WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE), Ilkka Suominen (PPE-DE), Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE), Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE), Den Dover (PPE-DE), Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), John McCartin (PPE-DE), Dana Scallon (PPE-DE), Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE), Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE), James Provan (PPE-DE), James Elles (PPE-DE), Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE), Karla Peijs (PPE-DE), Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR), Bertel Haarder (ELDR), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Paul Rübig (PPE-DE), John Purvis (PPE-DE), Markus Ferber (PPE-DE), Christian von Boetticher (PPE-DE), Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE), Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE), Astrid Thors (ELDR), Giles Chichester (PPE-DE), Konrad Schwaiger (PPE-DE), Bashir Khanbhai (PPE-DE), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE), Mikko Pesälä (ELDR), Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR), Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE), Jan Mulder (ELDR), Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE), Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE), Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), Joseph Daul (PPE-DE) and Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: The position and measures taken by the Commission concerning the British fur ban

Member States had until 13 March to react to the draft UK ban on fur-farming. Five Member States (Italy, France, Finland, Spain and Denmark) voiced very serious concerns about the measure, and France submitted a detailed opinion

opposing its adoption. As the Commission is aware, this proposal has no scientific basis (nor does the UK claim that it has), and the justification put forward for it by the UK authorities is public morality.

As the Commission is aware, fur-farming is a well regulated sector of agriculture governed by national and EU laws as well as by a Council of Europe Recommendation on fur animals which was adopted in June 1999 with the support of all EU Member States and the Commission. The EU is the largest producer of farmed fur, and the sector provides thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly.

In view of this situation, does not the Commission consider it illogical and incorrect for a Member State to ignore EU laws governing a legitimate agricultural activity and ban it without full and proper justification? Is not the Commission concerned about the precedent that would be set if a ban based on unsubstantiated public morality arguments were accepted, and is it not worried that the same basis might be used to ban the keeping of other farmed animals or to introduce measures on the transport of animals that conflict with EU directives in this field?

Finally, in the light of the above, does not the Commission consider that it should take a position against the draft UK ban as a matter of urgency and join France in issuing a detailed opinion?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The draft legislation notified to the Commission under Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1) prohibits the breeding or keeping in the United Kingdom of animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur.

Animals of the species commonly kept for the value of their fur are covered by the common market organisation established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 of 28 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in Annex II to the Treaty(2), (now Annex I).

It is well established that where such a common market organisation exists, Members States' powers to take action which would interfere with its uniform application are limited, though it is also clear that Member States have some discretion to take measures aimed at legitimate non-agricultural objectives, even if these interfere with the operation of the common market organisation.

Once adopted, the effects of this draft in respect of intra-community trade should a priori not be disregarded, especially regarding the import, for breeding or slaughter, of fur animals into the United Kingdom. If it were the case that hindrances to intra-community trade resulted from the production ban provided for in the draft, these might nevertheless be justified on grounds of public morality, within however the limits set out by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court of justice.

The Commission notes that the scientific veterinary committee recently started a study with a view to preparing future Community legislation, the objective of which would be to set common rules on the welfare of animals kept for the value of their fur. It would be preferable if all Member States awaited the results of this exercise before taking any unilateral measures on fur farming.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2) OJ L 151, 30.6.1968.