# CE2004084EN.01007901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/79

---

(2004/C 84 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Camarles monkey farm

Subject:

The Centre de Recherches Primatologiques Ltd. has recently imported a total of 298 macaques for an experimental farm in Camarles (Tarragona). The Commission has already been made aware of the problem by Question E-2259/02 (1). These monkeys have been confiscated by the Catalan Generalitat's Departament de Medi Ambient, until such time as it can be guaranteed that they represent no threat of possible contagion and risk of illness for the population, and likewise whether the activities carried out at the Camarles farm are compatible with Catalan autonomous legislation.

1

However, despite the fact that the Spanish authorities have momentarily held back the permits for the farm's activities, while waiting for a final decision on the part of the Catalan autonomous government:

| — | does the Commission not believe that by virtue of the provisions of Article 22 of the Directive 86/609/EEC (2) on the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals, it should approach the Spanish authorities with regard to the operating plan of the envisaged installations, so as to guarantee that, should the farm's activities be carried out, they will respect this Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission not believe that by virtue of the provisions of Article 22 of the Directive 86/609/EEC (2) on the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals, it should approach the Spanish authorities with regard to the operating plan of the envisaged installations, so as to guarantee that, should the farm's activities be carried out, they will respect this Directive;

2

| — | is the Commission prepared to investigate the measures which both the research company and the Spanish authorities have devised to ensure that Articles 5, 14 and 15 of the Directive are fully complied with; |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission prepared to investigate the measures which both the research company and the Spanish authorities have devised to ensure that Articles 5, 14 and 15 of the Directive are fully complied with;

| — | is the Commission aware of the fact that many of the imported macaques are of the macaca fascicularis species, which comes under the CITES Red List, where it is classified as ‘almost threatened’? |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission aware of the fact that many of the imported macaques are of the macaca fascicularis species, which comes under the CITES Red List, where it is classified as ‘almost threatened’?

Does the Commission know that with regard to the ‘crab-catching macaque’, the other imported species, the countries of origin (basically Malaysia and the Philippines) actually prohibited the export of these animals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

(26 January 2004)

With regard to Article 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission has received no indication that the provisions of this Article are not being met.

The application of Articles 5, 14 and 15, on the housing and care of the animals, education and training of personnel, and conditions for approving breeding and supplying establishments, is the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission has so far not received any indication that these provisions are not complied with and thus has no basis for a Commission investigation.

The Commission is aware that the species in question, Macaca fascicularis, is listed on Appendix II of CITES and the corresponding Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (3). Import of such species into the Community is only allowed when the country of origin has issued a valid export permit (thus respecting the decision of some countries to ban exports) and when the Member State concerned, in consultation with other Member States where appropriate, deems that the import does not pose a threat to the conservation status of the species. In the present case, the information available to the Commission indicates that the monkeys are not taken from any native wild populations. Therefore, subject to the provision of export permits, the import is not in breach of CITES or Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

3

---

(1)  OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 214.

1

(2)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

3

---