Introduction
The undersigned, an entrepreneur active in the fireworks sector, hereby responds to notification 2025/0307/NL, submitted by the Netherlands on 17 June 2025, concerning the amendment to the “Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk” (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks).
In the explanatory notes to this amendment, the Dutch government asserts that there was "early communication with the sector." However, as an independent company not affiliated with any trade association, we observe that at no point prior to this TRIS notification were we informed by the government, a representative consultation body, or the market surveillance authority about the concrete content of the proposed amendments. This is particularly true for the complete ban on whistle and whirl compositions and the strict 5% threshold for burst charges, which together effectively prohibit mesh packaging. These changes have a profound impact on our operations and on the sector as a whole.
We are aware of a cabinet response dated 9 September 2024 to the report “Learning from Two Firework Disasters”, in which it was announced that the use of mesh packaging might be restricted. However, in the same letter, the government explicitly stated:
"Before I make a decision, I want to be extensively informed by civil servants about the facts and consequences."
Following this reservation, no further public or targeted communication was issued regarding the nature or scope of the changes now proposed. Notably, the ban on whistle and whirl compositions was not mentioned in the cabinet’s response of September 2024.
Moreover, the explanatory notes to the TRIS notification refer to several RIVM reports (references VLH-2025-0015, VLH-2025-0024, and VLH-2025-0033), on which the measure is partly based. However, these reports were not made publicly available at the time of submission. Despite repeated requests, we were informed by the RIVM that the reports could not be shared with us, and we were referred to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. There, we were told that the reports “will be published together with the Fireworks Policy Letter” and “will be sent to Parliament before the summer recess.” However, at the time of this response (14 July 2025), the summer recess has already commenced, and the reports remain inaccessible. This obstructs a substantive and legal assessment by stakeholders.
We therefore consider it of utmost importance that our objections, both factual and legal, are still taken into account in the evaluation of this technical regulation. In the following sections, we will substantiate why this measure is disproportionate, legally untenable, and factually unfeasible.
Summary of Key Objections and Points of Concern
- Insufficient and Selective Communication
The government failed to inform all market participants in a timely and equal manner, which is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. - Inaccessible Justification: Non-Public RIVM Reports
The regulation refers to RIVM reports that remain unpublished to date, making proper assessment and stakeholder input impossible. - Legal Framework: Violation of Fundamental Legal Principles
The regulation infringes upon core principles such as legal certainty, proportionality, and the protection of property under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). - Criminalisation of Consumer Possession Without a Transitional Period
As of 1 October 2025, consumers will be in violation of the law for possessing fireworks that were legally acquired prior to the amendment. - Residual Stock: De Facto Inability to Comply
Importers and retailers will be left with unsellable stock without realistic options for redistribution or storage. - Financial Consequences Wrongly Downplayed
The economic impact of the measure is underestimated, particularly for smaller market participants who lack viable sales alternatives. - Unlawful Deviation from the Minimum Implementation Period
The regulation departs from the applicable minimum period without sufficient justification, in breach of Article 4.17 of the General Administrative Law Decree (Ar). - Misleading Language: “Mesh Packaging No Longer Necessary”
In reality, this constitutes an effective ban on products for which mesh packaging is essential, not a mere optional change. - Unlawful Reclassification of F2 Fireworks as Professional Fireworks
Fireworks classified as F2 under EU law may not be reclassified nationally as professional fireworks. - Unworkable Suggestion to Sell Abroad Before 1 October 2025
For many businesses, selling or storing products abroad is not a feasible alternative due to licensing requirements and practical constraints.
1. Insufficient and Selective Communication – Violation of the Principles of Legal Certainty and Legitimate Expectations
The explanatory notes to the TRIS notification state that the fireworks sector was “informed at an early stage” about the proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks). This statement creates the impression that a transparent, equal, and carefully conducted participation process took place prior to the drafting of the regulation. In practice, this was not the case.
As a company active in the import and distribution of consumer fireworks, and not affiliated with any trade association, we can confirm that at no point prior to the notification were we informed of the content, scope, or potential impact of this amendment. There was no direct communication from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, nor from the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT), or any representative consultation body. The suggestion that “the sector” was informed fails to acknowledge that the fireworks market is composed of a diverse range of operators, including independent importers and distributors who do not fall under a trade organisation.
The only policy statement known to us is the cabinet response of 9 September 2024 to the report Learning from Two Firework Disasters. That statement only referred to the intended abolition of mesh packaging, accompanied by the explicit reservation:
“Before I make a decision, I want to be extensively informed by civil servants about the facts and consequences.”
This cabinet response makes no mention whatsoever of a proposed ban on whistle compositions, whirl compositions, or a restriction of burst charges to a maximum of 5%. Nevertheless, these elements have become an integral part of the proposed amendment to the Rac. No further communication was issued to the broader market regarding the next steps, namely the formal decision and the substantive content thereof. As a result, economic operators were only confronted with these far-reaching restrictions upon publication of the TRIS notification on 17 June 2025, without any prior opportunity for consultation or comment.
This course of action is incompatible with fundamental principles of good governance, including:
- The principle of legal certainty requires that government actions be sufficiently clear, foreseeable, and accessible to affected parties.
- The principle of legitimate expectations, which holds that expectations legitimately raised among market participants may not be disregarded without a prior and proportionate process.
- The principle of participation, as laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/1535, aims to ensure that affected economic operators are given the opportunity to express their views in advance on proposed technical regulations that may impact their interests.
The Dutch government has fallen short in this regard. The proposed measure has far-reaching consequences for trade, product composition, and existing stocks. The lack of equal and timely communication and consultation undermines the legitimacy of the regulation and hampers a balanced assessment of interests.
We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to take this shortcoming into account when evaluating the proportionality and legality of this notification.
2. Inaccessible Justification: Non-Public RIVM Reports
In the explanatory notes accompanying the notification, the Dutch government refers to three reports issued by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) as the basis for the proposed amendments to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks). These are the following documents:
- RIVM Report reference VLH-2025-0015, dated 17 March 2025
- RIVM Report reference VLH-2025-0033, dated 20 May 2025
- RIVM Report reference VLH-2025-0024, dated 30 April 2025
According to the explanatory memorandum, these reports constitute the core technical and scientific justification for the proposed ban on whistle and whirl compositions and the limitation of burst charges to a maximum of 5%. These documents, therefore, have a material influence on the assessment of whether the proposed national measure is justified.
However, as of the date of this response (22 August 2025), these documents have not been made publicly accessible, despite the fact that the TRIS notification was published on 17 June 2025 and the stakeholder comment period is currently ongoing. As a result, it is practically impossible for market participants to provide a substantiated and substantive response to the justification of the measure, as required under Article 5(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535.
On our own initiative, we attempted to obtain the reports from the RIVM. In response, we were informed that the RIVM could not share the reports with us and that we should contact the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management instead. In reply to our inquiry, the Ministry issued the following statement:
“The RIVM reports referenced in the submitted notification will be made public together with the Fireworks Policy Letter. This letter will be sent to both Houses of Parliament before the summer recess. The reports will be publicly available from that moment onwards.”
However, according to the official calendars of both the Dutch Senate and the House of Representatives, the summer recess had already commenced prior to 14 July 2025. At that time, the aforementioned Fireworks Policy Letter had still not been published, and the reports had not been made available on the websites of the RIVM, the Ministry, or any other public platform. Consequently, the factual and verifiable basis of the TRIS notification is entirely lacking.
This situation is problematic for several reasons:
- It contradicts the principle of transparency, which requires that national measures with cross-border implications must be accessible and verifiable by third parties.
- It obstructs the effective exercise of the right to participate in the TRIS procedure by affected stakeholders.
- It violates the principle of fair play, since the legislator is permitted to rely on the content of the reports, while these documents are not available for rebuttal or scrutiny by others.
Without public access to these documents, there can be no sound or balanced assessment of interests. The regulation is therefore being introduced on the basis of a justification that is inaccessible to market participants, consumer organisations, and foreign supervisory authorities. We therefore strongly urge the European Commission to consider this deficiency as a fundamental flaw in the assessment of the legality of the proposed measure.
3. Legal Framework: Violation of Fundamental Legal Principles
The proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks), as set out in notification 2025/0307/NL, raises serious legal objections. The measure violates several fundamental legal principles enshrined in both national administrative law and European law, including the principle of legal certainty, the principle of proportionality, and the right to property as protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
a. Principle of Legal Certainty
The principle of legal certainty requires that legislation be sufficiently clear, foreseeable, and consistent, enabling citizens and businesses to adjust their conduct accordingly. In this case, however, the amendment introduces far-reaching prohibitions with major implications for the availability, sale, and storage of existing fireworks products, on very short notice (as of 1 October 2025). Due to the lack of open communication and the non-disclosure of underlying reports, economic operators have been unable to anticipate or adequately prepare for this development.
Moreover, the legislative terminology is inconsistent. For instance, the explanatory notes state that mesh packaging is “no longer necessary,” while in fact the regulation introduces a de facto ban on the very product properties (whistle and whirl compositions, burst charges >5%) that require mesh packaging. This semantic ambiguity undermines legal certainty and creates confusion regarding the actual scope of the regulation.
b. Principle of Proportionality
The principle of proportionality requires that government measures be appropriate, necessary, and proportionate in relation to the objective pursued. The government states that the objective of the amendment is to minimise the risk of mass explosivity in storage facilities. While this is a legitimate goal, it is questionable whether the chosen measures, namely, an absolute ban on whistle and whirl compositions and a fixed threshold of 5% for burst charges, constitute the least intrusive means to achieve that goal.
No objective evidence has been provided that all fireworks products containing whistle or whirl compositions are inherently mass-explosive or cannot be safely stored in an authorised facility. Nor has it been substantiated why a case-by-case assessment of fireworks types (as already occurs in the context of ADR classifications and CE-marking) would be inadequate. A general ban on product features that are permitted throughout the EU in F2 fireworks cannot be considered proportionate.
c. Protection of Property (Article 1, Protocol 1 to the ECHR)
The property rights of entrepreneurs are recognised and protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1 ECHR). These rights may only be restricted if a legitimate public interest is pursued and if the restriction is applied in a balanced way, taking into account the interests of the affected parties.
In this case, the measure effectively renders legally imported, CE-certified products, which are admitted to the internal market under Directive 2013/29/EU, worthless within a matter of months. Fireworks containing whistle or whirl compositions, or burst charges exceeding 5%, may no longer be sold as consumer fireworks from 1 October 2025 onwards. No transitional period or compensation scheme has been provided. As a result, the property rights of importers and retailers are disproportionately impaired.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that the proposed measure, in its current form, is inconsistent with the fundamental legal principles that the European legal order seeks to protect. We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to carefully assess whether this national measure is justified, necessary, and proportionate in light of the aforementioned principles.
4. Criminalisation of Consumer Possession Without Transitional Arrangements
A serious consequence of the proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac) is the immediate criminalisation of the possession of fireworks containing whistle or whirl charges, or with a burst charge exceeding 5%, as of 1 October 2025. From that date onwards, these products will no longer be classified as consumer fireworks and will therefore fall outside the legal framework for private possession.
This amendment directly affects private end-users who have lawfully acquired these products. Such possession may arise in two situations:
- Purchase abroad, particularly in Belgium, where these products are permitted for private use (category F2). According to Directive 2013/29/EU, such cross-border possession is legal within the European internal market, provided it complies with the national legislation of the country of purchase.
- Remaining stock from previous years, which consumers have lawfully purchased and retained. This is by no means unusual, as fireworks may only be ignited between 31 December 18:00 and 1 January 02:00. Outside this narrow window, use is prohibited, which in practice means leftovers remain each year.
Due to the absence of transitional measures, these consumers will be deemed in violation immediately from 1 October 2025. No provisions have been made for return, registration, the possibility of use during New Year’s Eve, or any form of exemption policy. This creates a legal situation in which citizens become criminally liable for the possession of goods that:
- were fully acquired legally,
- are freely tradable within the internal market in accordance with European legislation,
- cannot be disposed of safely or lawfully prior to the entry into force.
Legal Assessment
This situation raises several legal objections:
a. Violation of the principle of legal certainty
It is contrary to the principle of legal certainty to criminalise citizens for the possession of goods that were lawful at the time of acquisition. The abrupt reclassification of F2-approved fireworks to prohibited possession, without prior notice and without any transitional measures, is unacceptable.
b. Disproportionate enforcement consequences
No scheme has been established for the safe return, disposal, or subsequent use of the products concerned. As a result, consumers have no legal means of ridding themselves of these products, which leads to unjustified criminalisation and enforcement risks.
c. Infringement of EU law and free movement
The products concerned are fireworks that, under Directive 2013/29/EU, are admitted to the market as F2 products and may be made available to the general public. Their national reclassification as “professional fireworks” and the prohibition of private possession contradict the principle of full harmonisation and constitute a barrier to the free movement of goods within the European Union.
We therefore urgently request the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to take into account in its assessment that the proposed regulation results in the criminalisation of consumers for the possession of goods lawfully acquired in the past, without any provision, compensation, or legal remedy. This constitutes a serious violation of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and the integrity of the internal market.
5. Residual Stock: De Facto Inability to Comply
The proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks), effective as of 1 October 2025, places importers and retailers in an impossible position. Due to the ban on fireworks containing whistle or whirl compositions, as well as those with a burst charge exceeding 5%, it will no longer be legally permissible after that date to sell or store such products within the Netherlands. This concerns both bulk inventories held by importers and orders already placed with European wholesalers and Chinese manufacturers.
In practice, this measure is unworkable for the following reasons:
- Consumer fireworks in the Netherlands may only be sold on 29, 30, and 31 December, except on Sundays and public holidays (Article 2.3.2 of the Dutch Fireworks Decree). During the other 362 days of the year, sales to consumers are strictly prohibited. The entry into force on 1 October 2025 means that the entire buildup of stock for the New Year’s sales period, the only legal sales window, will already be banned before the sale dates.
- No transitional arrangement has been made for the sale, return, disposal, or temporary exemption of CE-certified products already purchased. These goods were legally acquired prior to the announcement of this amendment, in the legitimate expectation that they could be sold during the 2025–2026 New Year’s season.
- Storage within the Netherlands will no longer be permitted for products covered by the amended Rac. Retailers who have already removed such products from their transport packaging for storage in approved facilities will be unable to move these goods without committing an offence, as the transportation of consumer fireworks outside their original packaging is prohibited.
This creates a situation of de facto non-compliance. Importers and retailers:
- Cannot sell their existing stock (due to the timing),
- Cannot store it (due to its changed legal classification),
- Cannot export it (due to risks of breaching ADR regulations, environmental laws, or storage licensing requirements).
As a result, the measure leads to:
- Disproportionate economic harm, with no provision for compensation or a sell-off period;
- Risk of administrative penalties for possession of prohibited fireworks;
- Potential criminal liability during inspections of storage or transport activities.
The regulation fails to recognise the logistical rhythm of the industry. Importers typically place orders in January or February, often even in the previous calendar year. Retailers also acquire stock during this period, including leftover batches from the previous New Year’s season or regular product lines intended for later internal storage. By setting the enforcement date at 1 October 2025, the regulation completely disregards this business reality.
Finally, the suggestion in the explanatory notes that surplus inventory could be “easily” sold abroad is unrealistic. Many businesses do not possess the necessary licenses for foreign storage or cross-border distribution. Moreover, the limited time remaining until October 2025 provides no reasonable certainty that foreign buyers can be found or that export storage permits can be obtained. For small and medium-sized enterprises, this approach is economically infeasible and disruptive.
We therefore urge the European Commission to conclude that this measure does not comply with the principle of proportionality. The de facto impossibility of compliance, in the absence of any transitional or sell-off provision, results in a disproportionate infringement of the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR) and the freedom to conduct a business within the internal market (Articles 34–36 TFEU).
6. Financial Impact Wrongly Downplayed
In the explanatory notes accompanying the notification, the Dutch government claims that the financial consequences of the proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks) for the fireworks sector will be limited. It is argued that:
- Importers were informed well in advance of the intended ban on mesh packaging,
- Fireworks companies have already been able to anticipate the new rules in their orders for the 2025–2026 New Year season,
- And that remaining stock may be sold abroad.
This conclusion is incomplete, misleading, and practically untenable. The financial harm that entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium-sized market participants, will suffer as a result of this measure is substantial and is systematically underestimated or ignored in the explanatory memorandum.
a. Stock Loss and Value Degradation
The CE-certified consumer fireworks that will become prohibited as of 1 October 2025 have, by the time of notification, largely already been ordered, produced, and/or delivered. This is especially true for importers who signed contracts with European distributors or Chinese manufacturers in the first quarter of 2025. Retailers, too, have often acquired stock from importers during the spring. For many of these products, the measure will render them economically worthless, with no compensation or buyback scheme in place. Destruction of the goods would also incur additional costs.
b. No Real Alternatives for Distribution or Storage
As outlined in section 5, alternative sales channels outside the Netherlands are often impossible to arrange within weeks or even months. Only a small number of companies possess the necessary foreign (storage) licenses and an established customer or distribution network. The suggestion that surplus stock can simply be sold elsewhere in Europe is unrealistic, especially for smaller players operating solely in the domestic market. In practice, the financial damage is unavoidable.
c. Misjudgment of Regulatory Burden (“Regeldruk”)
The explanatory notes estimate that the new rules will only require one hour of reading time per importer (valued at €50), thus claiming that the administrative burden is negligible. This method of calculation completely ignores the practical, financial, and operational consequences of the measure, including:
- The need to destroy or recall goods already distributed,
- The revision of product catalogues and ordering systems,
- The removal of purchased stock from sales systems and webshops,
- The loss of profit margins on products popular with consumers (such as those with whistle and whirl effects),
- And the risk of legal liability in the event of non-compliance with the amended regulation.
The cumulative cost of these consequences can amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of euros per company. For smaller businesses, these burdens can be existential.
d. Disproportionality Relative to the Objective
The economic damage bears no reasonable relation to the stated objective of the ban, which is to eliminate a theoretical risk of mass explosiveness under certain storage scenarios. Instead of pursuing individual risk assessments or imposing targeted storage requirements, the measure opts for a blanket ban on entire product categories that are lawfully admitted within the EU. Such a far-reaching approach demands a far more robust justification than what is currently provided.
Conclusion: The financial implications of this regulation are wrongly trivialised in the explanatory notes. Market participants face sudden and substantial costs, without a transitional period or compensation, while the government relies on theoretical cost models that fail to reflect the realities of the industry. This undermines both the proportionality and reasonableness of the measure.
We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to conclude that the measure, in its current form, imposes a disproportionate economic burden on market operators, in breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU) and the right to conduct a business within the internal market (Articles 34–36 TFEU).
7. Unlawful Deviation from the Minimum Implementation Period
The proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks) is set to enter into force on 1 October 2025, while the measure was notified to the European Commission on 17 June 2025. This deviates from the standard minimum implementation period of two months following publication in the Staatscourant (Dutch Official Gazette), as prescribed in Article 4.17 of the Guidelines for Drafting Legislation (Aanwijzingen voor de regelgeving, Ar).
Article 4.17 Ar stipulates that ministerial regulations must, in principle, observe a minimum period of two months between publication and entry into force, unless compelling public interests require otherwise. Paragraph 5 of that article allows deviation only if:
- a) postponement would cause significant and undesirable public consequences, or
- b) the matter is urgent and based on objectively substantiated grounds.
In the explanatory memorandum, the Dutch government states that postponement is “unacceptable” because the risk of mass explosiveness would persist for a longer period. However, this justification is insufficient and lacks factual substantiation. Specifically:
- No verifiable risk assessment is provided regarding mass explosiveness under current storage practices;
- No objective evidence is submitted indicating an increased risk between October and December 2025 compared to previous years;
- No immediate threat or emergency is demonstrated that would justify deviation from the standard implementation timeline.
Moreover, the stated interest in accelerating implementation does not outweigh the significant negative consequences caused by the premature entry into force:
- The measure takes effect before the only legal sales window for consumer fireworks (29–31 December), rendering lawfully acquired stock unsellable;
- The regulation is introduced just prior to the distribution season, a period when most businesses are actively delivering goods to retailers or transferring them to storage facilities;
- The short notice leaves no realistic opportunity for businesses to adapt their logistics, product range, or contractual obligations without incurring financial harm.
The timing of the implementation makes it practically impossible for the sector to adapt, even though no direct or urgent safety threat exists to justify such haste.
Additionally, it should be noted that the notification was only submitted on 17 June 2025, while the cabinet response announcing the intended amendment dates back to 9 September 2024. It is incomprehensible why it took nine months to finalise the measure and then suddenly invoke urgency. This delay is the result of policy choices, not external circumstances, and cannot be used to justify an accelerated entry into force.
Conclusion: The deviation from the minimum implementation period is in violation of Article 4.17 Ar, because:
- No emergency situation or acute threat exists;
- No objective justification for the deviation has been provided;
- The consequences for the sector are disproportionately severe.
We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to conclude that the accelerated entry into force on 1 October 2025 constitutes a disproportionate and legally unsustainable measure. Even if the proposed regulation were to be considered justified, it should only be implemented with an appropriate lead time and transitional arrangements.
8. Misleading Wording: “Mesh Packaging No Longer Necessary” Conceals a De Facto Ban
Both the explanatory notes to the regulation and the TRIS notification claim that the amendment results in mesh packaging being “no longer necessary.” This wording is misleading, as it conceals what is, in practice, a functional ban on an important category of consumer fireworks. The phrasing gives the impression that the change is merely a voluntary or technical simplification, whereas the actual impact is significantly more far-reaching.
In reality, the amendment means that fireworks containing whistle or whirl compositions or burst charges exceeding 5%, which have previously only been approved as ADR class 1.4G when packed in mesh, will no longer be recognised as consumer fireworks. As a result, this entire product category effectively loses its access to the market, because:
- Mesh packaging was essential to bring these articles into the required transport classification (1.4G instead of 1.3G),
- No alternative classification method is offered to bring the same products within the permitted categories,
- And exclusion from Annex I of the Rac means these products may no longer be sold, transported, or stored within the consumer fireworks channel.
From a legal standpoint, this is not a case of mesh packaging becoming “unnecessary”, but rather a ban on the product properties for which mesh packaging was essential. The consequence is that such products can no longer be marketed. Presenting this change as an administrative simplification conceals a fundamental market restriction, which is not in line with the transparency requirements applicable to national implementation measures under Directive (EU) 2015/1535.
This terminology is also problematic for economic operators in other EU Member States, where mesh packaging is still used as a recognised method to reduce ADR classification. The Dutch regulation undermines this practice indirectly, without explicitly qualifying it as a national prohibition. This creates legal uncertainty for cross-border trade.
Furthermore, no legal or technical justification is provided for why mesh packaging should no longer be accepted. While the explanatory memorandum refers to a signal report from the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT), the test results mentioned therein are not publicly available, and do not, by themselves, constitute a general ban on this packaging technique. Nor is it explained why tailored measures, such as additional packaging requirements or case-by-case test assessments, would be insufficient to achieve the desired level of safety.
Conclusion: The claim that “mesh packaging is no longer necessary” is both factually and legally incorrect. In effect, the measure constitutes a ban on an entire category of fireworks products that were previously authorised as consumer fireworks, provided they were packaged in accordance with established practices. This represents a significant restriction on the free movement of goods, disguised in innocuous language.
We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to critically assess this aspect of the measure for compliance with transparency, proportionality, and the rules of the European internal market, and to determine whether it constitutes a disguised restriction on trade that has not been properly justified.
9. Unlawful Reclassification of F2 Fireworks as Professional Fireworks
The explanatory notes to the amendment of the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks) state that fireworks containing whistle or whirl compositions or burst charges above 5% will no longer be permitted for consumer use as of 1 October 2025. Instead, such products are to be classified as “professional fireworks.” This amounts to a de facto reclassification of products previously recognised as F2 consumer fireworks, which would henceforth fall under the regime for professional pyrotechnics.
Such reclassification is incompatible with Directive 2013/29/EU, which provides for full harmonisation of the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles within the European internal market.
a. F2 Fireworks Are Subject to Full Harmonisation
Directive 2013/29/EU defines categories F1 through F4 in Article 6(1), based on risk level, noise level, and intended use. Classification of a pyrotechnic article into the appropriate category is performed by the manufacturer or importer as part of the conformity assessment procedure, taking into account product characteristics and instructions for use.
Category F2 refers to fireworks that present a low hazard, are intended for outdoor use in confined areas, and are suitable for sale to the general public. Once a product has been classified as F2 and CE-certified in accordance with the directive, it may be placed on the market throughout the EU. Exclusion is only permitted under the derogation clause in Article 4(2) of the directive, for example, in the interest of public safety or order.
The Netherlands does not invoke Article 4(2) explicitly. Instead, it implicitly reclassifies an entire group of F2 articles as professional fireworks, without modifying the CE marking or conducting a new conformity assessment. Such an approach is legally impermissible.
b. National Reclassification Conflicts with EU Law
A national authority may not unilaterally reclassify a CE-certified F2 product as professional fireworks. This would, in effect, amount to revoking or nullifying a valid European market authorisation. Directive 2013/29/EU provides only two legitimate avenues for such action:
- An explicit prohibition under Article 4(2) of the directive;
- Market withdrawal under Articles 40 et seq., concerning market surveillance and non-conformity.
Both procedures require a product-specific assessment, justification, notification to the European Commission, and transparency. In this case, however, an entire product category (all articles with whistle or whirl compositions or more than 5% burst charge) is collectively excluded from the F2 category without any formal procedure or concrete risk analysis.
Moreover, this practice is incompatible with the principle of mutual recognition: a CE-marked F2 product may remain available to consumers in other Member States, while the same product is treated as professional fireworks in the Netherlands without reclassification or retesting. This disrupts the internal market.
As an example, we note that Annex I of the current Rac only lists the F2 fireworks permitted in the Netherlands. Any product not explicitly listed is automatically excluded and treated as professional fireworks in practice. This too is problematic: under Directive 2013/29/EU, Member States are required to allow all F2 articles that have been properly classified and certified in accordance with the directive, unless they explicitly invoke the exception under Article 4(2), with supporting justification. No such justification is provided in this case.
Given the systemic nature of this issue, we are preparing a formal complaint to the European Commission regarding the incompatibility of this practice with Union law.
c. Practical Consequences of the Reclassification
The implications of this reclassification are severe:
- Storage and sale of the affected products is prohibited and criminalised for standard retail channels or consumer-oriented storage locations;
- Private possession of these products is also prohibited and punishable, without the products being formally withdrawn from the market through the legally required procedures;
- Importers and distributors are left with inventories that were formally classified as F2, but are treated nationally as professional fireworks, resulting in legal uncertainty, market distortion, and financial loss.
Conclusion
This measure constitutes a disguised national reclassification of F2 products, in violation of Directive 2013/29/EU and the principles of full harmonisation and mutual recognition within the European internal market. Such a step is not legally permissible without invoking a formal derogation or market surveillance procedure, and it undermines the legal certainty of manufacturers, distributors, and consumers.
We therefore urgently request the European Commission to conclude that this national measure constitutes an unjustified barrier to trade for CE-marked F2 products, and that the Netherlands must either end this practice or initiate a proper, EU-compliant procedure.
10. Unworkable Suggestion of Selling Stock Abroad Before 1 October 2025
The explanatory notes to the TRIS notification claim that the financial consequences of the measure will be limited, since any remaining stock of banned fireworks “can also be sold on other markets,” referring to sales abroad. This suggestion implies that importers and distributors can easily place their products on foreign markets, thereby avoiding economic harm.
However, this reasoning is both legally untenable and factually unrealistic, and fails to reflect the actual business reality in which many, especially small and medium-sized, fireworks companies operate. The notion that selling abroad represents an accessible or viable solution is simply not credible, for the following reasons:
a. The Timeframe Is Too Short
The TRIS notification was submitted on 17 June 2025. The ban is scheduled to enter into force on 1 October 2025. This gives businesses little more than three and a half months to:
- Identify foreign buyers who are both willing and authorised to accept the products in question,
- Secure alternative storage or transshipment facilities abroad with appropriate licenses.
In a highly regulated and seasonal sector such as fireworks, this timeframe is entirely insufficient.
b. Most Businesses Lack Foreign Infrastructure
The majority of Dutch fireworks importers and retailers operate exclusively within the domestic market. They generally do not possess:
- Storage facilities abroad (e.g. in Belgium or Germany, where strict licensing regimes also apply to fireworks storage),
- Access to foreign distribution networks,
- Or the capacity to relabel products or update instructions in the language of the destination country.
In particular, replacing labels or adding new instructions is not only labour-intensive but often technically problematic. For example, if the product is stored in mesh packaging, it must be removed before relabelling, which in turn alters the original ADR classification, introducing a new compliance challenge.
Building such a logistical and regulatory infrastructure within a few months is simply unachievable for the majority of SMEs in the sector.
c. Uncertainty Regarding Foreign Demand
Even if storage and transportation abroad were feasible, it remains highly doubtful whether foreign market participants would be willing to purchase fireworks that were specifically manufactured and packaged for the Dutch market, particularly on such short notice. Local regulations, consumer preferences, seasonal variations, and completed procurement cycles make it extremely unlikely that these surplus products can be sold abroad.
d. Moving Stock Abroad Does Not Resolve Its Legal Status
Even if temporary storage in another Member State were possible, this does not resolve the underlying problem. The goods in question cannot be returned to the Netherlands, nor can they legally be reintroduced to the consumer fireworks market. They remain legally and economically blocked stock. Unless a concrete foreign buyer is secured within a short time, which, as demonstrated above, is highly uncertain, businesses will be left with unsellable and immobile inventory.
Conclusion
The suggestion that surplus stock can simply be sold abroad is legally inaccurate, practically unworkable, and economically misleading. It does not constitute a realistic alternative to a proper transitional arrangement or damage-mitigation mechanism. In practice, the majority of remaining stock cannot be legally sold, transferred, or destroyed within the limited timeframe, without incurring substantial financial losses for affected businesses.
We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to explicitly reject this misconception in its evaluation of the notification. The absence of a viable solution for existing stock underscores the disproportionality of the measure and its excessive impact on market participants, in violation of the principles of reasonable regulation and the protections afforded by Union law.
Final Statement
Based on the above considerations, the undersigned concludes that the proposed amendment to the Regeling aanwijzing consumentenvuurwerk (Rac – Regulation on the Designation of Consumer Fireworks), as set out in notification 2025/0307/NL, is incompatible with Union law on several fundamental points.
The measure:
- Was adopted without timely, transparent, and inclusive communication with all market participants;
- Lacks an objective and accessible justification;
- Unlawfully deviates from standard implementation timelines;
- Misuses reclassification to circumvent the CE-marked F2 designation;
- Results in the criminalisation of lawfully acquired goods;
- Causes significant economic harm, with no provision for compensation or relief;
- And shifts responsibility onto businesses by invoking unrealistic alternatives such as foreign resale.
In our view, these measures are neither proportionate, necessary, nor justified under applicable European legislation, specifically Directive 2013/29/EU, Directive (EU) 2015/1535, the fundamental principles of the internal market, and the rights of entrepreneurs under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
We therefore respectfully call upon the European Commission to:
- Conduct a substantive review of this notification for compliance with Union law;
- Request the Dutch authorities to suspend, amend, or withdraw the proposed measure;
- And ensure that any future amendments to technical regulations are prepared with genuine stakeholder involvement and full transparency.
The fireworks sector is not seeking special treatment, but it does demand a level playing field, predictable regulation, and fair treatment within the framework of the European internal market.
Yours sincerely,
Remon Albers
Supply Chain B.V.
Edisonweg 36, 6662 NW Elst, The Netherlands
22/08/2025
