REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Possible advantages and disadvantages of reducing the classification to two categories of firearms (prohibited or authorised) with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market for the products in question through simplification.
Date: 2012-07-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: arms control, arms trade, classification, firearms and munitions, personal weapon, single market, traceability, trade restriction

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.7.2012  
COM(2012) 415 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Possible advantages and disadvantages of reducing the classification to two categories of 
firearms (prohibited or authorised) with a view to improving the functioning of the 
internal market for the products in question through simplification. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Possible advantages and disadvantages of reducing the classification to two categories of 
firearms (prohibited or authorised) with a view to improving the functioning of the 
internal market for the products in question through simplification. 

This  report  is  drafted  to  meet  one  of  the  requirements  of  Council  Directive  91/477/EEC  of 
18 June  1991  on  control  of  the  acquisition  and  possession  of  weapons,  as  amended  by 
Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008. 

1. 

DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC AND THE MATTER OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF FIREARMS 

1.1.  Directive  91/477/EEC  originally  constituted  an  accompanying  measure  for  the 
completion  of  the  internal  market.  In  exchange  for  a  certain  freedom  of  movement  for 
firearms  from  one  Member  State  to  another,  it  integrated  into  European  law  specific  safety 
guarantees suited to this type of product. 

1.2. The Directive has two annexes, the first of which (Annex I) classifies firearms primarily 
in  terms  of  their  degree  of  danger.  There  are  therefore  four  categories  (which  are  still  in 
force):  Category  A  consisting  of  prohibited  firearms  –  military  weapons;  Category  B 
including firearms subject to authorisation – used mostly by marksmen and hunters; Category 
C covering firearms subject to declaration – essentially firearms used by hunters; and finally 
Category D for other firearms – which mainly applies to one type of firearm1. 

1.3.  This  classification,  like  indeed  the  entire  scope  of  the  Directive,  sets  out  the  minimum 
requirements.  Under  Article  3  of  Directive  91/477/EEC2,  the  Member  States  may  draw 
stricter distinctions by,  for  example,  removing  Category  C  or  D,  or  by placing one  or  other 
specific firearm in a higher category for political or safety reasons or in line with their hunting 
traditions. 

1.4.  This  discretion  allowed  to  the  Member  States  reflects  the  character  of  the  Directive, 
which  does  not  attempt  full  harmonisation,  but  rather  provides  a  minimum  level  of  safety, 
without prejudice to the measures that the Member States might undertake to prevent illegal 
trade in weapons3. 

1.5. It should be pointed out that the Directive does not apply to the acquisition or possession 
of weapons by the armed forces, the police, the public authorities or by collectors and bodies 
concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the 
Member  State  in  whose  territory  they  are  established.  This  is  a  fundamental  distinction, 

1 
2 

3 

Single-shot long firearms with smooth-bore barrels 
“Member States may adopt in their legislation provisions which are more stringent than those provided 
for  in  this  Directive,  subject  to  the  rights  conferred  on  residents  of  the  Member  States  by  Article  12 
(2)”. 
As  stated  in  Recital  8  of  Directive  91/477/EEC:  “Whereas  the  Directive  does  not  affect  the  right  of 
Member States to take measures to prevent illegal trade in weapons”. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
differentiating between arms for civilian use and other types of equipment used by the armed 
forces or even sometimes by organised crime. 

1.6.  The  Commission  submitted  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  15  December  20004.  Its  conclusions,  which  were 
generally  favourable  and  did  not  call  into  question  the  categorisation  of  firearms  set  out  in 
Annex I, have not been challenged. 

2. 

THE  CLASSIFICATION  OF  FIREARMS  IN  THE  CONTEXT  OF  THE  ADOPTION  OF 
DIRECTIVE 2008/51/EC  OF 21 MAY 2008  AMENDING DIRECTIVE 91/477/EEC  AND 
THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR THIS REPORT 

2.1.  The  co-legislator’s  approach  to  this  matter  first  centred  on  two  main  considerations: 
reducing  the  classification  of  firearms  to  two  categories  (prohibited  or  subject  to 
authorisation)  would  be  both  safer  for  the  European  citizen  and  simpler  for  economic 
operators. 

2.2.  However,  this  view  was  not  shared  by  those  who  felt  that  the  Member  States  should 
retain  a  certain  degree  of  discretion  in  the  internal  classification  of  firearms,  provided,  of 
course,  that  the  minimum  thresholds  established  by  Annex  I  are  respected.  Nor  did  the 
economic operators, like the ordinary users of civilian firearms, appear any more convinced of 
the advantages of such a simplification.  

2.3.  These  views  were  summarised  in  recital  18  of  Directive  2008/51/EC,  which  stated  that 
“Several Member States have simplified the way they classify firearms by switching from four 
categories to [...] two. Member States should fall into line with this simplified classification, 
although  Member  States  which  divide  firearms  into  a  further  set  of  categories  may,  in 
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, maintain their existing classification systems.” 

2.4.  The  aim  of  this  report  is  therefore  to  re-examine  the  question  of  the  classification  of 
firearms with explicit reference to the better functioning of the internal market and in advance 
of the “report on the situation resulting from the application of this Directive, accompanied, 
if appropriate, by proposals” which the Commission must submit to the European Parliament 
and the Council by 28 July 2015, as set out in the Directive.  

2.5. With this in mind, the Commission has adopted an approach that involves the services in 
the Member States that are competent for firearms  (mainly Ministries of  the Interior and of 
Justice,  depending  on  the  Member  State),  to  whom  a  questionnaire  was  sent  in  November 
2011, and the main groups of users of civilian firearms – in particular manufacturers, retailers, 
hunters, hobby marksmen and collectors – who have been asked on several occasions for their 
opinion. 

2.6. A broad range of questions was put to the authorities of the Member States, covering the 
following aspects: 

(1) 

economic importance of the firearms manufacturing and retail sector 

(2)  number of registered hunters and hobby marksmen 

4 

COM(2000) 0837 final. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3)  number of European firearms pass holders 

(4) 

information on trends in crimes and offences over recent years 

(5) 

any problems in the tracing of firearms 

(6) 

systematic requirement of a licence to purchase a firearm 

(7)  validity of a licence for one or more firearms 

(8) 

implicit authorisation via another authorisation or licence 

(9)  possible existence of a simple declaration system 

(10)  interest in further mandatory restrictions on the categories in European law 

(11)  possible impact of those further restrictions on the economic sectors concerned 

(12)  possible improvements to be envisaged 

It  was  also  made  very  clear  that  the  questionnaire  referred  only  to  weapons  covered  by  the 
Directive, i.e. hunting and sporting weapons, and not military weapons. 

3. 

ASSESSMENT  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SECTOR  AND  THE  MAIN 
INDICATED  BY  THE  QUESTIONNAIRE;  GENERAL 
USERS  OF  FIREARMS  AS 
INFORMATION 

3.1.  One  group  of  Member  States  has  no,  or  almost  no,  manufacturing  industry  producing 
civilian firearms. The importance of this group lies in the fact that it consists of more than a 
dozen Member States. However, even if it manufactures very little, it does, in part, represent a 
significant  share  of  the  retail  market:  in  Finland,  for  example,  there  are  no  less  than  600 
dealers involved in retail and repairs, and in Hungary they number around 500. 

3.2.  Another  group  of  countries  has  a  relatively  solid,  often  traditional,  manufacturing 
industry, although its production levels are not very high. This group includes Slovakia, the 
Czech Republic, Austria and Poland. These Member States have, however, a fairly significant 
number  of  dealers,  repairers  or  retailers;  Poland,  for  example,  accounts  for  around  500 
dealers, and Austria 7005. 

3.3. The most heavily-populated Member States are the ones with the main production areas, 
although this is becoming less systematic as the manufacturing  industries decline. Although 
Germany  and  Italy  still  retain  an  important  level  of  manufacturing,  often  geared  towards 
exports6, France, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Spain have seen a major decline 
in  the  manufacture  of  arms  for  civilian  use.  However,  some  of  these  countries,  such  as 
France7, still maintain an important network of dealers.  

5 
6 

7 

Source for Austria: European Association of the Civil Commerce of Weapons 
85 to 90% of the German production of firearms for civilian use is exported to third countries or EU 
Member States (source: Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Firearms). 
According to figures published by the European Institute for Hunting and Sporting Weapons, arms are 
the main business of between 800 and 1000 sales outlets in France. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.4.  The  largest  numbers  of  hunters  and  hobby  marksmen  are  found  in  the  most  heavily-
populated Member States. The figure given for hunters in France is more than 1 400 000, with 
around 850 000 in Italy and more than 1 500 000 in Spain. The number of hobby marksmen 
has always been lower than that of hunters, but is still significant: around 300 000 for Italy, 
213 000 for France and around 14 600 for Poland. 

3.5.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  some  Member  States  with  smaller  populations  (below  the 
EU average) have a high proportion of hunters or hobby marksmen. Sweden, for example, has 
at least 490 000 hunters and 96 000 hobby marksmen, whilst Finland accounts for more than 
300 000  hunters  and  35 000  hobby  marksmen.  Denmark,  in  turn,  has  169 000  hunters  and 
120 000 hobby marksmen.  

3.6. It is also worth mentioning the number of European firearms pass holders8, which gives a 
fair  indication  (although  not  the  only  one)  of  the  mobility  of  hunters  and  hobby  marksmen 
within  the  European  Union.  Certain  Member  States,  such  as  Austria,  have  a  relatively  high 
number of passholders (38 000), whereas in others the pass is less widely used (around 20 000 
holders in Italy, and 39 378 in France). 

4. 

INFORMATION  ON  TRENDS  IN  CRIMES  AND  OFFENCES  LINKED  WITH  THE  USE  OF 
FIREARMS AND TRACEABILITY OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS 

4.1.  The  answer  to  the  question  of  whether  recent  years  have  seen  a  significant  increase  in 
crimes involving hunting or sporting firearms is mostly negative. Some Member States, such 
as Greece, Poland, Sweden and Portugal, have experienced a slight or insignificant rise. 

4.2. Most Member States, such as Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, the United Kingdom, Finland 
and Spain, consider the trend to be one of stability. Other Member States, like Belgium and 
Ireland, have even seen a decrease in this type of crime. 

4.3.  These  aspects  can  also  be  seen  in  the  trends  for  crimes  involving  firearms  that  are 
connected, for example, with the availability of weapons – mainly military weapons – at the 
conclusion of armed conflict. However, this type of weapon does not fall within the scope of 
the Directive, which classifies them as prohibited (Category A of Annex 1), by contrast with 
weapons that can be acquired for use in a leisure or sport activity. 

4.4.  The  weapons  authorised  by  the  Directive  present  much  fewer  tracing  difficulties,  as 
attested by the answers to the questionnaire, which are mostly reassuring, at least with regard 
to  legal  movement  within  the  EU;  indeed,  most  Member  States  consider  that  there  are 
relatively few problems, at least at national level, in tracing firearms for civilian use. 

4.5.  However,  certain  difficulties  do  occur  in  the  collection  and  processing  of  information 
relating  to  the  tracing  of  a  weapon  which  may  have  had  a  whole  string  of  owners.  In 
particular, one essential requirement would appear to be the keeping of good records by the 
Member States – and by the dealers – and their accessibility to the competent task forces.  

8 

The  European  firearms  pass  was  established  by  Directive  91/477/EEC.  It  is  “a  document  which  is 
issued on request by the authorities of a Member State to a person lawfully entering into possession of 
and using a firearm” (Article 1(4)). It enables holders to travel with their weapons from one Member 
State to another under a simplified licence system to take part in an activity – usually hunting or target 
shooting. It is highly valued by its users and there have been no reports of safety problems linked with 
its issue or use. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

THE SYSTEM FOR ACQUIRING AND POSSESSING FIREARMS FOR CIVILIAN USE 

5.1.  The  overall  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  answers  to  the  questionnaire  is  that  the 
acquisition and possession of firearms for civilian use are subject to an authorisation system 
and,  in  certain  more  restricted  cases,  to  a  declaration  or  registration  system,  the  latter  case 
corresponding  in  practice  to  indirect  authorisation.  However,  the  requirements  for  certain 
types  of  weapon  or  weapons  with  certain  characteristics,  such  as  historical  or  deactivated 
weapons, may in one Member State or another be less stringent. 

5.2.  The  authorisation  system  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  a  permit  must  be  applied  for 
systematically before the purchase of each weapon. A permit may be issued for the purchase 
of a specific number of identified weapons with characteristics listed in the permit itself (this 
is the case in Austria, Poland and Luxembourg). 

5.3.  The  purchase  authorisation  itself  may  be  an  additional  authorisation  or  may  be 
conditional  on,  for  example,  the  purchaser’s  activity  as  a  hunter  or  marksman,  or  in  certain 
cases  on  an  administrative  decision  confirming  that  the  purchaser  is  entitled  to  acquire  a 
weapon for reasons of self-defence (as is the case, for example, in Finland or Poland).  

5.4. The declaration system – Category C in Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC – is applied to 
a large number of hunting weapons, principally in France. Under this system, the purchaser 
must give the dealer a copy of his identity card and of some  form  of  authorisation entitling 
him  to  make  the  purchase  (a  valid  hunter’s  licence,  for  example);  he  then  fills  out  a 
declaration  together  with  the  dealer9,  which  is  registered  and  sent  by  the  dealer  to  the 
competent authorities. If the authorities are opposed to the purchase, they ask the purchaser to 
return the weapon or force him to do so via the law enforcement authorities. 

5.5.  In  France,  a  certain  number  of  hunting  weapons  are  grouped  together  in  a  new 
intermediary category between Categories C and D of the Directive: these are single-shot long 
firearms with smooth-bore barrels, which fall under a registration system that is very close to 
the declaration system (copy of identity card, copy of hunting/target shooting licence, form to 
be filled in, checks by the police authorities).  

5.6.  It  does  not  therefore  seem  possible  from  the  answers  given  to  the  questionnaire  for 
firearms  to  fall  under  the  least  restrictive  classification  of  Category  D  of  the  Directive,  (in 
other  words  that  they  could  be  acquired  without  any  particular  formalities,  as  the  Directive 
allows  for  single-shot  long  firearms  with  smooth-bore  barrels).  The  Member  States  that 
retained this possibility have all introduced more stringent requirements (as illustrated by the 
above paragraph). 

5.7.  It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  classification  applying  in  a  Member  State  for  an 
imported  weapon  (prohibition,  authorisation,  declaration,  registration)  is  binding  and  takes 
precedence over the weapon’s classification in its country of acquisition. In other words, if, 
for example, a weapon acquired in a Member State has been purchased under an authorisation 
system, but its owner (even if he holds a European firearms pass) intends to take it with him 
to  another  Member  State  which  applies  a  prohibition  system  to  that  weapon,  it  will  be  the 
prohibition system that takes precedence and the weapon will not be able to leave its country 
of origin.  

9 

The dealer carries out an initial cross-check against the list of prohibited firearms. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

THE  MEMBER  STATES  HOLD  DIFFERENT  VIEWS  ON  THE  APPROPRIATENESS  OF 
REDUCING THE CATEGORIES PERMITTED BY THE DIRECTIVE 

6.1.  Certain  Member  States,  such  as  Poland,  the  United  Kingdom,  Ireland,  Denmark  and 
Latvia,  are  interested  in  reducing  the  classification  at  European  level  to  two  categories,  as 
they feel this would simplify matters.  

6.2. Other Member States, on the other hand, think that the discretion allowed by the current 
classification  of  the Directive should be retained.  For example, Sweden,  Italy,  Hungary  and 
Belgium do not see any real benefits in modifying the current classification; they consider that 
any revision would bring an additional burden and engender unnecessary costs. 

6.3.  Some  Member  States,  such  as  Slovakia,  the  Netherlands  and  Romania,  which  have 
introduced national systems based on two or three categories, would also prefer for Member 
States  to  be  able  to  apply  the  categories  they  consider  appropriate  within  the  current 
classification. 

6.4.  As  to  whether  such  a  reduction  in  categories  would  have  a  substantial  impact  on  the 
economic  sectors  concerned,  most  Member  States  answer  either  that  the  impact  would  be 
difficult to judge or that there would probably be no impact, since the classification with two 
categories is already fairly widespread. However, it should be pointed out that it is principally 
Member  States  that  do  not  manufacture  firearms  that  think  that  the  economic  impact  of  a 
reduced number of categories would be of little significance in their country. 

6.5. By contrast, certain Member States that do have a firearms manufacturing industry, such 
as Italy or Belgium, feel that the economic sector would suffer. Other Member States, such as 
Poland, think that there may be an economic impact, but still see no reason for not reducing 
the number of categories. 

6.6. However, most Member States do not think that reducing the classification of Annex I to 
the Directive to two categories of firearms would be of clear benefit to the better functioning 
of the internal market. The concern was even expressed that a reduced number of categories 
could divert legal trade in weapons to illegal channels. 

7. 

CERTAIN  SUGGESTIONS  OTHER  THAN  REDUCING  THE  NUMBER  OF  CATEGORIES 
HAVE BEEN MADE WITH A VIEW TO SIMPLIFYING THE MOVEMENT OF FIREARMS IN 
GREATER SAFETY 

7.1.  Certain  Member  States,  such  as  Germany,  Estonia  and  Poland,  see  a  clear  benefit  in 
defining  common  standards  for  the  deactivation  of  firearms  on  the  basis  of  techniques 
proposed by the ad hoc working  parties of the Commission  internationale  pour  les  armes  à 
feu portatives (CIP10); this could lead to increased safety and facilitate exchanges at EU level. 

10 

The Commission internationale permanente pour l’épreuve des armes à feu portatives (CIP, Permanent 
International  Commission  for  Firearms  Testing)  is  the  result  of  an  intergovernmental  convention 
between the main countries for European firearms production (11 European countries plus Chile, Russia 
and  the  United  Arab  Emirates)  under  which  they  agree  to  recognise  the  tests  on  firearms  and 
ammunition carried out in “proof houses” prior to their being placed on the market in accordance with 
technical  criteria  defined  and  updated  within  the  CIP.  This  recognition  takes  the  physical  form  of  a 
proof mark which is stamped on the firearm and identifies the proof house where it has been tested. In 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.2.  Other  Member  States,  such  as  Sweden,  the  Netherlands,  France,  Luxembourg  and 
Portugal,  are  of  the  opinion  that  increased  computerisation  of  the  information  held  by  the 
Member  States  would  help  to  link  the  movements  of  firearms  with  their  owners.  They 
therefore  think  an  effort  should  be  made  to  make  the  information  held  in  the  registers 
accessible  to  all  Member  States  and  thus  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  within  the 
European Union where necessary. 

7.3. Some suggestions are more specific, such as the proposal to equip commercial carriers of 
firearms with GPS devices so that their location can be tracked (Czech Republic) or that of 
creating  a  more  stringent  framework  for  the  activities  of  private  security  companies 
(Bulgaria);  others  are  more  ambitious,  such  as  the  proposal  that  firearm  definitions  be 
harmonised in order to facilitate a common approach at EU level (the Netherlands).  

7.4. Certain Member States see an advantage in creating a standardised transfer form for trade 
in  firearms  (Romania).  This  document  would  record  all  the  information  contained  in  the 
authorisation  applications  or  in  the  reports  on  commercial  transactions  from  one  Member 
State to another. 

7.5. However, a significant number of Member States consider the current situation to be, for 
the most part, satisfactory and/or do not propose any particular measures. Some, such as Italy, 
think that any change considered should take into account the principle of proportionality and 
whether there is a real need for an initiative at EU level. 

7.6. Overall, the Member States’ comments mainly relate to the issues of the traceability and 
deactivation  of  firearms.  These  are  two  areas  where  the  Commission  plans  to  intervene, 
whether  by  issuing  common  guidelines  on  deactivation  standards  and  techniques  or  by 
ensuring  that  Member  States  fulfil  their  obligation  of  keeping  a  computerised  data-filing 
system11, two tasks that were prescribed in Directive 2008/51/EC itself. 

8. 

THE  MAJOR  GROUPS  OF  USERS  CONCERNED  BY  THE  DIRECTIVE  APPEAR  TO  BE 
INTERESTED  IN  ANY  SIMPLIFICATION  THAT  DOES  NOT  NECESSARILY  INVOLVE  A 
REDUCTION OF CATEGORIES 

8.1. Hunters (numbering approximately seven million across the European Union12) appear to 
be satisfied with the current classification, which is based on hunting traditions and the safety 
concerns of their Member State. They set great store by the recognition and promotion of the 
European  firearms  pass,  which  enables  them  to  move  easily  from  one  Member  State  to 
another within a very satisfactory security framework. 

8.2. Marksmen can also use the European firearms pass to travel to another Member State in 
order  to  take  part,  in  most  cases,  in  competitions.  Indeed,  this  travel  appears  to  be  well 
organised,  and  is  subject  to  a  strict  authorisation  system  supervised  by  local  or  national 

11 

12 

certain  proof  houses  the  firearms  are  also  deactivated  using  techniques  and  in  line  with  requirements 
that can vary without necessarily being recognised from one Member State to another. 
This  computerised  data-filing  system  for  firearms  –  linking  weapons  to  their  owners  –  must  be 
established by 31 December 2014 under the terms of Directive 2008/51/EC. 
Figures provided by the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE), 
which  brings  together  the  national  hunting  associations  of  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union 
and other countries of the Council of Europe. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
shooting federations. Making a reduction in categories mandatory throughout the EU would 
not appear to create any clear simplification in this area either. 

8.3. Although their activities do not fall under the scope of the Directive, collectors of antique 
and historical firearms or reproductions of historical firearms would welcome the possibility 
of  including  their  collection  items  in  a  European  firearms  pass,  as  this  would  facilitate  the 
movement  between  the  Member  States  of  this  type  of  product.  Other  measures  making  it 
easier for Member States to recognise this type of weapon, during for example their transport 
from  one  Member  State  to  another,  would  be  welcomed  by  a  sector  including  suppliers, 
cultural establishments, auction houses and authorised experts, etc. 

8.4. Manufacturers of civilian firearms would be interested in simplification measures. In this 
respect,  mention  should  be  made  of  the  industry’s  longstanding  desire  for  comprehensive 
licences covering all firearms transfers within the EU. Instead of authorisations being issued 
by the Member States for each individual transfer, a licence would cover a given period and a 
predefined  type  of  product13  and  be  issued  to  operators  presenting  a  certain  number  of 
approved guarantees. 

8.5.  Both  manufacturers  and  retailers  advocate  simplification  in  the  definitions  used  for  the 
essential  parts  of  firearms.  These  definitions  do  not  fully  coincide  from  one  legislation  to 
another,  and  greater  precision  would  improve  the  flow  and  security  of  commercial 
transactions. 

8.6.  To  summarise,  the  current  classification  of  firearms  in  EU  legislation  is  not  met  with 
specific  criticism  by  the  major  groups  of  users  concerned  by  the  Directive.  However,  their 
wish for certain simplification measures to improve the functioning of the internal market is 
clearly identifiable. 

9. 

THE  ISSUE  OF  THE  CLASSIFICATION  AT EU  LEVEL  OF  CIVILIAN  FIREARMS  COULD, 
HOWEVER,  BE  RE-EXAMINED  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  DEADLINES  AND  GUIDANCE 
GIVEN BY THE DIRECTIVE ITSELF 

9.1. The requirement for Member States to establish and maintain a computerised data-filing 
system by 31 December 2014 will certainly satisfy the desire expressed in the answers to the 
questionnaire for improvements in the accessibility of information. In this context, it will be 
interesting to look again at the problems of traceability at EU level which may stem from the 
current classification applied by the Directive. 

9.2. Furthermore, the wish, voiced in the Member  States’  answers,  for  common  methods  of 
deactivating firearms will soon be realised by the Commission, which is in any case required 
by the Directive to take action in this respect14. This should result in a greater level of safety 
for movements of this type of product. 

13 

14 

This possibility is allowed in theory by Directive 91/477/EEC, Article 11 of which provides for dealers 
to  obtain  approval  in  certain  cases  for  transferring  firearms  to  another  Member  State  without  prior 
authorisation. However, it is rarely used in practice, since it requires recognition by both the Member 
State of origin and the destination Member State within a comparable regulatory framework. 
Annex  I  to  the  Directive  stipulates  that  “The  Commission  shall,  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure  referred  to  in  Article  13a(2)  of  the  Directive,  issue  common  guidelines  on  deactivation 
standards and techniques to ensure that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable”. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9.3. The Member States’ desire for greater traceability could also be addressed by an explicit 
reference  in  Directive  2008/51/EC:  this  is  the  reference  in  the  seventh  Recital  to  the 
Convention of 1 July 1969 on Reciprocal Recognition of Proofmarks on Small Arms, which 
“should, to the greatest extent possible, be used as a reference for the marking system in the 
Community as a whole”. 

9.4. In this respect, discussions could be held at short notice between the European Union and 
the Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (CIP, 
Permanent  International  Commission  for  Firearms  Testing)  with  the  aim  of  establishing 
recognised standards for the testing of firearms within the European Union. Indeed, additional 
–  and  attested  –  supervision  of  the  manufacture  and  movement  of  firearms  within  the 
European Union could have advantages for all aspects of safety. 

9.5.  It  can  therefore  be  concluded  that  there  would  be  no  clear  benefit  in  a  compulsory 
restriction of the classification at EU level to only two firearms categories. In any case, this 
issue  should  not  be  treated  in  isolation,  as  there  would  be  a  risk  that  the  discussion  would 
focus  solely  on the question  of which  type of document would constitute  authorisation, and 
this  would  probably  result  in  a  situation  hardly  different  from  the  current  one  of  diversity 
within the EU. 

9.6. The analysis of the possible and desirable ways in which Directive 2008/51/EC could be 
developed  should  therefore  be  set  primarily  against  the  background  of  the  report  on  the 
situation resulting from the application of the Directive to be submitted by the Commission to 
the European Parliament and the Council by 28 July 2015 – accompanied, if appropriate, by 
proposals  –  and  should  target  a  form  of  simplification  that  takes  account  of  all  the  specific 
needs and constraints of this type of product. 

9.7.  The  conclusions  of  this  report  will  be  presented  in  October  2012  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Contact  Group  set  up  pursuant  to  the  Directive.  They  will  probably  also  be  discussed  at  a 
conference  on  illicit  trafficking  in  firearms  that  the  Commission  plans  to  hold  at  the  end  of 
November 2012 with the parties involved in combating this form of crime in order to make an 
inventory of the needs in this area and formulate a way forward. 

EN 

10 

   EN