WRITTEN QUESTION E-2693/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Uniform registration system for weapons.
Date: 2002-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: arms control, firearms and munitions, traceability

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/199

However, the main maps are presented only in the English version of the report, and the far Western
Atlantic edge of Europe is cut off (cid:1) namely the Autonomous Region of the Azores, which is European not
only in law, but by virtue of geography.

Does the Commission intend to publish the other language versions with the maps in their entirety?

Does it intend to cover the European section of the Atlantic in Map I?

Does it intend to disseminate the report as broadly as the importance of the issue merits?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
(2) COM(2002) 407 final.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his appreciation of the report on the implementation
of Directive 91/676/EEC, published this year and now being printed. It is true that the situation gives cause
for concern, but significant progress is beginning to be seen both in the water monitoring systems and in
the designation of vulnerable zones, the content of action programmes and the monitoring of their
application.

All the language versions of the report may indeed be consulted on the Commission’s internet server, but
the maps (which take up a lot of server space) have only been included in the English version. The Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities (Eur-OP) is including these maps in colour in the
other language versions of the paper edition of this report to be published by the end of 2002 in all the
languages of the Union.

As far the Azores are concerned, these islands feature in the general map of vulnerable zones (although no
vulnerable zone has as yet been officially designated in that area), but not in the maps monitoring changes
in water quality, since no data on such monitoring activities in the Azores was forwarded for the year
2000 in the report from Portugal.

(2003/C 52 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2693/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform registration system for weapons

A good number of arms manufacturers have a system for identifying and registering the weapons they
produce. Usually serial numbers are put on one or more of the weapon’s components. Exchange of
information among the EU countries as to the method used is somewhat patchy. In addition, the markings
used at present can sometimes be removed very easily. Each of these factors adds weight to the call for a
simple, efficient and universally applicable method. The markings can be kept in a national register so that
the route taken by arms found in a conflict zone can subsequently be traced.

Will the Commission take steps to draw up appropriate legislation on uniform registration of weapons
within the EU? If not, why not?

C 52 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Suitable and generalised marking and registration of firearms are essential elements in tracing them, and
the Commission is fully aware of this need.

Article 4 of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of
weapons (1) and of their transfer to another Member State already requires a dealer to keep a register
containing information concerning all the main categories of firearms received or disposed of by him,
including such particulars as enable any weapon to be identified, in particular the type, make, model,
calibre and serial number thereof and the names and addresses of the supplier and the person acquiring
the weapon.

This Directive will shortly need to be revised, following the signing by the Commission on behalf of the
Community and by the Member States of the UN protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in
firearms. This protocol contains specific provisions concerning the marking of
firearms, and the
Commission is currently studying their transposition.

It should be noted that one of the provisions of the protocol is that the signatory states will have to
encourage their weapons industries to develop measures designed to prevent the alteration or removal of
markings. In response to the honourable Member’s concern, it should also be pointed out that the protocol
increases to ten years, compared with five years in the Directive, the minimum time during which
information on firearms should be kept.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

(2003/C 52 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2694/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Simplification of the import and export licensing system for defence equipment within the EU

According to a report of 28 April 1999 by the Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers (Belgian
Chamber of Parliamentarians)
(doc. 614/4 (cid:1) 95/96), the Commission was at that time planning to
organise a simplified system of import and export licences for defence equipment within (!) the EU.

Can the Commission say whether the information in this report is correct and what the present state of
affairs is as regards the development of this licensing system? Can the Commission tell me (cid:1) if it has not
yet taken any steps in this direction (cid:1) that it is still intending to do this? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The Commission has always been in favour of any method which allows progress to be made in
simplifying intra-Community transfers of defence equipment which would, in particular, involve a more
precise definition of this equipment and an easing of the formalities surrounding their movement,
regardless of the instruments used.

Given the particularly sensitive nature of the problems associated with this issue, which also touch on
many aspects of European integration,
including the Common Foreign and Security Policy, a broad
consensus is highly desirable so that any initiative in this field can provide real added value.

It is therefore important for the Commission to have a clear understanding of what the added value of a
legislative initiative might be, its chances of success, and any risks involved. This evaluation could be
conducted by the Commission and discussed by competent working groups.