WRITTEN QUESTION E-0897/04 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE),Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE),Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE),Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Marco Cappato (NI), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR)and Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Incorrect implementation in Italy of directives 1999/74/EC and 2002/4/EC for the protection of laying hens.
Date: 2004-03-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, animal welfare, application of EU law, derogation from EU law, indoor livestock farming, laying poultry, poultry farming, protection of animals

C 84 E/906

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/1001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0897/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE),
Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE),
Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE),
Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Marco Cappato (NI), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR)
and Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject: Incorrect implementation in Italy of directives 1999/74/EC and 2002/4/EC for the protection of

laying hens

By means of Legislative Decree No 267 of 27 July 2003 ‘implementing directives 1999/74/EC and
2002/4/EC for the protection of
laying hens and the registration of establishments keeping them’,
published in Official Gazette No 219 of 20 September 2003, the Italian Government intended to transpose
into its own legal system and implement the aforementioned directives.

Although the deadline set in Directive 1999/74/EC (‘not later than 1 January 2002’) expired some time
ago, the transposition includes derogations which are illegal according to Community law and were
pointed out by the Italian organisation LAV(Anti-vivisection league) and noted and recorded at meetings of
the Italian Senate’s committees on health and Community policies.

The illegal derogations include the following:

(cid:1) further derogations from the ban on building and installing for the first time unenriched cages as of
1 January 2003, as laid down in the Directive, but without time limits if the cages were brought into
use ‘before 31 December 2002’;

(cid:1) in the 550 cm2 of unenriched cage area or 600 cm2 of enriched cage area which must be ‘useable
without restriction’ the decree makes provision for the space to include an egg-collection trough up to
8 cm wide;

(cid:1) authorised stocking density of 12 laying hens per m2 of usable area ‘for holdings which are using this
instead of 3 August 1999 as specified in the

system on the date the decree enters into force’,
Directive;

(cid:1) the legislative decree makes the obligation to fit enriched cages ‘with suitable claw-shortening devices’

subject to the availability on the market of devices declared suitable by Community bodies.

Pending the transposition into Italian law, which naturally leaves wide scope for unlawful derogations,
battery cages continued to be built during 2003, for example in the municipality of Vivaro (PN).

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) how it intends to tackle the situation which has arisen and prevent intentional instances of abuse from

benefiting from unlawful derogations;

(cid:1) whether it does not intend to introduce measures to remedy the effects of the derogations, so as to
eliminate the advantages they may give those who exploit them compared with other Community
producers;

(cid:1) whether it does not intend to institute proceedings against the Italian Government for the above-

mentioned infringements?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/907

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission reacted to the failure of Italy to communicate measures relating to the transposition of
relevant legislation on time by opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

This procedure was terminated after Italy communicated on 24 September 2003, details of Legislative
Decree No 267 of 27 July 2003.

Before the adoption of the Legislative Decree,
in several
important respects, the text proposed by the Italian authorities did not correspond with the requirements
of the amended Directive. The Commission intervened, by letter, with the Italian authorities but the text as
adopted still incorporated the provisions which do not, in the opinion of the Commission, concord with
the requirements of Community legislation.

the Commission had become aware that,

The Commission, not having received a reply from the Italian authorities to its letter, will now consider the
opening of further infringement proceedings.

(2004/C 84 E/1002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0898/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject: Intimidation of well-known Israeli conscientious objectors who oppose the occupation of

Palestinian territory by subjecting them to lengthy and repeated imprisonment

1.
Is the Commission aware that military service has traditionally been compulsory in Israel for men
and women but in practice there have been broad exemptions for orthodox Jews, non-Jewish residents and
people who report physical or mental problems, and up until 2002 there was a right to refuse to do
military service on personal grounds of conscientious objection, just as in European countries?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that as a result of the long-term occupation of Palestinian territory by
Israel and the growing number of clashes with the civilian population (cid:1) following roadblocks, searches of
residential areas and air attacks (cid:1) since August 2002 the government has tightened up its policy and has
begun to intimidate young men who have openly expressed their conscientious objection to the
occupation by sending them to jail?

3.
Does the Commission also realise that there are now signs that the growing group of refuseniks who
oppose the occupation are being seen not as principled or unworldly pacifists but as political opponents,
and whenever they have served their sentences they will be conscripted again under the slogan if you
won’t serve for love, do it out of fear, and if they refuse again they will have to return to prison?

4.
Is the Commission aware that the prison sentences for carrying out orders found to be unlawful or
reckless initiatives that lead to civilian deaths are often only one month, i.e. very short in relation to the
one to two year sentences imposed for each refusal to carry out military service?

5.
Is the Commission prepared to use the EU-Israel association agreement to find ways of tackling this
ever greater hardening of Israeli society and hence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to prevent the
Israeli government from imposing ever stricter and possibly even endless sentences on conscientious
objectors who oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip?