Briefing - Combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences - 28-05-2026
The aim of the initiative is to combat firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences so as to increase citizens' protection against the threat posed by illicit firearms. The impact assessment (IA) identifies three problems relating to the high number of illegal firearms on the EU territory, challenges in cross-border cooperation to fight firearms-related crimes, and insufficient data in this area. It defines four specific objectives linking problem drivers to problems, and consequences. In addition to the baseline scenario, the IA describes four partially overlapping policy options and assesses their social, economic, fundamental rights, digitalisation and youth impacts. Owing to insufficient reliable data, most of the impacts are not quantified. Moreover, the IA seems to rely uncritically on the assumption that enhanced regulation would have greater positive impacts. The regulatory costs are assessed and quantified in more detail, although there are inconsistencies in the presentation of the figures. The IA does not discuss impacts on data protection and privacy, although certain measures may affect both. The IA compares the policy options according to the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and proportionality. However, the methodology is rather confusing and lacks adequate explanation. It is not always clear why an option scores better than another, and stated objectives seem to be taken as evidence of impact. The IA describes a monitoring and evaluation framework, which includes relevant indicators linked with the specific objectives. It also provides for an evaluation study to be carried out no earlier than five years after the deadline for transposition. The IA is based on a broad consultation of relevant stakeholders, whose views are extensively discussed and considered throughout the IA. The lack of comprehensive and reliable data on firearms-related offences and cases is one of the major challenges of the IA. The IA discusses data limitations and, whenever possible, uses qualitative information (case studies) to compensate for the lack of reliable quantitative data. Despite these efforts, data limitations continue to cast doubt over some of the assertions included in the IA. According to the IA, the text was revised to implement the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) comments from the second opinion (which was positive with reservations), but without providing explanations about what was changed. Some of the shortcomings identified by the RSB have not been fully addressed. For example, the intervention logic described in the IA does not fully justify whether the harmonisation of minimum and maximum penalties would reduce illicit firearms activities. The proposal appears to follow the preferred policy option identified in the IA.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP