EU: Evaluation of the legislation on Intellectual Property Rights 

 

The European Commission intends to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of how Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) has been implemented. This assessment will examine whether the Regulation has achieved its objectives and whether the current measures remain appropriate and effective. 

The Commission’s Europe 2020 strategy highlighted the importance of knowledge, innovation, and competitiveness as key drivers of sustainable growth, with intellectual property rights playing a central role. The EU is committed to protecting these rights for the benefit of both citizens and businesses. Customs authorities are a crucial part of this effort, as they are empowered to intercept counterfeit and pirated goods entering the EU from third countries. According to the Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025 study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), counterfeit imports into the EU were valued at €99 billion in 2021, representing 4.7% of total imports. Meanwhile, EUIPO and TAXUD reports indicate that customs detentions at the EU’s external borders have remained stable or slightly declined in recent years. 

At the same time, global trade patterns, technological developments, and shifting consumer behaviour—particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic—have driven rapid growth in e-commerce. Data show that low-value e-commerce imports into the EU have surged dramatically, increasing from 1.4 billion consignments in 2022 to 5.8 billion in 2025. This trend has placed additional pressure on customs authorities, which must operate with limited resources while managing an expanding range of responsibilities. 

The European Court of Auditors, in its 2022 Special Report (06/2022), identified several shortcomings in customs enforcement of IPR. These include variations across Member States in how counterfeit goods are destroyed and the associated costs, the use of intervention thresholds below which customs do not act at the request of right holders, a narrow definition of small consignments, and inconsistencies in reporting practices. Ongoing monitoring has also revealed further challenges, such as uneven use of available procedures (including the small consignment procedure), a relatively low rate of detentions following requests from right holders, differences in how various IPR are enforced, and operational inconsistencies not fully addressed by the Regulation (for example, the handling and ownership of residual materials after destruction). 

In response, DG TAXUD has launched a full evaluation of the Regulation. This review will assess whether it has delivered its intended benefits—such as improved efficiency—and whether both the legal framework and its supporting IT systems remain suitable in light of the economic, technological, and societal changes since its application began in 2014. 

Under the Regulation, customs authorities may detain goods suspected of infringing IPR at the EU’s external borders and, in certain cases, destroy them without requiring a prior court decision. The Regulation was designed to strengthen border enforcement, particularly given the increase in infringing goods linked to the growth of e-commerce. Its objectives include simplifying procedures for detaining suspect goods, enhancing harmonisation across Member States, supporting customs officers through training, reducing administrative burdens—especially for small consignments—centralising data via a shared database, and promoting cooperation and timely information exchange among stakeholders. 

The evaluation will focus on several key aspects: 

• Effectiveness: how well the Regulation supports customs authorities in intercepting infringing goods;  

• Efficiency: whether the measures achieve results in a cost-effective manner;  

• Relevance: whether the objectives and scope remain appropriate;  

• Coherence: how well the Regulation aligns with other EU policies;  

• EU added value: whether these objectives can be better achieved at EU level rather than by individual Member States.  

Overall, the review aims to determine whether the current framework remains fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving trade and enforcement environment.