Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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 COM(2006) 684 final — 2006/0236 (COD)
Date: 2007-04-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, domestic animal, export restriction, fur-bearing animal, hides and furskins industry, import restriction, marketing restriction

C 168/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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

COM(2006) 684 final — 2006/0236 (COD)

(2007/C 168/08)

On 4 December 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 95 and 133 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 March 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Retureau.

At its 435th plenary session, held on 25-26 April 2007 (meeting of 25 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 128 votes to one with five abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

used to make garments, accessories and toys. Such fur has been
detected on the European internal market.

The EESC endorses the legal basis (Article 95 EC Treaty)

1.1
and the kind of instrument (regulation).

1.2
The Commission has no power under the EC Treaty to
take action to combat cruelty to animals, inflicted outside the
EU moreover, and can only address the issue by using its
powers in the area of trade and the internal market in fur and
on the grounds of the need to harmonise differing national
laws.

1.3
The EESC shares the Commission's view that only a total
ban can succeed in dissuading importers of garments or toys
from bringing large quantities of cat and dog fur and fur-based
items into the EU, thus impeding the large-scale trafficking of
banned fur.

The EESC would like the concept of ‘fur’ to be legally
1.4
clear, referring explicitly to fur itself and to its different compo-
nents (hair, skin), so that all possible uses of cat and dog fur are
covered by the ban.

1.5
The EESC stresses the importance of effective monitoring
methods and of using comitology to establish the most appro-
priate monitoring arrangements.

2. Reasons

2.1
By means of a draft regulation based on Article 95 of
the EC Treaty (internal market), the Commission proposes to
ban the production, sale, import and export of cat and dog fur,
into and from the European Union.

2.2
The draft regulation comes in response to demands from
civil society and the European Parliament, and is one of the
German presidency's priorities.

In Asia,

2.3
in particular, cats and dogs are reared and
slaughtered under appalling conditions so that their fur can be

2.4
The fur is usually chemically treated or dyed, and sold
under designations which conceal its origin; scientifically, it is
difficult to identify the exact animal origin of fur processed in
this way, either from its appearance and texture or through
DNA analysis, since DNA is destroyed by processing. Appar-
ently, only a comparative mass spectrometry technique would
make it possible to identify the exact animal origin of such a
product. Customs control could therefore be extremely difficult,
and that is the reason for the derogations laid down in Article 4
of the draft, in particular.

Article 4 states that the possession for personal use of
2.4.1
clothes or items incorporating banned fur may be tolerated. The
EESC feels that the ownership and personal use or possession of
these private items in very limited quantities should be clearly
excluded from the scope of the regulation in order to avoid any
increase in red tape.

2.4.2
Any use of skins not obtained from cats or dogs bred
for fur production and labelled to this effect may, where neces-
sary, be addressed under the comitology procedure.

From the point of view of proportionality, a total ban on
2.5
production,
import and trading is the only measure possible,
given that such imports are illegal or undeclared and consumers
are misled by the unreliable labelling of garments and items
which might contain dog or car fur.

2.6 Many Member States and some third countries have
already adopted laws introducing bans of different kinds and
scope; Community action is justified by the need to harmonise
the internal market.

An information and follow-up system relating to the
2.7
detection of banned fur and the detection methods used is being
established. A list of appropriate monitoring arrangements can
be drawn up under the comitology procedure.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/43

Proportionate, dissuasive penalties must be laid down by

2.8
Member States.

3. General comments

3.1
The EESC endorses the legal basis and form of the regu-
lation: the animal welfare provisions applied to farm animals
cannot be applied as such to dogs and cats.

3.2
It is a social reality that in Europe these animals have
become pets, not reared for their meat or fur or to work, with
the exception of certain breeds of dog used to help and guide
people with disabilities, to find people who are missing or
buried under rubble or snow, or to assist people in other tasks,
all of which only serves to endear them more to the public.

3.3
The Commission has no power under the EC Treaty to
take action to combat cruelty to animals, inflicted outside the
EU moreover; it can only address the issue by using its powers
in the areas of trade and harmonisation of the internal market
in fur and of removing barriers to trade in fur on the grounds
of the need to harmonise differing national
laws to prevent
market fragmentation.

3.4
Given the major technical difficulties involved in identi-
fying processed cat and dog fur, a proposal limited to labelling

Brussels, 25 April 2007.

requirements would, in practice, have been ineffective. The EESC
shares the Commission's view that only a total ban can succeed
in dissuading importers of garments or toys from bringing large
quantities of cat and dog fur and fur-based items into the EU,
thus impeding the large-scale trafficking of banned fur.

3.5
The WTO should be notified of the regulation as a non-
tariff barrier (NTB), once it has been adopted. It is in line with
international trade rules.

4. Specific comments

4.1
The EESC would like the concept of ‘fur’ to be legally
clear, referring explicitly to fur itself and to its different compo-
nents (hair, skin), so that all possible uses of cat and dog fur are
covered by the ban.

4.2
The EESC feels that it should be specified that customs
controls must be avoided on individuals carrying strictly
personal items that they possess in very limited quantities when
crossing internal borders or coming from a third country; nor
must the exchange or sale of a garment or a gift to a charity be
deemed to be trade falling within the scope of the regulation.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS