WRITTEN QUESTION E-4080/03 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Pets' passports.
Date: 2004-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Portugal, domestic animal, passport, transport of animals

C 78 E/910

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

and of a waste dump might, depending on their dimensions, require an EIA. The location of the planned
facilities, both from the point of view of distance to populated areas and of the economic activities being
developed in the area,
is necessarily one of the elements that have to be taken into account in the
assessments or in the decision whether or not to submit the projects to an assessment.

In addition to those requirements, the project mentioned by the Honourable Member is located within a
Site of Community Importance proposed by Italy in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), and near a
second site proposed under the same Directive. It is therefore subject to Article 6 of the same Directive,
which defines under which conditions a project likely to have a significant impact on a Special Protection
Area or Site of Community Importance can be authorised. Should the project be likely to have a significant
impact, its approval without fulfilling the conditions specified in Article 6 would therefore constitute a
breach of the Directive.

More generally, all new incinerators, regardless of their location, are required to respect the emission
standards and other conditions laid down in Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (4). Moreover, if the installations fall within the scope of
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and
control (5), as is apparently the case, the competent authority shall fix in the permit emission limit values,
equivalent parameters and technical measures based on best available techniques, taking into account the
technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental
conditions. This means that the competent authority may, if needed, set more stringent permit conditions
than those stipulated by the waste incineration Directive itself.

It is not clear from the information provided by the Honourable Member whether an environmental
impact assessment or a specific assessment of the impact of the planned installation on the two proposed
Sites of Community Importance were carried out and, if so, what were their conclusions. Since it is also
unclear whether construction permits have already been issued, the Commission does not have any
elements that might indicate a possible violation of Directive 92/43/EEC.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
(5) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2004/C 78 E/0962)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4080/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Pets’ passports

A Portuguese citizen has contacted me to express concern that in his country the keeping of ferrets for any
purpose is illegal, and that pet ferrets may be confiscated and killed or placed in a zoo.

My understanding is that pet ferrets have been included within the EU pets’ passport scheme, and travel
within the EU will be possible if they have been vaccinated and carry the appropriate marking.

Has the Commission issued any warnings or guidance to ferret owners about travel to Portugal?

In the course of its discussions with Member States about the pets’ passport scheme has the Commission
explored the issues posed by different national laws on the legality of keeping certain pets?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/911

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The ban on the keeping of ferrets in Portugal does not come under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 998/
2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements
applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals (1), as it is based on considerations other than
health.

Article 2 (third paragraph) of the said Regulation states that ‘provisions based on considerations other than
those relating to animal health requirements, and intended to restrict the movement of certain species or
breeds of pet animals, shall not be affected by this Regulation’.

Therefore, any other issue which might arise in connection with the non-commercial movement of the
animals in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Member States. According to the information
the ban referred to is based on environmental protection
received from the Portuguese authorities,
considerations.

In order to meet its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Portugal has adopted implementing
provisions in the form of Decree No 314/2003 of 17 December 2003. This Decree also imposes an
additional obligation, in the case of ferrets, to obtain a permit from the Environment Ministry, which in
the light of
the above-mentioned provisions of Article 2, cannot be regarded as contravening the
Community Regulation.

(1) OJ L 146, 13.6.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0963)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4086/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Company-specific aid to Eftec in connection with relocation from Hässleholm in Sweden to Wales

The Eftec company in Hässleholm manufactures rust-prevention products for the auto industry. Welsh
authorities have confirmed that the company has received financial support in connection with the
company’s relocation from Hässleholm to Wales. SEK 6 million has been paid in establishment grants and
is being used to expand the new factory at Rhigos, Aberdare. Information indicates that Eftec will probably
receive SEK 6 million a year for six years, which would cover the wind-up costs of up to SEK 30 million.

This information indicates that the EU’s competition policy is moving in the wrong direction. Clearly, the
objective in the EU is to remove all company-specific aid such as that recently paid to Eftec. Instead, the
EU should concentrate on aid of a general nature, such as aid for infrastructure and general training
schemes. Aid to individual companies, as recently granted to Eftec, merely serves to distort the market and
is extremely unfair on the regions concerned. The decision to close down affects 22 employees.

Can the Commission confirm the abovementioned information that Eftec is receiving establishment grants
of SEK 6 million per year over a six-year period? Does the Commission consider that this development is
consistent with the objectives of EU competition policy?