Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2002-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal disease, domestic animal, health control, health legislation, third country, transport of animals, veterinary legislation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 4.12.2002
COM(2002) 710 final

2000/0221 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the animal-health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet
animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

2000/0221 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the animal-health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet
animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC

1.

INTRODUCTION

Point (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty stipulates that
the Commission is to deliver an opinion on amendments proposed by the European
Parliament at second reading. Accordingly, the Commission opinion on the fourteen
amendments proposed by the European Parliament is set out below.

2.

BACKGROUND

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Commission adopted proposal: 18 September 20001;

Economic and Social Committee opinion: 29 November 20002;

European Parliament opinion at first reading: 3 May 20013;

amended proposal adopted: 21 June 20014;

common position adopted: 27 June 20025;

Parliament adopted recommendation for a second reading: 22 October 2002.

3.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL

The  initial  proposal is intended  to lay down  common rules for the  non-commercial
movement of pet animals between Member States and entering from third countries.

1

2

3

4

5

COM(2000)529 final - 2000/0221(COD), 18.9.2000 (OJ C 29, 30.1.2001).
OJ C 116, 20.4.2001, p. 54.
OJ C 27, 31.1.2002, p. 55.
COM(2001)349 final (OJ C 270, 25.9.2001).
OJ C 275 E, 12.11.2002, p. 33.

2

                                                
4.

COMMISSION OPINION ON THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AMENDMENTS

4.1. Amendments accepted by the Commission

●

●

Amendments 2 (Article 4(2)(a) and (b)) and 13 (Article 23(2)) on the
recognition of electronic identification only after eight years, because the
Commission  considers  that  method  to  be  reliable  and  an  eight-year
transitional period to be sufficient.

Amendment  5  (Article  6(3)),  introducing  a  codecision  procedure  for
possibly  adopting  an  extension  of  the  special  status  of  the  United
Kingdom,  Ireland  and  Sweden  on  expiry  of  the  five-year  transitional
period, is acceptable in view of the first subparagraph of Article 23 of the
Common Position.

4.2. Amendments rejected by the Commission

4.2.1. Technical amendments

●

●

●

Amendment  1  (recital  11)  rules  out  the  possibility  of  setting  a
number of animals to distinguish non-commercial movements from
commercial movements, arguing that the number of animals is not
a  relevant  factor  as  regards  managing  the  health  risk.  The
amendment  is  of  only  superficial  relevance: 
the  veterinary
provisions  are  the  same  whether  the  movement  is  commercial  or
not.  But  the  control  provisions  are  not  the  same  (for  example,
commercial  entry  from  a  third  country  must  be  via  a  border
inspection  post).  It  is  therefore  essential  to  set  a  number  enabling
the definition, if only arbitrarily, of non-commercial movements.

Amendments 3 and  4  (Article  5(2))  remove  the  exemption  from
rabies  vaccination,  subject  to  certain  conditions,  for  animals  aged
less than three months  (too  young  to  be vaccinated)  and  therefore
prevents  freedom  of  movement  for  those  young  animals  between
Member  States  other  than  the  United  Kingdom,  Ireland  and
Sweden, for which special provisions are laid down in Article 6(2).
The  risk  represented  by  movements  of  non-vaccinated  young
animals  between  continental  Member  States  was  regarded  as
negligible  during  discussions  at  the  Council,  and  the  Commission
concurs with that approach.

Amendment 6 (Article 7) follows the same logic as amendment 1
for species other than dogs, cats and ferrets. This approach should
be  retained  so  as  to  distinguish  between  commercial  movements
and  movements  of  private  individuals  with  their  pets  by  setting  a
maximum  number  of  animals  in  order  to  make  clear  what
constitutes a non-commercial movement.

3

●

Amendments 8 and 9 (Article 10(e)) concern basing classification
of  third  countries  solely  on  recognition  as  rabies-free  within  the
meaning  of  the  International  Organisation  of  Epizootics'  Animal
Health Code. The mechanism adopted at EU level is based not on
that  approach  but  on  minimum  acceptable  risk.  For  example,  the
following Member States are not rabies-free within the meaning of
the Code: Germany (cases in Hessen and Bavaria and at the border
with  Poland),  Austria  (a  case  at  the  border  with  Slovenia)  and
France  (a  recent  case  imported  from  Morocco).  Adopting  a
different approach for third countries would not be justified.

Attention should be drawn to the contradiction inherent in adopting
amendments  8  and  9  while  rejecting  amendment  7,  which
establishes  the  general  principle  of  reference  to  the  Code  for
classifying  third  countries  (amendments  8  and  9  state  the
conditions which a country must meet in order to be recognised as
rabies-free).

4.2.2. Institutional amendments

●

●

●

into 

Amendments 10 (Article 17(1)) and 11 (Article 20) introduce the
term  "technical" 
the  Commission's
implementing  powers;  besides  limiting  right  of  initiative,  this  is
certain to give rise to legal disputes regarding interpretation and to
prejudice effective implementation of the Regulation and the rules
which it lays down.

the  definition  of 

Amendment 12 (Article 21) which deprives the Commission of a
provision, usually present in Community regulations, enabling it to
propose effective temporary  rapid-response measures which prove
essential in practice, particularly in the animal-health field.

Amendments  14  and  15  (Article  24(2.1)  and  (3.1))  on
comitology, which go beyond the inter-institutional agreement. As
regards comitology, the common position was worded to reflect the
text's dual legal basis by stating clearly the difference in procedure
depending  on  the  nature  of  the  measure.  Through  Parliament's
deletion  of  the  specific  reference  to  the  measures  directly
concerning public health, that consistency is no longer ensured.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the Treaty, the Commission is amending its proposal as
indicated above.

4