Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation implementing Article 10 of the United Nations’ Firearms Protocol and establishing export authorisation, import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and components and ammunition - Impact Assessment {COM (2010) 273} {SEC (2010) 663}
Date: 2010-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, fight against crime, firearms and munitions, illicit trade, import licence, industrial manufacturing, protocol to an agreement

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 Nations’ Firearms Protocol and establishing 
export authorisation, import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition 

Impact Assessment  

{COM (2010) 273} 
{SEC (2010) 663} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

 1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Table 1 

Table 2 

Procedural Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties....................................... 4 

Legal basis, political mandate and existing instruments: ....................................... 4 

Consultation and expertise. .................................................................................... 6 

Scope of art. 10 UNFP ........................................................................................... 7 

Article 10................................................................................................................ 7 

Definition of firearms............................................................................................. 8 

Key players and scale of transfer of firearms for civilian use................................ 8 

Extra-EU trade of firearms for civilian use, their parts and components and 
ammunition in 2007................................................................................................ 9 

Export and import value of firearms 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 against Member States legislation................................ 13 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

Defining the problem ........................................................................................... 15 

Legal Aspects linked to UNFP............................................................................. 15 

Security problems linked to the transfer of firearms............................................ 16 

Economic problems linked to the transfer of firearms for civilian use ................ 18 

Defining the problem and its underlying drivers/causes ...................................... 19 

Analysis of the EU right to act and necessity test ................................................ 19 

Setting the objectives ........................................................................................... 20 

Developing policy options ................................................................................... 21 

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 21 

Justification of the bundling of the elements to form the policy options............. 22 

Policy options....................................................................................................... 23 

Table 4: 

Policy options against Art 10 provisions ............................................................. 23 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

Assessing the policy options ................................................................................ 28 

Assessment criteria............................................................................................... 28 

Assessment of each policy option ........................................................................ 28 

Comparative assessment of policy options .......................................................... 33 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Table 5  

Comparison between policy options .................................................................... 33 

7.4. 

7.5. 

7.6. 

7.7. 

8. 

Assessment of stakeholders' consultations........................................................... 34 

Identification of the preferred policy option ........................................................ 34 

Assessment of the preferred option...................................................................... 36 

Assessment of financial and administrative costs of the preferred policy option 39 

Monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................... 43 

ANNEXES 

Annex I 

Article 10.............................................................................................................. 45 

Annex II  List of consulted private stakeholders' 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 and target shooting in 2007 .... 49 

Annex V  Export and import value of pistols and revolvers expressed 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, their parts and components and 
ammunition transferred to and from third countries in 2007 ............................... 51 

Annex VII  Value of export and import of ammunition 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.................................................... 52 

Annex VIII  Summary of findings in the Small Arms Survey ................................................. 54 

Annex IX  Number of issued import and/or export licenses related to the imported and/or 

exported quantity (in numbers) of firearms, their parts and components and 
ammunition........................................................................................................... 55 

Annex X  Assessment of financial and administrative costs of the preferred policy option. 

Further details....................................................................................................... 56 

Annex XI  Zero base measurements of transactions of firearms in the Netherlands ............. 63 

Annex XII  Duration of the process (processing the 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 shooter), based on the provisions of the 
preferred policy option ......................................................................................... 65 

Annex XIV Indicators for monitoring and evaluation ............................................................. 66 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL REGULATION 
IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE 10 OF THE UNITED NATIONS' FIREARMS PROTOCOL 
AND ESTABLISHING EXPORT AUTHORISATION, IMPORT AND TRANSIT 
MEASURES FOR FIREARMS, THEIR 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 implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening 
freedom, security and justice in the European Union listed 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 against Transnational Organised 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  reaffirms  that  the  Union  should  continue  to  promote 
ratification of international Conventions (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  March  2004.  The  Declaration  states  that  the 
“European Council recognises that there is a need to ensure terrorist organizations and groups are 
starved of the components of their trade. 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 the 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- 
4 EU Council Document 17024/09, CO EUR-PREP 3 JAI 896 POLGEN 229 of 2 December 2009. 

c&chapter=18&lang=en  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  Commission's  Communication  on  measures  to  ensure  greater  security  in  explosives, 
detonators, bomb-making equipment and fire-arms of 18.07.20055 the Commission informed the 
public of the need and intention to implement Art 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  current  policy  on  firearms  is  the  "Conclusion" 
(ratification)" of the UNFP. The purpose of the Protocol 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 particular put in place, or improve administrative 
procedures or systems to exercise 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  Community  the  articles  of  the  UNFP  falling  under  Community 
Competence and eventually signed it on 16 January 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 Parties (they have either ratified or acceded to 
it10).  

The  UNFP  entered  into  force  on  3  July  2005.  Its  "Conclusion"  (ratification)  by  the  Union  is 
pending  and  subject  to  the  transposition  of  those  provisions  falling  under  Union's  competence 
into EU legislation. The legislative 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  instrument  from  the  EU  perspective.  This  means 
that  for  those  parts  falling  under  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 legislation 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 policy 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/CTOC/countrylist-firearmsprotocol.html   

EN 

5 

   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 acquisition and possession 
of weapons). However, Directive 91/477 relates to the control of the acquisition and possession 
of weapons within the EU during a journey through two or more Member States. It called upon 
Member States to intensify controls on the possession of weapons on the external frontiers of the 
Community but did not establish in itself any trade 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 proliferation and spread of small arms around the 
world, in the frame of the (former) second pillar.  

With regard to security, the objective of limiting the diversion and that of ensure 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 contributes to that objective. This 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 backtracking 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. 

Articles 207 and 346 TFEU provide a framework with which the new proposal for implementing 
Article 10 has to comply. First of all, the proposal should match the common commercial policy 
requirements  of  Article  207.  Second,  the  proposal  would  be  without  prejudice  of  Article  346 
which refers to the national security of the Member States. Each Member State has the right to 
take measures necessary to protect its national security. 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 clarifications with regard to the problem definition and 
presentation  of  options.  The  IA  has  been  revised  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;  pages  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  the  request  for  a  hypothetical  example  of 
implementation.  

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise. 

The  Impact  Assessment  is  based  on  the  consultation  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  (representatives  of  European  associations  of 
manufacturers  of  firearms  and  ammunitions  for  civil  use,  civil  commerce  of  weapons,  hunters, 
collectors),  two  dedicated  meetings  organised  in  Brussels  in  March  and  June  2007  with  the 
Member States and the private parties (included NGOs), the opening of a specific e-mail account 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(JLS-FIREARMS@ec.europa.eu)  for  permanent  consultation.  The  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  stakeholders  and  NGOs, the Commission ensured a 
similar wide consultation. The list of the consulted parties is included in Annex II. 

To  note  that  the  questionnaires  and  invitations  were  sent  to  a  wide  range  of  private  European 
stakeholders  which  -  besides  the  ones  mentioned  in  Annex  II  -  included  the  "Association  of 
European Chambers of Commerce and Industry", the "Union des Industries de la Communauté 
européenne"  (UNICE)  now  called  "Businesseurope"  and  the  "European  Association  of  Craft, 
Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises"  (UEAPME);  as  well  as  to  other  NGOs/Research 
institutions like SIPRI and ISIS Europe. The UN Office in Geneva was notified as well. 

The results and opinions expressed at the different stage of the consultations 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 stakeholders and possible policy options. 

The preliminary work also included the establishment of an internal consultation by setting up a 
specific  Inter-Service  Group  on  "firearms",  chaired  by  DG  JLS  with  the  participation  or 
contribution  in  particular  of  representatives  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  requirements  for  export,  import  and  transit  licensing  or 
authorisation  systems  requires  ‘each  State  party  to  establish  or  maintain  an  effective  system  of 
export and import licensing or authorisation, as well as of measures on international transit, for 
the transfer of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition’, thereby improving scrutiny 
of transfers and allowing better enforcement of laws. 

As  described  by  the  UN  legislative  Guidelines  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 the awareness and consent of all States involved and that cases 
in which this is not complied with attract  criminal investigation, prosecution and punishment". 
"The Protocol requires States parties: (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 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
support the offence of trafficking (art. 10,  para. 3); and  (c) To enhance the accountability and 
security  associated  with  the  import  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  import  or  export  small  numbers  of 
firearms  for  "verifiable  lawful  purposes,  such  recreational,  repair,  exhibition  (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  transit  of  goods  exported  from  the  EU  Customs 
territory to a final destination in a third, passing through the territory of another third Country. 

As also described in the mentioned UN legislative Guidelines, Art 10 (as any other article of the 
UNFP) cannot be seen in isolation but in connection with the proper implementation also of other 
articles like for example Art 5 on "criminalization" 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 coherency with the current EU legal framework has to be 
taken into account for the purposes of the transposition 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 authorisation), 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  companies  providing  security  services,  citizens  for 
individual self protection, hunters, sport shooters, etc.  

2.3. 

Key players and scale of transfer 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  and  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 firearms. The markings should be included in the documents accompanying the 
request for licences.  
13 Art. 3 UNFP " firearm shall mean any portable barreled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be readily 
converted  to  expel  a  shot,  bullet  or  projectile  by  the  action  of  an  explosive,  excluding  antique  firearms  or  their 
replicas. Antique firearms and their replicas shall be defined in accordance with domestic law. In no case, however, 
shall antique firearms include firearms manufactured after 1899"". 
14 For the purpose of Directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC, a ‘firearm’ 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 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
international classification of the Harmonised System. 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 ammunition 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 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech republic  

Germany  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Export 
quantity 

10 680 

3 442 

40 534 

385 768 

431 593 

353 696 

0 

Export value 

Import 
quantity 

Import value 

€ 28 451 164  

7 321 

€ 6 495 960  

€ 1 616 027  

66 506 

€ 16 499 381  

€ 3 031 026  

3 924 

€ 974 098  

€ 35 285 757  

32 913 

€ 3 843 784  

€ 139 217 006  

268 596 

€ 51 337 308  

€ 4 600 932  

383 603 

€ 7 471 773  

€ 27 

2 310 

€ 1 151 218  

2 853 206 

€ 38 391 151  

65 062 

€ 12 381 015  

58 393 

€ 17 815 155  

20 713 

€ 5 825 931  

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 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

681 531 

883 706 

3 

€ 3 343 133  

195 624 

€ 2 276 643  

€ 5 187 670  

65 642 

€ 1 528 085  

€ 3 736  

10 328 

€ 1 142 922  

789 974 

€ 240 217 424  

109 189 

€ 26 609 533  

1 

5 

54 

100 000 

475 

13 073 

42 016 

€ 2 848 931  

3 106 

€ 666 391  

€ 26 602  

€ 4 468  

€ 6 150  

€ 545 266  

19 

1 435 

513 

6 692 

€ 169 510  

€ 469 701  

€ 131 463  

€ 3 808 625  

€ 4 113 738  

49 825 

€ 3 014 288  

€ 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 

9 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

EU27  

30 759 

€ 9 890 637  

6 695 

€ 4 917 150  

0 

421 

€ 664 862  

0 

€ 277 312  

€ 353 654  

297 242 

€ 670 261  

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 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 200717 

Export  sport,  hunting  and 
target shooting 

Import  sport,  hunting  and 
target shooting 

Member States 

Export value  % of total  Import value  % of total 

€ 5 887 841  

21% 

€ 534 350  

8% 

€ 1 015 271  

63% 

€ 7 626 914  

46% 

Austria 

Belgium  

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

€ 64 694  

2% 

€ 742 596  

Czech Republic  

€ 11 031 481   31% 

€ 423 328  

Germany  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

€ 38 581 521   28% 

€ 8 550 407  

€ 509 311  

11% 

€ 1 528 353  

€ 125 531  

€ 4 961 547  

13% 

€ 2 649 004  

€ 11 187 094   63% 

€ 1 685 679  

€ 2 067 702  

2% 

€ 5 897 307  

United Kingdom 

€ 19 162 231   33% 

€ 6 924 771  

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

€ 344 734  

€ 17 225  

10% 

0% 

€ 1 132 767  

€ 250 422  

€ 3 736  

100% 

€ 633 908  

76% 

11% 

17% 

20% 

11% 

21% 

29% 

28% 

15% 

50% 

16% 

55% 

17 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of the 
Eurostat database. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
€
€
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Italy 

Lithuania 

€ 134 070 737   56% 

€ 5 570 082  

€ 122 576  

Luxembourg 

€ 3 131  

12% 

€ 21 628  

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

€ 363 985  

€ 42 269  

€ 189 218  

€ 72 855  

€ 131 123  

€ 784 009  

67% 

1% 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

EU27  

€ 8 238 230  

47% 

€ 90 852  

€ 592 707  

€ 92 217  

€ 1 225  

6% 

14% 

0% 

€ 756 731  

€ 40 132  

€ 63 496  

 238 238 889   34% 

 46 548 039   21% 

21% 

18% 

13% 

40% 

55% 

3% 

26% 

3% 

15% 

14% 

9% 

The  percentage  in  terms  of  value  of  import  for  sporting,  hunting  and  target  shooting  is 
significantly  lower  than  the  value  of  export  of  these  types  of  firearms:  21  against  34.  The 
comparison with table 1 before shows that these types 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 imported/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  and  exported  firearms.  The  export  of  pistols  and 
revolvers is only 13 percent of the total value of exported firearms for civilian use, their parts and 
components and ammunition. With regard to the import, this percentage is only four percent. The 
total  value  of  exported  revolvers  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 the fact that a share of imported “parts and components” are at 
a later stage assembled in the final product and therefore exported as an “assembled firearm with 
its own (higher) value. Parts and components count for the 16 % of total export and 21 % of total 

18 There is only an apparent overlap between military equipment 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 

11 

   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 total value of imported firearms for civilian use, 
their parts and components and ammunition (for the details see table in Annex VII). 

Number of authorising and licensing procedures. 

It was not possible to get definitive information on the number of licence/authorizations managed 
by  Member  States  per  year.  A  calculation  based  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 these licences or authorisations were 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 value of imports is more than 200 million Euros. 
The export of firearms for the purposes of sporting, hunting and target shooting comprises more 
than one third of the total value of firearms export to third countries. The export and import of 
pistols  and  revolvers  is  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  total  number  of  transferred  firearms  for 
civilian use, their parts and components and ammunition. Another 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,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece, 
Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  United  Kingdom  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 Member 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 
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/countrylist-firearmsprotocol.html  

ratification  of 

the  UNFP 

(Status  as  at:  08/02/2010).  Retrieved 

EN 

12 

from: 

   EN 

 
                                                 
legislation  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  Article  10  UNFP  (all  "Shall" 
provisions but the last one). 

Table 3 Provisions of the UNFP against Member States legislation 

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 
authorisation system 

licensing/ 

2.a. 
Receiving 
licence/authorisation 
issuing export licence 

import 
before 

2.b.  Receiving  written  notice  of 
no  objection  of  transit  country 
before issuance of export licence 

3.a.  Required 
documentation 

information 

in 

3.b.  Provide  information  in  the 
import licence to transit countries 

4.  Notification  of  receipt  upon 
request 

5. Verification of authorisation 

6.  Simplified  procedures 
temporary import/export 

for 

+  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + 

_  +  +  +  + 

- 

- 

+  +  +  +  +  + 

- 

_  +/-  - 

+/-  + 

- 

- 

- 

- 

+/-  - 

- 

+ 

- 

+/- +  +  +  +  +/-  +/-  +/-  +/-  +/-  +  +  +  +/- 

-  - 

- 

+ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

+ 

- 

- 

+ 

- 

+  +  +  +  +  +  +  +/-  +/-  +  + 

- 

+  + 

  +  +  + 

- 

+/-  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + 

  + 

- 

+  + 

- 

- 

+  +  +  +  +  +  + 

Legend: ‘+’ means: the legislation of the Member State complies with the specific requirement. 
‘-‘ means: the legislation of the Member State does not comply with the requirement.‘+/-‘ means: 
the legislation of the Member State partly 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  distinguish  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 questionnaires, mentioned that 
their  legislation  concerning  the  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  before  issuing  the  export  licence.  Only  in 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
particular cases the exporter is required to provide a copy of an import authorisation. In 
all Member States the burden is on the private party (the exporter/importer). In most of 
the consulted Member States, the original licence or a certified copy is required. Only in 
the United Kingdom an electronic copy of the import licence is sufficient. 

•  Eight Member States that replied to the consultation stated that they do not require - prior 
to  issuing  the  export  licence  or  the  authorisations  for  shipment  –  to  receive  a  notice  in 
writing that the transit countries have no objection to the transfer. Within the EU, transit 
States are informed of the transit. The few Member States that require this notice of no 
objection  stated  that  this  notice  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  documentation  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  receipt  of  dispatched  firearms)  is  not  uniform,  even  if  the 
legislation  of  most  of  the  Member  States  that  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  Guidelines  suggest  the  use  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 Certificate). This could facilitate the falsification 
of  these  documents.  Some  Member  States  require  the  standardised  International  Import 
Certificate  whose  layout  would  guarantee  its  authenticity.  However,  when  this  is  not 
used,  another  certificate  of  the  national  authority  of  the  importing  State  is  sufficient  as 
well.  In  cases  of  doubts,  checks  are  made  by  diplomatic  channels,  via  the  competent 
national authorities of the 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, such 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 permits or authorisations, the country of export, the country of import, the final 
recipient, a description of the articles imported or exported, the quantities of the articles imported or exported and, 
whenever there is transit, the 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 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  The average time to process an application form 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  would  not  take  more  than  1  month.  Some 
Member  States  stated  that  there  is  a  maximum  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  consultations,  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 value) of firearms that they are allowed to 
export. It is up to the private party to decide in how many shipments they want to export 
the quantity of firearms. Hence, in most Member 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) copies 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 fully comply with the provisions of Article 10 of 
the UNFP. In the current situation, most but not all EU Member States require an import licence 
or authorisation before issuing an export licence (as requested  by Art 10 UNFP). The Member 
States  as  whole  do  not  have  a  harmonised  procedure  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 required. 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  the  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. Firearms, their parts and components 
and ammunition can be temporarily transferred to third countries for verifiable purposes such as 
sport shooting, hunting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs. However 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  aspects  already  recalled  in  paragraph  1.1  -  the 
implementation of Art. 10) and to ratify (conclude) it. 

In  2002  the  European  Community  signed  the  UNFP  in  view  of  Articles  95  and  133  TEC.  The 
latter - now article 207 of the TFEU - gives exclusive external competence to the Union for the 
common commercial policy.  

EN 

15 

   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 exclusive Union's responsibility (Article 207 TFEU). 
The common commercial policy implies uniform conduct 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  the  corresponding  failure  to  establish  a  common 
commercial  policy,  as  requested  by  the  Treaty  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 implemented 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  absence  of  Union's  legislation  implementing  a 
minimum horizontal harmonization, firstly - Union's international obligations would be breached, 
and secondly – nothing could prevent a Member State from making a step back and modifying its 
own legislation with the consequence 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  between  the  national  administrations  in  charge  of  controlling  the 
movement  of  such  firearms.  This  preventive  activity  involves  the  reinforcement  of  controls  on 
the legal sale, acquisition and possession 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. Despite the efforts made at national and European 
level, a significant amount of firearms leaves the legal market and enter into the illegal one. The 
primary method for obtaining a firearm 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 used in illegal activities) 
originate  in  the  legal  market.  At  some  stage  those  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  transfer  of  firearms  across  borders  and  the  transfer  of  unmarked 
firearms, is one important source of illegal firearms. 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 Council22 recalled that: "In view of the threat posed to public 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 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
arms  trafficking  and  other  forms  of  arms  crime.  Tracing  of  supply  channels  provides  an 
important aid in combating arms crime. Swift tracing of the full route taken by a firearm serves 
three  crucial  purposes  in  combating  arms  crime:  to  identify  the  person  responsible  for  the 
disappearance of a firearm into illegality; to uncover arms-trafficking market structures within 
the  European  Union  and  detect  offenders  operating  in  that  market;  and  to  gather  and  assess 
material information on the present state of arms crime in Europe, 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 factor in combating international arms crime". 

Moreover,  Saferworld  has  recently  recalled23,  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, therefore, international norms and obligations 
relating to SALW are well-established, clear, and widely supported in principle. Unfortunately, 
implementation of these commitments agreements remains patchy and inadequate""""and ""It is 
now  timely  for  the  international  community  to  launch  (or  re-launch)  concerted  initiatives  and 
measures to strengthen their systems for preventing 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 - regardless 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 
States25 - to tragic events and the loss 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  modus  operandi  of  aggravated  assault  and  the 

23  "Preventing  Diversion  of  Small  Arms  and  Light  Weapons:  Issues  and  Priorities  for  Strengthened  Controls 
(SAFERWORLD and University of Bradford February 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  and  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 

17 

   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 regulations regarding the sale, purchase and possession of 
weapons by civilians. These regulations distinguish between a legal and an illegal market, on the 
basis of identification and registration of weapons and possession of weapons28.  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 transfer 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 the way export and import procedures on firearms 
are carried out varies between Member States (see table 3 above).  

The  lack  of  standardised  documents  causes  delays  and  therefore  increases  costs.  The  UN 
Guidelines  also  points  out  this  problem  when  stressing  the  importance  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 civilian use and ammunition bears additional costs 
for  bureaucratic  requirements,  controls,  bookkeeping,  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 firearms 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 first place the loss of 
lives,  and  moreover,  the  reduction  in  shops,  services,  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 words, a distortion of the security environment, increases these costs. 
Crime  distortions  of  the  security  environment  are  directly  related  to  the  wider  economic 
distortions  (i.e.  decline  in  productivity,  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 stricter 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 products, 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. Instead most researches use different techniques to estimate the costs of crime. 

EN 

18 

   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 light 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  common  commercial  policy  with  regard  to  the 
establishment  of  uniform  principle  governing  the  export  import  and  transit  of  firearms  for 
civilian use. The third general problem is the distorted security with regard to export, import and 
transit of firearms for civilian use. 

The driving causes of the general 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' legislation already fully complies with Article 
10 of the UNFP. The different approaches of Member States to Article 10 of the UNFP 
result  in  different  licensing,  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 different 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  principle  does  not  apply  in  this  case.  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 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  act  in  the  field  of  the  common  commercial  policy,  based  on  Art  207  TFEU.  The  Member 
States are not entitled to take legislative initiatives at national level in this matter.  

5. 

SETTING THE OBJECTIVES 

General objectives: 

1.  To fulfil international obligations of the EC with regard to implementation of Art. 10 of the 

UNFP. 

2.  To  ensure    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. 

3.  To contribute to the improvement of security with respect to firearms for civilian use. 

Specific objectives 

The  specific  objectives,  i.e.  the  immediate  objectives  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  regard  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 contributes to that objective. This 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 backtracking 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 export – 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 

20 

   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 commercial policy matters would impede such a 
decentralised  solution.  From  a  political  point  of  view  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  spite  of  two  Resolution  of  the  European  Parliament  (2005  and  2006)  with 
regards to the signature and ratification of the Protocol. 

 No legislation

2. Regulation focusing on  
effectiveness and security 

Implement Art 10  
UN Firearms 
Protocol 

Legislate

Regulation

3. Regulation focusing on efficiency 
for private parties 

1. No EU action          

Directive

4. Regulation focusing on efficiency 
for national administrations 

Figure 1  Overview of policy options 

The  policy  options,  which  aim  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  EU  intervention,  are  classified  into 
four  main  policy  options.  The  first  one  is  to  refrain  from  taking  EU  action.  However,  this  is 
solely a theoretical option due to the legal international obligation taken by the Union by means 

EN 

21 

   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 selected 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 case, 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 export, 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  private  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 bundling 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. However, the specific way these requirements 
should be implemented is left to the Parties to the Protocol. Some solutions are provided by the 
UN Guidelines on the implementation 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 stakeholders with the aim 
of getting their opinion. The modes of implementation differ per policy 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" provision) simplified procedures could 
be  used  for  temporary  import  and  export.  The  choice  on  their  inclusion  is  left  to  the 
implementing parties. 

2.  Division of tasks between parties: the party that has to acquire the required documentation 
is not determined in the UNFP. This could either 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 documentation. However, it could be an inefficient procedure because it 
could increase the risk of delays. Private parties have an interest in speeding up the process. 
Therefore, if private parties acquire the required documentation, this will 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 requirements of Art 10 are matched at latest at 
the  time  of  shipment.  The  licence  would  function  as  an  ‘umbrella  licence’  consisting  of 
different components. A confirmation should be given per shipment.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
4.  The  duration  of  the  process:  the  duration  of  the  whole  process  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 consent 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 requirements of the EC legislation. 

7.  Mode  of  communication:  using  electronic  documents  could  make  the  procedure  more 
efficient.  However  this  could  also  damage  the  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 electronic 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  
•  Existence of a licensing/ authorisation system (SHALL) 

•  Receiving  import  licence/authorisation  before  issuing 

export licence (SHALL) 

•  Receiving  written  notice  of  no  objection  of  transit  country 

before issuance of export licence (SHALL) 

•  Required information in documentation (SHALL) 

•  Provide  information  in  the  import  licence  to  transit  countries 

(SHALL) 

•  Notification of receipt upon request (SHALL) 

•  Verification of authorisation (SHALL) 

•  Simplified procedures for temporary import/export (MAY) 

OP 1  OP 2  OP 3  OP 4 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Burden on private parties 

•  Burden on State parties 

•  Licence per shipment 

•  Multiple shipments 

•  Maximum Duration Process 

•  No Maximum Duration Process 

•  Silent  consent  (two  sub-options  :  5  days  or  3/4  weeks  for  the 

silent consent to take effect)   

•  No use of Silent consent 

•  Designated officer/office/Dept 

•  No Designated officer/office Dept 

•  Use of original forms 

•  Use of electronic forms 

Option 1) No EU action (status quo). 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

The  situation  would  be  left  to  the  current  legislation  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 concluded (ratified). The European Community would not 
honour its political commitment in front of the international Community. 

Not  implementing  Article  10  UNFP  is  only  a  theoretical  option  since  according  to  good  legal 
practice and also politically, signature of an international instrument should be followed by steps 
to achieve ratification. Moreover the present impact assessment shows 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 consequence that the legal frame of 
that Member State would not be any longer in line with the provisions of Art 10. 

The diverging national legislations are also an obstacle for European 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 effectiveness 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 ammunition. No exceptions would be made and only 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the "shall" provisions of Art 10 would be implemented (no simplified procedures). The system 
would focus mainly on increasing the security within the EU territory. 

Legislation in each Member State would comply 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  shall  verify  that  the  importing  States  have 
issued  import  licences  or  authorisations  (Art.  10.2.a).  The  private  parties  will  acquire  the 
import licence and provide it to the licensing authorities of the exporting State. 

•  The  export  and  import  licence  or  authorisation  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  issuance  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 exported, the quantities of the articles 
imported or exported and, whenever there is transit, the countries of transit (Art. 10.3 and Art. 
8).  

•  The importing State Party shall, upon request, inform 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 ammunition 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 prejudice to bilateral 
or  multilateral  agreements  or  arrangements  favouring  landlocked  States33,  the  transit  States 
have, at a minimum, given notice in writing, prior to shipment, that they have no objection to 
the transit (Art.10.2.b). Specific to this policy option: 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  advance  to  the  transit 
States  (Art.  10.3).Specific  to  this  policy  option:  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  procedures  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 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  The  licences  for  export,  import  or  transit  of  firearms  must  be  given  per  shipment.  As 

mentioned before, this extra check will increase the security of the transfers.  

•  There will be no maximum duration 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  international  transit,  for  the  transfer  of 
firearms for civilian use, their parts and components 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, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs) of Article 10 
UNFP would be implemented, besides the "shall" ones. 

In addition to the considerations outlined at option 2 above, this 3rd option would extend some of 
the above mentioned positive impacts to the temporary import and export and transit of firearms 
for verifiable lawful purposes, such as hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs. 
The implementation of these "may provisions" would have a positive result on the products for 
civilian use falling under Union's Competence and relevant 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  advance  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  advance  to  the  transit 
States  (Art.  10.3).  Specific  to  this  policy  option:  The  private  parties  will  provide  the 
information contained in the import licence to the transit State. 

Temporary import/export 

•  Member States will adopt simplified procedures for the temporary import and export and the 
transit of firearms, their parts and components and ammunition for verifiable lawful purposes 
such as hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs (Art. 10.6). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
In case of temporary transfers, the authorisation may be executed by agencies competent 
for controls at the EU external border points (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 silent consent for the transit requirement. With regard to 
the silent consent actually two sub options could 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 longer 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  international  transit,  for  the  transfer  of 
firearms for civilian use, their parts and components 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 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
7. 

ASSESSING THE POLICY OPTIONS 

7.1. 

Assessment criteria  

The  criteria  for  realising  the  comparison  between  the  different  policy  options  take  into 
consideration the policy objectives, the expected impacts, and the other issues influencing the EU 
action when the proposal of legislative instruments is concerned.  

•  Relevance, with regard to likely achievement 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  the  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 commercial 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  risks  of  diversion  of  firearms  for 
civilian use from the legal market into the illegal market will persist and the tracing needs will 
not be ensured. The difficulties encountered in enforcement 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  option  will  not  require 
additional  resources.  However  the  possibility  of  including  simplified  procedures  (and  therefore 
reducing  the  resources/burden)  would  be  missed.  Impacts  on  competitiveness,  trade  and 
investment flows: If the transfers of firearms for civilian 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,  confusion  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 remain the same because legislation is already 
sufficient.  However,  most  Member  State  stakeholders  and  NGO  stakeholders  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 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Policy  Option  2:  Regulation  focusing  on  the  effectiveness  to  achieve  optimal  security: 
Relevance/ Objectives to achieve: EU's international obligations will be fulfilled and a coherent 
EU trade regime will be established by implementing 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),  the  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  environment  in  the  EU,  in  the  Member  States  implementing  Article  10,  thereby 
establishing  a  coherent  EU  trade  regime,  minimising  the  current  risk  caused  by  the  present 
differences in rules between EU Member States. Having a uniform set of rules that apply to all 
Member  States  is  beneficial  for  law  enforcement.  Implementing  the  ‘shall’  provisions  will 
provide  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  with  a  control-  and  monitoring  tool  for  the  transfer  of 
firearms  for  civilian  use,  and  will  thereby  improve  security.  Administrative  burden  and 
financial  costs:  Implementing  the  ‘shall’  provisions  would  require  considerable  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, office 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 efficiency 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 administrative 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.  Since  this  policy  option  would  require  additional 
procedures, without the possibility of  simplified provisions for temporary import and export of 
firearms for civilian use, the administrative burden on Member States would also be increased. 
The additional administrative costs on Member States' administrations would 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  standardised  documents.  Impacts  on  competitiveness,  trade  and 
investment  flows:  Implementing  in  all  EU  Member  States  the  strictest  measures  for  the 
applications  of  license  and  authorisation  for  the  transfer  of  firearms  for  civilian  use  with  third 
countries,  could  have  a  negative  impact  on  individual  Member  States  which  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 need to apply the same rules. This eliminates 
the  effect  of  one  Member  State  with  less  strict  rules  or  simplified  procedures  having  a 
competitive advantage over another Member State with 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 implement the less strict provisions, or that did 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
not  implement  Article  10  of  the  UNFP  at  all.  Impacts  on  third  countries:  Third  countries 
benefit  also  from  an  improved  security  of  the  EU’s  transfers  of  firearms  for  civilian  use. 
Obligations  such  as  the  mandatory  use  of  original  documents,  no  possibility  to  use  a  silent 
consent for transit, the requirement that the licences 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 civilian 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 import 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' authorities 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  and  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  civilian  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 addresses specifically 
firearms  for  civilian  use  (some  Member  States  use  the  same  structure/regime  indifferently  for 
military and civilian firearms).This means that the ‘shall’ provisions of Article 10 would require 
Member  States  to  adapt  such  provisions  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 the transfers will increase by obliging all Member 
States  to  require  a  similar  authorisation  procedure.  The  use  of  simplified  procedures  could, 
however,  have  a  small  risk  of  an  increased  incidence  of  diversion  of  hunting  or  sport  shooting 
rifles from the legal market into the illegal market of the EU and/or third countries. Also, adding 
to the Regulation the possibility of a positive silent consent for transit can have a negative impact 
on security, since it imposes the risk of diversion and reduced tracing capabilities for trade with 
third countries that do not show interest in observing the UN rules. In case of the first sub-option 
(5 working days) this risk would be slightly bigger, as the transit state would be given less time 
to react. The decision on the use of the silent consent in transit procedure 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 for purposes of hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, 
exhibitions  and  repairs,  thanks  to  the  implementation  of  the  "may"  provisions.  Moreover  the 
establishment of a period of maximum processing time would result in increased efficiency. In 
addition,  provisions  on:  a)  the  private  parties  responsible  for  acquiring  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  documents  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 

30 

   EN 

 
comparison  to  the  present  situation  (period  for  processing  applications  varies  from  5  days  to  1 
year). The use of a positive silent consent - regardless which of the two sub-options is adopted 
(shorter  or  longer  time  period  to  take  it  effect)  within  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  purposes,  could  have  a  high  positive  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 for firearms licence purposes in order to avoid the 
risk that a transfer is not authorised by the transit State. Private stakeholders would see the use of 
the  silent  consent  as  an  acceptable  mitigation  of  the  potential  negative  impact  of  the 
implementation of the related Art.10 provision. Many other actors (public and private) judged the 
other  elements  (standardisation  of  documents,  open  licences  with  regard  to  multiple  shipments 
and a maximum duration of processing the application) positively. 

Policy  Option  4:  Regulation  focusing  on  efficiency  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 civilian 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 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 decrease 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’  provisions)  is  the  least  burdensome  for  the  Member 
States compared to policy option 2, as more flexibility is allowed to apply the rules for purposes 
of hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions and repairs. Compared to policy option 3, this 
option further minimises the burden for Member States by not setting a maximum duration to the 
procedure, and not obliging Member States to appoint a designated official, office or department. 
The Regulation would impose minimum common principles for the authorisation procedure for 
the import/export and transit of firearms 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 for temporary transfers. Nevertheless, if compared to policy option 
3, option 4 offers a small additional negative impact on administrative costs 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  Member  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 multiple 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 temporary import and export for lawful purposes, could 
have a high positive 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 

EN 

31 

   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 they argued that a silent consent 
should not be used. On the other hand, the private stakeholders believed that documents should 
be  standardised,  there  should  be  a  maximum  duration  of  processing  the  application  forms  and 
that silent consent could be explored with reference to the transit measures. The majority of the 
private  stakeholders  also  mentioned  that  appointing  a  specific  official,  office  or  department 
would be beneficial for businesses. 

EN 

32 

   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  

Relevance 

To ensure  accomplishment of the Common Commercial Policy as  a matter of exclusive 
competence of the Union with respect to export, import and transit measures for firearms 
for civilian use  

To contribute to the improvement of security with respect to firearms for civilian use  

0 

0 

0 

Feasibility 

The difficulty/risks of transposition 

Not applicable 

Social/Security 
impacts 

Economic 
Impacts 

Impacts on crime, terrorism and security 

The financial and administrative costs 

Impacts on competitiveness, trade and investment flows 

0 

0 

0 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

√√ 

-- 

- 

√√ 

√√ 

√ 

- 

√ 

- 

√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√ 

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. The definition of net impact used here is positive impact 
minus negative impact. 

EN 

33 

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  parties  argued  that  the 
current legislation on the import and export of firearms is in their opinion sufficient, and that 
Member States already have strict regulations concerning this issue. Moreover, private parties 
stress that, in their view, implementing Article 10 will have negative consequences for small 
and medium-sized enterprises. Many private/private 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  during  the  consultation  was  that  of  the  use  of 
silent  consent,  where  private  stakeholders  agree  while  some  Member  States  and  NGO's  do 
not.  

There  was  in  the  essence  unanimity  on  the  fact  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  private  stakeholders  were  also  in  favour.    A 
maximum  duration  of  the  process  of  issuing  export  or  import  licences  was  also  seen  as  an 
advantage by private parties and NGOs.  

Private and Public stakeholders have a different 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  version),  the  latter  depending  on  a  "security"  or 
"simplification"  approach.  The  use  of  standardised  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 firearms, where possible by also making a distinction 
between the different forms for temporary import or export. There was no consensus on the 
activities  to  be  admitted  to  the  simplified  procedures.  According  to  some  of  the  Member 
States, simplified procedures should be limited to hunters and sport shooters only (while the 
UNFP  includes  consideration  also  for  other  activities  such  as  exhibition  or  repairs.  The 
possibility  for  hunters/sport  shooters  of  using  the  European  Firearms  Pass  and  official 
invitation to an event outside the EU was also suggested. 

7.5. 

Identification of the preferred policy option 

The  preferred  policy  option  is  based  on  an  assessment  of  the  policy  options  1  to  4  and 
consultations  with  stakeholders  from  NGOs,  retailers,  industry  and  contact  persons  of 
Member States. This option fulfils the objectives of implementing Art 10 UNFP by meeting  
best  all  of  them  and  is  the  best  way  forward  by  combining  the  "shall"  provisions  -  to  be 
tailored and balanced with regard 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  third  country  with  his/her  firearms  -  is 
obliged  to  follow  the  same  stricter  rules  for  a  temporary  exportation  made  only  for  the 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
purposes of exercising its his/her recreational activity or to a participate 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  tracing  is  lower  which  justify  the  possibility  of 
having more relaxed provisions (this is why the UNFP makes it possible this option, even if it 
is not mandatory). The simplified procedure could 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  provision  should  be  aligned  with  existing  customs 
procedures with regard to temporary exports. Another condition could be that of requiring the 
notification  of  any  temporary  transfer  to  a  third  country  to  the  country  of  residence  of  the 
temporary exporters. 

Preferred Policy option 

On the basis of the assessment of the four elaborated 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 for each one of them, in order to achieve both a 
higher degree of effectiveness and 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 silent 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 notification (and that of the no-objection) is that of 
giving  the  possibility  to  the  transit  State  of  being  aware  of  the  crossing  of  its  territory  by  a 
shipment of firearms: therefore its objective 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  provision  and  suggested  the  reflection  of  the  UNODC  on  the 
envisaged silent procedure. The UNODC took note at technical level of this point 

EN 

35 

   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 

fulfil 

 To 
international 
obligations  of  the  EC  with 
regard  to  implementation  of 
art 10 of the UNFP. 

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. 

to 

contribute 

the 
To 
improvement  of  security  with 
respect to firearms for civilian 
use.  

Feasibility 

difficulty/risks 

The 
transposition. 

for 

Economic impact 

√ 

International obligations of the EC will be met.  

√ 

√ 

0 

A coherent EU trade regime will be established by 
implementing  Article  10,  which 
enhances 
cooperation between Member States. 

It would ensure the accomplishment of ensuring a 
common commercial policy in the field.  

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. 

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 
their  national  organization.  However, 
adapt 
simultaneously implementing the ‘may’ provisions 
would mitigate the impact of the possible changes. 

The 
administrative costs. 

financial 

and 

- 

The  ‘shall’  requirements  of  Article  10  in  general 
could impose some additional administrative costs 
on EU businesses. However, by also implementing 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Criteria  

Rating  Motivation  of  the  rating  and  aspects  of  the 

Preferred Policy option  

policy option necessary to achieve the impact 

the ‘may’ provisions the possible negative impact 
on  financial  and  administrative  costs  would  be 
mitigated.  

to 

procedure  would 

Moreover,  by  tasking  the  parties  to  acquire  the 
‘notice  of  no  objection 
transit,  allowing 
businesses  to  obtain  an  open  licence  for  multiple 
shipments,  setting  a  maximum  duration  to  the 
licence 
the 
authorisation  procedures  and  further  mitigate  the 
risk  of  additional  administrative  costs  for  EU 
businesses. In addition, the 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. 

speed 

up 

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  already  apply  the  "Shall 
provisions  could  be 
since  more 
documents  and  information  have  to  be  assessed. 
However,  the  impact  on  administrative  costs  of 
EU  Member  States  is  less  negative  compared  to 
solely implementing the ‘shall’ provisions.  

foreseen, 

to 

the 

Compared 
‘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, 

Impacts  on  competitiveness, 
trade and investment flows 

√ 

EN 

37 

   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.  

in 

the 

flexibility 

Allowing  more 
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.  

the 

the 

‘shall’ 
implementation  of 
Overall, 
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. 

A positive security impact can also be expected on 
third  countries,  in  particular  those  living  through 
armed  strife.  On  the  other  hand,  security  is  a 
precondition 
social 
development. 

economic 

and 

for 

√ 

√ 

Social/Security  Impacts 

Impacts 
terrorism and crime 

on 

security, 

Impacts on third countries 

Stakeholders’ view 

Stakeholders  (private,  public  and  NGOs)  argued 
that documents should be standardised and a time 
limit  for  the  duration  of  processing  application 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Criteria  

Rating  Motivation  of  the  rating  and  aspects  of  the 

Preferred Policy option  

policy option necessary to achieve the impact 

forms  should  be  established.  Some  of  them 
mentioned  that  a  distinction  could  be  made 
between  the  different  forms  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. 

are 

temporary 

transactions 

In  countries  like  Belgium,  exporters  complained 
about  the  long  waiting  time  required  for  the 
delivery  of  temporary  licenses  while  according  to 
them, 
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 
that  maximum 
exporters.  Exporters 
in  advance,  with 
deadlines  be  determined 
simplified  and  harmonised  procedures  at  the  EU 
level.  The  preferred  option  would  address  these 
concerns  while  taking  into  account  the  needs  to 
ensure  a  certain  level  of  security.  The  specific 
simplified 
the 
implementation of Art 10 UNFP par 6 should not 
have  any  negative  economic  impacts;  to  the 
contrary,  it  could  result  in  lower  procedural  costs 
and  reduce  the  risk  of  losses  for  importers  and 
exporters. 

provisions 

addressed 

request 

by 

7.7. 

Assessment of financial and administrative costs of the preferred policy option 

Regarding  the  financial  and  administrative  costs,  a  distinction  is  made  between  costs  for 
businesses and costs for public authorities of Member States. 

The  assessment  of  costs  focuses  on  the  administrative  costs  for  businesses  and  public 
authorities.  It  is  based  on  the  data  made  available  by  Public  authorities  and  private  parties, 
plus  figures  extracted  from  the  EUROSTAT  database.  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 

39 

   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 following 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  that  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 number 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 representative of private parties who referred to 15/20 000 licences 
for exports and 5 000 licences for imports, per year.  

II. Estimation of current 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  firearms  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  application  forms  differs  in  (and  within)  the 
different  Member  States.  The  duration  businesses  have  to  take  into  account  before  they 
receive  their  licence  is  to  be  considered.  It  also  depends  on  the  type  of  firearm  and  the 
countries involved in the transaction. However, this duration of processing is not included in 
the  definition  of  administrative  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 for public authorities of Member States 

37 Taking into account that the Member States that replied to the consultation account for more than 40 percent 
of the total import and export. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
None of the interviewed authorities 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  countries,  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 preferred policy option for businesses 

Since transit apparently involves only 10% of the shipments, and taking into account the use 
of  standardised  or  electronic  documents  and  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  familiarise  themselves  with  the  new  provisions, 
and for training staff to work with the modified/additional procedures. However most of the 
consulted  representatives  of  MSs  believed  that  no  immediate  or  long-term  budgetary 
consequences would occur for public authorities at different levels of government. 

C.  Comparison  of  estimated  financial  and  administrative  costs  for  business  and  public 
authorities between current situation 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 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Financial  costs  for  businesses  getting  accustomed  to  the  new  Regulation  will  probably 
increase as well. On reverse, only a small increase (if 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 signature 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  such  as  hunting  and  sport  shooting.  This  will 
significantly  mitigate  the  possible  additional  administrative  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  implementation  of  whole  UN 
Firearms  Protocol  -  contributes  to  improving  the  internal  EU  security,  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  crucial  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  regarding  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 illicit manufacturing and illicit trafficking. The 
envisaged provisions, added to the guarantee of sufficient marking and of the other parts of 
the UNFP already implemented41, 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 systematic combating of arms crime, as requested 
by the Council in its recommendation of 12/13 June 2007. It will also give a response to the 
request  of  the  International  Community  (United  Nations,  NGOs,  etc)  for  implementing 
existing instruments and better tracing firearms. 

Whenever  a  new  system  is  established,  or  changes  are  made  to  an  existing  one,  the  first 
tendency is to consider nothing but the added cost of the newer system. On the contrary, the 
establishment  of  a  system  which  tends  to  establish  common  principles  within  the  Member 
States can have potential indirect economic impacts, 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  determine  in  advance.  It  would  include  not  only  pure 
economic  impacts  but  also  other  possible  positive  aspects  like  reduction  of  costs  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 

42 

   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 implemented a number of rules for the transfer of 
firearms, the total number of licences 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 current situation in the Member States. Since one 
of the most controversial issues is that linked to the duration of the receipt of the notice of no 
objection  of  the  transit  State  and  the  consequence  of  additional  long-term  costs  for  EU 
businesses, the preferred policy option neutralises 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 standardised and electronic documents and - in particular 
- the maximum duration of three months for the whole procedure of processing an application. 

Proportionality. The instrument chosen  is a  Regulation, which is the legislative instrument 
needed to address and ensure commercial policy matters and the appropriate one in order to 
fulfil the obligations of the European Union following 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 the mandatory provisions of Article 10. On the 
whole,  the  preferred  option  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  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  implementation  of  the  ‘may’  provisions  of  Art  10 
UNFP, plus in particular provisions aimed at reducing the burden of administrative rules, in 
particular those related to the transit measures. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  subsequent  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  preferred  policy  option  is  important  to 
assess its efficiency and effectiveness in addressing the underlying problems and meeting the 
policy objectives. 

The table in Annex XIV includes a list of possible indicators aimed at assessing the progress 
and  the  effectiveness  of  the  preferred  option  in  achieving  the  main  policy  objectives.  In 
relation to these possible quantitative indicators, sources of information that could be used to 
collect related data and other information are presented. 

In particular with regard to the contribution to security, the monitoring will include - as far as 
possible  and  where  feasible  –  level  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 agencies 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 Art 10 -. The UNFP as a whole provides instruments by means of 
which reducing the risk of diversion and to facilitate the investigation ex-post, making the life 
of criminals more difficult. The requested progress 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, exchange information, details on the shipments 
to make it possible to shed light on the story of a firearm once this is found in the scene of 
crime or when it is found in the illegal market. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
As far as monitoring is concerned, it could involve reporting activities pertaining to both the 
Commission and the Member States. A reporting system at Member State level could be set 
up by means of a specific provision in the Regulation. 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  established  and/or  based  on  available 
statistics. 

On the basis of this and other available information, 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 examination 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  considered  to  enhance  existing  or  introduce  new 
tools  (e.g.  dedicated  databases,  electronic  information  exchange,  etc)  to  facilitate  the 
exchange  of  information  and  the  cooperation  and  further  facilitate  the  functioning  of  the 
system  in  the  light  of  the  first  period  of  application.  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  for  reaching  the  final  goal  of  its  conclusion 
(ratification) - for the time being appears premature. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex I 

Article 10 

“General requirements for export, import and transit licensing or authorization systems 

“1.  Each  State  Party  shall  establish  or  maintain  an  effective  system  of  export  and  import 
licensing or authorization, as well as of measures on international transit, for the transfer of 
firearms, their parts and components and ammunition. 

“2. Before issuing export licences or authorizations for shipments of firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition, each State Party shall verify: 

“(a) That the importing States have issued import licences or authorizations; and 

“(b) That, without prejudice to bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements favouring 
landlocked  States,  the  transit  States  have,  at  a  minimum,  given  notice  in  writing,  prior  to 
shipment, that they have no objection to the transit. 

“3. The export and import licence or authorization 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  country  of  export,  the  country  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  transit.  The  information  contained  in  the  import 
licence must be provided in advance to the transit States. 

“4.  The  importing  State  Party  shall,  upon  request,  inform  the  exporting  State  Party  of  the 
receipt of the dispatched shipment of firearms, their parts and components or ammunition. 

“5. Each State Party shall, within available means, take such measures as may be necessary to 
ensure  that  licensing  or  authorization  procedures  are  secure  and  that  the  authenticity  of 
licensing or authorization 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  components  and  ammunition  for  verifiable  lawful 
purposes such as hunting, sport shooting, evaluation, exhibitions or repairs.” 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
List of consulted private stakeholders'42 and NGOs who replied to the request for 
data/interviews, invited/attended meetings, etc. 

Annex II 

•  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 Armes de Chasse et de Sport),  

•  ANPAM/Italy 

(National  Association  Producers  of  Firearms  and  Ammunition 

"Associazione Nazionale di Produttori 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 Syndicale Nationale de Fabricants et Distributeurs),  

•  ASOCIACIÓN ARMERA/Spain,  

•  Consorzio Armaioli Bresciani/Italy, 

•  Dutch association for the trade in firearms/The Netherlands, 

•  GRIP, (Group Recherche et Information 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 Chambers of Commerce and Industry", 

•  the  "Union  des  Industries  de  la  Communauté  européenne"  (UNICE)  now  called 

"Businesseurope", 

•  the "European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" (UEAPME), 

as well as other NGOs/Research institutions 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,  according  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  the  same  purposes).  However  as  explained  in  the  IA, 
prudence  should  be  used  since  difficulties  were  found  along  all  the  exercise  for  obtaining  figures  from  the 
business sector. 

EN 

46 

   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  Shotguns,  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 With 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 

47 

   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. Of 

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 

48 

   EN 

 
Number of exported and imported firearms for 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 

Annex IV 

Austria 

Belgium  

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic  

Germany  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

United kingdom 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

EU27  

4 242

1 052

75

49 963

35 063

1 879

€ 5 887 841 

2 645

€ 534 350 

€ 1 015 271 

13 533

€ 7 626 914 

€ 64 694

€ 11 031 481 

2 400

1 054

€ 742 596

€ 423 328

€ 38 581 521 

60 888

€ 8 550 407

€ 509 311 

6 487

€ 1 528 353

492

€ 125 531

6 420

€ 4 961 547 

9 150

€ 2 649 004

34 482

€ 11 187 094 

7 083

€ 1 685 679

2 426

8 090

1 109

1 083

3

€ 2 067 702 

31 006

€ 5 897 307

€ 19 162 231 

26 914

€ 6 924 771

€ 344 734

6 416

€ 1 132 767

€ 17 225

€ 3 736

961

€ 250 422

2 383

€ 633 908

270 967

€ 134 070 737

18 710

€ 5 570 082

1

€ 3 131

806

€ 122 576

9

729

264

710

€ 21 628

€ 189 218

€ 72 855

€ 131 123

381

2 161

€ 363 985

€ 42 269

21 817

€ 784 009

19 367

€ 8 238 230

313

€ 90 852

3 681

€ 592 707

3 154

€ 756 731

0

0

€ 92 217

€ 1 225

0

264

€ 40 132

€ 63 496

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 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
€
                                                 
Export and import value of pistols and revolvers expressed 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 200744. 

Export pistols and revolvers Import pistols and revolvers 

Member States 

Export value  % of total 

Import value  % of total 

Annex V 

Austria 

Belgium  

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic  

€ 13 096 345 

Germany  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

€ 41 686 799 

€ 54 532 

€ 156 832 

€ 66 179 

€ 1 950 

€ 197 821 

€ 3 867 780 

€ 248 185 

€ 2 020 

€ 923 201 

€ 474 615 

37%

30%

1%

0%

0%

United Kingdom 

€ 2 050 953 

4%

€ 151 364 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

€ 30 640 541 

13%

€ 3 321 774 

€ 382 

Luxembourg 

€ 20 471 

77%

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

EU27  

€ 1 196 443 

€ 161 554 

€ 91 104 

€ 117 427 

€ 108 403 

 89 447 583 

29%

1%

1%

18%

31%

13%

€ 7 185 

€ 4 101 

€ 45 423 

€ 7 249 

€ 85 000 

€ 56 373 

€ 68 661 

€ 76 398 

 9 539 482 

0%

5%

8%

3%

0%

7%

8%

0%

0%

12%

4%

1%

35%

0%

2%

1%

25%

11%

4%

44 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
€
€
                                                 
Value of export and import of parts and components 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 200745. 

Export parts and components 

Import parts and components 

Member States 

Export value  % of total 

Import value  % of total 

Annex VI 

Austria 

Belgium  

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic  

Germany  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

United Kingdom 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

EU27  

€ 21 040 026

€ 192 959

€ 8 052

€ 3 397 112

€ 27 719 317

€ 3 082 795

€ 1 616 856

€ 741 720

€ 3 903 039

€ 11 390 508

€ 4 500

€ 92 913 

74%

12%

0%

10%

20%

67%

4%

4%

5%

20%

0%

2%

€ 5 202 745 

€ 1 088 271 

€ 11 529 

€ 2 408 180 

€ 11 944 156 

€ 1 546 535 

€ 40 664 

€ 1 691 275 

€ 1 395 745 

€ 1 426 447 

€ 6 478 918 

€ 40 779 

€ 62 145 

€ 65 432 

€ 26 238 145

11%

€ 9 085 186 

€ 3 000

11%

€ 9 412

€ 2 248 616 

€ 8 589 336

€ 136 217

€ 130 739

€ 174 087

 110 719 349

2%

55%

49%

1%

20%

49%

16%

€ 12 244 

€ 32 902 

€ 38 886 

€ 1 834 

€ 622 739 

€ 590 193 

€ 2 069 736 

€ 935 550 

€ 39 497 

€ 237 159 

 47 068 747 

80%

7%

1%

63%

23%

21%

4%

14%

24%

7%

14%

2%

4%

6%

34%

2%

19%

8%

1%

16%

20%

60%

19%

14%

35%

21%

45 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
€
€
                                                 
Annex VII 

Value of export and import of ammunition 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 200746. 

Export ammunition 

Import ammunition 

Member States  Export value  % of total 

Import value  % of total 

€ 1 068 155 

4%

€ 729 757 

€ 291 517

18%

€ 7 784 196 

Austria 

Belgium  

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic  

€ 7 170 693 

€ 2 880 343 

95%

20%

€ 196 935 

€ 746 116 

Germany  

€ 28 991 000 

21% € 26 378 855 

Denmark 

€ 885 791

19%

€ 4 002 076 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

€ 27 

100%

€ 962 121 

€ 31 416 830 

€ 5 809 367 

82%

33%

€ 6 894 981 

€ 2 241 528 

€ 76 874 578 

92% € 13 156 299 

United Kingdom 

€ 24 863 249 

43% € 32 168 260 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

€ 2 946 304 

€ 5 077 532 

€ 48 759 541 

Lithuania 

€ 1 883 631 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

88%

98%

20%

66%

€ 1 103 097 

€ 1 143 927 

€ 428 215 

€ 8 512 941 

€ 66 971 

€ 107 795 

€ 212 324 

€ 6 150

100%

€ 11 351 

11%

47%

20%

19%

51%

54%

84%

56%

38%

64%

70%

48%

75%

37%

32%

10%

64%

45%

9%

46 Analysis of Regioplan Policy Research (2008) of data extracted from the Combined Nomenclature dataset of 
the Eurostat database. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

EU27  

€ 171 369

€ 616 355

31%

15%

€ 3 024 652 

€ 1 558 432 

€ 479 459

3%

€ 1 203 145 

€ 9 054 432 

€ 324 356

€ 7 221

92%

49%

2%

€ 3 140 788 

€ 106 799 

€ 274 524 

79%

52%

35%

64%

39%

41%

 249 577 900

36% €

 116 156 085 

52%

EN 

53 

   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 million 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 combined civilian, law enforcement, and 
military firearms in the world today. 
The rising availability of handguns has transformed urban weapons 
ownership, while semi- or fully automatic 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 the 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 according to who possesses the firearms.  

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of issued import and/or export licenses47 related to the imported and/or 
exported quantity (in numbers) of firearms, their parts and components and 
ammunition48. 

Annex IX 

Member State 

Number  of 
and/or 
licences 

import 
export 

Export 
quantity 
firearms  for  civilian 
use 

Import 
quantity 
firearms  for  civilian 
use 

200 (civilian use)
2 000 (import and 
export)
12 (import/civilian 
use) 
563 (civ)
Export: 86 (firearms) 
95 (ammunition) 
Import: 200 (firearms) 
114 (ammunition)
Total: 495
1 923 (2006, import 
and export)
750 (civilian use)
2000 (export)
299 (2004)
221 (2005)
199 (2006)
Average: 240
2 700 (import and 
export)
4 162 + 500 (2006, 
import and export)
900 + 500 (2007, 
import and export)
Average: 3031
13914

Bulgaria 

Denmark 

Estonia 
Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 

Romania 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 
Subtotal 

Total  EU27  (civilian 
use) 
Total EU27 (military 
and civilian use) 

-

353 696

0
431 593

883 706

3
789 974
475

 -

30 759

-

383 603

2 310
268 596

65642

10 328
109 189
6 692

 -

6 695

1 445 926
3 936 132

1 017 549
1 870 604

10 359 214

2 789 587

11 064 407

3 522 989

47 Derived from consultations with Member States representatives. Only the Member States represented in this 
table provided data on licences. In some cases it is unclear whether the data on the number 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 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE 
PREFERRED POLICY OPTION. 

FURTHER DETAILS. 

Annex X 

A. Current situation with regard to financial and administrative costs  

I. Estimation of the number of licences 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  the  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  the  number  of  licences,  did  not  distinguish 
between the transfer of firearms for military 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 apply 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 licensing 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  and  components  and  ammunition  can  be  done  as 
following: 

Annual  total  number  of  issued  licences  in  11  Member  States  (those  who  provided  data)  = 
approximately 14.000. Total quantity of import and export of these Members States = 5.806 
736. Total quantity of import and export 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 

56 

   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 issued for military or for intra-EU transfers. 

The  roughly  estimation  of  the  number  of  licences  for  import/export  of  firearms  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  mentioned  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 current costs for businesses 

• 

Estimation of the duration of preparing for an export/import application 

Limited data were made available on the current annual administrative costs related to import 
and export licences and authorisations. According to some of the private parties interviewed, 
the  range  for  filling  in  an  application  form  for  a  licence  takes  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  assume  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 administrative burden per licence 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 businesses in the Member States to apply for import 
and export licences are comparable, the administrative 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  already  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 Member 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 administrative 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  application  forms  differs  in  (and  within)  the 
different Member States. Therefore, the duration businesses have to take into account before 
they receive their licence is insecure. The duration also depends on the type of firearm and the 
countries involved in the transaction. However, this duration of processing is not included in 
the  definition  of  administrative  costs  of  the  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 

57 

   EN 

 
Probably,  the  highest  (indirect)  costs  for  business  are  associated  with  the  procedure  time 
between the application for a licence 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 price) he is likely to choose the short one. Therefore, 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 application forms differs. The average time to process 
an application form for export or import varies from five days to six months, or one year in 
the  worst  cases.  Most  Member  States  that  replied  to  the  consultation  affirmed  that  the 
processing would not take more than 1 month (private stakeholders tended to provide longer 
estimations).  

The  representatives  of  the  Member  States  that  replied  to  the  consultation  were  unable  to 
provide  information  on  FTEs50  spent  on  processing  the  licences.  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 State 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 applications should be slightly 
higher,  since  a  part  of  the  applications  is  refused.  The  two  Member  States  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  example  only  20  out  of  750 
license requests were refused (2,6%).  

B. Future situation with regard to financial and administrative costs. 

• 

Estimation of impacts of the ‘shall’ provisions of the preferred policy option on 
financial and administrative costs 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 requirement with regard 
to an increase of costs for businesses. Compared to the current situation, 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 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to acquire a ‘notice of no objection’ of the transit 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  involved,  costs  for  businesses  could 
increase. Moreover, because the transit requirement 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 which 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 States this provision is not required.  

The implementation of the ‘shall’ requirements only of Article 10 of the UNFP, without other 
mitigation  measures,  would  probably  lead  to  an  increase  of  administrative  burdens  for 
businesses.  

Estimation  on  a  total  duration  for  applying  for  such  a  licence  is  at  least  at  5  to  10  hours 
depending if transit countries are involved or not. If a standard tariff is used of 50 Euros per 
hour,  this  corresponds  with  an  administrative  burden  per  licence  of  250  to  500  Euros. 
However, by using the accompanying measures mentioned 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 reply or said that only a 
small  impact  would  result  on  the  structural  administrative  costs.  Licensing  authorities  will 
have to assess more documents, including the notice of no objection of the transit States. Due 
to the lack of information in the different Member States on the number of FTEs spent on the 
current procedures, it was not possible to quantify this impact. 

• 

Estimation  of  impacts  of  mitigating  measures  of  the  preferred  policy  option  on 
financial and administrative costs 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 for 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 duration 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 use of electronic documents. 

EN 

59 

   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 administrative 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 using standardised and/or electronic documents would reduce the 
FTEs necessary for preparing and submitting providing applications for the import and export 
licence. Furthermore, if electronic 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 export with transit. In that 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 using 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, resulting 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 the 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/required 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 

60 

   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  representatives  of  Member  States 
argued  that  no  immediate  or  long-term  budgetary  consequences  would  occur  for  public 
authorities at different levels of government. The implementation of the provisions would not 
require  many  new  capacities,  much  restructuring  of  existing  public  authorities  or  many 
changes of current administrative procedures. Licensing authorities 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  increase  of  structural  costs  because  of  the  mentioned  lack  of 
data. If open licences for multiple shipments will become more common, the total number of 
licence applications would decrease as well, resulting in less expenses for public authorities of 
Member States. 

C.  Comparison  of  estimated  financial  and  administrative  costs  for  business  and  public 
authorities between current situation 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 administrative costs for businesses of: 

€ 4.375.000 to € 5.250.00052 

By  implementing  the  option  on  the  standardisation  of  documents  and  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 value of exports 2007 (see table 1)  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore by means of the use of open licences for multiple shipments the total number of 
licences would decrease by 30% an consequently 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 € 1.350.00053 to € 1.620.000. 

Moreover, the current costs for businesses are probably underestimated because some of the 
Member  States  have  already  implemented  parts  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  between  the  current  and  future  costs  could  be 
even smaller. 

Financial costs for businesses will probably increase 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 accustomed to the new Regulation.  

As mentioned before, only a small increase (if any) of costs for public authorities of Member 
States is expected, which in all cases was not possible to even only estimating, due to lack of 
information. 

However, adapting to the new Regulation, getting 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 value of exports 2007 (see table 1) 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex XI 

Zero base measurements of transactions 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 number of steps, of which the most important 
are: 

-  Registering  data  on  each  firearms  transaction  (number,  date,  type  of  firearm  or 
ammunition, quantity, name of buyer). 
- Filing the registered data and sending a copy to the proper authorities. 

The  total  costs  (in  time)  of  these  activities  are  approximately  8  hours  a  week  for 
licensed firearms traders. These costs are not specified per transaction.  

The time it takes to apply for an authorisation for receiving, transporting 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  are  approximately  100 
minutes. 

However  it  has  to  be  noted  that  these  measurements  took  place  only  in  the 
Netherlands and solely concerned the intra-EU transactions. 

54 Zero base measurement in the Netherlands, baseline of 31 December 2003. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Duration of the process (processing the application form and approval/refusal of a licence. 

Annex XII 

Country 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

Romania 

Sweden 

Duration of process 

10 days 

14 – 28 days 

A few days to several weeks 

30 - 90 days (maximum) 

10 days 

5 days to a few months 

7 – 30 days (maximum) 

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 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hypothetical example of the steps to be followed by a business (exporter/trade) and or an 
individual (hunter/sport shooter), based on the provisions of the preferred policy option  

Annex XIII 

EXPORTER
EXPORTER
commercial 
commercial 
purposes
purposes

EXPORTER
EXPORTER
recreational 
recreational 
purposes
purposes

OBTAIN AN IMPORT LICENCE/AUTHORISATION 
FROM IMPORTING THIRD COUNTRY

SIMPLIFIED, MINIMUM PROCEDURE 
FOR SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZATION

NOTIFY THE TRANSIT STATE - IF ANY –
OF THE INTENTION TO TRANSIT THROUGH THAT STATE
& ASKS FOR WRITTEN "NO OBJECTION" 

TRANSIT MEASURES DO NOT APPLY

ASK FOR EXPORT LICENCE/AUTHORIZATION 

PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 
WHICH INCLUDE INFORMATION FOR 
“TRACING” 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)

USE  OF ex. FIREARMS PASSPORT FOR CROSSING 
THE EU EXTERNAL BORDER
(OPTIONAL)

POSSIBLE  CLEARENCE PROCESS
AT EXTERNAL BORDER 

AUTHORIZATION PROCESS TIMING
REDUCED TO MINIMUM

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex XIV 

Indicators for monitoring and evaluation 

Potential indicator 
-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   
--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  

Sources of information 

Council 

UNODC 

- Administrative data 
from Member States’ 
authorities 
-Surveys from Member 
States’ authorities 
-Member States’ national 
legislation 

General objectives 

1.  To 

fulfil 

international 
obligations  of 
the 
EC  with  regard  to 
implementation  of 
the UNFP  

2.  To 

the 
ensure 
accomplishment  of 
Common 
the 
Commercial  Policy 
in 
a  matter  of 
exclusive 
competence  of  the 
Union and therefore 
introducing  uniform 
with 
principles 
respect 
to  export, 
import  and  transit 
measures 
for 
firearms  for  civilian 
use  (according 
to 
Article  10  of  the 
UNFP) 

3.  Contribute 

to 

the 
improvement 
of 
security  with  regard 
to import, export and 
transit of firearms for 
civilian  use.  Prevent 
diversion 
possible 
from the legal market 
and 
to 
contribute 
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  

EN 

66 

   EN