Procedure : 2011/0229(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0199/2012

Texts tabled :

A7-0199/2012

Debates :

PV 10/09/2012 - 22
CRE 10/09/2012 - 22

Votes :

PV 11/09/2012 - 10.9
CRE 11/09/2012 - 10.9
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
PV 02/04/2014 - 18.7
CRE 02/04/2014 - 18.7

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2012)0312
P7_TA(2014)0262

REPORT     ***I
PDF 336kDOC 466k
13 June 2012
PE 478.718v02-00 A7-0199/2012

on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

(COM(2012)0162 – C7-0114/2012 – 2011/0229(COD))

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Rapporteur: Sophie Auconie

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

(COM(2012)0162 – C7-0114/2012 – 2011/0229(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0525) and the amended proposal (COM(2012(0162)),

–   having regard to Article 294(2), Article 43(2) and point b of Article 168(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0114/2012),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 7 December 2011(1)

–   after consulting the Committee of the Regions,.

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0199/2012),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment   1

Proposal for a regulation

Title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on the system of voluntary beef labelling

Justification

Even if it would be preferable to delete the ‘system’ of voluntary labelling (including specifications, sanctions, etc.), voluntary labelling still remains. There is a need for general rules to be drawn up to cover this and protect consumers (requiring objective information which can be checked by the relevant authorities and understood by consumers). These general rules will complete the horizontal legislation on labelling.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain ensuring consumer protection and public health.

(4) Tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain. Those measures ensure consumer protection and public health and promote consumer confidence.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and more in particular bovine identification and voluntary beef labelling were listed as "information obligations with special importance in terms of the burdens they impose on businesses" in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an "Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU".

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and more in particular bovine identification and the voluntary beef labelling system were listed as "information obligations with special importance in terms of the burdens they impose on businesses" in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an "Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU".

Justification

Even if it would be preferable to delete the ‘system’ of voluntary labelling (including specifications, sanctions, etc.), voluntary labelling still remains. There is a need for general rules to be drawn up to cover this and protect consumers (requiring objective information which can be checked by the relevant authorities and understood by consumers). These general rules will complete the horizontal legislation on labelling.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) The use of electronic identification systems would potentially streamline traceability processes through automated and more accurate reading and recording into the holding register. It would enable also automated reporting of animal movements into the computerised data base and thus improve speed, reliability and accuracy of the system.

(6) The use of electronic identification systems would potentially streamline traceability processes through automated and more accurate reading and recording into the holding register. It would enable also automated reporting of animal movements into the computerised data base and thus improve speed, reliability and accuracy of the system. It would improve the management of direct payments paid to farmers per animal head through better controls and reduced risk of payment errors.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Electronic identification systems based on radio frequency identification have considerably improved in the last ten years. That technology allows a faster and more accurate reading of individual animal identity codes directly into data processing systems resulting on a reduction of time needed to trace potential infected animals or infected food, saving labour costs but at the same time increasing equipment costs.

(7) Electronic identification systems based on radio frequency identification have considerably improved in the last ten years, even though ISO standards still need to be applied, and they need to be tested for bovines. That technology allows a faster and more accurate reading of individual animal identity codes directly into data processing systems resulting on a reduction of time needed to trace potential infected animals or infected food, leading to improved databases and an increased capacity to react promptly in the event of disease outbreaks, saving labour costs but at the same time increasing equipment costs If the electronic identification is faulty, the failure of the technology must not result in penalty payments being imposed on farmers.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) Given the technological advances in EID, several Member States have decided to start to implement bovine EID on a voluntary basis. Those initiatives are likely to lead to different systems to be developed in individual Member States or by stakeholders. Such a development would impede later harmonisation of technical standards within the Union.

(9) Given the technological advances in EID, several Member States have decided to start to implement bovine EID on a voluntary basis. Those initiatives are likely to lead to different systems to be developed in individual Member States or by stakeholders. Such a development would impede later harmonisation of technical standards within the Union. It should be ensured that the systems introduced in the Member States are interoperable and consistent with ISO standards.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Making EID mandatory throughout the Union may have economically adverse effects on certain operators. It is therefore appropriate that a voluntary regime for the introduction of EID is established. Under such a regime, EID would be chosen by keepers that are likely to have immediate economic benefits.

(16) Making EID mandatory throughout the Union may have economically adverse effects on certain operators. Furthermore, there are practical problems which continue to hinder the effective operation of EID, especially with regard to the accuracy of the technology. Experience of implementing mandatory electronic identification for small ruminants demonstrates that due to faulty technology and practical difficulties it is frequently impossible to achieve 100% accuracy. It is therefore appropriate that a voluntary regime is established. Such a regime would enable EID to be chosen only by keepers that are likely to have rapid economic benefits;

Amendment   8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Member States have very different husbandry systems, farming practices and sector organisations. Member States should therefore be allowed to make EID compulsory on their territory only when they deem it appropriate, after considering all those factors.

(17) Member States have very different husbandry systems, farming practices and sector organisations. Member States should therefore be allowed to make EID compulsory on their territory only when they deem it appropriate, after considering all those factors, including any negative impact on small farmers, and following consultation with organisations representing the beef industry.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Animals entering the Union from third countries should be subject to the same identification requirements that apply to animals born in the Union.

(18) Animals and meat entering the Union from third countries should be subject to the same identification and traceability requirements that apply to animals born in the Union.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 provides that the competent authority is to issue a passport for each animal which has to be identified in accordance with that Regulation. This causes a considerable administrative burden for the Member States. The computerised databases established by Member States sufficiently ensure traceability of domestic movements of bovine animals. Passports should therefore be issued only for animals intended for intra-Union trade. Once the data exchange between national computerised databases is operational, the requirement of issuing such passports should no longer apply for animals intended for intra-Union trade.

(19) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 provides that the competent authority is to issue a passport for each animal which has to be identified in accordance with that Regulation. This causes a considerable administrative burden for the Member States. The computerised databases established by Member States should sufficiently ensure traceability of domestic movements of bovine animals. Passports should therefore be issued only for animals intended for intra-Union trade. Once the data exchange between national computerised databases is operational, the requirement of issuing such passports should no longer apply for animals intended for intra-Union trade.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(19a) So far, there is no specific legislation on cloning. However, opinion polls show that this issue is of great interest for the European public. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that beef derived from cloned animals or their descendants is labelled as such.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. The administrative burden and the costs incurred by Member States and economic operators in applying this system are not proportionate to the benefits of the system. That Section should therefore be deleted.

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. In view of developments in the beef sector since the above Regulation was adopted, the beef labelling system needs to be revised. Since the system of voluntary beef labelling is neither effective nor useful, it should be deleted, without compromising the right of operators to inform consumers through voluntary labelling. Consequently, as for any other sort of meat, information which goes beyond mandatory labelling, this means in this particular case what is required by Articles 13 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, and is extremely important to consumers and farmers, for example breed, feed and husbandry, will have to respect the current horizontal legislation, including Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers1. Beyond this, the deletion is also balanced by the formulation, in this Regulation, of general rules ensuring consumer protection.

 

_____________

 

1 OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. The administrative burden and the costs incurred by Member States and economic operators in applying this system are not proportionate to the benefits of the system. That Section should therefore be deleted.

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. All labelling specifications which go beyond mandatory labelling, for example, breed, feed and husbandry, are extremely important to consumers as well as to farmers who use this labelling to market their products. In order to ensure that the information is accurate and reliable, this Section must therefore be maintained.

Justification

Optimal marketing of their products is an important factor for farmers. The approval by the competent authority ensures that the specific information put on the labels is accurate and reliable. Without such approval, the consumers cannot trust the product labelling, therefore, the voluntary labelling system must be maintained.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) In order to ensure that the necessary rules for the proper functioning of the identification, registration and traceability of bovine animals and beef are applied, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of requirements for alternative means of identification of bovine animals, special circumstances in which Member States may extend the maximum periods for the application of the means of identification, data to be exchanged between the computerised databases of the Member States, the maximum period for certain reporting obligations, the requirements for means of identification, the information to be included in the passports and in the individual registers to be kept on each holding, the minimum level of official controls, the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in different mountain areas, rules for labelling certain products which should be equivalent to the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, the definitions of minced beef, beef trimmings or cut beef, the specific indications that may be put on labels, the labelling provisions related to the simplification of the indication of origin, the maximum size and composition of certain groups of animals, the approval procedures related to labelling conditions on packaging of cut meat and the administrative sanctions to be applied by the Member States in cases of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

(22) In order to ensure that the necessary rules for the proper functioning of the identification, registration and traceability of bovine animals and beef are applied, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of requirements for alternative means of identification of bovine animals, special circumstances in which Member States may extend the maximum periods for the application of the means of identification, data to be exchanged between the computerised databases of the Member States, the maximum period for certain reporting obligations, the requirements for means of identification, the information to be included in the passports and in the individual registers to be kept on each holding, the minimum level of official controls, the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in different mountain areas, rules for labelling certain products which should be equivalent to the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, the definitions of minced beef, beef trimmings or cut beef, the maximum size and composition of certain groups of animals, the approval procedures related to labelling conditions on packaging of cut meat and the administrative sanctions to be applied by the Member States in cases of non-compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 with respect to the registration of holdings making use of alternative means of identification, technical characteristics and modalities for the exchange of data between the computerised databases of Member States, the format and design of the means of identification, technical procedures and standards for the implementation of EID, the format of the passports and of the register to be kept on each holding, rules concerning the modalities for the application of the sanctions imposed by the Member States on holders pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, corrective actions to be taken by the Member States to ensure proper compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, in cases where on-the-spot checks so justify, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

(23) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 with respect to the registration of holdings making use of alternative means of identification, technical characteristics and modalities for the exchange of data between the computerised databases of Member States, the declaration that the data exchange system between Member States is fully operational, the format and design of the means of identification, technical procedures and standards for the implementation of EID, the format of the passports and of the register to be kept on each holding, rules concerning the modalities for the application of the sanctions imposed by the Member States on holders pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, corrective actions to be taken by the Member States to ensure proper compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, in cases where on-the-spot checks so justify, and the necessary rules to ensure proper compliance in particular as regards controls, administrative sanctions, and various maximum periods laid down in this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(23a) The implementation of this Regulation should be monitored. Consequently, no later than five years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission should submit to Parliament and Council a report dealing both with the implementation of this Regulation and with technical and economic feasibility of introducing mandatory electronic identification everywhere in the Union. If this report concludes that electronic identification should become mandatory, it should, if appropriate, be accompanied by an appropriate legislative proposal. This legislation would remove risks of distortion of competition within the internal market.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(1a) In Article 2, the following definition is added:

 

"cloned animals" means animals produced by means of a method of asexual, artificial reproduction with the aim of producing a genetically identical or nearly identical copy of an individual animal,

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 1 b (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(1b) In Article 2, the following definition is added:

 

"descendants of cloned animals" means animals produced by means of sexual reproduction, in cases in which at least one of the progenitors is a cloned animal,

Amendment   19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. All animals on a holding shall be identified by at least two individual means of identification authorised in accordance with Articles 10 and 10a and approved by the competent authority.

1. All animals on a holding shall be identified by at least two individual means of identification authorised in accordance with Articles 10 and 10a and approved by the competent authority. The Commission shall ensure that identifiers used in the Union are interoperable and consistent with ISO standards.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The means of identification shall be allocated to the holding, distributed and applied to the animals in a manner determined by the competent authority.

The means of identification shall be allocated to the holding, distributed and applied to the animals in a manner determined by the competent authority. This shall not apply to animals born before 1 January 1998 and not intended for intra-Union trade.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

All means of identification applied to one animal shall bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify the animal individually together with the holding on which it was born.

All means of identification applied to one animal shall bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify the animal individually together with the holding on which it was born. By way of derogation, in cases where it is not possible for the two individual means of identification to bear the same unique identification code, the competent authority may, under its supervision, allow for the second means of identification to bear a different code provided that full traceability is ensured and the individual identification of the animal, including the holding on which it was born, is possible.

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Member States that make use of this option shall provide the Commission with the text of such national provisions.

The Member States that make use of this option shall provide the Commission with the text of such national provisions. The Commission shall then supply the other Member States, in a language which is readily understandable by those Member States, with a summary of the national rules governing the movement of animals to Member States that have opted for compulsory EID and shall make them publicly available.

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation EC No 1760/2000

Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) 60 days for the second means of identification.

(b) 60 days for the second means of identification, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

No animal may leave the holding where it was born before the two means of identification have been applied.

No animal may leave the holding where it was born before the two means of identification have been applied except in case of force majeure.

Amendment  25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation EC No 1760/2000

Article 4a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 b (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The first subparagraph shall not apply to animals born before 1 January 1998 and not intended for intra-Union trade.

Amendment  26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

That period shall not exceed 20 days following the veterinary checks referred in paragraph 1. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

That period shall not exceed 20 days following the veterinary checks referred in paragraph 1. By way of derogation, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals, that period may be extended by up to 60 days for the second means of identification. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

Amendment  27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation EC No 1760/2000

Article 4c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The maximum period referred to in point (b) shall not exceed 20 days from the date of arrival of the animals on the holding of destination. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

The maximum period referred to in point (b) shall not exceed 20 days from the date of arrival of the animals on the holding of destination. By way of derogation, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals, that period may be extended by up to 60 days for the second means of identification. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

Amendment  28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Notwithstanding the third subparagraph of Article 4(1), in cases where it is not possible to apply an electronic identifier with the same unique identification code to the animal, the competent authority may, under its supervision, allow for the second means of identification to bear a different code provided that full traceability is ensured and that the individual identification of the animal, including the holding on which it was born, is possible.

Amendment  29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4d

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

No means of identification may be removed or replaced without the permission and without the control of the competent authority. Such permission may only be granted where the removal or replacement do not compromise the traceability of the animal.

No means of identification shall be modified, removed or replaced without the permission and without the control of the competent authority. Such permission may only be granted where the modification, the removal or replacement do not compromise the traceability of the animal.

Amendment  30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 5 – indent 1

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States may exchange electronic data between their computerised databases from the date when the Commission recognises the full operability of the data exchange system.

Member States may exchange electronic data between their computerised databases from the date when the Commission recognises the full operability of the data exchange system. This must be done in such a way that data protection is guaranteed and any abuse prevented in order to protect the interests of the holding.

Amendment  31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 6

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 6 – point c a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca) In the case of animals exported to third countries, the passport shall be surrendered by the last keeper to the competent authority at the place where the animal is exported.

Amendment  32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) enters up-to-date information directly into the computerised database within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the event.

(b) enters up-to-date information directly into the computerised database within seventy-two hours of the occurrence of the event.

Justification

Twenty-four hours does not leave sufficient time for farmers to enter information in databases. This should be extended to 3 days or seventy-two hours to offer the possibility to all farmers including those with insufficient IT knowledge or equipment, or in the event of equipment failure, to be able to record and enter data in a reasonable timeframe.

Amendment  33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 8

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 9a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall ensure that any person responsible for the identification and registration of animals receives instructions and guidance on the relevant provisions of this Regulation and of any delegated and implementing acts adopted by the Commission on the basis of Articles 10 and 10a, and that appropriate training courses are available.

Member States shall ensure that any person responsible for the identification and registration of animals receives instructions and guidance on the relevant provisions of this Regulation and of any delegated and implementing acts adopted by the Commission on the basis of Articles 10 and 10a, and that appropriate training courses are available. This information shall be supplied, at no cost to the recipient, every time a change is made to the relevant provisions and as often as necessary. Member States shall share best practices in order to ensure good quality of training and information sharing across the Union.

Amendment  34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 10 – subparagraph 1 – point e

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e) the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in different mountain areas.

e) the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals during different types of seasonal transhumance.

Justification

It is necessary to balance the text by including all types of transhumance, and not just summer grazing.

Amendment  35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 11 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 13 – paragraph 5 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba) The following paragraph is added:

 

"5a. As from [6 months from entry into force] operators and organisations shall also indicate on their labels where the beef is derived from cloned animals or descendants of cloned animals."

Amendment  36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 13 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Title II – section 2 – title

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(13a) The title of Title II, Section II is replaced by the following: Voluntary labelling.

Justification

Even if it would be preferable to delete the ‘system’ of voluntary labelling (including specifications, sanctions, etc.), voluntary labelling still remains. There is a need for general rules to be drawn up to cover this and protect consumers (requiring objective information which can be checked by the relevant authorities and understood by consumers). These general rules will complete the horizontal legislation on labelling.

Amendment  37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 14

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Articles 16 – 18

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Articles 16, 17 and 18 are deleted.

deleted

Justification

The Commission proposal would leave a legal vacuum with regard to voluntary labelling, which is offering benefits for both the sector and consumers by providing useful information that is helping to increase the added value of products.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 14

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 16

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Articles 16, 17 and 18 are deleted.

(14) Article 16 is amended as follows:

 

"General rules

 

Information other than that specified in part I of this Title which is added to labels by operators or organisations marketing beef must be objective, verifiable by the relevant authorities and comprehensible to consumers.

 

Moreover, voluntary beef labelling has to respect the current horizontal legislation on labelling and Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers."

Amendment  39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 15

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 19 – points b and c

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b) the specific indications that may be put on labels;

deleted

c) the labelling provisions related to the simplification of the indication of origin;

 

Amendment  40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 17 – point a

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the necessary rules, including transitional measures required for their introduction, concerning the procedures for the application of the sanctions referred to in the second subparagraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 23(2).

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 22b, laying down the necessary rules, including transitional measures required for their introduction, concerning the procedures for the application of the sanctions referred to in the second subparagraph.

Amendment  41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 18

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 22b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(4a) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from * .

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), Articles 5, 7, 10, 19 and in Article 22(1), third subparagraph and Article 22(4a) shall be conferred on the Commission for 5 years from *.

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(4a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(1), third subparagraph, and Article 22(4a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), and Articles 5, 7, 10, 14, and 19 and in Article 22(4a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council."

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14, and 19 and in Article 22(1), third subparagraph, and Article 22(4a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

________________

_____________

* [date of entry into force of this Regulation or from any other date set by the legislator]

* OJ: Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment  42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – point 19 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 23 a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(19a) The following Article is inserted:

 

Article 23a

 

Report and legislative developments

 

No later than five years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall submit to Parliament and the Council a report dealing both with implementation of this Regulation and with the technical and economic feasibility of introducing mandatory electronic identification everywhere in the Union. If this report concludes that electronic identification should become mandatory, it shall be accompanied by an appropriate legislative proposal.

(1)

OJ C 43, 15.2.2012, p. 64..


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Purpose of the proposal for a regulation:

This proposal for a regulation seeks to meet three new major challenges:

1. to make Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 take account of the emerging technology of the electronic identification (EID) of bovine animals;

2. to simplify the rules governing the labelling of beef;

3. to update the rules governing the powers conferred on the Commission, so as to take into account the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the new provisions on delegated and implementing acts.

Ultimately the aim is to ensure that legislation on the identification and traceability of bovine animals is clear and enforceable and thus to optimise food safety.

Rapporteur's position

Food safety is one of the main concerns of European citizens. European legislation should therefore guarantee them optimum protection by means of rules that are updated and strengthened whenever necessary. Accordingly, following the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis the European Union adopted strict rules in 1997 on the identification and traceability of bovine animals. The rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s legislative proposal, which will enhance the safety of beef for consumers. However, she also proposes a number of additional clarifications to each of the three sections of the proposal.

1. Electronic identification;

The electronic identification (EID) of bovine animals makes it possible to obtain more reliable data, thus strengthening the traceability system and enhancing food safety. It also makes it possible to speed up the registration of bovine animals, mechanise some tasks and boost the effectiveness of herd management. The development of this emerging technology should therefore be promoted. Current legislation should be adapted, particularly in order to recognise EID as an official method of identifying bovine animals. It is also essential to harmonise technical standards in order to prevent this identification method from developing in a chaotic manner and to ensure interoperability between the national systems.

However, because the situations on cattle holdings in Europe vary widely, EID should remain optional for farmers unless the Member State in question opts to make it compulsory on its territory. The rapporteur fully supports this approach, which encourages farmers to choose this technology rather than forcing them to do so. Since large-scale holdings and some parts of the livestock sector will see more opportunities for the application of EID, they should be allowed to opt for this method sooner than others. The rapporteur hopes that this regulation, by expanding the market in electronic devices, will result in lower prices and lead to this identification method eventually becoming the norm, in line with developments all over the world.

Above and beyond the Commission’s proposals, the rapporteur calls for the provision of information to those operating the animal identification and registration system firstly to be free of charge to the recipient, in order to protect small farmers and other operators in the ID system, and secondly to be renewable as often as necessary in order to take account of changes to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and to the delegated and implementing acts that are adopted on the basis of that regulation. Furthermore, in order not to hinder trade within the internal market, the rapporteur considers that the Commission should inform the Member States of the solutions adopted on the territories of those Member States that have opted for compulsory EID.

2. Simplification of labelling

The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's desire to simplify the labelling of beef by deleting the provisions on voluntary labelling. These provisions represent a heavy administrative burden that is not offset by sufficient advantages. However, the rapporteur considers that these aspects of beef labelling are covered by horizontal legislation and that powers in this area should not therefore be conferred on the Commission. Legislators should be fully responsible for the drafting of legislation.

3. Updating the Commission’s powers

The rapporteur accepts the conferral on the Commission of the power to adopt certain delegated and implementing acts. However, she recalls that the delegation of powers may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or the Council, and that legislators should be kept fully informed of the preparation of acts based on Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. Finally, she calls on the Commission, no later than five years after the entry into force of this regulation, to submit to Parliament and the Council a report and, where appropriate, relevant proposals for the implementation of these rules and for changes that are needed to achieve or maintain an optimum level of food safety. 


OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (14.5.2012)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

(COM(2012)0162 – C7-0114/2012 – 2011/0229(COD))

Rapporteur: James Nicholson

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Bovine EID

The draftsperson welcomes the Commission's proposals to introduce bovine electronic identification (EID) on a voluntary basis. As technology in this area develops and its use becomes more widespread, it is necessary to adapt legislation in order to recognise EID as an official means of identifying bovine animals.

This technology will have a range of benefits for those who wish to use it, most notably in the areas of traceability and herd management. It is important that as the use of EID in bovine animals becomes more widespread, technical standards are harmonised throughout the EU in order to maximise the benefits of the technology.

The draftsperson fully supports the Commission's proposal that EID should remain voluntary, whilst giving Member States the option to make it compulsory on their territory. This approach should ensure that smaller operators who may not necessarily benefit from the system are not forced to introduce it, therefore avoiding unfair financial and administrative burdens.

Deletion of voluntary labelling provisions

The draftsperson supports the proposal to delete voluntary provisions for beef labelling on the grounds that this system creates unnecessary bureaucratic burdens for operators without delivering any significant benefits to the consumer. However, it is recognised that food safety and traceability are extremely important issues for the general public. In this regard, it is noted that horizontal legislation in these areas is sufficient.

Commission's powers

The draftsperson insists that delegated acts should be used to detail the sanctions for the cases of noncompliance with the stipulated rules.

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No1760/2000 refers to sanctions that may involve the restriction on the movements of animals. The Commission's proposal adds that the procedures and conditions for the applications of these sanctions should be laid down by means of implementing acts. In line with the Parliament's position as stated in the alignment to the Lisbon Treaty exercise, the rapporteur considers that these sanctions should be described by means of delegated acts instead.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain ensuring consumer protection and public health.

(4) Tracing of beef to source via identification and registration is a prerequisite for origin labelling throughout the food chain. Those measures ensure consumer protection and public health and promote consumer confidence.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and more in particular bovine identification and voluntary beef labelling were listed as "information obligations with special importance in terms of the burdens they impose on businesses" in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an "Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU".

deleted

Justification

It has been calculated that the savings in administrative costs across the EU, should the voluntary labelling system be abolished, would amount to €362 000. This is not therefore a prohibitive expense.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Electronic identification systems based on radio frequency identification have considerably improved in the last ten years. That technology allows a faster and more accurate reading of individual animal identity codes directly into data processing systems resulting on a reduction of time needed to trace potential infected animals or infected food, saving labour costs but at the same time increasing equipment costs.

(7) Although electronic identification systems based on radio frequency identification have improved in the last ten years, experience of implementing mandatory electronic identification for small ruminants demonstrates that due to faulty technology and practical difficulties it is frequently impossible to achieve 100 % accuracy. Any errors produced by electronic identification systems and other technological failures should not lead to penalties for farmers

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Making EID mandatory throughout the Union may have economically adverse effects on certain operators. It is therefore appropriate that a voluntary regime for the introduction of EID is established. Under such a regime, EID would be chosen by keepers that are likely to have immediate economic benefits.

(16) Making EID mandatory throughout the Union could have economically adverse effects on certain operators. It is therefore appropriate that a voluntary regime for the introduction of EID is established. A voluntary regime would allow EID to be chosen only by operators that were likely to experience immediate and significant economic benefits.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Member States have very different husbandry systems, farming practices and sector organisations. Member States should therefore be allowed to make EID compulsory on their territory only when they deem it appropriate, after considering all those factors.

(17) Member States have very different husbandry systems, farming practices and sector organisations. Member States should therefore be allowed to make EID compulsory on their territory only when they deem it appropriate, following consultation of all stakeholders, including farmers and sectoral organisations, after considering all those factors including any negative impact on small farmers. Member States should be allowed to create special regimes for small farmers. Any distortion of competition within the single market should be avoided.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. The administrative burden and the costs incurred by Member States and economic operators in applying this system are not proportionate to the benefits of the system. That Section should therefore be deleted.

(20) Section II of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 lays down rules for a voluntary beef labelling system which provide for the approval of certain labelling specifications by the competent authority of the Member State. In view of developments in the beef sector since that Regulation was adopted, the voluntary beef labelling system needs to be revised. That Section should therefore be deleted. Without prejudice to the above, in order to ensure suitable regulation of the voluntary beef labelling system in line with other sectors, the effects of the deletion of that Section should not come into force until it has been replaced by development of the provisions of Union legislation on marketing standards for animal products, or any other rules having equivalent effect.

Justification

The Commission proposal would leave a legal vacuum with regard to voluntary labelling, which is offering benefits for both the sector and consumers by providing useful information that is helping to increase the added value of products.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(20a) The Commission should ensure that the voluntary labelling provisions, with the necessary updates and upgrades, are reflected in Union legislation on beef.

Justification

The Commission proposal would leave a legal vacuum with regard to voluntary labelling, which is offering benefits for both the sector and consumers by providing useful information that is helping to increase the added value of products.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The means of identification shall be allocated to the holding, distributed and applied to the animals in a manner determined by the competent authority.

The means of identification shall be allocated to the holding, distributed and applied to the animals in a manner determined by the competent authority. This shall not apply to animals born before 1 January 1998 and not intended for intra-EU trade.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

All means of identification applied to one animal shall bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify the animal individually together with the holding on which it was born.

All means of identification applied to one animal shall bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify the animal individually together with the holding on which it was born. By way of derogation, in cases where it is not possible for the two individual means of identification to bear the same unique identification code, the competent authority may, under its supervision, allow for the second means of identification to bear a different code provided that full traceability is ensured and the individual identification of the animal, including the holding on which it was born, is possible.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 3 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The standards used for the identification systems shall be international ISO standards.

Justification

There should be consistency between the Member States’ identification systems.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — point 4

Regulation EC No 1760/2000

Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) 60 days for the second means of identification.

(b) 60 days for the second means of identification, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4a — paragraph 1 —subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

No animal may leave the holding where it was born before the two means of identification have been applied.

No animal may leave the holding where it was born before the two means of identification have been applied except in case of force majeure.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — point 4

Regulation EC No 1760/2000

Article 4a — paragraph 2 — subparagraph 1 b (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The first subparagraph shall not apply to animals born before 1 January 1998 and not intended for intra-EU trade.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4b — paragraph 2 — subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

That period shall not exceed 20 days following the veterinary checks referred in paragraph 1. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

That period shall not exceed 20 days following the veterinary checks referred in paragraph 1. By way of derogation, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals, that period may be extended by up to 60 days for the second means of identification. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — point 4

Regulation EC No 1760/2000

Article 4c — paragraph 2 — subparagraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The maximum period referred to in point (b) shall not exceed 20 days from the date of arrival of the animals on the holding of destination. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

The maximum period referred to in point (b) shall not exceed 20 days from the date of arrival of the animals on the holding of destination. By way of derogation, for reasons related to the physiological development of the animals, that period may be extended by up to 60 days for the second means of identification. In any event, the means of identification shall be applied to the animals before they leave the holding of destination.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 4c — paragraph 2 — subparagraph 2 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Notwithstanding the third subparagraph of Article 4(1), in cases where it is not possible to apply an electronic identifier with the same unique identification code to the animal, the competent authority may, under its supervision, allow for the second means of identification to bear a different code provided that full traceability is ensured and that the individual identification of the animal, including the holding on which it was born, is possible.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 7

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 7 — paragraph 5 — point b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) enters up-to-date information directly into the computerised database within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the event.

(b) enters up-to-date information directly into the computerised database within seventy-two hours of the occurrence of the event.

Justification

Twenty-four hours does not leave sufficient time for farmers to enter information in databases. This should be extended to 3 days or seventy-two hours to offer the possibility to all farmers including those with insufficient IT knowledge or equipment, or in the event of equipment failure, to be able to record and enter data in a reasonable timeframe.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 9

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 10 —subparagraph 1 — point e

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e) the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in different mountain areas.

e) the identification and registration of movements of bovine animals during different types of seasonal transhumance.

Justification

It is necessary to balance the text by including all types of transhumance, and not just summer grazing.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point 10

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 10a — subparagraph 1 — point b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b) the technical procedures and standards for the implementation of the electronic identification of bovine animals;

b) the technical procedures and standards for the implementation of the electronic identification of bovine animals in accordance with the international ISO standards;

Justification

It is necessary to ensure consistency between the identification systems used in all Member States.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — point 17 – point a

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 22 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the necessary rules, including transitional measures required for their introduction, concerning the procedures for the application of the sanctions referred to in the second subparagraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 23(2).

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 22b, laying down the necessary rules, including transitional measures required for their introduction, concerning the procedures for the application of the sanctions referred to in the second subparagraph.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — point 18

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

Article 22b

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(4a) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from*.

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(1), third subparagraph, and Article(4a) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from*

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(4a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14 and 19 and in Article 22(1), third subparagraph, and Article (4a) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), and Articles 5, 7, 10, 14, and 19 and in Article 22(4a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council."

5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 4(5) and 4a(2), in Articles 5, 7, 10, 14, and 19 and in Article 22(1), third subparagraph, and Article(4a) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

________________

_____________

* [*date of entry into force of this Regulation or from any other date set by the legislator]

* OJ Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 1a

 

Transitional provisions

 

Article 1, point (14) shall enter into force on 1 January 2014.

Justification

The aim of this amendment is to allow sufficient time for the drafting and approval of more appropriate specific European legislation on voluntary labelling.

PROCEDURE

Title

Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

References

COM(2012)0162 – C7-0114/2012 – COM(2011)0525 – C7-0227/2011 – 2011/0229(COD)

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

ENVI

15.9.2011

 

 

 

Opinion by

       Date announced in plenary

AGRI

15.9.2011

Rapporteur

       Date appointed

James Nicholson

23.11.2011

Discussed in committee

20.3.2012

 

 

 

Date adopted

8.5.2012

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

40

2

0

Members present for the final vote

John Stuart Agnew, Liam Aylward, José Bové, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Michel Dantin, Paolo De Castro, Diane Dodds, Herbert Dorfmann, Robert Dušek, Hynek Fajmon, Iratxe García Pérez, Julie Girling, Béla Glattfelder, Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, Martin Häusling, Esther Herranz García, Peter Jahr, Elisabeth Jeggle, Jarosław Kalinowski, Elisabeth Köstinger, Giovanni La Via, George Lyon, Mairead McGuinness, Krisztina Morvai, Mariya Nedelcheva, James Nicholson, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, Georgios Papastamkos, Marit Paulsen, Britta Reimers, Ulrike Rodust, Giancarlo Scottà, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Janusz Wojciechowski

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Pilar Ayuso, María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora, Spyros Danellis, Karin Kadenbach, Sandra Kalniete, Christa Klaß, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Petri Sarvamaa, Milan Zver


PROCEDURE

Title

Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 as regards electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

References

COM(2012)0162 – C7-0114/2012 – COM(2011)0525 – C7-0227/2011 – 2011/0229(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

4.4.2012

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

ENVI

15.9.2011

 

 

 

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

AGRI

15.9.2011

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Sophie Auconie

28.9.2011

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

30.1.2012

8.5.2012

 

 

Date adopted

30.5.2012

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

31

16

12

Members present for the final vote

Kriton Arsenis, Sophie Auconie, Pilar Ayuso, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sergio Berlato, Lajos Bokros, Milan Cabrnoch, Martin Callanan, Chris Davies, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Matthias Groote, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Karin Kadenbach, Christa Klaß, Holger Krahmer, Jo Leinen, Corinne Lepage, Peter Liese, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Andres Perello Rodriguez, Mario Pirillo, Pavel Poc, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Kārlis Šadurskis, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Bogusław Sonik, Salvatore Tatarella, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Gaston Franco, James Nicholson, Eva Ortiz Vilella, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Vittorio Prodi, Britta Reimers, Michèle Rivasi, Alda Sousa, Bart Staes, Marita Ulvskog, Andrea Zanoni

Date tabled

13.6.2012

Last updated: 31 March 2014Legal notice