REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL - The implementation of Council Directive 91/477/EEC, of 18 June 1991, on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons
Date: 2000-12-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, arms control, arms trade, personal weapon, public safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 15.12.2000
COM (2000) 837 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

The implementation of Council Directive 91/477/EEC, of 18 June 1991,
on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4

2. GENERAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 5

2.1.

Context and objectives ............................................................................................. 5

2.2. Main provisions of the Directive .............................................................................. 6

2.2.1. General .................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2.

Scope of the Directive and classification of firearms................................................. 6

2.2.3.

Arms dealers activity ................................................................................................ 7

2.2.4.

Acquisition and possession of firearms ..................................................................... 7

2.2.5.

Transfers of firearms within the Community ............................................................. 7

2.2.5.1. Transfers of firearms between Member States (Article 11) ....................................... 8

2.2.5.2. Possession of a firearm during a journey (Article 12)................................................ 8

3.

IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC............... 9

3.1.

3.2.

Transposition instruments ....................................................................................... 9

Achieving the objectives of the Directive in general................................................ 9

3.3. Option for Member States to introduce more stringent measures ....................... 10

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

Classification; acquisition and possession of firearms .......................................... 11

Transfers under Article 11 ..................................................................................... 12

Transfers during a journey .................................................................................... 13

3.6.1.

European Firearms Pass and the authorisation laid down in Article 12 (1) ............ 13

3.6.2.

European firearms pass and the exception in Art. 12 (2)......................................... 13

3.6.3. Mutual recognition agreements .............................................................................. 15

3.7.

3.8.

3.9.

Exchange of information between the Member States.......................................... 15

Controls on the possession of weapons at the external frontiers .......................... 16

Conclusion............................................................................................................... 17

4.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS.................................................................................... 17

4.1.

Improving the operation of the Directive .............................................................. 17

4.1.1.

European firearms pass.......................................................................................... 17

4.1.1.1. Ensuring the coherence of article 12 (2).................................................................. 17

4.1.1.2. Giving full effect to the European Firearms Pass .................................................... 18

4.1.1.3. Promoting the conclusion of mutual recognition agreements and best practises ...... 18

4.1.1.4. Temporary transfers................................................................................................ 18

4.1.2.

Exchange of information between Member States ................................................... 19

4.1.3. Classification of weapons ....................................................................................... 19

2

4.2.

Clarifying the scope of the Directive in certain respects ....................................... 20

4.2.1. Neutralised firearms............................................................................................... 20

4.2.2.

Antique weapons .................................................................................................... 21

4.3.

Drawing conclusions from the UN Protocol against illicit manufacturing and

trafficking in firearms .......................................................................................... 21

3

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

The implementation of Council Directive 91/477/EEC, of 18 June 1991,
on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

1.

(1)

(2)

INTRODUCTION

Council Directive 91/477/CEE on control of the acquisition and possession of
weapons was adopted on 18 June 19911. Article 17 of the Directive provides that
within five years from the date of transposition of the Directive into national law, the
Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on
if
the situation resulting from the application of
appropriate, by proposals.

the Directive, accompanied,

In order to draw up a report that is as complete as possible, the Commission needed
first to wait until all the Member States had transposed the Directive, in particular
Austria, Finland and Sweden for which the time limit was set by the Act of Accession
as the end of 1997. Once all the Member States had transposed the Directive, the
Commission had to acquire sufficient experience of the application of the Directive. In
addition, certain Member States modified the transposition measures that they had
originally notified to the Commission. At the meeting of the national experts on the
22 November 1999 and in a letter of 7 January 2000, the Commission asked the
Member States to transmit to the Commission their updated legislation concerning the
transposition of the Directive. All the Member States have now transmitted their
updated legislation to the Commission.

(3) When the Directive had been transposed in all Member States, the Commission sent a
questionnaire on its application in May 1999 to the Member States and to the
interested parties (European and national federations of hunting, shooting and weapon
collectors as well as associations of arms dealers and importers and manufacturers of
firearms and ammunition). The Commission received answers to this questionnaire
from all the Member States and from 11 European and national federations or
associations2. In February 2000, the Commission sent a supplementary questionnaire
to the Member States which took up certain specific issues, such as the European
firearms pass, neutralisation of weapons and transfers of firearms to and from third
countries. The Commission has received answers to the supplementary questionnaire
from all Member States.

(4)

1

2

The Commission has also organised meetings with a group of national experts to
discuss, inter alia, the answers to the two above-mentioned questionnaires. These
meetings were held on 22 November 1999 and 6 July 2000. The Commission also
organised a meeting with the interested parties on 20 December 1999.

OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.
A list of the European and national federations that have given their contribution to the Commission is
in Annex III to this Report.

4

(5)

(6)

2.

2.1.

(7)

(8)

(9)

The answers to the two questionnaires and the discussion of these replies in the
meetings of Member States’ experts and interested parties have provided the
Commission with sufficient
information from the situation resulting from the
application of the Directive.

This Report begins with a presentation of the context and objectives of the Directive as
well as of its main provisions (2. General Background). The Report then evaluates the
implementation
the Directive
(3. Implementation and operation of the Directive). Finally, the last part of the Report
(4. Future developments) contains suggestions for improving the functioning of the
Directive and reflects on grounds for defining the scope of the Directive in certain
respects.

the main

provisions

operation

and

of

of

GENERAL BACKGROUND

Context and objectives

Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 was adopted as an accompanying measure to
the abolition of internal frontier controls in the Community as of 1 January 1993. The
abolition of controls on the possession of weapons at intra-Community frontiers made
it necessary to adopt effective rules enabling controls to be carried out within the
Member States. To this end, the Directive contains rules on the acquisition and
possession of firearms, on the one hand, and on the transfers of firearms between
Member States, on the other.

As regards the acquisition and possession of firearms, the laws of the Member States
must impose at least the requirements laid down in the Directive, but Member States
are in principle entitled to take more stringent measures than those provided for by the
Directive.

In respect of transfers of firearms, the Directive establishes the principle that moving
from one Member State to another while in possession of a firearm is prohibited. A
derogation from this is possible only by following a detailed procedure that enables
Member States to be notified that a firearm is being brought into their territory.
However, more flexible rules are laid down in respect of hunting and target shooting
in order to avoid impeding the free movement of persons more than is necessary. For
this purpose in particular, the Directive introduced the European firearms pass, which
is a document issued on request to a person lawfully entering into possession of and
using a firearm (Article 1(4)). The Commission has adopted a recommendation on a
model for the European firearms pass3.

(10)

The Schengen aquis4 also included certain provisions concerning the control and
purchase of firearms. In the Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen acquis was integrated
into Community law, which caused certain overlapping with the provisions of
Directive 91/477/EEC. Council Decision 1999/436/EC of 20 May 1999 clarified the
situation by stating that Articles 77 to 81 and Articles 83 to 90 of the implementing

3

4

Recommendation 93/216/EEC, (OJ L 93, 17.4.1993, p. 39). The Recommendation is supplemented by
Recommendation 96/129/EEC of 12 January 1996 (OJ L 30, 8.2.1996).
Agreements on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders signed by certain Member States of
the European Union in Schengen on 14 June 1985 and 19 June 1990.

5

convention had been superseded by Council Directive 91/477/CEE. Thus, most of the
provisions on the control and purchase of firearms in the Schengen acquis have been
superseded by the provisions of the Directive5.

(11) At

international level, the draft Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and
trafficking in firearms is being negotiated in the context of the United Nations
Convention on transnational organised crime. Although the provisions of the Protocol
are mainly destined to combat illicit trafficking of firearms, its obligations are of
general application and apply thus also to the licit trade in firearms. Since the Protocol
has an influence on the Community legal framework, a special section deals with it in
this report.6

2.2.

Main provisions of the Directive

2.2.1. General

(12)

The provisions of the Directive are by nature technical and complex, as is the
legislative technique used for their presentation. This complexity is due to the
compromise nature of the Directive which aims to reconcile the abolition of internal
frontier controls with the need to maintain, within the Community, control of the
acquisition and possession of firearms and firearm transfers between Member States.

(13)

It is important to note that the Directive lays down a minimum harmonisation enabling
Member States to take in principle more stringent measures than those provided for by
the Directive. (Art. 3)

2.2.2.

Scope of the Directive and classification of firearms

(14)

The Directive applies to weapons as referred to in its Annex I, and in particular, it lays
down explicit rules in respect of firearms. Firearms are classified by Annex I into four
categories, which correspond to the different regimes of acquisition and possession
provided by the Directive:

– Category A: prohibited firearms, such as automatic arms and explosive military

missiles and launchers,

– Category B: firearms subject to authorisation, such as semi-automatic firearms or

repeating firearms,

– Category C: firearms subject to declaration, such as repeating long firearms,

– Category D other firearms, such as the long firearms with smooth-bore barrels.

The Directive also applies to essential parts of firearms, such as the closing
mechanism and the chamber.

The Directive does not apply to certain objects which correspond with the definition of
a firearm, if they are used, for instance, for alarm, industrial or technical purposes, or
animal slaughter. Firearms rendered permanently unfit for use as well as antique

Article 82 of the Schengen Agreements remained in force. It contains a definition of antique firearms
based on a date (1870).
See section 4.3.

6

(15)

(16)

5

6

weapons or reproductions are also excluded from the scope of the Directive (Annex I,
section III). The Directive also does not apply to the acquisition and possession of
firearms by certain public bodies, collectors and cultural organisations which are
recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established.
Commercial transfers of military weapons and ammunition are also outside the scope
of the Directive (Article 2 (2)).

2.2.3.

Arms dealers activity

(17)

The Directive lays down minimum level of harmonisation of the conditions for the
activity of arms dealers. This activity is either subject to authorisation (categories A
and B) or subject to declaration (Categories C and D). (Article 4).

2.2.4.

Acquisition and possession of firearms

(18) As mentioned above, the Directive lays down minimum conditions to be met for the
acquisition and possession of firearms in the Member States. It is important to note
that it does not, however, affect national provisions on the carrying of weapons, such
as rules banning the carrying of weapons, even those lawfully in the bearer's
possession, on certain occasions. The Directive also does not affect national rules on
hunting, e.g. on hunting permits or shooting seasons, or national rules on target
shooting, notably the question of whether minors can take part. (Article 2 (1)).

(19)

(20)

(21)

The Directive lays down an obligation on Member States to prohibit the acquisition
and possession of firearms of category A. Authorisations may, however be granted in
special cases (Article 6). As regards firearms of category B, Member States shall make
the acquisition and possession subject at
to authorisation (Article 7). The
possession of firearms of category C shall to be subject at least to a declaration to the
authorities in the Member State where the firearm is held (Article 8). As regards
firearms of category D, Member States do not have to make the acquisition and
possession subject to authorisation or declaration, although this is not expressly stated
in the Directive.

least

The Directive also lays down certain minimum conditions to be met by the persons
acquiring a firearm, in terms of age, reason, etc. (Article 5).

The acquisition and possession of firearms in one Member State by a person who is a
resident of another Member State is subject to specific conditions in the Directive. The
Member State of residence shall in this case be informed or its prior agreement shall
be required for acquisition or possession, depending on the category of firearm
(Article 7). The Directive also lays down rules as regards the handing over of a firearm
by a dealer to a person who is not a resident of the Member State in question
(Article 9).

2.2.5.

Transfers of firearms within the Community

(22) As mentioned above, the transfer of a firearm from one Member State to another is
only possible if the detailed procedures provided for in the Directive are followed:
either the procedure to be applied to transfers of firearms between Member States
(Article 11), or the procedure to be applied to transfers of firearms by individuals
during a journey (Article 12).

7

2.2.5.1. Transfers of firearms between Member States (Article 11)

(23)

(24)

The transfer of firearms from one Member State to another is based on the prior
granting of a licence by the Member State in which the firearms originate. In the case
of transfers of firearms between arms dealers, Member States may replace this system
of prior licences by an authorisation valid for a maximum of three years.

The transfer of firearms may also be subject to authorisation in the Member State of
destination. If a Member State does not require authorisation for the transfer of certain
firearms to its territory, it shall communicate to the other Member States a list of the
firearms concerned.

(25) Member States shall transmit all useful information at

their disposal concerning
definitive transfers of firearms to the Member State of destination. To this end,
Member States had to set up networks for exchanging information by 1 January 1993
(Article 13).

2.2.5.2. Possession of a firearm during a journey (Article 12)

(26)

In order to possess a firearm during a journey under Article 12, a traveller has to
obtain authorisation from each Member State visited in order to enter that country in
possession of a firearm.

(27) As a derogation to this procedure, hunters in respect of categories C and D, and
marksmen in respect of categories B, C and D may, without prior authorisation, be in
possession of these firearms during a journey under the following conditions:

– the purpose of the journey is to engage in hunting or shooting activities

– they are in possession of a European firearms pass stating the firearm or firearms

in question

– they are able to substantiate the reason for their journey,

in particular by

producing an invitation.

(28)

It is important to note that the Member States' right to adopt more stringent rules is
subject to the rights of the residents of the other Member States under this derogation
(Article 3). However, this derogation does not apply to journeys to a Member State
which prohibits or subjects to authorisation the firearm in question. In this case an
express statement to that effect is entered on the European firearms pass.

(29) Member States may under agreements for

the mutual recognition of national
documents provide for more flexible arrangements than those provided for in the
Directive for movement with firearms within their territories during a journey.

8

3.

IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC

3.1.

Transposition instruments

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

Pursuant to Article 18 of the Directive, the Directive had to be transposed into the
national law of the Member States in good time so that the measures provided for by
the Directive could be put into effect not later than 1 January 1993. As for Austria,
Finland and Sweden the time limit was set by the Act of Accession as the end of 1997.

In accordance with Article 18, all the Member States have notified their transposition
measures to the Commission7.

The Commission has also received notifications under Article 15(4) of national
provisions that are more stringent
than the minimum standard provided in the
Directive, and the Commission has passed such information to the other Member
States.

The transposition of the Directive resulted in completely or partially new acts,
depending on the existing legislation. The transposition has in the case of one Member
State (Luxembourg) been limited to fixing the length of the validity of the European
firearms pass.

(34) After the notification of transposition measures, certain Member States modified or
completed their legislation on firearms. These modifications were directly linked to
the transposition of the provisions of the Directive (e.g. introduction of the European
firearms pass in France and Italy) or were aimed at making the arrangements for the
acquisition and possession of firearms more stringent. Certain modifications of the
firearms legislation were not related to the field of application of the Directive
(e.g. arrangements for carrying of weapons).

(35)

In the following sections of the report, national
considered by relevant topic.

transposition measures will be

3.2.

Achieving the objectives of the Directive in general

(36) As regards the objectives of the Directive, the answers given by the Member States to
the questionnaire show that most Member States thought that these objectives had
been achieved. Some Member States noted that since the legislation in the Member
States governing the acquisition and possession of weapons prior to the introduction of
the Directive complied to a large extent with the requirements of the Directive, the
principal achievement of the Directive concerned more the setting up of arrangements
for the control of transfers within the Community than the control of acquisition and
possession.

(37)

Four Member States (Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden) felt
the
objectives of the Directive were not achieved, although these Member States also
considered that the Directive has generally been a good instrument.

that

7

Annex I to this Report contains references to the national transposition measures.

9

(38) Member States have identified as problems, firstly, the difficulties with the exchange
of information. The disparity or complexity of national legislations, administrative
measures and authorisation procedures, in particular as regards the European firearms
pass, and the differences in the classification of firearms were also identified as
problems. One Member State (Belgium) thought that efficient means of controlling
intra-Community transfers were lacking. Some Member States also felt that certain
provisions of the Directive were complex and difficult to interpret and that there was
no specific follow-up forum to deal with questions arising from the application of the
Directive.

conclusions: Denmark,

(39) Member States answers to the question concerning unregistered acquisition and
possession of weapons since the Directive entered into force have not yielded any
Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Sweden
significant
considered the situation stable; Belgium, Finland and Netherlands
that
unregistered acquisition and possession was increasing, whilst Austria, Greece and
Spain considered that it had fallen. Four Member States (France, Germany, Ireland
and United Kingdom) did not give an opinion, owing to a lack of detailed information.
Moreover, some Member States also pointed out that their answers were estimates,
since no statistics were available. This fact at least partly explains the division of
opinion among the Member States.

felt

(40)

The interested parties are, in general, satisfied with the instruments of the Directive
and its operation. They have, however, expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that
the Directive has not been correctly applied by Member States, in particular as regards
the European firearms pass. For this reason, most of the national and international
federations consider that the objectives of the Directive were not achieved or only
partially achieved. They identify as problems the disparities in Member States’
legislation, the tendency to apply more stringent measures, and shortcomings in the
co-operation between Member States. The interested parties note that
the free
movement of persons is impeded even when they are in possession of the European
firearms pass because they are subject to excessive controls by the Member States.

(41)

The Commission has received a certain number of Parliamentary questions on the
application of the Directive. The Commission has also received two complaints
concerning the scope of the Directive. These questions and complaints show that the
most problematic area in the application of the Directive is the use of the European
firearms pass.

(42)

The report now considers the implementation and operation of the main provisions of
the Directive, concentrating on the above-mentioned areas identified as problematic.

3.3.

Option for Member States to introduce more stringent measures

(43) At the time of the elaboration of the Directive, apart from technical differences there
were also appreciable differences in substance between the legislation of the Member
States governing the possession of weapons. Therefore, complete harmonisation in this
field would have been very difficult and politically unrealistic and it was more
appropriate to opt for minimal harmonisation instead and to enable the Member States
to maintain or to adopt more stringent measures than those provided in the Directive.

10

(44) All Member States have adopted more stringent measures, such as making the
profession of firearms dealer for categories C and D subject to authorisation, placing
an obligation on firearms dealers to keep their registers for more than 5 years or
having authorisation procedures for all the firearms categories C and D or for certain
firearms in these categories. Some Member States have also classified as firearms
those outside the scope of the Directive, e.g. weapons using compressed air (Italy) or
neutralised arms (Sweden).

(45)

It is important to note that even if Member States are entitled to take more stringent
measures, these measures have to respect the rules of the Treaty, and in particular, the
rules of the internal market. Although Article 30 of the Treaty provides for a possible
derogation with regard to the free movement of goods on the basis of public safety, the
measures in question have to be necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued.

3.4.

Classification; acquisition and possession of firearms

(46) As mentioned above, the Directive classifies firearms into four categories: category A
(prohibited firearms), category B (firearms subject
to authorisation), category C
(firearms subject to declaration) and category D (firearms that can be sold freely in the
Member States).

(47)

Since Member States are allowed, according to Article 3, to maintain their more
stringent
legislation, no genuine harmonisation has taken place as regards the
classification of weapons. Certain Member States have not considered it necessary to
create any particular classification at all in their legislation, since all the firearms are
subject to authorisation (or to prohibition) in their country, while others have provided
for a stricter classification than that of the Directive. Furthermore, certain Member
States classify as war weapons (Belgium, France) or prohibit (Denmark) certain
weapons that are considered to be hunting arms in the other Member States.

(48) As regards category A weapons (fully automatic weapons, etc.) which are required to
be prohibited under the Directive, with the possibility of granting authorisation in
special cases, they are either prohibited or under special permit in all Member States.
Authorisations for category A weapons are very rare in practice, and in certain
Member States no authorisation is granted for them at all.

(49) As examples of the special cases in which an authorisation for category A weapons
can be granted, Member States mention in their replies to the questionnaire museums
if the firearm is necessary for the
or collectors, exhibitions, certain professions,
exercise of the profession (scientific research or industrial testing) and filming. In
some Member States (Finland and Sweden), civilians may possess category A
weapons under defence considerations.

(50)

The acquisition and possession of category B weapons (e.g. revolvers and pistols) are
subject
to authorisation in all Member States, as required by the Directive. In
6 Member States authorisation to acquire and possess firearms in category B are
separate authorisations, whereas in 9 Member States they take or may take the form of
a single administrative decision, as provided for in Article 7 (3) of the Directive.

11

(51) Most Member States have also submitted to authorisation the firearms of category C
(firearms subject to declaration in the Directive) and category D (firearms that can be
sold freely according to the Directive) . It is important to note that in fact, 11 Member
States have only firearms that are subject to authorisation or prohibition, while only in
Austria, Belgium, France and Greece are certain firearms of categories C and D
subject to declaration.

(52)

The Directive has brought about substantial changes to legislation in France, Belgium
and Austria concerning the acquisition and possession of long firearms, which
previously enjoyed a more liberal regime. Certain firearms, notably sporting guns,
could be sold freely prior to the Directive.

(53) According to the Directive, Member States had an obligation to provide for the
compulsory declaration of firearms in category C which had not previously been
declared, within one year of the entry into force of the national transposition measures
(Art. 8). In most Member States no specific measures were necessary, because
firearms in this category were already subject to declaration or authorisation. As
regards those Member States where this was not the case, an obligation to declare such
firearms has been laid down in the legislation in Austria, France, Greece and Portugal.
In Belgium this obligation has not been laid down in the legislation.

(54) As regards handing over of firearms to non-residents, several Member States do not
have express provisions for this. The Commission has learned that in those Member
States which have category C and D firearms the provisions of the Directive on
handing them over are not always followed. In this case,
information on the
transaction would not always be transmitted either. This is a question that requires
further investigation by the Commission.

3.5.

Transfers under Article 11

(55) According to the interested parties, the procedure provided in the Directive for
transfers between Member States based on control and licence by the Member State of
origin was quickly adopted in those Member States where import/export licences were
in force. In those Member States where the export of hunting and sporting long
firearms was submitted only to a customs control on arrival, the new procedure has
introduced an additional bureaucratic element, according to the interested parties.

(56)

In the most basic case, transfer consists of completing a declaration of transfer, a copy
of which is handed to relevant administrations of the country of origin and the country
of destination. In this case, the supplier possesses an authorisation exempting him
from requesting a prior licence (Article 11 (3)), and the customer is also exempted
from prior consent, on the basis of his professional status or pursuant to the list
provided for in Article 11 (4).

(57) Dealer-to-dealer transfers without prior authorisation (Article 11 (3)) are provided for
in the legislation in Germany (for arms of categories B, C and D), Austria (all
categories), France (categories B, C and D), Spain (categories B, C and D), United
Kingdom (categories B, C and D) and Sweden.

(58)

Interested parties have informed the Commission of certain minor problems regarding
definitive transfers, linked to the exchange of information between Member States.
They point out
is
conditional on authorisation from the authorities of the Member State of destination.

in some Member States the transfer permit

in particular that

12

(59)

(60)

Some Member States, however, do not issue these kinds of authorisations, because
they consider that this condition is not necessary in their country: e.g. in some Member
States (Denmark, Germany) the professional status of dealer authorises the purchase of
firearms in another Member State without further formality, and the authorities in
these countries do not, therefore, consider it necessary to grant an authorisation for
each order. However, national authorities in the Member State of origin do not always
seem to have been informed about this.

The basis of the Directive, in this respect, rests on Article 11 (4), according to which
each Member State shall communicate to the other Member States the lists of firearms
which can be transferred towards its territory without its prior approval. The Directive
does not explicitly provide for exempting arms dealers from prior approval on the
grounds of their professional status, but it cannot be regarded as prohibiting Member
States from granting this possibility. In this case, however, in order for the Directive to
operate properly, the other Member States should be informed. Interested parties note
that there is, thus, a need for a better co-operation between the Member State here,
which would automatically lead to a better respect of the procedures of the Directive.

Interested parties feel that, apart from these minor problems which are ultimately
resolved in one way or other, the Directive is operating properly, and the transparency
and surveillance of transfers is being ensured, which is essential in their view. They
are, nevertheless, dissatisfied with the fact that the Directive has not reduced the
administrative burden, which is especially onerous for small and medium-sized
businesses. The interested parties would like to see a move towards reducing the level
of control exercised by central government in intra-Community trade in favour of
surveillance by local authorities, which are generally more flexible, according to the
experience of the interested parties.

3.6.

Transfers during a journey

3.6.1.

European Firearms Pass and the authorisation laid down in Article 12 (1)

(61) As stated above, an authorisation from the Member States visited is needed under
Article 12 (1) for travelling while in possession of a firearm. These authorisations shall
be recorded in the European firearms pass.

(62) Certain Member States have informed the Commission that they, therefore, require the
European firearms pass to be sent to them so that they can enter the authorisation on
the pass, with the stamp of the competent authority. The Member States themselves
feel that this procedure is time-consuming and complicated.

3.6.2.

European firearms pass and the exception in Art. 12 (2)

(63)

The European firearms pass is now in use in all Member States (France introduced it
in 1998). Most Member States have followed the Commission’s recommendation on
the model for the pass. The normal times for issuing the pass vary from a couple of
days to a couple of weeks.

(64) Article 12 (2) establishes a right for hunters and marksmen who are in possession of
the European firearms pass to travel in principle to other Member States for the
purposes of hunting or target shooting. The Commission considers that the pass as
such is an appropriate way to strike the right balance between hunters and marksmen

13

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

wishing to move freely within the Community and the need to avoid a situation where
exercising this freedom creates security problems.

In some Member States there have been no difficulties with regard to the movement of
hunters and marksmen: hunters and marksmen are able to enter their territory for the
purposes of hunting or target shooting simply upon presentation of the European
firearms pass and an invitation without any other documents or authorisations. In other
Member States, however, an authorisation from the national authorities is needed.
Certain Member States do not, however, require these authorisations in case of
reciprocity with the other Member State in question. Some Member States state in
their replies to the questionnaire that they require from hunters or marksmen from
other Member States documents other than invitations and hunting permits, in addition
to the European firearms pass (i.e. visitors permit in United Kingdom and Ireland).

Such cumulative requirements raise the problem of compatibility with the provisions
of the Directive, since Article 3, while establishing the principle that Member States
may apply more stringent measures, lays down that such measures are not allowed to
affect the rights conferred on residents of Member States under Article 12 (2). In this
context, it is, however, important to note that the Directive does not prevent Member
States from requesting hunting licences, other documents levying a tax on hunters or
documents relating to the use and carrying of weapons in certain circumstances
(Art. 2 (1)).

It should also be noted that certain other Member States (Austria, France) have limited
the number of arms allowed without national authorisations in this context on practical
grounds arguing that it would be very unusual for a hunter or marksman to have
several firearms with them when travelling. The Directive, however, does not provide
for any limitation on the number of firearms that can be transferred by a hunter or
marksmen within the exception provided, and the limitation of the number of firearms
may be a serious problem in particular for marksmen needing to carry several firearms
to take part in competitions.

It also seems that certain Member States have in this context introduced certain types
of controls which are applied to holders of the European firearms pass when they cross
the frontiers of these Member States. These controls need to be further investigated by
the Commission.

In any case, the second subparagraph of Article 12 (2) limits the exemption for hunters
and marksmen to transfers to those Member States that do not prohibit the arms in
question or make them subject to authorisation.

In practice, however, some Member States who make the arms in question subject to
authorisation, allow hunters and marksmen to travel on their territory if they possess a
European firearms pass under the conditions laid down in Article 12 (2) (i.e. Finland),
provided the firearms are not banned. The Commission considers that this flexibility is
in line with the sprit of the Directive.

In this context, it should be noted that in its amended proposal for the Directive, the
Commission proposed that the derogation for hunters and marksmen would not apply
if the Member State prohibited the arms in question. It was only at this stage of
negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council that it was added to the

14

subparagraph that the derogation would not apply either where Member State made
the firearms subject to authorisation.

(72)

Since this limitation of the rights of hunters and marksmen under the Directive made
the Article in question ambiguous, a further provision was added to the Article,
requiring the Commission to examine in consultation with the Member States the
effects of the provision, in particular with regard to public order and public safety. The
Commission has,
therefore, asked the Member States whether there have been
particular security problems in the case of hunters and marksmen coming from other
Member States. In their replies, all Member States stated that there has been no such
problems. This is of particular interest with regard to those Member States allowing
hunters and marksmen to enter their territory in possession of a European firearms
pass and an invitation, with no requirement for additional documents.

(73)

The Commission would like to emphasise that the derogation in Article 12 (2) for
hunters and marksmen is not limited only to situations of an organised hunting event
to which the person concerned has an invitation. It can also cover situations where the
person in question can otherwise justify the reasons for the journey (e.g. owner of a
hunting ground in another Member State). It seems that at least some Member States
admit hunters and marksmen to their territory in this type of situation.

3.6.3. Mutual recognition agreements

(74) As regards the provision in the Directive for concluding agreements on mutual
recognition of national documents for more flexible procedures than those provided in
Article 12, only a few Member States state that they have concluded such agreements.
However, this provision has allowed certain Member States to make less strict their
existing rules applying to hunters and marksmen in relation to certain other Member
States. Sometimes these arrangements have been made at regional level.

(75) An example of these agreements in practice is the Nordic countries where hunters and
marksmen from the other Nordic countries can travel freely using their national
authorisations without the need to have a European firearms pass. These arrangements
have been agreed under long-standing Nordic co-operation on legislative matters,
predating their accession to the Community.

*

*

*

(76) A further problem concerning the operation of the European firearms pass and the
various statements that should feature on the pass is related to the exchange of
information, and this will be dealt with in the following section.

3.7.

Exchange of information between the Member States

(77)

The Directive includes several provisions which require Member States to exchange
information (Articles 8 (3), 13, 7 (2), 8 (2)) or to communicate information via the
Commission (Article 15 (4)).

(78) A majority of Member States consider that the exchange of information on definitive
this exchange
transfers (Article 13) is satisfactory, even if they point out
sometimes concerns only a group of Member States or that forms are sometimes not
completed properly. Certain Member States think that the exchange is not satisfactory

that

15

and information is not always received or is incomplete. Several Member States point
out that the exchange of information operates well with some countries but with some
countries it does not.

(79) Difficulties seem to arise from the fact that there is no network for exchanging
information between all Member States. Article 13 provides for the establishment of
information networks according to the content of the information to be exchanged8.

(80) As mentioned above9,

there are certain
difficulties in the exchange of information with regard to transfers between arms
dealers.

the interested parties have stated that

(81) Article 8 (3) contains rules on the exchange of information on firearms that are
prohibited or subject to authorisation in a particular Member State. Those Member
States who have prohibited or made subject to authorisation arms in categories B, C
or D should, according to this provision, inform the other Member States, which
expressly include a statement to that effect on the European firearms pass. In practice,
the replies to the questionnaire show that Member States have not always received
such lists, at least not from all other Member States.

(82) Consequently, there has also been difficulties with regard to stating the prohibited
firearms or firearms subject to authorisation on the European firearms pass. Moreover,
certain Member States feel that this system is too complicated or they fear that the
legislation of the Member State in question might have changed in the interim.

(83)

(84)

3.8.

(85)

This situation is obviously unsatisfactory. These statements are there to inform the
hunter or marksman of any restrictions to their freedom to travel to another Member
State using a European firearms pass. In the absence of these statements, hunters or
marksmen – acting in good faith - have seen their firearm mentioned in their European
firearms pass confiscated at the border. In some Member States it has also been the
case that the burden of proof to demonstrate that the firearms in question are not
prohibited or subject to authorisation in the Member State of destination has been
placed on the hunter or marksman – something which was not
intended by the
Directive.

Finally, it should be noted that several Member States do not have provisions for the
exchange of information in the legislation which they have communicated to the
Commission.

Controls on the possession of weapons at the external frontiers

The procedures established by the Directive for transfers of firearms apply only to
transfers between the Member States. As far as transfers from and to third countries
are concerned, the Directive is limited to stating the logical consequences of the
abolition of internal border controls in the Community,
i.e. Member States shall
intensify controls on the possession of weapons at external Community frontiers
(Art. 15).

8

9

Annex II to this Report contains a list of competent national authorities for the purpose of Art. 13 (3).
See section 3.5.

16

(86)

3.9.

(87)

In general, Member States have not expressed any wish to see this Article
supplemented so as to lay down specific provision which would contain procedures for
the control of transfers of weapons from and to third countries. Certain Member States
(notably Germany), however, are of the opinion that there is a need to establish
procedures for the uniform control of weapons at the external frontiers. These opinions
have been expressed without prejudice to the outcome of the current negotiations on
the draft UN Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms
(see section 4.3).

Conclusion

In overall terms, the Directive has been properly transposed in the Member States and
its provisions are operating in practice. There appears to be, however, as indicated in
the preceding sections, omissions and incorrect transpositions in certain respects.

(88) On the basis of the information received from the interested parties, the difficulties in
the application of the Directive seem to be related more to the behaviour of the
national authorities than to the provisions of the Directive. The Commission will,
therefore, open infringement procedures in those cases where it deems them necessary
for the proper application of the provisions of the Directive.

4.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

(89)

The Directive is a result of a compromise of several years of negotiations. In general
terms, the Member States and the interested parties are satisfied with the instruments
of the Directive and they are therefore not inclined to see the balance struck by the
Directive upset by substantial modifications to its framework. Therefore, modification
of the Directive would consist more in the clarifying the existing wording of its main
provisions than in making substantial changes, in order to ensure that the Directive is
applied in a uniform manner throughout the Community.

4.1.

Improving the operation of the Directive

(90)

The most important issues in this respect are improving the operation of the European
firearms pass and the exchange of information between Member States.

4.1.1.

European firearms pass

(91)

In general terms, there seems to be a need to distinguish more clearly between
firearms in general and firearms used for sport and hunting which can be covered by
more flexible rules. In order to improve the operation of the European Firearms pass,
the Commission intends to propose certain concrete actions and one modification to
Article 12.

4.1.1.1. Ensuring the coherence of article 12 (2)

(92) Article 12 (2), which is the result of a compromise, contains, as it stands, certain
contradictions and ambiguities. This
the second
subparagraph of Article 12 (2), which, by providing that the derogation for hunters and
marksmen does not apply to journeys to those countries that prohibit the firearms in
question or make them subject to authorisation, cancels in fact the effect of the
derogation granted for hunters and marksmen.

is particularly the case for

17

(93)

The Commission considers that that the second subparagraph of Article 12 (2) could
be modified, so that it would be limited to cases where firearms are prohibited in the
Member State of destination, as initially proposed by the Commission.

4.1.1.2. Giving full effect to the European Firearms Pass

(94) As regards the administrative procedure applied to the holders of the European
Firearms pass, there is a need to establish procedures that are more in line with the
objectives of the pass. This is the case in particular for the various statements that are
entered on the European firearms pass. In order to ensure that all the statements
necessary for the pass to operate are included,
in particular those provided in
Article 8 (3), it is necessary to improve the exchange of information between Member
States10.

(95)

For the sake of simplicity and in order to avoid having to send the pass in advance to
the Member States to be visited, the Commission considers that all the necessary
statements should be entered on the pass by the Member State delivering the pass.
This would be of special benefit to journeys under Article 12 (1), so that references of
the appropriate authorisations needed for travelling to another Member State would
not need to be entered on the pass by the authorities of the Member State granting the
authorisation but by the Member State delivering the pass.

(96) Majority of Member States are in favour of ensuring that the European firearms pass
would be the only pass for Europe, as far as the possession of firearms during a
journey is concerned and in particular as regards hunters and marksmen. However,
some of them are of the opinion that certain conditions should be fulfilled first, i.e. the
requisite authorisation is obtained in a standardised way but nonetheless in a way
which meets a high level of security, and rules are applied in more harmonised way
and the relevant categories are harmonised. Some Member States are not in favour of
this, and they want to reserve the right to require other documents.

4.1.1.3. Promoting the conclusion of mutual recognition agreements and best practises

(97)

(98)

The Commission considers that agreements on mutual recognition of national
documents to make arrangements even more flexible or other best practices can
facilitate the movement of hunters and marksmen between Member States.

These agreements or best practises should, however, be non-discriminatory in the
sense that they should be open to all those Member States that fulfil the relevant
objective criteria. Therefore,
there is a need for more transparency and these
agreements should be made known to the other Member States and to the
Commission.

4.1.1.4. Temporary transfers

(99)

The problem of temporary transfer for repairs, is not explicitly addressed in the
Directive. The Commission considers that in addition to the procedure of Article 11
applicable to transfers between dealers the procedure laid down in Article 12 (1) of the
Directive offers individuals the possibility of seeking the services of a business
i.e. by applying for an
established in another Member State in this context,

10

See section 4.1.2.

18

authorisation in the Member State where he intends to repair the firearm. The same
possibility applies to transfers for exhibitions. It seems that the possibilities offered by
this procedure have, nevertheless, not been widely used, and should, therefore, be born
in mind in the future.

4.1.2.

Exchange of information between Member States

(100)

(101)

(102)

It follows from the analysis of the Directive’s implementation presented above that it
is necessary to better co-ordinate efforts in this respect and to better structure the
information exchanged. The Directive lays down the information networks to be
established for the exchange of information on definitive transfers (Art. 13), but the
Directive does not further specify which form the exchange of information should
take.

In order to facilitate the setting up of the networks for the exchange of information, the
Commission has proposed within the group of national experts a series of formulas to
be used by the national administrations in the different situations of exchange of
information. These formulas relate to the legislation of the Member States in the field
of firearms, to information concerning acquisition and detention of firearms by non-
residents and to transfers of firearms. These formulas which have not been adopted at
Community level but some of which have been taken up by certain Member States in
their national legislation, could form a basis for future efforts to develop the exchange
of information.

In order to improve the exchange of information and its structure, the Commission
intends to create a more effective discussion forum, in the form of a Contact Group,
which would act as co-ordination forum for the application and the enforcement of the
in particular, an appropriate forum to discuss
Directive. This Group would be,
concrete proposals for improving the exchange of information, with a view to solving
the practical problems presented above regarding the operation of the European
firearms pass and transfers between arms dealers. These concrete proposals could
include setting up tools for the exchange of information, such as data-bases or internet-
sites.

(103) Apart from developing the exchange of information, the Contact Group would also be
an appropriate forum for promoting the application of best practises11 with regard to
hunters and marksmen as well for improving the classification of weapons12.

4.1.3. Classification of weapons

(104)

In general terms, there seems to be no particular problems with the classification
established by the Directive.
the strict
arrangements of some Member States and those based on the standards in the
Directive generally seem to operate side-by-side in a satisfactory way.

Interested parties have reported that

(105) The situation is, however, different with regard to hunting firearms and firearms used
that certain
by marksmen. As mentioned above, difficulties arise from the fact
Member States classify as war weapons or prohibit certain weapons that are
considered to be hunting firearms in other Member States. Some Member States have

11

12

See section 4.1.1 above.
See section 4.1.3 below.

19

stated that
accompanying transfers of
marksmen, the relevant categories of firearms should be harmonised.

if the European firearms pass were to become the only document
firearms between Member States for hunters and

(106) The Commission intends, therefore, to study the feasibility of introducing special
treatment in national legislation for hunting firearms and firearms used by marksmen
in order to strengthen the status of the European firearms pass.

4.2.

Clarifying the scope of the Directive in certain respects

(107)

It should be stressed that, as a general rule,
replies to the
questionnaires, Member States regard the Community legal framework created by the
Directive as sufficient on the whole, and some of them stress that the Directive should
be clarified and made more efficient within its present scope of application. There is,
however, a need to define more clearly the scope of the Directive in certain respects,
by defining certain types of weapons, namely neutralised weapons and antique
weapons, which fall outside the scope of the Directive.

judging by their

4.2.1. Neutralised firearms

(108) As far as neutralised firearms are concerned, the Annex of the Directive is limited to
excluding from the definition of a firearms those firearms that have been rendered
permanently unfit for use by application of technical procedures which are guaranteed
by an official body or recognised by such a body.

(109) Several Member States, but not all, have adopted technical specifications or standards
on neutralisation, and neutralisation is verified by a special certification body or the
police, which issue a neutralisation certificate for the firearm in question.

(110) On the basis of their replies to the questionnaire, most Member State are in favour of
reaching common technical specifications or standards on neutralisation, since
firearms that are not properly neutralised can be reactivated and pose a serious danger
to public safety. Neutralisation standards vary from Member State to another and,
according to some Member States, it
is relatively easy to have a neutralisation
certificate for badly neutralised arms in those states where the standards are lowest.

(111)

In this context, it is, however, appropriate to wait for the results of the negotiations of
the UN Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, since
the Protocol will contain certain provisions on neutralisation, and solutions at
Community level should be consistent with those reached at international level. Once
the Protocol is adopted, neutralisation standards and specifications could be discussed
at Community level. If a consensus can be reached between the Member States on the
acceptability of certain common specifications or standards on neutralisation, there
would not be any need to consider the way in which these standards – apart from the
general requirements foreseen in the draft Protocol - can be transposed at Community
level: whether it should be in the Directive or in a separate Act, in a binding or non-
binding form. The Commission intends to act accordingly.

20

4.2.2.

Antique weapons

(112) The Directive leaves antique weapons to be regulated by national law. According to
the interested parties, in most Member States antique weapons do not need a licence,
although it is sometimes necessary to be registered as a collector to be able to have
them in large numbers. When defining an antique firearm many countries use a date,
but the definition is different in every country. The Schengen acquis provides a
definition in Article 82 (which has remained in force) by referring to the date of 1870.
However, it allows exceptions, which has led to differences at national level.

(113) According to collectors associations the free movement of collectors’ weapons is
hampered, because formalities are subject to the discretion of each Member State and
because a weapon which is regarded as antique in one Member State might not be
considered as such in another. Problems can arise when weapons are bought outside
the state of residence or when a person is travelling with such a weapon from one state
to another. The Commission considers that here too13 the option of using the procedure
in Article 12 (1), which should solve certain transfer difficulties, has apparently been
ignored.

(114) Since a proportion of collectors’ items are neutralised weapons, many of the problems
faced by their holders could be solved by an agreement between Member States or by
adoption at Community level of common standards on neutralisation14.

(115) As for other antique weapons, some interested parties would prefer a definition which
would not only refer to a date, but would be based on more detailed technical criteria
(guns using black powder/smokeless powder). Nevertheless, they would prefer not to
extend the Directive to these weapons. Some interested parties are, on the other hand,
completely satisfied with the Directive as it stands, but are, nevertheless, ready to
examine the proposals of those that are not satisfied with its provisions.

(116) The majority of Member States seem to show a preference for a definition by date
led the
reference, but consultations that have taken place until now, have not
Commission to waive the possibility of a new definition combining technical,
objective and enforceable criteria with a reference to a specific date.

4.3.

Drawing conclusions from the UN Protocol against illicit manufacturing and
trafficking in firearms

(117) The draft Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms,
parts, components and ammunition is being negotiated in the context of the United
Nations Convention on transnational organised crime, and the Protocol will
supplement this Convention. As mentioned above, the provisions of the Protocol are
mainly aimed at combating the illicit trafficking of firearms, but its obligations are of
general application and apply thus also to licit trade in firearms.

13

14

Cf. section 4.1.1.4
See section 4.2.1.

21

(118) The Commission has been given a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the Community
certain provisions of the Protocol: these provisions include Articles on Record keeping
(Article 8), on Marking of firearms (Article 9), on Deactivated weapons (Article 10),
on Export and Import licences (Article 11), on Security and preventive measures
(Article 12) and on Brokering (Article 18 a).

(119) To ensure the integrity of the internal market, the Protocol will include a regional
integration clause, whereby the Community will be considered as a single Party to the
Protocol. Thus, such provisions as those concerning import/export licences or marking
at the stage of import, will not apply to intra-Community trade.

(120) However, certain provisions of the Protocol are such that the necessary decisions will
in particular,
have to be taken at
concerning record keeping and marking of firearms in general, as well as brokering,
and neutralisation. Consequently certain provisions of the Directive may need to be
adapted to be brought into line with those of the Protocol,

the Community level. These are provisions,

(121) Since the negotiations on the Protocol shall not be concluded during the year 2000, it
is advisable to wait for the Protocol to be adopted before proposing modifications to
the Directive, so that the adaptation of the Directive does not need to be redone twice
within a short period of time.

*

*

*

• The Commission invites the European Parliament and the Council to take note of this

report.

• The Commission, having taken account of the state of negotiations of the UN Protocol
as well as the responses of the European Parliament, the Council and the interested
parties to the orientations of the present report, intends to present the appropriate
legislative proposals at the beginning of 2002.

22

ANNEX I

National transposition measures

Austria

Waffengesetz

1. Waffengesetz-Durchführungsverordnung

2. Waffengesetz-Durchführungsverordnung

Gewerbeordnung

Belgium

Loi du 30 janvier 1991 modifiant la loi du 3 janvier 1933 relative à la
fabrication , au commerce et au port des armes et au commerce des
munitions. - Wet van 30 januari 1991 tot wijziging van de wet van 3
januari 1933 op de vervaardiging van de handel in en het dragen van
wapens en op de handel in munitie.

Loi du 5 août 1991 relative à l’importation et au transit d’armes, de
munitions et de matériel devant servir spécialement à un usage militaire et
de la technologie y afférente - Wet van 5 augustus 1991 betreffende de in-,
uit- en doorvoer van wapens, munitie en speciaal voor militair gebruik
dienstig materieel en daaraan verbonden technologie.

1260/I/7

-
Circulaire
Omzendbrief 1260/I/7 inzake de verschillende categoriën wapens -
20/09/1991.

catégories

diverses

d’armes

relative

aux

Arrêté royal du 18 janvier 1993 modifiant l’arrêté royal du 20 septembre
1991 exécutant la loi du 3 janvier 1933 relative à la fabrication, au
commerce et au port des armes et au commerce des munitions -
Koninklijk besluit van 18 januari 1993 tot wijziging van het koninklijk
besluit van 20 september 1991 tot uitvoering van de wet van
3 januari 1933 op de vervaardiging van de handel in het dragen van
wapens en op de handel in munitie.

Arrêté royal du 8 août 1994 relatif aux Cartes européennes d’armes à feu.
Konnklijk besluit van 8 augustus 1994 betreffende de Europese
Vuurwapenpassen.

Denmark

Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 67 af 26/01/2000 om våben og eksplosivstoffer.

Bekendtgørelse nr. 66 af 26/01/2000 om våben og ammunition mv.

Cirkulære nr. 8 af 26/01/2000 om våben og ammunition mv.

Bekendtgørelse nr. 972 af 09/12/1992 om erhvervelse, besiddelse og
transport af skydevåben for personer bosiddende i et EF-land.

Finland

Ampuma-aselaki/Skjutvapenlag (1/1998) ;

Ampuma-aseasetus/ Skjutvapenförordning (1998/145).

Laki poliisin henkilörekistereistä annetun lain 19 ja 20 §:n muuttamisesta /
Lag om ändring av 19 och 20 § lagen om polisens personregister (3/98).

France

Décret-loi du 18 avril 1939 fixant le régime des matériels de guerre, armes
et munitions.

Décret n° 95-589 du 6 mai 1995 modifié relatif à l’application du décret
du 18 avril 1939 fixant le régime des matériels de guerre, armes et
munitions.

Arrêté du 7 septembre 1995 fixant le régime des armes et des munitions
historiques et de collection.

23

Arrêté ministériel du 06/05/1998 relatif à la carte européenne d'armes à
feu, Journal Officiel du 17/05/1998 Page 7531.

Germany

Waffengesetz

Gesetz über die Kontrolle von Kriegswaffen

Erste Verordnung zum Waffengesetz

Greece

Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Waffengesetz
Νόµος υπ
αριθ
’
πυροµαχικά
,
ΦΕΚ Α΄ ν
διατάξεις

. 2168/93 :
εκρηκτικές ύλες
,
της
03/09/1993,

σελίδα

° 147

(

Ρύθµιση θεµάτων που αφορούν όπλα
,
εκρηκτικούς µηχανισµούς και άλλες

4083).

Ireland

Firearms Act, 1925.

Firearms Act, 1964.

Firearms Act, 1971. An Act to amend and extend the Firearms Acts, 1925
to 1968.

Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 (Offensive Weapons) Order,
1991.

Statuory Instrument N° 362 of 1993. European Communities (Acquisition
and Possession of Weapons and Ammunition) Regulations, 1993.

Firearms (temporary provisions) Act, 1998, continuance Order, 1999.

Italy

Testo Unico delle leggi di Pubblica Sicurezza, approvato con R.D. del
18 giugno 1931 n. 773, riguardanti le armi comuni da fuoco.

Decreto Legislativo 30 dicembre 1992, n. 527. Attuazione della direttiva
91/477/CEE relativa al controllo dell’acquisizione e della detenzione di
armi.

Decreto ministeriale, 30 ottobre 1996, n. 635. Regolamento di esecuzione
del decreto legislativo 30 dicembre 1992, n. 527, recante norme di
attuazione
controllo
dell’acquisizione e della detenzione di armi.

91/477/CEE

direttiva

relativa

della

al

Luxembourg

Loi du 15 mars 1983 sur les armes et munitions.

Règlement grand-ducal du 2 décembre 1983 complétant la liste des armes
prohibées.

Règlement grand-ducal du 13 avril 1983 pris en exécution de la loi sur les
armes et munitions.

Règlement grand-ducal du 30 juin 1986 complétant la liste des armes
prohibées.

Règlement grand-ducal du 2 février 1990 soumettant
régime d’autorisation des armes.

les frondes au

Règlement grand-ducal du 27 novembre 1995 modifiant le règlement
grand-ducal du 13 avril 1983 pris en exécution de la loi sur les armes et
munitions.

Wet van 27 januari 1994 houdende aanpassing van de Wet wapens en
munitie aan de Richtlijn van 18 juni 1991 van de Raad van de Europese
Gemeenschappen inzake de controle op de verwerving en het voorhanden
hebben van wapens - Staatsblad 1994, nr. 84.

Besluit Europese schietwapenspas - Staatsblad 1994, nr. 161 van
7 maart 1994.

24

Netherlands

Wet van 5 juli 1997, houdende regels
inzake het vervaardigen,
verhandelen, vervoeren, voorhanden hebben, dragen, enz. van wapens en
munitie – Staatsblad 1997, nr. 292.

Portugal

Decreto-Lei n° 37.313 de 21 de Fevereiro de 1949. Regulamento das
armas e muniçoes.

Decreto-Lei n.° 399/93 : Transpõe para a orden jurídica interna a Directiva
n.° 91/477/CE, do Conselho, de 18 de Junho, relativa ao controlo da
adquisiçao e da detençao de armas.

Portaria n.° 1322/93 : Fixa os montantes das taxas de aposiçao de visto
prévio e de emissão do cartão europeu de armas de fogo.

Sweden

Vapenlag, Svensk författningssamling (SFS) 1996:67, 8/02/1996

Vapenförordning, Svensk författningssamling (SFS) 1996:70 , 8/02/1996

Spain

Real Decreto, núm. 137/1993, de 29 de enero, por el que se aprueba el
Reglamento de Armas.

Corrección de errores del Real Decreto 137/1993, de 29 de enero, por el
que se aprueba el Reglamento de Armas.

Real Decreto 316/2000, de 3 de marzo, por el que se modifican algunos
preceptos del Reglamento de Armas, aprobado por Real Decreto
137/1993, de 29 de enero, relativos a las licencias y a las revistas de
armas.

United kingdom Firearms Act 1968

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

The Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992

The Firearms Acts (Amendment) Rules 1992

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

Firearms (Amendment) (N° 2) Act 1997

Northern Ireland. The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981

Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939

The Import of Goods (Control) Order, 1954

Open General Import Licence

Amendment n° 82 of the Open General Import Licence

The Export of Goods (Control Order 1994 and subsequent Amendment
Orders

25

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

ANNEX II

List of competent authorities (Art.13 (3))

Bundesministerium für Inneres
Postfach 100, 1014 Wien
Ministère des Affaires Economiques –service licences
Ministerie van Economische Zaken – dienst vergunningen
Rue Général Leman / Generaal Lemanstraat 60
1040 Bruxelles / Brussel
Interpol
Polititorvet 14
1780 København V
Sisäasianministeriö
Kirkkokatu 12
PL 257, 00171 Helsinki
Ministère de l’intérieur
Place Beauveau
75008 Paris
Direction général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
23, rue de l’Université
75700 Paris Cedex 07 SP
Bundeskriminalamt
Referat OA 35
D- 65173 Wiesbaden
Ministry of public order
Directorate of National security
Dep. D
4 Kanellopoulou Str. GR –101.77- Athens
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
72-76 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, 2.
Ministero dell’interno
Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza
Direzione Centrale AA.GG. Servizio Polizia Amministrativa e Sociale;
Divisione Armi et Esplosivi
Via Cesare Balbo N. 39
00184 Roma
Ministère de la Justice
16, Bd. Royal
L-2934, Luxembourg
Korps Landelijke Politiediensten
Centrale Recherche Informatiedienst
Afdeling vuurwapens
Postbus 3016
2700 KX Zoetermeer
Direcção Nacional DA P.S.P
Largo da Penha de França. 1
1170 Lisboa
Dirección General de la Guardia Civil
Intervención Central de Armas y Explosivos
Dirección: c/. Bernardino Obregón 23
28.012 Madrid
Rikspolisstyrelsen
Box 12256
102 26 Stockholm

26

United kingdom

Home Office
Operational Policing Unit
50 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H9AT

27

ANNEX III

List of national and international federations and associations

• European federations

AECAC: European association of civil Arms Trade

AFEMS: Association of the European Sport Ammunition Manufacturers

AFTSC: Association of sporting Shooting Federations of the European Community

FACE : Federation des Associations de Chasseurs de l’Union européenne

FESAC: Federation of European Societies of Arms Collectors

IEACS: European institute of the Hunting and Sport Weapons

• National federations

ANPAM: Associazione Nazionale Produttori Armi e Munizioni

ASSOARMIERI (IT)

BSSC: British Shooting Sports Council

A.S.H: The Amenable Importers of sporting and hunting Firearms and Accessories
Association (FIN)

HBSA: Historical Breechloading Small arms Association (UK)

UFA : Union Française des Amateurs d’Armes

28