Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seal products {SEC(2008) 2290} {SEC(2008) 2291}
Date: 2008-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export restriction, hides and furskins industry, marketing restriction, seal

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.7.2008 
COM(2008) 469 final 

2008/0160 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning trade in seal products 

(presented by the Commission) 

{SEC(2008) 2290} 
{SEC(2008) 2291} 

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 in, transit through, 
and the export from the Community of seal products. Trade in those products 
would however be possible when certain conditions, which concern the manner 
and  method  whereby  seals  are  killed  and skinned,  are  met.  It  also  establishes 
information  requirements  aimed  at  ensuring  that  seal  products  whose  trade 
would  be  possible by  derogation  to the prohibitions otherwise in force would 
be clearly identified as coming from a country meeting the required conditions, 
or alternatively as having been killed and skinned by persons acting under the 
jurisdiction of countries where the said conditions are met.  

The  bans  are  intended  to  replace  the  varied  measures  adopted,  or  whose 
adoption  is  planned,  by  certain  Member  States  to  prohibit  the  import, 
production and distribution, as the case may be, of products derived from seals, 
so  that  harmonised  conditions  govern  the  trade  in  those  products  within  the 
Community.  The  provisions  of  the  draft  Regulation  also  aim  at  ensuring  that 
seal  products  produced  outside  the  Community  cannot  be  imported  into  it, 
transit through it, or be exported from the Community. 

Seal products are imported in the Community and being traded within it. The 
evidence  available  suggests  that  most  of  these  products  originate  from  third 
countries, even though some production exists within the Community as seals 
are  killed  and  skinned  in  Finland  and  Sweden,  while  seal  products  are 
produced  in  other  Member  States,  such  as  the  United  Kingdom  (Scotland), 
using seal fur skins coming from other countries.  

For several years, many members of the public have been concerned about the 
animal  welfare  aspects  of  the  killing  and  skinning  of  seals  and  about  trade 
occurring  in  products  possibly  derived  from  seals  that  have  been  killed  and 
skinned with avoidable pain, distress and other forms of suffering, which seals, 
as  sentient  mammals,  are  capable  of  experiencing.  Those  concerns  have 
therefore been expressed by members of the public out of ethical reasons. The 
Commission  received  during  the  last  years  a  massive  number  of  letters  and 
petitions  on  the  issue  expressing  citizens’  deep  indignation  and  repulsion 
regarding the trade in seal products in such conditions. 

As a result of the concerns expressed by 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  seal 
products.  National  legislators  are  tackling  the  issue  with  different  measures 
banning  the  import,  production,  commercialisation,  or  placing  on  the  market, 
as  the  case  may  be,  of  products  derived  from  seals  or  certain  seal  species. 
Increasing  awareness  among  and  pressure  from  the  public  on  national 
legislators  are  likely  to  result  in  further  legislative  initiatives  in  the  Member 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
States aimed at responding to the widespread concern of members of the public 
as mentioned above.  

Two Member States have legislation in place to the effect of restricting trade in 
seal products. 

Whilst trade in seal products is (or may soon be) subject to restrictive rules in 
certain  Member  States,  no  specific  requirements  to  that  effect  have  been 
enacted in other Member States so that different trade conditions coexist within 
the Community varying from one (group of) Member State to the other (group) 
of  Member  States.  As  a  consequence,  the  internal  market  is  fragmented  as 
traders need to adjust their commercial practices to the different provisions in 
force in each Member State. 

The  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community  does  not  provide  for  a 
specific legal basis allowing the Community to legislate in the field of ethics as 
such.  However,  where  the  Treaty  empowers  the  Community  to  legislate  in 
certain areas and that the specific conditions of those legal bases are met, the 
mere  circumstance 
legislature  relies  on  ethical 
considerations does not prevent it from adopting legislative measures. It should 
be  noted,  in  that  respect,  that  the  Treaty  enables  the  Community  to  adopt 
measures aimed at establishing and maintaining an internal market, which is a 
market without internal frontiers according to Article 14 of the Treaty.  

the  Community 

that 

It  follows  from  the  Court  of  Justice’s  settled  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.  Depending  on  the 
circumstances,  those  measures  may  consist  in  provisionally  or  definitely 
prohibiting the marketing of a product or products1. 

There  are  differences  between  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions  of  the  Member  States  with  respect  to  seal  products.  Two  of  them 
have already prohibited the marketing of such products and a third has notified 
its  intention  to  do  so.  Other  Member  States  have  intense  public  discussions 
about the need for such legislation. Those measures are intended, according to 
their  authors,  to  stop  trade  in  seal  products  mainly  on  the  basis  of  ethical 
reasons  related  to  animal  welfare.  Those  prohibitions  of  marketing  contribute 
to  a  heterogeneous  development  of  that  market  and  are  therefore  such  as  to 
constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods.  

Having regard also to the public’s growing awareness and sensitivity to ethical 
considerations  in  how  seal  products  are  obtained,  it  is likely  that  obstacles  to 
the free movement of those products would arise by reason of the adoption by 
the Member States of new rules reflecting those concerns.  

1 

Judgement of 14 December 2004 in case C-434/02 (Arnold André), paragraphs 34 and 35. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Action by the Community legislature on the basis of Article 95 EC is therefore 
justified with respect to seal products2. 

The  harmonisation  of  the  different  prohibitions  and/or  other  restrictive 
measures currently in place is the easiest and lightest way of ensuring that the 
welfare  of  the  seals  from  which  products  are  derived  is  taken  into  account 
when  trade  in  seal  products  takes  place,  under  the  condition  that  certain 
requirements are met. 

The Court of Justice has recognised that the protection of animal welfare is a 
legitimate objective in the public interest3. 

The  Court  of  Justice  has  also  held  that,  where  the  conditions  for  recourse  to 
Article 95 EC as a legal basis are fulfilled, the Community legislature cannot 
be prevented from relying on that legal basis on the ground that public health 
protection is a decisive factor in the choices to be made4. 

It follows from a combined reading of the above case-law that the Community 
legislature  cannot  be  prevented  from  relying  on  Article  95  EC  on  the  ground 
that animal welfare considerations would be a decisive factor in the choices to 
be made. 

In  any  case,  the  draft  Regulation,  insofar  as  it  seeks  to  establish  uniform 
conditions  under  which  seal  products  may  be  traded  in  derogation  to  the 
prohibitions otherwise  applicable, contributes to  ensure  the  free  movement  of 
those goods within the internal market.  

As the vast majority of seal products present in the Community originate from 
third countries, the establishment of the ban trade must be accompanied by an 
equivalent ban on imports of the same products into the Community.  

A ban on transit and exports should also ensure that seal products do not transit 
through the Community nor are produced in the Community for export. Such 
additional  bans  would  contribute  to  render  the  ban  on  intra-Community  trade 
more  effective,  as  there  is  a  risk  that  seal  products  placed  under  a  transit 
procedure or allegedly produced for export may be fraudulently brought on to 
the Community market.  

Insofar as the provisions of this Regulation affect commercial activities in seal 
products with  third countries,  beyond  what is strictly required  to preserve the 
ban  on  intra-Community  trade,  it  should  also  be  considered  as  a  measure 
governing international trade. 

The various prohibitions provided for by this Regulation would respond to the 
animal welfare concerns expressed by members of the public as to the possible 
introduction  into  the  Community  of  seal  products  obtained  from  seals  that 

2 
3 
4 

See paragraphs 37, 38, 39 and 41 of case C-434/02. 
See Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Viamex Agrar Handels e.a., paragraph 22. 
See paragraph 32 of Case C-434/02. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
might  not  have  been  killed  and  skinned  without  causing  avoidable  pain, 
distress and other forms of suffering. 

It should however be possible for trade in seal products to take place where the 
killing  and  skinning  methods  used  would  be  such  as  offering  reasonable 
guarantees that the killing and skinning occur without causing avoidable pain, 
distress and other forms of suffering. 

The  regulatory  framework  so  established  would  therefore  be  designed  so  as 
giving  incentives  to  countries  concerned  to  review  and  improve,  where  need 
be, their legislation and practice concerning the methods to be complied with 
when killing and skinning seals. 

The  fundamental  economic  and  social 
interests  of  Inuit  communities 
traditionally engaged in the hunting of seals should not be adversely affected. 
Seal  products  deriving  from  traditional  hunts  traditionally  conducted  by  Inuit 
communities and which contribute to their subsistence should therefore not be 
covered by the prohibitions provided for by this Regulation. 

•    General context 

Products derived from seals are traded within and outside the Community. 

Within  the  Community,  seals  are  killed  and  skinned  in  Sweden,  Finland  and 
the  United  Kingdom  (Scotland)  with  a  view  to  obtain  products  derived  from 
seals, or for pest control reasons. Outside the Community, seals are killed and 
skinned  to  the  same  effect  in  Canada,  Greenland,  Namibia,  Norway  and 
Russia.  

The  Community  has  adopted  since  long  appropriate  legislation  seeking  to 
ensure  that  hunting  within  and  outside  the  Community  would  not  lead  to 
endanger the conservation status of several seal species (see below).  

Beyond those conservation concerns, methods used to kill seals and seal pups 
have  raised  serious  among  members  of  the  public,  organisations  and  certain 
Member States for several years on account of the fear, pain, distress and other 
form of suffering experienced by seals and seal pups.  

On 17 November 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 
adopted  a  recommendation  on  seal  hunting  inviting  member  and  observer 
states  practising  seal  hunting,  amongst  other  issues, "to  ban  all  cruel  hunting 
methods, which do not guarantee the instantaneous death, without suffering, of 
the animals, and to prohibit the stunning of animals with instruments such as 
hakapiks, bludgeons and guns".  

On  26  September  2006,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  declaration 
requesting the European Commission to regulate the import, export and sale of 
all harp and hooded seal products, while ensuring that this regulation would not 
have an impact on traditional Inuit seal hunting. 

Belgium  adopted  on  16  March  2007  an  Act  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and 
placing  on  the  market  of  products  derived  from  seals  while  the  Netherlands 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
adopted  a  Decree  of  4  July  2007  amending  the  Flora  and  Fauna  Act 
(Designation  of  Species  of  Animals  and  Plants)  Decree  and  the  Protected 
Species  of  Animals  and  Plants  (Exemption)  Decree  in  connection  with  the 
prohibition  of  the  trade  in  products  of  harp  seals  and  hooded  seals.  Germany 
intends  to  adopt  an  Act  banning  the  import,  processing  and  placing  on  the 
market of seal products. Similar initiatives from other Member States may not 
be excluded in the future. 

•    Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Trade  in  seal  products  is  subject  to  a  certain  extent  to  existing  Community 
provisions,  the  scope  and  rationale  of  which  are  however  significantly 
different. 

Council  Directive  83/129/EEC  of  28  March  1983  prohibits  the  commercial 
importation  into  Member  States  of  skins  of  certain  seal  pups5  and  products 
derived therefrom6. The Directive was adopted further to various studies which 
had have raised doubts concerning the population status of the harp and hooded 
seals,  and  especially  as  to  the  effect  of  non-traditional  hunting  on  the 
conservation and population status of hooded seals. As hunting, as traditionally 
practised by the Inuit people, leaves seal pups unharmed, the Directive does not 
apply to products resulting from this particular form of hunting. 

Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  of  21  May  1992  on  the  conservation  of  natural 
habitats  and  of  wild  fauna  and  flora7 protects  all  seal  species  present  in  the 
Community. As with all other species (and habitats) covered by the Directive, 
the  overall  aim  thereof  is  to  maintain  or  restore  a  favourable  conservation 
status with regard to the seal species occurring in the Community.  

As  part  of  the  measures  designed  to  achieve  this  goal,  Article  15  of  the 
Directive prohibits the use of all indiscriminate means capable of causing local 
disappearance  of,  or  serious  disturbance  to,  populations  of  such  species.  The 
prohibited methods and means of capture and killing are listed in Annex VI (a) 
and  the  prohibited  forms  of  capture  and  killing  from  modes  of  transport  are 
listed in Annex VI (b). 

The Directive prohibits all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens 
of  those  species  listed  in  its  Annex  IV  (a),  which  include  the  following  seal 
species:  Monachus  monachus  and  Phoca  hispida  saimensis.  It  also  requires 
Member States, in the light of the surveillance of the conservation status of the 
species concerned, to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of those 
species  of  wild  fauna  listed  in  Annex  V  –  which  includes  all  seal  species 
occurring  in  the  Community  not  listed  in  Annex  IV  –  as  well  as  their 
exploitation  is  compatible  with  their  being  maintained  at  a  favourable 
conservation status. Such measures may include the regulation of the methods 

5 
6 
7 

Whitecoat pups of harp seals and pups of hooded seals (blue-backs). 
OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30. Directive as amended by Directive 89/370/EEC (OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 37). 
OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 
adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of 
the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 368). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  taking  specimens,  the  application,  when  specimens  are  taken,  of  hunting 
rules  which  take  account  of  the  conservation  of  such  populations,  or  the 
regulation of the purchase, sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale or transport 
for sale of specimens. 

Member States are obliged to report every six years on the implementation of 
the measures taken under Directive 92/43. The latest reporting period covered 
2001-2006  and  revealed  information  for  the  first  time  on  the  conservation 
status of all seal species to which the Directive applies. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of 
species  of  wild  fauna  and  flora  by  regulating  trade  therein8  implements  the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora (Cites) within the Community. The aim of the Regulation (and of Cites) 
is to guarantee the conservation of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating 
trade therein. Pursuant to Cites and the Regulation, trade will only take place if 
it  does  not  threaten  the  survival  of  the  species  concerned.  Several  species  of 
Pinnipeds  are listed in  either Appendix I  or II to Cites and the corresponding 
Annexes A and B to the Regulation. The proposal for a Regulation only covers 
one species – the Namibian Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillius pusillus) –, 
which is also currently listed under Cites (Appendix II thereof).  

In  summary,  the  existing  legislation  pursues  conservation  objectives  and  its 
actual  implementation  depends  to  a  certain  extent  (at  least  with  respect  to 
Directive  92/43)  of  the  evolution  in  the  conservation  status  of  the  species 
concerned. In any case, it does not prohibit all commercial activities in respect 
of all seal species as purports this proposal for a Regulation, nor does it address 
specifically the methods whereby seals are killed and skinned from an animal 
welfare viewpoint. 

•    Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

The  protection  of  animal  welfare  is  a  legitimate  objective  which  the 
Community  can  pursue  in  the  public  interest  when  exercising  the  legislative 
powers conferred upon it by the EC Treaty9. Animal welfare considerations are 
taken  into  account  by  the  Community  legislature  in  various  fields.  In  certain 
areas,  such  as  the  internal  market,  Community  institutions  are  even  bound  to 
pay full regard to animal welfare requirements when legislating10.  

Animal  welfare  is  also  at  the  centre  of  the  Community  Action  Plan  on  the 
Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-201011. This Action Plan reflects the 
Protocol  to  the  EC  Treaty  on  the  Protection  of  Animals  defined  as  sentient 
beings. As agreed at the time of the adoption of the Action Plan and in order to 

8 

9 
10 

11 

OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2008 (OJ 
L 95, 8.4.2008, p. 3). 
See Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Viamex Agrar Handels e.a., paragraph 22. 
Protocol (No 33) on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty establishing the European 
Community  (OJ  C  340,  10.11.1997,  p.  110).  This  Protocol  reflects  itself  Declaration  No  24  on  the 
protection of animals annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union. 
COM(2006)13 final of 23.1.2006. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
support  the  harmonisation  of  animal  welfare  standards  adopted  in  the 
Community both on public and private bases, the Commission has launched a 
feasibility study to create a European Centre for the Protection and Welfare of 
Animals.  The  European  Centre  could  be  developed  in  a  way  to  assist  the 
Community  and  Member  States  in  the  management  of  animal  welfare  issues 
both  at  Community  and  international  level.  As  and  when  established,  such  a 
Centre could for instance assist the Commission in the implementation of the 
labelling/marking  requirements  whose  basic  features  are  to  be  established  by 
this Regulation. 

There  is  no  conflict  between  this  proposal  and  other  existing  Community 
legislation  (see  above):  the  former  focuses  on  animal  welfare  considerations 
while  the  latter  addresses  conservation  issues  and,  insofar  as  this  Regulation 
would impose stricter provisions in terms of trade, it could perfectly do so as 
the  existing  Community  legislation  only  provides  for  minimum  requirements. 
Conversely, should trade in seal products be allowed to occur under the benefit 
of a derogation, it is necessary to ensure that the specific regimes provided for 
under the existing Community legislation continues to apply.  

As  to  the  import  ban,  it  is  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  proposed  Regulation  is  non-discriminatory  as  the  various  prohibitions  it 
provides  for  will  apply  to  intra-Community  trade  as  well  as  to  imports  and 
exports.  

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

• 

Consultation of interested parties 

Consultation  methods,  main  sectors 
respondents 

targeted  and  general  profile  of 

An  Internet-based  public  consultation  was  conducted  by  the  European 
Commission  providing  the  possibility  for  EU  citizens  as  well  as  non-EU 
citizens to express their views on regulation of seal hunting, as an input to the 
policy-making  process.  73,153  answers  were  received  from  citizens  in  160 
countries worldwide. This high number of responses (and additionally around 
1,350  e-mails)  indicates  that  seal  hunting  is  a  very  salient  issue  to  a  large 
number of citizens. The responses showed massive dissatisfaction with current 
seal hunting practices, at least how they are perceived by the general public. A 
clear  majority  of  respondents  in  nearly  all  the  geographical  area  analysed 
preferred  a  ban.  The  majority  of  respondents  resided  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
the USA and Canada.  

Furthermore,  a stakeholder consultation was organised by the European  Food 
Safety  Agency  (EFSA)  in  the  framework  of  its  work  to  establish  a  scientific 
opinion on the animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals (see 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
below).  The  stakeholders  were  invited  to  express  their  opinion  on  the 
completeness and  reliability of the data presented  in the draft report  prepared 
by  the  EFSA  working  group,  in  order  to  avoid  any  possibility  of  leaving  out 
some  important  scientific  evidence.  Moreover,  the  European  Commission 
organised a workshop with experts from sealing countries, animal welfare non-
governmental  organisations as well  as fur trade and hunters associations with 
the objective to receive feed-back on the factual information under the country 
reporting  exercise  (national  hunt  management  systems)  conducted  in  the 
framework of the overall Commission assessment. Bilateral meetings were also 
held with a whole range of stakeholders and took place at political as well as at 
technical level. 

Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account 

The results of the consultation showed that many respondents are against seal 
hunting  for  reasons  of  principle,  which  again  may  be  rooted  in  a  certain 
perception of the human-nature relation. However, the results also showed that 
for some respondents the level of acceptability of seal hunting is influenced by 
how the seal hunt is managed and undertaken, and for what reasons. 

The  proposal  takes  the  outcome  of  the  consultations  held  into  account  as  it 
seeks to respond to the concerns expressed as to the placing on the Community 
market,  including  further  from  imports  from  third  countries,  of  seal  products 
obtained  from  seals  that  might  not  have  been  killed  and  skinned  without 
causing avoidable pain, distress and other forms of suffering. Furthermore, the 
overall  scheme of  the proposal is so  designed as to give incentives to sealing 
countries to improve the methods in which seals are killed and skinned.  

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

The  Commission,  in  its  response  to  the  European  Parliament  on  16  January 
2007,  recognised  the  high  level  of  public  concerns  regarding  the  animal 
welfare  aspects  of  seal  hunting.  In  line  with  its  commitment  to  high  animal 
welfare  standards,  it  undertook  to  make  a  full  objective  assessment  of  the 
animal welfare aspects of seal hunting and, based on the results, to report back 
to the European Parliament with possible legislative proposals if warranted by 
the  situation.  The  Commission  carried  out  its  assessment  on  the  basis  of 
various elements, among which, as far recourse to expertise is concerned, the 
independent scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 
and a study commissioned to support the impact assessment process.  

In  follow-up  to  the  request  from  the  European  Commission  in  May  2007, 
EFSA  adopted  on  6  December  2007  an  independent  scientific  opinion  on  the 
animal welfare aspects of methods for the killing and skinning of seals12. 

EFSA concluded that "it is possible to kill seals rapidly and effectively without 
causing  them  avoidable  pain  or  distress.  However,  the  Panel  also  reported 

12 

The EFSA Journal (2007) 610, 1-122. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
evidence  that,  in  practice,  effective  and  humane  killing  does  not  always 
happen". 

EFSA  does  not  explicitly  take  position  on  the  methods  currently  used  for 
killing  and  skinning  seals.  It  rather  establishes  a  number  of  criteria  for 
assessing the acceptability of methods applied in the different seal hunts. 

Given the scarcity of robust, scientifically peer reviewed data, the EFSA Risk 
Assessment  process  was  conducted  in  a  qualitative  way.  Nevertheless,  the 
general  conclusions  and  recommendations  are  considered  to  be  rigorous 
enough to inform the policy-making process. 

Building  upon  the  EFSA  scientific  opinion,  a  study  (commissioned  by  the 
Commission)13 examined the regulatory frameworks for, and the management 
practices of, the different seal hunts. 

Legislative and enforcement provisions in a number of sealing countries, both 
within the European Community and beyond were assessed and best practices 
identified. The assessments were based on desk study research and information 
provided  during  the  overall  consultation  process;  the  study  team  did  not  visit 
all the range states worldwide.  

The study also assessed the impact of a possible ban of seal products on trade 
and other socio-economic aspects. 

• 

Impact assessment 

Both  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  measures  were  considered  in  the 
impact assessment. Furthermore, policy measures that are not linked directly to 
seal  hunt  management  systems,  such  as  a  total  prohibition  of  placing  on  the 
Community  market  and/or  of  imports/exports,  as  well  as  measures  that  could 
be  linked  to  the  good  or  bad  practices  of  the  seal  hunt  management  systems, 
were analysed. 

The  environmental  dimension  of  the  assessment  is  limited  to  the  impacts  of 
animal  welfare  aspects  for  seals  which,  however,  are  difficult  to  measure 
because  the  effectiveness  of  killing  methods  used  for  seals  vary  according  to 
the methods used, the skill of the operators and the environmental conditions. 
Furthermore, economic impacts are limited to those impacts to trade and local 
economies,  both  on  the  side  of  the  sealing  countries  as  well  as  of  potential 
transit and transformation countries, while the social dimension touches mainly 
upon the conditions for the Inuit population. 

A  total  prohibition  of  placing  on  the  Community  market  of  seal  products  is 
assessed to have minor economic impacts in Member States of the Community. 
This assumes, however, that transhipment of sealskins and other seal products 
and imports of sealskins for further processing and exports can continue. The 
impacts are assessed to be slightly more significant for non-Community range 
states.  This  is  a  result  of  the  fact  that  the  size  of  the  seal  hunts  in  these  non-

13 

COWI "Assessment of the potential impact of a ban of products derived from seal species", April 2008 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Community countries are much larger than in the Community range states, and 
that  the  Community  market  -  apart  for  Russia  -  is  of  some  importance.  This 
option would also deny consumers the choice to purchase seal products in the 
Community. 

A  total  prohibition  of  imports  and  exports  would  have  medium  economic 
impacts  on  the  Community  Member  States,  although  those  impacts  could  be 
significant for Finland and Germany, if such ban would also cover transit trade. 
The impacts would be slightly higher for the non-Community range states. This 
is  again  a  result  of  the  fact  that  the  size  of  the  seal  hunts  in  non-Community 
countries  is  much  larger  than  in  the  Community  range  states,  and  that  the 
Community market - apart for Russia - is of some importance. However, if the 
ban  is  extended  to  transit  trade,  Canada  will  in  particular  suffer,  unless  this 
trade  can  be  shifted  from  Germany  and  Finland  to outside of  the Community 
(for instance to. Norway). Hence, Norway may actually strengthen its position 
as  a  transit  trader.  With  regard  to  consumers  they  would  only  have  a  very 
limited  choice  of  seal  products  derived  from  seal  species  hunted  in  the 
Community and offered for sale on local markets only. 

Denmark  and  Italy  are  by  far  the  two  largest  importers  of  raw  fur  skin  from 
seal for further processing/sales on the Community market, and will thus also 
be  affected  by  such  regulation.  Denmark  imports  the  raw  fur  skins  directly 
coming  from  Canada  and  Greenland  (that  are  not  categorised  as  goods  in 
transit), while Italy imports the raw fur skins from Russia, Finland and the UK 
(Scotland).  Greece  also  has  a  noticeable  trade  in  raw  skins  originating  in  the 
two latter range states. 

Benefits  from  a  labelling  system  might  include  a  price  mark-up  on  the 
consumer market and at the same an increase of the image of seal hunting in 
general. If the system is voluntary, it might encourage a natural self-selection 
process  regarding  compliance  and  thus  maintain  the  balance  between  the 
animal  welfare,  economic  and  social  dimensions,  i.e.  those  who  pursue  the 
label  might  benefit  more  than  it  costs,  and  the  welfare  of  the  seals  could  be 
enhanced.  Furthermore,  it  is  assessed  that  the  impact  will  be  largest  if  it  is  a 
widespread  international  labelling  system  rather  than  a  specific  Community 
system. 

Bi-/multilateral  agreements  between  the  Community  and  one  or  more  range 
states  could  be  made,  which  could  enlarge  the  geographical  area  not  to  be 
covered  by  any  legislative  measures.  The  impact  will  be  similar  to  that  of  a 
limited  ban  that  allows  trade  if  the  hunting  of  the  seals  complies  with  some 
established standards as discussed above. 

Given  the  animal  welfare  concerns  expressed  by  the  public,  the  European 
Parliament  and  Member  States,  stand-alone  non-legislative  measures  are  not 
considered sufficient to address the issue. 

The  EFSA  scientific  opinion  clearly  indicates  that  there  is  reported  evidence 
that, in practice, effective killing does not always happen, which is reinforced 
by  the  further  assessment  findings.  There are  therefore  reasonable  grounds  to 
consider undertaking precautionary steps to ensure that products derived from 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
seals, which are killed and skinned in a way that causes them avoidable pain, 
distress and suffering, are denied access to the Community market.  

Labelling alone of seal products is not an alternative to a ban on trade in those 
products  as  labelling  would  only  be  relevant  to  assuage  the  ethical  animal 
welfare  concerns  of  citizens  and  consumers  as  and  when  the  killing  and 
skinning  methods  in  force  in  the  sealing  countries  would  accord  with  the 
criteria  provided  for  in  this  Regulation.  There  should  therefore  be  incentives 
for sealing countries to adapt their legislation and practice to that effect, which 
can only be achieved by means of trade prohibitions.  

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•    Summary of the proposed action  

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 in, transit through, 
and the export from the Community of seal products. Trade in those products 
would however be possible when certain conditions, which concern the manner 
and  method  whereby  seals  are  killed  and skinned,  are  met.  It  also  establishes 
information  requirements  aimed  at  ensuring  that  seal  products  whose  trade 
would  be  possible by  derogation  to the prohibitions otherwise in force would 
be  clearly  indicated  as  coming  from  a  country  meeting  the  above-mentioned 
conditions, or alternatively as having been killed and skinned by persons acting 
under the jurisdiction of countries where the said conditions are met.  

•    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 9514.  

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  of  the  EC  Treaty  are  not  incompatible  with 
each other.  

14 

Judgment  of  10  December  2002  in  Case  C-491/01  British  American  Tobacco  and  Imperial  Tobacco 
[2002] ECR I-11453, paragraphs 60 and 61; judgments of 14 December 2004 in Case C-434/02 Arnold 
André [2004] ECR I-11825, paragraph 34 and in Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, 
paragraph 33; judgment of 12 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural 
Health [2006] ECR I-6451, paragraph 32 and of 6 December 2005 in Case C-66/04 United Kingdom v 
European Parliament and Council [2005] ECR I-10553, paragraph 41. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•    Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  aims  at  the  harmonisation  of  laws  concerning  the  trade  in  seal 
products. This harmonisation at Community level is necessary to eliminate the 
present  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market,  which  results  from  the  existing 
differences  between  Member  States’  provisions  governing  the  trade,  import, 
production  and  marketing  of  seal  products,  while  taking  into  account  animal 
welfare considerations. Such result could only be obtained by measures taken 
at  Community  level  since  national  measures,  including  total  bans,  are  by 
definition only enforceable in parts of the internal market.  

Similarly, the possible continuance of trade in seal products, by derogation to 
the  prohibitions  otherwise  applicable,  are  better  taken  at  Community  level  as 
this ensures that uniform conditions are met before derogations are granted and 
that  trade  of  those  products  benefiting  from  derogations  is  governed  by 
harmonised  rules  throughout  the  internal  market.  The  same  reasoning  holds 
true  with  respect  to  the  labelling  and  marking  requirements  applying  to 
products  benefiting  from  derogations,  as  national  legislation  on  the  same 
subject  would  by  definition  not  be  applicable  in  the  whole  Community  and 
would lead to market fragmentation.  

The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle. 

•    Proportionality principle and choice of instruments 

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

Labelling alone of seal products is not an alternative to a ban on trade in those 
products  as  labelling  would  only  be  relevant  to  assuage  the  ethical  animal 
welfare  concerns  of  citizens  and  consumers  as  and  when  the  killing  and 
skinning  methods  in  force  in  the  sealing  countries  would  accord  with  the 
criteria  provided  for  in  this  Regulation.  There  should  therefore  be  incentives 
for sealing countries to adapt their legislation and practice to that effect, which 
can only be achieved by means of trade prohibitions.  

In  these  circumstances,  prohibitions  coupled  with  the  possibility  to  issue 
derogations  constitute  the  least  burdensome  measures  to  be  taken  which  can 
effectively achieve the pursued objectives.  

Appropriate requirements should be provided  for  ensuring  that derogations to 
trade  prohibitions  can  be  properly  enforced  under  this  Regulation.  To  that 
effect,  provisions  should  be  made  relating  to  certification  schemes  as  well  as 
on  labelling  and  marking.  Certification  schemes  should  ensure  that  seal 
products are certified as coming from seals which have been killed and skinned 
in  accordance  with  the  appropriate  requirements,  which  are  effectively 
enforced,  and  whose  object  is  to  ensure  that  seals  are  killed  and  skinned 
without causing avoidable pain, distress and any other form of suffering.  

All  measures  adopted  by  the  Commission  to  implement  this  Regulation  will 
comply with the proportionality principle. 

EN 

13 

   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 

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 seal products are no longer placed on the market, imported 
and exported and to develop the methods of how to enforce the ban. Similarly, 
there is a need to guarantee the uniform application of possible derogations to 
the trade prohibitions otherwise applicable. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The Proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

5. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

•    Simplification 

The  Proposal  does  not  have  a  simplification  element  as  it  does  not  touch 
existing legislation. 

It should be noted with respect to Regulation No 338/97 that it would not be 
appropriate  to  remove  from  that  Regulation  seal  species  which  are  currently 
included therein, as such decisions are intrinsically linked to the decisions to be 
made  by  the  governing  bodies  of  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  in 
Endangered  Species  (Cites).  (Even  though  the  Community  is  not  a  Party  to 
Cites, Regulation No 338/97 expressly purports to implement that Convention 
within the Community).  

See below with respect to Seal Pups Directive 83/129/EEC.  

•    Repeal of existing legislation 

The adoption of the Proposal will not lead to the repeal of existing legislation 
as the latter either covers other elements or is based on different grounds and 
seeks to assuage different concerns as it relates to the conservation status of the 
seal species concerned.  

Concerning  more  specifically  the  Seal  Pups  Directive  83/129/EEC  (as 
amended),  it  is  clear  that  this  Regulation  encompasses  the  prohibition  of 
commercial  imports  of  the  specific  products  covered  by  this  legislation.  Yet, 
this  Directive  must  remain  unaffected  as  this  Regulation  contemplates  the 
possibility  for  trade  to  continue  by  derogations  to  the  prohibitions  otherwise 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
applicable.  Should  such  derogations  be  granted,  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  that 
the conservation objectives pursued by Directive 83/129 are still met, which in 
turn  implies  that  the  ban  import  the  latter  provides  for  continues  to  apply.  It 
would therefore not be appropriate to repeal Directive 83/129. 

•    Review/revision/sunset clause 

The Proposal does not include any of these clauses. 

•    Recasting 

The Proposal does not involve recasting. 

•    Correlation table 

N/A as correlation tables are only required with respect to Directives. 

•    European Economic Area (EEA) 

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

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2008/0160 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning trade in seals products 

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 Commission15, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee16, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty17, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

Seals are animals that can experience pain, distress, fear and other forms of suffering. 

(2) 

(3) 

Seals  are  hunted  within and  outside  the  Community  and  used  for  obtaining  products 
and articles, such as meat, oil, blubber, fur skins and articles made therefrom, which 
are sold commercially on different markets, including the Community.  

The  hunting    of  seals  has  led  to  expressions  of  serious  concerns  by  members  of  the 
public,  governments  as  well  as  the  European  Parliament  sensitive  to  animal  welfare 
considerations  since  there  are  indications  that  seals  may  not  be  killed  and  skinned 
without  causing  avoidable  pain,  distress  and  other  forms  of  suffering.  The  European 
Food  Safety  Authority  concluded,  in  its  scientific  opinion  on  the  Animal  Welfare 
aspects of the killing and skinning of seals, that it is possible to kill seals rapidly and 
effectively without causing them avoidable pain or distress, whilst also reporting that 
in practice, effective and humane killing does not always happen18. 

(4) 

In response to the concern about the animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning 
of seals, several Member States have adopted or intend to adopt legislation regulating 
trade  in  seal  products,  by  prohibiting  their  import,  and  production,  while  no 
restrictions are placed on the trade in these products in other Member States.  

15 
16 
17 
18 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the 
Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals. The EFSA Journal (2007) 610, 1-122. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

There  are  therefore  differences  between  Member  States'  provisions  governing  the 
trade,  import,  production  and  marketing  of  seal  products.  Those  differences  between 
national measures affect the operation of the internal market. The measures provided 
for in this Regulation should therefore harmonise the rules across the Member States 
as regards commercial activities concerning seal products. 

To  eliminate  the  present  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market,  there  is  a  need  to 
provide for harmonised rules while taking into account animal welfare considerations. 
A ban on placing seal products on the market is appropriate to that effect. 

A vast majority of seal products in the Community originate from third countries. In 
order to be more effective, the ban on intra-Community trade should be accompanied 
by a ban on the introduction of the same products into the Community.  

A  ban  on  transit  and  exports  should  also  ensure  that  seal  products  do  not  transit 
through  the  Community  nor  are  produced  in  the  Community  for  export.  Such  bans 
would contribute to render the ban on intra-Community trade more effective, as there 
is a risk that seal products placed under a transit procedure or allegedly produced for 
export may be fraudulently brought on to the Community market.  

Insofar  as  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation  affect  commercial  activities  in  seal 
products with third countries, beyond what is strictly required to preserve the ban on 
intra-Community  trade,  it  should  also  be  considered  as  a  measure  governing 
international trade. 

(10)  The various prohibitions provided for by this Regulation should respond to the animal 
welfare  concerns  expressed  by  members  of  the  public  as  to  the  placing  on  the 
Community market, including further to imports from third countries, of seal products 
obtained  from  seals  that  might  not  have  been  killed  and  skinned  without  causing 
avoidable pain, distress and other forms of suffering. 

(11) 

It  is  appropriate,  however,  to  provide  for  the  possibility  of  derogations  from  the 
general  ban  on  the  placing  on  the  market  and  the  import  in,  or  export  from,  the 
Community  of  seal  products  insofar  as  the  appropriate  conditions  based  on  animal 
welfare  considerations  are  met.  To  that  effect,  criteria  should  be  provided  for  the 
compliance with which should ensure that seals are killed and skinned without causing 
avoidable pain, distress and other forms of suffering. Any such derogation should be 
granted  at  Community  level  so  that  uniform  conditions  apply  throughout  the 
Community with respect to the trade specifically allowed under those derogations and 
the smooth functioning of the internal market is preserved. 

(12)  Seal products should only be placed on the market, imported, transiting, or exported if 
they  meet  the  conditions  provided  for  to  that  effect  by  this  Regulation.  However,  if 
placed  on  the  market,  imported  or  exported  in  accordance  with  a  derogation  granted 
under  this  Regulation,  seal  products  will  also  have  to  comply  with  the  relevant 
Community legislation, including animal health and food and feed safety provisions, 
as  appropriate.  This  Regulation  should  not  affect  the  obligations  under  Regulation 
(EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 
laying  down  health  rules  concerning  animal  by-products  not  intended  for  human 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
consumption19  concerning  the  disposal  of  seal  products  for  public  and  animal  health 
reasons. 

(13)  The  fundamental  economic  and  social  interests  of  Inuit  communities  traditionally 
engaged in the hunting of seals as a means to ensure their subsistence should not be 
adversely affected. The hunt is an integrated part of the culture and the identity of the 
members of the Inuit society. It represents a source of income and contributes to the 
subsistence  of  the  hunter.  Therefore,  seal  products  deriving  from    hunts  traditionally 
conducted by Inuit communities and which contribute to their  subsistence should not 
be covered by the prohibitions provided for in this Regulation. 

(14)  Appropriate  requirements  should  be  provided  for  ensuring  that  derogations  to  trade 
prohibitions can be properly enforced under this Regulation. To that effect, provisions 
should be made relating to certification schemes as well as on labelling and marking. 
Certification  schemes  should  ensure  that  seal  products  are  certified  as  coming  from 
seals  which  have  been  killed  and  skinned  in  accordance  with  the  appropriate 
requirements, which are effectively enforced, and whose object is to ensure that seals 
are killed and skinned without causing avoidable pain, distress and any other form of 
suffering. 

(15)  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 Commission20.  

(16) 

In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt all measures necessary 
to ensure that procedures are in place allowing applications for derogation to the trade 
prohibitions set out in this Regulation to be lodged and handled in an efficient manner, 
as  well  as  to  ensure  the  proper  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation 
concerning certification schemes and labelling and marking. Since those measures are 
of  a  general  scope  and  are  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this 
Regulation by supplementing it, inter alia, by supplementing it with new non-essential 
elements,  they  must  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  regulatory  procedure  with 
scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. The Commission should 
also  be  empowered  to  decide  on  derogations  to  trade  prohibitions  under  this 
Regulation,  suspension  or  revocation  thereof.  Since  those  measures  are  adopted  to 
ensure the management of the scheme provided for in this Regulation and apply it in 
individual cases, they must be adopted in accordance with the management procedure 
provided for in Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC.  

(17)  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 
should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.  

(18)  Member  States  should  report  on  a  regular  basis  on  the  actions  taken  to  enforce  this 
Regulation. On the basis of those reports, the Commission should itself report to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation.  

19 

20 

OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 523/2008 
of 11 June 2008 (OJ L 153, 12.6.2008, p. 23). 
OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. Decision as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC (OJ L 200, 22.7.2006, p. 
11). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(19)  Since  the  objective  of  this  Regulation,  namely  the  elimination  of  obstacles  to  the 
functioning of the internal market by harmonising national bans concerning the trade 
in seal products at Community level, 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.  International  trade  may  be  regulated  by  the  Community  pursuant  to 
Article  133  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 the 
objectives it pursues, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Subject matter 

This  Regulation  establishes  harmonised  rules  concerning  the  placing  on  the  market  and  the 
import in, transit through, or export from, the European Community of seal products. 

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this Regulation: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

'seal' means specimens of Pinnipeds belonging to the species listed in Annex I; 

'seal  product'  means  all  products,  either  processed  or  unprocessed,  deriving  or 
obtained  from  seals,  including  meat,  oil,  blubber,  and  raw  fur  skins  and  fur  skins, 
tanned or dressed, including fur skins assembled in plates, crosses and similar forms 
as well as articles made from seal fur skins; 

'placing  on  the  market'  means  introducing  onto  the  Community  market,  thereby 
making available to third parties, whether in exchange for payment or not;  

'import' means any entry of goods into the customs territory of the Community, with 
the exception of imports that: 

(i) 

are of an occasional nature, and 

(ii) 

consist  exclusively  of  goods  for  the  personal  use  of  the  travellers  or  their
families;  

'transit'  means  the  transport  of  goods  between  two  points  outside  the  Community 
through the territory of the Community with or without trans-shipment, warehousing, 
breaking bulk, or change in the mode of transport and during which any interruption 
in  the  movement  arises  only  from  the  arrangements  necessitated  by  this  form  of 
traffic; 

6. 

'export' means any departure of goods from the customs territory of the Community; 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
7. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

'applicants  requesting  a  derogation'  mean  countries,  including  Member  States, 
requesting  a  derogation  under  Article  5  of  this  Regulation  on  whose  territory  or 
under  whose  jurisdiction  the  seals  from  which  seals  products  are  made,  have  been 
killed  and  skinned  as  well  as  the  country  under  whose  jurisdiction  fall  the  persons 
who kill and skin seals where the killing and skinning take place on the territory of 
another  country.  When  adopting  the  implementing  measures  referred  to  in  Article 
5(5),  the  Commission  will  decide,  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  this  Regulation, 
under which conditions entities other than countries should be included. 

Article 3 

Bans 

The  placing  on  the  market  and  the  import  in,  transit  through,  or  export  from,  the 
Community of seal products shall be prohibited. 

Paragraph  1  shall  not  apply  to  seal  products  resulting  from  hunts  traditionally 
conducted by Inuit communities and which contribute to their subsistence. 

The  Commission  shall  adopt  all  measures  necessary  to  implement  paragraph  2, 
including evidentiary requirements relating to the proof of the origin of seal products 
referred to in that paragraph. 

Those  measures,  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this  Regulation  by 
supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3). 

Article 4 

Conditions of placing on the market, import, transit and export 

1. 

Notwithstanding  Article  3(1),  the  placing  on  the  market,  and  the  import  in,  transit 
through, or export from, the Community of seal products shall be allowed where the 
following conditions are met: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

they have been obtained from seals killed and skinned in a country where, or 
by  persons  to  whom,  adequate  legislative  provisions  or  other  requirements 
apply  ensuring  effectively  that  seals  are  killed  and  skinned  without  causing 
avoidable pain, distress and any other form of suffering; 

the  legislative  provisions  or  other  requirements  referred  to  in  point  (a)  are 
effectively enforced by the relevant authorities;  

an appropriate scheme is in place whereby seal products, including seal skins 
and other raw materials derived from seals used to produce seal products, are 
certified as coming from seals to which the conditions laid down in points (a) 
and (b) apply, and 

(d) 

the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) is evidenced 
by: 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
(i) 

a certificate, and 

(ii) 

a  label  or  marking,  where  a  certificate  does  not  suffice  to  ensure  the 
proper enforcement of this Regulation, 

in accordance with Articles 6 and 7. 

2. 

Member States shall not impede the placing on the market, import and export of seal 
products which comply with the provisions of this Regulation. 

Article 5 

Derogations 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Applicants  requesting  a  derogation  which  demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Commission that the conditions provided for in Article 4(1) are met shall be granted 
a derogation. 

The Commission shall appraise the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in point (a) 
of Article 4(1) on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex II. 

Derogations  granted  pursuant  to  paragraph  1  shall  be  suspended  or  revoked  where 
any of the conditions referred to in that paragraph would cease to be met. 

The  Commission  shall  grant  derogations,  and  decide  on  suspension  or  revocation 
thereof, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 9(2). 

The Commission shall adopt all measures necessary to implement this Article, such 
as  measures  on  the  applications  to  be  submitted  to  the  Commission,  including 
evidentiary  requirements,  in  order  to  obtain  a  derogation.  In  doing  so,  the 
Commission shall take  into  consideration the different conditions which may occur 
in the territories of different countries. 

Those  measures,  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this  Regulation  by 
supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3).  

Article 6 

Certificates 

1. 

Certificates  referred  to  in  Article  4(1)(d)(i)  shall  fulfil  the  following  minimum 
conditions: 

(a) 

(b) 

they  shall  display  all  relevant  information  necessary  to  attest  that  the  seal 
product  or  products  they  refer  to  meet  the  condition  laid  down  in  Article 
4(1)(c); and 

they shall be validated by an independent body or public authority attesting the 
accuracy of the information displayed therein. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
2. 

1. 

2. 

The  Commission  shall  adopt  all  measures  necessary  to  implement  this  Article.  It 
may,  in  particular,  specify  the  information  to  be  displayed  and  the  evidentiary 
requirements  to  be  submitted  to  attest  that  the  condition  laid  down  in  point  (b)  of 
paragraph 1 is met.  

Those  measures,  designed  to  amend  non-essential  elements  of  this  Regulation  by 
supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3). 

Article 7 

Labelling and marking 

The  label  or  marking  referred  to  in  Article  4(1)(d)(ii)  shall  be  affixed  in  an 
intelligible, indelible and visible manner. 

The Commission shall adopt all measures necessary to implement this Article, such 
as  measures  specifying  the  conditions  which  marking  and  label  shall  meet  and  the 
circumstances under which they shall be affixed. Those measures, designed to amend 
non-essential  elements  of  this  Regulation  by  supplementing  it,  shall  be  adopted  in 
accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3).  

Article 8 

Amendments to the Annexes 

The Commission may amend the annexes. Those measures, designed to amend non-essential 
elements of this regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3). 

Article 9 

Committee procedure 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established by Article 18(1) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/9721. 

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

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

21 

OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Article 10 

Penalties and enforcement 

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  shall  be  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive.  Member  States  shall 
notify the Commission of those provisions by 31 December 200X, and shall notify it without 
delay of any subsequent amendment thereto. 

Article 11 

Reports 

1. 

2. 

Member States shall send every five years to the Commission a report outlining the 
actions taken to enforce this Regulation. 

On the basis of the reports referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall report to 
the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation within 
twelve months of the end of the five-year reporting period concerned.  

Article 12 

Entry into force and applicability 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

Articles  3  and  4  shall  apply  6  months  after  the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation 
unless the implementing measures referred to in Articles 3(3), 5(5), 6(2) and 7(2) are not in 
force on that date, in which case they shall apply on the day following the entry into force of 
those implementing measures. 

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 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX I 

Species of Pinnipeds referred to in Article 2 

Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus; 

Callorhinus ursinus; 

Cystophora cristata; 

Erignathus barbatus; 

Eumetopias jubatus; 

Halichoerus grypus; 

Histrophoca fasciata; 

Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus; 

Odobenus rosmarus divergens; 

Pagophilus groenlandicus; 

Phoca largha; 

Phoca vitulina; 

Phoca vitulina richardii; 

Pusa caspica; 

Pusa hispida; 

Pusa sibirica; 

Zalophus californianus. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
Criteria for appraising the adequacy of the legislative provisions and other requirements 
in force referred to in Article 5(2) 

ANNEX II 

1. 

ANIMAL WELFARE PRINCIPLES: 

Animal  welfare  principles  are  specified  in  the  applicable  legislation  or  other 
requirements.  

2. 

HUNTING TOOLS:  

The characteristics of the weapons used to kill seal are specified. It is made explicit 
in  the  legislation  or  other  requirements  which  weapons  are  allowed  for  stunning 
and/or killing pups and which are allowed for stunning and/or killing adult seals.  

3. 

VERIFYING  INSENSIBILITY  AND  DEATH  BY  USING  APPROPRIATE  MONITORING 
METHODS:  

Requirements are specifically outlined for using appropriate monitoring methods and 
thereby  oblige  the  hunter  to  verify  that  the  seal  is  irrevocably  unconscious  before 
bleeding it out and before continuing to the next seal. 

4. 

BLEEDING-OUT OF STUNNED ANIMALS:  

Bleeding-out of all animals is required directly following adequate stunning, that is, 
before proceeding to stun another seal. 

5. 

HUNTING CONDITIONS:  

Requirements are specified as to secure that the seal and/or the hunter is sufficiently 
stable  and  that  the  target  can  be  properly  visualised.  Other  factors,  relevant  for  the 
hunt in question, are also regulated. 

6. 

TRAINING OF HUNTERS:  

A  defined  level  of  knowledge  and  ability  of  the  hunter  regarding  seal  biology, 
hunting  methods  and  the  "three-step"  procedure,  hereunder  practical  use  of  the 
hunting  tools,  such  as  shooting  tests  are  required.  The  “three-step”  procedure  is  a 
method of effective hitting/shooting, effective monitoring (by application of the blink 
reflex  or  skull  palpation  that  the  animal  is  irreversibly  unconscious  or  dead),  and 
effective bleeding-out in order to ensure that a seal is killed without avoidable pain, 
distress and suffering. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
7. 

INDEPENDENT MONITORING:  

A system for monitoring and observation of the hunt, securing regular supervision of 
the hunt and independence of the inspectors is provided for. 

8. 

ABILITY OF THIRD PARTY TO MONITOR:  

Third party monitoring of the hunt is possible, with a minimum of administrative or 
logistic barriers. 

9. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:  

Clear  requirements for reporting  targeting  both hunters and inspectors are provided 
for,  which  cover  where  and  when  animals  are  killed  and  which  weapons  and 
ammunition  are  used.  The  range  of  relevant  environmental  factors  is  also  to  be 
reported. 

10. 

SANCTIONS AND COMPLIANCE:  

Statistical information on the hunt, instances of non-compliance with the applicable 
requirements and related enforcement actions is compiled and systemised. 

EN 

26 

   EN