In brief: On March 25, 2026, the European Union will select the city that will host the headquarters of the EUCA (European Union Customs Authority), the EU’s future central customs authority. Among the nine candidate cities—Liège, Zagreb, Lille, Rome, The Hague, Warsaw, Porto, Bucharest, and Malaga—France has put forward Lille, backed by a strong proposal built on its logistics positioning, customs expertise, and a real estate project ready for operation as early as 2026.

What is the EUCA and why is this headquarters so strategic?

The EUCA is set to become a cornerstone of the customs reform launched by Brussels in 2023. Its role will be to centralize, analyze, and leverage data related to import flows in order to better detect fraud, harmonize practices, and streamline controls across all 27 Member States.

Today, businesses must navigate a patchwork of national systems, often complex and poorly interconnected. The ambition is clear: move from fragmented management to a coordinated approach, driven by a European Data Hub—a true control tower for customs flows.

The EUCA will not replace national customs authorities; it will support them with shared tools, common standards, and enhanced analytical capabilities.

The context makes this headquarters particularly sought-after: in 2024 alone, European customs authorities processed 4.6 billion low-value parcels, generating fraud estimated in the billions of euros in lost tax revenue.

The strengths of Lille’s bid

France has entrusted the sponsorship of its bid to Pascal Lamy, former Director-General of the WTO—a strong signal of its political ambition.

Located at the crossroads of trade flows between the EU, the United Kingdom, and major Northern European ports—Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Dunkirk—Lille positions itself as a natural logistics hub for Europe.

But location is not everything. The proposal highlights an ecosystem well suited to the EUCA’s missions: recognized customs expertise, strong data and cybersecurity capabilities through EuraTechnologies, and a decisive—often underestimated—asset: the Jacques Delors European School in Marcq-en-Barœul, established in 2019, capable of accommodating more than a hundred children of future EUCA staff. Its absence had been a decisive drawback in Lille’s unsuccessful bid for the European Medicines Agency in 2017.

Finally, the “L’Agora” real estate project in Euralille offers an operational solution as early as 2026—a key advantage given the tight timeline.

A voting process designed to avoid deadlock

The selection mechanism is designed to prevent stalemate: both the Council and the Parliament will each establish a shortlist of two preferred cities. If the same city appears on both lists, it is automatically selected. Otherwise, several rounds of voting will be held to decide between candidates.

Beyond technical criteria, the outcome will also reflect political balances between Member States.

What this means for customs and supply chain professionals

Regardless of the selected city, the EUCA is expected to be operational from 2028 and will concretely transform the day-to-day operations of international trade players.

Harmonized controls, near real-time sharing of fraud-related information, and simplified declaration processes—the reform is only just beginning.

Digitalization, the explosion of e-commerce, and increasingly complex supply chains are all key challenges. The EUCA will be one of the structuring tools to address them.

The remaining question is: from which city will this new European system be driven?

FAQ

What is the EUCA?
The EUCA (European Union Customs Authority) is the future central customs authority of the European Union, created to coordinate national customs administrations, manage a shared Data Hub, and improve fraud detection across all 27 Member States.

Why is Lille a candidate to host the EUCA?
Lille combines a strategic geographic position (close to Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Calais), recognized customs expertise, a leading digital ecosystem, and a ready-to-use real estate project in Euralille. France’s bid is also supported by Pascal Lamy, former WTO Director-General, acting as its sponsor.

Which cities were competing to host the EUCA?
Nine cities: Liège (Belgium), Zagreb (Croatia), Lille (France), Rome (Italy), The Hague (Netherlands), Warsaw (Poland), Porto (Portugal), Bucharest (Romania), and Malaga (Spain).

When will the EUCA become operational?
The host city was to be selected on March 25, 2026. The agency’s setup would begin as early as 2026, with full operational capacity expected from 2028.

In brief: The Strait of Hormuz, just 33 km wide at its narrowest point, accounts for around 20% of global oil flows and 30% of LNG. For several months, rising tensions involving Iran have created strategic uncertainty with very real impacts on energy prices, maritime insurance, and global supply chains. Here’s what it means for businesse

A chokepoint with global economic impact

On a map, the Strait of Hormuz looks like a simple gap between two landmasses. In reality, it is one of the most critical transit points in the global economy. Every day, between 17 and 21 million barrels of oil pass through it, along with a significant share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the Persian Gulf. This 56 km maritime corridor has now become a major geopolitical hotspot.

Who controls the Strait of Hormuz?

The answer is nuanced. Geographically, it is shared between Iran to the north and Oman to the south. Legally, it is not “owned” by any single state. International law governs its use and guarantees a fundamental principle: the right of transit passage. In other words, even during periods of tension, both commercial and military vessels are supposed to be able to move freely through it.

On paper, the rule is clear. At sea, it’s another story.

Iran’s strategy: creating uncertainty rather than blocking

In recent months, the strait has become a tool of strategic pressure. Iran is not necessarily seeking to formally close the passage—that would be an extreme move with immediate global consequences. Instead, it is playing a more subtle game: creating uncertainty.

Targeted attacks, threats, increased military presence… making the route risky is often enough to slow, divert, or discourage flows.

In maritime transport, perceived risk matters as much as actual risk. Shipowners do not need to see their vessels attacked to change course. One damaged hull can trigger the reconfiguration of an entire supply chain.

Naval mining perfectly illustrates this logic: low-cost, hard to detect, and requiring long, complex clearance operations—it creates persistent doubt. Navigation becomes a calculated decision, almost a risk-taking exercise.

Concrete impact on prices and supply chains

Even a partial disruption of the strait is enough to trigger cascading effects. Energy prices react almost instantly. Insurers adjust their terms and premiums. Transit times increase. And the entire global supply chain absorbs the shock.

In response, Western powers attempt to secure the area—but their capabilities are not unlimited. Mine-clearing operations, convoy escorts, and maintaining a deterrent presence all require time and significant resources, with no guarantee of zero risk.

What this means for businesses

For many companies, this may seem like a distant issue. It isn’t.

The Strait of Hormuz is a stark reminder of a frequently underestimated reality: certain logistics routes are extreme points of vulnerability. When a bottleneck tightens, the entire chain becomes unstable.

Understanding these dependencies, anticipating alternative scenarios, and integrating geopolitical risk into supply chain decisions are no longer concerns limited to governments or major oil companies. They are now operational challenges for any business exposed to energy flows or Gulf maritime routes.

FAQ

Who owns the Strait of Hormuz?
The strait is geographically shared between Iran and Oman. Legally, it is not owned by any state—international law guarantees freedom of transit passage for all vessels.

What is the impact of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz on oil prices?
Even a partial disruption is enough to trigger immediate increases in oil prices, adjustments in maritime insurance premiums, and longer delays across global supply chains.

What are the alternatives if the strait is blocked?
The main alternatives are the East-West Pipeline (Saudi Arabia, toward the Red Sea) and the Habshan–Fujairah pipeline (UAE, toward the Gulf of Oman). These routes are costly, limited in capacity, and cannot fully replace the volumes typically transiting through Hormuz.

How much oil transits through the Strait of Hormuz?
Around 20% of global oil and 30% of globally traded LNG pass through the strait each day—equivalent to approximately 17 to 21 million barrels per day.

In brief: Introduced on March 1, 2026, France’s €2 per-item tax on parcels imported from outside the European Union has not slowed e-commerce flows. It has shifted them—toward Belgium and the Netherlands. Here’s an analysis of the mechanisms at play, the risks for operators, and what comes next at the European level.

A national measure with immediate circumvention effects

On March 1, 2026, France introduced a €2 tax per item on small parcels imported from non-EU countries. The stated objective was to curb the surge in flows from international e-commerce platforms and restore a degree of competitive balance.

But almost as soon as it came into force, the measure revealed its limitations. On the ground, flows did not stop. They shifted.

Major platforms, highly experienced in logistics arbitrage, quickly adapted their models. Instead of importing goods directly into France, they now favor alternative entry points into Europe—particularly Belgium and the Netherlands. Once cleared through customs in these countries, parcels can move freely to the French market under single market rules.

The result: a sharp drop in direct air arrivals into France, but no real slowdown in overall consumption volumes.

What this reveals about fragmented regulation

This phenomenon is far from anecdotal. It highlights a well-known reality for international trade professionals: when a constraint is purely national, it is inherently bypassable. Logistics always adapts faster than regulation.

This is a textbook example of the limits of fragmented regulation within a single market. In the absence of immediate European harmonization, isolated measures create side effects: flow distortions, loss of local activity (particularly at airports), and increased complexity in supply chains.

What this means in practice for customs and supply chain professionals

For customs and supply chain professionals, this situation calls for heightened vigilance on three key points:

1. Understanding new import patterns
   The customs entry point no longer necessarily matches the country of consumption. This has direct implications for VAT management, reporting obligations, and controls.

2. Risks linked to rapid reorganizations
   These adjustments can create grey areas: misclassification, undervaluation, or incorrect application of tax regimes.

3. The need for continuous regulatory monitoring
   The battle over e-commerce flows has become a constant race of adaptation. Platforms continuously optimize, governments adjust their frameworks—and operators must keep pace.

What’s next: European harmonization from July 2026

From July 2026, a European flat-rate duty of €3 per item is expected to come into force. A broader EU-wide taxation framework is then anticipated by the end of 2026. This time, the approach will be harder to circumvent, as it will apply uniformly across the entire European territory.

But let’s be clear: even when harmonized, a rule does not eliminate optimization strategies—it shifts them.

FAQ

What is the €2 small parcel tax?
It is a French tax introduced on March 1, 2026, applied to each item imported from outside the European Union via international e-commerce platforms.

How are platforms bypassing this tax?
By redirecting their logistics flows to neighboring countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands, where parcels are cleared through customs before being freely transported into France under EU single market rules.

What is the European flat-rate duty planned for July 2026?
A harmonized EU-wide mechanism set at €3 per item, designed to prevent the side effects observed with isolated national measures.

 

The 2025 review confirms what many international trade stakeholders are already experiencing: customs authorities are more than ever at the heart of economic balance. The explosion of small parcels, mounting trade tensions, record drug seizures, and intensified anti-money laundering efforts all reflect a clear shift in scale.

The “Small Parcels” Effect: A Structural Phenomenon

E-commerce continues to fundamentally reshape trade flows. In 2025, 220.90 million H7 simplified import declarations were recorded, covering 826 million imported items with a total value of €5.58 billion.

97% of these items arrived via Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (Roissy-CDG), and 89% of the declared value originated from China.

Behind these volumes lies a clear trend: the average declared value is declining, with half of imported items priced below €3.50. Shipments valued under €150 now account for the vast majority of flows.

Controls carried out in 2025 revealed VAT fraud schemes, notably involving the misuse of IOSS numbers. In response to this large-scale phenomenon, public authorities announced the introduction of a €3 flat-rate tax per item in France and the removal, at EU level, of the €150 duty exemption as of July 1, 2026.

This is no longer a cyclical issue — it has become structural.

United States: French Companies Exposed

In April 2025, the United States introduced new tariff measures, including a 15% minimum rate applicable to a broad range of European imports, along with additional duties on specific products.

Nearly 2,000 French companies are exposed to the U.S. market for at least 10% of their turnover. Trade between France and the United States amounted to €100 billion in 2024.

In this context, French customs authorities strengthened their support measures: daily information updates, mobilisation of Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) units, dedicated assistance to large corporations, and close monitoring of the most affected sectors.

Drug Seizures at Historic Levels

The enforcement dimension of the 2025 review is marked by exceptionally high volumes.

On French territory, 108.81 tonnes of narcotics were seized, including 31.26 tonnes of cocaine (+49%). Abroad, cocaine seizures reached 64.17 tonnes (+112%). The total financial value of seizures amounted to €2.197 billion.

Trafficking networks are becoming increasingly sophisticated: routes are shifting, pressure is intensifying on certain territories, and vectors are diversifying (maritime, air, and express freight). Customs authorities account for between 60% and 75% of all national drug seizures annually.

Synthetic drugs are also on the rise, with 5.79 tonnes seized, including a sharp increase in ketamine in 2025.

Financial Crime: Targeting the Money Flows

The fight against money laundering remains a key priority. In 2025, €534.85 million in criminal assets were seized or proposed for seizure by the National Customs Judicial Service (ONAF), bringing the two-year total to over €1 billion.

A total of 825 customs-related money laundering cases were recorded. Illicit flows now combine cash, precious metals, and crypto-assets, reflecting the growing professionalisation of criminal financial circuits.

An Administration at the Crossroads of Security and Trade

Beyond enforcement, customs remain a major economic actor: €37.92 billion in revenue was collected in 2025, the average goods clearance time stood at 1 minute and 45 seconds, and operator satisfaction reached 89.14%.

The 2025 review thus portrays a customs administration with a dual role: facilitator of trade and bulwark against trafficking.

It took more than twenty years, with pauses, deadlocks, and setbacks. But this time, it’s done: the European Union and India have concluded a free trade agreement of unprecedented scale. Announced on January 27, the deal was greeted with strong words: “historic,” “the deal of all deals,” “a clear choice of partnership.” Behind the enthusiasm, one fact stands out: in an increasingly conflictual world, Europe and India have decided to bet on each other.

The stakes match the numbers. Together, the EU and India represent nearly 2 billion people, about a quarter of global GDP, and a third of international trade. Trade between them is already substantial: €120 billion in goods and €60 billion in services in 2024. But both sides aim to go much further.

At the heart of the agreement is a simple goal: removing customs barriers, especially on the Indian side. The Indian market is known to be one of the most protected in the world. In the future, tariffs on European cars would drop from 110% to 10%, and those on wine from 150% to 20%. Everyday products, such as pasta or chocolate, would enter duty-free. For European companies, Brussels estimates a potential gain of €4 billion per year.

In return, Europe is opening its doors further to Indian textiles and pharmaceuticals, two key sectors for New Delhi. The message is clear: each side is leveraging its strengths. The EU sees in India a vast, young, and rapidly growing market, poised to become one of the world’s leading economic powers. India, meanwhile, is seeking investments, technology, and industrial partnerships to accelerate modernization and create large-scale employment.

But this agreement is about more than trade. It comes at a time of geopolitical tension. Amid the U.S. trade war, rivalry with China, and fragile supply chains, both partners are seeking more stable alliances. The deal also includes provisions on the mobility of skilled workers, academic exchanges, and a partnership on security and defense.

By signing this agreement, the EU and India are making a deliberate bet: openness in a world that is increasingly closing in. The challenge now is to turn promises into tangible results and to manage the imbalances that such a deal inevitably creates.

The threat is clear, brutal, and fully deliberate: tariffs of up to 200% on French wines and champagnes. In just a few statements, the U.S. president has reminded those in international trade of a stark reality: commercial exchanges have become a political lever in their own right.

The origin of this announcement is not a typical trade dispute. It occurs in a very specific diplomatic context: France’s refusal to join a new international body proposed by Washington, presented as a “Peace Council.” Paris considers this initiative incompatible with the principles of multilateralism and the functioning of the United Nations. The American response is unambiguous: turning a diplomatic disagreement into a targeted economic threat.

The situation took a new turn on Saturday, January 17, when Donald Trump announced the imposition of tariffs on goods from eight European countries — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. These tariffs will start at 10% from February 1, rising to 25% from June 1, and will remain in place until the United States is allowed to purchase Greenland. This measure, targeting multiple European economies in an unprecedented manner, turns a bilateral dispute into a continental issue.

In France, the reaction has been firm. The government denounces what it sees as interference and the use of tariffs as a political pressure tool. The agricultural sector, directly affected, describes a deliberate power play and calls on Europe to stop being subjected to such brinkmanship. Behind the dramatic announcements, entire sectors find themselves exposed. A tax of this magnitude would have immediate consequences. For French producers, the American market would become largely inaccessible due to a lack of price competitiveness. For American importers and distributors, the supply would shrink drastically. And for the end consumer, the result is simple: higher prices or products simply absent from shelves. Such measures do not only punish one exporting country—they disrupt an entire value chain.

Beyond the case of wines and spirits, this episode illustrates a broader trend: the rise of unapologetic protectionism, used as a tool of geopolitical negotiation. Trade is no longer merely a space governed by rules and agreements; it has become a field of direct confrontation. Tariffs have become political messages, delivered in percentages.

For Europe, the stakes are now strategic. It is not just a matter of responding to a single threat, but of establishing a credible and coordinated capacity to react. Defending its producers, protecting consumers, and asserting a coherent diplomatic line. Without this, such tensions risk becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Mercosur is a South American free trade zone created in 1991. Today, it brings together Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, forming an economic heavyweight, particularly in the agricultural sector. On the other side, the European Union represents the other block in this partnership, totaling nearly 700 million consumers.

he EU-Mercosur agreement, negotiated for more than twenty years, aims to bring these two blocs closer together by removing most customs barriers. Officially, it is a broad association agreement covering trade, political cooperation, human rights, education, and counter-terrorism. In practice, however, it is the commercial aspect that generates the most tension.

Specifically, Mercosur would commit to eliminating tariffs on 91% of European products, currently taxed up to 35% for vehicles, machinery, or chemical and pharmaceutical products. In return, the European Union would open its market to 92% of Mercosur imports, mainly agricultural products (beef, poultry, sugar) but also minerals, such as lithium and copper. For example, the agreement sets annual export quotas of 160,000 tons of beef and 180,000 tons of poultry at virtually zero tariffs.

This sectoral imbalance explains much of the opposition. European industries (automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical, and large energy or infrastructure groups) stand to benefit. In contrast, European agriculture, particularly beef farming, faces direct competition from South American producers with significantly lower costs. According to available data, producing beef costs on average 40% less in Mercosur, and up to 60% less in Brazil. Even limited import volumes could drive prices down. The European Commission is aware of this and promises an annual €1 billion compensation fund, though details remain unclear.

Beyond price concerns, the agreement raises significant health and environmental issues. The use of pesticides banned in Europe, GMO soy, hormones, or antibiotics as growth enhancers remains permitted in South America. While Brussels asserts that European standards will remain unchanged, questions about actual traceability persist, as highlighted by a 2024 audit noting Brazil’s inability to guarantee the absence of certain hormones in exported meat. Additionally, there is the climate impact: meat and soy production are major drivers of deforestation, which the agreement risks accelerating.

Politically, the agreement has faced numerous twists and turns. First finalized in 2019, it was then frozen, notably due to the Brazilian context. On December 6, 2024, the European Commission announced the political conclusion of the negotiations, without direct participation from member states, as trade policy falls under its exclusive competence.

The key remaining question is adoption. To avoid national blockages, the Commission relies on a procedural workaround called “splitting,” which separates the trade component from the rest of the agreement. This mechanism could allow faster ratification without going through national parliaments, provided a qualified majority in the European Council and a vote in the European Parliament are obtained.

The EU-Mercosur agreement is therefore far from a formality. It represents a major political choice: embracing free trade, at the cost of social, agricultural, and environmental tensions that Europe will have to confront sooner or later.

 

The surge in low-value consignments from third countries, particularly from China, has posed major challenges for European customs authorities and economic operators for several years. In 2024, nearly 4.6 billion parcels valued under €150 were imported into the European Union—more than 145 parcels per second. The majority originated from China, via e-commerce platforms such as Shein, Temu or AliExpress, and largely escaped meaningful taxation. This situation has resulted in unfair competition for European retailers, increased consumer safety risks, and significant control difficulties for customs authorities.

To address these challenges, the French Finance Bill for 2026 introduces a Small Parcels Tax (SPT), designed to complement VAT and customs duties and to ensure a more equitable and controlled treatment of these flows.

The SPT applies to imports of goods contained in low-value consignments under €150, declared under the simplified H7 procedure. It covers all types of flows—B2B, B2C and C2C—and is levied per imported item, with a flat-rate charge of €5 per product, as voted by the Senate. The liable party is the same as for import VAT.

The geographical scope includes mainland France, Monaco, and certain overseas departments (Martinique, Guadeloupe and Réunion), excluding internal flows between mainland France and the overseas departments, as well as imports from OCTs (Overseas Countries and Territories) and imports destined for French Guiana and Mayotte.

The effective implementation of this tax is scheduled for 1 January 2026, subject to the final adoption of the Finance Bill. In parallel, the European Union will introduce a flat-rate charge of €3 per item on all small parcels imported as from 1 July 2026, as a transitional measure ahead of a broader EU-wide system, which will include handling fees of €2 per parcel from November 2026.

This measure will apply to parcels originating from all non-EU countries, but is primarily aimed at addressing the mass influx of low-priced Chinese goods, often non-compliant with EU standards, purchased via Asian platforms such as Shein, Temu and AliExpress.