NoC332/22 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 16.12.92
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveconcerningtheprotectionofanimalskept
forfarmingpurposes
(92/C332/09)
On3June1992,theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforAgricultureandFisheries,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingtheCom­
mittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon1October1992.TheRapporteurwas
MrWick.
Atits300thPlenarySession(meetingof22October1992),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalsubjectto
thefollowingcomments .2.4.AccordingtotheCommittee,problemsaremost
likelytooccurinintensivestockfarming.Itnotes,
however,thatinkeepingwiththeConventionthepro­
visionsgoverningthekeeping,careandhousingof
animalsaretoapplyacross-the-board regardlessofhow
theanimalsarekeptforthepurposesindicatedin
Article2(1).
2.5.TheCommitteeagreeswiththeCommission
thattheCommunityisempoweredtoadoptruleswhich
gofurtherthantheConvention .Italsosupportsthe
plantodosowheneverthisseemsnecessary.Sincethe
proposal—liketheConvention—containsbroader
andmoregeneralprovisions,theverticallegislationto
beadoptedsubsequentlymayhavetocontainmore
detailedexplanatoryprovisions .
2.6.TheConventionmustbeadoptedinfullbythe
contractingpartieswithoutanysubstantivechanges
beingmade.TheCommitteewouldpointoutthatthe
Commissionproposaldoesnotsatisfythisrequirement
infull.Itwouldrecommendthattheproposal'swording
bereviewed—includingthetranslationsintheindivid­
uallanguageversions.2.GeneralComments
2.1.Since1988theCommunityhasbeenapartyto
theEuropeanConventionof10March1976forthe
ProtectionofAnimalskeptforFarmingPurposes.As
suchitmustensurethat
—theConventionisimplementedandapplieduni­
formlybytheMemberStatesand
—recommendations basedontheConvention are
translatedintoCommunitylawiftheyarebinding.
TheCommitteenotesthattheproposalislikelyin
principletofulfiltheCommunity'sobligations.
2.2.TheCommitteewoulddrawattentiontoits
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDecisioncon­
cludingthisConvention^).
2.3.TheCommunityhasalreadyadoptedvertical
legislation—intheformofDirectives—ontheprotec­
tionoflayinghens,pigsandcalves.Inprincipleit
wouldhavebeenmoreadvisableandfittingtobegin
byadoptinghorizontallegislation—suchasthepresent
proposal—andthentakethisasthebasisforthe
enactmentofverticallegislation.Inthiswaydiscrepanc­
iescouldhavebeenavoidedbetweenhorizontaland
verticallegislation .
However,theCommitteenoteswithapprovalthatonce
thisproposalhasbeenadoptedtheCommissionintends
toverifytheexistingverticallegislation.Itassumesthat
itwillbeconsultedonanynewprovisions.3.Specificcomments
3.1.Article1(1)
TheCommitteewelcomesthefactthatbecausemini­
mumstandardsaretobelaiddownuniformminimum
ruleswillbeestablishedwhichwillhavetobeobserved
equallybyallMemberStates.Thisdoesnotruleoutthe
adoptionofmorefar-reachingprovisionsbyMember
States.
3.2.Article1(2)
Thispointshouldperhapsberewordedinorderto
setthefarmanimalsectorapartfromtheprotection
affordedtoanimalspecies. (i)OJNoC204,30.8.1976,p.26.

16.12.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC332/23
3.3.Article2(3)
TofitinwiththedefinitiongivenintheConvention ,
thetextshouldread:
'intensivefarmingsystem:husbandrymethodsin
whichanimalsarekeptinsuchnumbers,ordensity,
orinsuchconditions,oratsuchproductionlevels
thattheirhealthandwelfaredependuponfrequent
humanattention.'
ThisexampleshowsthattheCommissionhasalso
madesubstantivechangesinitstext.Quiteapartfrom
therequisiteimplementation oftheEuropeanConven­
tion'sprovisions,thesectiontruststhatstricterand
moredetailedprovisions,whichalsopaydueregardto
theenvironment ,willbeadoptedforintensivefarming
systems.Thedifferenttypesofindoorandoutdoor
intensivefarmingsystemsshouldbetakenintocon­
siderationintheseprovisions .
3.4.Article8possibleiftheydonothavetowitnessorendurethe
slaughtering .Thisshouldbespeltoutclearlyinthe
implementingprovisions .
3.6.Article13inconjunctionwithArticles16and17
TheCommitteenotesthattheproposedcommittee
procedureisfundamentally differentfromthepro­
cedureusedsofarforveterinarymatters.Thereisno
provisionwhatsoeverforexertingpoliticalinfluenceon
theadoptionofindividualmeasures.
ThestandingcommitteesetuptoimplementtheCon­
ventionistodraftandadoptrecommendations .Ashas
beenshowninthepast,theserecommendations mostly
containdetailedrequirementswhichhaveanadverse
effectonthecompetitiveness ofaffectedpartiesinthe
MemberStates.Thereforeathoroughinvestigation
mustbecarriedouttoseewhethertheCommunity
shouldaccepttherecommendations and,ifso,inwhat
way.Whendecisionsareasimportantasthese,the
MemberStatesshouldalsobegivenasay.However,
theproposedprocedureprovidesonlyfortheconsul­
tationoftheMemberStates.TheCommitteetherefore
considersthatthedecisionsmustbetakenbythe
CounciloratleastbytheStandingVeterinaryCom­
mittee.
TheCommitteesupposesthatinthecaseofimports
fromthirdcountriestheremustbeevidencethatthe
provisionsgoverningtheprotectionoffarmanimals
havebeenobserved.TheGermantextshouldread'Lärmintensität am
Unterbringungsort 'insteadof'Lärmintensität imStall'.
3.5.Article11
Whenanimalsareslaughtered,neitherthesenorany
otheranimalsaretobecausedunnecessarypainor
distress.Inthecaseof'otheranimals'thisisonly
DoneatBrussels,22October1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN