Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council banning the placing on the market and the import of or export from the Community of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur
Date: 2006-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: domestic animal, export restriction, fur-bearing animal, hides and furskins industry, import restriction, marketing restriction

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.11.2006 
COM(2006) 684 final 

2006/0236 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

banning the placing on the market and the import of or export from the Community of 
cat and dog fur and products containing such fur 

(presented by the Commission) 

{SEC(2006) 1448} 
{SEC(2006) 1449} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

• 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
is intended to ban the placing on the market and the import to and the export 
from  the  Community  of  fur  from  cats  and  dogs  and  products  thereof.  It  also 
establishes  information  requirements  aimed  at  ensuring  that  information  on 
new  detection  methods  is  made  available  to  the  Commission  and  exchanged 
between Member States, with a view to the possible establishment of common 
detection methodologies at EU level to identify the species of origin of fur and 
fur products imported or being put on the market.  

The  bans  are  intended  to  replace  the  existing  varied  measures  established  in 
several Member States to implement the prohibition to produce and/or trade fur 
from  cats and dogs,  and aim at  preventing obstacles to the functioning of the 
Internal Market and thus at ensuring the free movement of fur and fur products 
in general. The provisions of the draft regulation also aim at ensuring that cat 
and  dog  fur  and  products  containing  such  fur  (fur  is  also  used  as  lining  or 
ornament  on  clothes,  or  on  toys)  produced  outside  the  Community  cannot  be 
imported to it or cannot be exported outside the Community. 

There  is  evidence  that  cat  and  dog  fur  and  products  containing  such  fur  are 
currently entering the EU and being traded within it, undeclared as such, even 
though  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  proportion  of  cat  and  dog  fur  out  of  the 
overall figures regarding fur trade in general. The evidence available suggests 
that  most  of  these  products  originate  from  third  countries,  as  there  is  no 
tradition  of  rearing  cats  and  dogs  for  fur  production  purposes  in  the  Member 
States.   

For  several  years  consumers  have  been  concerned  about  the  possibility  that 
they could buy fur or fur products made from cats and dogs. As these animals 
are considered to be companion animals, their fur or fur products are generally 
not accepted for ethical reasons. The Commission as well as the Member States 
received during the last years a massive number of letters and petitions on the 
issue  of  the  cat  and  dog  fur  trade  expressing  consumers’,  politicians’  and 
citizens’ deep indignation and repulsion regarding the trade in cat and dog fur 
or  fur  products.  These  feelings  were  provoked  by  scenes  presented  on  the 
internet and broadcasted on television showing how cats and dogs exploited for 
fur  production  are  treated  in  Asia.  The  footage  shows  the  cruel  manner  in 
which animals are killed or skinned alive.  

Consumers’ concerns are partly explained by the fact that cat and dog fur is not 
easily distinguishable to persons from other fur and synthetic material made to 
imitate fur. As cat and dog fur is also less expensive than other types of fur and 
can be used as a substitute for more expensive types of fur, an incentive exists 
for unfair or fraudulent practices in the exploitation of fur products, including 
fraudulent or deceptive labelling and other practices aimed at dissimulating the 
true nature or origin of the product.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
As  a  result  of  the  concerns  expressed  by  consumers  and  citizens,  several 
Member States have adopted (or are in the process of adopting or examining) 
legislation  aiming  at  restricting  or  banning  economic  activities  linked  to  the 
production of fur from cats and dogs. National legislators are tackling the issue 
with different measures, ranging from the ban on the rearing of cats and dogs 
for  fur  production  purposes,  to  the  ban  on  production  and/or  import  of  fur 
produced  from  those  animals  or  to  labelling  requirements.  In  some  cases,  the 
restrictions  target  only  cats  and  dogs,  whilst  in  others  they  also  cover  other 
domestic  animals.  Increasing  awareness  among  and  pressure  from  the  public 
on national legislators are likely to result in further legislative initiatives in the 
Member States aimed at responding to the widespread concern created by the 
information  and  data  being  made  available  regarding  the  slaughter  of 
companion animals for fur production purposes. 

15  Member  States  have  legislation  in  place  to  the  effect  of  restricting  the 
production of cat and dog fur or the trade in products containing such fur. 

Whilst there seems to be a very large consensus across all Member States as to 
the unacceptability of trade and imports of cat and dog fur and products thereof 
in  the  Community,  the  coexistence  of  different  legislative  instruments  all 
aimed at remedying the same problem, implies that traders are faced with a set 
of  different  legal  requirements  in  the  different  Member  States  they  wish  to 
trade in, import or export to. As a consequence, the internal market for fur may 
be fragmented: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

as the co-existence of a variety of legal requirements prevents “normal” 
fur  legitimately  imported  to  or  produced  in  the  Community  from 
circulating  freely  within  its  boundaries,  intra-community  trade  fluxes 
being  subject  to  a  number  of  different  restrictions  enforced  at  national 
level;  

as  traders  need  to  adjust  their  commercial  practices  to  the  different 
provisions  in  force  in  each  Member  State,  thus  facing  additional  costs 
due for instance to the necessity to acquire specific legal expertise or to 
the need to ensure compliance with labelling requirements;  

as  consumers  of  fur  products  in  general  are  discouraged  from  buying 
cross  borders,  due  to  the  uncertainty  regarding  the  applicable  legal 
framework in a country other than their own. Such uncertainty operates 
as a dissuasive factor with those consumers who want to avoid buying cat 
and dog fur or contribute in any way to such trade.  

The Treaty  does  not allow the Community to legislate on the basis of  ethical 
concerns.  Some  Member  States  have  on  the  other  hand  taken  those  concerns 
into consideration when legislating in matters as the one at hand.  

The Treaty, however, attributes to the Community to adopt measures aimed at 
preventing  obstacles  that  may  affect  the  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market. 
Trade  in  fur  from  fur  animals  is  a  legitimate  trade  under  Community 
legislation. Obstacles to such trade must therefore be countered.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
It  follows  from  the  Court  of  Justice’s  well  established  case-law  that  where 
there are differences between the laws, regulations or administrative provisions 
of the Member States which are such as to obstruct the fundamental freedoms 
and  thus  have  a  direct  effect  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market, 
Community measures are justified in order to prevent such obstacles. 

As  the  Court  held  in  its  judgement  of  14  December  2004  in  case  C-434/02 
(Arnold  André),  “where  there  are  obstacles  to  trade  or  it  is  likely  that  such 
obstacles will emerge in future because the Member States have taken or are 
about  to  take  divergent  measures  with  respect  to  a  product  or  a  class  of 
products  such  as  to  ensure  different  levels  of  protection  and  thereby  prevent 
the product or products concerned from moving freely within the Community, 
Article  95  EC  authorises  the  Community  legislature  to  intervene  by  adopting 
appropriate measures, in compliance with Article 95(3) EC and with the legal 
principles mentioned in the Treaty or identified in the case-law, in particular 
the principle of proportionality.  

Depending  on  the  circumstances,  those  appropriate  measures  may  consist  in 
[…]  provisionally  or  definitively  prohibiting  the  marketing  of  a  product  or 
products”.  

Having  regard  also  to  the  public’s  growing  awareness  and  unease  with  the 
presence of cat and dog fur in the fur and fur products markets it is likely that 
more  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  those  products  would  emerge  by 
adoption of new rules in Member States to prevent the placing on the market of 
cat and dog fur.  

The  harmonization  of  the  different  prohibitions  and/or  other  restrictive 
measures  currently  in  place  is  the  easiest  and  lightest  way  of  preventing 
obstacles for the market of fur from fur animals. 

The evidence made available to the Commission leads to consider that the vast 
majority  of  the  cat  and  dog  fur  products  present  in  the  Community  originate 
from  third  countries.  Thus,  the  establishment  of  the  ban  trade  must  be 
accompanied  by  an  equivalent  ban  on  imports  of  the  same  products  into  the 
Community.  

The  import  ban,  whilst  reinforcing  the  ban  on  intra-community  trade,  also 
responds to the ethical concerns expressed by EU consumers as to the possible 
introduction  in  the  Community  of  fur  from  animals  kept  and  slaughtered 
inhumanely.  The  ban  on  exports  should  ensure  that  cat  and  dog  fur  and 
products  containing  such  fur  are  not  produced  in  the  Community  for  export 
purposes. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

General context 

There  is  a  strong  political  demand  to  ban  the  trade  on  cat  and  dog  fur  or  fur 
products.  Member  States  have  asked  the  Commission  several  times  to 
undertake  an  initiative  to  ban  the  trade  of  cat  and  dog  fur  or  products 
containing such fur in the Community.  

In December 2003, the European Parliament adopted a declaration on a ban of 
the  trade  in  cat  and  dog  fur  requesting  the  Commission  to  draft  a  regulation 
under internal market powers to ban the import, export, sale and production of 
cat and dog fur and skins, so as to restore the confidence of EU consumers and 
retailers and to end this trade. 

The  Council  of  Agriculture  Ministers  in  November  2003  and  again  in  May 
2005 asked by a vast majority for an initiative at Community level to stop the 
trade  in  cat  and  dog  fur  and  fur  products.  They  highlighted  that  a  ban  at 
Community level would be more effective than national bans which cannot be 
effective. Some Member States have already introduced a ban on the trade in 
cat and dog fur. 

• 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

The  proposed  bans  are  consistent  with  normal  farming  practices  in  the 
Community  and  are  without  prejudice  of  other  Community  provisions 
applicable in the agricultural sector.  

By  banning  from  the  market  products  to  which  most  consumers  and  citizens 
object, this proposal helps restoring consumers’ confidence in the acceptability 
of products whose placing on the market is regulated at Community level.  

Furthermore, as to the import ban, it is also in conformity with Article XX(a) 
of  the  General  Agreement  on  Trade  and  Tariffs  (GATT),  under  which  the 
adoption  or  enforcement  by  any  contracting  party  of  measures  necessary  to 
protect public morals is allowed provided that such measures are not applied in 
a  manner  which  would  constitute  a  means  of  arbitrary  or  unjustifiable 
discrimination.  The  contextual  adoption  of  the  intra-Community  trade  ban 
ensures compliance with GATT requirements. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

• 

Consultation of interested parties 

Member  States  expressed  their  wish  for  a  ban  on  trade  of  cat  and  dog  fur 
during  the  Council  of  Agriculture  Ministers  in  November  2003  and  in  May 
2005,  pointing  out  that  national  bans  on  trade  are  not  as  effective  as  an 
initiative at Community level.  

Several  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  have  actively  campaigned  in 
favour of a Community initiative.  

A  massive  number  of  letters  from  concerned  citizens  have  been  sent  to  the 
Commission  during  recent  years  expressing  deep  indignation  and  repulsion 
regarding this trade.  

The  Commission  has  been  in  contact  with  the  International  Fur  Trade 
Federation, which stressed that their members, who mostly target the upper end 
of the market, are not trading in cat and dog fur, whilst admitting that the trade 
in cat and dog fur is difficult to detect.  

The  Federation  also  expressed  their  worries  as  regards  possible  further 
initiatives aiming at banning fur in general from the EU market, as this would 
disrupt  their  trade  altogether.  The  scope  of  the  present  proposal  and  its 
justification respond to such worries. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

Data on fur trade were collected from EUROSTAT and provide the following 
figures  

TOTAL IMPORT OF RAW FUR IN EU 25 (tons) 

Year 

Total import 

From China 

Major source 

1998 

2005 

1101,5 

1254,9 

22,1 

39,3 

Norway 383,1 

Canada 288,7 

TOTAL IMPORT OF TANNED FUR IN EU 25 (tons) 

Year 

Total import 

From China 

Major source 

1998 

2005 

3780,4 

4051,8 

531,5 

1295,6 

China 

China 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL  IMPORT  OF  ARTICLES  OF  APPAREL,  CLOTHING 
ACCESSOIRES  AND  OTHER  FURSKIN  ARTICLES  according  to  code 
4303 IN EU 25 (tons) 

Year 

Total import 

From China 

Major source 

1998 

2005 

1985,5 

3001,6 

890,2 

2128 

China 

China 

For the reasons given above, there is no official data on the trade in cat and dog 
fur available. 

A  questionnaire  aimed  at  collecting  information  on  existing  and  forthcoming 
legislation on this matter and on detection methods used to enforce the national 
bans was addressed to the Member States (see the impact assessment paper for 
the results).  

• 

Impact assessment 

The identified policy options were as follows: 

No action 

This  option  would  leave  the  current  situation  unchanged  and  therefore  not 
respond  to  the  existing  obstacles  to  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for 
fur  products.  Neither  would  it  address  the  likely  occurrence  of  further 
disruptions  to  that  market  due  to  the  forthcoming  adoption  of  new  legislative 
measures by different Member States. 

The increasing public concern about cat and dog fur or fur products being put 
on  the  internal  market  against  a  widespread  feeling  of  repulsion  for  such 
products would also remain unaddressed.  

National  bans  and  other  restrictive  measures  adopted  at  national  level  as 
regards the trade in cat and dog fur are not able to dispel consumers’ concerns.  

Ban on trade, imports and exports of cat and dog fur and products containing it 

This  option  would  address  directly  the  core  of  the  issue  being  tackled  with  a 
variety  of  different  instruments  at  Member  States’  level  (the  undesirable 
presence  of  cat  and  dog  fur  on  the  fur  and  fur  products  market),  thus 
eliminating the need for fur and fur product traders to adjust their commercial 
behaviour to the different requirements in place in the different Member States. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At the same time, this option would respond to the public expectations that fur 
from  cats  and  dogs  or  such  fur  products  are  not  imported  and/or  placed  any 
more  on the internal market. It will avoid consumers being  discouraged  from 
buying fur or fur products because they are not sure of buying fur from animals 
traditionally kept as fur animals. 

Only  very  little  official  data  are  available  concerning  trade  or  imports  of  cat 
and dog fur or products containing such fur, although it can be assumed from 
the anecdotal evidence available that such products represent a marginal part of 
the overall volume of fur and fur products being traded in or imported to the 
Community. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify exactly the effects of a ban 
that would prohibit trade and imports of such products.  

For that reason it could also be assumed that the volume of trade in fur and fur 
products derived from animals normally reared for fur production is likely not 
to  be  adversely  affected  by  the  enforcement  of  the  proposed  ban.  Of  course, 
this  statement  does  not  apply  to  trade  in  cat  and  fur  and  products  containing 
such  fur  which  are  not  declared  as  such,  being  such  trade  illegal  in  many 
Member States. 

Self-regulation 

Voluntary labelling schemes already exist and aim at identifying the species of 
fur.  These  initiatives  have  been  endorsed  by  fur  trader  associations  in  Italy, 
Germany,  Norway  and  the  United  Kingdom.  In  September  2003,  the 
International  Fur  Trade  Federation,  a  federation  of  trade  associations  and 
organisations  representing  all  sectors  of  the  fur  trade  in  30  countries 
worldwide1,  presented  a  new  labelling  initiative  to  improve  consumer 
information. This label contains the scientific Latin name as well as the name 
of  the  species  either  in  the  local  language  and/or  the  English  translation.  The 
scheme has been approved in Italy by the Italian Standardisation Organisation2 
(UNI). This labelling scheme is mostly used for high quality fur. 

Due  to  the  particular  nature  of  the  trade,  voluntary  labelling  schemes  are 
usually not adhered to by traders using cat and dog fur or products containing 
such fur. In addition, also existing schemes do not always include labelling of 
fur that is used as an ornament and for linings or toys.  

Voluntary labelling schemes are unsatisfactory to respond to deceitful labelling 
or  illicit  trade  and  they  have  actually  proven  useless  in  preventing  the 
introduction of cat and dog fur in the Community. Consumers are concerned to 
buy cat and dog fur even if the product got a label as there have been reports 
published  in  newspapers  and  broadcasted  on  TV  that  cat  and  dog  fur  is  sold 
labelled fraudulently under the name of another species or under a fancy name.  

1 
2 

On the web: http://www.iftf.com/newhome.html 
UNI standard 11007. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Mandatory labelling scheme 

This  option  would  entail  the  establishment  of  a  mandatory  labelling 
requirement for all fur and products containing fur, whereby all such products 
must  be  labelled  in  a  way  that  allows  the  identification  of  the  species  from 
which the fur (or fur component) has been obtained. Such general requirement 
would impose a considerable burden on all fur traders (including those who do 
not trade in cat and dog fur), not proportionate to the result being sought, as cat 
and dog  fur  represents  only  a  small  proportion of fur traded on  the  European 
market. 

Mandatory  labelling  would  prove  particularly  burdensome  and  costly  in  the 
case  of  minute  and/or  low  value  products  containing  fur,  where  the  mere 
presence  of  a  tiny  fur  component  would  trigger  the  obligation  to  identify  the 
origin of the fur that was used. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

• 

Summary of the proposed action 

The proposed Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council bans 
the  placing  on  the  market,  the  import  and  export  of  cat  and  dog  fur  and 
products  containing  such  fur  and  requires  the  Member  States  to  inform  each 
other about analytical methods used to identify cat and dog fur. 

• 

Legal basis 

The proposal is based on Articles 95 and 133 of the Treaty. In the drafting of 
this  proposal,  the  Commission  has  taken  due  account  of  the  case  law  of  the 
Court  of  Justice  where  the  Court  set  up  the  conditions  for  the  recourse  to 
Article 95 (Judgements Arnold André of 14 December 2004, C-434/02, point 
34 and  Swedish  Match,  C-210/03,  point  33 ;  British  American  Tobacco  and 
Imperial Tobacco, C-491/01 of 10 December 2002, points 60 and 61 ; C-66/04 
of December 2005, point 41 and C-154/04 and C-155/04 (Alliance for Natural 
Health), point 32). 

As  the  proposal  also  aims  at  banning  imports  and  exports  of  the  products  in 
question  from  outside  the  Community,  reference  to  the  provisions  of  Article 
133  is  also  necessary.  The  proposal  has  indeed  a  twofold  component  as  it 
simultaneously  pursues  two  different  objectives  (the  ban  on  intra-Community 
trade and the ban on imports and exports) which are inseparably linked without 
one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other.  

The  procedures  laid  down  for  the  adoption  of  Community  legislation  under 
Articles 95 and 133 respectively are not incompatible with each other.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal aims at the harmonization of laws concerning the trade in cat and 
dog fur or fur products. This harmonization at Community level is necessary to 
prevent  obstacles  in  the  market  for  fur  produced  from  fur  animals  in  the 
Community.  Such  result  could  only  be  obtained  by  measures  taken  at 
Community  level.  National  measures,  including  total  bans,  by  definition  only 
enforceable  in  parts  of  the  internal  market,  have  proven  ineffective  and  are 
causing the fragmentation of the market of fur.  

Member States expressed their view that a ban on trade of cat and dog fur and 
products containing it at Community level is necessary as national bans are not 
as effective. Member States that have already introduced a national ban pointed 
out that a uniform ban at Community level is necessary to ban cat and dog fur 
from the internal market.  

The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle. 

• 

Proportionality principle 

The  proposal  complies  with  the  proportionality  principle  for  the  following 
reason(s). 

Labelling of fur and fur products is not an alternative to a ban on trade in cat 
and  dog  fur  or  fur  products.  Such  labelling  cannot  completely  dissipate 
consumers’ concerns regarding the fact that  cats  and  dogs  can  be slaughtered 
for  fur  production  purposes  and  that  therefore  in  case  of  fraudulent  or 
misleading labelling they might buy cat and dog fur.  

Moreover, at the present stage, the option of establishing a general mandatory 
labelling requirement for all fur and fur  products  would impose an additional 
and  disproportionate  burden  on 
industry.  Whilst  such  burden  would 
undoubtedly be an option to be considered if a more horizontal approach to fur 
trade were to be investigated, it seems inappropriate in the case at hand as the 
problem to be solved is the (commonly considered undesired) presence on the 
market  of  fur  obtained  from  species  of  companion  animals  such  as  cats  and 
dogs.  

Furthermore,  it  is  proposed  to  provide  for  the  limited  possibility  to  derogate 
from the general ban for fur of cats and dogs and products containing such fur 
if it can be ensured that it originates from cats and dogs that have not been bred 
or killed for fur production, and if it is labelled as such, as well as for fur solely 
introduced to or exported from the Community for personal use. 

In the circumstances, the ban of this fur is the least burdensome measure to be 
taken.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

It  offers  the  advantages  of  having  general  and  uniform  application,  being 
binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States on the same 
day,  without  the  additional  administrative  burden  of  a  national  act  being 
necessary for transposition 

Only if it is necessary for the uniform enforcement of the Regulation, common 
rules  regarding  the  analytical  methods  to  be  employed  for  control  purposes 
may be established by comitology procedure.  

increases 

Other means would not be adequate. A Directive requires national measures of 
implementation  and 
the  risk  of  divergent  application.  The 
enforcement of a ban relies on Member States while they keep the freedom on 
how to ensure that cat and dog fur and fur products are no longer placed on the 
market, imported and exported and to develop the methods of how to enforce 
the ban. 

• 

Enforcement of the ban 

The  enforcement  of 
the  availability  and 
the  proposed  ban  requires 
improvement  of  analytical  methods  to  distinguish  cat  and  dog  fur  from  other 
species’ (in particular fox and wolf). As most fur from cat and dog is produced 
and processed in third countries and enters the Community as part of a garment 
or  toy,  the  analytical  methods  must  allow  cat  and  dog  fur  identification  also 
where  fur  has  been  treated  (e.g.  dyed,  as  dyeing  may  destroy  the  natural 
structure of a fur and even destroy the DNA).  

Several  methods  are  currently  available  and  reported  to  be  in  use  by  the 
competent authorities of those Member States where a ban on trade, import or 
export  is  already  in  place.  The  methods  offering  the  most  reliable  results 
according  to  the  evaluations  provided  by  Member  States’  authorities  are: 
microscopy,  DNA  testing  and  the  MALDI-TOF  Mass  Spectrometry.  These 
methods provide different degrees of reliability. In particular the MALDI-TOF 
Mass Spectrometry is in general able to detect fur from domestic cat and dog 
and recent results suggest that this is probably also the case for treated fur. In 
the  EU  there  is  at  least  at  present  one  laboratory  offering  this  analysis  of  fur 
commercially.  The  Commission  is  informed  that  the  technology  necessary  to 
perform 
in  several 
laboratories  in  Member  States.  Once  a  EU  wide  ban  will  be  in  force  other 
laboratories would thus be able to perform this analysis if they developed the 
necessary database. 

the  MALDI-TOF  Mass  Spectrometry 

is  available 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Despite the use of different techniques for the detection of cat and dog fur at 
present the entry into force of a EU wide ban should lead in the future to the 
positive effect of the application of a common approach to the enforcement by 
Member States. Therefore it is appropriate for the information regarding such 
techniques  to  be  shared  among  Member  States  and  made  available  to  the 
Commission,  so  that  enforcement  bodies  are  kept  up  to  date  to  innovation  in 
this field.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

5. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

• 

Review/revision/sunset clause 

The proposal does not include any of these clauses.  

• 

Correlation table 

Not applicable  

• 

European Economic Area 

The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the 
European Economic Area. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2006/0236 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

banning the placing on the market and the import of or export from the Community of 
cat and dog fur and products containing such fur 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in  particular 
Articles 95 and 133 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission3, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee4 , 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty5, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Evidence exists of the presence  in the Community  of  non-labelled fur from cats and 
dogs and of products containing such fur. As a consequence, consumers have become 
concerned  about  the  possibility  that  they  could  buy  cat  and  dog  fur  and  products 
containing  such  fur.  On  18  December  2003,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a 
Declaration expressing its concerns about that trade and requesting that it be ended so 
as to restore the confidence of European consumers and retailers. As reflected in the 
Presidency Conclusions on the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare 
of Animals 2006-20106, the need to adopt rules on trade in cat and dog fur as soon as 
possible was highlighted during the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
on 19 June 2006. 

In  respond  to  consumer  concern,  several  Member  States  have  adopted  legislation 
aiming at preventing the production and marketing of fur from cats and dogs.  

There are differences between Member States’ provisions governing the trade, import, 
production and labelling of fur and fur products with the aim of preventing cat and dog 
fur from being put on the market or otherwise used for commercial purposes. Whilst 
some Member States have adopted a total ban on the production of fur from cats and 
dogs  by  banning  the  rearing  or  the  slaughter  of  such  animals  for  fur  production 

3 
4 
5 
6 

OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
Council document 10811/06 of 22 June 2006. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

purposes, others have adopted restrictions to the production and or imports of fur and 
products  containing  such  fur.  In  some  Member  States  labelling  requirements  have 
been introduced. Citizens’ increasing awareness of the issue is likely to prompt more 
Member States to adopt further restrictive measures at national level. 

As  a  result,  fur  traders,  especially  those  who  commercialise  fur  whose  species  of 
origin  is  not  indicated  and  not  easily  recognizable  or  purchase  products  containing 
such fur, are confronted with the risk that the products in question cannot legitimately 
be traded in one or more of the Member States, or that trade in one or more Member 
States is subject to additional requirements aimed at preventing the use of cat and dog 
fur. 

The  differences  between  national  measures  as  regards  cat  and  dog  fur  constitute 
barriers to the fur trade in general. Those measures impede the smooth operation of the 
internal  market  since  the  existence  of  diverse  legal  requirements  hamper  fur 
production  in  general  and  make  it  more  difficult  for  fur  legitimately  imported  to  or 
produced  in  the  Community  to  circulate  freely  within  the  Community.  The  diverse 
legal requirements in the different Member States lead to additional burdens and costs 
for fur traders.  

(6)  Moreover,  ordinary  consumers  of  fur  products  are  discouraged  from  buying  in  other 
Member States, due to the uncertainty regarding the applicable legal framework there.  

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The measures provided for in this Regulation should therefore facilitate the placing on 
the market of fur and fur products from species other than cats and dogs and prevent 
disturbance on the internal market for fur and fur products in general. 

To eliminate the present fragmentation of the internal market for fur and fur products 
there  is  a  need  for  harmonisation  where  the  most  effective  and  proportionate 
instrument  to  counter  the  barriers  to  trade  resulting  from  diverging  national 
requirements  would  be  a  ban  on  the  placing  on  the  market  in  the  Community  and 
import and export of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. 

A labelling requirement would not be suitable to achieve the same result since it would 
disproportionately burden all fur traders, whether they are involved in cat and dog fur 
trade or not. It would also be disproportionately costly in cases where fur represents a 
tiny part of the product.  

(10)  There  is  no  tradition  of  rearing  cats  and  dogs  for  fur  production  purposes  in  the 
Community, nor any tradition of manufacturing fur from imported cat and dog fur. It 
appears  in  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  cat  and  dog  fur  products  present  in  the 
Community originate from third countries. Thus, in order to be more effective, the ban 
on  intra-Community  trade  should  be  accompanied  by  a  ban  on  imports  of  the  same 
products  into  the  Community.  Such  an  import  ban  would  also  respond  to  the  ethical 
concerns expressed by citizens as to the possible introduction to the Community of fur 
from  cats  and  dogs,  especially  since  there  are  indications  that  those  animals  may  be 
kept and slaughtered inhumanely.  

(11)  A ban on exports should also ensure that cat and dog fur and products containing such 

fur are not produced in the Community for export.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(12)  However, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility to derogate from the general 
ban on the placing on the market, import to or export from the Community of fur of 
cats and dogs and products  containing such  fur if it can be ensured that it originates 
from  cats  and  dogs  that  have  not  been  bred  or  killed  for  fur  production  and  if  it  is 
labelled  as  such  and  will  therefore  not  have  any  negative  effect  on  the  consumer’s 
confidence  in  fur  and  fur  products.  Furthermore,  it  is  appropriate  to  provide  for  the 
possibility to derogate from the ban if the fur is only introduced to or exported from 
the Community for personal use and can therefore be considered as not impeding the 
smooth operation of the internal market.  

(13)  The  measures  to  ban  the  use  of  cats  and  dogs  for  fur production  should  be  enforced 
uniformly across the Community. However, the techniques currently used to identify 
cat  and  dog  fur,  such  as  DNA  testing,  microscopy  and  MALDI-TOF  Mass 
Spectrometry,  vary  from  one  Member  State  to  the  other.  It  is  appropriate  for  the 
information  regarding  such  techniques  to  be  made  available  to  the  Commission,  so 
that enforcement bodies are kept abreast of innovation in this field and the possibility 
to prescribing a uniform technique can be assessed. 

(14)  The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted 
in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the 
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.7 In 
particular,  it  is  necessary  to  follow  the  new  regulatory  procedure  with  scrutiny  for 
measures  of  general  scope  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this 
Regulation,  including  by  deleting  some  of  those  elements  or  by  supplementing  the 
instrument by the addition of new non-essential elements. 

(15)  Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the 
provisions  of  this  Regulation  and  ensure  that  they  are  implemented.  Those  penalties 
must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 

(16)  Since  the  objective  of  the  measures  to  be  taken,  namely  to  prevent  obstacles  to  the 
functioning of the internal market by harmonising at  Community level  national  bans 
concerning  the  trade  in  cat  and  dog  fur  and  products  containing  such  fur  cannot  be 
sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States  and  can  therefore  be  better  achieved  at 
Community  level,  the  Community  may  adopt  measures,  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity as set out in  Article 5 of the Treaty.  In accordance with the 
principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this  Regulation  does  not  go 
beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.  

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 
Prohibitions 

The placing on the market and the import to or export from the Community of fur of cats and 
dogs and products containing such fur shall be prohibited.  

7 

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23, as amended by Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006, OJ L 200, 
22.7.2006, p. 11. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 2 
Definitions 

For the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply: 

– 

– 

‘cat’ shall mean an animal of the species felis catus; 

‘dog’ shall mean an animal of the species canis familiaris. 

Article 3 
Methods for identifying the species of origin of fur 

Member States shall inform the Commission of the analytical methods they use to identify the 
species  of  origin  of  fur  by  [30  March  2009]  and  subsequently  every  year  not  later  than  [30 
March]. 

Article 4 
Implementing powers 

The following may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(2): 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

provisions on the use of analytical methods to identify the species of origin of fur; 

provisions which derogate from the prohibitions provided for in Article 1 for such fur 
or products containing such fur 

– 

– 

which  is  labelled  as  originating  from  cats  or  dogs  that  have  not  been  bred  or 
killed for fur production or  

which are personal or household effects being introduced into the Community, 
or exported therefrom. 

Article 5 
Committee 

The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and 
Animal Health (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’). 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  5a,  paragraphs  1  to  4,  and 
Article 7  of  Decision  1999/468/EC  shall  apply,  having  regard  to  the  provisions  of 
Article 8 thereof. 

3. 

The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Article 6 
Penalties 

The Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this 
Regulation  and  shall  take  all  measures  necessary  to  ensure  that  they  are  implemented.  The 
penalties  provided  for  must  be  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive.  The  Member  States 
shall  notify  those  provisions  to  the  Commission  by  [dd/mm/yyyy]  at  the  latest,  and  shall 
notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.  

Article 7 
Entry into force and applicability 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

It shall apply from [1 January 2008]. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

17 

   EN