WRITTEN QUESTION E-3306/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Swedish law on the marking of dogs for identification.
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Sweden, domestic animal, health control, veterinary legislation

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/11

A joint programme with the Council of Europe to foster public awareness is under implementation since
1999 (Community-contribution € 334 850). This project, that covers Russia, Turkey and Albania, notably
provides training for legal professionals and parliamentarians about the impact on the abolition of the
death penalty on crime prevention.

A second project covers capital punishment activities to inform and support strategies to establish
alternatives to the death penalty. This project is implemented in cooperation with the University of
Westminster (Community contribution € 675 859).

An additional project provides assistance for prisoners under Sentence of Death in the Caribbean and is
implemented in cooperation with Penal Reform International (Community contribution € 596 456).

For the future, activities in support of the abolition of the death penalty are among the four thematic
priorities that have been identified in the Commission’s EIDHR Programming for 2002-2004.

(2002/C 229 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3306/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Swedish law on the marking of dogs for identification

At the beginning of 2001, a new law on the marking of dogs for identification entered into force in
Sweden. The question is, however, whether the provisions requiring ID-marking and registration are valid.
The law gives Swedish police the right to take custody of unmarked dogs if they constitute or it is feared
that they may constitute a danger to others. In October 2001, more than 58 000 dog owners took their
dogs to veterinary surgeons to have them marked with identification.

However, national technical regulations prescribing methods of marking and registration must be notified
to the Commission for its approval, pending which the regulations may not be applied. As the Swedish
authorities and the government could not agree whether the dog marking regulations required EU
approval or not, they were not notified to the Commission until early January 2001. As the Commission is
working on another proposal relating to the marking of animals, the ‘freeze’ on the Swedish regulations
was extended to at least twelve months. That being the case, the Swedish Board of Trade considers that the
regulations have no legal force. The Swedish Government, however, considers that the law on the marking
of dogs should be fully applied immediately and that the entire debate is based on a misunderstanding by
the Commission.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish law on the marking of dogs has legal force at the present
time, and that the Swedish courts should apply it?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Swedish Government gave notification of
a draft general administrative order on the marking and registration of dogs (notification 2001/5/S) and
the rules for its implementation (notification 2001/9/S) on 11 January 2001 and 12 January 2001
respectively.

Given that the Commission has submitted to Parliament and the Council a proposal for a regulation on the
animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals (1), these Swedish
drafts are blocked as provided for in Article 9(4) of 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 (2).

This blocking procedure is intended to ensure that the adoption of notified draft legislation does not
adversely affect the legislative process of harmonisation at Community level.

C 229 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

The Swedish authorities were therefore obliged to postpone the adoption of the two notified drafts until
11 January 2002 and 14 January 2002 respectively. Given that the Community’s activities had not been
completed by these dates, the standstill obligations lapse and the Swedish authorities are thus able to
finalise at national level the legislation whose adoption had been postponed, and move on to adopting the
technical regulation.

The Commission therefore considers that the Swedish Government could not adopt the drafts in question
before these dates without infringing its obligations under Community law, particularly the procedure laid
down in Directive 98/34/EC.

(1) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2002/C 229 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3311/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Russian membership of the WTO

The occasion of the most recent Davos World Economic Forum, which was, for the first time ever, held in
Moscow, was used by the Russian President to intensify Russia’s campaign for integration into the global
economy.

Russian membership of
the present government’s economic
modernisation policy, and the Russian President visibly showed a certain impatience on the subject at the
World Economic Forum.

the WTO is one of

the priorities of

Can the Commission explain the EU’s position on the matter? Does the Commission consider that Russia’s
aspiration to become a WTO member is likely to be satisfied in the foreseeable future, recalling that the
Russian President has complained that his country is being asked to fulfil conditions which have not been
applied to other countries?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The Union fully supports the objective of Russian membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on
commercially-viable terms. Negotiations for Russia’s accession have been taking place for some years, but
the Russian Government’s current programme of economic reform and other legislative changes have
certainly given new impetus to the process. Following the Union/Russia Summit on 3 October 2001, the
Commission has taken further concrete initiatives to support an acceleration of negotiations. Accordingly,
the Union has undertaken to present Russia with a comprehensive set of requests by the end of 2001.
These will provide a basis for further intensive bilateral negotiations and they will also feed into the
preparation in Geneva of a first draft of the report of the WTO Working Party that is considering Russia’s
accession request.

The Commission considers that any deadline for the completion of the WTO accession process would be
inherently arbitrary; what is more important is that the Union remains fully engaged in the process,
including through the provision of technical assistance that will help Russia achieve the capacity to
implement and enforce the obligations of WTO membership. The terms of Russia’s accession to the WTO
will be determined by negotiations in the WTO Working Party. The outcome of these negotiations cannot
be predicted with accuracy at this time.

The Member of the Commission in charge with Trade had the opportunity to explain a number of these
points to the Russian Minister for Trade, Mr German Gref, during his visit to Moscow on 5 December
2001. The Commission looks forward to maintaining the current impetus towards Russian accession: it is
strongly supportive of Russian efforts.