Sittings · Document

OPINION (COM(2025)0685 – C100298/2025 – 2025/0348(CNS)) 2026-05-20

On the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards the access of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to value added tax information at Union level

Committee on Budgetary Control · Rapporteur: Gilles Boyer

PA_Legam

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The proposed amendments aim to strengthen the effectiveness, coherence and operational integration of the Union’s framework for combating cross-border VAT fraud, in line with the broader revision of the Anti-Fraud Architecture announced by the Commission.

In this context, this amending proposal should not be understood as a stand-alone or technical adjustment addressing a single deficiency, but rather as a first legislative building block of a more comprehensive and necessary reform of the Union’s anti-fraud framework.

The amendments therefore seek to address a key structural weakness identified in recent years, namely the fragmentation of information flows between customs, tax authorities and Union bodies, which undermines the timely detection, investigation and prosecution of complex fraud schemes, particularly those combining VAT and customs components.

To this end, they introduce a mandatory and structured mechanism for the spontaneous transmission of customs-derived data relevant to VAT fraud to Eurofisc, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the European Anti-Fraud Office, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for the processing of personal data. They also reinforce the scope and quality of the data available, by extending the set of customs data elements that can be cross-checked with VAT information.

The amendments aim to improve coordination at national level between customs and VAT authorities, and to address operational asymmetries linked to the non-participation of certain Member States in the EPPO, while acknowledging that more structural solutions will be required in the context of the broader revision of the Anti-Fraud Architecture.

Beyond data-sharing, the amendments underline the need to move towards a more coherent deterrence framework across the Union, including through further action on the minimum harmonisation of penalties applicable to the most serious VAT and customs-related infringements.

Finally, the introduction of a review mechanism is intended to ensure that the effectiveness and coherence of this first set of measures can be assessed in practice, thereby informing and supporting the next steps of a more comprehensive reform of the Union’s anti-fraud architecture.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Budgetary Control submits the following to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(-1) Combating intra-Community VAT fraud is a urgent problem, directly connected to the fight against organised crime since, as repeatedly stated by the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), the amount of the estimated damage concerning cross-border VAT fraud clearly indicates the systematic involvement of the most dangerous organised criminal groups. It is therefore necessary to tackle VAT fraud with a more efficent common and multidisciplinary approach.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 904/20103 lays down rules on the storage and exchange through electronic means of specific information in the field of value added tax (VAT) that may help to effectuate a correct assessment of VAT, monitor the correct application of VAT, particularly on intra-Community transactions, and combat VAT fraud. According to the EPPO 2025 annual report, VAT fraud is estimated to account for billions of euros in financial damage and constitutes a significant threat to the Union’s financial interests. Strengthening access to VAT information at Union level is therefore essential to effectively detect, investigate and prosecute such offences. However, it does not set out how the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) can obtain that information for the exercise of its tasks pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/19394 , or the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can obtain that information for the exercise of its tasks in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 .

_________________

3 Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1).1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/904/oj).

4 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/1939/oj).

5 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 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/883/oj).

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and the authorities of the Member States competent under applicable national law are to report to the EPPO, without undue delay, any criminal conduct, including cross-border VAT fraud, in respect of which it could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) of that Regulation. Cross-border VAT fraud is by definition involving several Member States, and the flow of information from individual Member States to the EPPO does not fit the purpose of combating VAT fraud at EU level. Therefore, in order for the EPPO to be informed of VAT fraud risks at EU level and to perform its regulatory mandate, it is necessary to set out in more detail the modalities under which the Member States, within the Eurofisc network referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, should report to the EPPO any suspicious indication and eventually precise information on VAT fraud. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 24(9) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, in specific cases, the EPPO may request further relevant information available to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and the authorities of the Member States. Therefore, it is appropriate to set out the rules under which Member States within Eurofisc should communicate to the EPPO information on cross-border VAT fraud following an EPPO request.

(2) Pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and the authorities of the Member States competent under applicable national law are to report to the EPPO, without undue delay, any criminal conduct, including cross-border VAT fraud, in respect of which it could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) of that Regulation, in a timely manner to allow analysis or investigation of such criminal conduct. Cross-border VAT fraud is by definition involving several Member States, and the flow of information from individual Member States to the EPPO does not fit the purpose of combating VAT fraud at EU level. Therefore, in order for the EPPO to be informed of VAT fraud risks at EU level and to perform its regulatory mandate, it is necessary to set out in more detail the modalities under which the Member States, within the Eurofisc network referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, should report to the EPPO results of the Eurofisc processing and analysis on suspected cross-border fraudulent cases and any suspicious indication and eventually precise information necessary to enable the EPPO to assess whether to exercise its competence. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 24(9) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, in specific cases, the EPPO may request further relevant information available to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and the authorities of the Member States. Therefore, it is appropriate to set out the rules under which Member States within Eurofisc should communicate to the EPPO information on cross-border VAT fraud following an EPPO request.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) Pursuant to Article 43(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, European Delegated Prosecutors are to be able to obtain any relevant information stored in national databases, as well as relevant registers of public authorities, under the same conditions as those that apply under national law in similar cases. Pursuant to Article 43(2) of that Regulation, the EPPO is also to be able to obtain any relevant information falling within its competence that is stored in databases and registers of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. Cross-border VAT fraud is by definition involving several Member States, and the access at Member State level to relevant information stored in national database is not sufficient for the EPPO for combating VAT fraud at EU level. Therefore, without prejudice to Article 43 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, in order for the EPPO to have access to information at EU level and to perform its regulatory mandate and fight against fraud at EU level, it is important to define the rules under which the EPPO should obtain relevant VAT information at Union level from databases and registers of competent authorities as referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. For the same reason, it is important to give the EPPO a centralised access, for targeted searches, to all the information concerning an investigation through a single-entry point, even if that information concerns several Member States.

(3) Pursuant to Article 43(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, European Delegated Prosecutors are to be able to obtain any relevant information stored in national databases, as well as relevant registers of public authorities, under the same conditions as those that apply under national law in similar cases. Pursuant to Article 43(2) of that Regulation, the EPPO is also to be able to obtain any relevant information falling within its competence that is stored in databases and registers of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. Cross-border VAT fraud is by definition involving several Member States, and the access at Member State level to relevant information stored in national database is not sufficient for the EPPO for combating VAT fraud at EU level. Therefore, without prejudice to Article 43 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, in order for the EPPO to have access to information at EU level and to perform its regulatory mandate and fight against fraud at EU level, it is important to define the rules under which the EPPO should obtain relevant VAT information at Union level from databases and registers of competent authorities as referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. For the same reason, it is important to give the EPPO a centralised access, for targeted searches, to all the relevant information concerning an investigation through a single-entry point, even if that information concerns several Member States. Such centralised access, granted without prejudice to the access to information provided for by Article 43(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 is to be linked to specific existing cases.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) The Member States not participating in the EPPO are obliged, under the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, to support the activities of the EPPO and to refrain from any action that could jeopardise the attainment of its objectives. Eurofisc is composed of both Member States participating and not participating in the EPPO. Therefore, it is important to have a clear legal basis for the EPPO access to information processed by Eurofisc. Furthermore, the Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, should continue the dialogue with non-participating Member States with a view to encouraging their participation in the EPPO, with the aim of strengthening the capacity for supervision and fraud detection in the internal market.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4a) The European Court of Auditors has repeatedly identified weaknesses in the accessibility and interoperability of VAT-related information systems across Member States and Union bodies as a significant obstacle to effective cross-border VAT fraud investigations, most recently in Special Report 8/2025 on VAT fraud on imports. That report identified, in addition, significant disparities in the levels of administrative sanctions applied by Member States in respect of VAT fraud on imports, which create conditions enabling operators to exploit the jurisdiction with the lowest penalties. The access to VAT data granted by this Regulation to the EPPO and OLAF enhances detection and prosecution capacity but does not constitute a deterrent remedy for penalty divergence; in this context, and in line with the Commission’s commitment to revise the Anti-Fraud Architecture as part of the measures included in the post-2027 MFF, the possibility of further action to address these disparities should be considered, such as a legislative proposal based on the appropriate legal basis, aimed at achieving a minimum level of harmonisation or consistency of administrative penalties applicable to the most serious VAT and related-customs infringements, taking into account the need to effectively protect the Union’s financial interests; any such proposal should be accompanied by a comprehensive impact assessment and should demonstrate compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 TFEU.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4b) The Commission Communication of July 2025 on the revision of the EU Anti-Fraud Architecture identified the fragmentation of information flows between Eurofisc, the EPPO, OLAF, Europol and Eurojust as a systemic structural weakness undermining the effectiveness of the Union’s response to cross-border VAT fraud. This amending Regulation constitutes the legislative implementation of the data-sharing pillar of a revised Anti-Fraud Architecture and shall be read in conjunction with the further measures, as announced in that Communication, including the strengthening of Eurofisc’s operational capacity, the harmonisation of the conditions and liability rules applicable to fiscal representatives appointed by non-EU taxable persons under the IOSS and other import VAT schemes, and the extension of the data governance framework of CESOP to ensure coherence with the customs data access established by this Regulation.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4c) The information stored by customs authorities in relation to import procedures under which VAT obligations are deferred or exempt is intrinsically VAT-related information for the purposes of Article 113 TFEU. Extending the scope of Article 17(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 to cover all import procedures involving VAT exemptions or deferrals, including under the Import One-Stop Shop scheme established by Directive 2006/112/EC, and adding the declared customs value and country of origin as mandatory data elements, is necessary to enable competent authorities, including the EPPO and OLAF, to cross-reference import declarations with VAT declarations and detect discrepancies indicative of fraud. Such extension is without prejudice to the substantive customs rules governing those import procedures, which remain subject to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4d) In order to ensure that the enforcement capacity created by this regulation extends effectively to all Member States, to avoid persistent asymmetries within the single market and in the Union’s anti-fraud landscape, and as part of the Commission’s commitment to revise the Anti-Fraud Architecture, the present proposal requires Member States not participating in the EPPO - established by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939- to designate a competent national authority responsible for fulfilling equivalent functions for the purpose of cross-border VAT fraud cooperation with Eurofisc and OLAF; those Member States should notify the Commission of the designated authority within six months of the entry into force of this Regulation and should report annually to the Commission on the use made of the information received, including the number of investigations opened and their outcomes.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5a) Any centralised access to VAT-related information at Union level should be strictly limited to what is necessary and proportionate for the exercise of the mandate of the EPPO and OLAF respectively, in accordance with the principle of data minimisation and purpose limitation under Union data protection law. The implementing acts to be adopted by the Commission pursuant to Articles 49a and 49b of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, which will determine the concrete conditions for access including the list of data categories for targeted searches and the access control arrangements, are significant for the protection of fundamental rights and should be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The European Parliament should be informed without delay of the draft implementing acts and of any subsequent modifications thereto.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Pursuant to Article 3(11) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, OLAF may have access to any relevant information and data, irrespective of the medium on which it is stored, held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, connected with the matter under investigation, where necessary in order to establish whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, prior to the opening of an investigation, OLAF is to have the right of access to any relevant information in databases held by the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies when this is indispensable in order to assess the basis in fact of allegations while respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality. That right of access is to be exercised under the conditions set out in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 . Cross-border VAT fraud is by definition involving several Member States, but Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 does not give OLAF access to information exchanged or stored in the EU IT systems, thus jeopardising OLAF capacity for combating VAT fraud at EU level. Therefore, in order for OLAF to access VAT information at EU level and to perform its regulatory mandate and fight against fraud at EU level it is important to define the rules under which OLAF should access relevant VAT information at Union level from databases and registers of competent authorities referred to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. For the same reason, it is important to give OLAF a centralised access, for targeted searches, to all the information concerning an investigation through a single-entry point, even if that information concerns several Member States.

(7) Pursuant to Article 3(11) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, OLAF may have access to any relevant information and data, irrespective of the medium on which it is stored, held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, connected with the matter under investigation, where necessary in order to establish whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, prior to the opening of an investigation, OLAF is to have the right of access to any relevant information in databases held by the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies when this is indispensable in order to assess the basis in fact of allegations while respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality. That right of access is to be exercised under the conditions set out in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 . Cross-border VAT fraud is by definition involving several Member States, but Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 does not give OLAF access to information exchanged or stored in the EU IT systems, thus jeopardising OLAF capacity for combating VAT fraud at EU level. Therefore, in order for OLAF to access VAT information at EU level and to exercise its mandate of countering fraud effectively it is important to define the rules under which OLAF should access relevant VAT information at Union level from databases and registers of competent authorities referred to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. For the same reason, it is important to give OLAF a centralised access, for targeted searches, to all the information concerning an investigation through a single-entry point, even if that information concerns several Member States. Such access should be granted in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and should be strictly limited to what is necessary for investigations concerning the protection of the Union's financial interests.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) While Article 13 of this Regulation already requires the competent VAT authorities of the Member States to exchange spontaneously information likely to be useful for combating VAT fraud, that obligation applies to VAT authorities and does not extend to the competent customs authorities of the Member States, which are not VAT competent authorities within the meaning of this Regulation. Furthermore, neither the existing Article 13 mechanism nor the Eurofisc network provides for the direct spontaneous communication of customs-derived fraud intelligence to the EPPO and OLAF. VAT fraud schemes linked to import procedures, are characterised by systematic discrepancies between the information declared to customs authorities at the point of importation and the VAT declarations subsequently filed in the Member State of destination. It is acknowledged that customs authorities are often the first to detect such anomalies through their risk management analysis. In order to close this gap and to ensure that upstream customs intelligence identified by customs authorities is transmitted without delay to the bodies responsible for investigating and prosecuting cross-border VAT fraud, and given that the effective exercise of the access rights provided for in Articles 49a and 49b of this Regulation depends on EPPO and OLAF being informed of the existence of potential fraud cases, it is necessary to require competent customs authorities to transmit spontaneously this information . Such transmission should be made to Eurofisc, the EPPO and OLAF whenever the data referred to in Article 17(1)(f) indicate patterns consistent with VAT fraud. This measure is crucial for the effective protection of the Union’s financial interests and is consistent with the Commission’s commitment to revise the overall Anti-Fraud Architecture as essential component of the post-2027 MFF package. Strengthening coordination at the national level between customs and VAT authorities notably through National Anti-Fraud Strategies has been repeatedly called for in the last years by the European Parliament in its resolutions on the Protection of the Union’s Financial Interests. Such spontaneous transmission mechanism operates exclusively within the VAT administrative cooperation framework of this Regulation and is without prejudice to the substantive customs procedures established under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and related data governance rules.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8b) The effectiveness of the spontaneous transmission mechanism provided for in Article 13a of this Regulation depends on adequate coordination at national level between the competent customs authorities and the competent VAT authorities of the Member States. Those bodies are in many Member States separate administrative entities with distinct supervisory chains and information systems. Member States should therefore ensure that their competent customs and VAT authorities establish regular coordination mechanisms, including through the Eurofisc framework, to facilitate the identification of discrepancies indicative of VAT fraud and the timely transmission of relevant customs data to Eurofisc, the EPPO and OLAF. Such coordination is a procedural and organisational measure and does not entail additional information technology obligations for national authorities.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8c) Not all Member States participate in the EPPO established by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939; in Member States that do not participate in the EPPO, the spontaneous transmission of customs data pursuant to Article 13a of this Regulation cannot be directed to the EPPO. In those Member States, the competent customs authorities shall, for the purposes of that Article, transmit the relevant information to Eurofisc working field coordinators and to OLAF within its mandate; the structural remedy to overcome this gap is addressed in Recital (4c) which provides for the designation of equivalent competent authorities in non-participating Member States.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10a) Individuals who report, in good faith, suspected cross-border VAT fraud falling within the scope of this Regulation to EPPO or OLAF should benefit from the protection afforded by the Whistleblower Directive. The EPPO and OLAF should ensure that accessible and secure reporting channels are available to individuals for this purpose.

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) As the systems, infrastructure and technical means facilitating the exchange of VAT information at Union level need to be adapted to allow secure access of EPPO and OLAF, it is necessary to defer the application of the relevant provisions in order to allow the Member States, the Commission, the EPPO and OLAF to carry out the necessary adaptations. This should consider the dates when the central VIES will become operational and the legacy VIES will be phased out. The EPPO and OLAF should be responsible for the costs of establishing and maintaining the relevant infrastructure and technical means for secure access to VAT information.

(11) As the systems, infrastructure and technical means facilitating the exchange of VAT information at Union level need to be adapted in order to enable the EPPO and OLAF to access the relevant information, it is necessary to clarify who bears the costs of adapting those systems. In order to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation, and to avoid any prejudice to other operational needs, the costs of adapting the existing infrastructure and technical means, including access control mechanisms, to enable secure and targeted access for the EPPO and OLAF, should be allocated in a transparent and proportionate manner, taking into account the existing Union funding mechanisms and without disproportionate financial impact on the EPPO or OLAF budgets. Any cost allocation shall be without prejudice to the principle that the Union budget should bear costs that primarily benefit the Union as a whole in the fight against cross-border VAT fraud. Such financial resources shall be provided in a adequate manner that safeguards the operational independence of EPPO and OLAF and does not make their access to VAT information contingent on bilateral arrangements with Member States.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11a) The application should take into consideration the needs of the Member States, the Commission, the EPPO and OLAF to carry out the necessary adaptations. This should consider the dates when the central VIES will become operational and the legacy VIES will be phased out.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Article 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(-1) After Article 2, the following Article 2a is inserted:

‘Article 2a

Follow-up proposal on minimum harmonisation of penalties

By 18 months after the entry into force of this Regulation and consistently with the objectives of the revision of the Anti-Fraud Architecture as complementary set of measures included in the post-2027 MFF package and for enhancing the protection of the Union’s financial interests, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a legislative proposal for the minimum harmonisation of administrative penalties applicable to the most serious infringements in the field of value added tax and related customs duties, in particular as regards Missing Trader Intra-Community fraud and the abuse of simplified import procedures under Customs Procedure 42 and the Import One-Stop Shop. The proposal shall be without without prejudice to the substantive customs procedures established under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.’

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Article 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(-1a) The following Article 13 a is added:

‘Article 13a

Spontaneous transmission of customs data indicating VAT fraud

1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall spontaneously communicate to the Eurofisc working field coordinators referred to in Article 36(1), and, within their respective mandates, to the EPPO and OLAF, any information stored pursuant to Article 17(1)(f) that indicates patterns consistent with VAT fraud, in particular:

(a) systematic discrepancies between the declared destination Member State in an import declaration and the Member State in which VAT was subsequently declared or paid;

(b) systematic discrepancies between the consignee identified in an import declaration under the IOSS scheme and the taxable person that declared the corresponding VAT in the Member State of destination;

(c) declared customs values that diverge significantly from market value where that divergence is consistent with undervaluation for VAT purposes; and

(d) any other indicator specified by the Commission’s implementing act as a customs-based VAT fraud risk indicator.

2. The communication referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made without delay and shall include, at minimum, the data elements listed in Article 17(1)(f) for the importation or series of importations concerned.

3. Member States shall ensure that their competent customs authorities and competent VAT authorities coordinate on the identification of discrepancies referred to in paragraph 1, including through the Eurofisc framework.

4. The Commission shall, by implementing acts adopted in accordance with Article 58(2), specify the technical formats and procedures for the communications referred to in this Article.

5. In Member States not participating in the EPPO pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the communications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be directed to Eurofisc working field coordinators and to OLAF within its mandate, and not to the EPPO.’

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 b (new)

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point f

Present text

Amendment

(-1b) In Article 17(1), point (f) is replaced by the following:

(f) information which it collects pursuant to points (a) and (b) of Article 143(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, as well as the country of origin, the country of destination, the commodity code, the currency, the total amount, the exchange rate, the item price and the net weight;

‘(f) the information collated by customs authorities of the Member States relating to all importations of goods in respect of which a VAT exemption, deferral or special accounting scheme is claimed at importation, including under Article 143(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC (Customs Procedure 42/63), under the Import One-Stop Shop scheme established by Articles 369l to 369x of that Directive, and any other import procedure under which the obligation to account for VAT is deferred to the Member State of destination, limited to the following data elements:

(i) the import declaration identifier;

(ii) the VAT identification number of the importer or, where applicable, the IOSS identification number declared to customs;

(iii) the VAT identification number of the customer in the Member State of destination, where available;

(iv) the declared customs value of the goods;

(v) the declared country of origin of the goods; and

(vi) the customs procedure code, including in cases where the goods are subject to a simplified import procedure under Article 166 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013;’

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Article 36 – paragraph 2a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. Eurofisc working field coordinators shall communicate to the EPPO, in accordance with Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939* as regards the Member States participating in the EPPO and in accordance with this Article as regards the other Member States, without undue delay any indication of suspected cross-border VAT fraud based on information communicated or collected pursuant to this Regulation in respect of which the EPPO could exercise its competence.

2a. Eurofisc working field coordinators shall communicate to the EPPO, in accordance with Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939* as regards the Member States participating in the EPPO and in accordance with this Article as regards the other Member States, without undue delay, any indication of suspected cross-border VAT fraud based on information communicated or collected pursuant to this Regulation in respect of which the EPPO should exercise its competence.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Article 36 – paragraph 2b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2b. In the course of an investigation or a prosecution by, and at the request of the EPPO, in accordance with Article 24(9) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 as regards the Member States participating in the EPPO and in accordance with this Article as regards the other Member States, Eurofisc working field coordinators shall communicate to the EPPO, any information from Member States on cross-border VAT fraud communicated or collected under this Regulation.

2b. In the course of an investigation or prosecution by the EPPO and at its request, in accordance with Article 24(9) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 for Member States participating in the EPPO and in accordance with this Article for other Member States, the Eurofisc working field coordinators shall transmit to the EPPO all the related information received from Member States on cross-border VAT fraud which has been communicated or collected under this Regulation. The EPPO shall process the information received without delay.

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Article 59 – paragraph 1

Present text

Amendment

(4a) In Article 59 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

1. By 1 November 2013 and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation

‘1. The Commission shall, every three years starting from [entry into force of this Regulation], and on the basis of reports provided by EPPO, OLAF and Eurofisc, submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Court of Auditors on the application of this Regulation. The report shall assess in particular:

(a) the operational effectiveness of direct EPPO and OLAF access to VIES, the SURVEILLANCE system and CESOP, including average time-to-access, number of investigations materially advanced, and outcomes of prosecutions or administrative actions;

(b) the coherence of the access and transmission framework with other instruments adopted as part of the revised Anti-Fraud Architecture, including measures relating to Eurofisc capacity, CESOP governance, fiscal representative harmonisation and penalty convergence;

(c) the functioning and timeliness of the spontaneous transmission mechanism under Article 13a, including national coordination arrangements between customs and VAT authorities;

(d) the enforcement outcomes achieved in Member States not participating in the EPPO and whether equivalent mechanisms have been established pursuant to the Anti-Fraud Architecture revision;

(e) the estimated amounts of Union VAT and related customs revenue recovered or preserved as a direct result of the data exchanges and access rights established by this Regulation, and;

(f) the contribution of this Regulation to the convergence of enforcement outcomes across Member States, including as regards the feasibility of developing, at Union level, a methodology for measuring uncollected customs revenue comparable in purpose to the VAT gap indicator published annually by the Commission.

Where the report identifies persistent deficiencies in the application of this Regulation, the Commission shall, within six months of the report’s publication, submit proposals for remedial action to the European Parliament and the Council.’

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 a – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) From 1 September 2026, the information referred to in Article 17(1), points (e) and (f), of this Regulation;

(b) From 1 September 2026, the information referred to in Article 17(1), points (e) and (f), of this Regulation, including any additional data elements stored pursuant to Article 17(1)(f) as amended;

Amendment 25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 a – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The centralised access referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted under all of the following conditions:

2. The centralised access referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted only upon prior verification that all of the following conditions are cumulatively satisfied:

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 a – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. The centralised access referred to in paragraph 1 shall not allow generalised, exploratory or untargeted searches. Each access operation shal be limited to information necessary for the purpose of a specific investigation and shall be technically attributed to a concrete investigation case file and to the individual user initiating the access.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 a – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3a. EPPO shall publish, on an annual basis, statistics on the use of the centralised access granted pursuant to this Regulation, including the number of inquiries made, the number of investigations in which such access contributed to advancing the case, and the number of instances in which data accessed was found to be irrelevant and deleted. Those statistics shall be included in the annual reports of the EPPO and presented to the European Parliament. The parallel obligation for OLAF is established in Article 49b. In compliance with the regulations governing the investigations, such data shall be properly redacted to ensure confidentiality and proper conduct of the investigations.

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 a – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the practical arrangements, including access control mechanism and users profile, to identify the users referred to in paragraph 2, point (a) and (c), of this Article;

(b) the practical arrangements, including access control mechanism that lower the risk of unauthorised access, untargeted searches or abuse, and users profile, to identify the users referred to in paragraph 2, point (a) and (c), of this Article as well as the technical means for ensuring the attribution of each access operation to a concrete investigation file;

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 a – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. Where the EPPO receives personal data pursuant to a spontaneous transmission by customs authorities under Article 13a, the following rules shall apply:

(a) the data may be processed solely for the purpose of assessing whether to open, or for the conduct of, an investigation within the EPPO’s mandate under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939;

(b) where the EPPO determines within 90 days of receipt that the data is not relevant to any investigation within its mandate, it shall delete the data and notify the transmitting authority;

(c) where an investigation is opened on the basis of the transmitted data, the transmitting customs authority shall be notified and may communicate its assessment to the EPPO and to the EDPS if it considers that processing exceeds what is necessary;

(d) the applicable data protection rules shall be those of Chapter VIII of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939.’

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 b – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) From 1 September 2026, the information referred to in Article 17(1), points (e) and (f), of this Regulation;

(b) From 1 September 2026, the information referred to in Article 17(1), points (e) and (f), of this Regulation, including any additional data elements stored pursuant to Article 17(1)(f) as amended;

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 b – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The centralised access referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted under all of the following conditions:

2. The centralised access referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted only upon prior verification that all of the following conditions are cumulatively satisfied:

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 b – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 b – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3a. OLAF shall publish, on an annual basis, statistics on the use of the centralised access granted pursuant to this Regulation, including the number of inquiries made, the number of investigations in which such access contributed to advancing the case, and the number of instances in which data accessed was found to be irrelevant and deleted. Those statistics shall be included in the annual reports of the OLAF and presented to the European Parliament. The parallel obligation for EPPO is established in Article 49a. In compliance with the regulations governing the investigations, such data shall be properly redacted to ensure confidentiality and proper conduct of the investigations.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 b – paragraph 4 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the practical arrangements, including access control mechanism and users profile, to identify the users referred to in paragraph 2, point (a) and (c), of this Article;

(b) the practical arrangements, including access control mechanism that lower the risk of unauthorised access, untargeted searches or abuse, and users profile, to identify the users referred to in paragraph 2, point (a) and (c), of this Article, as well as the technical means for ensuring the attribution of each access operation to a concrete investigation file;

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010

Chapter XIII – Article 49 b – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. Where OLAF receives personal data pursuant to a spontaneous transmission by customs authorities under Article 13a, the following rules shall apply:

(a) the data may be processed solely for the purpose of assessing whether to open, or for the conduct of, an investigation within OLAF’s mandate under Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013;

(b) where OLAF determines within 60 days of receipt that the data is not relevant to any investigation within its mandate, it shall delete the data and notify the transmitting authority;

(c) where an investigation is opened on the basis of the transmitted data, the transmitting customs authority shall be notified and may communicate its assessment to OLAF and to the EDPS if it considers that processing exceeds what is necessary;

(d) the applicable data protection rules shall be those of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; OLAF shall apply the internal authorisation requirements under Article 5 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 to access granted pursuant to this paragraph.’

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

The rapporteur for opinion declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his opinion input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Title

Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards the access of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to value added tax information at Union level

References

COM(2025)0685 – C10-0298/2025 – 2025/0348(CNS)

Committee(s) responsible

Date announced in plenary

ECON

15.12.2025

Opinion by

Date announced in plenary

CONT

15.12.2025

Rapporteur for opinion

Date appointed

Gilles Boyer

20.1.2026

Discussed in committee

15.4.2026

Date adopted

5.5.2026

Result of final vote

–:

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Key to symbols: