WRITTEN QUESTION P-3761/03 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission. Obligation to destroy horses where nandrolon has been used.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, equidae, interpretation of the law, performance drugs, slaughter of animals, veterinary legislation

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/315

2003 within the 5th Action Programme. The Commission will fund some 20 transnational projects which
will contribute to the promotion of women in decision-making.

Based on an analysis of these different initiatives, the Commission has decided to establish the database
‘Women and men in decision-making’ which is forward looking in its approach and scope. With
information gathered from a broad range of actors the database will be a continuous source of information
on progress achieved for the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making in the political,
public, judicial, social and economical domains.

(2004/C 78 E/0316)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3761/03

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Obligation to destroy horses where nandrolon has been used

A case has recently come to light in Finland of a trotting horse being doped by the injection of nandrolon.
The regional veterinary officer in the area in question claims that the law classifies all trotting horses as
working animals and concludes that doped animals ought to be put down immediately and thus be
prevented from ending up on the dining table despite the fact that the horse was never intended to enter
the food chain. However, the relevant legislation is not clear since it is stated that the horse ‘can’ be
destroyed. The law makes reference to EU Directives 96/22 (1) and 96/23 (2).

Does the Commission consider the regional veterinary officer’s interpretation of Directives 96/22 and 96/
23 to be correct and that this trotting horse needed to be destroyed immediately?

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Directive 96/22/EC (1), as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC (2) and Directive 96/23/EC (3), in particular
Article 23(2) thereof, could be construed to require that a horse, doped by injection with the hormone
nandrolone, should be immediately sent to a designated slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard.

However, this does not apply if the owner of the horse excludes the animal definitively from slaughter for
human consumption according to the control mechanisms laid down in Decisions 93/623/EEC (4) and
2000/68/EC (5).

Art 23(2) of Directive 96/23 provides:

2.
After sampling has been carried out in accordance with Article 17, if there is confirmation of a
case of illegal treatment, the animal or animals found to be positive shall be slaughtered immediately
on the spot or taken immediately to the designated slaughterhouse or to the knacker’s yard under
cover of an official veterinary certificate in order to be slaughtered there. Animals so slaughtered shall
be sent to a high-risk processing plant as defined by Directive 90/667/EEC (21).

C 78 E/316

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The context of this provision clarifies that the objective pursued by this destruction of the animal
subsequent to its slaughtering is to ensure that its meat will not enter the food chain, and it can therefore
be construed to require that a horse, doped by injection with the hormone nandrolone, should be
immediately sent to a designated slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard, whenever additional official control
mechanisms are not available to the Competent Authority for securing this public health objective.

Such additional control mechanisms include the identification of registered horses as provided for by
Decisions 93/623/EEC (4) and 2000/68/EC.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
(2) Directive 2003/74/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 amending Council Directive 96/
22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or
thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, OJ L 262, 14.10.2003.

(3) 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.

(4) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.
(5) 2000/68/EC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and

establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production, OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.

(2004/C 78 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding

The Commission is aware the Spanish Government is devoting a significant part of the Community
funding it receives to co-funding water regulation schemes. Spanish legislation demands that
those
benefiting from publicly funded water schemes meet a set of regulations designed to compensate for the
costs of public investment (Article 114 of Royal Legislative Decree of 20 July 2001, No 1/2001, adopting
the revised text of the Law on Water, Spanish Official Journal 24.7.2002). Recently, the chairman of the
Júcar Hydrographical Confederation, José María González Ortea, said that those using the new water
infrastructure should not be responsible for bringing back the European funding allocated to water
schemes of Community interest (Provincias, 13.11.2003).

Having regard to Community law, and particularly the obligation to maintain transparency in managing
and applying European funds (recitals 26 and 57, and Articles 17 to 19, 34, 36 and 46 of Regulation
1260/1991 (1)), the ban on distorting competition within the internal market by means of state aids
(Article 87 of the EC Treaty), the protection of the Community’s financial interests (Article 280 of the EC
Treaty), and the obligation to take account of the principle of recovering costs of water-related services
(Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC (2)), does the Commission believe that the Spanish Government should
provide clear and specific precise information on the following points when requesting Community
funding for a water regulation project:

(cid:1) who are to be the beneficiaries and destinees of the regulated water?

(cid:1) how are these beneficiaries going to contribute to recovering the costs of public investment?

(cid:1) is different treatment to be given to recovering public funds contributed by the state and those

contributed by the Community?

(cid:1) is it going to exonerate the beneficiaries in some way from contributing to the recovery of

Community funding?