WRITTEN QUESTION E-2056/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Animal testing for cosmetics.
Date: 2002-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, animal experimentation, animal welfare, approximation of laws, cosmetic product, import restriction, international negotiations, market approval

C 192 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In this context, it is worth mentioning that in the Directive 76/768/EEC, as amended by Directive 93/35/
EEC (6th amendment), on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic
products there are specific provisions related to the prohibition of marketing of cosmetics products
containing ingredients or combinations of
(article 4.1.i). The current
provisions are the object of discussions with the Council and the Parliament in the framework of the
proposal for a 7th amendment to the above-mentioned directive.

ingredients tested on animals.

With regard to the Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme,
any research project which is selected for funding and which involves animal experimentation is submitted
to an ethical review procedure. A multidisciplinary panel of experts (including an animal welfare expert) is
checking amongst other issues that the justification given for the involvement of animals is acceptable and
the conditions comply with the legal requirements.

Moreover, the development of alternatives to animal experimentation has been among the research
priorities within Community RTD Framework Programmes for more than a decade.

2. With regard to the question on the protection of animals from abuse and suffering more generally,
there is no Community competency in the field of animal welfare per se. However, the Community has
taken steps to improve the treatment and welfare of animals.

The Amsterdam Treaty, for the first time ever, includes a Protocol on protection and welfare of animals.
The Protocol recognises animals as sentient beings and notes that the Community and the Member States
shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing the
Community policies on agriculture, transport, internal market and research. In doing so they will respect
the legislative and administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to
religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2003/C 192 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2056/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Animal testing for cosmetics

The European Parliament has recently approved a Recommendation for second reading on the common
position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive
amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to cosmetic products (A5-0180/2002) requiring a phasing-out of the sale within the European Union of
new cosmetic (but not medical) products that have been tested on animals after a given date. The
Commission has declared on several occasions that it believes that such a ban would conflict with WTO
rules, although there has never been a test case.

Could the Commission state which WTO regulation or regulations make the Parliament’s position
incompatible, in the view of the Commission, with the European Union’s WTO obligations? Does the
Commission believe that acceptance by the Council of the Parliament’s position would discriminate in any
way against non-EU firms, and, if not, does the Commission believe that an organisation such as the WTO
is likely to command broader public support if there is sufficient flexibility within its rules to allow for
measures designed to reduce animal suffering or to enhance environmental protection in cases where there
is no attempt to use such measures for protectionist purposes?

Finally, can the Commission confirm that if there is no agreement in Council then earlier legislation with
similar effect will automatically come into force, and, if so, on what date?

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/45

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The marketing ban proposed by the Parliament could create trade barrier to imports from third countries
whose laws require testing of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients on animals in order to ensure consumer
safety. This ban could potentially be challenged under, inter alia, the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Articles III, XI and XX of General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.

It would discriminate against ‘like products’ (GATT Article III.4, TBT Article 2.1). A cosmetic tested in
animals is the same as one tested by alternative means, and yet the Community would ban one and permit
the other.

It would impose Community testing requirements upon foreign producers. If their country has different
requirements that cannot be reconciled with Community requirements, the producers could be prevented
from exporting to the Community. This could discriminate against foreign producers who cannot possibly
conform to two conflicting sets of rules.

The Commission has noted public concern about an apparent disregard of the WTO for animal welfare
considerations. That is precisely why the Community has consistently promoted animal welfare as a
subject for discussions in future WTO negotiations, and will continue to do so. However, the Commission
believes it would damage its longer term objectives if it took a unilateral approach on this dossier.

The Commission confirms that the marketing ban, as introduced in the 6th amendment of Council
Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
cosmetic products (1), came into force legally on 1 July 2002, as the Parliament and Council could not
agree on a new text. However,
through its comitology
procedure for a postponement of the entry into force until a later date, in order to avoid unnecessary
disruption and uncertainty in the market.

the Commission is considering a proposal

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2003/C 192 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2066/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Unequal treatment of Greek citizens subject to military service

Under a current Greek-German convention (Law 4187/61), Greek nationals who also hold German
citizenship are exempt from the obligation to perform military service in Greece as long as they live and
work permanently in Germany. In other cases, e.g. Greeks with Austrian citizenship, the law requires that
they perform full military service in the Greek army even if they have already served in the Austrian army.
Moreover, pursuant to Article 7 of Law 1763/88 and the transitional provisions of Law 2510/97, Greek
residents holding permanent work permits in countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia (cid:1) with the
exception of Europe (cid:1) are entitled to unconditional exemption from conscription and free entry into and
exit from Greece until they repatriate, provided their permit was issued before 1 September 1997, which is
prejudicial to Greek citizens who acquired immigrant status in those countries after that date and to those
living in European countries even if, in the meantime, they have become naturalised citizens of their
country of residence.

Given that the current law on military service discriminates against Greek citizens living and working
permanently abroad with their families, while being blatantly contrary to the EU Treaty and Community
law, will the Commission say what steps it will take to resolve the problem of the evasion of military