WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1962/97 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Imports of protected animal species from Poland to Belgium
Date: 1997-06-09
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, EU control, Poland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, bird, import, marketing, originating product, protection of animal life

25. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 60/71

Neither grassland nor the harvesting of the plant cover are covered by these provisions.

It is true that at one time it was feared that the drought would affect plant cover. However, the latest information
on the state of the crops is that a normal harvest can be expected. There is therefore no reason to derogate from
the rules in force. In any case, a local drought problem can always be met by the market and regional supplies.

(1)  OJ L 181, 1.7.1992.
(2)  OJ L 90, 7.4.1994.

(98/C 60/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/97

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(9 June 1997)

Subject: Imports of protected animal species from Poland to Belgium

On 12 February 1997 German frontier police discovered an illegal consignment of animals en route from Poland
via Germany to Belgium. The consignment mainly concerned Siberian goldfinches (Carduelis carduelis major), a
subspecies of the European finches. The carrier of the birds was employed by a Belgian dealer.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the case described above?

Is  it  aware  of  comparable  cases?  Are  such  cases  automatically  referred  to  the  Commission  and  does  it  keep
statistics?

If not, will the Commission take steps to obtain such information in future so that it can bring actions against the
Member State concerned if necessary, in relation to complaints or infringements of the Treaty?

2.
Does  the  Commission  consider  that  the  checks  undertaken  at  the  external  and  internal  frontiers  of  the
European  Union  or  its  Member  States  are  sufficient  to  ensure  success  in  preventing  illegal  movements  of
protected animals?

If not, what practical steps will the Commission take to prevent such illegal trade in the future?

What steps has the Commission already taken or will it take to assist states bordering on the EU which are not yet
members,  or  which  are  soon  to  become  members,  to  establish  and/or  implement  effective  species  protection
legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1997)

1.
The Commission learned of this matter through the press. It has received no official communication on the
subject. Indeed, Community law does not require the Member States to inform the Commission of this type of
situation. Therefore no particular statistics have been kept by the Commission in this area.

2. (a) The Commission has no specific information in its possession on the checks actively carried out in this
connection  by  the  Member  States  at  the  Community’s  external  frontiers.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that
systematic checks of this type at the internal frontiers became unacceptable on completion of the internal
market on 1 January 1993. However, the national authorities remain free to carry out checks on a random or
spot basis.

(b)  In the wake of Poland’s request for accession the Commission has acquired a certain amount of information
on the extent of approximation of Polish law to its Community counterpart. It would seem, as regards the
(cid:145)birds(cid:146) directive, that Polish law is very close to Community law. The LIFE assistance programme would
seem to be the most appropriate in supporting that country’s efforts towards the protection of nature.