WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Abolition, on the basis of new information, of subsidies for the breeding of fighting bulls.
Date: 2001-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, agricultural guidance, animal show, beef, bull, cattle, livestock farming, production aid, suspension of aid

C 115 E/220

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

(2002/C 115 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 November 2001)

Subject: Abolition, on the basis of new information, of subsidies for the breeding of fighting bulls

Under Council Regulation (EC) 1254/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market
in beef and veal, the European Union subsidises the breeding of fighting bulls. Hitherto, the subsidy was
granted on the grounds that the breeder did not specify the final destination of the animal until after the
subsidy had been paid. That justification is untenable. The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture keeps an official
register, entitled ‘Libro Genealógico de la Raza Bovina de Lidia’, which was established on 12 March
(Boletin Oficial del Estado No 69-21-3-90). Since this register is open for public inspection, any authority
may consult it. Every male bovine animal destined either for the bullring or for Festejos taurinos (bull
running, where local people chase the animals through the streets before slowly torturing them to death)
must be entered in that register. Unregistered animals may not be sold, bought, exported or used for
bullfights or bull running. Pursuant to Article 1(2)(d), however, such animals must be registered in the first
10 days of the month following birth. That proves conclusively that, at the time when the EU premium is
actually paid < normally when the animals are nine or 10 months old < the destination of the bulls is
already irrevocably established. Registration is cancelled only after the animal has died in the bullring. The
animals involved are, therefore, not bred for their meat or their milk. It therefore follows that the
Community has been misled for at least 11 years. In this way, the European taxpayer has been actively
subsidising cruelty to animals.

On the basis of the incontrovertible evidence set out above, does the Commission see any possibility of
abolishing, with immediate effect, the payment of subsidies to breeders of fighting bulls?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

As part of the measures aimed at supporting the income of beef and veal producers, Community
legislation provides for a special premium for male bovine animals, payable once in the life of each
uncastrated animal from the age of nine months. In Spain this premium is paid subject to regional ceilings,
for a maximum of 90 animals per holding in this age bracket in each calendar year.

According to the information available to the Commission, the proportion of animals in bull-breeding
establishments actually selected for fighting is very low compared with the number of animals which will
go to the slaughterhouse, and does not exceed 10 % per herd.

In any event, irrespective of the age at which certain bulls are selected for fighting, it is obvious that the
majority of uncastrated male bovine animals in a herd are bred for a purpose similar to that of ordinary
bulls since the producers who select a percentage of animals for fighting are also beef and veal producers.

The outcome of this situation is that producers benefit from the special premium for all the uncastrated
male bovine animals which they keep, including those eventually selected for fighting.

The Commission does not intend to exclude such producers from the benefit of direct payments by
proposing that bulls be differentiated according to their ultimate purpose.

Since the rules on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, to which all bovine animals
are subject, are laid down in a Council Regulation, it is ultimately the Council on agriculture which, acting
on a Commission proposal, would be able to decide on an amendment to the legal framework as
envisaged by the Honourable Member.

As things stand, the Commission does not intend to make a proposal to the Council on this matter.