WRITTEN QUESTION E-2943/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. European taxpayers' contribution to promoting and maintaining bullfighting and other local traditions involving cruelty to animals.
Date: 2003-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Structural Funds, agricultural guidance, animal production, animal show, bull, common agricultural policy, decision-making, livestock farming, protection of animals, use of aid

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/193

The objective of Directive 2001/77/EC has to be seen together with the waste management principles laid
down in the Community waste strategy. National arrangements involving non-differentiated support
(i.e. that also covers the non-biodegradable fraction) for the incineration of waste need to demonstrate that
they do not run counter the principle of waste prevention and do not hinder waste re-use and recycling.

The Commission will carefully analyse the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which will be
brought into force by Member States to comply with Directive 2001/77/EC.

(1)

‘Biomass’ shall mean the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetal
and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and
municipal waste.
(2) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2943/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: European taxpayers’ contribution to promoting and maintaining bullfighting and other local

traditions involving cruelty to animals

1.
Is it possible that monies granted from the EU structural or cohesion funds to strengthen regional
economies can be used to support the breeding of bulls especially for bullfighting or that some funds from
the common agricultural policy can be allocated to providing an affordable range of feedingstuffs for bulls
that are not bred for meat production but are specifically selected and even registered from birth for
bullfighting?

Has the Commission an overview of the amounts from the regional

2.
funds and the common
agricultural policy, in particular the special premium for bull calves, which might have been used over the
period 1993-2002 to promote and maintain bullfighting? If so, what were the absolute amounts and the
relative percentages?

Is the Commission aware of other cases,

3.
in addition to bullfighting in Spain, Portugal and the
southern coast of France, in which EU funds are made available to maintain local cultural traditions that
are considered repugnant and criminal offences involving cruelty to animals by citizens elsewhere in
Europe, such as bullfighting, cockfighting and rodeos?

4. What means does the Commission have within the current rules for ensuring that no EU funds are
used for such controversial purposes, irrespective of whether or not legislation and public opinion in the
Member States concerned permits such activities as cultural traditions?

5.
If the means referred to in paragraph 4 are inadequate, is the Commission prepared to take steps to
introduce further measures to require beneficiaries of EU funds to give a prior guarantee that no monies
whatsoever will be used for the preparation, advertising or organisation of fighting involving animals and
that, if such an assurance is not provided, the subsidies concerned will be withheld?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

As a general rule, the Commission would like to point out that there is no specific Community legislation
on the issue raised by the Honourable Member. Areas covered by Community legislation only concern
animal welfare on the farm, slaughter of animals, conditions for transporting them and animals used in the
laboratory. As the issue remains with the Member States competence, the Commission underlines that
there is no all-embracing definition of animal cruelty currently accepted for all purposes by the Member
States.

C 78 E/194

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Having said that, as regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission
would like to provide the following information:

(cid:1) Among different measures intended to support the income of beef and veal producers, Community
legislation stipulates that a producer holding male bovine animals on his holding may qualify, on
application, for a special premium. The special premium is granted no more than once in the life of
each bull from the age of nine months, within the limits of a regional ceiling per Member State of not
more than 90 animals for this age bracket per year and per holding.

(cid:1) In view of the costs generated by the rearing of the animals, the stock breeder of bulls does not
postpone the granting of the premium, which is in general actually paid from the age laid down by
the regulation, i.e. at a time when one does not know yet for which purpose the animal will be used.
The stockbreeder of bulls of the type which could be used for bullfighting in the Member States
concerned indeed decides which of his bulls will be intended for the fight only when animals reach
adulthood.

(cid:1) According to information available to the Commission, on farms breeding bulls the proportion of
animals which will actually be intended for the fight is very small in relation to the number of animals
which will go to the slaughterhouse. The rest of the bulls of the herd are bred with a view to slaughter
for consumption as well as ‘common’ bulls, since producers who select a small percentage of animals
for the fight also are beef and veal producers.

(cid:1) It results from this that the special premium benefits producers in respect of all the male bovine
animals they hold, including those finally intended for fighting. According to the legislation in force,
the Member States are not obliged to indicate separately bulls on the basis of this criterion when they
notify the Commission with information as regards the number of animals accepted for the premium
each year.

(cid:1) In this context, the Commission cannot exclude these breeders from the granting of the special
premium and of direct payments in general. Moreover, the Commission is not in a position to
propose any differentiation between bulls according to their
final destination since nothing
distinguishes a priori ‘fighting bulls’ from other bulls, in particular with regard to their suitability for
human consumption.

(cid:1) The Commission adopted in January 2003 proposals for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
The Commission proposed to introduce a system of decoupled (from production) income support per
farm by establishing a single farm payment to replace most of the premia under different Common
Market Organisations (CMO), including beef and veal. Such proposal implies among others the end of
the granting of direct payments, in particular the special premium for male bovine animals, to beef
producers holding bulls including those finally intended for fighting. Furthermore, Commission
proposals generalise the application of the principle of cross compliance. Farmers receiving direct
payments must respect statutory management requirements as regards in particular animal welfare. As
the rules governing the CMO in beef and veal including the direct payments to which all bovine
animals are submitted are laid down in a Council Regulation, only the Council can change the current
legal framework after the Parliament having given an opinion.

(cid:1) Where the Structural Funds are concerned, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that
in response to a call for applications closing on 10 January 2003 a project entitled Minotauro was
submitted for Community financing under the Interreg IIIC Community Initiative. The project leader
was located in Spain and there were nine partners from four Member States: France, Greece, Portugal
and Spain. It was submitted as a project to network local authorities involved in culture management
and not as a specific project for activities linked to bullfighting.

(cid:1) This project was not in fact selected for Community financing.

(cid:1) The Commission would however point out that under the regulatory provisions on management of
Structural Fund assistance project analysis, assessment and selection is entirely a matter for the
national and regional authorities appointed by the Member States as managing authorities for the
various Structural Fund programmes. For all projects submission and selection procedures defined at
level must therefore be followed and projects must satisfy the eligibility and
national or regional

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/195

selection criteria laid down in each programme. Obviously the Commission has a responsibility to see
that the entire procedure conforms with Community law. But all questions of the priority to be given
to and the desirability of aiding particular projects are a matter for the representative bodies of the
Member States, regions and other relevant bodies.

(2004/C 78 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Specific programme for research

In the European Commission explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending
decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demon-
stration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006) (1), it is said that in the
course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent
of the donors has been obtained.

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the
Commission confirm:

(cid:1) Who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

(cid:1) How will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who

are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

(1) COM(2003) 390 final.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the context of the Commission
proposal (1) and the condition (e) of the annex it refers to, the ‘donor(s)’ refers to the person(s) who is
legally responsible for the human embryo created as a result of medically-assisted in vitro fertilisation
designed to induce pregnancy and no longer to be used for that purpose (supernumerary embryo).

legally responsible is defined differently in national

The person(s)
legislations regulating in vitro
fertilisation. For that reason, the Commission proposal (2), in the context of subsidiarity, makes reference
to national
legislation which imposes specific requirements concerning the consent procedure of the
donor(s).

(1) COM(2003) 390.
(2) COM(2003) 390 final (cid:1) Proposal

programme for
European research area’ (2002-2006).

research,

technological development and demonstration:

for a Council decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific
‘Integrating and strengthening the

(2004/C 78 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2947/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Trupbach industrial estate

On 24 April 2003, the Commission delivered its opinion on the plan for an industrial estate on the former
military training area of Trupbach in Siegerland. The Commission rejected the plan while, on the same