Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
28 February 2013
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  Marketing ban under Directive 2003/15/EC

Commissioner Borg has clarified that the timetables contained in Article 1 of Directive 2003/15/EC(1), updated by Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009(2), will come into effect on 11 March 2013. The marketing of cosmetics will thereby be prohibited in the EU where, ‘to meet the requirements of this directive’, the final product and ingredients have been tested on animals. The ban will apply for all tests used. The words ‘to meet the requirements of this directive’ are being interpreted differently by different Member States.

The marketing ban under Directive 2003/15/EC, which Parliament has been calling for over the past 20 years, was designed specifically to ensure that companies could not evade controls on the marketing of cosmetic products by exporting their testing of products on animals to third countries. Allowing companies to market products tested on animals in third countries, under other regulatory regimes, will defeat the purpose of the regulation. It will also be impossible to establish why a company was testing on animals, as the answer will always be that it was done in accordance with another regulatory regime, thus rendering the marketing ban meaningless.

Can the Commission confirm that, after 11 March 2013, companies who wish to market their cosmetics products in the EU will not be able to do so if these products or their ingredients have been tested on animals, regardless of where these products or ingredients have been tested, and regardless of why these products or their ingredients have been tested?

If this is not the case, can the Commission state how it will establish the intent of a company which has tested its cosmetic product or ingredients on animals and, thus, whether the company in question is in breach of the regulation?

(1) OJ L 66, 11.3.2003, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p.71.

 OJ C 362 E, 12/12/2013
Last updated: 8 March 2013Legal notice