems, which increases 
the interdependencies and the complexity of the “global system”.  

SI noted the project complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. The risks pertain to the COVID-
19 pandemic and its impact to financial and human resources. In addition, SI mentioned that they are 
implementing a new import declaration system by the end of 2020 and that they would actively engage 
once completed. 

SK rates the project complexity as medium (3) with a medium risk level and mentions that there may 
be  delays  caused  by  the  lack  of  human  and  financial  resources  but  these  should  not  affect  the  key 
milestones.  SK  further  mentions  that  an  impact  analysis  is  ongoing  and  therefore  no  mitigation 
measures are considered yet.  

17 CCI Phase 1 - Scope Document, UCC CCI for Import - Vision document and EU Customs Functional Requirements BPM 
Report for CCI 

62 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3-31 and Figure 3-32 provide an overall summary of the survey responses received from the 
Member States and the European Commission18 regarding the status of their project activities. 

Figure 3-31: Summary of Survey Responses – CCI – Phase 1 

Figure 3-32: Summary of Survey Responses – CCI – Phase 2 

3.7.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 20 and Table 21 highlight any known divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in 
the Work Programme.   

Regarding CCI – Phase 1, DE has a planned deployment date, which is later than the deadline in the 
UCC  Work  Programme.  DE  explained  that this  project  will be  implemented in the  major release  of 
their  national  IT-System  ATLAS  (Release  10.2),  which  has  been  postponed  by  one  year.  The 
preparatory  activities  have  not  yet  started. The  delay  currently  envisaged  by  DE  is  approximately  2 
quarters. 

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed their deployment date by more than one quarter: DE, DK, FR and LV. However, except for 
DE, this planning adjustment does not entail an additional risk on the final deadline of deployment.  

PL moved their deployment date earlier by more than one quarter.  

18 The figure related to Conformance Testing includes the work from the Commission in regards to the preparation of the CT 
environment and coordination for Member States. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The specific dates can be found in Table 20 below.  

Table 20: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – CCI – Phase 1 

64 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion European Commission17/02/2020100%30/11/20230%01/03/20220%AT01/02/20210%01/06/20220%01/06/20220%BE01/01/202110%31/08/20230%09/01/20230%BG15/12/202190%29/09/20230%27/11/20230%CY01/10/202180%01/06/20230%01/09/20230%CZ01/06/20220%Not Provided0%01/06/20230%DE30/06/20230%31/03/20240%30/06/20240%DK01/01/2022Not Provided01/08/2023Not Provided01/08/2023Not ProvidedEE30/06/20220%30/06/20240%31/12/20220%ES31/12/2020100%30/09/20220%01/10/20220%FI31/12/20220%31/12/20220%01/12/20230%FR01/03/2021Not ProvidedNot ProvidedNot Provided30/09/2022Not ProvidedGR30/09/20210%31/12/20220%31/12/20220%HR30/06/20220%01/04/20230%01/12/20230%HU30/09/2020Not Provided01/11/2023Not Provided01/12/2023Not ProvidedIE30/09/20210%30/10/20230%31/10/20230%IT01/10/202060%30/09/202310%01/03/20220%LT31/12/20210%30/09/20230%01/12/20230%LUNot ProvidedNot Provided01/04/2023Not Provided01/04/2023Not ProvidedLV01/10/20220%08/09/20230%10/09/20230%MT01/01/2021Not Provided31/05/2022Not Provided01/08/2022Not ProvidedNL01/01/20210%01/12/20230%01/12/20230%PL01/12/2021Not Provided01/07/2023Not Provided01/09/2023Not ProvidedPT15/12/20220%15/10/20230%01/12/20230%RO30/06/202350%31/12/20230%01/12/20230%SENot Provided0%Not Provided0%01/10/20230%SI01/03/20210%20/11/20230%01/12/20230%SK01/09/20210%01/12/20230%01/12/20230%Deployment01/12/2023Conformance TestingProject NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsUCC Centralized Clearance for Import (CCI) - Phase 130/09/2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the implementation of CCI – Phase 2, the following Member States have a planned deployment 
date, which is later than the deadline in the UCC Work Programme: DE. However, the delay for DE is 
limited to one month. DE explained that this project will be implemented in the major release of their 
national IT-System ATLAS (Release 10.3) for which the preparatory activities have not yet started.  

In  comparison  to  the  planned  end  dates  provided  in  the  2019  report,  the  following  Member  States 
postponed their deployment date for CCI  – Phase 2 by  more  than one quarter: DE, DK, FI and LV. 
The specific dates can be found in Table 21 below. However, except for DE, this planning adjustment 
does not entail an additional risk on the final deadline of deployment. 

Table 21: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – CCI – Phase 2 

3.7.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-33  and  Figure  3-34  summarise  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications, 
conformance  testing  and  deployment).  The  sum  of  each  bar  is  28  (responses  from  the  27  Member 
States plus the European Commission). 

65 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion European Commission30/06/20220%15/07/20230%02/10/20230%AT01/05/20230%01/09/20240%01/09/20240%BENot provided0%Not provided0%Not provided0%BG09/01/20230%24/03/20250%14/04/20250%CY01/02/20230%01/12/20240%06/01/20250%CZ01/06/20230%Not provided0%01/02/20250%DE30/06/20240%31/03/20250%30/06/20250%DK01/02/2024Not provided01/01/2025Not provided01/01/2025Not providedEE30/06/20220%30/06/20240%31/12/20240%ES30/09/20220%30/09/20240%01/10/20240%FI31/12/20240%31/12/20250%02/06/20250%FRNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedGR31/12/20220%31/12/20240%31/03/20250%HR30/06/20230%01/02/20250%01/03/20250%HU30/06/2022Not provided01/05/2025Not provided01/06/2025Not providedIE30/09/20220%30/10/20240%31/10/20240%IT01/01/20230%31/12/20240%01/03/20250%LT01/10/20220%02/05/20250%01/06/20250%LUNot providedNot provided01/01/2025Not provided01/01/2025Not providedLV01/04/20240%20/02/20250%23/03/20250%MT01/01/2023Not provided31/05/2024Not provided01/08/2024Not providedNLNot provided0%Not provided0%Not provided0%PL30/09/2023Not provided01/01/2025Not provided01/06/2025Not providedPT01/06/20240%15/04/20250%01/06/20250%RO30/06/20240%30/06/20250%01/06/20250%SENot provided0%Not provided0%01/10/20240%SI01/10/20230%20/05/20250%01/06/20250%SK01/06/20230%01/06/20250%01/06/20250%DeploymentProject NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsUCC Centralized Clearance for Import (CCI) - Phase 230/06/202202/06/2025Conformance Testing 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Technical Specifications

2 

5 

15 

Conformance Testing

1 

Deployment

21 

22 

6 

6 

6 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-33: Summary of Responses per Milestone – CCI – Phase 1 

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

22 

22 

22 

6 

6 

6 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-34: Summary of Responses per Milestone – CCI – Phase 2 

Additional details regarding the specific percentage of completion per milestone can be seen in Figure 
3-35.  

Regarding Phase 1, the Commission has completed and provided the technical specifications to  the 
Member  States  for  the  development  of  the  national  components.  ES  has  completed  their  Technical 
Specifications and BE, BG, CY, IT, and RO have started.  

CCI – Phase 2 has not yet started on the Member States’ level as they are depending on and waiting 
for the technical specifications to be provided by the Commission. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-35: Percentage of Completion per Phase – CCI – Phase 1 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
3.8  UCC NEW COMPUTERISED TRANSIT SYSTEM (NCTS) UPGRADE 

The  aim  of  this  project  is  to  align  the  existing  trans-European  New  Computerised  Transit  System 
(NCTS) to the UCC legal provisions. The scope of the project includes the alignment of information 
exchanges to UCC data requirements, the upgrade and development of interfaces with other systems 
such as AES in addition to new safety and security requirements. 

In  terms  of  the  planning  approach,  the  project  is  divided  into  two  components.  Component  1,  the 
‘NCTS-Phase 5 (P5)’ includes steps to upgrade and extend the current NCTS processes in alignment 
with  UCC  legal  provisions,  to  introduce  new  processes  such  as  the  pre-lodgement  of  Customs 
declarations, to provide for the registration of ‘en-route’ events, align information exchanges to UCC 
data  requirements  and  the  upgrade  and  development  of  interfaces  with  other  systems.  The  system 
includes some components to be developed centrally but the main components are to be developed at 
the national level. 
NCTS – Component 1 will meet the following objectives19: 

  Data harmonisation across customs domains (import, export, transit) - New Customs EU Data 

Model; 

  Harmonisation in the external domain resulting in trade facilitation; 
 
Interoperability across customs and taxation/excise; 
  Alignment to operational practices for export and transit; 
  Business continuity and facilitation of the transition for national administrations and Trade; 
  New  IT  architecture  for  customs  trans-European  systems  for  Member  States  and  Common 

Transit Convention (CTC) countries. 

Additionally, NCTS – Component 1 will improve the following processes: 

  Transit guarantees monitoring; 
  The enquiry process; 
  Business statistics for transit: The current collection of business statistics will be optimised in 

order to ensure support of measurements of the Customs Union Performance system; 

  Strengthen the safety and security for entry/exit. 

Lastly, a number of new functionalities will be incorporated: 

  Transit declaration pre-lodgement; 
  Lodgement of transit declaration with reduced data-set; 
  Management of 'en route' incidents; 
  Export process followed-up by the transit TES and better monitoring of trade flows. 

Component  2,  the  ‘NCTS-Phase  6  (P6)’,  aims  to  include  potential  new  requirements  in  the  field  of 
safety and security data elements in transit customs declarations. These requirements relate to goods 
brought into the customs territory of the Union and are also incorporated in the UCC Import Control 
System  Upgrade  2  (ICS2).  The  scope  and  implementation  solution  will  be  agreed  upon  during  the 
project  initiation  phase  in  Q4  2020.  As  the  Phase  6  business  case  has  not  yet  been  finalised,  some 
Member States have not yet provided dates or reported "N/A" (not applicable). 

3.8.1  Summary of Responses 

The Commission highlighted in its ‘Overview of the Customs Information Systems’ report20 that the 
NCTS  is  already  in  operation,  with  multiple  stakeholders  and  that  the  functioning  of  this  existing 
system cannot be jeopardised.  

19 The same objectives will also be met by UCC Automated Export System (AES) – Component 1. 
20 DG TAXUD Customs Information Systems Overview of the Status of the MASP-C Projects Brussels, 22 August 2019 

68 

 
 
                                                      
The  Commission  established  the  “National  Administration  coordination  programme”  in  Q3  2019  to 
support Member States in the development and deployment of their national components for the trans-
European systems. During its first six months of application, the following results can be reported for 
NCTS and AES: 

  All national administrations have complied to the provisions of the Coordination Programme 
for  NCTS-P5  and  AES,  having  provided  detailed  National  Project  Plans  using  the  proposed 
templates and reporting any deviations to their baseline plan; 

  The overall Coordination Programme has been discussed with all national administrations in 

four virtual and physical meetings and has been accepted by the ECCG; 

  Three  bilateral  missions  took  place  and  six  bilateral  webinars  were  held  with  national 

administrations; 

  The Commission has reported, to the ECCG and CPG, the current report providing the KPIs 

overview of the aggregated national plans. 

NCTS - Component 1 

For  NCTS-P5  the  challenge  has  been  to  ensure  business  continuity  and  smooth  Member  State  and 
trade  transition  while  applying  significant  changes  in  the  applicable  Data  and  Process  models.  This 
challenge  has  been  addressed  very  efficiently  within  the  formally  accepted  NCTS-P5  TSS  and 
Transition Implementation Plan. Despite this, no delays have materialised and the project is currently 
on  track.  For  both  NCTS-P5  and  AES-P1  projects,  the  technical  specifications  enable  seamless 
business continuity (processes and information exchanges) across national administrations and traders 
running  the  existing  and  new  systems  during  the  transitional  period.  The  projects  also  triggered  a 
significant  alignment  of  the  Customs  data  of  the  UCC  (annex  B)  to  the  operational  practices  of  the 
MSs, the NAs and traders, fostering trade facilitation and cost reductions. The technical specifications 
were  approved  by  the  national  administrations  in  November  2019  with  unanimous  support  of  the 
trader associations. The functional specifications will be subject to further updates to be aligned with 
the  approved  technical  specifications.  Annex  B  for  NCTS  has  been  finalised  and  it  was  sent  to  the 
Member States for formal acceptance. The technical arrangements implementing act has been prepared 
and was finalised after review by the Member States.  

From a technical point of view, the NCTS-P5 and AES-P1 projects pioneered a collaborative, iterative 
and agile working method that has been praised by all Member States and traders involved. It has been 
requested to have this method expanded to other projects of the UCC. The conformance testing started 
as planned in Q3 2020. Intermediate releases of the central converter of NCTS were also delivered.  

A number of Member States have reacted positively to the call of the Commission to bring forward the 
deployment  date,  as  also  pointed  out  in  the  ‘Overview  of  the  Customs  Information  Systems’17. 
National project plans21 are available, in which all national administrations have indicated to be ready 
within the deployment window in the UCC Work Programme, starting operations in Q1 2021 until Q4 
2023,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  3-36.  DE,  PL  and  FR  will  comprise  the  first  wave  of  Member  States 
entering into operations in 2021. The risks at this stage are under control. The Commission has set-up 
a coordination programme to follow-up on the implementation plan of the Member States. 

21 Ref. Ares (2020) 1629698 – 18/03/2020 

69 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3-36: NCTS-P5 National Administrations entry into operations 

The Member State’s survey responses are summarised below. 

AT considers the project complexity to be high (6) with a medium risk level. AT mentioned possible 
delays  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  AT  explained  that  they  are  working  with  their  IT  service 
provider to set-up an organisation to plan, specify and to implement requirements. This is a risk for all 
project  milestones.  Currently  AT  is  working  on  the  refinement  of  the  technical  analysis,  preparing 
information for the traders, creating the development teams, planning product increments and defining 
features and user stories.  

CY  rates  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  and  the  risk  level  as  low.  The  complexity  is  caused  by 
dependencies  with  other  systems  and  the  development  of  other  projects  in  parallel.  In  addition,  CY 
highlighted a risk of insufficient resources. CY plans to use a phased development approach and has 
consequently reassessed the date of operations so that it does not coincide with other core projects. 

CZ notes project complexity as high (6) with a medium risk level. CZ indicated that there might be 
changes in their national project plans depending on the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. In line 
with  their  national  planning,  they  are  preparing  detailed  technical  and  functional  specifications.  CZ 
plans to have at least 80% of the national specifications prepared in 2020. 

EE considers the project complexity to be high (6) with a low risk level. EE mentioned that the project 
is delayed in comparison to the planning in the 2019 report, but the overall delivery is still expected 
within the deployment deadline. This is mainly due to delays in the procurement process. 

ES  indicates  that  the  project  complexity  is  high  (5)  with  a  medium  risk  level.  This  project  requires 
coordination  between  countries  and  a  significant  effort  in  transition  management.  ES  will  use  an 
iterative development approach. 

FI  considers  the  project  complexity  to  be  high  (6)  with  a  high  risk  level.  FI  further  reiterates  the 
comments made in section 3.1. 

FR  and  SE  both  marked  the  project  complexity  as  medium  (ratings  of  3  and  4  respectively)  with  a 
medium  risk  level.  The  two  Member  States  decided  to  start  with  an  impact  study  to  facilitate  the 
writing  of  the  technical  specifications.  For  FR,  the  impact  study  has  taken  longer  than  foreseen, 
however, this should shorten the technical specifications elaboration phase. Their plan is to complete 
the project in two iterations, the second of which will be dedicated to the AES interface. 

70 

 
 
 
GR  indicated  a  high  complexity  level  (5)  and  a  medium  risk  level.  GR  indicated  that  the  project  is 
currently  delayed  compared  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  however  the  overall  delivery  is  still 
expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. GR is facing procurement 
delays. 

HR considers the project complexity to be high (5) with a medium level of risk. HR foresees a risk that 
their technical specifications may be delayed as there are limited human resources currently dedicated 
to the project. Despite this, HR shortened the overall project duration by five months and plans to go 
into production on 01/01/2023. 

IE  indicates  that  the  project  complexity  is  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level.  IE  is  finalising  the 
timeline/milestones  for  national  development  with  an  external  contractor  and  no  major  risks  are 
expected. 

IT  remarks  that  the  project  complexity  is  medium  (4)  with  a  low  level  of  risk  explaining  that  this 
requires the development of a national convertor for both external and common domains in order to 
manage  the  migration  from  the  current  functional  phase  to  new  ones.  The  management  of  a  large 
number of economic operators involved in the migration resulted in the decision to adopt a national 
strategy that envisages the migration of the external domain at a previous phase to the migration of the 
common domain. This decision was taken to reduce the risk for both economic operators and customs 
offices. 

NL  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level,  commenting  that  an  agile 
development approach will be used. They are currently describing project features based on the Design 
Document  for  National  Transit  Application  (DDNTA).  The  selection  of  the  IT  provider  for 
development is in progress. 

SI identifies the project complexity as medium (4) with a medium level of risk, citing the COVID-19 
pandemic as a major risk. This situation could cause the postponement of the deployment date. Their 
external contractor is currently preparing the detailed technical and functional specifications. 

NCTS - Component 2 

For the interconnection with ICS2, a feasibility study was launched to further evaluate the information 
exchange possibilities.  

Figure 3-37 and Figure 3-38 provide an overall summary of the survey responses received from the 
Member States and the European Commission22 regarding the status of their project activities. 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

Figure 3-37: Project Status as per Survey – NCTS – Component 1 or Phase 5 

22 The figure related to Conformance Testing includes the work from the Commission in regards to the preparation of the CT 
environment and coordination for Member States. 

71 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3-38: Project Status as per Survey – NCTS – Component 2 or Phase 6 

3.8.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 22 and Table 23 highlight any known divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in 
the Work Programme23.  

The  planning  information  reported  in  last  year's  report  demonstrated  that  Member  States  were  still 
defining the most appropriate options for their national transition implementation strategy and related 
national  planning  for  NCTS  Phase  5 or  Component 1.  From  this  perspective,  the  baseline planning 
from last year was not yet mature.  

23 The percentage of deployment refers to DG TAXUD preparation and the aggregated progress of National Administrations 
based on their National Project Plans. 

72 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
In comparison to the planned end dates provided at the end of 2019, the majority of the MSs stay in 
accordance with their initial plans as they communicated last year (whilst the work was being finalised 
on the technical specifications). Only PL postponed their deployment date by one semester but is still 
envisaging starting deployment for AES and NCTS in 2021 as a forerunner Member State. 

Table 22: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – NCTS – Component 1 

73 

 
 
    
 
 
 
In comparison to the planned end dates provided at the end of 2019, DK postponed their deployment 
date  for  NCTS  Phase  6  or  Component  2  by  more  than  one  semester  and  HR  moved  their  planned 
deployment earlier by more than one quarter, however, not going beyond the deployment date set in 
the UCC Work Programme. 

Table 23: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – NCTS – Component 2 

3.8.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-39  and  Figure  3-40  summarise  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications, 
conformance  testing  and  deployment).  The  sum  of  each  bar  is  28  (responses  from  the  27  Member 
States plus the European Commission). 

Technical
Specifications

5 

9 

8 

Conformance
Testing

1 

3 

Deployment

5 

18 

17 

6 

6 

6 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-39: Summary of Responses per Milestone – NCTS – Component 1 

74 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual Start Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion European Commission13/06/20220%03/07/20230%03/06/20240%AT01/11/20230%01/03/20250%01/03/20250%BENot provided0%Not provided0%Not provided0%BGNot provided0%Not provided0%Not provided0%CY01/09/20220%01/10/20240%02/10/20240%CZ01/01/20230%30/09/20240%01/10/20240%DEN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ADK01/09/2022Not provided01/04/2025Not provided01/04/2025Not providedEE30/06/20230%31/12/20240%31/12/20240%ES30/09/20220%30/09/20240%01/10/20240%FI30/06/20230%30/06/20240%30/06/20240%FR31/12/2022Not providedNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedGR30/09/20230%31/12/20240%31/03/20250%HR31/12/20210%30/09/20220%01/01/20230%HU30/09/2022Not provided01/05/2025Not provided01/06/2025Not providedIE30/09/20220%30/10/20240%31/10/20240%IT01/05/20240%30/04/20250%01/06/20250%LT01/10/20220%02/05/20250%01/06/20250%LUNot providedNot provided01/12/2024Not provided02/12/2024Not providedLV02/10/2023Not provided28/02/2025Not provided23/03/2025Not providedMT31/12/2020Not provided15/05/2023Not provided31/03/2023Not providedNLNot provided0%Not provided0%Not provided0%PLNot provided0%Not provided0%Not provided0%PT01/06/20240%15/04/20250%01/06/20250%RO31/12/20210%30/06/20240%31/12/20240%SENot provided0%Not provided0%01/06/20240%SI01/04/20230%20/05/20250%01/06/20250%SK01/02/20230%01/06/20250%01/06/20250%02/06/2025DeploymentConformance TestingUCC New Computerized Transit System (NCTS) Upgrade - Component 230/06/2022Project NameRespondeeTechnical Specifications 
 
 
 
 
Technical
Specifications

Conformance
Testing

Deployment

21 

21 

21 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

6 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-40: Summary of Responses per Milestone – NCTS – Component 2 

Additional details regarding the specific percentage of completion per milestone can be seen in Figure 
3-41.  

Regarding NCTS Phase 5 or Component 1, the following Member States have not yet started with the 
technical specifications: BG, EE, FI, GR, IE, LT, NL, SE, and SK.  

DK, HU, LU, LV and MT did not provide information. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C

T
A

E
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

S
E

R
F

R
H

30% 

34% 

60% 

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

10% 

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

30% 

Technical Specifications

T
I

Conformance Testing

Deployment

20% 

Technical Specifications

L
P

Conformance Testing

Deployment

65% 

25% 

45% 

Technical Specifications

10% 

T
P

O
R

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

I
S

Conformance Testing

Deployment

50% 

50% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

80% 

75% 

75% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Figure 3-41: Percentage of Completion per Phase – NCTS – Component 1 or Phase 5 

76 

 
 
 
 
3.9  UCC AUTOMATED EXPORT SYSTEM (AES) 

The  AES  project  consists of  an upgrade  of  both the existing  trans-European  Export  Control  System 
and the existing national export systems. It aims to implement the UCC requirements for export and 
exit of goods, including export and re-export declarations; EXS and centralised clearance for Export 
and  interface  with  EMCS  and  NCTS.  The  project  entails  implementing  the  UCC  simplifications 
offered to trade to facilitate export of goods for European companies, such as centralised clearance for 
Export,  and  the  UCC  obligations  to  better  monitor  what  exits  the  EU  customs  territory  to  prevent 
fraud.  The  export  declaration,  and  all  linked  message  exchanges  as  well  as  the  Arrival  At  Exit 
Notification and Exit Summary declaration are subject to considerable rework. The proposed message 
structures are fully convertible from/to “Legacy”/To Be” ones, guaranteeing a smooth transition and 
fostering business continuity from Q1 2021 until Q4 2023. 

The following processes will be implemented: 

  Export declaration pre-lodgement; 
  Handling of simplified/supplementary declarations; 
  Centralised clearance for export; 
  Re-export notification; 
  Export process followed-up by the transit TES and better monitoring of trade flows; 
  Export handling of goods under excise duties suspension interoperability with EMCS; 
  Facilitate legitimate trade & combat fraud; 
  Strengthen the safety and security for exit. 

In terms of planning, the system is comprised of two components. The first component relates to the 
"trans-European AES". The aim of the project is to further develop the existing trans-European Export 
Control System (ECS) in order to implement a full AES that would cover the business requirements 
for  processes  and  data  brought  about  by  the  UCC.  These  processes  and  data  would  include  the 
coverage of simplified procedures and centralised clearance for export. It is also envisaged to cover 
the  development  of  harmonised  interfaces  with  the  Excise  Movement  and  Control  System  (EMCS) 
and  NCTS.  As  such,  AES will  enable the full  automation  of  export  procedures and  exit formalities. 
The  system  includes  some  parts  to  be  developed  centrally  but  the  main  components  are  to  be 
developed at the national level.  

The second component relates to the upgrade of the National Export Systems. 

3.9.1  Summary of Responses 

AES - Component 1 

For  UCC  AES  the  challenge  has  been  to  ensure  business  continuity  and  smooth  Member  State  and 
Trade  transition  while  applying  significant  changes  in  the  applicable  data  and  process  models.  This 
challenge  has  been  addressed  very  efficiently  within  the  formally  accepted  AES  Technical  System 
Specifications  (TSS)    and  Transition  Implementation  Plan.  Despite  the  challenges  related  to  the 
project,  no  delays  have  materialised  so  far  and  the  project  is  currently  on  track.  The  technical 
specifications were completed in September 2019 in collaboration with 18 Member States and 7 major 
trade associations. Member States should complete the export component of their Special Procedures 
systems at the same time as the AES. 

A number of Member States have reacted positively to the call of the Commission to bring forward the 
deployment  date,  as  also  pointed  out  in  the  ‘Overview  of  the  Customs  Information  Systems’17. 
National project plans24 are available, in which all national administrations have indicated to be ready 
within the deployment window in the UCC Work Programme, starting operations in Q1 2021 until Q4 
2023,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  3-43.  DE  and  PL  will  comprise  the  first  wave  of  forerunner  Member 

24 Ref. Ares (2020) 1629698 – 18/03/2020 

77 

 
 
                                                      
States entering into operations in 2021. The risks are at this stage under control. The Commission has 
set up a coordination programme to follow-up the implementation plan of the Member States. 

Figure 3-42: AES-P1 National Administrations entry into operations 

The Member State’s survey responses are summarised below. 

The comments  from  CY,  CZ,  EE,  ES,  FI,  HR,  IE,  IT,  LV,  NL  and  SI  are  the same  as  for  NCTS  – 
Component 1 (see section 3.8). 

AT  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  medium  level  of  risk,  mentioning  possible 
delays  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  They  explained  that  they  are  working  with  their  IT  service 
provider to set-up an organisation to plan, specify and to implement requirements. This is a risk for all 
project  milestones.  Currently  AT  is  working  on  finalising  the  business  concept,  refinement  of  the 
technical  analysis,  preparing  information  for  the  traders,  establishing  development  teams  and  the 
ongoing planning of product increments.  

ES  indicates  that  the  project  complexity  is  high  (5)  with  a  medium  risk  level.  This  project  requires 
coordination  between  countries  and  a  significant  effort  in  transition  management.  ES  will  use  an 
iterative development approach. 

GR  indicated  a  high  complexity  level  (6)  and  a  medium  risk  level.  GR  indicated  that  the  project  is 
currently  delayed  compared  to  the  planning  in  the  2019  report,  however  the  overall  delivery  is  still 
expected within the deployment deadline set in the UCC Work Programme. GR is facing procurement 
delays. 

HR considers the project complexity as high (5) with a medium risk level, foreseeing a risk that the 
technical specifications may be delayed as there are limited human resources currently dedicated to the 
project.  Despite this,  HR shortened  the  overall  project  duration  by  five  months and  plans  to  go  into 
production on 01/01/2023. 

IE  indicates  that  the  project  complexity  is  high  (5)  with  a  low  risk  level.  IE  is  finalising  the 
timeline/milestones for national development with an external contractor, no major risks expected. 

IT remarks that the project complexity is medium (4) with a low risk level explaining that this project 
requires the development of a national convertor for both external and common domains in order to 
manage  the  migration  from  the  current  functional  phase  to  new  ones.  The  management  of  a  large 

78 

 
 
 
 
number of economic operators involved in the migration resulted in the decision to adopt a national 
strategy that envisages the migration of the external domain at a previous phase to the migration of the 
common domain. This decision was taken to reduce the risk for both economic operators and customs 
offices. 

LV  considers  the  project  complexity  as  medium  (3)  with  a  high  risk  level.  LV  commented  that 
currently no budget is allocated to support the development of AES. The development scope and plan 
for  AES  and  NCTS  –  Phase  5  which  includes  the  transition  model  and  all  functionality,  is  under 
review. 

NL noted the project complexity is medium (4)  with a low level of risk. NL comments that an agile 
development approach will be used. They are currently describing project features based on the Design 
Document  for  National  Transit  Application  (DDNXA).  The  selection  of  the  IT  provider  for 
development is in progress. 

PL rates the project complexity as high (6) with a high risk level. PL marked the project as delayed 
beyond the deployment deadline mainly due to delays in the procurement process. PL plans to mitigate 
these  risks  by  continuing  to  participate  in  the  work  of  the  forerunners  group  (issuing  opinions  on 
changes, continuing pre-CT activities. 

PT noted that the project complexity is high (6) with a high risk level due to the implementation of a 
new national AES system and to the lack of resources. An Agile development approach will be used to 
reduce the implementation timeframe. 

RO  considers  the  project  complexity  as  high  (6)  with  a  low  risk  level.  RO  is  progressing  on  the 
technical specifications and plans to initiate a call for tender by the beginning of 2021. 

SI evaluates the project complexity to be medium (4) with a high level of risk, identifying the COVID-
19  pandemic  as  a  major  risk.  This  situation  could  cause  the  postponement  of  the  deployment  date. 
Their external contractor is currently preparing the detailed technical specifications for Components 1 
& 2. 

AES – Component 2 

The Commission has provided the Member States with technical and functional specifications, Annex 
B data and the required legal text. This was provided for the external domain with trade and for the 
national domain between the national applications and the common domain. Furthermore, the required 
interfaces and the proposed architecture were also provided. 

The comments from AT, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, GR, HR, IE, IT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO and SI are the 
same as for AES – Component 1. 

BE comments that AES – Component 2 adds a limited set of functionalities to AES – Component 1. 
BE  will  perform  ongoing  analysis  for  this  project  however  it  will  be  a  lower  priority  until  AES  – 
Component 1 is fully developed. 

Figure 3-43 and Figure 3-44 provide an overall summary of the survey responses received from the 
Member States and the European Commission25 regarding the status of their project activities. 

25 The figure related to Conformance Testing includes the work from the Commission in regards to the preparation of the CT 
environment and coordination for Member States. 

79 

 
 
 
                                                      
[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

[CELLRANGE], 
[CATEGORY 
NAME] 

Figure 3-43: Project Status as per Survey – AES – Component 1 

Figure 3-44: Project Status as per Survey – AES – Component 2 

3.9.2  Overview of Project Progress 

Table 24 and Table 25 highlight any known divergences in the planning compared to the dates set in 
the Work Programme.   

The planning information reported in last year's report demonstrated that MSs were still defining the 
most  appropriate  options  for  their  national  transition  implementation  strategy  and  related  national 
planning. From this perspective, the baseline planning from last year was not yet mature.  

80 

 
 
 
 
In comparison to the planned end dates provided in the 2019 report for the  trans-European AES – 
Component  1,  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  stay  in  accordance  with  their  initial  plans  they 
communicated last year (whilst the work was being finalised on the technical specifications). Only for 
two  Member  States,  a  difference  has  been  noted:  FR  moved  their  deployment  earlier  by  more  than 
three  quarters;  PL  postponed  their  deployment  date  by  one  semester  but  is  still  envisaging  starting 
deployment for AES and NCTS in 2021 as a forerunner Member State. 

Table 24: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – AES – Component 1 

81 

Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual End Date2020 % of Completion2020 Planned/ Actual Start Date2020 % of Completion Target date from WP 2020 Planned/ Actual Date2020 % of Completion European Commission20/12/2019100%24/11/2020100%01/03/202130%AT01/08/202125%01/08/20220%01/12/20220%BE01/02/2020100%01/01/20220%01/11/202225%BG10/06/20220%06/02/20230%05/06/20230%CY10/01/2022100%03/10/20220%01/03/20230%CZ30/03/202180%03/01/20220%03/10/20220%DE01/10/202075%06/03/202175%06/03/202190%DK01/01/2022Not Provided01/06/2022Not Provided01/02/2023Not ProvidedEE31/12/20200%01/01/20220%01/10/20220%ES01/03/2021100%01/03/20220%01/09/20220%FI01/03/20220%01/09/20220%01/03/20230%FR31/01/2021Not Provided30/09/2022Not Provided30/09/2022Not ProvidedGR30/04/202110%01/09/20220%01/11/20220%HR31/12/202130%01/10/20220%01/01/20230%HU31/12/2019Not Provided01/11/2023Not Provided01/12/2023Not ProvidedIE30/09/20210%02/05/20230%31/10/20230%IT15/07/2020100%01/07/20210%12/09/202220%LT01/10/20220%30/09/20230%02/11/20230%LUNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot ProvidedNot Provided01/04/2023Not ProvidedLV01/02/202210%01/08/20220%22/01/20234%MT31/12/2020Not Provided31/01/2023Not Provided30/06/2023Not ProvidedNL01/01/20210%01/12/20230%01/04/20220%PL15/12/202075%15/11/20210%15/12/202145%PT01/06/20220%15/03/20230%01/12/20230%RO28/02/202270%30/06/20220%15/02/20230%SE01/05/20210%30/09/20230%01/10/20220%SI01/07/202090%20/05/20220%01/06/20220%SK30/04/2021Not Provided01/12/2021Not Provided30/03/2023Not Provided01/12/2023DeploymentProject NameRespondeeTechnical SpecificationsUCC Automated Export System (AES) - Component 131/12/2019Conformance Testing 
 
 
 
 
 
In comparison to the planned end date provided in the 2019 report for the National Export Systems – 
Component 2, SK postponed their deployment date by more than one semester.  

The following Member States moved their planned deployment earlier by more than one quarter: HR 
and SE. 

Table 25: Comparison of Planned and Actual Dates – AES – Component 2 

3.9.3  Analysis of Progress against Milestones 

Figure  3-45  and  Figure  3-46  summarise  the  status  per  milestone  (technical  specifications, 
conformance testing and deployment). The sum of each bar in Figure 3-46 is 28 (responses from the 
27  Member  States  plus  the  European  Commission).  The  sum  of  each  bar  in  Figure  3-47  is  27 
(responses from the 27 Member States). 

Technical Specifications

5 

8 

8 

Conformance Testing

1 

6 

Deployment

6 

14 

15 

7 

7 

7 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-45: Summary of Responses per Milestone – AES – Component 1 

82 

 
 
 
  
 
Technical Specifications

1 

11 

10 

Conformance Testing

1 

Deployment

3 

21 

19 

5 

5 

5 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Completed

In Progress Delayed Not Started Not Applicable Not Provided

Figure 3-46: Summary of Responses per Milestone – AES – Component 2 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
Additional details regarding the specific percentage of completion per milestone can be seen in Figure 
3-47  and  Figure  3-48.  Regarding  the  trans-European  AES  -  Component  1,  the  following  Member 
States have not yet started: BG, EE, FI, GR, IE, LT, NL and SE.  

DK, FR, HU, LU, MT and SK did not provide information. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Technical Specifications

n

Conformance Testing

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

30% 

25% 

Deployment

25% 

T
A

E
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

S
E

R
H

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

T
I

Conformance Testing

Deployment

20% 

Technical Specifications

10% 

V
L

L
P

O
R

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

Conformance Testing

Deployment

Technical Specifications

I
S

Conformance Testing

Deployment

80% 

75% 

75% 

30% 

45% 

75% 

70% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

90% 

100% 

100% 

90% 

Figure 3-47: Percentage of Completion per Phase – AES – Component 1 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
Regarding the National Export Systems - Component 2, the following Member States have not yet 
started:  BG,  EE,  FI,  IE,  IT,  LT,  NL,  PT,  SE  and  SK.  DK,  FR,  HU,  LU  and  MT  did  not  provide 
information. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

25% 

50% 

80% 

80% 

75% 
75% 

90% 

100% 

10% 

10% 

4% 

30% 

45% 

75% 

70% 

90% 

T
A

E
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

S
E

R
G

R
H

V
L

L
P

O
R

I
S

Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment
Technical Specifications
Conformance Testing
Deployment

Figure 3-48: Percentage of Completion per Phase – AES – Component 2 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  ANNEX 1 – PLANNING OVERVIEW – UCC WORK PROGRAMME PROJECTS  

Figure 4-1 provides a visual overview of the planning of the UCC Work Programme projects. There 
has been no change compared to Q4 2019. The overview provides the timeline of the development of 
the  projects.  The ‘N’  symbol identifies the national projects. The  other  projects  are  related  to  trans-
European systems, which might have a central or decentralised architecture. 

Figure 4-1: Planning Overview: UCC Work Programme Projects – Status Q4 2020 

86 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
5.  ANNEX 2 – ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & KEY TERMS 

Common Transit Convention 
Delegated Act 
Design Document for National Transit Application 

Description 
Authorised Economic Operator 
Adaptive Development Methodology 
Automated Export System 
Automated Import System 
Business Process Model 
Binding Tariff Information 
Common Agricultural Policy 
Customs Business Group 
Centralised Clearance for Import 
Common Communication Network; Common Communication Network 2 
Customs Duties Calculation 
European Commission 
Customs Policy Group 
Customer Reference Services 

Acronym 
AEO 
ADM 
AES 
AIS 
BPM 
BTI 
CAP 
CBG 
CCI 
CCN; CCN2 
CDC 
COM 
CPG 
CRS 
CS/RD; CS/RD2  Central Services – Reference Data; Central Services – Reference Data 2  
CTC 
DA 
DDNXA 
DG TAXUD   Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union 
Declaration Management System 
DMS 
Decision Taking Customs Authority 
DTCA 
European Binding Tariff Information 
EBTI 
Electronic Customs Coordination Group 
ECCG 
Export Control System 
ECS 
Entry in the Declarant's Records  
EIDR 
Excise Movement and Control System 
EMCS 
European Maritime Single Window 
EMSW 
Entry Summary Declaration 
ENS 
Economic Operators Registration and Identification 
EORI 
Economic Operator System 
EOS 
Expert Teams on new approaches to develop and operate Customs IT systems 
ETCIT 
European Union Customs Data Model 
EUCDM 
EU Customs Trader Portal 
EU CTP 
Export 
EXP 
Exit Summary Declaration 
EXS 
Free Trade Agreement 
FTA 
Generalised Scheme of Preferences 
GSP 
Guarantee Management 
GUM 
Implementing Act 
IA 
Import Control System; Import Control System 2 
ICS; ICS2 
Import 
IMP 
Information Sheet 
INF 
Low Value Consignments 
LVC 
Multi-Annual Strategic Plan 
MASP 
New Computerised Transit System 
NCTS 
Member State 
MS 
National Export System 
NES 
National Special Procedures 
NSP 
Overseas Countries and Territories 
OCT 
Project Group 
PG 

87 

 
 
Acronym 
Q1/2/3/4 
REX 
RUP 
SAFe 
SP 
STI 
TAPAS 
TARIC3 
TP 
TSD 
UCC 
UI 
UUM&DS 
VAT 
WP 

Description 
Quarter 1/2/3/4 
Registered Exporters System 
Rational Unified Process 
Scaled Agile Framework 
Special Procedures 
Shared Trader Interface 
TAXUD AS4 Profile 
Integrated Tariff of the European Communities 3 
Trader Portal 
Temporary Storage Declaration 
Union Customs Code 
User Interface 
Uniform User Management & Digital Signature 
Value Added Tax 
Work Programme 

Table 26: Abbreviations and Acronyms 

88