EU framework for monitoring and controlling drug precursors
▣ COM(2025) 747 final
LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING WITH INTEGRATEDPROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Proposal for a Regulation on Monitoringand Controlling Drug Precursors
COM(2025) 747 final
Walter van der Meiren
Trade & Customs Policy Advisory
June 2026
Document scope
This document consolidates policy analysis and proposed legislative amendments on COM(2025) 747 from a trade and customs perspective. It integrates the analysis of the new Union Customs Code (nUCC) infringements and penalties framework (EP/Council agreement, March 2026) and the operational perspective of the express delivery sector on precursor controls.
Structure: Part I — Policy Analysis and Advisory (five MEP questions); Part II — 13 proposed legislative amendments.
Legislative timing: No draft EP report published as of June 2026. Pre-summer recess engagement with rapporteurs’ offices is time-critical.
PART I — POLICY ANALYSIS AND ADVISORY
Background: COM(2025) 747 and theExpress Sector
On 4 December2025, the Commission proposed a new regulation to monitor and control drugprecursors, consolidating the two existing regulations (EC 273/2004 and EC111/2005) into a unified framework. A key innovation is the introduction ofCategory 3 for designer precursors with no known legitimate use except researchand innovation at the time of scheduling.
The expressdelivery sector occupies a structurally distinct position in the drug precursorlandscape. Express and courier services are a preferred vector for the shipmentof small quantities of drug precursors and new psychoactive substances —consignments routinely mislabelled as common goods to avoid interception. Thesector is simultaneously a victim of criminal exploitation, a key enforcementpartner (operating sophisticated pre-screening, risk profiling andintelligence-sharing systems), and a potential target for regulatoryobligations. The proposal as drafted does not address any of these threedimensions.
A concrete modelfor what works already: global express carriers, in cooperation with Belgian,Dutch, Luxembourg and German authorities, developed the Benelux barrier model —mapping the steps criminals must take to transport synthetic drugs and precursorsvia the express channel, identifying red-flag indicators and proposing upstreamprevention measures. This model of structured public-private partnership shouldbe the template for the regulation’s approach to the sector.
Q1 — UCC Interlinks: What in thenUCC Should be Reflected Here?
This is the mostsubstantive question on the file from a customs architecture perspective. ThenUCC — agreed by the European Parliament and Council in March 2026 — introducesseveral innovations that COM(2025) 747 should directly reflect. Five structuralpillars are identified below, each corresponding to specific proposedamendments in Part II.
Pillar 1 — Harmonised list of infringements (Amendment 7)
The nUCC (Art.252) establishes for the first time a Union-wide minimum list of customsinfringements. COM(2025) 747 currently delegates the definition of sanctionableacts entirely to Member States, producing 27 divergent national regimes — whichthe Commission’s own impact assessment identifies as a primary driver of theenforcement problem the regulation seeks to address.
The proposedharmonised infringements list distinguishes between operator/traderinfringements (failure to notify, false declaration, unlicensed trading,failure to report suspicious transactions) and carrier infringements(systematic, documented failure to apply agreed risk-based screening after aprior warning). This distinction is legally material: it means carriers cannotbe treated as primary regulated parties under the same liability standard aslicensed operators.
Pillar 2 — Mandatory minimum sanctions (Amendment 8)
The nUCC (Art.254) mandates minimum non-criminal sanctions for each infringement category —pecuniary charges, licence revocation/suspension, or confiscation — andrequires that sanctions be recorded in the EU Customs Data Hub. Equivalentmandatory minimums for drug precursor violations should be calibrated to thenature of the actor: 100%–200% of goods value for intentional operatorviolations; 30%–100% for non-intentional; and a graduated warning/finestructure for carriers. Good-faith carriers with a documented screeningprogramme face no sanction — the safe harbour applies.
Pillar 3 — Mitigating and aggravating circumstances (Amendment 8,continued)
The nUCC (Arts.247–248) requires structured consideration of mitigating and aggravatingcircumstances before any sanction is imposed. Mitigating circumstances shouldinclude: self-reporting before investigation; operation of a documentedscreening programme; false information from the shipper; full cooperation withthe investigation; and clerical or minor error. Aggravating circumstancesshould include: intentionality; repeat infringement within five years;facilitation of high-harm substances; and systematic exploitation of quantitythresholds through cumulative sub-threshold consignments.
Pillar 4 — Force majeure and error exemptions (Amendment 7, paragraph 3)
The nUCC (Art.246(4)–(5)) exempts clerical and minor errors and force majeure events fromsanction. For express carriers, documented IT system failures beyond thecarrier’s control are the most operationally relevant scenario. This exemptionshould be explicitly extended to drug precursor enforcement: a delayed ICS2filing due to a verified system outage should not constitute a sanctionableinfringement.
Pillar 5 — EUCA coordination and limitation periods (Amendment 12)
The nUCCestablishes limitation periods of five to ten years for customs infringementproceedings. Ten years is appropriate for serious intentional drug precursorinfringements (consistent with investigation timelines in diversion cases);five years for administrative or minor violations. More critically, the nUCCestablishes the European Union Customs Authority (EUCA) as the EU-levelcoordination body for customs enforcement from 2026. COM(2025) 747 does notmention EUCA. A dedicated EUCA coordination role should be assigned forcross-border precursor cases: coordinating multi-Member State enforcementactions, monitoring sanction data via the EUCDH, issuing interpretive guidanceto reduce enforcement divergence, and acting as the Union focal point for WCOand INCB cooperation.
EU Customs Data Hub — sanctions data (Amendment 10)
Under the nUCC,sanction decisions are recorded in the EU Customs Data Hub, enabling real-timecross-border access by all national authorities. Drug precursor sanctionsshould be subject to the same requirement — creating a Union-wide record ofenforcement decisions for the first time. This feeds directly into ICS2 riskprofiling: an operator or carrier sanctioned in one Member State flagsautomatically in risk analysis for future shipments across the EU.
AEO and Trust & Check Trader provisions
The nUCC’s Trustand Check Trader framework allows highly compliant operators to self-assess andself-release goods, with controls applied retrospectively. An equivalenttrusted operator concept for the drug precursors regulation would allowcompliant licensed operators with strong track records to benefit fromstreamlined notification requirements. The EP should invite the Commission todevelop a trusted operator tier in delegated acts, building on existing AEOstatus criteria.
Q2 — Digitalisation: Is Six YearsToo Long?
Yes. TheCommission’s timeline is too long. The dependency on Single Window integrationis a structural limitation rather than a technical necessity. Three practicalalternatives are available (Amendment 11):
• Authorise Member States with existing functionalnational IT systems to deploy digital precursor notification modulesimmediately, with interoperability standards set by Commission implementingacts within 18 months.
• Use the EU Customs Data Hub as an interim centralrepository for precursor cargo data submitted by express carriers under ICS2 —eliminating the need to wait for Single Window integration for the expresschannel.
• Engage ICS2 directly as the primary risk profilingarchitecture for the express channel, building on the substantial technical andfinancial investment already made by carriers and customs authorities.
The politicalargument: the nUCC mandates that the customs data hub become mandatory for alleconomic operators from 2033. If drug precursor data flows through the hub by2027–2028 via ICS2, the integration problem resolves itself. The Commission’sproposed separate system risks creating yet another data silo — the opposite ofwhat the customs reform was designed to achieve.
Q3 — WCO Work on Drug Precursors:What Role Can It Play?
The WCO Drugs andPrecursors Programme is active. Its Synthetic Drug Detection Project —Precursors Component is currently developing risk indicators and profilingtechniques specifically for customs use. These outputs should be incorporatedinto the regulation’s implementing acts rather than left to informal channels(Amendment 13). The WCO CEN (Customs Enforcement Network) database enablesreal-time intelligence sharing between customs administrations on precursordiversion incidents and should be explicitly referenced in the regulation as atool for Member State competent authority cooperation.
The INCB PENOnline system — the pre-export notification mechanism under the 1988 ViennaConvention — has demonstrated its operational value: in March 2025, PEN Onlinewas used to prevent the diversion of three tonnes of a fentanyl precursorbefore the shipment reached the EU. The regulation should strengthen theinterface between PEN Online and the EU electronic system, and EUCA should bedesignated as the EU focal point for INCB cooperation (Amendment 12).
Q4 — Lessons from Third Countriesand Cooperation at Origin
The US DEA/CBP pre-export notification model
The US DrugEnforcement Administration and Customs and Border Protection operate a jointpre-export notification system with key chemical-exporting countries. Shipmentsfrom DEA-certified exporters benefit from expedited treatment at US entry. TheEU could negotiate equivalent arrangements as part of its AEO mutualrecognition agreements — creating a trusted exporter lane for precursorchemicals. EUCA should take the lead on such negotiations (Amendment 12,paragraph 2).
Source-country controls before EU arrival
The mosteffective enforcement point is before shipment, not at the EU border. TheCommission has indicated it will resume engagement with the EU-China JointFollow-up Group on Precursors. The EP could call for this to be placed on aformal treaty footing and extended to India, which is a primary source of MDMAand fentanyl precursors entering Europe. Intelligence on diversion patternsgathered through the express channel could be shared with EUCA andthird-country partners via a structured intelligence mechanism.
INCB PICS platform
The INCB PICS(Precursors Incident Communication System) platform boosts real-timecommunication between national authorities on incidents concerning illicitlaboratories and precursors. This should be referenced alongside PEN Online asa complementary real-time tool available to EU competent authorities, with EUCAacting as the coordinating interface.
Q5 — What is Missing or Should beAmended?
Carriers absent from the regulatory framework (Amendments 1–2, 6, 9)
The proposalfocuses exclusively on licensed operators. Express carriers are the primaryphysical vector for illicit precursor movements in small quantities, yet theyare entirely absent from the operative provisions. The gap is dangerous in bothdirections: it may produce ad hoc national measures imposing unworkableobligations on carriers, or leave enforcement entirely to post-arrival customscontrols without equipping carriers with legal tools or safe harbourprotections. The proposed Article X on carrier liability (Amendment 9) resolvesthe central legal uncertainty.
Online marketplaces — a missing enforcement layer (Amendment 5)
Scheduled anddesigner precursors are sold openly on online marketplaces by sellers withoutlicences. Without a marketplace licensing verification obligation, addressingthe carrier is futile — the illicit shipment is already in the network beforeany screening can operate. A Digital Services Act-consistent marketplaceverification obligation, with platform liability for failure to comply, shouldbe inserted.
ICS2 — no new data silo (Amendment 3)
Express operatorshave undergone a major transformation to comply with ICS2 pre-loading advancecargo information requirements. A parallel disconnected reporting system forprecursor shipments would impose significant additional costs withoutenforcement benefit. Integration with ICS2 and the customs data hub must bemandated from the outset.
Designer precursors and R&D exemption
The introductionof Category 3 for designer precursors with no known legitimate use at the timeof scheduling risks inadvertently blocking legitimate pharmaceutical R&D.An explicit research licence or notification mechanism should be added to theproposal, allowing innovation to proceed subject to oversight rather thanblanket restriction.
SME burden
The proposal’slicensing and registration requirements may be disproportionate for smallchemical distributors. The EP should request a formal SME test andproportionate exemptions for very low quantities in delegated acts.
PART II — PROPOSED LEGISLATIVEAMENDMENTS
The following 13amendments translate the policy analysis in Part I into concrete proposedchanges to the legislative text of COM(2025) 747, in standard EU legislativeformat. Commission proposal text appears in red italic where an existingprovision is being amended; the amendment appears in green. Where no existingtext is referenced, the amendment is a new insertion.
#
Part
Type
Provision
Subject
1
I
New Recital
Recital [new]
Role of express carriers as enforcement partners
2
I
New Article
Art. [new] — carrier role
Carrier obligations; safe harbour; risk-based screening
3
I
Amend Article
Art. [electronic system]
ICS2 interoperability; no duplicative carrier obligations
4
I
New Article
Art. [risk profiling]
Ant trafficking: cumulative threshold monitoring
5
I
Amend Article
Art. [operator obligations]
Online marketplace licensing verification duty
6
I
New Article
Art. [carrier safe harbour]
Safe harbour modelled on Reg. (EU) 2019/1148 Art. 9
7
II
New Article
Art. [infringements]
Harmonised infringements list (nUCC Art. 252 analogue)
8
II
Amend Article
Art. [penalties]
Mandatory minimum sanctions; mitigating/aggravating criteria
9
II
New Article
Art. [carrier liability]
Proposed Art. X: carrier liability and safe harbour
10
II
Amend / new
Art. [penalties] / EUCDH
Sanctions data in EU Customs Data Hub
11
III
Amend Article
Art. [electronic system]
Accelerated digitalisation; data hub as interim bridge
12
III
New Article
Art. [EUCA]
EUCA coordination role for cross-border enforcement
13
III
Amend Article
Art. [implementing acts]
WCO risk indicators in implementing acts
Part I —Carrier Role, Data Architecture and Marketplace Obligations
Amendment 1 — NewRecital: Recital [new] — Role of express carriers
Amendment type
New Recital
Provision
Recital [new] — Role of express carriers
Policy ref.
Q1 / Q5
Justification
The proposal makes no reference to the role or legal position of express carriers. A new recital is needed to establish the interpretative context that carriers are enforcement partners, not licensed operators.
Amendment
Whereas express carriers and other transport intermediaries play a critical role as enforcement partners in the detection and reporting of suspected drug precursor diversion; whereas such carriers operate high-volume, time-critical logistics networks and should not be subject to the licensing, registration or notification obligations applicable to operators trading in scheduled substances; whereas the obligations imposed on carriers should be proportionate, risk-based and supported by adequate safe harbour protections and access to official risk indicator guidance.
Amendment 2 — NewArticle: Article [new] — Role and obligations of express carriers
Amendment type
New Article
Provision
Article [new] — Role and obligations of express carriers
Policy ref.
Q1 / Q5
Justification
No operative provision defines the role, responsibilities or legal position of express carriers. This amendment inserts a dedicated article establishing the distinction between operators and carriers, defining carrier obligations proportionately, and providing a legal basis for public-private partnership frameworks.
Amendment
- Express carriers and other transport intermediaries transporting shipments that may contain scheduled or designer precursors shall not be treated as ‘operators’ within the meaning of this Regulation and shall not be subject to licensing, registration or notification obligations applicable to operators. 2. Express carriers shall apply documented, risk-based screening protocols, developed in cooperation with competent authorities and informed by risk indicators issued by EUDA, to identify shipments that may contain illicit precursors. 3. Express carriers that identify a shipment suspected of containing an illicit precursor shall report that suspicion to the competent authority of the Member State of entry or transit without delay. 4. Competent authorities shall provide express carriers with access to risk indicators, typologies and intelligence necessary to implement effective risk-based screening, including through structured public-private partnership frameworks.
This articleprovides the legal basis for the Benelux barrier model-type partnership to beformalised and replicated across the EU.
Amendment 3 — Amend Article: Article [electronic system] — ICS2 interoperability
Amendment type
Amend Article
Provision
Article [electronic system] — ICS2 interoperability
Policy ref.
Q1 / Q2
Justification
Express operators already subject to ICS2 should not face a parallel drug precursor notification obligation. The electronic system must be mandated to be interoperable with ICS2 and the EU Customs Data Hub from the outset.
Commission proposal text
The Commission shall establish an electronic system for the submission of notifications, authorisations and registration information under this Regulation, to be linked to the Single Window Environment for Customs.
Amendment
The Commission shall establish an electronic system for the submission of notifications, authorisations and registration information under this Regulation. The system shall be designed to be fully interoperable with the Import Control System 2 (ICS2) and the EU Customs Data Hub established under [nUCC reference], such that advance cargo information submitted by express carriers under ICS2 may be used simultaneously for drug precursor risk profiling without requiring separate submission. Member States shall not impose additional data submission obligations on express carriers that are already compliant with ICS2 pre-loading advance cargo information requirements in respect of the same consignments.
Amendment 4 — NewArticle: Article [risk profiling] — Cumulative threshold monitoring
Amendment type
New Article
Provision
Article [risk profiling] — Cumulative threshold monitoring
Policy ref.
Q5
Justification
The proposal’s threshold-based exemptions may be systematically exploited through repeated sub-threshold consignments. A new provision is needed to require monitoring of cumulative patterns and empower customs to apply enhanced risk profiling to the express channel.
Amendment
- Competent authorities shall, in cooperation with customs authorities, monitor cumulative patterns of sub-threshold precursor shipments entering the EU via the express channel, with a view to identifying systematic exploitation of quantity thresholds. 2. Customs authorities shall be empowered to apply enhanced risk profiling to express channel shipments of scheduled and designer precursors, using the risk analysis capabilities of ICS2 and the EU Customs Data Hub. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, specify criteria and indicators for the identification of cumulative sub-threshold shipment patterns and the application of enhanced controls, in consultation with EUDA, Europol and the express delivery sector.
Amendment 5 — Amend Article: Article [operator obligations] — Online marketplace duty
Amendment type
Amend Article
Provision
Article [operator obligations] — Online marketplace duty
Policy ref.
Q5
Justification
Online marketplaces are a primary channel for the unlicensed sale of scheduled and designer precursors. The proposal does not address platform liability. This amendment introduces a licensing verification obligation consistent with the Digital Services Act framework.
Amendment
Operators of online marketplaces, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), that facilitate the sale of scheduled or designer precursors by third-party sellers shall: (a) verify, prior to listing, that sellers hold a valid licence or registration under this Regulation; (b) suspend or remove listings where a seller cannot demonstrate a valid authorisation; and (c) report to the competent authority any seller found to have offered scheduled substances for sale without a valid authorisation. Online marketplace operators that fail to comply with this Article shall be subject to the sanctions applicable to operators under Article [penalties].
Amendment 6 — NewArticle: Article [safe harbour] — Protection for good-faith carriers
Amendment type
New Article
Provision
Article [safe harbour] — Protection for good-faith carriers
Policy ref.
Q5
Justification
Without an explicit safe harbour, carriers face asymmetric liability risk that deters proactive cooperation. This amendment mirrors the approach in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 on explosives precursors.
Amendment
- An express carrier or other transport intermediary that fulfils the obligations set out in Article [carrier obligations] shall not be held liable under this Regulation for transporting a shipment subsequently found to contain an illicit precursor, provided that: (a) the carrier had no actual knowledge of the illicit nature of the shipment; (b) the carrier had implemented and was operating a documented, risk-based screening programme; and (c) the carrier reported its suspicions to the competent authority where required. 2. Compliance with a documented risk-based screening programme shall constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purposes of any penalty determination under Article [penalties]. 3. Member States shall not impose civil or administrative liability on express carriers in respect of the transportation of illicit precursors where the conditions in paragraph 1 are fulfilled.
Part II— Infringements, Sanctions and the nUCC Framework
Amendments 7–10implement the five-pillar nUCC infringements framework identified in Q1 above.Taken together, they bring COM(2025) 747 into structural alignment with theminimum harmonisation approach embedded in the new Union Customs Code(EP/Council agreement, March 2026).
Amendment 7 — NewArticle: Article [infringements] — Harmonised list of infringements
Amendment type
New Article
Provision
Article [infringements] — Harmonised list of infringements
Policy ref.
Q1 / Pillar 1 (nUCC Art. 252 analogue)
Justification
The proposal contains no harmonised list of infringements. Article 44 delegates the definition of sanctionable acts entirely to Member States. The nUCC (Art. 252) establishes a Union-wide minimum list as the baseline for harmonised enforcement. An equivalent provision is essential.
Commission proposal text
Member States shall lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment
- The following acts or omissions shall constitute infringements for the purposes of this Regulation: (a) failure by a licensed operator to submit a pre-export, export or import notification as required; (b) submission by an operator of false, incomplete or materially misleading information in a notification, licence application or registration; (c) trading in scheduled or designer precursors without holding a valid licence or registration; (d) failure by an operator to report a suspicious transaction or disappearance of scheduled substances where reporting is required; (e) systematic failure by an express carrier to apply risk-based screening protocols agreed with competent authorities under Article [carrier obligations], where such failure is established after a documented prior warning. 2. Member States may define additional infringements beyond those in paragraph 1, subject to Commission notification, provided they relate to obligations under this Regulation. 3. Clerical and minor errors shall not constitute an infringement under paragraph 1 unless committed intentionally or as the result of obvious negligence. Infringements attributable to force majeure, including documented IT system failures beyond the operator’s or carrier’s control that are promptly corrected, shall not give rise to sanctions.
Note on paragraph 1(e)
The carrier infringement is intentionally narrow — confined to systematic, documented failure after a prior warning. This reflects the carrier’s position as an intermediary acting on shipper-provided information, legally distinct from a licensed trader with direct knowledge of the substances transported. The evidential threshold (documented prior warning) prevents first-instance non-compliance from being treated as an infringement.
Amendment 8 — Amend Article: Article [penalties] — Mandatory minimum sanctions;mitigating and aggravating circumstances
Amendment type
Amend Article
Provision
Article [penalties] — Mandatory minimum sanctions; mitigating and aggravating circumstances
Policy ref.
Q1 / Pillars 2–3 (nUCC Arts. 247–248, 254 analogue)
Justification
The current Article 44 sets no minimum sanction levels and requires no structured consideration of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The nUCC mandates both. This amendment imposes equivalent minimum standards and introduces the operator/carrier liability distinction.
Commission proposal text
Member States shall lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those rules to the Commission by [date] at the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
Amendment
- Member States shall impose non-criminal sanctions on persons committing infringements under Article [infringements], taking one or more of the following forms: (a) a pecuniary charge; (b) revocation, suspension or amendment of a licence or registration; (c) confiscation of the goods concerned. 2. For infringements committed intentionally by a licensed operator or trader, the pecuniary charge shall be not less than 100% and not more than 200% of the customs value of the goods, or between EUR 5,000 and EUR 500,000, whichever is the higher. For infringements not committed intentionally, the pecuniary charge shall be not less than 30% and not more than 100% of the customs value, or between EUR 1,000 and EUR 100,000. 3. For infringements by an express carrier under Article [infringements, paragraph 1(e)], sanctions shall be: (a) for a first documented failure: a formal administrative warning; (b) for repeated, documented failures within a 24-month period: a pecuniary charge of between EUR 1,000 and EUR 50,000, having regard to the scale of operations, the degree of compliance investment, and cooperation with authorities. 4. Competent authorities shall take into account the following mitigating circumstances: (a) the operator or carrier self-reported the violation before any investigation was initiated; (b) the carrier operated a documented risk-based screening programme at the time of the infringement; (c) the non-compliance resulted from materially false information provided by the shipper or importer of record; (d) the operator or carrier cooperated fully and took prompt corrective action; (e) the infringement constitutes a clerical or minor error within the meaning of Article [infringements, paragraph 3]. 5. Competent authorities shall take into account the following aggravating circumstances: (a) the infringement was committed intentionally or as part of a systematic scheme to evade precursor controls; (b) the person has been sanctioned for precursor or customs violations within the preceding five years; (c) the infringement facilitated the production of high-harm substances as established by law enforcement findings; (d) the infringement involved systematic exploitation of quantity thresholds through cumulative sub-threshold consignments. 6. Member States shall notify the Commission of their penalty rules. The Commission shall publish a comparative overview of Member State penalty regimes and report to the European Parliament and Council on enforcement convergence every three years.
Infringement type
Recommended minimum sanction range
Basis for calibration
Operator/trader: intentional non-notification or false declaration
Fine: 100%–200% of value of goods, or €5,000–€500,000 (whichever is higher)
Mirrors nUCC intentional infringement scale; reflects seriousness of deliberate diversion risk.
Operator/trader: negligent non-compliance (no fraudulent intent)
Fine: 30%–100% of value of goods, or €1,000–€100,000
Mirrors nUCC non-intentional scale; proportionate where operator had systems but they failed.
Operator/trader: trading without valid licence or registration
Revocation or suspension of licence, plus fine: €10,000–€1,000,000
Revocation is the primary deterrent; fine addresses economic gain from unlicensed activity.
Carrier: systematic failure to apply agreed risk-based screening protocols
First instance: formal administrative warning. Repeated documented failures: €1,000–€50,000
Reflects carrier’s role as intermediary; graduated to reflect compliance investment.
Carrier: good-faith screening and reporting (compliant conduct)
No sanction — safe harbour applies
Consistent with Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 Art. 9; essential to enable proactive cooperation.
Amendment 9 — NewArticle: Article [carrier liability] — Proposed Article X
Amendment type
New Article
Provision
Article [carrier liability] — Proposed Article X
Policy ref.
Q1 / Q5 / §5.3
Justification
The regulation must definitively resolve whether and when carriers can be held liable. This amendment inserts a dedicated carrier liability article, modelling the approach on the nUCC’s carrier provisions and Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1148.
Amendment
- Express carriers and other transport intermediaries that transport shipments containing scheduled or designer precursors shall not be treated as ‘operators’ for the purposes of licensing, registration or notification obligations under this Regulation. 2. Where a carrier transports a shipment subsequently found to contain an illicit precursor, the carrier shall not be liable for an infringement under this Regulation if: (a) the carrier had no actual knowledge of the illicit nature of the shipment; (b) the carrier had implemented and was operating a documented, risk-based screening programme; and (c) the carrier fulfilled any applicable obligation to report suspicious consignments to competent authorities. 3. The existence of a documented risk-based screening programme shall constitute a mitigating circumstance for penalty determination under Article [penalties, paragraph 4(b)]. 4. Member States shall provide carriers with timely access to risk indicators and suspicious transaction guidance issued by competent authorities and EUDA to enable effective risk-based screening.
Criminal / non-criminal boundary
This article governs non-criminal administrative liability only. Criminal liability for carriers should arise exclusively where actual knowledge of and active participation in a diversion scheme is established, consistent with the criminal law principles applicable in all Member States and with Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA and its successors.
Amendment 10 — Newprovision: Article [EUCDH] — Sanction data in the EU Customs Data Hub
Amendment type
New provision
Provision
Article [EUCDH] — Sanction data in the EU Customs Data Hub
Policy ref.
Q1 / Pillar 2 (nUCC Art. 254 / EUCDH analogue)
Justification
Under the nUCC, sanction decisions are recorded in the EU Customs Data Hub, enabling real-time cross-border access. Drug precursor sanctions should be subject to the same requirement — creating a Union-wide enforcement record for the first time.
Amendment
- Competent authorities shall, within 30 days of a final decision imposing a sanction under Article [penalties], record that decision in the EU Customs Data Hub, including: (a) the identity of the sanctioned person; (b) the nature and category of the infringement; (c) the sanction imposed; and (d) whether the decision is subject to appeal. 2. Customs and competent authorities in all Member States shall have access to those records for the purposes of: (a) identifying repeat offenders and applying aggravating circumstances in subsequent proceedings; (b) applying risk-profiling criteria to future shipments from sanctioned operators or carriers via ICS2 and the EU Customs Data Hub risk engines; (c) mutual recognition of enforcement decisions for cross-border infringement proceedings. 3. EUCA shall monitor the records and report annually to the Commission on enforcement patterns, Member State divergences, and recommendations for delegated acts adjusting sanction levels.
Part III— Digital Architecture, EUCA Coordination and International Cooperation
Amendment 11 — Amend Article: Article [electronic system] — Accelerated digitalisation
Amendment type
Amend Article
Provision
Article [electronic system] — Accelerated digitalisation
Policy ref.
Q2
Justification
The Commission’s timeline, dependent on Single Window integration, is too long. Member States with existing functional national IT systems should be authorised to deploy digital modules immediately, with the customs data hub as an interim bridge.
Amendment
- Pending full integration with the Single Window Environment for Customs, Member States that have deployed functional national electronic systems for precursor notifications shall be authorised to operate those systems as of the date of entry into force of this Regulation, provided they meet interoperability standards established by the Commission by implementing acts. 2. The EU Customs Data Hub shall serve as an interim central repository for precursor-related cargo data submitted by express carriers under ICS2, enabling risk analysis by competent authorities without awaiting the completion of Single Window integration. 3. The Commission shall establish interoperability standards for national systems and the interface between the drug precursors electronic system and ICS2 within 18 months of entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 12 — NewArticle: Article [EUCA] — EUCA coordination role
Amendment type
New Article
Provision
Article [EUCA] — EUCA coordination role
Policy ref.
Q1 / Q3 / Pillar 5
Justification
COM(2025) 747 does not mention EUCA, leaving cross-border precursor diversion cases without an EU-level coordination mechanism. This amendment assigns EUCA an explicit coordination role, consistent with its mandate under the nUCC.
Amendment
- The European Union Customs Authority (EUCA) shall exercise the following coordination functions: (a) coordinating cross-border enforcement actions involving competent authorities and customs administrations of two or more Member States in cases of suspected or confirmed precursor diversion; (b) monitoring and analysing sanction records held in the EU Customs Data Hub and reporting annually to the Commission; (c) issuing guidance on the consistent interpretation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances under Article [penalties] to reduce enforcement divergence; (d) facilitating joint operational taskforces with Europol and EUDA where express networks are identified as precursor diversion vectors. 2. EUCA shall act as the Union focal point for drug precursor enforcement cooperation with third-country customs authorities and with international organisations including the WCO and INCB.
Amendment 13 — Amend Article: Article [implementing acts] — WCO risk indicators
Amendment type
Amend Article
Provision
Article [implementing acts] — WCO risk indicators
Policy ref.
Q3
Justification
The WCO Synthetic Drug Detection Project — Precursors Component is developing risk indicators and profiling techniques that should be incorporated into implementing acts rather than left to informal channels.
Amendment
The Commission shall, when adopting implementing acts on risk indicators and profiling criteria for precursor controls, take into account: (a) risk indicators developed by the WCO Drugs and Precursors Programme and its Synthetic Drug Detection Project — Precursors Component; (b) pre-export notification data available through the INCB PEN Online system; and (c) intelligence shared by Europol and EUDA on precursor diversion routes. The Commission shall review and update implementing acts on risk indicators at least every two years, in consultation with EUDA, EUCA, Europol and the express delivery sector.
Walter van der Meiren
Trade & Customs Policy Advisory | June2026
\