(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (3) lays down rules, inter alia, on the storage and exchange through electronic means of specific information in the field of value added tax (VAT).

(2)

The growth of electronic commerce (‘e-commerce’) facilitates the cross-border sale of goods and services to final consumers in Member States. In that context, cross-border e-commerce refers to supplies upon which the VAT is due in a Member State, but the supplier is established in another Member State, in a third territory or in a third country. However, fraudulent businesses, established either in a Member State, in a third territory or in a third country, exploit e-commerce opportunities in order to gain unfair market advantages by evading their VAT obligations. Where the principle of taxation at destination applies, since consumers have no accounting obligations, the Member States of consumption need appropriate tools to detect and control such fraudulent businesses. It is important to combat cross-border VAT fraud caused by the fraudulent behaviour of some businesses in the area of cross-border e-commerce.

(3)

To date, cooperation between the tax authorities of the Member States (the ‘tax authorities’) to combat VAT fraud has been usually based on records held by the businesses which are directly involved in the taxable transaction. In cross-border business-to-consumer supplies, which are typical within the field of e-commerce, it is possible that such information is not directly available. Thus new tools are necessary to enable tax authorities to combat VAT fraud in an effective way.

(4)

For the vast majority of cross-border online purchases made by consumers in the Union, payments are executed through payment service providers. In order to provide payment services, a payment service provider holds specific information to identify the recipient, or payee, of the cross-border payment together with details of the date, the amount and the Member State of origin of the payment. Such information is necessary for tax authorities to carry out their basic tasks of detecting fraudulent businesses and determining VAT liabilities in relation to cross-border business-to-consumer’ supplies. It is therefore necessary and proportionate that the VAT-relevant information, held by payment service providers, is made available to the Member States and that the Member States can store it in their national electronic systems and transmit it to a central electronic system of payment information in order to detect and combat cross-border VAT fraud, particularly as regards business-to-consumer’ supplies.

(5)

Giving Member States the tools to collect, store and transmit the information provided by payment service providers and giving Eurofisc liaison officials access to that information when it is connected to an investigation into suspected VAT fraud or in order to detect VAT fraud is a necessary and proportionate measure to combat effectively VAT fraud. Those tools are essential as tax authorities need that information for VAT control purposes, to protect public revenues as well as legitimate businesses in the Member States which in turn protect employment and the citizens of the Union.

(6)

It is important that the processing by the Member States, of information relating to payments, is proportionate to the objective of combating VAT fraud. Therefore, information on consumers or payers and on payments not likely to be connected to economic activities should not be collected, stored or transmitted by the Member States.

(7)

In order to achieve the objective of combating VAT fraud more effectively, a central electronic system of payment information (‘CESOP’), to which Member States transmit the payment information they collect and can store at national level, should be established. CESOP should store, aggregate and analyse, in relation to individual payees, all VAT relevant information regarding payments transmitted by Member States. CESOP should allow for a full overview of payments received by payees from payers located in the Member States and make available to the Eurofisc liaison officials the result of specific analyses of information. CESOP should be able to recognise multiple records of the same payment, for example the same payment could be reported both from the bank and the card issuer of a given payer, to clean the information received from the Member States, for example by removing duplicates and correcting errors in data, and should allow Eurofisc liaison officials to cross-check payment information with the VAT information they hold, to make enquiries for the purpose of an investigation into suspected VAT fraud or in order to detect VAT fraud and to add supplementary information.

(8)

Taxation is an important objective of general public interest of the Union and of the Member States and this has been recognised in relation to the restrictions that can be imposed on the obligations and rights provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). Limitations in relation to data protection rights are necessary due to the nature and volume of the information which originates from payment service providers and are to be based on the specific conditions laid down in Council Directive (EU) 2020/284 (6). Since payment information is particularly sensitive, clarity is needed at all stages of data handling on who is the controller or the processor in accordance with Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) No 2018/1725.

(9)

Therefore, it is necessary to apply restrictions to the data subject rights in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. In fact, the full application of the rights and obligations of the data subjects would seriously undermine the objective of effectively combating VAT fraud and would allow the data subjects to obstruct ongoing analysis and investigations due to the massive volume of information sent by the payment service providers and the possible proliferation of requests from data subjects to the Member States, the Commission or both. This would diminish the capacity of tax authorities to pursue the objective of this Regulation by jeopardizing enquiries, analysis, investigations and procedures carried out in accordance with this Regulation. Therefore, restrictions to the data subject rights should apply when processing information in accordance with this Regulation. The objective of combating VAT fraud cannot be achieved by other less restrictive means of equal effectiveness.

(10)

Only the Eurofisc liaison officials should access the payment information stored in CESOP and only with the objective of combating VAT fraud. That information could be used, in addition to the assessment of VAT, also for the assessment of other levies, duties and taxes as established by Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. That information should not be used for other purposes, such as commercial purposes.

(11)

When processing the payment information in accordance with this Regulation, each Member State should respect the limits of what is proportionate and necessary for the purpose of investigations into suspected VAT fraud or in order to detect VAT fraud.

(12)

It is important, in order to safeguard the rights and obligations under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, that information in relation to payments is not used for automated individual decision-making and should therefore always be verified by reference to other tax information available to the tax authorities.

(13)

In order to assist Member States in combating tax fraud and detecting fraudsters, it is necessary and proportionate that payment service providers keep records of the information regarding payees and payments in relation to the payment services they provide for three calendar years. That period provides sufficient time for Member States to carry out controls effectively and to investigate suspected VAT fraud or to detect VAT fraud, and it is also proportionate considering the massive volume of the payment information and its sensitivity in terms of protection of personal data.

(14)

Whereas Eurofisc liaison officials should be able to access the payment information stored in CESOP with the objective of combating VAT fraud, duly accredited persons of the Commission should be able to access that information only for the purpose of developing and maintaining CESOP. All persons accessing that information are bound by the confidentiality rules laid down in Regulation (EU) No 904/2010.

(15)

As the implementation of the CESOP will require new technological developments, it is necessary to defer the application of this Regulation to allow Member States and the Commission to develop those technologies.

(16)

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of the technical measures for establishing and maintaining CESOP, the tasks of the Commission for technically managing CESOP, the technical details guaranteeing the connection and overall operability between the national electronic systems and CESOP, the electronic standard forms for collecting information from the payment service providers, the technical and other details concerning the access to information by the Eurofisc liaison officials, the practical arrangements for identifying the Eurofisc liaison officials who have access to CESOP, the procedures allowing the adoption of the appropriate technical and organisational security measures for the development and operation of the CESOP, the roles and responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission when acting as controller and processor under Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) No 2018/1725 and in respect of the procedural arrangements in relation to Eurofisc. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).

(17)

VAT fraud is a common problem for all Member States. Member States alone do not have the information necessary to ensure that the VAT rules regarding cross-border e-commerce are correctly applied or to combat VAT fraud in cross-border e-commerce. Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to combat VAT fraud, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States in the cases of cross-border e-commerce but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(18)

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right of protection of personal data. In that regard, this Regulation strictly limits the amount of personal data that is to be made available to the Member States. The processing of payment information pursuant to this Regulation should only occur for the purpose of combating VAT fraud.

(19)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered an opinion on 14 March 2019 (8).

(20)

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 2, the following points are added:

(*1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).’;"

(2)

Chapter V is amended as follows:

(3)

Article 37 is replaced by the following:

(4)

in Article 55, the following paragraph is inserted:

(1)

Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) lays down the general value added tax (VAT) accounting obligations for taxable persons.

(2)

The growth of electronic commerce (‘e-commerce’) facilitates the cross-border sale of goods and services to final consumers in the Member States. In that context, cross-border e-commerce refers to supplies upon which the VAT is due in a Member State, but the supplier is established in another Member State, in a third territory or in a third country. However, fraudulent businesses exploit e-commerce opportunities in order to gain unfair market advantages by evading their VAT obligations. Where the principle of taxation at destination applies, since consumers have no accounting obligations, the Member States of consumption need appropriate tools to detect and control such fraudulent businesses. It is important to combat cross-border VAT fraud caused by the fraudulent behaviour of some businesses in the area of cross-border e-commerce.

(3)

For the vast majority of online purchases made by consumers in the Union, payments are executed through payment service providers. In order to provide payment services, a payment service provider holds specific information to identify the recipient, or payee, of the payment together with details of the date, the amount and the Member State of origin of the payment as well as of whether the payment was initiated at the physical premises of the merchant. That specific information is particularly important in the context of a cross-border payment where the payer is located in one Member State and the payee is located in another Member State, in a third territory or in a third country. Such information is necessary for the tax authorities of the Member States (the ‘tax authorities’) to carry out their basic tasks of detecting fraudulent businesses and controlling VAT liabilities. It is therefore necessary that payment service providers make that information available to the tax authorities to help them detect and combat cross-border VAT fraud.

(4)

To combat VAT fraud, it is important to require payment service providers to keep sufficiently detailed records and to report certain cross-border payments determined as such by reason of the location of the payer and the location of the payee. It is therefore necessary to define the concepts of location of the payer and location of the payee and also the means to identify those locations. The location of the payer and of the payee should only trigger the record keeping and reporting obligations for the payment service providers which are established in the Union and those obligations should be without prejudice to the rules laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC and in Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 (4) as regards the place of a taxable transaction.

(5)

On the basis of information they already hold, payment service providers are able to identify the location of the payee and the payer in relation to the payment services they provide, using an identifier of the payer’s or the payee’s payment account or any other identifier which unambiguously identifies, and gives the location of, the payer or the payee. When such identifiers are not available, the location of the payer or the payee should be determined by means of a business identifier code of the payment service provider acting on behalf of the payer or the payee, in cases where the funds are transferred to a payee without any payment account being created in the name of a payer, where the funds are not credited to any payment account of the payee or where there is no other identifier of the payer or the payee.

(6)

In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), it is important that the obligation of a payment service provider to retain and provide information in relation to a cross-border payment be proportionate and limited to that which is necessary for Member States to combat VAT fraud. Furthermore, the only information relating to the payer that should be retained is the location of the payer. With regard to information relating to the payee and the payment itself, payment service providers should only be required to retain and report to the tax authorities information which is necessary for those authorities to detect possible fraudsters and to carry out tax controls. Payment service providers should therefore be required to keep records only on those cross-border payments which are likely to indicate economic activities. The introduction of a ceiling based on the number of payments received by a payee over the course of a calendar quarter would give an indication whether those payments were received as part of an economic activity, thereby excluding payments for non-commercial reasons. Where such a ceiling is reached, the record keeping and reporting obligations of the payment service provider would be triggered.

(7)

It is possible for several payment service providers to be involved in a single payment by a payer to a payee. That single payment can give rise to several transfers of funds between different payment service providers. It is necessary that all payment service providers involved in a given payment, unless a specific exclusion is applicable, have record keeping and reporting obligations. Those records and reports should contain information on the payment from the initial payer to the final payee and not on the intermediate transfers of funds between the payment service providers.

(8)

Record keeping and reporting obligations should apply not only where a payment service provider transfers funds or issues payment instruments for the payer, but also in cases where a payment service provider receives funds or acquires payment transactions on behalf of the payee.

(9)

The obligations laid down in this Directive should not apply to payment service providers which fall outside the scope of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Therefore, where the payment service providers of the payee are not located in a Member State, it is the payment service providers of the payer that should be subject to the record keeping and reporting obligations of the cross-border payment. Conversely, in order for the record keeping and reporting obligations to be proportionate, where the payment service providers of both the payee and the payer are located in a Member State, only the payment service providers of the payee should keep records. For the purposes of the record keeping and reporting obligations, a payment service provider should be considered to be located in a Member State when its business identifier code (BIC) or unique business identifier refers to that Member State.

(10)

Due to the significant volume of information and its sensitivity in terms of the protection of personal data, it is necessary and proportionate that payment service providers keep records in relation to cross-border payments for a period of three calendar years in order to assist Member States in combating VAT fraud and detecting fraudsters. That period provides sufficient time for Member States to carry out controls effectively and to investigate suspected VAT fraud or to detect VAT fraud.

(11)

The information to be retained by the payment service providers is to be collected by and exchanged between the Member States in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (7) which lays down the rules for administrative cooperation and exchange of information in order to combat VAT fraud.

(12)

VAT fraud is a common problem for all Member States, but individual Member States do not have the information necessary to ensure that VAT rules regarding cross-border e-commerce are correctly applied or to combat VAT fraud in cross-border e-commerce. Since the objective of this Directive, namely to combat VAT fraud, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States individually if there is a cross-border element, and due to the need to obtain information from other Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(13)

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right of protection of personal data. The payment information retained and provided in accordance with this Directive is to be processed only by the anti-fraud experts of tax authorities within the limits of what is proportionate and necessary to achieve the objective of this Directive, namely to combat VAT fraud. This Directive also respects the rules laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).

(14)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered an opinion on 14 March 2019 (9).

(15)

Directive 2006/112/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) allows Member States to continue to apply their special schemes to small enterprises in accordance with common provisions and with a view to closer harmonisation. However, those provisions are outdated and do not reduce the compliance burden of small enterprises, as they were designed for a common system of value added tax (VAT) based on taxation in the Member State of origin.

(2)

In its action plan on VAT, the Commission announced a comprehensive simplification package for small enterprises which aims to reduce their administrative burden and helps create a fiscal environment to facilitate their growth and the development of cross‐border trade. The simplification package entails a review of the special scheme for small enterprises as outlined in the Communication on the follow‐up to the action plan on VAT. The review of the special scheme for small enterprises therefore constitutes an important element of the reform package set out in the action plan on VAT.

(3)

In order to address the issue of the disproportionate compliance burden faced by exempt small enterprises, certain simplification measures should also be available to them.

(4)

The special scheme for small enterprises currently only allows for an exemption to be granted to enterprises established in the Member State in which the VAT is due. This has a negative impact on competition in the internal market for enterprises not established in that Member State. To address this and to avoid further distortions, small enterprises established in Member States other than that in which the VAT is due should also be allowed to benefit from the exemption.

(5)

Where a taxable person is subject to the regular VAT regime in its Member State of establishment, but avails itself of the VAT exemption for small enterprises in another Member State, the input tax deduction should reflect a connection to taxed supplies of the taxable person. Therefore, where such taxable persons procure inputs in their Member State of establishment which are connected to exempt supplies in other Member States, no input VAT deduction should be possible.

(6)

Small enterprises may only benefit from the exemption where their annual turnover is below the threshold applied by the Member State in which the VAT is due. In setting their threshold, Member States should abide by the rules on thresholds laid down by Directive 2006/112/EC. Those rules, most of which were put in place in 1977, are no longer suitable.

(7)

For the purposes of simplification, a number of Member States have been authorised to apply a threshold higher than that authorised under Directive 2006/112/EC on a temporary basis. As it is not appropriate to continue modifying general rules using measures granted by way of derogation, the rules on thresholds should be updated.

(8)

Member States should be able to set their national threshold for the exemption at the level that best suits their economic and political conditions, subject to the upper threshold provided for under this Directive. In this regard, it should be clarified that where Member States apply varying thresholds for different business sectors, this would need to be based on objective criteria. Where a taxable person is eligible to benefit from more than one sectoral threshold, Member States should ensure that the taxable person can only use one of those thresholds. They should also ensure that their thresholds do not differentiate between established and non‐established taxable persons.

(9)

The annual turnover threshold, which is the basis for the exemption put in place by the special scheme laid down in this Directive, consists only of the combined value of the supplies of goods and services made by a small enterprise in the Member State where the exemption is granted. Distortions of competition could arise where an enterprise, not established in that Member State, could benefit from such an exemption regardless of the turnover it generates in other Member States. In order to mitigate such distortions of competition and as a tax revenue safeguard, only those enterprises whose Union annual turnover is below a certain threshold should be eligible for exemption in a Member State where they are not established. Enterprises whose turnover in the Member State in which they are established is below the national threshold should be able to continue to make exempt supplies in that Member State irrespective of the turnover they generate in other Member States, even if their overall turnover exceeds the Union threshold.

(10)

In order to allow an effective control of the application of the exemption and to ensure that Member States have access to the necessary information, taxable persons who want to avail themselves of the exemption in a Member State in which they are not established should be required to give prior notification to the Member State in which they are established. For the reasons of simplification and reduction of compliance costs, such taxable persons should be identified by an individual number in the Member State of establishment only. It is possible, but not necessary, for that number to be the individual VAT identification number.

(11)

In order to ensure the proper functioning and monitoring of the exemption as well as the timely transmission of information, the reporting obligations of taxable persons who avail themselves of the exemption in a Member State in which they are not established, should be clearly set out. This should enable compliant taxable persons to be released from such obligations and from the registration obligation in Member States other than the Member State of establishment. However, Member States should be able to require that, where such non‐established taxable persons do not comply with the reporting obligations set out specifically for them, they must meet the general VAT registration and reporting obligations as set out in national VAT laws.

(12)

In order to avoid inconsistencies in the calculation of the Member State annual turnover serving as a reference for the application of the exemption, and of the Union annual turnover, the elements of the turnover to be taken into account should be specified.

(13)

In order to prevent circumvention of the rules regarding the exemption for small enterprises and to preserve the purpose of that exemption, a taxable person, whether or not established in the Member State granting the exemption, should not be able to benefit from the exemption where the national threshold laid down therein was exceeded in the preceding calendar year. For the same reasons, a taxable person not established in the Member State granting the exemption should not be able to benefit from the exemption where the Union annual turnover threshold was exceeded in the preceding calendar year.

(14)

In order to ensure a gradual transition of small enterprises from the exemption to taxation, taxable persons should be allowed to continue to benefit from the exemption for small enterprises for a limited period of time where their turnover does not exceed the national exemption threshold by more than a set percentage of that threshold. As the level of thresholds applied can differ from Member State to Member State, Member States should be able to choose to apply one of the two proposed percentages as long as the application of the percentage does not result in exempt taxable person’s turnover exceeding a certain fixed amount. Where, during a calendar year, the Union annual turnover threshold is exceeded, it is necessary, in view of the threshold’s function as a revenue safeguard, for the exemption to cease to apply as of that time.

(15)

Where an exemption applies, small enterprises availing themselves of the exemption in the Member State of establishment should, at a minimum, have access to a VAT registration procedure within a given time frame. It should be possible for Member States to extend that time frame in specific cases where in‐depth checks are required to prevent tax evasion or avoidance.

(16)

Small enterprises availing themselves of the exemption in the Member State of establishment should, at a minimum, have access to simplified reporting obligations.

(17)

In addition to granting an exemption from VAT, the special schemes also allow for graduated tax relief. Graduated tax relief is a source of complexity and contributes little to reducing the compliance burden of small enterprises. This measure should therefore be removed.

(18)

Member States should be able to give taxable persons the right to choose between the general VAT regime and the special scheme for small enterprises. If the taxable person exercises that right, it is appropriate to leave it for Member States to lay down the detailed rules and conditions for exercising that choice.

(19)

This Directive should not entail new registration or reporting obligations for small enterprises that avail themselves of the exemption only in the Member State of establishment.

(20)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely to reduce the compliance burden of small enterprises, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(21)

In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents (4), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.

(22)

In order to ensure that the simplification measures set out in Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the special scheme for small enterprises can be monitored properly, it is necessary to amend Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (5) so that the relevant competent authorities of the Member States have automated access to the data collected from taxable persons benefiting from the VAT exemption for small enterprises.

(23)

In order to provide small enterprises an easy access to the provisions concerning the special scheme for small enterprises in each Member State, those provisions should be published on the website of the Commission.

(24)

The Committee of the Regions delivered an opinion on 10 October 2018 (6).

(25)

Directive 2006/112/EC and Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in point (b) of Article 2(1), point (i) is replaced by the following:

(2)

Article 139 is amended as follows:

(3)

Article 167a is amended as follows:

(4)

in Article 169, point (a) is replaced by the following:

(5)

in Article 220a(1), the following point is added:

(6)

in Article 270, point (a) is replaced by the following:

(7)

in Article 272(1), point (d) is deleted;

(8)

in Title XII, Chapter 1, the following Section is inserted:

‘ Section ‐1

Definitions

(9)

in Title XII, Chapter 1, the heading of Section 2 is replaced by the following:

‘Exemptions’;

(10)

Article 282 is replaced by the following:

(11)

in Article 283(1), point (c) is deleted;

(12)

Article 284 is replaced by the following:

(13)

the following Articles are inserted:

(14)

Articles 285, 286 and 287 are deleted;

(15)

Article 288 is replaced by the following:

(16)

the following Article is inserted:

(17)

in Article 290, the second sentence is replaced by the following:

‘Member States may lay down the detailed rules and conditions for applying that option.’;

(18)

Articles 291 and 292 are deleted;

(19)

in Title XII, Chapter 1, the following Section is inserted:

‘ Section 2a

Simplification of obligations for exempt small enterprises

(20)

in Title XII Chapter 1, Section 3 is deleted;

(21)

in Article 314, point (c) is replaced by the following:

(22)

in Article 334, point (c) is replaced by the following:

(1)

Article 17 is amended as follows:

(2)

in Article 21, the following paragraph is inserted:

(3)

in Article 31, the following paragraph is inserted:

(4)

in Article 32, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(5)

the following Chapter is inserted:

‘CHAPTER Xa

PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE SPECIAL SCHEME IN CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE XII OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC

(1)

The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 (the ‘Convention’) entered into force on 11 November 1990 and was concluded by the Union by Council Decision 90/611/EEC (1).

(2)

Pursuant to Article 12(2) to (7) of the Convention, substances may be added to the Tables of the Convention in which drug precursors are listed.

(3)

During its sixty-third session from 2 to 6 March 2020 in Vienna, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs is to take a decision on the addition of one substance to Table I of the Convention.

(4)

It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, as the decision will have legal effect in the Union and will be capable of decisively influencing the content of Union law, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

(5)

According to the assessment of the International Narcotics Control Board, the substance methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate (MAPA) is frequently used in the illicit manufacture of amphetamine and methamphetamine. There is evidence that the volume and extent of the illicit manufacture of these narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances poses serious public health or social problems so as to warrant the placing of methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate (MAPA) under international control. The illegal manufacture of amphetamine and methamphetamine causes significant public health and social problems in the Union. Incidents relating to the trafficking of methyl alpha-phenylacetoacetate (MAPA) are increasing in both amount and frequency, and organised crime groups in the Union are illegally exporting amphetamine and methamphetamine to third countries.

(6)

The Union’s position should be expressed by the Member States of the Union that are members of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs,

(1)

By Council Decision 97/836/EC (1), the Union acceded to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of those prescriptions (the ‘Revised 1958 Agreement’). The Revised 1958 Agreement entered into force on 24 March 1998.

(2)

By Council Decision 2000/125/EC (2), the Union acceded to the Agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles (the ‘Parallel Agreement’). The Parallel Agreement entered into force on 15 February 2000.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Revised 1958 Agreement and Article 6 of the Parallel Agreement, the UNECE World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) may adopt, as applicable, the proposals for modifications to UN Regulations adopted under the Revised 1958 Agreement (‘UN Regulations’) Nos 10, 26, 28, 46, 48, 51, 55, 58, 59, 62, 79, 90, 106, 107, 110, 117, 121, 122, 128, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152, the proposals for modifications to Global Technical Regulations (GTR) Nos 3, 6 and 16, the proposal for amendments to Consolidated Resolution R.E.5, and the proposals for authorisations to develop an amendment to GTR No 6 and to develop a new GTR on the Determination of Electrified Vehicle Power (DEVP).

(4)

WP.29, during the 180th session of the World Forum to be held between 10 and 12 March 2020, is to adopt the above acts in relation to the administrative provisions and uniform technical prescriptions for the approval of harmonised technical UN Regulations and GTRs for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts, which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles.

(5)

It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in WP.29 as regards the adoption of proposals for UN Regulations, as the UN Regulations will be binding on the Union and capable of decisively influencing the content of Union law in the field of vehicle type approval.

(6)

Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) replaced the approval systems of the Member States with a Union approval procedure and established a harmonised framework containing administrative provisions and general technical requirements for all new vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units. That Directive incorporated UN Regulations in the EU type-approval system, either as requirements for type approval or as alternatives to Union legislation. Since the adoption of Directive 2007/46/EC, UN Regulations have been increasingly incorporated into Union legislation.

(7)

In the light of experience and technical developments, the requirements relating to certain elements or features covered by UN Regulations Nos 10, 26, 28, 46, 48, 51, 55, 58, 59, 62, 79, 90, 106, 107, 110, 117, 121, 122, 128, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152 need to be amended or supplemented. In addition, certain provisions in GTR Nos 3, 6 and 16 need to be modified. Finally, the amendments to Consolidated Resolution R.E.5 and the authorisations to develop an amendment to GTR No 6 and to develop a new GTR on the DEVP need to be adopted.

(8)

WP.29 working document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/25 concerns a proposal for Supplement 2 to UN Regulation No 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems), which is not ready for a vote in WP.29.

(9)

WP.29 working document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/2 concerns a proposal for Supplement 1 to the 08 series of amendments to UN Regulation No 9 (Noise of Three-wheeled Vehicles). Given that the Union is not applying the uniform provisions of UN Regulation No 9, it is not necessary to establish a position of the Union on proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/2,