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. The position and measures taken by the Commission concerning the British fur ban.
Date: 2000-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, agricultural production, common organisation of markets, fur-bearing animal, government bill

C 81 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

Global grants are a possible but not mandatory element of Member States(cid:146) regional development plans and
may be an efficient tool for local development. However favourable local conditions for their use are
necessary. The regional development plans submitted by the German authorities did not foresee global
grants and their use has been discussed during the negotiations with the Commission.

The European social fund Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July
1999 (1), obliges Member States to reserve adequate financing for non governmental organisations and
local partnerships. With small amounts actors at a local
level should mobilise local potential for job
creation. A chapter on global grants, following this requirement, has therefore now been included in the
Community support framework.

In addition, the utilisation of such instruments should be requested primarily by local partners and not
imposed on them. If in the future a need for wider use of global grants becomes apparent as formulated by
the regional authorities, the mid-term review would be an opportunity to extend the use of global grants.
The decision to employ a global grant will then be taken by the Member State in agreement with the
Commission or by the managing authority in agreement with the Member State, as stated in Article 9 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (2).

Regions can use other approaches to unlock regional potential and promote partnership, such as local
employment pacts foreseen in several operational programmes or activities in urban areas. Thuringia for
example pays particular attention to local partnerships in exploiting the potential of the information
society.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 81 E/057)

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-Kallstr(cid:246)m (PPE-DE), Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE),
James Provan (PPE-DE), James Elles (PPE-DE), Charlotte Cederschi(cid:246)ld (PPE-DE),
Karla Peijs (PPE-DE), Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR), Bertel Haarder (ELDR),
Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Paul R(cid:252)big (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 Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR),
Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR), Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE),
Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE), Jan Mulder (ELDR),
Encarnaci(cid:243)n Redondo JimØnez (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

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/49

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(cid:146) 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.