REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Council Directive 91/477/EC of 18 June 1991, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of 21 May 2008, on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: arms trade, fight against crime, firearms and munitions, illicit trade, national implementing measure, personal weapon, single market

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.11.2015  
COM(2015) 751 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Evaluation of Council Directive 91/477/EC of 18 June 1991, as amended by Directive 
2008/51/EC of 21 May 2008, on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Evaluation of Council Directive 91/477/EC of 18 June 1991, as amended by Directive 
2008/51/EC of 21 May 2008, on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons 

 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

(1)  Council  Directive  91/477/EEC  on  control  of  the  acquisition  and  possession  of  weapons 
was adopted on 18 June 19911 and amended by Directive 2008/51/EC on 21 May 20082 (The 
Firearms Directive).  

(2) Article 17 of the Firearms Directive provides that "the Commission shall, by 28 July 2015, 
submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the situation resulting from the 
application of the Directive, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals". In view of preparing 
the report, the Commission launched an evaluation study carried out by external consultants. 
The  evaluation  study,  concluded  in  December  20143,  contains  an  extensive  analysis  on  the 
Directive's  implementation  as  well  as  an  analysis  of  the  performance  of  the  legislation 
according to five key evaluation criteria. It also provides, on the basis of the findings, specific 
recommendations for improvements directed either to the Commission, or to Member States 
authorities,  or  to  both.  This  evaluation  has  been  linked  to  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and 
Performance (REFIT) Programme of the Commission4. 

(3)  Upon  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  study,  the  Commission  asked  to  the  members  of  the 
Committee  established  under  Article  13(a)  of  the  Directive  (Firearms  Committee), 
representing  the  28  EU  Member  States  (MS)  and  the  four  EEA5  and  EFTA6  countries7,  to 
comment  and  provide  an  assessment  of  its  findings  and  recommendations.  The  committee 
members  provided  their  feedback  orally  at  the  committee  meetings  (on  18  December  2014 
and 25 March 2015), complemented in writing by some MS (Belgium, France, Sweden, and 
the United Kingdom). 

(4)  The  final  report  of  the  evaluation  study  was  delivered  just  before  the  dramatic  event  of 
Paris and Copenhagen took place in January 2015. These developments have highlighted the 
existence of pressing security issues at EU level. At the Firearms Committee meeting held in 
March 2015, the Commission invited Member States representative not only to comment on 
the evaluation's conclusions but also to raise other possible concerns on the implementation of 
the  Firearms  Directive  linked  to  the  recent  dramatic  events  that  would  not  have  been 
identified by the consultant.  

(5) The aim of this report is to describe the findings of the evaluation study, complement them 
with  feedback  received  so  far  and  present  the  critical  assessment  of  the  Commission.  The 

1 OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p.51 
2 OJ L 179, 8.7.2008, p. 5 
3 http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-the-firearms-directive-pbNB0514159/; 
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-the-firearms-directive-pbNB0114006/ 

4 COM(2013)685 final 

5 European Economic Area 
6 European Free Trade Association 
7 Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland  

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
report  firstly  recalls  the  background  and  the  main  provisions  of  the  Firearms  Directive.  It 
presents  the  methodology,  the  results  of  the  evaluation  study  in  relation  to  five  evaluation 
criteria  (i.e.  effectiveness,  efficiency,  consistency,  relevance,  EU  added  value),  and  its 
recommendations. It provides as well a critical assessment of the findings. Finally, it indicates 
which initiatives the Commission might consider to undertake to tackle issues highlighted by 
the evaluation and confirmed by Member States feedback. 

2. Background 

(6)  The  Firearms  Directive  regulates  the  acquisition,  possession,  and  the  commercial 
exchange within the EU of civil firearms (e.g. firearms used for sport shooting and hunting). 
It sets common minimum standards, which Member States have to transpose in their national 
weapon laws, and aims at balancing internal market objectives (i.e. cross border movement of 
firearms)  and  security  policy  objectives  (i.e.  high  level  of  security  and  protection  against 
criminal acts and illicit trafficking) within the EU. 

(7) Directive 91/477/EEC originally constituted an accompanying measure for the completion 
of  the  internal  market.  The  abolition  of  controls  on  the  possession  of  weapons  at  intra-
Community frontiers made it necessary to adopt effective rules enabling controls to be carried 
out within the Member States. To this end the Directive contains rules on the acquisition and 
possession  of  firearms  and  on  the  transfers  of  the  firearms  between  Member  States.  The 
Directive  leaves  the  possibility  to  Member  States  to  adopt  more  stringent  rules  than  those 
prescribed (Article 3). 

(8) The Commission submitted to the European Parliament and Council a first report in 2000 
assessing the implementation of Directive 91/477/EEC in Member States8. This report stated 
that  Member  States  and  interested  parties  deemed  that  the  legal  framework  created  by  the 
Directive  was  sufficient  as  a  whole.  However,  key  problems  related  to  the  national 
implementation  of  the  Directive  were  identified  such  as:  difficulties  with  the  exchange  of 
information;  disparity  and  complexity  of  national  legislations,  administrative  measures  and 
authorisation procedures; differences in the classification of hunting and sporting firearms and 
administrative burdens for SME.  This showed the need for clarification of certain provisions 
(e.g. defining certain types of weapons, namely deactivated and antique weapons) to ensure a 
more uniform application of the Directive.  

(9)  This  report  was  submitted  while  the  Commission  was  negotiating  on  behalf  of  the  EU 
Member  States  the  United  Nations  Protocol  against  the  illicit  manufacturing  on  firearms9 
(UNFP)  in  the  context  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  transnational  organised  crime. 
The  protocol  was  going  to  prescribe  new  rules  concerning  in  particular  traceability  (i.e. 
marking  and  record  keeping)  and  deactivation  of  firearms.  Therefore,  the  report  concluded 

8 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on "The implementation of Council 
Directive 91/477/EEC, 0f 18 June 1991, on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons", COM (2000) 
837 final. Brussels, 15.12.2000. 
9 United Nations 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. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
that  the  Commission,  taken  into  account  the  state  of  the  negotiations  of  the  UNFP  and  the 
feedback of all interested parties on the Directive, intended to present appropriate amending 
proposals. 

(10)  Following  the  entering  into  force  of  the  UNFP  in  200510,  Directive  91/477/EC  was 
amended  by  Directive  2008/51/EC  to  strengthen  the  security  aspects,  allowing  a  partial 
alignment with the UNFP itself. The Firearms Directive is part of a set of initiatives taken at 
international and EU level for the implementation of the UNFP. The relevant provisions have 
been transposed into European legislation by Regulation No. 258/201211 that establishes rules 
for authorised export, import and transit for non-military firearms coming from or directed to 
third countries12.  

(11) The principles guiding the action of the European Commission to manage and reduce the 
risks  posed  by  civilian  firearms  were  embedded  in  an  overall  strategy  -  Communication 
“Firearms  and  the  internal  security  of  the  EU:  protecting  citizens  and  disrupting  illegal 
trafficking”13-,  launched  in  October  2013,.  This  Communication  proposes  measures  to 
increase the level of security of EU citizens in relation to firearms and to safeguard their licit 
market.  In  addition,  the  upcoming  initiatives  related  to  firearms  have  been  outlined  in  the 
recently  issued  Commission  Communication  “The  European  Agenda  for  Security”14  which 
underlines  the  need  for  a  common  approach  on  the  de-activation  of  firearms  to  prevent 
reactivation and use by criminals, to be treated as a priority. The Communication also called 
for  a  review  of  the  existing  legislation  on  firearms  in  2016  to  improve  the  sharing  of 
information  (e.g.  by  uploading  information  on  seized  firearms  in  Europol’s  information 
system), to reinforce traceability, to standardise marking, and to establish common standards 
for  neutralising  firearms.  Following  the  tragic  events  of  13  November  2015  in  Paris,  the 
Commission decided to advance the review of the Firearms Directive which would be adopted 
together with this report. This report provides evidence supporting these actions. 

10 The UNFP was ratified by the Commission in 2014. Council Decision of 11 February 2014 on the conclusion, 
on behalf of the European Union, 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 (2014/164/EU). OJ 89, 23.3.2014, p.7. 
11  Regulation  No  258/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  March  2012  implementing 
Article  10  of  the  United  Nations’  Protocol  against  the  illicit  manufacturing  of  an  trafficking  in  firearms,  their 
parts  and  components  and  ammunition,  supplementing  the  UN  Convention  against  Transnational  Organised 
crime (UNFP) and establishing export authorisation, an import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and 
components and ammunition. 
12  The  main  contribution  of  the  Regulation  is  the  principle  that  civilian  firearms  transfer  between  MS  is 
conditional on the knowledge and authorisation of all countries involved and that their origin should be known. 
13  COM(2013)  716  final,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament, 
Firearms and the internal security of the EU: protecting citizens and disrupting illegal trafficking. 
14  COM(2015)  185  final,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  The  European  Agenda  on 
Security. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
3. Main provisions of the Firearms Directive 

(12) The two main objectives of the Firearms Directive are to ensure the proper functioning of 
the internal market and to ensure a high level of security in the EU. It provides in particular 
minimum requirements15 for the acquisition and possession of firearms for civil use in the EU 
and harmonised administrative measures for the transfer of firearms within the EU. 

(13) The scope of the Directive is described in its Annex I, where the categories of firearms 
corresponding to different regimes of applications are described as follows: 

-  “Category A, consisting of prohibited firearms – fully automatic weapons and 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”;  

-  “Category  D,  for  other  firearms  –  which  mainly  applies  to  single-shot  long  firearms 

with smooth-bore barrels”. 

(14) The main provisions of the Firearms Directive refer to: 

-  Marking and traceability (Article 4): Member States shall ensure that any firearm or 
its  part  placed  on  the  market  has  been  marked  and  registered.  For  this  purpose,  MS 
shall  require  either  a  unique  marking  or  maintain  any  alternative  marking  with  a 
number  or  alphanumeric  code  allowing  the  identification  of  the  country  of 
manufacture. The marking shall be affixed to an essential component of the firearm, 
the  destruction  of  which  would  render  the  firearm  unusable.  The  amended  Directive 
also  includes  provisions  for  the  introduction  of  national  computerised  data-filing 
systems in order to strengthen traceability of firearms. These systems will register key 
information on all circulating firearms in MS and had to be in place in all MS by 31 
December 2014. 

-  Requirements for the acquisition and possession of firearms (Article 5): MS shall 
allow the acquisition and possession of firearms only by persons who have good cause 
and who:  

o  are  at  least  18  years  of  age,  except  in  relation  to  the  acquisition,  other  than 
through purchase, and possession of firearms for hunting and target shooting, 
provided  that  in  that  case  persons  of  less  than  18  years  of  age  have  parental 
permission, or are under parental guidance or the guidance of an adult with a 
valid  firearms  or  hunting  licence,  or  are  within  a  licenced  or  otherwise 
approved training centre;  

15 In accordance with Article 3 of the Firearms Directive: "Member States may adopt in their legislation 
provisions which are more stringent than those provided for in this Directive". 

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
o  are not likely to be a danger to themselves, to public order or to public safety. 
Having  been  convicted  of  a  violent  intentional  crime  shall  be  considered  as 
indicative of such danger. 

-  European  Firearms  Pass  (EFP)  (Article  12):  the  Directive  has  introduced  more 
flexible rules in respect of weapons used for hunting and sport shooting in order not to 
hinder  their  movement  across  MS.  With  the  introduction  of  the  EFP,  hunters  with 
firearms of category C and D and marksmen with firearms of category B, C and D can 
travel  to  another  MS  without  prior  authorisation  by  the  MS  of  destination.  The  EFP 
should be regarded as the main document needed by hunters and marksmen and MS 
should  not  make  acceptance  of  an  EFP  conditional  upon  the  payment  of  any  fee  or 
charge. 

-  Deactivation  (Annex  I,  section  III):  the  Firearms  Directive  establishes  minimum 
restrictions  and  includes  the  obligation  for  MS  to  make  arrangements  for  the 
deactivation  measures  to  be  verified  by  a  competent  authority.  This  authority  shall 
ensure  that  the  national  procedures  for  deactivation  of  firearms  render  the  weapons 
permanently  deactivated.  As  requested  by  the  co-legislators  at  the  time  of  the 
amendment,  Annex  I  -  Part  III  point  (a)  states  that  'the  Commission  shall  issue 
common  guidelines  on  deactivation  standards  and  techniques  to  ensure  that 
deactivated  firearms  are  rendered  irreversibly  inoperable'.  Until  the  common 
guidelines  on  deactivation  are  adopted,  MS  are  free  to  adopt  the  most  suitable 
procedures in this regard. 

(15)  Finally,  Article  17  of  the  Firearms  Directive  prescribes  that  the  Commission  submit  a 
report, by 28 July 2015, on the situation resulting from the application of the Directive. In line 
with  the  Directive's  provision,  in  2014  the  Commission  has  launched  a  12-month  study  to 
evaluate  how  of  the  Firearms  Directive  and  successive  amendment  have  been  implemented 
and in how far this legal framework has met the two general objectives of ensuring the correct 
functioning of the internal market and achieving a high level of security within the EU.  

4. Methodology of the evaluation 

(16)  The  one-year  evaluation  study  has  been  carried  out  with  the  aim  to  analyse  the 
achievements of the  Directive's  objectives (well-functioning of the internal  market and high 
level of security) along the line of five evaluation criteria: 

-  Effectiveness: in terms of the extent to which provisions have contributed to the 

achievement of the objectives; 

-  Efficiency: of procedures and obligations introduced by the Directive, namely if results 

(benefits) have been achieved at reasonable costs; 

-  Consistency: of the implementation of the Directive's provisions, of the interpretation of 
key terms and an overall coherence of the Directive with other relevant legislation; 

6 

 
 
-  Relevance: of the Directive's provisions with respect to existing needs for the functioning 

of the internal market and the EU's citizens security; 

-  Added value: of EU intervention as opposed to national legislation and actions. 

(17) The evaluation covered all the Directive's provisions in all EU 28 Member States from 
1991 to date. In addition the evaluators were asked to take into account previous studies and 
Commission initiatives16 as well as two studies that were being concluded at the same time, 
on  deactivation,  destruction  and  marking  procedures17  and  on  combatting  illicit  arms 
trafficking in the EU18 .  

(18) The analysis was carried out through desk research, an online survey, interviews and four 
case  studies19  (conducted  in  four  MS:  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  and  Poland).  The 
evaluators  contacted:  MS  authorities;  representatives  of  firearms  producers,  dealers  and 
brokers;  firearms  users  including  hunters  and  marksmen;  international  bodies,  associations, 
research institutes and other experts. The online survey was completed by 83 stakeholders (34 
MS authorities, 28 industry representatives, 16 users, 5 experts), the interviews were carried 
out  with  56  stakeholders  (23  MS  authorities,  16  industry,  9  users,  8  experts),  and  30 
stakeholders were interviewed for the case studies (12 MS authorities, 8 industry, 8 users, 2 
experts). 

(19) Since the first months of the study, the evaluators flagged the lack of key data relating to 
both market and security aspects. Regarding the market aspect, available statistics at national 
and EU level usually did not distinguish civilian from military firearms (therefore making it 
difficult  to  isolate  data  on  civilian  firearms).  Even  when  this  was  possible,  data  were  not 
always  available  at  Member  States  level  for  all  countries  (due  to  confidentiality),  thus  not 
allowing tracing trends of production over time. , Finally the main company operating in the 
sector  did  not  provide  large  access  to  information.  Concerning  security,  the  main  issue  was 
the  absence  of  disaggregated  data  on  the  types/categories  of  firearms  circulating  in  the  EU, 
and/or  illegally  used  and  trafficked,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  comparable  and  detailed  data  on 
trends  in  criminal  offences  and  activities  involving  civilian  firearms  at  EU  level.  Another 

16 Including: COM (2012)415 – 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; COM (2010)4040 – The placing on the market of replica 
firearms.  

17 Study to support an Impact Assessment on a possible initiative related to improving rules on deactivation, 
destruction and marking procedures of firearms in the EU, as well as alarm weapons and replicas 
(http://www.sipri.org/research/security/europe/publications/study-on-firearms ) 

18 Study to support an Impact Assessment on options for combatting illicit arms trafficking in the EU 

19 The criteria to select the MS for the case studies were: i) the size of the firearms market; ii) security issues 
experienced by MS; iii) firearms as a share of the population; iv) number of stolen or lost firearms recorded. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
limitation related to the limited available for data quantifying administrative burden and cost 
in the implementation of specific provision.  

5. Findings  

5.1 Evaluation criteria 

5.1.1 Effectiveness 

(20)  The  Directive  has  positively  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  a  well-functioning 
internal market for firearms, which is one of its objectives. However, the contractor concluded 
that its potential contribution could be further improved. Firstly, the introduction of categories 
and  related  regulatory  regimes  allowed  preventing  potential  market  distortions  linked  to  the 
abolition  of  internal  controls  thereby  creating  an  internal  market.  Since  200520  the  intra-EU 
trade  remained  pretty  much  stable.  However,  the  different  interpretations  of  the  Directives 
provisions  have  limited  the  magnitude  of  the  expected  benefits  of  EU  intervention. 
Stakeholders  (industry  and  users)  raised  a  number  of  concerns  related  to  specific  obstacles 
and  burdens  on  procedures,  especially  as  they  have  to  bear  information  costs  to  understand 
rules and procedures implemented in the other MS (in particular with reference to the EFP). 
Even if the Commission has established a contact group since 200921 to ease the exchange of 
information,  stakeholders  interviewed  continue  to  flag  the  need  to  further  improve  the 
communication of useful information between MS.  

(21) In relation to the "security" objective (i.e. protection of citizens and of the legal firearms 
market), the level of security and protection against illicit traffic of firearms and criminal acts 
has been increased by introducing: 

-  Tracing  requirements  for  MS  authorities  (i.e.  computerised  registry)  and  for  dealers 

(register of all firearms transaction) – Article 4.  

-  Marking  requirements  for  manufacturers  (even  if  some  concerns  were  raised  in 

relation to cases of erased marking) – Article 4(4). 

-  Minimum requirements for the acquisition and possession of firearms - Article 5. 
However, room for improvement is seen in connection with reported cases of conversion of 
alarm  weapons,  reactivation  of  deactivated  firearms,  illegal  trade  in  firearms  parts  and  the 
interpretation of "essential components". 

(22) Due to the lack of comprehensive data, it has been difficult for the evaluator to assess the 
effectiveness  of  the  Directive  in  connection  to  the  security  objectives.  In  particular,  the 
analysis was hampered by the lack of an information base including specific and detailed data 
on  criminal  offences  committed  with  legally owned  firearms,  converted  alarm  weapons  and 
reactivated firearms in EU MS.  

20 The time frame 2005-2013 is used as a reference as the EU had already 25 MS. 

21 The establishment of the contact group is envisaged by Article 13(3) of the Firearms Directive. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.1.2 Efficiency  

(23) The evaluation has identified the costs related to the activities needed to implement each 
provision of the Directive (direct compliance costs – including administrative burdens - and 
information  costs22)  and  mapped  the  stakeholders  bearing  them.  The  assessment  did  not 
include costs due to the implementation of additional requirements as well as costs brought by 
national implementation differences. 

(24) In order to assess if the Directive's objectives were reached at a reasonable cost, in the 
absence  of  any  quantitative  data  on  costs,  the  contractor  qualitatively  assess  whether  costs 
related  to  specific  provisions  were  considered  reasonable  according  to  stakeholders 
assessment. This qualitative assessment was performed using three criteria: objectives served, 
stakeholders' participation, and nature of the cost. From the analysis it seems that the overall 
results  have  been  achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost.  Most  of  the  times,  costs  are  fairly  shared 
among  different  stakeholders.  The  partial  harmonisation  of  the  Directive  results  in  indirect 
costs  with  negative  effects  in  relation  to  specific  provisions  (and  specific  stakeholders 
categories),  such  as:  EFP,  categories,  register  of  dealers  and  brokers,  information  sharing, 
firearms ownership requirements, deactivation, traceability, marking.  

(25)  According  to  various  industry  representatives  (producers  and  national  associations), 
administrative burden is mainly linked to national and bureaucratic inefficiencies rather than 
to the Directive's provisions. Examples are: sometimes long time to issue import and export 
licences  for  transfers  within  the  EU;  security  requirements  introduced  at  national  level  (e.g. 
compulsory  inspection  of  alarm  systems  charged  to  dealers).  Industry  representatives 
confirmed that these administrative burdens could slow down market movements.  

(26)  The  contractor  concluded  that  the  overall  results  of  the  Directive  itself  have  been 
achieved at reasonable costs. Administrative burden and costs perceived by stakeholders are 
more linked to the administrative procedures implementing the Directive at the national level 
and a reduction of these costs would be seen as an improvement 

5.1.3 Consistency   

(27) The adoption of a directive setting out minimum requirements led to certain differences 
in  its  application  at  MS  level  that  impacting  either  the  internal  market  or  the  security 
objectives. 

Concerning differences with an impact on the internal market, the evaluation highlighted:  

22  Direct  compliance  costs  mean  all  the  procedures  needed  to  adopt  the  Directive  at  national  level. 
Administrative burdens are costs imposed on business and users, when complying with information obligation 
stemming from government regulation as well as costs for MS authorities to implement additional procedures. 
Information costs are due to differences in the Directive's implementation which may oblige MS, producers and 
users to get informed about requirement in force abroad. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
-  Discrepancies in the application of categories , in particular with categories  C and D 
creating  confusion  in  the  document  required  when  buying  a  firearm  in  different 
countries, impeding the firearms movement across Europe and generating costs  

-  Differences in the application of provisions related to the EFP, such as the number of 
documents required. This has a negative impact as it hampers the smooth transfer of 
firearms; 

Implementation inconsistencies with an impact on security of EU citizens are: 

-  Differences in marking standards as they limit the ability to trace firearms or to fight 

illicit trafficking; 

-  Differences in deactivation techniques and standards as well as in the designation of 
the  authority  carrying  them  out.  Such  differences  cause  concerns  as  not  only  the 
authority or actor in charge of the deactivation might not have the necessary technical 
skills but also because the standards in some MS are not considered sufficient; 

-  Differences  in  categorisation  of  weapons  in  national  legislation  cause  problems  in 
traceability  and  law  enforcement.  This  is  the  case  in  particular  when  an  object 
considered as a firearm in one MS is transferred to a MS where it is not considered as 
a firearm anymore and hence the authorities lose trace of it.  

-  Differences  in  the  interpretation  of  key  terms  included  in  the  Directive  (essential 

components, brokers, alarms weapons and antique weapons) 

On the other hand, it came out that there are no issues related to ownership requirements and 
the Directive has helped in harmonising them. 

(28)  Concerning  the  consistency  of  the  Firearms  Directive  with  existing  EU  legislation,  the 
study concluded that the main problems relate to the UNFP. The 2008 amendment has only 
partially  aligned  the  terminology  of  the  Directive  to  the  UNFP.  In  fact,  the  Directive 
introduced  a  distinction  between  essential  parts  and  components  that  is  not  mirrored  in  the 
United Nations' text which refers to "parts and components". Additionally the UNFP23 gives 
the possibility to a State Party to recognise a deactivated firearm as a firearm in accordance 
with its domestic law and to take any necessary measures on this basis. 

5.1.4 Relevance  

(29) The evaluation concluded that overall the firearms directive continues to be fully relevant 
to  current  market  needs  (i.e.  the  cross-border  movement  of  firearms).  Concerns  raised  by 
economic operators relate mainly to the different implementing measures and procedures that 
MS have adopted, that are a source of additional burden and costs that impact negatively on 
the cross border movement of firearms. 

23 Article 19 of UNFP 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(30)  Concerning the security objectives (e.g. offences involving legally held firearms, theft or 
loss of originally legally held firearms, conversion of alarm weapons or deactivated firearms), 
the evaluators conclude that the Directive is relevant to most of the security risks. They have 
listed  some  activities  to  be  considered  for  inclusion  in  the  scope  of  the  Directive  or  better 
described. These are: conversion of alarm weapons; conversion of semi-automatic weapons; 
reactivation of deactivated firearms; erasing of marking; illegal use of inherited arms. All the 
mentioned activities are cause of security concerns at MS level. Finally, the evaluators note 
that the future technological developments such as new technologies (including 3D printing) 
and  new  sales  channels  (e.g.  internet)24,  may  challenge  the  scope  of  the  Directive  in  the 
future. . 

5.1.5 EU Added value 

(31)  Firearms  are  items  of  a  special  nature.  Most  of  the  security  issues  that  the  Firearms 
Directive tries to tackle have a cross-border nature. Vulnerabilities of a single MS to criminal 
activity affect the EU as a whole (e.g. cases of conversion of alarm weapons). Differences in 
national  legislation  are  an  obstacle  to  controls  and  police  cooperation  across  MS  (e.g. 
different  registration  requirements  for  the  same  type  of  firearms).  The  study  concluded  that 
effective action to reach the objectives of ensuring a high level of security for EU citizens and 
allowing  the  cross-border  movement  of  firearms  can  only  be  taken  at  EU  level.  The 
undeniable  added  value  of  the  Firearms  Directive  lies  in  the  establishment  of  a  common 
regulatory  framework  for  firearms  regulation  that  would  not  have  been  achieved  through 
national or bilateral interventions.  

(32)  The  possibility  to  maintain  high  level  of  security  and  enhance  the  internal  market  has 
been  possible  thanks  to  the  flexible  nature  of  the  Directive  itself.  The  Directive  sets  out 
common  minimum  requirements  while  respecting  the  subsidiarity  principle  and  leaving  MS 
the  opportunity  to  adopt  more  stringent  rules  according  to  their  national  needs  and 
background. In addition, MS and EU citizens have been provided with the guarantee that the 
common  security measures  included  in the Directive  and concerning firearms  produced and 
circulating across Europe are valid in all MS.  

(33) The minimum threshold also contributes to the functioning of the internal market and to 
strengthen the licit firearms market. In terms of market the major expected contribution of EU 
intervention  (establishment  common  categories)  has  been  hampered  by  the  different 
implementation  at  MS  level.  However,  the  effectiveness  of  the  EFP  is  an  example  of  the 
potential added value of EU intervention in terms of support to the cross-border movement of 
hunters and marksmen.  

24 As concerns sales on internet and new technologies, the study, although it considered the current framework 
adequate to tackle such challenges, cast light on the increasing use of internet as a sales channel for firearms and 
the difficulties for controls for the future. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.2 Recommendations  

(34)  Based  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  contractor  has  formulated  a  set  of 
recommendations divided between actions requiring a legislative intervention or not. 

-  Common criteria on convertibility of alarm weapons (Legislative) 
The evaluation highlighted the importance of clarifying the definition of convertibility and the 
criteria to define alarm weapons so as to create a common understanding of which types of 
alarm  weapons  can  be  converted  and  to  restrict  the  circulation  of  those  that  proved  to  be 
convertible  into  operable  firearms.  Underlying  issues:  The  conversion  of  originally  blank 
firing weapons (alarm and signal weapons) to fire live ammunition emerged as a serious issue 
in a high number of Member States.  

-  Harmonising standards and rules on deactivation (Legislative) 
The evaluation recommended continuing the ongoing process of defining common guidelines 
on deactivation standards and techniques for firearms in line also with the provisions of the 
Directive  which  explicitly  foresee  the  drafting  of  common  deactivation  guidelines  by  the 
Commission. The scope of the guidelines should be extended in order to address rules related 
to  the  requirements  for  the  ownership,  sale,  or  transfer  of  deactivated  firearms.  Underlying 
issues:  The  lack  of  common  guidelines  on  deactivation  standards  and  techniques  is  at  the 
origin of the circulation of deactivated firearms with different levels of security that could be 
potentially  reactivated.  Besides  technical  standards  for  deactivation,  an  additional  important 
aspect  to  take  into  account  relates  to  the  requirements  for  ownership,  selling  or  transfer.  In 
most  MS,  deactivated  firearms  are  not  considered  firearms  anymore.  Thus  they  are  erased 
from  the  official  register  making  it  impossible  to  trace  them  back  to  their  original  owner. 
Nonetheless, these items can be considered as a security concern and used for intimidation.  

-  Harmonising rules on marking (Legislative) 
-  The  evaluation  recommended  aligning  the  Directive’s  current  definition  of  parts  and 
components with the definition included in the UNFP, proposing the adoption of EU-wide 
standards for marking,  and  including in the Directive an obligation  to mark all essential 
components  at  the  time  of  manufacturing  or  import.  Underlying  issues:  The  failure  of 
some Member States to treat essential components as firearms and the obligation of only 
marking  "an  essential  component"  generates  differences  creating  difficulties  for  law 
enforcement  authorities  when  tracing  firearms  in  cross-border  criminal  offences.  It  also 
implies  potential  obstacles  to  the  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market  as  marks  may  not 
recognised  in  all  Member  States.  A  preliminary  in-depth  analysis  of  the  firearms  parts 
regulated  and  marked  across  MS  should  be  performed  and  differences  between  the 
definition  of  “essential  components”  included  in  the  Firearms  Directive  and  “parts  and 
components” regulated by the UNFP should be addressed at EU level to evaluate the need 
for changes of the definitions in the Directive.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
-  Transparency  and  accessibility  of  national  rules  implementing  the  Directive  (Non 

legislative)  
The  evaluation  recommended  improving  the  accessibility  at  EU  level  of  information 
collected  at  national  level  for  all  interested  parties,  especially  in  consideration  of 
information  costs  that  SMEs  might  be  incurred  (e.g.  by  creating  a  database  collecting 
information  on  the  existing  legislation  and  requirements  in  the  28  Member  States). 
Underlying issues: Differences in the implementation are the source of: slower intra-EU 
exchanges of firearms; information costs – especially for SMEs; burden resulting from the 
diversity of administrative procedures adopted.  

-  Defining  an  agreed  approach  to  the  classification  of  hunting  and  sporting  firearms 

and clarifying the rules of the EFP (Non-legislative)  
The  evaluation  recommended  that  rules  related  to  EFP  are  further  defined  at  EU  level 
(such as number of additional documents requested by national authorities and number of 
firearms  that  can  be  included  in  the  EFP).  Underlying  issues:  different  classification  of 
firearms commonly used for these activities across MS (i.e. firearms commonly used for 
sport shooting may be forbidden in some MS), as well as to restrictive interpretations of 
some rules related to the EFP.  

-  In-depth analysis on key issues (Non legislative)   

The evaluation recommended conducting in-depth analyses of specific aspects related to 
the  Directive  that  were  found  problematic  in  the  study:  1)  further  harmonisation  of  the 
firearms  ownership  requirements;  2)  interpretation  of  the  term  broker;  3)  assessment  of 
rules  applied  to  semi-automatic  weapons  and  assessment  of  their  level  of  danger  (in 
relation  to  their  convertibility  into  automatic  weapons).  Underlying  issues:  1)  Firearms 
ownership requirements: the evaluators noticed the progressive alignment of MS towards 
common and more detailed requirements than the ones indicated in the Directive; 2) Term 
broker: inconsistencies in the definition of the term might create risks. 3) Semi-automatic 
guns:  a  number  of  MS  has  highlighted  the  risks  associated  to  the  conversion  of  semi-
automatic guns into automatic guns. 

-  Strengthening the knowledge on new technologies (Non-legislative) 

The evaluation recommended further measures to facilitate knowledge sharing among MS 
regarding developments in the firearms market and trafficking (such as the online market 
for firearms, firearms parts and other weapons), and the impact of new technologies (3D 
printing)  on  control  and  tracing  of  weapons.  Underlying  issues:  New  technologies 
challenge the capacity of law enforcement authorities to trace and detect firearms or their 
components  across  MS  and  will  probably  trigger  difficulties  of  tracing  and  controlling 
firearms transfers in the future.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Strengthening data collection (Non-legislative) 

The evaluation recommended strengthening data collection activities in order to create a 
sound information base on civilian firearms and related criminal offences to support future 
decision-making  processes  at  EU  level.  Underlying  issues:  The  lack  of  detailed  and 
comprehensive  data  is  one  of  the  major  obstacles  preventing  policy  makers  from 
designing evidence-based policies.  

6. Critical assessment and feedback of the Firearms Committee  

(35)  The  evaluation  study  responded  to  the  evaluation  questions  spelled  out  by  the 
Commission and its analysis was based on a thorough analysis of the data collected. However, 
from  a  qualitative  point  of  view,  the  data  available  through  official  statistics  were  not 
sufficient.  There  is  a  clear  lack  of  data  availability  related  to  security  issues  (e.g.  data  on 
crimes  not  disaggregated  per  category  of  firearms,  limited  distinction  between  legal  and 
illegal firearms used in crimes, limited data on the production of civil firearms per MS, etc.) 
as well as poor quality of data available in relation  to the civilian  firearms market structure 
(i.e. production, import and export of civilian firearms, employees and turnover of companies 
operating  in  the  sector).  Data  on  quantifying  costs  and  administrative  burden  of  the 
implementation of specific provisions are lacking. 

(36) The evaluators mitigated the lack of aggregated data and statistics on civilian's firearms 
at  EU  level  by  contacting  national  sectorial  organisation  and  gathering  through  interviews 
missing useful information. Information from different sources allowed them to cross check 
the quality and reliability of the information.  

(37)  To  better form  its  opinion  on the validity of the study's findings and recommendations 
the Commission invited the representatives of the Firearms Committee (composed by EU 28 
Member State representatives and 4 EEA and EFTA countries) to comment on them. At the 
committee  meeting  of  18  December  2014,  the  committee  members  were  presented  with  the 
study's  results.  On  this  occasion,  Member  States  representatives  concluded  that  overall  the 
recommendations were valid. Following the dramatic events of January 2015, Member States 
expressed  a  more  informative  opinion  on  the  evaluation's  recommendations  at  a  committee 
meeting  held  on  25  March  2015.  Member  States  expressed  their  assessment  of  the  urgency 
and validity of each recommendation. In addition some Member States (France, UK, Sweden 
and Belgium), complemented the feedback provided orally by writing comments. 

(38) From the information collected by Member States, it can be concluded that: 

-  A  large  number  of  Member  States  agreed  that  high  priority  recommendations are: i) 
Common criteria on convertibility of alarm weapons, ii) Harmonising standards and 
rules on deactivation, iii) Harmonising rules on marking. According to the majority 
of  Member  States,  these  issues  call  for  a  revision  of  the  Directive.  A  number  of 
Member  States  underlined  the  need  to  push  ahead  with  the  ongoing  work  on  the 
deactivation guidelines foreseen by the Directive.  

14 

 
 
-  For most MS the following recommendations should be taken into account but should 
be considered as low/ medium priority: i)  Transparency and  accessibility  of national 
rules 
the  knowledge  on  new 
technologies; iii) Strengthening data collection. 

ii)  Strengthening 

the  Directive; 

implementing 

-  Concerning the recommendation on interoperability between the information systems 
created  at  national  level,  Member  States  views  were  not  homogenous.  A  number  of 
Member States believes that one of the most pressing issues is traceability of firearms. 
Therefore  linking  the  national  data-filing  systems  could  help  the  police  forces  and 
national  authorities  to  better  share  information.  On  the  other  hand,  a  number  of 
Member  States  underlined  that  linking  the  systems  could  result  in  a  long  and  not 
necessarily fruitful exercise due to IT/technical problems incompatibilities and, more 
importantly,  due  to  privacy  issues  and  exchange  of  personal  data.  Member  States 
suggested to carefully balancing costs and administrative burden versus the potential 
benefit  of  interoperability.  First  step  should  be  to  analyse  which  kind  information 
needs to be exchanged and then to assess how this could be done. 

-  On the recommendation to define an agreed approach to the classification of hunting 
and sporting firearms and clarify the rules of the European Firearms Pass (EFP), there 
was  no  common  view  amongst  Member  States.  Some  Member  States  stated  that  it 
would  not  be  a  problem  to  augment  the  number  of  weapons  registered  in  the  EFP, 
however the freedom to ask for additional documents should still be preserved. Other 
Member  States  believe  that  the  lack  of  information  available  on  EFP  is  an  issue.  In 
particular, a Member State highlighted the need to better inform hunters visiting other 
Member  States  about  the  use  of  the  EFP.  Only  a  few  Member  States  suggested 
revising the Directive in order to harmonise the categories of firearms. 

-  Concerning the recommendation to investigate issues such as ownership requirements, 
definitions of brokers, and convertibility, again Member States had diverging views. A 
large  number  seemed  to  agree  on  the  need  of  better  defining  the  term  of  brokers, 
components  and  parts  (and  if  needed  to  revise  the  Directive  accordingly),  and  look 
into  the  issue  of  convertibility  of  semi-automatic  weapons  into  automatic  ones  (and 
vice-versa). However, only few Member States underlined the need to revise current 
ownership requirements. 

-  A  substantial  number  of  Member  States  also  felt  that  certain  definitions  (dealers, 

essential components of firearms, replicas) need clarification. 

(39) On the basis of the evaluator's work and the feedback provided by Member States, the 
Commission  agrees  with  the  findings  of  this  evaluation.  It  also  considers  that  the 
recommendations are justified and valuable although some require more urgent actions than 
others.  In  addition,  some  recommendations  (such  as  marking  of  all  parts  of  firearms  and 
interconnecting information registry) might have a significant impact in terms of costs also on 
manufacturers  and  dealers  (in  particular  SMEs)  and  therefore  further  examination  and 

15 

 
 
possibly feasibility studies (for interconnecting the information registries for example) may be 
envisaged .  

7. The way ahead 

(40) The evaluation study showed that that the Firearms Directive has positively contributed 
to the functioning of the internal market supporting cross border  movement  of firearms and 
maintaining high levels of security, has EU added value and is relevant.   

(41)  However,  some  obstacles  remain  that  could  risk  undermining  its  functioning.  The 
evaluators  and  the  discussion  with  MS  have  highlighted  the  following  critical  issues  for 
further action: a) the issue of convertibility of blank firing weapons (such as alarm guns) into 
real firearms, b) the need to clarify requirements for the marking of firearms (allowing their 
traceability), c) the need for common and stringent guidelines for the deactivation of firearms, 
d) the need to clarify definitions e) the need to consider internet selling arrangements, f) the 
need  to  streamline  and  improve  the  national  data-exchange  systems  and  explore  the 
possibilities for interoperability and g) the need to strengthen data collection activities related 
to  civilian  firearms  and  related  criminal  offences  to  support  appropriately  future  decision-
making processes at EU level.  

(42) With the work on the common deactivation guidelines and standards already well on its 
way, the Commission decided to advance the review of the Directive taking into consideration 
the  impact  of  the  terrorist  attacks  on  15  November  in  Paris  as  well  as  previous  attacks  and 
shooting  in  Paris  and  Copenhagen  and  the  incident  in  Thalys.  The  Commission  therefore 
decided to accompany this report with a revision of the Directive on the basis of the evidence 
collected so far, considering Better Regulation aspects. 

(43) In line with the Commission Communication "The European Agenda for Security"25, in 
answer  to  the  EU  minister's  Riga  Joint  Statement26  and  to  the  Declaration  from  the  Home 
Affairs  Ministers  of  29  August  2015,  ,the  proposal  accompanying  this  report  will  aim  to 
reinforce  the  existing  legislative  framework  on  firearms,  to  improve  the  sharing  of 
information,  to  address  trafficking  and  reactivation  of  weapons,  to  enhance  standards  for 
marking in view of better traceability, and, finally, it will consider how to address the issues 
related to convertibility of weapons or blank-firing weapons (i.e. alarm weapons).  

25 COM(2015) 185 final. 
26 Riga Joint Statement following the informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Riga on 29 and 
30 January. 

16