RAPPORT dwar proposta għal direttiva tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill li tintroduċi standards ta' nsib mingħajr ħruxija għal ċerti speċi ta' annimali

13.10.2005 - (COM(2004)0532 – C6-0100/2004 – 2004/0183(COD)) - ***I

Kumitat għall-Ambjent, is-Saħħa Pubblika u s-Sikurezza ta' l-Ikel
Rapporteur: Karin Scheele

ABBOZZ TA' RIŻOLUZZJONI LEĠIŻLATTIVA TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW

dwar proposta għal direttiva tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill li tintroduċi standards ta' nsib mingħajr ħruxija għal ċerti speċi ta' annimali

(COM(2004)0532 – C6-0100/2004 – 2004/0183(COD))

(Proċedura ta' kodeċiżjoni: l-ewwel qari)

Il-Parlament Ewropew,

–   wara li kkunsidra l-proposta tal-Kummissjoni lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kunsill (COM(2004)0532)[1],

–   wara li kkunsidra l-Artikoli 251(2) u 175(1) tat-Trattat tal-KE, li skond dawn l-artikoli l-Kummissjoni ppreżentat il-proposta lill-Parlament (C6-0100/2004),

–   wara li kkunsidra l-opinjoni tal-Kumitat għall-Affarijiet Legali dwar il-bażi legali proposta,

–   wara li kkunsidra r-regola 51 tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura tiegħu,

–   wara li kkunsidra t-tieni rapport tal-Kumitat għall-Ambjent, is-Saħħa Pubblika u s-Sikurezza ta' l-Ikel (A6-0304/2005),

1.  Jirrifjuta l-proposta tal-Kummissjoni;

2.  Jitlob lill-Kunsill sabiex ma jadottax pożizzjoni komuni u jitlob lill-Kummissjoni Ewropea sabiex tirtira l-proposta;

3.  Jagħti istruzzjonijiet lill-President tiegħu sabiex jgħaddi l-pożizzjoni tal-Parlament lill-Kunsill u lill-Kummissjoni.

• [1]  Għadha mhix ippubblikata fil-ĠU.

NOTA SPJEGATTIVA

The efforts to establish at European level uniform trapping standards for trapping as a method of hunting are very welcome. However, overall the Commission proposal is very unsatisfactory, and it is therefore difficult to improve the proposal by means of amendments. For this reason, the rapporteur proposes rejecting the Commission proposal.

1.        Rejection of the Commission proposal

As the Commission proposal falls under the chapter in the EU Treaty concerning environmental policy, the EU is obliged to base the proposal on the latest scientific developments. No such basis has been provided for: relevant research should have been performed before the proposal was published.

2.        Major shortcomings of the Commission proposal

The term 'humane'

Under certain conditions, trapping methods and traps may be necessary and justified by certain circumstances, but there is no reason to call them humane on that account.

In Article 5(2) and (3), the Commission proposes that a restraining or killing trapping method should be considered humane even if one animal in five suffers such indicators as fracture, severance of a tendon or ligament, major periosteal abrasion, severe external haemorrhage or haemorrhage into an internal cavity, skeletal muscle degeneration, ocular damage, spinal cord injury, amputation or death. In the case of killing traps, the proposal considers a trapping method humane if animals of certain species undergo a death struggle of up to 300 seconds.

The use of the word 'humane' is based on Article 3(1) of Regulation No 3254/91, which was adopted further to a European Parliament resolution of 1989. The Regulation bans the use of leghold traps in the European Union from 1 January 1995 and bans imports of skins of thirteen listed species of animal from countries which do not ban these traps or which do not implement international agreements on humane trapping standards.

In 1996 a Commission committee of experts, including representatives from Canada and the United States, published a report containing a series of proposals for improving trapping methods.

However, trappers vehemently rejected the report. The negotiations between the European Union, the USA, Canada and Russia then continued at political level, without involving the experts.

The resulting agreement, which was concluded in 1996, no longer contained any of the improvements proposed by the European experts. Even traps in which animals underwent a death struggle lasting five minutes were classified as humane.

The Agreement on international humane trapping standards, on which this proposal for a directive is based, was concluded only because the Commission wished to avoid a trade dispute with the USA and Canada.[1]

The trapping standards laid down in the agreement essentially comprise those methods which trappers in the USA, Canada and Russia use, and these methods are described as humane.

Avoidance of experiments using animals

The scientific testing of traps must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. In view of the prescribed use of animal experiments, this proposal falls within the scope of that directive.

Under the directive, experiments using animals must not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. At no point does the proposal mention the consideration of such alternatives. There is no provision which ensures that any alternative method which may be available must be used.

Article 22(1) and (2) of Directive 86/609/EEC contains provisions to avoid unnecessary duplication of experiments and concerning mutual recognition of findings from experiments. Such provisions are also absent from the proposal.

Training of trappers

Article 8 of the proposal deals with the specific training of trappers without providing any definition. In order to establish uniform European standards, it is essential to adopt uniform criteria. The Commission proposal also uses such terms as 'equivalent practical experience, competence and knowledge' without defining them.

Derogations

The derogations in Article 6 of the proposal must be strict and restrictive, and must not undermine the proposal.

Annex I

The list of species in Annex I lacks any scientific basis. The Commission should therefore create such a basis and, using it, submit a new Annex I.

• [1]  At the time, Russia was not yet a member of the WTO.

OPINJONI TAL-KUMITAT GĦALL-AFFARIJIET LEGALI DWAR IL-BAŻI LEGALI PROPOSTA

Committee on Legal Affairs

The Chairman

Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz

Chairman

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

BRUSSELS

Subject:           Legal basis of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing humane trapping standards for certain animal species (COM(2004)0532 – C6-0100/2004 – 2004/0183(COD))[1]

Dear Mr Chairman,

At its meeting on 6 October 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs decided on its own initiative, pursuant to Rule 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to consider whether the legal basis of the above Commission proposal was valid and appropriate.

The Committee then went on to consider that question at that same meeting on the basis of an oral presentation by its rapporteur for legal bases, Mr López Istúriz White.

According to the Court of Justice the choice of legal basis is not a subjective one, but "must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review"[2], such as the aim and content of the measure in question[3]. Furthermore, the decisive factor should be the main object of a measure.[4]

There is no doubt that the directive is primarily - indeed virtually exclusively - concerned with the welfare of certain species of wild animals. It may be noted in this connection that it is stated in the preamble that the directive is without prejudice to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards[5]. That Regulation is based on Articles 133 and 175 of the EC Treaty, which suggests that at least in 1991 the Community legislature considered that the welfare of wild animals fell within the scope of environment policy. That regulation has been litigated only once, and the legal basis was not called in question[6].

Furthermore, recital 3 states that internationally agreed humane trapping standards "will have a positive effect on the welfare of the trapped animals contributing to the protection of species of wild fauna both within and outside the Community. Ensuring a sufficient level of welfare of wild animals when trapped for wildlife management purposes and for the capture of those mammals for conservation should contribute to implementing the objectives of the Community’s environment policy. More in particular, by so doing, the Community will contribute to a prudent, sustainable and rational utilisation of natural resources and promote measures at international level to deal with world-wide environmental problems."

This is a clear reference to environment policy, which is mentioned in Article 3(l) of the EC Treaty as one of the activities of the Community ("a policy in the sphere of the environment").

Furthermore, Article 1 of the proposed directive refers to "wildlife management, pest control, capture of mammals for conservation" and Article 6 to "repopulation, reintroduction, breeding or ... the protection of fauna and flora", which are also aspects of a policy in the sphere of the environment.

Consequently, the centre of gravity of the proposed directive is environment policy and Article 175(1) constitutes the only appropriate legal basis, bearing in mind also that it allows Member States to adopt stricter rules on the basis of Article 176 on the condition that such rules are compatible with the Treaty, which is consistent with the purpose of the proposed directive.

At its meeting of 6 October 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided, by a unanimous vote[7], to recommend that you retain Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty as the sole legal basis.

Yours sincerely,

Giuseppe Gargani

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.
• [2]  Case 45/86 Commission v Council [1987] ECR 1439, para. 11.
• [3]  Case C-300/89 Commission v Council [1991] ECR I-287, para. 10.
• [4]  Case C-377/98 Netherlands v Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, para. 27, quoting Case C-155/91 Commission v Council [1993] ECR I-939, paras19-21.
• [5]  OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1.
• [6]  Order of the President of the CFI of 12.2.1996 in Case T-228/95 R Lehrfreund Ltd v Council and Commission [1996] ECR II-111.
• [7]  The following were present for the vote: Giuseppe Gargani (chairman), Antonio López-Istúriz White (draftsman), Maria Berger, Bert Doorn, Nicole Fontaine (for Piia-Noora Kauppi), Jean-Paul Gauzès (for Rainer Wieland), Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Hans-Peter Mayer, Manuel Medina Ortega (for Antonio Masip Hidalgo), Aloyzas Sakalas and Jaroslav Zvěřina.

PROĊEDURA

Title	Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing humane trapping standards for certain animal species
References	COM(2004)0532 – C6-0100/2004 – 2004/0183(COD)
Legal basis	Articles 251(2) and 175 (1) EC
Basis in Rules of Procedure	Rule 51
Date submitted to Parliament	30.7.2004
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	ENVI 15.9.2004
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision
Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Karin Scheele 27.9.2004
Previous rapporteur(s)
Simplified procedure   Date of decision
Legal basis disputed   Date of JURI opinion	JURI 6.10.2005
Financial endowment amended   Date of BUDG opinion
European Economic and Social Committee consulted   Date of decision in plenary
Committee of the Regions consulted   Date of decision in plenary
Discussed in committee	21.6.2005	13.7.2005
Date adopted	11.10.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:			47 3 2
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frederika Brepoels, Dorette Corbey, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Edite Estrela, Jillian Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Urszula Krupa, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Roberto Musacchio, Riitta Myller, Vittorio Prodi, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Jonas Sjöstedt, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund
Substitutes present for the final vote	María del Pilar Ayuso González, Bairbre de Brún, Milan Gaľa, Hélène Goudin, Ambroise Guellec, Jutta D. Haug, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Miroslav Mikolášik, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Pál Schmitt, Robert Sturdy, Phillip Whitehead
Substitutes under Rule 183.3 present for the final vote	Véronique Mathieu, Eoin Ryan
Date tabled – A6	13.10.2005					A6-0304/2005
Comments	...