52002PC0710

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the animal-health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

2000/0221 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the animal-health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC

1. Introduction

Point (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Commission is to deliver an opinion on amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. Accordingly, the Commission opinion on the fourteen amendments proposed by the European Parliament is set out below.

2. Background

- Commission adopted proposal: 18 September 2000 [1];

[1] COM(2000)529 final - 2000/0221(COD), 18.9.2000 (OJ C 29, 30.1.2001).

- Economic and Social Committee opinion: 29 November 2000 [2];

[2] OJ C 116, 20.4.2001, p. 54.

- European Parliament opinion at first reading: 3 May 2001 [3];

[3] OJ C 27, 31.1.2002, p. 55.

- amended proposal adopted: 21 June 2001 [4];

[4] COM(2001)349 final (OJ C 270, 25.9.2001).

- common position adopted: 27 June 2002 [5];

[5] OJ C 275 E, 12.11.2002, p. 33.

- Parliament adopted recommendation for a second reading: 22 October 2002.

3. Purpose of the proposal

The initial proposal is intended to lay down common rules for the non-commercial movement of pet animals between Member States and entering from third countries.

4. Commission opinion on the European Parliament amendments

4.1. Amendments accepted by the Commission

Amendments 2 (Article 4(2)(a) and (b)) and 13 (Article 23(2)) on the recognition of electronic identification only after eight years, because the Commission considers that method to be reliable and an eight-year transitional period to be sufficient.

Amendment 5 (Article 6(3)), introducing a codecision procedure for possibly adopting an extension of the special status of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden on expiry of the five-year transitional period, is acceptable in view of the first subparagraph of Article 23 of the Common Position.

4.2. Amendments rejected by the Commission

4.2.1. Technical amendments

Amendment 1 (recital 11) rules out the possibility of setting a number of animals to distinguish non-commercial movements from commercial movements, arguing that the number of animals is not a relevant factor as regards managing the health risk. The amendment is of only superficial relevance: the veterinary provisions are the same whether the movement is commercial or not. But the control provisions are not the same (for example, commercial entry from a third country must be via a border inspection post). It is therefore essential to set a number enabling the definition, if only arbitrarily, of non-commercial movements.

Amendments 3 and 4 (Article 5(2)) remove the exemption from rabies vaccination, subject to certain conditions, for animals aged less than three months (too young to be vaccinated) and therefore prevents freedom of movement for those young animals between Member States other than the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden, for which special provisions are laid down in Article 6(2). The risk represented by movements of non-vaccinated young animals between continental Member States was regarded as negligible during discussions at the Council, and the Commission concurs with that approach.

Amendment 6 (Article 7) follows the same logic as amendment 1 for species other than dogs, cats and ferrets. This approach should be retained so as to distinguish between commercial movements and movements of private individuals with their pets by setting a maximum number of animals in order to make clear what constitutes a non-commercial movement.

Amendments 8 and 9 (Article 10(e)) concern basing classification of third countries solely on recognition as rabies-free within the meaning of the International Organisation of Epizootics' Animal Health Code. The mechanism adopted at EU level is based not on that approach but on minimum acceptable risk. For example, the following Member States are not rabies-free within the meaning of the Code: Germany (cases in Hessen and Bavaria and at the border with Poland), Austria (a case at the border with Slovenia) and France (a recent case imported from Morocco). Adopting a different approach for third countries would not be justified.

Attention should be drawn to the contradiction inherent in adopting amendments 8 and 9 while rejecting amendment 7, which establishes the general principle of reference to the Code for classifying third countries (amendments 8 and 9 state the conditions which a country must meet in order to be recognised as rabies-free).

4.2.2. Institutional amendments

Amendments 10 (Article 17(1)) and 11 (Article 20) introduce the term "technical" into the definition of the Commission's implementing powers; besides limiting right of initiative, this is certain to give rise to legal disputes regarding interpretation and to prejudice effective implementation of the Regulation and the rules which it lays down.

Amendment 12 (Article 21) which deprives the Commission of a provision, usually present in Community regulations, enabling it to propose effective temporary rapid-response measures which prove essential in practice, particularly in the animal-health field.

Amendments 14 and 15 (Article 24(2.1) and (3.1)) on comitology, which go beyond the inter-institutional agreement. As regards comitology, the common position was worded to reflect the text's dual legal basis by stating clearly the difference in procedure depending on the nature of the measure. Through Parliament's deletion of the specific reference to the measures directly concerning public health, that consistency is no longer ensured.

5. Conclusions

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the Treaty, the Commission is amending its proposal as indicated above.