WRITTEN QUESTION E-3140/02 by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unlawfulness of Directive 91/67/EEC.
Date: 2002-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal disease, aquaculture, health control, ownership, public health, scientific report

C 110 E/172

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

line with Council Directive 96/23/EC (2) on monitoring certain substances and residues thereof in live
animals and animal products. The Commission considers that these provisions ensure consumer health
protection.

(1) Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain
substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/
146/EEC and 88/299/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2) Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in
live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC
and 91/664/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2003/C 110 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3140/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Unlawfulness of Directive 91/67/EEC

The current EU legislation on animal health checks in the aquaculture industry incorporates complex
provisions governing the award to zones or farms of ‘approved’ status. In particular, the provisions of
Directive 91/67/EEC (1) and the subsequent implementing measures lay down in great detail the rules
governing testing procedures in the laboratories run by national animal health authorities and impose, in
cases where the presence of certain diseases is brought to light, extremely strict safeguards which represent
a breach of the right of ownership. The rules do not stipulate that a technician designated by the firm
concerned should be present when the tests are carried out or that, at least, a second test may be
requested, even though the very survival of what are generally small firms depends on the outcome. These
provisions would seem to be clearly at odds with the right of ownership, a fundamental human right
which can be restricted only in a manner proportional to the objective to be achieved.

What interpretation does the European Commission place on the rules in force and does it take the view
that the right of ownership is being violated? If so, what measures does it plan to take to bring an end to
this unlawful state of affairs?

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Article 295 of the EC Treaty provides that ‘this Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member
States governing the system of property ownership’.

Although property ownership is to be regarded as a fundamental right, that right has to be weighed in the
balance with other fundamental rights such as the protection of public health and safety.

Measures taken to control the outbreak of diseases of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, may, in the
general public interest as well as in the interest of producers of the product concerned, require temporary
restrictions on the exercise of certain property rights.

A similar question to that posed by the Honourable Member is currently the subject of a request for a
preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice (joined cases C-20/00 and C64/00).

In relation to the possibility of those affected having an expert present at the time laboratory analysis of
samples takes place, or indeed of receiving an additional sample for an independent analysis,
the
Commission’s view is that, whilst this is not expressly provided for in the text of Council Directive 91/67/
EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of
aquaculture animals and products, or the Commission’s implementation rules, it is in no way prevented by
the Community rules concerned. Member States are therefore, at liberty to provide for such rights of
counter expertise in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions.