COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Transfers Directive Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 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

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.11.2016  SWD(2016) 398 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Transfers Directive Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 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 {COM(2016) 760 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 4 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ 4 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4 

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................. 7 

2.1 BASELINE AND RATIONALE FOR THE TRANSFERS DIRECTIVE .......................................................................................... 7 
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................................. 8 
2.3 MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................. 10 
2.3.1 Material scope .................................................................................................................................... 10 
2.3.2 Exemptions ......................................................................................................................................... 10 
2.3.3 Transfer Licences ................................................................................................................................ 10 
2.3.4 Certification ....................................................................................................................................... 11 
2.3.5 Export after transfer (re-export) ........................................................................................................ 11 

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 11 

4. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 12 

4.1 METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 12 
4.2 LIMITATIONS – ROBUSTNESS OF THE FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 13 

5. IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY .................................................................................................. 14 

5.1 TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE ...................................................................................... 14 
5.1.1 Transposition and implementation ..................................................................................................... 14 
5.1.2 Take up of the possibility of exemptions ............................................................................................ 14 
5.1.3 Implementation of General Transfer Licences .................................................................................... 16 

6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................................... 20 

6.1 EFFECTIVENESS: MEASURING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIRECTIVE IS ACCOMPLISHING ITS OBJECTIVES ........................... 20 
Questions addressed:................................................................................................................................... 20 
6.1.1 The extent of implementation, uptake and use .................................................................................. 20 
6.1.2 Implementation of Certification schemes ........................................................................................... 21 
6.1.3 Enablers and barriers to effective application of the Directive .......................................................... 23 
6.1.4 Examples of efficient application ....................................................................................................... 25 
6.1.5 The extent of contribution from the Directive's provisions to the Directive’s overarching objectives 26 
6.2 EFFICIENCY: EVALUATING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INITIATIVE ....................................................................... 32 
Questions addressed:................................................................................................................................... 32 
6.2.1 The extent to which costs have been reduced .................................................................................... 33 
6.2.2 The extent to which costs are affordable and proportionate, given benefits .................................... 36 
6.3 CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE OF THE DIRECTIVE ................................................................................................. 38 
Questions addressed:................................................................................................................................... 38 
6.3.1 Internal coherence and consistency in implementation ..................................................................... 38 
6.3.2 External coherence and consistency with other legislation ............................................................... 39 
6.4 RELEVANCE: MEASURING THE CONTINUED NEED FOR THE INITIATIVE ......................................................................... 40 

2 

 
 
Questions addressed:................................................................................................................................... 40 
6.4.1 Whether the original objectives still correspond to EU needs ............................................................ 40 
6.5 EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................................................................. 41 
Questions addressed:................................................................................................................................... 41 

7. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 45 

ANNEX 2. METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE EVALUATION .............................. 46 

1. EVALUATION APPROACH ..................................................................................................................................... 46 
2. PRINCIPAL EVALUATION METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 47 
2.1 Desk research and document review ..................................................................................................... 47 
2.2 Analysis of statistical data on the defence sector .................................................................................. 47 
2.3 stakeholders consultation activities ...................................................................................................... 47 
2.4 Case studies ........................................................................................................................................... 48 

ANNEX 3. DETAILED SUMMARY OF ALL RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS AND THEIR RESULT .............................. 49 

1. SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................................. 49 
1.1 Context................................................................................................................................................... 49 
1.2 Stakeholder group consultations and results ........................................................................................ 50 
1.3 Summary of stakeholder consultations ................................................................................................. 54 
1.4 How these results feed into the evaluation ........................................................................................... 55 

ANNEX 4. RESULT / IMPACT INDICATORS ..................................................................................................... 56 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Extent to which countries have transposed possible exemptions from prior-authorisation ..... 15 

Table 2: GTLs offered, by country............................................................................................................. 16 

Table 3: Notifications of first use for different GTLs and reported transactions .................................... 18 

Table 4:  Number of certified enterprises by country .............................................................................. 22 

Table 5: Results from industry survey ...................................................................................................... 27 

Table 6: Results from industry survey ..................................................................................................... 29 

Table 7: Results from industry survey ...................................................................................................... 31 

Table 8: Tabulation of evaluation questions and methods ..................................................................... 46 

Table 9: Indicators relating to the benefits / impacts of the Directive .................................................... 57 

Table 10: Indicators relating to the uptake and use of the Directive ....................................................... 57 

Table 11: Indicators relating to transposition and implementation of the Directive ............................... 57 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Intervention logic of the Transfers Directive ............................................................................. 9 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  

ASD 

CA 

CML 

DG 

EC 

ECC 

EDA 

AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe 

Competent Authority 

Common Military List 

Directorate General  

European Commission 

Export Controls Committee of ASD 

European Defence Agency 

EDTIB   

European Defence Technological and Industrial Base 

EEA 

EEAS 

EEN 

EQ 

EU 

GloTL 

GTL 

IA 

ITL 

LoI 

European Economic Area 

European External Action Service 

Enterprise Europe Network 

Evaluation Question 

European Union 

Global Transfer Licence 

General Transfer Licence 

Impact Assessment 

Individual Transfer Licence 

Letter of Intent countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK) 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

NDIA 

Member State(s) 

National defence industry association 

SPIPRI  

Stockholm International Pease Research Institute 

SIR 

SME 

TD 

Specific information requirements 

Small and medium-sized enterprise 

Transfers Directive 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

Pursuant  to  Article  17  of  the  Transfers  Directive  2009/43/EC1  (the  Directive),  the 
Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of 
the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  If  necessary,  the  report  shall  be  accompanied  by  a 
legislative proposal.  

To  this  end,  the  Commission  has  carried  out  an  evaluation of  the  Directive  with  the  aim  of 
establishing whether, and to what extent, the objectives of the Directive have been achieved, 
with regard, inter alia, to the functioning of the internal market. Specifically, the evaluation 
sought to assess the application of the areas of the Directive dealing with certification (Article 
9), export limitations (Article 10), customs procedures (Article 11), exchange of information 
(Article 12) and safeguard measures (Article 15). Furthermore, it aimed at the assessment of 
the impact of the Directive on the development of a European defence equipment market and 
a European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB), having regard,  inter alia, to 
the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  

In  line  with  the  above  requirement,  DG  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and 
SMEs (DG GROW) contracted in January 2015 an external study to support the evaluation of 
the Directive covering the period 2012 (entry into force of the Directive) until 20152.  

This  evaluation  has  been  undertaken  just  three  years  after  the  transposition  deadline  (and 
fewer years from actual application in some countries). Therefore it may be too soon to see 
the full impact of the Directive in relation to its wider aims. The ex-ante Impact Assessment3 
accompanying the proposal for the Transfer Directive cautioned that changes to government 
procurement practices and the reorganisation of industrial supply chains would not take place 
immediately  and  that  evaluation  of  broader  impacts  and  indirect  benefits  of  the  Directive 
should  only  take  place at  least  six  years  after  first application.  The  Impact  Assessment  was 
indicating that in the midterm, the Commission should assess the functioning of the new EU 
simplified  regime,  with  special  attention  on  administrative  costs.  For  this  reason,  the 
evaluation  has  been  mainly  focused  on  the  assessment  of  its  progress  towards  the 
achievement  of  the  objectives,  i.e.  how  far  the  Member  States  and  industry  are  in 

1  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, OJ L 146, 10.6.2009, p. 1. 

2 Final report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/defence/defence-firearms-directives_en 

3 SEC (2007) 1593. Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  simplifying  terms  and  conditions  of  transfers  of  defence-related  products  within  the 
Community. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
implementing and making use of the provisions of the Directive and whether we are on track 
with meeting the objectives the Directive sets.  

The findings of this evaluation have been used for the purpose of the report to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive. 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

2.1 BASELINE AND RATIONALE FOR THE TRANSFERS DIRECTIVE 

The Impact Assessment set out the rationale and objectives by explaining the issues, barriers 
and  problems  that  existed  at  the  time  in  relation  to  the  functioning  of  transfers  within  the 
European defence market.  

Before the entry into force of the Directive, all Member States (MS) implemented their own 
legislation  to  regulate  the  import,  export  and  transit  of  defence  products.  Ex  ante  licensing 
schemes  were  at  the  heart  of  these  control  regimes.  Despite  similarities  in  the  means 
employed, national rules differed significantly in terms of scope, authorities, procedures and 
timing.  Furthermore,  existing  schemes  typically  did  not  differentiate  between  transfers  to 
another MS and exports to third countries.  

Prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  Directive,  national  licensing  schemes  imposed  a  significant 
administrative burden on companies, and required long lead times – up to several months. The 
corresponding administrative burden and indirect impact have been estimated respectively at 
€433m/year  and  €2.73bn/year.  The  patchwork  of  licensing  requirements  –  and  the 
corresponding  administrative  burden  –  appeared  to  be  out  of  proportion  with  actual  control 
needs,  given  that  license  applications  for  intra-EU  transfers  were  almost  never  rejected 
(11,500  licences are  issued  annually, but  no request has  been denied since 2003).  For these 
reasons, there was a growing consensus amongst industry and governmental stakeholders that 
these  obstacles  to  intra-EU  transfers  impeded  the  creation  of  European  Defence  and 
Technological Industrial Base (EDTIB) and undermined security of supply between MS. 

At  the  industrial  level,  the  need  to  conform  to  disparate  national  licensing  regimes  did 
continue  to  hamper  the  optimisation  of  supply  chains.  To  avoid  time-consuming,  uncertain 
and  costly  procedures,  companies  tended  to  prefer  national  suppliers.  This  impeded  the 
specialisation  of  European  defence  industries  and  the  creation  of  economies  of  scale.  For 
example,  pan-European  companies  could  not  enjoy  the  full  benefits  of  cross-border 
integration, as long as data transfers between a company based in one MS with its subsidiary 
in another were subject to complex and lengthy prior approval schemes. In addition, even if a 
transfer license were granted, an EU tendering governmental authority could not assume that 
export  licences  would  be  issued  if  it  wanted  to  procure  defence  equipment  from  a  supplier 

7 

 
 
established  in  another  MS,  incentivising  the  sourcing  of  sensitive  military  equipment  to  a 
national producer, rather than to its (possibly more advantageous) European competitors. 

The aforementioned restrictions to the free movement of defence-related products cannot be 
abolished  in  general.  Article  36  and  Article  346  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU)  both  provide grounds for the  justification  of the restriction of free 
movement  of  goods.  However,  in  line  with  the  long-held  position  of  the  Commission, 
restrictions  can  only  be  applied  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  as  the  market  for  defence-related 
products is not generally exempted from the application of internal market rules.  

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE 

On  the  basis  of  the  needs  and  problems  described  in  section  2.1,  the  main  aim  of  the 
Directive  was  to  simplify  the  rules  and  procedures  applicable  to  the  intra-EU  transfers  of 
defence-related products, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market.  

As described in the Impact Assessment, the general objective of the Directive was to establish 
an open and competitive European Defence Equipment Market (EDEM) in the EU.  
The specific objective was the facilitation of intra-community transfers of defence-related 
products to reduce the complexity - and the related administrative burden - associated with the 
existing web of diverging national licensing schemes. 

The general objectives, combined with other details in the Impact Assessment and Directive 
on its rationale and intentions, were used to develop an intervention logic for the Directive, 
presented in Figure 1. This shows the logical sequence and causal relationships between: the 
Directive’s  rationale;  the  activities  undertaken;  and  the  results  (outputs)  and  changes 
(outcomes  and  ultimately impacts)  that  it was intended would be realised as  a result. These 
achievements should in turn contribute towards addressing the initial needs identified, which 
were the original basis for the Directive. More information on the processes provided by the 
Directive is described in section 2.3. 

Key  operational  objectives  include  simplified  national  licensing  schemes  combined  with  a 
shift  from  individual  and  global  licences  to  open  (general)  types  of  licences,  for  which 
individual applications are no longer required. Further, one of the general licences is directly 
linked with a certification process.  

8 

 
 
 
Figure 1: Intervention logic of the Transfers Directive 

9 

 
 
Pre-existing  licence  procedures  were  considered  to  impose  big  administrative  burdens,  and 
were both time consuming and resource intensive for the authorities and economic operators 
involved.  The  Directive  sought  to  reduce  these  costs:  by  reducing  the  number  of  licence 
applications  /  approvals  required  (replacing  Individual  Transfer  Licences  with  (fewer) 
Global/General  Transfer  Licences);  by  removing  the  need  for  additional  import  or  transit 
licences;  and  more  generally  by  simplifying  (and  making  more  transparent)  the  processes 
involved in transfer licencing. 

2.3 MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE  

2.3.1 Material scope 

The material scope of the Directive is specified by the list of defence-related products set out 
in its Annex, which has to strictly correspond to the EU’s Common Military List adopted by 
the  Council  (cf.  Article  13  of  the  Directive).  The  Annex  is  updated  on  an  annual  basis  by 
means of Commission's Directive amending the Directive 2009/43/EC. 

2.3.2 Exemptions 

In  accordance  with  Article  4  of  the  Directive,  the  movement  of  defence-related  products 
between EU Member States is subject to 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  MS).  However,  Member  States  may 
exempt transfers from the obligation of prior-authorisation4.  

In addition, at the request of a MS or on its own initiative, the Commission may amend the 
list of possible exemptions as detailed in the Directive to include additional cases.5  

2.3.3 Transfer Licences 

There are three types of intra-EU Transfer Licences established by the Directive:  

  General Transfer Licence (GTL) are so called open licences, rely on ex-post 

verification and cover a pre-determined range of products to specified recipients or for 
specific purpose. No prior request is needed. However, suppliers must inform the 

4 Where any of the five following scenarios apply: a) The supplier or recipient is a government body, or part of 
the armed forces; b) Supplies are made by the EU, NATO, IAEA or other intergovernmental organisation for the 
performance  of  their  tasks;  c)  The  transfer  is  necessary  for  the  implementation  of  a  cooperative  armament 
programme between MS; d) The transfer is linked to humanitarian aid in the case of disaster, or as a donation in 
an emergency; e) The transfer is necessary for or after repair, maintenance, exhibition or demonstration. 

5 This possibility has not been used so far.  

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
Competent Authorities of their Member States about their intention to use a GTL for 
the first time.  

  Global Transfer Licence (GloTL) rely on ex-ante verification and allow for 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) for one transfer of a specified quantity of products 
to one recipient in another Member State.  

The  Directive  requires  that  at  least  four  new  types  of  General  Transfer  Licence  shall  be 
published: (i)  for  armed  forces;  (ii)  for  certified  defence enterprises;  (iii)  for  demonstration, 
evaluation or exhibition purposes; and (iv) for repair or maintenance. The second type of GTL 
for certified defence enterprises can only be used if the recipient of defence-related products 
is certified (see more below in section 2.3.4). 

2.3.4 Certification 

Article 9 of the Directive sets out the procedure and common criteria for the certification of 
defence  enterprises  as  recipients  of  defence-related  products  through  a  GTL  for  certified 
enterprises  (see  above).  These  procedures  and  criteria  were  subsequently  further  defined 
through the Recommendation 2011/24/EU.6 Member States are also required to  publish and 
update a list of  certified  enterprises, and inform the Commission, Parliament and Member 
States thereof. This is done by means of the CERTIDER database7. 

2.3.5 Export after transfer (re-export) 

Article 10 of the Directive requires that when transfer recipients of defence-related products 
apply  for  an  export  licence,  they  declare  to  their  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 MS). In line with Article 
11 of the Directive, exporters must furnish customs offices with any necessary export licence. 

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  overarching  objective  of  the  evaluation  was  to  assess  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
consistency  and  coherence,  relevance  as  well  as  EU  added  value  of  the  Directive.  More 

6 Commission Recommendation of 11 January 2011 on the certification of defence undertakings under Article 9 
of  Directive  2009/43/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  simplifying  terms  and  conditions  of 
transfers of defence-related products within the Community, OJ L 11, 15.1.2011, p. 62. 

7 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/certider/ 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
specifically,  the  evaluation  was  to  address  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  aspects,  and  to 
provide  answers  to  a  series  of  evaluation  questions  (listed  in  chapter  6  under  each  of  the 
criteria) relating to each of these key evaluation criteria. 

4. METHODOLOGY 

4.1 METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE EVALUATION 

The  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  are  based  on  a  programme  of  research  and 
analysis, which included desk research and literature review, analysis of statistical data on the 
defence sector, consultation with Competent Authorities (CA) (survey and interview), a pan-
EU  survey  of  defence  companies  and  a  programme  of  stakeholder  workshops  in  eight 
countries, complemented by a programme of desk research, case studies and interviews with a 
range of representatives including  governments, industry associations,  companies (including 
SMEs) and EU institutions. More information on consultation  activities can be found in the 
synopsis report (see Annex 3). There was no open public consultation undertaken as part of 
the evaluation due to the highly technical nature of the Directive. The relevant stakeholders 
were  identified  and  consulted.  Further  consultation  of  a  wider  public  beyond  the  identified 
stakeholders would likely not have provided any more substantial information.  

The  evaluation  covered  all  EU  Member  States  and  other  EEA  countries  (Iceland  and 
Norway8) and focused on the period since the Directive's application in June 2012 until 2015.  

Impact on the industry has been measured with regard to both large enterprises and SMEs. In 
most  cases,  there  is  no  distinction  in  answers  from  the  two  stakeholder  groups.  For  this 
reason, whenever reference is made to the industry, both types of companies are covered.  

Particular  attention  has  been  given  to  certification  through  case  studies.  Specifically,  they 
explored  the  extent  to  which  there  is  variation  in  the  certification  systems  employed  in 
different  countries,  including  by  looking  at  a  selection  of  four  Member  States  in  particular 
(France,  Germany,  Sweden  and  the  UK).  The  usefulness  of  the  EC  guidance  and 
recommendations the extent to which countries have aligned with or deviated from them have 
also been considered. 

A more detailed overview of the methodology and data collection activities used to conduct 
the  evaluation,  including  a  summary  of  the  stakeholders  consultation,  are  available  in  the 
Annexes 2 and 3. 

8  The  EEA  Joint  Committee  Decision  No  111/2013  of  14  June  2013  (OJ  L  318,  28.22.2013,  p.  12),  which 
incorporated Directive 2009/43/EC into the EEA Agreement included an explicit adaptation text: “This Directive 
shall not apply to Liechtenstein”. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.2 LIMITATIONS – ROBUSTNESS OF THE FINDINGS 

Due  to  the  late  transposition  of  the  Directive  and  the  lack  of  data,  the  analysis  is  mainly 
limited to the impact on operational objectives and to the barriers to an effective application 
rather than on benefits and impacts on general objectives. Furthermore, qualitative assessment 
has been used as much as possible to supplement scarce quantitative data. 

It is too early to observe the impacts the Directive might have had on the behaviour of market 
actors  and  on  the  market  as  not  enough  time  has  passed  since  the  transposition  of  the 
Directive (30 June 2012). Indeed, the Impact Assessment suggested that a period of at least 
six years after the full application of the Directive would be required to see first impacts. It 
also indicated that on the mid-term, the Commission should assess the functioning of the new 
EU simplified regime, with special attention on administrative costs.  

This  limitation  is  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  some  countries  have  not  yet  or  only  recently 
fully implemented the provisions of the Directive. For example, there are at least two MS that 
do not yet offer any GTLs and a further at least four that do not offer all four basic types of 
GTLs. This has implications for the progress that the Directive can be expected to have made 
towards the objectives. It also means that experience with the application  of the Directive – 
and therefore available data and views on its uptake, benefits, cost and impact – is often quite 
limited.  

Furthermore,  it  has  appeared  that,  in  case  of  many  countries,  relevant  data  was  not  made 
available for the evaluation. Why this was the case is uncertain, but one reason could be that 
the lack of a reporting obligation for MS Also the response to the online targeted survey to the 
industry  was  unexpectedly  very  low.  To  compensate  for  the  limited  success  of  the  industry 
survey,  additional  data  was  collected  through  interviews  with  defence  companies,  industry 
associations  and  other  stakeholders,  and  through  an  additional  series  of  workshops  across 
Europe. 

In order to remedy the above limitations with collecting necessary data, it was decided to hold 
a  series  of  smaller  national  events  across  Europe,  covering  eight  Member  States.  These 
workshops provided valuable insights and allowed to gather additional input to the evaluation 
and  to  receive  feedback  and  validation  on  preliminary  findings.  These  workshops  provided 
valuable insights and information and were considered a successful consultation strategy. 

Another  shortcoming  of  the  evaluation  concerns  the  attribution  of  any  changes  to  the 
Directive. The defence business is characterised by cycles and shifts. These do not necessarily 
occur with regularity and if they do, then there are usually a number of reasons for any change 
rather  than  a  single  cause.  For  instance,  the  reason  for  changes  in  the  number  of  granted 
transfer  licenses  can  be  attributed  to  procurement  contracts  or  shifts  in  national  transfer 
policy,  without  necessarily  any  link  to  the  Directive.  Consequently,  one  should  be  very 
cautious about attributing any shift to this legislation. 

13 

 
 
 
Notwithstanding  those  limitations,  the  evaluation  is  based  on  a  review  of  best  available 
quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  of  causality  between  actions  and  effected  changes.  It 
made  extensive  use  of  stakeholders'  and  experts'  view  as  well  as  case  studies  on  the 
functioning of the different provisions of the Directives.   

5. IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY  

5.1 TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

5.1.1 Transposition and implementation 
The Transfers Directive was originally to be transposed9 by Member States by 30 June 2011 
and applied from 30 June 2012. However, timely transposition proved difficult in a number of 
countries.  The  level  of  transposition  by  30  June  2012  indicated  a  good  integration  into 
national  law  of  the  key  features  of  the  Directive,  namely  a  simplified  licencing  system 
coherent across the EU, a Common Military List replacing previous different ammunition lists 
established  at  national  level,  and  certification  of  defence  companies  resulting  in  increased 
mutual trust and common recognition of defence companies’ reliability. By now, all Member 
States have transposed the Directive. 

The  full  implementation  of  its  provisions  and  requirements  (e.g.  general  transfer  licenses) 
across Europe has also taken longer than anticipated and it seems that they are still not fully 
implemented in at least two MS. This has implications for the expected progress towards the 
identified objectives. It also means that experience with the application of the Directive – and 
therefore  available  data  and  views  on  its  uptake,  benefits,  cost  and  impact  -  is  often  quite 
limited.  

5.1.2 Take up of the possibility of exemptions 

The  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  exempt  transfers  from  the  obligation  of  prior 
authorisation  (i.e.  from  the  necessity  to  obtain  an  Individual,  Global  or  General  Transfer 
Licence) in five defined areas10. In addition - at the request of a Member State, or on its own 
initiative - the Commission may amend this list of possible exemptions to include additional 
cases (although we are not aware of such cases being identified or requested to date). 

The supportive study11 explored the extent of transposition of the various exemption options 
by examining the text of national legislation in different countries. Error! Reference source 

9 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0359 

10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2009.146.01.0001.01.ENG 

11 See footnote 2 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
not  found.  summarizes  the  findings.  For  each  country,  and  each  possible  exemption,  it 
indicates  whether  the  option  has  been  ‘fully’,  ‘partially’  or  ‘not  at  all’  taken  up  within  the 
national legislation. By ‘partially’ we mean that the scope of a national exemption falls short 
of that originally suggested by the Directive (more on this below). 

The  results  suggest  that  the  extent  to  which  possible  exemptions  have  been  taken  up  by 
different  countries  varies,  with  Member  States  making  use  of  anywhere  between  0  (e.g. 
Poland)  and  all  5  (e.g.  Slovenia)  of  the  possible  options.  Other  countries  fall  somewhere  in 
between.  For  the  24  countries  covered  by  this  exercise,  17  have  fully/partially  taken  up  the 
first exemption, 13 have fully/partially taken up the second, 6 have  transposed  the third, 12 
the fourth, and 10 the fifth. 

Table 1: Extent to which countries have transposed possible exemptions from prior-authorisation 

Country 

AT 
BE (B/F) 
BE (W) 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
HZ 
IE 
IT 
LT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

No exemption 
Full 

1. Supplier / 
recipient is 
governmental 
body / armed 
forces 

2. Supplies by 
intergovernmental 
org. for the 
performance of their 
tasks 

3. 
Implementatio
n of a 
cooperative 
armament 
programme 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

4. 
Humanitaria
n aid / 
donation in 
an 
emergency 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Part 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
Part 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

5. For or after 
repair, 
maintenance, 
exhibition or 
demonstration 

Part 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
Part 
No 
No 
Yes 
Part 
No 
No 
No 
No 
Part 
Part 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

14 
5 

18 
6 

12 
10 

15 

No 
Yes 
No 
Part 
Yes 
Part 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Part 
Part 
No 
Part 
Part 
Part 
Part 
No 
No 
Part 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

7 
8 

No 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
Part 
No 
Part 
No 
No 
Part 
Yes 
Part 
Part 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

11 
8 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Exemption 
Partial 
exemption 

9 

5 

0 

2 

5 

Source: Replies from CA to questionnaire 

Not  only  are  there  differences  in  the  number  of  exemption  options  taken  up  by  different 
countries,  there  are  also  differences  in  the  scope  of  each  type  of  exemption  across  Europe. 
Considering  disparity  in  the  implementation  of  exemptions  across  MSs,  there  is  also  less 
transparency and predictability for industry. This hampers the use of this provision. 

5.1.3 Implementation of General Transfer Licences 

The  Directive  requires  that  at  least  four  new  types  of  General  Transfer  Licence  shall  be 
published  for  use  in  each  country  (as  well  as  any  others  deemed  appropriate).  Competent 
Authorities  were  asked  how  many  types  of  GTL  were  offered  in  their  country  and  more 
specifically  whether  this  includes  each  of  the  four  ‘main’  GTLs  (i.e.  those  specifically 
requested by the Directive). 

The  table  below  presents  the  individual  responses.  This  suggests  that  there  are  at  least  3 
countries  that  do  not  currently  offer  any  GTLs  (Bulgaria,  Iceland,  Ireland),  and  a  further  4 
countries that do not offer all four ‘basic’ types of GTLs requested by the Directive (France, 
Italy, Romania and Slovenia). It is likely that there are several more in this position, but the 
necessary information was not available. 

At  the  same  time,  there  are  at  least  10  countries  that  now  offer  other  GTLs  beyond  those 
specified  in  the  Directive,  for  example  for  the  implementation  of  a  cooperative  armament 
programme between Member States, or for the return of defence products after demonstration 
or repair. 

Table 2: GTLs offered, by country 

GTLs 
offered 

GTL for 
armed forces 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 

8 
7 
0 
4 
3 
4 
5 
4 
5 
8 
20 
4 

Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 

GTL for demo., 
evaluation or 
exhibition 
N 
Y 
N 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 

GTL for 
maintenance and 
repair 
N 
Y 
N 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 

GTL for 
certified 
enterprises 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GTLs 
offered 

GTL for 
armed forces 

Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

412 
0 
0 
213 
4 
4 
4 
<NA> 
7 
4 
414 
5 
1 
4 
1 
5 
5 
26 

Y 
N 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 

GTL for 
certified 
enterprises 
Y 
N 
N 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 

GTL for demo., 
evaluation or 
exhibition 
Y 
N 
N 
N 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 

GTL for 
maintenance and 
repair 
Y 
N 
N 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
<NA> 
Y 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
Y 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 

Y 
N 
<NA> indicates that the relevant information was not provided by the CA and the study has been unable to 
confirm either way through its own desk-research. The fact that no GTLs can be found in publically available 
information for Malta would suggest that these are not currently offered. <Y> indicates Yes. <N> indicates No. 
Source: Replies from CA to questionnaire 

22 
5 

24 
4 

23 
4 

21 
7 

Countries offer between 0 and 26 different GTLs (5 on average). There are a small number of 
countries for which certain information is missing. 

Only  seven  countries  that  reported  use  of  GTLs  were  able  to  provide  both  the  number  of 
notifications  and  the  number  of  transactions  in  recent  years.  Across  these  seven  countries, 
there have been 1,401 transactions during the 2012-14 period, through one or other of the four 
main GTLs, as shown in Table 3 below: 

12  Hungary  has  all  four  basic  GTLs  in  place,  although  two  of  these  (demonstration  and  maintenance)  are 
integrated in one 

13 The two GTLs currently offered in Italy are not complete versions of those requested by the Directive. One is 
for  armed  forces  as  part  of  intergovernmental  programmes,  and  the other  is for  certified  enterprises  as  part of 
intergovernmental  programmes.  Two  further  GTLs  for  armed  forces  and  certified  enterprises  will  soon  be 
released to provide complete coverage 

14 Poland has all four basic GTLs in place, although these are integrated in one licence 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: Notifications of first use for different GTLs and reported transactions 

Country  

GTL 

Armed forces 

Denmark 

Demo, evaluation, exhibition 

Repair or maintenance 

Armed forces 

France 

Certified enterprises 

Latvia 

Demo, evaluation, exhibition 

Armed forces 

Repair or maintenance 

Armed forces 

Lithuania 

Demo, evaluation, exhibition 

Repair or maintenance 

Romania 

Demo, evaluation, exhibition 

Armed forces 

Spain 

Certified enterprises 

Repair or maintenance 

Armed forces 

Certified enterprises 

Demo, evaluation, exhibition 

Repair or maintenance 

Armed forces 
Certified enterprises 
Demo, evaluation, exhibition 
Repair or maintenance 
Armed forces 
Certified enterprises 

Total  
(6 countries) 

Poland 

Germany 

First use notifications (2012-
14) 

Transactions (2012-14) 

3 

2 

2 

33 

24 

80 

2 

4 

20 

4 

3 

1 

2 

2 

3 

60 

26 

87 

12 

<NA> 
<NA> 
<NA> 
<NA> 
<NA> 
<NA> 

7 

137 

6 

27 

1 

7 

185 

71 

<NA> 

188 

46 

142 

128 

299 

80 

2 

19 

20 

4 

3 

3 

0 

91 

34 

338 

390 

133 

198 

56 
5 
57 
224 
5216 
107 

376 

507 

21 

27 

3 

125 

1,059 

342 

5,323 

 <NA> indicates that the relevant information was not provided by the CA and the study has been unable to 
confirm either way through its own desk-research. 
Source: Replies from CA to questionnaire 

If we compare this to the number of notifications of first use of these GTLs during the same 
period,  and  in  the  same  countries  (256),  then  we  can  estimate  that  there  have  been  5-6 
transactions per GTL (so far). While this is based on limited data and a limited time period, it 
does support the idea that GTLs are replacing the need for multiple Individual Licences. It is 
also worth noting that the number of transactions has grown substantially over time. This is 
not  shown  in  the  table  above,  but  for  the  eight  countries  concerned  (DE  also  provided 
transaction data, though not information on the number of notifications), the number of GTL 
transactions  reported  increased  from  71  (2012)  to  1,769  (2013),  to  4,884  (2014)15.  This 
increase in activity is not surprising, given the growing stock of licence ‘holders’. 

15 See supportive study, table 50 (footnote 2) 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
However, the uptake of new licencing options is considered to have been slower / lower than 
was  expected.  There  is  also  considerable  variation  in  levels  of  uptake  and  use  in  different 
countries.  Despite  year-on-year  increases  in  the  uptake  and  use  of  both  Global  and  General 
Transfer  Licences  across  Europe,  the  vast  majority  of  transfers  (~89%)  between  2012  and 
2014 were still being undertaken through Individual Licences (which the Directive hoped to 
largely replace). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
6. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1 EFFECTIVENESS:  MEASURING  THE  EXTENT  TO  WHICH  THE  DIRECTIVE 
ACCOMPLISHING ITS OBJECTIVES 

IS 

Questions addressed: 

  To what extent is the Directive contributing to the creation of an efficiently operating 

Internal Market for defence-related products? 

  To what extent is the Directive guaranteeing greater security of supply? 

  What  good  practices  in  terms  of  cost-effective  implementation  in  MS  can  be 

identified? 

  To what extent has the Directive achieved its aim with regard to the competitiveness 

of the EU defence industry and the development of the EDTIB? 

  What  are  the  factors  for  an  effective  application  of  the  Directive?  If  there  are  any 

barriers, what is causing them? 

6.1.1 The extent of implementation, uptake and use 

All countries have now transposed the Directive into national law, but the full implementation 
of  its  provisions  and  requirements  across  Europe  has  taken  longer  than  anticipated.  In 
addition,  the  extent  of  implementation  is  still  variable  across  Europe  and  in  some  cases 
incomplete (e.g. with a number of countries not offering the four ‘basic’ types of GTLs).  

As  uncovered  through  workshops  with  industry,  the  key  reasons  for  low  uptake  and  use  of 
GTLs include:  

•  There  is  a  general  lack  of  awareness,  knowledge  and  understanding  of  GTLs  across 
industry  (how  and  when  they  can  be  used  and  to  what  benefit),  despite  efforts  from 
several  MSs  Competent  Authorities  to  promote  GTLs  nationally  and  from  the 
Commission to centralise information on GTLs across MSs in the CERTIDER database. 

•  Not all GTLs have been fully introduced in all countries 

•  GTLs have too many exclusions and limitations placed upon them  – making them more 

complex, and limiting their use / attractiveness 

•  GTLs are of no use if your products you intend to transfer are not in scope 

•  You cannot make use of the GTL for certified enterprise, if your recipient is not certified – 

or there are a lack of certified enterprises generally 

• 

Individual licences bear less of a risk, especially for SMEs, as they are better understood 
and more familiar or established 

•  Certain  countries  have  retained  re-export  requirements,  which  complicates  and 
discourages  re-export.    There  were  concerns  that  such  restrictions  were  becoming  more 
widespread. 

20 

 
 
 
As regards the scope and conditions of GTLs, Member States are also free to exclude certain 
‘sensitive  products’  from  the  scope  of  specific  licences.  There  is  a  lack  of  harmonisation 
among  countries  as  a  result,  and  consequently  numerous  differences  in  the  scope  of  GTLs 
available. This lack of harmonisation was regularly highlighted by consulted stakeholders (in 
particular from industry) as an unnecessary additional complication. Other issues encountered 
through  the  Directive  being  interpreted  differently  in  different  countries  include:  differing 
restrictions on the scope  of GTLs;  different terms and conditions for Transfer Licences; the 
possibility to request end-use assurances / certificates being used by some countries; different 
levels of control over inbound transfers, and some requirements for import certificates; certain 
transit controls; and certification standards applied with different stringency. 

In  conclusion,  the  Directive  provides  a  framework  to  create  similarly  structured  national 
licencing  systems.  However,  it  is  still  left  sufficiently  open  and  flexible  enough  to 
interpretation  to  mean  that  there  are  still  essentially  30  non-harmonised  licencing  systems 
across Europe. 

6.1.2 Implementation of Certification schemes 

Replies from Member States did not allow concluding on how many of the countries that yet 
have to introduce a fully operable scheme for the certification of defence enterprises. Ireland 
has yet to introduce a fully operable certification scheme and this was also the case in Italy 
until very recently16. In all, 14 Member States have not issued certificates for any companies. 

While  the  procedures  and  criteria  for  certification  were  set  out  in  the  Directive,  and  further 
defined through Recommendation 2011/24/EU, Member States enjoy a certain freedom in the 
design  of  national  rules  and  their  implementation.  Several  stakeholders  suggested  that  the 
application of the certification system varies across MS, with implications for the realisation 
of the Directive’s objectives. 

All  Member  States  have  defined  their  national  certification  systems  in  line  with  the 
requirements of the Directive, and no official texts deviate from the Directive or are otherwise 
obviously non-compliant.  However, there are small differences evident in the implementation 
of the certification process, which may be sufficient to place a brake on the overall system. 
Two points stand out: first of all, in 10 instances where we have looked at sample certificates, 
a  split  was  found  between  five  countries  where  the  scope  of  the  certificate  was  limited  and 
therefore  conditional  and  five  where  it  was,  as  expected,  universal.  This  is  clearly  not  an 
insurmountable difference in approach, but it may well reduce users’ confidence in the label 

16 The Italian  authorities have recently informed that the certification option has now been fully implemented, 
with procedures for certification set out within legislation. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
and would certainly mean certificates cannot be used automatically to provide bona fides in 
all  transactions.  The  variable  use  of  national  and  English  language  translations  may  also 
reduce the ease of use of certificates across borders. 

Second,  there  are  apparently  substantial  differences  in  the  stringency  and  duration  of  the 
certification process in different countries, with the more protracted and onerous procedures 
being  rather  costly  for  the  businesses  being  audited.  Given  the  relatively  small  financial 
savings certification is likely to provide to any individual company, the apparent burden may 
be enough to dissuade many companies from applying for certification. The French case does 
however  argue against this  point  of view, as it has  one of the more demanding certification 
systems at the same time as having one of the greatest numbers of certified companies. The 
German  case  is  similar,  although  the  system  here  appears  a  little  less  demanding.  It  is 
perceived that this is due to either political or regulatory matters, stimulating companies to be 
certified despite demanding certification systems.  

On  balance,  the  principal  difficulty  would  appear  to  be  the  cost-benefit  ratio,  which  is 
inevitably  weakened  by  the  low  levels  of  take  up  across  trading  partners.  As  with  any 
network,  the  performance  and  cost-benefit  ratio  will  be  weaker  in  the  emerging  phase  and 
should improve geometrically once it exceeds a critical level of users. 

While  the  number  of  certified  enterprises  has  increased  each  year,  the  total  number  across 
Europe  (55)  is  still  very  low.  Half  of  certified  enterprises  are  located  in  just  two  countries. 
There are then 14 countries where no companies have been certified to date. Indeed, we are 
aware that there is no certification scheme in place in at least one of these countries. There is 
no  evidence  to  support  this  is  also  true  for  other  countries  where  there  are  no  certified 
companies for the moment.  

Table 4:  Number of certified enterprises by country 

Estimated number of certified enterprises 

Estimated number of 
certified enterprises 

Germany 

France 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Hungary 

Bulgaria 

Finland 

Poland 

Netherlands 

UK 

Austria 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Sweden 

14 

12 

4 

4 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Estonia 

Greece 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

  Malta 

Norway 

Romania 

Slovenia 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estimated number of certified enterprises 

Estimated number of 
certified enterprises 

Croatia 

Total 

1 

53 

Source: Replies from CA to questionnaire 

Reasons  for  low  uptake  of  the  certification  option  include:  a  lack  of  understanding  of 
conditions  and  requirements; a  perception  that  the  certification  procedure  is  too  complex  or 
demanding;  and  a  lack  of  demand  from  GTL  users  for  certified  enterprises  (and  /  or  the 
limited  scope  of  products  covered  by  the  associated  GTLs).  There  appear  to  be  insufficient 
incentives for many to certify. 

The progress with the implementation and uptake of the certification scheme has been slower 
than expected at the point of the Directive's adaptation in 2009. 

6.1.3 Enablers and barriers to effective application of the Directive 

There  are  a  number  of  barriers  resulting  from  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  and  from  the 
way  it  has  been  transposed  across  Europe.  They  have  been  identified  by  Competent 
Authorities,  representatives  of  industry  and  stakeholders  alike,  which  is  why  the  following 
presentation does not distinguish between the different sources of information. 

Barriers resulting from the provisions of the Directive include: 
•  Shift  of  liability  (from  authorities  to  economic  operators)  means  new  licenses  are 

perceived as bearing higher risk, especially by SMEs 

•  Personal liability for executives with regard to export/transfer controls  

Barriers resulting from the way the Directive has been transposed across Europe: 
• 

Incomplete transposition of the Directive across the EU, as at least two countries have still 
not fully implemented all provisions of the Directive 

•  Lack of harmonisation, as many requirements stipulated by the Directive are transposed in 
an un-harmonised manner, e.g. the scope of products falling under GTLs, the conditions 
of using a GTL, definitions of “end-user” 

•  Need for an end-user declaration for the use of a GTL for certified enterprises 

•  Conditions and limitations on re-exports put in place by some countries 

•  A lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding of the provisions among industry, as 

well as some Competent Authorities 

• 

In some countries the transposition of the Directive came with an introduction of fees that 
had not been charged to industry before. Together with the changed internal procedures, 
the  implementation  of  the  Directive  had  increased  rather  than  reduced  the  cost  of 
compliance in these countries.  

•  Lack of a common EU system of electronic submission of applications and licensing and 

limited exchange of information between EU countries 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Finally,  several  respondents  argued  that  the  lack  of  harmonisation  of  (extra-EU)  export 

policy has a knock-on effect on internal transfers.  

As regards the impact on the development of the EDTIB, the limited time of application of the 
Directive has not allowed it to be visible17. Overall, more time is needed to see the benefits of 
the system. 

Some Competent Authorities have stressed that the provisions of the Directive, no matter how 
imperfect  they  might  be,  do  cater  to  the  needs  of  companies  and  to  an  improvement  of 
productivity  by  reducing  administrative  burden.  The  positive  impacts  on  the  EDTIB  are 
mainly  seen  by  smaller  countries.  Several  respondents  have  also  mentioned  that  an  internal 
market  for  (less-sensitive)  equipment  has  been  facilitated,  but  that  high-tech  goods  remain 
excluded from it. 

Also  the  global  perspective  on  competitiveness,  in  particular  the  developments  in  the 
transatlantic  arena  play  a  certain  role.  In  comparison  to  the  United  States,  many  defence 
companies feel that the recent reforms of the US export control regulations have put US and 
European  companies  on  an  unequal  footing,  providing  a  regulatory  advantage  to  US 
exporters.  

There are a number of factors that have supported the application of the Directive: 

•  One of the fundamental factors that shape the effective application is the extent to which 
the transposition of the Directive changed the ex-ante export control regime. The smaller 
this change is perceived in a country, the more effective the application of the Directive is 
judged.  In  those  countries  where  no  major  changes  had  to  be  made,  industry  and 
authorities  then  do  not  have  to  deal  with  issues  such  as  a  lack  of  awareness  that  would 
result  from  a  change.  Moreover,  the  uptake  would  generally  be  faster  because  there  is 
more  understanding  and  familiarity  with  the  new  system,  which  is  similar  to  what  they 
had before. 

•  Several  MS  used  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  as  an  opportunity  to  overhaul  their 
arms export controls system more generally. A positive consequence of this was that the 
issues of export and transfer controls  rose on the  agenda of decision-makers in  business 
and  politics.  In  many  companies  export  controls  and  compliance  issues  now  enjoy  an 
unprecedented attention at the chief executive level, which is said to have had a positive 
effect on the application of the Directive. 

•  Article  14  of  the  Directive  provides  for  the  creation  of  a  committee  to  support  the 
Commission  with  regard  to  the  Directive.  Regular  meetings  of  the  Transfer  Directive-

17 For analysis see supportive study, chapter 4.2 (see footnote 2 for reference to supportive study) 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Committee and its working groups is said to have brought CAs closer to each other and 
enabled networking, stronger cooperation, and the sharing of best practices. 

•  The  early  and  regular  informing  of  industry  by  Competent  Authorities,  government 

agencies or industry associations. 

•  Support  through  websites,  handbooks  or  guidelines.  In  this  context  it was  mentioned  by 
industry,  Competent  Authorities  and  stakeholders  alike  that  the  certification  guidelines 
provided  by  the  Commission  were  helpful  for  implementation,  but  could  still  be  clearer 
and more detailed 

•  A  closely  knit  network  of  defence  industry  experts  (e.g.  organised  through  an  industry 

association) discussing issues of export controls and compliance on a regular basis 

•  Promotion of the uptake by political actors, a fact that concerns in particular certification  

•  Existence of a well-oiled interface between government (esp. Competent Authorities) and 

industry.  

While the barriers and enablers of the application of the Directive have played out differently 
across Europe, the application of the Directive has been considered by a majority of experts 
from  Competent  Authorities,  industry  and  stakeholders  as  a  means  to  build  mutual 
confidence and trust among national authorities, as well as defence companies from different 
countries.  It  was  stressed  time  and  again  that  an  effective  application  of  the  Directive  is  an 
ambitious  goal,  which  requires  ‘changing  the  habits  of  a  life  time’,  with  many  actors  being 
reluctant  or  at  least  not  used  to  change.  In  analogy  to  other  areas  of  intergovernmental 
cooperation  such  as  the  free  movement  of  people  in  the  Schengen  area,  an  incremental 
approach  allows  for  the  necessary  trust-building  before  taking  a  next  step  of  closer 
cooperation. 

6.1.4 Examples of efficient application 

Several examples of good practice in efficient application have been found, including: 

•  Standard  conditions  being  applied  throughout  different  licences  to  the  greatest  extent 

possible, to simplify understanding and use. 

•  Licences avoid unnecessary jargon (UK licences have ‘plain English’ accreditation) 

•  Fully electronic licencing system, with easy access and clear guidance 

•  Proactive  efforts  to  ‘sell’  the  benefits  and  advantages  to  industry  (e.g.  regular  events, 

informative website, handbooks, seminars, etc.) 

•  Efforts taken to minimise the number of actors involved in authorisation 

•  The  UK  highlighted  its  use  of  20+  Open  General  Export  Licenses  (OGELs  /  GTLs), 
which cover a broader range of situations (and so have wider applicability), but also tend 
to  each  cover  more  discreet  application  areas  (and  therefore  be  clearer  and  simpler  to 
understand  and  apply).  GTLs  can  be  extensive  in  its  scope  because  of  the  range  of 
situations that an individual type of licence is trying to cover. 

25 

 
 
 
To  improve  effectiveness,  a  number  of  Competent  Authorities  called  for  greater  and  better 
information  exchange  between  countries,  both  in  terms  of  best  practice,  experience  sharing 
and  alignment  efforts,  as  well  as  more  practical  transparency  of  national  implementation 
measures  and  conditions  (e.g.  through  CERTIDER),  faster  solutions  to  bottlenecks  and 
increased confidence. 

Stakeholders  more  generally  highlighted  that  General  and  Global  Licences  tend  to  have 
efficient procedures, while certification was often singled out for its inefficiency (because of 
the  time  and  effort  required  compared  to  the  limited  benefits).  Some  also  highlighted  that 
greater use of web-based systems to apply for, issue and share licences might offer substantial 
additional efficiency savings. 

6.1.5 The  extent  of  contribution  from  the  Directive's  provisions  to  the  Directive’s 
overarching objectives 

Most stakeholders (CA and industry) agree that the provisions of the Directive are in line with 
its overarching objectives, but that progress towards these has been very limited. To date, the 
Directive’s main contributions have been towards its operational aims (e.g. facilitating intra-
community  transfers,  reducing  the  complexity  of  procedures,  or  reducing  administrative 
burdens) – and even here, progress has been slow, and often lower than expected. 

Across Europe (where data is available), there were ~79,000 ITLs and ~1,700 GloTLs issued 
from  2012  until  2014.    At  the  same  time,  we  estimate  that  there  were  around  8,000 
transactions  through  GTLs  (based  on  an  average  of  5.7  transactions  per  GTL  notification). 
While these figures are very approximate and based on incomplete data, they suggest that the 
vast majority of transfers (~89%) in the initial years of the Directive’s application were still 
being  undertaken  through  ITLs,  while  only  a  small  proportion  involved  GloTLs  (<5%)    or 
GTLs (<10%). 

In  relation  with  the  extent  to  which  the  Directive  is  contributing  to  the  creation  of  an 
efficiently operating internal market for defence-related products:  

The  ambition  of  creating  an  efficiently  operating  internal  market  for  defence  products  has 
only been achieved to a very limited extent. Member states have put into place new licensing 
systems,  which  offer  faster,  easier  transfers,  and  which  are  conducive  to  a  reduction  of  the 
complexity of administrative procedures.  

Creating  a  more  efficient  internal  market  can  be  understood  as  one  of  the  implied  general 
objectives  of  the  Directive.  The  creation  of  an  efficiently  operating  internal  market  for 
defence- related products can be split into three components: it means to facilitate the intra-
community transfer of defence-related products, to reduce the complexity of procedures and 
administrative  burdens  and  to  lower  the  reluctance  of  Member  States  towards  cross-border 
purchases.  

26 

 
 
 
In general and with regard to all three aspects, it can be concluded that the objective has only 
been reached to very limited extent. Several reasons lead to this conclusion:18  

  First,  and  as  mentioned  above,  not  even  the  operational  objectives  have  been  fully 
reached, which has negative consequences for the overarching aims of the Directive.  

  Second,  MS  have  put  into  place  new  licensing  systems,  which  offer  faster  easier 
transfers.  In  that  sense  it  is  conducive  to  a  reduction  of  the  complexity  of 
administrative procedures.  

  Moreover,  the  fact  that  some  companies  pick  up  the  new  licenses  that  did  not  exist 
before  is  an  indication  that  these  licenses  offer  some  advantages  over  the  existing 
individual licenses.  

  However,  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  that  Member  States  or  companies  are 
changing their decisions as to where they source from or where they supply to; or that 
it makes any big difference to their operations and trade within Europe.  

Several Competent Authorities stressed that it is too early to judge the extent to which the 
Directive  has  contributed  to  a  more  efficient  internal  market.  While  most  of  them  highlight 
that  the  complexity  of  administrative  procedures  has  been  reduced  (the  response  varies 
according  to  the  ex-ante  export  control  regime  in  the  country),  they  do  not  see  a  greater 
willingness of Member States to procure from other MS. However, CAs of smaller Member 
States find that the Directive has also contributed to this latter objective. 

Defence companies do not see much of a change resulting from the adoption of the Directive 
with regard to the creation of a more efficient internal market. The great majority considers 
the  effect  to  be  small  or  non-existent,  as  the  following  table  presenting the  results  from  the 
industry survey (65 respondents) shows: 

Table 5: Results from industry survey 

Not  at 
all 

To a small 
extent 

To  a  large 
extent 

To  what  extent  has  the  TD  achieved  its  objectives  of 
establishing  an  open  and  competitive  European  Defence 
Equipment Market 

48% 

36% 

16% 

18 Again, it should be noted that only a small period of time has elapsed since the transposition of the Directive 
in most MS. 

27 

 
 
 
  
                                                 
Some  (larger)  companies  point  out  that  other  European  markets  (countries)  could  easily  be 
accessed before – through Individual licenses – and that given the minimal cost of licensing 
within  the  overall  cost  of  defence  business,  the  effect  of  the  Directive  has  been  very  small 
indeed. While expectations were rather high regarding the number of certified companies and 
the positive effects that would have, most interlocutors do not see that a more level playing 
field has evolved compared to the situation that existed before the Directive.  

In  some  countries,  where  the  Directive  has  not  been  fully  implemented  yet,  defence 
companies  pointed  to  the  fact  that  the  new  rules  for  transfer  licensing  are  not  sufficiently 
transparent and that, therefore, companies might shift their suppliers to companies outside the 
EU. In the latter case export control rules apply, which have not changed compared to transfer 
control rules. To avoid risks and to be able to estimate process times, these companies may 
consider  sourcing  from  firms  outside  the  EU.  In  this  case,  while  the  transposition  of  the 
Directive might have contributed to an internal market, it has not done so in a manner that is 
conducive to other general objectives of the Directive. 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  believes  that  this  had  been  partially  achieved.  Among  the 
comments were, that while there may have been some improvement, it depended on the size 
of company, and it had not reduced reluctance towards cross-border purchases. EU legislation 
allows  Member  States  to  apply  primary  and  secondary  legislation  to  protect  their  national 
industries and nations do use this approach (especially in a time of crisis). Most interlocutors 
mentioned that this market has been only realised to a limited extent or not at all, a statement 
that is supported by EU statistics on trade19. 

In relation to the extent to which the Directive guarantees greater security of supply: 

Security of supply (SoS) means the ability of a government or a company to source products, 
knowledge or services required at will and in a timely manner, including in periods of crises. 
Given  that defence-related  products  are  often  crucial  for  a  government  to  pursue  its  foreign 
and  security  policy  (or  for  a  company  to  meet  its  contractual  obligations,  which  might, 
however impede on the foreign and security policies of governments) there is a risk that one 
government might disrupt the supply of such products to influence the policy considerations 
of  another  government  (or  to  put  a  specific  company  in  another  country  at  a  competitive 
disadvantage vis-à-vis domestic suppliers). In the eyes of many interlocutors, SoS remains an 
issue of foreign and security policy, and therefore sensitive, although nobody could actually 
point  the  team  to  any  example  of  a  declined  supply  within  the  European  context.  The 

19 See supportive study, chapter 4 and footnote 2. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
Directive  is  but  one  way  to  avoid  such  situations  and  to  ensure  security  of  supply  among 
European countries.20  

In general, the Directive has had a minor positive effect on the security of supply of defence-
related products. It might contribute to greater security of supply by one of the following: 

i) It  could  increase  transparency:  by  knowing  the  licensing  system  of  other  MS  it  could 

reassure procurers or buyers in other MS about the reliability of supplies. 

ii) 

In particular, the use of GTLs allows that transfers of certain products and services do 
not require an Individual or Global Licence anymore. This has advantages mainly for the 
suppliers  of  a  certified  defence  enterprise  but  also  for  the  certified  company  itself. 
Suppliers can use a GTL and need not apply for a specific license, thereby being able to 
reduce  lead  times,  become  more  flexible  and  reduce  administrative  cost.  Certified 
companies benefit too, albeit in a more limited way. They can reduce administrative cost 
by not having to provide information to their suppliers about the receipt and intended use 
of the supplied goods. 

However, both the transparency and the GTL systems are not complete solutions for SoS and 
they have limitations in terms of their implementation so far: transparency is not complete, as 
the transposition has led to un-harmonised national legislation, while the GTLs have only had 
a  limited  uptake.  Hence,  the  Directive’s  contribution  through  transparency  and  GTLs  is 
limited. 

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  security  of  supply  is  not  considered  to  be  a  particularly 
important objective for those who have been consulted for the purpose of the study.  

Competent  authorities  are  split  over  the  issue  of  whether  the  Directive  has  had  any 
beneficial effects on SoS. Countries where the transposition of the Directive has not lead to 
major  changes,  do  not  see  any  positive  consequences  for  SoS,  whereas  Member  States  for 
which the Directive brought a number of innovations (often smaller MS) do point to positive 
effects.  They  hold  that  specifically,  the  GloTL  and  GTL  licenses  promote  the  stability  of 
supply of equipment. 

As  the  table  below  shows,  a  clear majority  of  the  65  defence  companies  responding  to  the 
survey is of the opinion that the security of supply was hardly affected by the Directive. 

Table 6: Results from industry survey 

20  There  are  other  means  to  build  trust  among  European  countries,  such  as  the  close  cooperation  of  EU 
government  in  the  framework  of  the  Common  Foreign  and  Security,  cross-border  mergers  and  acquisitions  of 
defence firms, which increases interdependence. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
Not at all 

To a small extent 

To a large extent 

 To  what  extent  has 
the  TD 
achieved its objectives of achieving 
greater security of supply 

43% 

43% 

14% 

For  most  companies  the  issue  of  security  of  supply  is  closely  linked  to  certification. 
Certification  implies  that  suppliers  of  a  certified  company  can  use  a  GTL  for  certified 
companies and no permission is to be sought, once the requirements are met. However, there 
are  limited  incentives  to  get  certified  in  the  first  place.  In  particular  if  certified  companies 
consider  the  need  for  another  license  to  re-export  the  good  supplied  under  a  GTL  as  an 
impediment to the security of supply, as companies cannot be sure that they will be able to 
export their final product. Given the limited number of certified companies this kind of impact 
of the Directive on the security of supply has been rather limited.  

Among the stakeholders interviewed for the purpose of this study only a minority believed 
that  the  Directive  had  resulted  in  greater  security  of  supply.  It  was  noted  that  this  was 
primarily a political issue. Some interlocutors argued that it was not actually addressed by the 
provisions  in  the  Directive  and  that  it  had  been  added  to  the  list  of  objectives  late  in  the 
process  as  a  ‘selling  point’.  In  contrast,  others  identified  it  as  the  most  important  and 
politically salient issue, and that the provisions partially helped improve security of supply.  

In  relation  with  the  extent  to  which  the  Directive  achieved  its  aim  with  regard  to  the 
competitiveness  of  the  EU  defence  industry  (incl.  SME)  and  the  development  of  the 
European Defence Technological and Industrial Base: 

The  competitiveness  of  the  European  defence  industry  concerns  its  strength  vis-à-vis  the 
industry of other countries, notably the US. The Directive could contribute to increasing the 
competitiveness of industry by opening up the number of potential suppliers for a government 
or  a  company,  thereby  increasing  competition,  which  might  in  turn  drive  prices  down  and 
increase innovation.  

Generally, it is at this point too early to judge the extent to which the Directive achieved this 
aim.  The  Directive  is  considered  as  a  first  step  in  the  right  direction  as  it  has  provided 
instruments  that  are  likely  to  open  up  the  internal  market  and  will,  thereby,  contribute  to 
strengthening the competitiveness. However, the benefits of the Directive cannot be seen  in 
reports about an increase of numbers of suppliers for MS and for prime contractors. It should 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
be noted that any possible impact of the Directive is further reduced by the fact that in most 
countries transfers are a minor –though not negligible - part of the overall defence21.  

Competent  authorities  mainly  look  at  the  Directive  within  the  wider  framework  of  the 
Commission’s  push  towards  a  more  robust  European  Defence  Technological  and  Industrial 
Base and therefore consider it as “a pertinent and necessary step” to increase competitiveness. 
Some CAs also stress that the provisions of the Directive, no matter how imperfect they might 
be,  do  cater  to  the  needs  of  companies  and  to  an  improvement  of  productivity  by  reducing 
administrative  burden.  The  positive  impacts  on  the  EDTIB  are  mainly  seen  by  smaller 
countries. 

Defence companies – especially of larger countries – are hesitant to identify any link between 
the  Directive  and  the  competitiveness  of  the  EDITB.  Based  on  the  65  responses  on  the 
industry survey (below) it can be concluded that the majority of companies do not believe that 
the  Transfers  Directive  has  achieved  its  objectives  with  regard  to  strengthening  the 
competitiveness of the EDTIB.  

Table 7: Results from industry survey 

 To what extent has the TD achieved its objectives of…  

Not  at 
all 

To  a  small 
extent 

To  a 
extent 

large 

Developing  the  European  defence  technological  and 
industrial base 

52% 

39% 

9% 

Improving  the  international  competitiveness  of  the 
European defence sector 

45% 

41% 

14% 

This  result  is  well  in  line  with  the  answers  given  to  the  team  in  the  interviews  and  the 
discussions during the workshops. One reason is that supply chains are generally rather slow 
to  change.  For  a  prime  contractor  it  takes  good  reason  and  time  to  change  suppliers.  The 
Directive is not considered a good enough reason alone to contemplate a change of suppliers.  

Second,  defence  firms  consider  the  issue  of  competitiveness  in  a  global  context,  which  is 
another reason why a majority of defence firms does not think the Directive has had an impact 
on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EDTIB.  The  global  perspective  on  competitiveness  links  the 
Directive  to  developments  in  the  Transatlantic  arena.  In  comparison  to  the  United  States, 
many  defence  companies  feel  that  the  recent  reforms  of  the  US  export  control  regulations 

21 See supportive study, chapter 4 and footnote 2. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
have  put  US  and  European  companies  on  an  unequal  footing,  providing  a  regulatory 
advantage to US exporters.  

Few  stakeholders  believe  that  the  Directive  has  reached  the  aim  of  contributing  to  a  more 
competitive  EDTIB.  Several  respondents  mentioned  that  an  internal  market  for  (less-
sensitive) equipment has  been  facilitated, but  that high-tech goods remain excluded from it. 
Therefore,  positive  effects  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EDTIB  are  limited.  Furthermore, 
other factors have a strong impact, such as the steady decrease in defence investment 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. 

6.2 EFFICIENCY: EVALUATING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INITIATIVE 

Questions addressed: 

  To what extent have regulatory costs been reduced through the implementation of the 

Directive?  

  To what extent are costs proportionate to the benefits achieved, and what factors are 

influencing any particular discrepancies? 

  Are costs and benefits of the Directive in line with initial expectations? 

  How  affordable  are  the  costs  borne  by  different  stakeholders  given  the  benefits 

received? 

 

If  there  are  any  significant  differences  in  costs  or  benefits  in  MS,  what  is  causing 
them?  

  To  what  extent  is  administrative  burden  created  by  the  implementation  of  the 

Directive’s concepts and procedures considered proportionate?  

  Which procedures are most/least efficient? 

The background and rationale to regulatory cost reduction 

The  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  to  the  Directive  set  out  that  existing 
national  licencing  schemes  imposed  big  administrative  burdens  on  companies,  and  that  the 
licence  granting  procedures  were  both  time  consuming  and  resource  intensive  for  the 
authorities and economic operators involved.  The cost of preparing, submitting and managing 
the 11,000+ annual licence requests for transfers was, it estimated, in the region of €250m per 
year for industry (based on an estimated cost of €20k per licence) and €182m per year for the 
authorities. 

As  such,  the  Directive  seeks  –  as  indicated  by  its  objectives  -  to  reduce  the  complexity  of 
procedures  and  administrative  burdens  involved  in  the  intra-community  licencing  system.  

32 

 
 
 
 
However, it does not actually directly address most of the factors that the Impact Assessment 
identifies as underlying the time consuming and resource intensive licence granting systems.  
For  example,  issues  of  overlapping  competencies,  inter-agency  processes,  licence  fees, 
licencing  requirements,  and  diversity  in  control  lists,  are  not  necessarily  addressed  by  the 
provisions introduced – although they may be improved as an indirect consequence of reforms 
to the national licencing systems. 

The Directive is however attempting to reduce the number of applications being made overall 
through  the  introduction  of  GTLs,  which  should  replace  the  need  for  ITLs  (and  on  a  better 
than one-for-one basis) and therefore reduce the costs on both parties of application / issuance 
of  licences.    The  Directive  also  seeks  to  remove  the  need  for  additional  import  licences  for 
intra-community  transfers,  which  should  further  reduce  costs.    Finally,  and  more  generally, 
the  Directive  seeks  to  simplify  (and  make  more  transparent)  the  processes  involved  in  the 
transfer  licencing  system,  which  should  help  to  further  reduce  the  regulatory  costs  on  both 
sides. 

The evaluation did not provide information on which provisions were considered more or less 
efficient.  

6.2.1 The extent to which costs have been reduced 

Those consulted through the evaluation did not have a very clear view (at least not yet) of the 
overall  impact  of  the  Directive  on  costs  for  the  different  parties  involved.  However,  initial 
indications and anecdotal evidence from the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal 
to the Directive suggest there should be a long-term reduction in administrative costs. 

For  Competent  Authorities  the  initial  application  of  the  Directive  (e.g.  in  changing 
information systems) often involved significant effort and cost22 (depending on the extent of 
change  necessary).    However,  there  has  been  no  suggestion  from  these  organisations  that 
these  additional  burdens  were  unaffordable  or  unreasonable.    Also,  in  the  longer  term,  as 
companies  shift  from ITLs to  GloTLs and GTLs,  the Directive is  expected  to  lead  to fewer 
licence applications and therefore reduced administrative burden.   

The  direct  costs23  of  authorising  different  licences  are  also  minimal  for  the  Competent 
Authorities.  An  average  of  estimates  from  across  the  Competent  Authorities  suggests 
individual ITLs and GloTLs both require 7 days of effort and €7 in other costs for a CA to 

22 None of the Competent Authorities felt able to put a ‘price’ on this set-up phase, but many clearly felt that the 
process had brought substantial costs over the last few years. 

23  Averages across responding Member  States  suggest  that individual  ITLs  and GloTLs both require  around 7 
days of effort and €7 in other costs for the CA to authorise, while GTLs are substantially ‘cheaper’ (around 2 
days and €4 on average). 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
issue,  while  GTLs  are  substantially  ‘cheaper’  (2  days  and  €4  on  average  to  authorise).    As 
more businesses shift to using GTLs for transactions, one would expect the costs to authorities 
to decline further, and therefore become more affordable.  

The  Competent  Authorities  hope  the  significant  initial  set-up  costs  in  implementing  and 
applying  the  Directive  will  be  offset  in  the  longer  term  by  a  decrease  in  the  day-to-day 
regulatory  costs  of  operating  the  new  licencing  systems.  There  are  already  signs  to  support 
this  conjecture,  including:  a  shift  from  Individual  to  Global/General  Licence  use24; 
significantly  lower  cost25  and  effort  in  authorising  these  licences;  and  multiple  transactions 
being undertaken through GTLs (replacing ITLs on a greater than one-for-one basis, as one 
GTL can cover an unlimited amount of transactions where an ITL only cover one). There will 
be longer-term costs for authorities in ex-post monitoring/control of GTL use (e.g. staff time, 
travel for inspections, etc.), which may be significant, but are not yet not fully understood or 
estimated. 

For industry, the immediate and direct costs of the Directive are low. The fees charged for 
different licences are usually minimal, and in many case free (particularly for GTLs). Of the 
26  countries  providing  data,  18  do  not  charge  a  fee  for  any  of  the  three  types  of  licences. 
Further 5 countries charge only for ITLs (€87 on average) and GloTLs (€94 on average), but 
not GTLs. Only three countries apply a registration charge for GTLs (€31 on average). There 
was  no  suggestion  from  industry  that  these  fees  and  costs  were  unaffordable  or 
disproportionate.  

The  longer-term  implications  for  costs  are  less  clear  –  but  a  number  of  those  consulted 
suggested  that  the  requirements  on  businesses  (e.g.  in  terms  of  monitoring  and  reporting) 
would  not  be  too  different  to  what  existed  before  the  Directive.  The  Competent  Authorities 
consulted  also  generally  believed  that  the  administrative  effort  required  of  businesses  from 
new procedures is proportionate to the benefits in terms of less administration that they will 
bring.    The  authorities  have  taken  on  board  the  intentions  of  the  Directive  and  sought  to 
simplify,  streamline  and  minimise  requirements  as  much  as  possible,  such  that  the 
administrative  burden  is  not  disproportionate.  However,  further  improvements  in  the 
implementation of the provisions of the Directive could enhance the benefits and improve this 
balance further.  There are increasing numbers of businesses registering for and using GTLs, 
suggesting that this route is (more) affordable, and also brings sufficient benefits for the costs 
involved.  A majority of industry survey respondents for instance suggested that the benefits 
of GTL-use had outweighed any costs. 

24 See section 5.1.3 

25 See footnote 27 

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
Businesses have also seen upfront costs in familiarising themselves with and adapting to new 
systems and requirements. The direct financial cost of obtaining different types of licences is 
minimal, but industry has suggested that the staff effort involved in ‘obtaining’ a GTL is less 
than half that of ITLs (and the multiple-use nature of GTLs makes the relative cost of GTLs 
even lower). There will be longer term-costs to businesses of using new types of licence (e.g. 
ensuring eligibility of transactions, monitoring, reporting), but - as with CAs – none of those 
consulted were yet in a position to fully understand these longer-term implications for costs. 

For  certification,  most  businesses  are  not  charged  a  fee,  but  the  process  can  take  several 
months and therefore bring substantial costs in terms of the time and effort (to all involved). 
The Impact Assessment estimated that the average cost of certification for a business might be 
€30k+.  While  there  is  not  sufficient  data  to  estimate  the  average  costs  of  certification,  the 
stakeholder interviews confirm the figure is realistic. 

In relation to expected costs of the Directive, the Impact Assessment suggested the additional 
cost of certification would be up to €25m/year (based on up to 2,000 companies certifying), 
while the annual cost of information requirements for new licencing systems would be up to 
€2.5m.  While  the  predicted  ‘unit  costs’  appear  reasonable  to  the  industry  stakeholders 
consulted (referring to the average costs of certification for a company), the low overall take-
up  of  certification  (55  companies,  rather  than  the  1,000  to  2,000  envisaged)  means  that  the 
system-wide costs of certification have been substantially lower than expected (perhaps half a 
million Euros per annum). More reasonable estimations of uptake in the future would likely 
mean in the order of hundreds of certified companies, and at a cost closer to €5m per annum. 

The Impact Assessment estimated the direct benefit  of the Directive from newly  introduced 
licencing schemes would be at minimum €217m (based on a halving of administrative cost). 
At this stage the full potential of the Directive still have to be materialised and hence a more 
reasonable short-term target might be in the 10 of millions of Euros based the current figure 
of certified companies as the current figure of certified companies do not imply a halving of 
administrative costs. 

The use of Global and General Licences is increasing and over time it is reasonable to expect 
a more significantly reduce the number of ITL applications and further reduce costs.  

Unfortunately  there  is  no  data  available  on  the  annual  cost  of  information  requirements 
relating to the new licencing systems, and none of those consulted (yet) felt able to provide 
such estimates. 

Some examples of good practice in terms of cost-effective implementation in MS have been 
presented in section 5.1.2. 

35 

 
 
 
6.2.2 The extent to which costs are affordable and proportionate, given benefits 

While the initial application of the Directive involved significant effort and cost, there is no 
suggestion  from  those  involved  that  these  additional  demands  were  unaffordable  or 
unreasonable. 

CAs  report  that  the  direct  costs  to  the  authorities  of  authorising  Individual  Licences  are 
minimal,  and  as  more  businesses  shift  to  using  GTLs,  one  would  expect  the  costs  to 
authorities to decline further, and become more affordable. A small number of authorities did 
however raise concerns about the affordability of dealing with certification, should there be a 
sudden increase in applications. 

For industry (including SMEs), the immediate and direct additional administrative costs of the 
Directive  are  also  low,  and  again  there  was  no  suggestion  that  these  fees  and  costs  are 
unaffordable  or  disproportionate.  The  increasing  numbers  of  businesses  registering  for  and 
using GTLs also suggests that this route is (more) affordable than previous options, and also 
brings sufficient benefits for the costs involved. The low levels of uptake of certification are 
unlikely to reflect issues of affordability, but rather of proportionality (benefits vs costs), with 
the perceived benefits often seen as (very) limited at this stage. 

Some  stakeholders  were  concerned  by  a  possible  shift  of  costs  from  authorities  and 
governments  to  business,  which  would  affect  particularly  SMEs.  But  there  is  insufficient 
understanding at present about what the true costs will be (e.g. relating to ex-post monitoring 
and reporting). 

Differences in costs or benefits in MS 

The evaluation has been unable to collect sufficient data to be able to fully compare the costs 
or benefits between different countries. Even in terms of perceptions, there is an insufficient 
sample of responses to robustly compare country-by-country.   

In  any  case,  the  differences  in  the  size  and  structure  of  Member  States  would  make  such  a 
comparison difficult or even misleading.  Also, we can see that even within countries there is 
great variability in both these aspects.  For instance, from industry replies there were clearly 
wide differences in their general view of the costs and benefits of the Directive, both to their 
company  and  within  their  country  more  generally.  This  view  was  also  reflected  in  the 
impressions given by industry stakeholders during interviews, i.e. that the costs and benefits 
vary significantly case by case, both by company (depending on size, activity area and trade 
patterns) and by country (according to the size and defence industry structure, as well as the 
extent of change in the licencing system from pre- to post-Directive). 

Having said this, there is some country-level data available on selected elements of the costs 
of the Directive. This provides indications as to the variability across Europe.  

For example, CAs provided information on the fees they charge for both licence authorisation 
and certification. Many do not charge fees for either, but where they do:  

36 

 
 
 
 The fee charged per ITL varies between €13 and €355 per country  

 The fee charged per GloTL also varies between €13 and €355 

 The fee charged for registering/notifying to use GTLs varies between €5 and €75  

 The fee charged for the certification process varies between €10 and €500 

Some  information  on  the  cost  (in  terms  of  CA  effort  and  other  costs  to  the  authority)  of 
licence authorisation in different countries has also been obtained.  This suggests: 

 ITLs require between 0.5 and 30 person days of effort to issue, with other costs of €0 to 

€27 per licence 

 GloTLs require 0.5 to 30 person days of effort, with other costs of €0 to €27 per licence 

 GTLs require 0 to 7 days of effort, with other costs of €0 to €20 per licence 

And  similarly  for  industry,  the  effort  and  additional  cost  of  obtaining  licences  varies 
company by company (within our sample it is not possible to discern the extent to which these 
differences reflect variation by Member State): 

 ITLs require 0 to 5 person days of effort, with other costs of €0 to €500 per licence 

 GloTLs require 0 to 3 person days of effort, with other costs of €0 to €1,000 per licence 

 GTLs require 0 to 3 days of effort, with other costs of €0 to €1,00 per licence 

Differences in  the benefits of the Directive between countries are harder to assess because 
nobody has been able to put a value on these – and because the benefits will vary significantly 
company to company (e.g. because the range and value of products falling under GTLs could 
vary significantly, even though the costs might be similar), and not necessarily reflect a clear 
national differentiation. 

One could look at GTL uptake to get a sense of the possible differences between countries in 
the overall scale of benefits from the Directive.  For instance the number of GTL notifications 
varies between 0 (in at least 11 countries: BG, HR, CY, EE, HU, IS, IE, IT, LU, SK, SI) and 
100+ (FR, NO, CZ, UK), indicating very significant differences in the overall benefits from 
the  Directive  in  different  countries.    However,  the  size  of  the  respective  economies  and 
defence  sectors  is  clearly  a  factor  here  –  and  as  a  proportion  of  e.g.  total  transfers,  the 
differences are often less stark.  

The extent to which administrative burden is considered proportionate 

The  Competent  Authorities  consulted  generally  believed  that  the  administrative  effort 
required  of  businesses  from  new  procedures  is  proportionate  to  the  benefits  that  they  will 

37 

 
 
 
bring. There was no suggestion from industry that these fees and costs were unaffordable or 
disproportionate. 

Most  other  stakeholders  interviewed  agreed  that  the  administrative  procedures  are 
proportionate,  or  at  least  no  less  proportionate  than  under  previous  systems.  This  was  not 
generally regarded as a big problem.    

The main area where  costs are  not felt to  be proportionate relates to  certification, where 
there  is  currently  a  general  perception  of  very  limited  potential  benefits  from  pursuing  this 
option.  A lack of incentives is contributing to the low number of certified enterprises, and the 
associated limited uptake and use of General Licences for certified enterprises. 

6.3 CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE OF THE DIRECTIVE  

Questions addressed: 

 

Is the scope of the Directive clear, or are there diverging interpretations within MS?   

  To  what  extent  have  the  definitions  of  key  terms  of  the  Transfers  Directive  been 

introduced in national transposition laws and measures?   

  To what extent do MS apply diverging definitions, which might affect the Directive’s 

objectives? 

  To  what  extent  is  the  legislative  measure  coherent  and  not  overlapping  with  other 
pieces  of  legislation  dealing  with  defence-related  products  or  intra-community 
transfers of weapons? 

6.3.1 Internal coherence and consistency in implementation 

The  material  scope  of  the  Transfers  Directive  is  defined  by  the  list  of  defence-related 
products, set out within its Annex. Article 13 of the Transfers Directive prescribes that the list 
has  to  strictly  correspond  to  the  Common  Military  List  (CML)  of  the  European  Union,26 
updated by the Council on an annual basis. However, it takes a number of months to amend 
the  Annex  to  reflect  the  amendments  of  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 is therefore unlikely to reflect the current CML at any given 
point in time and may also differ from that of other MS. Stakeholders would like this ‘update 
period’  to  be  as  short  as  possible,  but  recognise  there  may  need  to  be  some  delay.  Having 

26 The EU CML serves as the material scope for the purpose of export control of defence-related products under 
Common Position 2008/944/CFSP. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
multiple seemingly valid versions of the same CML at the same time create confusion and it's 
legally an unwanted situation. 

The  broad  scope  (what  categories  of  products  that  are  covered)  of  the  Directive  is  clearly 
defined by the CML, and this is clearly understood. However, the CML itself has come in for 
criticism,  as  it  is  seen  as  quite  complicated  and  unclear  in  places.  Certain  definitions  are 
insufficiently clear and open to interpretation, or are out-dated. Terms like 'specially designed' 
lack a proper definition. This has the consequence that it is not always easy to judge whether a 
product would be part of a product category and thus controlled, or not and thus not subject 
licensing. 

There  is  no  information  available  as  to  what  extent  Member  States  have  introduced  the 
definitions of key terms of the Transfers Directive and whether they apply the definitions in a 
diverging manner. In general the Directive is nonetheless perceived as internally coherent. 

6.3.2 External coherence and consistency with other legislation 

Several (10) CAs could point to (potential) overlaps or inconsistencies between the Transfers 
Directive  (and  relevant  national  legislation  transposing  this)  and  other  pieces  of  legislation 
dealing with defence-related products or intra-community transfers of weapons. Several also 
highlighted  that  it  is  important  that  incoherence  is  continually  reconsidered  as  there  are 
constantly evolutions in different legal frameworks, both within the EU and internationally. 

The following legislation has been identified: 

•  The Firearms Directive: Council Directive 91/477/EEC43 on the control of the acquisition 
and  possession  of  weapons  (amended  by  Directive  2008/51/EC)  &  the  Firearms 
regulation: 258/2012 – several countries mentioned that there are significant overlaps with 
the Directive, concerning ML 1 and 3 (for controlled firearms).  According to the current 
EU legislation, some types of firearms (e.g. those for sport-shooting and hunting) can be 
classified as both civil and military firearms – depending on their end-use (civilian or for 
commercial sale). This can create confusion in the application of the two Directives, i.e. 
which Directive should be applied.  In terms of management, some Member States have 
opted for always considering these arms as those mentioned by the CML, while others (as 
allowed  by 
the  Firearms 
Directive/regulation.  One  CA  highlighted  that  their  country  is  establishing  a  national 
General Licence for ML1 goods to cater for the overlap. 

them  as  covered  by 

regulations)  consider 

the 

•  The UN Arms  Trade Treaty, 2013 - There are overlaps in terminology, in  that the ATT 
uses  ‘transfers’  more  broadly  to  cover  imports,  exports,  transit,  trans-shipment  and 
brokering, whereas the Directive 2009/43/EC consider transfers as intra-EU shipments of 
products  only.  There  is  also  possible  incoherence,  in  that  the  ATT  calls  on  States  to 
regulate  transit  and  trans-shipment  of  arms  through  its  territory  (when  the  Transfers 
Directive asks States not to control EEA transfers). 

•  The  Dual  Use  Regulation:  Council  Regulation  N.428/200942  setting  up  a  Community 
regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items – One 
CA  suggested  there  is  an  overlap  with  regard  to  the  classification  of  products  (whether 

39 

 
 
 
they are dual-use or military). This can create confusion in terms which legal basis to rely 
upon. 

•  The  Procurement  Directive:  Council  Directive  2009/81/EC  on  defence  procurement  – 
Once CA highlighted that both Directives address security of supply which could lead to a 
discussion  on  in  which  context  (which  directive  /  responsible  ministry)  SoS  should  be 
addressed. This has however no major impact on efficiency. 

•  Common Position 2008/944/CFSP44 defining common rules governing control of exports 
of military technology and equipment – One CA pointed to the fact that there are 8 criteria 
within the common position that could prevent granting of Transfer Licences 

Several  CAs  highlighted  that  it  is  important  that  overlap  and  incoherence  is  continually 
reconsidered as there are constantly evolutions in different legal frameworks, both within the 
EU and internationally. The suggestion was that a vigilant posture must be adopted and clear 
responsibility set out, whether this is at the EU or Member State level. 

Most authorities believe their own national export policies do not represent an obstacle to the 
application of the Directive. This is because the Directive is seen as relevant and important, 
because it is based around a CML that is internationally agreed / recognised, and because the 
provisions have been transposed to become part of national legislation and practice. However, 
there  were  a  number  of  concerns  raised  about  the  policies  and  practices  of  other  Member 
States,  and  of  the  lack  of  harmonisation  in  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the 
Directive across Europe more generally. 

For the time being the points identified above are not considered to impact the effective and 
efficient application of the Directive to such a degree as to warrant further immediate actions. 

6.4 RELEVANCE: MEASURING THE CONTINUED NEED FOR THE INITIATIVE 

Questions addressed: 

  How  well  do  the  original  objectives  still  correspond  to  the  needs  within  the  EU  at 

present? 

6.4.1 Whether the original objectives still correspond to EU needs 

Competent authorities hold that the Directive still corresponds to the original needs it sought 
to address. First, it was only recently fully implemented (in fact some countries are still in the 
process of implementing all the provisions of the Directive) and has not been applied for long 
enough to effect the development strongly towards reaching all objectives. Moreover, further 
harmonisation of the requirements for GTLs, common approaches and restrictions on the use 
of GTLs, as well as simplification of the procedures are considered desirable by some CAs.  

Defence companies  stressed  that the relevance of the Directive has  not  declined, but  rather 
increased.  On  the  one  hand,  many  companies  have  only  recently  begun  to  use  the  new 
instruments and will incorporate General Licences over time. On the other, companies point 
to  recent  changes  in  the  US  system  that  may  be  putting  European  firms  at  a  disadvantage.  
40 

 
 
 
The recent US Export  Control Reform process included the definition of goods that are  not 
‘specially  designed’  for  military  use,  and  which  are  therefore  released  from  licencing 
requirements.    These  reforms  are  felt  to  have  fostered  the  competitiveness  of  US  exporters, 
and Europe has to catch up to ensure that its transfer and export control systems do not put 
European firms at a disadvantage. 

Most  stakeholders  agree  that  the  current  needs  within  Europe  are  roughly  the  same  as  in 
2009.  Six  years  is  a  relatively  short  time,  in  particular  in  the  defence  trade.  The  external 
security  environment  is  considered  to  have  changed  somewhat,  mainly  due  to  the  changing 
role of Russia and situation in Ukraine. Within the EU, the economic crisis has had a negative 
impact  on  the  defence  industry  in  a  number  of  countries.  Overall,  respondents  were  less 
concerned about addressing new needs; the main issue is making sure the original Directive is 
implemented. 

In  conclusion,  the  identified  issues  and  risks  are  still  valid  today  and  the  needs  for  the 
Directive are still there. The objectives have not been fully achieved at this point. However, 
there  is  recognition  that  these  should  be  seen  as  long-term  aims,  for  which  the  Directive 
provides a first step in the right direction. 

Moving forward, stakeholders are not overly concerned with the Directive addressing new or 
different needs (new needs were not detected by stakeholders) – but rather, ensuring that it is 
implemented  fully,  and  that  further  inroads  can  be  made  towards  its  original  objectives 
through e.g. greater harmonisation of requirements. 

6.5 EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

Questions addressed: 

  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  had  an  added  value  on  the  pre-existing  situation 
(since  2007)  and  contributed  to  reaching  the  overarching  and  specific  objectives,  as 
opposed to national legislation? 

  To what extent do the issues addressed by the Directive continue to require action at 

the EU level? 

Prior to the Directive entering into force in 2009 each country had its own regime to control 
the transfer (export) and import of defence-related products. The alternative to the adoption of 
the  Directive  would  have  been  the  further  development  of  these  national  approaches,  or  a 
multilateral agreement (e.g. within the EDA or among LOI countries). 

The  ex-ante  Impact  Assessment  noted  that  a  number  of  bi-/multi-lateral  agreements  and 
initiatives  had  already  been  developed,  aimed  at  structuring  and  regulating  the  international 
trade  in  defence-related  products.  However,  even  the  most  prominent  of  these  (the  LoI  and 
subsequent FFA signed by six main arms producing states) was felt to have been extremely 
slow,  with  solutions  that  were  too  complex,  vague  and  insufficiently  binding,  and  achieved 

41 

 
 
 
limited  results.  The  Directive,  building  on  existing  approaches,  but  aiming  at  a  more 
comprehensive  set  of  objectives  and  including  more  countries  than  alternatives,  has 
contributed  more  to  the  achievement  of  its  operational  objectives  than  would  have  been 
achieved otherwise. 

Competent authorities have argued that EU-level action was needed in order to efficiently 
and effectively address the underlying issues in the area of transfers. In particular, EU level 
action  is  seen  as  very  valuable  for  gaining  the  “necessary  critical  mass  for  these  types  of 
schemes”.  In  addition,  the  Directive  has  initiated  networking  and  exchange  between  the 
Competent Authorities, whereby the intervention at European Commission level is important 
and  appreciated.  Importantly,  the  Directive  provided  a  common  conceptual  framework,  a 
template  for  the  structure  of  licences  across  countries  and  essentially  the  same  (underlying) 
product list (before the product lists were different). 

Defence  companies  stress  that  the  Directive  has  provided  a  common  framework,  albeit 
limited in scope, for national legislations on the control of transfers. Part of this framework 
includes  a  single  concepts  and  a  shared  language.  Thus,  companies  do  now  know  what  is 
meant with terms like “General Transfer License” or “Certificate” and know where to find the 
related documents. This has also improved the communication between defence firms and the 
authorities within and outside a country. 

Stakeholders  point  to  the  fact  that  the  process  of  drafting  the  Directive  allowed  for  a 
systematic  involvement  of  different  types  of  stakeholder  in  the  process.  Moreover,  some 
stakeholders commented that in theory the Directive has added value, but the provision could 
be more effective if transformed into EU regulation, which would be directly applicable. 

The  different  ways  in  which  the  Directive  has  been  transposed  has  not  fully  overcome  the 
initial  fragmentation  of  markets.  However,  the  Directive  has  limited  the  extent  of 
fragmentation  between  national  systems,  and  has  provided  a  framework  on  which  further 
harmonisation can take place. The stakeholders consulted for the evaluation therefore feel that 
the  European  approach  is  more  likely  to  contribute  to  achieving  the  objectives  set  by  the 
Directive than any multilateral approach. 

The  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  relevant  to  achieving  its  specific  and  overarching 
objectives  –  which  still  correspond  to  the  needs  within  the  EU  at  present.  However,  the 
implementation of the Directive has impeded on its effectiveness and therefore the impact it 
has had to date. Consequently, further EU level action is required to address the issues tackled 
by  the  Directive.  No  one  has  argued  that  the  Directive  has  been  the  wrong  approach  in 
principle,  suggesting  that  in  order  to  achieve  such  objectives  it  is  better  to  rely  on  an  EU 
initiative than a multilateral approach. 

42 

 
 
 
7. CONCLUSIONS  

Due  to  the  very  early  stage  of  the  Directive's  implementation,  this  evaluation  aims  at 
assessing progress being made in the application of the Directive. It was not possible  to see 
the  full  impact  of  the  Directive  in  relation  to  its  wider  aims  since  this  evaluation  has  been 
undertaken  just  3  years  after  the  transposition  deadline  (and  fewer  years  from  actual 
application in some countries). 

Effectiveness:  The  Directive  has  made  worthwhile,  but  limited,  progress  against  its  main 
objectives.  The  tools  provided  by  the  Directive  are  in  place,  but  better  implementation  and 
uptake is needed.  

Efficiency:  While  some  cost  reductions  have  been  achieved,  the  potential  for  further 
reductions  lie  ahead,  pending  a  better  implementation  and  uptake  of  the  Directive's 
provisions.  

Consistency and coherence: Internally the Directive is considered adequately consistent and 
coherent. Externally there is potential for improvement.  

Relevance: The original objectives of the Directive are still as valid in Europe today as when 
the Directive was first proposed. 

European  Added  Value:  An  EU  approach  remains  the  most  appropriate  response  and  is 
more likely to contribute to achieving the objectives set by the Directive than any multilateral 
approach  one  might  envisage.  The  potential  benefits  of  the  new  system  promises  for 
strengthening the single market, and creating the incentives for European industry to improve 
its competitiveness globally.  

The  Directive  is  considered  to  have  been  a  necessary  first  step  towards  improving  the 
competitiveness of the European defence industry. The uptake of General Transfer Licenses 
shows  the  Directive  has  reduced  administrative  burdens,  and  provided  instruments  that  are 
likely  to  open  up  the  internal  market  and  will,  through  this,  contribute  to  strengthening 
competitiveness.  

Stakeholders point to a number of different priorities, including: harmonisation across Europe 
of the type and number of exemptions, the conditions of the use of GTLs, and a list of less-
sensitive products; and the fostering of increased use of GTLs through an increase in products 
covered,  a  reduction  in  administrative  burdens/requirements,  a  removal  of  conditions  on  re-
transfer and re-export; and an increase the number of certified enterprises. Actors would also 
like  see  faster  updates  of  the  CML,  common  definitions  of  key  terms,  increased 
communication  and  exchange,  further  outreach  and  information  and  English  translations  of 
GTLs.  

The  evaluation  showed,  based  on  input  from  stakeholders  that  the  Directive  has  positively 
contributed to the functioning of the internal market, albeit so far in a limited way. The use of 
43 

 
 
 
the tools of the Directive, in particular the GTLs and the certification of undertakings across 
the EEA has not been as wide as expected. The Commission's initiatives to be undertaken in 
the area of intra-EU transfers of defence-related products are presented in the Report from the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 
2009/43/EC. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

In  January  2015,  DG  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (DG  GROW) 
launched an evaluation of the Transfers Directive. The evaluation of the Directive forms part 
of  the  European  Defence  Action  Plan,  as  identified  in  the  Commission  Work  Programme 
201627  (2016/GROW/006),  DG  GROW's  Strategic  Plan  2016-2020  and  DG  GROW's 
Management Plan 2016. The evaluation study was finalised in May 2016.  

An  inter-service  Steering  Group  has  been  set  up  at  the  launch  of  the  evaluation.  The 
Secretariat-General,  the  Legal  Service,  DG  GROW,  DG  HOME,  DG  TRADE  and  the 
European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS)  participated  in  the  work  of  the  Steering  Group. 
The Group met 4 times during the evaluation process. 

The evaluation was carried out by an external consultant – Technopolis Group. The findings 
and conclusions are based on a programme of research and analysis, which included detailed 
consultation with Competent Authorities (CA), a pan-EU survey of defence companies and a 
programme  of  stakeholder  workshops  in  eight  countries,  complemented  by  a  programme  of 
desk  research,  case  studies  and  semi-structured  interviews  with  a  range  of  representatives. 
The consultant acknowledges that the report assesses all evaluation questions and objectives, 
however,  most  obtainable  evidence  pertains  to  implementation  and  uptake  of  the  Directive 
and provisions (i.e. operational objectives) than its benefits and impacts (i.e. wider aims and 
objectives). This is due to insufficient time since transposition of the Directive to observe its 
impact  and  late  or  ongoing  implementation  of  its  provisions.  Further  shortcomings  include 
lack  of  available  and  comparable  data  on  benefits,  costs  and  impact  and  the  fact  that  the 
defence sector is characterised by irregular cycles and shifts. Other external factors also play a 
role, such as the difficulty to attribute changes to the legislation.  

No  infringement  cases  have  been  opened  regarding  non-conformity  or  bad  application. 
Neither any official complaint has been registered. 

27 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Commission Work Programme 2016 No time for business 
as usual, adopted on 27 October 2015, COM(2015) 610 final. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2. METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE EVALUATION 

1. EVALUATION APPROACH 

The evaluation combined of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Specifically, the 
following main methods were defined for data collection and analysis purposes. Each of these 
main methods is described in the remainder of this Annex.  

  Desk research and document review 

  Analysis of statistical data on the economic situation and development of the defence 

sector 

  Written surveys and follow-up interviews with competent authorities 

  Surveys and follow-up interviews with defence companies 

  Stakeholder interviews 

  Workshops with industries 

 

Issue-based case studies  

A  mixed-methods  approach  allows  a  degree  of  simple  triangulation,  whereby  multiple  data 
streams and cross-tabulations provide a greater degree of confidence in the correctness of the 
analysis, evaluation question by evaluation question. This is demonstrated in the table below, 
which presents a schematic overview as to the contribution of each of the principal methods to 
each of the six overarching evaluation questions.  

Table 8: Tabulation of evaluation questions and methods 

Desk research and document review 

Analysis of statistical data 

Surveys & interviews 

Stakeholder interviews 

Workshops with industry 

Case studies 

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

*** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

** 

s
s

e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

** 

*** 

** 

* 

* 

*** 

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
E

** 

*** 

** 

** 

* 

* 

d
e
d
d
A
U
E

e
u
l
a
V

** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

** 

** 

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

* 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

* 

y
t
i
l
i
t

U

*** 

*** 

** 

*** 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. PRINCIPAL EVALUATION METHODS  

2.1 Desk research and document review 

Desk  research  provided  the  basis  for  the  collection  of  primary  data.  It  helped  to  set  up  the 
analytical framework, which then shaped the design of the data collection tools. In addition, 
desk  research  served  as  a  tool  for  testing  evaluation  questions.  In  particular,  the  issues  of 
relevance, coherence and alignment are partly addressed in this way. Desk research also fed 
into the preparation of case studies.   

The availability of public information on the Directive, its transposition and implementation 
at national level was found to differ significantly across Europe, and there were several cases 
where  the  evaluation  found  little  or  no  information  readily  available.  However,  subsequent 
engagement  with  Competent  Authorities  (discussed  below)  helped  to  successfully  fill  some 
information gaps. 

2.2 Analysis of statistical data on the defence sector 

Time-series data on the defence sector across Europe during the past ten years were collected 
and analysed. This analysis28 outlines the size and shape of the European defence sector, as 
well as major trends in its structure and trade flows. It is intended to provide the national and 
European context for the evaluation and to the assessment of the evaluation questions. 

The  evaluation  encountered  a  number  of  challenges  in  undertaking  this  analysis.  Data  on 
defence-related production and transactions at Member State (macro) and firm (micro) level is 
limited, except in very aggregated form. Also, classifications of defence-related products and 
distinctions  between  military  and  non-military  products  vary  between  sources.  Similarly, 
timeframes,  geographical  coverage  and  units  of  measurement  also  differ.  One  other 
significant  limitation  was  the  narrow  timeframe  available.  The  Directive  only  entered  into 
force in 2012, while most data sources only run to 2013 or 2014, making it difficult to observe 
trends  (indeed,  the  Impact  Assessment  suggested  six  years  would  be  needed  before 
macroeconomic  effects  could  be  observed).  Also,  economic  crises  and  market  cycles  will 
have  an  impact.    Even  as  more  data  becomes  available,  it  will  be  difficult  to  attribute 
causality. 

2.3 stakeholders consultation activities 

All  stakeholders  affected  by  the  Directive  were  identified  by  the  contractor.  The  several 
consultation  activities  designed  by  the  external  contractor  included:  consultation  with 
Competent Authorities (CA) (survey and interview), a pan-EU survey of defence companies 
and  a  programme  of  stakeholder  workshops  in  eight  countries,  complemented  by  a 

28 See supportive study chapter 4 and footnote 2 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
programme  of  desk  research,  case  studies  and  interviews  with  a  range  of  representatives 
including  governments,  industry  associations,  companies  (including  SMEs)  and  EU 
institutions. More information  on consultation activities  can be found in the synopsis report 
(see Annex 3). 

2.4 Case studies 

The evaluation included the preparation of four ‘issue-based’ case studies, which present and 
explore specific aspects of the implementation of the Directive that have been challenging or 
were  otherwise  deemed  interesting  for  the  evaluation.    Four  topics  were  selected  with  the 
Commission: 

•  The extent of variation in the certification systems employed in different countries 

•  The  reporting  requirements  in  place  across  Member  States,  and  the  extent  to  which 
countries  have  shifted  towards  a  system  of  ex-post,  rather  than  ex-ante  reporting  in 
relation to GTLs 

•  The extent to which issues exist with the free transit (passage-through) of defence-related 

products through EU countries during a licenced transfer. 

•  The incentives and disincentives of certification, and how the balance might be improved 

to encourage more companies to become certified 

These were explored through desk research and the various consultation activities undertaken 
during the evaluation.   

48 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3. DETAILED SUMMARY OF ALL RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS AND THEIR RESULT 

1. SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

1.1 Context 

Directive 2009/43/EC on the intra-community transfer of defence-related products (Transfer 
Directive) requires that the Commission, by 30 June 2016, reviews the implementation of the 
Directive  and  reports  to  the  EP  and  Council.  In  particular,  the  Commission  is  asked  to 
evaluate whether and to what extent the Directive's objective have been achieved and how it 
impacted  on  the  development  of  the  European  defence  equipment  market  and  the  European 
defence technological and industrial base.  

The Directive introduces a harmonised new licencing system for transfers of defence-related 
product  with  the  objective  of  simplifying  administrative  procedures  linked  to  authorising 
transfers  of  those  products  between  Member  States.  The  Directive  applies  to  Member  State 
export control competent authorities and the defence industry. The underlying objective is to 
ensure security of supply between MS armed forces and to strengthen industrial collaboration. 
The Directive obliges MS to apply the directive from 30 June 2012. 

The  roadmap  for  the  evaluation  did  not  receive  any  feedback.  As  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
Directive,  the  Commission  initiated  a  supporting  study  to  collect  and  analyse  data29.  This 
study contains all underlying information for the Staff Working Document with more detailed 
data. The strategy for this study consisted of an initial desk research with document analysis 
to  provide  a  framework  for  the  evaluation,  market  analysis  of  the  European  Defence  and 
Technological  Industrial  Base,  survey  to  identified  key  stakeholders  based  on  evaluation 
questions  and  information  obtained  through  desk  research  and  market  analysis,  follow-up 
interviews to the surveys and other stakeholders. On this basis the study undertook an analysis 
and presented its conclusions for the Commission to consider. 

The  technical  nature  of  the  Directive  means  that  there  are  only  a  limited  number  of 
stakeholders (MS Competent Authorities and defence companies) able to assess and provide 
feedback  on  the  implementation  and  impact  of  the  provisions  of  the  Directive.  Government 
officials  concerned  with  export  control,  individual  experts  employed  by  export  compliance 
divisions  in  defence  companies  and  defence  industry  associations  are  the  main  stakeholders 
identified that the consultation strategy developed in the context of this evaluation targeted. 

29 Final report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/defence/defence-firearms-directives_en 

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
Competent Authorities (CAs) were key stakeholders, and central to the evaluation’s ability to 
address many of the evaluation questions. Moreover, they were expected to hold much of the 
information  itemised  in  the  specific  information  requests.  For  this  reason,  the  evaluation 
chose a comprehensive approach to gathering input from this group. 

The defence industry was another key stakeholder for the study, and was consulted initially 
through  an  online  survey  (seeking  views,  feedback  and  information  of  relevance  to  most 
evaluation questions), and then also through follow-up interviews (to explore particular issues 
in  more  depth  and  detail).  Both  aspects  were  targeted  at  all  defence  companies  (including 
SMEs)  across  Europe  that  transfer  and  /  or  receive  defence-related  products.  This  included 
GTL  users/non-users  and  certified/non-certified  enterprises.  There  was  no  open  public 
consultation  undertaken  as  part  of  the  evaluation  due  to  the  highly  technical  nature  of  the 
Directive. The relevant stakeholders were identified and consulted. Further consultation of a 
wider  public  beyond  the  identified  stakeholders  would  likely  not  have  provided  any  more 
substantial information. 

1.2 Stakeholder group consultations and results 

The  contractor  conducted  two  major  surveys:  One  involving  authorities  from  MS  either 
concerned with export control/licencing or MS actors using transfer licences (armed forces), 
undertaken  from  July  –  December  2015;  a  second  survey  was  addressed  to  industry  as 
users/beneficiaries of the simplified licencing system, undertaken from July – October 2015.  

Survey of competent authorities (Member States) 
Member  state  export  control  competent  authorities  are  a  key  group  of  stakeholders  for  this 
evaluation, and central to the ability of the study to properly address many of the evaluation 
questions.  

The competent authorities are likely to be best placed to provide feedback and insight for the 
Member  State  overall,  for  a  large  proportion  of  the  evaluation  questions.  The  questionnaire 
focuses  on  factual  quantitative  and  qualitative  information,  much  of  which  relates  to  the 
specific information requested in the task specifications.  

Result: 29 complete surveys (Malta failed to reply and Lichtenstein was out of scope). This 
signifies a very good response rate, capturing in a detailed manner all MS stakeholders. The 
main  outcome  of  this  activity  was  to  provide  answers  to  the  relevant  evaluations  questions 
from  the  Competent  Authorities,  representing  MSs,  including  statistics  and  additional 
information concerning uptake and use of exemptions, ITLs, GloTLs and GTLs and data on 

50 

 
 
 
the  certification  procedure  in  each  MS.  Quantitative  and  qualitative  results  are  too 
comprehensive for a short summary, so for further information refer to summary note on this 
activity in the supportive study30. 

Survey of the defence industry 
The  second  survey  conducted  for  the  purpose  of  the  study  addressed  industry,  and  was  in 
particular  directed  at  two  target  groups:  i)  certified  enterprises  that  use  the  new  General 
Transfer Licences and ii) defence companies, that transfer defence-related products but do not 
use  the  new  licences.    Out  of  the  1200  firms  operating  in  the  core  defence  industry  in 
Europe31, more than 400 companies were contacted directly and invited to participate in the 
online  survey/questionnaire.  Additionally,  42  national  organisations  representing  defence 
industry  in  30  EEA  countries  (EU  28  +  Iceland  and  Norway)  were  contacted  and  helped 
distribute the questionnaire to  its members. A reminder  was sent one month after the initial 
request and again two weeks before closing the questionnaire to the companies contacted and 
the  42  defence  organisations.  The  reminder  was  also  sent  through  European  Defence 
Agency32 and the European Enterprise Network. 

The survey was followed up by interview with 32 selected companies. 

Result:  65  replies  were  received.  The  target  was  115  replies  from  companies.  However, 
several of the  65 replies came from national defence industry associations. Most companies 
preferred their industry association to reply on their behalf, since the nature of the questions 
were sensitive. As such, the 65 replies represent more than the target of 115 company replies. 
Any further attempt to gain information via questionnaires is not expected to produce any new 
information.  

The  main  outcome  of  this  activity  was  to  provide  answers  to  the  relevant  evaluations 
questions from the European Defence and Technological Industrial Base, including statistics 
and  additional  information  concerning  uptake  and  use  of  exemptions,  ITLs,  GloTLs  and 
GTLs and their views on the certification procedure in each MS. Quantitative and qualitative 

30 See Appendix G of supportive study, refer to footnote 34 for reference to supportive study 

31 SBS data of 2012 

32  EDA  have  an  extensive  network  within  the  European  defence  industry  and  they  kindly  made  their  point  of 
contacts within industry available to the consultants in order to promote the questionnaire. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                 
results  are  too  comprehensive  for  a  short  summary,  so  for  further  information  refer  to  the 
summary note on this activity in the supportive study33. 

Interviews with MS competent authorities 
The  questionnaire  to  MS  competent  authorities  was  followed  by  a  formal  interview.  The 
interview  served  to  complete  any  outstanding  information  or  additional  questions  the 
evaluator had.  

In sum the project team expected to conduct 31 interviews – telephone or face-to-face – with 
competent  authorities  (i.e.  one  for  each  country  in  scope  for  the  evaluation).  Result:  25 
interviews  completed.  Almost  all  were  available  for  interviews.  Every  effort  was  made  to 
have  all  MS  competent  authorities  interviewed.  The  result  was  considered  more  than 
satisfactorily.  

The  main  outcome  of  this  activity  was  to  complement  any  missing  information  from  the 
survey, ask clarifying questions and allow for other types of information to be passed which 
was not captured by the survey. As this activity sought to complement the survey, the results 
are  captured  in  the  summary  note  on  the  survey  activity,  see  footnote  35.Interviews  with 
industry and other stakeholders 

As a follow-up to the survey to industry, interviews with the three target groups of industry 
were conducted: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Certified companies, 

Companies using a GTL for (some of) their transfers and 

Companies not using a GTL for their transfers.  

All  in  all  it  was  expected  to  conduct  40  interviews,  out  of  which  20  with  general  defence 
companies,  i.e.  companies  that  transfer  defence-related  products,  but  do  not  make  use  of  a 
GTL for this purpose and 20 with certified companies (10) and holders of GTL (10). 

Interviewers run through the questionnaire and followed-up on any missing information and 
expanded  upon  the  answers  that  were  given  in  the  survey  and  explored  in  more  depth 
particular aspects of their response. 

33 See Appendix I of supportive study, refer to footnote 34 for reference to supportive study. 

52 

 
 
 
                                                 
Result: 32 interviews with companies, 18 with defence industry association, 4 with European 
officials, 7 with national procurement officials and 11 with academia, think tanks, consultants 
etc. Total: 72 

With a sum of 32 interviewed companies out of a target of 40, this is considered sufficient. 
Further  interviews  were  not  deemed  necessary.  As  this  activity  sought  to  complement  the 
survey, the results are captured in the summary note on the survey activity, see footnote 38. 

Workshops with industry 
The  original  task  specifications  suggested  that  the  evaluation  should  include  a  one-day 
seminar  with  representatives  of  MS  and  industry,  which  would  be  used  to  discuss  on-going 
work  and  preliminary  findings.  However,  during  early  discussions  with  key  stakeholders,  it 
became  clear  that  a  series  of  smaller  national  events  would  likely  be  a  more  effective  and 
efficient use of the available budget. It was therefore proposed that instead of a single large 
seminar, there would be a series of one-day workshops across Europe. 

Eight workshops across Europe were arranged during the second half of October and early 
December  2015.  These  were  held  in  the  LOI  countries34  –  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Spain, 
Sweden,  the  UK  –  as  well  as  in  the  Netherlands  and  the  Czech  Republic.  These  countries 
were chosen as together they account for a significant proportion (some 85%) of the European 
defence  technology  and  industrial  base,  as  well  as  offering  perspectives  from  larger  and 
smaller countries, and from Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern Europe. 

Attendees included representatives from the relevant national industry association, but mainly 
consisted of representatives from industry (member and non-member companies).  Nearly 70 
individuals attended and contributed to the events, representing a range of different sizes and 
types of business, across different parts of the defence sector and defence supply chain, and 
with  differing  levels  of  import/export  activity  and  experience.  The  participants  included  the 
most  important  export  companies  and  allowed  for  a  thorough  and  in-depth  discussion  of 
numerous issues. 

34  “The  six  main  arms  manufacturing  Member  States  (UK,  FR,  DE,  ES,  SE,  IT)  have  committed  in  an 
international  treaty  the  ‘Letter  of  Intent”  (LoI)  and  its  resulting  Framework  Agreement  to  facilitating  defence 
industrial cooperation and restructuring. The LoI follow-up is carried out by six subcommittees respectively in 
charge of the six main tasks identified in the treaty: security of supply, export controls, security of information, 
research  and  technology,  management  of  technical  information  and  harmonisation  of  military  requirements” 
(SEC(2007) 1593). 

53 

 
 
 
                                                 
Result:  The  workshops  were  considered  a  success.  Together  they  managed  to  deepen  the 
understanding  and  shed  more  light  on  issues  raised  by  industry.  This  gave  however  a  more 
qualitative  rather  than  quantitative  type  of  information,  as  opposed  to  data  from 
questionnaires  and  interviews.  With  this  success,  the  evaluators  and  the  Steering  Board35 
accompanying  the  evaluation  considered  the  industry  properly  consulted.  Further  initiatives 
were not considered to provide any significant new information.  

Quantitative and qualitative results are too comprehensive for a short summary, so for further 
information refer to summary note on this activity in the supportive study36. 

Discussion of preliminary results with MS 
A  report  on  preliminary  results  received  18  December  2015  was  discussed  with  MS 
representatives in the Committee, established by Directive 2009/43/EC, on 22 January 2006. 
The  Committee  members  and  MS  Permanent  Representations  received  the  report  well  in 
advance of the meeting and were able to express their comments directly and later in writing. 
As such, any mistakes or misinterpretations were resolved prior to the draft final report and 
preliminary results have been properly consulted with a key stakeholder. The final report of 
the evaluation study was equally discussed with the Committee to have their reactions before 
the Commission drafted the final report to Parliament and Council. 

1.3 Summary of stakeholder consultations 

Presently, the study has consulted all identified stakeholders affected by the Directive. They 
have had several opportunities to provide feedback to the Commission.  

The  results  so  far  indicate  that  the  tools  the  Directive  provides  for  are  in  place  in  most 
Member  States.  The  use  of  these  tools  by  industry  is  unfortunately  still  low,  partly  due  to 
divergent Member State practises and partly since changing the behaviour in defence export 
control takes a long time.  

Furthermore, based on findings in the stakeholder consultations and the market analysis in the 
supporting  study,  the  Directive  has  had  little  or  no  observable  impact  in  terms  of  benefits 
from the perspective of the general wider public. This is attributed to the following reasons: 

35  Members  of  the  Steering  Board:  Secretariat  General,  DG  HOME,  EEAS,  DG  TRADE,  DG  GROW/01  and 
GROW/G3 

36 See Appendix J of supportive study, refer to footnote 34 for reference to supportive study 

54 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Not  enough  time  has  passed  since  the  transposition.  The  initial  impact  assessment37 
suggested  that  evaluation  of  broader  macroeconomic  impacts  should  take  place  no 
sooner than six years after the full implementation of the Directive to see first impacts. 
  Some countries have not yet or only recently fully implemented the provisions of the 

Directive. 

  For many countries there is lack of relevant data that would allow assessing the impact 

of the Directive. Why the data has not been provided is not known. 

  The defence industry is characterised by cycles and shifts not related to the Directive 
given the long life cycle of defence equipment. Consequently, several stakeholders in 
the  stakeholder  consultations,  in  particular  with  CAs,  caution  about  attributing  any 
shift to the new legislation. 

1.4 How these results feed into the evaluation 

The rate and the quality of replies are deemed to be of good quality by the Steering Board 
accompanying the study, which means valid conclusions may be drawn based on the data 
available. As such this is sufficient to allow the Commission to draw informed conclusions on 
the basis of the results for the way forward. Based on the conclusions drawn in the evaluation 
report, the Commission will outline a series of actions it propose to undertake in the future. 
Finally, these conclusions and action are outlined in the final report on the evaluation to 
Parliament and Council. 

37 SEC(2007)1593, p.48 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 4. RESULT / IMPACT INDICATORS 

The study was required to define a series of result / impact indicators that would support the 
objectives  of  the  evaluation  and  help  address  the  evaluation  questions.    At  the  kick-off 
meeting  the  Commission  stressed  the  importance  of  selecting  the  right  RACER  indicators  - 
Relevant, Accepted, Credible, Easy (i.e. data availability) and Robust  - and  highlighted that 
these should go beyond simple indicators, to provide insight on the Directive’s implications. 

The  following  tables  present  the  series  of  indicators  defined  at  the  start  of  the  study,  along 
with the potential sources of data and information that would be sought to measure these. The 
indicators  are  derived  from  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  Directive  (as  set  out  in  the 
intervention logic), while the potential data sources relate to the tools employed by the study.  

Indicators have been defined in relation to three stages of the Directive’s application:  

•  Transposition  and  implementation  –  i.e.  the  extent  to  which  the  Directive  and  its 

provisions have been (fully) implemented by (all) Member States  

•  Uptake and use - i.e. the extent to which the system / mechanisms introduced by the 

directive have been taken-up and used by industry and other bodies 

•  Benefits and impacts – i.e. the extent to which the system and mechanisms introduced 
by  the  Directive  have  made  a  positive  contribution  in  relation  to  the  aims  and 
objectives of the Directive (from a reduction in administrative costs, to the creation of 
a competitive European defence equipment market) 

In designing these indicators, it was already possible to foresee that the evaluation would face 
a  number  of  issues in  collecting  and  assessing information  to  support their  use  (particularly 
when it comes to indicators on benefits and impacts), not least because: 

•  The necessary data might not be readily available, or comparable, across the EU 

•  Most  indicators  relate  to  ‘change’, and  so  would  require  comparable  data  for  more  than 

one period – which again might not be readily available 

•  Delays in the implementation of the directive, and indications of a limited initial uptake of 
the mechanisms and processes it introduced, might mean that the Directive has so-far had 
minimal  visible  impact  in  relation  to  wider  /  longer-term  goals  (e.g.  relating  to  industry 
structure, competitiveness) 

•  Related to this, some of the trends evident (e.g. overall market / sector / trade indicators) 
are likely to be the result of various influences, some potentially much more powerful than 
the  directive  (e.g.  waves  of  mergers  /  acquisitions,  the  state  of  the  global  economy, 
changes  in  defence  spending)  –  making  attribution  specifically  to  the  Directive  difficult 

Taking account of these issues, the evaluation tried to strike an appropriate balance between 
number and quality of indicators, and the realistic ability to measure these, now or in the near 
future, based on data that might be available.  

56 

 
 
 
 
Table 9: Indicators relating to the benefits / impacts of the Directive 

Aims and objectives 
Long-term Outcomes 

A competitive European defence 
equipment market (EDEM) 

Emergence of a European 
Defence Technological and 
Industrial Base (EDTIB) 
Short-term Outcomes 
Facilitation of intra-community 
transfers of defence-related 
products 

Reduction in complexity of 
procedures and administrative 
burdens 

Greater security of supply 

Indicator 

Source 

  Reduction in EU defence equipment market concentration 

(HHI index) 

  Increase in MS / EU share of global defence equipment 

market 

  Increase in volume / value of defence equipment exports 

(to third countries) 

Market data 

  Increase in the number / value / activity of EU defence-

related manufacturers 

Market data 

  Increase in EU innovation activity amongst its EDTIB 

  Increase in the number, volume and / or value of intra-
community transfers (absolute, and as a proportion of 
total trade) - by different types of licences 

  Reduction in administrative costs / burdens (effort and 
financial) – to both industry and Competent Authorities 
  Proportion of GTL users who believe that the benefits of 

using GTLs outweigh the costs 

  Proportion of certified enterprises who believe the 

benefits of certification outweigh the costs 

  Increase in volume / value of cross-border purchases by 

Member State Governments (absolute, and as a 
proportion of total purchases) 

CA questionnaire + 
market data 

CA questionnaire + 
industry 
questionnaire 

Market data 

Table 10: Indicators relating to the uptake and use of the Directive 

Aims and objectives 
Operational outcomes 

A shift from Individual / Global 
Licences to General Licences 

Certified defence enterprises linked 
to General Licence schemes 

Indicator 

Source 

  Increase in GTLs in use (by type) 
  Reduction in GloTL / ITL issued 
  Dispersion of GTL use across EU 
  Number of applications for certificates 
  Number of certifications awarded 
  Dispersion of certified defence enterprises across EU 

CA questionnaire 

CA questionnaire 

Table 11: Indicators relating to transposition and implementation of the Directive 

Aims and objectives 
Outputs 
Simplified national licencing 
schemes for General, Global and 
Individual Licences 

A certification process linked to 
General Licence schemes, and 
based on common criteria 

Regulatory information 
requirements for re-exportation 
of defence-related products 
Measures to tackle / penalise 
infringements 

Transposition / adoption of 
Directive 

Indicator 

Source 

  Extent to which licence schemes are in place (each type of 

GTL, GloTL and ITL) across each MS 

CA questionnaire + 
desk research 

  Extent to which certification processes are in place across 

each MS 

  Number of cases where certificates are not recognised by 

other MS 

  Extent to which regulatory information requirements are 

in place across each MS 

  Extent to which infringement measures are in place 
  Number of enforcement actions 
  The extent to which the Directive and its provisions have 

been transposed / adopted by all Member States 

  Extent to which exclusions from the Directive are used 

CA questionnaire + 
desk research 

CA questionnaire + 
desk research 

CA questionnaire + 
desk research 
CA consultation + 
Desk review (leg. 
comparison) 

57