COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences and amending Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2026-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: arms trade, cross-border cooperation, fight against crime, firearms and munitions, illicit trade, non-proliferation of arms, offence, penalty

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2026  SWD(2026) 103 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences and amending Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council {COM(2026) 102 final} - {SEC(2026) 102 final} - {SWD(2026) 102 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the Proposal for a Directive on combating firearms trafficking 
and other firearms-related offences 

A.  Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
The  overarching  challenge  in  the  EU  is  that  firearms-related  violence  threatens  the 
security of EU citizens. The numbers of firearms-related crimes or where firearms have been 
used  to  commit  a  crime  remain  high  and  are  on  the  rise  in  many  places  in  the  EU.  This 
challenge  is  directly  linked  to  the  high  availability  of  illicit  firearms  present  on  EU 
territory, although the lack of harmonised data does not allow to put a precise figure on the 
phenomenon. The high availability of illicit firearms is expected to increase when the conflict 
in Ukraine ends or stabilises.  

The criminal framework which deals with such offences is fragmented at EU level. Member 
States  have  different  definitions  of  firearms-related  offences  and  different  penalties.  These 
regulatory  discrepancies  between  Member  States  hinder  cross-border  cooperation  and 
negatively affect investigation and prosecution of firearms-related offences. Additionally, the 
penalty  levels  are  not  sufficiently  effective  and  dissuasive  in  all  Member  States.  These 
issues  are  set  to  worsen  due  to  new  technologies,  such  as  3D  printing,  increasing  the 
availability of privately manufactured firearms. 
What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
The general objective is to improve the protection of people in the Union against the 
threat posed by illicit firearms. The focus should be on enhancing the level of security for 
our citizens and decreasing firearms-related crimes. 

To achieve this general objective, the initiative sets out four specific objectives: 
•  Making it easier to investigate and prosecute firearms-related offences 
•  Ensuring future proof enforcement of firearms-related offences 
•  Ensure effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalty types and levels for firearms-

• 

related offences 
Improve law enforcement and judicial cooperation and harmonised data collection on 
firearms-related offences 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
Action  at  Union  level  will  provide  for  clear  added  value  on  countering  firearms-related 
crimes, which typically have transnational dimensions, compared to what Member States can 
achieve  on  their  own.  By  harmonising  legal  definitions,  approximating  penalty  levels,  and 
providing tools and obligations for cross-border cooperation among Member States, the action 
at  Union  level  will  create  a  more  harmonised  framework  with  a  minimum  degree  of 
harmonised  protection  from  firearms-related  offences.  It  will  facilitate  cross-border 
cooperation and improve investigations and prosecutions. Additionally, it will ensure a future 
proof enforcement by including new technologies.  

Action at Union level will also benefit other EU policy objectives as firearms-related crimes 
are  often  related  to  other  types  of  crimes  such  as  money  laundering,  terrorism,  drugs 
trafficking, violent crimes, counterfeiting or other forms of organised crime against which the 
EU  has  adopted  a  range  of  legislation  in  recent  years.  A  more  effective  legislation  would 
contribute to effective criminal law enforcement strategies and overall improve the security of 

1 

 
 
 
 
citizens of the European Union.  

B.  Solutions 

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a 
preferred choice or not? Why?  
The Impact Assessment evaluates four policy options: 

•  Option  1  consists  of  a  set  of  non-legislative  measures  aiming  at  clarifying  the 
existing legal framework and enforcing the application of rules by Member States. The 
measures  also  aim  at  supporting  cross-border  cooperation  between  Member  States, 
and with EU agencies. They focus on recommendations to put a greater focus on new 
technologies, such as 3D printing, and to implement a minimum dataset for seizures of 
firearms among Member States. 

•  Option  2  foresees  legislative  action  to  harmonise  the  criminalisation  of  the  core 
firearms  offences  (illicit  trafficking,  illicit  manufacturing,  illicit  modification  of 
markings  and  illicit  possession  of  firearms),  by  harmonising  definitions  and 
establishing  minimum  levels  of  maximum  penalties.  The  aim  of  the  legislation  is  to 
improve  investigation,  prosecution  and  conviction  of  firearms-related  offences.  The 
harmonised  framework  will  facilitate  cross-border  cooperation.  The  option  also 
foresees  a  legislative  focus  on  new  technologies  to  allow  law  enforcement  to 
proactively  address  the  threat,  instead  of  only  reactively.  In  addition,  the  legislative 
action  includes  requirements  for  establishing  a  harmonised  minimum  dataset  for 
seizures of firearms and send the seizure data to  the European Firearms  Hub. It  also 
foresees  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  collect  and  report  data  on  firearms 
trafficking  to  the  Commission  5  years  after  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  as 
part  of  the  evaluation.  Lastly,  the  legislative  action  includes  a  dedicated  measure  on 
the  requirement  for  Member  States  to  establish  a  National  Firearms  Focal  Point,  to 
further improve cross-border cooperation.  

•  Option  3  foresees  a  combination  of  legislative  actions  and  non-legislative 
measures.  In  essence  it  would  be  a  copy  of  all  the  legislative  actions  as  described 
under option 2 with an additional clarification on how wider firearms-related offences 
fit  within  the  core  offences.  Furthermore,  the  legislative  actions  would  be  extended 
with  non-legislative  measures  designed  to  support  the  implementation  of  the 
legislative  actions.  The  focus  would  be  on  sharing  lessons  learned  linked  to  new 
technologies  and  the  facilitation  of  joint  testing  of  blueprints  linked  to  these  new 
technologies.  Furthermore,  it  would  also  facilitate  the  cooperation  between  judicial 
authorities by setting up a Focus Group to exchange information.  

•  Option  4  builds  on  the measures  described  under  option  3  and  expands  their  scope. 
The legislative action covers not only the core firearms offences, but other firearms-
related offences  such as illicit reactivation of deactivated weapons, illicit brokering, 
arms  embargo  violations,  and  misconduct  in  the  context  of  record-keeping  and 
licensing.  In addition,  the option foresees an obligation  for Member States  to  collect 
and report data on firearms trafficking to the Commission every year. 

The preferred option is Option 3, as it addresses all the problems and objectives identified in 
a proportionate and effective way. Option 1 is not considered effective enough on its own as 
non-legislative measures will not provide the sufficient impetus for significant change. Option 
2 would address all problems and objectives, however it is considered less effective due to the 
lack of additional support for its implementation. Option 4 is seen as effective to achieve the 
objectives stated but its implementation places a disproportionate burden on Member States.  
Who supports which option?  

2 

 
 
Stakeholders had different views with regard to the policy options, with some prioritising the 
non-legislative  path,  indicating  that  addressing  firearms-related  offences  should  remain  a 
national responsibility, while others supported a legislative initiative focused on a wide-set of 
firearms-related offences. In that regard, it appears that the preferred option is the one that is 
most likely to reconcile the different positions.  

The  general  trend  throughout  the  public  consultation  suggests  that  Member  States  are 
supportive  of  a  legislative  initiative  to  harmonise  various  definitions,  including  the 
criminalisation  of  the  illicit  creation,  possession  and  dissemination  of  the  intellectual 
materials for 3D printings (blueprints). Generally, it appeared that public authorities were the 
most  supportive  of  the  legislative  initiative  among  the  stakeholders.  Many  Member  States 
suggested  an  approach  of  combining  options,  especially  for  the  harmonisation  of  sanction 
types and levels.  

The  biggest  opposition  to  the  initiative  came  from  a  share  of  EU  and  non-EU  citizens, 
however, the analysis of the answers reveals that many might not have fully understood the 
objectives of the initiative: multiple citizens criticised the initiative stating that the EU should 
not  target  law  abiding  citizens  and  legal  owners  but  rather  focus  on  reinforcing  law 
enforcement  response  and  targeting  the  illegal  market.  Both  are  exactly  amongst  the 
objectives of the initiative.  

C.  Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
The  preferred  policy  option  would  eliminate  the  discrepancies  between  the  Member  States’ 
criminal framework by harmonising, at Union level, the definitions of the different firearms-
related offences and the minimum levels of maximum penalties applicable. It would prevent 
offenders  from  taking  advantage  of  the  loopholes  and  gaps  for  their  operations.  The 
harmonisation  of  the  criminal  framework  would  improve  cross-border  cooperation  between 
Member States and make it easier for national authorities to investigate and prosecute relevant 
offences.  

The  preferred  policy  option  would  also  establish  minimum  datasets  and  sharing  of  seizure 
data with the European Firearms Hub in Europol, which would improve the availability and 
the  quality  of  data,  therefore  improving  the  analysis  of  the  threat  and  investigations,  which 
will facilitate cross-border cooperation and guiding future policy action. The preferred policy 
option would further address the increasing threat of privately manufactured firearms, which 
are more difficult to trace and can be easily produced by simply following instructions found 
online.  

The preferred policy option would help toward decreasing the high number of illicit firearms 
in circulation and directly improve the security of citizens of the European Union.  
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
The preferred policy option would result in more effective investigations and a broader scope 
of offenses related to firearms and essential components. Related costs would be the need for 
additional  staff  in  the  Member  States  to  carry  out  the  potential  increase  in  the  number  of 
investigation and prosecution of firearm-related crime cases. These costs have been estimated 
to amount to EUR 4,069,175 annually in total for all Member States during at least the first 
five years. 

Administrative  costs  for  forensic  departments  of  Member  States  are  expected  to  increase  in 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
relation with the number of seized firearms. Such costs have been estimated at EUR 574,564 
per year for administrative costs for ballistic reports in all 27 Member States and an additional 
EUR 332,107 per year for ballistic reports on digital blueprints. 

In  addition,  administrative  costs  for  the  full  establishment  and  development  of  National 
Firearms  Focal  Points  in  all  27  Member  States  is  estimated  at  EUR  12,070,917  and  for  the 
harmonisation  of  firearms-related  data  in  national  databases  at  EUR  10,800,000  in  all  27 
Member States.  

Harmonising  the  EU  criminal  regulatory  framework  for  firearms  related  offences  will 
contribute to reducing the economic cost of firearms violence in the European Union. While 
there  is  no  conclusive  research  on  the  economic  costs  of  firearms  violence  in  the  EU,  an 
analysis combining research conducted through the EU funded project INSIGHT and research 
on the cost of one specific case of shooting from Sweden estimates the cost of shootings for 
Swedish society to be somewhere around EUR 120 to 140 million for the first half of 2024. 
The figure is purely theoretical as it relies on the hypothesis that the cost of this one specific 
shooting can be extrapolated and applied to all shootings that occurred in Sweden the first half 
of  2024.  It  nonetheless  shows  that  the  costs  of  firearms-related  violence,  while  difficult  to 
estimate, are not negligible. 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
The preferred policy option would not have any negative impact on the legal market. It would 
benefit  businesses,  especially  SMEs  by  protecting  them  against  unfair  competition  from 
illegal  activity  that  negatively  affects  the  image  of  the  whole  sector  and  results  in  a  loss  of 
profit. 

The criminalisation of the illicit production, possession and dissemination of digital blueprints 
and the hard copies for the purpose of manufacture of firearms or essential components would 
help  legal  business  by  protecting  the  intellectual  rights  they  hold  of  the  models  or  over 
innovations. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
The annual costs for additional staff in the Member States to carry out the investigation and 
prosecution of firearms crime cases, as well as the additional administrative costs of forensic 
departments have been estimated at around EUR 135,000,000 in total for all Member States 
during the first five years.  

The one-off cost of the full establishment and development of National Firearms Focal Points 
and  harmonisation  of  firearms-related  data  in  national  databases  in  all  27  Member  States  is 
estimated at EUR 22,870,917. 

The preferred policy option includes measures on establishing a harmonised minimum dataset 
on  seizure  of  firearms.  Some  Member  States  would  need  to  reorganise  their  database  to 
implement the harmonised dataset. 
Will there be other significant impacts? 
The  initiative  will  also  benefit  the  fight  against  other  crimes  such  as  money  laundering, 
terrorism, drugs trafficking, violent crimes, counterfeiting or other forms of organised crime 
against which the EU has adopted a range of legislation in recent years. As firearms-related 
offences  are  often  related  to  these  crimes,  a  more  effective  legislation  would  contribute  to 
effective criminal law enforcement strategies and overall improve the security of citizens of 
the European Union. 

4 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
The initiative will have a special impact on young citizens, as illicit firearms contribute to the 
worrying phenomenon of young European being roped into criminal activities and suffering 
themselves from firearms violence.  

D.  Follow up 

When the policy will be revised? 
5 years after transposition, taking account of the time needed for application and data 
collection. 

5