COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the position of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on transmissible animal diseases (Animal Health Law)
Date: 2015-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal health, aquaculture, domestic animal, health control, health risk, infectious disease, livestock, livestock farming, veterinary drug, veterinary inspection

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2015  COM(2015) 638 final 2013/0260 (COD)   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  concerning the position of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on transmissible animal diseases (Animal Health Law) (Text with EEA relevance)  
 
 
2013/0260 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

position of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on transmissible animal diseases (Animal 
Health Law) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and 
to the Council  

6 May 2013. 

(document COM(2013) 260 final – 2013/0136 COD): 

Date  of  the  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee: 

10 December 2013. 

Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading: 

15 April 2014. 

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: 

[*]. 

Date of adoption of the position of the Council: 

14 December 2015. 

* 

Taking  into  account  the  developments  in  the  informal 
the  Council  and 
discussions  between 
the  European 
Parliament  following 
the  European  Parliament's  first 
reading,  the  Commission  did  not  prepare  an  amended 
proposal  but  expressed  its  views  on  the  Parliament's 
amendments in the "Communication de la Commission sur 
les  suites  données  aux  avis  et  résolutions  adoptés  par  le 
Parlement européen lors des sessions d'avril I et II 2014" 
(document SP(2014) 471 of 9 July 2014). 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION 

The  objective  of  the  Commission  proposal  is  to  introduce  a  single  piece  of  legislation  to 
regulate  animal  health  in  the  Union,  based  on  the  principle  that  "prevention  is  better  than 
cure".  The  proposal  aims  to  improve  standards  and  to  provide  a  common  system  to  better 
detect  and  control  diseases,  as  well  as  to  tackle  health,  food  and  feed  safety  risks  in  a 
coordinated way. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
This  enhanced  system  will  give  operators  working  in  the  food  chain,  such  as  farmers  and 
veterinarians, the capability to react quickly and to limit the spread of a disease and minimise 
its impact on animals and consumers.  

Furthermore, the proposal introduces the categorisation, prioritisation and listing of diseases 
which  require  intervention  at  Union  level,  enabling  a  more  risk  based  approach  and 
appropriate use of resources. 

Sufficient  flexibility  is  provided  to  adjust  the  animal  health  measures  to  different 
establishments  and  local  circumstances,  in  particular  with  respect  to  requirements  for  the 
registration and approval of establishments and for the keeping of animals and products. 

On  a  broader  scale,  the  Union  as  a  whole  is  working  towards  the  objectives  of  the  Europe 
2020 strategy. The proposal on animal health supports these crucial overarching objectives by 
reducing the risk of the negative economic, social and environmental impacts of poor animal 
health or animal disease outbreaks; and consequently by supporting the economic security and 
success of animal keepers, particularly farmers, and thus contributing to smart, inclusive and 
sustainable growth. 

Finally,  the  legal  framework  needs  to  be  flexible  yet  robust  enough  for  an  effective  Union 
response  in  the  event  of  important  climate  changes,  as  well  as  new  and  unknown  emerging 
risks,  and  to  allow  for  quick  adjustment  to  scientific  developments  and  new  international 
standards. 

3. 

3.1 

COMMENTS ON THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL 

General comments 

The Commission's proposal was transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council on 
6 May 2013. The European Parliament adopted its position at first reading on 15 April 2014 
and  supported  the  main  goals  of  the  Commission's  proposal.  In  particular,  the  European 
Parliament  expressed  its  support  for  the  principle  that  prevention  is  better  than  cure  and 
welcomed  the  attempt  to  bring  together  the  current  dispersed  animal  health  legislation  into 
one single set of principles. It also recognised the scope of the proposed act, which is about 
transmissible  animal  diseases,  and  welcomed  the  "one  health"  approach  establishing  a  clear 
link  between  animal  welfare  and  animal  and  public  health.  In  addition,  the  European 
Parliament  called  for  a  balance  between  predictability  and  flexibility.  The  position  of  the 
European Parliament included 331 amendments to the Commission's proposal.  

No  modified  Commission's  proposal  was  issued.  In  its  Communication  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Commission  indicated  that  it  could  accept  in  full,  in  part,  in  principle  or 
subject  to  rewording  106  of  the  331  amendments,  as  they  would  clarify  or  improve  the 
Commission's proposal and were consistent with its general aims. Due to the absence of the 
Council’s  position  at  the  time  and  in  order  not  to  prejudge  the  Commission’s  role  in 
facilitating agreement between the co-legislators at a later stage, the Commission's position on 
the  Parliament  amendments  remained  rather  conservative  and  tended  towards  defending  the 
Commission’s proposal. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  European  Parliament's  first  reading  position,  informal 
discussions  continued  between  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  Presidency  and  the 
Commission,  with  a  view  to  concluding  an  agreement  at  the  common  position  stage  ('early 
second reading agreement').  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
These discussions proved successful and are reflected in the common position of the Council, 
which was adopted by qualified majority on 14 December 2015.  

3.2 

Amendments  of  the  European  Parliament  accepted  by  the  Commission  and 
incorporated in full, in part or in principle in the position of the Council at first 
reading 

Title  of  the  proposal:  the  European  Parliament  suggested  a  new  title  for  the  proposal  to 
better  describing  its  focus  on  transmissible  animal  diseases.  The  Council,  in  its  position, 
agreed and proposed a slight rewording. Due to the political importance of the new title and 
the  fact  that  the  proposal  indeed  focuses  on  transmissible  animal  diseases,  the  Commission 
accepts the change.  

Categorisation  of  animal  diseases  and  emerging  diseases:  the  European  Parliament 
proposed in its amendments 83-87 new wording clarifying the groups of categories of animal 
diseases  provided  for  in  Article  8  of  the  Commission's  proposal.  The  Council  incorporated 
those amendments into its position subject to some rewording. This clarification is acceptable 
for the Commission. 

On emerging diseases, the European Parliament in its amendments 176 and 177 requested to 
take more and clearer measures. However, those amendments were not ideally placed in the 
text.  The  Council  shared  the  concerns  of  the  European  Parliament  about  the  clarity  of 
measures for emerging diseases and proposed a new Article. This compromise, addressing the 
concerns  of  both  co-legislators,  is  acceptable  for  the  Commission  as  it  provides  for  clearer 
rules to deal with emerging diseases.  

Repeal of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 on bovine identification and beef labelling: the 
European Parliament proposed in its amendments 38, 324 and 328 the retention of Regulation 
(EC)  No  1760/2000  on  bovine  identification  and  beef  labelling,  which  the  animal  health 
proposal  aimed  to  repeal.  The  Commission  clarified  that  even  though  the  proposal  had 
indicated that the entire Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 would be repealed, the Commission's 
intention was not to repeal parts that concern labelling of beef and beef products. This issue 
was also discussed in the Council which suggested a change to the proposal to reflect it. The 
Commission agrees with the Council's position and therefore accepts the retention of Title II 
of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, which concerns labelling of beef and beef products and is 
outside the scope of the animal health proposal.  

Moreover,  the  European  Parliament  pointed  out  that  recently  amended  Article  22  of  the 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1760/2000  provided  for  fixed  control  intensity  for  identification  and 
registration of bovine animals. The Commission believes that such descriptive provisions are 
unnecessary  as  they  are  provided  for  in  the  Commission's  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on 
official controls (COM (2013) 265, 2013/0140/COD). Nonetheless, the European Parliament 
wanted  to  obtain  re-assurances  that  equal  level  of  controls  would  be  kept  in  the  future  for 
bovine animals which is reflected in a new recital.  

Animal  welfare:  the  European  Parliament  required  in  its  amendments  5,  99  and  202  that 
animal  welfare  is  taken  into  account  when  considering  or  implementing  animal  health 
measures. The Commission's proposal already required that animal welfare is systematically 
taken into account when considering the impacts of diseases and measures to combat diseases. 
The  amendments  of  the  European  Parliament  that  were  reinforcing  this  intention  were 
considered acceptable by the Commission and were supported by the Council. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
3.3 

Amendments  of  the  European  Parliament  rejected  by  the  Commission  and 
incorporated in full, in part or in principle in the position of the Council at first 
reading 

Listing of animal diseases: the European Parliament proposed, in a series of amendments (in 
particular  amendments  13,  14,  65-67,  70-72,  76,  77,  80-82,  88-90)  to  eliminate  the 
Commission’s implementing powers under Articles 5, 7 and 8 enabling to establish the list of 
animal diseases and species to which the rules in the Regulation apply, and the categorisation 
of diseases into different groups according to which measures are appropriate for them. The 
European  Parliament  proposed  to  list  the  diseases  in  an  Annex  to  the  Regulation,  but  to 
provide the Commission with delegated powers to amend or supplement that list (amendment 
331). 

The Council proposed that a short list of five significant diseases is written into the enacting 
part  of  the  Regulation,  but  that  the  listing  of  the  remaining  of  diseases,  as  well  as  the 
categorisation  of  all  the  listed  diseases,  and  listing  of  species,  should  be  done  through 
implementing acts. The Council also added more criteria for the listing and categorisation of 
animal  diseases  (related  to  Articles  5  and  8  respectively),  which  in  their  view  added  the 
missing essential elements to the enacting part of the Commission proposal. 

The  Parliament  recognised  the  value  of  these  additional  essential  elements  providing  more 
detailed  criteria  for  disease  listing  and  categorisation.  The  Parliament  also  agreed  to  the 
proposed  list  of  five  diseases  in  Article  5  and  to  the  possible  listing  of  other  diseases  in  an 
Annex  amendable  by  delegated  act,  while  implementing  powers  were  preserved  for  the 
categorisation of animal diseases (following Article 8). 

While  the  Commission  had  originally  rejected  the  above-mentioned  amendments  of  the 
European  Parliament,  it  could  accept  the  Council’s  and  the  Parliament's  final  position  as  a 
compromise, which preserves the necessary efficiency, flexibility and legal certainty for the 
listing and categorisation of diseases and listing of species. 

Consultation with stakeholders and scientists: the European Parliament, in its amendments 
41,  66,  75,  77,  82,  157,  260  and  322,  required  several  types  of  specific  consultation  when 
drawing up delegated acts. Contrary to Article 290 (2) TFEU, some of those amendments set 
out a legally binding obligation for the Commission to conduct these consultations. 

The  Council  in  its  position  wanted  to  recognise  the  importance  of  the  Commission's 
consultation  with  experts,  including  Member  States'  experts,  and  amended  the  proposal 
accordingly. The Council also supported the Parliament on the involvement of stakeholders in 
the consultation. 

The  Commission  cannot  accept  the  amendments  of  the  European  Parliament  which  are 
contrary  to  Article  290(2)  of  TFEU.  However,  it  can  agree  to  the  wording  in  the  Council 
position  whereby  it  would  consult  experts,  stakeholders  and  the  European  Food  Safety 
Authority, as well as engage in wider public consultations, when and as appropriate. 

Review  clause  (report  by  the  Commission):  amendment  330  of  the  European  Parliament 
asked, in an Article, the Commission to submit a report on the impact of the Regulation by 
31 December  2019.  The  Council  also  requested  a  reporting  obligation  in  a  recital  or  in  an 
Article, while avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden. 

The Commission was initially not in favour of this additional reporting duty as there are other 
tools, such as fitness checks and evaluations, to judge the impact of EU legislation. Besides, 
the original timeframe was too short. As part of the overall compromise, the Commission can 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
accept the amendment proposed by the European Parliament, subject to rewording provided 
for in the Council's position. 

Animal Welfare: the European Parliament originally requested a number of amendments on 
animal welfare. Some were accepted by the Council (see point 3.2) while others (for example 
amendments  173,  180,  194  and  257)  went  further  providing  animal  welfare  rules,  thus 
interfering  with  the  existing  animal  welfare  legislation  and  potentially  undermining  disease 
control  measures  in  emergency  situations.  The  Council  is  firm  on  the  separation  between 
animal  health  and  animal  welfare  and  opposes  these  amendments  broadly  sharing  the 
Commission  views.  Also,  all  amendments  that  were  overlapping  or  inconsistent  with  the 
existing requirements - or putting at risk animal and public health - were not incorporated in 
the Council's position. The Commission supports this position. 

The European Parliament could eventually drop or adjust several of its amendments but asked 
the Commission for a commitment to take future action for the protection of animals through 
a  statement  on  animal  welfare.  As  part  of  the  overall  agreement,  the  Commission 
exceptionally agreed to make a statement. 

Antimicrobial  resistance:  the  European  Parliament  adopted  several  amendments  on 
antimicrobial  resistance.  Antimicrobial  resistance  was  already  covered  in  the  Commission's 
proposal  through  provisions  on  the  resistance  to  treatments  and  on  the  disease  profile. 
Amendments  obliging  actors  to  consider  or  raise  awareness  on  the  risks  of  antimicrobial 
resistance  are  acceptable  (Amendments  73,  101),  while  amendments  interfering  with  the 
legislation on veterinary medicines cannot be supported as they go beyond the scope of  this 
proposal. 

The European Parliament also insisted on the adjustment of Article 9 (amendment 94) setting 
up a responsibility of operators for a responsible use of veterinary medicines as in their view 
such a clear obligation was needed in the EU legislation to establish a link with the proposal 
on  veterinary  medicines  (COM(2014)  558,  2014/0257  (COD)).  Eventually,  the  European 
Parliament  was  willing  to  give  up  other  amendments  on  antimicrobial  resistance  and 
veterinary  medicines,  but  requested  in  return  a  joint  statement  by  the  European  Parliament, 
the Council and the Commission on antimicrobial resistance, and a Commission statement on 
the regular reporting on the use of antimicrobial medicinal products in animals in the Union. 

The Council accepted in principle amendment 94 and was supportive of the joint statement. 
The Commission can agree to amendment 94 as reworded in the Council's position, support 
the joint statement on the antimicrobial resistance and, as a compromise, make a statement on 
the regular reporting on the use of veterinary antimicrobial medicinal products. 

Other professionals and professional bodies carrying out certain tasks on behalf of the 
competent authority: the European Parliament requested that certain professionals, such as 
bee health professionals, would be recognised on the same basis as veterinarians (amendments 
103  and  110)  and  that  certain  other  qualified  individuals  or  professional  bodies  would  be 
allowed to carry out certain tasks (amendments 19 and 109).  

The  Council  addressed  the  same  questions  by  opening  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to 
authorise  other  professionals  for  certain  tasks  while  taking  into  account  the  subsidiarity 
principle enabling Member States to take their own decisions concerning authorisation based 
on the existing national structures. This is in line with the Commission's views that tasks can 
be delegated to other professionals as long as this is in line with international standards and 
subsidiarity and proportionality are respected.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Animal  health  laboratories:  the  European  Parliament  envisaged  (amendments  150-155) 
requirements  for  official  animal  health  laboratories,  including  provisions  on  the  laboratory 
network and requirements on the official laboratories as well as national and Union reference 
laboratories.  The  Commission  cannot  agree  with  these  amendments  because  the  tasks  and 
responsibilities of those laboratories are covered in the proposal for a Regulation on official 
controls. 

The  Council  broadly  shared  the  Commission's  view  and  has,  as  a  compromise,  proposed  a 
new  Article  linking  the  laboratory  requirements  in  the  animal  health  and  official  controls 
proposals. In a spirit of a compromise, this solution is acceptable for the Commission. 

3.4 

Amendments of  the  European Parliament accepted by the  Commission in full, 
in  part  or  in  principle,  but  not  incorporated  in  the  position  of  the  Council  at 
first reading 

Some  small  issues  were  accepted  by  the  Commission  in  part,  but  were  not  specifically 
included  in  the  final  Council  position  as  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations  they  had  become 
redundant  or  were  already  explained  elsewhere  or  implicitly  included  in  the  proposal  (for 
example amendments 4, 8, 26, 45, 156, 222 and 277). 

3.5 

Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and not 
incorporated in the position of the Council at first reading 

Member  State's  strategic  measures  for  non-listed  diseases:  the  European  Parliament 
required  (amendments  29  and  107)  that  strategic  measures  are  taken  by  Member  States  for 
diseases,  including  those  that  are  assessed  as  not  relevant  for  the  Union  and  therefore  not 
listed for Union intervention. 

The Council did not incorporate the European Parliament's amendment as this provision goes 
beyond  the  scope  of  the  proposal  and  would  create  unjustified  administrative  and  financial 
burden  for  Member  States.  The  Commission  supports  the  Council's  position  as  strategic 
measures for non-listed diseases are a matter of subsidiarity. 

Veterinary  medicinal  products:  the  Parliament’s  amendments  94,  159,  160,  162  and  163-
165 regulate the use of the veterinary medicinal products in the Union in a way that interferes 
with  the  existing  legislation  on  veterinary  medicines  and  entails  significant  overlaps  with 
Commission proposal on veterinary medicines. The Council could therefore not accept these 
amendments. The Commission shares the Council's position. 

National measures: the European Parliament proposed amendments 37, 268 and 323, which 
allow a Member State to restrict the movements of animals or products if the Member State 
itself  judges  that  it  is  scientifically  justified  and  necessary  to  prevent  the  introduction  or 
spread  of  any  disease.  This  went  further  than  the  current  system  of  ‘additional  guarantees’, 
retained in the Commission proposal, whereby the Commission approves for a limited number 
of  diseases  the  additional  guarantees  for  intra-Union  trade  requested  by  a  Member  State, 
which has decided to eradicate on an optional basis one or more of those diseases. 

The Council proposed amendments which clarify the ‘additional guarantees’, and enable the 
Member States to take their own disease prevention and control measures. The Commission 
considers  the  Council's  position  a  suitable  compromise  as  it  meets  to  some  extent  the 
European Parliament's concerns while preserving the principles of the Single Market. 

‘Non-kept’,  stray  and  feral  animals:  several  amendments  of  the  European  Parliament 
(amendments 49, 51, 53, 74, 198-201, 203, 211-215, 218) aimed to define stray, feral or ‘non-

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
kept’ animals as different categories from ‘wild’ animals. The Parliament's concern was that 
those categories of animals should not be excluded from Union legislation. 

The  Commission's  proposal  made  a  clear  distinction  between  ‘kept  animals’  and  ‘wild 
animals’ and animal disease prevention and control rules that could be applied to animals kept 
under human  control and those applied to animals that are not  under human control.  In this 
context,  stray  or  feral  animals,  including  those  of  species  normally  domesticated,  are 
considered  as  ‘wild  animals’.  Defining  those  animals  as  a  separate  category  could  cause 
confusion,  legal  uncertainty  and  potentially  restrict  the  measures  that  can  be  taken  with 
respect to them. 

The Council accepted the logic of the Commission's proposal and added some clarifications 
including a full Part on non-commercial movements of pet animals, which distinguishes the 
movements  of  animals  kept  for  companion  purposes  from  stray  and  other  animals.  The 
Commission  is  in  support  of  those  solutions,  which  follow  the  line  of  its  proposal  and  add 
clarity. 

Identification  and  registration  of  dogs:  the  European  Parliament  required,  in  amendment 
236, all Member States to set up a compulsory registration of all dogs and, when appropriate, 
set up a database. The Commission's proposal provided for a legal basis for the possible future 
introduction  of  identification  and  registration  requirements  of  different  animal  species, 
possibly including dogs. The Council supported the Commission's proposal since requiring all 
Member  States  to  set  up  such  a  system,  without  a  proper  impact  assessment,  may  be 
disproportionate to the animal health risk and could entail financial and administrative burden 
for an unidentified benefit. 

Non-commercial  movements  of  pet  animals:  several  amendments  of  the  European 
Parliament  (amendments  36,  39,  40,  54,  239-244,  246-247,  263-267  and  325)  entail  the 
retention  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  576/2013  on  the  non-commercial  movement  of  pet 
animals (the "Pet Regulation"), which was to be repealed by the animal health proposal. 

The intention of the Commission’s proposal was to integrate all relevant animal health rules 
for all animal species and categories under one set of rules. This would ensure that animals 
such  as  dogs  and  cats  could  be  dealt  with  in  a  coherent  manner  from  an  animal  health 
perspective, whether they are kept or stray animals, and whether they are traded commercially 
or moved for non-commercial purposes as pets. 

Both  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  had  reservations  about  repealing  the  Pet 
Regulation so soon after  its adoption. The Parliament took  the view that the Pet  Regulation 
should  continue  to  be  in  place.  The  Council’s  position  was  that  the  non-commercial 
movement  of  pets  logically  fitted  into  the  animal  health  framework,  but  that  the  Pet 
Regulation  should  not  be  re-opened  so  soon  after  its  adoption.  Therefore,  it  proposed  a  10 
year  period  of  application  for  the  Pet  Regulation  together  with  a  set  of  rules  in  the  animal 
health proposal matching those laid down in the Pet Regulation and replacing them after the 
10 year application period. 

The Council’s position is a good compromise towards the European Parliament's position and 
the Commission can therefore support it. 

Retaining  legislation  on  identification  and  registration  of  pigs  and  ovine  and  caprine 
animals:  the  European  Parliament,  in  its  amendments  238,  326  and  327,  asked  to  retain 
Regulation  (EC)  No  21/2004  on  ovine  and  caprine  identification  and  registration,  and 
Directive 2008/71/EC on pig identification and registration. 

The Commission proposed  to  repeal  the current identification and registration  legislation so 
that  all  animal  health  issues  come  under  one  set  of  general  principles.  It  was  the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Commission’s  intention  to  retain  the  spirit  and  details  of  that  legislation  and  to  provide 
stability for Member States and for operators while at the same enabling more flexibility for 
the  adoption  of  new  technologies,  adaptation  to  new  challenges  and  the  provision  of 
derogations  in  low  risk  situations.  The  Council  has,  in  its  position,  supported  the 
Commission's proposal. 

Aquatic animals, changes in definitions related to aquaculture: the European Parliament 
suggested  amendments  50,  291-296,  300-304,  306  and  307  introducing  a  new  category  of 
"kept  aquatic  animals"  thus  separating  ‘aquaculture’  and  other  ‘kept  aquatic’  animals.  The 
Commission  proposal  made  a  distinction  between  ‘kept  animals’  and  ‘wild  animals’  where 
aquaculture animals were considered as kept aquatic animals. The Council has tried to meet 
the  Parliament's  concern  without  undermining  the  original  intention  of  the  Commission 
proposal by clarifying the definition of aquaculture animals and making clearer which disease 
prevention  and  control  rules  apply  to  aquaculture  and  which  to  ‘wild  aquatic’  animals.  The 
Commission can therefore support the proposed Council's solutions. 

3.6 

New provisions introduced by the Council 

Transitional  periods:  the  Council  expressed  concerns  about  the  amount  of  legislation  that 
would be repealed and replaced by this new animal health framework. To allow for more time 
to implement the legislation, the Council proposed an overall transitional period of 60 months 
instead  of  36  as  proposed  by  the  Commission.  It  also  requested  additional  transitional 
measures, such as those obliging the Commission to adopt certain key delegated acts at least 
24  months  before  the  date  of  application  of  the  Regulation  and  for  other  delegated  and 
implementing  acts  to  determine  a  period  of  at least  six  months  between  the  adoption  of  the 
initial set of such acts and their application. 

The  Council's  position  is  acceptable  for  the  Commission  as  a  general  compromise  and  also 
taking  into  account  the  time  needed  to  develop  the  supporting  delegated  and  implementing 
legislation. The European Parliament did not object this requirement. 

Transitional  measures  (recognition  of  acquired  rights):  the  Council  introduced  new 
Articles providing the operators and Member States with the possibility to recognise rights as 
regards  the  approval  or  registration  of  existing  operators  and  establishments,  the  approved 
disease free statuses, and the special provisions for salmonella. These additions are acceptable 
for the Commission as they ensure that the existing rights are automatically carried over to the 
new  legal  framework  thereby  helping  to  avoid  unnecessary  administrative  burden  and  costs 
for  the  operators  and  competent  authorities  and  providing  legal  certainty  in  the  transitional 
period. The European Parliament supported those changes. 

Registration obligation of certain operators conducting assembly operations: the Council 
in  its  position  added  provisions  concerning  the  registration  obligation  of  certain  operators 
without  establishments  conducting  transactions  with  animals  that  may  have  an  impact  on 
traceability of those animals. The Commission could accept these additions as they contribute 
to  overall  traceability  and  are  coherent  with  the  requirements  of  the  existing  animal  health 
legislation. The European Parliament has supported those changes. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission considers that the common position adopted by the Council with qualified 
majority reflects the original goals of the Commission's proposal and takes into account many 
concerns  of  the  European  Parliament.  Although  on  certain  elements  the  common  position 
differs from the Commission's original proposal, the Commission considers that it represents 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
a carefully balanced compromise and is satisfied that it covers all issues considered essential 
by the Commission when adopting its proposal. 

5. 

5.1 

STATEMENTS  

Statement by the Commission on animal welfare 

This Regulation lays down rules for the prevention and control of animal diseases which are 
transmissible  to  animals  or  to  humans  and  does  not  contain  provisions  which  regulate 
specifically animal welfare, albeit animal health and welfare are linked. The Union has a well-
developed acquis  regarding  animal welfare  covering  different  species  (broilers,  laying  hens, 
pigs,  calves)  or  activities  (farming,  transport,  slaughter,  research,  etc.).  This  animal  welfare 
legislation will necessarily continue to apply. The Commission is fully committed to paying 
full regard to animal welfare in accordance with Article 13 of the Treaty and within the limits 
set  out  therein,  including  ensuring  full  implementation  and  appropriate  development  of  this 
legislation. 

5.2 

Joint statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission 
on antimicrobial resistance and the use of veterinary medicinal products 

The  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  – 
Action  plan  against  the  rising  threats  from  Antimicrobial  Resistance1  –  emphasises  the 
preventive  role  of  the  Regulation  on  transmissible  animal  diseases  (“Animal  Health  Law”) 
and the consequent expected reduction of the use of antibiotics in animals. In addition to the 
requirements  of  this  Regulation,  Member  States  are  called  upon  to  commit  themselves  to 
collect relevant, comparable and sufficiently detailed data on the actual use of antimicrobial 
medicinal products in animals and to send such data to the Commission in order to ensure a 
more  prudent  use  of  antimicrobial  medicinal  products  in  animals,  hence contributing  to  the 
reduction of the risk of antimicrobial resistance. 

5.3 

Statement  by  the  Commission  on  the  regular  reporting  on  the  use  of 
antimicrobial medicinal products in animals in the Union 

The  Commission  undertakes  to  publish  a  regular  report  as  regards  the  use  of  antimicrobial 
medicinal products in animals in the EU on the basis of data made available by the Member 
States. 

1 

COM (2011) 748. 

EN 

10 

   EN