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
PDF 39kWORD 9k
18 February 2021
Question for written answer  E-000993/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Harald Vilimsky (ID)
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Animal transports in non-EU countries

Hearings of experts in the Committee of Inquiry on the protection of animals during transport (ANIT), at which Commission representatives were also present, uncovered some interesting facts which raise further questions.

The experts highlighted a relative lack or even total absence of animal welfare standards during live animal transports from the European Union to certain non-EU countries and that conditions in many of the latter are dreadful. They said that transports to non-EU countries were not conducted in line with the relevant regulation, as the welfare and care of the animals could not be guaranteed and the transports should therefore be considered illegal.

Why does the Commission not therefore immediately ban all transports to such countries?

The experts also stated that many vehicles do not satisfy the requirements in relation, for example, to watering and feeding the animals.

Why then are long-distance transports using such vehicles not immediately banned?

If the Commission is aware that many Member States fail to comply with the rules in force, why are more stringent sanctions / more thorough checks not enforced?

Original language of question: DE
Last updated: 5 March 2021Legal notice - Privacy policy