REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: European defence policy, free movement of goods, intra-EU trade, intra-EU transport, military equipment, national implementing measure, security of supply

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.11.2016  
COM(2016) 760 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Evaluation of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 
May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products 
within the Community 

{SWD(2016) 398 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Evaluation of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 

6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products 
within the Community 

1.  Introduction 

Directive 2009/43/EC1 was adopted on 6 May 2009 and seeks to improve the functioning of 
the EU defence equipment market, promote integration of the EU defence supply chain and 
increase security of supply, by simplifying the rules and procedures for intra-EU transfers of 
defence-related products. 

Under  Article  17  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  must  report  to  the  Parliament  and  the 
Council  on  the  review  of  the  Directive’s  implementation.  If  necessary,  the  report  should  be 
accompanied  by  a  legislative  proposal.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  has  evaluated  the 
Directive to establish whether, and to what extent, the Directive’s objectives have been met, 
including with regard to the functioning of the internal market. As required in Article 17, the 
Commission reviewed the application of all the Directive’s key provisions, including those on 
certification  (Article  9),  export  limitations  (Article  10),  customs  procedures  (Article  11), 
exchange of information (Article 12), safeguard measures (Article 15).  

As  required  in  Article  17,  the  Commission  evaluated  the  Directive’s  impact  on  the 
development  of  a  European  defence  equipment  market  (EDEM)  and  the  European 
defence  technological  and  industrial  base  (EDTIB),  including  with  regard  to  SMEs.  The 
evaluation  of  the  Directive  is  taking  place  only  three  years  after  the  transposition  deadline, 
which makes it difficult to assess whether the long-term objectives of the Directive have been 
achieved. Rather, the present evaluation focuses on the implementation of the Directive and 
whether it is on track to meet its set objectives. 

To support its work, the Commission contracted an external study2 to analyse the Directive’s 
implementation and evaluate its functioning.  

The evaluation collected and analysed data from Member State competent authorities, defence 
companies,  industry  associations  and  other  stakeholders.  In  order  to  mitigate  the  lack  of 
available data and poor response in public consultation, a series of Europe-wide stakeholder 
workshops  has  been  organised.  All  Member  States,  in  particular  the  LoI  countries3,  and 
industry  associations  provided  additional  input  and  feedback  on  the  preliminary  findings. 
Proposed  follow-up  measures  were  discussed  with  the  Committee  on  EU  Transfers  of 

1 OJ L 146, 10.6.2009, p. 1. 

2 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/defence/defence-firearms-directives_en. 

3The  Letter  of  Intent  (LoI)  Framework  Agreement  Treaty,  signed  in  2000  by  the  defence  ministers  of  France, 
Germany,  Italy,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the  UK,  aimed  to  create  a  political  and  legal  framework  to  facilitate 
industrial restructuring in order to promote a more competitive and robust EDTIB in the global defence market. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
Defence-related  Products  set  up  under  the  Directive’s  Article  14,  and  with  industry 
representatives. 

This report presents the evaluation’s main findings and a proposal for the way forward. The 
report  is  accompanied  by  a  staff  working  document  setting  out  more  detailed  results  of  the 
evaluation. 

2.  The Directive’s aim and main provisions  

Prior to the Directive, the Member States’ licencing policy largely did not distinguish between 
exports  of  such  products  outside  the  EU  and  their  circulation  within  it.  In  both  situations, 
suppliers had to apply for the same type of individual licence. Such licences were positively 
assessed in almost all cases of transfers within the EU. 

In  the  light  of  this,  the  Directive  introduced  tools  to  simplify  the  movement  of  defence 
products  within  the  EU  market.  Movement  of  defence-related  products  between  Member 
States requires prior authorisation in the supplier country, with only one licence necessary for 
the whole intra-EU transfer, i.e. with no further authorisation required for passage through or 
entrance  to  another  Member  State.  However,  the  Directive  also  allows  Member  States  to 
exempt transfers from the prior authorisation obligation in specific situations, e.g.:  

•  when the supplier or the recipient is a governmental body or part of the armed forces;  

•  supplies are made by the EU, NATO, IAEA or other intergovernmental organisations 

for the performance of their tasks;  

•  as part of cooperative armament programmes between Member States or humanitarian 

aid. 

The Directive established three types of intra-EU transfer licences: 

•  General  Transfer  Licence  (GTL).  These  are  ‘open  licences’,  rely  on  ex  post 
verification and cover a pre-determined range of products to specified recipients or for 
a  specific  purpose.  No  prior  request  is  needed.  However,  suppliers  must  inform  the 
competent authorities of their Member States when they intend to use a GTL for the 
first time. 

•  Global Transfer Licence (GloTL). These rely on ex ante verification and allow several 
shipments of a category of products under the same licence to one or more recipients 
in other Member States over a specified time; 

• 

Individual Transfer Licence (ITL). These are for one transfer of a specified quantity of 
specified products to one recipient in another Member State. 

The  Directive  requires  at  least  four  types  of  GTL  to  be  published  in  Member  States,  for 
transfers:  (i)  to  armed  forces;  (ii)  to  certified  defence  enterprises;  (iii)  for  demonstration, 
evaluation or exhibition purposes; (iv) for repair or maintenance.  

3 

 
 
The  second  type  of  GTL  can  only  be  used  by  a  supplier  if  the  recipient  of  defence-related 
products is certified under the Directive’s Article 9. Further requirements are laid down in the 
Recommendation  on  certification.4  Certification  ensures  the  recipient’s  trustworthiness 
towards the export control authority in the Member State responsible for issuing the ex post 
verified GTL. It proves that the enterprise has in place the necessary internal system and staff 
to  comply  with  export  control  rules.  The  Commission  has  created  a  central  register  of 
Member State-certified recipients, called CERTIDER, which is accessible to the public.5 

Under Article 10 of the Directive, when transfer recipients of defence-related products apply 
for an export licence, they must declare to the competent authorities any export limitations set 
by  the  original  transfer  licence  and  that  they  have  complied  with  them  (including,  where 
necessary, obtaining consent from the originating Member State). Under Article 11, exporters 
must  provide  customs  offices  with  any  necessary  export  licence.  That  Article  also  allows  a 
Member State, in specific circumstances, to suspend the export from its territory of defence-
related  products  received  from  another  Member  State  under  a  transfer  licence  and 
incorporated in other defence-related products or, if necessary, prevent by other means such 
products from leaving the EU via its territory. Article 12 refers to cooperation and exchange 
of  information  between  national  competent  authorities.  Article  15  deals  with  safeguard 
measures seeking verification of recipient compliance from other Member States where there 
are concerns. 

The  material  scope  of  the  Directive  is  defined  by  a  list  of  defence-related  products,  set  out 
within its Annex.  

3.  Transposition and implementation 

The  Directive  entered  into  force  in  2009  and  was  to  be  transposed  by  30 June  2011.  It  has 
applied  since  30 June  2012.  To  date,  all  Member  States  have  transposed  it,  although  some 
with  delay.  By  2012,  only  20  Member  States  notified  the  Commission  of  national 
transposition measures.6 

The  uptake  of  new  licencing  options  and  certification  has  been  slower  than  anticipated. 
According to available information, only 19 Member States have published the GTLs required 
by the Directive,  at least two still do not currently offer any GTLs and at least four do not 
offer  all  four  types  of  GTLs.  Furthermore,  around  half  of  Member  States  do  not  yet  have 
experience with the certification process (i.e. no certified companies) and at least one is yet to 
introduce a fully operable scheme for certifying defence enterprises.7 Also the extent to which 

4 OJ L 11, 15.1.2011, p. 62. 

5 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/certider/. 

6 COM/2012/359. 

7 No complete information is available for all Member States. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
possible exemptions from prior authorisation have been taken up varies significantly between 
Member  States,  although  transposition  of  the  exemptions  is  not  mandatory  under  the 
Directive. 

The  differences  in  how  the  Directive  has  been  transposed  are  major  barriers  to  its  effective 
application, as analysed below. This has translated into:  

•  slow or incomplete application in individual Member States;  

•  a  general  lack  of  harmonisation  in  requirements  and  procedures  between  Member 

States; 

•  highly diverging conditions and limitations in GTLs published by the Member States.  

4.  Key results of the evaluation 

a.  Effectiveness of the Directive - Take-up in general, application of key 

provisions and barriers to effective application 

The  use  of  the  GloTL  and  GTL,  the  Directive’s  main  new  tools,  has  increased  since  its 
application.  However,  the  use  remains  behind  initial  expectations  identified  in  the  Impact 
Assessment and there are significant variations across Member States.  

For  instance,  during  2012-2014  between  500  and  600  GloTL  were  issued  each  year  in 
21 Member States (for which complete data are available). However, five of the states did not 
issue any GloTLs during the assessment period, while four issued close to or over 200 GloTL 
each.  

For GTL, across the 24 Member States with complete data there were 1 475 notifications of 
first  use  during  the  assessment  period,  although  with  considerable  variation:  11 Member 
States  did  not  register  any  notifications,  while  three  had  more  than  100  notifications.  The 
number  of  transactions  under  GTLs  has  grown  significantly  over  time  (although  only 
eight Member  States  could  provide  data  on  this).  In  Germany,  for  example,  reported  GTL 
transactions increased from 71 (2012) to 1 769 (2013) to 4 884 (2014). 

Different trends also apply across the four GTLs prescribed by the Directive. Notifications of 
first use for GTL for demonstration and repair have seen an increasing rate of growth, while 
the rate of growth for GTL for armed forces has  been slowing. GTL for certified recipients 
was the only case where registrations actually fell from 2013 to 2014. The latter GTL has also 
the lowest use compared to the other three GTLs. 

The  vast  majority  of  transfers  (~89 %)  are  still  done  through  ITLs,  while  only  a  small 
proportion involved GloTL (<5 %) and GTL (<10 %). ITLs were intended to be replaced by 
the new tools, but they still remain the main form of transfer authorisation in Europe. 

5 

 
 
The use of exemptions from prior authorisation varies significantly: some Member States use 
all the possibilities for exemptions offered by the Directive, some only use few options and 
some do not use any.  

There  was  slower  and  lower  than  expected  uptake  of  certification,  which  is  mainly 
targeted at integrators (as opposed to component suppliers). Although the number of certified 
companies  has  risen  steadily  since  2012,  only  55  companies  have  been  certified  across 
Europe. Half are located in just two Member States: Germany (14) and France (12), while half 
of  the  Member  States  have  no  certified  companies  at  all.  The  certification  process  is 
considered  by  industry  as  costly  and  time-consuming.  The  cost-benefit  ratio8  perceived  by 
certified  enterprises  is  inevitably  weakened  by  the  low  take-up  of  GTLs  across  trading 
partners  of  certified  enterprises.  In  some  cases,  the  supplier  is  located  in  a  Member  State 
where the specific type of GTL for certified recipients would be unavailable or under heavy 
restrictions in terms of licence conditions (for instance concerning re-export). 

Also, differences in implementation of the certification scheme could hamper its take-up, as it 
creates  confusion  and  uncertainty  in  industry.  Companies  might  prefer  to  apply  familiar 
procedures  available  to  them  before  the  Directive  rather  than  the  quite  stringent  process  of 
certification. 

The  evaluation  identified  a  number  of  barriers  to  effective  application  of  the  Directive, 
resulting either from its provisions or from its transposition. A major problem pointed out by 
stakeholders  was  the  lack  of  harmonisation  in  the  implementation  of  GTLs  across  Member 
States.  GTLs  published  by  Member  States  vary  significantly  in  terms  of  products  and 
components that can be transferred under the GTL and the conditions for their transfer. That 
reduces  their  attractiveness  for  industry.  Another  barrier  is  the  shift  of  liability  (from 
authorities  to  economic  operators),  meaning  that  new  GTLs  are  perceived  as  higher  risk, 
especially by SMEs. A major obstacle for certification is the personal liability requirement for 
executives over export/transfer control. 

A  further  obstacle  is  the  low  awareness,  particularly  among  SMEs,  of  the  tools  available 
under  the  Directive  and  their  benefits  across  industry  within  individual  Member  States.  For 
example, companies could reduce time and administrative burden by using GTLs to transfer 
supplies to a certified enterprise. 

Another indirect restriction for circulation of defence-related products in the EU stems from 
the  system  of  Member  States'  export  controls,  governed  by  Common  Position 

8  As  with  any  network,  the  performance  and  cost-benefit  ratio  is  weaker  in  the  emerging  phase  and  should 
improve geometrically once it exceeds a critical level of users. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
2008/944/CFSP9. Member States tend to prohibit subsequent exports in their national GTLs, 
which makes this instrument less attractive for industry. 

Overall,  the  Directive  has  ambitious  goals,  which  require  change  of  sometimes  long 
established  and  entrenched  ways  of  working.  Its  successful  application  has  been  aided  in 
Member States where changes to the existing licencing scheme were minimal (e.g. where an 
open licencing system pre-existed), where there was strong interest and good awareness of the 
changes taking place and where information and advice were available to support transition. 
Nevertheless,  as  the  main  elements  of  the  Directive  are  yet  to  be  implemented  in  some 
Member States, its effective application across the EU is difficult to assess. 

The  Commission  has  received  some  vague  indications  from  industry  concerning  practical 
difficulties  with  the  customs  procedure  set  out  in  Article  11  of  the  Directive.  However,  the 
evaluation study has not established any evidence in this regard.  

No specific issues were identified over the implementation of Articles 10, 12 and 15. 

b.   Impact on the European defence equipment market and European 

defence technological and industrial base 

While  the  Directive  provides  a  framework  for  harmonisation  and  helped  to  create  similarly 
structured  national  licencing  systems,  it  is  sufficiently  open  and  flexible  to  interpretation  to 
mean that there are still essentially 28 different licencing systems across Europe. An example 
demonstrating  this  is  the  diverging  national  interpretation  of  ‘less  sensitive  products’  to  be 
included  in  the  scope  of  GTLs.  This  and  other  areas  of  difference  in  application  do  not 
contribute to achieving an open EDEM. 

It is hard to assess the Directive’s impact on the development of the EDTIB and EDEM. In 
most Member States, transfers are a minor, though not negligible, part of the overall defence 
trade. In 2013, transfers counted for 26 % of the EU overall defence trade. 

Since the Directive has applied only for a short time so far, we do not yet see an impact on the 
development of the EDTIB. Overall, more time is needed to see such benefits. 

Furthermore,  other  factors  have  a  strong  impact,  such  as  the  steady  decrease  in  defence 
investment10 in the EU since the financial and economic crisis. Contrary to expectations, some 
stakeholders indicated that this contributed to renationalisation of supply chains, which would 
be counter to the Directive’s original objectives towards de-fragmentation of markets. 

9 Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of 
exports of military technology and equipment, OJ L 335, 13.12.2008, p. 99. 

10 The trend started with a sharp 11.6% real decrease in 2011, followed by another significant real fall of 9.1% in 
2014; cf. Defence Data 2014 published by the European Defence Agency.  

7 

 
 
                                                            
Moreover,  the  defence  business  is  characterised by  cycles  and  shifts  that  do  not  necessarily 
occur with regularity and usually have more than one reason. Thus we must be very cautious 
when attributing any shift to the Directive, which has been in place for three years (or less in 
some Member  States). In addition, supply chains are  generally rather  slow  to change. For a 
prime contractor it takes good reason and time to change suppliers. Simplification of transfer 
procedures is not considered a good enough reason alone to contemplating such a change. 

Some  competent  authorities  have  stressed  that  the  Directive’s  provisions,  no  matter  how 
imperfect, do cater to companies’ needs and lead overall to greater productivity by reducing 
administrative burden. The positive impact on the EDTIB is mainly seen by smaller countries. 
Several respondents also mentioned that an internal market for (less sensitive) equipment has 
been facilitated, but high-tech goods remain excluded from it. 

The  global  perspective  on  competitiveness,  in  particular  transatlantic  developments,  also 
plays  a  role.  Many  defence  companies  feel  that  recent  reforms  of  US  export  control,  which 
facilitated  the  exports  of  a  number  of  defence  products  and  components,  have  put  US  and 
European  companies  on  an  unequal  footing,  providing  a  regulatory  advantage  to  US 
exporters. 

Similarly,  the  Directive  had  a  minor  positive  effect  on  the  security  of  supply  of  defence-
related  products.  It  might,  however,  contribute  to  greater  security  of  supply  by  increasing 
transparency  i.e.  by  knowing  other  Member  States’  licencing  systems,  procurers  or  buyers 
could  be  reassured  about  the  reliability  of  supplies  from  other  Member  States.  The  use  of 
GTLs  instead  of  applying  for  ITLs  could  reduce  lead  time  and  administrative  costs  and 
increase  flexibility  (on  both  sides  of  the  supply  chain,  in  the  case  of  GTL  for  certified 
recipients). 

c.  Efficiency  

There is no clear view yet of the Directive’s overall impact on costs for the different parties 
involved.  However,  initial  indications  and  anecdotal  evidence  suggest  that  costs  will  be 
reduced. Competent authorities have seen significant initial set-up costs, but expect this to be 
more  than  offset  by  reduced  day-to-day  costs  as  businesses  increasingly  shift  from  ITL  to 
GloTL  and  GTL.  Businesses  have  also  experienced  upfront  costs  of  familiarisation  and 
adaptation to new systems but expect to save time and money through the new licences. 

Use  of  GloTLs  and  GTLs  is increasing and over time this should  more significantly  reduce 
the  use  of  ITLs  and  thus  further  reduce  costs  including  administrative  burden.  Greater 
familiarity,  better  embedded  processes  and  economies  of  scale  may  also  add  to  increasing 
benefits over time. 

While  the  Directive’s  initial  application  involved  significant  effort  and  cost  for  both 
competent  authorities  and  companies,  all  the  evidence  suggests  that  these  demands  were 
affordable. Similarly, the direct costs of new licencing scheme appear to be more affordable 

8 

 
 
than  pre-existing  options.  Overall,  it  can  be  considered  that  the  Directive  is  on  track  to 
achieve useful cost reductions, including administrative burden reduction, in the longer run. 

The main area where costs are not felt to be proportionate is certification, where stakeholders 
see very limited potential benefits from this option for the time being. A lack of incentives is 
contributing  to  the  low  number  of  certified  enterprises  and  to  the  associated  limited  uptake 
and use of GTLs for certified enterprises.   

d.  Consistency and coherence 

Article 13 of the Directive states that the list of defence-related products, set out in its Annex, 
must strictly correspond  to  the EU’s  Common  Military List (CML),11 updated  each  year  by 
the Council. However, it takes several months to amend the Annex to reflect amendments to 
the  CML,  and  the  updated  list  of  defence-related  products  must  be  then  transposed  by 
Member States. National legislation and in particular the scope of products under control are 
therefore unlikely to reflect the current CML at any given time and may also differ from that 
in other countries. This creates confusion for industry over which list of products applies for 
exports versus transfers control, or transfers from different Member States, and leads to legal 
uncertainty.  This  undermines  effective  circulation  of  military  products  within  the  EU  and 
consequently impedes use of simplified tools such as GTLs. 

Many  product  categories  in  the  Annex  fall  under  transfer  licencing  to  the  extent  they  are 
specially  designed  for  military  use.  Since  there  is  no  common  definition  of  ‘specially 
designed for military use’, industry faces diverging approaches in individual Member States 
concerning the scope of defence-related product transfers. 

There  are  several  potential  and  rather  limited  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  between  the 
Directive and other legislation on defence-related products or intra-community transfers, such 
as  Firearms  Regulation12,  Firearms  Directive13,  UN  Arms  Trade  Treaty  of  2013,  Dual  Use 
Regulation14,  and  Common  Position  2008/944/CFSP.  Such  cross-references  between  the 
Directive  and  the  Firearms  Regulation  will  be  addressed  when  the  latter  is  evaluated.  No 
incoherence with the Defence Procurement Directive15 has been identified. 

11  The  EU  CML  is  the  material  scope  for  export  control  of  defence-related  products  under  Common  Position 
2008/944/CFSP. 

12 OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 1. 

13 OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51. 

14 OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1. 

15 OJ L 2016, 20.8.2009, p. 76. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
Finally,  a  few  competent  authorities  highlighted  that  it  is  important  that  overlaps  and 
incoherence  is  continually  reconsidered  as  there  are  constantly  evolutions  in  different  legal 
frameworks, both within the EU and internationally.  

e.  Relevance and EU added value 

The  evaluation  confirmed  that  all  of  the  Directive’s  original  objectives  are  still  as  valid  in 
Europe  today.  These  are  long-term  aims,  to  which  the  Directive  has  provided  an  initial 
contribution. Further effort is now needed to fully implement the Directive and to improve its 
practical  and  harmonised  application  so  as  to  further  reduce  fragmentation  of  the  European 
defence markets. 

Before the Directive’s adoption, each Member State had its own regime to control transfers of 
defence-related products, although a multinational trend had emerged, for instance in the form 
of  LoI  cooperation.  The  disparate  national  approaches,  or  sub-European  multilateral 
initiatives,  made  some  (limited)  progress,  but are  unlikely  to  have  been  as  ambitious  as  the 
Directive  in  attempting  to  restructure  the  transfers  regime  throughout  Europe  or  to  have 
achieved the same progress towards addressing the needs and risks identified. Therefore the 
European  approach  is  more  likely  to  contribute  to  achieving  the  Directive’s  objectives, 
although the extent of its current application falls short of achieving those objectives. 

5.  Conclusions and way forward 

Overall,  the  Directive  continues  to  provide  an  appropriate  basis  for  addressing  needs  and 
issues  over  the  transfers  of  defence-related  products  in  Europe.  Since  implementation  has 
taken  longer  than  expected  and  has  varied  across  Europe,  the  wider  and  more  long-term 
ambitions  to  have  an  efficient  internal  market,  greater  security  of  supply  and  improve 
competitiveness have only been partly achieved. 

Member State authorities and stakeholders broadly confirmed that the Directive and its tools 
still correspond to the needs and risks identified initially. It has made a limited but worthwhile 
contribution to a better functioning of the defence markets in Europe, even if the effectiveness 
of  this  contribution  was  difficult  to  measure  due  to  limited  data  availability.  Except  for 
certification  and  taking  into  account  limited  time  of  application  of  the  Directive,  there  are 
indications  that  the  Directive  led  to  a  certain  reduction  of  costs  and  administrative  burden. 
The  EU  approach  remains  the  most  appropriate  response  to  consolidating  EU  defence 
markets; however, the Directive's internal and external coherence could be improved. Overall, 
the Directive is on track to meet the initially identified objectives.  

Therefore, rather than amending the Directive, the Commission intends to focus on improving 
its  implementation,  producing  guidance  measures  and  recommendations  and  promoting  its 
use.  Member  States’  progress  over  time  in  implementing  the  Directive  will  contribute  to 
better uptake and could increase the availability of data for any future evaluation. 

10 

 
 
Based on the evaluation’s findings and the input from Member States at the Committee and 
from industry across Europe, the Commission suggests the following way forward: 

•  The  Commission  intends  to  improve  the  Directive’s  implementation  in  individual 
Member  States  by  starting  a  dialogue  with  national  authorities  to  clarify  and  better 
understand  the  modalities  of  transposition  of  the  Directive  into  the  national  legal 
orders and the reasons for non-implementation of some provisions in certain Member 
States  and  to  solve  any  outstanding  issues  in  this  regard.  The  perceived  lack  of 
benefits of the certification system might be partly overcome by increased availability 
and uptake of GTLs for certified recipients versus ITL. 

•  Based  on  substantial  efforts  by  the  Working  Group  with  Member  State  competent 
authorities set up under the Directive’s Committee and valuable contributions from the 
LoI  countries,  the  Commission  has  adopted  two  Recommendations  to  encourage 
harmonised  functioning  of  GTLs  for  armed  forces  and  for  certified  recipients.  Both 
Recommendations  contain  a  minimum  set  of  less  sensitive  defence-related  products 
and  components  and  common  minimum  requirements  for  transfers  of  these  products 
and components to be covered by the respective GTLs in individual Member States. 
The  requirements  include  complete  release  from  re-export  restrictions  in  the 
Recommendation on GTL for armed forces and partial release in the Recommendation 
on  GTL  for  certified  recipients.  Since  the  list  of  products  covered  by  both 
Recommendations  is  not  exhaustive,  Member  States  may  add  other  products  and 
components  in  the  scope  of  their  GTLs.  However,  Member  States  should  not  add 
conditions for transfers under the GTL, which contradict or undermine the conditions 
listed in the Recommendations. 

•  The  Commission  is  committed  to  continue  working  closely  with  the  Member  States 
and  the  Working  Group  on  similar  harmonisation  of  further  GTLs  specified  by  the 
Directive,  i.e.  GTL  for  demonstration,  evaluation  or  exhibition  and  GTL  for 
maintenance and repair. If necessary, this will result in further recommendations to the 
Member  States.  The  Working  Group  is  seen  as  a  valuable  way  to  exchange 
information and best practices and to support cooperation between Member States and 
the Commission. 

•  The  Commission  will  continue  exchanging  views  with  Member  States  to  identify 
concrete  areas  for  more  harmonised  certification  across  the  EU,  including  creating 
synergies with other regimes, such as dual-use products control, to the extent possible. 
It will explore whether further guidance or exchange of best practice among Member 
States or even revision or clarification of the currently applicable Recommendation on 
certification is the best way to boost the consistency and uptake of certification. 

•  Possibilities  to  incentivise  certification  in  industry  will  be  further  examined,  such  as 
potential  synergies  with  the  concept  of  authorised  economic  operator  under  customs 
regulations,  possible  simplification  of  audit  procedures  and  closer  cooperation 

11 

 
 
between  the  competent  authorities  granting  transfer  licences  and  the  customs 
authorities.  

•  The  Commission  will  launch  work  on  a  common  definition  of  the  term  ‘specially 
designed for military use’ to qualify which products are to be covered by the Directive 
and thus subject to licencing requirements. This task requires close cooperation with 
Member State competent authorities and users of GTLs, i.e. suppliers and recipients of 
defence-related products across the EU. The work by European and international fora 
on defence-related products’ export control will be taken into account.  

•  The Commission will continue exchanging views with the Member States concerning 
the application of Article 11 in their territories with a view to monitoring the situation. 

•  There is a strong role for the Commission and the Member States in raising awareness 
of  the  Directive’s  tools  and  benefits.  This  includes  outreach  in  the  Defence  SMEs 
Network  meetings.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  has  prepared  a  user-friendly 
handbook,  directed  especially  at  SMEs,  explaining  the  instruments  of  the  Directive 
and  providing  guidance  on  how  to  best  use  these  instruments,  in  particular  the 
certification scheme. The guide will be published in the beginning of 2017. 

•  Member  States  and  defence  undertakings  should  increase  the  Directive’s  uptake 
through  practice  in  their  licencing  policy.  For  instance,  competent  authorities  should 
encourage operators to use GTLs instead of ITLs where circumstances allow. Where 
appropriate,  in  their  purchasing  policy,  certified  companies  should  encourage  their 
suppliers to apply for a GTL instead of ITLs. 

•  The currently burdensome updates of the Directive’s Annex require further reflection 
by  all  those  involved,  in  particular  the  European  institutions.  The  Commission  will 
examine  options  to  simplify  and  speed  up  annual  updates.  This  may  involve  limited 
revision  of  the  Directive  e.g.  by  separating  the  Annex  from  the  Directive  and  by 
annual  adoption  of  the  updates  by  Commission  decision.  This  will  provide  legal 
certainty  and  consistency  in  the  scope  of  transfers  between  Member  States  and  over 
transfer versus export control within them. 

•  To  increase  awareness  of  the  Directive  and  information  exchange  between  Member 
States,  it  could  be  considered  to  expand  the  CERTIDER  database  by  additional 
information,  such  as  concise  but  meaningful  information  on  national  systems  with 
links to their internet presence. Public accessibility of such information at a one-stop-
shop will foster information exchange among Member States and, more importantly, 
within the defence sector. 

•  The Commission also examines issues that may require revision of the Directive in the 
longer run, such as: making exemptions binding on Member States and enlarging the 
scope  of  exemptions;  revising  the  certification  scheme;  introducing  requirements  to 
report  directly  to  the  Commission  to  ensure  an  appropriate  and  effective  monitoring 

12 

 
 
system  capable  of  supporting  sound  quantitative  and  qualitative  cost/benefit 
assessment  of  the  future  performance  of  the  Directive;  creating  new  GTLs,  e.g.  for 
product return after exhibition or repair, for cross-border cooperation in research, for 
all-purpose  transfers  (e.g.  covering  purchase,  maintenance,  supply  of  spare  parts). 
Several Member States already offer other GTLs on top of the four basic ones in the 
Directive; possibility of converting the above-mentioned Recommendations on GTLs 
into binding provisions. 

The  Commission  is  committed  to  enforcing  the  Directive’s  full  implementation  across  all 
Member States. The Directive serves as an appropriate and necessary first step to addressing 
the  fragmentation  of  defence  transfers  licencing  in  Europe  and  optimising  supply  chains 
which  ultimately  contribute  to  increasing  competitiveness  of  the  EDTIB.  In  line  with  the 
European Defence Action Plan, the way forward presented in this report is intended to:  

• 

increase  uptake  of  the  existing  legislative  framework  on  transfers  of  defence-related 
products; 

• 

improve the availability of GTLs throughout the EU;  

•  address the so far limited application of the certification scheme.  

All these initiatives will ultimately boost development of EDEM and EDTIB, in line with the 
Directive’s objectives, and thereby improve the functioning of the internal market for defence 
products. 

13