WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Battery hen ban in Sweden.
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, Sweden, application of EU law, exchange of information, intensive livestock farming, marketing, poultry, technical rule

C 147 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Commission support for Team Europe Junior

Team Europe Junior
Commission support.

(TEJ)

is a non-profit, non-party political organisation formed in 1992 with

Can the Commission say what financial and other support, e.g. assistance with marketing etc., it gave TEJ
in 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The only Team Europe Junior that is currently operational and supported by the Commission is based in
the Netherlands.

The Dutch Junior Team Europe is a team of students that teaches different European themes in secondary
schools. It was founded in the Netherlands in 1990 by Europa Centrum, a Dutch foundation in the field of
youth and education.

Each year, a new team of about 30 students is selected and trained to fulfil the demand that comes from
teachers all over the Netherlands. The team members each draw on their own experiences of working,
studying or living in a European country and they are only slightly older than the pupils. Their objective is
to inform young people about the Union and to foster dialogue. The lessons are created by the foundation
‘Europa Centrum’ and provide an efficient and effective means of communicating with young people.

This year the scheme has been expanded to include the participation of Members of the Parliament in the
lessons.

The foundation ‘Europa Centrum’ has developed plans to establish similar Junior Teams in other European
countries. In 2000 they set up partnerships with organisations in Austria, Poland and Latvia with the aim
of setting up a Junior Team in those countries. However, financing through the Youth programme was not
possible. Through the Dutch Representation contacts have been made with Directorate General
Enlargement and delegations in candidate countries in order to pursue this idea.

Financial support given by the Commission:

< Total costs of the project in the Netherlands: € 85 000,- per school year,

< Junior Team 2000-2001: € 14 000, a once-only-grant by Directorate General Education and Culture,

< Junior Team 2001-2002: € 24 295,39, part of the costs undertaken by the Dutch Representation of

the Commission.

(2002/C 147 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Battery hen ban in Sweden

A debate has ensued in Sweden as to whether Swedish rules on battery hens may constitute an obstacle to
trade for the rest of the EU. The question under discussion is whether Sweden should have notified the
Commission of the new exemption rules introduced in 1997 before introducing them. That would have
meant ‘freezing’ the rules for three months during which the various Member States could have expressed
their views before the rules were adopted in Sweden.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/147

Does the Commission consider that the rules on battery hens in Sweden are an obstacle to trade because
they differ from the rest of the Union’s rules, and does the Commission consider that Sweden should have
notified the Commission of changes to its rules on battery hens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, at the time of the event mentioned in his
question (adoption of national measures in Sweden in 1997), Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March
1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and
regulations (1) applied.
In accordance with this Directive (which was consolidated by Parliament and
Council Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in
the field of technical standards and regulations (2)), national projects containing technical regulations must
be notified to the Commission. Certain measures are, however, exempted from this notification
requirement, such as national measures by means of which Member States comply with binding
Community acts.

In this context, technical regulations are defined as ‘technical specifications and other requirements,
including the relevant administrative provisions, the observance of which is compulsory, de jure or de
in the case of marketing or use in a Member State or a major part thereof, as well as laws,
facto,
regulations or administrative provisions of Member States […] prohibiting the manufacture, importation,
marketing or use of a product.’ According to this same Directive, technical specifications ‘also cover
production methods and procedures for agricultural products’.

At first sight, therefore, the measures adopted in Sweden in 1997 relating to the rearing of battery hens
would appear to be ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended by
Parliament and Council Directive 94/10/EC of 23 March 1994 (3), which should have been notified to the
Commission. Nevertheless, without knowing the precise content of the Swedish measure referred to by the
Honourable Member, it is difficult for the Commission to state whether Sweden should have notified the
Commission of this ban. Similarly, without knowing the content of subsequent amendments to this ban, it
is difficult for the Commission to state whether the changes should have been notified to it.

Concerning the Honourable Member’s question as to whether Sweden’s rules on battery hens are an
obstacle to trade because they differ from the rest of the Union’s rules, the Commission would first of all
like to remind the Honourable Member of the Community ‘acquis’ in this field.

Council Directive 88/166/EC of 7 March 1988 complying with the judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case 131/86 (3) merely lay down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. It did not prevent a
Member State from imposing, by way of exception, a total ban on a system of rearing for reasons of
higher interest justifying such a measure.

Moreover, Article 13(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum
standards for the protection of laying hens (4), which repealed and replaced Directive 88/166/EEC, allows
Member States, while respecting the rules laid down in the Treaty, to maintain or apply, within their
territories, provisions for the protection of laying hens which are more stringent than those envisaged by
the Directive.

A national measure of this kind is likely to affect the free movement of the product concerned or create
obstacles to the proper functioning of the single market. However, it is valid for a Member State to take a
measure producing a restrictive effect on intra-Community trade when the justification of protecting
animal life or health can be relied on and provided that the measure in question does not constitute a
means of arbitrary discrimination nor a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. The
Commission would need additional
information before it could measure precisely the impact of this
Swedish measure on the single market.

(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(3) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994.
(4) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.