Introduction
On behalf of Supply Chain B.V., active in the fireworks industry at the European level, we hereby formally object to the amendment to national consumer fireworks legislation as notified by the Netherlands through the TRIS system. The proposed amendment, particularly the restriction of the possession, use, and sale of fireworks in categories F2 and F3 to “persons with specialised knowledge” is contrary to European legislation, including Directive 2013/29/EU on pyrotechnic articles and the fundamental freedoms of the internal market (Articles 34–36 TFEU).
The Netherlands argues that the measure is proportionate and non-discriminatory, partly due to the option for municipalities to grant exemptions. However, parliamentary discussions show that this exemption is not an enforceable right, but rather a discretionary power of the mayor, even when the applicant meets all the formal requirements. This results in legal inequality, uncertainty, and the practical exclusion of both consumers and market participants.
In this contribution, we outline the legal and systematic objections based on the following key points, which are elaborated in individual sections:
Summary of Objections and Points of Review
- Violation of the definition of “person with specialised knowledge” under Directive 2013/29/EU.
The Netherlands expands this status to F2 and F3 users, even though the Directive restrictively links it to categories F4, T2, and P2. - De facto reclassification of F2 and F3 as professional fireworks.
By permitting F2/F3 only for “persons with specialised knowledge,” these categories are unjustly equated with professional fireworks. - Removal of the legal definition of “person with specialised knowledge” from the Dutch Fireworks Decree.
This creates a legal vacuum: existing provisions remain in force, but without a formal basis or clarity about their scope of application. - Inconsistency between the EU Directive and national designation via General Administrative Order (AMvB).
The ability to designate other persons as “persons with specialised knowledge” by decree is incompatible with the harmonised framework of definitions. - No designation or protection for commercial parties.
Retailers, importers, and distributors are not recognised as “specialised,” yet are also prohibited from selling or storing F2/F3 without additional designation. - Internal contradiction: consumers receive exemptions without professional status.
Allowing F2 usage via a municipal exemption for ordinary citizens contradicts the earlier restriction to “professionals.” - Legal inequality and arbitrariness due to the discretionary power of mayors.
Municipalities may reject applications at their own discretion, even if the applicant meets all requirements. This leads to inequality, arbitrariness, and discrimination among citizens. - Misleading representation to the EU regarding the preservation of the fireworks tradition.
Although the Netherlands claims that the measure maintains the tradition in an adapted form, parliamentary sources show that this is practically unfeasible.
Violation of the Definition of “Person with Specialised Knowledge” under Directive 2013/29/EU
1. Legal Basis
Directive 2013/29/EU on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles defines the term “person with specialised knowledge” in Article 3(6) as follows:
“‘person with specialised knowledge’ means a person authorised by a Member State to handle and/or use fireworks of category F4, theatrical pyrotechnic articles of category T2 and/or other pyrotechnic articles of category P2 on its territory.”
1.2 Exhaustive and Binding Nature
This definition is exhaustive. Only persons:
- who have been formally authorised by a Member State,
- to handle or use articles from categories F4, T2, and/or P2,
- within the territory of that Member State,
may be classified as a “person with specialised knowledge.” Extending this status to users of consumer fireworks (categories F2 or F3) is not permitted under this Directive.
1.3 Scope of This Status
The Directive links the status solely to handling and/or using F4, T2, and P2 articles. It does not confer:
- any general authority for sale, import, distribution, or storage, unless otherwise regulated under national law outside the scope of the Directive.
1.4 National Competence is Limited
While Member States may determine their own recognition procedures, they may not:
- apply the definition to other categories (such as F2/F3),
- create new user groups outside the scope of the Directive,
- assign powers beyond “handling/using.”
Additionally, Member States must inform the European Commission of their recognition procedures (Article 6(2) of Directive 2013/29/EU).
1.5 Incongruence with Dutch Legislation
Currently, Article 1.1.2a of the Dutch Fireworks Decree applies, aligning with the Directive. This provision designates persons with an environmental permit for F4/T2, police, fire services, and the military as persons with specialised knowledge.
However, the proposed Article 9.2.2.1a(3) states that other groups may be designated as such by General Administrative Order (AMvB). This opens the door to:
- designating non-professional users,
- extending the scope to categories F2 and F3,
- diluting the harmonised EU definition.
Furthermore, the current definition in Article 1.1.2a of the Fireworks Decree is entirely repealed, eliminating the legal basis for recognising existing specialists.
1.6 Summary
The proposed national measure breaches the Directive in two ways:
- By extending the status of “person with specialised knowledge” to users of F2 and F3 articles, contrary to the exhaustive nature of Article 3(6) of Directive 2013/29/EU;
- By repealing the definition from national law without offering a legal alternative that ensures legal certainty.
This approach violates the Directive, the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU), and the provisions on the free movement of goods (Articles 34–36 TFEU). It also creates legal confusion, uncertainty for regulators, and barriers to the internal market.
2. De Facto Reclassification of F2 and F3 as Professional Fireworks
2.1 EU Classification of F2 and F3: Consumer Fireworks
According to Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/29/EU, fireworks are classified into four categories: F1 through F4. The Directive provides:
“Category F2: fireworks which present a low hazard and low noise level and which are intended for outdoor use in confined areas;”
“Category F3: fireworks which present a medium hazard, which are intended for outdoor use in large open areas and whose noise level is not harmful to human health;”
“Category F4: fireworks which present a high hazard, which are intended for use only by persons with specialised knowledge (commonly known as ‘professional fireworks’), and whose noise level is not harmful to human health.”
Categories F2 and F3 are explicitly intended for public use, based on their properties.
Only Category F4 is defined as high-hazard fireworks intended solely for persons with specialised knowledge.
This classification system is fully harmonised at the EU level. Member States may not interpret or redefine these categories in a manner inconsistent with the EU framework (see recitals 14 and 15 and Article 4 of the Directive).
2.2 What the Netherlands Proposes in the New Legislation
The proposed Article 9.2.2.1a of the Environmental Management Act states:
- Paragraph 1: The possession and use of fireworks in categories F2 and F3 is prohibited for anyone other than persons with specialised knowledge;
- Paragraph 2: The sale of fireworks in categories F2 and F3 to anyone other than persons with specialised knowledge is prohibited.
Additionally:
- The definition of “person with specialised knowledge” from Article 1.1.2a of the Fireworks Decree is repealed; and
- A General Administrative Order may designate new users as persons with “recognised specialised knowledge.”
This effectively reserves the use of F2 and F3 articles for a limited group of professionals.
2.3 Legal Consequence: Reclassification in Practice
These national restrictions have the following effect:
- Access to F2 and F3 fireworks becomes equivalent to that of professional fireworks (F4, T2, P2);
- Consumers are excluded from use unless they receive an exceptional exemption from a mayor;
- Distribution, sale, and storage are practically reserved for parties with a status equivalent to professional recognition.
This situation results in a de facto reclassification of consumer fireworks as professional fireworks. This violates the harmonised classification in Directive 2013/29/EU, particularly Articles 3 and 4.
Recital 14 and Article 4 of the Directive explicitly state:
- The classification of pyrotechnic articles within the EU is harmonised;
- Member States may not introduce alternative classifications or interpretations that hinder the free movement of CE-marked F2 and F3 products.
F2 and F3 are classified at the EU level as consumer fireworks, intended for the general public. Restricting their access to “specialised persons” or exemption holders has the legal and practical effect of an unjustified reclassification.
2.4 Violation of EU Law
The national measure violates:
- Article 4 and Annex I of Directive 2013/29/EU, which establish the categories and user groups;
- Article 34 TFEU (free movement of goods): the measure restricts access to the Dutch market for consumer fireworks legally traded in other Member States;
- Article 36 TFEU: while restrictions are allowed for public order or safety, they must be proportionate and necessary. A structural reclassification of an entire product category does not meet that standard.
2.5 Conclusion
Although the Netherlands formally classifies F2 and F3 fireworks as consumer fireworks, it imposes conditions akin to professional use. This creates a contradictory and legally untenable situation where:
- Articles that are freely tradable under EU law within the internal market,
- are nationally restricted to professional use,
- without formal reclassification, but with the same legal effect.
This amounts to a circumvention of the harmonised EU system and undermines the operation of Directive 2013/29/EU and the free movement of goods.
3. Removal of the Legal Definition of “Person with Specialised Knowledge” from the Fireworks Decree
3.1 Existing Legal Basis: Article 1.1.2a of the Fireworks Decree
Current legislation includes Article 1.1.2a of the Fireworks Decree, which contains an exhaustive list of persons in the Netherlands who are considered “persons with specialised knowledge.” This includes:
- Persons with an environmental permit for the storage or handling of F4 or T2 articles;
- Employees of the police, fire brigade, and armed forces in the performance of their duties;
- Persons igniting fireworks at research institutions;
- Persons recognized as such in another EU Member State.
This provision aligns closely with the definition of “person with specialised knowledge” as found in Article 3(6) of Directive 2013/29/EU and serves as the legal foundation for applying provisions in the Fireworks Decree that rely on this status.
3.2 What Does the New Proposal Change?
In the proposed legislation, this definition is entirely repealed from Article 1.1.2a of the Fireworks Decree. Instead, the new Article 9.2.2.1a(3) states:
“Persons with specialised knowledge shall be designated by general administrative order (AMvB).”
However, the proposal contains:
- No redefinition;
- No reference to specific criteria or admission requirements;
- No connection to existing categories or to use in accordance with the Directive.
As a result, the clear, directive-compliant legal basis on which this status was previously founded disappears.
3.3 Consequences of Repealing the Definition
a. Legal Vacuum
Existing provisions in the Fireworks Decree that rely on the “person with specialised knowledge” status (such as for possession, use, or transport of F4 articles) remain, but lose their legal foundation, as it is no longer clear who qualifies under this status.
b. Legal Uncertainty for Professionals
Individuals who currently possess the required permits or perform qualifying roles (such as police officers, military personnel, or certified display professionals) can no longer be sure whether they still hold this status.
c. Deviation from the Harmonised EU Structure
The clear alignment with the EU Directive is abandoned, undermining internal coherence between national and European legislation.
d. Risk of Arbitrary or Inconsistent AMvBs
As the law contains no criteria for designation, the power is left entirely to future general administrative orders. This makes the status of “person with specialised knowledge” dependent on political or policy-based choices outside parliamentary oversight.
3.4 Violation of Legal Certainty and the Principle of Proportionality
A legal provision that:
- Repeals an established, operational definition,
- Offers no alternative interpretation,
- Yet still attaches legal consequences to that undefined status,
violates the principle of legal certainty, which requires legislation to be:
- Clear, predictable, and accessible,
- Not unnecessarily disruptive to the legal position of individuals or businesses.
It also violates the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU), as the repeal imposes a disproportionate burden on legitimate market participants without adequate safeguards or compensation.
3.5 Conclusion
The removal of the legal definition of “person with specialised knowledge” from the Fireworks Decree creates a legal vacuum, severs alignment with Directive 2013/29/EU, and introduces legal uncertainty for currently recognised users. The legislature fails to adequately redefine or frame this fundamental status, instead deferring the task to a future administrative decree without transparency or democratic safeguards. This approach contravenes the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and the requirements of harmonised EU law.
4. Inconsistency Between EU Definitions and National Designation via AMvB
4.1 EU Directive: Harmonised Terminology Framework
Directive 2013/29/EU aims to harmonise the internal market for pyrotechnic articles. The directive includes harmonised definitions for:
- Firework categories (F1–F4);
- Types of use (consumer, professional);
- User status — including the definition of “person with specialised knowledge” in Article 3(6):
“„person with specialised knowledge” means a person authorised by a Member State to handle and/or use fireworks of category F4, theatrical pyrotechnic articles of category T2 and/or other pyrotechnic articles of category P2 on its territory.”
This definition is exhaustive and binding, forming an integral part of the harmonised terminology framework. It applies across the entire EU territory.
4.2 National Deviation via AMvB (Article 9.2.2.1a(3))
Under the proposed Article 9.2.2.1a(3), the Netherlands provides that:
“Persons with specialised knowledge shall be designated by general administrative order (AMvB).”
Unlike the current regulation (Article 1.1.2a of the Fireworks Decree), persons are no longer designated based on explicit statutory criteria but instead via a future implementing measure (AMvB). The new law contains:
- No substantive assessment criteria;
- No reference to categories F4, T2, or P2;
- No requirement to conform to the EU definition;
- No guarantee that designations are limited to professional use.
This creates the possibility that individuals in the Netherlands who are not professional users and/or who use F2 or F3 articles may still be designated as “persons with specialised knowledge.”
4.3 Result: Inconsistency and Non-Conformity
By leaving the definition of “person with specialised knowledge” to a national implementing measure without direct adherence to the European definition, the Netherlands creates:
- A national expansion of a harmonised EU term;
- Inconsistency between EU and national applications of that status;
- Legal uncertainty regarding mutual recognition within the internal market (Article 36 TFEU).
Moreover, Article 6(2) of Directive 2013/29/EU explicitly requires Member States to notify the European Commission of their recognition procedures. The Netherlands:
- Does not report any substantive assessment framework;
- Leaves the criteria entirely open to future political or policy-based interpretation via AMvB;
- Disconnects recognition from the use of F4/T2/P2, for which the status was originally intended.
4.4 Breach of the EU Harmonisation System
The Directive is a full harmonisation directive concerning the classification, labeling, and availability of pyrotechnic articles on the market (see Recital 14 and Article 4). This means:
- Member States may not introduce additional or divergent definitions;
- The internal market can only function if harmonised definitions are applied uniformly;
- National deviations are only permissible under specific exceptions provided in the directive (e.g., safety concerns), but never through fundamental reinterpretation of key terms.
Designating new “specialised” users outside the scope of the Directive constitutes an unauthorised national expansion of a harmonised concept and is therefore incompatible with Article 4 of the Directive and the principle of legal certainty under EU law.
4.5 Conclusion
By using a general administrative order to unilaterally determine who qualifies as a “person with specialised knowledge,” without direct adherence to the EU definition or limitation to F4/T2/P2 use, the Netherlands introduces a national interpretation of a harmonised EU term. This leads to:
- Inconsistency with Directive 2013/29/EU;
- Legal uncertainty about recognition and status across the EU;
- Potential obstruction of the free movement of goods (Articles 34–36 TFEU);
- Undermining of the uniform application framework that the Directive is intended to ensure.
This method of designation is therefore legally incompatible with EU law.
5. No Designation or Protection for Commercial Parties
5.1 The Commercial Chain is Essential for the Legal Trade of F2/F3 Fireworks
Within the European internal market, retailers, importers, and distributors of pyrotechnic articles in categories F2 and F3 form an essential part of the legal supply chain. Directive 2013/29/EU aims to establish a harmonised framework in which:
- Categories F2 and F3 are considered consumer fireworks (see Annex and Article 6(1) of the Directive);
- These articles, if CE-marked and compliant with the Directive, may be freely traded and stored within the EU;
- Commercial entities such as retailers and distributors play a logistical and economic key role in making these goods available to end users.
This access to the market is protected under Article 34 TFEU (free movement of goods).
5.2 What Does Dutch Law Regulate?
Under the proposed Article 9.2.2.1a of the Fireworks Decree, the possession, use, and sale of F2 and F3 articles are prohibited for “persons other than those with specialised knowledge.” Specifically:
- Paragraph 1: Possession and use of F2 and F3 fireworks are prohibited for anyone other than persons with specialised knowledge;
- Paragraph 2: Sale of these articles to non-specialised persons is also prohibited;
- Paragraph 3: Persons with specialised knowledge shall be designated by general administrative order (AMvB);
- Paragraphs 4–7: Individual consumers may apply for an exemption to light F2 fireworks during New Year’s Eve.
However, the regulation does not explicitly specify:
- Whether retailers or importers are considered “specialised persons”;
- Under what conditions they may store, sell, or export F2 or F3 articles;
- Whether commercial storage and inventory management are legally permitted outside direct sales to exemption holders.
5.3 Legal Consequence: Exclusion Without Legal Basis
The failure to explicitly designate or protect commercial parties results in their de facto exclusion, including:
- Retailers who wish to sell F2 articles to exemption holders;
- Wholesalers or distributors who stock these articles for international trade;
- Importers who legally bring CE-certified F2/F3 fireworks into the Netherlands from other EU Member States or directly from Chinese manufacturers.
These parties do not possess the status of “person with specialised knowledge” (as defined in the Directive or the current Fireworks Decree) and are thus excluded from the scope of permitted possession and sales, unless designated ad hoc by a future and undefined AMvB.
This creates a legal vacuum for legitimate market actors. There is no clarity on their rights, obligations, or protection status, nor a legal framework enabling them to continue their activities.
5.4 Violation of Internal Market Principles
This legislative approach results in:
- A restriction on the free movement of goods (Article 34 TFEU);
- A restriction on the provision of services within the distribution chain (Article 56 TFEU);
- Disruption of fair competition between Dutch and foreign market actors;
- Infringement of the legitimate expectations of existing lawful businesses.
European case law (e.g., the Cassis de Dijon doctrine) requires that national restrictions which de facto limit market access must:
- Be objectively justified;
- Be proportionate;
- Be clearly defined in legislation.
The proposed regulation meets none of these criteria regarding commercial parties.
5.5 Conclusion
The Dutch legislator fails to provide a clear legal framework for commercial operators who wish to continue selling, storing, or distributing F2/F3 fireworks. By not designating these parties as “specialised” or otherwise legally recognising them, they are effectively excluded from the market without procedural protection or legal certainty.
This constitutes a serious infringement of the free movement of goods, distorts the internal market, and is legally incompatible with the objectives of Directive 2013/29/EU and the fundamental freedoms of the TFEU.
6. Internal Contradiction: Consumers Receive Exemptions Without Professional Status
6.1 Legal Context: Limitation to “Persons with Specialised Knowledge”
In the proposed Article 9.2.2.1a, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Environmental Management Act, it is stipulated that:
- The possession and use of F2 and F3 fireworks is prohibited for anyone other than “persons with specialised knowledge”;
- The sale of these articles to non-specialised persons is also prohibited.
This wording implies that only persons with a formally recognised professional status, as intended under Article 3(6) of Directive 2013/29/EU, may have access to these categories.
6.2 Directive 2013/29/EU: Professional Status Required for F4/T2/P2, Not for F2/F3
The European Directive classifies fireworks into four categories:
- F2: Low hazard, suitable for use by consumers in confined outdoor areas;
- F3: Medium hazard, intended for use in larger outdoor spaces by users with appropriate knowledge, but not limited to professionals;
- F4/T2/P2: High hazard, permitted only for use by “persons with specialised knowledge”.
The Directive contains no provision requiring a professional status for the use of F2 or F3 fireworks. F2 is explicitly intended for consumers, provided used correctly.
6.3 New National Exception: Exemption for Consumers
The proposal additionally states in paragraphs 4 to 7 that:
- The mayor may grant individuals an exemption to possess and use specific designated F2 articles during New Year’s Eve;
- Sales to these individuals will be temporarily permitted (29, 30, and 31 December).
This means that non-professional citizens may temporarily purchase and use F2 articles, provided they obtain a municipal exemption.
6.4 Legal Conflict: Professional Regime vs. Occasional Consumer
This setup creates an internal contradiction in national legislation, because:
- Article 9.2.2.1a(1) and (2) impose an absolute ban on anyone without professional status;
- Paragraphs 4–7 then create an exception for non-professional citizens, without meeting the requirements of “persons with specialised knowledge”;
- There is no legal link or transitional provision that explains how a non-professional temporarily qualifies under the stricter regime.
This results in a legally inconsistent situation: on the one hand, F2 is only allowed for professionals; on the other hand, non-professionals are permitted to use it, based on an exception that lacks any basis in EU law or national harmonisation.
6.5 Consequences
This inconsistency leads to several legal and practical problems:
- Legal uncertainty: It is unclear whether F2 is consumer fireworks or professional fireworks;
- Erosion of the Directive’s classification: The national scheme deviates from the EU objective that F2 is freely tradable consumer fireworks;
- Enforcement difficulties: Supervisory authorities can no longer reliably determine who is authorized to possess or use fireworks;
- Discrimination: Only a select group of citizens in certain municipalities are granted access, while others, possibly under identical conditions, are excluded.
6.6 Conclusion
The national legislator introduces a scheme under which F2 fireworks are formally permitted only for “persons with specialised knowledge,” yet simultaneously claims that ordinary citizens may gain access via municipal exemption. This approach is:
- Contrary to the logic of Directive 2013/29/EU, which explicitly defines F2 as consumer fireworks;
- Legally incoherent, as it creates two conflicting regimes within one regulation;
- Unacceptable under EU law due to the absence of legal certainty, equal treatment, and alignment with the harmonised classification.
This internal contradiction undermines both the effectiveness of the Directive and national legal certainty, rendering the measure unsuitable and disproportionate under Article 34 TFEU and Article 5 TEU (principle of proportionality).
7. Legal Inequality and Arbitrariness Due to Mayoral Discretion
7.1 Legal Framework: Exemption Scheme via the Mayor
The proposed legislation (Article 9.2.2.1a, paragraphs 4 to 7 of the Environmental Management Act) states that:
- The mayor may grant an exemption for the possession and use of designated F2 fireworks during the New Year period;
- The exemption applies to private individuals, temporarily granting them access to otherwise prohibited fireworks;
- Sales to exemption holders are permitted on 29, 30, and 31 December;
- Further rules will be established by general administrative order (AMvB).
However, there is no obligation for the mayor to grant an exemption even when a valid application is submitted.
7.2 Practice: Full Discretionary Power
During the parliamentary debate on the bill, it was explicitly confirmed that mayors may reject fully valid applications solely based on local policy or political preference.
Quote from the Senate debate (30 June 2025):
“The mayor must reject applications that do not meet the conditions. Applications that do meet the conditions can also be rejected if, according to locally developed policy, they do not qualify for approval [...].”
— MP Klaver (GroenLinks-PvdA)
Question: “So local policy may also be: ‘We do not want to grant any exemptions at all’?”
Answer: “Yes, that is possible.”
This confirms that the exemption scheme does not offer an enforceable right, even for citizens who meet all the requirements.
7.3 Legal Analysis: Violation of the Principle of Legal Equality
This discretionary power leads to serious legal issues:
a) Legal inequality between citizens
- Citizens in Municipality A may be granted an exemption;
- Citizens in Municipality B are rejected by default, regardless of eligibility;
- This results in an unequal playing field based on residence rather than objective legal criteria.
b) Arbitrariness in administrative decision-making
- The law provides no exhaustive grounds for refusal;
- There is no obligation to provide reasoning, nor a framework for appeal against arbitrary refusals;
- This contravenes the principle of legality and the prohibition of arbitrariness in administrative law (Article 3:4(2) of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act).
c) Discrimination between similar cases
- Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution and Articles 20 & 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibit unequal treatment without objective justification;
- Citizens with identical applications and circumstances are treated entirely differently depending on their municipality, without a binding legal framework, constituting unjustified discrimination.
7.4 Misrepresentation to the European Commission
In the TRIS notification, the Netherlands states:
“The measure does not go further than necessary, because the statutory power for mayors to grant exemptions still allows fireworks to be set off in a modified form during the New Year’s transition.”
This is misleading, because:
- There is no obligation for mayors to actually grant exemptions;
- Even valid applications may be rejected;
- There is no guaranteed alternative or “modified continuation” of the fireworks tradition, only a purely discretionary and arbitrary exception.
7.5 Conclusion
The discretionary power of mayors to grant or refuse exemptions, even for valid applications results in:
- Legal inequality and discrimination between citizens based on residence;
- Arbitrariness in the exercise of administrative authority;
- Undermining of legal certainty;
- An inconsistent and unverifiable application of the exemption scheme as presented in the TRIS notification.
This is fundamentally at odds with both Dutch and European legal principles, and undermines the legal validity and proportionality of the proposed measure.
8. Misleading Representation to the EU on the Preservation of the Fireworks Tradition
8.1 Context and Claim in the TRIS Notification
In its TRIS notification, the Dutch government claims that the practice of setting off fireworks during New Year’s Eve will be preserved “in a modified form” through the exemption scheme, despite the ban on F2 and F3 fireworks for consumers:
“The measure does not go further than necessary because the statutory power for mayors to grant exemptions still allows fireworks to be set off in an organised and safe manner during the New Year’s transition, so that this tradition can be maintained in a modified form.”
This claim serves as a central justification for the proportionality of the measure under Article 36 TFEU (restrictions on the free movement of goods for public health or safety reasons).
8.2 Legal Reality: Discretion Without Obligation
The proposed legislation (Article 9.2.2.1a, paragraphs 4 and 6) states:
- Mayors may, but are not required to, grant exemptions for the use of F2 fireworks during the New Year period;
- The law does not establish any right or entitlement for citizens who meet the formal criteria;
- Municipalities are free to adopt local policies that prohibit all exemptions.
This was explicitly confirmed during the parliamentary debate. MP Klaver (GroenLinks-PvdA) stated on behalf of the bill’s initiators:
“Applications that meet the requirements may still be rejected if, under locally developed policy, they do not qualify for approval. [...] Yes, local policy may also be: ‘We do not want to grant any exemptions at all.’”
— Senate plenary session, 30 June 2025
As such, there is no guarantee that consumers will be allowed to set off fireworks during New Year’s, even under “modified circumstances.”
8.3 Legal Consequence: Misrepresentation to the European Commission
The suggestion that the proposal “preserves the tradition in modified form” is misleading, because:
- The preservation of the fireworks tradition depends entirely on the discretion of individual mayors;
- Mayors may, based on local policy or political preferences, consistently refuse to grant exemptions;
- This may result in a situation where the tradition ceases to exist in most or all municipalities, despite a theoretical exemption mechanism.
There is therefore no functioning or guaranteed exception scheme, as suggested in the TRIS notification.
8.4 Relevance for the Commission’s Assessment
The European Commission evaluates TRIS notifications based in part on:
- The proportionality of the national measure;
- Whether practical alternatives exist to prohibitions or restrictions on the free movement of goods;
- Whether the measure results in de facto exclusion, despite the presence of a formal exception.
In this case, the legislative system and parliamentary debate show that the alleged alternative (municipal exemption) does not provide any practical protection or guarantee of consumer access to F2 fireworks.
8.5 Conclusion
The TRIS notification wrongly suggests that the measure is proportionate because the fireworks tradition is preserved through exemptions. In reality:
- The law offers no enforceable access to such exemptions;
- Implementation is left entirely to local discretion;
- There is a lack of legal certainty, equal treatment, and genuine protection of the tradition.
This representation is misleading and undermines the legal basis of the measure’s proportionality. As such, this element of the notification must be considered inaccurate and incomplete.
Final Conclusion
Based on the legal, systematic, and practical objections outlined above, we conclude that the Dutch legislative proposal as notified through TRIS (2025/0338/NL) is incompatible with several fundamental principles of European law. In summary, we establish that:
- The measure deviates from the harmonised terminology framework of Directive 2013/29/EU, particularly by extending the scope of the term “person with specialised knowledge” to include consumer categories F2 and F3;
- F2 and F3 articles are, in effect, reclassified as professional fireworks without any basis in European legislation;
- The national regulation leads to legal uncertainty, inconsistencies, and practical implementation problems;
- Commercial market participants are offered no clear role or legal certainty within the new framework;
- The proposed exemption structure lacks sufficient safeguards and is applied on a discretionary basis, resulting in arbitrariness and legal inequality;
- The claim that the fireworks tradition is preserved through local exemptions is factually and legally incorrect.
We therefore respectfully request the European Commission to assess this notification critically in light of the following legal frameworks:
- Directive 2013/29/EU on the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles;
- Articles 34–36 TFEU (free movement of goods);
- Article 5 TEU (principle of proportionality);
- EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Articles 20 and 21 (equal treatment and non-discrimination);
- General principles of EU law, including transparency and legal certainty.
We remain at your disposal for any further clarification and are willing to elaborate on our position, either in writing or orally, should that be desired.
Yours sincerely,
Remon Albers
Supply Chain B.V., Edisonweg 36, 6662NW Elst, The Netherlands
30/09/2025
