COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters
Date: 2023-12-15
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, administrative cooperation, agrarian law, application of EU law, customs cooperation, customs regulations, customs territory (EU), exchange of information, interinstitutional cooperation (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2023  SWD(2023) 428 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters    {SWD(2023) 429 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.1.  PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION/FITNESS CHECK ....................................... 3 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 4 

2.1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ........................................ 4 

2.2.  POINT(S) OF COMPARISON ........................................................................................................ 20 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 23 

3.1.  CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ......................................................................................................... 24 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 36 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ................... 36 

4.1.1. EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................................ 36 

4.1.2. EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................................... 55 

4.1.3. COHERENCE ................................................................................................................................... 60 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? ............. 64 

4.2.1. EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ........................................................................................................ 64 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT?.......................................................................... 67 

4.3.1. RELEVANCE .................................................................................................................................... 67 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 71 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 71 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................................... 76 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 77 

MILESTONE .............................................................................................................................................. 77 

DATE ........................................................................................................................................................... 77 

DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 77 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .............................................. 80 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) .................................... 84 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ......................................................................... 117 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ...................................... 123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Administrative cooperation arrangements 

Anti-dumping duties 

Automated Export System 

Anti-Fraud Information System 

Agricultural Imports 

Anti-fraud transit information system 

Customs Cooperation Working Party 

Customs Enforcement Network 

Customs Information System 

European Commission 

anti-COunterfeit and PIracy System 

Customs Risk Management System 

Container Status Messages 

Customs Union Performance 

ACAs  

ADD  

AES 

AFIS 

AGRIM 

ATIS 

CCWP 

CEN 

CIS 

COM 

COPIS 

CRMS 

CSM 

CUP  

DG TAXUD  

Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union 

ECA 

ECS 

EDPB 

EDPS 

EMAC 

ENS  

EPPO 

EU  

EUBAM 

FIDE  

GDPR 

European Court of Auditors 

Export Control System 

European Data Protection Board 

European Data Protection Supervisor 

Expert group on mutual assistance in customs matters 

Entry summary declaration 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office 

European Union 

EU Border Assistance Mission 

Customs Investigation Files Identification Database 

General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)  

 
 
 
IET 

JCO 

JRC 

JSA 

MA 

MAA  

Import, Export and Transit directory 

Joint Customs Operations 

Joint Research Centre 

Joint Supervisory Authority 

Mutual Assistance 

Mutual Administrative Assistance  

MA communication 

Mutual assistance communication 

MFF 

MS 

NCTS 

OLAF  

RIF 

SAD  

TOR 

UCC  

VAT  

WCO  

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Member States 

New Computerised Transit System  

European Anti-Fraud Office 

Risk Information Form 

Single administrative document 

Traditional Own Resources 

Union Customs Code 

Value added tax 

World Customs Organization 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

This staff working document (SWD) presents the evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) 
No  515/971  on  mutual  assistance  between  the  administrative  authorities  of  the  Member 
States  and  cooperation  between  the  latter  and  the  Commission  to  ensure  the  correct 
application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (‘the Regulation’).  

The  Regulation  is  the  cornerstone  of  mutual  assistance  in  customs  and  agricultural 
matters  at  European  level.  It  allows  Member  State  national  authorities  to  exchange 
information  between  themselves  and  with  the  Commission  to  ensure  the  correct 
application  of  the  EU  customs  and  agricultural  legislation.  To  do  this,  the  Regulation 
establishes and ensures the operation of a number of specific IT systems and databases. 

Since the last revision of the Regulation in 2015, several developments with a potential 
impact on the functioning of the Regulation, for example in the areas of data protection2 
and  cash  movements3,  have  occurred  which  prompted  the  evaluation  of  the  Regulation 
and its robustness. Moreover, new fraud risks in the customs sector, such as the surge of 
low-value  consignments  imported  into  the  EU  via  e-commerce  platforms  and  a  strong 
increase in the number of containers transported to the EU by rail, have been identified. 

This evaluation does not derive from an obligation in the Regulation. Rather, it is part of 
the  ‘Evaluate  first’  principle  within  the  Better  Regulation  approach  followed  by  the 
European  Commission4.  The  results  of  the  evaluation  will  be  used  as  evidence  in  any 
potential future impact assessment. 

As  the  Regulation  has  not  been  evaluated  before,  the  evaluation  exercise  assesses  the 
overall  functioning  of  the  Regulation,  according  to  the  standard  evaluation  criteria  of 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added-value.  Consideration  has 
been  given  to  coherence  with  other  related  mutual  assistance  legal  instruments  such  as 
the  Naples  II  Convention5  on  mutual  assistance  and  cooperation  between  customs 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of 
the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the 
law on customs and agricultural matters 

2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of 
natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies 
and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC. 
3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on controls on cash 
entering or leaving the Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 
4 https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/sg/better_regulation/Pages/index.aspx 

5  Convention  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  Article  K.3  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  on  mutual  assistance  and 

cooperation between customs administrations (Official Journal C 024, of 23/01/1998 P. 0002 – 0022). 

3 

 
 
 
administrations,  and  Council  Decision  2009/917/JHA6  on  the  use  of  information 
technology for customs purposes.  

The  evaluation  focuses  on  the  key  elements  of  the  Regulation,  such  as  its  scope,  the 
mutual  assistance  between  Member  States,  the  cooperation  between  them  and  the 
Commission, the relations with third countries and the IT systems and databases covered. 
It considers the extent to which the objectives pursued are being met and remain relevant. 
In  particular,  it  assesses  whether  the  data  and  data  quality  contained  in  these  databases 
are sufficient to enable customs authorities to combat fraud effectively or whether there 
are gaps in the data coverage and if so, why. 

The evaluation covers the time period from 1 September 2016, which is the date of the 
entry  into  application  of  its  last  revision  by  Regulation  2015/15257,  until  1  September 
2019. 

All Member States as well as third countries, to the extent the implementation of Articles 
19  to  22  and  of  Article  30(4)  of  the  Regulation  is  concerned,  are  covered  by  the 
evaluation. Information relating to the United Kingdom has been included as appropriate. 
The deadline for replies to the consultation was after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, 
and no reply had been received from this country. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1. 

  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Combating fraud in the context of the customs union and the common agricultural policy 
calls  for  close  cooperation  between  the  administrative  authorities  responsible  in  each 
Member  State  and  cooperation  between  these  national  authorities  and  the  Commission. 
Effective cooperation in  these fields strengthens the protection of the financial interests 
of the Union and contributes to the safety and health of citizens and the protection of the 
environment. 

The  Regulation  sets  out  the  rules  under  which  customs  and  agriculture  administrations 
may  cooperate  administratively  at  bilateral  and  Union  level  to  ensure  the  correct 
application  of  customs  and  agriculture  law.  This  cooperation  is  carried  out  by  using 
mutual  administrative  assistance  mechanisms  in  the  form  of  exchange  of  information, 
joint  operational  actions,  training  courses  or  collection  of  evidence  and  other  support 
provided  during  administrative  enquiries.  It  can  take  place  between  Member  States  or 
between these and the Commission or at international level with non-EU countries. The 
nature and outcome of such activities varies considerably in terms of duration, number of 

6 Council Decision 2009/917/JHA of 30 November 2009 on the use of information technology for customs purposes. 
7 Regulation (EU) 2015/1525 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Council 
Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and 
cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and 
agricultural matters 

4 

 
 
authorities  involved,  allocated  resources  and  necessary  efforts  to  achieve  the  proposed 
aim. 

It took a few years and several updates to arrive to the current wording of the Regulation. 

improve 

the  effectiveness  of  preventing, 

The first legal instrument setting up the provisions for mutual assistance in the customs 
domain  was  the  Naples  Convention  (later  known  as  Naples  I  Convention)  adopted  in 
1967, which recognised that cooperation between customs administrations would help to 
ensure accuracy in the collection of customs duties and other import and export charges 
and 
investigating  and  prosecuting 
contraventions of customs laws. It covered all customs aspects. After the creation of the 
Customs  Union,  in  1973  the  Commission  made  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  mutual 
assistance between Member States and cooperation with the Commission in customs and 
agricultural  matters.  This  proposal  was  adopted  in  1981  as  Regulation  1468/818. 
Regulation  1468/81  became  the  counterpart  of  Naples  I  for  EU  aspects,  while  this 
Convention applied for issues not covered by the new Regulation. 

In 1997, as  part of a far-reaching  reform, Regulation  1468/81  was replaced by Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97.  One  of  the  main  achievements  was  the  creation  of  a 
database for the collection and storage of customs information at European level for anti-
fraud purposes.  This  database was named Customs Information  System (CIS). The aim 
of CIS is to assist in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of operations in breach 
of  customs  and  agricultural  legislation  by  increasing,  by  means  of  a  more  rapid 
circulation of information, the effectiveness of the cooperation and control procedures of 
the  competent  authorities.  The  elements  to  be  included  in  the  CIS  were  defined  by  the 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  696/989.  This  Regulation  also  defined  the  operations 
concerning  the  application  of  agricultural  legislation  for  which  information  had  to  be 
introduced in CIS. 

At  the  same  time,  two  new  Conventions  were  discussed.  The  first  one,  the  Naples  II 
Convention introduced in 1997, replaced the previous Naples Convention with a view to 
preventing  and  detecting  infringements  of  national  customs  provisions  and  prosecuting 
and  punishing  infringements  of  Community  and  national  customs  provisions  not 
harmonised at Union level.  
The  second  one,  the  CIS  Convention10  adopted  in  1995,  focused  on  the  use  of 
information technology for customs cooperation in areas of the competence of Member 

8 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 of 19 May 1981 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities 
of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of 
the law on customs or agricultural matters 

9  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 696/98  of  27  March  1998  implementing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97 on 
mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter 
and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters 

10 Convention of 26 July 1995 on the use of information technology for customs purposes (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 

33). 

5 

 
 
States. In 2009, the CIS Convention was transformed in Council Decision 2009/917/JHA 
(CIS Decision)11. 

These two legal instruments relate to  cooperation activities in the fight against criminal 
offenses, established by Member State national laws and falling under Article 87 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Together with the Regulation, 
they cover the customs mutual assistance spectrum at EU level. 

The  mutual  assistance  with  non-EU  countries  is  based  on  mutual  administrative 
assistance (MAA) provisions, often in the form of a protocol, in international cooperation 
or free trade agreements. 

The  Regulation  complements  the  MAA  provisions  under  international  agreements, 
allowing information to be communicated to/exchanged with third countries that do not 
have an international agreement with the Union. 

In 2008, Regulation (EC) No 766/200812 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
amended Regulation 515/97 and introduced two new IT systems: 

- 

- 

the  transport  directory,  a  directory  of  data  reported  by  carriers  to  detect 
movements  of  goods  that  are  the  object  of  operations  in  potential  breach  of 
customs  and  agricultural  legislation,  and  the  means  of  transport  used  for  that 
purpose; and 

 the  Customs  Files  Identification  Database  (FIDE)  which  contains  data  about 
companies  or  persons  subject  to  investigation  by  the  customs  or  agriculture 
authorities. FIDE was also integrated in the CIS Decision. 

In  2015,  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1525  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council, 
which has applied since 1 September 2016, introduced the directory for Container Status 
Messages (CSMs) and the directory for Import, Export and Transit (IET). 

Moreover, in 2016 the following acts were adopted to allow the full implementation of 
the new Regulation:  

-  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/757, determining those operations 
in  connection  with  the  application  of  agricultural  regulations  which  require  the 
introduction of information into the Custom Information System; 

-  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 2016/346,  determining  the items  to 

be included in the Customs Information System; 

-  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/345, setting out the frequency 
of reporting of container status messages, the format of the data and the method 
of transmission. 

11 Council Decision 2009/917/JHA of 30 November 2009 on the use of information technology for customs purposes 

12  Regulation  (EC)  No  766/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July  2008  amending  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and 
cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and 
agricultural matters. 

6 

 
 
 
Over  time,  a  reference  to  the  Regulation  was  included  in  a  number  (altogether  19)  of 
specific legal instruments as support for mutual administrative assistance purposes. These 
are listed below: 

•  Regulation 608/2013 - Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and 

repealing Regulation 1383/2003 

•  Regulation 273/2004 as amended by Regulation 1258/2013 - Drug precursors 
•  Regulation  111/2005  as  amended  by  Regulation  1259/2013  -  Rules  for  the 
monitoring  of  trade  between  the  Community  and  third  countries  in  drug 
precursors 

•  Regulation 1889/2005 - Regulation on controls on cash entering or leaving the 

Community  

•  Regulation 116/2009 - Export of cultural goods (Codified version) 
•  Regulation 428/2009 - Setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, 

transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items 

•  Regulation  258/2012  -  Implementing  Article  10  of  the  UN  Protocol  against  the 
illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in  firearms, their parts and components 
and  ammunition,  supplementing  the  UN  Convention  against  Transnational 
Organised  Crime  (UN  Firearms  Protocol),  and  establishing  export  authorisation, 
and  import  and  transit  measures  for  firearms,  their  parts  and  components  and 
ammunition 

•  Regulation 21/2004 - Establishing a system for the identification and registration 
of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation 1782/2003 and Directives 
92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC 

•  Directive 2008/71/EC - Identification and registration of pigs  
•  Regulation 267/2012 - Concerning restrictive measures against Iran as amended 

by Regulation 2015/1861 

•  Directive 2014/28/EU - Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating 
to the making available on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses  
•  Regulation  332/2014  -  Procedures  for  applying  the  Stabilisation  and  Association 
Agreement  between  the  European  Communities  and  their  Member  States,  of  the 
one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part 

•  Regulation  833/2014  -  Restrictive  measures  in  view  of  Russia's  actions 

destabilising the situation in Ukraine 

•  Regulation  2015/752  -  Procedures  for  applying  the  Stabilisation  and  Association 
Agreement  between  the  European  Communities  and  their  Member  States,  of  the 
one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part 

•  Regulation  2015/939  -  Procedures  for  applying  the  Stabilisation  and  Association 
Agreement  between  the  European  Communities  and  their  Member  States,  of  the 
one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part 

•  Regulation  2015/940  -  Procedures  for  applying  the  Stabilisation  and  Association 
Agreement  between  the  EC  and  their  MS,  of  the  one  part,  and  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  of  the  other  part,  and  for  applying  the  Interim  Agreement  on  trade 

7 

 
and  trade-related  matters  between  the  EC,  of  the  one  part,  and  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina, of the other part 

•  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  2016/1239  -  Application  of  Regulation 
1308/2013 of the EP and of the Council with regard to the system of import and 
export licences  

•  Regulation  2016/1076  -  Applying  the  arrangements  for  products  originating  in 
certain  states  which  are  part  of  the  ACP  Group  of  States  provided  for  in 
agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, EPAs 

•  Regulation  2017/355  -  Procedures  for  applying  the  Stabilisation  and  Association 
Agreement between the  EU and the Euratom, of the one part, and  Kosovo of the 
other part 

Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) 

The Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) was set up by the Commission in 1997 as the 
single  technical  infrastructure  hosting  the  various  IT  applications  for  the  storage  and 
exchange  of  information  for  the  purposes  of  the  Regulation.  The  AFIS  system  is 
available to users in Member States, partner third countries, international organisations, 
Commission services and other EU Institutions. 

The  information  exchanged  by  Member  States  can  be  used  by  the  Commission  to 
disseminate  fraud  alerts  to  Member  States  (usually  in  the  form  of  mutual  assistance 
communications) or to initiate administrative enquiries. 

The access to AFIS and its applications is granted by the AFIS liaison officers designated 
in each Member State. 

Two main objectives were set at the last revision of the Regulation initiated in 2013:  

1.  Increase the detectability, prevention and prosecution of breaches of customs and 
agricultural  legislation  by  enhanced  collaboration  both  between  the  Member 
States and between the Member States and the Commission: 

Improve the process related to customs mutual assistance; 

- 
-  Create  conditions  for  improved  fighting  of  customs  fraud  especially 
related to mis-declaration of goods' origin, to mis-description of goods 
to misuse of the transit system, and to undervaluation; 
Improve the availability and management of customs data. 

- 

2.  Improve the process related to administrative enquiries in the area of customs 

mutual assistance. 

The  provisions  of  the  Regulation  are  meant  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  these 
objectives. For better understanding of these provisions, a brief description of its main 
sections is provided below: 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Agricultural matters 

The  Regulation  sets  the  provisions  for  mutual  administrative  assistance  in  agricultural 
matters  in  particular,  where  specific  provisions  are  not  established  under  the  related 
legislation. 

'Agricultural legislation' is defined by the Regulation as the body of provisions adopted 
under the common agricultural policy and the special rules adopted with regard to goods 
resulting from the processing of agricultural products. 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  competent  authorities  are  able  to  respond  quickly  to  health 
emergencies,  tracking  and  tracing  of  movements  of  products  subject  to  agricultural 
legislation is of utmost importance. To ensure that such goods are tracked and traced  at 
all  stages  of  movement,  information  should  be  provided  concerning  importation, 
exportation,  transit,  temporary  storage  and  intra-EU  movements  of  such  goods.  This 
information is exchanged using the Customs Information System (CIS). The operations 
in  connection  with  the  application  of  agricultural  regulations  which  require  the 
introduction  of  information  into  the  CIS  are  determined  under  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2016/757. These are relating to: 

(a)  imports  from  third  countries  of  products  subject  to  provisions  adopted  under  the 
common agricultural policy and the special rules adopted with regard to goods resulting 
from the processing of agricultural products; 

(b)  exports  to  third  countries  of  products  subject  to  provisions  adopted  under  the 
common agricultural policy and the special rules adopted with regard to goods resulting 
from the processing of agricultural products; 

(c) movements of products, subject to provisions adopted under the common agricultural 
policy and the special rules adopted with regard to goods resulting from the processing of 
agricultural  products,  under  cover  of  a  common  or  external  transit  procedure  and 
operations involving temporary storage in the Union of such products when re-exported 
from the Union to a third country; 

(d) intra-EU movements of products which are the subject of restrictions or prohibitions 
based on provisions adopted under the common agricultural policy and the special rules 
adopted  with  regard  to  goods  resulting  from  the  processing  of  agricultural  products  or 
which benefit from EU assistance. 

Customs matters: scope and definitions 

The Regulation starts by stating its scope and providing key definitions (Articles 1-3) to 
ensure a consistent understanding and application by the parties involved. 

Assistance on request 

The rules  for  assistance  on request  of another Member State’s authority  are defined by 
Articles 4-12 of the Regulation. 

9 

 
At  request  of  an  authority  of  another  Member  State,  Members  States’  authorities  shall 
transmit any information that enable to ensure compliance with the provisions of customs 
or  agricultural  legislation.  In  order  to  obtain  this  information,  the  requested  authority 
shall proceed as though acting on its own account or at the request of another authority in 
its  own  country.  This  information  shall  include  any  related  attestation,  document  or 
certified true copy of a document in its possession. 

At  request  of  the  applicant  authority,  the  requested  Member  State  shall  notify  the 
addressee  of  all  instruments  or  decisions,  which  emanate  from  the  administrative 
authorities  and  concern  the  application  of  customs  or  agricultural  legislation.  The 
requests for notification shall mention the subject of the decision and be accompanied by 
a translation in the official language of the requested Member State. 

Member  States  shall  carry  out  administrative  enquiries  on  request  of  another  authority 
related to operations that are or appear to constitute breaches of customs or agricultural 
legislation.  The  results  of  the  administrative  enquiries  shall  be  communicated  to  the 
requesting authority. 

Information  or  documents  obtained  by  recourse  to  mutual  assistance  may  constitute 
admissible evidence in administrative and judicial proceedings of the requesting Member 
State, unless explicitly stated when the information is provided. 

Special watch on persons, goods and means of transport – Joint Customs Operations 

Where  there  are  reasonable  grounds  of  suspicion  of  breaches  in  the  customs  or 
agricultural  legislation,  Member  States  authorities  shall  keep  or  arrange  for  a  special 
watch  on  persons  and  their  movements,  on  places  where  goods  are  stored,  on  the 
movements of goods and on means of transport. This special watch is done on their own 
initiative  or  at  request  of  another  Member  State  or  the  Commission  and  take  often  the 
format of a joint  customs operation (JCO). A JCO is  an operational  action of a limited 
duration of time and with targeted measures, coordinated and jointly implemented by the 
Member  States  or  by  these  and  the  Commission,  for  combating  cross-border  illicit 
trafficking of goods. 

Special watch actions, including JCOs are organised with multiple objectives: 

-  To 

improve  practical 

customs 
cooperation  between 
administrations, between customs and the European Commission and with other 
law  enforcement  services  and  any  other  relevant  organisations  involved  in  the 
action (such as with Europol or the World Customs Organization (WCO)); 

the  participant 

-  Enhance enforcement capabilities of customs administrations, in the EU Member 
States and the third countries participating in the operation, notably by developing 
their operational capacities; 

-  Establish a workable mechanism for information exchange between all involved 

partners; 

-  Collect additional information that cannot be obtained during daily work; 
-  Prevent the traffic of illicit goods destined to the European Union territory; 

10 

 
-  Deliver tangible results in terms of seizures/detentions of goods; 
- 
-  Develop more accurate risk profiles for effective targeting and update the existing 

Identify new threats and/or new modi operandi; 

threat assessment based on the information collected; 

-  Assure  appropriate  follow-up  action  in  conjunction  with  the  law  enforcement 

authorities; 

-  Develop  or  extend  the  investigative  activities  on  basis  of  the  positive  results 

identified during the operational action. 

The  Virtual  Operation  Coordination  Unit  (VOCU)  is  the  communication  system  of  the 
AFIS  platform,  used  for  the  secure  exchange  of  information  during  these  operational 
actions.  This  system  is  established  on  the  bases  of  the  Regulation,  as  part  of  the 
permanent  technical  infrastructure  provided  by  the  Commission  for  the coordination  of 
JCOs and special watch actions. 

The  Permanent  Operational  Co-ordination  Unit  (P-OCU)  is  the  other  part  of  the 
infrastructure  made  available  to  Member  States  for  operational  support.  This  secure 
room, located in the premises of the Commission’s European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 
in  Brussels,  can  accommodate  liaison  officers  from  the  Member  States  and  participant 
third countries and organisations for the entire duration of the actions, with the purpose 
of jointly coordinate the operational activities. 

All costs of installing and maintaining the permanent technical infrastructure are financed 
by the Commission on the basis of the Regulation. 

Spontaneous assistance 

Member States’ authorities can spontaneously provide assistance to other Member States 
(without prior request), when this is considered useful to assure compliance with customs 
or  agricultural  legislation  (Articles  13-16).  This  includes  keeping  the  above  mentioned 
special watch activities and communicating all information in their possession including 
documents. 

Member  States  may  also  communicate  other  information  to  the  competent  authority  of 
another  Member  State,  with  the  purpose  of  preventing  or  detecting  operations  which 
constitute,  or  appear  to  constitute,  breaches  of  customs  or  agricultural  legislation.  This 
can  be  done  by  regular  automatic  exchange  or  occasional  automatic  exchange.  Such 
information may concern the entry, exit, transit, storage and end-use of goods, including 
postal  traffic, moved between the customs territory of the EU and other territories, and 
the  presence  and  movement  within  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union  of  non-EU  and 
end-use goods, where necessary. 

Information  or  documents  obtained  by  recourse  to  mutual  assistance  may  constitute 
admissible evidence in administrative and judicial proceedings of the requesting Member 
State, unless explicitly stated when the information is provided. 

11 

 
 
Relations with the Commission 

The  terms  of  the  relations  established  between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  on 
mutual  administrative  assistance  are  defined  by  the  Regulation  (Articles  17-18e).  On 
these  terms,  the  competent  authorities  of  each  Member  State  shall  communicate  to  the 
Commission any relevant information concerning goods, methods or practices related to 
breaches of customs or agriculture legislation, as well as requests for assistance, actions 
taken and information exchanged that are capable to reveal fraudulent tendencies in the 
field of customs or agriculture. 

This  information  is  of  importance  when  these  operations  are  of  particular  relevance  at 
Union  level  or  when  they  might  have  ramifications  in  other  Member  States  or  third 
countries, or where it appears likely that similar operations have also been carried out in 
other Member States. Member States shall communicate to  the Commission  as soon as 
possible,  either  on  their  own  initiative  or  in  response  to  a  reasoned  request  from  the 
Commission,  any  relevant  information  (be  it  in  the  form  of  documents  or  copies  or 
extracts thereof) needed to determine the facts, so that the Commission may coordinate 
the steps taken by the Member States. The Commission shall convey this information to 
the competent authorities of the other Member States. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Commission  shall  communicate  to  Member  States  any  helpful 
information  to  enforce  customs  and  agriculture  legislation.  This  is  usually  done  in  the 
format  of  mutual  assistance  (MA)  communications,  an  information  or  a  request  for 
assistance made in a structured way, whose format has been agreed with Member States 
at  the  former  Mutual  Assistance  Committee  (Article  43),  today  replaced  by  the 
Commission Expert Group on Mutual Assistance in Customs matters (EMAC).  

Where necessary, supplementary information to the original MA communication can be 
issued. The MA communications are classified in ‘MA P’, for communications related to 
drug precursors and ‘MA’ for communications related to all other areas. 

Within  6  months  of  the  receipt  of  the  information  conveyed  by  the  Commission,  the 
competent authorities of the Member States shall forward to the Commission a summary 
of  the  anti-fraud  measures  taken  by  them  on  the  basis  of  that  information.  The 
Commission shall, on the basis of those summaries, regularly prepare and convey to the 
Member States reports on the results of measures taken by the Member States. 

Where  the  Commission  considers  that  irregularities  have  taken  place  in  one  or  more 
Member  States,  it  shall  inform  the  Member  State  or  States  concerned  thereof  and  that 
State or those States shall, at the earliest opportunity, carry out an administrative enquiry. 
Where  these  enquiries  do  not  have  an  impact  on  the  Union’s  financial  interests,  the 
Commission  acting  on  the  basis  of  the  Regulation,  can  take  a  coordination  role  by 
ensuring work synergies among the services involved, by facilitating the collection and 
exchange  of  information  from  the  national  and  Commission  databases,  by  organising 
joint  operational  meetings  and  by  providing  analytical  support.  Commission  officials 
may be present at the administrative enquiries carried out by Member States, subject to 

12 

 
the  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Regulation.  The findings  of  the  enquiries  shall  be 
communicated to the Commission as soon as possible. 

For cases where the financial interests of the Union are involved, the Commission acting 
on the basis of Regulation  883/201313 (Articles 1.2 and 3),  may exercise its  powers for 
the  coordination  of  the  administrative  enquiries  lead  by  the  Member  States,  to  provide 
these  with  assistance  in  the  coordination  of  their  investigations  and  other  related 
activities  for  the  protection  of  the  EU  financial  interests,  or  for  conducting  its  own 
administrative investigations.  

Where the Commission has opened a coordination case under Article 1.2 of Regulation 
883/2013,  it  shall  provide  all  necessary  assistance  to  the  competent  administrative 
authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  to  coordinate  and  contribute  to  the  investigations 
carried  out  by  these  authorities.  The  assistance  provided  by  the  Commission  facilitates 
the  collection  and  exchange  of  evidence  and  ensures  investigation  synergy  among  the 
relevant competent authorities. 

Where the Commission has opened an investigation case under Article 3 of Regulation 
883/2013,  it  may  carry  out  on  the  spot  checks  and  inspections  in  the  EU  and  third 
countries,  in  accordance  with  the  cooperation  and  mutual  assistance  agreements  and/or 
any other legal instrument in force (e.g. Regulation 2185/9614). 

Transport directory 

The Commission is entitled to establish and manage a transport directory (Article 18a) of 
data  reported  by  carriers  for  movements  of  goods,  persons  and  companies,  for 
movements by air, by train, by road and by post.  This Transport Directory is expected to 
provide the full picture of the movements of goods transported into and out of the Union 
territory. Access is restricted to designated competent authorities of Member States and 
Commission. 

Container Status Messages (CSM) 

The Commission establishes and manages a Container Status Messages (CSMs) directory 
(Articles 2, 18a, 53, 43b). The Container Status Messages (CSM) directory collects data 
related  to  movements  of  containers  destined  to  be  brought  by  maritime  vessel  into  the 
customs territory of the Union from a third country, as well as export-movements goods 
subject to excise duties in the following categories: alcohol, cigarettes/tobacco or energy 
products.  The  CSM  directory  has  been  operational  since  September  2016. 
Carriers are obliged by the Regulation to transmit defined CSM data directly to the CSM 
directory. The frequency of reporting of container status messages, the format of the data 

13 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 
concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999  

14  Council  Regulation  (EURATOM,  EC)  No  2185/96  of  11  November  1996  concerning  on-the-spot  checks  and 
inspections  carried out  by  the  Commission  in order to protect  the  European  Communities'  financial  interests  against 
fraud and other irregularities. 

13 

 
 
 
and the method of transmission are defined under Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2016/345. 

The  access  to  this  sensitive  data  is  restricted  to  designated  competent  authorities  of 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  and  are  named  in  a  list  of  national  authorities 
communicated  to  Member  States  and  the  Commission  (Article  29  of  the  Regulation; 
Notice from Member States 2013/C 366/06). 

Import, Export and Transit (IET) 

The Commission  establishes  and manages  a directory containing  data on imports of all 
type  of  goods,  transit  of  all  type  of  goods  and  export  of  restricted  goods  relating  to 
alcohol,  cigarettes/tobacco  or  energy  products  (Article  18d).  This  directory  is  named 
Import,  Export  and  Transit  (IET).  IET  does  not  include  data  on  direct  exports  neither 
national transit messages. 

To leverage existing resources, the Commission systematically replicates data from other 
sources operated by the Commission. Thus, the IET directory receives and stores import 
and export declarations from the Surveillance system, export declarations from the AES 
system  and  transit  declarations  from  the  NCTS  system.  For  the  moment,  transit 
declarations are also stored in Anti-fraud transit information system (ATIS).  

The access to this directory is restricted to designated competent authorities of Member 
States and the Commission (Article 29 of the Regulation).   

Relations with third countries 

The  section  on  the  relations  with  third  countries  (Article  19-22  of  the  Regulation) 
provides the legal basis for mutual assistance with third countries with which there is no 
mutual administrative assistance (MAA) agreement.  

The Regulation allows pursuant information to be communicated/exchanged between the 
Commission and the Member States with third countries in cases of particular interest for 
the European Union. Furthermore, it contemplates the possibility of the Commission, in 
coordination  with  Member  States, 
investigative 
cooperation missions in third countries.  

to  conduct  administrative  and 

In  the  absence  of  an  agreement  on  cooperation  and  mutual  administrative  assistance  in 
customs  matters  between  the  European  Union  and  a  third  country,  the  assistance  may 
take place with the third country concerned under the conditions laid down in Article 19 
of  the  Regulation.  It  can  also  complement  the  MAA  provisions  under  existing 
agreements. 

These MAA agreements are not mentioned under Articles 19-22.  

14 

 
 
 
Customs Information System (CIS) 

The Customs Information System (CIS) (Articles 23-41) was built to secure the rapid and 
systematic  exchange  of  information  on  infringements  in  the  customs  and  agriculture 
domain at Union level.  

The  Commission,  in  close  cooperation  with  Member  States,  is  tasked  to  facilitate  the 
installation  and  management  of  such  a  system  in  the  Member  States.  The  items  to  be 
included  in  the  CIS  are  determined  by  the  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/346 of 10 March 2016.  

The  aim  of  the  CIS  is  to  assist  in  preventing,  investigating  and  prosecuting  operations 
which are in breach of customs or agriculture legislation, by making relevant information 
available  more  rapidly  and  thereby  increasing  the  effectiveness  and  suitability  of  the 
cooperation  and  control  procedures  applied  by  the  competent  authorities.  The  CIS 
consists  of  a  central  database,  assessable  to  all  Member  States  and  the  Commission 
comprising  data,  including  personal  data,  on  suspicious  or  established  customs 
infringements in the following categories: commodities, means of transport, businesses, 
persons, goods and cash. Personal data can solely be included in the CIS for the purpose 
of actions of sighting and reporting, discreet surveillance, specific checks and operational 
analysis. The access to the data is restricted to designated customs competent authorities 
from  Member  States  and  the  Commission  (Articles  29  and  30).  For  cases  of  a  more 
sensitive  nature,  the  Member  State  responsible  for  supplying  the  data  may  restrict  its 
access to specific countries. This provision was introduced by the last amendment of the 
Regulation (Article 29) with the aim to increase the level of trust in the CIS information 
exchange and ultimately contribute to enhance the levels of customs cooperation and the 
protection of the Union's financial interests. As per the Regulation (Article 30) a set of 
non-personal CIS data on tobacco seizure data can be transferred by the Member States 
to  an  international  organisation  which  contributes  to  the  correct  application  of  the 
customs  legislation.  This  is  based  on  an  administrative  arrangement  signed  in  2003  by 
the Commission and this international organisation. 

The amendment also included a more flexible way of publishing the updates of the lists 
of the relevant authorities mentioned in Articles 29 and 30 of the Regulation. 

Due  to  the  mentioned  amendments  made  to  the  Regulation  through  the  years,  the  CIS 
was  developed  in  successive  IT  applications  since  its  creation  in  1997.  It  was  initially 
developed  as  a  stand-alone  AFIS  application.  In  2010,  it  was  integrated  in  the  Mutual 
Assistance  Broker,  a  system  consisting  of  several  modules  for  the  exchange  of 
intelligence and operational information in the customs domain: CIS, CigInfo (containing 
information  on  cigarettes  seizures),  MarInfo  (for  exchange  of  intelligence  on  sensitive 
goods  transported  by  maritime  cargo),  YachtInfo  (for  exchanges  of  intelligence  on 
sensitive goods transported by non-commercial vessels). The system was last updated in 
2018, to introduce the new provisions following the recast of the regulation. The CIS was 
then technically updated as a single application integrating the information contained in 
the CIS, CigInfo, MarInfo and YachtInfo applications.  

15 

 
Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

The  Customs  Files  Identification  Database  (FIDE)  (Articles  41a-d)  is  a  database 
managed  and  set  up  by  the  Commission  with  the  objective  to  help  prevent  operations 
which are in breach of customs and agriculture legislation and to facilitate and accelerate 
their detection and prosecution. The data of the centralised database covers persons and 
businesses subject to an administrative enquiry or a criminal investigation, as well as the 
field concerned and the details of the Member States competent authority in charge of the 
file.  Access  is  restricted  to  designated  customs  competent  authorities  from  Member 
States and the Commission (Articles 29 and 30).   

The purpose of the FIDE is to allow the Commission, when it opens a coordination file 
or  prepares  a  Community  mission  in  a  third  country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Regulation,  and  the  competent  authorities  of  a  Member  State,  when  they  open  an 
investigation  file,  to  identify  the  competent  authorities  in  other  Member  States  or  the 
Commission  departments  which  are  or  have  been  investigating  the  same  persons  or 
businesses concerned. The system does not contain the details of the case.  

Data analysis 

The data exchanged between the Member States and the Commission may be stored and 
used for the purpose of operational and strategic analysis and the results of this analysis 
may be interchanged between them (Article 2).  

Personal data protection 

Personal  data  protection  is  established  under  Chapter  5  of  the  Regulation  (Articles  34-
36).  The  personal  data  protection  supervision  is  established  under  Chapter  6  of  the 
Regulation (Article 37). These rules apply for all the databases and directories under the 
Regulation: 

-  The ‘CSM directory’ - Articles 18(c), 18(d) and 18(e); 
-  The ‘Import, Export and Transit directory’ - Article 18(g); 
-  The CIS database - Articles 23 to 41; 
-  The FIDE database - Articles 41(a) to 41(d). 

The  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  (EDPS)  is  responsible  for  supervising  the 
implementation of the Regulation in this respect.  

Given the dual legal basis supporting the CIS and FIDE the Joint Supervisory Authority 
(JSA)  is  responsible  for  the  supervision  of  the  processing  of  the  personal  data  in  these 
databases under the Council Decision 2009/917/JHA. 

The  last  amendment  aimed  to  simplify  and  harmonise  the  data  protection  supervision 
rules  applicable  to  the  databases  set  up  on  the  basis  of  the  Regulation.  For  reasons  of 
consistency of the data protection supervision and with a view to achieving coordination 
of the audits of the CIS and FIDE, the need for close cooperation between the EDPS and 
the  JSA  established  under  Council  Decision  2009/917/JHA  was  then  introduced. 

16 

 
Nevertheless, the amendment did not modify the supervision model based on the parallel 
existence of the two supervision bodies. 

Additionally,  it  modified  the  maximum  retention  period  for  data  stored  in  the  CIS  and 
clarified the data retention periods of FIDE. 

Financing 

The Regulation also provides for the financing of all mutual administrative assistance EU 
actions (Article 42a). These include: 

(a) all costs of installing and maintaining the permanent technical infrastructure making 
available  to  the Member  States  the  logistical,  office  automation  and  IT  resources  to 
coordinate joint customs operations; 

(b)  the  reimbursement  of  transport,  accommodation  and  daily  allowance  costs  of 
representatives  of  the  Member  States  taking  part  in  the  EU  missions,  joint  customs 
operations  organised  by  or  jointly  with  the  Commission  and  training  courses,  ad  hoc 
meetings  and  preparatory  meetings  for  administrative  investigations  or  operational 
actions conducted by the Member States, where they are organised by or jointly with the 
Commission; 

(c)  expenditure  relating  to  the  acquisition,  study,  development  and  maintenance  of 
computer infrastructure (hardware), software and dedicated network connections, and to 
related  production,  support  and  training  services  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the 
actions provided for in the Regulation, in particular preventing and combating fraud; 

(d)  expenditure  relating  to  the  provision  of  information  and  expenditure  on  related 
actions allowing access to information, data and data sources for the purpose of carrying 
out  the  actions  provided  for  in  the  Regulation,  in  particular  preventing  and  combating 
fraud 

(e)  expenditure  relating  to  use  of  the  CIS  provided  for  in  instruments  adopted  under 
Articles 29 and 30 of the Treaty on European Union and in particular in the Convention 
on the use of information technology in customs matters drawn up by the Council Act of 
26  July  1995  (replaced  by  Council  Decision  2009/917/JHA),  in  so  far  as  those 
instruments  provide  that  that  expenditure  shall  be  borne  by  the  general  budget  of  the 
European Union. 

The financing mechanism under the Regulation are mainly in the format of procurement 
contracts  (implemented  under  direct  management)  and  reimbursement  of  costs  of 
Member States representatives taking part in the activities foreseen thereof. 

Monitoring 

The  Regulation  foresees  that  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States 
shall  report  each  year  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the 

17 

 
implementation measures taken. This is done via the Annual Report on the protection of 
the European Union’s financial interests - Fight against fraud (PIF report). 

Expected outcome of the intervention 

The provisions of the Regulation  described  above, are designed  with  the aim to  ensure 
that all the necessary conditions for the carrying out of the mutual assistance procedures 
are  in  place.  This  supports  Member  States  and  the  Commission  on  their  roles  of 
enforcing  the  customs  and  agriculture  laws  and  contribute  to  the  protection  of  the 
financial  interests  of  the  Union,  the  environment  and  the  safety  and  health  of  citizens. 
The mutual assistance activities are varied and include the exchange of information, the 
collection, storage and analysis of data or the making of administrative enquiries.  

The  Regulation  evolved  with  the  goal  to  improve  the  cooperation  between  Member 
States  and  Commission  authorities,  by  providing  them  the  appropriate  legal  bases  and 
tools  for  optimizing  their  work  in  the  anti-fraud  domain.  In  this  sense,  two  new  legal 
bases were introduced in the latest recast, namely the Container Status Messages (CSM) 
and the  Import,  Export  and Transit (IET) directories. The purpose is  to  gather a larger, 
more  complete  and  qualitative  set  of  information  in  a  timely  manner,  and  improve  the 
detectability and prevention of breaches of customs and agricultural legislations.  

At the same time, the conditions are created to facilitate the gathering of evidence, both 
electronically  and  by  the  collection  of  supporting  documentation.  Improvements  are 
expected in the carrying out of administrative enquiries, the possibility to extract, analyse 
and share findings, the quality of the findings and the (reduced) duration of the process. 

By making available the data and the tools that allow exploring that  data, including the 
possibility  of  complementing  it  with  information  from  the  related  documentation,  a 
positive impact is expected at operational and investigative levels.  

Member  States  are  supported  and  encouraged  to  enhance  operational  and  investigative 
work, in close cooperation with the Commission. An EU coordinated approach based in 
the early detection of illicit patterns and fraud trends, should help prevent and deter more 
effectively illicit traffic from affecting the Union. 

The  new  measures  are  intended  to  fulfil  the  objectives  initially  proposed  in  the  last 
amendment, of “increasing the detectability, prevention and prosecution of breaches of 
customs  and  agricultural  legislations,  by  enhanced  collaboration  both  between  the 
Member  States  and  between  the  latter  and  Commission”  and  “improving  the  process 
related to administrative enquiries in the area of customs mutual assistance”. 

The logic of the intervention can be visualised as follows: 

18 

 
 
19 

Rationalefor the intervention: Need for:➢StrengtheningcooperationbetweenMS andbetweenthelatterandCOM byensuringthecorrectapplicationofcustomsandagriculturallaw➢ReinforcingtheprotectionofthefinancialinterestsoftheEU 1.Increasethedetectability,preventionandprosecutionofbreachesofcustomsandagriculturallegislationbyenhancedcollaborationbothbetweentheMSandbetweentheMSandCOM•Improvetheprocessrelatedtocustomsmutualassistance•Createconditionsforimprovedfightingofcustomsfraudespeciallyrelatedtomis-declarationofgoods'origin,tomis-descriptionofgoodstomisuseofthetransitsystem,andtoundervaluation•ImprovetheavailabilityandmanagementofcustomsdataoScope and definitions Assistance on request and spontaneous assistance Relations with the Commission oTransport directory Container Status Messages (CSMs) oImport, Export and Transit (IET) Relations with third countries oCustoms Information System (CIS) Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) Financing oDocuments supporting customs declarations Assistance on request and spontaneous assistance Admissibility of evidence •MS/COM share detected breaches of customs and agricultural legislation•MS/COM exchange mutual assistance •MS/COM record data in the mutual assistance IT systems (IET/CSM/CIS/FIDE, etc)•MS/COM generate cases based on these data•MS/COM organise mutual assistance related activities: JCOs, MS Community missions, training courses, meetings, etc•costs associated to the conduction of the mutual assistance activities and the establishment, development, maintenance and operations of the IT systems to support these activities•reduce duration of the procedures•facilitate administrative enquiries•provide good data in the scope of the administrative enquiriesEU instruments & provisions:•Secondary acts to Reg. 515 •Council Act of 18/12/1997 ('Naples II Convention')•Council Decision 2009/917/JHA (ex 'third pillar')•New data protection rules •Cash Control Regulation (Reg. 2018/1672) ➢Impact➢Enhanced correct application of the customs and agricultural law➢Stronger customs cooperation between MS and between the latter and COM➢Increased protection of the financial interests of the EU ➢Improved process related to administrative enquiries in the area of customs mutual assistance➢Prevented impact on own resources as result of the administrative enquiriesEffects✓Improvement of EU-wide fight against customs-related fraud by increasing the available evidence and improving the possibilities for detection through an EU-coordinated approach✓Common European approach in dealing with cross-border trade by making use of available EU IT systems and work methods ObjectivesOutputs2.Improve the process related to administrative enquiries in the area of customs mutual assistanceKey elementsKey elementsKey elementsKey elementsKey elements 
 
 
 
2.2.  Point(s) of comparison  

The  changes  introduced  by  the  last  amendment  of  the  Regulation  (by  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/1525, which entered into force on 1 September 2016) aimed at: 

- improving the detection, investigation and analysis tasks in the anti-fraud area; 

- enhance the cooperation by optimising systems and processes leading to better 
use of the existing tools; 

- facilitate cooperation between individual Member States and between Member 
States and the Commission. 

In  the  long  term,  the  revised  Regulation  should  present  an  opportunity  to  increase 
significantly the number of detected fraud cases and other irregularities in the agricultural 
and customs domains and thereby help to protect the financial interests of the European 
Union. 

To  this  end,  the  CSM  and  IET  directories  were  introduced  in  the  Regulation  and  a 
number of provisions were changed. 

Agricultural matters 

The section of agricultural matters remained unchanged in the last amendment of 2015. 
At  that  point  in  time,  it  was  considered  as  working  well  and  remained  therefore 
untouched. 

The number of agriculture cases was in the past mainly related to export refunds. These 
export  refunds  do  not  apply  since  2015,  so  the  number  of  fraud  cases  related  to 
agriculture has reduced considerably since then. It  can be estimated that  there were not 
more than a maximum of 10 cases per year related to agricultural matters throughout the 
last  5  years.  The  MA  communications  based  on  the  agricultural  cases  are  not  of  a 
different kind.   

Customs matters scope and definitions 

In  the  2015  amendment  to  the  Regulation,  Article  2  was  updated  to  align  eligible 
terminologies with the ones used under the Union Customs Code (UCC15). 

The definition of ‘customs  scope’ was  referred to the concept  of customs legislation in 
the  UCC.  The  definition  of  ‘service  providers  active  in  the  international  supply  chain’, 
was  created  to  clarify  the  subject  of  the  obligation  laid  down  in  Article  18c(1).  These 

15 Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the 

Union Customs Code 

20 

 
 
 
changes were expected to improve the understanding and legal certainty in the use of the 
Regulation. 

Assistance on request 

Before  the  last  review  of  the  Regulation,  national  prosecutors  were  reluctant  to  use 
documents obtained via mutual assistance channels as evidence in criminal proceedings, 
as several Member States felt that the provisions of the Regulation were not sufficiently 
clear. This inevitably caused delays in national criminal proceedings or even resulted in 
the dismissal of a case due to time barring. Importantly, it also undermined the principle 
of  legal  certainty,  given  that  relevant  provisions  of  the  Regulation  were  subject  to 
differing interpretations. The last revision of the Regulation concerning Article 12 aimed 
at improving the situation, removing any legal uncertainty in relation to the possible use 
of  information  collected  through  mutual  assistance  as  admissible  evidence  in  national 
criminal proceedings. However, the amendment did not oblige national courts to accept 
such  evidence  automatically,  as  it  still  had  to  satisfy  national  procedural  rules.  Hence, 
whilst  legal  certainty  was  expected  to  improve  compared  to  the  pre-2015  situation,  no 
significant  reduction  in  the  time  taken  to  open/undertake  national  criminal  proceedings 
was anticipated. No figures for the time being are available as it varies from case to case, 
depending  on  the  circumstances.  There  was  no  expectation  that  the  volume  of  requests 
would alter significantly due to the changes.  

Special watch on persons, goods and means of transport - JCO 

The section of special watch remained unchanged in the last amendment of 2015. At that 
point  in  time,  it  was  considered  as  working  well  and  remained  therefore  untouched.  In 
the year 2015 6 JCOs were conducted by the Commission and the Member States. 

Relations with the Commission 

The  section  on  the  relations  with  the  Commission  remained  unchanged  in  the  last 
amendment  of  2015.  At  that  point  in  time,  it  was  considered  as  working  well  and 
remained  therefore  untouched.  There  was  no  expectation  that  the  volume  of  requests 
would alter significantly due to the changes. 

The  last  amendment  was  also  intended  to  improve  the  duration  of  related  Commission 
(OLAF) investigations, so that an increased number of investigations could be completed 
in a shorter timescale and result in higher amounts recovered. 

Transport directory 

The transport directory remained unchanged in the last amendment of 2015. In 2015, the 
transport directory was limited to data related to sea container movements recorded in the 
CSM directory. A transport directory containing data for land, rail and air transport has 
not been implemented by the Commission until now.   

21 

 
 
 
Container Status Messages (CSM) 
Import, Export and Transit (IET) 

The last amendment of the Regulation in 2015 was intended to create the conditions to 
improve  the  fight  against  customs  fraud,  and  three  particular  types  of  customs  fraud: 
misdeclaration of origin; misdescription of goods; and misuse of the transit system. 

Before  the  2015  amendment,  the  baseline  situation  was  as  follows:  national  customs 
authorities  alone  could  not  share  information  and  conduct  a  largescale  fight  against 
breach of customs legislation at reasonable cost.  Relevant data on movements of goods 
entering or leaving the EU was not systematically made available to Member States and 
the Commission, hampering national and EU wide analysis of customs risks, which pose 
a threat to the EU and its Member States.  

The  last  revision  made  it  mandatory  for  sea-container  carriers  to  electronically  report 
EU-related CSMs to a centralised repository, facilitating the trace, and eventual analysis 
of  maritime  container  trips.  This  information,  coupled  with  developments  of  the 
ConTraffic  tool,  was  expected  to  increase  analysis  of  container  movements,  with 
subsequent  improvements  to  the  identification  and  investigation  of  related  fraud.  In 
return,  companies  would  benefit  from  providing  data  and  potentially  avoid  time-
consuming customs controls. 

The establishment of the IET directory relied on the existing AFIS infrastructure and the 
experience  built  up  by  the  Commission  by  setting  up  the  ATIS  database.  The  data  is 
replicated from the Commission’s existing systems and therefore Member States are not 
required additional reporting efforts. Member States and the Commission are expected to 
being able to identify fraud in a more effectively and efficient manner. 

An  expected  result  of  the  last  amendment  for  both  CSM  and  IET  directories  is  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  detected  breaches  of  legislation,  as  well  as  in  the  number  of 
investigations  opened  based  on  these  data.  The  number  of  requests  for  use  of  data  by 
investigators and the amounts recovered on the basis of such information was expected to 
increase as well.  

Relations with third countries 

The  section  on  the  relations  with  third  countries  remained  unchanged  in  the  last 
amendment  of  2015.  At  that  point  in  time,  it  was  considered  as  working  well  and 
remained therefore untouched. 

Most  of  the  current  exchanges  take  place  under  the  legal  basis  of  MAA  provisions  in 
international  agreements.  This  figure  remained  relatively  stable  over  the  past  recent 
years. 

Customs Information System (CIS)  

The provision  enabling  data owners to  restrict  visibility to  specific users, introduced in 
the Regulation by the last amendment, was expected to improve the level of confidence 

22 

 
in  the  system  and  therefore  considerably  increase  the  exchange  of  information, 
improving further the possibility to prevent, detect and investigate customs-related fraud. 

Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

The section of FIDE remained unchanged in the last amendment of 2015. At that point in 
time, it was considered as working well and remained therefore untouched. 

Personal data protection 

The  last  amendment  aimed  to  simplify  and  harmonise  the  data  protection  supervision 
rules  applicable  to  the  databases  set  up  on  the  basis  of  the  Regulation.  For  reasons  of 
consistency of the data protection supervision and with a view to achieving coordination 
of the audits of the CIS and FIDE, the need for close cooperation between the EDPS and 
the  JSA  established  under  Council  Decision  2009/917  JHA  was  then  introduced. 
Nevertheless, the amendment did not modify the supervision model based on the parallel 
existence of the two supervision bodies. 

Additionally,  it  modified  the  maximum  retention  period  for  data  stored  in  the  CIS  and 
clarified the data retention periods of FIDE. 

Finally, a specific provision was introduced in Article 38 on the security of processing.  

Data analysis 

The provisions on use of the data processed under the Regulation for analysis purposes 
were  considered  as  working  well  and  remained  unchanged  in  the  last  amendment  of 
2015.  

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

With a view to ensuring the correct application of customs and agricultural legislations, 
prior  to  the  2015  revision  the  Commission  was  assisted  by  the  Mutual  Assistance 
Committee  (MAC),  as  provided  by  the  Regulation.  In  2015  and  following  the  last 
revision of the Regulation in light of the Lisbon Treaty, this Committee was replaced by 
a new Comitology Committee with exclusive focus on the adoption of implementing acts 
envisaged in the amended Regulation 515/97. The non-regulatory tasks so far carried out 
by the MAC were reassigned to a new informal  Expert Group on Mutual Assistance in 
Customs  Matters  (EMAC).  This  new  group  is  composed  of  representatives  of  the 
Member  States'  authorities,  primarily  customs  authorities.  The  group  provides  a  forum 
for  discussion  on  major  policy  and  operational  issues  relevant  to  the  work  of  the 
Commission  in  relation  to  mutual  assistance  in  the  area  of  customs  and  in  particular 
fighting customs fraud.  It meets twice a year, to exchange expertise and good practices 
and supporting the Commission in implementing the provisions of the Regulation. 

23 

 
3.1.  Current state of play 

For the purpose of this evaluation, relevant stakeholders dealing with the implementation 
of  customs  and  agricultural  legislation  in  Member  States,  Commission  departments, 
European  and  international  bodies,  data  protection  authorities  and  maritime  shipping 
carriers  were  consulted  via  a  targeted  questionnaire.  Twenty-seven  Member  States 
answered  the  questionnaire.  One  Member  State  provided  two  separate  answers,  in 
accordance to separate competences defined at national level. In total, 28 answers were 
received.  Bilateral  interviews  were  conducted  with  selected  Member  States  and 
Commission  departments.  The  analysis  provided  in  the  following  sections  of  this 
evaluation report is based on the answers collected during the stakeholder consultation.    

Agricultural matters 

All  respondents  who  have  used  the  Regulation  mechanisms  in  agricultural  matters 
confirm  that  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  has  appropriately  met  their  needs  on  mutual 
administrative assistance. 

Nine  Member  States  indicated  that  they  use  the  Regulation  for  agricultural  purposes. 
However, this usage varies from several times a week (two Member States) to less than 
once  every  6  months  (two  Member  States).  One  Member  State  uses  the  Regulation 
several  times  a  month,  two  Member  States  less  than  once  a  month  and  two  Member 
States several times a week. No Member State made daily use of the Regulation. 

Not all parts of the Regulation  are used at  the same extent for agricultural  purposes  by 
the Member States. Three Member States have not used the provisions on relations with 
the  Commission,  whereas  two  Member  States  report  very  frequent  use.  One  Member 
State mentions little use and two other Member States moderate use. Five Member States 
do not recourse to the provisions on the relations with third countries. Two other Member 
States report little use or moderate use of these. 

The  databases  established  by  the  Regulation  are  not  frequently  used  for  agricultural 
purposes.  In  fact,  several  Member  States  expressed  no  opinion  on  these.  CSM  is  very 
little  used  by  five  Member  States  and  moderately  used  by  one  Member  State.  Four 
Member  States  have  no  opinion.  The  situation  is  very  similar  for  IET.  Three  Member 
States  have  no  opinion,  six  Member  States  use  it  very  rarely  and  one  moderately.  The 
CIS is rarely used by four Member States  and moderately used by two Member States. 
Four Member States expressed no opinion. Similar situation for FIDE, which is used by 
five Member States.  Five Member States expressed no opinion. 

As  to  the  frequency  in  sending  requests  for  assistance  for  agricultural  purposes,  five 
Member States mentions a use less than once within 6 months. Two Member Sates send 
requests several times a month, and another two Member States less than once a month. 
One Member State has never send requests.  

The  situation  is  similar  on  the  frequency  in  receiving  requests  for  assistance,  five 
Member  States  mention  a  use  less  than  once  within  6  months.  Three  Member  States 

24 

 
receive  requests  several  times  a  month  and  one  Member  State  less  than  once  a  month. 
One Member State has never send requests. 

On  spontaneous  assistance,  only  two  Member  States  replied  and  indicated  use  several 
times a month. Seven of respondents mention use less than once within 6 months and one 
Member State has never used this form of assistance. 

Regarding  to  extent  to  which  the  mutual  assistance  mechanism  has  contributed  to 
detecting breaches in agricultural legislation, six Member States indicated a moderate to 
high contribution, whereas one Member State indicated it was low. 

As to whether Member States faced difficulties when requesting mutual assistance,  four 
Member  States  did  not  report  any  difficulties.  Most  respondents  reporting  difficulties 
mention ‘incomplete answers’ and ‘too late answers’ as moderately happening.  

A  similar  situation  occurs  when  it  comes  to  difficulties  when  requested  for  mutual 
assistance.  Six  Member  States  did  not  report  any  difficulties.  Four  Member  States 
reporting  difficulties  mention  ‘unclear  requests’  as  little  or  moderately  happening. 
‘Difficulties  in  answering  within  the  established  deadline’  is  mentioned  as  little  or 
moderate  by  three  Member  States  whereas  it  is  mentioned  by  one  Member  States  as 
happening 
information  or 
requested 
documentation’ is mentioned as less frequent for four Member States. 

‘non-availability  of 

frequently.  The 

the 

On  the  usefulness  of  communication  channels  for  the  mutual  administrative  assistance 
exchanges,  ordinary  email  is  considered  useful  or  very  useful  for  nine  Member  States. 
Responses  on  post  are  equally  (three  Member  States  each)  divided  among  respondents 
from  very  useful  to  moderately  useful  and  not  useful  at  all.  Phone  is  considered 
moderately  useful  to  five  Member  States,  of  little  use  for  two  Member  States  and  not 
useful at all to one Member State. 

AFIS  is  considered  useful  or  very  useful  to  five  Member  States,  whereas  one  Member 
State finds it moderately useful. As to other communication channels, one Member State 
observes  that  the  email  may  be  a  perfect  and  quick  complement  to  a  mutual  assistance 
request received by AFIS-mail for non-sensitive questions regarding the request. 

Concerning possible alternative mechanisms to be used if the Regulation had not existed, 
six Member States mention bilateral mutual assistance agreements, four Member States 
the Naples II Convention, two Member States replied ‘none’, whereas one Member State    
mentioned  that  a  legal  basis  is  necessary,  but  observes  that  the  one  provided  for  in 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  2016/1239  on  the  system  of  import  and  export 
licences for agricultural products is not detailed enough. 

One  Member  State  suggested  that  the  competent  authorities  responsible  for  agriculture 
should  be  considered  as  requesting  authorities  according  to  the  Regulation.  They  also 
proposed to include some deadlines or a provision on the possibility to set deadlines or a 
reference to deadlines in other regulations. 

25 

 
Only  one  Commission  department  uses  the  Regulation  for  mutual  administrative 
assistance  in  agricultural  matters.  This  Commission  department  uses  the  Regulation 
several times a month and considers the scope as appropriate.  

There are no more than a maximum of 10 cases per year related to agricultural matters 
recorded under the Commission  IT systems  throughout the last 5 years. The provisions 
related to agricultural matters were not contemplated in the last review of the Regulation 
The number of cases remained the same.  

Customs matters scope and definition 

Twenty-five Member States consider that the scope of the Regulation largely meets their 
needs  in  terms  of  mutual  administrative  assistance.  In  general,  it  is  considered  that  the 
Regulation provides extensive coverage for mutual assistance in administrative matters, 
even  when  complemented  by  other  legal  instruments  such  as  in  the  areas  of 
administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of  excise  duties  (Regulation  389/2012),  VAT 
(Regulation 904/2010) and cooperation between EU customs administrations (Naples II 
Convention). 

Five  Commission  departments  responded  that  they  use  the  Regulation  on  mutual 
administrative  assistance  in  customs  matters.  None  of  the  Commission  departments 
replied that the scope of the Regulation would not at all correspond to their needs. They 
even point out the compelling need for this instrument.  

Assistance on request 

Sixteen  Member  States  send  requests  for  assistance  or  spontaneous  assistance  very 
frequently (of those: 1 Member State on a daily basis, 3 Member States several times a 
week, 12 Member States several times a month). Six Member States send requests on a 
less frequent basis, fewer than once a month or less than once every six months. 

When  requesting  assistance,  11  Member  States  faced  no  difficulties  with  the  mutual 
administrative assistance process. Sixteen Member States however, reported difficulties. 
The most occurring problem is that the answers are frequently received too late, but also 
that the information requested is not received or incomplete. Other problems reported by 
Member  States  are  related  to  restrictions  due  to  the  jurisdiction  of  their  respective 
customs  administrations,  the  lack  of  an  established  deadline  in  the  Regulation  for 
responding  to  the  mutual  assistance  requests,  the  use  of  alternative  communication 
channels  to  the  one  used  in  the  request,  or  national  data  protection  restrictions.  One 
Member State suggested including information on the status of the request (received, in 
handling, processed, etc.). 

Ten  Member  States  receive  requests  for  assistance  or  spontaneous  assistance  several 
times a month, with some Member States receiving requests more frequently (of those, 
three  Member  States  –  several  times  a  week,  one  Member  State  daily,  seven  Member 
States less than once a month.  

26 

 
 
 
When requested  for  assistance, 11 Member States faced no difficulties with the  mutual 
administrative  assistance  process.  Seventeen  Member  States  reported  difficulties.  The 
most occurring problem faced seems to be that the information/documentation requested 
was not available. Other problems reported were that some Member States do not include 
copies of related documents,  that the request  does not  fall under the competence of the 
customs of the requested Member State, the absence of a deadline for the answer, delays 
from  awaiting  information  from  third  parties,  or  the  fact  that  the  request  does  not  fall 
under the remit of the Regulation.  

Member  States  provided  some  suggestions  to  address  some  of  the  problems  reported 
such  as  the  introduction  of  a  reasonable  deadline  to  reply  to  assistance  requests,  the 
possibility  of  allowing  the  use  of  information  and  documentation  received  via  mutual 
assistance by other state authorities or to standardise the forms and content of the request 
(as in Naples II Convention). 

AFIS  mail,  an  application  part  of  the  AFIS  for  the  secure  exchange  of  electronic 
messages,  is  considered  the  most  useful  tool  for  the  mutual  assistance  communications 
by all Member States. 

According  to  the  Customs  Union  Performance  (CUP)  Report  for  2018,  from  2013  to 
2018,  16  284  requests  for  assistance  were  received  and  the  vast  majority  of  those 
(99.71%) were answered. 

Special watch on persons, goods and means of transport - JCO 

The special watch actions defined by the Regulation (Article 7) including Joint Customs 
Operations  (JCOs),  aim  at  placing  sensitive,  prohibited  or  high-taxed  goods  under 
surveillance for a limited period and taking appropriate operational measures to prevent 
fraud.  A  common  set  of  criteria  is  generally  used  for  the  threat  assessment  and  the 
definition of risk profiles, such as the nature of goods or the selected means of transport. 
Due  to  the  various  nature  of  the  special  watch  activities,  it  is  not  possible  to  quantify 
them in their entirety. Nevertheless, as these are often carried out in the format of JCOs 
with the support of the Commission, it is possible to analyse these and assess its value in 
the context of mutual assistance. 

In  the  period  of  2015-2019,  47  Joint  Customs  Operations  were  organised  by  Member 
States and by the Commission in cooperation with Members States. Third countries (such 
as Bangladesh,  China,  India,  Indonesia, Japan,  Malaysia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, 
Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Ukraine or Vietnam), and other organisations 
such as Europol, Frontex, EUBAM, the World Customs Organization (WCO) or Interpol, 
are  frequently  participating  in  these  operations.  A  number  of  investigations,  at  national 
and EU level, were opened following some of these operations.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Twenty  Member  States  view  the  Regulation  as  useful  in  conducting  JCOs.  Twelve  of 
these Member States consider it very useful, namely as the Regulation is considered as 
the main instrument for the exchange of operational information between Member States 
and these actions are very useful to confirm previous suspicions of fraud. Two Member 
States have mentioned the need to clarify the scope of article 7 of the Regulation. 

The Virtual Operations Coordination Unit (VOCU), the communication tool part of the 
AFIS used for the secure exchange of information during JCOs is considered very useful 
by the Member States. At the latest AFIS survey launched in 2019, over 90% of Member 
States were satisfied with the functionalities and performance of the VOCU.  

On the period of 2015-2019, 47 JCOs were conducted with the use of VOCU. 

Relations with the Commission 

The number of mutual assistance communications and supplementary information sent to 
Member  States  by  the  Commission  for  the  period  2015-2019  remained  initially  stable, 
with an increase in the last two years. The evolution is visualised in the following table: 

 MA number / 
Year 

MA 
MA Precursors 
MA 
Supplements 
MA  
Precursors 
Supplements 
Total 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

26 
1 

13 

3 

43 

26 
2 

6 

7 

41 

26 
2 

15 

2 

45 

32 
5 

15 

4 

56 

39 
2 

25 

3 

69 

Figure 1: Number of mutual assistance communications by type of MA and year (2015-2019) (OLAF figures) 

The number of mutual assistance communications issued by type of fraud, for the same 
period, is shown in the table below: 

2017 

2016 

2015 

2018 

Type of fraud / 
Year 
Misclassification  
Origin 
Undervaluation 
Drug Precursors 
Other/Combined 
Special regime 
Counterfeit 
products 
37 
Total 
Figure 2: Number of mutual assistance communications by type of fraud and year (2015-2019) (OLAF figures) 

10 
16 
2 
5 
2 
- 

4 
20 
- 
2 
- 
2 

5 
16 
2 
1 
- 
- 

4 
20 
1 
2 
- 
- 

28 

27 

28 

0 

2 

3 

1 

2019 

4 
21 
5 
2 
3 
- 

6 

41 

The consulted stakeholders are satisfied with the mechanisms for mutual  administrative 
assistance  in  place,  be  it  in  the  form  of  information  systems  or  other  forms  of 
cooperation. 

All  Member  States  indicated  that  they  have  reported  relevant  information  to  the 
Commission according to Articles 17 to 18e of the Regulation, however, the frequency of 

28 

 
reports varies from one Member State to another. One Member State reports on a daily 
basis  to  the  Commission,  while  at  least  one  third  of  the  Member  States  report  to  the 
Commission several times a month.    

Twenty-four Member States indicated that the information included in mutual assistance 
communications  led  to  specific  measures  being  taken  at  national  level.  Member  States 
mostly  indicated  the  measures  to  include  risk  analysis  processing,  documentary  and 
physical examinations, guarantees, post-clearance controls, administrative and operative 
measures  as  well  as  criminal  investigations.  In  some  cases,  they  recovered  duties  and 
other payments.   

Three  Commission  departments  have  been  involved  in  the  mutual  administrative 
assistance mechanisms based on Articles 17 – 18e of the Regulation.  

Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS)  

To  assure  cooperation  and  control  procedures,  all  relevant  information  should  be 
systematically  made  available  both  to  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  a  secure 
and  rapid  manner.  As  mentioned  in  section  2.1,  the  Anti-Fraud  Information  System 
(AFIS) was set  up by the Commission  as the single technical  infrastructure hosting  the 
various IT applications for the storage and exchange of the information for the purposes 
of the Regulation.  

The AFIS users in Member States and in the Commission are invited to evaluate the 
system and its applications every two years.  

The  figures  below  show  the  degree  of  satisfaction  of  the  users  over  the  period  2014-
2019: 

Figure 3: Evolution of the level of satisfaction of the AFIS users in the period 2014-2019 (OLAF IT Satisfaction Survey) 

29 

 
 
 
Transport directory 

For  the  time  being,  the  transport  directory  is  limited  to  data  related  to  sea  container 
movements  recorded  in  the  Container  Status  Message  (CSM)  directory.  A  transport 
directory containing data for land, rail and air transport has not yet been implemented by 
the Commission.  

As  required  by  Article  43b  of  Regulation  2015/1525  the  Commission  carried  out  an 
assessment of the feasibility of extending the data contained in the transport directory, by 
including  data  on  import,  export  and  transit  of  goods  by  land  and  air  ('feasibility 
assessment').    This  assessment  was  annexed  to  the  Commission  annual  report  on  the 
protection  of  the  EU's  financial  interests  (PIF  Report)  for  201716.  Member  States  were 
regularly  associated  with  this  exercise  in  the  context  of  the  Expert  Group  on  mutual 
assistance in customs matters. 

In  its  assessment  the  Commission  has  taken  into  account  the  concerns  expressed  by 
Member State Customs Authorities at various occasions about the issue of complexity of 
reporting requirements to various Commission services. The Commission has ensured to 
avoid  multiple  reporting  and  duplication  of  efforts,  and  has  looked  for  where  data  for 
land, including rail, and air transport was or would be available in the future.  

The feasibility assessment therefore focused on the identification of potential sources of 
additional data for land, including rail, and air transport. In this context, the Commission 
indicated that it would explore the possibility of re-using data from other Commission IT 
systems  such  as  the  Entry  Summary  Declaration  (ENS)  data17  provided  to  the  Import 
Control  System  (ICS)  2  system  as  well  as  other  options  if  there  are  indications  that 
shortcomings  in  the  legal  framework  as  well  as  ineffective  implementation  of  customs 
controls on imports, as identified by the European Court of Auditors18, persist. 

Container Status Messages (CSM) 

The CSM directory was launched in September 2016 following the entering into force of 
the latest amendment of the Regulation. Thirteen Member States indicated that they use 
CSM on a weekly basis at least, mainly for commercial customs fraud (misdescription of 
goods,  origin,  value,  anti-dumping  duties,  etc.)  and  non-commercial  customs  fraud. 
Twenty-six  Member  States  use  CSM  for  investigative  activities,  twenty-three  Member 
States for risk assessment, twenty Member States for post-clearance auditing or controls.  

16 COM(2018) 553 final of 03.09.2018, see section 3.1.1.1 on Implementation of Article 43b of Regulation 515/97.   

17 The data contained in the Entry Summary Declaration (ENS) are defined in Article 127 of Regulation 952/2013, OJ 
L  269  of  10.10.2013,  p.  1,  and  Article  183  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  2015/2447,  OJ  L  343  of 
29.12.2015, p. 558.   

18  Special  Report  No  19/2017:  "Import  procedures:  shortcomings  in  the  legal  framework  and  an  ineffective 

implementation impact the financial interests of the EU".   

30 

 
 
 
According to the Regulation each Member State shall implement provisions on penalties 
at national level for failure to comply with the obligation to provide data or for providing 
incomplete  or  false  data.  Fourteen  Member  States  have  implemented  such  a  provision, 
fourteen others have not done so. The Regulation did not set a deadline for this. 

One Member State had introduced an implementing provision in its national legislation. 
The implementation in the Member States is done either in the national fiscal acts or in 
the national customs law. One Member State has foreseen a penalty for infringements of 
general regulations or decisions of the Council or the Commission with a fine of 125 to 
1,250 €. Member States not having implemented a penalty at national level, nonetheless 
provide information on the ongoing implementation in national legislation. Two Member 
States  question  whether  it  is  possible  to  implement  such  a  provision  as  it  is  not  clear 
which  Member  State  should  impose  a  sanction:  the  Member  State  of  the  declared 
destination of goods or the Member State of the real destination of goods.   

The scope of export data in the CSM directory is currently limited to products subject to 
excise duties (tobacco, alcohol, energy products).  

Commission  departments  have  used  CSM  on  a  weekly  basis  at  least.  They  consider  it 
useful for commercial customs fraud and non-commercial customs fraud, pre-clearance 
import  controls,  post-clearance  auditing  or  controls,  investigative  activities,  export 
controls, other customs law enforcement activities and risk assessment.  

Carriers are obliged to report CSMs when it is established that the container is destined 
to be brought into/or leave the customs territory of the EU. They have implemented this 
requirement in their systems. One carrier faces difficulties implementing the ‘leave the 
customs territory of the EU’ requirement. For that reason, all exports from the EU are 
reported. Carriers have raised concerns relating to the requirement to report from the 
moment the container is empty before entry into the customs territory of the EU until it is 
empty again (‘empty-to-empty’ reporting), they indicate that they do not have  
information how their clients handle containers before loading them on board or after 
discharging them. The Regulation stipulates that export shipments from the EU require 
the provisions of CSMs only for excisable products. Some carriers have not yet 
implemented this requirement, as it would require a significant amount of analysis, 
specification and implementation efforts.  

Import Export and Transit (IET)   

The IET directory was launched in September 2016 following the entry into force of the 
latest amendment of the Regulation.  

Twenty  Member  States  use  the  mechanisms  concerning  IET  with  a  view  to  ensuring 
compliance  with  the  customs  legislation.  The  frequency  of  usage  varies,  eight  Member 
States use it regularly (daily, weekly or monthly), whereas the remaining Member States 
use it less than once a month or once every 6 months. 

31 

 
The  customs  activities  for  which  Member  States  have  used  more  often  IET  were 
investigative and risk assessment. Other activities for which IET was used include pre-
clearance  import  controls,  clearance  check,  post-clearance  auditing  or  controls,  support 
joint customs operations, export controls and other customs law enforcement activities. 

for  commercial  customs 

At least two Commission departments make use of IET. They use the database at least on 
a  monthly  basis.  All  three  parts  of  IET  (Import/Surveillance,  Export/ECS  and 
Transit/ATIS)  are  used 
(i.e.  undervaluation, 
misclassification, misuse of origin and preferential duties) by Commission departments. 
Transit/ATIS is used by Commission departments only for risk assessment. Export/ECS 
is  also  used  for  export  controls  and  other  customs  law  enforcement  activities  and 
Import/Surveillance  as  well  for  pre-clearance  import  controls,  clearance  checks,  post-
clearance auditing or controls, investigative activities and support to JCOs.  

fraud 

As  required  by  Article  43b  of  Regulation  2015/1525  the  Commission  carried  out  an 
assessment on the necessity of extending the export data contained in the CSM and IET 
directories,  by  including  data  on  goods  other  than  excisable  goods  ('necessity 
assessment').  This  assessment  was  annexed  to  the  Commission’s  annual  report  on  the 
protection of the EU's financial interests (PIF Report) for 201719. 

The  Commission  engaged  in  consultations  with  Member  States  to  determine  the 
necessity  of  an  extension  of  the  existing  directories  to  encompass  other  categories  of 
goods apart from those subject to excise duties. Nineteen Member States as well as the 
Commission  have  supported  such  an  expansion,  stressing  that  additional  information 
may  assist  the  identification  and  prevention  of  infringements  committed  in  violation  of 
export  restrictions,  curb  customs  fraud,  expose  fraudulent  networks  and  protect  public 
health, safety and security. One Member State noted that the gathering of additional data 
may  facilitate  the  recognition  of  connections  between  companies,  goods  and  supply 
chains. Similarly, one Member State acknowledged that the additional availability of data 
could provide for a deeper level of analysis to tackle customs related fraud from a variety 
of different perspectives, whilst another expressed its appreciation over the centralisation 
of additional data and its potential positive effect on data availability. 

Eight Member States, however, expressed reservation about the widening of the scope of 
the  directories  to  include  export  data  on  non-excisable  goods  for  a  variety  of  reasons. 
One  Member  State  felt  that  it  had  firstly  to  ensure  that  the  CSM  directory  was 
functioning properly and smoothly before it could consider the necessity of extending the 
scope to other non-excisable goods. Similarly, one Member State felt that the CSM and 
IET directories were too new, to conclusively determine whether the expansion of such 
would be in its interests. Another felt that the type of information to be included in the 
foreseen  expansion  had  to  be  defined  before  it  could  endorse  such  an  initiative.  One 
Member State expressed its scepticism over the need or added value of an expansion of 

19 COM(2018) 553 final of 03.09.2018, see section 3.1.1.1 on Implementation of Article 43b of Regulation 

515/97.   

32 

 
 
the  data  available  at  central  level  in  CSM  and  IET  directories,  arguing  that  the  current 
databases should be perfected before notions to expand them can be entertained. 

One  Member  State  was  not  in  a  position  to  provide  a  definite  reply  to  the  question 
pertaining to the need for an extension of the existing directories beyond excisable goods. 

Relations with third countries 

As  described  in  section  2.2,  the  Regulation  complements  the  mutual  administrative 
assistance  provisions  under  international  agreements  on  customs,  cooperation  or  trade, 
providing for the assistance through the communication of information  from the EU or 
Member States customs authorities to third countries and the missions to third countries 
for investigative purposes. Articles 19 and 20, respectively, define this kind of assistance.  

Based on the answers provided by Member States, 24 Member States declare not having 
had recourse to these articles, or very rarely. They clarified that they make mostly use of 
mutual administrative assistance agreements.  

Member States indicated that most of the current EU MAA exchanges take place under 
the legal basis of our MAA provisions in international agreements. The EU has already 
more  than  50  international  agreements  in  force  covering  more  than  80  third  countries, 
among them the major EU trading partners and neighbouring countries. The number of 
international agreements containing MAA provisions has remained relatively stable over 
recent  years,  most  recent  negotiations  are  updating  existing  agreements  with  important 
partners. 

Sixteen  Member  States  never  used  at  all  the  mechanism  provided  by  Article  19  of  the 
Regulation. That means they never used the possibility to communicate information to a 
third country in  the absence  of an  agreement on  cooperation and mutual  administrative 
assistance  in  customs  matters.  Three  Member  States  made  use  of  Article  19  of  the 
Regulation at least once a month. A majority of Member States have not indicated their 
level of satisfaction with the implementation of Article 19, due to a lack of experience. 
Four Member States are very satisfied with the implementation of this article.  

Relating  to  the conduct  of an administrative and investigative cooperation mission in  a 
third country, 11 Member States never made use of this possibility provided by Article 
20 of the Regulation. Half of the Member States makes use of these missions not more 
often than once every 6 months. Eleven Member States have not indicated their level of 
satisfaction with the implementation of Article 20, due to a lack of experience. Fourteen 
Member States are satisfied with the implementation of this article.  

When  investigators  from  Member  States  participate  in  missions  in  third  countries 
organised  by  the  Commission  (OLAF),  after  its  completion,  the  Commission  provides 
the  mission  report  to  those  Member  States  concerned,  as  there  may  be  financial  or 
judicial  follow  up  required  in  the  Member  States.  Their  expenses  are  paid  by  the 
Commission according to Articles 20 and 42a (1)(b) of the Regulation. There have been 

33 

 
altogether 53 missions in this regard within the last 5 years (2015: 10 missions, 2016: 14 
missions, 2017: 12 missions, 2018: 9 missions, and 2019: 8 missions).  

There  were  no  grounds  for  the  Commission  to  inform  the  European  Parliament  on  the 
results of any particular missions. However, this would be a requirement if the mission is 
carried out on the basis of information provided by this institution. 

Customs Information System (CIS) 

All Member States have access to the CIS. Some third countries have access to parts of 
the information shared in CIS by the MarInfo20 group.  

The CIS is used on a regular basis by 25 Member States. Eight Member States use CIS 
on a daily basis, nine on a weekly basis and four less than once a month or once every six 
months.  

The CIS was used by Member States mainly to support risk assessment, prevention and 
detection  of  customs  infringements  and  JCOs.  The  CIS  is  considered  most  useful  by 
Member  States  for  the  fight  against  tobacco  smuggling  (26  Member  States)  and  illicit 
drugs traffic (21 Member States), followed by illicit trade of drug precursors (19 Member 
States), cash controls (19 Member States) and counterfeit (18 Member States).  

One Commission department has used the CIS for daily work and indicated that it fulfils 
its aim. This Commission department used the CIS on a monthly basis for customs risk 
assessment and it was able to retrieve the information needed in the customs domains of 
commercial  fraud  –  misdescription  of  goods,  origin  and  value,  anti-dumping  duties, 
counterfeit, cash control, drug precursors, CITES, cultural goods, waste, dual-use goods 
and human health and safety.  

Based  on  the  Regulation  and  under  the  conditions  set  in  a  dedicated  administrative 
arrangement, Member States can transfer non-personal data on CIS tobacco seizure cases 
to  the World Customs  Organization (WCO). The WCO  indicated that the CIS data has 
been very useful to  the organisation  and its  Members’ activities. This  is reflected in  its 
annual  publication  on  illicit  trade.  Nevertheless,  it  is  highlighted  that  the  scope  of  the 
arrangement no longer meets the current needs of the customs community. It is proposed 
to  update the arrangement  to  broaden the scope  to  cover data transfer to other types of 
fraud and targeted commodities with the aim of enhancing the organisation’s analytical 
capabilities. 

Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

FIDE was launched in 2009 with the amendment provided by Regulation 766/2008.  

20  The  MarInfo  group  is  composed  by  customs  administrations  of  all  Member  States  and  invited  third  countries  to 
prevent and fight against smuggling of sensitive goods (high tax goods, drugs and drugs precursors, counterfeit goods, 
goods related to terrorism, and organised crime) transported by maritime way. 

34 

 
 
 
FIDE is rarely or never used by a large number of  Member States. Ten  Member States 
have  never  used  the  system.  Nine  Member  States  have  used  it  less  than  once  every  6 
months.  Only  three  Member  States  use  it  on  a  weekly  basis.  FIDE  is  most  commonly 
used  to  support  the  detection  of  customs  infringements  (nine  Member  States), 
investigative  activities  (eight  Member  States),  risk  assessment  (seven  Member  States) 
and  for  customs  law  enforcement  activities  (seven  Member  States).  The  fight  against 
tobacco smuggling (15 Member States), excise fraud (11 Member States) and illicit drugs 
traffic  (10  Member  States)  are  the  customs  domains  most  commonly  used  in  FIDE  by  
Member  States.    International  organisations  and  Commission  departments  do  not  use 
FIDE. 

Data analysis 

Twenty-six  Member States have used data from  the above-mentioned databases for the 
purpose of strategic and/or operational analysis.  

Four  out  of  five  participating  Commission  departments  have  made  use  of  data  for 
analysis purposes based on the Regulation  and have used it for the purpose of strategic 
and/or operational analyses.  

Stakeholders  have  indicated  that  e-commerce  should  be  the  subject  of  enhanced 
analytical work by Member States and the Commission in context of safety, security and 
anti-fraud. The cross-border dimension of e-commerce makes prevention, detection, and 
investigation  of  fraud  extremely  complex,  and  national  risk-assessment  strategies 
difficult.  Current  EU legislative and IT structures seem  inadequate to  effectively  tackle 
this  problem  whereas  other  important  trading  partners  have  already  moved  towards 
upgrading their regulations and structures to live up to these challenges. 

Personal data protection 

The  last  amendment  of  the  Regulation  aimed  to  simplify  and  harmonise  the  data 
protection supervision rules applicable to the different databases set up on the basis of the 
Regulation.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  consultation  addressed  to  the 
European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  (EDPS)  and  the  European  Data  Protection  Board 
(EDPB).  Nevertheless,  the  current  supervision  is  complex,  particular  to  the  parallel 
existence of the two supervision models.  

The  EDPS  and  two  Member  States  expressed  concerns  about  the  existing  supervision 
models.  EDPS  answered  that  the  current  mechanisms  for  cooperation  have  proven 
effective, but they should be streamlined by aligning them with Article 62 of Regulation 
2018/1725.  This  would  be  in  line  with  the  wish  of  the  EU  legislator  to  provide  for  a 
harmonised  supervision  mechanism  for  large-scale  IT  systems  in  the  context  of  the 
EDPB.  Member  States  confirmed  that  better  coordination  between  the  two  supervisory 
entities  would  be  appropriate.  Article  62  of  Regulation  2018/1725  provides  for  a 
harmonized model of coordinated supervision, applicable where the relevant act of Union 
law  refers  to  this  Article.  Pursuant  to  Article  62,  the  EDPS  and  the  national  data 
protection  authorities,  each  acting  within  their  respective  competences,  shall  cooperate 

35 

 
actively within the framework of their responsibilities to ensure effective supervision of 
large-scale IT systems and of Union bodies, offices and agencies. 

With  respect  to  the  identification  of  issues  affecting  the  rights  of  the  data  subjects,  the 
EDPS  has  not  encountered  issues  affecting  the  rights  of  the  data  subjects  under  its 
supervisory  competence.  EDPS  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  rights  of  data  subjects  are 
sufficiently guaranteed by the Regulation at Member States and Commission levels.  

All  Member  States  data  protection  authorities  except  one  considered  the  rights  of  data 
subjects as sufficiently guaranteed by the current mechanisms of supervision established 
by  the  Regulation  at  Member  States  (national  data  protection  authorities)  and 
Commission (EDPS) levels. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1.  Effectiveness 

Overall, all sections of the Regulation work together to achieve both aims: increase the 
detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of  breaches  of  customs  and  agricultural 
legislation by enhanced collaboration, and improve the process related to administrative 
enquiries in the area of customs mutual assistance.  

In particular, the availability of a larger set of customs related data introduced with the 
new  CSM  and  IET  directories  allowed  for  a  better  detection  of  fraud  cases  and  the 
opening of related administrative enquiries at national and EU level. 

Even if the scope of the Regulation was considered to be fit for purpose, some areas for 
improvement were identified and some issues arising from the different status of customs 
in each Member State were noted. 

Agricultural matters 

All nine Member States using the Regulation in agricultural matters faced difficulties in 
the mutual assistance process, among these were: ‘answer received too late’, ‘no answer 
received  at  all’  and  ‘incomplete  information  received’.  If  a  request  was  received  for 
mutual administrative assistance, the difficulty most frequently faced was ‘not to be able 
to  answer  within  the  requested  deadline’.  A  less  common  problem  was  an  ‘unclear 
information requested’ and ‘the information/documentation requested was not available’. 
Member States mostly made use of the mechanisms of assistance on request/spontaneous 
assistance and relations with the Commission.  

Member  States  provided  some  examples  of  their  usage  of  the  Regulation  concerning 
agricultural matters. One Member State considered the Regulation as an important tool to 
find information for cases of a certain  financial interest. This  Member State considered 
that more  exchange of information  on the basis  of the Regulation  would be preferable. 
Another  Member  State  uses  the  Regulation  concerning  agricultural  matters  only  for 

36 

 
sending  and  receiving  requests  regarding  the  notice  on  import  and  export  licences  for 
agricultural  products21.  Another  Member  State  made  use  of  the  Regulation  concerning 
agricultural legislation for requesting other Member States to reverse a given tariff quota 
and  for  investigations  on  AGRIM-certificates.  Requests  regarding  verification  of 
documents concerning sugar quotas 22 were also common. Reliable statistics on the usage 
of the Regulation in agricultural matters were not available. 

Only  one  Commission  department  uses  the  Regulation  for  mutual  administrative 
assistance  in  agricultural  matters.  This  Commission  department  uses  the  Regulation 
several times a month and considers the scope to be appropriate.  

One Member State used the Regulation for requests to other Member States on controls 
of  an  agricultural  product  imported  from  a  third  country  and  later  exported  to  other 
Member  States.  The  sections  of  the  Regulation  related  to  the  relations  with  third 
countries and databases were indicated to be of lesser use in the agricultural domain. This 
can be explained by the fact that the agricultural authorities have not requested access to 
the  databases  established  under  the  Regulation.  Even  though  Member  States  face 
difficulties in using the Regulation for agricultural matters (such as ‘answers received too 
late’ and ‘incomplete information received’), nine of the responding  Member States are 
satisfied that being able to use the Regulation in agricultural matters helps them increase 
the detectability, prevention and prosecution of breaches of agricultural legislation. When 
receiving  a  request  for  mutual  administrative  assistance,  the  difficulty  that  Member 
States  mainly  faced  was  the  impossibility  to  answer  within  the  requested  deadline. 
Nevertheless,  all  nine  responding  Member  States  made  use  of  these  provisions  and 
considered all available communication channels (AFIS mail, phone, post and e-mail) as 
useful. 

One Commission department uses the Regulation several times a month and considers it 
as useful.  

There are no more than 10 cases per year related to agricultural matters in the last 5 years 
and the level of cases remained stable throughout the evaluation period. The agricultural 
sector has neither been influenced by the last review of the Regulation (where there have 
been no changes on agriculture).  

Customs matters scope and definitions 

The majority of Member States consider that the scope of the Regulation  largely meets 
their needs in terms of mutual administrative assistance. In general, it is considered that 
the  Regulation  provides  extensive  coverage  for  mutual  assistance  in  administrative 
matters.  

One Member State expressed the need for legal clarification regarding the link between 
the scope of the Regulation and other regulations that can apply it  mutatis mutandis, in 

21 Referring to Article 13(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1239. 
22 Application of Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EEC) 376/2008. 

37 

 
 
particular where these other regulations are not customs legislation within the meaning of 
the Union Customs Code. The implementation of Regulation 1889/2005 on cash controls 
(currently Regulation 1672/2018) is given as an example. The need to extend the  scope 
of  the  Regulation  to  cover  tax  related  issues  and  clarification  on  how  to  apply  the 
Regulation for environmental issues or the protection of intellectual property rights, were 
also raised.  

On the application of the Regulation in the customs domain, 19 Member States did not 
detect  major  difficulties.  Nevertheless,  several  examples  of  problems  encountered  were 
raised  by  Member  States.  The  need  for  a  clear  definition  of  the  operations  which 
constitute breaches of customs or agricultural legislation in line with the Regulation was 
mentioned. The lack of uniformity in the application of the Regulation by Member States 
and the need to  combine it with  other mutual  assistance legal  instruments,  are some of 
the major difficulties encountered. The difficulty of the application of the Regulation for 
environmental  issues  or  the  protection  of  intellectual  property  rights  is  mentioned.  The 
need for tighter deadlines for answering mutual assistance requests and the need for all 
Member States to use the dedicated communication channels are also reported issues. 

The majority of Member States considers that no further areas should be covered by the 
Regulation  to  adequately  meet  their  needs.  Four  countries  consider  that  waste,  ozone 
depleting substances, drug precursors, tax matters, cash controls and cybercrime are not 
sufficiently covered by the Regulation. 

When asked on which further areas should be covered by the Regulation, Member States 
indicated  the  need  for  clear  communication  channels,  information  on  new  regulations 
falling under the Regulation, alignment with the Naples II Convention and less restricted 
data protection rules to facilitate data sharing and analysis.  

As  referred  to  in  section  2.1,  19  specific  legal  instruments  contain  a  reference  to  the 
Regulation.  Member  States  consider  their  needs  are  addressed  by  those  instruments  on 
the enforcement of intellectual property rights23, drug precursors24 and cash controls25.   

Member  States  provided  mixed  ratings  for  the  legal  instruments  related  to  export  of 
cultural  goods26, 
the 
implementation  of  the  UN  Protocol  related  to  measures  for  firearms,  their  parts  and 
components and ammunition28. 

the  control  of  certain  movements  of  dual-use 

items27, 

23 Regulation 608/2013 - Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Regulation 1383/2003. 
24 Regulation 273/2004 as amended by Regulation 1258/2013 - Drug precursors. 
 Regulation 111/2005  as amended by  Regulation 1259/2013  -  Rules  for  the  monitoring of  trade between  the Community and third 
countries in drug precursors. 
25 Regulation 1889/2005 - Regulation on controls on cash entering or leaving the Community. 
26 Regulation 116/2009 - Export of cultural goods (Codified version). 
27 Regulation 428/2009 - Setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. 
28 Regulation 258/2012 - Implementing Article 10 of the UN Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, 
their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UN Firearms 
Protocol),  and  establishing  export  authorisation,  and  import  and  transit  measures  for  firearms,  their  parts  and  components  and 
ammunition. 

38 

 
 
More than 13 Member States had no opinion concerning the 12 other legal instruments29. 
A majority of Member States considered that references to the Regulation in four other 
legal  instruments  to  be  useful  for  achieving  the  aims  of  the  Regulation.  These  include 
Regulation  608/2013  (Customs  enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights),  Regulation 
273/2004 as amended by Regulation 1258/2013 (Drug precursors), Regulation 111/2005 
as  amended  by  Regulation  1259/2013  (Rules  for  the  monitoring  of  trade  between  the 
Community  and  third  countries  in  drug  precursors)  and  Regulation  1889/2005 
(Regulation on controls on cash entering or leaving the Community). 

During the bilateral interviews Member States pointed out that the implementation of the 
Regulation  is  different  across  the  Member  States  due  to  differences  in  the  status, 
competence  and  powers  of  customs  authorities.  This  refers  for  example  to  trafficking 
drugs,  weapons  and  intracommunity  excise  fraud.  Additionally,  one  Member  State’s 
customs authority defines the need for a legal clarification of Article 2 of the Regulation.  

During  the  2nd  AFIS  conference  organised  by  the  Commission  (OLAF)  with  Austrian 
Customs  in  October  2018,  Member  States  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  legal 
instruments  put  at  their  disposal  by  the  Commission  in  support  of  their  anti-fraud 
activities. While  expressing  overall satisfaction  with  the legal tools at  their disposal,  in 
the  field  of  mutual  administrative  assistance  in  customs  matters,  a  number  of  potential 
improvements to be made were identified. For example, Member States consider that the 
scope of the Regulation  should be clarified for specific areas in which customs play  an 
active role but which do not directly fall within the scope of customs legislation within 
the meaning of the Union Customs Code. The use of the Regulation in view of the legal 
provisions of the new Cash  Controls  Regulation  was  addressed. The new rules  on data 
protection  were  mentioned  as  an  issue  of  particular  importance.  A  better  delineation 
between the Regulation and other customs instruments such as the Naples II Convention 
is needed. Based on these arguments, Member States confirmed their strong support for 
the  evaluation  of  the  Regulation,  stressed  their  interest  in  being  fully  involved  in  this 
process and wanted to be consulted early in the procedure. 

29  Regulation  21/2004  -  Establishing  a  system  for  the  identification  and  registration  of  ovine  and  caprine  animals  and  amending    
Regulation 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC. 
Directive 2008/71/EC - Identification and registration of pigs.  
Regulation 267/2012 - Concerning restrictive measures against Iran as amended by Regulation 2015/1861. 
Directive  2014/28/EU  -  Harmonisation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  relating  to  the  making  available  on  the  market  and 
supervision of explosives for civil uses.  
Regulation 332/2014 - Procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and 
their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part. 
Regulation 833/2014 - Restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. 
Regulation 2015/752 - Procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and 
their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part.  
Regulation 2015/939 - Procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and 
their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part. 
Regulation 2015/940 - Procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and their MS, of the one 
part,  and  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  of  the  other  part,  and  for  applying  the  Interim  Agreement  on  trade  and  trade-related  matters 
between the EC, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part. 
Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1239 - Application of Regulation 1308/2013 of the EP and of the Council with regard to 
the system of import and export licences. 
Regulation  2016/1076  -  Applying  the  arrangements  for  products  originating  in  certain  states  which  are  part  of  the  ACP  Group  of 
States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, EPAs. 
Regulation 2017/355 - Procedures for applying the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and the Euratom, of the 
one part, and Kosovo of the other part. 

39 

 
 
 
All  Member States used the Regulation  on mutual  administrative assistance in  customs 
matters and all of them are satisfied that these provisions promote their ability to increase 
the detectability, prevention and prosecution of breaches of customs legislation as well as 
to improve the process related to administrative enquiries in the area of customs mutual 
assistance. Twenty-five Member States indicated that they were very satisfied.   

Nonetheless, Member States point out that the different status, competence and power of 
customs in the different Member States and the lack of a specific time frame for the reply 
to  a request  still caused difficulties. These factors  complicate the cooperation to detect, 
prevent and prosecute breaches of customs legislation. 

Five  Commission  departments  have  used  the  Regulation  on  mutual  administrative 
assistance  in  customs  matters  and  consider  the  scope  corresponds  to  their  needs.  They 
confirmed the need for this instrument. They identify the availability of data for research 
projects as the only area where they encountered difficulties.  

Four  Member  States  indicate  that  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  should  be  extended  to 
further  areas.  They  mention  waste,  ozone  depleting  substances,  drug  precursors,  tax 
matters,  cash  seizures  and  cybercrime.  However,  19  Member  States  indicate  that  no 
further  areas  should  be  covered  by  the  Regulation,  they  are  satisfied  that  it  is  working 
well and achieves the aims of the Regulation.  

Assistance on request 

The number of requests for assistance or spontaneous assistance to other Member States 
has been described in section 3 ’Description of the current situation’.  

Member  States  are  satisfied  with  the  mutual  assistance  mechanisms  and  consider  that 
these have contributed to detect breaches in customs legislation.  

At least half of the Member States faced difficulties in the mutual assistance process both 
when  receiving  a  request  or  when  requesting  assistance.  The  difficulties  include  the 
unavailability  of  the  requested  information,  the  impossibility  to  reply  within  the  set 
deadline, requests made out of the scope of the Regulation or of the competences of the 
customs  authority  defined  at  national  level  or  delays  from  awaiting  information  from 
third  parties.  Member  Sates  provided  a  number  of  suggestions  to  address  some  of  the 
problems  reported,  such  as  the  mention  of  a  reasonable  deadline  to  reply  to  assistance 
requests, the possibility of allowing the use of information and documentation received 
via mutual assistance by other state authorities or to standardise the forms and content of 
the request (as in Naples II Convention). 

Before  the  last  revision  of  the  Regulation,  there  was  legal  uncertainty  about  the  use  of 
information  collected  through  mutual  assistance  as  evidence  in  national  criminal 
proceedings. The revision of Article 12 of the Regulation was intended to provide legal 
certainty that evidence obtained via mutual assistance may be used by prosecutors in the 
national criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the Regulation cannot provide an obligation 
for national courts to accept the use the evidence obtained via mutual assistance. The new 

40 

 
wording of Article 12 brought certainty that this evidence should at least be considered 
usable at national level. The fact that 25 Member States consider the mechanisms of the 
Regulation  as  contributing  to  detect  breaches  in  customs  legislation  supports  that 
approach. More than eight Member States report ‘incomplete or late replies’ and do not 
refer to difficulties with the use of the documents received. That supports the aim of the 
Regulation  to  improve  the  process  related  to  administrative  enquiries  in  the  area  of 
customs mutual assistance. 

Twenty-six  Member  States  have  used  the  data  shared  by  the  Commission  or  other 
Member States for the purpose of strategic and operational analysis.  

In  the  bilateral  interviews,  Member  States  customs  authorities  ask  for  a  definition  of  a 
time-period  (minimum  and  maximum)  for  replying  to  the  mutual  assistance  requests. 
Knowledge  about  the  status  of  the  request  sent  (received/being  treated/finalised)  was 
indicated as useful. A need for precise and clear questions is also indicated.  

Special watch – Joint Customs Operations  

Special watch activities and in particular, JCOs are carried out on a voluntary basis of the 
participants  and  based  on  the  legal  provisions  for  mutual  assistance  in  the  terms  of  the 
Regulation.  These  operational  activities  contribute  to  improve  the  practical  cooperation 
between  the  participating  customs  administrations  of  the  Member  States  and  the 
participating  third  countries,  enhance  the  enforcement  and  operational  capabilities  of 
these administrations, prevent the traffic of illicit goods destined to the Union territory, 
assess  or  confirm  new  fraud  trends,  develop  more  effective  targeting  and  develop 
investigative activities.  

The JCOs organised have contributed to increase the collection of unpaid customs duties 
and  prevented  losses  to  the  Union  budget.  A  number  of  administrative  enquiries  were 
initiated  following  these  operations.  According  to  the  feedback  provided,  24  Member 
States consider the Regulation useful in conducting special watch activities. 

More  specifically,  the  permanent  physical  (Permanent  Operational  Coordination  Unit  - 
POCU)  and  IT  infrastructure  (Virtual  Operation  Coordination  Unit  -  VOCU)  for  the 
support of JCOs has been regularly used by Commission and Member States, as well as 
third countries and other organisations on numerous occasions.  

The  JCO  evaluation  reports  submitted  after  the  completion  of  JCOs  show  that  this 
physical  structure  and  the  VOCU  application  strongly  facilitate  the  coordination  tasks 
associated  to  JCOs  with  a  large  number  of  participants.  Their  use  is  frequently 
recommended during the evaluation of these operations. The fact that these facilities are 
also frequently used for operational activities in the area of law enforcement cooperation 
(free  of  charge  for  the  participants)  is  an  additional  indication  of  Member  States' 
satisfaction.  This  positive  feedback  is  further  reflected  in  the  answers  provided  during 
Member  States’  consultations.  JCOs  organised  by  Member  States  or  by  them  and  the 
Commission are considered very useful to support the aims of the Regulation by the vast 
majority of the Member States. The technical and financial support provided in the scope 

41 

 
of the Regulation, for the carrying out of special watch activities and JCOs in particular 
helps to pursue the aims of the Regulation.  

Member  States  consider  that  VOCU  is  a  very  important  tool  for  conducting  these 
operational activities and achieving the aim of the Regulation.  

Also  importantly,  the  reimbursement  of  transport,  accommodation  and  daily  allowance 
costs of representatives of the Member States' operational actions, including JCOs, have 
proven to  be critical  to  secure the participation  of a large number of Member States in 
these initiatives. 

The number of JCOs supported by the Regulation has grown steadily on an average of 12 
JCO per year until 2019.  

Relations with the Commission 

All  Member  States  communicated  relevant  information  to  the  Commission  and  more 
than  half  at  least  several  times  a  month.  Twenty-Seven  Member  States  consider  the 
information sent by the Commission in the format of mutual assistance communications 
is  useful  for  their  work.  Additionally,  24  Member  States  indicated  that  these 
communications led to the adoption of specific national measures. Despite the challenges 
Member States faced, they consider the mutual assistance communications as useful for 
their  work  by  increasing  the  detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of  breaches  of 
customs legislation.  

The  evolution  of  the  quantity  of  mutual  assistance  communications  sent  by  the 
Commission  shows  a  clear  rise  from  2014  to  2019.  These  mutual  assistance 
communications  include  supplementary  communications,  related  to  previously  issued 
mutual assistance communications. The numbers do not take into account other types of 
information  exchanged  between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  (e.g.  requests  for 
assistance, replies, mutual assistance related transmissions, etc.).  

Normally one mutual assistance communication relates to one case. That means that the 
number of cases for misclassification, misdescription of origin, undervaluation and drug 
precursors  was  on  the  rise,  as  well,  from  2014  to  2019.  The  increase  of  the  number  of 
cases means also an increasing support of the detectability, prevention and prosecution of 
breaches  of  customs  legislation  by  enhanced  collaboration  between  the  Member  States 
and the Commission.  

The increase in the number of mutual assistance communications refers to an increase of 
initial information by Member States. Member States have been more active in the last 
years to provide information. This shows that Member States are more willing to share 
information,  have  trust  in  the  Commission  role  and  are  willing  to  comply  with  the 
mechanisms defined in Article 17 to 18e of the Regulation.  

42 

 
In  the  ECA  Special  Report  19/201730  on  ‘Import  procedures:  shortcomings  in  the  legal 
framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’, it 
is observed that:  ‘The EU has set up promising information channels between Member 
States and between the Commission and Member States but there are weaknesses in their 
content and use. Tools for exchanging information under the mutual assistance regulation 
are not fully exploited by Member States’. In particular, it is found that Member States 
do  not  implement  in  a  uniform  way  the  requests  made  by  the  Commission  in  mutual 
assistance  communications.  This  occurs  especially  to  fraud  concerning  undervaluation, 
misdescription  of  origin  or  misclassification.  This  behaviour  could  be  exploited  by 
dishonest  traders  to  evade  payment  of  customs  duties  and  the  objectives  of  the 
Regulation be at risk. A reason for that might be that Member States enrich the requests 
of  mutual  assistance  communications  with  their  own  intelligence  work.  There  may  be 
justification for non-uniformity in the actions as long as the results are equivalent.  

In some cases the audited Member States did not meet the Commission requests.  

It  is  acknowledged  by  the  stakeholders  that  the  mechanisms  for  mutual  administrative 
assistance, be it in the form of information systems or other forms of cooperation, are in 
place, although not all of these are exploited at their full potential.  

In the process of receiving information almost half of the Member States have not faced 
any  specific  challenges,  whilst  the  remaining  Member  States  faced  either  that  the 
information was not specific enough or the information was too specific. Member States 
pointed out in their comments as typical problems the difficulty of applying national risk 
criteria  if  the  information  received  is  not  specific  enough;  that  the  communications 
should  include  more  specific  instructions;  that  the  information  transmitted  to  Member 
States  should  be  as  precise  as  possible  to  avoid  misinterpretation  and  that  when 
communications  cover  several  types  of  irregularities  there  was  the  problem  of 
complexity.  

Three  Commission  departments  have  been  involved  in  the  mutual  administrative 
assistance  mechanisms  based  on  Articles  17  –  18e  of  the  Regulation.  Two  of  them 
consider this mechanism to be very useful for their work while one indicated that it was 
not useful. All faced the challenge that the information was not specific enough and one 
the  mutual  assistance 
Commission  department  points  out 
communications were at times transmitted with great delay and without all relevant data 
and/or accompanying  documentation. This  made the  mutual  assistance communications 
difficult  to  analyse  and  to  use  effectively  in  the  context  of  Traditional  Own  Resources 
(TOR) inspections led by the Commission in Member States. 

the  details  of 

that 

One  Commission  department  states  that  there  is  a  need  to  provide  explicitly  in  the 
Regulation  that  when  information  concerning  irregularities  is  transmitted  to  Member 
States, there is an obligation to act and to take measures to avoid the loss of traditional 
own resources and that a specific time frame to proceed with these measures must also be 

30  European  Court  of  Auditors  Special  Report  n.19/2017  on  ‘Import  procedures:  shortcomings  in  the  legal  framework  and  an 
ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’, pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU. 

43 

 
 
included in the Regulation. One Commission department replied that it would be helpful 
not only to receive the conclusions on the Commissions’ investigations but also the data 
extractions that support those conclusions.  

The opinions  collected in the bilateral  interviews with  Member States and Commission 
departments, were diverse. While some Member States are very satisfied with the mutual 
assistance communications from the Commission, in terms of format and content, others 
have  manifested  serious  difficulties  in  understanding  the  exact  purpose,  content, 
applicable legal basis and liability incurred.  

On  the  purpose,  some  Member  States  have  expressed  the  need  for  the  Commission  to 
clarify,  at  the  issue  of  each  mutual  assistance  communication,  if  the  information  is 
transmitted  for  intelligence  or  recovery  purposes.    It  is  also  recommended  to  include  a 
reference to the underlying legal basis (Regulation 515/97 or Regulation 883/2013) of the 
mutual assistance communication. 

On the content, some Members States have expressed difficulties in the interpretation of 
the conclusions of certain mutual assistance communications, namely in view of its use 
in  court  cases.  It  is  considered  fundamental  that  the  evidence  provided  is  sufficiently 
strong for court cases, as often this is the only source of evidence for the Member States 
authorities.  

Member  States  and  Commission  departments  have  stressed  that  a  more  accurate 
description of the fraud scope, target and methods is needed for risk analysis purposes. 

According to the ECA Special Report 19/2017, Member States have different approaches 
to tackle origin and classification fraud. This was assessed from the analysis to the replies 
to selected mutual assistance communications and the results of eligible joint operational 
actions organised by the Commission and in cooperation with Member States. In relation 
to the mutual assistance communications, the ECA found that the audited Member States 
can  adopt  different  approaches  concerning  the  follow-up  of  mutual  assistance 
communications on similar subjects. 

However,  this  can  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  Member  States  enrich  the  requests  of 
mutual assistance communications with their own intelligence work. In some cases, there 
may  be  justification  for  non-uniformity  in  the  actions  as  long  as  the  results  are 
equivalent.  The  Commission's  TOR  inspections  regularly  examine  Member  States' 
follow-up  of  mutual  assistance  communications.  When  failure  by  Member  States  to 
follow  them  up  appropriately  results  in  TOR  losses,  the  Commission  holds  Member 
States financially responsible for the losses. 

Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) 

As  intended,  by  providing  the  infrastructure,  the  AFIS  facilitates  the  timely  and  secure 
information  exchange  of  a  range  of  fraud-related  information  as  set  out  under  the 
Regulation, as well as its storage. The AFIS environment also contains tools developed 
by  the  Commission  to  facilitate  the  analysis  of  relevant  data.  In  this  way,  the  AFIS 

44 

 
creates an IT environment which provides assistance to the Commission and the Member 
States as they act to prevent, investigate and ultimately prosecute operations which are in 
breach  of  customs  or  agricultural  legislation.  Thereby  the  co-operation  and  control 
procedures, and the fight against fraud are improved.  

The  tools  for  exchange  of  information  provided  under  the  AFIS  platform  are  actively 
used by Member States  and  Commission  departments,  which rate them  as  being  useful 
for  their  work.  Thus,  these  information  channels  promote  both  aims  of  the  Regulation: 
increase  the  detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of  breaches  of  customs  and 
agricultural  legislations  by  enhanced  collaboration;  and  improve  the  process  related  to 
administrative enquiries in the area of customs mutual assistance.  

According  to  the  AFIS  survey  2019,  57%  of  Member  States’  users  agree  and  27% 
slightly agree that the AFIS applications responds to their professional needs: 

In 2004, OLAF's Internal Audit Capability performed an audit to assess the performance 
of  AFIS.  The  audit  confirmed  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  AFIS  and  the 
adequacy  of  the  management  and  coordination  mechanisms.  It  concluded  that  the 
stakeholders  consider  the  quality  of  the  AFIS  services  as  satisfactory,  or  even  highly 
satisfactory. Overall, it appears that the operational activities under the AFIS constitute a 
valuable support to Member States' and Commission's operational and investigative work 
aiming  at:  detecting  customs  infringements,  recovering  customs  duties,  and  enhancing 
customs cooperation in the anti-fraud area. The efforts made in recent years in addressing 
identified shortcomings have contributed to increase the level of trust, participation and 
satisfaction of Member States' competent authorities. 

The VOCU had proved to be very useful during their participation in former JCOs.  

The ECA Special Report 19/2017 observes however, that ‘the EU has set up promising 
information channels between Member States and between the Commission and Member 
States  but  there  are  weaknesses  in  their  content  and  use.  Tools  for  exchanging 
information  under  the  mutual  assistance  regulation  are  not  fully  exploited  by  Member 
States’.  

One of the main goals of the 2nd AFIS Conference was to assess if the IT tools developed 
by  the  Commission  are  effective  and  meet  the  needs  of  Member  States  in  combating 
customs fraud and fulfilling the goals of the Regulation.  

Member States conveyed their agreement with the legal instruments at their disposal, as 
well as with the IT tools and databases developed by the Commission in support of their 
antifraud  activities.  Moreover,  Member  States  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  AFIS 
system  and  its  IT  applications,  and  underlined  the  unique  position  of  the  AFIS  as  an 
effective  and  secure  channel  of  communication  for  customs  antifraud  purposes  at  EU 
level.  The  establishment  of  the  CSM  and  IET  directories  was  mentioned  as  a  good 
example of added value that can be brought at the EU level. The new version of the CIS 

45 

 
 
 
 
was  mentioned  as  a  good  example  of  IT  development  involving  Member  States  and 
responding to user needs. 

A  number  of  possible  improvements  were  indicated,  such  as  the  creation  of  working 
groups  and  the  organisation  of  workshops  dedicated  to  the  sharing  of  experiences  and 
best  practices,  the  need  for  additional  on-line  AFIS  training  materials  and  training 
packages for specific purposes, as well as the organisation of AFIS trainings on a more 
regular basis, including training dedicated to specific areas such as analysis.  

The  importance  of  ensuring,  as  much  as  possible,  interoperability  between  the  AFIS 
applications  and  with  other  systems  of  customs  relevance,  in  particular  the  support  of 
searches  across  different  AFIS  databases  and  systems,  was  particularly  underlined  by 
Member  States.  In  the  specific  field  of  analysis,  the  creation  of  an  AFIS  data  lake  to 
enhance  the  exploration  of  the  information  stored  in  the  various  AFIS  customs 
applications was recommended.  

Transport directory 

The transport directory of Article 18a, paragraphs 1 to 3, of the Regulation has not been 
fully  implemented.  The  transport  directory  is  limited  to  data  related  to  sea  container 
movements  recorded in  the Container Status  Messages (CSM) directory.  Therefore, the 
role of the transport directory towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation cannot 
be fully assessed and is restricted to the CSM. For further details, see CSM. 

Container Status Messages (CSM) 

One of the main goals of Member States customs authorities is fraud prevention, but to 
tackle  specific  threats,  such  as  the  misdeclaration  of  origin,  new  types  of  information 
aside  of  the  existing  CIS  and  FIDE  were  sought.  Container  trips  were  intended  to  be 
traceable  more  easily  through  the  new  CSM  directory.  Knowledge  of  container  origin 
was  expected  to  promote  the  detection  of  potential  fraud.  Tampered  certifications  of 
goods origin were intended to be detected more easily. 

As elaborated in  section 3 ’Description of the current  situation’, 13  Member States use 
the  CSM  directory  on  a  weekly  basis  at  least.  They  use  it  mainly  for  commercial  and 
non-commercial customs fraud and for investigative activities, risk assessment and post-
clearance auditing or controls as well.  

The  functions  of  CSM  considered  more  beneficial  by  Member  States  to  increase  the 
detectability, prevention and prosecution of breaches of customs legislation by enhanced 
collaboration  are  ‘the  possibility  of  tracing  back  the  movements  of  any  specific 
container’  (for  26  Member  States),  ‘the  possibility  of  querying  by  Bill  of 
Lading/Booking  Number’  (for  22  Member  States)  and  ‘the  possibility  of  creating  a 
personalised watch list for particular containers’ (for 20 Member States). 

In  terms  of  tracking  and  tracing  container  movements:  the  extent  to  which  container 
movements  are  up-to-date  was  considered  very  important  by  18  Member  States;  the 

46 

 
 
 
extent  to  which  the  container  movements  cover  global  sea  traffic  was  considered 
important  or  very  important  by  25  Member  States;  the  extent  to  which  container 
movements have no time gaps was considered very important by 16 Member States; the 
extent to  which container movements  are  combined with  other data  elements  related to 
the  commercial  transaction  associated  with  the  transportation  was  considered  very 
important by 16 Member States. 

The scope of the export data in the CSM directory is currently limited to products subject 
to excise duties (tobacco, alcohol, energy products). This meets the needs of 16 Member 
States,  but  does  not  meet  the  needs  of  the  rest  and  should  be  enlarged  to  any  other 
products  by  11  Member  States.  To  24  Member  States  the  enrichment  of  CSM  with 
additional data elements, such as shipper, consignee, notified party and goods description 
(including the 6-digit HS  code), would make the CSM directory more useful to  a large 
extent. 

The  current  range  of  access  to  CSM  by  the  competent  authorities  is  considered  to 
sufficiently cover the needs for information sharing by 28 Member States. 

Fourteen Member State provide for penalties for failure to comply with the obligation to 
provide CSM data or for providing incomplete or false data. Sixteen Member States have 
not implemented these measures. 

If  CSM  had  not  existed,  Member  States  would  use  as  alternative  methods  for  the 
collection  of  container  movements  the  information  provided  by  carriers  on  request  or 
their web sites or the ConTraffic system managed by the JRC. 

The  positive  feedback  that  Member  States  give  to  the  system  today  shows  how  useful 
they  consider  it  to  be  in  pursuing  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation.  Despite  some 
limitations,  such  as  the  limited  scope,  a  lack  of  additional  data  elements  and  the  fully 
empty-to-empty reporting, Member States consider the CSM directory as very beneficial 
for their activities.  

Commission departments have used CSM on a weekly basis at least. They consider the 
CSM  directory  to  be  very  useful  for  their  work  despite  of  the  challenges  they  face  (as 
elaborated in section 3 ’Description of the current situation’). 

Carriers have implemented the requirements of the Regulation and of the CSM directory 
in  their  systems  as  elaborated  in  section  3  ’Description  of  the  current  situation’.  They 
consider these legal  and  technical  requirements as acceptable  and  are satisfied with  the 
reduction of implementation efforts and time by reporting to a single EU-central service.  

The impact  assessment showed that the accrued development costs of the  ATIS for the 
period 2008-2012 were around 400.000 EUR and the average operational costs per year 
around  100.000  EUR.  The  total  costs  for  achieving  import  and  export  data  plus 
additional transit data was estimated to be similar to the cost of ATIS. The breakdown of 
estimated costs is 80% for import/export and 20% for transit. 

47 

 
The CSM database implementation was intended to use the existing infrastructure. In the 
case of the CSM database, the data source would be the Logistical Information Systems 
of the carriers who will push the data over an existing infrastructure, encrypted transfer 
over the internet. Both the carriers and the Commission were expected to use an existing 
and proven solution (public internet with standard data encryption) at no additional cost 
for  the  Commission  and  minimal  set-up  cost  for  the  carriers.  After  received  by  the 
Commission,  the  CSM  was  to  be  processed  and  loaded  into  the  CSM  database,  a 
repository of known containers identified by their unique container number.  

The ATIS project had demonstrated that the data processing and storage volumes are not 
the main cost  drivers for the implementation  of such a database.  Instead,  the main cost 
driver  is  the  complexity  of  the  incoming  data,  which  need  to  be  decoded,  parsed  and 
validated prior to uploading into the database.  

the  above-mentioned  commonalities  between 

Based  on 
the  ATIS  and  CSM 
implementation  projects,  the Commission  concluded that the retrospective cost  analysis 
of  ATIS  is  a  solid  basis  for  the  estimation  of  the  CSM  database  implementation  costs. 
However, the CSM  database had an additional degree of complexity  as the data would 
come from economic operators (carriers) rather than from IT systems operated by other 
Commission  departments.  This  results  in  the  potential  risk  of  having  to  process  the 
incoming data in multiple formats. For this reason, the development cost estimation for 
the  CSM  database  was  set  at  EUR  450.000  (ATIS  implementation  costs  plus  20%  to 
account for additional complexity and potential risk), while the yearly  operational costs 
were estimated at the same level (100.000 EUR/year) as the ATIS or the import/export 
database. The CSMs, import/export and transit data will increase the amount of data to be 
stored in comparison to  the data currently stored in ATIS by factor 10. The cost of the 
necessary  upgrade  of  the  AFIS  storage  infrastructure  is  foreseen  as  part  of  the 
development costs of the new databases, therefore in reality, these costs would not cause 
any increase in the AFIS budget. 

The table summarises the cost estimates for the new databases: 

Foreseen costs 

Member States 
Commission 

Economic operators / 
carriers 

Misdeclaration of 
goods origin / CSMs 

Misdescription of 
goods / import and 
export data 

Misuse of the transit 
system / transit data 

0 
450.000 EUR -
development of 
the database 
100.000 EUR – 
maintenance 
cost (yearly) 
If global dump: no costs 
If selective reporting: 
3.000 to 200.000 EUR 

0 
320.000 EUR – 
establishment of the 
databases 
80.000 EUR– 
maintenance 
cost (yearly) 
- 

0 
80.000 EUR– 
establishment 
of the database 
20.000 EUR– 
maintenance 
cost (yearly) 
- 

At  the  2019  AFIS  survey,  over  90%  Member  States  were  satisfied  with  the 
functionalities and performance of CSM.  

48 

 
 
The scope of export data in the CSM directory is currently limited to products subject to 
excise  duties  (tobacco,  alcohol,  energy  products).  Twelve  Member  States  reported  that 
this  scope  does  not  meet  their  needs.  Eleven  Member  States  would  prefer  to  have  the 
scope  extended  to  any  other  products.  Nineteen  Member  States  would  consider  an 
enrichment of CSM with additional data elements (shipper, consignee, notified party and 
goods description) to be helpful in their daily work. One Member State mentions the lack 
of  the  bill  of  lading  number,  another  the  lack  of  a  mandatory  inclusion  of  the  correct 
weights  declared.  Two  other  Member  States  criticize  the  lack  of  a  reporting  until  the 
container is empty again. Other constraints mentioned by Member States is the fact that 
most CSMs contained only data until the status ‘unloading from vessel’. There were only 
few  reports  that  had  information  about  the  final  destination  of  containers.  This 
information could help to avoid abuse of customs procedure 42 (CP 42) which provides 
for non-EU goods to be released into free circulation in an EU Member State exempted 
from  import  VAT  on  the  condition  that  these  goods  will  be  transported  to  another 
Member State due to an intra-community transaction. 

Commission  departments  have  used  CSM  on  a  weekly  basis  at  least.  They  consider  it 
useful for commercial and non-commercial customs fraud, pre-clearance import controls, 
post-clearance  auditing  or  controls,  investigative  activities,  export  controls,  other 
customs  law  enforcement  activities  and  risk  assessment.  Commission  departments 
consider CSM as very useful for their work.   

The  Commission  departments  using  CSM  face  several  challenges.  They  consider  the 
scope of export data which is currently limited to products subject to excise duties as too 
narrow. The lack of additional data elements (container weight, shipper and consignee) is 
another  challenge. One  Commission  department  points out  the need for  information  on 
containers  remaining  on  board  in  EU  territory  while  being  shipped  from  one  third 
country  to  another  and  information  on  the  movements  of  empty  containers  entering  or 
leaving EU customs territory (common risk criteria).    

In  the  bilateral  interviews,  Member  States  customs  authorities  and  Commission 
departments point out a need for training and a possibility of combining CSM with other 
databases.  They  again  mention  the  problem  of  incomplete  data  and  a  gap  on  reporting 
empty containers as they are out of range of the Regulation.  

Carriers are satisfied with their reporting obligations. 

The ECA Special Report  19/2019  concludes that the  exchange of information to  tackle 
misdescription  of  origin  has  recently  improved,  mentioning  the  development  of 
ConTraffic  and  the  Container  Status  Messages  (CSM)  directory  by  the  Commission  to 
tackle this type of fraud.  

Import Export and Transit (IET) 

At least five Member States use IET on a weekly basis or more often (as elaborated in 
section 3 ’Description of the current situation’). Despite the challenges they face in using 

49 

 
 
IET,  eight Member States consider IET to  be very useful for their daily work. Another 
eight Member States consider it to be of average utility and ten Member States indicate 
that IET is not useful for their daily work. Two Member States did not give an opinion.  

At least two Commission departments make use of IET at least on a monthly basis. They 
use  the  different  parts  of  IET  for  commercial  customs  fraud,  for  risk  assessment,  for 
export  controls  and  other  customs  law  enforcement  activities,  for  pre-clearance  import 
controls, clearance checks, post-clearance auditing or controls, for investigative activities 
and support joint customs operations. Thus, IET helps them achieve the objectives of the 
Regulation.  

There is however some room for improvement. It would help Commission departments if 
products  other  than  subject  to  excise  duties  were  covered  and  if  it  included  data 
concerning national transit and direct export from other Member States. Additionally, the 
access and sharing of information was not provided in a fully satisfactory way.  

The  2019  AFIS  survey  indicates  that  59%  of  the  users  are  satisfied  with  the 
functionalities of IET and 72% are satisfied with its performance. 

Seventeen Member States declared that the scope of IET data that does not appropriately 
meet their needs and that an extension to ‘any other product’ would help on their work. 
Member States provide as examples the coverage of prohibited goods, hazardous waste, 
weapons,  embargo,  dual  use  goods  and  products  with  high  customs  rates.  The  lack  of 
access  to  declarations  of  all  Member  States  was  also  mentioned  as  a  difficulty.  One 
Member State indicates that an enrichment of IET with data concerning national transit 
and direct export from other Member States would help them in their work.   

Commission departments face the challenge that the scope of IET is restricted to products 
subject  to  excise duties. The enrichment of  IET with  data on national transit and direct 
export from other Member States would be considered very useful. For one Commission 
department the access and sharing of information is not provided in a sufficient way. The 
need  to  extract  data  from  IET  is  also  a  challenge  for  the  respondent  Commission 
departments.  

In  the  bilateral  interviews,  Member  States  customs  authorities  and  Commission 
departments reiterated that an extension to national transit data and national export data 
as well as an extension of IET’s scope to other risk commodities was considered useful. 
Special trainings could help to make use of the full range of data.  

Relations with third countries 

According  to  Member  States,  Articles  19-22  of  the  Regulation  have  achieved  their 
objectives satisfactorily. They are intended to provide an alternative legal basis to that of 
the  mutual  administrative  assistance  agreements, 
to  perform  mutual 
administrative  assistance  with  third  countries.  They  complement  mutual  administrative 
assistance  provisions  under  international  agreements,  to  allow  mutual  assistance  with 
those third countries with which the EU does not have an international agreement.  

in  order 

50 

 
The  Commission  (OLAF)  informs  Member  States  after  completion  of  third  country 
missions  for  financial  or  judicial  follow  up  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
Regulation. 

Most Member States declare not having had recourse to these articles, or very rarely, as 
elaborated under section 3 ’Description of the current situation’. Sixteen Member States 
indicate  that  they  have  never  used  at  all  the  mechanism  provided  by  Article  19  of  the 
Regulation.  Eleven  Member  States  never  make  use  of  the  conduct  of  an  administrative 
and  investigative  cooperation  mission  in  a  third  country  provided  by  Article  20  of  the 
Regulation.  

It  is  noted  that  these  articles  are  to  be  used  in  the  absence  of  international  mutual 
administrative  assistance  agreements  or  provisions.  Given  that  the  EU  has  concluded 
agreements  with  more  than  80  non-EU  countries  including  most  of  the  EU’s  major 
trading  partners,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  the  need  to  have  recourse  to  these  articles  is 
minimal.  

Ten Member States are satisfied with the implementation of Article 19-22, however some 
Member  States  indicated  that  the  concept  of  ‘legal  commitment’  in  Article  19  and  the 
reference in Article 21(2) to Article 12 mutatis mutandis required clarification.  

Despite the need for clarification of the legal meaning of Articles 19-22, three Member 
States make use of Article 19 at least once a month. These articles serve as an alternative 
legal basis in absence of an international mutual administrative assistance, facilitating the 
process  related  to  customs  mutual  assistance  and  improving  the  availability  and  the 
management of customs data for these Member States.  

Articles 19-22 were not affected by the last amendment of the Regulation of 2015. The 
number  of  international  agreements  in  force  covering  more  than  80  non-EU  countries 
remained relatively stable over the recent years. As a subsidiary instrument in respect of 
mutual  administrative  assistance  provisions,  the  Regulation  is  highly  dependent  on  the 
evolution of the countries covered by international agreements. The Member States’ use 
of  relevant  mutual  administrative  assistance  provisions  has  remained  stable  during  the 
recent years as they relied either on international agreements or the alternative legal base 
of the Regulation for the communication with third countries.  

The  ECA  Special  Report  19/2019  concluded  that  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information with non-EU countries is improving. According to the results of this audit, 
the  mutual  administrative  assistance  Agreements  or  mutual  administrative  assistance 
Protocols  to  international  agreements  provide  a  legal  basis  to  request  information  from 
non-EU  countries  and  serve  their  purpose  well.  ECA  found  incidents  of  insufficient 
cooperation  namely  from  a  particular  third  country,  however  this  has  not  affected  the 
overall effectiveness of these instruments.  

51 

 
 
 
Customs Information System (CIS) 

As  described  in  sections  2.1  and  3,  the  Customs  Information  System  (CIS)  is  a  key 
element in the intelligence cycle in the anti-fraud domain, in particular by collecting and 
storing information provided by Member States and the Commission in the context of the 
mutual  assistance  activities.  The  sharing  of  this  information  between  competent 
authorities  contributes  to  identify  fraud  patterns  and  new  trends  and  the  opening  of 
administrative enquiries. 

The system is used on a regular basis by most Member States to support risk assessment, 
prevention  and  detection  of  customs  infringements  and  operational  actions.  The  CIS  is 
considered most useful for the fight against tobacco smuggling, illicit drugs traffic, illicit 
trade of drug precursors, cash controls and counterfeit.  

The  main  difficulties  reported  by  the  users  are  missing  data,  missing  cases  and  an 
incomplete  or  insufficient  case  dataset.  This  was  mentioned  by  more  than  16  Member 
States. Nine Member States indicated that the lack of reporting in CIS by other Member 
States  was  a  significant  problem.  Other  problems  such  as  the  multiplication  of  similar 
systems  and  the  need  for  reporting  guidelines  was  also  mentioned.  The  importance  of 
aligning  the  retention  period  of  the  CIS  data  under  the  Regulation  and  the  one  under 
Council Decision 2009/917/JHA was also stated. A bulk upload functionality to facilitate 
the insertion of cases was suggested by Member States to help in their work.  

At  least  one  Commission  department  has  used  the  CIS  on  a  monthly  basis  for  risk 
assessment.  This  Commission  department  considers  the  CIS  as  very  helpful  to  achieve 
the  objective  of  the  Regulation.  As  there  are  the  shortcomings  relating  to  missing  data 
and cases, there is still room for improvement of the database.   

A  set  of  non-personal  data  relating  to  cases  of  seizures  of  tobacco  stored  in  the  CIS  is 
transmitted  to  the  WCO.  The  WCO  reported  the  difficulty  of  not  having  access  to  all 
other seizure data, such as counterfeiting, alcohol, etc. This prevented it from enhancing 
its  analytical  capabilities  for  these  other  commodities  and  the  global  picture  of  illicit 
trade  trends  was  therefore  not  complete.  Nevertheless,  the  WCO  considers  the  CIS  as 
very useful for its members’ activities.  

The  answers  provided  in  the  interviews  conducted  with  Member  States  confirm  their 
satisfaction  with  the  system.  However,  the  need  for  increasing  the  number  of  cases 
reported,  as  well  as  for  the  completeness  and  quality  of  the  provided  information, 
remains a concern.  

The ECA Special Report 19/2017 observed that the majority of Member States rarely use 
the CIS to exchange information on customs irregularities with competent authorities in 
other  Member  States.  In  fact,  the  information  contained  in  the  CIS  overlaps  with  other 
systems, such as the Customs Risk Management System (CRMS) and the issuing of Risk 
Information Forms (RIF). It is noted that these systems have been created for a different 
purposes and under different legal basis. Duplication can lead to the risk of missing links 
between the information and even sometimes to the loss of valuable control results and 

52 

 
risk  related  information.  Multiple  reporting  even  leads  to  less  success  in  prevention, 
investigation and prosecution of customs infringements by making information available 
to other users. The problem of the multiple reporting of customs information in the CIS 
and in other related systems is also a matter of major concern for Member States.  

At  the  AFIS  survey  2019  over  80%  of  the  Member  States  were  satisfied  with  the 
functionalities and performance of the CIS.  

Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

The  Customs  Files  Identification  Database  (FIDE)  is  intended  to  complement  the 
information flow collected in the CIS or by other forms of exchange, for the cases under 
enquiry  or  investigation.  As  described  in  section  3,  the  usage  of  the  application  is  far 
below  of  expected.  FIDE  is  never  or  rarely  used  by  a  large  number  of  Member  States. 
Ten  Member  States  have  never  used  the  system.  Restrictions  related  to  national 
provisions on data protection or to the use of the relevant data by Member States judicial 
authorities are given as justification for not  using the system.  Commission departments 
do not use FIDE. Considering these arguments, it is not clear that the lack of usage of the 
system is due to the need for changes to its legal provisions. 

At  the  AFIS  survey  2019,  over  60%  of  Member  States  were  satisfied  with  the 
functionalities  and  performance  of  FIDE.  The  number  of  users  and  the  usage  of  the 
application decreased significantly for the period 2015-2019 from approximately 18% in 
2015 to only 5% in 2019. 

The  shortcomings  mostly  identified  in  FIDE  are  missing  data,  missing  cases  and  an 
incomplete or insufficient case dataset. Data protection constraints were also reported by 
Member States. Member States criticize the lack of engagement in using FIDE by some 
Member States.  

Member  States’  customs  authorities  confirmed  that  FIDE  was  not  sufficiently  used, 
although  the  Member  States  that  actually  use  it,  consider  it  to  be  useful  and  providing 
clear  benefits  for  their  anti-fraud  work.  Member  States  suggested  that  the  Commission 
should further contribute to the exchange of cases and that the organisation of dedicated 
workshops could improve Member States’ usage of FIDE.  

Data analysis 

Twenty-six Member States have used  the data provided by the Regulation for  strategic 
and  operational  analysis.  Overall,  Member  States  consider  that  the  analytical  support 
provided  at  EU  level,  for  the  purpose  of  strategic  analysis,  met  their  expectations. 
Nevertheless,  a  considerable  number  of  Member  States  have  no  opinion  (six  Member 
States) or are not completely satisfied (five Member States) with this support. Incomplete 
data is  considered the main  challenge by 17 Member States, followed by personal  data 
protection constraints, which is a challenge for 10 Member States. Seven Member States 
consider the scope of the data to be too narrow. 

53 

 
The ratings for the analytical support provided at EU level for the purpose of operational 
analysis  are  similar.  Eighteen  Member  States  rate  it  moderately  satisfactory  or  better, 
whereas four Member States are not satisfied. Another five Member States do not have 
an opinion.  

Two  Commission  departments  consider  the  EU  level  support  at  to  strategic  analysis 
moderately  satisfactory,  whereas  the  support  to  operational  analysis  it  is  below 
expectations.    The  challenges  that  Commission  departments  mostly  mention  are 
incomplete data and personal data protection constraints.  

Personal data protection 

A  complex  legal  structure  rules  personal  data  protection  stored  under  the  databases 
established by the Regulation. The supervision is shared between the EDPS and JSA in 
the case of the CIS and FIDE. 

All  but  one  Member  State  data  protection  authorities  confirmed  that  they  consider  the 
rights to protection of personal data sufficiently guaranteed by the current mechanisms of 
supervision.  In  addition,  15  out  of  18  data  protection  authorities  confirm  not  to  have 
identified  any  issues  in  the  implementation  in  relation  to  personal  data  protection 
requirements  of  the  Regulation.  Three  authorities  that  identified  issues  through  former 
inspections indicated that these could be solved.   

In  order  to  improve  consistency  of  data  protection  supervision,  the  last  amendment 
introduced  the  need  for  the  close  cooperation  between  EDPS  and  the  JSA  established 
under  Council  Decision  2009/917  JHA.  The  EDPS  and  two  Member  States  expressed 
concerns  about  the  existing  supervision  models.  The  EDPS  identified  issues  in  the 
coordination  with  the  JSA  secretariat  due  to  a  lack  of  business  continuity  on  their  side 
and the complexity of current supervision model. In order to streamline the mechanisms 
for  coordinated  supervision  of  large-scale  IT  systems  expressed  in  Regulation  (EU) 
2018/1725, the supervision model should follow the one established by Article 62 of that 
Regulation. 

None  of  the  data  protection  authorities  identified  issues  affecting  the  safeguards  of  the 
rights  of  the  data  subjects  when  enforcing  the  Regulation.  Fifteen  out  of  18  authorities 
consider the current range of access to personal data for competent authorities of Member 
States  and  other  organisations  appropriate.  It  means  that  the  satisfaction  level  with  the 
Regulation concerning personal data protection is very high.  

Despite the comments made, the data protection authorities appreciate the Regulation in 
its current version. One data protection authority mentioned the limited range of access to 
personal data for competent authorities from Member States could indicate there was not 
much demand from the user base.  

Of the seven Member States’ data protection authorities that have carried out audits on 
the  range  of  access  to  personal  data  in  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  within  the  last  five 
years, four identified no issues. One Member States’ data protection authority  indicated 

54 

 
that  the  practical  application  of  the  CIS  differed  considerably  between  Member  States. 
Another Member State authority identified issues on verification methods for entry into 
the  system,  data  retention  and  secured  passwords.  One  Member  State  data  protection 
authority found infringements of their own Data Protection Act related to the usage of the 
CIS. As a follow-up, they prepared new documentation complying with such provisions.  

The  EDPS  saw  difficulties  in  the  cross-references  to  the  applicable  EU  data  protection 
legislation that has been updated in the meantime. The cross-references to the applicable 
EU data protection legislation under the Regulation and CIS Decision should be updated 
to  refer  to  Regulation  679/2016  (GDPR),  Directive  680/2016  (law  enforcement 
directive/LED)  on  data  protection  in  the  area  of  police  and  justice  and  Regulation 
2018/1725 (EUDPR), as appropriate. 

The  EDPS  conducted  an  inspection  of  the  CIS  and  FIDE  in  relation  to  personal  data 
protection  requirements  of  the  Regulation  in  2013.  In  the  report  of  9  July  2014,  seven 
recommendations  were  identified  on  technical  implications  of  the  databases.  After 
follow-up,  all  recommendations  were  closed  on  1  February  2017.  The  EDPS  did  not 
consider  the  current  range  of  access  to  personal  data  for  competent  authorities  as 
appropriate, stating that the limited usage of the system would seem to indicate that there 
is not much demand from the database, which might cast doubts on its necessity.  

In summary, Member States and Commission consider that the scope of the Regulation 
largely meets their needs in terms of mutual administrative assistance, are satisfied with 
the  mutual  assistance  mechanisms  and  consider  that  these  have  contributed  to  detect 
breaches in customs legislation.  

4.1.2.  Efficiency 

In  assessing  the  Regulation’s  efficiency,  the  evaluation  process  was  hindered  by  the 
limited  data  collection  on  the  costs  entailed  by  the  different  parts  of  the  Regulation. 
Hence, it was not possible to apply a standard quantitative methodology for a cost-benefit 
analysis.  Therefore,  the  evaluation  of  this  criterion  was  mostly  based  on  a  qualitative 
evaluation  of  the  costs  and  the  beneficial  outcomes  as  reported  in  the  answers  of  the 
questionnaires and on an evaluation of the available cost data.   

Agricultural matters 
Customs matters scope and definitions 
Assistance on request 
Relations with the Commission 

Member  States  clearly  pointed  out  the  benefits  of  using  the  Regulation  in  agricultural 
matters. Nine Member States use the Regulation for agricultural matters and consider it 
useful  to  contribute  to  detect  breaches  in  agricultural  legislation.  The  respondent 
Commission departments expressed the need for the Regulation for agricultural matters. 

Twenty-three Member States use the Regulation and consider that it meets their needs in 
the  customs  domain.  Moreover,  nineteen  Member  States  believe  that  the  mutual 

55 

 
 
administrative  mechanisms  of  the  Regulation  have  contributed  very  positively  to  the 
detection of breaches in customs legislation. 

Mutual  assistance  communications  sent  by  the  Commission  are  regarded  as  useful  or 
useful to a large extent for the work of 27 of the Member States. 

All Member States reported using existing channels of communication such as ordinary 
e-mail,  post,  and  phone  for  mutual  assistance  purposes,  however,  but  the  privileged 
channels  of  communication  were  AFIS  mail  and  VOCU.  These  are  specific 
communication tools created by the Commission to support the exchange of information 
for mutual assistance purposes in a secure way. These are made available free of charge 
to  Member  States,  Commission  departments,  other  EU  services  and  even  non-EU 
countries.  Member  States  and  the  Commission  have  clearly  expressed  the  benefits  of 
using these secure and cost free channels over other available means of communication.  

It is noticeable that there is a rising share of satisfactory replies to requests for assistance 
between 2013 and 2019, indicating that over these years the number of replies provided 
on time and with sufficient content increased and helped to achieve the objectives of the 
Regulation.  

No  disproportionate  costs  are  incurred  for  the  implementation  and  use  of  the  mutual 
assistance mechanisms.   

Relations with third countries 

In general, the costs of implementing Articles 19-22 of the Regulation are justified and 
proportionate to their effects. They are similar to those undertaken based on other 
international instruments. These articles provide for a legal basis for international mutual 
assistance, and  the Commission or  the Member States will evaluate on a case-by-case 
basis whether to use this instrument or not. In principle, the importance of the suspected 
fraud will determine whether a use of these articles is justified. At least three Member 
States declare having used the Regulation once or several times a month and those 
Member States using it are in general satisfied or very satisfied with the implementation. 

Expenses  of  Member  States’  investigators  participating  in  missions  organised  by  the 
Commission  (OLAF) are covered under the Regulation.  In this  regard,  Member States’ 
investigators took part in 53 missions carried out through the last five years. The fact that 
Member  States  expenses  are  covered  by  the  Commission  is  considered  fundamental  to 
ensure their participation in these missions. There are no indications that these expenses 
are disproportionate given the high  financial impact  of the cases in  which the missions 
are undertaken.  

The  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  found  that  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information 
with  non-EU  countries  is  improving.  According  to  the  results  of  this  audit,  the  mutual 
administrative  assistance  agreements  or  mutual  administrative  assistance  Protocols  to 
international  agreements  provide  a  legal  basis  to  request  information  from  non-EU 
countries and serve their purpose well. However, the ECA found incidents of insufficient 

56 

 
cooperation from a particular third country. This issue would be partially remedied by the 
appointment  of  an  OLAF  overseas  liaison  officer  as  the  ECA  recommended.  Though 
some  specific  issues  with  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  with  non-EU 
countries were identified, the ECA acknowledges that mutual administrative assistance is 
working well and there are no indications that the related expenses are disproportionate.  

Transport directory 

The transport directory of Article 18a, paragraphs 1 to 3, of the Regulation has not been 
fully implemented and it is limited to data related to sea container movements recorded 
in  the  CSM  directory.  Therefore,  its  implementing  costs  cannot  be  fully  assessed.  For 
further details, see CSM. 

Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) 

The  costs  related  to  the  management  and  maintenance  of  the  Anti-fraud  Information 
System (AFIS) are financed under Article 42a of the Regulation.  

The annual budget allocated for conducting all the activities under the Regulation, known 
as the AFIS budget, has fluctuated between EUR 6.9 – 7.2 million for the period 2015-
2019 (see figure below).  

€ 7.800.000

€ 7.600.000

€ 7.400.000

€ 7.200.000

€ 7.000.000

€ 6.800.000

€ 6.600.000

€ 6.400.000

€ 6.200.000

€ 6.000.000

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 4: AFIS budget 2015-2019 

The  largest  amounts  of  the  budget  expenditure  are  attributed  to  the  development  and 
implementation  of  the  AFIS  IT  systems.  The  breakdown  of  the  figures  is  illustrated 
below: 

57 

 
 
Development & Maintenance
Production Services

€ 3.500.000

€ 3.000.000

€ 2.500.000

€ 2.000.000

€ 1.500.000

€ 1.000.000

€ 500.000

€ 0

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 5: Breakdown of the AFIS budget 2015-2019 

As  explained  in  section  4.1.1,  the  activities  developed  in  the  scope  of  the  Regulation 
constitute  a  valuable  support  to  Member  States’  and  Commission’s  operational  and 
investigative work, aiming at detecting customs infringements, the recovery of customs 
duties  and  the  enhancement  of  customs  cooperation  in  the  anti-fraud  domain.  These 
activities  are  very  positively  evaluated  by  Member  State  competent  authorities.  The 
results  of  the  JCOs  alone  organised  by  the  Commission  have  contributed  to  initiate 
various investigations at EU level and prevented the loss of millions of euros in customs 
duties and taxes.  

The  AFIS  information  systems  and  databases  are  centrally  developed  and  provided  by 
the  Commission  as  an  EU-wide  system,  unlike  many  other  customs  IT  systems  which 
have  national  components.  The  development  and  provision  of  central  IT  systems  has 
many  advantages  over  decentralised  systems.  Central  systems  have  less  interfaces  and 
dependencies and are less complex. The development is less costly and faster. Delays and 
budget  overruns  are  less  likely.  The  operation  and  support  is  quick  and  economic. 
Resource  utilisation  can  be  optimised,  higher  economies  of  scale  can  be  achieved,  less 
hardware is required and administration costs are lower. They are more secure as all data 
is  stored  centrally  and  they  encompass  fewer  components,  which  are  potentially 
vulnerable. The expenditure related to the development and maintenance of the AFIS IT 
platform  is  borne  by  the  Commission  according  to  the  Regulation.  The  databases  and 
AFIS  systems  promote  the  benefit  of  exchanging  information  between  Member  States 
and  with  the  Commission  for  ensuring  the  correct  application  of  the  EU  customs 
legislation.  For  that  reason,  the  costs  are  not  disproportionate  especially  as  these  costs 
were as planned.  

58 

 
 
The  largest  amounts  of  the  budget  expenditure  are  attributed  to  the  development  and 
implementation of the AFIS IT systems. This level of funding is sufficient to achieve the 
objectives  of  IT  implementation  established  by  the  Regulation  and  Council  Decision 
2009/917/JHA. The IT infrastructure costs of AFIS are borne by the AFIS budget and are 
designed  to  have  minimal  or  no  impact  on  the  IT  infrastructure  cost  for  the  Member 
States  combined  with  a  significant  reduction  in  the  operational  costs  of  both  the 
Commission and Member States. 

Container Status Messages (CSM) 

The Regulation sets the obligation for maritime carriers to provide specific information 
to the CSM directory on movements of containers when enter into or leave the customs 
territory of the EU. The model of   implementation of the CSM directory does not impose 
any costs to  the carriers when using global dump. When opting for selecting  reporting, 
estimated implementing costs range from  3.000 to 200.000 EUR. The collection of this 
data in a standardised manner under an EU level directory facilitates the reporting efforts 
of the carriers, as opposed to the reporting to individual systems in Member States. 

Carriers  do  not  consider  the  burden  of  this  obligation  to  be  too  high  in  terms  of  the 
implementing  efforts  and  /or  financial  costs  while  benefiting  of  simplified  customs 
procedures. The costs of CSM borne by the carriers are not considered disproportionate 
to the benefits incurred.  

The system is used on a regular basis by Member States and Commission services. The 
information  contained  in  CSM  has  proven  useful  for  the  detection  of  cases  related  to 
misdescription  of  goods  origin  and  other  types  of  customs  fraud.  The  CSM  data  is 
deemed essential for anti-fraud work at Commission and Member States level. The costs 
of implementation, development and maintenance of CSM are borne by the Commission. 
There  are  no  costs  associated  to  the  use  of  CSM  by  the  Member  States.  The  costs  of 
CSM are therefore considered justified by the benefits provided.   

Import, Export and Transit (IET) 

The import, transit and export data in IET is used by the vast majority of Member States 
and  Commission,  on  a  frequent  basis,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
customs legislation, in the conduction of investigative and other operational activities and 
risk assessment. This data is of great importance for the anti-fraud work at Commission 
and Member States level. The costs of implementation, development and maintenance of 
IET are borne by the Commission. There are no costs associated to the use of IET by the 
Member  States.  The  costs  of  IET  are  therefore  considered  justified  by  the  benefits 
provided.   

Customs Information System (CIS) 

The benefits of the CIS have been pointed out in earlier sections and indicate that the CIS 
is used on a regular basis by most Member States. Eight Member States use the CIS on a 
daily basis to support risk assessment, prevention and detection of customs infringements 

59 

 
 
 
and at least 17 Member States use the CIS to support JCOs. The CIS is considered most 
useful  to  Member  States  for  the  fight  against  tobacco  smuggling  (26  Member  States), 
illicit drugs traffic (21  Member States), followed by illicit trade of drug precursors (19 
Member States), cash controls  (19 Member States) and  counterfeit (18 Member States) 
allowing  Member  States  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation.  At  least  one 
Commission department has used the CIS on a monthly basis. FIDE is not used by any 
Commission department.  

The  CIS  is  hosted  under  the  umbrella  of  the  AFIS  system.  The  development  and 
maintenance  costs  are  included  in  the  AFIS  funding.  The  system  has  been  running  for 
more  than  20  years  now  and  Member  States  use  it  on  a  regular  basis  as  elaborated  in 
section  3.  ’Description  of  the  current  situation’.  The  running  costs  can  therefore  be 
considered justified.  

The CIS was last updated in 2018 to introduce new provisions following the recast of the 
Regulation, such as the possibility to restrict the visibility of cases to a limited number of 
Member States or to update the data retention periods. The additional costs incurred were 
necessary to implement the Regulation and are therefore justified.  

Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

FIDE is hosted under the AFIS umbrella and financed by the AFIS budget. The Member 
States  that  use  the  system  judge  it  useful  and  necessary  to  support  the  detection  of 
customs  infringements,  investigative  activities,  risk  assessment  and  for  customs-law 
enforcement  activities.  The  costs  of  development  and  maintenance  can  be  considered 
justified.  

In  summary,  the  benefits  of  using  the  Regulation  in  customs  and  agricultural  matters 
largely compensate for the costs for the implementation and use of the mutual assistance 
mechanisms.  

4.1.3.  Coherence 

The various components of the Regulation are well framed within and operate together to 
achieve its objectives. 

The Regulation establishes a number of legal provisions to support the mutual assistance 
activities.  These  should  be  used  in  a  complementary  way,  ensuring  consistent 
application.  

A  sound  collection,  storage  and  analysis  of  relevant  data  are  the  basic  source  for  the 
identification  of  fraud  trends  and  the  definition  of  fraud  preventive  measures.  The 
meetings between the Commission and Member States and the trainings organised, make 
possible the planning, execution and evaluation of the related investigative or operational 
actions. The permanent technical infrastructure and the AFIS resources made available to 
the Member States by the Commission allow for the secure and rapid exchange of anti-
fraud  related  information,  essential  in  the  achievement  of  the  investigative  and 

60 

 
operational  goals.  No  conflicts  were  identified  between  the  different  provisions  of  the 
Regulation. 

As  explained  in  section  2.2,  the  Regulation  is  supplemented  by  Council  Decision 
2009/917/JHA (CIS Decision) and the Naples II Convention  governing the prevention, 
investigation and prosecution of serious breaches of national law, i.e. the part of customs 
activity  not  covered  by  the  Regulation.  These  instruments  complement  each  other  to 
cover  the  full  spectrum  of  customs  mutual  assistance  at  EU  level.  The  success  of  the 
implementation  of  a  well-defined  EU  customs  cooperation  and  anti-fraud  policy  is 
closely connected to police cooperation activities in the fight against criminal offenses. 

EU  legislation  adopted  in  recent  years  has  also  an  impact  in  the  performance  of  the 
Regulation.  The  Union  Customs  Code  (UCC)  was  adopted  on  the  basis  of  Regulation 
952/2013  and  entered  into  force  in  2016.  Evidence  shows  that  there  are  discrepancies 
between  certain  provisions  of  the  Regulation  and  the  UCC.  This  is  the  case  of  some 
references made to the UCC in the Regulation, which no longer correspond to the current 
legal basis or the terminology used in the definition of some technical terms. 

Based on the analysis of the two legal instruments, the following discrepancies have been 
identified: 

-  Replacing the word “Community” with the word “Union” wherever used; 
-  Adapting the names of different types of situations, in which both non-Union and 
Union goods may be found, and types of declarations covering these goods (e.g. 
in Articles 2a and 15 of the Regulation); 

-  Updating the references to specific parts of the customs legislation (e.g. in Article 
18d(1) and (2) of the Regulation, namely the references to Regulation 2454/93); 
-  Deleting the terms not existing in the customs legislation (e.g. in Article 18d(2) of 

the Regulation, namely declarations “established”). 

The Regulation  2018/1672 of 23 October 2018  on controls  on cash entering or leaving 
the EU (Cash Regulation) makes reference to the use of the Regulation and in particular 
of the CIS, for the exchange of information in the scope of the Cash Regulation. Some 
Member States stated the need to clarify the relation between the two instruments for the 
new provisions that entered into force on 3 June 2021, namely as Regulation 2018/1672 
is not considered customs legislation in the sense of Article 5 of the UCC.   

A  new  personal  data  protection  regime  (Regulation  2016/679)  applies  since  25  May 
2018. The Regulation does not  currently  reflect  the changes introduced  by this  regime. 
The references to Regulation 45/2001 need to be replaced with references to Regulation 
2018/1725,  together  with  compliance  checks  to  align  the  current  wording  with  the 
provisions of the latter.  

As mentioned in section 3 as a result of the consultation of the data protection authorities 
concerned  (EDPS  and  EDPB),  the  EDPS  considers  that  the  rights  of  data  subjects  are 
sufficiently  guaranteed  by  the  Regulation  at  Member  State  and  Commission  level. 
Nevertheless, the current cooperation mechanisms have to be streamlined with Article 62 

61 

 
of  Regulation  2018/1725  (EUDPR).  This  article  provides  for  a  harmonised  model  of 
coordinated  supervision,  applicable  where  the  relevant  act  of  Union  law  refers  to  this 
Article.  Pursuant  to  this  Article,  the  EDPS  and  the  national  data  protection  authorities, 
each  acting  within  their  respective  competences,  shall  cooperate  actively  within  the 
framework  of  their  responsibilities  to  ensure  effective  supervision  of  large-scale  IT 
systems and of Union bodies, offices and agencies. 

In general, Member States consider that the Regulation provides extensive coverage for 
mutual  assistance  in  administrative  matters,  even  when  complemented  by  other  legal 
instruments such as in the areas of administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties 
(Regulation  389/2012),  VAT  (Regulation  904/2010)  and  cooperation  between  EU 
customs administrations (Naples II Convention).  

Member States draw the attention to the need for harmonisation between the Regulation 
and the Naples II Convention, as this remains valid in administrative investigations and 
both instruments can be used in parallel. 

As  mentioned  in  section  3,  the  Regulation  is  linked  with  various  other  regulations  that 
can apply it mutatis mutandis. According to Member States, the legislation related to the 
enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights  (Regulation  608/2013),  drug  precursors 
(Regulation  273/2004)  and  cash  controls  (Regulation  1889/2005)  are  considered  to 
address  Member  States’  working  needs  the  most.  Moreover,  there  is  a  need  for 
clarification of the link of the scope of the Regulation with some of the regulations that 
can apply it mutatis mutandis, and which are not considered as customs legislation within 
the meaning of the UCC.  

It  is  also  acknowledged  by  Member  States  that  the  use  of  the  Regulation  is  clear  with 
respect  to  transboundary  movement  of  goods,  however  the  Regulation  is  less  used  in 
cases  involving  intra-EU  transactions.  The  difficulties  in  distinguishing  the  applicable 
legal  basis  for  the  mutual  assistance  exchanges  is  also  affected  by  the  competences  of 
customs authorities in the various Members States; this is particularly relevant in the case 
of tax and excise related matters, where VAT and excise regulations are applicable.  

In  addition,  the  Regulation  complements  the  MAA  provisions  under  international 
agreements,  providing  the basis for exchanging  information  and mutual  assistance with 
third countries that do not have an international agreement with the EU.  

Some Member States consider the use of UCC articles as a legal basis for data analysis to 
be simpler than the provisions of the Regulation. The Regulation’s current provisions do 
not  therefore  provide  sufficient  legal  certainty  to  facilitate  data  sharing  and  analysis  at 
EU level.   

The  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  observed  that  the  MAA  Agreements  or  MAA 
Protocols  to  international  agreements  provide  a  legal  basis  to  request  information  from 
non-EU  countries  and  serve  their  purpose  well.  However,  the  ECA  found  incidents  of 
insufficient cooperation from a particular third country. The ECA recommended that the 
Commission should appoint an OLAF overseas liaison officer in non-EU countries where 
most fraudulent transhipments in free zones occur. At present, the Commission (OLAF) 

62 

 
has  liaison  officers  in  China,  the  United  Arab  Emirates  and  Ukraine.  The  Commission 
(OLAF) liaison officers serve to address these issues and facilitate the cooperation. 

It  is  also  acknowledged  that  the  Administrative  Cooperation  Arrangements  (ACAs) 
between  the  Commission  (OLAF)  and  non-EU  countries’  investigative  authorities 
represent an important additional tool for the protection of the financial interests of the 
European Union, which complement the existing legal framework. 

Concerning the CIS, the problem of multiple reporting of customs information creates a 
risk  of  missing  links  and  even  the  loss  of  valuable  control  results  and  fraud  related 
information. In the work of the Customs 2020 Project Group 'Reporting customs seizures 
in CRMS and AFIS-CIS', also known as the ‘One Seizure One Report’ project, Member 
States  indicated  that  a  more  coherent  and  streamlined  approach  to  customs  related 
information would be helpful to solve this issue. 

Data analysis 

The  vast  majority  of  Member  States  (26)  have  used  data  shared  by  the  Commission  or 
other Member States for the purpose of strategic and/or operational analysis.  

Personal data protection 

As elaborated before under section 4.1.1 ‘Effectiveness’, the need to clarify EDPS’s role 
as supervisor of technical assistance led to the amendments in Articles 33, 37 and 38 in 
the  Regulation  and  a  closer  collaboration  between  the  two  supervisory  bodies  was 
envisaged, especially the possibility to conduct common audits. 

Following the amendment of the Regulation, the same authorities (EDPS and JSA) had 
responsibility for the supervision of personal data protection as they had had before the 
amendment. For that reason no additional costs establishing new authorities occurred and 
the costs remained at the same level as they were before the amendment. In contrast, as 
the role of EDPS as supervisor of the technical systems established by the Commission 
was  more  clearly  defined  the  benefits  increased.  In  fact  all  data  protection  authorities 
replying to the questionnaire except one confirmed that they consider the rights of data 
subjects sufficiently guaranteed by the current mechanisms of supervision and therefore 
the level of satisfaction is considered high. The coordination between the EDPS and the 
JSA is considered by 8 of the replying authorities as being good and by more than 4 as 
satisfactory.  

In  order  to  safeguard  the  rules  governing  personal  data  protection,  a  specific  provision 
was  introduced  in  the  last  recast  in  Article  38  on  the  security  of  processing.  However, 
even  if  this  safeguard  and  monitoring  measure  introduced  in  the  systems  resulted  in 
additional costs, the benefit of a personal data protection which is required by law would 
justify these costs.  

Member States’ data protection authorities communicate with the supervisory authorities 
through  existing  communication  channels  that  do  not  produce  additional  costs. 

63 

 
 
Nevertheless, there is a noted increase in the benefits afforded to the Member States from 
the supervision of EDPS and JSA concerning personal data protection.  

In  summary,  the  various  components  of  the  Regulation  are  well  framed  and  operate 
together to achieve its objectives. The Regulation complements other legal instruments in 
the areas of customs enforcement and cooperation at EU level. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

4.2.1.  European added value 

Agricultural matters 
Customs matters scope and definition 
Assistance on request 
Relations with the Commission 

These  sections  of  the  Regulation  are  considered  being  effective,  efficient  and  coherent 
(please  see  sections  4.1.1,  4.1.2,  4.1.3).  Member  States  and  Commission  departments 
consider the mechanisms useful for their work.  

If the Regulation  had not  existed, Member States would use bilateral  mutual  assistance 
agreements  and  the  Naples  II  Convention  as  an  alternative  source  of  information, 
although the latter does not offer the same tools and mechanisms as the Regulation. For 
agricultural  matters,  Member  States  would  also  use  special  legislation  bases  (as 
elaborated under Relevance 5.3). The situation is similar for customs matters; without the 
Regulation, 24 Member States indicated that they would use bilateral mutual assistance 
agreements and the Naples II Convention. Three Member States pointed out they would 
not  have  any  alternative  mechanism  for  mutual  administrative  assistance.  The  added 
value of the EU Regulation is therefore clearly demonstrated.  

The  Regulation  allows  for  the  storage  and  exchange  of  information  at  European  level, 
which provides an added-value hardly achievable through bilateral exchanges at Member 
States level. It is time-saving and easy for Member States and Commission departments 
to use it. As the legal basis is settled at EU level, all Member States can use it on equal 
footing. If Member States tried to communicate among themselves without the EU legal 
base, many resources  would  be lost by finding the exact  information as  every Member 
State  would  work  on  its  own  speed  and  accuracy  of  information.  Only  by  defining  a 
uniform information exchange standard at EU level are the resources well used and the 
same level of information can be guaranteed for all Member States.  

There is a rising share of satisfactory replies to request to Member States from 2013 to 
2019. A satisfactory reply in this regard is defined by Member States as a reply provided 
in  time  and  with  sufficient  content  for  increasing  the  detectability,  prevention  and 
prosecution of breaches of customs and agricultural legislations. Over time from 2013 to 
2019, the tool of assistance on request improved in quality and became a valuable pillar 
for mutual assistance between Member States.  

64 

 
The  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  observed  that  promising  information  channels  have 
been  set  up  by  the  EU.  These  tools  for  exchanging  information  under  the  mutual 
assistance regime were not fully exploited by Member States. Still, they were used and 
rated  as  useful.  At  least  to  that  extent  the  information  channels  brought  a  uniform 
standard at EU level.   

Another  finding  of  the  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  was  that  Member  States  do  not 
implement  in  a  uniform  way  the  requests  made  by  the  Commission  in  MA 
communications.  This  occurs  especially  in  cases  of  fraud  concerning  undervaluation, 
misdescription  of  origin  or  misclassification.  As  there  is  no  uniform  standard  of 
implementation at EU level in this regard, the situation could be exploited by dishonest 
traders  to  evade  payment  of  customs  duties  and  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation  be  at 
risk. However, there may be justification for non-uniformity in the actions taken by the 
Member  States  in  particular  that  they  enrich  the  MA  communications  with  their  own 
intelligence work. The unequal implementation can be accepted as long as the results in 
terms of anti-fraud protection are equivalent.  

Transport directory 

The transport directory of Article 18a, paragraphs 1 to 3, of the Regulation has not been 
fully implemented and it is limited to data related to sea container movements  recorded 
in the CSM directory. For further details, see CSM. 

Container Status Messages (CSM) 
Import, Export and Transit (IET)  
Customs Information System (CIS) 
Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

These  sections  of  the  Regulation  are  considered  being  effective,  efficient  and  coherent 
(please see sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3).  

The  AFIS  information  systems  and  databases  are  centrally  developed  and  provided  by 
the  Commission  as  an  EU-wide  system,  unlike  many  other  customs  IT  systems  which 
have national  components.  The development  and provision  of such  a central  IT system 
has  many  advantages  over  the  possibility  for  various  decentralised  systems  at  Member 
States level. Central systems have less interfaces and dependencies and are less complex. 
The development is more efficient and faster. Delays and budget overruns are less likely. 
The  operation  and  support  is  more  efficient  and  economic.  Resource  utilisation  can  be 
optimised,  higher  economies  of  scale  can  be  achieved,  less  hardware  is  required  and 
administration costs are lower. An EU-wide solution, such as the AFIS platform, is more 
secure  as  all  data  is  stored  centrally  and  it  encompass  fewer  components,  which  are 
potentially  vulnerable.  The  expenditure  related  to  the  development  and  maintenance  of 
the  AFIS  IT  platform  containing  the  four  databases  is  borne  by  the  Commission 
according to the Regulation. There are no costs entailed by the Member States.  

The non-existence of a centralised database with container movements would entail the 
implementation of national systems for the same purpose. Apart from the implementation 

65 

 
effort and costs for Member States and different national systems, this national approach 
would  be  much  more  costly  to  implement  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  maritime 
industry. More than 80% of the carriers considered the reporting of CSMs to a single EU 
central  service  extremely  useful.  Reporting  to  multiple  national  servers  would  be  very 
costly  and  time  consuming  for  them  to  set  up  and  maintain  afterwards.  Additionally, 
Member  States  and  Commission  departments  would  gain  the  information  directly  from 
carriers’ websites and by using ConTraffic.  

If the IET directory had not existed, Member States and Commission departments would 
have  used  information  from  national  customs  authorities,  other  Commission  services 
(DG TAXUD’s RECAPP system / Surveillance), mutual assistance requests, information 
from regional offices and the WCO.  

If  the  CIS  and  FIDE  had  not  existed,  Member  States  would  use  data  sources  from 
European  agencies  or  organisations,  other  Commission  related  data  sources,  Member 
States’  data  sources  and  data  sources  from  international  organisations,  to  find  the 
information  requested.  Commission  departments  do  not  see  alternatives  for  the  data 
information contained in FIDE. 

The CIS is not so frequently used as it is intended and faces challenges due to multiple 
reporting  and  overlaps  with  other  systems.  The  exchanges  of  information  are  therefore 
not  as  successful  as  they  could  be.  Nevertheless,  Member  States  and  Commission 
departments use it and take advantage of the synergies it creates on European level.  

Relations with third countries 

Articles 19-22 of the Regulation are considered effective and efficient (compare sections 
4.1.1 and 4.1.2). They provide an alternative legal basis for international MA requests in 
the absence of an international MAA agreement, they also provide legal certainty.  

Should  the  Regulation  be  withdrawn,  exchange  of  information  with  certain  third 
countries would not be possible. 

There  are six  Member States that use the provisions at  least  once  every six  months for 
achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation.  For  them  there  would  be  no  alternative  to 
Articles 19-22 of the Regulation.  

The  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  concluded  that  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information with non-EU countries is improving. According to the results of this audit, 
the  MAA  Agreements  or  MAA  Protocols  to  international  agreements  provide  a  legal 
basis to request information from non-EU countries and serve their purpose well. There 
might  be  insufficient  cooperation  from  a  particular  third  country.  However,  even  if  the 
cooperation and exchange of information  with non-EU countries is not exploited in the 
best  way,  the  existing  framework  provides  a  stable  basis  that  would  remain  in  case  of 
withdrawing the Regulation.  

66 

 
 
Data analysis 

The  data  analysis  part  of  the  Regulation  is  considered  effective,  efficient  and  coherent 
(please see sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3). The Regulation provides for a satisfactory legal 
ground  for  the  use  of  the  data  collected  under  the  Regulation  for  the  purposes  of 
operational and strategic analysis at EU level.  

Personal data protection 

The  data  protection  provisions  in  the  Regulation  are  considered  effective,  efficient  and 
coherent  (please  see  sections  4.1.1,  4.1.2  and  4.1.3).  The  Regulation  contributes  to  the 
creation  of  synergies  at  EU  and  Member  States  level  for  the  security  and  protection  of 
data exchanged on the basis of the Regulation.  

In  summary,  the  use  of  the  Regulation  at  European  level  provides  an  added-value  that 
could not been achieved through bilateral exchanges at Member States level.  

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

4.3.1.  Relevance 

Agricultural matters 
Customs matters scope and definitions 
Assistance on request 
Relations with the Commission 

These  sections  of  the  Regulation  are  considered  as  being  needed  by  Member  States  to 
increase  the  detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of  breaches  of  customs  and 
agricultural  legislation,  through  an  enhanced  collaboration  both  among  Member  States 
themselves  and  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  Furthermore,  the 
Regulation  improves  the  process  of  administrative  enquiries  in  the  area  of  customs 
mutual  assistance,  as  elaborated  in  section  3.  ‘Description  of  the  current  situation’. 
Commission  departments  consider  the  mutual  administrative  assistance  mechanism  as 
very helpful for their work.  

The Regulation makes available a comprehensive and structured dataset, without which it 
would be difficult  to  achieve the aim of the Regulation.  The increased use of data also 
indicates how positively the value of the information is viewed and needed. 

The ECA Special Report 19/2017 identified some weaknesses in the content and use of 
the  existing  information  channels,  however,  sees  their  value  for  the  pursuit  of  the 
objectives of the Regulation. Member States and Commission departments have defined 
a clear need for these information channels. 

There is a rising share of satisfactory replies to requests to Member States from 2013 to 
2019. That means that over the years the number of replies provided in this regard from 
one Member State to another increased. A satisfactory reply in this regard is defined by 
Member States as a reply provided in time and with sufficient content for increasing the 

67 

 
detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of  breaches  of  customs  and  agricultural 
legislations. 

When asked what they would do if the Regulation had not existed for mutual assistance 
on  agricultural  matters,  six  Member  States  refer  to  bilateral  mutual  assistance 
agreements.  The  Naples  II  Convention  was  mentioned  by  four  Member  States  as  an 
alternative  source  of  information.  Special  legislation  bases  are  mentioned  by  one 
Member  State,  such  as  the  one  provided  for  in  Commission  Implementing  Regulation 
2016/1239 on import and export licences for agricultural products. Member States have 
also pointed out they would not have many other opportunities to gain the information. 
For  the  Member  States  there  is  a  clear  need  for  the  Regulation.  Consolidation  of 
information  and  distributing  from  a  central  base  is  always  a  faster  and  simpler  way  of 
providing information. 

One Commission department mentioned complementary mechanisms to the Regulation, 
in  relation  to  agricultural  matters31.  In  addition,  it  encourages  Member  States  to 
participate  within  the  EU  Food  Fraud  Network  to  use  the  system  of  Administrative 
Assistance and Cooperation (AAC, AAC FF (Food Fraud)). This system allows Member 
States  to  work  together  on  matters  where  the  national  authorities  are  confronted  with 
possible  violations  of  the  EU  agri-food  chain  legislation  with  a  cross-border  impact 
including geographical indications. The EU Food Fraud Network links the liaison bodies 
designated by each Member State in accordance  with the rules laid down in the official 
controls in the food sector. Nevertheless, there is a clear need for the mechanisms of the 
Regulation.  

In customs matters, without the Regulation, 24 Member States indicated they would use 
bilateral  mutual  assistance  agreements  and  the  Naples  II  Convention.  Three  Member 
States point out that they would not have any alternative. One Member State clarifies that 
the  Naples  II  Convention  is  rarely  an  alternative  to  the  Regulation.  Consequently, 
Member States would find ways to find parts of the information, but would not be able to 
have  the same quality of information or data as provided for by the Regulation. An easy 
and time-saving way is by the Regulation. Member States and Commission departments 
have expressed a clear need for the Regulation.  

Another  finding  of  the  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  was  that  Member  States  do  not 
implement  the requests made by the Commission in  mutual  assistance  communications 
in  a  uniform  way.  Fraud  on  origin  or  classification  is  tackled  in  a  different  way 
throughout  Member  States.    This  situation  could  be  exploited  by  dishonest  traders  to 
evade the payment of customs duties. The objectives of the Regulation might be at risk, 
however,  this  does  not  mean  that  there  is  no  need  for  the  mutual  assistance 
communications.  If  the  mutual  assistance  communications  did  not  exist  at  all,  there 

31 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 880/2012 in the milk and milk products sector; Delegated Regulation (EU) 
891/2017  for  the  fruit  and  vegetable  sector;  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2019/34  for  wine 
geographical indications; Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls in the food sector (OCR); Regulation (EC) No 
1306/2013 to avoid fraud. 

68 

 
 
would be no implementation of requests and the objectives of the Regulation would not 
be pursued at all. The current situation might not be optimal, but Member States do a lot 
to 
in  mutual  assistance 
implement 
communications.  

requests  made  by 

the  Commission 

the 

Transport directory 

The transport directory of Article 18a, paragraphs 1 to 3, of the Regulation has not been 
fully implemented and it is limited to data related to sea container movements recorded 
in the CSM directory. For further details, see CSM. 

Container Status Messages (CSM) 
Import, Export and Transit (IET)  
Customs Information System (CIS) 
Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) 

The databases under the AFIS umbrella constitute a valuable support to Member States’ 
and  Commission’s  operational  and  investigative  work,  as  elaborated  before,  aiming  at 
detecting customs infringements, the recovery of customs duties and the enhancement of 
customs  cooperation  in  the  anti-fraud  domain.  These  activities  are  positively  evaluated 
by Member State competent authorities and, except for FIDE, the systems are used on a 
regular basis. Commission departments have used these databases at least on a monthly 
basis, except for FIDE, which is not used by Commission departments.  

If  the  CSM  directory  had  not  been  established  in  the  last  recast,  Member  States  and 
Commission  departments  would  have  gathered  part  of  its  information  directly  from 
carriers’ websites and by using ConTraffic. If the IET directory had not existed, Member 
States and Commission departments would have used information from national customs 
authorities, other Commission services (DG TAXUD’s RECAPP system / Surveillance), 
mutual assistance requests, information from regional offices and the WCO.  

The  CIS  and  FIDE  had  existed  before  the  last  recast.  If  they  had  not  existed,  Member 
States  would  use  data  sources  from  European  agencies  or  organisations,  other 
Commission  related  data  sources,  Member  States’  data  sources  and  data  sources  from 
international  organisations  to  find  the  information  requested.  Commission  departments 
do not see alternatives for the data information contained in FIDE. 

Nevertheless, the AFIS databases focus on specific anti-fraud information that users can 
easily  access  from  the  central  EU  database  rather  than  searching  multiple  different 
sources.  

The usage of the CIS is not  optimal mainly due to partially overlapping  information  in 
other  systems.  This  reduces  the  success  of  the  system  due  to  multiple  reporting  and 
increases  the  risk  of  information  loss.  Yet  there  is  consensus  in  the  need  for  the 
information  contained  in  the  CIS,  as  expressed  by  Member  States  and  Commission 
departments.  

69 

 
 
Relations with third countries 

As  elaborated  before,  Articles  19-22  of  the  Regulation  have  been  scarcely  used  by 
Member  States.  The  reason  is  that  nearly  all  of  the  international  mutual  administrative 
assistance  exchanges  take  place  under  the  legal  basis  of  a  mutual  administrative 
assistance  agreement.  These  mutual  administrative  assistance  agreements  are  the  main 
instrument  for  Member  States  to  exchange  information  with  third  countries.  However 
where  no  mutual  administrative  assistance  agreements  are  in  place  with  a  non-EU 
country, these articles will be needed by the Member States. 

As  regards  the  need  for  Articles  19-22  of  the  Regulation,  three  Member  States  use  the 
provisions at  least  once  a month and three other  Member States  use them  at  least  once 
every 6 months for achieving the objectives of the Regulation.  

The  objectives  of  Articles  19-22  are  relatively  modest,  i.e.  to  complement  mutual 
administrative  assistance  provisions  in  international  agreements.  Thus,  they  correspond 
to the current needs.  

The  Commission  informs  Member  States  of  the  results  of  third  country  missions  after 
their completion so that when applicable, Member States can pursue financial or judicial 
follow up.  

The  ECA  Special  Report  19/2017  concluded  that  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information with non-EU countries is improving. According to the results of this audit, 
the  mutual  administrative  assistance  Agreements  or  mutual  administrative  assistance 
Protocols  to  international  agreements  provide  a  legal  basis  to  request  information  from 
non-EU  countries  and  serve  their  purpose  well.  However,  the  ECA  found  incidents  of 
insufficient cooperation from a particular non-EU country. This does not change the need 
for the articles to achieve the objectives of the Regulation.  

Data analysis 

Both Member States and Commission departments have expressed the need to share data 
and  join  datasets.  Data  exchanged  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States 
pursuant  to  the  Regulation  may  be  stored  and  used  for  the  purpose  of  strategic  and 
operational analysis. The Member States and the Commission may exchange the results 
of operational and strategic analyses carried out under the Regulation. 

Without the Regulation this opportunity would not exist. The majority of Member States 
and Commission departments have used data retrieved from the databases established by 
the Regulation for analysis. The infrastructure of AFIS provides the necessary secure and 
trusted  environment  to  do  such  data  sharing.  Whilst  there  is  some  debate  about  the 
opportunities offered and the legal issues around analysis, there is a need for an improved 
legal base.  

Concerning e-commerce, joint actions have been undertaken to show the scale of abuse 
that  is  happening.  There  is  a  clear  need  to  complement  these  punctual  actions  with  a 

70 

 
more  structured  analytical  response.  A  structured  response  on  the  EU  level  to  tackle 
fraud  concerning  e-commerce  is  considered  to  be  necessary  by  Member  States  and  the 
Commission.  

Personal data protection 

The personal data protection provisions updates in the last revision of the Regulation in 
Articles  33,  37  and  38  were  intended  to  provide  legal  certainty  concerning  the  data 
storage,  to  establish  a  defined  supervision  for  the  technical  systems  established  by  the 
Commission and to secure the processing of data. With the amendments, the Regulation 
was  intended  to  ensure  the  personal  data  protection  and  the  overall  objectives  of  the 
Regulation.  

The need for a closer collaboration between the two supervisory bodies led to a provision 
on common audits leading to joint reports of EDPS and JSA (Article 37). 

Despite the coordination between the EDPS and the JSA as defined by Article 37(5) of 
the Regulation, there is feedback from several Member States’ data protection authorities 
that the coordination between EDPS and JSA could be improved. One Member State data 
protection authority points out that the model of two different supervisory bodies should 
be abolished. Nevertheless, the supervisory system guarantees the supervision of both the 
administrative and the judicial part of the CIS and FIDE.  Thus, the functionality of the 
Regulation is guaranteed.  

In summary, the sections of the Regulation are considered as being needed by Member 
States  and  Commission  to  increase  the  detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of 
breaches of customs and agricultural legislation, through an enhanced collaboration both 
among Member States themselves and between Member States and the Commission. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Regulation  515/97  is  the  cornerstone  of  mutual  assistance  in  customs  and  agricultural 
matters  at  European  level.  It  allows  Member  State  national  authorities  to  exchange 
information  between  themselves  and  with  the  Commission  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring 
the  correct  application  of  the  EU  customs  and  agricultural  legislation.  To  do  this,  the 
Regulation establishes and ensures the operation of a number of specific IT systems and 
databases.  

The  consultation  of 
targeted  stakeholders  (Member  States,  other  Commission 
departments,  data  protection  authorities,  carriers’  organisations,  WCO,  Europol  and 
EUROJUST) through questionnaires, dedicated meetings and bilateral interviews showed 
that the Regulation is considered to be effective, efficient, relevant, coherent and has an 
EU added value.  

71 

 
Since the Regulation  had never been evaluated,  this evaluation  covers the full scope of 
the Regulation and its performance since 1997, which greatly increases the data gathering 
effort. Specific focus has been given to the period 2015-2019 following the Regulation’s 
last recast. The questionnaire addressed to Member States encompassed nearly a hundred 
questions, requiring a substantial amount of time for them to answer, in particular when 
different  authorities  needed  to  be  consulted  at  national  level.  Nevertheless,  all  Member 
States, with the exception of the United Kingdom, have answered the questionnaires and 
provided their feedback. All of them use the Regulation to a high degree and consider the 
Regulation as being useful for their work.  

Since the last revision of the Regulation in 2015, several developments with a potential 
impact  on  the  functioning  of  the  Regulation  have  been  recorded,  such  as  a  new  data 
protection regime that has been put in place at EU level, new fraud risks in the customs 
sector  such  as  a  surge  of  low-value  consignments  imported  into  the  EU  through  e-
commerce, and massive undervaluation fraud. This situation has prompted the evaluation 
of the Regulation and its robustness.  

This evaluation does not derive from an obligation in the Regulation but it complies with 
the  ‘evaluate  first’  principle.  The  evaluation  should  be  the  starting  point  for  any  future 
policy development. Before possible changes can take place, the results of the evaluation 
will serve as evidence in a potential future impact assessment.  

A  number  of  setbacks  had  an  influence  in  the  conduct  of  the  evaluation.  In  terms  of 
evidence  collection,  the  dataset  of  replies  was  reduced  as  the  United  Kingdom  did  not 
reply  to  the  questionnaire.  The  situation  created  by  the  COVID-19  virus  affected  the 
holding  of  bilateral  interviews  with  Member  States  and  these  interviews  had  to  be 
conducted  in  a  virtual  manner  rather  than  in  person.  The  added  value  of  personal 
interaction cannot be overlooked in this case and may have prejudiced the outcome of the 
interviews.  For  the  same  reason,  the  EMAC  meetings  scheduled  for  2020  had  to  be 
cancelled and were replaced by a written exchange with Member States, which prevented 
the timely discussion with Member States representatives on the evaluation process and 
on the replies to the questionnaires.  

According  to  the  Regulation,  the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States, 
shall  report  each  year  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the  measures 
taken in the implementation of the Regulation. This yearly report is in the Reports on the 
protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud. 

The  replies  to  the  dedicated  questionnaire  by  Commission  departments  fell  short  in 
respect of some sections of the Regulation, namely in relation to the use of the databases. 
Yet,  the  lack  of  detailed  statistics  for  some  sections  of  the  Regulation  or  the  lack  of 
feedback on its use from some of the consulted Commission departments, does not affect 
the  analysis  of  the  performance  of  the  Regulation  as  a  whole.  Overall,  the  evaluation 
shows  that  the  Regulation  has  helped  to  support  the  mutual  assistance  in  customs  and 
agricultural matters. It allows Member State national authorities to exchange information 

72 

 
between themselves and with the Commission for ensuring the correct application of the 
EU customs and agricultural legislations.  

At  the  same  time,  even  if  the  overall  assessment  is  positive,  the  evaluation  has  also 
brought  to  light  a  number  of  gaps  and  shortcomings  relating  both  to  agricultural  and 
customs matters. In all sections of the Regulation including scope, assistance on request 
and  spontaneous  assistance,  relations  with  the  Commission,  the  CSM  and  IET 
directories,  relations  with  third  countries,  the  CIS,  FIDE,  data  analysis  and  data 
protection provisions, stakeholders faced difficulties in the application of the Regulation. 
However, most of the issues identified in relation to mutual assistance can be addressed 
by  different,  non-legislative  actions  at  the  Commission’s  initiative  other  than  an 
amendment  of the  current  legal  basis. The other issues identified that would  require an 
amendment  of  the  Regulation,  such  as  aligning  terminology  with  other  customs 
legislation, are not considered serious enough to justify such amendment. 

It should be highlighted that the transport directory containing data for land, rail and air 
transport has not yet been implemented by the Commission and for this reason, could not 
be assessed in  the light  of the  criteria of  effectiveness,  efficiency, relevance, coherence 
and EU added value. 

The Regulation, set up as a tool to strengthen the cooperation among Member States and 
with  the  Commission  by  ensuring  the  correct  application  of  customs  and  agricultural 
laws, is generally considered to be effective. Despite some shortcomings, it succeeds in 
achieving  or  progressing  towards  its  objectives.  All  sections  of  the  Regulation  work 
together  to  achieve  both  aims,  that  means  increase  the  detection,  prevention  and 
prosecution  of  breaches  of  customs  and  agricultural 
legislations  by  enhanced 
collaboration, and improve the process related to administrative enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual assistance.  

Information  exchange  and  cooperation  in  customs  matters  works  smoothly.  However, 
there are still weaknesses in the information exchange tools, both in terms of content and 
use.  

The  Commission  aims  at  being  more  precise  in  the  actions  asked  to  Member  States  in 
mutual assistance communications. The actions proposed to Member States are a set of 
recommendations, which do not necessarily fit for all Member States in every case. There 
is room for improvement in the way the Commission communicates with Member States 
using mutual assistance communications. This would be in line with the reply given by 
the  Commission  in  response  to  a  recommendation  of  the  ECA.  This  process  is  already 
ongoing.  

When  it  comes  to  the  new  CSM  and  IET  directories,  their  larger  set  of  data  made  it 
possible  to  have  a  better  detection  of  fraud  cases  and  a  related  level  of  administrative 
enquiries  at  national  and  EU  levels.  Despite  the  achievements  of  the  Regulation,  there 
remains room for improvement in terms of the range of the data collected and its use for 
fraud prevention. 

73 

 
Extending  the  scope  of  data  contained  in  the  transport  directory  by  including  data  on 
import, export and transit of goods by land, rail and air would promote the objectives of 
the Regulation even more.  

An extension of the scope of export data in the CSM and IET directories to other goods 
than excisable goods, as well as the supply by Member States of data on national transit 
and direct export in the IET directory could promote the effectiveness of the Regulation. 
In  this  regard,  relevant  transport  companies  or  organisations  could  give  access,  on  a 
voluntary  basis,  to  relevant  data  from  their  databases  for  antifraud  purposes.  The 
possibility  of  extending  the  scope  of  data  of  the  IET  directory  by  including  data  on 
national  transit  and  direct  export  exists  already  in  the  Regulation.  It  is  optional  for 
Member  States  but  the  Commission  could  explore  with  Member  States  whether  or  not 
they are ready to provide these data.  

The  problem  of  the  multiple  reporting  of  customs  information  in  the  CIS  and  in  other 
related  systems  is  also  a  matter  of  major  concern  for  Member  States.  The  suboptimal 
usage  of  the  CIS  and  its  overlap  with  other  systems  reduce  the  effectiveness  of  these 
exchanges of information.  

Another major issue identified by Member States is the lack of cases reported in FIDE as 
well as the lack of engagement by all Member States in using FIDE consistently.  

An extended scope and the completeness of data stored in the above-mentioned databases 
would be considered of great use for the purpose of strategic and operational analysis for 
anti-fraud purposes.  

The  Regulation  can  be  regarded  as  being  efficient.  Member  States  do  not  have  any 
implementation  costs  using  its  provisions.  The  communication  channels  used  are 
permanently made available by the Commission. Carriers incur implementation costs due 
to  their  reporting  obligation  on  container  movements  but  they  are  satisfied  with  the 
likelihood  of  benefiting  from  faster  customs  procedures.  For  the  databases  under  the 
AFIS umbrella there is an annual budget allocated for the conduct of activities under the 
Regulation. The AFIS budget has fluctuated between EUR 6.4 – 7.4 million. The largest 
amounts of the budget expenditure are attributed to the development and implementation 
of  the  AFIS  IT  systems.  Data  is  stored  centrally  and  the  systems  are  developed  and 
maintained  in  an  optimised  way.  The  costs  are  not  considered  disproportionate  as  the 
databases are essential for achieving the objectives of the Regulation.    

The Regulation is in general relevant as its objectives correspond to the needs within the 
EU. For the sections on agricultural matters, customs scope and definitions, assistance on 
request  and  spontaneous  assistance  and  relations  with  the  Commission,  Member  States 
and  Commission  departments  established  a  clear  need  for  the  Regulation  and  for 
achieving its objectives. Stakeholders do not see alternatives with an equivalent outcome. 
However,  there  are  some  difficulties  faced  by  stakeholders  especially  concerning  the 
scope of the Regulation and regarding the replies received through mutual assistance and 

74 

 
relations  with  the  Commission.  In  this  regard,  the  Regulation  does  not  entirely 
correspond to the current needs of stakeholders. 

Despite  some  problems  reported  related  to  their  use,  there  is  a  need  for  keeping  the 
existing databases centrally at EU level as there are no better alternatives on site.  

On  the  data  protection  provisions,  the  coordination  between  the  EDPS  and  the  JSA  as 
defined  by  Article  37(5)  of  the  Regulation  is  considered  satisfactory  by  stakeholders. 
Although  there  is  feedback  that  the  coordination  between  EDPS  and  JSA  could  be 
improved  and  the  model  of  two  different  supervisory  bodies  should  be  abolished,  the 
need  for  a  closer  collaboration  between  the  two  supervisory  bodies  was  underlined  to 
improve personal data protection and the overall objectives of the Regulation.  

The Regulation is at least partially coherent.  

It is internally coherent. The different parts of the Regulation work together very well to 
achieve its objective.  

Concerning  the  external  coherence,  several  legislative  instruments  complement  the 
Regulation.  Several  adjustments  are  necessary  to  align  the  Regulation  with  these 
legislative instruments, such as streamlining and updating the wording  according to the 
UCC, or including references to the new data protection regime. There is a need for legal 
clarification  of  the  link  of  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  with  some  regulations  that  can 
apply  it  mutatis  mutandis,  without  being  customs  legislation  within  the meaning  of  the 
UCC, as Member States and Commission departments pointed out the legal uncertainty 
of the mutatis mutandis concept.  

The Member States’ request to be able to easily identify the regulations that can apply the 
Regulation mutatis mutandis can be solved by publishing a list of these regulations on the 
OLAF website, which can be updated in time, as needed. 

In  the  case  of  tax  and  excise  related  matters  where  VAT  and  excise  regulations  are 
applicable, there are difficulties in distinguishing the applicable legal basis for the mutual 
assistance  exchanges,  which  results  mainly  from  the  different  competences  of  customs 
authorities in the various Member States.  

The  Regulation  has  proven  to  bring  a  clear  EU  added  value.  All  sections  of  the 
Regulation except the transport directory (which could not be evaluated) are considered 
effective,  efficient,  relevant  and  coherent.  The  Regulation  promotes  synergies  in  its 
implementation  at  EU level,  by defining a uniform  standard in  the use of the resources 
and  assuring  a  uniform  level  of  access  and  quality  of  the  information  to  all  Member 
States. 

The  databases  under  the  AFIS  umbrella  are  all  considered  being  effective,  efficient, 
relevant  and  coherent.  Synergies  on  EU  level  are  created  by  an  efficient  and  economic 
operation  and  support.  Resource  utilisation  can  be  optimised  and  less  hardware  is 

75 

 
required  on  a  central  level.  Administration  costs  are  lower.  As  data  is  stored  centrally, 
fewer components are needed and the data storage is done in a coordinated way. 

Articles  19-22  of  the  Regulation  are  considered  effective  and  efficient.  They  provide  a 
legal basis in the absence of an international mutual administrative assistance agreement. 
Without  these provisions, the exchange of information with  third countries would have 
been much more difficult. 

EU level synergies are promoted in terms of security and protection of the personal data 
stored and exchange under the Regulation.  

The existing services offered by AFIS as an intelligence platform to facilitate the sharing 
of  the  results  of  analysis  carried  out  at  EU  level  could  be  further  enhanced.  Several 
Member States expressed that they are facing limitations in exchanging data for analysis 
purposes.  

The  views  of  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  expressed  in  the  targeted 
consultation (see Annex V) and bilateral interviews confirm the above conclusions.  

5.2.  Lessons learned 

Generally,  stakeholders  are  satisfied  with  the  Regulation  as  it  currently  stands  and 
consider  that  it  remains  a  good  instrument  to  tackle  the  new  challenges  arising  in  the 
fight  against  fraud.  If  proposals  for  improvement  are  made  here  and  there,  there  is  no 
demand for significant change of approach.  

It  may  be  concluded  that  the  Regulation’s  objectives  have  been  achieved  to  a  great 
extent,  but  that  more  could  be  done  in  practical  terms  to  optimize  different  sections  in 
order  to  enable  Member  States  national  authorities  to  cooperate  and  exchange 
information  among  themselves  and  with  the  Commission  in  a  time-saving  and  more 
effective manner. This can be done without necessarily amending the Regulation. 

In  this  respect,  the  Commission  could  consider  specific  initiatives  to  improve  and 
facilitate  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Regulation  by  Member  States  and  the 
Commission.

76 

 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG: OLAF 

Agenda planning reference: PLAN/2018/4758 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

As  the  Regulation  has  no  direct  impact  on  citizens  it  was  not  envisaged  organising  an 
open  public  consultation.  It  was  decided  to  carry  out  a  targeted  consultation.  Member 
States,  other  Commission  departments,  data  protection  authorities,  carriers’ 
organisations,  WCO,  Europol  and  EUROJUST  were  consulted  through  questionnaires, 
interviews and dedicated meetings.  

Secretariat-General and the ISSG agreed to this approach.  

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The  evaluation  process  was  steered  by  an  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  chaired 
by OLAF and involving representatives of the Directorates-General for Agriculture and 
Rural  Development,  Budget,  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  Justice  and  Consumers, 
Mobility  and  Transport,  Taxation  and  Customs  Union,  Trade,  Health  and  Food  Safety, 
Secretariat-General and Legal Service. 

Before meeting with the ISSG the next steps of the evaluation process were agreed with a 
cross-unit task force (CUTF) set up within OLAF. This group was considered to meet on 
a  regular  basis  to  deliver  input  to  the  evaluation  process.  All  important  steps  were 
discussed and agreed with the CUTF. 

The lead DG carried out the evaluation without recourse to external contractor services.  

1. 

2.  

3. 

4.  
5. 

6. 

7. 
8. 

MILESTONE 

DATE 

01/02/2019 

16/05/2019 

24/06/2019 

28/06/2019 
22/08/2019 

28/10/2019 

DESCRIPTION 

First meeting of CUTF 

Publication of the 
Roadmap 
Second meeting of CUTF 

First meeting of ISSG 
Closure of feedback 
period of roadmap (2 
replies) 
Third meeting of CUTF 

12/11/2019 
Week 51 of 2019 

Second meeting of ISSG 
Questionnaires sent to 

77 

 
 
9. 

10. 

11. 
12. 

13.  

14/02/2020 

03/2020 – 05/2020 

06/2020 – 07/2020 
28/10/2020 

stakeholders 
End deadline replies from 
stakeholders 
Analysis of replies and 
questions for clarification 
to Member States 
Bilateral interviews 
4th meeting of CUTF 

23/11/2020 

3rd meeting of ISSG 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The evidence used  for the drafting of this evaluation  was based on the feedback of the 
in  Member  States  customs  authorities,  Commission 
stakeholder’s  consultation 
departments,  data  protection  authorities,  international  organisations  in  the  customs  area 
and  concerned  members  of  the  private  sector,  and  other  information  sources  gathered 
from  meetings  with  Member  States,  published  reports  in  the  customs  domain  or  data 
contained in the AFIS databases.  

No issues were identified with the quality of the evidence used. 

List desk research – literature: 

- 

Impact  assessment on the proposal  for a Regulation  of the European Parliament 

and of the Council, amending Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on 

mutual  assistance  between  the  administrative  authorities  of  the  Member  States 

and  cooperation  between  the  latter  and  the  Commission  to  ensure  the  correct 

application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (COM(2013) 796 final) 

-  Annual Reports on the Customs Union Performance 2016 - 2018 (CUP reports) 

-  Annual  Reports  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Union’s  financial  interests, 

2014 - 2019 (PIF Reports) 

-  Annual Activity Reports of OLAF, 2017 – 2019 

-  OLAF Reports, 2014 – 2019 

-  Evaluation  report  from 

the  2nd  Anti-Fraud  Information  System  (AFIS) 

Conference 2018 

-  Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) Survey 2019 

-  Report from the Customs 2020 Project Group  

-  AFIS Business Reports  

78 

 
 
-  European  Court  of  Auditors  Special  Report  19/2017  on  “Import  procedures: 

shortcomings  in  the  legal  framework  and  an  ineffective  implementation  impact 

the financial interests of the EU” 

79 

 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Process 

This evaluation has been conducted in compliance with the process set out in the Better 
Regulation  guidelines.  The  evaluation  roadmap  was  published  in  spring  2019.  Shortly 
after the preparation of the roadmap, an Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) chaired by 
OLAF  was  set  up  to  steer  the  evaluation  process.  It  involved  representatives  of  the 
Directorates-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Budget,  Migration  and 
Home  Affairs,  Justice  and  Consumers,  Mobility  and  Transport,  Taxation  and  Customs 
Union,  Trade,  Health  and  Food  Safety,  Secretariat  General  and  Legal  Service.  The 
participants are all involved with different tasks related to the Regulation, and hence the 
steering group contained the necessary expertise and experience. The ISSG observed and 
commented  along  the  evaluation  process,  to  ensure  that  the  evaluation  was  impartial, 
useful and of the necessary quality.  

The ISSG met 3 times during the evaluation on 28 June and 12 November 2019 and 23 
November 2020.   

All participants were informed about the scope of the evaluation, the evaluation roadmap, 
the  stakeholders,  the  intervention  logic,  the  evaluation  questions,  the  stakeholder 
consultation  strategy  and  the  indicative  timetable.  Their  feedback  was  collected  on  a 
wide  range  of  issues,  leading  for  example  to  improvements  in  the  structure  of  the 
questionnaires and the range of questions. 

On 22 August 2019, the feedback period for the roadmap was closed with receipt of two 
replies,  both  from  the  Global  Legal  Entity  Identifier  Foundation  (GLEIF).  The 
Commission took note of their statements.  

Before  publishing  the  roadmap  it  was  agreed  with  the  Secretariat  General  that  it  was 
sufficient  to  carry  out  a  targeted  consultation  of  stakeholders.  An  open  public 
consultation  was  not  considered  necessary  as  the  Regulation  has  no  direct  impact  on 
citizens  –  the  Regulation  has  a  very  specific  nature,  acting  mainly  as  a  tool  for  the 
exchange of information between Member States and with the Commission. 

The Commission  (OLAF) identified the following  stakeholders  to  be targeted: Member 
States, other Commission departments, data protection authorities, carrier organisations, 
the World Customs Organization (WCO), Europol and EUROJUST. These stakeholders 
were  consulted  through  a  combination  of  questionnaires,  interviews  and  dedicated 
meetings.    

Further procedural information is included in Annex V.    

80 

 
 
 
 
Short description of methodology 

All work to support this evaluation was conducted by the Commission (OLAF) staff; no 
external  study  nor  external  consultant  was  involved.  After  internal  reflection,  an 
evaluation matrix (in Annex III to the SWD) was prepared, and served as a basis to draft 
the initial evaluation questions, before consulting the ISSG.  

The targeted questionnaires were developed in cooperation with the ISSG (see the final 
questionnaires in Annex to the SWD). These questionnaires also served as a basis for the 
other consultation activities conducted (e.g. Member States’ bilateral interviews).  

Targeted  questionnaires  were  sent  (electronically)  to  the  five  different  stakeholder 
categories  identified;  each  category  received  a  set  of  questions  tailored  to  their  role  in 
the  Regulation.  Member  States  customs  authorities  received  a 
using/applying 
questionnaire on all key elements and sections of the Regulation. Relevant Commission 
departments  were  asked  about  provisions  on  IT  systems  and  databases  to  which  they 
have  access,  as  well  as  cooperation  mechanisms  under  the  Regulation  used  by 
Commission  departments,  including  OLAF  investigators.  Carriers  were  asked  for  their 
input  on  the  provisions  on  the  CSM  directory,  whilst  data  protection  authorities  were 
asked to provide input on the data protection provisions contained in the Regulation. The 
Commission was mainly interested to get information from international organisations on 
their access to AFIS data.  

The  Commission  (OLAF)  prepared  and  conducted  a  six-week  targeted  consultation  of 
stakeholders  from  end  of  December  2019  to  mid-February  2020  on  the  EU  Survey 
website.  This  consultation  helped  to  collect  views  from  relevant  stakeholders  on  the 
performance  of  the  Regulation,  which  could  then  be  mapped  according  to  the  five 
evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value). 
Opinions were sought on the performance of the Regulation over the period 1 September 
2016 until 1 September 2019. 

The  summary  of  the  results  of  the  targeted  consultation  is  presented  in  the  synopsis 
report in Annex V of this SWD.  

Extensive  desk  research  was  carried  out  using  data  and  literature  available  at  EU  and 
national level. Key documents that were taken into account include the annual reports on 
the Customs Union Performance (CUP reports), the annual OLAF reports, the annual PIF 
reports and the impact assessment on the Regulation, carried out in 2013. An exhaustive 
list of all reports is presented in Annex I of this SWD.   

Further  information  on  issues  of  common  interest  and  clarification  of  replies  was 
obtained through virtual interviews and dedicated meetings with selected stakeholders. In 
total, seven stakeholders were interviewed. 

81 

 
 
In order to cover a broad range of different Member States, meetings with five Member 
States  were  carried  out,  including  Member  States  with  different  size,  from  different 
geographic areas of the EU or that have recently joined the Union. This approach ensured 
to cover a wide spectrum of views and interests. The bilateral interviews focused on the 
most relevant comments provided by the Member States at the questionnaires.  

One Commission department was chosen for a bilateral interview as it uses nearly all the 
databases  mentioned  in  the  Regulation  and  is  therefore  one  of  the  most  important 
stakeholder. The World Shipping Council provided further insight in the positions of its 
members on CSM.  

All  information  obtained  from  the  different  consultation  activities  has  been  treated 
confidentially.  As  announced  in  the  questionnaires,  the  information  contained  in  the 
evaluation  report  is  disclosed  anonymously,  without  mentioning  individual  positions  of 
stakeholders. 

In October 2018, the Commission (OLAF) together with the Austrian Customs organised 
the  2nd  Anti-Fraud  Information  System  (AFIS)  Conference  in  Vienna,  Austria.  The 
purpose of the Conference was to take stock of the support provided within the scope of 
the  Regulation  by  the  Commission  to  Member  States,  and  to  reflect  collectively  with 
Member  States  on  the  best  way  to  tackle  the  manifold  challenges  ahead  including  the 
new  customs  fraud  patterns.  The  Conference  also  sought  to  ensure  that  the  mutual 
assistance  mechanisms  made  available  by  the  Commission  meet  the  needs  of  Member 
States  in  combating  customs  fraud.  About  80  representatives  in  charge  of  mutual 
assistance  policy,  the  business  and  IT  implementation  of  AFIS  at  national  level,  in 
particular the national AFIS liaison officers, from all Member States participated in the 
Conference.  

On  14-15  November  2019,  the  Finnish  Customs  and  OLAF  organised  a  High-level 
Conference  in  Helsinki  to  discuss  current  trends  and  appropriate  responses  to  customs 
fraud. The Conference gathered around 100 senior officials from Member States as well 
as  the  Commission  (OLAF,  DG  TAXUD,  DG  BUDG,  and  the  JRC),  Europol,  Frontex 
and the EUIPO. The WCO and the US Customs were also represented.  

The conclusions and recommendations from these conferences are taken into account in 
the evaluation.  

The EMAC was involved from the beginning of the planning process of this evaluation. 
In each meeting, the group was provided with the latest information and an update on the 
current state of the evaluation and especially on the sending of the questionnaires.  

The Council Customs Union Working Party (CUWP) was informed on 20/09/2019 and 
the Working Party on Combating Fraud (GAF) on 31/01/2020 about the evaluation of the 
Regulation.   

82 

 
 
 
Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  United  Kingdom  was  a  Member  State  during  the  main  evaluation  period,  and  still 
part of the EU at the time when questionnaires were sent out but did not reply.  

Since  the  Regulation  has  never  been  evaluated,  this  evaluation  takes  into  account  its 
performance since 1997 (even if focussed on period 2015-2019).  

As  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  encompasses  all  articles  of  the  Regulation,  the 
questionnaire for Member States has nearly a hundred questions. This was a huge task for 
Member States to provide answers.  

Due  to  the  COVID-19  situation,  it  was  not  possible  to  have  meetings  in  person  with 
stakeholders  to  clarify  the  findings  of  the  questionnaires.  The  bilateral  interviews  with 
stakeholders had to be done virtually.  

The  EMAC  for  June  2020  had  to  be  cancelled  due  to  the  COVID-19  situation. 
Consequently, the results of the Member States’ consultation  could  not  be presented to 
them and there has not been any in person discussion with the Member States’ customs 
authorities  on  the  evaluation  process.  Such  discussion  would  normally  have  provided 
valuable input and explanation to the evaluation report.   

Very few answers were received on certain sections of the questionnaires. Altogether six 
Commission departments replied, however, not all of them use all the databases.  

The transport directory is limited to data related to sea container movements recorded in 
the CSM directory. A transport directory containing data for land, rail and air transport 
has not yet been implemented by the Commission.  

83 

 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Objective1:  Increase  the  detectability,  prevention  and  prosecution  of  breaches  of  customs  and  agricultural  legislation  by  enhanced  collaboration 
both between the MS and between the MS and COM 

Objective2: Improve the process related to administrative enquiries in the area of customs mutual assistance 

CRITERIA: EFFECTIVENESS  

  QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

1.  To what extent 

Objective1 

has the 
Regulation 
515/97 increased 
the detectability 
of breaches of 
customs and 
agricultural 
legislation by 
enhanced 
cooperation? 

Usefulness of the regulation for 
MAA purposes 
Requests for extension of the scope 
to other areas.   

Scope and 
definitions 

Coverage of the 
scope of the 
Regulation for mutual 
administrative 
assistance (MAA) 
needs 

Clarity of the scope 
and definitions. 

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are clear 
and cover all areas 
considered needed for 
MAA work.  

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

DATA SOURCES 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

The majority of 
Member States 
considers that no 
further areas should be 
covered by the 
Regulation to 
adequately meet their 
needs. The scope and 
the definitions are clear 
enough. 

Five Commission 
departments have used 
the Regulation and 
consider the scope 
corresponds to their 
needs. 

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

Relations 
with the 
Commission 

Use of the assistance 
on request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 
mechanisms for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation.  

Use of the MAA 
mechanisms between 
Member States and 
the Commission for 
the detection, 
prevention and 
prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), MAA related meetings  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of the relations with the 
Commission 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Commission 
and Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work. 

Member States are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider that these 
have contributed to 
detect breaches in 
customs legislation. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work. 

Member States 
consider the mutual 
assistance 
communications issued 
by the Commission 
very useful for their 
work by increasing the 
detectability, 
prevention and 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

mutual assistance IT systems: CIS 
/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: JCOs, MAA related 
meetings. 

DATA SOURCES 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

prosecution of breaches 
of customs legislation. 
These communications 
often led to the 
adoption of specific 
national measures.  

Transport 
directory  

Container 
Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

Use of the Container 
Status Messages 
directory for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The CSM directory 
was established 
following the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation.  

The CSM directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CSM data 

Number of records in the CSM 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CSM: JCOs, CSM 
training courses and workshops.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Member States use the 
CSM directory on a 
regular basis to tackle, 
commercial and non-
commercial customs 
fraud and for 
investigative activities. 

Commission 
departments consider 
the CSM directory to 
be very useful for their 
work. 

Carriers have 
implemented the 
requirements of the 
Regulation and 
consider these legal 
and technical 
requirements as 
acceptable and are 
satisfied with the 
reduction of 
implementation efforts 
and time by reporting 
to a single EU-central 
service. 

Import, 
Export and 
Transit  

Use of the Import, 
Export and Transit 
directory for the 
detection, prevention 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of IET data 

The IET directory was 
established following 
the last amendment of 

The IET directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 

Member States use the 
IET directory on a 
regular basis to tackle, 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
  QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

Number of records in the IET 
directory 

the Regulation. 

for anti-fraud work. 

Relations 
with third 
countries  

Use of the MAA 
mechanisms between 
Member States, the 
Commission and 
third countries for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

Use of the CIS for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using IET: JCOs, IET 
training courses and workshops.   
Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Member States 
or the Commission and third 
countries 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
thanks to the mutual assistance 
exchanges  between Member States 
or the Commission and third-
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number records in the CIS 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CIS: JCOs, CIS 
training courses and workshops.  

86 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The provisions on 
relations with the third 
countries cover 
Member States, 
Commission and third 
countries needs for 
MAA work. 

The CIS directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work. 

The CIS was 
established with the 
Regulation. Some 
changes related to the 
restriction of access to 
CIS data and data 
retention periods were 
introduced with the last 
amendment.  

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

fraud and for 
investigative activities. 

of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Commission 
departments consider 
the IET directory to be 
useful for their work. 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Member States are 
satisfied with the 
provisions on MAA 
with third countries, 
even if these are rarely 
used as these are 
deemed to complement 
mutual administrative 
assistance provisions 
under international 
agreements and to 
allow mutual assistance 
with third countries 
which do not have an 
international mutual 
assistance agreement 
with the EU. 

The CIS is used on a 
regular basis by most 
Member States to 
support risk 
assessment, prevention 
and detection of 
customs infringements 
and operational actions. 
The CIS is considered 
most useful for the 
fight against tobacco 
smuggling, illicit drugs 
traffic, illicit trade of 
drug precursors, cash 
controls and 
counterfeit. 

The Commission 
considers the CIS as 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation 
introduced changes to 
clarify the data 
retention periods of the 
FIDE cases. 

The FIDE directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work. 

DATA SOURCES 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

very helpful to achieve 
the objective of the 
Regulation. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Relevant European 
partners  

EDPS 

FIDE is never or rarely 
used by a large number 
of Member States. 
Restrictions related to 
national provisions on 
data protection or to the 
use of the relevant data 
by Member States 
judicial authorities are 
given as justification 
for not using the 
system. Commission 
departments do not 
used FIDE. 

It is not clear that the 
lack of usage of the 
system is due to the 
need for changes to its 
legal provisions. 

The financing 
mechanism was 
established by the 
Regulation. 

The financing 
mechanism covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work for anti-
fraud purposes. 

The Regulation 
financial mechanism is 
considered 
fundamental for the 
conduction of the 
related MAA activities. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database 
(FIDE) 

Use of the FIDE for 
the detection, 
prevention and 
prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation 

Financing 

Use of the financing 
mechanism 
established by the 
Regulation for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data 

Number of FIDE records  

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using FIDE: JCOs, FIDE 
training courses and workshops.   

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
due to MAA activities financed by 
the Regulation  

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities financed by the 
Regulation: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 
courses, meetings 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction 
administrative 
enquiries. 

Completeness and quality of 
documentation provided in the 
scope of the administrative 
enquiries 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at facilitating the 
conduction of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The collection of 
customs documentation 
in support of 
administrative 
enquiries is facilitated. 

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

Admissibility 
of evidence 

Usefulness of the 
mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance to improve 
the process of the 
related administrative 
enquiries.  

Admissibility of 
evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area 
of customs mutual 
assistance. 

Duration of the administrative 
enquiries procedure 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries. 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at reducing the 
duration of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The administrative 
enquiries are completed 
in a shorter period of 
time.  

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are clear. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at providing 
legal certainty on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings. 

CRITERIA: EFFICIENCY  

QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

Objective1 

Scope and 
definitions 

There are no costs 
associated with this 
key element.  

- 

2.  To what extent 
are the costs of 
implementing 
Regulation 
515/97 justified, 
given the effects 
observed? 

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are clear 
and cover all areas 
considered needed for 
MAA work.  

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

88 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

DATA SOURCES 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

The majority of 
Member States 
considers that no 
further areas should be 
covered by the 
Regulation to 
adequately meet their 
needs. The scope and 
the definitions are clear 
enough. 

DATA SOURCES 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

Five Commission 
departments have used 
the Regulation and 
consider the scope 
corresponds to their 
needs. 

Member States are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider that these 
have contributed to 
detect breaches in 
customs legislation. 

DATA SOURCES 

international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Costs associated to the 
implementation of the 
mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance when the 
Regulation was 
established.  

The costs associated to 
the mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are justified 
given the results 
obtained.  

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

Costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance. 
Results obtained with 
the procedures of 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance. 

Relations 
with the 
Commission  

Costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States. 
Results obtained with 
the MAA procedures 
between the 
Commission and the 
Member States. 

Costs associated to the 
implementation of the mechanisms 
for assistance on request and 
spontaneous assistance: JCO related 
meetings, MAA related meetings 
Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems:  
CIS/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), meetings.  

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
between the Commission and the 
Member States: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities (IET/CSM/CIS/FIDE) 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 

89 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States when 
the Regulation was 
established.  
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Member States 
consider the mutual 
assistance 
communications issued 
by the Commission 
very useful for their 
work by increasing the 
detectability, 
prevention and 
prosecution of breaches 
of customs legislation. 
These communications 
often led to the 
adoption of specific 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance between 
the Commission and the Member 
States  

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between the Commission 
and the Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems  
(IET/CSM/CIS/FIDE) 

Number of cases generated based on 
these data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 
courses, meetings.  

DATA SOURCES 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

national measures. 

The assessment of the 
usefulness of the IT 
systems provided by 
the Commission for 
MAA purposes is 
detailed for each 
system below.  

Transport 
directory  

Container 
Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
CSM directory.  

Results obtained with 
the use of the CSM 
data. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the CSM directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

Costs associated to 
collection of data on 
container movements 
prior to the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation. 

This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the CSM directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 
The costs of CSM 
borne by the carriers 
are not considered 
disproportionate to the 
benefits incurred. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
CSM directory 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
based on CSM data Number of 
mutual assistance exchanges using 
CSM data 

Number of data recorded in the 
CSM 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data. 

Import, 
Export and 
Transit  

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
IET directory.  

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IET directory.  Number of detected 
breaches of customs and agricultural 

Costs associated to 
collection of data on 
import, transit and 
export in one single 
repository prior to the 
last amendment of the 
Regulation. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the IET directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the IET directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Results obtained with 
the use of the IET 
data 

legislation based on IET data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

As this system did not 
exist, cost information 
is not available. 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relations 
with third 
countries 

Costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries. 
Results obtained with 
the MAA procedures 
between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries. 

Number of data recorded in the IET 
directory 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data. 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
between the Commission and the 
Member States and third countries: 
JCOs, Member States’ Community 
missions, training courses, meetings 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of MAA with third 
countries 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between the Commission 
and the Member States with third 
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries when 
the Regulation was 
established.  
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

The costs of 
implementing de 
provision related to 
relations with third 
countries are justified 
and proportionate to 
their effects. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
CIS  
Results obtained with 
the use of the CIS 
data. 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
CIS 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
based on CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number of cases in the CIS 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data. 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, 
development, 
maintenance and 
operations of the CIS 
prior to the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the CIS are justified 
given the results 
obtained. 

Member States use CIS 
on a regular basis for 
more than 20 years for 
anti-fraud work. The 
running costs can 
therefore be considered 
justified.  

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database 

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, 
development, 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the FIDE are justified 

FIDE is judged it 
useful and necessary to 
support the detection of 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

given the results 
obtained. 

maintenance and 
operations of the FIDE 
prior to the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

customs infringements, 
by the Member States 
that use it. The costs of 
development and 
maintenance are 
considered justified.  

Costs associated to the 
conduction of MAA 
activities by 
Commission and 
Member States prior to 
the Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

The financing 
mechanism covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work for anti-
fraud purposes. 

The Regulation 
financial mechanism is 
considered 
fundamental for the 
conduction of the 
related MAA activities. 

DATA SOURCES 

of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Relevant European 
partners  

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

(FIDE) 

maintenance of the 
FIDE  
Results obtained with 
the use of the FIDE 
data. 

Financing 

Costs associated to 
the financing 
mechanism 
established by the 
Regulation to support 
the related MAA 
activities  

Results obtained with 
the use of this 
financing mechanism.   

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Costs associated to 
the availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries 

Results obtained with 
the use of this 
financing mechanism.   

FIDE 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
based on FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data Number 
of data recorded in the FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data. 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
in result of activities financed under 
the Regulation 

Number of cases generated in result 
of activities financed under the 
Regulation Number of mutual 
assistance related activities financed 
under the Regulation: JCOs, 
Member States’ Community 
missions, training courses, 
meetings. 

Costs related to assure the 
completeness and quality of the data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

Costs associated to the 
unavailability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction 
administrative 
enquiries prior to the 
last amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries are 
considered justified. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. There is no 
information on any 
associated costs. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

Costs associated to 
improve the process 
of the administrative 
enquiries using the 
mechanisms for 

Costs related to the duration of the 
procedures 

Costs related to assure the 
completeness and quality of the data 

Costs associated to the 
process of the 
administrative 
enquiries using the 
mechanisms for 

The administrative 
enquiries are completed 
in a shorter period of 
time and incurring in 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance.  

provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

Admissibility 
of evidence 

Costs associated to 
clarify the 
admissibility of 
evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area 
of customs mutual 
assistance. 

3.  Which 

Objective1 

components of 
Regulation 
515/97, if any, 
are generating 
disproportionate 
costs/benefits? 

Scope and 
definitions 

There are no costs 
associated with this 
key element.  

- 

lesser costs.  

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are clear. 

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are clear 
and cover all areas 
considered needed for 
MAA work.  

assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance prior to the 
last amendment of the 
Regulation. 

This information is not 
available. 

Costs associated to 
clarify the admissibility 
of evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

This information is not 
available. 

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. There is no 
information on any 
associated costs. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

There is no information 
on any associated costs. 
There are no costs 
associated with this key 
element. 

DATA SOURCES 

in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Costs associated to the 
implementation of the 
mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance when the 
Regulation was 
established.  

The costs associated to 
the mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are justified 
given the results 
obtained.  

Member States are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider that these 
have contributed to 
detect breaches in 
customs legislation. 

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

Costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance. 
Results obtained with 
the procedures of 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance. 

Costs associated to the 
implementation of the mechanisms 
for assistance on request and 
spontaneous assistance: JCO related 
meetings, MAA related meetings 
Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Relations 
with the 
Commission  

Costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States. 
Results obtained with 
the MAA procedures 
between the 
Commission and the 
Member States. 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems:  
CIS/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), meetings.  

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
between the Commission and the 
Member States: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities (IET/CSM/CIS/FIDE) 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance between 
the Commission and the Member 
States  

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between the Commission 
and the Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems  
(IET/CSM/CIS/FIDE) 

Number of cases generated based on 
these data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 
courses, meetings.  

94 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States when 
the Regulation was 
established.  
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

Member States 
consider the mutual 
assistance 
communications issued 
by the Commission 
very useful for their 
work by increasing the 
detectability, 
prevention and 
prosecution of breaches 
of customs legislation. 
These communications 
often led to the 
adoption of specific 
national measures. 

The assessment of the 
usefulness of the IT 
systems provided by 
the Commission for 
MAA purposes is 
detailed for each 
system below.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Transport 
directory  

Container 
Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
CSM directory.  
Results obtained with 
the use of the CSM 
data. 

Import, 
Export and 
Transit  

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
IET directory.  
Results obtained with 
the use of the IET 
data 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Costs associated to 
collection of data on 
container movements 
prior to the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the CSM directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the CSM directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 
The costs of CSM 
borne by the carriers 
are not considered 
disproportionate to the 
benefits incurred. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the IET directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the IET directory are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

Costs associated to 
collection of data on 
import, transit and 
export in one single 
repository prior to the 
last amendment of the 
Regulation. 
As this system did not 
exist, cost information 
is not available. 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
CSM directory 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
based on CSM data Number of 
mutual assistance exchanges using 
CSM data 

Number of data recorded in the 
CSM 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data. 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IET directory.  Number of detected 
breaches of customs and agricultural 
legislation based on IET data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

Number of data recorded in the IET 
directory 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data 

Relations 
with third 
countries 

Costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries. 
Results obtained with 
the MAA procedures 
between the 
Commission and the 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
between the Commission and the 
Member States and third countries: 
JCOs, Member States’ Community 
missions, training courses, meetings 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of MAA with third 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries when 
the Regulation was 
established.  
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the mechanisms for 
MAA between the 
Commission and the 
Member States with 
third countries are 
justified given the 
results obtained. 

The costs of 
implementing de 
provision related to 
relations with third 
countries are justified 
and proportionate to 
their effects. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Member States with 
third countries 

countries 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between the Commission 
and the Member States with third 
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings.  

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
CIS  
Results obtained with 
the use of the CIS 
data 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
CIS 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
based on CIS data 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database 
(FIDE) 

Costs associated to 
the implementation, 
development and 
maintenance of the 
FIDE  
Results obtained with 
the use of the FIDE 
data. 

Financing 

Costs associated to 
the financing 
mechanism 
established by the 
Regulation to support 
the related MAA 
activities  

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number of cases in the CIS 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data. 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
FIDE 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
based on FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data Number 
of data recorded in the FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data. 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities  

Number of detected breaches of 

96 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the CIS are justified 
given the results 
obtained. 

Member States use CIS 
on a regular basis for 
more than 20 years for 
anti-fraud work. The 
running costs are 
considered justified.  

Costs associated to the 
establishment, 
development, 
maintenance and 
operations of the CIS 
prior to the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

Costs associated to the 
establishment, 
development, 
maintenance and 
operations of the FIDE 
prior to the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

The costs associated to 
the implementation of 
the FIDE are justified 
given the results 
obtained. 

FIDE is judged it 
useful and necessary to 
support the detection of 
customs infringements, 
by the Member States 
that use it. The costs of 
development and 
maintenance are 
considered justified.  

Costs associated to the 
conduction of MAA 
activities by 
Commission and 
Member States prior to 
the Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

The financing 
mechanism covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work for anti-
fraud purposes. 

The Regulation 
financial mechanism is 
considered 
fundamental for the 
conduction of the 
related MAA activities. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Results obtained with 
the use of this 
financing mechanism   

customs and agricultural legislation 
in result of activities financed under 
the Regulation 

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

Costs associated to 
the availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries 

Results obtained with 
the use of this 
financing mechanism. 

Costs associated to 
improve the process 
of the administrative 
enquiries using the 
mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance. 

Admissibility 
of evidence 

Costs associated to 
clarify the 
admissibility of 
evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area 
of customs mutual 
assistance. 

Number of cases generated in result 
of activities financed under the 
Regulation Number of mutual 
assistance related activities financed 
under the Regulation: JCOs, 
Member States’ Community 
missions, training courses, 
meetings. 

Costs related to assure the 
completeness and quality of the data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

Costs related to the duration of the 
procedures 

Costs related to assure the 
completeness and quality of the data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

97 

The costs associated to 
the availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries are 
considered justified. 

The administrative 
enquiries are completed 
in a shorter period of 
time and incurring in 
lesser costs.  

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are clear. 

Costs associated to the 
unavailability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction 
administrative 
enquiries prior to the 
last amendment of the 
Regulation. 
This information is not 
available. 

Costs associated to the 
process of the 
administrative 
enquiries using the 
mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance prior to the 
last amendment of the 
Regulation. 

This information is not 
available. 

Costs associated to 
clarify the admissibility 
of evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

This information is not 
available. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. There is no 
information on any 
associated costs.  

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. There is no 
information on any 
associated costs. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

There is no information 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

OBJECTIVES 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

CRITERIA: COHERENCE  

QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

4.  To what extent is 
Regulation 
515/97 internally 
coherent? E.g. 
do all the articles 
work together? 
Are there any 
conflicts/ issues 
of consistency?  

Objective1 

Scope and 
definitions 

The scope and 
definitions are 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Coherence of the scope and 
definition within the framework of 
the Regulation. 

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), MAA related meetings. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

Relations with 
the Commission  

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of the relations with the 
Commission 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Commission 
and Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems: 
CIS/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 

98 

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

on any associated costs. 

DATA SOURCES 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

The scope and 
definitions are well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance is well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

DATA SOURCES 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with Commission and 
Member States: JCOs, MAA related 
meetings. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Transport 
directory  

Container Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

Import, Export 
and Transit  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

The provisions on the 
Container Status 
Messages directory 
are well within the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The provisions on the 
Container Status 
Messages directory 
are well within the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CSM: JCOs, CSM 
training courses and workshops.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of IET data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using IET: JCOs, IET 
training courses and workshops.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CSM data 

The CSM directory 
was established 
following the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation.  

The CSM directory is 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contributes to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The CSM is well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

The IET directory was 
established following 
the last amendment of 
the Regulation. 

The IET directory is 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contributes to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The IET is well framed 
within the Regulation 
and operates together 
with the other 
components to achieve 
its objectives. 

Relations with 
third countries  

The provisions on 
relations with third 
countries are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Member States 
or the Commission and third 
countries 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 

The provisions on 
relations with the third 
countries are consistent 
with the framework of 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 

99 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

established with the 
Regulation. 

the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

DATA SOURCES 

in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

The provisions on the 
CIS are well within 
the framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database (FIDE) 

The provisions on 
FIDE are well within 
the framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
thanks to the mutual assistance 
exchanges  between Member States 
or the Commission and third-
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CIS: JCOs, CIS 
training courses and workshops. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data 

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using FIDE: JCOs, FIDE 
training courses and workshops.   

The CIS is consistent 
with the framework of 
the Regulation and 
contributes to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The CIS is well framed 
within the Regulation 
and operates together 
with the other 
components to achieve 
its objectives. 

The CIS was 
established with the 
Regulation. Some 
changes related to the 
restriction of access to 
CIS data and data 
retention periods were 
introduced with the last 
amendment.  

The last amendment of 
the Regulation 
introduced changes to 
clarify the data 
retention periods of the 
FIDE cases. 

The FIDE is consistent 
with the framework of 
the Regulation and 
contributes to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The FIDE is well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Relevant European 
partners  

EDPS 

Financing 

The provisions on 
financing are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities  

The financing 
mechanism was 
established by the 
Regulation. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
due to MAA activities financed by 

100 

The financing 
mechanism is 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contributes to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The Regulation 
financial mechanism is 
well framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

the Regulation  

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities financed by the 
Regulation: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 
courses, meetings. 

Completeness and quality of 
documentation provided in the 
scope of the administrative 
enquiries 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at facilitating the 
conduction of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

Duration of the administrative 
enquiries procedure 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at reducing the 
duration of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The provisions on the 
availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Admissibility of 
evidence 

The provisions on 
admissibility of 
evidence are well 
within the framework 
of the Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at providing 
legal certainty on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings. 

5.  How well does 
Regulation 
515/97 
contribute 
to/complement 
other key related 

Objective1 

Scope and 
definitions 

The scope and 
definitions are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation. 

Complementarity of the scope and 
definition with other related 
legislation.  

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 

101 

The collection of 
customs documentation 
in support of 
administrative 
enquiries is consistent 
with the framework of 
the Regulation and 
contributes to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are 
consistent with the 
framework of the 
Regulation and 
contribute to the 
achievement of its 
objectives. 

The provisions on the 
availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries are well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 
The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are well 
framed within the 
Regulation and 
operates together with 
the other components 
to achieve its 
objectives. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 

The legal provisions to 
support the mutual 
assistance activities 
established by the 
Regulation are 
complementary to other 
related legal 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

policy 
instruments? 

accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments.  

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Complementarity of the provisions 
on assistance on request and 
spontaneous assistance with other 
related legislation.  

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

Relations with 
the Commission  

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Complementarity of the provisions 
on relations with the Commission 
with other related legislation.  

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

The legal provisions to 
support the mutual 
assistance activities 
established by the 
Regulation are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

DATA SOURCES 

Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Transport 
directory  

Container Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

The provisions on the 
CSM are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The CSM directory 
was established 
following the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation.  

Complementarity of the provisions 
on CSM with other related IT 
systems or legal instruments.  
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the joint use of data from CSM 
and from other related IT systems. 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges with the joint use of data 

The provisions CSM 
are complementary to 
other related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

The provisions on 
CSM are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

102 

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

EDPS 

Import, Export 
and Transit  

The provisions on the 
IET are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

from CSM and from other related IT 
systems. 

Number of cases generated based on 
the joint use of data from CSM and 
from other related IT systems. 

Complementarity of IET with the 
Commission with other related IT 
systems or legal instruments.  
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the joint use of data from IET 
and from other related IT systems. 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges with the joint use of data 
from IET and from other related IT 
systems. 

Number of cases generated based on 
the joint use of data from IET and 
from other related IT systems. 

The IET directory was 
established following 
the last amendment of 
the Regulation. 

The provisions on IET 
are complementary to 
other related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The provisions IET are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relations with 
third countries  

The provisions on 
relations with third 
countries are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Complementarity of the provisions 
on relations with third countries 
with other related legislation.  

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

The provisions on the 
CIS are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Complementarity of the data in CIS 
with data of other related IT systems 
or legal instruments.  
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the joint use of data from CIS 
and from other related IT systems. 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges with the joint use of data 
from CIS and from other related IT 
systems. 

The CIS was 
established with the 
Regulation. Some 
changes related to the 
restriction of access to 
CIS data and data 
retention periods were 
introduced with the last 
amendment.  

103 

The provisions on 
relations with the third 
countries are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The provisions on CIS 
are complementary to 
other related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The provisions CIS are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database (FIDE) 

The provisions on the 
FIDE are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Financing 

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

The provisions on 
financing are 
complementary to 
other related 
financing 
mechanisms.  

The provisions on the 
availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Number of cases generated based on 
the joint use of data from CIS and 
from other related IT systems. 

Complementarity of the data in 
FIDE with data of other related IT 
systems.  
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the joint use of data from FIDE 
and from other related IT systems. 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges with the joint use of data 
from FIDE and from other related 
IT systems. 

Number of cases generated based on 
the joint use of data from FIDE and 
from other related IT systems. 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities financed by the Regulation 
and complemented by other 
financing mechanisms.  

Completeness and quality of 
documentation provided in the 
scope of the administrative 
enquiries 

 Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation 
introduced changes to 
clarify the data 
retention periods of the 
FIDE cases. 

The provisions on 
FIDE are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The provisions FIDE 
are complementary to 
other related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

The financing 
mechanism was 
established by the 
Regulation. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at facilitating the 
conduction of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The financing 
mechanism is 
complementary to other 
financing instruments 
for combating fraud 
such as the former 
Hercule financing 
program.   

The collection of 
customs documentation 
in support of 
administrative 
enquiries is 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The financing 
mechanism is 
complementary to other 
financing instruments 
to combat fraud such as 
the former Hercule 
financing program.   

The provisions on the 
availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Relevant European 
partners  

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Duration of the administrative 
enquiries procedure 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

Completeness and quality of data 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at reducing the 
duration of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 

The provisions on 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CRITERIA: EU-ADDED VALUE 

SUB-
QUESTION 
Objective1 

QUESTION 

6.  What would be 
the most likely 
consequences of 
withdrawing 
Regulation 
515/97?  

QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries. 

Admissibility of 
evidence 

The provisions on 
admissibility of 
evidence are 
complementary to 
other related 
legislation.  

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at providing 
legal certainty on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings. 

use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are 
complementary to other 
related legislation 
ensuring a consistent 
use of the various 
existing MAA 
instruments for 
combating fraud. 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Services 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are 
complementary to other 
related legal 
instruments for mutual 
assistance to combat 
fraud.   

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Scope and 
definitions 

Clear scope and 
definitions are needed 
for a uniform 
implementation of the 
Regulation at EU 
level.  

Usefulness of the regulation for 
MAA purposes at EU level. 

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

 Need for a uniform 
implementation of the 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance provisions 
for MAA purposes. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Relations with 
the Commission  

Harmonised approach 
at EU level in the 
relations with the 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), MAA related meetings. 
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of the relations with the 

105 

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 
The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

The scope and 
definitions ensure the 
uniform application of 
the Regulation at EU 
level.    

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are 
necessary to ensure the 
uniform 
implementation at EU 
level. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are 
fundamental for a 
uniform 
implementation at EU 
level. 

DATA SOURCES 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 
Carriers' organisations 
EDPS 
Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission cover 

The harmonisation at 
EU level of the 
relations with the 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 
Commission for 
MAA purposes. 

Transport 
directory  

Container Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 
Need for an EU level 
common repository 
for data on container 
movements entering 
or leaving the EU.   

Import, Export 
and Transit  

Need for an EU level 
common repository 
for data on import, 
transit and export 
declarations.   

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work. 

Commission 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Commission 
and Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems: 
CIS/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 
Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: JCOs, MAA related 
meetings.  

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 
Commission for MAA 
purposes is 
fundamental for the 
achieving the 
objectives of the 
Regulation. 

DATA SOURCES 

of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CSM data 

Number of records in the CSM 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CSM: JCOs, CSM 
training courses and workshops.   
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of IET data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

Number of records in the IET 
directory 

106 

The CSM directory 
was established 
following the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation.  

The CSM covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work. 

The IET directory was 
established following 
the last amendment of 
the Regulation. 

The IET directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work. 

The management of the 
CSM at EU level 
constitutes a valuable 
support to Member 
States’ and 
Commission’s 
operational and 
investigative work. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 
EDPS 

The management of the 
IET at EU level 
constitutes a valuable 
support to Member 
States’ and 
Commission’s 
operational and 
investigative work. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Relations with 
third countries  

Harmonised approach 
at EU level in the 
relations with third 
countries for MAA 
purposes. 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

Need for an EU level 
common repository 
for data on breaches 
to customs or 
agricultural law.   

EU-added value of 
the Customs 
Information System  

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database (FIDE) 

Need for an EU level 
common repository 
for data on 
investigation files on 
cases of breaches to 
customs or 
agricultural law. 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using IET: JCOs, IET 
training courses and workshops.   
Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Member States 
or the Commission and third 
countries 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
thanks to the mutual assistance 
exchanges  between Member States 
or the Commission and third-
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings.  
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number records in the CIS 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CIS: JCOs, CIS 
training courses and workshops.   
Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data 

Number records in the FIDE 

107 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The provisions on 
relations with the third 
countries cover 
Member States, 
Commission and third 
countries needs for 
MAA work. 

The harmonisation at 
EU level of the 
relations with third 
countries for MAA 
purposes is 
fundamental for the 
achieving the 
objectives of the 
Regulation. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 

The CIS directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work. 

The CIS was 
established with the 
Regulation. Some 
changes related to the 
restriction of access to 
CIS data and data 
retention periods were 
introduced with the last 
amendment.  

The management of the 
CIS at EU level 
constitutes a valuable 
support to Member 
States’ and 
Commission’s 
operational and 
investigative work. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 
EDPS 
Relevant European and 
international partners 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation 
introduced changes to 
clarify the data 
retention periods of the 
FIDE cases. 

The FIDE directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work. 

The management of the 
FIDE at EU level 
constitutes a valuable 
support to Member 
States’ and 
Commission’s 
operational and 
investigative work. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 
Relevant European 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

partners  
EDPS 

Financing 

Need for a financing 
mechanism at EU 
level 

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using FIDE: JCOs, CIS 
training courses and workshops.   
Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
due to MAA activities financed by 
the Regulation  

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities financed by the 
Regulation: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 
courses, meetings 

The financing 
mechanism was 
established by the 
Regulation. 

The financing 
mechanism covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work for anti-
fraud purposes. 

The Regulation’s 
financial mechanism is 
fundamental to assure 
the implementation of 
the Regulation in a 
harmonised manner by 
all Member States.  

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction 
administrative 
enquiries. 

Completeness and quality of 
documentation provided in the 
scope of the administrative 
enquiries 
Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at facilitating the 
conduction of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The collection of 
customs documentation 
in support of 
administrative 
enquiries is facilitated. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 
Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 

Duration of the administrative 
enquiries procedure 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at reducing the 
duration of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The administrative 
enquiries are completed 
in a shorter period of 
time.  

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

Need for the EU level 
mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance to improve 
the process of the 
related administrative 
enquiries.  

Admissibility of 
evidence 

Admissibility of 
evidence in the 
conduction of 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries. 
Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

108 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at providing 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

administrative 
enquiries in the area 
of customs mutual 
assistance. 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

legal certainty on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings. 

proceedings are clear. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance. 

DATA SOURCES 

of customs legislation 
in the Member State 
Relevant Commission 
Services 

CRITERIA: RELEVANCE 

QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

7.  How well do the 

Objective1 

(current) 
objectives of 
Regulation 
515/97 
correspond to 
the (current) 
needs within the 
EU? 

Scope and 
definitions 

Coverage of the 
scope of the 
Regulation for mutual 
administrative 
assistance (MAA) 
current needs. 

Clarity of the scope 
and definitions. 

Usefulness of the regulation for 
MAA purposes in today’s EU 
context 
Requests for extension of the scope 
to other areas.  

The scope and 
definitions of the 
Regulation are clear 
and cover all areas 
considered needed for 
MAA work in the 
current EU context.  

The scope was 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

The majority of 
stakeholders considers 
that no further areas 
should be covered by 
the Regulation to 
adequately meet their 
needs. The scope and 
the definitions are 
adequate to the current 
EU context. 

DATA SOURCES 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

Relations with 
the Commission  

Use of the assistance 
on request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 
mechanisms for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context. 

Use of the MAA 
mechanisms between 
Member States and 
the Commission for 
the detection, 
prevention and 
prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), MAA related meetings. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of the relations with the 
Commission 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Commission 
and Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 

109 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work in the 
current EU context. 

Member States are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider these adequate 
to the current EU 
context. 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work in the 
current EU context. 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider these adequate 
to the current EU 
context. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

legislation in the 
current EU context. 

mutual assistance IT systems: 
CIS/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: JCOs, MAA related 
meetings. 

Transport 
directory  

Container Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

Import, Export 
and Transit  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 
container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

Use of the Container 
Status Messages 
directory for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context. 

Use of the Import, 
Export and Transit 
directory for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The CSM directory 
was established 
following the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation.  

The CSM directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in 
the current EU context. 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
CSM in the current EU 
context. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The IET directory was 
established following 
the last amendment of 
the Regulation. 

The IET directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in 
the current EU context. 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
IET in the current EU 
context. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CSM data 

Number of records in the CSM 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CSM: JCOs, CSM 
training courses and workshops.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of IET data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

Number of records in the IET 
directory 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using IET: JCOs, IET 
training courses and workshops.  

Relations with 

Use of the MAA 

Number of mutual assistance 

The MAA mechanisms  The provisions on 

Member States, 

Administrative 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

relations with third 
countries cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work in the 
current EU context. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

Commission and third 
countries are satisfied 
with the mutual 
assistance mechanisms 
and consider these 
adequate to the current 
EU context. 

DATA SOURCES 

authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

third countries  

mechanisms between 
Member States, the 
Commission and 
third countries for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context. 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS)  

Use of the CIS for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context. 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database (FIDE) 

Use of the FIDE for 
the detection, 
prevention and 
prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context. 

exchanges between Member States 
or the Commission and third 
countries 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
thanks to the mutual assistance 
exchanges  between Member States 
or the Commission and third-
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 
States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number records in the CIS 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CIS: JCOs, CIS 
training courses and workshops.   

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data 

Number of FIDE records  

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using FIDE: JCOs, FIDE 
training courses and workshops.  

The CIS was 
established with the 
Regulation. Some 
changes related to the 
restriction of access to 
CIS data and data 
retention periods were 
introduced with the last 
amendment.  

The last amendment of 
the Regulation 
introduced changes to 
clarify the data 
retention periods of the 
FIDE cases. 

The CIS covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
anti-fraud work in the 
current EU context. 

The stakeholders are 
satisfied with the use of 
CIS in the current EU 
context. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

The FIDE directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in 
the current EU context. 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
FIDE in the current EU 
context. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Financing 

Use of the financing 
mechanism 
established by the 
Regulation for the 
detection, prevention 

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 

The financing 
mechanism was 
established by the 
Regulation. 

The financing 
mechanism covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
MAA work for anti-

The Regulation 
financial mechanism is 
considered 
fundamental for the 
conduction of the 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in the 
current EU context.  

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction 
administrative 
enquiries. 

activities  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
due to MAA activities financed by 
the Regulation  

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities financed by the 
Regulation: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 
courses, meetings. 

Completeness and quality of 
documentation provided in the 
scope of the administrative 
enquiries 

 Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

fraud purposes in the 
current EU context. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at facilitating the 
conduction of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The collection of 
customs documentation 
in support of 
administrative 
enquiries is facilitated. 

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

Usefulness of the 
mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance to improve 
the process of the 
related administrative 
enquiries.  

Duration of the administrative 
enquiries procedure 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at reducing the 
duration of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The administrative 
enquiries are completed 
in a shorter period of 
time.  

Admissibility of 
evidence 

Admissibility of 
evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area 
of customs mutual 
assistance. 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at providing 
legal certainty on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings. 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are clear. 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

related MAA activities 
in the current EU 
context. 

DATA SOURCES 

in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance in the 
current EU context. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance in the 
current EU context. 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance in the 
current EU context. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Relevant European 
partners  

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

8.  How well 

Objective1 

Scope and 

Coverage of the 

Usefulness of the regulation for 

The scope was 

The scope and 

The majority of 

Administrative 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

stakeholders considers 
that no further areas 
should be covered by 
the Regulation to 
adequately meet their 
needs. The scope and 
adapted to the changes 
in the commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

DATA SOURCES 

authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

MAA purposes to changes in the 
commercial and technological 
"environment" 

Requests for extension of the scope 
to other areas.   

scope of the 
Regulation for mutual 
administrative 
assistance (MAA) to 
changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

definitions of the 
Regulation are adapted 
to the changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

established with the 
Regulation. 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation updated 
some terminologies in 
accordance with the 
ones used under the 
Union Customs Code 
(UCC). 

adapted are the 
components of 
Regulation 
515/97 to 
changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment"?  

definitions 

Assistance on 
request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 

Relations with 
the Commission  

Use of the assistance 
on request and 
spontaneous 
assistance 
mechanisms for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Use of the MAA 
mechanisms between 
Member States and 
the Commission for 
the detection, 
prevention and 
prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of assistance on request 
and spontaneous assistance 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: Joint Customs Operations 
(JCOs), MAA related meetings. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The mechanisms for 
administrative 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance are adapted 
to the changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Member States are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider these adequate 
to the changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The provisions on 
relations with the 
Commission are 
adapted to the changes 
in the commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms and 
consider these adequate 
to the changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
as result of the relations with the 
Commission 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Commission 
and Member States 

Number of data recorded in the 
mutual assistance IT systems: 
CIS/FIDE 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS and FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities: JCOs, MAA related 
meetings. 

Transport 
directory  

The transport 
directory is limited to 
data related to sea 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Container Status 
Messages 
(CSMs)  

Import, Export 
and Transit  

Relations with 
third countries  

container movements 
recorded in the CSM 
directory. For further 
details, see CSM. 

Use of the Container 
Status Messages 
directory for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Use of the Import, 
Export and Transit 
directory for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Use of the MAA 
mechanisms between 
Member States, the 
Commission and 
third countries for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CSM data 

Number of records in the CSM 

Number of cases generated based on 
CSM data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CSM: JCOs, CSM 
training courses and workshops.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of IET data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using IET data 

Number of records in the IET 
directory 

Number of cases generated based on 
IET data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using IET: JCOs, IET 
training courses and workshops.  

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges between Member States 
or the Commission and third 
countries 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
thanks to the mutual assistance 
exchanges  between Member States 
or the Commission and third-
countries 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities with the participation of 
third countries: JCOs, Member 

114 

The CSM directory 
was established 
following the last 
amendment of the 
Regulation.  

The CSM directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
CSM for anti-fraud 
work in a changing 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The IET directory was 
established following 
the last amendment of 
the Regulation. 

The IET directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
IET for anti-fraud work 
in a changing 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

The MAA mechanisms 
between Member 
States and the 
Commission were 
established with the 
Regulation. 

The provisions on 
relations with third 
countries cover 
Member States and 
Commission needs for 
anti-fraud work in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the 
mutual assistance 
mechanisms with third 
countries and consider 
these adequate to the 
changes in the 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

Customs 
Information 
System (CIS) 

Customs Files 
Identification 
Database (FIDE) 

Financing 

Use of the CIS for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Use of the FIDE for 
the detection, 
prevention and 
prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Use of the financing 
mechanism 
established by the 
Regulation for the 
detection, prevention 
and prosecution of 
breaches of customs 
and agricultural 
legislation in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

States’ Community missions, 
training courses, meetings.  

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using CIS data 

Number records in the CIS 

Number of cases generated based on 
CIS data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using CIS: JCOs, CIS 
training courses and workshops. 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
with the use of FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance 
exchanges using FIDE data 

Number of FIDE records  

Number of cases generated based on 
FIDE data 

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities using FIDE: JCOs, FIDE 
training courses and workshops.   

Costs associated to the conduction 
of the mutual assistance activities 
and the establishment, development, 
maintenance and operations of the 
IT systems to support these 
activities in a changing commercial 
and technological "environment". 

Number of detected breaches of 
customs and agricultural legislation 
due to MAA activities financed by 
the Regulation  

Number of mutual assistance related 
activities financed by the 
Regulation: JCOs, Member States’ 
Community missions, training 

115 

The CIS was 
established with the 
Regulation. Some 
changes related to the 
restriction of access to 
CIS data and data 
retention periods were 
introduced with the last 
amendment.  

The IET directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
IET for anti-fraud work 
in a changing 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Carriers' organisations 

EDPS 

The last amendment of 
the Regulation 
introduced changes to 
clarify the data 
retention periods of the 
FIDE cases. 

The IET directory 
covers Member States 
and Commission needs 
for anti-fraud work in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States and 
Commission are 
satisfied with the use of 
FIDE for anti-fraud 
work in a changing 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

The financing 
mechanism was 
established by the 
Regulation. 

The financing 
mechanism covers 
Member States and 
Commission needs in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

The Regulation 
financial mechanism is 
considered 
fundamental for the 
conduction of the 
related MAA activities 
in a changing 
commercial and 
technological 
"environment". 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUESTION 

SUB-
QUESTION 

KEY 
ELEMENTS 

JUDGEMENT 
CRITERIA 

INDICATOR 

BASELINE 

TARGET 

ASSESSMENT OF 
THE OUTCOME 

DATA SOURCES 

courses, meetings. 

Objective2 

Documents 
supporting 
customs 
declarations  

Availability of the 
supporting 
documentation in the 
conduction 
administrative 
enquiries. 

Completeness and quality of 
documentation provided in the 
scope of the administrative 
enquiries 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at facilitating the 
conduction of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The collection of 
customs documentation 
in support of 
administrative 
enquiries is facilitated. 

Assistance on 
request  and 
spontaneous 
assistance  

Usefulness of the 
mechanisms for 
assistance on request 
and spontaneous 
assistance to improve 
the process of the 
related administrative 
enquiries.  

Duration of the administrative 
enquiries procedure 

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at reducing the 
duration of the 
administrative 
enquiries. 

The administrative 
enquiries are completed 
in a shorter period of 
time.  

Admissibility of 
evidence 

Admissibility of 
evidence in the 
conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area 
of customs mutual 
assistance. 

Completeness and quality of data 
provided in the scope of the 
administrative enquiries  

Prevented impact on own resources 
as result of the administrative 
enquiries. 

The changes introduced 
by the last review 
aimed at providing 
legal certainty on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings. 

The provisions on the 
use of evidence 
collected in criminal 
proceedings are clear. 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

EDPS 

Relevant European and 
international partners 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Relevant European 
partners  

EDPS 

Administrative 
authorities responsible 
for the implementation 
of customs legislation 
in the Member State 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

Member States 
consider the changes 
introduced in the 
Regulation improved 
the conduction of 
administrative 
enquiries in the area of 
customs mutual 
assistance in a 
changing commercial 
and technological 
"environment". 

116 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

This section records the resources used for the implementation of the Regulation and provided and overview of its costs and benefits.  

The Regulation provides for the financing of all mutual administrative assistance EU actions (Article 42a). These include: 

(a)  all  costs  of  installing  and  maintaining  the  permanent  technical  infrastructure  making  available  to  the Member  States  the  logistical,  office 
automation and IT resources to coordinate joint customs operations; 

(b)  the  reimbursement  of  transport,  accommodation  and  daily  allowance  costs  of  representatives  of  the  Member  States  taking  part  in  the  EU 
missions, joint customs operations organised by or jointly with the Commission and training courses, ad hoc meetings and preparatory meetings 
for  administrative  investigations  or  operational  actions  conducted  by  the  Member  States,  where  they  are  organised  by  or  jointly  with  the 
Commission; 

(c) expenditure relating to the acquisition, study, development and maintenance of computer infrastructure (hardware), software and dedicated 
network  connections,  and  to  related  production,  support  and  training  services  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  actions  provided  for  in  the 
Regulation, in particular preventing and combating fraud; 

(d) expenditure relating to the provision of information and expenditure on related actions allowing access to information, data and data sources 
for the purpose of carrying out the actions provided for in the Regulation, in particular preventing and combating fraud 

(e) expenditure relating to use of the CIS provided for in instruments adopted under Articles 29 and 30 of the Treaty on European Union and in 
particular in the Convention on the use of information technology in customs matters drawn up by the Council Act of 26 July 1995 (replaced by 
Council  Decision  2009/917/JHA),  in  so  far  as  those  instruments  provide  that  that  expenditure  shall  be  borne  by  the  general  budget  of  the 
European Union. 

The financing mechanism under the Regulation are mainly in the format of procurement contracts (implemented under direct management) and 
reimbursement of costs of Member States representatives taking part in the activities foreseen thereof. 

 
 
The annual  budget  allocated for conducting all the activities under the Regulation, is  known as the AFIS budget,  this has  fluctuated between 
EUR 6.4 – 7.4 million for the MFF 2014-2020.  

The annual budget for the 2016-2019, with the correspondent break down of the various activities under each line of budget, is detailed in the 
table below: 

AFIS BUDGET  
(Financing Decision) 
Development & Maintenance 
Production Services 
Technical Assistance, Training, 
Coordination 
IT Services (TAXUD) 
CCN/CSI (TAXUD) 
HW/SW 
Total 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Total 

€ 2,361,400.00 
€ 2,374,700.00 

€ 2,991,000.00  € 2,924,500.00  € 3,015,000.00 
€ 2,066,500.00  € 2,189,500.00  € 2,432,034.09 

€ 11,291,900.00 
€ 9,062,734.09 

€ 772,000.00 
€ 175,000.00 
€ 375,000.00 
€ 570,900.00 
€ 6,629,000.00 

€ 550,000.00 
€ 837,200.00  € 1,626,200.00 
€ 122,865.91 
€ 154,000.00 
€ 154,000.00 
€ 41,000.00 
€ 296,000.00 
€ 0.00 
€ 729,000.00  € 1,075,000.00 
€ 806,500.00 
€ 7,151,200.00  € 7,664,200.00  € 7,194,900.00 

€ 3,785,400.00 
€ 605,865.91 
€ 712,000.00 
€ 3,181,400.00 
€ 28,639,300.00 

The groups affected by the Regulation are:  

• 
• 
• 
• 

Citizens and consumers 
Businesses and trade  
Public administrations – EU services 
Public administrations  - Member States customs authorities 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
• Citizens and consumers 

Individual  citizens  and consumers are not directly affected by the Regulation and therefore do not incur in  any direct costs. However, like in 
other expenditure programs, the contribution of citizens to their national budgets contribute to the overall EU financial envelope.  

On  the  other  side,  the  individual  citizens  and  consumers  benefit  indirectly  from  the  better  enforcement  of  the  customs  and  agricultural  laws 
facilitated  by  the  Regulation,  which  contributes  to  the  protection  of  the  European  citizen  and  consumers'  health  and  the  security  of  the 
environment.  

• Businesses and trade  

The Regulation sets the obligation for maritime carriers to provide specific information on movements of containers under certain conditions. 
This information is stored under the Container Status Messages (CSM) directory, developed and maintained by the Commission. The model of   
implementation of the CSM directory does not impose any costs to the carriers when using global dump. When opting for selecting reporting, 
estimated implementing costs range from 3.000 to 200.000 €.  

The collection of this data in a standardised manner under a EU level directory facilitates the reporting efforts of the carriers, as opposed to the 
reporting to individual systems in Member States. 

• Public administrations  - EU services 

The  Regulation  is  implemented  by  the  Commission,  and  customs  and  agricultural  administrations  in  the  Member  States.  The  direct  costs  of 
implementation of the Regulation are fully borne by the Commission. The costs presented in table 1 represent the total amount allocated by the 
Commission for the implementation of the Regulation for the period covered by the evaluation (2016-2019).  

The Regulation provides a number of tools and mechanisms to support the mutual assistance between Member States and between the later and 
the  Commission.  The  evaluation  has  proved  the  added  value  of  this  harmonised  approach  at  EU  level,  that  would  hardly  be  achieved  by  a 
bilateral approach by individual Member States.  

119 

 
 
A number of databases are set and maintained by the Commission and made available to Member States, as established by the Regulation. These 
databases allow for the secure exchange, storage and analysis of data at European level for anti-fraud purposes. On the basis of this data, the 
Commission can perform analysis at European level to support its investigative work and to coordinate the administrative enquiries carried out 
individually by the Members States. The activities carried out under the Regulation contribute to the protection of the EU financial interests by 
preventing fraud in the customs and agriculture domain and the recovery of any evaded customs duties and other levies.  

• Public administrations  - Member States customs authorities 

The Regulation applies directly to the customs and agricultural administrations in the Member States.  

Member States public administrations do not incur in any direct costs in the implementation of the Regulation.   

Member States anti-fraud work benefits from the access to the data reported by other Member States and collected at EU level and the use of the 
mutual  administrative  assistance  tools  made  available  by  the  Regulation.  The  mutual  administrative  assistance  framework  provided  by  the 
Regulation facilitates the anti-fraud work carried by the customs and agriculture services in Member States contributing for the protection of the 
budgets at national and European level.  

120 

 
 
 
 
Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation32 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 
Maritime carriers 

Administrations  
European Commission  

Administration  
Member States 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  Comment   Quantitative 

Comment 

Eligible actions for funding under Regulation 515/97 

Costs: 

Recurrent 

0€ 

- 

0€ to 200.000€ 

0€ 

- 

0€ 

- 

Direct compliance costs 
(adjustment costs, administrative 
costs, regulatory charges) 

per carrier   

No costs 
associated when 
using global 
dump.  
When opting for 
selecting 
reporting, 
estimated 
implementing 
costs range from 
3.000 to 
200.000€ per 
carrier. 

Enforcement costs:  (costs 
associated with activities linked to the 
implementation of an initiative such as 
monitoring, inspections and 
adjudication/litigation) 

Recurrent  

0€ 

Indirect costs (indirect 
compliance costs or other indirect 
costs such as transaction costs) 

Not 
applicable 

- 

- 

- 

0€  - 

€ 28,639,300 

- 

0€ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

32 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the table should 
include the monetisation (€) of the costs/benefits based on any quantitative translation of the data  (time taken, person days, number of records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved 
represented in monetary value  – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member States 
or is drawn from a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and analytical models used. 

121 

 
 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits: 
Direct benefits (such as improved 
well being: changes  in pollution 
levels, safety, health, employment; 
market efficiency) 

Recurrent 

Not 
quantifiable.  

Not 
quantifiable. 

Protection of 
the European 
citizen and 
consumers' 
health and the 
security of the 
environment. 

Not available. 

Data reporting 
in a standardised 
manner under a 
EU level 
directory 
facilitates the 
reporting efforts 
of the carriers, 
as opposed to 
the reporting to 
individual 
systems in 
Member States. 

Protection 
of the EU 
financial 
interests 
by 
preventing 
fraud and 
the 
recovery 
of any 
evaded 
customs 
duties and 
other 
levies. 

Not 
available. 

Access to fraud 
data at EU level 
and to mutual 
administrative 
assistance tools 
for anti-fraud 
work. 
Protection of 
the national 
budgets.  

Indirect benefits (such as wider 
economic benefits, macroeconomic 
benefits, social impacts, 
environmental impacts)  

Not 
applicable 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Stakeholder type 

Administrative authorities 
responsible for the 
implementation of 
customs legislation in the 
Member State 

* contact points 

Relevant Commission 
Services 

* DG ENV, JRC, DG 
BUDG, DG AGRI, DG 
TAXUD, DG HOME, DG 
TRADE, DG SANTE 

Carriers' organisations 

* World Shipping Council 
(WSC) 

Consultation 
period 
Q4 2019 / Q1 
2020 

Q4 2019 / Q1 
2020 

Q4 2019 / Q1 
2020 

Method of 
consultation 
- Targeted 
questionnaire to 
all Member 
States 
- If need be, 
face-to-face 
interviews to 
get clarification 
on replies 
- Dedicated 
meetings to 
discuss issues 
of common 
interest 
- Targeted 
questionnaire to 
relevant 
Commission 
Services 
- If need be, 
face-to-face 
interviews to 
get clarification 
on replies 
- Dedicated 
meetings to 
discuss issues 
of common 
interest 
- Targeted 
questionnaire to 
WSC 
- If need be, 
face-to-face 
interviews to 
get clarification 
on replies 
- Dedicated 
meetings to 
discuss issues 
of common 

123 

Content 

Questions cover 
key elements of 
the Regulation 
such as: scope and 
definitions; mutual 
assistance between 
Member States; 
cooperation 
between them and 
the Commission; 
relations with third 
countries; IT 
systems and 
databases; etc.) 
Questions cover 
provisions on the 
IT systems and 
databases to which 
the Commission 
Services have 
access, as well as 
cooperation 
mechanisms under 
the Regulation 
used by the 
Commission 
Services, including 
OLAF 
investigators  
Questions cover 
provisions on the 
Container Status 
Messages (CSM) 
directory 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
interest 

EDPS 

Interview on 
questionnaire 

Q4 2019 / Q1 
2020  

Relevant European and 
international partners 

* WCO, Europol 

Q4 2019 / Q1 
2020 

- Targeted 
questionnaire 
- If need be, 
face-to-face 
interviews to 
get clarification 
on replies 

Questions cover 
data protection 
provisions 
contained in the 
Regulation 
Questions cover 
provisions on 
relations with third 
countries and on 
access to data by 
third countries and 
international or 
regional 
organisations 

The  stakeholder  consultation  was  intended  to  provide  information  particularly  in  terms  of 
their  effectiveness  and  efficiency  through  accessing  the  experience  of  stakeholders  most 
closely  engaged  in  implementing  Regulation  515/97.  The  major  part  of  the  evaluation  was 
built on the responses from stake holders. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  strategy  was  built  in  accordance  with  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines of the European Commission. It reflects the key principle of providing 'a simple 
consultation strategy identifying and targeting relevant stakeholders'. 

The aim of the consultation was to collect views from stakeholders on their experience and 
practice in using the provisions and tools provided for in the Regulation. In particular, views 
were sought on:  

• 
the effectiveness of mutual assistance measures,  
•  obstacles to implementing assistance measures,  
•  gaps and shortcomings identified in current assistance measures and  
•  suggestions for improvements.  

Given  the  specific  nature  of  the  Regulation,  which  is  mainly  a  tool  for  the  exchange  of 
information  between  Member  States  and  with  the  Commission  and  the  fact  that  the 
Regulation  has  no  direct  impact  on  citizens,  it  was  not  envisaged  to  organise  a  public 
consultation for the general public.  

The targeted stakeholder consultation included: 

•  A  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  using  seven  different  evidence  gathering 

questionnaires 

•  Virtual interviews with EU stakeholder groups  
•  The  views  expressed  by  the  delegates  of  the  Expert  group  on  mutual  assistance  in 

customs matters (EMAC) 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Targeted Stakeholder Consultation (December 2019 – July 2020) 

1)  Questionnaires (December 2019 – April 2020) 

Questionnaires  were  drafted  around  the  five  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU added value.  

Five stakeholder categories were identified:  

•  Member States customs authorities 
•  Commission departments 
•  Maritime shipping carriers 
•  Data protection authorities 
• 
International organisations 

Figure 1: Stakeholder Mapping Matrix 

After  identifying  the  level  of  influence  and  interest  of  each  stakeholder  category,  seven 
different  questionnaires  were  drafted  according  to  the  respective  connection  to  the 
Regulation.  

The questionnaires were designed to bring forward specific aspects relevant to the evaluation 
and  were  approved  by  the  Inter-service  steering  group  set  up  of  members  from  other 
Commission departments.  

The  questionnaires  did  not  limit  the  length  of  response  from  consultees  and  were  thus 
designed  to  allow  scope  for  as  much  information  and  evidence  to  be  provided  from 

125 

highInfluencelow      low stake high stakeInterestlow influence & low stake: low priorityinternational organisationslow influence & high stake:needhelp to participatecarriershighinfluence & low stake:handle with caredata protection authoritieshigh influence &high stake:top priorityMember States, COM departments 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consultees. After each section of the questionnaire an option on providing further comments 
was inserted. Consultees were encouraged to provide practical examples and their experience 
in the different topics.  

Questionnaires  were  sent  to  the  contact  point  list  of  Regulation  515/97,  containing 
Commission contacts within all Member States. This list contains the competent authorities 
appointed by Member States for the purposes of applying the Regulation (Art 2(2), 29(2) of 
the Regulation). Member States had the possibility to distribute parts of the questionnaire to 
other competent authorities at national level.  

Questionnaires  were  distributed  to  all  Commission  departments  that  could  have  a  potential 
interest in the Regulation.  

The World Shipping Council (WSC) distributed the questionnaire developed for carriers to its 
members. 

A  questionnaire  on  data  protection  topics  was  sent  to  the  European  Data  Protection 
Supervisor (EDPS) and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). The EDPB consulted 
Member States  data protection authorities on the questionnaires  and provided replies to  the 
Commission.  

Three  international  organisations  were  asked  for  their  opinion  by  a  special  questionnaire: 
World Customs Organization (WCO), Europol and Eurojust. 

Member  States  contact  points  of  the  Regulation,  Commission  departments  and  carriers 
received  a  link  to  EU  survey  for  providing  their  input.  All  other  stakeholders  received  the 
questionnaire directly by e-mail. 14 February 2020 was set as a deadline for replies. 

Most stakeholders provided their input by end of February while some asked for prolongation 
of the deadline. By end of April all stakeholder input was gathered.  

a)  Analysis 

Table 1 : Stakeholder replies : 

stakeholder category 
EU Member States customs authorities 
COM departments 
carriers 
Data protection authorities 
international organisation 
international organisation 
international organisation 

number of replies 
28 
6 
7 
18 
1 
1 
1 

questions asked 
97 
74 
13 
8 
4 
21 
23 

126 

 
    
 
 
 
 
Twenty-seven Member States provided their input (there are 28 replies as one Member State 
sent two replies due to organisational reasons of the customs competent authorities at national 
level)  by  EU  Survey.  Altogether  six  Commission  departments  provided  their  input  by  EU 
Survey as well. Seven carriers sent  their replies, six  by EU Survey and one by e-mail.  The 
European  data  protection  supervisor  (EDPS)  sent  its  reply  by  e-mail.  The  European  Data 
Protection Board (EDPB) collected the replies from its members to the questionnaire and sent 
the  summary  by  e-mail.  Altogether  17  Member  States  data  protection  authorities  (Austria, 
Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) gave their input 
to the questionnaire. Eurojust, Europol and WCO sent their input by e-mail.  

For  analysis  and  overview  of  the  stakeholder  replies  an  analysis  model  was  developed  by 
OLAF policy staff. This analysis model arranges stakeholder replies according to stakeholder 
and  section  of  the  Regulation.  Altogether  an  analysis  was  done  for  each  question  and  an 
overview in the beginning of each section.  

The answers collected in the consultation process were treated confidentially. As announced 
in  the  questionnaires  sent  out,  the  information  contained  in  the  evaluation  report  would  be 
disclosed anonymously, without mention of individual positions of stakeholders. 

b)  Results questionnaires 

Agricultural matters 

Nine Member States indicate that they have used the Regulation in agricultural matters. All 
of them confirm that the scope of the Regulation has appropriately met their needs on mutual 
administrative assistance. 

In  terms  of  frequency  no  Member  State  mentions  a  daily  use  and  the  situation  varies 
considerably from one Member State to another. 

With regard to  the different  parts of the Regulation used by Member States for agricultural 
purposes,  three  Member  States  have  not  used  this  mechanism  at  all,  whereas  two  Member 
States  report  very  frequent  use,  mostly  assistance  on  request  or  spontaneous  assistance  and 
relations with the Commission. 

Concerning  relations  with  third  countries,  most  respondents  have  not  had  recourse  to  these 
provisions. 

Databases have been rarely used by Member States for this purpose. 

As  to  the  frequency  in  sending  requests  for  assistance  for  agricultural  purposes,  a  daily  or 
weekly  use  does  not  exist.  Five  Member  States  mentions  a  use  less  than  once  within  6 
months.  Two  Member  States  send  requests  several  times  a  month,  and  two  Member  States 
less than once a month. One Member State has never sent requests.  

127 

 
 
The  situation  is  similar  on  the  frequency  in  receiving  requests  for  assistance.  No  Member 
State mentions daily or weekly use. Five Member States mention a use less than once within 
6 months. Three Member State receive requests several times a month, and one Member State 
less than once a month. One Member State has never send requests. 

Regarding to what extent the mutual assistance mechanism has contributed to detect breaches 
in  agricultural  legislation,  four  Member  States  indicated  a  high  contribution,  whereas  two 
Member State mention moderate contribution and one Member State little contribution. 

Only one Commission department has used the Regulation for agricultural matters. Only this 
Commission  department  answered  the  questions  under  this  section  and  considers  that  the 
scope of the Regulation with regard to agricultural matters appropriately met its needs. The 
Commission  department  has  used  the  mechanisms  set  up  by  the  Regulation  with  a  view  to 
ensuring compliance with agricultural legislation several times a month. It rated to have used 
the part relations with the Commission (Art. 17 to 18e) frequently. CIS (Art. 23 to 41) was 
used  rarely  and  on  the  frequency  of  the  use  of  CSM,  IET  and  FIDE  there  is  no  opinion 
provided.  

Customs matters scope and definitions 

Twenty-seven  Member  States  that  answered  the  questions  under  this  section  have  used  the 
Regulation  for  mutual  administrative  assistance  in  customs  matters.  Some  Member  States 
reported  a  technical  problem  to  answer  some  of  the  questions.  These  Member  States  were 
given the opportunity to send the reply later via AFIS mail. Their answers were inserted into 
the table to provide a full picture. 

 Twenty-five  Member  States  consider  that  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  largely  meets  their 
needs  in  terms  of  mutual  administrative  assistance  (Member  States’  rating  ‘4’  and  ‘5’).  In 
general,  it  is  considered  that  the  Regulation  provides  extensive  coverage  for  mutual 
assistance  in  administrative  matters,  even  when  complemented  by  other  legal  instruments 
such  as  in  the  areas  of  administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of  excise  duties  (Regulation 
389/2012),  VAT  (value  added  tax)  (Regulation  904/2010)  and  cooperation  between  EU 
customs administrations (Naples  II Convention).  One Member State expressed the need for 
legal clarification of the link of the scope of Regulation 515/97, with the regulations that can 
apply  it  mutatis  mutandis,  without  being  customs  legislation  in  the  meaning  of  the  Union 
Customs  Code.  The  implementation  of  Regulation  1889/2005  on  cash  controls  (currently 
Regulation 1672/2018) were given as an example. The need for coverage of tax related areas 
and clarification on how to apply the Regulation for environmental issues or the protection of 
intellectual property rights were also mentioned.  

Nineteen Member States did  not find difficulties in  the application of the Regulation  in  the 
customs domain. They consider that no further areas should be covered by the Regulation to 
adequately meet their needs.  

128 

 
Four Member States consider that other areas are needed, namely in relation to waste, ozone 
depleting  substances,  drug  precursors, 
tax  matters,  cash  controls  and  cybercrime.  
The need for clear communication channels, information on new regulations falling under the 
Regulation, alignment with the Naples II Convention and less restricted data protection rules 
to facilitate data sharing and exploitation are also mentioned. 

Five  Commission  departments  answered  this  section.  They  confirm  that  they  use  the 
Regulation on mutual administrative assistance in customs matters and that the scope of the 
Regulation somehow corresponds to their needs. None of them replied that the scope of the 
Regulation would not at all correspond to their needs. Commission departments point out that 
there  was  a  compelling  need  for  instruments  like  the  Regulation  for  the  enforcement  of 
agricultural law. They suggest that the Regulation should regulate data exchange concerning 
research projects.  

Only  one  Commission  department  has  found  areas  in  the  customs  domain  where  it 
encountered difficulties in the application of the Regulation. One Commission department is 
of  the  opinion  that  there  are  further  areas  that  should  be  covered  by  the  Regulation.  An 
extension  to  all  product  categories  (and  no  limitation  of  export  data  to  excisable  goods) 
would help this Commission department in its daily work. 

Assistance on request 

Sixteen Member States send requests for assistance or spontaneous assistance at least several 
times  a  month.  The  same  number  of  Member  States  receive  requests  for  assistance  or 
spontaneous assistance several times a month.  
The first questions of the section assistance on request (Q23 and Q24) show that there is no 
direct  correlation  between the number of  requests  sent  (Q23) and  received (Q24). Nineteen 
Member States  believe that the Regulation  has contributed very positively  to  a detection of 
breaches in customs legislation.  
When  requesting  mutual  administrative  assistance,  eleven  Member  States  faced  no 
difficulties  with  the  mutual  administrative  assistance  process.  Sixteen  Member  States  faced 
difficulties, such as ‘requested actions not in the jurisdiction of Customs Administration’ and 
‘no time limits, so late answers’. One Member State suggested making the status of a request 
visible to the sender (for example ‘received’, ‘in handling’, ‘processed’, etc.). 
When requested for mutual administrative assistance from other Member States, 10 Member 
States received the information in the right time. Seventeen Member States faced difficulties. 
The  most  frequently  occurring  problem  was  ‘information  /  documentation  requested  not 
available’. 
Twenty  Member  States  rated  the  Regulation  with  regard  to  the  conduct  of  joint  customs 
operations (special watch on persons, goods and means of transport) as useful.  

Relations with COM 

All  Member  States  have  communicated  relevant  information  to  the  Commission  but  the 
frequency  varies  from  a  Member  State  to  another.  Apart  from  one  Member  State,  which 

129 

 
 
reports  on  a  daily  basis,  a  majority  of  Member  States  have  communicated  several  times  a 
week or a month, whereas others mention a communication less than once a month or even 
less than once within 6 months. 
No Member State considers the information sent by the Commission as not useful at all for its 
work.  On  the  contrary,  22  Member  States  mention  that  the  information  sent  by  the 
Commission has been useful or useful to a large extent for their work. Five Member States 
are neutral and only one is mentioning limited usefulness. 
Member States  are divided between those who have not  faced  any specific challenges  with 
mutual assistance communications (13 Member States) and those who have faced challenges 
(15  Member  States).  Among  those  who  have  faced  challenges,  many  indicate  that 
information  received  was  not  specific  enough.  However,  10  Member  States  have  reported 
more specific issues, such as the quality of the information received and evidence provided 
by the Commission.  
Twenty-four  Member  States  indicate  that  the  information  included  in  the  mutual  assistance 
communications led to specific national measures. 
Three  Commission  departments  have  been  involved  in  the  mutual  administrative  assistance 
mechanisms  based  on  Articles  17  to  18e.  These  Commission  departments  consider  the 
information in the mutual assistance communications as useful. As an example of challenges 
faced,  a  great  delay  of  the  information  received  from  mutual  assistance  communications  is 
mentioned.  One  Commission  department  pointed  out  that  it  would  be  helpful,  not  only  to 
receive the mutual assistance communications conclusions, but also the data extractions. For 
Commission departments it would be important to make it mandatory for Member States to 
take  measures  on  transmitted  irregularities  in  a  specific  time  in  order  to  avoid  the  loss  of 
traditional own resources. 

Transport directory 

By type of data, 18 Member States answered, that they consider goods and companies very 
useful for their work. 

By means of transport, 23 Member States believe that data regarding all means of transport 
are useful for their work, recognising  that transport by train  and post  are equally important 
with  road  and  air.  One  Commission  department  answered  the  questions  concerning  the 
transport  directory.  This  Commission  department  considers  the  data  on  goods,  persons  and 
companies  as  very  useful.  Data  regarding  transport  by  air,  train  or  road,  as  well  as  postal 
transport is considered to be very useful for this Commission department.   

CSM 

Thirteen Member States have used the CSM directory on a daily basis, mainly in the domains 
of  commercial  customs-fraud  (misdescription  of  goods,  origin,  value,  anti-dumping  duties, 
etc.), non-commercial  customs-fraud, intra-EU mutual assistance  requests and third-country 
mutual-assistance  requests.  CSM  is  mainly  needed  for  the  following  customs  activities: 
investigative activities, risk assessment, post-clearance auditing or controls, support to Joint 
Customs Operations, pre-clearance import controls and export controls.  

130 

 
Fourteen  Member  States  rate  CSM  as  extremely  useful  for  their  work.  The  possibility  of 
tracing back the movements of any specific container is rated as beneficial for the daily work 
by  26  Member  States.  In  terms  of  tracking  and  tracing  container  movements,  18  Member 
States rate timeliness (the extent to which container-movements are up-to-date), 15  Member 
States  coverage  (the  extent  to  which  the  container-movements  cover  global  sea-traffic),  16 
Member States completeness (the extent to which container-movements have no time gaps) 
and 16 Member States complementary information (the extent to which container-movements 
are combined with other data-elements related to the commercial transaction associated with 
the  transportation,  such  as:  commodity  transported,  quantities,  consignor  and  consignee, 
customs regime, etc) as very important for their work. The CSM performance is rated twenty-
six Member States as at least on a medium level.   

The  current  scope  of  the  CSM  directory  meets  the  needs  of  16  Member  States.  For  12 
Member States it would be helpful for their work to extend the scope of CSM to any other 
product.  

Only  two  Commission  departments  have  used  the  CSM  directory.  Both  of  them  have  used 
CSM  at  least  on  a  weekly  basis.  Commercial  customs-fraud  and  non-commercial  customs 
fraud  were  the  main  customs-domains  they  used  CSM  for.  Both  Commission  departments 
used CSM  for risk  assessment  but  as  well for pre-clearance import controls,  post-clearance 
auditing  or  controls,  investigative  activities,  other  customs  law  enforcement  activities  and 
export controls. They rate CSM as very useful for their daily work.  

In  terms  of  tracking  and  tracing  container  movements  timeliness,  coverage  of  global  sea-
traffic,  completeness  of  container-movements  and  complementary  information  are  rated  as 
very important. The performance of CSM regarding  timeliness and  coverage of global sea-
traffic  is  rated  on  a  medium  level.  Both  Commission  departments  rate  the  complementary 
information provided by CSM on a poor level. The views differ regarding the completeness 
of current CSM data. While one Commission department rates it as poor, the other one rates 
it on a good level.  

The  current  scope  of  export  data  in  CSM  does  not  meet  the  needs  of  the  Commission 
departments.  They  point  out  that  the  scope  of  export  data  should  be  extended  to  any  other 
product. They provide the information that CSM containing additional information linked to 
the transportation of goods (container weight) would be useful. Expansion of the scope of the 
Regulation to containers remaining on board and to empty containers entering or leaving EU 
customs territory would promote them in their daily work as well. 

The  Regulation  obliges  carriers  to  report  CSM  when  it  is  established  that  the  container  is 
destined to be brought into (or leave) the customs territory of the EU. Carriers are satisfied 
with this obligation and have integrated this obligation in their computer systems. CSMs have 
to  be  transmitted  no  later  than  24  hours  after  the  information  is  entered  into  the  ocean 
carrier's  electronic  equipment  tracking  system.  Five  of  the  respondent  carriers  rate  this 
obligation on a medium level. Export shipments from the EU require the provision of CSMs 

131 

 
 
only for certain categories of products (subject to excise duties in particular tobacco, alcohol 
and energy products). Nearly half of the carriers reply that they report all export events due to 
the  implementation  effort.  To  minimise  the  financial  burden  for  carriers  the  Regulation 
introduces  the  possibility  to  transfer  all  CSMs  without  selecting  them  individually.  Nearly 
half  of  carriers  have  made  use  of  this  possibility.  For  them  this  opportunity  is  extremely 
useful. Nearly all carriers rate the possibility to report CSMs to a single EU-central service, 
rather  than  reporting  CSMs  to  multiple  national-servers  as  extremely  useful.  For  them  it 
would save implementation effort.  

The  Regulation  does  not  require  carriers  to  report  any  details  regarding  the  bill  of  lading 
associated with the transportation. All carriers providing feedback are convinced this would 
have an impact on their effort (including costs) of reporting if this type of data was required. 
Six carriers rate this additional requirement even as a significant impact for them.  

IET 

Twenty  Member  States  uses  the  mechanisms  concerning  IET  with  a  view  to  ensuring 
compliance with customs legislation. The frequency of usage varies from never to  less than 
once a month or less than once within 6 months, whereas for eight of them the use is more 
regular (daily, weekly or monthly). 

Member States make mostly use of the IET database in the customs domain of commercial 
customs-fraud.  The  customs  activities  for  which  Member  States  have  used  IET  more  often 
were investigative activities and risk assessment.  

Sixteen Member States rated IET as useful or even extremely useful. However, 10 Member 
States rated the usefulness of IET for their daily work on a low level.  

The scope of export data in the IET directory is currently limited to products subject to excise 
duties (tobacco, alcohol, energy products). Eleven Member States express that this situation 
covers their needs,  whereas 17 Member States declare that the scope of  export data in  IET 
directory does not meet their needs in terms of data availability.  

The enrichment of IET with data concerning national transit and direct export is considered 
as useful or even extremely useful by 18 Member States. At least 18 Member States rate the 
access to the data obtained sufficient for the purpose of their query. 

Two  Commission  departments  used  the  IET  directory  and  answered  the  questions  of  this 
section. They have used  Import /  Surveillance  at least  on a monthly  basis while they made 
use  of  Export  /  ECS  not  more  often  than  once  a  month.  Transit  /  ATIS  was  used  by  one 
Commission department on a daily basis, the other one never used it. Import / Surveillance 
was  mainly  used  in  the  customs  domain  of  commercial  customs-fraud  (i.e.  undervaluation, 
misclassification, misuse of origin and preferential duties), same as Export / ECS and Transit 
/ ATIS.  

132 

 
Import  /  Surveillance  was  mainly  used  for  the  customs  activity  ‘risk  assessment’,  same  as 
Export  /  ECS and Transit /  ATIS. For both  Commission departments  IET has been  at  least 
useful  for  their  work  on  a  medium  level.  The  current  scope  of  products  does  not  meet  the 
needs of neither of them in terms of data availability. For both of them it would be helpful to 
have ‘any other product’ within the scope of export data. While one Commission department 
considers  the  current  range  of  access  as  sufficient,  the  other  Commission  department 
promotes full access and complete data sharing for Commission departments.  

In their comments Commission departments point out they would appreciate the capability to 
extract data from IET. 

Relations with third countries 

In terms of frequency in communication of information to third countries in the absence of an 
agreement on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters concluded 
by  the  EU  (Art  19  of  the  Regulation),  24  Member  States  have  never  or  rarely  used  this 
possibility  and  only  three  Member  States  declare  having  used  it  once  or  several  times  a 
month. 

Eleven  Member  States  have  never  used  the  possibility  of  conducting  administrative  and 
investigative  cooperation  missions  in  third  countries  (Art  20  of  the  Regulation)  and  14 
Member States less than once within 6 months.  

With  regard  to  the  level  of  satisfaction  of  the  implementation  of  the  provision  on 
communication of information to third countries in the absence of an agreement concluded by 
the  EU  (Art  19  of  the  Regulation),  15  Member  States  express  no  opinion.  However,  those 
who express an opinion are generally satisfied or very satisfied with the implementation, only 
two Member States express they are not satisfied. 

Concerning the level of satisfaction with regard to the implementation of the provision on the 
conduct of administrative and investigative cooperation missions in third countries (Art 20 of 
the  Regulation),  views  are  more  divided  among  respondents  even  though  there  are  more 
Member  States  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the  implementation  than  unsatisfied.  Nine 
Member States have expressed no opinion. 

Two  Member  States  that  have  expressed  no  opinion  explain  that  it  is  due  to  the  lack  of 
experience with this provision. Another one very satisfied with the implementation confirms 
the need for this provision.  

CIS 

Twenty-three  Member  States  consider  that  CIS  is  likely  to  fulfil  its  aim.  Several  Member 
States  reported  the  need  for  data  completion  and  timely  reporting  of  the  cases.  OLAF  is 
encouraged  to  add  cases  to  the  system,  as  well  as  Member  States.  Some  comments  lead  to 
believe that Member States are not familiar with all the features of CIS. 

133 

 
CIS is used on a regular basis (monthly, weekly or daily) by 25 Member States. CIS is most 
commonly used to support risk assessment (22 Member States), prevention and detection of 
customs infringements (for more than 18 Member States) and Joint Customs Operations (17 
Member States). 

The  system  is  considered  most  useful  for  the  fight  against  tobacco  smuggling  (26  Member 
States)  and  illicit  drugs  traffic  (21  Member  States),  followed  by  illicit  trade  of  drug 
precursors  (19  Member  States),  cash  controls  (19  Member  States)  and  counterfeit  (18 
Member  States).  Twenty-two  Member  States  considers  CIS  useful  for  intra-EU  mutual 
assistance  requests.  Ten  Member  States  used  it  also  for  mutual  assistance  with  third 
countries. 

Twenty-three Member States were able to retrieve or gather from CIS the information needed 
for  their  daily  work.  Twenty-four  Member  States  are  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the 
information provided by the system.  

The  shortcomings  mostly  identified  in  CIS  are  missing  data/  missing  cases  (17  Member 
States)  and  an  incomplete  or  insufficient  case  dataset  (16  Member  States).  The  lack  of 
feedback by other concerned Member States was also mentioned in nine replies.    

Other  problems  such  as  the  multiplication  of  similar  systems,  the  need  for  reporting 
guidelines  and  the  lack  of  engagement  by  some  Member  States  in  using  CIS  is  also 
mentioned.  The  importance  of  aligning  the  retention  period  of  CIS  data  under  Council 
Regulation  515/97  and  the  one  under  Council  Decision  2009/917/JHA  is  also  stated.  It  is 
suggested to add a bulk upload functionality to CIS to facilitate the insertion of cases.  

Fifteen  Member  States  have  no  opinion  on  the  question  whether  the  aim  of  the  newly 
introduced  provision  allowing  restricting  visibility  of  CIS  data  to  national  competent 
authorities was achieved. Seven Member States state that it has been very much achieved. 

Twenty-two  Member  States  consider  that  the  periods  for  data  storage  defined  for  CIS  are 
sufficient to meet their needs in the performance of their work. 

Member  States  stress  the  need  to  align  the  provisions  on  CIS  under  the  Regulation  with 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 on controls  on cash entering  or leaving  the  Union and Council 
Decision  2009/917/JHA  of  30  November  2009  on  the  use  of  information  technology  for 
customs  purposes.  The  need  to  extend  the  interoperability  between  CIS  and  WCO  CEN  is 
also highlighted.  

Only one of the  replying Commission  departments  used CIS. This  Commission  department 
expresses  that  CIS  fulfils  its  aim  very  likely.  It  has  used  CIS  on  a  monthly  basis  for  risk 
assessment. The Commission department considers CIS useful in the domains of commercial 
fraud  -  misdescription  of  goods,  origin  and  value,  commercial  fraud  -  anti-dumping  duties, 
counterfeit, cash control, drug precursors, CITES, cultural goods, waste, dual-use goods and 
human  health  and  safety.  The  Commission  department  was  able  to  retrieve/gather  the 
information  needed  for  the  daily  work  from  the  CIS.  It  was  very  satisfied  with  the 

134 

 
information provided by the system. As shortcomings missing data / cases are identified. The 
current range of access is considered as sufficient to cover the needs for information sharing 
with all relevant authorities. No opinion is provided on the periods for data storage.  

The World Customs Organisation  considers CIS data as very useful, even for its members’ 
activities.  

FIDE 

Fourteen  Member  States  have  no  opinion  if  FIDE  fulfils  its  objective  as  they  don’t  use  it. 
Seven  Member  States  consider  FIDE  is  not  likely  to  fulfil  its  objective.  The  fact  that  the 
system is not fed by all Member States nor the Commission, is named as the weakest point of 
the system. FIDE is never or rarely used by a large number of Member States.    

Nine  Member  States  have  no  opinion  on  which  customs  activities  to  use  FIDE.  Other 
Member  States  answered  that  FIDE  is  most  commonly  used  to  support  the  detection  of 
customs infringements (nine Member States), investigative activities (eight Member States), 
risk  assessment  (seven  Member  States)  and  for  customs-law  enforcement  activities  (seven 
Member States).  

FIDE is considered most useful for the fight against tobacco smuggling (15 Member States), 
excise fraud (11 Member States) and illicit drugs traffic (10 Member States). 

Twenty-one  Member  States  were  not  able  to  retrieve  or  gather  from  FIDE  the  information 
needed  for  their  daily  work.  Fifteen  Member  States  have  no  opinion  how  to  rate  the 
information  provided  as  they  don’t  use  the  system.  Twelve  Member  States  rate  FIDE  on  a 
medium level and below.   

The shortcomings mostly identified in FIDE are missing data/missing cases (seven Member 
States) and an incomplete or insufficient case dataset (seven Member States). Data protection 
constraints were also reported by four Member States. The lack of engagement in using FIDE 
by  most  Member  States  is  also  mentioned.  It  is  suggested  to  improve  the  search  engine. 
Twenty Member States consider that the current range of access of FIDE data is sufficient to 
cover the needs for information sharing with all relevant authorities. Sixteen Member States 
have no opinion on the periods for data storage, as they don’t use the system. The remaining 
Member States show a divided picture on their rating.  

None of the participating Commission departments have used FIDE. Therefore they have not 
answered the questions of this section.  

Data analysis 

Twenty-six  Member  States  have  used  data  from  the  above  mentioned  databases  for  the 
purpose of strategic and / or operational analysis.  

135 

 
Four  out  of  five  participating  Commission  departments  have  made  use  of  data  for  analysis 
purposes  based  on  the  Regulation  and  have  used  it  for  the  purpose  of  strategic  and/or 
operational analyses.  

Personal data protection 

of 

the 

The  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  (EDPS)  has  not  encountered  issues  affecting  the 
competence.  
rights 
EDPS  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  rights  of  data  subjects  are  sufficiently  guaranteed  by  the 
Regulation  at  Member  States  and  Commission  level.  Nevertheless  the  cooperation 
mechanisms have to be streamlined with Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. 

supervisory 

subjects 

under 

data 

its 

The  coordination  between  EDPS  and  the  Joint  Supervisory  Authority  (JSA,  established  by 
Decision 2009/917/JHA) could be improved. EDPS identified issues in the implementation in 
relation  to  personal  data protection  requirements of the CIS. Coordinated supervision  of  IT 
systems according to Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 has to be implemented.  

The European  Data Protection Board (EDPB) collected the replies from  its members to  the 
questionnaire.  Altogether,  data  protection  authorities  from  17  Member  States  (Austria, 
Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxemburg, the Netherlands,  Poland, Slovakia,  Slovenia, Spain  and Sweden)  replied to  the 
questionnaire.  

No Member States data protection authorities have identified issues affecting the safeguards 
of the rights of the data subjects. All participating Member States data protection authorities 
except one consider that the rights of data subjects are sufficiently guaranteed by the current 
mechanisms of independent supervision.  

Concerning the coordination between the EDPS and the JSA six of the respondent Member 
States data protection authorities are convinced that it is very good, while two Member States 
data protection authorities are of the opinion that the coordination is not good. Four Member 
States data protection authorities do not have an opinion on this topic. One data protection 
authority pointed out that since April 2017 the coordination and cooperation between the CIS 
SCG, the JSA CIS and the EDPS has been very bad. 
Two Member States data protection authorities have identified issues in the implementation 
in relation to personal data protection requirements of the Regulation.  

One data protection authority doesn’t consider the current range of access to personal data for 
competent authorities of Member States and Commission departments in accordance with EU 
data  protection  legislation  and  that  the  regulations  concerning  the  transmission  to  third 
countries require further consideration. 

Only  seven  Member  States  data  protection  authorities  have  made  any  audits/inspections  on 
the range of access to personal data in the scope of the Regulation within the last five years. 
Ten Member States data protection authorities have not done so. 

136 

 
One Member State data protection authority mentions that the CIS established by the decision 
2009/917/JHA is still rarely used by Member States competent authorities. 

Analyses of the stakeholder replies (by section of questionnaire) are included in  Annex 
to this report. 

2)  Bilateral virtual interviews with selected stakeholders (June / July 2020) 

After  analysing  the  stakeholder  replies  and  especially  their  comments  in  writing  some 
questions remained.  

Therefore bilateral meetings Member States were envisaged in order to cover a broad variety 
of  their  views  and  interests.  Six  Member  States  were  chosen  based  on  the  quality  of  the 
feedback provided at the questionnaires, geographical and population representation, as well 
as  the  Council  presidencies  in  the  current  and  following  mandates:    Belgium  (BE),  Croatia 
(HR), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE), France (FR), Portugal (PT).  

The  bilateral  interviews  focused  on  the  sections  of  the  Regulation  where  Member  States 
provided  most  relevant  comments.    Germany  declined  the  invitation  due  to  lack  of 
availability. 

From  Commission  departments  DG  TAXUD  was  considered  to  be  the  most  important 
stakeholder  as  DG  TAXUD  uses,  except  for  FIDE,  all  the  databases  mentioned  in  the 
Regulation.  

The World Shipping Council (WSC) was able to provide further insight in the positions of its 
members on CSM.  

Table 2: Bilateral interviews with selected stakeholders / Overview: 

Section of questionnaire 

BE  CZ  FR  HR  PT  DG 

WSC 

TAXUD 

Agricultural matters 
Scope and definitions (Articles 1 to 3) 

Assistance on request and spontaneous 
assistance (Articles 4 to 16) 

Relations with the Commission (Articles 17 to 
18e) 

Transport directory (Article 18a, paragraphs 1 
to 3) 
Container Status Messages (CSM) directory 
(Article 18a, paragraphs 4 to 9) 

Import, Export and Transit (IET) directory 
(Article 18d) 
Relations with third countries (Articles 19 to 
22) 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Customs Information System (CIS) (Articles 23 
to 41) 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Customs File Identification Database (FIDE) 
(Articles 41a to 41d) 

Use of data for analysis purposes       

x 

x 

x 

In total, seven bilateral interviews with selected stakeholders took place.  

Concerning  the  use  of  the  Regulation,  all  Member  States  customs  authorities  asked  the 
Ministry of Agriculture on the usage.  

Regarding the scope of the Regulation, Member States customs authorities mention that the 
way  of  applying  the  Regulation  is  different  between  Member  States  due  to  the  status, 
competence  and  powers  of  their  respective  customs  authorities.  This  refers  for  example  to 
trafficking  drugs,  weapons  and  intracommunity  excise  fraud.  A  need  for  extension  of  the 
scope to  cybercrime,  IPR, substances that deplete the ozone layer and shipment  of waste is 
pointed out. Additionally, one Member States customs authority defines the need for a legal 
clarification of Art 2 of the Regulation.  

In  the  field  of  assistance  on  request  and  spontaneous  assistance,  Member  States  customs 
authorities  ask  mainly  for  a  definition  of  a  time  period  (minimum  and  maximum)  for 
communications.  Knowledge  about 
the  request  sent  (received/being 
the  status  of 
treated/finalised) would be appreciated. A need for well described questions is pointed out.  

The  opinions  on  relations  with  the  Commission  are  more  diverse  between  Member  States 
customs authorities and Commission departments. While some are totally satisfied with clear 
mutual  assistance  communications,  others  face  the  problem  that  the  information  sent  via 
mutual assistance communications is not clear enough and there are difficulties to understand 
if  the  mutual  assistance  is  for  intelligence  or  recovery  purposes.  Mutual  assistance 
communications not being specific enough for the creation of risk profiles is also mentioned.  

Concerning  the  transport  directory  the  opinions  differ  between  no  need  for  a  further 
implementation  and  the consideration  of  a  full  implementation  of  the  transport  directory  as 
useful for having a complete picture.  

On  CSMs,  Member  States  customs  authorities  and  Commission  departments  have  several 
comments. They point out the need for an extension of the scope of data, a need for training 
and a possibility of combining CSM with other databases. But they also mention a problem of 
incomplete  data  and  a  gap  on  reporting  empty  containers  as  they  are  out  of  range  of  the 
Regulation.  

Carriers are satisfied with their reporting obligations and the current situation. 

Member States customs authorities and Commission departments are satisfied with using the 
IET  database.  They  use  it  for  risk  profiles,  set  alerts  and  track  containers.  An  extension  to 
national transit data and national export data as well as an extension of the scope to other risk 
commodities is considered useful. Special trainings could help to make use of the full range 
of data.  

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On  relations  with  third  countries  Member  States  customs  authorities  make  more  use  of 
mutual administrative assistance agreements. One Member State customs authority points out 
that ‘legal commitment’ in Art 19 and the reference in Art 21(2) to Art 12 mutatis mutandis 
are legally unclear.  

Member States  customs  authorities and Commission  departments  are satisfied with  the CIS 
database but it should contain more cases to make better use of it. Member States that want to 
access should first share their own data. It was asked for the possibility of a bulk import.  

Commission  departments  do  not  have  access  to  FIDE.  Member  States  customs  authorities 
confirm that the database is not sufficiently used. OLAF should contribute to the exchange of 
cases. More workshops could motivate Member States to be more active.  

Member  States  customs  authorities  and  Commission  departments  use  the  data  for  data 
analysis  purposes.  One  Member  State  customs  authority  mentions  difficulties  concerning 
INTEL4CUSTAF on the relationship between the Regulation and the GDPR.  

Expert group on mutual assistance in customs matters (EMAC)33 

The EMAC meets twice a year (normally in June and November) to exchange and discuss on 
their views  and experiences  with  a view to  ensuring  the correct  application of customs and 
agricultural legislation. 

Due  to  the  Covid-19  situation  the  meeting  planned  for  June  2020  had  to  be  postponed. 
Nevertheless in earlier meetings Member States have been updated on the evaluation process 
and  on  the  sending  of  the  questionnaires.  They  had  the  opportunity  to  provide  input  or 
express concerns.  

Overall messages from the consultation / conclusion: 

The  overall  impression  is  that  stakeholders  are  satisfied  with  the  Regulation  as  it  stands. 
There is no evidence in the evaluation that demonstrates a strong need for an amendment.  

The  replies  to  the  stakeholders’  consultations  have  shown  a  number  of  issues  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation.  These  issues  can  be  addressed  by  other  means  than  an 
amendment of the current legal basis. 

33 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3380 

139