COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition and Council Directive 1999/29/EC on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition

I. PROCEDURE

I.1 On 21 March 2000, the Commission sent the Council and the European Parliament a proposal based on Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty (COM (2000) 162 final - 2000/0068(COD)) for adoption by the co-decision procedure laid down in Article 251 of the EC Treaty, amending Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition [1] and Council Directive 1999/29/EC on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition.

[1] OJ L 265, 08.11.1995 p.17

I.2 On 4 October 2000, the European Parliament delivered a first opinion on the Commission proposal and adopted a report and 26 amendments (A5-0256/2000). The Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on 20 September 20002. At its plenary meeting in September 2000, the Committee of the Regions decided not to deliver an opinion.

I.3 On 1 December 2000, having accepted the amendments proposed by the European Parliament, the Commission adopted a modified proposal in accordance with Article 250 of the EC Treaty.

I.4 At its meeting on 12 February 2001, the Council adopted its common position in accordance with Article 251 of the EC Treaty.

II. PURPOSE OF THE DIRECTIVE

Directive 95/53/EC fixes the principles governing official inspections in the field of animal nutrition. It covers both Community and third-country products. The Directive entered into force in May 1998.

Directive 1999/29/EC on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition provides, inter alia, for a notification procedure on feed contamination.

The proposal, which was one of the feed safety measures announced in the Commission White Paper on food safety, aims to supplement existing legal provisions as follows:

Member States will be required to adopt adequate contingency plans to deal with serious feed risks.

In the event of serious risks to public health, animal health or the environment, the Commission will be able to take interim protective measures concerning feedingstuffs and products used in animal nutrition produced within the Community.

Under a harmonised procedure, Member States will be required to inform the Commission as soon as serious contamination or risk is identified and has spread to feed and the food chain or is likely to spread to other countries.

Member States will be required to inform the Commission of the increased frequency of a certain contamination or hazard.

Member States will be required to include all information concerning occasional, limited contamination or hazards in their annual report to the Commission on feed sector inspections.

On the basis of these reports, the Commission will adopt a decision, in preference to a recommendation, as an appropriate legal instrument for ensuring the implementation of the following year's co-ordinated inspection programmes.

In an emergency, information relating to animal nutrition products will be exchanged using the current food alert system.

A harmonised legal basis will be established for the transmission of all information concerning feed controls and feed safety.

III. COMMISSION RESPONSE TO THE COMMON POSITION OF THE COUNCIL

The Commission can accept all the Council's amendments for the following reasons:

(1) Article 1:- this merely concerns the updating of a definition in another relevant animal nutrition directive.

(2) Article 2(1)(b) :-this clarifies the definition of product.

(3) Article 2(1) on contingency plans:- the Council's reformulation respects the spirit of the Commission proposal, although it dispenses with the blind simulation requirement.

(4) Article 2(3) on checks at destination:- this ensures better implementation of all necessary controls.

(5) Article 2(4) on the safeguard clause:- this allows the Commission to adopt rapid interim protective measures in an emergency.

The common position also addresses the European Parliament's concern to restrict the possible use of dangerous products and its request for immediate notification as set out in Amendments 17 and 18.

(6) Article 2(5) on the information system:- the Council's reformulation also provides for official import inspection and control data and so expands the framework. The new wording regarding responsibility for contacting the competent authorities in the event of a problem is appropriate in this context. It addresses the concerns behind Amendment 6 of the European Parliament, which seeks to ensure protection against doubtful commercial practices.

The Council also accepted Parliament's request concerning the notification of emergencies as outlined in Amendment 22.

(7) Article 2(6) on the dissemination of confidential information:- this addresses the substance of Amendment 23.

(8) Article 2(7) on inspection:- the Commission proposal concerning interim reports and the alteration of the current legal form for co-ordinated control programmes from a recommendation to a decision is not a fundamental control policy issue.

(9) Article 3:- this merely concerns the updating of a definition in another relevant animal nutrition directive.

The issue of on-the-spot inspections is already dealt with in the proposal (COM (1998) 602 final) on which the European Parliament and the Council have agreed in the conciliation procedure and which will shortly be adopted. The common position of the Council takes no account of Parliamentary amendments, which could be regarded, as linguistic amendments and which have been accepted by the Commission.

Whilst the Commission would have welcomed the Council's acceptance of the Parliamentary amendments which it had itself endorsed, it believes that the main objectives of the proposal, particularly the provisions concerning contingency plans, the emergency safeguard clause and the rapid alert system, have been respected and improved.

IV CONCLUSIONS

The Commission accepts the unanimous common position of the Council because it respects both the spirit of the initial proposal and some of the essential amendments adopted by the European Parliament on first reading.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Commission

The President