WRITTEN QUESTION P-0165/02 by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of wild animals.
Date: 2002-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, hunting regulations, illicit trade, protection of animal life, protection of animals, rabbit, transport of animals, wildlife

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/161

(2002/C 172 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0165/02

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Protection of wild animals

As a Member of the European Parliament, I am increasingly being approached by members of the public
with requests for help or with complaints regarding the protection of wild animals, almost always relating
to cruelty to animals.

The following are two examples:

* Trade in wild common (brown) hares: There was outrage in Germany following a television report
about wild hares being caught in nets in a well-planned and highly organised manner by the Polish
army in eastern Poland and then being transported thousands of kilometres to southern France in
awful conditions. Hundreds of thousands of hares are shipped this way every year, but not so that
they can be resettled for ecological reasons. What happens is more than just cruelty to animals, for it
is a conventional business operation designed to satisfy people’s passion for killing. The shooting of
the hares, which first have direction-finding devices fitted to them, is not huntsmanship but murder.

* The Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in Rijswijk, Netherlands: Conditions at this centre,
which holds 1500 primates, including 120 chimpanzees, are reportedly intolerable with, for instance,
more than 500 macaques, which in the wild live in troops, each languishing in isolation in an
extremely small metal cage. The Centre is allegedly funded by the European Union to the tune of
EUR 2,21 million a year.

Will the Commission therefore state:

* What means or plans it has for taking legal action in respect of cases of cruelty to animals perpetrated
in areas which fall within the remit of the Member States, especially since the Amsterdam Treaty
explicitly only requires the European Institutions to take due account of the welfare requirements of
animals in the context of Community policies (under the relevant protocol to the Treaty)?

* Whether the trade in common hares is compatible with the Berne Convention (Council Decision
82/72/EEC (1) of 3 December 1981), and if it intends, irrespective thereof, to press for the prohibition
of such trade vis-à-vis importing EU Member States and exporting candidate countries, and, if so,
how?

* Whether it can and will demand repayment of EU funding if the reports about the BPRC should turn

out to be correct?

(1) OJ L 38, 10.2.1982, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

As far as the conditions of transport mentioned by the Honourable Member are concerned Polish national
legislation would apply within Poland, although as a candidate for accession Poland is aligning this
legislation with that of the Community.

Legal doubts concerning the extent to which Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) of 19 November 1991 on
the protection of animals during transport as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (2) of 29 June 1995 can
cover a transporter of animals to the Community before the vehicle concerned enters Community territory
have not yet been resolved. It is clear, however, that the Directive is fully applicable once the animals are
brought into the Community.

The Commission does not currently have sufficient information to judge whether the part of the journey
within the Community in respect of the trade in wild hares respects the requirements of the Directive.

C 172 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

As the common hare is not one of the species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), responsibility for regulating
the capture and transport of this species lies with the Member States and the candidate countries for
accession. The Commission has no power to intervene.

The common hare Lepus capensis (europaeus) is one of the species of wild animal listed in Annex III to
the Berne Convention. The parties to this Convention, including Poland and France, must therefore take
the appropriate and necessary legislative and regulatory measures to protect the species. Such measures
include banning the use of non-selective methods of capture and regulating the transport of captured
animals. The catching of hares using nets as reported by the Honourable Member would therefore be
contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

The Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) which is situated in the European Union but independent
of the Union, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements. The BPRC
confirmed to the Commission in July 2001 that it has the permission at local level to conduct biomedical
research with non-human primates.

The Commission does not intend to exclude the BPRC from participation in Community funded projects
as long as the relevant authorisations from national authorities have been obtained.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 172 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Airport safety

I should like to know whether the Board of Directors of the national civil aviation agency has complied
with European legislation on airport safety. At the beginning of 2002, following the accident which had
taken place at Linate airport on 8 October 2001, a proposal was submitted to the government for a
reorganisation of the bodies responsible for air transport safety * ENAC (National Civil Aviation Agency)
and ENAV (National Flight Assistance Agency). The proposal emphasises and reinforces, among other
things, the status of the airport director, appointed by ENAC, who at present has a rather weak position.

On 21 December 2001, however, the ENAC Board of Directors turned this whole approach on its head by
bringing several airports under the responsibility of a single director. A particularly worrying aspect is the
arrangement introduced at Naples airport where it has been decided to transfer the current director, who
has had thirty years’ experience of this specific post, and to replace him with the head of the ENAC office
which is responsible for airworthiness certification. This involves amalgamating posts which have hitherto
the heads of
been allocated to people with totally different professional backgrounds. Until now,
certification offices throughout Italy have been aeronautical engineers while airport directors normally
have qualifications in law.

A number of members of the Italian parliament immediately tabled questions, calling for an explanation of
the objectives of the ENAC Board of Directors’ decisions, especially in the light of the planned reform of
the sector.

In view of the above, would the Commission state whether it is aware of this initiative which has not only
baffled political circles but is also causing concern among members of civil society about the safety of air
travel, a subject to which the European Parliament has devoted much attention?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that such decisions to amalgamate posts do
not create disruption and additional risks in what is already a difficult situation in Italy?