REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the assessment of the functioning of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances
Date: 2011-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europol, drug traffic, exchange of information, psychotropic substance

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.7.2011 
COM(2011) 430 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the assessment of the functioning of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the 
information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances 

{SEC(2011) 912 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the assessment of the functioning of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the 
information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

New psychoactive substances1 are becoming widely available at an unprecedented pace. The 
speed  at  which  they  appear  and  the  way  they  can  be  distributed  challenge  the  established 
procedures  for  monitoring,  responding  to  and  controlling  the  use  of  new  psychoactive 
substances,  according  to  a  2010  report  of  Europol  and  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).2  

Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of 
new  psychoactive  substances  adopted  on  10  May  20053  (‘the  Council  Decision’)  sets  up  an 
EU-wide  system  for  dealing  with  these  new  narcotic  drugs  and  psychotropic  substances 
entering the European market. It involves the exchange of information (early warning system) 
between  Member  States  on  such  substances,  their  risk  assessment  and,  if  necessary,  their 
submission to control measures and criminal sanctions4 across the EU.  

The present assessment is a follow-up to the recommendation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 
2009-2012,5  which  requires  the  Commission  to  ‘assess  the  functioning’  of  this  Council 
Decision  ‘and  amend  it,  if  necessary’.  The  Commission  has  done  this  with  the  support  of 
EMCDDA,  its  Scientific  Committee  and  Europol.  Member  States  provided  input  through  a 
survey (‘the Survey’)6. 

The  assessment  highlights  the  fact  that  the  market  for  new  psychoactive  substances  has 
changed  dramatically  in  the  past  three  years:  there  has  been  a  significant  increase  in  the 
number  of  substances  detected,  their  variety  and  the  diversification  of  their  distribution 

1 

2 

3 
4 

5 
6 

Under the definitions of the Council Decision (Article 3), ‘new psychoactive substance’ means a new 
narcotic drug or a new psychotropic drug in pure form or in a preparation; ‘new narcotic drug’ means a 
substance, in pure form or in a preparation, that has not been scheduled under the 1961 United Nations 
Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs,  and  that  may  pose  a  threat  to  public  health  comparable  to  the 
substances listed in Schedules I, II or IV; ‘new psychotropic drug’ means a substance in pure form or in 
a preparation that has not been scheduled under the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic 
Substances, and that may pose a threat to public health comparable to the substances listed in Schedules 
I, II, III or IV. 
EMCDDA-Europol  2010  Annual  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Decision  2005/387/JHA, 
p.15. 
OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32-37. 
Member  States  should  take  the  necessary  measures  by  virtue  of  their  obligations  under  the  UN  1971 
Convention  on  Psychotropic  Substances  and  the  1961  UN  Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs 
(Article  9  of  the  Council  Decision).  These  obligations  are  stated  under  Article  3  of  the  1988  UN 
Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances: ‘Each Party shall adopt 
such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  establish  as  criminal  offences  under  its  domestic  law,  when 
committed intentionally’ the production, manufacture, distribution, sale, delivery, transport, importation 
or exportation, the possession or purchase of any narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance. 
OJ C 326, 20.12.2008, p. 7–25. Action 69. 
See Annex (section 7) for a summary report of the findings of the survey. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
channels.  It  concludes  that  the  Council  Decision  is  not  an  adequate  instrument  to  address 
these  new  challenges.  The  Commission  therefore  invites  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  to  contribute  to  a  debate  on  ways  of  reinforcing  the  EU  legislation.  This  is  with  a 
view to possible Commission legislative proposals in 2012.  

2. 

NEW PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES IN THE EU: EVOLUTION AND CHALLENGES  

In the past five years, Member States have notified 115 psychoactive substances7 through the 
information exchange mechanism8 set up by the Council Decision. While in the period 2005-
2008 the number of new substances notified was stable at 10-15 a year, from 2009 there was a 
large increase in the number of notifications.  

Many new psychoactive substances are in fact variations within a specific group of chemicals 
and are similar to substances controlled at national level. Some are products containing herbal 
and  synthetic  compounds  that  appear  in  various  mixtures  in  different  Member  States.  One 
example  is  Spice,  a  mixture  containing  herbs  and  synthetic  cannabinoids  that  mimic  the 
effects of cannabis9. They are difficult to identify and regulate because of their diversity and 
the speed with which they are developed to replace those that are controlled. 

Many  of  these  substances  are  manufactured  in  commercial  laboratories,  probably  in  Asia10, 
and are often cheaper than illicit drugs. Despite their status as licit substances (‘legal highs’)11 
—  which  could  make  users  believe  that  they  are  safe  —  they  may  pose  a  threat  to  public 
health comparable with the illicit drugs listed in the so-called schedules to the United Nations 
Conventions  on  Narcotic  Drugs  and  on  Psychotropic  Substances.  Their  constituent 
compounds  and  the  effects  they  have  are  often  unclear.  Hence,  they  can  be  toxic,  addictive 
and  have  long-term  adverse  effects.  For  users,  the  main  sources  of  information  on  their 
potential  effects  and  risks  are  websites  and  messages  posted  on  the  internet  by  drug  user 
communities.  They  are  marketed  and  sold  mainly  through  specialised  shops,  illicit  drug 
sellers and over the internet.  

For many years specialised shops selling new psychoactive substances existed in only a few 
Member States. In the past two years, however, such shops have opened up at a rapid pace in 
several  countries,  including  Poland,  Ireland  and  Romania.  There  is  no  common  approach 
across the EU to the regulation of the specialised shops. Nevertheless, national decisions on 
these shops can have knock-on effects on other Member States’ policies12.  

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 

12 

See Annex (section 4 and 7) for a breakdown of notified substances, types and trends. 
The EMCDDA/ Europol Early Warning System, in which all Member States participate. 
Spice first appeared in Europe in 2006 and gained popularity in 2008. None of the Spice compounds 
have developed as a drug in its own rights; www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/thematic-papers/spice 
In particular in China and India. 
‘Legal highs’ is an umbrella term for internationally unregulated psychoactive compounds or products 
containing them, specifically designed to mimic the effects of known (established) drugs, often with the 
aim  of  circumventing  existing  drug  controls.  The  term  encompasses  a  wide  range  of  synthetic  and 
plant-derived substances and products, including ‘research chemicals’, ‘party pills’, ‘herbal highs’, etc., 
which  are  usually  sold  via  the  Internet  or  in  smart/head  shops,  advertised  with  aggressive  and 
sophisticated  marketing  strategies,  and  in  some  cases  intentionally  mislabelled  with  purported 
ingredients  differing  from  the  actual  composition.  The  ‘legal  highs’  market  is  distinguished  by  the 
speed at which suppliers circumvent drug controls by offering new alternatives to restricted products. 
For instance, recent interventions by the Polish authorities on over 1,300 head shops in the country has 
resulted in traders opening similar shops in neighbouring Czech Republic. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  EMCDDA’s  2010  snapshot  survey13  identified  136  online  shops  selling  new 
psychoactive  substances.  Most  of  these  shops  were  based  in  the  Netherlands,  the  UK  and 
Germany, but at least five were found in Poland, France and Hungary.  

The  Member  States  have  been  affected  by  new  psychoactive  substances  in  different  ways. 
They have used different laws to control or regulate the manufacture, sale and possession of 
new psychoactive substances, in particular drugs control and medicines legislation. They can 
also  use  legislation  based  on  several  directives  and  regulations14  that  tackle  food  safety,15 
consumer protection, dangerous substances and products at EU level.16 However, some new 
psychoactive substances are sold – for example - with the label ‘not for human consumption’, 
to circumvent drugs legislation17.  

3. 

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE COUNCIL DECISION 

The  Council  Decision  of  10  May  2005  was  adopted  on  the  basis  of  ex-articles  29,  31(1)(e) 
and  34(2)(c)18  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (third  pillar).  Its  rationale  was  to  enable 
Member States to tackle the emergence of psychoactive substances effectively by submitting 
them to EU-wide control measures.  

There are six steps in the procedure established by the Council Decision for submitting a new 
psychoactive  substance  to  control  measures:  1)  a  Member  State  provides  information  on  a 
new  substance  on  its  market;  2)  Europol  and  the  EMCDDA,  in  collaboration  with  the 
European Medicines Agency (EMA) prepare a Joint Report and submit it to the Council; 3) 
the  Council  requests  a  Risk  Assessment  from  the  EMCDDA;  4)  the  EMCDDA  submits  the 
risk assessment to the Council and the Commission; 5) the Commission presents an initiative 
for control measures to the Council; 6) the Council decides on the submission of the substance 
to control measures and on the obligation to introduce criminal law measures. This procedure 
has been used only twice since 2005. In 2007 the Council decided to submit BZP19 to control 
measures and in 2010 it submitted mephedrone.20  

13 
14 
15 

16 

17 

18 

19 
20 

EMCDDA, Annual Report 2010 on the State of the Drug Problem in Europe; p. 92-93. 
See Annex (section 5) for an overview of these EU instruments. 
Some  new  psychoactive  substances  can  be  treated  as  food,  since  any  substance  meant  to  be  ingested 
orally is considered to be food and subject to food safety legislation (Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 
178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general 
principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying 
down procedures in matters of food safety). 
Possession for personal use is not a criminal offence under medicines legislation, but is often so under 
drug  control  laws.  Food  safety  and  consumer  protection  legislation  requires  producers  to  prove  the 
safety of their products. 
Mephedrone, which was submitted to control measures across the EU on 2 December 2010 (OJ L 322, 
20.12.2010,  p.  44),  was  marketed  as  ‘plant  food’,  other  products  are  e.g.  sold  as  'bath  salts'  or  'room 
odorisers'. 
These  articles  deal  with  police  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  and  the  adoption  of 
measures  establishing  minimum  rules  relating  to  the  constituent  elements  of  criminal  acts  and  to 
penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. The Lisbon Treaty challenges the legal rationale of the 
Council Decision as it repealed ex-Article 34(2)(c) TEU, on the basis of which the decision to submit a 
substance to control measures could be taken. The decision to submit mephedrone to control measures 
could only be taken pursuant to the principle of preservation of the third pillar acquis. 
1-Benzylpiperazine. 
4-methylmethcathinone. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The scope of the Council Decision is defined by analogy with that of the drug control system 
as  foreseen  in  the  UN  Conventions  on  drugs,  which  it  seeks  to  reproduce  at  EU  level.21  It 
covers  substances  that  are  not  scheduled  under  these  Conventions  and  which  may  pose  a 
comparable threat to public health. It does not cover drugs precursors22 or substances that are 
used in the manufacturing of medicinal products23. The Council Decision does not intend to 
replace  Member  States’  legislation  on  new  psychoactive  substances,  but  rather  to  address 
those substances that are, or could become, a problem across the EU.  

4. 

FUNCTIONING OF THE COUNCIL DECISION  

A  record  number  of  new  substances  (41)  were  reported  in  2010,  more  than  a  third  of  all 
substances  notified  since  2005.  This  increase  in  the  number  of  notifications  illustrates  not 
only  the  rapid  rise  in  the  number  of  substances  available  in  the  EU  but  also  improved 
reporting  capacities  in  some  Member  States.  Five  countries  accounted  for  75 %  of  all  first 
notifications, with the UK reporting one third of new substances, which reflects the UK's high 
level reporting and identification capabilities.24 

Since not all Member States adopt a proactive approach (through controlled test purchases on 
the internet and from specialised shops) the number of new substances on the market may be 
higher than reported.  

Until now notifications from Member States have led to the publication of three Joint Reports: 
on  mCPP25  (2006),  BZP  (2007)  and  mephedrone  (2010).  The  Joint  Reports  on  BZP  and 
mephedrone were followed by risk assessment.26  

The  risk  assessments  on  BZP  and  mephedrone  provided  arguments  for  submitting  the 
substances to control measures. Both concluded that the substances posed risks for health and 
society  but  acknowledged  that  there  was  limited  scientific  evidence  on  the  acute  and  long-
term effects on health and fatalities, on consumption patterns and on prevalence.  

The Council Decision stipulates that, based on the findings of the risk assessment, the Council 
may decide on the submission of the substance to control measures and on the obligation to 
introduce  criminal  law  measures.  The  lack  of  alternatives  (i.e.  measures  other  than  criminal 
ones) mirrors the mechanism of the UN Conventions on illicit drugs. In both cases (BZP and 
mephedrone) when a substance was assessed, the Commission proposed — and the Council 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Article 3(b) and (c). 
Chemicals used to manufacture drugs. 
Article 7(3). 
See Annex (section 4). 
1-(3-chlorophenyl) piperazine. 
mCPP  was  not  assessed  because  the  substance  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  medicinal  products.  It 
could  not  be  followed up under  the pharmacovigilance  system  either. The  Council  Decision  does not 
foresee  monitoring  of  substances  not  submitted  to  risk  assessment,  but  reports  from  third  sources 
indicate  that  mCPP  continued  to  be  present  in  the  market,  as  such  or  in  ecstasy  tablets.  The 
pharmacovigilance  system  is  the  process  of  monitoring  the  safety  of  medicines  and  taking  action  to 
reduce their risks and increase their benefits. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  31  March  2004  laying  down  Community  procedures  for  the  authorisation  and 
supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines 
Agency. OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1-32. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
agreed27 — to submit it to control measures, requiring Member States to introduce criminal 
sanctions28. In the case of BZP, the Council Decision29 acknowledged that the risk assessment 
lacked  conclusive  evidence  on  the  overall  risks  of  the  substance  but  it  stated  ‘following  the 
precautionary principle’ that it was necessary to take measures because of its risk to health. 

5. 

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 

The  survey  conducted  among  the  Member  States30  shows  that  the  information  exchange 
mechanism  is  a  useful  tool  for  alerting  them  to  new  substances  detected  in  neighbouring 
countries.  However,  a  number  of  countries  point  out  that  additional  information  should  be 
provided, in particular toxicology or forensic information. Most Member States indicate that 
substances  that  are  not  submitted  to  risk  assessment  following  a  Joint  Report  should 
nevertheless be actively monitored. 

While the Scientific Committee acknowledges that risk assessments are inherently based on 
partial  knowledge,  given  the  scarcity  of  information  on  these  new  substances,  it  points  out 
that additional resources should be made available to support the risk assessment process, for 
instance for conducting toxicology tests. Several Member States back this view. 

Numerous  Member  States  are  concerned  that  the  Council  Decision  can  only  address  one 
psychoactive  substance  at  a  time.  They  argue  that  this  approach  prevents  a  comprehensive 
response, because as soon as a substance is submitted to control measures, a new one may be 
developed and easily marketed to replace it. It also makes it difficult to take action on drugs 
that  are  composed  of  several  substances,  in  various  combinations,  each  of  which  should  be 
studied individually. This is why no action was taken at EU level on Spice.  

A  number  of  Member  States  have  tried  addressing  several  substances  at  a  time,  adopting  a 
generic  approach,31  but  not  all  Member  States  use  this  method.  While  simultaneous  control 
measures for a group of chemically related substances is one way of dealing with the problem 
which  deserves  a  thorough  discussion,  to  assess  different  substances  simultaneously  is 
difficult in practice and scientifically less robust, as the effects and potential harm vary widely 
between  substances  included  in  any  generic  group.  The  Scientific  Committee  of  EMCDDA 
indicated that a broader discussion on chemically similar compounds could be included in risk 
assessments  to  provide  better  insights  into  related  substances  that  could  be  launched  in  the 
market.  

The survey showed that a large number of Member States see the current lack of alternatives 
to  criminal  control  as  inadequate  and  point  out  that  a  wider  range  of  options  should  be 
considered, in particular temporary control and risk management measures.  

As far as the timing for decision-making is concerned, all the Member States stress that swift 
action  is  necessary  to  tackle  new  psychoactive  substances.  According  to  the  survey  the 
majority  of  Member  States  believe  that  the  decision-making  process  is  too  slow:  BZP  was 

27 

28 
29 
30 
31 

Member  States  must  take  national  measures  to  implement,  within  one  year,  Council  decisions  to  this 
effect (Article 9(1)). 
COM (2007) 430 final, 17.7.2007; COM (2010) 583 final; 2010/0293 (NLE), 20.10.2010. 
OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p.45 — recital 8. 
See Annex (section 7) for a summary report of the findings of the survey. 
Simultaneous assessment and/or control of a group of chemically-related compounds. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
submitted  to  control  15  months  after  the  launch  of  the  Joint  Report,  and  mephedrone  12 
months after. 

Seventeen  Member  States  would  be  in  favour  of  a  fast-track/emergency  procedure,  in 
particular  when  a  substance  is  raising  considerable  concern  and  more  time  is  required  for 
conducting  further  scientific  research.  Certain  Member  States  already  use  this  emergency 
approach  —  an  accelerated  procedure  to  restrict  the  sale  of  new  substances  for  a  limited 
period of time. One Member State suggested that a standing committee could be set up so that 
EU  institutions  and  agencies  can  decide  on  temporary  measures.  Another  Member  State 
recommended caution with respect to emergency measures, pointing to the risk that the ban 
might not be lifted, even if the risk assessment fails to provide evidence of the harms caused 
by a substance. 

6. 

NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 

Although the public threat from new psychoactive substances might appear to be lower than 
that  of  traditional  illicit  drugs,32  the  duty  to  protect  public  health  leaves  no  room  for 
complacency. Therefore, a firm and comprehensive response should be developed at EU level 
to the frequent emergence and rising popularity of these substances. The key challenge is that 
they  are  manufactured  and  traded  in  a  regulatory  grey  area,  somewhere  between  drugs 
control, food safety, consumer protection, medicines and chemicals legislation. Authorities in 
many  Member  States  are  often  unsure  what  legislation  would  tackle  these  substances  most 
effectively.  

The Council Decision may be regarded both as a tool designed to protect public health as well 
as  a  criminal  justice  instrument,  aimed  at  addressing  new  psychoactive  substances  through 
enhanced law enforcement and judicial cooperation among the Member States. Nevertheless, 
it  has  been  extensively  applied  over  the  past  five  years,  mostly  as  a  public  health  tool, 
enabling  authorities  to  exchange  information  about  new  substances  and  to  understand  and 
anticipate  trends  in  this  rapidly  changing  market.  It  has  been  used  as  a  criminal  justice 
instrument  only  twice:  to  submit  two  substances  to  control  measures  and  subsequently  to 
criminal sanctions.  

Many substances that were notified by the Member States were not of EU-wide concern and 
were  therefore  dealt  with  at  national  level.  Certain  products,  for  instance  Spice,  raised 
concerns across several EU Member States, but were not dealt with at EU level because of the 
limited scope for action under the Council Decision to address such mixtures of substances. 
Several  other  substances  that  have  raised  public  health  concerns  could  probably  have  been 
tackled  at  EU  level  had  the  Council  Decision  offered  ‘lighter’  risk-management  options,  in 
addition to criminal control measures.  

Mirroring the UN Conventions on drugs, the scope of the current Council Decision limits the 
options  for  addressing  these  substances,  thus  reducing  the  number  of  substances  that  can 
effectively be tackled at EU level. Although there seems to be a  consensus  among Member 

32 

The risk assessment reports on BZP and mephedrone identified two deaths in which these substances 
appeared  to  be  the  sole  cause  of  death,  although  in  the  meantime  more  cases  were  confirmed.  The 
EMCDDA estimates that 7,500 to 8,000 individuals die every year in the EU as a result of opiate and 
cocaine  overdose.  10458/07,  CORDROGUE  35,  5.6.2007;  12658/10,  CORDROGUE  67,  29.7.2010. 
EMCDDA 2010 Annual Report on the State of the Drug Problem in Europe, p.16. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States that criminal law should be part of the answer to new psychoactive substances at EU 
level, most seem to agree that it is not always a sustainable option for tackling the spread of 
new  psychoactive  substances  and  at  any  rate  should  not  be  the  only  option.  Member  States 
agree  that  the  ultimate  goal  of  control  is  to  protect  citizens  from  the  unknown  risks 
surrounding these substances.  

The  information  exchange  and  risk  assessment  phases  allowed  Member  States  to  swap 
information and provided them with relevant and timely feedback on trends and developments 
in  this  rapidly  evolving  market.  Risk  assessment  provides  an  indispensable  pooling  of  EU-
wide  research,  but  it  needs  to  be  stepped  up,  so  that  decisions  are  based  on  evidence. 
According  to  the  Survey,  in  order  to  address  the  inherent  constraints  of  assessing  new 
substances  on  which  there  is  little  information,  resources  should  be  made  available,  in 
particular to support toxicology, forensic analysis and pharmacological studies.  

On  the  question  of  decision-making,  the  Survey  makes  it  clear  that  a  rapid  EU  response  is 
crucial.  According  to  some  Member  States  quicker  action  could  be  taken  using  instruments 
that work well in the fields of food and product safety and of dangerous chemicals. In some 
cases  these  could  be  intermediary  steps,  pending  a  decision  on  criminal  control  measures. 
These  systems  have  a  notification  and  information  exchange  mechanism,  as  well  as 
emergency  procedures  in  the  event  of  imminent  health  threats  (including  temporary  bans). 
They also have classification systems that enable authorities to act proportionately to the risk 
of  the  product  assessed.  Such  mechanisms  could  give  the  Member  States  greater  flexibility 
when deciding on the most appropriate way to tackle specific substances while enabling them 
to act faster.  

7. 

CONCLUSIONS — THE WAY FORWARD 

The  Council  Decision  on  new  psychoactive  substances  is  certainly  a  useful  instrument  for 
tackling  new  substances  at  the  EU  level,  in  particular  as  it  allows  for  an  exchange  of 
information among the Member States (early warning system). However, it appears from this 
assessment that it has three major shortcomings when it comes to submitting these substances 
to Europe-wide control measures: 

• 

• 

• 

It  is  not  able  to  tackle  the  large  increase  in  the  number  of  new  psychoactive 
substances  on  the  market,  because  it  addresses  substances  one  by  one,  through  a 
lengthy process. 

It is reactive, as substances submitted to control measures are quickly replaced with 
new  ones  with  similar  effects,  often  through  small  modifications  of  their  chemical 
composition.  

It lacks options for control measures. 

Therefore, subject to a further Impact Assessment, the Commission will examine the need for 
a  more  effective  legal  instrument.  It  will  examine  how  to  reconcile  the  need  for  a  rapid 
response with enhanced risk assessment of substances. It will assess measures to extend the 
support for collecting toxicological and forensic information. 

The  Commission  sees  the  need  for  a  comprehensive  response  at  EU  level,  closing  gaps 
between  drugs  control  and  other  types  of  legislation,  including  food  or  product  safety.  In 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
addition to criminal justice control measures, alternative risk management options would need 
to be assessed with a view to a faster response, at EU level, to the emergence of substances 
that raise concerns.  

To  improve  understanding  of  the  rapidly  evolving  market  for  new  psychoactive  substances, 
the  Commission  will  examine  ways  of  monitoring  substances  that  are  not  submitted  to  risk 
assessment but that cause concern33 as well as those subjected to control measures.  

Any legislative proposals on new psychoactive substances should be based on thorough and 
comprehensive analysis and debate. Therefore, the European Parliament and the Council are 
invited  to  take  part  in  the  debate  on  how  EU  legislation  in  this  field  could  be  made  more 
effective. In the autumn, the Commission intends to present to the European Parliament and 
the Council, the main objectives and options for revising Council Decision 2005/387/JHA.  

As legislation alone will not provide the complete answer to the complex challenge posed by 
new psychoactive substances, the Commission invites Member States to step up their efforts 
to  improve  the  efficiency  of  drug  information  and  prevention  programmes,34  which  should 
take into account the rising popularity of new psychoactive substances.  

33 
34 

E.g. mCPP and SPICE. 
The development of integrated and innovative approaches to identify, monitor and respond to trends in 
the consumption of new psychoactive substances is a priority under the Commission’s Drug Prevention 
and  Information  Programme.  Decision  No  1150/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  25  September  2007  establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013  the  Specific  Programme  ‘Drug 
prevention and information’ as part of the General Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice'; OJ L 
257, 03.10.2007, p. 23. 

EN 

9 

   EN