On Tuesday, 3 December, the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the Czech Republic’s action to annul the directive (2017/853) that, as a result of the 2015 terrorist attacks, introduces stricter rules on the acquisition of the most dangerous firearms and facilitates the free movement of certain weapons via marking standards (case C-482/17) (see EUROPE 11689/28 and 11774/26).
Taking up the position of the advocate general (see EUROPE 12234/8), the court holds that the measures taken do not infringe the principles of conferral of powers, proportionality, legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, and non-discrimination cited by the Czech authorities, who were supported by their Hungarian and Polish counterparts.
According to the EU judge, the legal basis chosen—Article 114 TFEU—was the correct one insofar as it also authorises the EU legislature to ensure the protection of general interests, such as the fight against terrorism and serious crime. In order to determine the appropriate legal basis for the disputed directive, the legal basis on which the existing legislation (Directive 91/477/EEC) is based should also be taken into account. Moreover, the judge considers that the harmonisation of aspects relating to the safety of goods is one of the essential elements for the proper functioning of the internal market.
The court concludes that the EU legislature has not exceeded the margin of discretion conferred on it by Article 114 TFEU.
Furthermore, the absence of an impact assessment cannot be qualified as a violation of the principle of proportionality.
Finally, the court is of the opinion that the derogation from which only Switzerland benefits (see EUROPE 12258/13), to which the Firearms Directive applies, does not discriminate against the other Member States, none of which are in a comparable situation. According to the court, Switzerland is perfectly capable of controlling its system of transfer of military firearms to persons leaving the army, a situation that gives reason to assume that public security objectives are being met.
See the judgment: http://bit.ly/2P1Hcji (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)