Article "Calling the shots: The impact of EU Regulation 2025/41 on the firearms sector" - Journal of Export Controls and Sanctions (DOW JONES)

Calling the shots: The impact of EU Regulation 2025/41 on the firearms sector

Introduction

In the dynamic realm of export control, the European Union continually refines its legislative frameworks to address evolving security challenges, technological advancements, and compliance with international treaties. The recent adoption of EU Regulation 2025/41 is a prime example of this ongoing evolution and marks a pivotal update to the earlier EU Regulation 258/2012.

This regulation implements Article 10 of the UN Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms and it basically governs the export, import, and transit of firearms, their components, and ammunition. It aims to offer a more comprehensive and responsive approach to managing these critical items in an increasingly complex global environment.

Will these changes deliver the long-awaited regulatory clarity, or will they introduce new challenges for businesses operating in the sector ?

Until recently, the EU legal landscape for firearms control was shaped by Regulation 2012/58 and Directive 2021/555. While EU Regulation 2012/58 applied directly to EU Member States and focused on the trade of firearms, components and ammunition with non-EU countries, EU Directive 2021/555 governed the acquisition and possession of weapons within the EU through national transposition laws. These two legislative texts served distinct but complementary purposes - yet gaps and overlaps in their scopes often caused confusion for EU market operators engaged in EU and non-EU trade.

On January 22, 2025, EU Regulation 2025/41 was published in the Official Journal of the EU, marking the conclusion of the revision process of EU Regulation 258/2012, which started in October 2022. This revision took the form of a recast, meaning the adoption of a new single, legally binding act incorporating the initial legal act and any amendments to it (1). Unlike codification, it thus involves new substantive changes to the original act.

The idea behind this recast was to address the following risks while bringing alignment with EU Directive 2021/555 :

• At import, the circumvention of unclear rules is allowing the entry within the EU of “semi-finished” firearms and components, which can then be used to create unmarked/unregistered “ghost guns.” Additionally, alarm and signal weapons convertible into lethal firearms are increasingly used in criminal activities across the EU (2).
• At export, the primary risk is the diversion of civilian firearms to non-EU countries, where they may be re-exported to embargoed nations or fall into the hands of criminals. This lack of oversight before and after export threatens regional stability near the EU and facilitates trafficking back into the Union (3).

This article aims to analyse (i) what are the main changes brought by this recast and (ii) how does such recast intersect with EU Directive 2021/555 so as to determine if these changes are bringing long-awaited regulatory clarity and/or if they are introducing new challenges for businesses operating in the sector.

1. Recast of EU Regulation 258/2012 : A new era for international firearms trade

EU Regulation 2025/41 introduces significant changes, including an expanded scope of regulated products, a streamlined and clearer robust regulatory framework, and the digitalization of processes through an electronic licensing system. These updates aim to enhance traceability, improve oversight, and increase regulatory efficiency across the firearms sector.

(i) Expanded scope

While EU Regulation 258/2012 only referred to “firearms, their parts and essential components and ammunition”, EU Regulation 2025/41 brought both clarity and a broader coverage by referring to “listed goods”, which encompasses the firearms, essential components, ammunition, alarm and signal weapons, deactivated firearms, semi-finished firearms, semi-finished essential components, and sound moderators listed in Annex I of the Regulation.

A notable development is the introduction of the following notions:

•  ‘semi-finished firearms’ : firearms that are not ready for direct use and have the approximate shape or outline of the corresponding finished firearms, and which can be used, other than in exceptional cases, only for completion into those finished firearms (4) ;
•  ‘semi-finished essential components’ : essential components that are not ready for direct use and have the approximate shape or outline of the corresponding finished essential components, and which can be used, other than in exceptional cases, only for completion into those finished essential components (5).

Pursuant to the new EU Regulation 2025/41 and so as to avoid the proliferation of ghost guns, only dealers and brokers will be entitled to apply for an import authorisation for such items. The CN (Combined Nomenclature) code 9305 will now also include these semi-finished firearms/essential components - hopefully, this degree of precision will soon appear in the wording on the TARIC and similar national customs databases.

The EU Commission has been tasked with adopting implementing acts to define the technical characteristics of semi-finished firearms and essential components. How precise will these technical characteristics be ? Will the EU Commission take into account how EU Member States interpret such a notion ? For instance, Italy defines “parts of a weapon that are still in a semi-finished state” as “part of a weapon that, in order to be assembled on the weapon and ensure its functioning, requires further mechanical processing. Surface treatments of metals are not to be considered as mechanical processing” (LEGGE 18 aprile 1975 , n. 110 - Norme integrative della disciplina vigente per il controllo delle armi, delle munizioni e degli esplosivi - Article 19).

Will the EU Member States manage to agree on such a notion or will it be a failure like the attempted harmonised definition and guidelines on the concept of “specially designed” which was initiated in 2018 but never formalised in the context of EU Directive 2009/43 on defense-related products ?

Concerns surrounding semi-finished parts are actually not new - in 1998, a German court had to rule on the export of preforms for gas centrifuge scoops to Pakistan’s uranium enrichment program (7). The defendant argued that because the preforms were not finished (i.e. in the final form of a scoop), they were not covered by nuclear export control laws. By rejecting the defense's arguments, the court established the legal precedent that preforms of gas centrifuge parts can be treated as direct-use nuclear items on the nuclear commodity control list.

The court indeed concluded that the bending of straight tubes into the final form of the scoop is relatively easy to do, requiring only a few additional finishing steps before insertion into a centrifuge. Thus, it reasoned that these (semi-finished) preforms were subject to the same controls as finished centrifuge components.

Another key development of the recast is the explicit reference to alarm and signal weapons, deactivated firearms and sound moderators:

• The inclusion of alarm and signal weapons is new and motivated by the risks of conversion of such weapons into lethal ones as indicated above. In this respect, it was necessary to ensure the consistency of the practices of national customs authorities in the classification of such devices upon import.
• Deactivated firearms were already covered, to some extent, by EU Regulation 258/2012 - their definition under Article 2 included the need for EU Member States to make arrangements for the deactivation measures to be verified (related certificate or mark attesting to such deactivation). Yet, Article 3 provided that the EU Regulation 258/2012 was not applicable to deactivated firearms. From now on, deactivated firearms fall under the scope of EU Regulation 2025/41 and the obligation for such firearms to be accompanied by a deactivation certificate and to be marked pursuant to EU Implementing Regulation 2015/2403, is embedded within the Regulation (8).
• The inclusion of sound moderators within the scope of EU Regulation 2025/41 is also not entirely new - it used to be covered by the definition of “parts”, namely “any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm”. The EU Commission has also been tasked with adopting implementing acts to define their technical characteristics. Yet, while EU Regulation 2025/41 focuses on sound moderators, some EU Member States distinguish between “silencers” and “sound moderators” - it will be interesting to see how the EU Commission will take into account current national interpretations. In Portugal for instance, sound moderators are approved accessories that, when attached to the muzzle of a firearm, reduces the sound of the shot by up to 50 dB (9).

This overall expansion ensures a tighter regulatory grip on items that could be easily diverted for illicit purposes, reflecting growing concerns about the modularity of modern firearms and the rise of DIY (do-it-yourself) weapon assembly.

Beyond the expanded scope of encompassed goods, it is worth noting that the wording of the Regulation’s application scope also changed.

While EU Regulation 258/2012 was excluding from its scope, amongst others, the items “if specially designed for military use and, in any case, firearms of the fully automatic firing type” as well as those “destined for the armed forces, the police, or the public authorities of the Member States”, EU Regulation 2025/41 now specifies the exclusions from its scope by referring to the goods’ category :

• (…) “Category A listed goods, provided that they are included in the Common Military List of the EU, exported or re-exported from the customs territory of the Union (...) ;
• Category B listed goods, provided that they are included in the Common Military List of the EU, exported or re-exported from the territory of the Union and destined for the armed forces, the police or the public authorities;
• Category A, B and C listed goods destined for the armed forces, the police, or the public authorities of the Member States”.

This redefined scope raises several questions :

● The last exclusion listed above only refers to Categories A, B and C of Annex I. What about the other goods listed in Annex I - namely, the ones listed under Parts II, III and IV (e.g. semi-finished firearms, semi-finished essential components, ammunition, sound moderators)? Under EU Regulation 258/2012, essential components, ammunition and sound moderators were encompassed in the equivalent exclusion, namely “when destined for the armed forces, the police, or the public authorities of the Member States”. This limitation to Categories A, B and C is also surprising when reading the whereas (9) of the preamble of EU Regulation 2025/41 which provides that “the exclusion should not be applicable to Category C items sent to third countries, such as (...) essential components, ammunition, (...) semi-finished essential components, or sound moderators”. There is thus a new grey area regarding the items listed under Annex I - Parts II, III and IV and whether they shall be assimilated to the Category C and fall under the exclusion related to intra-EU transfers destined for the armed forces, police or public authorities or if it was voluntary that such items remain under the scope of the EU Regulation 2025/41.

● And why are these items out-of-scope only in the context of export/re-export from the EU and not in the context of import and transit - which are also covered by EU Regulation 2025/41 ?

(ii) Restructuring, Clarification, and Exhaustiveness efforts

It is clear that EU Regulation 258/2012 primarily focused on export trade flows, as reflected in its title. EU Regulation 2025/41 now elevates the importance of import and transit, placing them on the same level as export. EU Regulation 2025/41 demonstrates a more comprehensive approach now including definitions for terms such as "import" "entry" and "exit" in order to encompass all trade flows, rather than just "export" "re-export" and "transit".

In addition, while EU Regulation 258/2012 was creating confusion by gathering altogether the rules regarding export authorisation, procedures, controls, import measures and transit measures, the skeleton of EU Regulation 2025/41 has been restructured so as to provide clarity and separate the rules per type of trade flows :

• Chapter II - Entry and Import requirements,
• Chapter III - Export, Re-export and Exit requirements,
• Chapter IV - Supervision and controls.

Moreover, while EU Regulation 258/2012 only provided a model for export authorisation forms, EU Regulation 2025/41 also provides a model for import authorisation and details about what is expected in a user-statement, which hopefully will be another step towards further harmonization amongst EU Member States.

Finally, EU Regulation 2025/41 provided clarification on customs related aspects by :

• Referring to the definitions in the EU customs code (Regulation EU 952/2013) for all customs-related terms such as “Union goods”, “customs formalities”, “import”, “export”, “re-export” and “inward processing” ;
• Specifying what are the derogations from Union customs formalities applicable to the listed goods ;
• Introducing an electronic licensing system that will integrate with broader customs systems across the EU, ensuring smoother, more transparent transactions. This integration is set to be completed by 12 February 2031.

 (iii) Enhanced procedures, controls and enforcement mechanisms

The procedural framework for authorizations has become significantly more detailed and stringent :

• Electronic Licensing System: Both import and export authorizations must now be processed through a centralized electronic system, fostering better traceability and interconnectivity between Member States. The electronic licensing system shall be in place by 12 February 2027.
• Types of Authorizations: The new regulation introduces Union General Authorizations alongside national ones, specifically available to authorized economic operators for security and safety.
• Delays and simplified procedures: There are now clear delays to process applications (e.g. 90 working days for import authorisations, extendable to 110 days if relates to Category A listed goods), simplified procedures being subject to shorter processing timelines (20 working days, extendable to 40 in justified cases).
• Fees: Member States may apply a fee to cover the administrative costs of handling applications for authorisations.

In contrast, Regulation 258/2012 offered less nuanced details, focusing instead on basic requirements for export authorizations.

One of the standout evolutions is the tightening of import controls :

• Marking Requirements: Firearms and components must comply with both Directive (EU) 2021/555 and the UN Firearms Protocol marking standards at the point of import. Dealers are however allowed a grace period to comply with those requirements without delay after the release for free circulation;
• Deactivation and Non-Convertibility Standards: Importers must ensure deactivated firearms are accompanied by proper certification, and alarm/signal weapons meet non-convertibility criteria to prevent illicit modifications.​

While EU Regulation 258/2012 was already emphasizing the need for effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties, Regulation 2025/41 takes enforcement further by explicitly extending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 protections to individuals reporting breaches in firearms import/export compliance, ensuring a safer reporting environment for insiders.

In conclusion, the recast represents a significant leap forward in the EU's commitment to controlling the trade of firearms and related components. By expanding its scope, enhancing procedural requirements, controls and enforcement mechanisms, the new regulation not only addresses gaps in Regulation 258/2012 but also anticipates future challenges in an increasingly complex environment. Yet, it also created significant uncertainties: why are (i) some ammunition, sound moderators and (semi-finished) essential components as well as (ii) import and transit flows, not encompassed in the exclusions related to the armed forces, police or public authorities ? ​

2. Bridging the gap with Directive 2021/555 ?

While the preamble of EU Regulation 2025/41 made clear that it has different purposes than Directive 2021/555, alignment efforts in the wording of EU Regulation 2025/41 are clearly noticeable. Terms such as “firearm”, “essential component”, “ammunition”, “dealer”, “broker” are now defined by referring to the definitions of EU Directive 2021/555.

Another alignment effort to welcome is the fact that Annex I - Part I now refers to the classification of firearms performed in Annex I of EU Directive 2021/555 - however, it went even further by adding Annex I - Part II, III and IV in order to list as well ammunition, (semi-finished) essential components, semi-finished firearms, non-convertible alarm and signal weapons and sound moderators. As explained above, this recast Annex created some uncertainties regarding the applicability of the various exclusions related to the armed forces, police and public authorities.

The marking requirements under EU Directive 2021/555 are also now clearly embedded in EU Regulation 2025/41, making it more compelling since EU Directive 2021/555 has not yet been transposed by all EU Member States while the EU Regulation is directly applicable to such states.

Yet, we also notice some gaps :

• Record-Keeping and Traceability: Both texts require comprehensive record-keeping, with Directive 2021/555 specifying a 30-year retention period and Regulation 2025/41 requiring a 20-year retention period for import/export records. This discrepancy could create compliance challenges for businesses operating across both regimes.
• Digital Integration: Regulation 2025/41 pushes for integration with the EU Single Window Environment for Customs, whereas Directive 2021/555 mandates national-level computerized systems without requiring interconnectivity at the EU level. This fragmentation hinders seamless data sharing across borders.

From a market-operator perspective, several weaknesses emerge :

• Fragmented Digital Systems: The lack of a unified digital interface for both intra-EU and extra-EU transactions complicates compliance, forcing importers and exporters to navigate disparate national and regional systems. While Regulation 2025/41 introduces electronic export authorizations, Directive 2021/555 does not mandate similar digital processes for intra-EU transfers, creating administrative burdens for operators dealing in both internal and external markets.
• Inconsistent Penalty Structures: Both texts defer penalty determination to Member States, leading to inconsistent enforcement and potential regulatory arbitrage, where operators may shift operations to jurisdictions with laxer enforcement.

In conclusion, while Regulation 2025/41 and Directive 2021/555 collectively create a robust framework for controlling firearms within and outside the EU, their current articulation leaves room for improvement. By clarifying the exclusions under EU Regulation 2025/41, harmonizing digital systems, standardizing penalties, and aligning procedural requirements, the EU can offer a more coherent, operator-friendly environment that balances security concerns with the smooth functioning of the internal market. For importers and exporters, such reforms would reduce administrative burdens and foster greater confidence in cross-border trade compliance.

3. Actions to Take for the Industry

With the entry into force of Regulation 2025/41, market operators in the civil armament industry - particularly importers, exporters, and manufacturers - must proactively adapt to the new regulatory landscape to ensure compliance and operational continuity.

The following key actions should be taken:

1. Review and Update Compliance Programs

• Conduct an in-depth gap analysis comparing current internal policies and procedures with the new requirements of Regulation 2025/41,
• Ensure compliance officers, legal teams, and operational managers are fully aware of the expanded scope of regulated products (semi-finished firearms, semi-finished essential components, alarm and signal weapons etc.);
• Implement internal compliance guidelines aligned with both EU Regulation 2025/41 and Directive 2021/555 to avoid inconsistencies in record-keeping, marking, and authorization processes.

2. Adjust Import and Export Procedures

• Ensure that only licensed dealers and brokers handle imports of semi-finished firearms/essential components, as required by the recast,
• Establish import-related procedures to ensure adherence to marking and deactivation standards.

3. Transition to the Electronic Licensing System

• Prepare for the mandatory use of the centralized electronic licensing system for import and export authorizations,
• Invest in IT infrastructure and training to ensure a seamless transition to digital authorization processes,
• Monitor updates regarding the EU Single Window Environment for Customs.

4. Strengthen Record-Keeping and Traceability Measures

• Update record-keeping policies to comply with the 20-year requirement for import/export data and 30-year requirement for intra-EU transactions under Directive 2021/555 ;
• Ensure that all records include new mandatory details such as user statements for exports, import licensing information, and verification of firearm markings;
• Utilize digital record-keeping systems to maintain compliance with both regulations and facilitate data exchange with authorities.

5. Assess the Impact on Product Classification

• Review product portfolios to determine which newly included items (e.g., semi-finished components) are now subject to licensing and control measures ;
• Engage with national regulatory bodies to clarify classification ambiguities, particularly concerning Annex I and the A/B/C categorization of goods ;
• Work with suppliers and manufacturers to ensure proper documentation and marking for all affected products ;
• Monitor updates regarding the technical criteria of semi-finished firearms/essential components and sound moderators.

6. Reassess Business Strategies and Supply Chains

• Evaluate the impact of stricter import controls on sourcing strategies and adapt supply chain agreements accordingly,
• Engage with export control specialists and customs brokers to streamline compliance efforts and reduce administrative burdens.

7. Engage with EU and National Authorities

• Maintain active communication with relevant national licensing and customs authorities to stay updated on regulatory clarifications and implementation guidelines,
• Participate in industry consultations and advocacy efforts to ensure the new rules are interpreted consistently across Member States,
• Seek guidance on national fee structures for authorizations, as these may vary between EU countries.

Conclusion

By taking these proactive steps, the civil armament industry can ensure a smooth transition to the new regulatory framework, maintain compliance, and minimize disruptions to trade.

As a final conclusion, the recast of EU Regulation 258/2012 into EU Regulation 2025/41 represents a significant shift in the EU’s approach to firearms trade control. By broadening the scope of regulated goods, clarifying key definitions, and enhancing oversight mechanisms, the recast aims to close loopholes that have long posed security risks. The introduction of an electronic licensing system and more stringent import/export controls signal the EU’s commitment to harmonized and traceable trade practices.

However, while the recast makes commendable efforts to align with Directive 2021/555, inconsistencies remain, particularly regarding the items falling out-of-scope of EU Regulation 2025/41 but also record-keeping requirements and digital integration. These gaps may create practical challenges for businesses operating under both regimes, highlighting the need for further coordination at the EU level.

For industry stakeholders, adapting to these regulatory changes will require a proactive approach, including updating compliance programs, refining internal tracking mechanisms, and staying attuned to future implementing acts by the European Commission. The coming years will be crucial in determining whether this regulatory overhaul achieves its intended goals—or whether further adjustments will be necessary.

Credit : Charlotte Villatte, Co-founder & Manager at DefenseWise SRL - Publication : WorldECR Journal of Export Control and Sanctions (DOW JONES) - Issue 141

© 2025 - All rights reserved. This article may not be shared, reproduced, disclosed, or distributed, in whole or in part, to any other party without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.

​