Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012DC0415

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Possible advantages and disadvantages of reducing the classification to two categories of firearms (prohibited or authorised) with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market for the products in question through simplification. /\* COM/2012/0415 final \*/**

  

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Possible advantages and disadvantages of
reducing the classification to two categories of firearms (prohibited or
authorised) with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market for
the products in question through simplification.

This report is drafted to meet one of the
requirements of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on
control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive
2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008.

1.           Directive 91/477/EEC and
the matter of the classification of firearms

1.1. Directive 91/477/EEC originally
constituted an accompanying measure for the completion of the internal market.
In exchange for a certain freedom of movement for firearms from one Member
State to another, it integrated into European law specific safety guarantees
suited to this type of product.

1.2. The Directive has two annexes, the
first of which (Annex I) classifies firearms primarily in terms of their degree
of danger. There are therefore four categories (which are still in force):
Category A consisting of prohibited firearms – military weapons; Category B
including firearms subject to authorisation – used mostly by marksmen and
hunters; Category C covering firearms subject to declaration – essentially
firearms used by hunters; and finally Category D for other firearms – which
mainly applies to one type of firearm[1].

1.3. This classification, like indeed the
entire scope of the Directive, sets out the minimum requirements. Under Article
3 of Directive 91/477/EEC[2],
the Member States may draw stricter distinctions by, for example, removing
Category C or D, or by placing one or other specific firearm in a higher
category for political or safety reasons or in line with their hunting
traditions.

1.4. This discretion allowed to the Member
States reflects the character of the Directive, which does not attempt full
harmonisation, but rather provides a minimum level of safety, without prejudice
to the measures that the Member States might undertake to prevent illegal trade
in weapons[3].

1.5. It should be pointed out that the
Directive does not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons by the
armed forces, the police, the public authorities or by collectors and bodies
concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as
such by the Member State in whose territory they are established. This is a
fundamental distinction, differentiating between arms for civilian use and
other types of equipment used by the armed forces or even sometimes by
organised crime.

1.6. The Commission submitted a report on
the implementation of the Directive to the European Parliament and the Council
on 15 December 2000[4].
Its conclusions, which were generally favourable and did not call into question
the categorisation of firearms set out in Annex I, have not been challenged.

2.           The classification of
firearms in the context of the adoption of Directive 2008/51/EC of 21 May 2008
amending Directive 91/477/EEC and the methodology used for this report

2.1. The co-legislator’s approach to this
matter first centred on two main considerations: reducing the classification of
firearms to two categories (prohibited or subject to authorisation) would be
both safer for the European citizen and simpler for economic operators.

2.2. However, this view was not shared by
those who felt that the Member States should retain a certain degree of
discretion in the internal classification of firearms, provided, of course,
that the minimum thresholds established by Annex I are respected. Nor did the
economic operators, like the ordinary users of civilian firearms, appear any
more convinced of the advantages of such a simplification.

2.3. These views were summarised in recital
18 of Directive 2008/51/EC, which stated that “Several Member States have
simplified the way they classify firearms by switching from four categories to
[...] two. Member States should fall into line with this simplified
classification, although Member States which divide firearms into a further set
of categories may, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, maintain
their existing classification systems.”

2.4. The aim of this report is therefore to
re-examine the question of the classification of firearms with explicit
reference to the better functioning of the internal market and in advance of
the “report on the situation resulting from the application of this
Directive, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals” which the Commission
must submit to the European Parliament and the Council by 28 July 2015, as set
out in the Directive.

2.5. With this in mind, the Commission has
adopted an approach that involves the services in the Member States that are
competent for firearms (mainly Ministries of the Interior and of Justice,
depending on the Member State), to whom a questionnaire was sent in November
2011, and the main groups of users of civilian firearms – in particular
manufacturers, retailers, hunters, hobby marksmen and collectors – who have
been asked on several occasions for their opinion.

2.6. A broad range of questions was put to
the authorities of the Member States, covering the following aspects:

(1)
economic importance of the firearms
manufacturing and retail sector

(2)
number of registered hunters and hobby marksmen

(3)
number of European firearms pass holders

(4)
information on trends in crimes and offences
over recent years

(5)
any problems in the tracing of firearms

(6)
systematic requirement of a licence to purchase
a firearm

(7)
validity of a licence for one or more firearms

(8)
implicit authorisation via another authorisation
or licence

(9)
possible existence of a simple declaration
system

(10)
interest in further mandatory restrictions on
the categories in European law

(11)
possible impact of those further restrictions on
the economic sectors concerned

(12)
possible improvements to be envisaged

It was also made very clear that the
questionnaire referred only to weapons covered by the Directive, i.e. hunting
and sporting weapons, and not military weapons.

3.           Assessment of the
economic importance of the sector and the main users of firearms as indicated
by the questionnaire; general information

3.1. One group of Member States has no, or
almost no, manufacturing industry producing civilian firearms. The importance
of this group lies in the fact that it consists of more than a dozen Member
States. However, even if it manufactures very little, it does, in part,
represent a significant share of the retail market: in Finland, for example,
there are no less than 600 dealers involved in retail and repairs, and in
Hungary they number around 500.

3.2. Another group of countries has a
relatively solid, often traditional, manufacturing industry, although its
production levels are not very high. This group includes Slovakia, the Czech
Republic, Austria and Poland. These Member States have, however, a fairly
significant number of dealers, repairers or retailers; Poland, for example,
accounts for around 500 dealers, and Austria 700[5].

3.3. The most heavily-populated Member
States are the ones with the main production areas, although this is becoming
less systematic as the manufacturing industries decline. Although Germany and
Italy still retain an important level of manufacturing, often geared towards
exports[6],
France, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Spain have seen a major
decline in the manufacture of arms for civilian use. However, some of these
countries, such as France[7],
still maintain an important network of dealers.

3.4. The largest numbers of hunters and
hobby marksmen are found in the most heavily-populated Member States. The
figure given for hunters in France is more than 1 400 000, with
around 850 000 in Italy and more than 1 500 000 in Spain. The
number of hobby marksmen has always been lower than that of hunters, but is
still significant: around 300 000 for Italy, 213 000 for France and
around 14 600 for Poland.

3.5. It should be pointed out that some
Member States with smaller populations (below the EU average) have a high
proportion of hunters or hobby marksmen. Sweden, for example, has at least
490 000 hunters and 96 000 hobby marksmen, whilst Finland accounts
for more than 300 000 hunters and 35 000 hobby marksmen. Denmark, in
turn, has 169 000 hunters and 120 000 hobby marksmen.

3.6. It is also worth mentioning the number
of European firearms pass holders[8],
which gives a fair indication (although not the only one) of the mobility of
hunters and hobby marksmen within the European Union. Certain Member States,
such as Austria, have a relatively high number of passholders (38 000),
whereas in others the pass is less widely used (around 20 000 holders in
Italy, and 39 378 in France).

4.           Information on trends in
crimes and offences linked with the use of firearms and traceability of
civilian firearms

4.1. The answer to the question of whether
recent years have seen a significant increase in crimes involving hunting or
sporting firearms is mostly negative. Some Member States, such as Greece,
Poland, Sweden and Portugal, have experienced a slight or insignificant rise.

4.2. Most Member States, such as Austria,
Hungary, Bulgaria, the United Kingdom, Finland and Spain, consider the trend to
be one of stability. Other Member States, like Belgium and Ireland, have even
seen a decrease in this type of crime.

4.3. These aspects can also be seen in the
trends for crimes involving firearms that are connected, for example, with the
availability of weapons – mainly military weapons – at the conclusion of armed
conflict. However, this type of weapon does not fall within the scope of the
Directive, which classifies them as prohibited (Category A of Annex 1), by
contrast with weapons that can be acquired for use in a leisure or sport
activity.

4.4. The weapons authorised by the
Directive present much fewer tracing difficulties, as attested by the answers
to the questionnaire, which are mostly reassuring, at least with regard to
legal movement within the EU; indeed, most Member States consider that there
are relatively few problems, at least at national level, in tracing firearms
for civilian use.

4.5. However, certain difficulties do occur
in the collection and processing of information relating to the tracing of a
weapon which may have had a whole string of owners. In particular, one
essential requirement would appear to be the keeping of good records by the
Member States – and by the dealers – and their accessibility to the competent
task forces.

5.           The system for acquiring
and possessing firearms for civilian use

5.1. The overall conclusion to be drawn
from the answers to the questionnaire is that the acquisition and possession of
firearms for civilian use are subject to an authorisation system and, in
certain more restricted cases, to a declaration or registration system, the
latter case corresponding in practice to indirect authorisation. However, the
requirements for certain types of weapon or weapons with certain
characteristics, such as historical or deactivated weapons, may in one Member
State or another be less stringent.

5.2. The authorisation system does not
necessarily mean that a permit must be applied for systematically before the
purchase of each weapon. A permit may be issued for the purchase of a specific
number of identified weapons with characteristics listed in the permit itself
(this is the case in Austria, Poland and Luxembourg).

5.3. The purchase authorisation itself may
be an additional authorisation or may be conditional on, for example, the
purchaser’s activity as a hunter or marksman, or in certain cases on an
administrative decision confirming that the purchaser is entitled to acquire a
weapon for reasons of self-defence (as is the case, for example, in Finland or
Poland).

5.4. The declaration system – Category C in
Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC – is applied to a large number of hunting
weapons, principally in France. Under this system, the purchaser must give the
dealer a copy of his identity card and of some form of authorisation entitling
him to make the purchase (a valid hunter’s licence, for example); he then fills
out a declaration together with the dealer[9],
which is registered and sent by the dealer to the competent authorities. If the
authorities are opposed to the purchase, they ask the purchaser to return the
weapon or force him to do so via the law enforcement authorities.

5.5. In France, a certain number of hunting
weapons are grouped together in a new intermediary category between Categories
C and D of the Directive: these are single-shot long firearms with smooth-bore
barrels, which fall under a registration system that is very close to the
declaration system (copy of identity card, copy of hunting/target shooting
licence, form to be filled in, checks by the police authorities).

5.6. It does not therefore seem possible
from the answers given to the questionnaire for firearms to fall under the
least restrictive classification of Category D of the Directive, (in other
words that they could be acquired without any particular formalities, as the
Directive allows for single-shot long firearms with smooth-bore barrels). The
Member States that retained this possibility have all introduced more stringent
requirements (as illustrated by the above paragraph).

5.7. It should also be pointed out that the
classification applying in a Member State for an imported weapon (prohibition,
authorisation, declaration, registration) is binding and takes precedence over
the weapon’s classification in its country of acquisition. In other words, if,
for example, a weapon acquired in a Member State has been purchased under an
authorisation system, but its owner (even if he holds a European firearms pass)
intends to take it with him to another Member State which applies a prohibition
system to that weapon, it will be the prohibition system that takes precedence
and the weapon will not be able to leave its country of origin.

6.           The Member States hold
different views on the appropriateness of reducing the categories permitted by
the Directive

6.1. Certain Member States, such as Poland,
the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Latvia, are interested in reducing the
classification at European level to two categories, as they feel this would
simplify matters.

6.2. Other Member States, on the other
hand, think that the discretion allowed by the current classification of the
Directive should be retained. For example, Sweden, Italy, Hungary and Belgium
do not see any real benefits in modifying the current classification; they
consider that any revision would bring an additional burden and engender
unnecessary costs.

6.3. Some Member States, such as Slovakia,
the Netherlands and Romania, which have introduced national systems based on
two or three categories, would also prefer for Member States to be able to
apply the categories they consider appropriate within the current
classification.

6.4. As to whether such a reduction in
categories would have a substantial impact on the economic sectors concerned,
most Member States answer either that the impact would be difficult to judge or
that there would probably be no impact, since the classification with two
categories is already fairly widespread. However, it should be pointed out that
it is principally Member States that do not manufacture firearms that think
that the economic impact of a reduced number of categories would be of little
significance in their country.

6.5. By contrast, certain Member States
that do have a firearms manufacturing industry, such as Italy or Belgium, feel
that the economic sector would suffer. Other Member States, such as Poland,
think that there may be an economic impact, but still see no reason for not
reducing the number of categories.

6.6. However, most Member States do not
think that reducing the classification of Annex I to the Directive to two
categories of firearms would be of clear benefit to the better functioning of
the internal market. The concern was even expressed that a reduced number of
categories could divert legal trade in weapons to illegal channels.

7.           Certain suggestions other
than reducing the number of categories have been made with a view to
simplifying the movement of firearms in greater safety

7.1. Certain Member States, such as
Germany, Estonia and Poland, see a clear benefit in defining common standards
for the deactivation of firearms on the basis of techniques proposed by the ad
hoc working parties of the Commission internationale pour les armes à feu
portatives (CIP[10]);
this could lead to increased safety and facilitate exchanges at EU level.

7.2. Other Member States, such as Sweden,
the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg and Portugal, are of the opinion that
increased computerisation of the information held by the Member States would
help to link the movements of firearms with their owners. They therefore think
an effort should be made to make the information held in the registers
accessible to all Member States and thus facilitate the exchange of information
within the European Union where necessary.

7.3. Some suggestions are more specific,
such as the proposal to equip commercial carriers of firearms with GPS devices
so that their location can be tracked (Czech Republic) or that of creating a more
stringent framework for the activities of private security companies
(Bulgaria); others are more ambitious, such as the proposal that firearm
definitions be harmonised in order to facilitate a common approach at EU level
(the Netherlands).

7.4. Certain Member States see an advantage
in creating a standardised transfer form for trade in firearms (Romania). This
document would record all the information contained in the authorisation
applications or in the reports on commercial transactions from one Member State
to another.

7.5. However, a significant number of
Member States consider the current situation to be, for the most part,
satisfactory and/or do not propose any particular measures. Some, such as
Italy, think that any change considered should take into account the principle
of proportionality and whether there is a real need for an initiative at EU
level.

7.6. Overall, the Member States’ comments
mainly relate to the issues of the traceability and deactivation of firearms.
These are two areas where the Commission plans to intervene, whether by issuing
common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques or by ensuring that
Member States fulfil their obligation of keeping a computerised data-filing
system[11],
two tasks that were prescribed in Directive 2008/51/EC itself.

8.           The major groups of users
concerned by the Directive appear to be interested in any simplification that
does not necessarily involve a reduction of categories

8.1. Hunters (numbering approximately seven
million across the European Union[12])
appear to be satisfied with the current classification, which is based on
hunting traditions and the safety concerns of their Member State. They set
great store by the recognition and promotion of the European firearms pass,
which enables them to move easily from one Member State to another within a
very satisfactory security framework.

8.2. Marksmen can also use the European
firearms pass to travel to another Member State in order to take part, in most
cases, in competitions. Indeed, this travel appears to be well organised, and
is subject to a strict authorisation system supervised by local or national
shooting federations. Making a reduction in categories mandatory throughout the
EU would not appear to create any clear simplification in this area either.

8.3. Although their activities do not fall
under the scope of the Directive, collectors of antique and historical firearms
or reproductions of historical firearms would welcome the possibility of
including their collection items in a European firearms pass, as this would
facilitate the movement between the Member States of this type of product.
Other measures making it easier for Member States to recognise this type of
weapon, during for example their transport from one Member State to another, would
be welcomed by a sector including suppliers, cultural establishments, auction
houses and authorised experts, etc.

8.4. Manufacturers of civilian firearms
would be interested in simplification measures. In this respect, mention should
be made of the industry’s longstanding desire for comprehensive licences
covering all firearms transfers within the EU. Instead of authorisations being
issued by the Member States for each individual transfer, a licence would cover
a given period and a predefined type of product[13] and be issued to operators
presenting a certain number of approved guarantees.

8.5. Both manufacturers and retailers
advocate simplification in the definitions used for the essential parts of
firearms. These definitions do not fully coincide from one legislation to
another, and greater precision would improve the flow and security of
commercial transactions.

8.6. To summarise, the current
classification of firearms in EU legislation is not met with specific criticism
by the major groups of users concerned by the Directive. However, their wish
for certain simplification measures to improve the functioning of the internal
market is clearly identifiable.

9.           The issue of the
classification at EU level of civilian firearms could, however, be re-examined
in the light of the deadlines and guidance given by the Directive itself

9.1. The requirement for Member States to
establish and maintain a computerised data-filing system by 31 December
2014 will certainly satisfy the desire expressed in the answers to the
questionnaire for improvements in the accessibility of information. In this
context, it will be interesting to look again at the problems of traceability
at EU level which may stem from the current classification applied by the
Directive.

9.2. Furthermore, the wish, voiced in the
Member States’ answers, for common methods of deactivating firearms will soon
be realised by the Commission, which is in any case required by the Directive
to take action in this respect[14].
This should result in a greater level of safety for movements of this type of
product.

9.3. The Member States’ desire for greater
traceability could also be addressed by an explicit reference in Directive
2008/51/EC: this is the reference in the seventh Recital to the Convention of 1
July 1969 on Reciprocal Recognition of Proofmarks on Small Arms, which “should,
to the greatest extent possible, be used as a reference for the marking system
in the Community as a whole”.

9.4. In this respect, discussions could be
held at short notice between the European Union and the Commission
Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (CIP,
Permanent International Commission for Firearms Testing) with the aim of
establishing recognised standards for the testing of firearms within the European
Union. Indeed, additional – and attested – supervision of the manufacture and
movement of firearms within the European Union could have advantages for all
aspects of safety.

9.5. It can therefore be concluded that
there would be no clear benefit in a compulsory restriction of the
classification at EU level to only two firearms categories. In any case, this
issue should not be treated in isolation, as there would be a risk that the
discussion would focus solely on the question of which type of document would
constitute authorisation, and this would probably result in a situation hardly
different from the current one of diversity within the EU.

9.6. The analysis of the possible and
desirable ways in which Directive 2008/51/EC could be developed should therefore
be set primarily against the background of the report on the situation
resulting from the application of the Directive to be submitted by the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council by 28 July 2015 –
accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals – and should target a form of
simplification that takes account of all the specific needs and constraints of
this type of product.

9.7. The conclusions of this report will be
presented in October 2012 at the meeting of the Contact Group set up pursuant
to the Directive. They will probably also be discussed at a conference on
illicit trafficking in firearms that the Commission plans to hold at the end of
November 2012 with the parties involved in combating this form of crime in
order to make an inventory of the needs in this area and formulate a way
forward.

[1]               Single-shot long firearms with smooth-bore barrels

[2]               “Member States may adopt in their legislation
provisions which are more stringent than those provided for in this Directive,
subject to the rights conferred on residents of the Member States by Article 12
(2)”.

[3]               As stated in Recital 8 of Directive 91/477/EEC: “Whereas
the Directive does not affect the right of Member States to take measures to
prevent illegal trade in weapons”.

[4]               COM(2000) 0837 final.

[5]               Source for Austria: European Association of the Civil
Commerce of Weapons

[6]               85 to 90% of the German production of firearms for
civilian use is exported to third countries or EU Member States (source:
Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Firearms).

[7]               According to figures published by the European
Institute for Hunting and Sporting Weapons, arms are the main business of
between 800 and 1000 sales outlets in France.

[8]               The European firearms pass was established by
Directive 91/477/EEC. It is “a document which is issued on request by the
authorities of a Member State to a person lawfully entering into possession of
and using a firearm” (Article 1(4)). It enables holders to travel with
their weapons from one Member State to another under a simplified licence
system to take part in an activity – usually hunting or target shooting. It is
highly valued by its users and there have been no reports of safety problems
linked with its issue or use.

[9]               The dealer carries out an initial cross-check against
the list of prohibited firearms.

[10]             The Commission internationale permanente pour
l’épreuve des armes à feu portatives (CIP, Permanent International
Commission for Firearms Testing) is the result of an intergovernmental
convention between the main countries for European firearms production (11
European countries plus Chile, Russia and the United Arab Emirates) under which
they agree to recognise the tests on firearms and ammunition carried out in
“proof houses” prior to their being placed on the market in accordance with
technical criteria defined and updated within the CIP. This recognition takes
the physical form of a proof mark which is stamped on the firearm and
identifies the proof house where it has been tested. In certain proof houses
the firearms are also deactivated using techniques and in line with
requirements that can vary without necessarily being recognised from one Member
State to another.

[11]             This computerised data-filing system for firearms –
linking weapons to their owners – must be established by 31 December 2014
under the terms of Directive 2008/51/EC.

[12]             Figures provided by the Federation of Associations for
Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE), which brings together the national
hunting associations of the Member States of the European Union and other
countries of the Council of Europe.

[13]             This possibility is allowed in theory by Directive
91/477/EEC, Article 11 of which provides for dealers to obtain approval in
certain cases for transferring firearms to another Member State without prior
authorisation. However, it is rarely used in practice, since it requires
recognition by both the Member State of origin and the destination Member State
within a comparable regulatory framework.

[14]             Annex I to the Directive stipulates that “The
Commission shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in
Article 13a(2) of the Directive, issue common guidelines on deactivation
standards and techniques to ensure that deactivated firearms are rendered
irreversibly inoperable”.

[Top](#document1)