REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Interim evaluation of the Customs Control Equipment Instrument 2021-2027
Date: 2025-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, customs inspection, customs union, modernisation aid, project funding

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.12.2025  COM(2025) 733 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Interim evaluation of the Customs Control Equipment Instrument 2021-2027 {SWD(2025) 385 final}  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

The  EU  Customs  Union,  established  in  1968,  is  an  area  of  exclusive  European  Union 
competence. This means that only the EU can adopt customs legislation, while Member 
States  are  responsible  for  implementing  it.  Over  time,  the  role  of  customs  has  grown 
beyond traditional revenue collection (including customs duties, VAT on imported goods 
and, where applicable, excise duties). Customs authorities now perform many other tasks 
and pursue wider objectives, such as protecting the security, safety, health and prosperity 
of  people  and  businesses  in  the  EU. Physical  inspections  by  customs  officers  at  border 
crossing  points,  (including  land  borders,  airports,  seaports  and  postal  centres),  and  the 
analysis  of  samples  taken  during  these  inspections  in  customs  laboratories,  must  be 
carried out in a harmonised manner to prevent illegal or dangerous goods from entering 
the  EU  while  facilitating  legitimate  trade.  To  perform  their  tasks  efficiently  and 
effectively,  customs  officers,  border  crossing  points  and  customs  laboratories  must  be 
equipped with modern and reliable control equipment. The Customs Control Equipment 
Instrument  (‘CCEI’  or  ‘the  instrument’)  addresses  Member  States’  need  for  financial 
support for purchasing such equipment. 

The CCEI (1) is part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, along with the Border 
Management  and  Visa  Instrument (2),  under  Heading  4  (Migration  and  border 
management) of the EU budget. The instrument is a new EU funding programme in the 
field of customs policy (3) under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework, with a 
budget  of  EUR 1.006  billion  for  this  period.  It  provides  grants  to  Member  States’ 
customs  authorities  for  purchasing,  maintaining  and  upgrading  customs  control 
equipment. 

The  objective  of  the  instrument  is  to  contribute  to  adequate  and  equivalent  results  in 
customs controls, with the long-term goal of achieving harmonised customs enforcement 
among  all  Member  States.  The  programme  aims  to  ensure  customs  offices  to  be 
adequately equipped with state-of-the art control equipment. This will reduce imbalances 
in the performance of customs controls by Member States due to differences in capacity. 
Ensuring the availability of equivalent control equipment also helps prevent goods being 
diverted to the weakest points in the customs control system (4). The CCEI helps customs 
authorities to act as one and fulfil their mission to: 

(1)  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1077  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 June  2021 
establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for 
customs control equipment. 

(2) Regulation (EU) 2021/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing, 
as  part  of  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund,  the  Instrument  for  financial  support  for  border 
management and visa policy. 

(3) The customs programme (Regulation (EU) 2021/444) that facilitates and enhances customs cooperation 

between customs authorities, had predecessor programmes. 

(4) This practice, known as ‘import point shopping’, undermines the effectiveness of the whole system. 

1 

 
 
 
▪  protect the financial and economic interests of the EU and its Member States; 

▪  ensure security and safety within the EU;  

▪  protect the EU from illegal trade while facilitating legitimate business activity. 

Article 13  of  the  CCEI  Regulation  requires  the  Commission  to  carry  out  an  interim 
evaluation  of  the  instrument,  assessing  its  performance  in  terms  of  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence,  relevance,  synergies  and  added  value  to  the  EU. This  report  sets 
out the instrument’s interim results for the 2021-2024 reference period and is based on a 
Commission  evaluation  (5)supported  by  an  external  study (6). The  evaluation  covers  all 
27 Member States. 

The purpose of the interim evaluation is to assess progress in achieving the instrument’s 
objectives  and  identify  areas  for  improvement  to  ensure  the  programme  fulfils  its 
purpose.  The  interim  evaluation  enables  the  Commission  to  make  adjustments  to  the 
implementation of the CCEI on the basis of the experience gained and to draw lessons for 
future policy. 

2.  KEY ELEMENTS AND STATE OF PLAY OF IMPLEMENTATION 

The  CCEI  was  launched  in  2021  with  the  adoption  and  entry  into  force  of  the  CCEI 
Regulation.  It  is  implemented  by  DG  TAXUD  in  direct  management  mode  through 
multiannual  work  programmes.  Its  only  beneficiaries  are  the  customs  authorities  of  the 
EU  Member  States.  As  set  out  in  the  first  (2021-2022)  and  second  (2023-2024) 
multiannual work programmes, two calls for proposals were launched, in October 2021 
and December 2023 respectively. The first call had a budget of EUR 271.5 million, and 
the second EUR 284 million. Together, these  represent  around 55% of the  instrument’s 
financial allocation for 2021-2027. 

Member States were eligible to submit applications for two topics: border crossing points 
(BCPs)  and  customs  laboratories.  Following  evaluation  of  the  applications  for  the  first 
call, the full budget was used, with 24 grant agreements signed with Member States for 
BCPs  and  18  for  customs  laboratories.  The  funds  allocated  allowed  Member  States  to 
purchase, maintain or upgrade more than 1 300 pieces of customs control equipment for 
over 210 BCPs, and more than 500 pieces of equipment for over 30 customs laboratories. 

Following the evaluation of applications for the second call, the Commission signed 24 
grant  agreements  with  Member  States  for  BCPs  and  22  for  customs  laboratories.  One 
application  (from  Bulgaria,  for  BCPs)  was  still  pending  finalisation  in  mid-2025. 
Including  this  last  pending  grant,  the  budget  of  the  second  call  was  also  fully  utilised. 
The value of the projects selected under the two calls is shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Budget allocation per call topic and Member State 

(5) SWD(2025) 385 final, Commission staff working document. 

(6)  Study  supporting  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  CCEI  2021-2027,  IPSOS  and  Synthesia,  final  report, 

April 2025. 

2 

 
 
CCEI project budgets per Member State
Amounts in EUR million

Bulgaria

Poland
Italy

Netherlands

Romania

Belgium

Lithuania

Finland
France

Hungary

Slovakia

Portugal

Latvia

Croatia

Denmark

Sweden

Spain

Germany

Chechia

Greece

Cyprus

Luxembourg

Ireland

Estonia

Slovenia

Austria

Malta

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Call 1 BCP

Call 1 Lab

Call 2 BCP

Call 2 Lab

Projects can last up to 36 months, with extensions possible in justified cases. At the time 
of the interim evaluation, the programme was still in the early stages of implementation. 
By  mid-2025,  13  projects  out  of  a  total  of  42  under  the  first  call  had  been  fully 
completed. A further 13 projects were expected to be completed in 2025, with 12 more in 
2026 and four in 2027. Projects from the second call, starting in late 2024 or 2025, will 
run until 2027-2028 (7). 

The CCEI was designed to  use a data-driven approach  to policymaking. Data  elements 
such  as  available  customs  control  equipment,  modes  of  transport,  risks  and  threats  for 
each  BCP  and  customs  laboratory  are  collected  from  Member  States  with  each 
application submitted and in the annual and final project implementation reports. These 

(7)  The AT-BCP project from the call, with a planned duration of 12 months, is scheduled to conclude on 
30 September 2025. The ES-BCP project from the same call is in the process of being terminated due 
to national considerations. 

3 

 
 
 
data  feed  into  decisions  on  policy  priorities  and  fund  allocation  and  enable  monitoring 
and evaluation at project and programme level. 

3.  MAIN FINDINGS OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION 

This  section  provides  a  summary  of  the  evaluation.  More  details  are  available  in  the 
related staff working document. 

3.1 Effectiveness 

The activities planned under the CCEI have broadly been rolled out as anticipated, with 
two  multiannual  work  programmes  and  two  calls  for  proposals.  All  27  Member  States 
have received CCEI funding: 22 under both calls, two only under the first, and three only 
under the second). Demand for funding slightly exceeded the budget in both calls: by less 
than 1% for the first call, and 8% for the second. 

The design of the CCEI has proven appropriate and fit for purpose. Over 90% of national 
customs  administrations  surveyed  agreed  that  the  CCEI  budget  was  sufficient  to  fill 
performance gaps and make a difference to customs controls in their Member State. The 
fact that demand for co-financing was so closely aligned with the available budget  also 
provides  evidence  that  the  amount  of  funding  available  is  sufficient  to  meet  Member 
States’ main needs. However, decisions to apply for CCEI funding are not based solely 
on existing needs, as Member States must also consider other important factors, such as 
their  operational  and  financial  capacity  to  purchase  and  use  the  equipment  (including 
their co-financing budget, trained staff, infrastructure and expected trade flows in BCPs.). 

Implementation delays 

A  large  proportion  of  projects  under  the  first  call  have  experienced  delays  in  their 
implementation: 20 of the 42 grant agreements (8) have had their duration extended or are 
currently  awaiting  extension.  Over  half  (53%)  of  national  customs  administrations  said 
CCEI progress in their countries was slower than expected. These delays have an impact 
on both the overall performance of the instrument (e.g. delays in improving the Customs 
Union performance) and the Commission’s financial planning capacity (as project delays 
slow the allocation of EU funds). 

The most significant  factor  hindering progress  of the CCEI projects  has  been difficulty 
completing  national  procurement  procedures.  National  customs  authorities  reported  the 
following  problems  as  factors  that  slowed  down  the  procurement  of  equipment: 
cumbersome procedures requiring multiple permits and approvals; a lack of expertise and 
human  resources  in  procurement  units;  uncertainty  about  whether  and  how  to  exclude 
certain suppliers due to cybersecurity concerns; a lack of bidders; appeals or complaints 
from  unsuccessful  tenderers;  and  budget  restrictions.  These  delays,  combined  with 
demand  only  marginally  above  the  available  budget  under  both  calls,  indicate  that 

(8)  As of July 2025. 

4 

 
 
Member States’ customs authorities have limited absorption capacity for projects of this 
scale. 

Cybersecurity  considerations  played  a  significant  role  in  several  projects.  As  concerns 
have  emerged  and  intensified  in  recent  years,  efforts  have  been  made  to  assess 
manufacturers’  risk  profiles  and,  where  necessary,  restrict  high-risk  bidders  from 
procurement  procedures  for  sensitive  equipment.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  that  only  secure 
solutions  receive  EU  (including  CCEI)  funding.  However,  several  Member  States  have 
reported practical difficulties in doing so, as national legislation provides varying degrees 
of effectiveness in addressing these concerns. At EU level, the security and cybersecurity 
protection of equipment was addressed through specific Commission guidance issued as 
part of the 2022 call and reaffirmed in 2023 through the work of the CCEI Coordination 
Group.  The  second  call  provided  additional  requirements  and  guidance  to  ensure  the 
security  and  cybersecurity  of  equipment  funded  under  the  CCEI.  These  included  an 
obligation  for  beneficiary  Member  States  to  involve  national  security  services  and  to 
provide  supporting  documentation  showing  compliance  with  security  requirements. 
Nevertheless,  this  issue  has  not  yet  been  tackled  in  a  harmonised  manner  at  EU  level, 
with  procurement  processes  sometimes  cancelled,  re-launched  and/or  re-designed  to 
comply with national procurement rules and security priorities. 

The  Russian  full-scale  invasion  of  Ukraine  has  also  affected  some  CCEI  projects  in 
countries bordering Ukraine, Belarus or Russia, causing delays or requiring the planned 
equipment to be moved to other locations as a result of significant changes in trade flows. 

Emerging results 

Despite  the  delays  and  implementation  hurdles  set  out  above,  the  CCEI  has  begun  to 
deliver tangible outputs.  According to data submitted by Member States, 907 pieces of 
equipment had been purchased, maintained or upgraded through CCEI funds by the end 
of 2024. For BCPs, the deployed equipment represents 41% of all equipment under the 
first call; for laboratories, it represents 64%. 

However,  quantitative  measurement  of  the  results  and  impact  of  the  CCEI  remains 
difficult at this early stage. Experience to date shows that all results indicators  listed in 
the CCEI monitoring and evaluation framework (9) are affected by significant challenges 
and limitations relating to the completeness, quality and comparability of the underlying 
data.  By  the  end  of  2024,  the  main  result  indicator  measuring  the  percentage  of  BCPs 
fully  adhering  to  the  common  list  of  equipment  that  should  be  available  for  each  BCP 
type  showed  slow  progress  (10.67%  against  a  target  of  60%).  The  indicator  measuring 
the percentage of Member States that have achieved their commitments (on the basis of 
baselines  or  targets  set  by  themselves,  e.g.  the  number  or  value  of  seizures  of  various 
types of goods or substances, the number of  checks conducted, or hit rates) also shows 

(9)  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2022/1528  of  4 July  2022  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/1077 of the European Parliament and of the Council with provisions on the  establishment of a 
monitoring and evaluation framework. 

5 

 
 
limited progress (between 10% and 21%, depending on the objective, against a target of 
60%).  These  results  also  suggest  that  the  targets  set  may  be  unrealistic  and  overly 
ambitious,  as  they  describe  an  ideal  scenario  and  do  not  sufficiently  account  for  the 
specificities  of  individual  BCPs  and  customs  controls.  As  the  impact  of  projects  takes 
longer to manifest, it has not been possible to calculate the impact indicators (10) for the 
instrument so far. 

In the stakeholder consultation, most Member States (74% of respondents) replied that, 
based  on  experience  so  far  and  expectations  for  the  remainder  of  the  programming 
period, the CCEI would make a ‘significant’ contribution towards its specific objective of 
‘contributing  to  adequate  and  equivalent  results  of  customs  controls’.  The  remainder 
expected ‘some’ contribution (16%) or responded ‘don’t know’ (10%). National customs 
administrations  also  stated  that  equipment  purchased  and  deployed  to  date  was  used 
effectively and as intended. Most respondents observed noticeable improvements in the 
performance  of  both  BCPs  (especially  in  detection  accuracy,  but  also  in  the  speed, 
capacity and number of controls) and customs laboratories. In terms of innovation, 91% 
of  respondents  agreed  that  the  CCEI  encourages  and  facilitates  the  purchase  of 
innovative, cutting-edge equipment. 87% agreed that implementation of the CCEI takes 
due account of safety and environmental considerations. 

Allocation of funding to the highest priority areas 

The evaluation examined how needs are assessed and used to determine the allocation of 
funding. DG TAXUD  identified priority  areas  in each multiannual  work  programme to 
address  specific  needs.  However,  these  priorities  were  broad,  leaving  national  customs 
authorities free to apply for any eligible equipment. The case studies conducted for this 
evaluation  show  that  some,  but  not  all,  Member  States  focused  on  the  highest  risks. 
Moreover,  the  marginal  oversubscription  to  the  CCEI  calls  meant  that  there  was 
essentially  no  competition  for  funding.  Consequently,  there  was  no  need  for  the 
Commission  to  prioritise  proposals  or  work  packages  most  aligned  with  key  needs  or 
risks.  The  multipurpose  nature  of  the  equipment,  which  could  in  principle  be  used  to 
counter  a  variety  of  threats  and  risks,  also  explains  the  lack  of  prioritisation  between 
proposals.  In  essence,  Member  States  received  co-financing  for  any  equipment  they 
chose to apply for, as long as it was eligible under the CCEI. In addition, there are issues 
with the available data for the needs assessments, including what equipment is currently 
available  at  each BCP, compared with  what  should  ideally be  available  on the basis of 
traffic volumes and risk profiles. Consequently, the CCEI, as implemented to date, may 
not always ensure that the most significant gaps and needs at EU level are addressed as 
effectively and efficiently as possible. 

It is difficult to determine the appropriate degree of steering and prescriptiveness. A more 
centralised,  top-down  approach  –  where  decisions  about  equipment  purchases  and 

(10)  These impact indicators are related to the contribution of the CCEI  to: (i) protecting the financial and 
economic interests of the EU; (ii) ensuring the safety and security of the EU and its citizens; and (iii) 
protecting the EU from illegal trade while facilitating of legitimate business activity. 

6 

 
 
deployment locations are taken at EU level – could in principle result in a more efficient 
allocation  of  resources  and  better  address  the  challenges  facing  the  EU  as  a  whole. 
However,  national  competence  for  customs  controls  limits  the  extent  of  steering  that 
would  be  politically  and  legally  feasible.  Providing  all  Member  States  with  the 
opportunity  to  take  part  helps  ensure  broad  support  for  the  instrument.  The  decision  to 
purchase  equipment  is  complex,  requiring  consideration  of  multiple  factors  beyond  the 
mere  need  for  the  equipment:  existing  infrastructure,  available  space,  geographical 
location, sufficient skilled staff, budgetary constraints, traffic patterns, etc. Some of these 
factors  can  arguably  only  be  adequately  assessed  from  a  Member  State  perspective  or 
through  on-site  inspections  by  the  Commission,  assessing  the  BCPs  or  customs 
laboratories in their entirety. 

3.2 Efficiency 

The  evaluation  confirmed  that  the  CCEI’s  implementation  is  largely  efficient.  National 
customs  administrations  reported  high  satisfaction  with  DG  TAXUD’s  guidance, 
programme  management  and  timeliness  of  support.  Feedback  on  the  grant  application 
and  award  processes  was  also  generally  positive.  Applicants  raised  no  significant 
complaints,  except  on  the  administrative  burden  associated  with  preparing  CCEI 
applications, which several Member States found particularly onerous. 

This  criticism  of  the  application  process  relates  primarily  to  the  data  model  and,  more 
specifically,  the  extensive  quantitative  data  required.  These  data  include:  (i)  a 
comprehensive inventory of the Member State’s customs control equipment available at 
BCPs  and  customs  laboratories;  (ii),  traffic  statistics;  (iii)  risk  information;  and  (iv) 
performance  indicators.  According  to  the  data-driven  approach  enshrined  in  the  CCEI 
Regulation, the purpose of collecting these data is to objectively identify gaps and needs 
so  that  CCEI  funding  can  be  targeted  accordingly,  and  to  facilitate  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation of the instrument.  

However,  most  national  customs  administrations  found  it  difficult  and  burdensome  to 
provide the requested level of detail and granularity. Data collection and reporting often 
required significant manual effort, as the data typically had to be compiled from multiple 
sources  and  the  categories  were  not  always  aligned  with  national  procedures  and 
frameworks.  In  some  cases,  data  were  not  available  at  all.  Several  Member  States 
questioned the relevance and usefulness of the data. While they generally understood the 
need for CCEI support to be informed by a clear understanding of actual needs and risks 
and supported the Commission’s efforts in principle, many doubted whether the current 
data sheets contributed to this goal.  

As a result, there are issues with the completeness, quality, reliability and comparability 
of CCEI data across Member States and categories. This hinders the full implementation 
and potential of the data model. The limitations of EU customs data are not unique to the 
CCEI. The Commission has proposed setting up a dedicated EU customs data hub to: (i) 
consolidate  data  currently  dispersed  across  numerous  sources;  (ii)  enable  better  data 
analytics; and (iii) enable better processes for risk management and control. 

7 

 
Consequently,  there  is  significant  potential  for  simplifying  the  data  model.  The 
framework could be streamlined to focus on elements for which reliable and comparable 
data can be collected with minimal additional effort and then used to identify real needs 
and monitor progress. The granularity of the data to be collected for the indicators should 
be  revised,  taking  into  account  any  methodological  inconsistencies  identified  and  other 
specificities  so  far  unaccounted  for.  The  indicator  targets  set  at  the  start  of  the 
programme  implementation  should  be  reviewed  to  ensure  they  are  all  achievable,  and 
most importantly, realistic. 

3.3 Coherence 

The  CCEI’s  design  is  internally  coherent:  its  various  elements  operate  well  together  to 
achieve  its  objectives.  The  CCEI  is  designed  as  a  relatively  simple  instrument  that 
provides  financial  support  for  a  single  core  activity:  the  purchase,  maintenance  and 
upgrade of customs control equipment by the national customs administrations of the 27 
Member  States.  This  support  is  provided  according  to  a  clear  and  sound  intervention 
logic.  Supporting  activities  (including  the  meetings  and  deliverables  of  the  CCEI 
Coordination Group and the guidance and technical and administrative support provided 
to applicants by DG TAXUD) are consistent with the instrument’s logic and objectives. 

Externally, the CCEI is designed to maximise coherence with other EU programmes and 
funds. It encourages complementarities and synergies with: the customs programme (11), 
the  Border  Management  and  Visa  Instrument (12),  the  EU  anti-fraud  programme,  the 
Horizon  Europe  programme,  the  Technical  Support  Instrument,  the  Internal  Security 
Fund and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. 

Specifically, the CCEI and the EU anti-fraud programme, which is managed by OLAF, 
are clearly complementary, addressing distinct yet interconnected objectives. Before the 
CCEI was set up as a standalone instrument, OLAF’s Hercule programme played a key 
role in supporting beneficiaries seeking funding for border equipment. Since the CCEI’s 
inception,  the  anti-fraud  programme  has  reallocated  its  resources  to  other  beneficiaries 
(e.g. other law enforcement agencies) and other types of tools and technologies. 

The  extent  to  which  this  has  led  to  actual  synergies  and  complementarities  varies 
somewhat.  This  is  partly  due  to  differing  levels  of  awareness.  Based  on  questionnaire 
responses, almost all officials dealing with the CCEI in national customs administrations 
are familiar with the customs programme, whereas awareness of some other initiatives is 
considerably  lower,  despite  guidance  and  information  provided  by  the  Commission. 
Consistent  with  this,  most  examples  of  synergies  highlighted  by  respondents  and 
interviewees  related  to  aspects  of  the  customs  programme,  such  as  training,  meetings, 
expertise  sharing,  and  forums  such  as  the  Customs  Laboratories  Expert  Team,  the 

(11) Among other things, the customs programme supports actions that complement the CCEI, such as the 

exchange of good practices, lessons learnt and training relating to the equipment concerned. 

(12) The Border Management and Visa Instrument primarily focuses on the control of persons crossing the 

EU’s external borders, thereby complementing the CCEI’s focus on goods. 

8 

 
 
Customs  Laboratories  European  Network  and  the  Customs  Eastern  and  South-Eastern 
Land Border Expert Team. However, only a handful of examples of complementary use 
of  the  CCEI  alongside  other  EU  instruments  could  be  identified.  For  example,  a  few 
Member States indicated that they had used the anti-fraud programme to receive funding 
for  items  not  covered  by  the  CCEI  but  that  complement  CCEI-funded  equipment  (e.g. 
video  recorders,  IT  equipment  and  vehicles).  The  overall  impact  of  synergies  with  the 
Border Management and Visa Instrument has not yet become evident.  

Many  Member  States  have  not  yet  shared  CCEI-funded  equipment  with  other  border 
authorities. This is often due to the specific nature of  the equipment, which is designed 
for customs use and requires trained personnel to operate it. 

3.4 EU added value 

The  evaluation  assessed  whether  the  instrument  made  a  difference  for  the  primary 
beneficiaries,  namely  national  customs  authorities,  beyond  what  could  have  been 
accomplished through national measures and funding alone. One reason for setting up the 
CCEI was the existence of imbalances between Member States in financial resources for 
customs control equipment, meaning many customs authorities would not have been able 
to  mobilise  sufficient  resources  for  equipment  without  additional  external  funding. 
However,  all  Member  States  are  eligible  for  CCEI  funding,  even  if  their  customs 
authorities might have had been able to purchase the equipment themselves.  

Data  collected  during  the  evaluation  show  that  Member  States  broadly  fell  into  two 
groups depending on their circumstances. The first group comprises countries for which 
CCEI  funding  clearly  enabled  equipment  purchases  that  would  not  have  been  possible 
from other sources. Most customs authorities belong to this group, with almost two thirds 
(61%)  of  respondents  stating  they  would  not  have  been  able  to  acquire  the  equipment 
requested  in  their  grant  applications  without  CCEI  support.  Only  9%  held  the  opposite 
view, while the remaining 29% were either neutral or did not respond.  

High levels of ‘additionality’ were found in six of the in-depth case studies conducted on 
10  grants  for  the  first  CCEI  call.  Conversely,  the  other  four  case  studies  covered 
equipment needs that national officials acknowledged would have been met even without 
CCEI  funding.  In  these  Member  States,  the  role  of  the  CCEI  was  to  accelerate  the 
deployment  of  needed  equipment  or  raise  the  political  profile  of  customs  control 
equipment,  incentivising  customs  to  pursue  greater  ambition.  Overall,  the  findings 
confirm  that  CCEI  funding  was  mostly  additional,  although  in  some  cases  it  simply 
replaced national funding. 

Most Member States either ‘strongly agreed’ (29%) or ‘tended to agree’ (55%) that the 
CCEI  Coordination  Group  was  an  effective  forum  for  collaboration  in  the  EU.  The 
expertise,  advice  and  templates  shared  in  the  Coordination  Group  served  to  reduce 
national costs for drafting tender specifications, managing procurement and dealing with 
suppliers. This was especially appreciated by smaller Member States with less capacity. 

9 

 
However,  examples  of  operational  collaboration  stemming  from  the  CCEI  remain 
extremely  limited.  Despite  EU  co-funding  and  a  general  enthusiasm  to  cooperate  more 
closely, decisions on the equipment purchases and use are still largely made at national 
level.  This  is  in  line  with  both:  (i)  the  CCEI’s  implementation  model  (where  Member 
States procure the equipment); and (ii) customs policies more broadly (where individual 
customs authorities are responsible for risk analysis and controls). 

3.5 Relevance 

The evaluation examined how well the CCEI matches evolving EU needs and priorities, 
its ability to adapt to changes, and the extent to which it meets the needs of stakeholders. 

The  EU  customs  strategy (13)  and  customs  action  plan (14)  provide  the  overarching 
framework  for  strengthening  the  Customs  Union.  They  set  out  key  priorities,  such  as 
modernising customs enforcement, enhancing risk analysis and management, improving 
data  sharing,  and  fostering  cooperation  between  Member  States.  These  strategies 
emphasise  the  value  of:  (i)  creating  a  more  data-driven,  resilient  customs  system;  (ii) 
reinforcing risk-based control mechanisms; and  (iii) equipping customs authorities with 
the  necessary  infrastructure  and  technologies  to  both  improve  enforcement  and  enable 
real-time,  data-based  decision-making.  By  funding  equipment  for  national  customs 
authorities, the CCEI supports these aims and helps harmonise data-driven enforcement 
capacity across the Customs Union. 

The CCEI’s multiannual work programmes and funding calls have remained relevant by 
adapting their scope to emerging priorities. During the stakeholder consultation, Member 
States expressed strong agreement with the specific priorities outlined in the first (2021-
2022) and second multiannual work programmes (2023-2024). 

The CCEI enjoys strong support among all 27 customs authorities. It is widely regarded 
as  an  essential  tool  for  reducing  disparities  in  customs  enforcement  capabilities  and 
ensuring  that  all  Member  States  can  access  state-of-the-art  customs  control  equipment 
regardless  of  budgetary  constraints.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  customs 
administrations  agree  that  the  needs  the  CCEI  addresses  are  genuine  and  correctly 
identified. 

National  customs  authorities  generally  view  the  eligibility  criteria  as  well-aligned  with 
their  equipment  needs  and  priorities.  However,  several  Member  States  identified 
additional  needs  that  are  not,  or  are  only  partly,  covered  by  the  current  criteria.  These 
include  infrastructure  costs,  since  some  equipment  requires  specific  infrastructure  (e.g. 
new lorry lanes) to function effectively. Another need not covered by the current criteria 
is  IT  equipment  that  enables  interoperability,  integration  (connections  within  common 

(13) Available at https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/eu-customs-strategy_en. 

(14)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee,  Taking  the  Customs  Union  to  the  next  level:  A  plan  for  action, 
COM(2020) 581 final, Brussels, 28.9.2020. 

10 

 
 
systems  and  networks),  centralised  control  of  equipment  and  centralised  processing  of 
data and images. In principle, infrastructure and IT equipment and costs are not eligible 
under the current CCEI. 

4.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT 

The evaluation highlights the importance of the CCEI as the only programme helping EU 
customs authorities to invest in modern customs control equipment to  ensure consistent 
and effective customs controls across Member States. Although the instrument is still at 
an  early  stage  of  implementation,  taking  into  account  the  findings  presented  in  the 
previous  section,  the  Commission  considers  the  CCEI  a  valuable  instrument,  with 
notable  initial  achievements  in  strengthening  customs  control  capacities  across  the  EU. 
However, it has also identified issues and areas that could be improved to maximise the 
instrument’s  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  impact  on  the  harmonisation  of  customs 
practices. 

The CCEI has responded to real policy and practical needs and largely provided effective 
and efficient support. The following strengths have been identified. 

•  Relevance and value. The CCEI addresses an important need: tackling disparities 
in  customs  control  equipment  across  Member  States.  Participation  by  all  27 
Member  States  demonstrates  the  CCEI’s  importance  in  closing  gaps  and 
modernising customs control equipment across the EU. 

•  Coherence  with  EU  priorities.  The  CCEI  is  strongly  aligned  with  the  broader 
strategic objectives set out in the Union Customs Code (15) and the EU customs 
strategy  and  customs  action  plan,  particularly  the  need  for  modern,  data-driven, 
interconnected  and  resilient  customs  systems.  Under  the  second  call,  over 
EUR 200  million  in  EU  funding  has  been  allocated  to  customs  authorities  for 
state-of-the-art equipment. This equipment supports the European Ports Alliance 
initiative  and  increases  the  effectiveness  of  customs  risk  management  and 
controls related to illicit drugs and precursors. 

•  Effective design, management and support. The CCEI’s main design features are 
appropriate for its objectives. Its management by DG TAXUD is widely regarded 
as  effective  and  efficient  by  beneficiaries,  who  are  very  satisfied  with  the 
guidance, communication, and administrative support provided. 

•  Emerging results. Projects supported by the CCEI have begun to deliver results. 
Over  900  pieces  of  customs  control  equipment  have  been  acquired  to  date, 
helping  enhance  the  capabilities  of  the  recipient  BCPs  and  laboratories.  While 
precise  impact  cannot  yet  be  measured,  the  instrument  is  already  strengthening 
beneficiaries’ capacity for faster and more accurate controls. Taking into account 
possible implementation delays, the expectation is that the most urgent needs for 

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

down the Union Customs Code. 

11 

 
 
customs  control  equipment  in  the  EU  Member  States  will  be  met  by  the  end  of 
this programming period through the grant agreements concluded under the 2021-
2027 CCEI calls. 

•  Additionality  of  funding.  CCEI  financial  support  has  provided  real  added  value 
for  many  Member  States,  particularly  those  with  budgetary  constraints  or 
extensive borders with non-EU countries. CCEI funding has been instrumental in 
enabling  the  purchase  of  customs  control  equipment  that  would  otherwise  have 
been unattainable. 

instrument, 

As  a  new 
the  CCEI  has  encountered  several  challenges  during 
implementation.  The  following  problems  and  areas  for  improvement  have  been 
identified and require attention. 

• 

Implementation delays due to national procurement challenges. Nearly half of the 
grants  under  the  first  call  required  extensions  despite  the  relatively  long  initial 
duration  of  the  projects  (31  months  on  average).  Most  of  these  were  due  to:  (i) 
problems  with  the  procurement  processes  (including  a  lack  of  expertise, 
insufficient  resources,  appeals  and  litigation);  (ii)  difficulty  integrating  security 
and cybersecurity requirements; and (iii) restricting access to tenders for high-risk 
manufacturers.  Although  action  has  already  been  taken  within  the  CCEI  to 
identify  and  share  best  practices,  national  procurement  remains  a  significant 
bottleneck. 

Overall, the time between Member States submitting CCEI project proposals and 
the actual deployment of the equipment in the field is considerable – typically at 
least two to three years for smaller projects and up to six or seven years for the 
most  complex  ones.  This  situation,  which  is  further  aggravated  by  the  delays 
mentioned above, highlights the need to review the way in which the instrument 
procurement, 
is 
interoperability/interconnectivity, 
the 
equipment. 

attention 
to 
security/cybersecurity  of 

particular 
and 

implemented, 

with 

the 

• 

Insufficient  targeting  and  prioritisation.  The  data-driven  approach  is  intended  to 
ensure  that  CCEI  support  focuses  on  the  most  significant  risks  and  gaps  across 
the EU. However, the first wave of projects primarily reflected national needs and 
priorities, with limited guidance to ensure they addressed the most pressing needs 
of the Customs Union as a whole (16). 

• 

Issues with the data model and reporting. National customs administrations found 
the  data  requirements  difficult  and  burdensome  to  meet.  There  are  significant 
concerns about the reliability and comparability of the data submitted by Member 

(16)  For  the  second  call,  the  Commission  provided  Member  States  with  country-specific  guidance 
recommending  what  equipment  they  should  apply  for  to  strengthen  their  weakest  border  crossing 
points and customs laboratories. These recommendations were based on an analysis of data provided 
by Member States during the first call. 

12 

 
 
States to DG TAXUD as part of their project applications and reports. In addition, 
the design of certain indicators and corresponding targets has been questioned. As 
a  result,  the  data  collected  so  far  has  only  been  partially  usable  for  its  intended 
purposes, namely (i) identifying gaps and needs to better target CCEI funding and 
(ii) supporting the monitoring and evaluation of the CCEI. 

•  Uneven  additionality:  In  some  instances,  CCEI  funding  was  used  to  purchase 
equipment that would have been procured with national resources anyway. Even 
in  these  cases,  the  CCEI  funding  added  value  by  accelerating  purchases  and 
increasing resources. 

•  Limited impact on innovative equipment: Although innovation was encouraged in 
both  funding  calls,  it  has  received  little  attention  in  the  grants  awarded  so  far. 
This  represents  a  missed  opportunity  to  deploy  cutting-edge  equipment  to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of customs controls. 

•  Siloed implementation and limited synergies with other programmes: Despite the 
CCEI  Coordination  Group’s  work,  implementation  of  CCEI  grants  essentially 
remains a national responsibility. Joint procurement by Member States has not yet 
been  pursued.  Beyond  the  customs  programme,  evidence  of  practical  synergies 
with other EU programmes is limited. 

During the remainder of the programming period, DG TAXUD will address all identified 
areas  for  improvement  to  ensure  the  instrument’s  general  and  specific  objectives  are 
achieved. 

The  instrument’s  policy  and  institutional  framework  is  likely  to  evolve  significantly  in 
the  coming  years  once  the  proposed  EU  customs  reform (17)  is  adopted.  As  the 
Commission prepares the next EU multiannual financial framework (2028-2034), which 
seeks  simpler,  more  streamlined  and  harmonised  EU  funding  programmes  with  greater 
flexibility  across  the  budget (18),  it  is  examining  how  best  to  achieve  customs  policy 
objectives  and  whether  and  how  to  continue  supporting  purchases  of  customs  control 
equipment.  

In line with the ongoing customs reform negotiations, the Commission proposes that any 
measures  similar  to  the  CCEI  be  implemented  by  the  future  EU  Customs  Authority. 
These measures could also be open to enlargement and neighbourhood countries, which 
are  currently  not  eligible  under  the  CCEI.  In  addition,  they  could  be  used  to  address 
urgent  crisis  situations  within  the  EU.  The  relevant  funding  programme  for  these 

(17)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee,  Customs  reform:  Taking  the  Customs  Union  to  the  next  level, 
COM(2023) 257 final, Brussels, 17.5.2023. 

(18)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  A  dynamic  EU 
budget  for  the  priorities  of  the  future  –  The  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  2028-2034, 
COM(2025) 570 final, Brussels, 16.7.2025. 

13 

 
 
measures  would  be  the  proposed  single  market  and  customs  programme (19),  which 
includes the current customs programme. 

Because of the delays in implementing projects under the first call, and to accommodate 
emerging policy priorities, the Commission has decided to redeploy  EUR 84.95 million 
of  the  remaining  EUR 448 million  in  CCEI  commitments  until  the  end  of  the  current 
multiannual  financial  framework.  This  redeployment  will  be  executed  in  three 
instalments:  EUR 68.35  million  in  2025,  EUR 8.85  million  in  2026,  and  EUR 7.75 
million  in  2027.  This  exceptional  measure  is  intended  to  support  centralised  digital 
solutions related to customs policy, with EUR 60 million allocated under Heading 1 for 
the preparation of the customs data hub and EUR 24.95 million under Heading 3 for the 
carbon  border  adjustment  mechanism. This  decision  took  into  account  Member  States’ 
administrative capacity to absorb and deploy new CCEI projects  in succession within a 
tight time frame. 

(19)  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  Single 
Market and Customs Programme for the period 2028-2034 and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/444, 
(EU) 2021/690, (EU) 2021/785, (EU) 2021/847 and (EU) 2021/1077, COM(2025) 590 final, Brussels, 
3.9.2025. 

14