WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Ban on goods made from dog and cat fur.
Date: 2001-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: domestic animal, hides and furskins industry, import, marketing restriction, protection of animals

C 40 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

insurers, dealers and collectors, on possible practical

The Commission wishes to combat trafficking by acting on the prevention front. In May 2001, when the
European Crime Prevention Forum was launched, it began studies with police and heritage protection
authorities,
improvements. These would involve
enhanced international police and administrative cooperation, the exchange of information on objects
being sought, precautionary rules in dealings in (cid:145)sensitive(cid:146) goods, cooperation with the authorities in
countries of origin of goods being trafficked, notably in terms of training and awareness, and informing
collectors of the risks they sometimes run in terms of the international conventions already in force.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that in the European Economic Area cultural
goods obtained as a result of illegal excavations and trafficking may be eligible for the protection offered
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods (1) and
Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from
the territory of a Member State (2). An action for the return of goods is also provided for internationally by
the States that have ratified the 1995 Unidroit Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects.

The Commission notes that, generally speaking, value added tax (VAT) applies to all sales of goods and
supplies of services in the Community. Transactions in antiques are like any other transactions and are
therefore taxed. Accordingly, if antiques are sold by a taxable person to Community residents, VAT at the
appropriate rate is chargeable. If antiques are sold to non-Community residents, and the antiques are
exported from the Community, no VAT arises.
If antiques are imported into the Community and
purchased by Community residents, or are purchased outside the Community and imported, then VAT is
payable in the Community. If, on the other hand, antiques imported for resale are simply purchased for
export, no VAT arises.

As regards the rate of VAT, again the general principle applying to other goods applies to antiques. This
means that the standard rate of VAT should be applied, as antiques do not feature in Annex H to the Sixth
VAT Directive (3), which is the list of supplies of goods and services to which a reduced rate can be
applied.

Nevertheless, the Sixth VAT Directive permits Member States to apply the reduced rate of VAT (which
cannot be lower than 5 %), to imports of antiques as defined in Annex I of that Directive. A list of the VAT
rates charged by Member States on antiques can be found in the Commission publication VAT rates
applied in the Member States of
is available at http://
europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/publications/info_doc/taxation/tva/taux_tva-2001-5-1en.pdf.

the European Community. This document

The Commission has no role in checking whether a Member State(cid:146)s VAT receipts have arisen as a result of
legal or illegal transactions.

(1) OJ L 395, 31.12.1992.
(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993.
(3) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes (cid:129) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment. (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977), as last
amended by Council Directive 2001/41/EC of 19 January 2001 (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001).

(2002/C 40 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Ban on goods made from dog and cat fur

I understand that the US government has recently introduced a domestic ban on the sale of goods made
from dog and cat fur.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/109

In the light of this development, is the Commission planning to come forward with proposals for an EU-
wide ban on the marketing of products made from dogs and cats and the export from the Union of such
goods?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The United States (US) bill HR 4868 pertaining to prohibition on importation and other trade in products
made with cat and dog furs entered into force on 9 November 2000. It aims to impose a ban on the sale,
manufacture, offer for sale, transportation and distribution of cat and dog fur products, regardless of their
source (the only exception applies to import, export and transportation for non-commercial purposes of a
personal pet deceased, including a pet preserved through taxidermy). It is a domestic ban with an external
trade dimension.

On the question whether the Commission plans to come forward with proposals for a Community-wide
ban, it should be recalled that trade policy is only an outward projection of the internal policy of the
Community. Given that the principle of subsidiarity should apply on such sensitive policy matters, within
the limits set by the EC Treaty with regard to the free movement of goods and that no Member State has
adopted legislation to prohibit the sale, manufacture, transportation and distribution of cat and dog furs
within its own territory, the Commission does not believe that the issue of sale of cat and dog furs
warrants any legislative initiative in the Community at this stage.

(2002/C 40 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1812/01

by HervØ Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Directive on transparency and reimbursement of medicinal products

Directive 89/105/EEC (1) on transparency of prices and reimbursement of medicinal products ought to
have given patients speedier access to new medicines on the market. Ten years later, statistics show it has
had no effect. It has not improved patients(cid:146) access to new treatments.

There has been no reduction in the time needed to put these products on sale and the time needed to
decide on prices and reimbursement very often exceeds the 180 days laid down in the directive, especially
in France. The usual reason appears to be over-heavy administration.

If the Commission is concerned to give patients equal access to medicines in the European Union, should
it not make the Member States aware of the disparities between one country and another?

Could we not envisage a reform in procedure that would give patients immediate access to new medicines
at provisional prices and reimbursement rates, while the Member States and the pharmaceutical industry
negotiate the definitive rates?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The purpose of Directive 89/105/EEC (1), the so-called (cid:145)transparency(cid:146) directive,
is to establish a system
designed to obtain an overall view of national pricing arrangements for medicinal products, including the
manner in which they operate in individual cases and all the criteria on which they are based, and to
provide public access to them for all those involved in the market in medicinal products in the Member
States. With regard to pricing, constitution of positive lists of medicinal products covered by the national