# CE2004078EN.01019301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/193 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/193

---

(2004/C 78 E/0199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2943/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   European taxpayers' contribution to promoting and maintaining bullfighting and other local traditions involving cruelty to animals

Subject:

| 1. | Is it possible that monies granted from the EU structural or cohesion funds to strengthen regional economies can be used to support the breeding of bulls especially for bullfighting or that some funds from the common agricultural policy can be allocated to providing an affordable range of feeding stuffs for bulls that are not bred for meat production but are specifically selected and even registered from birth for bullfighting? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible that monies granted from the EU structural or cohesion funds to strengthen regional economies can be used to support the breeding of bulls especially for bullfighting or that some funds from the common agricultural policy can be allocated to providing an affordable range of feeding stuffs for bulls that are not bred for meat production but are specifically selected and even registered from birth for bullfighting?

| 2. | Has the Commission an overview of the amounts from the regional funds and the common agricultural policy, in particular the special premium for bull calves, which might have been used over the period 1993-2002 to promote and maintain bullfighting? If so, what were the absolute amounts and the relative percentages? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission an overview of the amounts from the regional funds and the common agricultural policy, in particular the special premium for bull calves, which might have been used over the period 1993-2002 to promote and maintain bullfighting? If so, what were the absolute amounts and the relative percentages?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware of other cases, in addition to bullfighting in Spain, Portugal and the southern coast of France, in which EU funds are made available to maintain local cultural traditions that are considered repugnant and criminal offences involving cruelty to animals by citizens elsewhere in Europe, such as bullfighting, cockfighting and rodeos? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware of other cases, in addition to bullfighting in Spain, Portugal and the southern coast of France, in which EU funds are made available to maintain local cultural traditions that are considered repugnant and criminal offences involving cruelty to animals by citizens elsewhere in Europe, such as bullfighting, cockfighting and rodeos?

| 4. | What means does the Commission have within the current rules for ensuring that no EU funds are used for such controversial purposes, irrespective of whether or not legislation and public opinion in the Member States concerned permits such activities as cultural traditions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What means does the Commission have within the current rules for ensuring that no EU funds are used for such controversial purposes, irrespective of whether or not legislation and public opinion in the Member States concerned permits such activities as cultural traditions?

| 5. | If the means referred to in paragraph 4 are inadequate, is the Commission prepared to take steps to introduce further measures to require beneficiaries of EU funds to give a prior guarantee that no monies whatsoever will be used for the preparation, advertising or organisation of fighting involving animals and that, if such an assurance is not provided, the subsidies concerned will be withheld? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the means referred to in paragraph 4 are inadequate, is the Commission prepared to take steps to introduce further measures to require beneficiaries of EU funds to give a prior guarantee that no monies whatsoever will be used for the preparation, advertising or organisation of fighting involving animals and that, if such an assurance is not provided, the subsidies concerned will be withheld?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

(19 November 2003)

As a general rule, the Commission would like to point out that there is no specific Community legislation on the issue raised by the Honourable Member. Areas covered by Community legislation only concern animal welfare on the farm, slaughter of animals, conditions for transporting them and animals used in the laboratory. As the issue remains with the Member States competence, the Commission underlines that there is no all-embracing definition of animal cruelty currently accepted for all purposes by the Member States.

Having said that, as regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to provide the following information:

| — | Among different measures intended to support the income of beef and veal producers, Community legislation stipulates that a producer holding male bovine animals on his holding may qualify, on application, for a special premium. The special premium is granted no more than once in the life of each bull from the age of nine months, within the limits of a regional ceiling per Member State of not more than 90 animals for this age bracket per year and per holding. |
| --- | --- |

—

Among different measures intended to support the income of beef and veal producers, Community legislation stipulates that a producer holding male bovine animals on his holding may qualify, on application, for a special premium. The special premium is granted no more than once in the life of each bull from the age of nine months, within the limits of a regional ceiling per Member State of not more than 90 animals for this age bracket per year and per holding.

| — | In view of the costs generated by the rearing of the animals, the stock breeder of bulls does not postpone the granting of the premium, which is in general actually paid from the age laid down by the regulation, i.e. at a time when one does not know yet for which purpose the animal will be used. The stockbreeder of bulls of the type which could be used for bullfighting in the Member States concerned indeed decides which of his bulls will be intended for the fight only when animals reach adulthood. |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of the costs generated by the rearing of the animals, the stock breeder of bulls does not postpone the granting of the premium, which is in general actually paid from the age laid down by the regulation, i.e. at a time when one does not know yet for which purpose the animal will be used. The stockbreeder of bulls of the type which could be used for bullfighting in the Member States concerned indeed decides which of his bulls will be intended for the fight only when animals reach adulthood.

| — | According to information available to the Commission, on farms breeding bulls the proportion of animals which will actually be intended for the fight is very small in relation to the number of animals which will go to the slaughterhouse. The rest of the bulls of the herd are bred with a view to slaughter for consumption as well as ‘common’ bulls, since producers who select a small percentage of animals for the fight also are beef and veal producers. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to information available to the Commission, on farms breeding bulls the proportion of animals which will actually be intended for the fight is very small in relation to the number of animals which will go to the slaughterhouse. The rest of the bulls of the herd are bred with a view to slaughter for consumption as well as ‘common’ bulls, since producers who select a small percentage of animals for the fight also are beef and veal producers.

| — | It results from this that the special premium benefits producers in respect of all the male bovine animals they hold, including those finally intended for fighting. According to the legislation in force, the Member States are not obliged to indicate separately bulls on the basis of this criterion when they notify the Commission with information as regards the number of animals accepted for the premium each year. |
| --- | --- |

—

It results from this that the special premium benefits producers in respect of all the male bovine animals they hold, including those finally intended for fighting. According to the legislation in force, the Member States are not obliged to indicate separately bulls on the basis of this criterion when they notify the Commission with information as regards the number of animals accepted for the premium each year.

| — | In this context, the Commission cannot exclude these breeders from the granting of the special premium and of direct payments in general. Moreover, the Commission is not in a position to propose any differentiation between bulls according to their final destination since nothing distinguishes a priori ‘fighting bulls’ from other bulls, in particular with regard to their suitability for human consumption. |
| --- | --- |

—

In this context, the Commission cannot exclude these breeders from the granting of the special premium and of direct payments in general. Moreover, the Commission is not in a position to propose any differentiation between bulls according to their final destination since nothing distinguishes a priori ‘fighting bulls’ from other bulls, in particular with regard to their suitability for human consumption.

| — | The Commission adopted in January 2003 proposals for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Commission proposed to introduce a system of decoupled (from production) income support per farm by establishing a single farm payment to replace most of the premia under different Common Market Organisations (CMO), including beef and veal. Such proposal implies among others the end of the granting of direct payments, in particular the special premium for male bovine animals, to beef producers holding bulls including those finally intended for fighting. Furthermore, Commission proposals generalise the application of the principle of cross compliance. Farmers receiving direct payments must respect statutory management requirements as regards in particular animal welfare. As the rules governing the CMO in beef and veal including the direct payments to which all bovine animals are submitted are laid down in a Council Regulation, only the Council can change the current legal framework after the Parliament having given an opinion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission adopted in January 2003 proposals for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Commission proposed to introduce a system of decoupled (from production) income support per farm by establishing a single farm payment to replace most of the premia under different Common Market Organisations (CMO), including beef and veal. Such proposal implies among others the end of the granting of direct payments, in particular the special premium for male bovine animals, to beef producers holding bulls including those finally intended for fighting. Furthermore, Commission proposals generalise the application of the principle of cross compliance. Farmers receiving direct payments must respect statutory management requirements as regards in particular animal welfare. As the rules governing the CMO in beef and veal including the direct payments to which all bovine animals are submitted are laid down in a Council Regulation, only the Council can change the current legal framework after the Parliament having given an opinion.

| — | Where the Structural Funds are concerned, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in response to a call for applications closing on 10 January 2003 a project entitled Minotauro was submitted for Community financing under the Interreg IIIC Community Initiative. The project leader was located in Spain and there were nine partners from four Member States: France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. It was submitted as a project to network local authorities involved in culture management and not as a specific project for activities linked to bullfighting. |
| --- | --- |

—

Where the Structural Funds are concerned, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in response to a call for applications closing on 10 January 2003 a project entitled Minotauro was submitted for Community financing under the Interreg IIIC Community Initiative. The project leader was located in Spain and there were nine partners from four Member States: France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. It was submitted as a project to network local authorities involved in culture management and not as a specific project for activities linked to bullfighting.

| — | This project was not in fact selected for Community financing. |
| --- | --- |

—

This project was not in fact selected for Community financing.

| — | The Commission would however point out that under the regulatory provisions on management of Structural Fund assistance project analysis, assessment and selection is entirely a matter for the national and regional authorities appointed by the Member States as managing authorities for the various Structural Fund programmes. For all projects submission and selection procedures defined at national or regional level must therefore be followed and projects must satisfy the eligibility and selection criteria laid down in each programme. Obviously the Commission has a responsibility to see that the entire procedure conforms with Community law. But all questions of the priority to be given to and the desirability of aiding particular projects are a matter for the representative bodies of the Member States, regions and other relevant bodies. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission would however point out that under the regulatory provisions on management of Structural Fund assistance project analysis, assessment and selection is entirely a matter for the national and regional authorities appointed by the Member States as managing authorities for the various Structural Fund programmes. For all projects submission and selection procedures defined at national or regional level must therefore be followed and projects must satisfy the eligibility and selection criteria laid down in each programme. Obviously the Commission has a responsibility to see that the entire procedure conforms with Community law. But all questions of the priority to be given to and the desirability of aiding particular projects are a matter for the representative bodies of the Member States, regions and other relevant bodies.

---