WRITTEN QUESTION E-2654/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Labelling and monitoring of animal skins.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal skin, animal welfare, customs inspection, hides and furskins industry, import (EU), import licence, labelling, protection of animals

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/69

As stated in the reply to the above written question, the project is to be considered as covered by the class
10(e) Construction of roads, harbours and port installations,
including fishing harbours (projects not
included in Annex I) of Annex II of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/
337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The
Directive provides (Article 4, paragraph 2): Subject to Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the
Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by
the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles
5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

The Italian authorities communicated that the concerned project consists of a (cid:145)second class extra-urban
road not crossing any nature conservation area(cid:146). For this kind of road, the regional legislation of Regione
Veneto has determined specific thresholds. Below five kilometers (km) of length, authorities are not obliged
to carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure. Above five km of length authorities are
obliged to carry out an EIA procedure. Therefore, since the road is 1,4 km long, according to the above-
mentioned provision and in line with the Directive, the project mentioned by the Honourable Member did
not become the subject of an EIA procedure.

In the light of the above, no breach of Directive 97/11/EC can be identified.

The project for construction of a lake shore pier on (cid:145)Lago di Garda(cid:146) is not included in any of the classes of
projects listed in the annexes of the above mentioned directives on environmental impact assessment.
Therefore, Community EIA legislation does not apply to it. Class 10(k) of Directive 97/11/EC, mentioned
by the Honourable Member, is not relevant to the case since it concerns (cid:145)Coastal work to combat erosion
and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles,
jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works(cid:146). A lake
shore pier has not the purpose of combating the erosion or of altering the coast and, in particular, is not a
maritime work.

The last two works mentioned by the Honourable Member, a (cid:145)plan to concrete 286 000 m2 on several
parcels covering about 38,5 hectares(cid:146) and the (cid:145)expansion of the park of Gardaland to create space for
conferences and educational and recreational activities(cid:146), could fall in the following classes of Annex II of
Directive 97/11/EC: 12(c)
(cid:145)Holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated
developments(cid:146), 12(e) (cid:145)Theme parks(cid:146) or 13 (cid:145)Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or
Annex II, already authorized, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant
adverse effects on the environment(cid:146). Where this is verified, they are to be considered covered by the
regime, above mentioned, which Directive 97/11/EC sets out for classes of projects listed in Annex II.
However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the projects mentioned
appear to be at too early a stage to envisage possible breach of Community EIA directives.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 160.

(2001/C 136 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2654/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Labelling and monitoring of animal skins

Investigations by a number of international organisations have shown that in Asia up to 2 million pets,
primarily cats and dogs, have been rounded up under appalling conditions and then killed for their skins
in a repulsive manner. Many of these skins are exported and thus appear in European shops. Moreover, it
has been established that many of these skins are not labelled as cat or dog skins in an effort to disguise
their origin.

C 136 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Is there a ban on the import of cat and dog skins?

If so, what law is that ban based on and how are the relevant checks organised?

If not, are checks carried out to determine whether skins are falsely or misleadingly labelled?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

In the Community a comprehensive set of legislation exists that covers a wide range of issues relating to
animal welfare within its borders. However, given that trade in cat or dog skins is not forbidden under the
CITES Convention (1), there is no ban in the Community on the import of such products.

When hides and skins are imported into the Community, customs officials usually carry out visual checks
in order to verify whether the information provided on labels, if any, corresponds to reality. The purpose
of those checks is twofold: to verify whether those products fall under the CITES Convention, and to
ensure the correct customs classification with a view to establishing the appropriate customs tariff.

(1) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

(2001/C 136 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2658/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Guido Podest(cid:224) (PPE-DE),
Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE) and Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 97/67/EC

Following a complaint by the Dutch public postal service provider TNT Post Group (TPG), the Commission
Directorate-General for Competition has instituted infringement proceedings against Italy under Article
86(3) of the Treaty. The proceedings relate to incorrect transposition of Directive 97/67/EC (1) and are
designed to undermine the economic foundations of the universal postal service in Italy. In other words,
they are seeking to produce the same effects as the Commission(cid:146)s proposal for a second directive, which
has not yet been considered in Parliament.

Two and a half years after it was issued, the Netherlands has still not transposed Directive 97/67/EC, and
the area of operations reserved for TPG under Dutch law continues to exceed the scope of the actual
coverage requirements that the universal service has to satisfy. Backed by public money, TPG is pursuing a
strategy of expansion, especially in Italy.

The Commission proposal for a directive meets the wishes of the Dutch Government in that it will
liberalise the postal service in a way directly favourable to the Dutch service provider, as can be inferred
from a document which the Advisory Committee on Transport, Public Works, and Waters has submitted
to the State Secretary.

The resulting situation appears something of a paradox, working entirely to the benefit of TPG by creating
unequal competition in which the public service provider, bound by the constraints of the universal
service, has to bear the costs of that service, whereas the private provider can (cid:145)cream off(cid:146) the market and
choose the richest and most prized demand segments according to market considerations.

Will the Commission therefore:

(cid:129) ascertain the truth of the points set out above;

(cid:129) say why it is anxious to rush ahead with liberalisation specifically in Italy, where TPG today is already

generating a third of the turnover of (cid:145)Poste Italiane(cid:146);