COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of Directive 2014/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (recast)
Date: 2025-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, explosive, market approval, market supervision, public health, public safety, safety standard, technical standard, traceability

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.9.2025  SWD(2025) 267 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  of Directive 2014/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (recast) {SWD(2025) 266 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION 

of 

Directive 2014/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 February 2014 

on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available 
on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (recast) 

1.  Background 

Directive 2014/28/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to 
the making available on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses1 (hereinafter 
‘the Civil Explosives Directive’ or ‘the current Directive’) aims to enhance the free movement 
of civil explosives in the internal market, while protecting the health and safety of persons 
and  public  security.  The  Civil  Explosives  Directive  was  adopted  as  recast  of  Council 
Directive  93/15/EEC  of  5 April  1993  on  the  harmonization  of  the  provisions  relating  to  the 
placing  on  the  market  and  supervision  of  explosives  for  civil  uses2  (hereinafter  ‘the  1993 
Directive’), aligning it to the New Legislative Framework (hereinafter ‘NLF’)3, but leaving 
the sector specific rules essentially untouched. 

Commission Decision 2004/388/EC4, as amended by Commission Decision 2010/347/EU5, sets 
out a harmonised document format for intra-EU transfers of explosives. Commission Directive 
2008/43/EC  on  explosives  traceability6  sets  up  a  harmonised  system  for  the  unique 
identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses. 

1 Directive 2014/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation 
of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market and supervision of explosives 
for civil uses (recast), (OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/28/oj).  

2 Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions relating to the placing on 
the  market  and  supervision  of  explosives  for  civil  uses,  (OJ  L  121,  15.5.1993,  p. 20,  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1993/15/).  

3 The  New Legislative Approach consists of  Decision No 768/2008/EC  of  the European Parliament and  of  the 
Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 
93/465/EEC (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 82, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2008/768(1)/oj) and Regulation 
(EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements 
for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) 
No 339/93 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/765/oj).  

4 Commission Decision 2004/388/EC of 15 April 2004 on an Intra-Community transfer of explosives document 

(OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2004/388/oj).  

5 Commission Decision 2010/347/EU of 19 June 2010 amending Decision 2004/388/EC on an Intra-Community 
transfer of explosives document, (OJ L 155, 22.6.2010, p. 54, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2010/347/oj).  
6  Commission  Directive  2008/43/EC  of  4 April  2008  setting  up,  pursuant  to  Council  Directive  93/15/EEC,  a 
system  for  the  identification  and  traceability  of  explosives  for  civil  uses  (OJ  L  94,  5.4.2008,  p. 8,  ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/43/oj).  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
A  study  was  carried  out  to  assess  the  effectiveness,  impact  and  utility  of  1993  Directive  in 
20077, but no comprehensive Commission evaluation in accordance with the Better Regulation 
Guidelines and Toolbox8 has yet been carried out, neither of the 1993 rules nor of the current 
legal framework for civil explosives. However, the environment in which EU civil explosives 
legislation operates has changed, not only since the introduction of the substantive provisions 
in  1993,  but  also  since  the  recast  in  2014.  From  this  arose  the  need  to  assess  the  overall 
performance of the current Directive and whether it was still fit for purpose. In line with the 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  Toolbox,  the  evaluation  examined  the  relevance, 
effectiveness, coherence and efficiency of the EU civil explosives legislation, as well as its 
EU added value, considering the results and impacts of its implementation.  

The evaluation was supported by a study carried out for DG GROW by Technopolis Group, 
supported by Milieu, Wavestone and Intellera, between October 2023 and March 20259. 

The  evaluation  mainly  used  information  gathered  through  various  stakeholder  consultation 
activities  but  also  studies,  reports,  academic  and  grey  literature  and  statistical  data  from 
different databases, where available. Availability of cost data was very limited, and the market 
analysis was compromised by a lack of disaggregated data and data missing for some years 
within  the  evaluation  period.  These  shortcomings  were  mitigated  through  triangulation  of 
information  from  different  sources  and  validation  of  findings  in  the  stakeholder  validation 
workshop. 

2.  Conclusions 

Effectiveness 

The Civil Explosives Directive has to a large extent achieved its objectives, contributing to the 
free movement of civil explosives in the internal market and the protection of health, safety and 
security. 

The Directive has largely harmonised Member States’ rules on the making available of civil 
explosives, thereby enabling the free movement of these articles on the internal market. 
However,  remaining  differences  between  Member  States’  laws,  resulting  from  the  incorrect 
transposition of the Directive’s provisions or additional national requirements in some Member 
States, may hamper to some extent the smooth trade of civil explosives in the EU. 

Accidents with civil explosives seem to be relatively rare, and, according to stakeholders, the 
numbers have remained stable or declined since the adoption of the Directive. The  essential 
safety requirements set out in the Directive in combination with the system for conformity 
assessment  seem  to  be overall  appropriate  to  ensure  that  civil  explosives  placed  on  the  EU 
market are safe. Despite some concerns about divergences in conformity assessment practices 

7  European  Commission,  Evaluation  on  DG  Enterprise  and  industry  legislation  –  Cosmetics  and  Explosives 

Directives, Final report, 2007. 

8 European Commission, Better regulation guidelines, 2021; European Commission, Better Regulation Toolbox 

2023. 

9 Ibid. 

2 

 
 
 
of notified bodies, some being more thorough than others, stakeholders largely believe that the 
Directive  has  increased  the  quality  and  reliability  of  conformity  assessments  and 
contributed to higher compliance. Moreover, market surveillance appears to be effective in 
detecting  and  removing  non-compliant  explosives  from  the  market,  although  cross-border 
cooperation could be enhanced. 

The rules for the intra-EU transfer of civil explosives seem to contribute to safety and security 
in the sector, to the satisfaction of most stakeholders. However, differences between Member 
States’  transposition  of  these  rules,  in  parts  going  beyond  the  requirements  set  out  in  the 
Directive and Commission Decision 2004/388/EC, may complicate the transfer of explosives. 
Furthermore, the still prevalent paper-based system for the approval of transfers seems to cause 
administrative burden and delays.  

Security incidents which involve civil explosives seem to be rather rare. In that regard, the 
traceability system for explosives seems to serve its purpose and can be considered a main 
strength  of  the  Directive.  Moreover,  penalties  are  considered  appropriate  in  light  of  the 
relatively rare and minor infringements in the civil explosives sector. 

Efficiency 

On the basis of the limited available cost data, it can cautiously be concluded that the Directive 
is, overall, operating efficiently. 

Costs have increased for most stakeholders but, overall, still seem to be proportionate – they 
are equivalent to a proportionate share of companies’ turnover. Most stakeholders have also 
experienced  improved  efficiency  of  processes  and  tasks  thanks  to  the  Directive. 
Harmonisation of rules has reduced costs for familiarisation with legal requirements, notably 
with  safety  requirements  and  conformity  assessments  procedures,  and  facilitated  market 
access.  Stakeholders  also  benefit  from  improved  coordination  and  information  exchange 
and enhanced traceability of civil explosives. Costs due to conformity with the essential safety 
requirements,  including  design,  manufacturing  and  assessment,  seem  proportionate,  in 
particular in light of the benefit for safety and security they bring. 

Therefore, the Directive has led to certain burden reductions, as tasks and procedures can 
be carried out more efficiently. Most obligations are perceived as proportionate by stakeholders 
and seem essential for achieving the Directive’s objectives. A potential for further burden 
reduction could be identified in relation to the  approval procedure for the transfer of explosives 
which could benefit from further harmonisation and digitalisation. Moreover, considering that 
labelling and traceability seem to create significant costs for industry, the potential benefit of 
digitalising these markings could be explored.  

Coherence 

The  Directive  is  coherent  with  other  relevant  EU  legislation,  and  it  supports  broader  EU 
policies, notably the Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU. Internationally, the Directive is 
complemented by international agreements and recommendations on the transport of dangerous 
goods. As regards coherence with national laws and policies, it must be noted that divergences 

3 

 
 
between national laws can hamper the free movement of civil explosives, but might in some 
cases be beneficial in terms of health, safety and security. 

In terms of internal coherence, no issue was identified. 

EU added value 

The Directive has had an added value compared to what could have been achieved by the 
Member States acting alone. The results from the targeted survey suggest that the Directive’s 
objective could not or only to a low extent be achieved without EU-wide rules. Responses in 
the public consultation, although stakeholders were not entirely in agreement, indicate that the 
Directive  is  more  important  for  the  harmonisation  of  rules  and  the  free  movement  of  civil 
explosives on the internal market than for safety and security, which might also be ensured at 
Member State level. 

Relevance 

The Directive’s objectives of ensuring the free movement of civil explosives on the internal 
market via the harmonisation of laws and the protection of health, safety and security are still 
relevant  in  light  of  current  needs  and  problems.  However,  given  the  high  degree  of 
harmonisation of rules, the overall well-functioning internal market and the rare occurrence of 
safety and security incidents, the problems and needs that the Directive intended to address no 
longer  seem  to  be  pressing  concerns  for  stakeholders.  In  turn,  the  protection  of  the 
environment  and  the  technological  developments  in  the  sector  have  emerged  as  relevant 
concerns over the past years. 

A few  concerns about  clarity and scope  were  identified. These relate to the exemption  of 
articles intended for use by public security forces, and the fact that explosives for the aerospace 
industry and maritime equipment are not excluded from the scope. Moreover, the delineation 
between civil explosives and pyrotechnic articles revealed to be, in some cases, challenging or 
inappropriate.  

Looking at the concrete provisions in the Directive, most seem to be still relevant according 
to stakeholders. Only rules on seizures and penalties were attributed relatively low relevance 
which  might  be  related  to  the  wide  discretion  left  to  Member  States  regarding  the  concrete 
penalties and measures on seizures implemented at national level. Stakeholders also suggested 
a few aspects that should be better addressed in the Directive’s provisions, such as the durability 
of traceability labels, bi- and multi-component explosives, the training of stakeholders, licenses 
and animal welfare. 

3.  Lessons learned 

The evaluation shed light on those aspects of the Directive that are working well as well as on 
problems and gaps.  

The main achievements of the Directive are: 

4 

 
 
•  The  free  movement  of  civil  explosives  on  the  internal  market  through  harmonised 

conformity assessment procedures and the alignment of national laws; 

•  Essential safety requirements for civil explosives across the EU; 
•  The traceability system at item-level that allows tracking civil explosives throughout 

their lifecycle. 

•  Increased  cooperation  and  information  sharing  between  and  among  market 

surveillance authorities, notified bodies and the Commission. 

The  Directive  does  not  show  any  major  shortcomings,  but  there  is  some  potential  for 
improvement: 

•  Some  concerns  that  have  become  more  relevant  over  the  past  years,  notably 
environmental  protection  and  technological  developments,  seem  not  to  be 
comprehensively addressed by the Directive. 

•  The  Directive  could  potentially  benefit  from  the  digitalisation  of  labelling  and 
transfer approval procedures, taking into account existing technological solutions or 
initiatives, such as the Digital Product Passport and SCEPYLT. 

5