REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a REGULATION on import, export and transit measures for firearms, their essential components and ammunition, implementing article 10 of the United Nations’ Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UN Firearms Protocol) (recast)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 8.4.2018
SEC(2022) 330 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on import, export and transit measures for firearms, their essential components and
ammunition, implementing article 10 of the United Nations’ Protocol against the illicit
manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and
ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organised Crime (UN Firearms Protocol) (recast)
{COM(2022) 480 final} - {SWD(2022) 298 final} - {SWD(2022) 299 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0480 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 02/352. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB/
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Firearms – review of export rules and import & transit
measures
Overall opinion: POSITIVE
(A) Policy context
Without appropriate measures, firearms can be diverted from legal markets into organised
crime or terrorism. Regulation 258/2012 aims to combat illicit trafficking in civilian
firearms and to ensure a uniform implementation of the UN Firearms Protocol in all
Member States. It establishes rules for the authorised export, import and transit of non-
military firearms, their parts and components and ammunition coming from or directed to
third countries. It aims to ensure effective tracing of civilian firearms in international
transactions and to improve Member States’ collaboration.
A 2017 evaluation report identified loopholes due to a lack of homogeneous
implementation across Member States. The Regulation was found ineffective in
distinguishing between military and civilian firearms, in ensuring the full traceability of
weapons, and in ensuring proper exchanges of information (notably of refusals to grant
export authorisations). The Regulation was also ineffective in terms of reduction of
administrative costs for companies. Furthermore, the Regulation was considered to lack
consistency with other legislation, notably the revised Firearms Directive and the EU
Common Position on the export of military technologies. A 2018 Commission
Recommendation aimed to address these failings via soft law.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the useful additional information provided in advance of the
meeting and commitments to make changes to the report.
The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should
further improve with respect to the following aspects:
(1) The baseline is not sufficiently developed and is not fully coherent between the
report’s sections.
(2) The lack of data is not explicitly recognised as a free-standing problem.
(3) The evaluation and monitoring arrangements are not developed.
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should better describe the expected evolution of the problems, i.e. how the
described problems (e.g. firearms smuggling) are expected to evolve in the absence of the
present initiative. The role of, and articulation with, the EU Common Position on military
firearms should be further clarified. The various sections of the report should be coherent
regarding the baseline and justify the projections made. The report should explain why
there has been so little ownership by Member States of the 2018 Commission
Recommendation and why this is unlikely to change.
(2) The report should clarify the value added of the soft-law option (option 1) over the
baseline, given that full implementation of existing measures and reminders of the already
applicable legislation should form part of the baseline. For the most ambitious legislative
option (option 3), the report should be more specific on the measures it included. It should
consider whether there are possibly alternative solutions and should analyse these as sub-
options if policy choices need to be made.
(3) The report should recognise the lack of reliable data as a fully-fledged problem to be
explicitly addressed in the policy options. In the assessment of the latter, the report should
then make the link between the data collection and the digitalisation of procedures.
(4) The report should develop the section on future monitoring and evaluation. It should
define operational objectives linked to the preferred policy option i.e. measurable criteria
that indicate if the initiative was a success or not. These objectives should be translated
into indicators that are useful for monitoring and evaluation and into corresponding data to
be collected. The report should specify when a first evaluation should be planned,
preferably within 5 to 8 years of the entry into force of the revised Regulation.
(5) The report should clarify the estimates of the administrative costs and savings for
businesses and citizens in the ‘one in, one out’ approach. It should explain how the net
administrative cost reduction was calculated. It should be clear about the methodology, the
underlying assumptions and the data sources. The estimates presented in the main report
and in the annexes should be aligned.
(6) The report should compare the options more clearly in terms of effectiveness,
efficiency and coherence. It should explain the scoring methodology, how the scores are
calculated and how the criteria are defined (e.g. it is neither clear how the necessity and
effectiveness criteria differ, nor is the interplay between proportionality and efficiency and
between added value and effectiveness clear).
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
3
(D) Conclusion
The DG must take these recommendations into account before launching the
interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Revision of Regulation (EU) No 258/2012 establishing export
authorisation, and import and transit measures for firearms,
their parts and components and ammunition
Reference number PLAN/2020/8730
Submitted to RSB on 04 March 2022
Date of RSB meeting 06 April 2022
4
ANNEX – Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Import: Existing rules on
firearms import will be
harmonized and
strengthened to prevent
diversion of firearms at
import and to establish a
level playing field for all
importers.
An EU uniform certificated will be created to
check for compliance of alarm and signal
weapons with implementing directive 2019/69.
The compulsory checks and classification of
these alarm and signal weapons will prevent the
entry of convertible alarm and signal weapons
into the EU, where they can be used in criminal
or terrorist offences. Limiting import of semi-
finished firearms and essential components to
licenced firearms dealers will also prevent
illegal manufacturing of firearms which could
then be used for criminal or terrorist offences.
While the increase in security cannot be
quantified, the SOCTA clearly indicates these
imports as a threat for the security of EU
citizens. The case studies on these imports
reinforce this picture. By increasing the import
regulations, these threats will decrease.
Creating a uniform EU certificate, designating
authorities to check the compliance and
establishing a 60-day deadline to grant import
authorisations will also result in a level playing
field for all importers. Due to the lack in data
received from the firearms industry, it is not
possible to quantify this, however during the
consultations the need for harmonisation was the
main focus of the stakeholders.
Export: reinforcing rules
on firearms export will
decrease the risk of
diversion of firearms, which
fuel global illicit firearms
trafficking and contributes
to instability and organised
crime worldwide
When exports are followed-up through
providing evidence of final import, end-user
certificates and conducting post-shipment
controls the risks of diversions will decrease.
While such an increase cannot be quantified,
examples such as those in Mexico (96.948
firearms seized during 2015-2020 with a worth
of $38 million) show the large monetary value
of diverted firearms. Furthermore, the cases of
circumvention of embargos through Moldova
shows the international responsibility of the EU
to strengthen export controls.
Administrative
simplification to harmonize
the existing EU rules and to
facilitate the trade of
During the stakeholder consultation, the need for
harmonisation and administrative simplification
was the most recurring comment. This
simplification will be obtained by creating a full
5
firearms. digitalisation of import and export
authorisations. This will lead to a yearly benefit
of €1.603.680 for the arms dealers (retailers and
manufacturers).
Furthermore, the prohibition of fees for the
import and export authorisations, as
implemented by some Member States, will be a
yearly direct saving of €86.175 for the arms
dealers.
Harmonising and simplifying the temporary
exports and imports will save museums,
collectors and dealers around €30.840 each year.
Furthermore, implementing the implied consent
of the non-EU country of transit as the default
option saves the arms dealers annually €56.540.
Indirect benefits
Cooperation and exchange
of information: improving
the cooperation between
customs and licencing
authorities and increasing
the exchange of information
on firearms authorisations,
refusals and trade will allow
for better risk assessments.
The clarification of the role and responsibilities
of customs and licensing authorities and a legal
basis for intelligence sharing will enable both
authorities to improve the risk assessments. This
will support the prevention of firearms diversion
at import and export.
Increasing the cooperation and exchange of
information might have an indirect effect on
exporters, as they would be treated more equally
across the EU, compared to the current situation.
Due to the lack in data received from the
firearms industry, it is not possible to quantify
this, however during the consultations the need
for harmonisation was the main focus of the
stakeholders.
Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach*
cost reduction through the
use of e-licencing system
€ 1.603.680 When import and export authorisations can
be processed through an e-licensing system,
this will reduce the amount of time spent on
each authorisation, for the firearms dealers
and the authorities who need to assess the
authorisations.
prohibition of fees for
obtaining authorisations
€ 86.175 Currently there are multiple Member States
requesting fees for receiving import and
export authorisation. If these fees are
abolished to get harmonise the procedures,
this directly reduces the costs for businesses
in these Member States.
Implied consent of third
countries for transit
€ 56.540 If implied consent of third countries for the
transit of firearms is always granted after
20 days, this would decrease the costs for
firearms dealers.
No prior authorisation for
special temporary
operations
€ 30.840 If no authorisations for specific operations,
such as temporary import and export,
would be needed for institutions such as
museums, collectors etc. then this would
6
decrease the costs for these stakeholders.
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Creating
an EU
central
database
for import
and export
authorisati
on
Direct adjustment
costs
NA
NA NA NA € 950.000
(DG
TAXUD
estimate)
€100.000
Direct
administrative
costs
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
Direct regulatory
fees and charges
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
Direct
enforcement costs
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
Indirect costs NA NA NA NA NA NA
Exporters
to provide
evidence
of final
import in
the
country of
destinatio
n
Direct adjustment
costs
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
Direct
administrative
costs
NA NA NA €179.900 NA NA
Direct regulatory
fees and charges
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Direct
enforcement costs
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Indirect costs NA NA NA NA NA NA
End-user
certificate
for
exported
category
A and B
firearms
Direct adjustment
costs
NA
NA NA
NA
NA NA
Direct
administrative
costs
NA
NA NA
€719.600
NA NA
Direct regulatory
fees and charges
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Direct
enforcement costs
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Indirect costs NA NA NA NA NA NA
extending
current e-
licensing
system of
DG
TRADE
Direct adjustment
costs
NA NA NA NA
Rough
estimate of
couple of
thousand
euro
NA
Direct
administrative
costs
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
Direct regulatory
fees and charges
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
7
Direct
enforcement costs
NA NA NA NA
NA NA
Indirect costs NA NA NA NA NA NA
Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
Total
Direct adjustment
costs
NA NA NA NA
Indirect
adjustment costs
NA NA NA NA
Administrative
costs (for
offsetting)
NA NA NA € 899.500
(1) Estimates (gross values) to be provided with respect to the baseline; (2) costs are provided for each
identifiable action/obligation of the preferred option otherwise for all retained options when no preferred
option is specified; (3) If relevant and available, please present information on costs according to the
standard typology of costs (adjustment costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs,
indirect costs;). (4) Administrative costs for offsetting as explained in Tool #58 and #59 of the ‘better
regulation’ toolbox. The total adjustment costs should equal the sum of the adjustment costs presented in the
upper part of the table (whenever they are quantifiable and/or can be monetised). Measures taken with a
view to compensate adjustment costs to the greatest extent possible are presented in the section of the impact
assessment report presenting the preferred option.
Electronically signed on 08/04/2022 11:12 (UTC+02) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121