WRITTEN QUESTION P-0183/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission. Derogations concerning migratory birds.
Date: 2003-01-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Malta, accession negotiations, bird, derogation from EU law, hunting regulations, protection of animal life

C 161 E/190

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Commission deplores all forms of cruelty towards and inhumane treatment and neglect of animals.
The welfare of stray dogs and cats is, however, a matter which falls entirely within the responsibility of the
Greek authorities and there is no legal basis for intervention by the Commission.

In areas of animal welfare which are subject to Community harmonisation and notably the protection of
animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing and the protection of farmed animals,
Greek implementation and enforcement is still, regrettably, deficient. This has been demonstrated by
mission reports of the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and by many complaints received
from animal welfare organisations. The Commission is currently considering the results of a further FVO
mission, which took place between 13-17 January 2003.

(2003/C 161 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0183/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(24 January 2003)

Subject: Derogations concerning migratory birds

In the accession negotiations now under way the Commission has reportedly granted Malta derogations
concerning the spring hunting of migratory birds.

Is this true?

If so, on what terms have the derogations been granted?

Has France sought derogations concerning the hunting of migratory birds?

If so, what derogations are they and when can it hope to obtain them?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

The implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (1), hereafter referred to as the Birds Directive, has been negotiated in the framework of the accession
negotiations on the environment chapter with Malta. As regards spring hunting of migratory birds, it has
been agreed that Malta will fully implement, as from accession, the relevant parts of the Directive.
However, Article 9 of this Directive allows for exceptions under certain very stringent conditions. If Malta
wishes to allow spring hunting, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and
that any permitted hunting is carried out under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ and limited to ‘small
numbers’ only. Furthermore, the use of Article 9 is subject to monitoring by the Commission and Malta is
committed, where it chooses recourse to this Article, to report each year on its possible use.

Therefore, bird hunting in Malta can, as from accession, only take place within the limits provided for by
the Directive.

As regards the questions of the Honourable Member whether France has sought derogations concerning
the hunting of migratory birds, it should be recalled that Member States do not have to seek derogations
concerning hunting of protected birds. However, for the fixing of hunting seasons, France has based its
legislation on the provisions of Article 7(4) of the Birds Directive rather than making use of Article 9 to
derogate from the hunting provisions of Article 7 of the Birds Directive.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/191

However, in France’s decree No 2000-754, Article 2 introduces the possibility to extend the period of
‘capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers’. In its ruling, the French Conseil
d’Etat did not come to a conclusion about the legality of Article 2 of decree No 2000-754. It considered
that an answer to this question is contingent on knowing if it is possible to use Article 9(1)(c) of the Birds
Directive to derogate in relation to hunting, and especially to proposed extensions of hunting seasons.

This is why the French Conseil d’Etat, in January 2002, has referred several questions to the European
Court of Justice regarding interpretation of the possible use of derogations for hunting. Further clarification
is likely only when the Court of Justice pronounces on a recent preliminary reference from the French
Conseil d’Etat.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2003/C 161 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject: Freedom of opinion and speech in Russia

For nearly a year the Russian movement Iduchtïï vmeste (‘marchers together’), which claims to have almost
100 000 members, most of them students, has been conducting a vigorous campaign against authors it
describes as ‘marginal’, ‘pornographic’ and ‘literary hooligans’. In particular, its attacks have been directed
against two distinguished authors, Viktor Pelevine and Vladimir Sorokine. The movement has brought a
case against Mr Sorokine and his publisher, Alexander Ivanov, for ‘propagating pornography and perverted
sexual practices’. The investigation is under way and the publisher, Ad Marginem, has already been
subjected to two searches by the Russian authorities. If they are found guilty, Sorokine and Ivanov risk a
two-year prison term.

What information does the Commission have regarding this campaign of denigration and intimidation (cid:1)
carried out with the more or less open support of
the Russian authorities (cid:1) against writers and
intellectuals in Russia? What steps has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, to obtain
undertakings from the Russian authorities that they will provide full and practical guarantees of freedom of
opinion for all Russian citizens? In the light of this possible new threat to the freedom of speech and
thought of citizens and the media in Russia, does the Commission not take the view that it should re-
examine the criteria on which its policy towards the Russian Federation is based, inter alia as regards aid to
the press?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission does not have specific information on this Russian movement. However, the Commission
shares the concern of the Honourable Member over reports that freedom of expression has been either
curtailed or is under threat in Russia. The Commission is particularly concerned about the deteriorating
situation of the independent media, both at federal and regional levels, which is likely to lead to reduced
impartiality, independence and professionalism among print and broadcast media.

In its dealings with the Russian authorities, the Commission has consistently emphasised the importance of
freedom of expression and strong, independent media. That the Commission has devoted considerable
technical assistance to promote the independence of regional mass media, with the aim of training
journalists in objective reporting techniques and professional ethics. The Commission plans to provide
further support to the development of independent media in selected regions in Russia, as part of its
efforts to boost the role of Russian civil society.

In more political terms, the Commission has in the past raised (cid:1) and will continue to raise (cid:1) the issues of
freedom of expression and media control in meetings with the Russian authorities as part of the intensive
Union/Russia political dialogue. A close partnership with Russia can only be built on firm foundations of
shared values, which must include guarantees for freedom of expression. The Commission will continue to
closely follow all developments in this field.