WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Battery hen ban in Sweden

A debate has ensued in Sweden as to whether Swedish rules on battery hens may constitute an obstacle to trade for the rest of the EU. The question under discussion is whether Sweden should have notified the Commission of the new exemption rules introduced in 1997 before introducing them. That would have meant freezing the rules for three months during which the various Member States could have expressed their views before the rules were adopted in Sweden.

Does the Commission consider that the rules on battery hens in Sweden are an obstacle to trade because they differ from the rest of the Union's rules, and does the Commission consider that Sweden should have notified the Commission of changes to its rules on battery hens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, at the time of the event mentioned in his question (adoption of national measures in Sweden in 1997), Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1) applied. In accordance with this Directive (which was consolidated by Parliament and Council Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2)), national projects containing technical regulations must be notified to the Commission. Certain measures are, however, exempted from this notification requirement, such as national measures by means of which Member States comply with binding Community acts.

In this context, technical regulations are defined as technical specifications and other requirements, including the relevant administrative provisions, the observance of which is compulsory, de jure or de facto, in the case of marketing or use in a Member State or a major part thereof, as well as laws, regulations or administrative provisions of Member States [] prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a product. According to this same Directive, technical specifications also cover production methods and procedures for agricultural products.

At first sight, therefore, the measures adopted in Sweden in 1997 relating to the rearing of battery hens would appear to be technical regulations within the meaning of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 94/10/EC of 23 March 1994(3), which should have been notified to the Commission. Nevertheless, without knowing the precise content of the Swedish measure referred to by the Honourable Member, it is difficult for the Commission to state whether Sweden should have notified the Commission of this ban. Similarly, without knowing the content of subsequent amendments to this ban, it is difficult for the Commission to state whether the changes should have been notified to it.

Concerning the Honourable Member's question as to whether Sweden's rules on battery hens are an obstacle to trade because they differ from the rest of the Union's rules, the Commission would first of all like to remind the Honourable Member of the Community acquis in this field.

Council Directive 88/166/EC of 7 March 1988 complying with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 131/86(5) merely lay down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. It did not prevent a Member State from imposing, by way of exception, a total ban on a system of rearing for reasons of higher interest justifying such a measure.

Moreover, Article 13(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens(4), which repealed and replaced Directive 88/166/EEC, allows Member States, while respecting the rules laid down in the Treaty, to maintain or apply, within their territories, provisions for the protection of laying hens which are more stringent than those envisaged by the Directive.

A national measure of this kind is likely to affect the free movement of the product concerned or create obstacles to the proper functioning of the single market. However, it is valid for a Member State to take a measure producing a restrictive effect on intra-Community trade when the justification of protecting animal life or health can be relied on and provided that the measure in question does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination nor a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. The Commission would need additional information before it could measure precisely the impact of this Swedish measure on the single market.

(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994.

(4) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

(5) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994.