COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

of

Directive 2013/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013

on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles (recast)

Table of contents

1.Introduction

2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1.    Description of the intervention and its objectives    

2.2.    Points of comparison    

3.How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

Current state of play    

3.1.    The market for pyrotechnic articles    

3.2.    Human health and safety    

3.3.    Public security    

3.4.    Environmental protection    

3.5.    Harmonisation of laws and implementation    

4.Evaluation findings (analytical part)

4.1.To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

4.1.1.    Effectiveness    

4.1.2.    Efficiency    

4.1.3.    Coherence    

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

4.3.1.    Relevance of the objectives    

4.3.2.    Relevance with regard to other priorities/challenges    

4.3.3.    Relevance of the scope    

5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

5.1.Conclusions

5.2.Lessons learned

Annex I: Procedural Information

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

Annex III. Evaluation matrix

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs and Table on simplification and burden reduction

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report

Annex VI. Functioning of the Pyrotechnics Directive

Annex VII. Complementary information on the current state of play

Annex VIII. Case studies

Glossary

Directive 2013/29/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles 1 (hereinafter ‘the Pyrotechnics Directive’ or ‘the Directive’) aims to achieve the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and safety of consumers and taking into account the relevant aspects related to environmental protection. Hence the internal market legal base was used (Article 114 TFEU, approximation of laws). The Pyrotechnics Directive was adopted as a recast of Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles 2 (hereinafter ‘the 2007 Directive’), aligning it to the New Legislative Framework (hereinafter ‘NLF’) 3 but leaving the sector-specific rules introduced in 2007 essentially untouched.

Commission Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU complements the Pyrotechnics Directive by setting up a system for the traceability of pyrotechnic articles 4 .

Purpose and scope of the evaluation

The Pyrotechnics Directive has been in force in its current form since 2013. Member States had to transpose the Directive into national law by 30 June 2015. Studies have been carried out on certain aspects of the Directive – notably on high-risk fireworks, illegal sales and criminal misuse 5 , and transposition by Member States 6 – but no comprehensive evaluation of the Directive and Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU has yet been carried out.

The environment in which EU pyrotechnics legislation operates has changed, not only since the introduction of the substantive provisions in 2007 but also since the recast in 2013. Member States, stakeholders and citizens have drawn the Commission’s attention to several shortcomings and problems with the Directive and its implementation.

Against this background it was necessary to assess the overall performance of the current Directive and whether it is still fit for purpose. In line with the Better Regulation Guideline and Toolbox 7 , the evaluation examined the relevance, effectiveness, coherence and efficiency of EU pyrotechnics legislation, and its EU added value. Based on the evaluation criteria and taking into account the Directive’s objectives and experience with implementing it, the following aspects were looked at in particular:

a)the appropriateness of requirements, including essential safety requirements;

b)the safety of articles imported from non-EU countries, including the effectiveness of enforcement of rules for those products;

c)the effectiveness of the current system for the traceability of pyrotechnic articles;

d)the diversion of articles for use to criminal ends;

e)the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties;

f)the impact of national derogations and possible gold-plating;

g)internal coherence and potential gaps;

h)the potential for simplification or burden reduction for economic operators and authorities.

The evaluation focuses on the sector-specific aspects of the Directive, bearing in mind that some horizontal issues are addressed by the evaluation of the NLF 8 . However, where appropriate, NLF-related aspects are also included. The evaluation covers the period from 2015 (when the Directive became fully applicable) until the end of 2024 and covers the geographical scope of the EU pyrotechnics legislation, the European Economic Area. 9

Methodological approach

This Staff Working Document builds on desk research, including Commission studies, academic literature, legal texts and grey literature, and on various stakeholder consultations, involving economic operators, authorities, notified bodies and citizens. The Commission started the evaluation process with a call for evidence , launched in May 2023, which aimed to inform the public and stakeholders about the evaluation and to gather their feedback on the initiative.

The evaluation was supported by a study carried out for DG GROW by Technopolis Group , supported by Milieu , Wavestone and Intellera , between October 2023 and February 2025 10 . This Staff Working Document takes into account the study’s findings, but also other relevant information not covered by the study. Due to the limited amount of data available, it is not possible to substantiate all conclusions quantitatively. These shortcomings were mitigated to the extent possible by using qualitative information. As only limited information was available through desk research, the findings strongly rely on the stakeholder consultations that reflect participating stakeholders’ experiences and perspectives.

For the market analysis, it was not possible to tailor the data from Eurostat’s Structural Business Statistics (SBS) to the scope of the evaluation. The statistics for the pyrotechnics and civil explosives sectors fall under the same NACE division: ‘Manufacture of explosives’. This also includes gunpowder and match production. In addition, data was not available for every year covered by the evaluation. The cost assessment presented under the efficiency criterion is based on very limited data from cost templates, interviews and the targeted survey. Although the assessment was validated during the stakeholder workshop, it may not fully represent stakeholders’ costs associated with the Directive. Moreover, stakeholders encountered difficulties in classifying costs into adjustment, administrative and enforcement costs 11 .

A detailed description of the methodology and main sources of information for this evaluation are provided in  Annex II .

2.1.Description of the intervention and its objectives

The Directive sets out rules for the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles, including essential safety requirements, rules for conformity assessment and related obligations for economic operators. It defines pyrotechnic articles as ‘any article containing explosive substances or an explosive mixture of substances designed to produce heat, light, sound, gas or smoke or a combination of such effects through self-sustained exothermic chemical reactions’. This includes consumer and professional fireworks and emergency flares, but also other pyrotechnic articles that are often components of other products, particularly in the automotive industry, such as airbags and seatbelt fasteners in vehicles. The Directive differentiates between eight categories of pyrotechnic articles, based on use and hazard:

·F1 to F4: fireworks for entertainment purposes;

·T1 and T2: theatrical fireworks for stage use; 

·P1 and P2: other pyrotechnic articles, including for vehicles.

Categories F4, T2 and P2 are only for users with specialist knowledge.

Several kinds of articles are excluded from the scope of the Directive:

·those for use by the armed forces, the police or fire departments;

·those for use in the aerospace industry and as marine equipment;

·civil explosives; 

·percussion caps intended for toys; 

·ammunition; and

·fireworks built and approved by a Member State for use exclusively on that Member State’s territory. 

The categorisation of pyrotechnic articles and related provisions are explained in more detail in Annex V I .

2.1.1.How did the intervention fit in the wider policy framework?

As part of a package of proposals (‘the Goods Package’) for several product directives, the current Directive brought the rules on pyrotechnic articles into alignment with the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 12 . The NLF was a response to large-scale product recalls and product safety problems. The product recalls, particularly in the toys sector, revealed shortcomings in the functioning of market surveillance and raised questions about the ability of EU legislation to protect the health and safety of consumers 13 . Other important policy considerations for the development of the NLF were the need to streamline the rights and obligations of economic operators in the single market and across sectors, in line with the Better Regulation agenda and the need to strengthen regulatory coherence across EU harmonisation legislation 14 . In the recast, the sector-specific rules established by the 2007 Directive were essentially brought over into the current Pyrotechnics Directive.

2.1.2.Problems and needs that the intervention aimed to address

Adopting the Directive was considered necessary to align the EU pyrotechnics rules to the NLF, which addressed the following horizontal weaknesses and inconsistencies in the implementation and enforcement of EU harmonisation legislation:

·the presence of non-compliant or dangerous products on the market and consequently a lack of trust in CE marking;

·competitive disadvantages for economic operators complying with the legislation as opposed to those circumventing the rules;

·unequal treatment in the case of non-compliant products and distortion of competition amongst economic operators due to different enforcement practices;

·differing practices in the designation of conformity assessment bodies by national authorities;

·problems with the quality of certain notified bodies for the mandatory third-party conformity assessment of pyrotechnic articles 15 .

Besides addressing these horizontal issues, the Directive was to continue to address the problems and needs that had motivated the adoption of its predecessor, the 2007 Directive:

·divergent legal frameworks for the placing on the market and the use of pyrotechnic articles in the Member States that created barriers to trade within the internal market;

·the dangers inherent to the use of pyrotechnic articles and different safety requirements across Member States 16 .

2.1.3.General and specific objectives of the intervention

The Directive maintained the general objectives of its predecessor, as stipulated in Article 1(1), according to which the Directive aims to achieve the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and public security and the protection and safety of consumers and taking into account the relevant aspects related to environmental protection.

Linked to those general objectives, the Directive pursues the following specific objectives:

·the harmonisation of rules for the making available of pyrotechnic articles, and the strengthening of the single market 17 ;

·the improvement of the traceability of sales and transactions to prevent illicit possession, misuse and thefts 18 .

In addition, the Directive, by implementing the NLF, aimed to:

·ensure the quality and credibility of the work of notified bodies;

·increase the effectiveness of market surveillance activities 19 .

Commission Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU aims to ensure traceability of pyrotechnic articles by introducing the requirement that such articles be labelled with a registration number based on a uniform numbering system. This labelling system is to guarantee the identification of pyrotechnic articles and their manufacturers throughout all stages of the supply chain. 20

2.1.4.The intervention logic

The intervention logic of the evaluation is to examine the inter-relationships between 1) the problems that the Directive was designed to address; 2) the general and specific objectives that it seeks to achieve; 3) the inputs (such as human and financial resources) required to achieve these objectives; 4) the activities and implementation processes; and 5) the expected effects in terms of outputs (shorter-term outcomes), results (intermediate outcomes) and impacts (longer-term outcomes) through which the Directive’s general and specific objectives should be achieved.

Essential safety requirements (ESRs), in combination with rules for conformity assessments, obligations on economic operators (including in relation to labelling and traceability) and measures on market surveillance were established to achieve several outputs. It was expected that Member States would adapt their national laws, putting in place measures to ensure that only compliant articles are placed on the market. The Directive also envisaged systems and procedures for conformity assessments, oversight over notified bodies, and effective market surveillance mechanisms. A further desired output was the institutionalisation of information exchange and cooperation between market surveillance authorities, economic operators and the European Commission.

Overall, these outputs were expected to result in 1) the harmonisation of laws; 2) the reduction of technical barriers and costs in the single market; 3) improved traceability of sales and transactions; 4) higher compliance of pyrotechnic articles with safety requirements; and 5) increased quality and credibility of the work of notified bodies. The desired impacts of the Directive were: 1) increased intra-EU flows of pyrotechnics and enhanced competitiveness of EU companies; 2) improved safety of products and high levels of public security; and 3) the reduction of risks to the environment.

Figure 1: Intervention Logic

Source: own preparation

2.2.Points of comparison

A proper assessment of the existing pyrotechnics legislation against the evaluation criteria requires a comparison between the current situation and the situation before the Directive was adopted. For this purpose, the following points of comparison were identified as the baseline.

2.2.1.The internal market for pyrotechnic articles

In 2015, the production value of pyrotechnic articles was approximately EUR 260 million. The EU mostly produced signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles, with a value of EUR 134.5 million, followed by fireworks at around EUR 76 million. The production value of matches was approximately EUR 49.5 million 21 . The EU was a net-importer of pyrotechnic articles, with imports of approximately EUR 283 million, exceeding its exports of around EUR 110 million. The overall negative trade balance was due to the significant reliance on imports of fireworks. For matches, signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles, the EU was a net exporter 22 .

Figure 3: Extra-EU trade in pyrotechnic articles in 2015

Source: own preparation based on Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) Data (Eurostat) (INDICATORS: VALUE_IN_EUROS, PRODUCT: Fireworks, Matches (excluding Bengal matches and other pyrotechnic products), Signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles (excluding fireworks))

Trade between Member States was most pronounced for fireworks, but matches, signalling flares, rain rockets, fogs signals and other pyrotechnic articles were also actively traded. Overall, intra-EU trade (using Eurostat intra-EU export figures) amounted to EUR 165 million 23 .

Figure 4: Intra-EU export of pyrotechnic articles in 2015

Source: own preparation based on SITC Data (Eurostat) (INDICATORS: VALUE_IN_EUROS, PRODUCT: Fireworks, Matches (excluding Bengal matches and other pyrotechnic products), Signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles (excluding fireworks))

As regards the size and structure of the market, no data is available for 2015. However, at the time of the impact assessment for the Goods Package in 2011, the market size of the EU’s pyrotechnic sector was estimated at EUR 4.2 billion per year. The impact assessment differentiated between the two biggest sub-sectors – fireworks and pyrotechnic articles in vehicles. Of the overall EU pyrotechnics market, EUR 1.4 billion per year was attributable to the fireworks sector, with equal shares for sales to consumers (categories 1, 2 and 3) and sales to professionals (category 4). The fireworks industry in the EU was composed mainly of SMEs, employing collectively between 15 000 and 20 000 people in the EU. This estimate was made with the caveat that most companies were operating in more than just the field of fireworks and employed seasonal workers in the end-of-year period. Businesses were mostly active in distribution, storage and professional display of fireworks. The small EU firework-manufacturing sector was predominantly engaged in the production of fireworks for professional use (F4) and was concentrated in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and the UK 24 .

In contrast, the size of the market in automotive pyrotechnic articles in 2011 was EUR 2.8 billion, including airbag systems (EUR 1.8 billion) and seatbelts (EUR 1 billion). The market for automotive pyrotechnic articles was dominated by a few big international automotive supplier companies with a total of around 40 000 employees. They were responsible for approximately two thirds of pyrotechnic article sales in the EU 25 .

2.2.2.Human health and safety

The safety situation was not comprehensively assessed for the recast of the Directive in 2013. However, in the impact assessment, a projection by the EU injury database from 2010 was cited which revealed an annual average of 27 000 injuries due to fireworks in the EU, representing 0.07% of all injuries. Misuse was estimated to be the main cause of these accidents, but high product failure rates (up to 50%) were also reported 26 . A study carried out for the European Commission and published in 2019 estimated on the basis of data from the European Injury Database 27 that, between 2013 and 2015, around 16 000 fireworks accidents happened each year. This counted only those reported by hospitals 28 . Some fragmented accident data from Member States is also available from the period around the entry into application of the Directive. For instance 29 , the Romanian authorities reported to the Commission that 17 accidents with pyrotechnic articles were recorded in Romania in 2013, and 33 in 2014. These accidents predominantly led to hand injuries, followed by eye injuries. Portugal reported 10 and 11 accidents in 2013 and 2014 respectively, mostly involving F4 fireworks. Denmark recorded 233 accidents at New Year’s Eve 2013/2014 and 334 in 2014/2015, also mostly causing hands and eyes injuries.

This fragmented data on accidents makes it difficult to draw a reliable picture of the safety of pyrotechnic articles at that time. Nevertheless, the high level of non-compliance in the sector observed at the time was clearly one of the reasons for the NLF alignment. In the public consultation for the impact assessment of the Goods Package, 78% of the responding authorities and 50% of the responding notified bodies indicated that they considered the pyrotechnic sector to be affected by non-compliance 30 . For most sectors, the ineffective operation of market surveillance in the European Union, exacerbated by the limited traceability of articles, was identified as the main reason for the high non-compliance rates. Other factors included inadequate conformity assessments, in particular where subcontractors of notified bodies were located outside the EU 31 . This issue was particularly acute in the case of fireworks, which are predominantly produced in third countries and imported into the EU 32 . Insufficient coordination between notified bodies was also seen as contributing to the varying quality of conformity assessments 33 .

2.2.3.Public security

The recast in 2013 was meant to address issues in conformity assessments and enforcement and did not assess or touch upon security. However, a study in 2012 commissioned by the European Commission analysed the misuse of pyrotechnic articles for terrorist purposes, criminal activities and to disturb public order. As regards terrorist activities, the study pointed to the fact that pyrotechnic articles, more precisely flash bangers, were used as boosters to spread flammable liquids and gases in the New York Times Square bombing attempt in 2010. Moreover, high-energy pyrotechnic substances (like flash compositions) were identified as potential materials used for bombings, considering that terrorists could acquire large quantities of pyrotechnic shells, open them relatively easily and extract the flash composition in quantities of up to 300 grams. Lastly, according to the study, terrorists also sometimes used certain pyrotechnic articles, such as gas generators, as components of homemade improvised explosive devices 34 .

Other criminal uses identified by the study were the use of pyrotechnic articles to enter buildings, to frighten or warn people or to build pipe bombs. In addition, theft of pyrotechnic articles, e.g. from a storage location, transport containers or from vehicles (e.g. airbags) was a concern raised. In terms of disturbances of public order, the study highlighted vandalism and hooliganism, notably around New Year’s Eve, but also in football stadia (with distress signals such as hand-held flares). Consumer and professional fireworks, and illegal fireworks obtained online, were the articles most associated with criminal misuse by stakeholders. More generally, the study concluded that the broad availability of pyrotechnic articles facilitated their misuse 35 .

2.2.4.Harmonisation of laws and implementation

Member States were obliged to transpose the 2007 Directive by 2010, thereby harmonising their laws, which had previously differed significantly in terms of classification and authorisation systems for pyrotechnic articles, labelling and sales restrictions 36 . Since the pyrotechnics-specific provisions were retained in the NLF alignment, Member States did not need to adapt their laws to these provisions when the current Pyrotechnics Directive was adopted in 2013.

For the recast, no mapping of the pyrotechnics-specific rules in Member States was undertaken, as this was not the focus of the initiative. However, the absence of EU-wide obligations for importers and distributors, which led to differing rules in the Member States, was considered a problem. This contributed to different approaches to cases of non-compliance by market surveillance authorities. For instance, measures taken against the non-compliant product concerned varied in severity depending on the product and the authority involved. Different approaches were applied to importers and distributors to demonstrate compliance. Cases were reported in which non-compliant products had been withdrawn in one Member State but could still circulate in another Member State 37 .

Current state of play

This section will outline the development of the legal and factual situation for pyrotechnic articles in the EU since the adoption of the current Directive, structured by the points of comparison described in the previous section.

3.1.The market for pyrotechnic articles

There does not seem to have been any significant change in EU production of signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles, matches and fireworks 38  since the adoption of the current Pyrotechnics Directive. Post-adoption production figures are generally in the same range as in the years before adoption (2009-2011), although there were small temporary peaks in production in 2012 and 2018, and a minor decline in 2020 39 . Low production volumes of fireworks during the COVID-19 pandemic seem to have been largely balanced by increased production of signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles. After the pandemic, the production of fireworks recovered quickly and exceeded pre-pandemic levels in 2022, with a value of EUR 90 million. There were also slight increases in post-COVID production of matches 40 . A slight decrease in production was recorded in 2023. At the time of the evaluation, data for 2024 was not yet available.

Figure 5: EU production of pyrotechnic articles 2009-2023

Source: own preparation based on Prodcom Data (INDICATORS: PRODVAL, PRCCODE: Fireworks, Matches (excluding Bengal matches and other pyrotechnic products), Signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles (excluding fireworks)), not inflation-adjusted

The EU continues to be an overall net importer of pyrotechnic articles, with imports increasing over recent years, reaching an all-time high of EUR 452 million in 2024. Fireworks still represent the largest share of imports and affect the overall trade balance: while the EU continues to be a net importer of fireworks, it is a net exporter of signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles, and of matches. In the years following the adoption of the Directive exports remained relatively stable at around EUR 110 million annually, but in recent years they have increased slightly, to approximately EUR 150 million. The biggest share of imports still comes from China, followed by the US 41 . The US is also the main destination for extra-EU exports 42 .

In 2024, the EU imported fireworks with a value of approximately EUR 407 million, and exported signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles with a value of about EUR 108 million 43 .

Figure 6: Extra-EU trade in pyrotechnic articles 2014-2024

Source: own preparation based on SITC Data (Eurostat) (INDICATORS: VALUE_IN_EURO, PRODUCT: Fireworks, Matches (excluding Bengal matches and other pyrotechnic products), Signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles (excluding fireworks)), not inflation-adjusted

When examining the developments in intra-EU trade, it is worth looking at the data since 1999.

Figure 8: Intra-EU exports in pyrotechnic articles 1999-2024

Source: Evaluation Study based on SITC Data (Eurostat)(INDICATORS: VALUE_IN_EUROS, PRODUCT: Fireworks, Matches (excluding Bengal matches and other pyrotechnic products), Signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles (excluding fireworks)), not inflation-adjusted

An upward trend in intra-EU trade was already observed after the adoption of the 2007 Directive and this continued after the adoption of the current Directive. In particular, exports from Member States to other Member States have increased at an accelerated pace since 2021, reaching a value of approximately EUR 376 million in 2023 44 . This might be due to increased imports of fireworks from outside the EU in 2022, which were then traded within the EU. In 2024, intra-EU exports decreased slightly.

Currently there are no public or private databases that can be used to conduct a market analysis of pyrotechnic devices for the automotive industry 45 .  Case study 2  aimed to shed light on the state of this sector and revealed that the market has remained stable since the implementation of the Pyrotechnics Directive, with the EU industry generating 40% of the global market’s turnover from these products. Pyrotechnic automotive parts seem to be an area of innovation, with the development of new products that aim to improve passengers’ safety 46 .

Information on the development of the market structure, including the number of businesses and employees and turnover, are presented in  Annex VI I .1 .

3.2.Human health and safety

Despite the obligation imposed on Member States to report accident statistics to the Commission, introduced by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1096 47 , it is still difficult to identify clear trends in pyrotechnics-related accidents and to derive conclusions on the safety of pyrotechnic articles. This results on the one hand from different reporting practices of Member States and, on the other hand, from the difficulty of identifying the cause of accidents due to the many factors that can cause such accidents and the fact that the article concerned is destroyed in the accident. While accident statistics submitted by Sweden show an overall decrease in the number of accidents related to pyrotechnic articles between 2012/2013 and 2021/2022, but a strong increase from 2023, data from Ireland indicate more fluctuation during that period, with no identifiable trend 48 .

Data from the EU rapid alert system Safety Gate  is also useful to get an idea of the nature and scale of safety issues occurring in Member States. In 2024, 60 unsafe pyrotechnic articles were notified via Safety Gate, which is the highest number of incidents since 2015. The articles concerned were mainly fireworks imported from China that were withdrawn, recalled or destroyed because they were found to pose a risk of burns, damage to sight or hearing or other injuries, but also of fires. The number of notifications in Safety Gate concerning pyrotechnic articles has significantly increased since the entry into application of the Directive 49 . 

Data from the Information and Communication System for Market Surveillance (ICSMS) shows that in 2024, 58.3% (233 out of 400) of the pyrotechnic articles tested by market surveillance authorities were non-compliant, of which 68% were imported from China. Compared with 2015, when 86.5% (186 out of 215) of products tested were found non-compliant, this seems to be an improvement, but the 2024 numbers are still dissatisfactory. Since 2010 50 , non-compliances posing a risk have been detected in 77.1% (1 274 out of 1 653) of all completed inspections of pyrotechnic articles reported in ICSMS. In comparison, the non-compliance rate (with risk) over this period was 77.6% (7, 820 out of 10, 082) for personal protective equipment, 91.5% (4, 313 out of 4, 713) for vehicles, and 90.1% (3, 881 out of 4, 271) for radio equipment. This shows that non-compliances are an issue across different pieces of product legislation. It should be noted, however, that not all market surveillance authorities systematically report cases in ICSMS and some only report cases where non-compliances were found.

Stakeholders that responded in the targeted survey did not confirm the trend derived from Safety Gate and ICSMS and generally seem to be uncertain about the trends in accidents and health and safety issues, with about 40% (29 out of 73) choosing the ‘Do not know/prefer not to say’ option. However, 31.5% (23 out of 73) indicated that the number of accidents and health issues involving pyrotechnic articles has remained the same since the start of application of the current Directive in 2016, while 24.7% (18 out of 73) reported a decrease. The overall perception of stakeholders in the public consultation was that pyrotechnic articles in the single market are safe 51 .

Besides the risk of accidents, which comes mainly from illegal or improper handling by individuals 52 , the harmful effects of the chemical substances released during fireworks displays have become a point of concern in recent years. A study published in 2020 suggests that significant amounts of toxic metal are released from both private fireworks and larger commercial pyrotechnic displays, with potential adverse cardiopulmonary effects 53 . Also, the awareness of the risks of noise exposure during fireworks seems to have increased 54 .

The misuse of pyrotechnic articles in sports stadia has also become a safety and security concern over the last two decades, as described in a study carried out on behalf of the European Football Associations (UEFA) and as noted more recently in Council Conclusions 13370/2022 on the use of fireworks in football stadia 55 . The UEFA study identified several health and safety risks, including burns and other wounds, vision and hearing impairments, effects of smoke, and panic 56 .

3.3.Public security

The security situation related to pyrotechnic articles has become more severe in recent years. 35.3% (24 out of 68) of respondents to the targeted survey believe that illicit activities have increased or strongly increased, while 19.1% (13 out of 68) indicated that the number has remained constant 57 . The most prevalent types of illicit activity, according to stakeholders, include black market sales/illegal trade (including through online shopping), misuse for criminal activities and diversion of the product (e.g. use by non-professionals) 58 . Besides the recurrent misuse in football stadia and in riots (see Case Study 1 ), the use by criminals to break into automated teller machines (ATMs) has become a frequently observed phenomenon in the past years, especially in Germany 59 . A study carried out for the European Commission in 2019 found that, while the misuse of F4 fireworks by the public on New Year’s Eve is much more common than criminal activities to harm persons and damage property, there is a significant black market for the illegal sale of F4 category pyrotechnics online used by organised crime groups. An investigation in Poland in December 2018 resulted in the seizure of 80 tonnes of F4 pyrotechnics, and the assessment of the evidence revealed that organised crime groups ship an estimated 1 000 kg of F1-F3 fireworks and 500 kg of F4 pyrotechnics to different Member States every day 60 . Based on a sample, the study estimated that around 73% of online retailers sell F4 pyrotechnic articles without checking the buyers’ specialist knowledge 61 . Moreover, the Terrorism Situation and Trend Report of 2019 reported an increased use of pyrotechnics products in planned or plotted terrorist attacks in Europe 62 .

However, obtaining an EU-wide picture of the security problem is difficult as the channels used for such criminal activities are often hidden from the authorities, for instance by the use of non-compliant web-shops to sell pyrotechnics to non-authorised users and by shipping products in unlabelled parcels. Postal and courier companies are unable to prevent the misuse of their services for illegal trade and are exposed to serious risks from unmarked parcels containing pyrotechnic articles 63 . As most fireworks are imported from third countries, effective customs controls are essential to discover illegal trade flows but the number of parcels flooding the EU market as a consequence of e-commerce poses challenges for customs authorities 64 .

As this evaluation was being finalised, a feasibility study on the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles was being carried out for the Directorate-General of Migration and Home Affairs, aiming to provide a broader and more in-depth analysis of security issues involving pyrotechnic articles.

3.4.Environmental protection

Finally, the negative impact of fireworks on the environment, including on domestic and wild animals, has in recent years been the focus of many academic articles and calls from environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 65 . Concerns include disturbance of migratory or reproductive behaviour of wildlife and animal welfare more generally, as well as chemical pollution of soil, water and air 66 .

Fireworks release substances that contaminate water bodies or are taken up by plants and end up in insects, mammals, amphibians and fishes 67 . Heavy metals are also emitted by fireworks, some of them inhalable and/or bioaccumulative 68 . As regards animal welfare, a study from 2024 carried out by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Utrecht University in the Netherlands found that almost 80% of cats and dogs experience stress and fear as a consequence of hearing fireworks; for more than a third of cats and dogs the fear lasts for more than half an hour after the firework noise 69 . There have even been reports of deaths of pets during or following fireworks, presumably due to stress 70 . The effect of fireworks on wildlife is more difficult to study, but strong flight responses have been observed in studies on the impact of fireworks on birds 71 .

3.5.Harmonisation of laws and implementation

A study carried out in 2022 concluded that the transposition of the Directive is generally satisfactory, although the transposition in most Member States showed several shortcomings 72 .

The Directive leaves Member States a certain degree of discretion in the transposition of the harmonised EU rules, and this has led to national laws that differ considerably in some aspects. Article 4(2) of the Directive allows Member States to prohibit or restrict the possession, use and/or the sale to the general public of categories F2 and F3 fireworks, theatrical pyrotechnic articles and other pyrotechnic articles on grounds of public order, security, health and safety, or environmental protection. In 2022, ten Member States had introduced prohibitions or restrictions under Article 4(2) of the Pyrotechnics Directive, including the prohibition of mail order/online sales, limits on net explosives mass and the prohibition of sales of F3 and certain F2 fireworks to the general public 73 .

Some Member States impose certain licensing obligations, while others do not. Those with licensing requirements generally exempt category F1, and some also exempt F2 74 . Moreover, the majority of Member States have made use of the option under Article 7 to increase the required minimum age, changing the age limits for sales of F1 fireworks from 12 to 14, 15, 16 or 18, and/or the age limits for F2 fireworks from 16 to 18. Two Member States have also increased the minimum age for F3 fireworks from 18 to 21 75 .

Significant differences between Member States’ laws also exist with regard to the definition of a ‘person with specialist knowledge’ and the requirements for acquiring this status 76 . The definitions in ten Member States only refer to certifications and/or authorisations delivered by their own national authorities. This raises questions about mutual recognition of specialist knowledge between Member States. Moreover, the Directive leaves it to the discretion of the Member States to lay down rules for the authentication and verification of persons with specialist knowledge. Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg have jointly decided to introduce a uniform control document in the Benelux area – the so-called Pyro-pass 77 .

Moreover, there are significant differences in the transposition of the obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties under Article 45. The amounts of the fines range from a minimum of EUR 600 in one Member State to a maximum (criminal) fine of EUR 10.8 million in another Member State. Imprisonment is a possibility in only half of the Member States, with prison terms ranging from 60 days to seven years. Other penalties introduced by Member States include forfeiture and confiscation, market restrictions and prohibitions, and the relocation and suspension of licences 78 .

In seven Member States, restrictions on the free movement (Article 4(1)) of pyrotechnic articles have been observed. These come in two categories: (1) the introduction of an obligation to register or notify pyrotechnic articles to national authorities before they are placed on the market, and (2) the introduction of restrictions on the sale and/or use of pyrotechnic articles beyond those in the Pyrotechnics Directive 79 .

Annex VII.2  provides a more detailed overview of transposition and implementation of the Directive in Member States.

4.1.To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

This chapter summarises the evaluation findings in terms of effectiveness (fulfilling expectations and meeting objectives), efficiency (proportionality of its costs and benefits) and coherence (internal and external). The evaluation matrix included in  Annex I II lists the specific evaluation questions as well as the judgement criteria, indicators and sources of information used to answer the questions. They include desk research and the various consultation activities carried out in the context of the evaluation.

Overall, satisfaction of stakeholders with the Directive is moderate to high, with 47.4% (27 out of 57) of respondents in the targeted survey rating it at 3 out of 5, and 28.1% (16 out of 57) at 4 out of 5. In the public consultation, 29.7% (11 out of 37) responded that they were satisfied to a large or moderate extent with the rules established by the Directive.

Where the findings below do not specify the category of article, it is assumed that they are valid for all categories. The evaluation questions mostly did not differentiate between pyrotechnic articles for vehicles and other pyrotechnic articles. The feedback received from stakeholders was largely related to pyrotechnic articles other than those for vehicles – in particular to fireworks. This suggests that the Directive is performing well in relation to those articles.

4.1.1.Effectiveness

a)Free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market

Member States have largely aligned their legislation to the Directive’s requirements, leading to an approximation of laws on pyrotechnic articles (see section  3.5. ). According to 45.9% (17 out of 37) of the participants to the public consultation (17 of 37), the Directive contributed to the harmonisation of rules on the making available of pyrotechnic articles to a large extent. 16.2% (6 out of 37) believe it has contributed to a moderate extent. Although it is not possible to establish causality, this harmonisation of national rules might have facilitated the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market. As shown in section  3.1. , intra-EU trade in pyrotechnic articles has generally increased since the adoption of the current Directive. This suggests that it has enhanced the free movement of pyrotechnic articles within the EU and thereby strengthened the internal market. The findings of the public consultation reveal that almost 60% of respondents believe that the Directive’s objective of guaranteeing the functioning of the internal market has been achieved to a large (35.1%, 13 out of 37) or moderate (24.3%, 9 out of 37) extent.

However, as outlined in section  3.5. , the discretion of Member States in some areas to prohibit or restrict access to pyrotechnics 80  has resulted in differences between the Member States’ laws which might have impeded further integration. In that regard, the differences in the certification of specialist knowledge and the mutual recognition of such certificates were highlighted in the targeted survey. Moreover, different formats of licenses and language barriers pose practical challenges for distributors who want to verify the specialist knowledge of citizens from other Member States 81 .

b)Health and Safety

As shown in section 3.2 , information on trends in accidents and other health related issues is inconclusive. Although more than two thirds of stakeholders (64.9%, 24 out of 37) in the public consultation consider that pyrotechnic articles in the single market are safe, data from Safety Gate and ICSMS, the fragmented statistics reported from Member States to the Commission in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1096, and also stakeholders’ impressions in the public consultation 82 , show that the Directive has not succeeded in eliminating unsafe pyrotechnic articles from the internal market.

Essential safety requirements

Compliance with the essential safety requirements (ESRs) set out in the Directive is supposed to ensure the safety of pyrotechnic articles. In the targeted survey, the Directive’s contribution to a high level of protection of human health and safety and higher compliance of pyrotechnics was recognised by more than half of respondents 83 . Nevertheless, certain shortcomings which limit the ESRs’ effectiveness were identified.

The applicable ESRs depends on the category of pyrotechnic article. However, two market surveillance authorities and a notified body indicated in interviews that the current criteria for classification in the Directive seem to allow for unintentional and intentional misclassification of products into categories with less stringent safety requirements. This concerns, in particular, fireworks that are miscategorised as other pyrotechnic articles of category P1. A Commission guidance document on the categorisation of pyrotechnic articles intended for entertainment purposes 84  is considered of limited use due to its non-binding nature and the vague reference to ‘entertainment purposes’ to qualify category F fireworks. Therefore, there is a considerable risk that products are not assessed against the appropriate ESRs.

Moreover, for some categories of fireworks, the ESRs do not seem adequate to ensure safety. In the public consultation and the call for evidence, several stakeholders pointed out that the one-metre safety distance for F1 fireworks was not sufficient as it does not adequately account for external circumstances, such as wind or improper usage.

The Directive does not set out any specific safety requirements for F4 fireworks, apart from safeguards against inadvertent ignition, as this category of firework is supposed to be manufactured for use by professionals only. For the same reason, Member States are not allowed to impose any restrictions on the manufacturing and sale of this category of firework. This has led to a situation where fireworks with an exceedingly high net explosive content – higher than the needs of professional users 85  – are made available on the market.

According to the Directive, pyrotechnic articles which are in conformity with harmonised standards published in the Official Journal of the European Union must be presumed to be in conformity with the essential safety requirements. Harmonised standards are meant to translate the essential requirements into concrete technical specifications. Yet at present no harmonised standards are available for consumer fireworks or other pyrotechnic articles (category P). The standards proposed by the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) did not meet the essential requirements or the relevant standardisation request. While this is not a shortcoming of the Directive as such, it might hamper the effectiveness of the broadly formulated essential safety requirements 86 .

Compliance and quality of conformity assessments

For the assessment of conformity of pyrotechnic articles, the manufacturer must follow one of the procedures according to the modules further explained in  Annex V I . Third-party conformity assessment by a notified body is mandatory. Member States have notified 12 bodies, and ten of these are accredited 87 .

The alignment of the Directive to the NLF aimed to enhance the credibility and quality of the mandatory conformity assessment procedures and to increase compliance. Indeed, many respondents in the public consultation indicated that the Directive had contributed to a large extent (40.5%, 15 out of 37) or a moderate extent (16.2%, 6 out of 37) to higher compliance of pyrotechnic articles on the market with essential safety requirements. Nevertheless, non-compliance and unsafe products are still a concern 88 . Fireworks imported from third countries in particular – and especially those from China – often do not meet EU essential safety requirements 89 .

The high number of instances of non-compliance presented in section 3.2.    raises questions about the quality of conformity assessments. According to 54.1% (20 out of 37) of stakeholders in the public consultation, the Directive has contributed to an increased quality and credibility of conformity assessments 90 . Similarly, 30.4% (21 out of 69) of respondents to the targeted survey are very satisfied and 24.6% (17 out of 69) moderately satisfied with the current requirements for overseeing and assessing notified bodies 91 . However, the consultation activities also revealed doubts about the quality of the conformity assessment undertaken by laboratories subcontracted by notified bodies, especially where subcontractors are based in non-EU countries 92 . This echoes a Dutch non-paper from 2024 on ‘Improving the product conformity of pyrotechnic articles within the European Union’ 93 . In the targeted survey, a market surveillance authority and two SMEs pointed out that economic considerations by notified bodies might impact the quality of conformity assessments 94 . Considering the shortcomings observed in conformity assessments, several stakeholders in the targeted survey and interviews deplored a lack of oversight over notified bodies by notifying authorities and accreditation bodies.

Market surveillance and enforcement

Market surveillance should identify non-compliant products and then ensure their removal from the market. It is essential for the enforcement of the Directive. Besides the rules and procedures set out in the Pyrotechnics Directive, the overarching EU legal framework for market surveillance, including Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 95  and certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 96  apply to the market surveillance for pyrotechnic articles, including the provisions on controls on imports.

For pyrotechnic articles, the effectiveness of market surveillance increased thanks to the Pyrotechnics Directive, according to most stakeholders participating in the public consultation 97 . However, most respondents in the targeted survey reported that the frequency of product controls both for EU manufactured and imported products has remained unchanged since the entry into application of the Directive. 98 The controls carried out were in most cases documentary and physical checks (product testing) and, in some case, only documentary checks. 99  Restrictions to the circulation of products for reasons of environmental, safety or security concerns have been rather rare in recent years. 100  Moreover, according to the targeted survey 101 and an interview with a market surveillance authority, stakeholders note significant differences in market surveillance practices between Member States, including in the use of ICSMS, which might be an obstacle to more effective market surveillance 102 .

Cooperation and information sharing

In general, cooperation and information sharing among market surveillance authorities and between authorities and economic operators seem to be effective thanks to market surveillance tools like ICSMS and Safety Gate 103 and regular Administrative Cooperation (AdCo) meetings. The same seems to be true for cooperation between notified bodies. However, when asked about the effectiveness of information sharing with competent authorities from other Member States, 32.3% (21 out of 64) of respondents to the targeted survey considered it rather ineffective, especially in comparison with information sharing between authorities of their own Member State. 104  Cooperation on concrete and specific cases, such as F4 fireworks, can be challenging 105 . In a non-paper, the Dutch authorities stressed that international cooperation and information sharing among European authorities was essential for effective market surveillance and suggested that a joint European testing centre be set up to improve cost efficiency, facilitate information sharing and ensure a uniform approach to testing and interpreting results. Better cooperation and coordination in daily practice and on concrete cases would prevent non-compliant products withdrawn from one Member State’s market from being sold in another Member State 106 .

Accessibility of high-risk pyrotechnics

Lastly, in addition to the issue of non-compliance, the accessibility of high-risk pyrotechnics to consumers, including those intended only for use by professionals, is seen as a weakness of the Directive when it comes to the protection of health and safety 107 . While some Member States have made use of the option to restrict fireworks under Article 4(2), others have not (see section 3.5 ), which allows consumers to circumvent national sales restrictions by buying restricted fireworks in other countries or online. As regards (professional) F4 fireworks, Member States are not allowed to adopt national restrictions going beyond the Directive. Internet sales are the main supply channel for this kind of firework 108 . As pointed out in section 3.3 , buyers’ specialist knowledge is not adequately checked 109 . In fact, some of the most serious accidents around New Year’s Eve involve F4 fireworks 110 . As mentioned above, some Member States, including Austria and Italy, have reacted to this problem by prohibiting mail order sales and/or using the Benelux Pyro-pass.

c)Security

Despite its declared objective, and given that it was conceived at a time when – contrary to today – the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles was not yet a serious concern, the Directive does not directly address public security issues 111 . As the 2019 study confirmed, the Directive was designed to enable the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market, not to prevent cross-border crime 112 . Participants in the public consultation were concerned about access to pyrotechnic articles by malicious actors, with 54.1% (20 out of 37) of them considering that there were currently no effective controls on sales.

Diversion and traceability

It appears that legally produced articles are increasingly used for criminal purposes. This notably concerns F4 fireworks which, because of their explosive content (especially flash powder), are particularly popular among criminals. In the same way that these articles easily end up in the hands of consumers, they are also readily accessible to criminals. The 2019 study found that the problem of the illegal sale of F4 pyrotechnics was hidden from the authorities, because the illegal transactions were mainly taking place online and the products were shipped in unmarked parcels. 113 The latter presents a risk also for postal companies 114 . In the public consultation, several public authorities 115  and a professional user shared their concern about the illegal online trade in pyrotechnic articles. This was echoed by market surveillance authorities in interviews, where they stressed the problem of increased accessibility of high-risk articles to unauthorised users.

Contrary to explosives for civil use, pyrotechnic articles cannot be traced on an item-specific level, as the current system for traceability set up by Commission Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU only requires manufacturers to label their articles with a registration number issued by the notified body. This registration number belongs to all articles covered by the same assessment. When asked about the effectiveness of traceability rules, stakeholder replies were divided in the public consultation and the targeted survey. In the public consultation, 27% (10 out of 37) responded that the Directive contributed mostly to improved traceability and control of sales and transactions, 18.9% (7 out of 37) replied to a limited extent, and 13.5% (5 out of 37) to a moderate extent 116 . In the targeted survey, 34% (18 out of 53) of respondents found that the Directive contributed to a moderate extent to the traceability of pyrotechnic articles, and 32.1% (17 out of 53) to a high or very high extent 117 . In interviews with three market surveillance authorities, the lack of an item-level traceability system was identified as a problem for tracing back the movement of pyrotechnic articles in the supply chain when used in criminal activities.

Penalties

Penalties aim to ensure compliance and deter illegal behaviour. In the context of diversion and criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles, it is, however, necessary to bear in mind the nature of the Directive as a single market instrument based on Article 114 TFEU. While its safeguards against diversion may not be fully effective, the Directive’s remit does not govern the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles. Neither does it extend to harmonising criminal sanctions for their misuse.

As shown in section  3.5 , penalties for economic operators not respecting the provisions of the Directive differ between Member States. Among the stakeholders participating in the targeted survey, 30.5% (18 out of 59) of respondents indicated that current penalties were to a high extent effective in ensuring that pyrotechnic articles on the market fulfilled the existing requirement, while 25.4% (15 out of 59) replied that penalties were moderately effective. However, according to 56.8% (21 out of 37) of respondents to the public consultation, proportionate enforcement and penalties to prevent illicit possession, misuse, and thefts of pyrotechnic articles (i.e. penalties not mandated by the Directive, which only requires penalties for infringements of provisions of national law adopted pursuant to the Directive) should be further addressed in the future. Moreover, two market surveillance authorities explained during interviews that the current penalties imposed by Member States were not sufficient to deter serious infringements, such as organised crime, noting that illegal activities with pyrotechnics articles were generally subject to lighter penalties than those involving explosives or weapons.

Illegal manufacturing

It is important to note that not all security issues observed are linked to products manufactured in line with the Pyrotechnics Directive that are diverted for criminal purposes. Illegal and counterfeit articles that were likely manufactured entirely outside of the legal supply chain have been detected in some Member States 118 . During the traditional celebrations called ‘Las Fallas’ in Valencia in 2024, the Spanish police seized pyrotechnic articles with a total of approximately 80 kg net explosive content. Investigations revealed that a large share of the seized products were illegally manufactured counterfeits 119 . Black market sales, both online and on the streets, are a source of supply for criminals, such as organised crime groups 120 121 .

d)Environmental protection

As explained in section 3.4 , awareness about the negative environmental effects of pyrotechnic articles has increased since the Directive was adopted. The results from the stakeholder consultations suggest that the Directive does not fully ensure the protection of the environment from pyrotechnic articles. In the targeted survey, while 44.1% (26 out of 59) of respondents said the Directive had a positive impact on the protection of the environment, 33.1% (20 out of 59) considered the Directive’s effect was negative. In interviews, stakeholders pointed to the Directive’s weak focus on environmental protection as a factor limiting its environmental effectiveness. In the public consultation, environmental pollution and animal welfare were also concerns highlighted by stakeholders. The 2022 standardisation request for harmonised standards 122  aims to translate the environmental essential requirements into concrete technical requirements for pyrotechnic articles. However, the results are not expected until 2027. It is therefore not yet possible to draw any conclusions from this workstream. Existing standards have only focused marginally on the environmental effects of pyrotechnic articles.

4.1.2.Efficiency

To the extent that the Directive’s objectives have been attained, this seems to have been achieved in an overall efficient manner. While all stakeholder types, except notified bodies, reported cost increases due to compliance with the Directive’s requirements, there were also significant efficiency gains for most stakeholders.

The cost estimations presented in this section are based on findings from the study in support of the evaluation 123 . The study relied on cost templates filled in by six companies (five SMEs and one large company), two market surveillance authorities and three notified bodies, as well as interviews with these stakeholders. This data was complemented by findings from the targeted survey. The assessment of the benefits is based on the findings from the effectiveness analysis. It is mostly qualitative, given the difficulty to monetise these positive effects of the Directive. Efficiency gains were identified on the basis of the responses to the targeted survey. In view of the limited available data on costs and benefits, the analysis below can provide only an indication of how efficient the Directive is.

a)Costs

Industry

For the six companies 124 interviewed in the context of the study in support of this evaluation, costs arising from compliance with the Pyrotechnics Directive represent 0.9% of their annual turnover. For the large enterprise interviewed, the share is smaller (0.4%), while the SMEs spend an equivalent of 1.6% of their annual turnover on compliance with the Directive. This is comparable to the regulatory burden of other directives and regulations referred to in the evaluation of the New Legislative Framework 125 . The annual compliance costs have been calculated as the average (mean) over the period from 2015 to 2022.

Table 1: Average yearly (2015-2022) compliance costs attributed to compliance with the Pyrotechnics Directive as share of turnover

N=6 (1 large company, 5 SMEs), Source: Technopolis Group, based on cost templates

For the SMEs, most costs are investments and expenses needed to adjust their activity to the Directive’s requirements (adjustment costs). These represent 87.6% of the total compliance costs. Administrative costs account for only 8.3%. The large company reported inverse proportions, with administrative costs making up 63.5% of total compliance costs, and adjustment costs 36.5%. Hassle costs (i.e. costs resulting from inconveniences such as unnecessary waiting time, delays, redundant legal provisions, corruption, etc.) and costs only indirectly caused by the Directive 126  seem to be negligible and are not further specified in this section.

Table 2: Average yearly costs for industry attributed only to the Pyrotechnics Directive

N=6 (1 large company, 5 SMEs), Source: Technopolis Group, based on cost templates

Adjustment costs

The interviewed SMEs spend, on average, EUR 170 020 on adjusting to the Directive’s requirements, but it varies considerably from EUR 9 903 to EUR 485 078, depending on the company. The large company reported average annual adjustment costs of EUR 126 735. While manufacturing in line with the essential safety requirements is the biggest adjustment cost factor for the SMEs, accounting for 58% of total adjustment costs, it represents only 7% of the large company’s adjustment costs. For the large company, the design, testing and categorisation of products is the biggest adjustment cost, making up 46% of the total adjustment costs. This is followed by costs for affixing the CE marking (16%), operational costs for traceability and labelling actions (equipment acquisition and implementation of activities) (13%), and adaptation of the design for compliance (11%). For SMEs, the design, testing and categorisation of products is the second biggest adjustment cost, but at 17%, so relatively low compared to the large company. Sample testing, investigations and record-keeping (complaints and non-conforming articles) represent 10% of adjustment costs for SMEs.

In the targeted survey, the responding large manufacturer allocated the largest share (40%) of adjustment costs covered by the question 127 to equipment acquisition and implementation of activities linked to CE marking, labelling and traceability 128 , while 30% of the adjustment costs were attributed to the design and manufacturing of products according to the Directive’s requirements, which was also a significant cost factor for most SMEs responding to the targeted survey. According to five out of seven, it represents 30-40% of adjustment costs. For four of them, it is the largest adjustment cost. Costs for the acquisition of equipment for conformity assessments and the implementation of these assessments also represent a good share of SMEs’ adjustment costs – for five out of seven it accounts for 20-30%. Moreover, for four SMEs, the costs for equipment and activities linked to CE marking, labelling and traceability represent 20-40% of the adjustment costs covered by the question.

Figure 11: Share of adjustment costs for companies by key drivers attributed only to the Pyrotechnics Directive as per cost templates

N=6 (1 large company, 5 SMEs), Source: Technopolis Group, based on cost templates

Administrative costs

All administrative costs linked to compliance with the Pyrotechnics Directive together amount to an average of EUR 16 023 per year for the five SMEs that submitted cost templates, again with a big span from EUR 2 067 to EUR 49 140. The large company incurs on average EUR 220 350 for administrative activities linked to compliance with the Directive. 33% of the SME’s administrative costs result from labelling pyrotechnic articles in accordance with the Directive’s requirements, collecting documentation for conformity assessments accounts for 14% and collaboration with surveillance authorities for 8%. For the large company, producing the technical documentation represents the most significant share of administrative costs, representing 30% of all administrative costs, followed by ensuring correct labelling (16%) and providing safety information in the language of the user (13%).

Figure 12: Share of administrative costs for companies by key drivers attributed only to the Pyrotechnics Directive as per cost templates

N=6 (1 large company, 5 SMEs), Source: Technopolis Group, based on cost templates

In the targeted survey, ensuring correct labelling also emerged as an important driver of administrative costs for SMEs, with six out of eight indicating that it represents between 15-30% of the administrative costs covered by the question 129 130 . Similar shares were attributed to producing the technical documentation 131 and documentary verification of the product’s conformity 132 . The responding large enterprise allocated the largest share (30%) of the administrative costs covered by the question to documentary verification of the product’s conformity. Ensuring correct labelling was also found to be a significant administrative cost, with a 20% share of all administrative costs covered by the question. Only 10% of the large company’s administrative costs went on producing the technical documentation for conformity assessment procedures.

Market surveillance authorities

The two market surveillance authorities (MSAs) that provided cost data spend, on average, EUR 76 388 per year on compliance with the Directive. 73.9% of these costs are linked to enforcement, while adjustment costs represent 18.7% and administrative costs 4.6%. Hassle costs and indirect costs represent 1.3% of total compliance costs, respectively.

Table 3: Average yearly compliance cost for MSAs

N= 2 (market surveillance =2), Source: Technopolis Group, based on cost template

Enforcement costs

The two MSAs incur average enforcement costs of EUR 21 516 and EUR 93 680 per year respectively. Of these costs, 25% are linked to checks and risk assessments (excl. outsourced tests), while communicating non-conformance and market surveillance actions account for 23%. 17% of enforcement costs are attributed to the verification of reports and certificates.

Figure 13: Share of enforcement costs for MSAs by key driver attributed only to the Pyrotechnics Directive as per cost templates

N=2, Source : Technopolis Group, based on cost templates

In the targeted survey, one MSA indicated that laboratory testing represented 30% of all costs covered by the question 133 , while the other two MSAs allocated no costs to this task. Coordination activities, including with expert groups within the Member State, competent authorities and regional authorities and external expert groups (e.g. standardisation bodies, Commission Expert Groups), account for approximately 30% of all presented costs for two out of three MSAs, while one did not provide complete information. Other significant cost factors reported in the survey were costs linked to record-keeping and the maintenance of registers, product recalls, and the training of inspectors 134 .

Adjustment costs

The yearly adjustment costs reported in the cost templates differ significantly between the two MSAs, with one indicating EUR 650 and the other EUR 27 953. As most costs for MSAs can be categorised as enforcement costs, there are only two adjustment cost factors. The familiarisation and training of staff accounts for 75% of adjustment costs, while ensuring that personnel are informed of relevant harmonisation and standardisation activities accounts for 25%.

For the three MSAs participating in the targeted survey, inspectors’ training represents, respectively, 10%, 20% and 30% of the costs covered by the question.

Administrative costs

The annual administrative costs incurred by the two MSAs that filled in the cost templates are EUR 3 626 and EUR 4 977. These are split between record-keeping of surveillance activities (58%) and the collection of documents and evidence and reporting to authorities (42%).

For the three MSAs responding to the targeted survey, administrative costs from receiving, storing and retrieving records account for 10%, 15% and 20%, respectively, of the costs covered by the question, while the maintenance of registers represents 5%, 10% and 20%.

Notified bodies

When looking at the costs for notified bodies (NBs), it needs to be borne in mind that NBs owe their income to the conformity assessment requirement in the Directive. They can also – apart from considerations of competitiveness and proportionality as mandated by the Directive (Article 33(2)) – freely set the price for their assessments to cover their costs. Accordingly, costs directly linked to carrying out conformity assessments are not considered in this section 135 .

On average, the three NBs providing cost data incur EUR 34 895 to comply with the Directive. Adjustment costs account for 64% and administrative costs for 36%. NBs also reported some indirect costs stemming from the Directive. Those notably included the use of external experts for audits and the training and monitoring of those experts to ensure compliance with the Directive. No hassle costs were reported.

Table 4: Average yearly (2015-2022) compliance cost for notified bodies

N=3, Source : own preparation, based on cost templates

Adjustment costs

The NBs’ reported adjustment costs, on average, amount to EUR 22 192 per year. Most of these costs are linked to participation in coordination group meetings (49%). 41% relate to familiarising staff with the essential safety requirements and 10% to the liability insurance

Administrative costs

Administrative costs for the three consulted NBs are on average EUR 12 703 per year. Of these costs, 79% are attributed to (re)accreditation 136 .

Figure 17: Share of administrative costs for NBs by key driver attributed only to the Pyrotechnics Directive as per cost templates

N=3, Source: own preparation, based on cost templates

b)Burden

In light of the Commission’s constant objective to reduce regulatory burden for stakeholders 137 , the efficiency evaluation should also include an assessment of the proportionality of the burden of legal obligations 138 . When asked in the public consultation to what extent certain operative tasks constituted a proportionate burden, one third (4 out of 12) of stakeholders indicated that designing and manufacturing according to the essential safety requirements constituted a proportionate burden to a very large extent, while this was a proportionate burden to a moderate extent for another third (4 out of 12). The operational tasks linked to labelling, CE marking and affixation of the registration number were perceived as proportionate to a moderate extent by 23.1% (3 out of 13) of stakeholders and to a large extent by 15.4% (2 out of 13) and not at all proportionate by another 15.4%. The two ‘not at all’ replies were submitted by companies. Conducting investigations on non-conforming articles in response to requests from public authorities was considered proportionate to a moderate extent by 46.2% (6 out of 13) and to a limited extent by 7.7% (1 out of 13).

Figure 18: Proportionality of the burden of operative tasks

N= 5-20 (depending on the task), Source: own preparation based on the public consultation

Looking at the burden of the different administrative tasks, most stakeholders participating in the public consultation (58.3%, 7 out of 12) perceive the preparation of a technical dossier for conformity assessment applications to be proportionate to a moderate extent. 50% (3 out of 6) of companies shared this view, while 33.3% (2 out of 6) found this task to a large extent proportionate. When it comes to the burden of labelling, stakeholders were divided, with one third (4 out 12) considering it not at all proportionate, while 25% (3 out of 12) said it was to a large extent proportionate. 50% (3 out of 6) of companies selected ‘not at all’; the other half was divided between ‘to a very large extent’ and ‘to a moderate extent’ or preferred not to answer. One company suggested simplifying labelling requirements, such as allowing the use of QR codes to convey safety information digitally, to reduce costs. Supplying the technical information of the pyrotechnic articles to surveillance authorities and economic operators constitutes a proportionate burden to a large extent for 58.3% (7 out of 12) of stakeholders participating in the public consultation. Record-keeping – one of the most cost-intensive administrative tasks for market surveillance authorities – was considered moderately proportionate by 50% (5 out of 10) public authorities, whereas two rated it as proportionate only to a limited extent or not at all.

Figure 19: Proportionality of the burden of administrative and office tasks

N=12-37 (depending on the task), Source: own preparation based on the public consultation

A separate question in the public consultation asked about the burden of the submission of accident data, as required by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1096 139 . Three out of five authorities replied in the public consultation that the regular reporting of pyrotechnic-related accidents represented a significant burden to a moderate (1) or large (2) extent 140 . Moreover, it has emerged from informal discussions with MSAs that the submission of accident data is tying up resources that might be better used for other purposes.

Accident monitoring is important for taking appropriate policy decisions at Member-State and EU level. Without information about the product types involved, the victims and the causes of accidents, it is difficult to draw conclusions and take targeted and proportionate measures. However, considering the difficulty of producing complete, comparable and meaningful accident statistics, due to the different recording practices between Member States and the often unclear causes of the accidents, the proportionality of the mandatory accident reporting in its current form is questionable. In the public consultation, when asked how accident reporting could be improved, multiple responses (4 companies and 2 interest groups / civil societies / business organisations) suggested distinguishing between the use of legal and illegal items and whether they were used properly or improperly. A company highlighted the need for more detailed research into the behavioural aspects of accidents and the importance of collecting comprehensive statistics. A citizen/consumer also suggested an online reporting system for pyrotechnicians.

c)Trends in costs and efficiency gains

Looking at how costs evolved during the evaluation period (i.e. from 2015) can provide an idea of the stakeholders’ financial burden linked to the Directive, but does not allow us to establish a causal relationship between changes in costs and the Directive’s implementation, as other factors, including macro-economic developments, such as increasing energy prices, might also have played a role.

In the targeted survey, economic operators mostly reported that they had experienced cost increases since the Directive was implemented 141 . MSAs and enforcement authorities mainly experienced cost increases or no change 142 . For the participating NBs the costs mainly remained unchanged 143 .

At the same time, a large proportion of stakeholders experienced efficiency gains in their administrative and/or operational activities from complying with the Directive. 27.5% (14 out of 51) of respondents in the targeted survey said that their administrative procedures became more or much more efficient, and 25.5% (13 out of 51) reported improved efficiency in their operative tasks 144 . Only a few stakeholders experienced a decline in their efficiency, including the two responding large manufacturers, one out of twelve SMEs and one out of fourteen MSAs.

d)Benefits

As explained in Section 4.1.1 , the Directive has in many respects achieved its objectives, in particular as regards contributing to increased health and safety and the free movement of pyrotechnic articles on the internal market. In doing so, it has generated a number of benefits for stakeholders and society.

The following direct benefits have been identified in the cost interviews on the cost templates:

·Sustained level of safety: The Directive seems to have contributed to a relatively stable safety level of the pyrotechnic articles on the market. This benefits not only users but also society at large 145 .

·Positive impact on public security: Although security issues remain, stakeholders mostly acknowledge the Directive’s positive impact on public security 146 .

·Improved market access: Companies and NBs report improved access to the single market thanks to the harmonised rules and the CE marking system. They have also experienced advantages on non-EU markets, as CE marking is widely accepted internationally as complying with other markets’ safety requirements 147 .

·Reduction of familiarisation cost: Although the Directive has not entirely harmonised rules across Member States, adapting national laws to the Directive has reduced stakeholders’ costs for familiarisation with legal requirements.

·Cost savings in conformity assessment activities: The harmonisation of conformity assessment procedures has created cost savings for stakeholders.

·Coordination and information exchange: The Directive has facilitated coordination and information exchange between MSAs, NBs and the Commission. Fora like the Forum of Notified Bodies and the AdCo Group are appreciated for providing an opportunity to exchange views on issues encountered during market surveillance and conformity assessments, find solutions and agree on common approaches.

·Traceability: Although it does not allow for item-level tracking, the traceability system for pyrotechnic articles, which requires pyrotechnic articles to be labelled with registration numbers issued by the notified body that carried out the conformity assessment, has made it easier to track pyrotechnic articles throughout the supply chain 148 .

4.1.3.Coherence

The Directive is meant to integrate well into the overall legal and policy framework at EU level, but also at international and national level. Contradictions, overlaps or other tensions with other measures should be avoided and, ideally, synergies created. This is what is understood by ‘external coherence’. At the same time, the various components of the Directive should build upon or complement each other in a logical and meaningful way – the Directive should be ‘internally coherent’. External and internal coherence of the pyrotechnics legislation were assessed for this evaluation and no major points of incoherence were identified.

a)External coherence

The Pyrotechnics Directive operates alongside other EU legislation regulating explosive products or substances, chemicals, or other aspects of consumer or environmental protection.

·Explosives Precursors Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1148) 149

The Explosives Precursors Regulation sets harmonised rules for substances or mixtures that could be misused for the illicit manufacture of explosives. It explicitly excludes from its scope pyrotechnic articles covered by the Pyrotechnics Directive. Before the Explosives Precursors Regulation was adopted in 2019, an impact assessment examined the coherence of the initiative with the existing legal framework, including the Pyrotechnics Directive. It was concluded that, given that they had a different focus in terms of products, the two pieces of legislation were complementary. No major inconsistencies or overlaps were identified 150 . Since then, no coherence issues have been brought to the attention of the Commission and of the 15 stakeholders sharing their opinion on this point in the public consultation, 12 perceived the Pyrotechnics Directive to be highly or moderately coherent with the Explosives Precursors Regulation 151 .

·Marine Equipment Directive (Directive 2014/90/EU) 152

The Marine Equipment Directive applies to equipment placed or to be placed on board an EU ship and for which the approval of the flag State administration is required by international instruments. Pyrotechnic articles, such as signal flares, that meet these criteria are excluded from the scope of the Pyrotechnics Directive and are exclusively subject to the Marine Equipment Directive. A stakeholder participating in the targeted survey pointed to difficulties encountered with the exclusion of marine equipment where national laws required pyrotechnic articles on ships that did not fall under the Marine Equipment Directive, such as small pleasure vessels or fishing boats. In such cases the same products would be considered marine equipment when placed on a ship subject to the Marine Equipment Directive, but P1 or P2 pyrotechnic articles when placed on any other ship. In the case of P2 articles, the Pyrotechnics Directive would require specialist knowledge for people to buy them for their pleasure vessel or fishing boat, but this would not be required for articles intended for use on a ship under the Marine Equipment Directive.

·Civil Explosives Directive (Directive 2014/28/EU) 153

The Civil Explosives Directive regulates materials and articles considered to be explosives in the United Nations recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods and falling within Class 1 of those recommendations. Pyrotechnic articles falling within the scope of Directive 2013/29/EU are explicitly excluded from the Civil Explosives Directive’s scope. At the same time, the Pyrotechnics Directive does not apply to civil explosives under the scope of the Civil Explosives Directive. Legally, there are therefore no overlaps between the two directives. However, in practice, stakeholders report difficulties in distinguishing between the two kinds of products and, therefore, the applicable rules. For instance, high-hazard pyrotechnic articles (e.g. category P2) are extensively used like civil explosives and could be considered as explosives due to their potential risks 154 . Primer caps are another example of products which, according to NBs, do not fit clearly into either category 155 .

·CLP Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008) 156  REACH Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1907/2006) 157

The Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation sets harmonised rules for the classification of substances and mixtures and for the labelling and packaging of hazardous substances and mixtures. Pyrotechnic articles, if classified as explosives under the CLP Regulation, must be labelled and packaged as such in accordance with CLP. Accordingly, pyrotechnic articles under the scope of the Pyrotechnics Directive must comply with the labelling requirements both in the CLP Regulation and in the Directive. While the definition of ‘pyrotechnic article’ in the Directive is almost identical to that in the CLP Regulation, the non-detonative character of the chemical reactions referred to in the CLP definition is not explicitly required by the definition in the Directive 158 . This, however, seems to be a negligible misalignment.

The REACH (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) Regulation regulates the manufacture, placing on the market and use of chemical substances, on their own, in mixtures or in articles to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. REACH applies to substances and mixtures used for pyrotechnic articles.

In the public consultation, out of the 17 stakeholders that shared their opinion, 9 perceived a high coherence between the EU chemicals legislation (CLP and REACH) (see below) and the Directive and 7 a moderate coherence. No concrete coherence issues between the two pieces of legislation and the Pyrotechnics Directive were identified.

·Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) 159

The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) lays down measures to protect the environment and human health from waste, including rules for hazardous waste. It applies to pyrotechnic waste, which falls under the category of ‘explosive’, and therefore hazardous, waste 160 . The Pyrotechnics Directive itself is largely silent on the disposal of pyrotechnic articles. The essential safety requirements only very broadly stipulate that ‘each pyrotechnic article must be designed and manufactured in such a way that it can be disposed of safely by a suitable process with minimum effect on the environment’ 161 . The WFD, therefore, complements the Pyrotechnics Directive, and there do not seem to be contradictions or overlaps between the two directives. It must be noted, however, that it is unclear from the wording in the WFD whether ‘pyrotechnic waste’ only refers to the residues of used pyrotechnic articles or also to expired articles. Expired articles could also be excluded from the scope of the WFD if they were considered ‘decommissioned explosives’ in accordance with Article 2(1)(e) of the WFD.

·Seveso-III Directive (Directive 2012/18/EU) 162

The Seveso-III Directive lays down rules for the prevention of major accidents involving dangerous substances in establishments where such substances are present. It also applies to economic operators in the pyrotechnics sector, if dangerous substances within the scope of the Seveso-III Directive are present in their establishments. The participants in the public consultation mainly (62.2%, 23 out of 37) did not know or preferred not to say whether the Seveso-III Directive and the Pyrotechnics Directive were coherent. However, of the 14 stakeholders that replied, 7 perceived a high coherence, 4 a moderate coherence and 3 a low coherence. No conflicting rules were identified.

·Product Liability Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2853) 163

The Product Liability Directive sets rules on the liability of economic operators for damage suffered by natural persons and caused by defective products and on compensation for such damage. While it applies to pyrotechnic articles accessible to consumers under the scope of the Pyrotechnics Directive, the two directives regulate distinct aspects – safe products vs liability for defective products – and complement each other. The respondents to the public consultation mainly found the two pieces of legislation highly coherent (52.9%, 9 out of 17, of those who expressed their opinion) 164 .

·Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU 165

The EU Counter-Terrorism Agenda seeks to support Member States in better anticipating, preventing, protecting and responding to the terrorist threat. Two of the pillars of the agenda are (i) identifying vulnerabilities and building capacity to anticipate threats and (ii) promoting security by design and reducing vulnerabilities to protect cities and people 166 . The Directive’s stated objective of ensuring a high level of public security is in line with the EU Counter-Terrorism agenda. However, as explained in section  4.1.1.c) , the Directive is currently not sufficiently effective in preventing the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles. Most importantly, the fact that Member States cannot ban or restrict F4 fireworks seems to contradict the agenda’s objective of supporting Member States in anticipating, preventing, protecting and responding to the terrorist threat. The study on the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles commissioned by the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs is looking more closely into EU pyrotechnics policy from a security angle.

·Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) 167 , Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN) and UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 168

The ADR, RID, ADN and the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods set out conditions or recommendations that should be met when dangerous goods are transported. The EU has transposed the ADR, RID and ADN into Directive 2008/68/EC on the inland transport of dangerous goods, which makes them applicable to all transport in the EU, both within and across national borders 169 . Directive 2008/68/EC is complementary to the Pyrotechnics Directive, which does not regulate the transport of pyrotechnic articles.

·National laws and policies

As explained previously, the Directive allows Member State to impose bans or restrictions on certain categories of fireworks and many Member States have made use of this option. The resulting variations between national laws seem to create barriers to the free movement of pyrotechnic articles, undermining the Directive’s objective of creating a single market for these articles. According to 36.8% (25 out of 68) of respondents in the targeted survey, current variations in national rules affect intra-EU flows of pyrotechnic articles negatively or very negatively 170 ,while 32.4% (22 out of 68) observe a negative or very negative effect on the competitiveness of EU companies 171 . Moreover, although 25% (17 out 68) of respondents consider that national rules have positive effects on health and safety and 27.9% (19 out of 68) on public security 172 , the possibility of circumventing national rules via cross-border sales from less-restrictive Member States seems to undermine the Directive’s objective of ensuring high levels of safety and security across the EU 173 .

b)Internal coherence

Half of the 58 respondents to the targeted survey rated internal coherence as moderate and 36.2% (21 out of 58) as high. In fact, only one minor issue was identified in the course of the evaluation, which was also brought up by several stakeholders in the validation workshop in the context of the Technopolis Group study. Articles 8(6) and 12(3) of the Directive stipulate that manufacturers and importers must indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and their postal address on the pyrotechnic article itself ‘or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the pyrotechnic article’. Articles 10 and 11, on the other hand, which set out labelling requirements and reiterate the obligation to provide the information on the manufacturer and importer, do not refer to the possibility of providing this information in a document accompanying the article, but only to it being put on the article itself or its packaging. This creates confusion for manufacturers and importers that are unable to provide the information on the article itself as to the options they have to provide that information in an alternative way.

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, it is important to evaluate whether the EU pyrotechnics legislation has had a positive impact beyond what could have been achieved by the Member States acting alone.

Overall, stakeholders acknowledge the added value of EU-wide rules on pyrotechnic articles. When asked about the expected consequences if the Directive were withdrawn, 51.3% (19 out of 37) of respondents in the public consultation replied that the pyrotechnics sector would be affected negatively, or even very negatively 174 , although most business associations (3 out of 4) considered that it would remain unchanged. The stakeholders supplemented their reply saying that the withdrawal of the Directive would likely lead to more accidents (national and EU enforcement agency), chaos and a lack of control (a professional user), and jeopardise safety and security (MSAs, company, citizen/consumer). At a meeting with the Commission on 19 February 2025, an animal welfare organisation stressed that the fragmentation of national laws would be problematic in terms of protection. On the other hand, a stakeholder responding to the public consultation and identifying as an interest group / civil society / business organisation sees also a positive side to leaving the pyrotechnics rules to the Member States, suggesting that allowing Member States to introduce general bans on fireworks might benefit animal welfare.

Looking at the EU added value of the Directive in relation to its various objectives, respondents to the targeted survey predominantly believe that these objectives could not have been achieved at all (20.7%, 12 out of 58) or only to a low extent (36.2%, 21 out of 58) if Member States had acted alone. However, the public consultation reveals that the EU added value as perceived by stakeholders differs depending on the objective. While the Directive seems to be essential for cross-border trade in the internal market, other objectives, notably the protection of safety and security were not sufficiently supported by the Directive. In fact, Member States acting individually might have achieved better levels of protection at national level, if allowed to take action on safety and security issues with regard to f4 fireworks, which may not be restricted by Member States under the current Directive, thereby limiting their ability to react to related safety and security threats 175 . In an interview, an industry stakeholder mentioned that, without the Directive, Member States could have made faster decisions at national level. 

About 45.9% (17 out of 37) of stakeholders in the public consultation believed that cross-border facilitation related to the supply, trade, and use of pyrotechnics could only have been achieved to a limited extent or could not have been achieved at all in the absence of the Directive. Companies especially expressed this view 176 . In the same vein, 48.6% (18 out of 37) indicated that the reduction in trade barriers could have been achieved only to a limited extent or not at all 177 . The EU added value of the traceability system was also recognised, with 27% (10 out of 37) responding that, in the absence of the Directive, it could have been achieved to a moderate extent, and 32.4% (12 out of 37) considering that it could only have been achieved to a limited extent or not at all 178 .

In turn, as regards the protection of human health and safety, stakeholders said that it could have been achieved to a large (32.4%, 12 out of 37) or moderate (21.6%, 8 out of 37) extent. Notably, 75% (3 out of 4) of business associations responded ‘to a large extent’ and 25% (1 out of 4) ‘to a very large extent’. Similarly, when asked about public security, 24.3% (9 out of 37) answered that it could have been achieved to a large extent and another 24.3% said to a moderate extent 179 .

Overall, these findings suggest that the Directive’s role in harmonising rules is beneficial to the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market, but, in its current form, impedes Member States from taking action on safety and security issues with regard to F4 fireworks at national level. In light of the frequent circumvention of national rules via cross-border (online) sales, a harmonised approach seems however preferable to individual national measures.

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

Under the criterion of relevance, this evaluation looked at the relationship between the scope and objectives of the Pyrotechnics Directive, on the one side, and the current and future needs and problems in relation to pyrotechnic articles in the EU, on the other. As explained in the Better Regulation Toolbox, if an intervention does not help address the current and likely future needs or problems, then it does not matter how effective, efficient or coherent it is, because it may no longer be appropriate 180 .

4.3.1.Relevance of the objectives

In this section, the relevance of the Directive’s objectives in light of current problems and needs is assessed. Stakeholders in the targeted survey mostly believe that the Directive addresses current needs and challenges to some extent, with 39.3% (22 out of 56) responding ‘to a high extent’ and 37.5% (21 out of 56) ‘to a moderate extent’.

a)Free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market (incl. harmonisation of laws and implementation)

As illustrated in section 4.1.1 , Member States’ laws have significantly aligned following the adoption of the Directive, but there are still notable differences, which are not only considered to result in trade barriers, but also to hamper cooperation between MSAs.

In the public consultation, when asked about the extent to which the guaranteeing of the functioning of the internal market is still relevant, 35.1% (13 out of 37) responded ‘to a large extent’, including all four responding business associations, and 24.3% (9 out of 37) said ‘to a moderate extent’. Similarly, in the targeted survey, 38.9% (21 out of 54) of stakeholders replied that the issue of differences between national laws, causing barriers to trade within the Union, was still to a high or very high extent relevant and continued to require action at EU level, while 22.2% (12 out of 54) chose ‘to a moderate extent.’ Here again, industry representatives generally attributed high relevance to this problem 181 .

The objective of ensuring the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market by means of the harmonisation of laws and practices can therefore be considered to be still relevant.

b)Health and Safety

As mentioned in section  3.2 , the numbers of accidents with pyrotechnic articles do not seem to have decreased and the negative impact of substances and noise emitted during explosions are an increasing concern. Moreover, as was explained in section 4.1.1.b ) , non-compliant articles on the market, especially those imported from China, as well as the easy accessibility of high-risk fireworks by non-authorised persons, seem to compromise health and safety. In line with these observations, the respondents to the public consultation predominantly considered the Directive’s objective of ensuring the protection of human health and safety of consumers still relevant, with 32.4% (12 out of 37) responding ‘to a very large extent’ and 27% (10 out of 37) ‘to a large extent’. In the targeted survey, 27.8% (15 out of 54) of respondents said that they consider the presence of non-compliant or dangerous products on the market to be relevant to a low extent, including both responding large manufacturers, all three responding importers and three out of six industry organisations 182 . However, 22.2% (12 out of 54) of all stakeholders considered the problem relevant to a high extent, 20.4% (11 out of 54) to a moderate extent and 18.5% (10 out of 54) to a very high extent.

Overall, health and safety risks linked to pyrotechnic articles are still a common concern for most stakeholders, and thus a relevant objective of the Directive. 54.1% (20 out of 37) of respondents in the public consultation believe that minimising the number of unsafe pyrotechnic articles on the market, and the safety and accessibility of bigger and more powerful pyrotechnics to the public should be further addressed by the Directive in the future.

c)Security

Security concerns linked to pyrotechnic articles such as illegal trade and criminal misuse, which were not of major relevance when the 2007 Directive was adopted, nor during the recast in 2013, have become more and more pressing in recent years, as shown in section  3.3 .  Accordingly, the majority of respondents in the public consultation considered the objective of ensuring public security still relevant to a large extent (37.8% (14 out of 37)) or very large extent (21.6% (8 out of 37)). In the open responses, an enforcement agency and a national government authority shared their concern that, despite progress in restricting pyrotechnics access to non-authorised individuals, these items were still misused in criminal activities due to inefficiencies in the current authorisation systems. A company and a market surveillance authority stated that they considered public security not adequately addressed by the Directive.

In conclusion, it becomes apparent that the objective of public security has become even more relevant than it was when the Directive was adopted. Accordingly, controls to prevent access to pyrotechnic articles by malicious actors is a concern that, according to 54.1% (20 out of 37) of stakeholders in the public consultation, should be further addressed in the future 183 . Moreover, 56.8% (21 out of 37) of respondents believe that proportionate enforcement and penalties to prevent illicit possession, misuse, and thefts of pyrotechnic articles should be further addressed by the Directive in the future.

d)Environmental protection

As explained in section 3.4 , the detrimental effects of pyrotechnic articles on wildlife and pets and the contamination of soil, air and water with chemical substances and plastics are concerns that have been expressed more and more vocally in recent years. In the public consultation, 35.1% (13 out of 37) of stakeholders deem the consideration of aspects related to environmental protection to a large or very large extent still relevant, while 29.7% (11 out of 27) find it relevant to a moderate extent. Moreover, animal protection and environmental impacts were raised by two non-governmental organisations and a citizen, respectively, in their responses to the open question, as topics that are currently not sufficiently addressed.

Against this background, the objective of environmental protection seems to be even more relevant than at the time when the Directive was adopted. In fact, only about a third of participants to the public consultation considered that greener and more sustainable chemical compositions for pyrotechnic articles (including compostability and plastic pollution) and animal welfare were currently addressed by the Directive, while almost half expressed their wish that these issues be further addressed in the future 184 . The relevance of environmental protection from the impacts of fireworks should also be considered in the light of new developments in the area of entertainment, such as light and drone shows, which have been gaining popularity and seem to have less environmental impact.

4.3.2.Relevance with regard to other priorities/challenges

In the public consultation, stakeholders were also asked to what extent the technical developments were currently addressed by the Directive. In that regard, online trade emerged as a topic that is considered relevant to be further addressed for pyrotechnics in the future, with 51.4% (19 out of 37) stakeholders sharing this view, including seven out of ten public authorities. In relation to pyrotechnics containing digital components that are exposed to new risks (e.g. software malfunctioning, cyberattacks), 27% (10 out of 37) of stakeholders considered that this concern should be further addressed in the future, 2.7% (1 out of 37) said that it is currently addressed, while 70.3% (26 out of 37) responded ‘Do now know/prefer not to say’.

Among other concerns, the need to increase the competitiveness of EU companies was considered to be currently addressed by 35.1% (13 out of 37) of respondents to the public consultation, while 27% (10 out of 37) responded that this should be further addressed in the future. As regards, the Member States’ flexibility to authorise the use of pyrotechnics for traditional celebrations, processions, etc., 32.4% (12 out of 37) responded that this concern should be further addressed in the future, and 27% (10 out of 37) considered that it was currently addressed.

4.3.3.Relevance of the scope

After having assessed the Directive’s relevance in terms of objectives, this sub-section will look more closely at the Directive’s current scope and whether it is still relevant. According to 64.8% (48 out of 74) of the respondents to the targeted survey, it is still relevant 185 .

Relevance of product coverage

Some issues were raised with regard to the delineation of scope set out in Article 2 of the Directive. According to paragraph 2(a) of that Article, pyrotechnic articles intended for non-commercial use by the armed forces, the police or fire departments do not fall under the scope of the Directive. However, outside the context of the evaluation, Member States and industry have approached the Commission via email, in AdCo group meetings and meetings of the Forum of Notified Bodies to clarify from which point in the supply chain does the Directive not apply to a product that will eventually be used by the public security forces. The question was also raised in the targeted survey. It is especially relevant when one or several intermediate companies are involved that manufacture final pyrotechnic articles not only for use by public security forces, but also for commercial use. The Commission services outlined their understanding of the matter in a document presented at the Commission Expert Group meeting on 18 March 2025, explaining that, while the exemption is not limited to direct sales to public security forces, it does not necessarily apply to the whole supply chain and a case-by-case assessment of the situation is needed.

Some stakeholders in the targeted survey, the public consultation and the interviews noted that some pyrotechnic articles, such as heavy flash bangers, posed similar risks to civil explosives and should therefore fall under the Civil Explosives Directive or be subject to similar rules. Moreover, the exclusion of pyrotechnic articles intended for use in the aerospace industry was mentioned as problematic by two stakeholders in the targeted survey, as those articles were not excluded from the Civil Explosives Directive and, therefore, also low-risk explosive aviation components had to follow the strict traceability and transfer systems for civil explosives. When asked about products that were currently covered by the Directive but should rather be excluded from its scope, a professional user participating in the public consultation suggested excluding smoke devices. In turn, participants in the targeted survey proposed including equipment mimicking a pyrotechnic effect, ammunition-like articles, sparkle machines, maritime equipment and pyrotechnic substances.

Relevance of provisions

The provisions of the Directive are still to a very high or high extent relevant across almost all areas of intervention, according to most stakeholders sharing their views in the public consultation 186 . Nevertheless, some stakeholders criticised certain provisions or made suggestions.

As mentioned in section  4.1.1.b ) , the 1 m safety distance for F1 articles is not considered appropriate. Moreover, a small number of stakeholders interviewed in the Study on the illegal sales of F4 fireworks called for EU-wide limits to the net explosive content in F4 fireworks 187 . In a non-paper addressed to the Commission in late 2024, France and the Netherlands went even further to consider an EU-wide limit on the amount of gunpowder and flash powder necessary also for F3, T1, T2, P1 and P2 articles, for which there was no maximum content defined in the Directive 188 .

Stakeholders suggested that a number of aspects not currently covered by the provisions of the Directive should, in their view, be included. An enforcement agency, a professional user and two interest groups / civil society / business organisations proposed including common rules for storage. Animal welfare considerations should be covered according to two interest groups / civil society / business organisations. According to some respondents, the Directive should also regulate the transfer of articles (other, interest group / civil society / business organisation, and MSA), and harmonise requirements for online sales and professional certifications (other). Stricter rules on emissions (company) and better consumer awareness campaigns (interest group / civil society / business organisation and professional user) are also considered necessary. Finally, a mandatory authorisation system for the free movement of pyrotechnic articles within the EU was called for by a notifying authority 189 .

5.1.Conclusions

Based on the above assessment and by drawing on different data sources and expertise, certain conclusions can be made on the overall performance of the Pyrotechnics Directive in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. It should be remembered, however, that data available for the assessment of efficiency was limited and rather difficult to correctly classify into the appropriate cost category and, as regards the benefits, impossible to quantify.

Where the conclusions do not differentiate between different categories of pyrotechnic articles, they are valid for all, including for pyrotechnic articles for use in vehicles. With regard to pyrotechnic articles for use in vehicles, no specific concerns or shortcomings were identified in the course of the evaluation.

5.1.1.Effectiveness

The Directive has to a large extent achieved its objectives. In particular, it contributed to the free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market and the protection of health and safety. However, its positive effects on security and environmental protection have been more limited.

Free movement of pyrotechnic articles in the internal market: Despite persistent differences between Member States’ laws, intra-EU trade in pyrotechnic articles has increased since the Directive was adopted and a large share of stakeholders participating in the public consultation believe that the objective of guaranteeing the functioning of the internal market has been achieved.

Health and safety: Although the lack of comprehensive and comparable data prevents us from drawing very clear conclusions on the Directive’s contribution to health and safety, it has become clear that there are persistent health and safety issues. The essential safety requirements, especially for categories F1, F4 and P1, do not seem sufficient to ensure the safety of users, bystanders and, in the event of criminal misuse, society at large. Moreover, non-compliance rates are still very high, despite a general perception among stakeholders that the quality of conformity assessments and market surveillance have improved thanks to the Directive. Concerns remain, in particular, with regard to imported fireworks and the accessibility of high-risk pyrotechnics to consumers. Moreover, differences in market surveillance practices and difficulties in cross-border cooperation between market surveillance authorities seem to hamper the enforcement of safety requirements.

Security: The Directive has not effectively prevented security threats related to pyrotechnic articles. Pyrotechnic articles are increasingly used for criminal purposes, e.g. to attack first-responders and law enforcement personnel and to break open ATMs, but also for organised crime. This is possible because the Directive does not effectively prevent the diversion of legally manufactured pyrotechnic articles. Moreover, the traceability system set up by the Directive does not allow item-level tracking, making it difficult to trace back to which point in the supply chain an article was diverted. At the same time, illegally manufactured pyrotechnic articles are traded on the black market. Enforcement and penalties seem insufficient to effectively deter illegal behaviour, especially considering that illegal behaviour involving pyrotechnic articles is often subject to lighter penalties than that committed with explosives or weapons.

Environmental protection: The Pyrotechnics Directive does not fully ensure the protection of the environment from the negative effects of pyrotechnic articles. Environmental pollution and animal welfare were mentioned by stakeholders as not being adequately addressed by the Directive.

5.1.2.Efficiency

Bearing in mind the limited available cost data, it can cautiously be concluded that the Directive is, overall, operating efficiently.

Costs have increased for most stakeholders but, overall, still seem to be proportionate – they are equivalent to a proportionate share of companies’ turnover, although the burden for SMEs seems to be bigger than for large companies. Most stakeholders have also experienced improved efficiency of processes and tasks thanks to the Directive. Harmonised rules have reduced costs for familiarisation with legal requirements and for conformity assessments and facilitated market access. Stakeholders also benefit from improved coordination and information exchange and enhanced traceability of pyrotechnic articles. Costs due to conformity with the essential safety requirements, including design, manufacturing and assessment, seem proportionate, in particular in light of the safety benefit they bring.

The Directive has led to a certain burden reduction, as tasks and procedures can be carried out more efficiently. Most obligations are perceived by stakeholders to be proportionate and seem essential for achieving the Directive’s objectives. Some potential for further burden reduction could be identified in relation to the labelling of pyrotechnic articles and record-keeping obligations, which create significant costs for stakeholders and are by some considered disproportionate. In the same vein, the mandatory accident reporting by authorities, in its current form, is tying up authorities’ resources, while not bringing the expected benefits.

5.1.3.Coherence

The Directive is coherent with other relevant EU legislation, but, with its limited focus on security and environmental protection, the Directive does not seem to fully support broader EU policies, in particular the EU Counter-Terrorism Agenda. Internationally, the Directive is complemented by international agreements and recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods. As regards coherence with national laws and policies, it must be noted that the Directive does not allow Member States to further restrict F4 fireworks, which is not in line with some Member States’ security priorities.

In terms of internal coherence, only a minor inconsistency between labelling provisions has been identified, potentially leading to confusion or misunderstandings as to whether certain information can be provided in a document accompanying the article.

5.1.4.EU added value

The Directive has had an added value compared to what could have been achieved by the Member States acting alone. The results from the targeted survey suggest that, while the Directive seems to be essential for cross-border trade in the internal market, the objectives of protecting safety and security were not sufficiently supported by the Directive, meaning that Member States acting individually might have achieved better higher levels of protection at national level. In light of circumvention of national rules via cross-border sales, a harmonised approach seems, however, preferable to individual national measures.

5.1.5.Relevance

The Directive’s objectives of ensuring the free movement of pyrotechnic articles on the internal market via the harmonisation of laws and the protection of health and safety, security and the environment are still relevant in light of current needs and problems. However, some of the objectives have become more relevant in recent years. Given the rise in illegal activities committed with pyrotechnic articles, the security objective seems even more important than ever. Similarly, environmental protection seems to have become more relevant since the Directive was adopted, also in light of emerging and possibly more environmentally-friendly alternatives, such as light and drone shows. The technological advancements made since the Directive was adopted are also not sufficiently addressed at present, notably online trade and pyrotechnics containing digital components.

A few concerns about clarity and scope have emerged. These relate to the exemption of articles intended for use by public security forces, and the exclusion of articles for use in the aerospace industry. Moreover, in some cases, the delineation between civil explosives and pyrotechnic articles has proven to be challenging or inappropriate. Stakeholders are missing provisions on storage, animal welfare, transfer, online sales, professional certifications, emissions and consumer awareness.

5.2. Lessons learned

The evaluation shed light on those aspects of the Directive that are working well but also revealed problems and gaps.

The main achievements of the Directive are:

·The free movement of pyrotechnic articles on the internal market through harmonised conformity assessment procedures and the alignment of national laws;

·Essential safety requirements for pyrotechnic articles across the EU;

·Increased cooperation and information sharing between and among market surveillance authorities, notified bodies and the Commission.

However, there are significant shortcomings which compromise the Directive’s contribution to safety, security and environmental protection, as detailed below.

·Accessibility of dangerous fireworks: The Directive allows for the production of pyrotechnic articles with a net explosive content that exceeds even professional users’ needs. At the same time, it does not sufficiently prevent such articles from being used by unauthorised users, and even by criminals. Although this is also a question of enforcing existing rules properly, a harmonised system for the verification of the required specialist knowledge would facilitate more effective checks and help prevent abuse, notably online. Another way of intentionally or unintentionally circumventing the strict rules for F4 fireworks is miscategorisation into the less stringent P1 or P2 categories. In addition to the risk from F4 fireworks, the broad availability of other dangerous consumer fireworks results in severe accidents and poses a security threat.

·National restrictions: Most Member States have made use of the possibility to introduce bans or restrictions on F2 and F3 fireworks, theatrical pyrotechnic articles and other pyrotechnic articles. While it is important to tackle risks that are not considered to be sufficiently addressed by the Directive, this national discretion prevents laws from being fully harmonised and can cause trade barriers. At the same time, national restrictions can be easily circumvented by buying pyrotechnic articles across the border or online. On the other hand, because Member States cannot restrict F4 fireworks, the safety and security risks from such fireworks cannot be adequately addressed.

·Mail order sales: The existing framework is not designed to address the risks related to common online sales practices, mostly taking the form of mail order sales. The lack of physical contact between the distributor and the buyer means that the rules can be circumvented, particularly the age verification or specialist knowledge requirements, but also national restrictions. Moreover, the illegal postal shipment of pyrotechnic articles in regular parcels poses risks to postal services staff and other persons.

·Traceability: The lack of unique identification numbers, as required for civil explosives, makes it impossible to trace individual pyrotechnic articles throughout the supply chain, which could, however, be helpful for law enforcement and market surveillance. Moreover, even high-risk pyrotechnic articles, with risks similar to civil explosives, can be transferred across the EU without any procedural requirements, such as approval from the destination and transit states.

·Pollution and animal welfare: The essential safety requirements do not sufficiently account for environmental protection. Although they will be supported by harmonised standards, a stronger focus especially on pollution and animal welfare seems warranted in light of contemporary concerns and the EU’s environmental ambitions.

Lead DG, Decide reference and, if relevant, Work Programme reference

DG for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

Agenda planning/ Work programme reference: PLAN/2022/1203

Organisation and timing

After it had been politically validated, the work on the evaluation started with the drafting of the terms of reference for the external study in support of the evaluation and the creation of the Interservice Steering Group (ISSG) in the last quarter of 2022. The first ISSG took place on 6 December 2022. The contract with the Economisti Associati SRL consortium for the external study was signed in October 2023 for an initially planned duration of ten months which, in May 2024, was extended by an additional three months. The ISSG was involved in all steps of the evaluation starting from the terms of reference, the consultation strategy and the call for evidence, and continuing throughout the duration of the public and targeted surveys, and the supporting study until the finalisation of the Staff Working Document. In total, the ISSG met seven times (06/12/22, 14/03/23, 12/12/23, 31/05/24, 01/10/24, 18/11/24 and 05/05/25).

Evidence used together with sources and any issues regarding its quality (i.e. has the information been quality assured?)

The evaluation mainly used information gathered through various stakeholder consultation activities but also studies, reports, academic and grey literature (e.g. non-papers) and statistical data from different databases, where available. Availability of cost data was very limited, and the market analysis was compromised by a lack of disaggregated data and data missing for some years within the evaluation period. Quality was assured through triangulation of information from different sources and validation of findings in the stakeholder validation workshop. A more detailed outline of the methodology can be found in Annex II .

Use of external expertise

Technopolis Group, supported by Milieu, Wavestone and Intellera, produced a supporting study. The study consulted external experts on Task 1 (Design of the methodology), Task 2 (Collection of Information and data), and Task 4 (Answer to evaluation questions and conclusions). The external experts involved in the study were Ineris and the law firm Kanzlei Wübbe. The legal expert from Kanzlei Wübbe primarily contributed to the analysis of transposition and implementation, as well as the coherence aspect of the evaluation. Ineris provided technical guidance and feedback to the evaluation team on multiple evaluation criteria across the study.

The evaluation was supported by an external study carried out by Technopolis Group, supported by Milieu, Wavestone and Intellera. The contractor carried out most of the data collection activities and data analysis and organised a stakeholder workshop. DG GROW and the ISSG closely monitored the contractor’s work from the inception phase until the final report. Consultation questionnaires were discussed and refined before their dissemination. The deliverables, notably the final report, underwent several rounds of commenting and revisions, to improve their quality.

1.Data collection activities

The evaluation relied on information from a variety of sources:

Desk research: Academic literature, grey literature (e.g. study reports, position papers, meeting minutes, contributions and documents shared by stakeholders) and official documents (e.g. legislation, Commission Communications, Council decision) were consulted to gather information, mainly on three areas of the evaluation:

·The transposition of the Directives by Member States and their implementation;

·The market structure analysis in the EU as well as trends in intra-EU and extra-EU trade;

·The key contextual developments and trends.

All sources are listed in a bibliography at the end of this Annex.

In addition, data for the market structure 190  analysis was retrieved from the Eurostat Structural Business Statistics (SBS). The market structure analysis encompasses the entire European ‘Manufacture of explosives’ sector, which includes both civil explosives and pyrotechnics, because they fall under the same NACE division. Data was available for the period from 2008 to 2022. Moreover, data is missing on some indicators for some years, which affects the continuity and completeness of the analysis. Data for the market size 191  analysis was taken from Prodcom, covering the period from 2003 to 2022, as records on pyrotechnic products for most Member States and the EU aggregate are missing from 1995 to 2002 in the Prodcom dataset. Pyrotechnic articles in vehicles were not covered, because they are not categorised separately in the Prodcom data base. The trade analysis 192 is based on data from the Eurostat Standard International Trade Classification (STIT) from 1999 to 2024. However, some data from reporting countries was unavailable which may affect the completeness of analysis.

Call for evidence: With a  call for evidence , published in all EU languages on the Commission ‘Have your say’ from 4 May to 1 June 2023, the Commission gathered preliminary reactions from stakeholders on the main elements of the initiative. In total, feedback from 20 stakeholders was received: nine public authorities, four EU citizens, three companies/businesses, two non-governmental organisations, one business organisation and one person.

Targeted survey: A targeted survey, launched on 15 March 2024 gathered specialists’ views across different categories of stakeholders on all evaluation questions. The survey consisted of 110 questions structured in five sections: 1) national transposition of the Directive; 2) socio-economic context; 3) implementation of the Directive’s provisions; 4) overall assessment of the Directive; 5) suggestions for improvement. To take account of the different areas of competence of the potential respondents, the survey included different question paths adapted to the different respondent types (economic operators, notified bodies, accreditation bodies, notifying authorities, etc.).

The survey was deployed in English, using the tool Medalia 193 and took approximately 45 min to complete. The survey was distributed to all stakeholders identified through the mapping process (approx. 200 stakeholders). Multipliers were employed to further disseminate the survey, including the chair of the Pyrotechnics AdCO and industry organisations such as EuFias and SFEPA. The contractor aimed at balanced representation across Member States and stakeholder types. Tailored reminders were sent to specific stakeholder groups as corrective measures. Responses were closely monitored on a bi-weekly basis to ensure diversity. Weekly reminders were also sent to selected stakeholders to boost response rates and encourage completion of the survey.

Initially, the survey was set to be open for four weeks (i.e. mid April 2024). However, to accommodate stakeholders’ needs for sufficient time to collect relevant data, often involving coordination across various departments within organisations due to the extensive nature of the survey and the large number of questions, the deadline was extended until the end of May 2024. In total, 80 answers were received, most of which from market surveillance authorities (24%). For many questions, a high percentage of respondents (sometimes exceeding 40% for specific questions) selected the ‘Do not know/prefer not to answer’. This trend was particularly evident in questions related to environmental protection, the situation before the implementation of the previous directive, and questions requiring factual information, such as accident frequency and health and safety issue. Stakeholders cited the lack of available data or aggregated tracking systems in their Member States as reasons why they could not answer. Other factors might have been the historic focus of some questions and stakeholder fatigue due to the various consultation activities stakeholders were invited to.

Public consultation: A public consultation  was held from 8 April to 1 July 2024 on ‘Have your Say’. It included a questionnaire with closed and open questions, which the wide public was invited to fill in, in order to reach a broad range and large number of stakeholders. The consultation aimed to validate the topics and issues covered by the evaluation, gather information, data and experience on the implementation of the Pyrotechnics Directive, solicit views and opinions of stakeholders on the extent to which this Directive has met its objectives, and gather views on the Directive’s relevance, taking into account social developments. In total, 37 answers were collected, most of them from EU citizens and public authorities (approx. 30 % each).

Interviews: The contractor, in total, conducted 48 interviews. A smaller number of ‘scoping interviews’ took place in the inception phase of the study in the form of exploratory interviews. This allowed the study team to obtain necessary and relevant information at an early stage, so as to further develop the intervention logic, that ultimately also fed into the questionnaires and interview guides for the remaining stakeholders to be consulted. In addition, some key sources of information to be considered in the desk research were identified and suggestions for potential topics to address via the case studies were collected.

The majority of interviews were conducted in the main phase of the study, in the form of ‘study interviews’, which covered some key trends and findings that emerged from the desk research and the survey in more depth and/or filled some information gaps. These also comprised interviews on the eleven completed cost templates that were received.

The interviewees were identified through a comprehensive mapping of actors in each category, using existing contact information from the European Commission (e.g., notified bodies, competent authorities, market surveillance authorities) and other information available online. This process also included members of the Expert Group and contacts provided following pilot interviews. Additionally, some interviewees were identified through the survey, which included a question allowing respondents to indicate their contact details for follow-up interviews. Lastly, some interviewees reached out directly to the contractor by email after learning about the study through the Expert Group.

The interviews used semi-structured questionnaires covering the core analytical themes selected and issues of interest for deeper analysis, with flexibility to probe responses and to explore issues that emerge during discussion. The interviews included strategic questions and operational questions and were tailored to the different types of interviewees. The interviews were conducted via MS-Teams. The interviews were undertaken in English, and, where possible, in the national language (some interviews were conducted in French or Spanish upon request).

Cost templates: Templates were circulated to administrations and economic operators for the quantification/monetisation of costs. Different cost templates were used for economic operators (manufacturers), notified bodies and market surveillance authorities. Stakeholders were asked for estimations of costs and shares of costs across different cost categories (adjustment costs, administrative costs, indirect costs…) and whether those are one-off or recurrent as well as for information about the number of full-time equivalents dedicated to compliance with the Directive. Despite the contractor’s efforts, only eleven cost templates were completed by stakeholders.

Case studies: Two case studies were carried out in the context of the study with the aim to examine relevant aspects of the evaluation more in-depth.

·Case Study 1: Challenges and measures to tackle the illicit use of pyrotechnic articles in the Netherlands and in France – hooliganism and riots

·Case study 2: The use of pyrotechnics in the automotive industry

Summaries of these case studies can be found in Annex V II I .

2.Data analysis

All collected data was analysed by the contractor using the indicators and judgment criteria from the evaluation matrix (see Annex I II ) and information from different sources combined and compared (‘triangulation’). 

Responses from the public consultation and the targeted survey were statistically analysed to identify trends and patterns. Qualitative insights from interviews complemented these findings with context and details. More information on the methodology used to process consultation data can be found in the synopsis report in Annex V .

For market structure analysis, the contractor used the following indicators:

Table 5: Indicators for the market structure analysis

Source : Structural Business Statistics glossary and metadata

The market size of the European pyrotechnics industry is evaluated using the value of sold production of pyrotechnic products manufactured in the EU and placed on both EU and global markets. The analysis does not include pyrotechnic articles in vehicles, which are not categorised separately in the Prodcom dataset.

For the trade analysis, the contractor used the following indicators:

Table 6: Indicators for the trade analysis

Information and findings from the study were checked and complemented for the purpose of this Staff Working Document.

3.Bibliography

Documents from public authorities

Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions concerning the need to prevent and counter the use of pyrotechnics in spectator areas of football stadia and other sports venues , 13 October 2022, 13370/22

European Commission, Evaluation study of Pyrotechnics and Civil Explosives Legislation (Directive 2013/29/EU, Commission Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU, and Directive 2014/28/EU, Commission Implementing Directive 2008/43/EC and Commission Decision 2004/388/EC), Final Report, Technopolis Group in collaboration with Milieu, Wavestone, and Intellera, 2025

European Commission, A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification , European Commission 2024-2029, 2024 

European Commission, Better regulation toolbox 2023

European Commission, Commission Notice. The ‘ Blue Guide ’ on the implementation of EU product rules 2022, (2022/C 247/01)

European Commission, Evaluation of the New Legislative Framework , SWD(222) 365 final, 2022

European Commission, Study of conformity in all EU countries on EU pyrotechnics and explosives legislation. Final Report, EY Law, 2022

European Commission, , 2021

European Commission, Group of Experts on Pyrotechnic Articles, Categorisation of pyrotechnic articles intended for entertainment purposes, 2021

European Commission, Communication from the Commission, , COM(2020) 795 final, 2020

European Commission, Study on illegal sales of pyrotechnic articles destined for professional users (category F4) to the general public. , Oxford Research A/S (Denmark), 2019

European Commission, accompanying the document proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, SWD(2018) 104 final, 2018

European Commission, F4 Flash Bangers in EU Member States, Study on production, import and use in the EU of high risk pyrotechnic articles categorised F4 according to Directive 2007/23/EC and Directive 2013/29/EU. Final Report, DJS Research Ltd, 2016

European Commission, Reducing security risks of pyrotechnic articles in the EU A study on the security risks related to the handling of large amounts of pyrotechnic articles and on ways to mitigate these risks. Final Report, DHV B.V., 2012

European Commission, accompanying the 10 proposals to align product harmonisation directives to Decision No 768/2008/EC, New Legislative Framework (NLF) Alignment Package (Implementation of Goods Package), SEC(2011) 1375 final, 2011

European Commission, for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles (Recast), Explanatory Memorandum, COM(2011) 764 final, 2011

European Commission, for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, COM(2005) 457 final, Explanatory Memorandum, 2005

Europol, . The large and highly explosive fireworks were stored in barns and bunkers that did not conform to mandatory safety standards, 9 November 2022

Europol, , 2019

French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing, Fireworks Accident Analysis , 2012, pp. 2-4.

Government of the Netherlands/République Francaise, Modify the Pyro Directive to Protect Public Order and Safety, A collaborative non-paper between the Netherlands and France, 2024

Rijksoverheid, Improving the product conformity of pyrotechnic articles within the European Union , 14/03/2024

Scottish Government, Director-General Education and Justice, , 2020

Spanish Guardia Civil, Weapons and Explosives Central Inspectorate Report on the Seizure in Public Areas of Counterfeit and Illegally Manufactured Pyrotechnics, 2025

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, , 2022

United Nations, , Model Regulations, Volume I, Twenty-first revised edition, 2019

Ursula von der Leyen, Europe’s choice, Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029 , 2024

Ursula von der Leyen, Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024 , 2019

UK Government, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, , 2014

Secondary literature

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Fireworks Can Cause Permanent Hearing Loss, But Simple Steps Can Prevent Harm This July 4th , 24 June 2024

Aufauvre, L. (2006), New Trends for Pyrotechnic Automotive Safety in the European Union , 33. International Pyrotechnics Seminar (IPS 2006), 2006, 509-512

Bateman et al., Not just a flash in the pan: short and long term impacts of fireworks on the environment , Pacific Conservation Biology 29:5, 2023, 396-401

Buffet, F.-N., Rapport d’information fait au nom de la commission des lois constitutionnelles, de législation, du suffrage universel, du Règlement et d’administration générale, investie des pouvoirs d’une commission d’enquête, sur les émeutes survenues à compter du 27 juin 2023, 2024

Camilleri, R., Vella J., Emission Factors for Aerial Pyrotechnics and Use in Assessing Environmental Impact of Firework Displays : Case Study from Malta, Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 41:2, 2015, 273-280

CLEPA, Fleet vehicles capture larger share of the EU aftermarket, 2023

CLEPA, New technologies for green and digital mobility take first prize at the CLEPA Innovation Awards 2022 , 14 October 2022

CLEPA, Innovation in the Automotive Supply Industry , 2019

Collins, M., The Environmental Impact of Fireworks: Celebrations and Consequences , E+E Leader, 2 July 2024

Deutschmann, C.W., Pyromechanic actuators increase safety for passengers and pedestrians , ATZ Worldwide 109, 7-8

Espina, Z., PH records 8 new fireworks-related injuries; 1st noise-induced hearing loss case reported , Manila Bulletin, 29 December 2023

Garaliu-Bușoi et al., Evaluation of the effects produced by triggering pyrotechnic articles for automotive use by exposure to various hazardous external stimuli , MATEC Web of Conferences 389:00021, 2024

Górniak et al., The Numerical Simulation of the Pyrotechnic Actuator for the Active Bumper , Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport 19, 2012, 141-147

Hartmann, I., Silvester war Nacht der Panik für Hunde in Bad Kreuznach , SWR, 1 January 2025

Herwijnen et al., Firework aversion in cats and dogs as reported by Dutch animal owners , Veterinary and Animal Science 26:100402, 2024

Hickey, C., Gordon, C., Galdanes, K. et al., Toxicity of particles emitted by fireworks . Part Fibre Toxicology 17:28, 2020, 7-11

Hoekstra et al., Fireworks disturbance across bird communities , Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 22:1, 2024, e2694

Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, Richtlijn Termijn Stadionverbod Seizoen 2023/’24

Kukulsky, B., Wszolek, T., Mleczko, D., The Impact of Fireworks Noise on the Acoustic Climate in Urban areas , Archives of Acoustics, 43:4, 2018, 697-705

Macneal et al., High numbers of firework related injury referrals to the London Burns Service during the recent ‘Bonfire night’ period, is it time for new regulations? , Burns 44, 2018, 1011–1023

Magliocco, S., ‘Distraught’ family makes heartfelt Halloween plea after death of cat due to firework fright , RSVP Live, 29 October 2024Matussek, K., Germany Is Europe’s Prime Target for Audacious ATM Bombings , Bloomberg, 12 August 2024

MDR SACHSEN, Zwei Todesfälle in Sachsen: Deshalb sind Kugelbomben so gefährlich , 5 January 2025

Prasuła, P. et al., Safety Risks Posed by Pyrotechnic Materials , Issues of Armament Technology 165:3, 2023

Purdue University , Fireworks are fun for the eyes, dangerous for the ears, says Purdue audiology expert , 26 June 2018

Radeanu et al., Evaluation of the safety quality of automotive pyrotechnic articles following their exposure to triaxial vibrations with predetermined thermal conditioning cycles , MATEC Web of Conferences 389:0054, 2024

Shamoun-Baranes et al., Birds flee en mass from New Year’s Eve fireworks , Behavioural Ecology 22:6, 2011, 1173-1177

Sijimol, M.R./Mohan, M., Environmental impacts of perchlorate with special reference to fireworks—a review , Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186, 2014, 7203-7210

UEFA, Pyrotechnics in Stadia: Health and Safety issues relating to the use of pyrotechnics in football stadia , 2016

Ulbricht, J., Doberentz, E. & Madea, B., Death on New Year’s Eve caused by illegal fireworks—a firework shell , Forensic Sci Med Pathol 20, 2024, 205–211

Wolsink, J. et al., Van voetbalrellen leren: Een onderzoek naar modern voetbalgeweld en de tekortkomingen van en kansen voor de aanpak’ , Bureau Beke, 202

The table below presents the evaluation matrix. For each key evaluation question, it presents sub-questions, judgement criteria, and indicators, as well as relevant data and information sources and assessment methods.