EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 31.5.2010 
SEC(2010) 662 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL REGULATION 
implementing Article 10 of the United Na tions’ Firearms Protocol and establishing 
export authorisation, import and transi t measures for firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition 
 
 
 
Impact Assessment  
 
{COM (2010) 273} 
{SEC (2010) 663} 
 
EN 2   EN Table of contents  
 1. Procedural Issues and Consu ltation of Interested Parties....................................... 4 
1.1. Legal basis, political mandate  and existing instruments:....................................... 4 
1.2. Consultation and expertise. .................................................................................... 6 2. Scope of art. 10 UNFP ........................................................................................... 7 2.1. Article 10................................................................................................................ 7 
2.2. Definition of firearms............................................................................................. 8 2.3. Key players and scale of transfer of firearms for civilian use................................ 8 
Table 1 Extra-EU trade of firearms for civilian use, their parts and components and 
ammunition in 2007................................................................................................ 9 
Table 2 Export and import value of firearm s for sporting, hunting and target shooting 
purposes expressed as a percentage of the total value of firearms for civilian use, 
their parts and components and ammunition transferred to and from third countries in 2007.................................................................................................. 10 
3. Status Quo ............................................................................................................ 12 
Table 3 Provisions of the UNFP agains t Member States legislation................................ 13 
4. Defining the problem ........................................................................................... 15 
4.1. Legal Aspects linked to UNFP............................................................................. 15 4.2. Security problems linked to the transfer of firearms............................................ 16 
4.3. Economic problems linked to the transfer of firearms for civilian use................ 18 4.4. Defining the problem and its  underlying drivers/causes...................................... 19 
4.5. Analysis of the EU right to act and necessity test ................................................ 19 
5. Setting the objectives ........................................................................................... 20 6. Developing policy options ................................................................................... 21 6.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 21 6.2. Justification of the bundling of the el ements to form the policy options............. 22 
6.3. Policy options....................................................................................................... 23 
Table 4: Policy options against Art 10 provisions ............................................................. 23 
7. Assessing the policy options ................................................................................ 28 
7.1. Assessment criteria............................................................................................... 28 7.2. Assessment of each policy option ........................................................................ 28 7.3. Comparative assessment of policy options .......................................................... 33 
 
EN 3   EN Table 5  Comparison between policy options .................................................................... 33 
7.4. Assessment of stakeholders' consultations........................................................... 34 
7.5. Identification of the pr eferred policy option ........................................................ 34 
7.6. Assessment of the preferred option...................................................................... 36 7.7. Assessment of financial and administrativ e costs of the pref erred policy option 39 
8. Monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................... 43 ANNEXES
 
Annex I Article 10............................................................................................................. . 45 
Annex II List of consulted private stakeholde rs' and NGOs who replied to the request for 
data/interviews, invited/ attended meetings, etc.................................................... 46 
Annex III Selection of categories of the CN dataset............................................................. 47 Annex IV Extra-EU trade in firearms for sporting, hunting a nd target shooting in 2007 .... 49 
Annex V Export and import value of  pistols and revolvers expre ssed as a percentage of the 
total value of firearms for civilian use, their parts and components and ammunition exported to and imported from third countries in 2007 ................... 50 
Annex VI Value of export and import of parts and components expressed as a percentage of 
the total value of firearms  for civilian use, thei r parts and components and 
ammunition transferred to and from third countries in 2007 ............................... 51 
Annex VII Value of export and import of ammun ition expressed as a per centage of the total 
value of firearms for civilian use, th eir parts and components and ammunition 
transferred to and from third countries in 2007.................................................... 52 
Annex VIII Summary of findings in the Small Arms Survey ................................................. 54 Annex IX Number of issued import and/or ex port licenses related to the imported and/or 
exported quantity (in numbers) of fi rearms, their parts and components and 
ammunition........................................................................................................... 55 
Annex X Assessment of financial and administ rative costs of the pr eferred policy option. 
Further details....................................................................................................... 56 
Annex XI Zero base measurements of transa ctions of firearms in the Netherlands............. 63 
Annex XII Duration of the process (processing th e application form and approval/refusal of a 
licence................................................................................................................... 64 
Annex XIII Hypothetical example of the steps to be followed by a business (exporter/trade) 
and or an individual (hunter/sport shoot er), based on the provisions of the 
preferred policy option......................................................................................... 65 
Annex XIV Indicators for m onitoring and evaluation ............................................................. 66 
 
EN 4   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL REGULATION 
IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE 10 OF THE UNI TED NATIONS' FIRE ARMS PROTOCOL 
AND ESTABLISHING EXPORT AUTHORIS ATION, IMPORT AND TRANSIT 
MEASURES FOR FIREARMS, THEI R PARTS AND COMPONENTS AND 
AMMUNITION  
 
Impact Assessment 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Legal basis, political mandate  and existing instruments: 
The Council and Commission Action Plan implem enting the Hague Programme on strengthening 
freedom, security and justic e in the European Union lis ted among its relevant actions1 a proposal 
on the conclusion - on behalf of the European Community2 - of the Protocol against the Illicit 
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms , their Parts and Components and Ammunition 
supplementing the United Nations Convention agai nst Transnational Organi sed Crime (so called 
"UNTOC Convention")3, hereinafter referred to as the ” UN Firearms Protocol" or "UNFP". Its 
successor, the Stockholm Programme "an open and secure Europe, serving and protecting 
citizen"4, highlighted trafficking in arms as one of the illegal activities that continue to challenge 
the internal security of the EU and reaffirm s that the Union should continue to promote 
ratification of international Conve ntions (and their Protocols) in particular those developed under 
the auspices of the United Nations.   
In response to the terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March, the European Council adopted a 
“Declaration on combating terrorism” on 25 Marc h 2004. The Declaration states that the 
“European Council recognises that th ere is a need to en sure terrorist organi zations and groups are 
starved of the components of their tr ade. In particular there is a need  to ensure greater security of 
firearms, explosives, bomb-making equipment, and the technologies that  contribute to the 
perpetration of terrorist outrages.” 
                                                 
1 4.2, International legal Order, (p) 
2 When historical reference is made to the "European Community" the reader should take into account that the 
European Union replaced and succeeded th e European Community  on the date of  entry into force of the "Lisbon 
Treaty" , 1st of December 2009, pursuant to article 1 third paragraph of the Treaty on the European Union/TEU (OJ, 
C115 of 9 May 2008),      
3 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src= TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-12- c&chapter=18&lang=en   
4 EU Council Document 17024/09, CO EUR-PREP  3 JAI 896 POLGEN 22 9 of 2 December 2009. 
 
EN 5   EN The Commission's Communication on measures to ensure greater security in explosives, 
detonators, bomb-making equi pment and fire-arms of 18.07.20055 the Commission informed the 
public of the need and intention to implement Ar t 10 of the UNFP (Annex I) as  part of the overall 
transposition work6 that would facilitate the Commission’ s obligation to produce its proposal for 
a Council decision on the conclusion of  the UNFP on behalf of the Union. 
One of the principal aims of Commission’s cu rrent policy on firearms is the "Conclusion" 
(ratification)" of the UNFP. The purpose of the Protoc ol is to "promote, facilitate and strengthen 
cooperation among States Parties in order to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit 
manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms , their parts and components and ammunition". 
Under Art 10 of the UNFP, all parties shall in pa rticular put in place, or improve administrative 
procedures or systems to exer cise effective control over the manufacturing, marking, import and 
export of firearms. 
Under the authorization by the Council, the Commission (from 1990 to  2001) negotiated on 
behalf of the European Co mmunity the articles of the UNFP falling under Community 
Competence and eventually signed it on 16 Ja nuary 2002 on behalf of the European Community7 
under Articles 95 (internal market) and 133 TEC8 (common commercial policy9, exclusive 
competence of the Union, within which Art.  10 UNFP provisions fall). Being a mixed 
instrument, the UNFP has also been signed by 18 EU  Member States. However, up to the end of 
2009 only 13 EU Member States are Contracting Par ties (they have either ratified or acceded to 
it10).  
The UNFP entered into force on 3 July 2005. It s "Conclusion" (ratificat ion) by the Union is 
pending and subject to the transposition of t hose provisions falling under Union's competence 
into EU legislation. The legisla tive proposal this impact assessment is accompanying is part of 
that work on which a political decision was already taken by the Members States. 
As said, the UNFP is a "mixed" international inst rument from the EU perspective. This means 
that for those parts falling unde r Union's Competence it is up to the European Commission to 
take action to transpose those provisions into the EU legislation. The articles linked to internal 
market (markings, record keeping, etc) where addressed by an internal Market Directive (Directive 2008/51/EC). Art 10 is an article whose provisions fall under the (exclusive) Union's 
competence (common commercial policy), on which Member States are not entitled to take 
legislative initiative at national level. Nevertheless this IA includes also an analysis of compliance of Member States legisl ation with Art 10 (see chapter 3). 
                                                
 
5 COM(2005) 329 final,  
6 Work that included the update of Directive 91/477/EEC on possession and transfers of firearms within the EU, as 
amended by Directive 2008/51/EC, addressing other parts of the UNFP from the internal market perspective.  
7 (Council Decision 2001/748/EC of 16 October 2001. OJ  European Communities, L 280 of 24 October 2001). 
8 Now respectively Art. 114 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union /TFEU (OJ, C115 of 9 
May 2008).  
9 According to Article 207 TFEU, the common commercial policy "shall be based on uniform principles, particularly 
with regard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements…. the achievement of uniformity 
in measures of liberalisation, export po licy and measures to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of 
dumping or subsidies….". 
10 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CT OC/countrylist-firearmsprotocol.html    
 
EN 6   EN The current EU Acquis with regards to firearms for civilian use is mainly  addressed by Directive 
91/477/EEC (as amended by ‘Directive 2008/51/EC’ on control of the acqui sition and possession 
of weapons). However, Directiv e 91/477 relates to the control of the acquisition and possession 
of weapons within the EU duri ng a journey through two or more Member States. It called upon 
Member States to intensify contro ls on the possession of weapons on the external frontiers of the 
Community but did not esta blish in itself any trad e regime for import/export. 
Other important EU instruments, such as the EU Code of Conduct only apply to conventional 
military arms. 
The approach aimed at concluding the UNFP is also  in line with the with  the current EU policy 
regarding the measures aimed at reducing the pr oliferation and spread of small arms around the 
world, in the frame of the (former) second pillar.  
With regard to security, the objective of limiting th e diversion and that of ensure better tracing is 
the objective of the UNFP as a whole. It is not po ssible and would be an error to make an attempt 
to address how only a small piece of the UNFP cont ributes to that objective. This is why we use 
the formula "contribute to improvement of secu rity". Moreover the overall measures of the 
UNFP are there to make it possible to ensure a backtracking investigati on by means of which to 
see how and at what stage a firearm left the legal market. Virtually all firearms in the illegal 
market come from the legal market. 
Articles 207 and 346 TFEU provide a framework w ith which the new proposal for implementing 
Article 10 has to comply. First of all, the proposal should ma tch the common commercial policy 
requirements of Article 207. Second, the proposal would be without prej udice of Article 346 
which refers to the national security of the Me mber States. Each Member State has the right to 
take measures necessary to prot ect its national securi ty. Therefore, the proposal should not apply 
to firearms that are intended specifically for military purposes. 
The opinion of the Impact Assessment Board of 7 December 2009 underlined generally good 
quality of the report and asked for some clarifica tions with regard to th e problem definition and 
presentation of options. The IA has been revi sed along those lines. In particular the revision 
included pages 6 point 1.1, 20, p.5.8, 42 and 43 on the recommendation on the scope of the initiative and security; page s 24 (table 4), 27, 33, 34 and 35 on the aspect linked to the 
simplification of the presentation of the options and rationale of some key elements; pages 29, 
33, 34 and revised annex II (page 46) on figures  and fulfilment of objectives. A new Annex 
(XIII, page 65) was added for matching th e request for a hypothetical example of 
implementation.  
1.2. Consultation and expertise. 
The Impact Assessment is based on the consu ltation ensured by the European Commission in 
2006 and 2007 by means of questionnaires distributed to all EU Member States, to all relevant 
stakeholders representing different  interest groups (representative s of European associations of 
manufacturers of firearms and ammunitions for civil use, civil commer ce of weapons, hunters, 
collectors), two dedicated meeti ngs organised in Brussels in March and June 2007 with the 
Member States and the private parties (inclu ded NGOs), the opening of a specific e-mail account 
 
EN 7   EN (JLS-FIREARMS@ec.europa.eu ) for permanent consultation. Th e consultation therefore was 
addressed to all Member States. With regard to the Member States, a representative sample (19 
out of 27) either sent replies or participated to  the meetings or were interviewed: AT, BE, BG, 
CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, RO, SE, SK, UK. 
With regards to the consultation of private st akeholders and NGOs, the Commission ensured a 
similar wide consultation. The list of the c onsulted parties is included in Annex II. 
To note that the questionnaires and invitations we re sent to a wide range of private European 
stakeholders which - besides the ones mentione d in Annex II - included  the "Association of 
European Chambers of Commer ce and Industry", the "Union de s Industries de la Communauté 
européenne" (UNICE) now called "Businesseurope " and the "European A ssociation of Craft, 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" (UEA PME); as well as to other NGOs/Research 
institutions like SIPRI and ISIS Europe. Th e UN Office in Geneva was notified as well. 
The results and opinions expressed at the different stage of the c onsultations are included in the 
parts of this Impact Assessment addressing the policy options (see chapters 6 and 7). 
The Commission also commissioned an external study to support the preparation of this Impact 
Assessment11. The result of the study - delivered in January 2009 - included factual findings 
information, further consultation of st akeholders and possi ble policy options. 
The preliminary work also included the establishm ent of an internal co nsultation by setting up a 
specific Inter-Service Group on "firearms", chai red by DG JLS with the participation or 
contribution in particular of representa tives of the SG, SJ, DG ENTR, TAXUD, RELEX, 
TRADE (DG MARKT was informed as well). The ISG met 7 times.  
2. SCOPE OF ART . 10 UNFP 
2.1. Article 10  
Article 10 of the UNFP on ‘General requirement s for export, import and transit licensing or 
authorisation systems requires ‘eac h State party to establish or maintain an effective system of 
export and import licensing or author isation, as well as of measures  on international transit, for 
the transfer of firearms, thei r parts and components and ammun ition’, thereby improving scrutiny 
of transfers and allowing better enforcement of laws. 
As described by the UN legislative Guid elines on implementation of the UNFP, "the system 
underscores the central principle underlying the Protocol that firearms and related items cannot 
be imported or exported without th e awareness and consent of all St ates involved and that cases 
in which this is not complied with attract criminal investigation, pr osecution and punishment" . 
"The Protocol requires States partie s: (a) To establish a system to  ensure that firearms are not 
exported to or through countries  that have not authorized the transfer (art. 10, paras. 2 and 4); 
(b) To ensure that the content of the documents used for legal import and export is sufficient to 
                                                 
11 Ernst and Young/Regioplan. 
 
EN 8   EN support the offence of trafficking (art. 10, para. 3); and (c) To  enhance the acc ountability and 
security associated with the impor t and export system (art. 10, para. 5)" . Besides the above 
mentioned "Shall "  - i.e. mandatory - provisions, Art 10 also allows States parties to adopt 
simplified procedure for private individuals to temporarily impor t or export small numbers of 
firearms for "verifiable lawful purposes, such recreational, repair, exhi bition (art. 10, para. 6). 
These latter provisions are referred after as " May" – i.e. optional  - provisions . 
The trade in firearms we are addressing in this context only includes the export /import to/from 
third countries . The transit measures does not refer to the customs procedures as defined by the 
Community Customs Code but rather to the tr ansit of goods exported from the EU Customs 
territory to a final destination in a third, passing through the terri tory of another third Country. 
As also described in the menti oned UN legislative Guidelines, Art 10 (as any other article of the 
UNFP) cannot be seen in isolation but in connect ion with the proper implementation also of other 
articles like for example Art 5 on "cri minalization" and Art 8 on "markings"12. 
2.2. Definition of firearms 
The UNFP definition of ‘firearm'13 does not distinguish between firearms for civilian or military 
use , a distinction that for as a matter of coherenc y with the current EU le gal framework has to be 
taken into account for the purposes of the transp osition into the Union legislation of Art 10. The 
Impact assessment only refers to the categories of firearms not specifically designed for military 
purposes (like the automatic firearms). Hence the firearms referred to in this impact assessment 
include categories B (Firearms subject to authoris ation), C (Firearms subject  to declaration) and 
D (Other firearms) as mentioned in Annex I, part II of Directive 91 /477/EC amended by means 
of Directive 2008/51/EC14. These are the firearms for civilian use traded/used broadly by 
authorised arms traders, retailers, private co mpanies providing security services, citizens for 
individual self protection, hunt ers, sport shooters, etc.  
2.3. Key players and scale of transf er of firearms for civilian use15 
The most detailed trade statistics that can be  accessed are broken down by sub-headings of the 
Combined Nomenclature (CN). This tariff a nd statistical classification is based on the 
                                                 
12 Art 5 for example refers to import and export without a licence. Art 8 refers to markings. Markings are the core 
information for the aim of tracing fir earms. The markings should be incl uded in the documents accompanying the 
request for licences.  
13 Art. 3 UNFP " firearm shall mean any po rtable barreled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be readily 
converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the acti on of an explosive, excluding antique firearms or their 
replicas. Antique firearms and their rep licas shall be defined in accordance with  domestic law. In no case, however, 
shall antique firearms include fi rearms manufactured after 1899"". 
14 For the purpose of Directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC, a ‘firear m’ means: ‘any portable 
barrelled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the 
action of a combustible propellant, unless it is excluded for one of the reasons listed in part III of Annex I’. ‘For the 
purposes of this Directive, an object shall be considered  as capable of being converted to expel a shot, bullet or 
projectile by the action of a combustible propellant if it has the appearance of a firearm, and as a result of its 
construction or the material from which it is made, it can be so converted’ 
15 The following data are extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of the Eurostat database. 
 
EN 9   EN international classification of the Harmonised Sy stem. Firearms specifically designed for military 
use (example NC code 9301) are excluded from this impact assessment. Consequently, the 
relevant categories of the Combined Nomenclature dataset were extracted from the Eurostat Database and are included in ANNEX III. 
The following Table 1 represents the quantity and value of export and import
 of firearms for 
civilian use, their parts and components and a mmunition to and from third countries in 2007.  
Table 1 Extra-EU trade of firearms for civilian use,  their parts and components and ammunition in 200716 
Member States Export 
quantity Export value Import 
quantity Import value 
Austria 10 680 € 28 451 164  7 321 € 6 495 960  
Belgium 3 442 € 1 616 027  66 506 € 16 499 381  
Bulgaria         
Cyprus 40 534 € 3 031 026  3 924 € 974 098  
Czech republic  385 768 € 35 285 757  32 913 € 3 843 784  
Germany  431 593 € 139 217 006  268 596 € 51 337 308  
Denmark 353 696 € 4 600 932  383 603 € 7 471 773  
Estonia 0 € 27 2 310 € 1 151 218  
Spain 2 853 206 € 38 391 151  65 062 € 12 381 015  
Finland 58 393 € 17 815 155  20 713 € 5 825 931  
France 2 233 958 € 83 323 423  170 829 € 20 702 311  
United kingdom 1 445 926 € 57 466 941  1 017 549 € 45 723 313  
Greece 681 531 € 3 343 133  195 624 € 2 276 643  
Hungary 883 706 € 5 187 670  65 642 € 1 528 085  
Ireland 3 € 3 736  10 328 € 1 142 922  
Italy 789 974 € 240 217 424  109 189 € 26 609 533  
Lithuania 1 € 2 848 931  3 106 € 666 391  
Luxembourg 5 € 26 602  19 € 169 510  
Latvia 54 € 4 468  1 435 € 469 701  
Malta 100 000 € 6 150  513 € 131 463  
Netherlands 475 € 545 266  6 692 € 3 808 625  
Poland 13 073 € 4 113 738  49 825 € 3 014 288  
Portugal 42 016 € 17 472 665  3 951 € 3 464 448  
                                                 
16 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of the 
Eurostat database. 
 
EN 10   EN Romania         
Sweden 30 759 € 9 890 637  6 695 € 4 917 150  
Slovenia 0 € 664 862  0 € 277 312  
Slovakia 421 € 353 654  297 242 € 670 261  
EU27  10 359 214 € 693 877 545  2 789 587 € 221 552 424  
The value of imported firearms their parts and components and ammunition in the EU is more 
than three times lower than that of exports. 
The following Table 2 represents instead the value and percentage of export and import  of 
firearms for sporting, hunting and target shooting purposes their parts and components and 
ammunition to and from third countries in 2007.  
Table 2 Export and import value of firearms for sporti ng, hunting and target shooting purposes expressed as 
a percentage of the total value of firearms for civ ilian use, their parts and co mponents and ammunition 
transferred to and from third countries in 200717 
  Export sport, huntin g and 
target shooting Import sport, huntin g and 
target shooting 
Member States Export value % of total Import value % of total 
Austria € 5 887 841  21% € 534 350  8% 
Belgium  € 1 015 271  63% € 7 626 914  46% 
Bulgaria         
Cyprus € 64 694  2% € 742 596  76% 
Czech Republic  € 11 031 481  31% € 423 328  11% 
Germany  € 38 581 521  28% € 8 550 407  17% 
Denmark € 509 311  11% € 1 528 353  20% 
Estonia     € 125 531  11% 
Spain € 4 961 547  13% € 2 649 004  21% 
Finland € 11 187 094  63% € 1 685 679  29% 
France € 2 067 702  2% € 5 897 307  28% 
United Kingdom € 19 162 231  33% € 6 924 771  15% 
Greece € 344 734  10% € 1 132 767  50% 
Hungary € 17 225  0% € 250 422  16% 
Ireland € 3 736  100% € 633 908  55% 
                                                 
17 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of the 
Eurostat database. 
 
EN 11   EN Italy € 134 070 737  56% € 5 570 082  21% 
Lithuania     € 122 576  18% 
Luxembourg € 3 131  12% € 21 628  13% 
Latvia     € 189 218  40% 
Malta     € 72 855  55% 
Netherlands € 363 985  67% € 131 123  3% 
Poland € 42 269  1% € 784 009  26% 
Portugal € 8 238 230  47% € 90 852  3% 
Romania         
Sweden € 592 707  6% € 756 731  15% 
Slovenia € 92 217  14% € 40 132  14% 
Slovakia € 1 225  0% € 63 496  9% 
EU27  € 238 238 889  34% € 46 548 039  21% 
The percentage in terms of value of impor t for sporting, hunting and target shooting is 
significantly lower than the valu e of export of these types of  firearms: 21 against 34. The 
comparison with table 1 before shows that these t ypes of products amount to one third of the total 
value of export of firearms to third countries (238 MEU against 693) and 1 fifth with regard to 
imports (46 MEU against 221 MEU). 
For information, the figures on numbers of impo rted/exported firearms for recreational purposes 
are in Annex IV.  
Revolvers and pistols. 
The number of revolvers and pistols18 imported and exported to and from the EU is only a small 
percentage of the total number of imported a nd exported firearms. The export of pistols and 
revolvers is only 13 percent of the total value of exported firearms fo r civilian use, their parts and 
components and ammunition. With rega rd to the import, this percenta ge is only four percent. The 
total value of exported revolve rs and pistols is € 89 447 583. The total value of imported 
revolvers and pistols is € 9 539 482 (for  the details see table in Annex V). 
Parts and components. 
Consideration should be given to th e fact that a share of imported  “parts and components” are at 
a later stage assembled in the fi nal product and therefore exported as an “assembled firearm with 
its own (higher) value. Pa rts and components count for the 16 % of total export a nd 21 % of total 
                                                 
18 There is only an apparent overlap between military equipm ent and firearms for civilian use in the case of revolvers 
and pistols, since they are included in the "Common Military List of the EU" but subject to the exception that the list 
does not apply to smooth-bore weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes, providing that they are not be 
specially designed for military use or of the fully automatic firing type. )  
 
EN 12   EN imports of firearms for civilian use, their parts and components and ammunition (for the details 
see table in Annex VI). 
Ammunition. 
The value of imported ammunition is 52% of the to tal value of imported fir earms for civilian use, 
their parts and components and ammunition (f or the details see table in Annex VII). 
Number of authorising and licensing procedures. 
It was not possible to get definitive informati on on the number of licence /authorizations managed 
by Member States per year. A calculation base d on replies received from Member States 
representatives and information of  private stakeholders, compared  to the statistics on quantities 
imported and exported in all the 27 Member States could led to approximately 25 to 30 thousand 
licences/authorizations issued per year, in total, in  all the 27 Member States. It is important to 
highlight that it remained unclear in some of  the cases whether the licences were issued for 
export or/and import and whether th ese licences or authorisations we re referring to military and/ 
or firearms for civilian use.  
Conclusions. 
The total value of exported firearms for civilian use, parts and components and ammunition 
amounts to nearly 700 million Euros. The total valu e of imports is more than 200 million Euros. 
The export of firearms for the purposes of spor ting, hunting and target shooting comprises more 
than one third of the total valu e of firearms export to third c ountries. The export and import of 
pistols and revolvers is only a sm all percentage of the total numb er of transferred firearms for 
civilian use, their part s and components and ammunition. Anot her significant finding is that the 
value of imported ammunition amounts to more than  half of the total value of imported firearms, 
their parts and components and ammunition. 
3. STATUS QUO 
National legislations do not fully  comply with the provisions of Article 10 of the UNFP. 
Five Member States (France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta and Czech Republic ) have neither signed 
nor acceded to the UNFP19 while 9 others (Austria, Denm ark, Finland, Germany, Greece, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdo m only signed it without  any ratification. 
Only 13 Member States are contracting Parties of the UNFP (ratification or accession accomplished). See also chapter 6.1. 
Compliance with the provisions of Article 10 of the UNFP 
On the basis of questionnaires received from Memb er States who replied to  the consultations the 
following table gives an overview of the most  important aspects of the Member States’ 
                                                
 
19 UNODC, Status of ratification of the UNFP (Status as at: 08/02/2 010). Retrieved from: 
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CT OC/countrylist-firearmsprotocol.html   
 
EN 13   EN legislation regarding the impl ementation of the provisions of  Article 10 UNFP (all "Shall" 
provisions but the last one). 
Table 3 Provisions of the UNFP against Member States legislation  
Legend:  ‘+’ means: the legislation of the Member State complies with the specific requirement. 
‘-‘ means: the legislation of the Member St ate does not comply with the requirement. ‘+/-‘ means: 
the legislation of the Member State pa rtly complies with the requirement.  
Conclusions from the analysis of Member States’ legislation 
• Art 10 of the UNFP is not fully implemented in all the 27 Member States. 
• The majority of the Member States distingui sh firearms for military use from those for 
civilian use, based on the sort of firearm.  However, the legislations often do not 
distinguish between military or civilian firearms with regards to the export/import/transit procedures. 
• Uniform common principles are not established in the legislations of the Member States. 
Only four out of the fourteen countries who replied to the questionn aires, mentioned that 
their legislation concerning th e authorisation of import and export of firearms complies 
with the provisions of Article 10 of the UNFP. 
• Most of the Member States that replied to the consultations, mentioned that they require 
proof of an import licence or authorisation be fore issuing the export licence. Only in Provisions of the UNFP against Member States legislation 
Requirement SK HU UK RO DK NL DE IE SE EE BE IT BG AT
1. Existence of a licensing / 
authorisation system + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 
2.a. Receiving import 
licence/authorisation before 
issuing export licence _ + + + + - - + + + + + + - 
2.b. Receiving written notice o f 
no objection of transit country before issuance of export licence _ +/- - +/- + - - - - +/- - - + - 
3.a. Required information in 
documentation +/- + + + + +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- 
3.b. Provide information in the 
import licence to transit countries - - - + - - - - - + - - + - 
4. Notification of receipt upon 
request + + + + + + + +/- +/- + + - + + 
5. Verification of authorisation  + + + - +/- + + + + + + + + 
6. Simplified procedures fo r 
temporary import/export  + - + + - - + + + + + + + 
 
EN 14   EN particular cases the exporter is  required to provide a copy of  an import aut horisation. In 
all Member States the burden is on the private party (the exporter/importer). In most of 
the consulted Member States, the original licen ce or a certified copy is required. Only in 
the United Kingdom an electronic copy of  the import licence is sufficient. 
• Eight Member States that replie d to the consultation stated th at they do not require - prior 
to issuing the export licence or the authorisations for shipme nt – to receive a notice in 
writing that the transit countries have no objec tion to the transfer. Within the EU, transit 
States are informed of the transit. The few Me mber States that require this notice of no 
objection stated that this not ice should be in written form. Electronic documents are 
therefore not allowed. 
• Most of the elements required in Art 10, Par. 320 are contained in the export and import 
licence or authorisation and accompanying doc umentation in the Member States. Four 
countries stated they do not include information on the transit States.  
• Similarly to previous points, the legislation of the different Member  States concerning Art 
10 Par.4 (notification on rece ipt of dispatched firearms) is not uniform, even if the 
legislation of most of the Member States th at replied to the consultation complies with 
this provision. Usually, notifications of receipt are only given on request. 
• Art. 10 Par 5 of the UNFP reads that each State Party shall - within the available means -  
take such measures as may be necessary to  ensure that licensing or authorisation 
procedures are secure and that  the authenticity of licensing  or authorization documents 
can be verified or validated. The UN Guid elines suggest the us e of standardised 
documents, as they may also increase the degree of security21. Most of the Member States 
that replied to the consultation make use of documents that are standardised within their 
country, but an EU common standardization is  not in place (except for the End User 
Certificate and the International Import Certific ate). This could facilitate the falsification 
of these documents. Some Member States re quire the standardised International Import 
Certificate whose layout would guarantee it s authenticity. However, when this is not 
used, another certificate of th e national authority of the im porting State is sufficient as 
well. In cases of doubts, checks are made by diplomatic channels, via the competent 
national authorities of th e importing State, etc. 
• Ten out of fourteen Member States that replied to the consultations use simplified 
procedures for temporary export and import. Other Member States make a distinction 
between the type of temporary transfers, su ch as temporary import/export for commercial 
purposes and temporary import/export for non-commercial purposes. In one Member State for example, a special form is used  for weapons and ammunition for hunting and 
shooting competitions that are exported to and re-imported from non-EU Member States 
within three months. This form is provided to the customs and taxation authorities when 
the goods are dispatched. 
                                                
 
20 The markings applied to the firearms for civilian use, the dates of issuance and expiry of licences or 
authorisations, the place of issue of perm its or authorisations, the country of ex port, the country of  import, the final 
recipient, a description of the articles imported or expo rted, the quantities of the articles imported or exported and, 
whenever there is transit, th e countries of transit (Art. 10.3 and Art. 8 of UNFP). 
21 Legislative guide for the implementation of the UNFP, chapter 4, part C, p.441. 
 
EN 15   EN • The average time to process an application fo rm for export or import varies from 5 days 
to three months and in some cases up to one year. Most Member States that replied to the 
consultations, noted that the processing w ould not take more than 1 month. Some 
Member States stated that there is a maxi mum duration of processing the application 
forms. One Member State stated that the maximum duration was 90 days. Another said 
that no maximum duration is imposed. 
• Most Member States that replied to the cons ultations, mentioned that  they make use of 
open licences for the export of firearms. These licences contain a description of the sort 
of firearm and information on the quantity (or va lue) of firearms that they are allowed to 
export. It is up to the private party to deci de in how many shipments they want to export 
the quantity of firearms. Hence, in most Me mber States, multiple shipments are allowed. 
The licences are usually valid for a maximum of 1 year. 
• As mentioned before, all Member States but  one (between those who replied) require 
proof of original documents or (certified) co pies of original documents. In one Member 
State electronic documents are used while  another was planning to introduce them. 
Conclusions 
Overall, the national legislations in place do not fu lly comply with the prov isions of Article 10 of 
the UNFP. In the current situation, most but not all EU Member States re quire an import licence 
or authorisation before issuing an export licen ce (as requested by Art 10 UNFP). The Member 
States as whole do not have a harmonised proce dure regarding the previous authorisation of 
transit of firearms. As results from the consultation undertaken, the acquisition of a notice of ‘no 
objection’ of the transit countries  is not compulsory or require d. Moreover, these Member States 
do not notify the transit States in advance. Also, in four Member States the required information 
on the transit States are not included in th e export and import licence or authorisation and 
accompanying documentation. The current situation with regard to transit requirements is 
therefore not in line with the provisions of Art 10 UNFP. Firear ms, their parts and components 
and ammunition can be temporarily transferred to th ird countries for verifiab le purposes such as 
sport shooting, hunting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs. Howeve r this simplified procedure, a 
"may" provision under Art 10 of the UNFP, is  not in place in all Member States.  
4. DEFINING THE PROBLEM  
4.1. Legal aspects linked to UNFP  
It follows from the fact that the Community ( now Union) has signed the Protocol that the it 
should undertake all the necessary steps to be able  to comply with the obligations created by the 
Protocol (which include - besides the asp ects already recalled in paragraph 1.1 - the 
implementation of Art. 10) and to ratify (conclude) it. 
In 2002 the European Community signed the UN FP in view of Articles 95 and 133 TEC. The 
latter - now article 207 of the TF EU - gives exclusive external competence to  the Union for the 
common commercial policy.  
 
EN 16   EN The Common commercial policy is one of the main elements of the European Union's relations 
with the rest of the world. It is an area of ex clusive Union's responsibil ity (Article 207 TFEU). 
The common commercial policy implies uniform c onduct of trade relations with third countries, 
in particular by means of a common customs tariff and common import and export regimes. 
However, in the existing rules on the transfer of firearms for civilian use, the harmonisation 
required by the common commercial policy has not yet been achieved.  
Failure to implement Art 10 would result in th e corresponding failure to establish a common 
commercial policy, as requested by the Trea ty on the EU, according to which the common 
commercial policy shall be based on  uniform principles particularly  in regard to export (and in 
this case also to import) policy. 
Not all the provisions of Art. 10 UNFP are fully im plemented in Member States legislation (see 
chapter 3 on "status quo"). However, even if in all the Member States the national legislation would be in line with Art 10 UNFP - in the ab sence of Union's legislation implementing a 
minimum horizontal harmonization, firstly - Union's international obligations would be breached, 
and secondly – nothing could prev ent a Member State from making a step back and modifying its 
own legislation with the conseque nce that the legal frame in the EU would not be any longer in 
line with the provisions of Art 10 and fully implemented in all the EU territory. 
4.2. Security problems linked to the transfer of firearms 
Combating firearms trafficking is crucial in the fight against insecurity and criminality, 
especially against organized crime. This goes on to properly monitor the movement of firearms 
and to enhance cooperation betwee n the national administrations in charge of controlling the 
movement of such firearms. This preventive activ ity involves the reinforcement of controls on 
the legal sale, acquisition and po ssession of firearms in the EU. 
Improving the tracing of firearms - where tracing means the systematic tracking of firearms from 
manufacturers to last legal purchaser - is a key objective in the context of setting up an efficient 
preventive system against firearms trafficking. De spite the efforts made at national and European 
level, a significant amount of firearms leaves th e legal market and enter into the illegal one. The 
primary method for obtaining a firear m for illicit use is its diversion from the legal market. It is a 
matter of fact that the majority of the firearms in  the illegal market (or us ed in illegal activities) 
originate in the legal market. At some stage thos e firearms left the legal market (stolen, lost, 
illegally sold, etc.) and can fall in the hands of criminals or terrorists. Illegal trafficking of 
firearms, i.e. unauthorized transf er of firearms across borders and the transfer of unmarked 
firearms, is one important source of illegal firear ms. One of the driving causes for this being the 
unclear and diverging provisions of export licensing. Implementing Art 10 of the UNFP is one of 
the responses to the need for improving tracing, as requested by the International Community. 
The Council
22 recalled that: "In view of the threat posed to pu blic security in the European Union 
by organised crime and international terrorism, particular importance attaches to combating 
                                                 
22 Council Recommendation on a standard procedure in Member States for cross-border enquiries by police 
authorities in investigating supply channels for seized or recovered crime-related firearms 2807th JUSTICE and 
HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting Luxembourg, 12 and 13 June 2007 
 
EN 17   EN arms trafficking and other forms of arms crime. Tracing of supply channels provides an 
important aid in combating arms crime. Swift trac ing of the full route taken by a firearm serves 
three crucial purposes in  combating arms crime : to identify the pers on responsible for the 
disappearance of a firearm into illegality ; to uncover arms-trafficking market structures within 
the European Union and detect offenders operati ng in that market; and to gather and assess 
material information on the pres ent state of arms crime in Eur ope, for the production of an EU 
arms crime situation report based on solid facts. The Member States  need to improve their use of 
cross-border tracing of supply channels as a fa ctor in combating international arms crime" . 
Moreover, Saferworld has recently recalled 23, that " Virtually all States have committed 
themselves to ensure that they have effective national regulations, systems and practices in place 
to prevent and combat Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW)24. These commitments are 
expressed and elaborated in UN agreements, particularly  the UN PoA, and in the UN Firearms 
Protocol, and are further reinforced by national laws and numerous regional agreements and 
international arrangements.  In this area at least, therefor e, international norms and obligations 
relating to SALW are well-established, clear, and widely supported in principle. Unfortunately, 
implementation of these commitmen ts agreements remains patchy and  inadequate """"and ""It is 
now timely for the inter national community to launch (or re -launch) concerted initiatives and 
measures to strengthen their systems for prev enting and reducing diversion of all types of SALW 
(including ammunition, parts and components) from authorised transfers or holdings. This 
requires action to address the full complexity of  such diversion processes and a combination of 
actions at national, regional and international levels."""  
It is therefore evident that if the Union does not fulfil its international obligations of concluding 
the UNFP, it will not ensure its contribution to  the mentioned need for reducing the current 
difficulties in tracing international transfers of firearms and ammunition that are diverted for illegal purposes. 
Firearms-related crimes - regardle ss if in the hands of organized criminal groups or of individual 
criminals - constitute serious problems for the society and concerns on generality of the public. 
These crimes are a serious concern in several Member States, like testified by the criminal acts being committed. Concerns are also related to some extent to the misuse of legally owned firearms that in particular cases have led - also  in the recent past - in at least two EU Member 
States
25 - to tragic events and the lo ss of a high number of human lives. 
According to the Small Arms Survey there is a strong relationship between arms availability and 
violence: ‘Firearm availability affects the m odus operandi of aggravated assault and the 
                                                 
23 "Preventing Diversion of Small Arms and Light Weapon s: Issues and Priorities for Strengthened Controls 
(SAFERWORLD and University of Bradford F ebruary 2009, Executive Summary page 3 
24 The international community frequently uses the United Nations’ definitions of small arms: revolvers and self-
loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, sub-machine-guns an d light machine-guns; and light weapons: 
heavy machine-guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile systems and mortars of less than 100 
mm calibre’. Broadly speaking, light weapons are those designed for use by several persons serving as a crew, and 
small arms are weapons designed for personal use. 
25 Tuusula and Kauhajoki, (Finland 2007 and 2008): Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden (Germany, 2002, 2006 and 
2009).  
 
EN 18   EN likelihood of death or serious injury  during a dispute or act of crime’26. A number of findings 
regarding firearms for civilian use from the Small Arms Survey 200727 are summarised in Annex 
VIII.  
According to Small Arms Survey, in response to the growing concern over gun violence, most 
countries have implemented stringent regulation s regarding the sale, purchase and possession of 
weapons by civilians. These regulations distinguis h between a legal and an illegal market, on the 
basis of identification and registrati on of weapons and possession of weapons 28.  The scope and 
contents of these regulations vary between countries, reflecting different Member States’ 
attitudes towards weapons use, firearms trade and towards regulations as such. 
4.3. Economic problems linked to the tr ansfer of firearms for civilian use 
The variety of rules between countries and the lack  of transparency of obligations imposes costs 
on trade. Due to non-harmonised legislation th e way export and import procedures on firearms 
are carried out varies between Member States (see table 3 above).  
The lack of standardised documents causes de lays and therefore increases costs. The UN 
Guidelines also points out this problem wh en stressing the importa nce of standardised 
documents: ‘such measures may also increase the degree of security as required by Article 10, paragraph 5, and reduce costs’
29. According to the business representatives, a company active in 
the manufacture and business of firearms for ci vilian use and ammunition bears additional costs 
for bureaucratic requirements, controls, bookkeepi ng, reporting etc. that are at least 15 to 20 
percent higher than those of a comparable  company in the metalworking manufacturing 
industry.30 
The same risks to security of the transfer of fi rearms should be considered in terms of economic 
effects, and can lead to additional costs. Costs of crime31 can be subdivided into costs that can be 
readily expressed in cash terms, (i.e. costs for law enforcement, additional costs for insurance, 
health care and loss of income due to death or injury, stolen property or the cost of a prison 
place), and in costs that cannot be readily expressed in  cash terms (in the fi rst place the loss of 
lives, and moreover, the reduction in shops, serv ices, facilities and job opportunities in high-
crime areas, and emotional and physical impacts of crime). Misuse of firearms or their use for 
illegal purposes or in other word s, a distortion of the security e nvironment, increases these costs. 
Crime distortions of the securi ty environment are directly related to the wider economic 
distortions (i.e. decline in produ ctivity, diminished attraction to  foreign direct investment, less 
                                                 
26 Small Arms Survey, assessing the effects of the availability of small arms, 2001. 
27 Small Arms Survey, assessing the effects of the availability of small arms, 2001. 
28 Small Arms Survey 2007, p.52. 
29 Legislative guide for the implementation of the UNFP, chapter 4, p.441, paragraph 103 D . 
30 The Commission finds it legitimate the existence of strict er and/or more stringent procedures imposed to trade of 
goods/products which are in their nature "dangerous". This is  not only the case of firearms , but also that - as a matter 
of example - of dual use pr oducts, chemicals, etc.  
31 Numerous studies address the costs of crime, although they do not result in one generic model for EU Member 
States to estimate the costs of crime. In stead most researches use different tec hniques to estimate the costs of crime. 
 
EN 19   EN tourism expenditure and additional costs for trading in the country)32, and can therefore also be 
regarded as an economic problem that justifies government  regulation. To this end it is useful to 
recall the same EU Strategy on Small arms and li ght weapons where the development is always 
linked to the need of security  (Instrument for Stability). 
4.4. Defining the problem and its underlying drivers/causes 
General problems : 
The first general problem  is that the Union has not yet fulfilled its international obligations with 
regard to Article 10 of the UNFP. The EC  signed the UNFP on 16 January 2002. The second 
general problem is the unaccomplished  EU co mmon commercial policy with regard to the 
establishment of uniform principle governing th e export import and tran sit of firearms for 
civilian use. The third general probl em is the distorted security w ith regard to export, import and 
transit of firearms for civilian use. 
The driving causes of the gene ral problems are the following: 
• The Union has not concluded (ratified) yet the UNFP after more that 7 years from its 
signature.  
• At national level, only few Member States' le gislation already fully complies with Article 
10 of the UNFP. The different approaches of  Member States to Article 10 of the UNFP 
result in different licensi ng, authorisation and verification systems. There are also 
differences in the ways the export, import and transit legislation on firearms for civilian 
use is enforced.  
Specific problems  include:  
• Possible diversion from the legal market  
• Inefficient and difficult cooperation between  Member States on tracing firearms. 
• Inequalities between businesses acting in differe nt Member States, with regard to export, 
import and transit of firearms for civilian use.  
• Costs of crime 
4.5. Analysis of the EU right to  act and necessity test  
Subsidiarity.  The subsidiarity principl e does not apply in this cas e. The import and export 
licensing or authorisation system, and measures  for transit of firearms and ammunition, as 
required by Article 10 of the UNFP, fall within the exclusive competence of the Union, entitled 
                                                 
32 The negative effects of crime distortions to a country’s economy can for example be observed in the Global 
Competitiveness Report (2007-2008) of the World Economic Forum with regard to a number of African and 
Caribbean countries. 
 
EN 20   EN to act in the field of the common commerc ial policy, based on Art 207 TFEU. The Member 
States are not entitled to take legislative in itiatives at national level in this matter.  
5. SETTING THE OBJECTIVES  
General objectives : 
1. To fulfil international obligations of the EC wi th regard to implementation of Art. 10 of the 
UNFP. 
2. To ensure  accomplishment of the Common Co mmercial Policy in a matter of exclusive 
competence of the Union with respect to export,  import and transit measures for firearms for 
civilian use. 
3. To contribute to the improvement of security  with respect to fir earms for civilian use. 
Specific objectives 
The specific objectives, i.e. the immediate object ives of a possible EU  intervention, are the 
following:  
4. To ensure uniform principles of approach of all Member States regarding Article 10 of the 
UNFP. 
5. To limit (possible) diversion of firearms from the legal market and to ensure their tracing. 
6. To contribute to counteracting inequalities for EU businesses with rega rd to export, import 
and transit of firearms for civilian use. 
Operational objectives  
7. To ensure an efficient and safe transit of firearms. 
8. To ensure an efficient and safe export-import regime of firearms. 
With regard to security, the objective of limiting  diversion and of ensuring better tracing is the 
objective of the UNFP as a whole. It  is not possible and would be an  error to make an attempt to 
address how only a small piece of the UNFP contribu tes to that objective. Th is is why we use the 
formula "contribute to improvement of security ". Moreover the overall measures of the UNFP 
are there to make it possible to ensure a backtr acking investigation by means of which to see how 
and at what stage a firearm left the legal market. Virtually all firearms in the illegal market come 
from the legal market. The provisions of Art 10 UNFP addressing the ex port – import licensing, 
are part and at the same time complementary to other tracing provisions (see Chapter 1.1 above). 
They all together contribute to the security. In other words, one without another would not have a 
similar effect. 
 
EN 21   EN 6. DEVELOPING POLICY OPTIONS  
6.1. Introduction 
Before going into the details of the policy, it is  important to recall that in theory one could 
consider the sole action of encouraging the Member  States to ratify/acced to the UNFP  Actually 
this option, as the evidence shows (see analysis  of the Member States legislation in above 
Chapter 3), even in cases where Member States implement it, they did it in a non homogeneous 
way in particular with regard to Art 10. However this was only a theoretical  alternative since the 
exclusive competence of the Union in common co mmercial policy matters would impede such a 
decentralised solution. From a political point of vi ew it can be also noted that 10 years have 
passed from the date of opening of accession to  the UNFP and the 14 missing Member States 
(the ones that are not yet contracting parties, see again chapter 3) have not made efforts to reach 
this objective, in sp ite of two Resolution of the Europe an Parliament (2005 and 2006) with 
regards to the signature and ratification of the Protocol. 
 
   
 
          
The policy options, which aim to achieve the object ives of EU interventi on, are classified into 
four main policy options. The first one is to re frain from taking EU action. However, this is 
solely a theoretical option due to the legal in ternational obligation taken by the Union by means  
 No legislation
1. No EU action          2. Regulation focusing on  
effectiveness and security  
3. Regulation focusing on efficiency 
for private parties  LegislateImplement Art 10  
UN Firearms 
Protocol  
4. Regulation focusing on efficiency 
for national administrations  Regulation
Directive
Figure 1  Overview of policy options  
 
EN 22   EN of the signature of the Protocol  and the lack of uniform implementation of Art 10 in the EU 
Member States. The other three policy options are se lected according to their focus on security or 
efficiency. Efficiency means the extent to which objectives can be achieved  for a given level of 
resources or at the least possible costs. In this cas e, efficiency refers to keeping the burden to a 
minimum for private parties and national administrations. 
Policy option 2 aims at optimal achievement of the objective of contributing to the improvement 
of security with regard to expor t, import and transit of firearms for civilian use and prevention of 
(possible) diversion from the legal market. Policy option 3 aims to achieve efficient 
implementation of Art 10 of the UNFP for priv ate parties, while policy option 4 focuses on 
efficiency for national administrations.  
The policy options are summarised below: 
1. No EU action 
2. Regulation focusing on optimal security 
3. Regulation focusing on efficiency for private parties 
4. Regulation focusing on efficiency for national administrations 
6.2. Justification of the bundlin g of the elements to form the policy options  
As described within the part on its  scope (Chapter 2 and table 3 in  Chapter 3), Article 10 of the 
UNFP includes "shall" and "may" requirements. Ho wever, the specific way these requirements 
should be implemented is left to  the Parties to the Protocol. So me solutions are provided by the 
UN Guidelines on the implementati on of the Protocol. In addition,  possible procedures aimed at 
implementing those provisions can be considered. Some solutions or alternatives on the basis of 
licensing procedures for comparable goods have been  presented to the stak eholders with the aim 
of getting their opinion. The mode s of implementation differ per pol icy option. Some alternatives 
to implement the requirements of  Article 10 of the UNFP may relate to the following elements:  
1. Simplified procedures:  (which is actually a "may" prov ision) simplified procedures could 
be used for temporary import and export. Th e choice on their inclusion is left to the 
implementing parties. 
2. Division of tasks between parties:  the party that has to acqui re the required documentation 
is not determined in the UNFP. This could eith er be the State Party or the private party. To 
avoid fraud or other forms of misuse, it might be  effective to designate States' authorities to 
acquire the specific documentati on. However, it could be an in efficient procedure because it 
could increase the risk of delays. Private partie s have an interest in speeding up the process. 
Therefore, if private parties acquire the requi red documentation, this wi ll possibly result in 
shorter procedures. 
3. Licence per shipment/multiple shipments:  licences can be issued per actual shipment or 
for multiple shipments, providing that all the requ irements of Art 10 are matched at latest at 
the time of shipment. The licen ce would function as an ‘umbre lla licence’ consisting of 
different components. A confirmati on should be given per shipment.  
 
EN 23   EN 4. The duration of the process:  the duration of the whole pro cess of granting an import or 
export licence or authorisation can be limited.  If a maximum duration is established to 
process the application forms, the procedure could become more efficient in terms of 
duration.  
5. The use of a positive silent cons ent regarding the transit requirement:  if a transit State 
does not respond to a request for a notice of no objection, it can be assumed that the transit 
State agrees with the transfer.  
6. Designating a specific official, office or department to assist in the procedure:  within 
the licensing authority, a specific official, office or department could be appointed to assist 
in carrying out the requireme nts of the EC legislation. 
7. Mode of communication:  using electronic documents co uld make the procedure more 
efficient. However this could also damage th e security/effectiveness of the procedure and 
increase the risk of fraud or other misuse. 
In the current situation the Member States have  varying policies regarding simplified procedures, 
mode of communication, use of elec tronic or original documents, use of open or global licences 
for multiple shipments and the maximum duration of processing the application for a licence. The only homogeneities were noted in the absence of the silent consent approach and the burden 
on private parties with regard to  the collection of documents to be presented to the licensing 
authorities (see chapter 3). 
6.3. Policy options 
The Table 4 below gives an immediate overview of the relation policy options against Art 10 
provisions: 
Table 4: Policy options against Art 10 provisions 
 
Provisions+ implementing measures  OP 1 OP 2 OP 3 OP 4 
• Existence of a licensing/ authorisation system (SHALL)   X X X 
• Receiving import licence/authorisation before issuing 
export licence (SHALL)   X X X 
• Receiving written notice of no objection of transit country 
before issuance of export licence (SHALL)  X X X 
• Required information in documentation (SHALL)  X X X 
• Provide information in the import licence to transit countries 
(SHALL)  X X X 
• Notification of receipt upon request (SHALL)  X X X 
• Verification of authorisation (SHALL)  X X X 
• Simplified procedures for temporary import/export (MAY)   X X 
 
EN 24   EN Option 1) No EU action (status quo). 
The situation would be left to the current legi slation in force in Member States. The issues 
identified in the problem definition would not be addressed, the provisions of the UNFP would 
not be implemented and consequently conclude d (ratified). The European  Community would not 
honour its political commitment in fr ont of the international Community. 
Not implementing Article 10 UNFP is only a th eoretical option since according to good legal 
practice and also politically, signa ture of an internat ional instrument should be followed by steps 
to achieve ratification. Moreover th e present impact assessment show s the need to take action in 
a matter falling under the exclusive Union's competence. 
No action of the Union could even lead to the risk of Member States  further introducing non 
common principles. Moreover in the absence of a community legislation nothing could prevent a 
Member State from modifying its own legislation with the conse quence that the legal frame of 
that Member State would not be any longe r in line with the provisions of Art 10. 
The diverging national legislations  are also an obstacle for Europ ean companies in dealing with 
these goods, due to the different requirements they have to comply with, from country to country. 
Option 2) Regulation focusing on eff ectiveness to achieve optimal security. 
This Regulation focuses on a strict effective  system of export and import licensing or 
authorisation, as well as of measures on international transit, for the transfer of firearms for civilian use, their parts and components and a mmunition. No exceptions would be made and only • Burden on private parties   X X 
• Burden on State parties  X   
• Licence per shipment  X   
• Multiple shipments   X X 
• Maximum Duration Process   X  
• No Maximum Duration Process  X  X 
• Silent consent (two sub-options : 5 days or 3/4 weeks for the 
silent consent to take effect)     X  
• No use of Silent consent  X  X 
• Designated officer/office/Dept  X X  
• No Designated officer/office Dept    X  
• Use of original forms  X   
• Use of electronic forms   X X 
 
EN 25   EN the "shall" provisions of Art 10 would be implem ented (no simplified procedures). The system 
would focus mainly on increasing the security within the EU territory.  
Legislation in each Member State would co mply with the following requirements: 
Export/Import 
• Before issuing export licences or authorisations  for shipments of firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition, each State Party shal l verify that the importing States have 
issued import licences or author isations (Art. 10.2.a). The priv ate parties will acquire the 
import licence and provide it to the licensing au thorities of the exporting State. 
• The export and import licence or authorisat ion and accompanying documentation together 
shall contain information that, at a minimum,  shall include the markings applied to the 
firearms for civilian use, the dates of issuan ce and expiry of licences or authorisations, the 
place of issue of permits or authorisations, the country of export, the country of import, the 
final recipient, a description of the articles imported or exporte d, the quantities of  the articles 
imported or exported and, whenever there is trans it, the countries of tr ansit (Art. 10.3 and Art. 
8).  
• The importing State Party shall, upon request, in form the exporting State Party of the receipt 
of the dispatched shipment of firearms for civilian use, their parts and components or 
ammunition (Art. 10.4).  
Transit 
If the firearms, their parts and components or a mmunition are transited through third countries, 
the following requirements will apply:  
• Before issuing export licences or authorisations  for shipments of firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition, each State Party shall verify that, without pr ejudice to bilateral 
or multilateral agreements or arrangements favouring landlocked States33, the transit States 
have, at a minimum, given notice in writing, prio r to shipment, that they have no objection to 
the transit (Art.10.2.b). Specific to this policy opti on: The States' authorities will acquire the  
‘notice of no objection’ of the transit State.  
• The information contained in the import licence must be provided in a dvance to the transit 
States (Art. 10.3).Specific to this policy optio n: The States' authorities will provide the 
information contained in the import licence to the transit State.  
Complementary requirements for import/export and transit 
• Each State Party shall, within available means, take such measures as may be necessary to 
ensure that licensing or authorisation procedur es are secure and that the authenticity of 
licensing or authorisation documents can be verified or validated  (Art. 10.5). Documents 
could be standardised. 
                                                 
33 Literally formulated as such in Art.10.2.b of the UNFP. 
 
EN 26   EN • The licences for export, import or transit of firearms must be given per shipment . As 
mentioned before, this extra check will in crease the security of the transfers.  
• There will be no maximum dura tion of the whole procedure . 
• It will not be possible to use a silent consent . 
• A specific official, office or department will be designated at the licensing authority to assist 
in carrying out the requirements. 
• The use of original documents is mandatory . 
Option 3) Regulation focusing on  efficiency for private parties. 
In this option, special focus is given to the efficiency of the system of export and import 
licensing or authorisation, as well  as of measures on internationa l transit, for the transfer of 
firearms for civilian use, their parts and compone nts and ammunition with a view to keeping the 
burden for private parties to a minimum.  
The "may" provisions (simplified procedures for the temporary import and export for verifiable 
lawful purposes such as hunting, sp ort shooting, evaluati on, exhibitions or repa irs) of Article 10 
UNFP would be implemented, besides the "shall" ones. 
In addition to the consid erations outlined at option 2 above, th is 3rd option would extend some of 
the above mentioned positive impacts to the tempor ary import and export and transit of firearms 
for verifiable lawful purposes, such as hunting, s port shooting, evaluation, e xhibitions or repairs. 
The implementation of these "may provisions" would have a positive re sult on the products for 
civilian use falling under Union's Competence and rele vant to the UNFP. It is therefore evident 
that Option 3 represents a necessary "extension" and has to be seen as a way for the Commission 
to take into account of the interests of an important part of the business/private sector 
expectations. 
Export/Import: as policy option 2 
Transit, as policy option 2 with  the exception of the following: 
• The information contained in the import licence must be provided in a dvance to the transit 
States (Art. 10.3). Specific to this policy option: the private parties will acquire the ‘notice of 
no objection’ of the transit State.  
• The information contained in the import licence must be provided in a dvance to the transit 
States (Art. 10.3). Specific to this policy op tion: The private parties will provide the 
information contained in the import licence to the transit State.  
Temporary import/export 
• Member States will adopt simplified procedur es for the temporary im port and export and the 
transit of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition for verifiable lawful purposes 
such as hunting, sport shooting, evaluati on, exhibitions or repairs (Art. 10.6). 
 
EN 27   EN  In case of temporary transfers, the authoris ation may be executed by agencies competent 
for controls at the EU external border point s (when items actually cross EU border) or at 
the point of shipment or receipt once in a country. 
 Furthermore, a simplified authorization form would be used compared to the forms for 
import/export.  
Complementary requirements for import/export and transit as policy option 2 with the 
exception of the following: 
• The authorisation of export, import or transit of multiple shipments is allowed.  
• There will be a maximum duration of  the whole procedure of 3 months . 
• It will be possible to use a positive s ilent consent for the transit requirement . With regard to 
the silent consent actually two sub options co uld be envisaged, depending on what period of 
time the silent consent would be proposed to  take effect: a short period (some business 
stakeholders suggested 5 working days) or a l onger period of time (3/4 weeks) for the reason 
of balancing the interest in speed up the process (business) and that of ensuring a feasible deadline for allowing the transit state to react (security). 
• Electronic documents may be used
. 
Option 4) Regulation focusing on efficiency for States' authorities. 
In this option, special focus is given to the efficiency of the system of export and import 
licensing or authorisation, as well  as of measures on internationa l transit, for the transfer of 
firearms for civilian use, their parts and compone nts and ammunition, with a view to keeping the 
burden for States' authorities to a minimum.  
Most of the requirements of the previous policy option 3 apply to this policy option.  
Export/Import: as policy option 3. 
Transit: as policy option 3. Temporary import/export: as policy option 3. Complementary requirements for import/export and transit as policy option 3, with the 
exception of the following: 
• There will be no limit to the duration of the whole process
. 
• It will not be possible to use a silent consent.  
• It is up to Member States whether to appoint a specific official, office or department for these 
procedures or not . 
 
EN 28   EN 7. ASSESSING THE POLICY OPTIONS  
7.1. Assessment criteria  
The criteria for realising the comparison betw een the different polic y options take into 
consideration the policy obj ectives, the expected impacts, and th e other issues influencing the EU 
action when the proposal of legisl ative instruments is concerned.  
• Relevance, with regard to likely achieve ment of the general policy objectives,  
• Transposition feasibility  
• Impacts on competitiveness, trade and investment flows 
• Administrative burden34 and financial costs35 for both public authorities and private parties 
• Impacts on third countries  
This set of impacts formed the basis for th e assessment of each policy option and - where 
applicable - the comparison of the options against each other. 
7.2. Assessment of each policy option  
Policy Option 1. Maintain the Status Quo/no EU  action. Relevance/ Objectives to achieve: 
In the current situation EU's international obligations are not fulfilled and a coherent EU trade 
regime is not established. Also a common commerci al policy is not ensured. In addition, the risk 
of diversion of firearms for civilian use from the legal market into the illegal market is not tackled and the tracing of firearms is not  addressed in line with the UNFP provisions.  
Social/Security impacts:  In case of no action, the current ri sks of diversion of firearms for 
civilian use from the legal market into the ille gal market will persist and the tracing needs will 
not be ensured. The difficulties encountered in en forcement of the rules on diversion and tracing 
have a negative impact on the security environment in the EU and the Member States, and indirectly, through the global nature  of the firearms trade, on the security environment in third 
countries. Administrative burden and financial costs : The Status quo op tion will not require 
additional resources. However the possibility of including simplif ied procedures (and therefore 
reducing the resources/bur den) would be missed . Impacts on competitiveness, trade and 
investment flows:  If the transfers of firearms for civili an use remain to be covered by national 
Member States' legislation, the rules for EU firms are different in each Member State, resulting in 
lack of transparency, c onfusion in the interpretation of rules, uncertainty and delays. At the 
Member State level, pending the establishment of minimum common rules by the Union, firms 
based in Member States that do not apply Art 10 provisions could gain a competitive advantage 
over Member States that do so. Stakeholders' view:  According to the private stakeholders, the 
EU should not take action. The situation should re main the same because legislation is already 
sufficient. However, most Memb er State stakeholders and NGO st akeholders stated that the 
implementation of the UNFP would be beneficial for social security. 
                                                
 
34 Budgetary consequences related to meeting the legal obligations and providing the information requested. 
35 Budgetary consequences resulting from restructuring: either requirement of new staff to be hired or existing staff 
to be trained or designated. 
 
EN 29   EN Policy Option 2: Regulation focusing on th e effectiveness to achi eve optimal security: 
Relevance/ Objectives to achieve: EU's international obligations will be fulfilled and a coherent 
EU trade regime will be established by implem enting this policy option. Because no exceptions 
would be made and only the "shall" provisions of Art 10 would be implemented (no simplified 
procedures, no multiple shipments licences, etc), th e security in export, import and transit of 
firearms will be ensured. Feasibility:  Most Member States have no trade regime in place yet 
which addresses specifically firearms for civilian use (some Member States use the same structure/regime indifferently for military and civilian firearms). This means that ‘shall’ provisions, of Article 10 would therefore require Member States to adapt such provisions within 
their organization of the work. Social/Security impacts:  Implementing the rules specified in 
Article 10  into EU legislation, and allowing no exceptions, would have high positive impact on 
the security environmen t in the EU, in the Member Stat es implementing Article 10, thereby 
establishing a coherent EU tr ade regime, minimising the current risk caused by the present 
differences in rules between EU Member States. Having a uniform set of ru les that apply to all 
Member States is beneficial for law enforcement. Implementing the ‘shall’ provisions will provide the EU and its Member St ates with a control- and monito ring tool for the transfer of 
firearms for civilian use, and will thereby improve security.  Administrative burden and 
financial costs:  Implementing the ‘shall’ provisions w ould require consider able non-recurring 
and recurring additional costs for EU businesses and Member States. The need to adjust the procedures or to reorganise administrations (i.e. hiring and training of staff, implementing 
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms) would incur financial costs. In particular the 
requirement for designating a specific official, o ffice or department can impose a small negative 
impact on the Member States’ public authorities;  however in a longer term, due to expertise 
gained, this obligation may contribute to efficien cy gains. In addition, most Member States have 
already some structures in place; this negative impact is expected thus to be mitigated. The 
recurring costs are associated with administrativ e burden due to the wider scope of licensing and 
authorisation procedures for the transfer of firearms for civilian use. This policy option would 
impose additional administrative costs on EU businesses resulting from the obligation that licences for export and import must be given per shipment, and the fact that there will not be a 
maximum duration of the whole procedure. Sin ce this policy option would require additional 
procedures, without the possibili ty of simplified provisions for temporary import and export of 
firearms for civilian use, the administrative bu rden on Member States would also be increased. 
The additional administrative costs on Member St ates' administrations w ould include issuing the 
export licenses for each transfer, including the temporary export (very often very small amounts of firearms for civilian use), and the ‘notice of no objection’ of transit States. This negative 
impact can be slightly mitigated by the positive impact of including in the Regulation the possibility of using st andardised documents. Impacts on competitiveness, trade and 
investment flows:  Implementing in all EU Member Stat es the strictest measures for the 
applications of license and authorisation for the tr ansfer of firearms for civilian use with third 
countries, could have a negative impact on indivi dual Member States whic h used to have less 
strict, or simplified rules (i.e. for hunting and sport shooting purposes), slowing down their trade 
and investments flows for these purposes. Although, the extent of this impact will be slightly 
compensated, because all EU Member States would n eed to apply the same rules. This eliminates 
the effect of one Member State with less st rict rules or simplified procedures having a 
competitive advantage over another Member State wi th stricter rules. However, this option will 
also have a negative impact on EU businesses, by giving them a competitive disadvantage in comparison to their non-EU rivals, which either im plement the less strict provisions, or that did 
 
EN 30   EN not implement Article 10 of the UNFP at all.  Impacts on third countries: Third countries 
benefit also from an improved s ecurity of the EU’s transfers of firearms for civilian use. 
Obligations such as the mandatory use of orig inal documents, no possibility to use a silent 
consent for transit, the requirement that the licen ces for export, import and transit of firearms for 
civilian use must be given per shipment, and no possibility to use simplified procedures for 
temporary import and export of firearms for civili an use, will further increase the positive impact 
on the security of the transfers.  Stakeholders' view:  A majority of the stakeholders were in 
favour of simplified procedures for temporary im port and export of firearms, such as hunting and 
sport shooting. The legislation would be too strict  for transfers of firearms for these kinds of 
purposes. If the burden would be on the States' au thorities to acquire the required information, 
the process would be extremely delayed. Most stakeholders mentioned that, in the current 
situation, open licences are used for import a nd export of firearms. The use of licences per 
shipment would have a large impact  on Member States and businesses. 
Policy Option 3: Regulation focusing on efficiency for private parties. Relevance/ 
Objectives to achieve: The EU international obligations will be fulfilled and a coherent EU 
trade regime for the trade in firearms for civilia n use will be established. Security in export, 
import and transit of firearms will be ensured, but to a lesser extent than in policy option 2 as 
simplified procedures, multiple shipments licences and silent consent will be in place . 
Feasibility:  Most Member States have no trade regime  in place yet which a ddresses specifically 
firearms for civilian use (some Member States use the same structure/re gime indifferently for 
military and civilian firearms).This means that the ‘shall’ provisions of Article 10 would require Member States to adapt such prov isions within their organization. Social/Security impacts: 
Overall, the implementation of the ‘shall’ provisions has a positive impact on security compared to the ‘no EU action’ option. The security of th e transfers will increase by obliging all Member 
States to require a similar aut horisation procedure. The use of  simplified procedures could, 
however, have a small risk of an  increased incidence of divers ion of hunting or sport shooting 
rifles from the legal market into the illegal mark et of the EU and/or thir d countries. Also, adding 
to the Regulation the possibility of  a positive silent consent for tr ansit can have a negative impact 
on security, since it imposes the ri sk of diversion and re duced tracing capabili ties for trade with 
third countries that do not show interest in observi ng the UN rules. In case of the first sub-option 
(5 working days) this risk would be slightly bigger, as the transi t state would be given less time 
to react. The decision on the use of the silent  consent in transit proc edure would depend on how 
these two impacts are balanced against each other. Administrative burden and financial costs:  
Implementing the ‘shall’ requirements of Article  10 in general could impose some additional 
administrative costs on some EU businesses and EU  Member States, since they would have to 
comply with strict or stricter rules compared to the ‘no-EU action’ option. On the other hand, the 
impact of policy option 3 on administrative costs of EU businesses is more positive compared to 
policy option 2, as more flexibility is allowed fo r purposes of hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, 
exhibitions and repairs, thanks to th e implementation of the "may" provisions . Moreover the 
establishment of a period of maximum processing ti me would result in increased efficiency. In 
addition, provisions on: a) the private partie s responsible for acqui ring the ‘notice of no 
objection’, and b) the use of open licences for multiple shipments, would speed up the 
authorisation procedures and further mitigate the risk of additional administrative costs  for EU 
businesses.  Allowing the use of electronic documen ts will also mitigate any additional 
administrative burdens of implementing Article 10 for public authorities, the firearms industry 
and trade companies, and will further improve the competitive position of EU business in 
 
EN 31   EN comparison to the present situation (period for pr ocessing applications varies from 5 days to 1 
year). The use of a positive silent consent - rega rdless which of the two sub-options is adopted 
(shorter or longer time period to take it effect) w ithin the transit procedure would also have a 
positive impact on EU businesses. Impacts on competitiveness, trade and investment flows: 
Allowing more flexibility in the rules, by permitting simplified procedures for the temporary import and export for lawful pur poses, could have a high pos itive impact on the EU’s and 
Member States’ trade and investment flows related to these purposes. Also the competitive position of EU businesses related to these purposes in comparison to their non-EU rivals would 
improve. Stakeholders' view : According to representatives of  some Member States and NGOs, 
the use of a silent consent should not be used fo r firearms licence purposes in order to avoid the 
risk that a transfer is not authorised by the transi t State. Private stakeholde rs would see the use of 
the silent consent as an acceptable mitiga tion of the potential negative impact of the 
implementation of the related Art.10 provision. Ma ny other actors (public a nd private) judged the 
other elements (standardisation of documents, open licences with regard to multiple shipments and a maximum duration of proce ssing the application) positively. 
Policy Option 4: Regulation focusing on effici ency on efficiency for States' authorities.  
Relevance/ Objectives to achieve: EU's international obligations will be fulfilled and a coherent 
EU trade regime for the trade in firearms for civ ilian use will be established. Security in export, 
import and transit of firearms will be ensured, bu t to a lesser extent than in policy option 2 and a 
little higher than in policy option 3, as silent consent will not be applicable.  Feasibility: As 
option 3, with the exception of the mitigation of the difficulty for national authorities represented by the absence of a maximum duration for setting the procedure. The simultaneous implementation of the ‘may’ provisions would mitigate the impact of the possible changes.  
Social/Security impacts:  As policy option 3 with the following difference: the non application 
of the silent consent would have a positive impact  on security, since all transfers would need the 
written agreements on transit, which would decreas e the risk for diversion from the legal market 
and difficulties in tracing. Administrative burden and financial costs: The overall impact of 
this option (also implementing the ‘may’ provisi ons) is the least burdensome for the Member 
States compared to policy option 2, as more flexibility is allowe d to apply the rules for purposes 
of hunting, sport shooting, evaluati on, exhibitions and repairs. Compared to policy option 3, this 
option further minimises the burden for Member St ates by not setting a maximum duration to the 
procedure, and not obliging Member States to appoi nt a designated official, office or department. 
The Regulation would impose mini mum common principles for the authorisation procedure for 
the import/export and transit of fire arms for civilian use. Compared  to policy option 2 this option 
mitigates the administrative burden for the firearms industry and trade companies as more flexibility is allowed to apply fo r temporary transfers. Nevertheless, if compared to policy option 
3, option 4 offers a small additional negative imp act on administrative co sts on EU businesses by 
not allowing the use a positive silent consent for transit and not imposing a maximum processing 
time for obtaining the licences, not obliging Memb er States to appoint a designated official, 
office or department, and not adding possibility to use standardised documentation. However, the 
extended use within the EU of licences for multi ple shipments would also have a positive impact 
on Member States and EU businesses, by reducing their administrative burden. Impacts on 
competitiveness, trade and investment flows: Allowing more flexibility in the rules, by 
permitting simplified procedures for the temporar y import and export for lawful purposes, could 
have a high positive impact on the EU’s and Memb er States’ trade and investment flows related 
to these purposes. Also the competitive position of EU businesses relate d to these purposes in 
 
EN 32   EN comparison to their non-EU rivals would improve. Stakeholders' view : On the one hand, the 
public stakeholders had a positive opinion of this option because th ey argued that a silent consent 
should not be used. On the other hand, the privat e stakeholders believed that documents should 
be standardised, there should be a maximum du ration of processing the application forms and 
that silent consent could be explored with refere nce to the transit measur es. The majority of the 
private stakeholders also mentioned that appoin ting a specific official, office or department 
would be beneficial for businesses. 
 
 
EN 33   EN 7.3. Comparative assessment of policy options 
Table 5  Comparison between policy options 
 Assessment criteria  Policy Option 
1 Policy Option 
2 Policy Option 
3 Policy Option 
4 
To fulfil international obligations of the EC with regard to implementation of  Art 10 of 
the UNFP  0 √√ √√ √√ 
To ensure  accomplishment of the Common Commercial Policy as   a matter of exclusive 
competence of the Union with re spect to export, import and tr ansit measures for firearms 
for civilian use  0 √√ √√ √√ Relevance  
To contribute to the improvement of security with respect to firearms for civilian use  0 √√ √ √ 
Feasibility  The difficulty/risks of transposition Not applicable - - 0 
Social/Security 
impacts  Impacts on crime, terrorism and security 0 √√ √ √ 
Economic 
Impacts  The financial and administrative costs 0 -- - - 
 Impacts on competitiveness, trade and investment flows 0 - √ - 
 
Policy options assessed according to  a ranking: more positive ( √√), positive ( √), neutral ones (0) and negative (-) or more negative impacts (- -), for each of the assessment criteria. 
Some options could imply trade offs and thus have both positive and negative impacts with regard to an assessment criterion. Th e definition of net impact used here is positive impact 
minus negative impact. 
 
 
EN 34   EN 7.4. Assessment of stakeholders' consultations 
The stakeholders have different opinions on the intention of the EU to implement Article 10 
of the UNFP. The contact persons of the Member  States and the contact persons of the NGOs 
are of the opinion that implementing Article 10 is useful for preventing diversion of firearms 
from the legal market into the illegal market. However, the private pa rties argued that the 
current legislation on the import and export of fir earms is in their opinion sufficient, and that 
Member States already have stri ct regulations concerning this i ssue. Moreover, private parties 
stress that, in their view , implementing Article 10 will have negative consequences for small 
and medium-sized enterprises. Many private/priv ate stakeholders were concerned in particular 
with the transit measures. In particular the possible no cooperation of  a transit State could 
delay all procedures. One solution advocated du ring the consultation was that of the use of 
silent consent, where private stakeholders ag ree while some Member States and NGO's do 
not.  
There was in the essence unanimity on the f act that the burden to acquire the required 
information (import authorisation and notice of no  objection) should be on the private parties.  
Taking into account its existence in some of the Member States legislation, licences for 
multiple shipments should be considered. The pr ivate stakeholders were also in favour.  A 
maximum duration of the process of issuing e xport or import licences was also seen as an 
advantage by private parties and NGOs.  
Private and Public stakeholders have a diffe rent opinions on the appointment/ establishment 
of an officer/office as well as on the form of the required and provided documents (original, 
certified copy of original or electronic vers ion), the latter dependi ng on a "security" or 
"simplification" approach. The use of standard ised documents for the application should be 
considered. All private stakeholders were of the opinion that simplified procedures should be 
used for temporary import and export of firear ms, where possible by also making a distinction 
between the different forms for temporary impo rt or export. There was no consensus on the 
activities to be admitted to the simplified pr ocedures. According to some of the Member 
States, simplified procedures should be limited to hunters and sport shoot ers only (while the 
UNFP includes consideration also for other activ ities such as exhibi tion or repairs. The 
possibility for hunters/sport s hooters of using the European  Firearms Pass and official 
invitation to an event outside the EU was also suggested. 
7.5. Identification of the pr eferred policy option 
The preferred policy option is based on an assessment of the policy options 1 to 4 and 
consultations with stakeholde rs from NGOs, retailers, indus try and contact persons of 
Member States. This option fulfils the objectiv es of implementing Art 10 UNFP by meeting  
best all of them and is the best way forwar d by combining the "shall" provisions - to be 
tailored and balanced with rega rd to the type of products – with the "may" ones which would 
match legitimate expectations of a relevant number of stakeholders. 
The simplified procedure will make it possible to further reduce the administrative burdens 
for those lawful purposes listed by the UNFP itself.  The scope is therefore that of avoiding 
that for example a hunter or a retailer going to a th ird country with his/her firearms - is 
obliged to follow the same stricter rules for a temporary exportation made only for the 
 
EN 35   EN purposes of exercising its his/her recreational activity or to a pa rticipate to a fair (temporary 
exportation), as those imposed to a retailers (definitive exportation) . In the first case 
(hunter/fair), the risk of diversion and of tr acing is lower which justify the possibility of 
having more relaxed provisions (t his is why the UNFP makes it pos sible this option, even if it 
is not mandatory). The simplified procedure c ould therefore find implementation also for the 
trade but in this case only for temporary exportations  - as described before for those lawful 
purposes. With regard to the conditions one could envisage that a temporary export cannot 
exceed a certain period of time. Such a prov ision should be aligned with existing customs 
procedures with regard to tem porary exports. Another condition co uld be that of requiring the 
notification of any temporary tran sfer to a third country to th e country of residence of the 
temporary exporters. 
 
Preferred Policy option  
On the basis of the assessment of the four el aborated policy options, Option 3 emerges as the 
preferred one. It combines different aspects of  the various policy options on the basis of the 
main advantages and disadvantages identified fo r each one of them, in order to achieve both a 
higher degree of effectiveness a nd efficiency. This combination of effectiveness/security and 
efficiency appears to offer the highest potential for significant benefits for the interest groups 
involved and is - among other - based on the outcomes of the stakeholder consultation. 
With regard to the specific issue of the sile nt consent where two sub- options were identified 
with regards to time limits, the preferred policy option foresees that the silent consent would 
take effect after a period of time of approximately 3/4 weeks with the aim of balancing the 
interest in speed up the process (business) and that of ensuring a feasible deadline for 
allowing the transit state to react (security). Moreover, even if the silent consent is not 
mentioned in Art 10, the very scope of the notifica tion (and that of the no-objection) is that of 
giving the possibility to the tran sit State of being aw are of the crossing of its territory by a 
shipment of firearms: therefore its obj ective would be in any case reached36.  
                                                 
36  To note that the private stakeholders would be much in favour since it would reduce their concerns with 
regard to the overall implementation of Art 10. Moreover the European Commission (and DE) tabled the 
difficulties the application of this particular provis ion and suggested the reflection of the UNODC on the 
envisaged silent procedure. The UNODC took note at technical level of this point 
 
EN 36   EN 7.6. Assessment of the preferred option.  
Preferred Policy option  
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the 
policy option necessary to achieve the impact 
Relevance   
 To fulfil international 
obligations of the EC with regard to implementation of art 10 of the UNFP.  √ International obligations of the EC will be met.  
To ensure the accomplishment 
of the Common Commercial Policy in a matter of exclusive competence of the Union with respect to export, import and transit measures for firearms for civilian use. 
 √ A coherent EU trade regime will be established by 
implementing Article 10, which enhances cooperation between Member States. 
It would ensure the accom plishment of ensuring a 
common commercial policy in the field.  
 
To contribute to the 
improvement of security with respect to firearms for civilian use.  
 √ The control over imports and exports of firearms 
and ammunition would be strengthened and thereby opportunities for diversion of firearms and ammunition to the illegal market reduced, with the reservation that, the use of simplified procedures 
and of silent consent may pose a minor security risk. 
 
Feasibility   
The difficulty/risks for 
transposition. 
 0 Most Member States have no trade regime in place 
yet which addresses firearms for civilian use only. This means that the ‘shall’ provisions would require some of the Member States to introduce or adapt their national organization. However, simultaneously implementing the ‘may’ provisions would mitigate the impact of the possible changes. 
Economic impact   
The financial and administrative costs. - The ‘shall’ requirements of  Article 10 in general 
could impose some additional administrative costs on EU businesses. However, by also implementing 
 
EN 37   EN Preferred Policy option  
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the 
policy option necessary to achieve the impact 
the ‘may’ provisions the possible negative impact 
on financial and administ rative costs would be 
mitigated.  
Moreover, by tasking the parties to acquire the 
‘notice of no objection to  transit, allowing 
businesses to obtain an open licence for multiple shipments, setting a maximum duration to the licence procedure would speed up the authorisation procedures and further mitigate the risk of additional administrative costs for EU businesses. In addition, th e risk of possible delays 
due to the need to acquire a notice of no objection of the transit States in the licensing process would be neutralised by the use of the silent consent. 
The estimated increase of administrative burden 
for businesses is estimated at € 1 350 000 to € 1 620 000 per year (see chapter 7). 
Small negative impact on Member States’ public 
authorities that do not al ready apply the "Shall 
provisions could be fo reseen, since more 
documents and information have to be assessed. However, the impact on administrative costs of EU Member States is le ss negative compared to 
solely implementing the ‘shall’ provisions.  
   
Impacts on competitiveness, trade and investment flows √ Compared to the ‘no EU action’ option, 
implementing the ‘shall’ provisions can have a positive impact on the EU’s trade and investment flows with third countries and between Member States, as no exceptions will be allowed to the implementation of these provisions of Article 10. In the current situation, the differences in rules that exist between Member States potentially create a distorted competition. Implementing the ‘shall’ provisions would imply a minimum uniform application of rules in all Member States and the establishment of a coherent commercial regime. The transparent and uniform rules in the EU for the transfer of firearms for civilian use, resulting from implementing the ‘shall’ provisions, 
 
EN 38   EN Preferred Policy option  
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the 
policy option necessary to achieve the impact 
will have a positive impact on the EU’s trade.  
Allowing more flexibility in the rules by 
permitting simplified procedures for the temporary import and export for lawful purposes, could have a positive impact on the EU’s trade related to these purposes. The competitive position of EU businesses related to these purposes in comparison to their non-EU rivals could improve.  
 
Social/Security  Impacts  
Impacts on security, 
terrorism and crime √ Overall, the implementation of the ‘shall’ 
provisions has a positive impact on security compared to the ‘no EU action’ option. The security of the transfers will increase by obliging 
all Member States to apply similar authorisation 
procedures for the transfers of firearms for civilian 
use. The transit requirement  would have a positive 
impact on security, since in this case all transfers need authorisation, which diminishes the risk for diversion of firearms from the legal market. The silent consent would slightly mitigate the overall positive impact on security. 
The future regulation is likely to enhance internal 
security and security for citizens in the EU and third countries, because it will contribute to reducing the availability of illegal firearms and ammunition. 
 
Impacts on third countries  √ A positive security impact can also be expected on 
third countries, in partic ular those living through 
armed strife. On the other hand, security is a precondition for economic and social development. 
 
Stakeholders’ view  Stakeholders (private , public and NGOs) argued 
that documents should be standardised and a time limit for the duration of processing application 
 
EN 39   EN Preferred Policy option  
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the 
policy option necessary to achieve the impact 
forms should be established. Some of them 
mentioned that a distinction could be made between the different form s of temporary import 
and export. The opinion on the use of a silent consent differs since some of them (in particular private parties) said that this alternative could be useful, while other (in the essence some members States and NGOs) mentioned that too many risks would be involved. 
In countries like Belgium,  exporters complained 
about the long waiting time required for the delivery of temporary licenses while according to them, temporary transactions are almost security/risk free. In many cases the temporary 
license requests are for goods destined for arms 
exhibits, demonstrations or competitions, or else showcase pieces requiring quick action. Problems are often encountered with  the timing of license 
permits, resulting in a loss of time and money for exporters. Exporters request that maximum deadlines be determined in advance, with simplified and harmonised procedures at the EU level. The preferred op tion would address these 
concerns while taking into account the needs to ensure a certain level of security. The specific simplified provisions addressed by the implementation of Art 10 UNFP par 6 should not have any negative econo mic impacts; to the 
contrary, it could result in  lower procedural costs 
and reduce the risk of losses for importers and exporters. 
7.7. Assessment of financial and administrative  costs of the preferred policy option 
Regarding the financial and admi nistrative costs, a distincti on is made between costs for 
businesses and costs for public au thorities of Member States.  
The assessment of costs focuses on the admi nistrative costs for businesses and public 
authorities. It is based on the data made availa ble by Public authoritie s and private parties, 
plus figures extracted from the EUROSTAT da tabase. The administrative costs have been 
assessed on the basis of the EU Standard Cost Model.  
It should be noted that the assessment of the administrative costs was complicated by the 
limited availability of data. Public  authorities of Member States as well as businesses were not 
 
EN 40   EN able to provide plenty of information but only generic references/ statements. Only two 
private parties provided some data on the number  of licenses and the duration of preparing for 
an import or export licence.  
Besides the assessment as shown in the followi ng pages, further details on the method used 
are in Annex X.  
A. Current situation  with regard to financial and administrative costs 
I. Estimation of the number of licences for import/export of firearms for civilian use, 
their parts and components and ammunition: 
Total number of licences  issued in the MSs th at provided data: approximately 14 000 (a 
minority of which probably issued for military or for intra-EU transfers). 
Total quantity of imports and exports  in those Members States = 5 806 736 . 
Total quantity of imports and exports in the entire EU = 13 148 80137 . 
Assuming that the 16 others MSs have similar licensing procedures, the total number  of 
licences in the 27 MSs would be around 35 000 (14 000 x 2.5). 
The estimation of the yearly num ber of licences for import/export of  firearms for civilian use, 
their parts, components and ammunition would therefore add up to 25/30 000, figure 
indirectly confirmed by a repres entative of private parties who referred to 15/20 000 licences 
for exports and 5 000 licences for imports, per year.  
II. Estimation of curre nt costs for businesses 
The preparation of an application form for a licence takes between 1 and  4 man-hours. Based 
on the time it takes to apply for an  authorisation, the indications of  private parties (one to four 
hours) and the "zero-base measurement" of fir earms transactions within one Member State 
(see Annex XI), we can assume that the time necessary to prepare an import and/or export 
application is on average two hours  If a standard tariff of 50 euros/hour  is used, the total 
administrative burden is circa 100 Euros/licence. The estimation of current  administrative 
costs for businesses ranges  from € 2 500 000 to € 3 000 000 per year . 
The duration of processing import and export a pplication forms differ s in (and within) the 
different Member States. The duration businesse s have to take into account before they 
receive their licence is to be considered. It  also depends on the t ype of firearm and the 
countries involved in the trans action. However, this duration of  processing is not included in 
the definition of administrativ e costs of the EU. The Table in Annex XII represents the 
(maximum) processing time of an application as  indicated by different public authorities of 
the Member States. 
III. Estimation of current costs for public authorities of Member States 
• Estimation of administrative costs fo r public authorities of Member States 
                                                 
37 Taking into account that the Member States that replied to the consulta tion account for more than 40 percent 
of the total import and export. 
 
EN 41   EN None of the interviewed authorit ies could provide an estimation of the necessary  capacity in 
man-hours per licence, due to a lack of available data. 
B. Future situation  with regard to financial and administrative costs. 
• Estimation of impacts of the "Shall" provisions of the preferred policy option 
Estimation on a total duration for applying for such a licence is between 5 and  10 hours 
depending on the involvement of transit count ries, which corresponds to an administrative 
burden per licence of 250 to 500 euros. 
Impacts of implementing the ‘"Shall"’ provisions on Member States 
The majority of the MSs believed that impact on the structural administrative costs would be 
slight.  
• Estimation of impacts of "May" and other mitigating measures  
Implementation of the "May" provisions and of the other envisaged measures would mitigate 
the financial and administrative costs as shown in the estimations that follow: 
• Estimation of total costs of the pr eferred policy option for businesses  
Since transit apparently involve s only 10% of the shipments, and taking into account the use 
of standardised or electronic documents a nd open licences for multiple shipments (which 
would result in a decrease by approximately 30%38 in the number of licenses issued), the total 
cost of the preferred policy option would range from € 3 850 000 to € 4 620 000 per year.  
• Estimation of total costs of the preferred  policy option for public authorities of 
Member States 
Each policy option would entail a series of " no recurring" costs for implementing the new 
Regulation as well as for the authorities to fa miliarise themselves with the new provisions, 
and for training staff to work with the modifi ed/additional procedures. However most of the 
consulted representatives of MSs believed that no immediate or long-term budgetary 
consequences would occur for public author ities at different le vels of government. 
C. Comparison of estimated financial and administrative costs for business and public 
authorities between current si tuation and future situation 
Based on the above-mentioned estimations  the increased administrative costs for all EU 
businesses due to the implementation of the preferred policy option would range from € 1 350  
00039 to € 1 620 000.  
                                                 
38 Prudent estimation that takes into account what referred  by representative of the EU  private stakeholders who 
stated that the total amount of licence is that of the shipments. 
39 This estimation would mean that the increasing of financial and administrative costs would represent only the 
0,19% of the total value of exports 2007. 
 
EN 42   EN Financial costs for businesses getting accustomed to the new Regulation will probably 
increase as well. On reverse, only a small increase (i f any) in costs for public authorities of 
MSs is expected (staff training for example to get used with the new procedures). 
Main advantages of the preferred policy option.40 
The establishment of a Regulation on the transfer  of firearms for civilian use fulfils EC 
international obligations following from the signa ture of the UN Firearms Protocol and also 
ensures the Common Commercial Policy in this field. Implementing the "May" requirement 
of Article 10 of the UNFP creates the possibility for Member States to apply simplified procedures to verifiable lawful purposes su ch as hunting and sport shooting. This will 
significantly mitigate the possible additional admi nistrative costs for EU businesses, private 
parties and public authorities that are expected to result from the procedural changes that – in 
some cases - would result necessary for the implementation of Article 10. By including the 
"May" requirements in the Regulation, its implementation would take place in the least burdensome way. 
The Regulation - as part of a wider action,  including the implem entation of whole UN 
Firearms Protocol - co ntributes to improving th e internal EU securit y, the security of EU 
citizens and third countries. It will improve the transparency of international transfers and 
their traceability and prevent diversion of firearms, which in the long run improves the 
security environment. The traceability is cruc ial since most part of illegal firearms in 
circulation was almost certainly obtained from  the legal market. A system of import/export 
licenses and notifications of transit regardi ng shipments of firearms and ammunition would 
facilitate tracing, i.e. the systematic tracking of  these products from manufacturer to purchaser 
for the purpose of detecting and investigating il licit manufacturing and illicit trafficking. The 
envisaged provisions, added to the guarantee of sufficient marking and of the other parts of 
the UNFP already implemented
41, will make it possible to improve  traceability of the firearms 
and would also give a response to the need of better tracing of supply channels as a crucial 
key criminal investigation technique in the syst ematic combating of arms crime, as requested 
by the Council in its recomme ndation of 12/13 June 2007. It will also give a response to the 
request of the International Community (U nited Nations, NGOs, etc) for implementing 
existing instruments and better tracing firearms. 
Whenever a new system is established, or cha nges are made to an existing one, the first 
tendency is to consider nothing but the added cost of the newe r system. On the contrary, the 
establishment of a system which tends to establish common principles within the Member States can have potential indirect economic im pacts, which often amount to lower operating 
costs resulting from their reduction or outright elimination. The impact of any changes on the 
system’s effectiveness is difficult to determin e in advance. It would include not only pure 
economic impacts but also othe r possible positive aspects like reduction of cost s related to 
crimes. 
Main disadvantages of the preferred policy option
 
                                                 
40 A hypothetical example of a procedure for licensing to be followed by a business (exporter) and or an 
individual, based on the provisions of the preferred policy option is in Annex XIII. 
41 See chapter 1.1 above.  
 
EN 43   EN One-off costs for national administrations and business operators may be generated in order 
for them to adapt to the new system. 
Because most Member States have already impl emented a number of rules for the transfer of 
firearms, the total number of licen ces is not significantly expected to increase. The extent to 
which additional costs can be expected to rise  mainly depends on the length and complexity 
of the new procedures, in comparison to the curre nt situation in the Member States. Since one 
of the most controversial issues is that linked to  the duration of the r eceipt of the notice of no 
objection of the transit State and the conseq uence of additional long-term costs for EU 
businesses, the preferred policy option neutrali ses this possible disadvantage by including the 
silent consent principle in case of transit. The risks with regard to the duration and complexity 
of the procedures is considerably mitigated by including in the preferred option additional elements such as the possible use of standardis ed and electronic documents  and - in particular 
- the maximum duration of three months for the whole procedure of proc essing an application. 
Proportionality.
 The instrument chosen is a Regulation, which is the legislative instrument 
needed to address and ensure commercial polic y matters and the appropriate one in order to 
fulfil the obligations of the European Union fo llowing the signature of  the Protocol and the 
international commitment. Proportionality of  the preferred policy option is ensured by 
limiting the content of the proposed option to th e mandatory provisions of Article 10. On the 
whole, the preferred option does  not go beyond what is necessa ry to achieve the objective. 
However, in order to take into account of the concerns and comments of private stakeholders, the preferred policy option considers the impl ementation of the ‘may’ provisions of Art 10 
UNFP, plus in particular provisions aimed at re ducing the burden of ad ministrative rules, in 
particular those related to the transit measures. 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The subsequent monitoring and evaluation of the preferred policy option is important to 
assess its efficiency and effec tiveness in addressing the underl ying problems and meeting the 
policy objectives. 
The table in Annex XIV includes a list of possi ble indicators aimed at assessing the progress 
and the effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the main policy objectives. In 
relation to these possible quantita tive indicators, sources of inform ation that could be used to 
collect related data and othe r information are presented. 
In particular with regard to the contribution to security, the monitoring will include - as far as 
possible and where feasible – le vel and trends in firearms related crime (expected to be 
declining). The relevant information will be gathered based on surveys on firearms related crime, national statistics, law enforcement agenci es such as Europol, etc.  However it is very 
important to stress that the tracing
 is the ultimate goal of all this  exercise. This means that the 
decrease in terms of diversion of  firearms from legal to illegal market is an objective of the 
UNFP in overall - including Ar t 10 -. The UNFP as a whole pr ovides instruments by means of 
which reducing the risk of divers ion and to facilitate the investigation ex-post, making the life 
of criminals more difficult. The requested progre ss is therefore not only a matter of number of 
firearms that remains in the legal market but also that of ensuring by means of the 
implementation of the provisions on marking, ex change information, details on the shipments 
to make it possible to shed li ght on the story of a firearm on ce this is found in the scene of 
crime or when it is found in the illegal market. 
 
EN 44   EN  
As far as monitoring is concerne d, it could involve reporting activities pertaining to both the 
Commission and the Member States. A reporting sy stem at Member State level could be set 
up by means of a specific provision in the Regulati on. On this basis, Member States could be 
asked to explain the practical implementation of  the provisions of the Regulation. Information 
could be collected by means of questionnaires to be establishe d and/or based on available 
statistics. 
On the basis of this and other available informa tion, five years after the entry into force of the 
Regulation (and every five years thereafter), the Commission could  report on the  status of its 
implementation and the results achieved. The exam ination of the results achieved compared 
against the objectives and the identification of possible problems to be  addressed would allow 
the Commission to decide whether proposals for amendments should be put forward. 
As further steps, in the future it could be c onsidered to enhance ex isting or introduce new 
tools (e.g. dedicated databases,  electronic information excha nge, etc) to facilitate the 
exchange of information and the cooperation a nd further facilitate the functioning of the 
system in the light of the first period of a pplication. However, the anticipation of those 
instruments - which are not part  of the provisions of the UNFP that the European Union is 
requested to transpose in its legislation fo r reaching the final goal of its conclusion 
(ratification) - for the time being appears premature. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - 
 
EN 45   EN Annex I  
 
Article 10 
 
“General requirements for export, import and transit licensing or authorization systems  
“1. Each State Party shall esta blish or maintain an effective system of export and import 
licensing or authorization, as well  as of measures on internationa l transit, for the transfer of 
firearms, their parts and components and ammunition. 
“2. Before issuing export licences or authoriza tions for shipments of firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition, each State Party shall verify: 
“(a) That the importing States have issu ed import licences or authorizations; and 
“(b) That, without prejudice to  bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements favouring 
landlocked States, the transit St ates have, at a minimum, give n notice in writing, prior to 
shipment, that they have no objection to the transit. 
“3. The export and import licence or author ization and accompanying documentation together 
shall contain information that, at a minimum, shall include the place and the date of issuance, the date of expiration, the count ry of export, the c ountry of import, the final recipient, a 
description and the quantity of the firearms, their parts and components and ammunition and, 
whenever there is transit, the countries of tr ansit. The information contained in the import 
licence must be provided in a dvance to the transit States. 
“4. The importing State Party sh all, upon request, inform the exporting State Party of the 
receipt of the dispatched shipment of fir earms, their parts and components or ammunition. 
“5. Each State Party shall, within available mean s, take such measures as may be necessary to 
ensure that licensing or authorization proced ures are secure and th at the authenticity of 
licensing or authorizatio n documents can be verified or validated. 
“6. States Parties may adopt simplified procedures for the temporary import and export and 
the transit of firearms, their parts and comp onents and ammunition for verifiable lawful 
purposes such as hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs.” 
 
EN 46   EN Annex II  
List of consulted private stakeholders'42 and NGOs who replied to the request for 
data/interviews, invited/attended meetings, etc. 
 
• AECAC (the European Association of  the Civil Commerce of Weapons), 
• FACE (Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU,  
• IEACS (Institut Européen des Arme s de Chasse et de Sport),  
• ANPAM/Italy (National Association Producers of Firearms and Ammunition 
"Associazione Nazionale di Produ ttori di Armi e Munizioni"), 
• AFEMS, (Association of European Sporting Ammunition Manufacturers), 
• Foundation for European Societies of Arms Collectors (FESAC), 
• Forge Consulting Ltd, Jackson Rifles (retailer), 
• SNAFAM/France (Chambre Syndi cale Nationale de Fabrican ts et Distributeurs),  
• ASOCIACIÓN ARMERA/Spain,  
• Consorzio Armaioli Bresciani/Italy, 
• Dutch association for the trade in firearms/The Netherlands, 
• GRIP, (Group Recherche et Inform ation Paix et Securité),  
• Saferworld. 
To note that the consultation was addressed to a wide range of private European stakeholders, 
that - besides the ones mentioned before – included: 
• the "Association of European Cham bers of Commerce and Industry", 
• the "Union des Industries de la Comm unauté européenne" (UNICE) now called 
"Businesseurope", 
• the "European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-siz ed Enterprises" (UEAPME), 
as well as other NGOs/Research institu tions like SIPRI and ISIS Europe.  
 The UN Office in Geneva was notified as well.  
                                                
 
42  During the consultation held the private stakeholders were not able provide definitive figures on the number 
of enterprises active in the concerned fields. However, with regard to business, one stakeholder (Association of 
European Sporting Ammunition manufacturers/AFEMS) mentioned that "in the civilian firearms and 
ammunition manufacturing sector Europe there are more than 20.000 people employed in over 400 firms, most 
of them SMEs". With reference to hunters, accordin g to the Federation of Associations for Hunting and 
Conservation of the EU(FACE) only 1 to 2 per cent of hunters (60.000 to 120.000 leave the EU to go hunting (around 10.00 extra EU hunters come to the EU for th e same purposes). However as explained in the IA, 
prudence should be used since difficulties were found al ong all the exercise for obtaining figures from the 
business sector. 
 
EN 47   EN Annex III   
Selection of categories of the CN dataset (2007) 
Category 1: Revolvers and Pistols 
93020000 Revolvers And Pistols (Excl. Those Of Heading 9303 Or 9304 And Sub-Machine 
                   Guns For Military Purposes)  
93020010  Revolvers And Pistols, Of >= 9 Mm Calibre (Excl. Those Of Heading 9303 Or 9304  
                 And Sub-Machine Guns For Military Purposes Of Heading 9301) 
93020090  Revolvers And Pistols, Of < 9 Mm Calibre (Excl. Those Of Heading 9303 Or 
                   9304 And Sub-Machine Guns For Military Purposes Of Heading 9301) 
9302s891    Confidential Trade Of Sub-Chapter 9302 And Sitc Group 891 
Category 2: Sporting, Hunting and Target Shooting 
93032010  Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Shotguns, Single-Barrelled, Smooth Bore (Excl. Muzzle-
Loading Firearms And Spring, Air Or Gas Guns) 
93032030  Double-Barrelled Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Shotguns, With At Least One Smooth 
Barrel 
93032080  Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Shotguns, With A Smooth Bore Or  
With A Smooth And Rifled Bore (Other Than Double-Barrelled) 
93032090  Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Shotgu ns, With At Least One Smooth Barrel (Excl. 
Double-Barrelled) 
93032095  Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Shotguns, With One Or Two Smooth Bore Combined 
With A Rifled Bore And Double-Barrelled Smooth Bore Shotguns 
93033000 Sporting, Hunting And Target-Shooting Shotguns W ith One Or More Rifled Bores (Other Than 
Spring, Air Or Gas Guns) 
93033011  Rimfire Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Rifles With A Single Rifled  
                  Barrel 
93033019  Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Rifles With A Single Rifled Barrel  
                  (Excl. Rimfire) 
93033090  Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Rifles With More Than One Rifled  
                  Barrel (Excl. Spring, Air Or Gas Guns) 
93039000  Firearms And Similar Devices Which Operate By  The Firing Of An Explosive Charge (Excl. 
Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Rifles, Revolvers And Pistols Of Heading 9302 And 
Military Weapons) 
9303s891  Confidential Trade Of Sub-Chapter 9303 And Sitc Group 891 
Category 3: Parts and Accessories 
93051000  Parts And Accessories For Revolvers Or Pistols, N.E.S. 
93052100  Smooth Barrels For Sporting, Hunting And Target-Shooting Rifles Of Heading 9303 
93052900  Parts And Accessories For Sporting, Hunting And Target-Shooting Rifles  
                 Of Heading 9303, N.E.S. (Excl. Shotgun Barrels) 
93052910  Rifled Barrels For Sporting, Hunting And Target-Shooting Rifles Of Heading 9303 
 
EN 48   EN 93052930  Roughly Shaped Gun Stock Blocks For Sporting, Hunting And   
                  Target-Shooting Rifles Of Heading 9303 
93052950  Butt Stocks For Sporting, Hunting And Target-Shooting Rifles Of Heading 9303 
93052980  Parts And Accessories For Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting Shotguns  Of Heading No 
9303, N.E.S. 
93052990  Parts And Accessories For Sporting, Hunting And Target-Shooting  
                    Rifles Of Heading 9303, N.E.S. 
93052995  Rifled Barrels And Other Parts And Accessories For Sporting, Hunting Or Target-Shooting 
Shotguns Of Heading 9303, N.E.S. (Excl. Shotgun Barrels And Roughly Shaped Gun Stock 
Blocks) 
93059090  Parts And Accessories For Weapons And The Like Of Headings 9303 Or 9304, N.E.S. 
93059900  Parts And Accessories For Weapons And The Like Of Heading 9303 Or 9304, N.E.S. (Excl. O f 
Shotguns Or Rifles Of Heading 9303) 
9305s891  Confidential Trade Of Sub-Chapter 9305 And Sitc Group 891 
Category 4: Ammunition 
93061000 Cartridges For Riveting Or Similar Tools Or For Captive-Bolt Humane Killers And Parts 
Thereof, N.E.S. 
93062100  Cartridges For Smooth-Barrelled Shotguns 
93062920  Bullets And Lead Shot For Shotgun  Cartridges (Excl. Airgun Pellets) 
93062930  Cases For Cartridges For Smooth-Barrelled Shotguns 
93062940  Cases For Shotgun Cartridges 
93062970  Parts Of Cartridges For Smooth-Bore Shotguns Or Rifles, N.E.S.; Lead Pellets For Airguns 
93062980  Parts Of Shotgun Cartridges (Excl. 9306.29-20 To 9306.29-40), Incl. Cartridge Wads 
93062990  Parts Of Cartridges For Smooth-Barrelled Shotguns N.E.S. 
93063010  Cartridges And Parts Thereof For Revolvers And Pistols Of Heading 9302 And For Sub-
Machine-Guns Of Heading 9301 
93063091  Centrefire Cartridges For Rifle-Barrelled Shotguns 
93063093  Rimfire Cartridges For Rifle-Barrelled Shotguns 
93063095  Cases For Cartridges For Rifle-Barrelled Shotguns 
93063097  Cartridges And Parts Thereof, N.E.S. 
93063098  Cartridges And Parts Thereof, N.E.S. 
93063099  Cartridges And Parts Thereof N.E.S. 
93069090  Ammunition And Projectiles And Parts Thereof, N.E.S. (Excl. For Military Purposes) 
9306s891  Confidential Trade Of Sub-Chapter 9306 And Sitc Group 891 
 
EN 49   EN Annex IV  
Number of exported and imported firearms fo r sporting, hunting and target shooting purposes 
in 2007. Extra-EU trade in firearms for sporting, hunting and target shooting in 200743 
Member States Export quantity Export value Import 
quantity Import value 
Austria 4 242 € 5 887 841 2 645 € 534 350 
Belgium  1 052 € 1 015 271 13 533 € 7 626 914 
Bulgaria     
Cyprus 75 € 64 694 2 400 € 742 596
Czech Republic  49 963 € 11 031 481 1 054 € 423 328
Germany  35 063 € 38 581 521 60 888 € 8 550 407
Denmark 1 879 € 509 311 6 487 € 1 528 353
Estonia   492 € 125 531
Spain 6 420 € 4 961 547 9 150 € 2 649 004
Finland 34 482 € 11 187 094 7 083 € 1 685 679
France 2 426 € 2 067 702 31 006 € 5 897 307
United kingdom 8 090 € 19 162 231 26 914 € 6 924 771
Greece 1 109 € 344 734 6 416 € 1 132 767
Hungary 1 083 € 17 225 961 € 250 422
Ireland 3 € 3 736 2 383 € 633 908
Italy 270 967 € 134 070 737 18 710 € 5 570 082
Lithuania   806 € 122 576
Luxembourg 1 € 3 131 9 € 21 628
Latvia   729 € 189 218
Malta   264 € 72 855
Netherlands 381 € 363 985 710 € 131 123
Poland 2 161 € 42 269 21 817 € 784 009
Portugal 19 367 € 8 238 230 313 € 90 852
Romania     
Sweden 3 681 € 592 707 3 154 € 756 731
Slovenia 0 € 92 217 0 € 40 132
Slovakia 0 € 1 225 264 € 63 496
EU27  442 445 € 238 238 889 218 188 € 46 548 039
                                                 
43 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data  extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 
 
EN 50   EN Annex V  
Export and import value of pistols and revolvers expressed as a percentage of the total value of 
firearms for civilian use, their pa rts and components and ammunition exported to and imported 
from third countries in 200744. 
  Export pistols and revolvers Import pistols and revolvers 
Member States Export value % of total Import value % of total 
Austria         
Belgium          
Bulgaria         
Cyprus     € 1 950 0%
Czech Republic  € 13 096 345 37% € 197 821 5%
Germany  € 41 686 799 30% € 3 867 780 8%
Denmark € 54 532 1% € 248 185 3%
Estonia     € 2 020 0%
Spain € 156 832 0% € 923 201 7%
Finland € 66 179 0% € 474 615 8%
France         
United Kingdom € 2 050 953 4% € 151 364 0%
Greece         
Hungary         
Ireland     € 382 0%
Italy € 30 640 541 13% € 3 321 774 12%
Lithuania         
Luxembourg € 20 471 77% € 7 185 4%
Latvia     € 4 101 1%
Malta     € 45 423 35%
Netherlands         
Poland € 1 196 443 29% € 7 249 0%
Portugal € 161 554 1% € 85 000 2%
Romania         
Sweden € 91 104 1% € 56 373 1%
Slovenia € 117 427 18% € 68 661 25%
Slovakia € 108 403 31% € 76 398 11%
EU27  € 89 447 583 13% € 9 539 482 4%
                                                 
44 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data  extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 
 
EN 51   EN Annex VI  
Value of export and import of parts and componen ts expressed as a percentage of the total value 
of firearms for civilian use, their parts and co mponents and ammunition transferred to and 
from third countries in 200745. 
  Export parts and components Import parts and components 
Member States Export value % of total Import value % of total 
Austria € 21 040 026 74% € 5 202 745 80%
Belgium  € 192 959 12% € 1 088 271 7%
Bulgaria         
Cyprus € 8 052 0% € 11 529 1%
Czech Republic  € 3 397 112 10% € 2 408 180 63%
Germany  € 27 719 317 20% € 11 944 156 23%
Denmark € 3 082 795 67% € 1 546 535 21%
Estonia     € 40 664 4%
Spain € 1 616 856 4% € 1 691 275 14%
Finland € 741 720 4% € 1 395 745 24%
France € 3 903 039 5% € 1 426 447 7%
United Kingdom € 11 390 508 20% € 6 478 918 14%
Greece € 4 500 0% € 40 779 2%
Hungary € 92 913 2% € 62 145 4%
Ireland     € 65 432 6%
Italy € 26 238 145 11% € 9 085 186 34%
Lithuania     € 12 244 2%
Luxembourg € 3 000 11% € 32 902 19%
Latvia     € 38 886 8%
Malta     € 1 834 1%
Netherlands € 9 412 2% € 622 739 16%
Poland € 2 248 616 55% € 590 193 20%
Portugal € 8 589 336 49% € 2 069 736 60%
Romania         
Sweden € 136 217 1% € 935 550 19%
Slovenia € 130 739 20% € 39 497 14%
Slovakia € 174 087 49% € 237 159 35%
EU27  € 110 719 349 16% € 47 068 747 21%
                                                 
45 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data  extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 
 
EN 52   EN Annex VII  
 
Value of export and import of ammunition ex pressed as a percentage of the total value of 
firearms for civilian use, their parts and components and ammunition transferred to and from 
third countries in 200746. 
  Export ammunition Import ammunition 
Member States Export value % of total Import value % of total 
Austria € 1 068 155 4% € 729 757 11%
Belgium  € 291 517 18% € 7 784 196 47%
Bulgaria         
Cyprus € 2 880 343 95% € 196 935 20%
Czech Republic  € 7 170 693 20% € 746 116 19%
Germany  € 28 991 000 21% € 26 378 855 51%
Denmark € 885 791 19% € 4 002 076 54%
Estonia € 27 100% € 962 121 84%
Spain € 31 416 830 82% € 6 894 981 56%
Finland € 5 809 367 33% € 2 241 528 38%
France € 76 874 578 92% € 13 156 299 64%
United Kingdom € 24 863 249 43% € 32 168 260 70%
Greece € 2 946 304 88% € 1 103 097 48%
Hungary € 5 077 532 98% € 1 143 927 75%
Ireland     € 428 215 37%
Italy € 48 759 541 20% € 8 512 941 32%
Lithuania € 1 883 631 66% € 66 971 10%
Luxembourg     € 107 795 64%
Latvia     € 212 324 45%
Malta € 6 150 100% € 11 351 9%
                                                 
46 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data  extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 
 
EN 53   EN Netherlands € 171 369 31% € 3 024 652 79%
Poland € 616 355 15% € 1 558 432 52%
Portugal € 479 459 3% € 1 203 145 35%
Romania         
Sweden € 9 054 432 92% € 3 140 788 64%
Slovenia € 324 356 49% € 106 799 39%
Slovakia € 7 221 2% € 274 524 41%
EU27  € 249 577 900 36% € 116 156 085 52%
 
EN 54   EN Annex VIII  
 
Summary of findings in the Small Arms Survey. 
 
Summary of findings in Small Arms Survey 2007, p. 39  
• Civilians own approximately 650 mill ion firearms worldwide, roughly 75 
percent of the known total. 
• This is equal to roughly one gun for every seven people worldwide 
(without the United States, the figure drops to about one gun for every ten 
people). 
• There are at least 875 million combin ed civilian, law enforcement, and 
military firearms in the world today. 
• The rising availability of handguns  has transformed urban weapons 
ownership, while semi- or fully au tomatic rifles have transformed 
possession in urban and rural settings. 
• These figures do not include older, pre-automatic small arms still 
maintained by armed forces or  craft-produced civilian guns. 
• Nearly 79 million firearms for civilian use are known to be registered with 
authorities, roughly 9 per cent of th e suspected civilian total.  
 
 Attention has to be paid to the fact that the Small Arms Survey does not  distinguish firearms 
according to their intended use, but acco rding to who possesses the firearms.  
 
 
 
EN 55   EN Annex IX  
Number of issued import and/or export licenses47 related to the imported and/or 
exported quantity (in numbers) of fire arms, their parts and components and 
ammunition48. 
 
Member State Number of import 
and/or export 
licences Export quantit y 
firearms for civilian 
use Import quantit y 
firearms for civilian 
use 
Bulgaria 200 (civilian use) - -
Denmark 2 000 (import and 
export) 353 696 383 603
Estonia 12 (import/civilian 
use) 0 2 310
Germany 563 (civ) 431 593 268 596
Hungary Export: 86 (firearms) 
95 (ammunition) 
Import: 200 (firearms) 
114 (ammunition)
Total: 495 883 706 65642
Ireland 1 923 (2006, import 
and export) 3 10 328
Italy 750 (civilian use) 789 974 109 189
Netherlands 2000 (export) 475 6 692
Romania 299 (2004)
221 (2005)
199 (2006)
Average: 240  -  -
Sweden 2 700 (import and 
export) 30 759 6 695
United Kingdom 4 162 + 500 (2006, 
import and export)
900 + 500 (2007, 
import and export)
Average: 3031 
1 445 926 
1 017 549
Subtotal 13914 3 936 132 1 870 604
 
Total EU27 (civilian 
use)  
10 359 214 2 789 587
Total EU27 (military 
and civilian use)  
11 064 407 3 522 989
                                                 
47 Derived from consultations with Member States repres entatives. Only the Member States represented in this 
table provided data on licences. In some cases it is uncl ear whether the data on the nu mber of licences refer to 
military or civilian firearms and whether they concern extra- and/or intra- EU transfers. 
48 The export and import quantities consist of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of the 
Eurostat database. 
 
 
EN 56   EN Annex X  
ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE 
PREFERRED POLICY OPTION. 
FURTHER DETAILS. 
 
A. Current situation with regard to fi nancial and administrative costs  
I. Estimation of the number of licen ces per year in the current situation 
Only limited data were made available on the number of licences issued for the import and 
export of firearms for civilian use: 
• There was no clear-cut relation between th e number of issued licences and the 
quantity (in pieces) of export and import to and from the EU.  
• No relation could be found between the number of licences and the value of the 
exported products for civilian use.  
• Furthermore, most available data on th e number of licences, did not distinguish 
between the transfer of firearms for milita ry use and firearms for civilian use.  
• Finally, it was not clear whether all data on the licences relate to export and import to 
and from the EU. Some licences might appl y to intra-EU transport of firearms. 
From the consultations with the stakeholders and the representatives of the Member States, it 
can be concluded that there are differences between the current licen sing procedures among 
the Member States and the future licensing procedure of the preferred policy option. 
According to the collected data, the major part  of the issued licences  probably applies to 
firearms for civilian use, and a smaller share applies to military weapons.  The number of imported and exported firearms for civilian use (and their parts, components and ammunition) 
appears higher than the number of imported and exported military firearms. However, these 
figures may be influenced by incomplete data provided by the Member States.  
A rough estimate of the total number of licences issued each year for the import and export of 
firearms for civilian use, their parts a nd components and ammunition can be done as 
following: 
Annual total number of  issued licences
 in 11 Member States (t hose who provided data) = 
approximately 14.000 . Total quantity of import and export  of these Members States = 5.806 
736. Total quantity of import and e xport of all the 27 EU countries = 13.148.80149 . 
                                                 
49 The Member States that replied to the consultation account for more than 40 percent of the total import and 
export 
 
EN 57   EN Assuming that the other 16 Member States  have similar licensing procedures, the total 
number  of licences in the 27 Member States would be approximately 35.000  (14 000 x 2.5). 
A minority of the 14.000 licences were probably issu ed for military or for intra-EU transfers. 
The roughly estimation of the number of licence s for import/export of fi rearms for civilian 
use, their parts, components and ammunition in the current situation is 25.000 to 30. 000  per 
year. Such estimation was indirectly confirmed by the statement of a representative of private 
parties, who mentioned a number of 15 000 to 20 000 licences for export and 5000 licences 
for import. The same representative mentione d that the number of licenses was about the 
same as the number of shipments and that normally each carrier has a licence corresponding 
to each shipment.  
II. Estimation of curre nt costs for businesses 
• Estimation of the duration of prepar ing for an export/import application 
Limited data were made available on the curren t annual administrative costs related to import 
and export licences and authorisat ions. According to some of th e private parties interviewed, 
the range for filling in an a pplication form for a licence take s one man-hour (for the very 
simple) to at least four hours. Based on zero- base measurement of firearms transactions 
within the Netherlands (1 and ½ hour), the time it  takes to apply for an  authorisation and the 
indications of private parties ( one to four hours), we can assu me that the time necessary to 
prepare an import and/or export application is on average two hours. If a standard tariff is 
used of 50 Euros per hour, the total admini strative burden per licen ce is circa 100 Euros. 
• Estimation of administrative costs for businesses  
Under the assumption that the annual number of licences is in the order of 25.000 to 30.000, 
and that the administrative costs of the busines ses in the Member States to apply for import 
and export licences are comparable, the ad ministrative costs are estimated to be: 
Companies: 25.000 to 30.000 x € 100 (2 hours x € 50) = € 2.500.000 to € 3.000.000 per year. Because some of the Member States have al ready implemented parts of Article 10 of the 
UNFP, these administrative costs are probably underestimated and the total amount is very 
probably higher than the 2.5/3 estimated millions per year. The administrative costs, which 
originate from national legislation of the Memb er States, are relatively low compared to the 
total administrative burden for businesses in the EU. Administrative costs in general are usually underrated, because the hours spent on admi nistrative tasks tend to be underestimated.  
• Estimation of the duration of processing an export/import application by public 
authorities and qualitative analysis of the impact of this on competitiveness of 
businesses 
The duration of processing import and export a pplication forms differ s in (and within) the 
different Member States. Therefor e, the duration businesses have to take into account before 
they receive their licence is in secure. The duration al so depends on the type  of firearm and the 
countries involved in the trans action. However, this duration of  processing is not included in 
the definition of administrative costs of th e EU. The Table in Annex XI represents the 
(maximum) processing time of an application as  indicated by different public authorities of 
the Member States. 
 
EN 58   EN Probably, the highest (indirect) costs for business are associat ed with the procedure time 
between the application for a licen ce and the issuing of a licence.  This time is related to the 
(maximum) processing time of an application.  The time between purchase and delivery of 
firearms may be an important selling point. If  a buyer can choose between a short or long 
delivery time (for the same pri ce) he is likely to choose the short one. Th erefore, the duration 
of processing application forms by public authorities has an impact on the competitiveness of businesses.  
III. Estimation of current costs for public authorities of Member States 
• Estimation of the duration of processing an export/import application by public 
authorities of Member States  
The length of time for processing the applicati on forms differs. The average time to process 
an application form for export or import varies fr om five days to six months, or one year in 
the worst cases. Most Member States that re plied to the consultation affirmed that the 
processing would not take more than 1 month (p rivate stakeholders tended to provide longer 
estimations).  
The representatives of the Member States that replied to the consultation were unable to 
provide information on FTEs
50 spent on processing the lice nces. The duration can differ 
depending on the type of firearm for civilian use and the (third) countries involved in the 
transaction (fragile State or a Stat e in political turmoil, etc).  
• Estimation of administrative costs for public authorities of Member States  
Again data were not made available on Member States' current annual administrative costs for 
issuing licences/authorisations and the required  administrative procedure. None of the 
interviewed States' authorities could provide an  estimation of the necessary capacity in man-
hours per licence, due to a lack of  available data. However, if the assumed number of issued 
licences per year is between 25.000 and 30.000, the number of applic ations should be slightly 
higher, since a part of the applications is re fused. The two Member St ates that did provide 
information on this matter stated that this number was limited and only concerned a very 
small part of the requested licences. In one Member State for exam ple only 20 out of 750 
license requests were  refused (2,6%).  
B. Future situation with regard to fi nancial and administrative costs. 
• Estimation of impacts of the ‘shall’ prov isions of the preferred policy option on 
financial and administrative co sts in the future situation 
The impacts on the administrative costs of EU businesses should be divided into non 
recurring investments costs (financial costs) and administrative costs (recurring). Some EU 
businesses (only these were the national legislation is not fully in line with the UNFP) could 
have some investment costs because they will have to get accustomed to the new legislation. In many Member States the requirement on transit is in practice not used in their procedure. 
Therefore, this ‘shall requirement’ could result in the most important re quirement with regard 
to an increase of costs for businesses. Compared  to the current situat ion, businesses will have 
                                                
 
50 Full Time Equivalent/FTE: ratio of total number of paid hours during a period by number of working hours of 
that period.  Source: "www.businessdictionary.com" 
 
EN 59   EN to acquire a ‘notice of no objection’ of the trans it State at latest before the shipments of the 
products. Furthermore, businesses will have to provide the information of the import licence 
to the transit States (provision 3b). Hence, if transit is invo lved, costs for businesses could 
increase. Moreover, because the transit requireme nt could cause delays, it could also have an 
impact on the competitiveness of businesses. Another ‘shall requirement’ that will have an impact on costs for businesses is the provision wh ich stipulates that an import licence has to 
be issued prior to the issuance of an export licence or of authorizations for shipments  
(provision 2a), since in some Member St ates this provision is not required.  
The implementation of the ‘shall’ requirements only of Article 10 of th e UNFP, without other 
mitigation measures, would probably lead to an  increase of administrative burdens for 
businesses.  
Estimation on a total duration fo r applying for such a licence is at least at 5 to 10 hours 
depending if transit countr ies are involved or not. If a standard tariff is used of 50 Euros per 
hour, this corresponds with an  administrative burden per li cence of 250 to 500 Euros. 
However, by using the accompanying measures men tioned in the assessment of the preferred 
option the administrative burden per licence would decrease.  
Impacts of implementing the ‘shall’ provisions on Member States 
There are no data available on the current costs for Member States of processing the licenses. 
However the majority of the Member States either  were not able to repl y or said that only a 
small impact would result on the structural admi nistrative costs. Licensing authorities will 
have to assess more documents, including the noti ce of no objection of th e transit States. Due 
to the lack of information in the different Me mber States on the number of FTEs spent on the 
current procedures, it was not possible to quantify this impact. 
• Estimation of impacts of mitigating meas ures of the preferred policy option on 
financial and administrative co sts in the future situation. 
Some of the provisions envisaged, as described in this impact assessment, would mitigate the 
financial and administrative costs:  
o Simplified procedures fo r temporary import/export;  
o Licences for multiple shipments; 
o Impacts of putting the burden of acquiring the required documentation on the private 
parties;  
o Impacts of limiting the dura tion of the processing procedure to three months; 
o Impacts of allowing the use of a silent consent and impacts of not allowing the use of a 
silent consent; 
o Impacts of designating a specific official, office or department; 
o Impacts of the use of standardised documents; 
o Impacts of the possible us e of electronic documents. 
 
EN 60   EN  
• Estimation of total costs of the preferred policy option for business  
Under the assumption that the annual number of  licences remains in the order of 25.000 to 
30.000, that the administrative costs per licence vary between 5 hours (x € 50 per hour is € 250) and 10 hours (x € 50 per hour is € 500) and that only the 10th percent of the shipments 
have to transit through third countries, the admi nistrative costs for businesses are estimated as 
follows: 
Licenses without transit 22.500 to 27.000 x € 250 = € 5.625.000 to € 6.750. 000 per year Licenses with transit 2.500 to 3.000 x € 500 = € 1.250.000 to € 1.500.000 per year Total € 6.875.000 to € 8.250.000 per year. However, the possibility of us ing standardised and/or electr onic documents would reduce the 
FTEs necessary for preparing and submitting providing applications for the import and export licence. Furthermore, if electr onic documents are used, the number of FTEs could decrease as 
well. The man-hours spent on applying for an  export licence could be decrease to, for 
instance, from 4 hours (x € 50 per hour is € 200)  for import and export without transit to 8 
hours (x € 50 per hour is € 400) for import and expor t with transit. In th at case, the estimated 
costs for businesses would be: 
Licenses without transit 22.500 to 27.000 x € 200 = € 4.500.000 to € 5.400.000 per year 
Licenses with transit 2.500 to 3.000 x € 400 = € 1.000.000 to € 1.200.000 per year Total € 5.500.000 to € 6.600.000 per year. Furthermore, thanks to the possibility of usi ng open licences for multiple shipments, the total 
number of licences would decrease by approximately 30%
51 with the consequent further 
reduction of the number of licenses processed, re sulting in reduced  expenses for businesses 
as following: 
Total € 5.500.000 to € 6.600.000 per year- 30% =  Total € 3.850.000 to € 4.620.000 per year. 
• Estimation of total costs of the preferred  policy option for public authorities of 
Member States 
As far as public authorities are concerned, each policy option would entail a series of costs for 
implementing the new Regulation as well as for th e authorities to familiarise themselves with 
the new provisions, and for training staff to work with the modified/additional procedures. 
These costs will depend on the new provisions/requi red adjustments as compared to the status 
quo and will be non-recurring costs. 
                                                
 
51 Prudent estimation that takes into account what referred  by representative of the EU  private stakeholders who 
stated that the total amount of licence is that of the shipments (see in this chapter point A,I on the estimation of 
total number of licenses). 
 
EN 61   EN The future (structural) administrative costs for Member States cannot be estimated because of 
a lack of data on the current situation and the difficulties experienced in quantifying the activities of public administrations related to licensing procedures, which currently vary between Member States. However most of the consulted representative s of Member States 
argued that no immediate or long-term budgeta ry consequences wo uld occur for public 
authorities at different levels of government. The implementation of the provisions would not 
require many new capacities, much restructur ing of existing public authorities or many 
changes of current administrativ e procedures. Licensing authoritie s will have to assess more 
documents, including the notice of no objection of the transit States. However, it is not 
possible to quantify this small in crease of structural costs because of the mentioned lack of 
data. If open licences for multiple shipments w ill become more common, the total number of 
licence applications would decrease as well, result ing in less expenses for public authorities of 
Member States. 
C. Comparison of estimated financial and administrative costs for business and public 
authorities between current si tuation and future situation 
An estimation of the administrative costs for businesses of the current situation is: 
25.000 to 30.000 x € 100 (2 hours x € 50) = € 2.500.000 – € 3.000.000 per year. 
An estimation of the administrative costs for businesses if the future situation would not take 
into account of the "may" provisions and other accompanying measures is: 
Licenses without transit 22.500 to 27.000 x € 250 (5 hours x € 50) =  
€ 5.625.000 to € 6.750.000 per year 
Licenses with transit 2.500 to 3.000 x € 500 (10 hours x € 50) =  
€ 1.250.000 to € 1.500.000 per year 
Total € 6.875.000 to € 8.250.000 per year This would mean an increase of ad ministrative costs for businesses of: 
€ 4.375.000 to € 5.250.000
52 
By implementing the option on the standardis ation of documents a nd use of electronic 
documents, the estimated future costs for businesses would be lower as following: 
Licenses without transit 22.500 to 27.000 x € 200 (4 hours x € 50) =  
€ 4.500.000 to € 5.400.000 per year 
Licenses with transit 2.500 to 3.000 x € 400 (8 hours x € 50) =  
€ 1.000.000 to € 1.200.000 per year 
Total € 5.500.000 to € 6.600.000 per year. 
                                                 
52 This estimation - which is the "worst" scenario " - would mean that the increasing of financial and 
administrative costs would represent only the 0,75% of the total va lue of exports 2007 (see table 1)   
 
EN 62   EN Furthermore by means of the use of open licences for multiple shipments the total number of 
licences would decrease by 30% an consequen tly the above mentioned total would be 
Total € 3.850.000 to € 4.620.000 per year. This would mean that the possible increase of  administrative costs for all EU businesses 
would be from € 1.350.000
53 to € 1.620.000. 
Moreover, the current costs for businesses are probably underestimated because some of the 
Member States have already implemented part s of Article 10 of the UNFP. Administrative 
costs in general are usually underrated, because  the hours spent on administrative tasks tend to 
be underestimated. Therefore, the difference be tween the current and future costs could be 
even smaller. 
Financial costs for businesses will probably incr ease as well. In order to implement the new 
legislative provisions or to comply with them , some implementation costs will be involved. 
Businesses will have to get accust omed to the new Regulation.  
As mentioned before, only a small increase (if a ny) of costs for public authorities of Member 
States is expected, which in al l cases was not possible to even only estimating, due to lack of 
information. 
However, adapting to the new Regulation, getti ng accustomed to new provisions and training 
staff to work with the modified/additional procedures could involve some implementation 
costs for public authorities. 
                                                 
53 This estimation - which is the  "best  scenario " - would mean that the increasing of financial and 
administrative costs would represent only the 0,19% of the total va lue of exports 2007 (see table 1 ) 
 
EN 63   EN Annex XI  
 
 
Zero base measurements of transact ions of firearms in the Netherlands  
 
 
In the Netherlands, a zero base measurement54 has been carried out to assess the 
administrative burden to companies. One of  the obligations was the registration of 
firearms. This procedure consists of a numbe r of steps, of which the most important 
are: 
 
- Registering data on each firearms transact ion (number, date, type of firearm or 
ammunition, quantity, name of buyer). 
- Filing the registered data and sendi ng a copy to the proper authorities. 
 
The total costs (in time) of these activi ties are approximately 8 hours a week for 
licensed firearms traders. These cost s are not specified per transaction.  
 
The time it takes to apply for an authorisa tion for receiving, tran sporting and selling 
firearms within the Netherlands has also been assessed. The total time for a 
company to apply for an authorisation for one shipment is approximately 30 
minutes.  
 
Another activity that has been assessed in the zero base measurement is the 
obtaining of a licence for the import and export of strategic goods. The costs (in 
time) to obtain an import licence or an  export licence ar e approximately 100 
minutes. 
 
However it has to be noted that these measurements took place only in the 
Netherlands and solely concerne d the intra-EU transactions. 
 
 
                                                 
54 Zero base measurement in the Neth erlands, baseline of 31 December 2003. 
 
EN 64   EN Annex XII  
 
Duration of the process (processing the applic ation form and approval/refusal of a licence.  
 
Country Duration of process 
Denmark 10 days 
Estonia 14 – 28 days 
Germany A few days to several weeks 
Hungary 30 - 90 days (maximum) 
Ireland 10 days 
Netherlands 5 days to a few months 
Romania 7 – 30 days (maximum) 
Sweden 14 – 28 days 
United Kingdom 7 – 20 days (target, not a maximum) 
  
Several stakeholders 3 – 6 weeks. Others up to six month or 
even one year  
 
 
 
EN 65   EN Annex XIII  
Hypothetical example of the steps to be follo wed by a business (exporter/trade) and or an 
individual (hunter/sport shooter), based on the provisions of the preferred policy option  
 
 
 
EXPORTER
commercial 
purposesEXPORTER
commercial 
purposes
OBTAIN AN IMPORT LICENCE/AUTHORISATION 
FROM IMPORTING THIRD COUNTRY
NOTIFY THE TRANSIT STATE - IF ANY –
OF THE INTENTION TO TRANSIT THROUGH THAT STATE
& ASKS FOR WRITTEN "NO OBJECTION" 
ASK FOR EXPORT LICENCE/AUTHORIZATION USE  OF ex. FIREARMS PASSPORT FOR CROSSING 
THE EU EXTERNAL BORDER
(OPTIONAL)
POSSIBLE  CLEARENCE PROCESS
AT EXTERNAL BORDER 
AUTHORIZATION PROCESS TIMING
REDUCED TO MINIMUMTRANSIT MEASURES DO NOT APPLYSIMPLIFIED, MINIMUM PROCEDURE 
FOR SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZATIONEXPORTER
recreational 
purposesEXPORTER
recreational 
purposes
PROOF OF NO OBJECTION TO TRANSIT
OR
CLAIM THE SILENT CONSENT TO TAKE EFFECT
(TRANSIT MEASURES DO NOT APPLY TO TEMPORARY EXPORTS)
ISSUING OF THE AUTHORIZATION WITHIN THREE MONTHS 
(EXCEPTION IN DULY JUSTIFIED CASES)PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 
WHICH INCLUDE INFORMATION FOR 
“TRACING” PURPOSES
 
EN 66   EN  
Annex XIV  
 
Indicators for monitoring and evaluation  
General objectives Potential indicator Sources of information 
1. To fulfil 
international 
obligations of the 
EC with regard to 
implementation of 
the UNFP  -Conclusion  ( ratification) 
of the UN Firearms 
Protocol on behalf of the 
Union, following the entry 
into force of the envisaged 
Regulation and the 
authorization by the 
Council    
Council 
 
UNODC 
 
2. To ensure the 
accomplishment of 
the Common 
Commercial Policy 
in a matter of 
exclusive 
competence of the 
Union and therefore 
introducing uniform 
principles with 
respect to export, 
import and transit 
measures for 
firearms for civilian 
use (according to 
Article 10 of the 
UNFP) --The practical 
implementation of the 
Regulation on Art 10 in 
Member States. 
-The progress towards 
coherence of Member 
States’ national 
procedures to the 
provisions of the 
Regulation  - Administrative data 
from Member States’ 
authorities 
-Surveys from Member 
States’ authorities 
-Member States’ national 
legislation 
3. Contribute to the 
improvement of 
security with regard 
to import, export and 
transit of firearms for 
civilian use. Prevent 
possible diversion 
from the legal market 
and contribute to 
ensuring their tracing 
 Decline in firearms related 
crime, (if possible from 
firearms originating from 
transfers for civilian use) 
 
Number of information 
exchanged between 
competent authorities in 
tracing firearms  -- Surveys on firearms 
related crime 
-National statistics 
- EUROPOL 
-EUROSTAT 
-Surveys at EU and 
national level 
-Member States' 
authorities involved in 
the prevention of firearms 
related crime