8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/25 
that the company has delayed unduly, the authori­
ties should have the possibility of taking sanctions 
against the company such as public criticism, tem­
porary suspension from stock exchange listing, etc. 
Article 8 
The co-operation of the competent authorities provided 
for here (who are to be given such 'supervisory powers' 
as may be necessary), taken together with the extension 
of the responsibilities of the Contact Committee set up 
by the Directive of 5 March 1979, which is provided 
for in Article 10, is a good idea, as it removes the need 
for a special European authority. 
Article 11 
As the EEC Treaty provides no foundation for imposing 
penalties under criminal law, one wonders to what 
extent the Member States can be obliged under 
Article 11 to determine the penalties to be applied for 
infringement of the measures taken pursuant to the 
Done at Brussels, 16 December 1987. 
1. General comments 
1.1. In point 55 of its White Paper on completing the 
internal market by 1992, the Commission announced a 
proposal on the approximation of Member States' arms 
legislation. According to the explanatory Memorandum proposed Directive. The Commission should explore 
every possibility offered by the Contact Committee 
under Article 10 and, if necessary, by recourse to the 
European Court of Justice to ensure that violations are 
penalised in a comparable manner from country to 
country, and not in a completely different fashion. 
Otherwise, insider trading would be switched to Mem­
ber States where penalties were comparatively lower. 
Article 12 
The timing and content of the proposed Directive 
should be aligned on that of the Commission's proposal 
for a Directive on investment advisers. Inside infor­
mation not covered by Article 6 of the present proposal 
could, if necessary, be dealt with in the latter proposal. 
Perhaps worth thinking about is the publication of 
personally addressed share information services or 'hot 
line' investment tips or stock market information ser­
vices based on supposed inside knowledge or deliberate­
ly misrepresented as such in order to offload the costs 
of the publisher's own dealings on to his 'subscribers'. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
of document COM(87) 383 final, the establishment of 
the internal market will result, as provided for in the 
White Paper, in 'the removal of physical barriers'. The 
guarantees currently afforded by the possibility of car­
rying out border checks will have to be replaced on 31 
December 1992 at the latest by guarantees based on Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the control of the acquisition and 
possession of weapons 
(88/C 35/11) 
On 21 September 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 10 December 1987. 
The rapporteur was Mr van Dam. 
At its 251st plenary session (meeting of 19 December 1987) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority, with 11 abstentions: 
No C 35/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
procedures put into effect within the Member States, 
rather than an the internal borders. 
The present proposal seeks merely to introduce a Com­
munity-wide administrative procedure for the move­
ment of arms from one Member State to another, so 
as to make border checks on arms unnecessary. 
1.2. The Committee has always supported the aim 
of completing the internal market by 1992, including 
its social aspects. Subject to the comments below, it 
therefore endorses the principle of eliminating intra-
Community frontier checks on possession of weapons. 
1.3. However, the Committee takes the view that 
the draft Directive, in its present form, is completely 
inadequate to ensure that the objective referred to in 
point 1.1 is attained, namely replacement of internal 
frontier checks in proper conditions, particularly as 
regards the safety of Community citizens. The necessary 
completion of the 'people's Europe' must not be at the 
expense of personal safety. In the absence of stricter 
provisions and additional measures, this proposal could 
have the undesired effect of facilitating the illegal acqui­
sition and transport of arms. 
For this reason, the Committee believes that, apart from 
the strengthening of a number of the provisions in 
the draft Directive with a view to enhancing security, 
complementary measures must be taken. In particular, 
as part of the fight against terrorism and crime, there 
must be greater cooperation among Member States' 
police forces and security services (cf. the work of the 
Trevi Group). 
Similarly, with an eye to strengthening security, it 
should also be possible in certain special cases, such as 
that of the border between the Republic of Ireland and 
the United Kingdom, to retain checks on the possession 
of weapons at frontiers. 
1.4. It was because of the very considerable diversity 
of national laws on weapons and the need to respect 
the deadline of 1992 that the Commission decided not 
to propose effective harmonization of weapons legis­
lation by stages, which, in the Committee's view, would 
be the most satisfactory solution. It should be noted 
here that the procedure planned by the Commission as 
regards the compulsory keeping of a register is a move 
towards a certain harmonization of laws. 
1.5. The arms dealer has a central place in the pro­
posed administrative procedure, which entrusts him 
with an important role in applying the measures envis­
aged. This amounts to involving a private person in a 
task which properly falls to the public authorities. This 
transfer of responsibility to the arms dealer presupposes 
a number of guarantees and conditions (see specific 
comments, point 2.3.1). 1.6. The role of the public authorities in the various 
stages of the proposed procedures must be strength­
ened. 
1.7. Article 9 (2) lays down that the Member States 
shall intensify controls at external Community fron­
tiers. The Committee considers this a crucial provision 
whose importance is not reflected in the present word­
ing. The Committee would stress the urgent need for 
the Member States to intensify controls on possession 
of weapons at the external frontiers of the Community. 
Whichever solution is chosen for replacement of con­
trols on weapons at the internal frontiers, it must 
undoubtedly be accompanied by simultaneous, ad­
equate strengthening of controls at the external fron­
tiers. It is up to the Member States to devote special 
attention to this aspect of the problem. 
1.8. The above general comments clearly show that 
the Committee has a number of reservations about 
the Commission's proposal. But as a rider to these 
comments, and having seen the preparatory work 
involved, it feels it should make a number of specific 
comments which, if heeded, could lead to an improve­
ment in the content of the proposal. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 and Annex 
2.1.1. The Committee notes that the definitions in 
this Article and the Annex are based on those adopted 
in earlier international documents such as the Benelux 
Convention of 9 December 1970 on arms and ammu­
nition (ratified by one of three signatory countries) and 
the Council of Europe Convention of 28 June 1978 
(ratified by four of the twelve EC Member States). 
2.1.2. The Annex to the draft Directive should be 
revised to take into account the following: 
— special difficulties in controlling the sale of ammu­
nition, which under the terms of the Annex is also 
regarded as a firearm, 
— the need for clarification of the concepts 'perma­
nently rendered unfit for use' (point (i) of the 
Annex), 'low power' (point (ii) of the Annex) and 
of an object 'designed for alarm purposes' (point 
(iii) of the Annex). 
2.2. Article 2 
2.1.1. The provisions of the second paragraph of 
this Article must be analysed together with those of 
Article 6 (3), and are intended to avoid protection 
8. 2. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 35/27 
of the national arms market infringing the rules of 
competition. This aim of preventing protection of 
national markets should be formulated more clearly in 
the text. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. In view of the comments above on the role of 
the arms dealer in the proposed procedure, a number 
of guarantees and conditions need to be fulfilled, 
especially as regards: 
— the need for arms dealers to fulfil certain qualifi­
cations (their status and training vary considerably 
from one Member State to another) so that they can 
deal properly with the formalities involved (stricter 
guarantees must be required of arms dealers respon­
sible for helping to apply the planned measures), 
— checking that arms dealers perform their duties 
properly and determining what sanctions may be 
necessary (Art. 10), and 
— payment for the additional services which would be 
required of arms dealers (especially in implementing 
Articles 3 and 4 as regards sales to private individ­
uals). 
2.3.2. The principle of the keeping of a register mak­
ing it possible to find a person who has bought a 
firearm is endorsed. As regards the responsibility for 
keeping the register, see the 'general comments' part of 
this Opinion. 
2.3.3. The Committee takes the view that the trans­
fer of a firearm to the country of residence should be 
done through an arms dealer who is specially authorized 
by the authorities of that country (see Art. 6). 
2.4. Article 4 
2.4.1. It should be noted that this Article does not 
apply to sales or disposal of firearms between persons 
residing in the territory of the Member State where the 
sale or disposal takes place (cases where the seller is a 
private individual). 
2.5. Article 5 
2.5.1. Article 5 lays down that Member States shall 
prohibit the handing-over of a firearm to a person 
resident in another Member State unless that person is 
authorized to receive it by his Member State of resi­
dence. Care must be taken to ensure that this provision 
ties in with the third sub-paragraph of Article 6 (2), 
under which the Member State of destination only 
receives notice of consignment (see comments on Art. 6). 
The Committee is concerned that this Article may be 
too vague. Possession of and trade in weapons must be effectively 
controlled. The Committee feels there should be stricter 
control over the sale of arms to private persons. It 
should be authorized by the State where the sale takes 
place only subject to authorization by the State of 
destination. The Committee would in general urge the 
Council to encourage any measures which enable a 
tight control to be kept over the sale of arms to private 
persons. 
2.5.2. The Committee notes that it will be up to the 
Member States to decide how to ensure that firearms 
handed over to persons resident in a third country 
actually leave Community territory. The Committee 
has reservations about the provisions regarding persons 
who are residents of a third country. It fears the Com­
munity may be thought to be backsliding on its commit­
ments on security and in the fight against illegal arms 
dealing and criminal violence. 
2.5.3. With regard to the sale and handing-over of 
ammunition, mentioned in paragraph 2, the Committee 
takes the view that the expression 'small quantities' is 
too vague, and subject to differing interpretations. 
2.6. Article 6 
2.6.1. In the transfer procedure in Article 6, the 
Member State of departure authorizes the transfer of a 
weapon to another Member State. The provisions of 
this Article should be clarified, especially as regards: 
— the responsibilities of the Member State of departure 
for checking the safety aspects of the operation 
(transport and/or arrival in the other Member 
State), 
— the security side of transport (type of container, 
locks, seals, etc.), 
— the place in the country of destination where the 
weapon arrives; in view of the comments on 
Article 3, one must ensure that transfer to the coun­
try of residence is done through an arms dealer who 
is specially authorized by the authorities of that 
country. 
2.6.2. So as to clarify the situation for the future, the 
Committee would urge the Commission to examine, in 
the explanatory memorandum to its proposal, the effect 
of the introduction of its Directive on existing Member 
State export and import licensing systems, for both 
intra-Community trade and trade with third countries. 
The Committee wishes to avoid a clash between two 
licensing systems. 
2.7. Article 7 
2.7.1. The Committee notes that it will be very diffi­
cult, or even impossible, to monitor compliance with 
the time-limit of 48 hours mentioned at the end of 
paragraph 1. 
No C 35/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 2. 88 
2.7.2. The principle of less stringent rules on pos­
session of firearms for hunting or sport purposes while 
travelling in two or more Member States is endorsed. 
It is to be feared that the procedure for obtaining 
the 'declaration' required in these cases will not be 
sufficiently flexible and practical, especially with regard 
to the particulars required by the fourth indent 
of paragraph 2. It is desirable to avoid subjecting 
the persons concerned to tiresome and repetitive for­
malities. The Committee recommends the introduction 
of an international permit valid throughout the Com­
munity. Such a permit could contain, for instance, the 
information mentioned in the first three indents of 
Article 7 (2). On the basis of this document the persons 
concerned could more easily obtain the authorization 
required from the authorities of the country in which 
the arm is situated. 
2.8. Article 8 
No comments. 
Done at Brussels, 17 December 1987. 2.9. Article 9 
2.9.1. The intensification of controls on the pos­
session of weapons at external Community frontiers is 
the essential corollary to the elimination of controls at 
internal Community frontiers. The Committee attaches 
great importance to effective intensification of the exter­
nal controls by the relevant authorities of the Member 
States: the Commission does not have the resources 
necessary to organize such controls. It is up to the 
Council to ensure that the competent national authori­
ties take measures which bring about the desired intensi­
fication of controls on the possession of weapons at the 
Community's external frontiers. 
2.9.2. It should be made clear whether the 'means of 
transport' referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article are 
intended to include individual means of transport. 
2.10. Articles 10, 11 and 12 
No comments. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT