WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/03 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Ban on dangerous dog breeds.
Date: 2003-10-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: domestic animal, public safety, violence

C 78 E/784

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The new Member States have the option of applying equivalent restrictions to those Member States, which
have restrictions in place against them. Therefore it is only by way of possible application of equivalent
restrictions that new Member States can restrict the right of United Kingdom workers to be employed on
their territory.

Some Member States have indicated that they intend to fully open their labour markets to workers from all
the new Member States. Other present Member States intend to allow more restrictive access, which will
differ depending on the new Member State in question.

For more specific information about existing agreements between the United Kingdom and new Member
States, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to contact the United Kingdom Government.

Concerning the question whether the new Member States have reciprocal healthcare agreements with the
rest of the Union following their accession, the Commission underlines that at Union level health care
matters for migrant workers fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families
moving within the Community, which aims at protecting the social security rights of these workers and
their family members when moving to another Member State. Upon accession this Regulation will replace
all social security conventions concluded between the new Member States and present Member States. An
exception from this general rule is only foreseen for those provisions of bilateral conventions, which are
listed in Annex III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and therefore continue to apply. However, in order to
be listed under this Annex these provisions have to fulfil certain criteria, such as being more favourable for
the migrant worker or related to a historic context.

Annex II of the Accession Treaty, which contains all entries of the new Member States to the Annexes of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, does not list any entry under Annex III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
with regard to a social security convention between one of these countries and the United Kingdom, which
should continue to apply.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2004/C 78 E/0835)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true
that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent
and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and
introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have
again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough
that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a
European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Council’s opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council takes note of the problem raised by the Honourable Member in his question, but would point
out that it is not able to respond, since the power of initiative lies with the Commission, which to date has
not presented proposals to this effect.