Work
30.March 2009 - 00:00
Justifications for a national fox farming ban
In the light of the Commission’s comments on Denmark’s notification regarding the planned ban on fox farming (Notification 200-402 DK), can the Council explain how a national farming ban can be justified on animal welfare grounds?
Foxes are indeed farmed in the following Member States: Finland, Ireland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Norway is the second biggest fox producer in Europe after Finland. Animal welfare is guaranteed through EU farming directives and specific fox farming guidelines from the Council of Europe.
Denmark partly justifies its ban on moral grounds. Could the Council clarify how a farming ban can be justified on moral grounds in the light of the following European Court of Justice ruling?
Please note:
The ECJ has ruled that ‘public morality is not invoked as a separate justification but is an aspect of the justification relating to the protection of animal health’ and, secondly, ‘a Member State cannot rely on the views or the behaviour of a section of national public opinion in order unilaterally to challenge a harmonising measure adopted by the Community institutions’.(For reasoning in Case C 1/96, 19 March 1998, paragraphs 38 to 69.)
Furthermore, there are no conclusive government data to support the call by public opinion for a ban in preference to more proportionate measures. Does the Council accept, that in democracies, the public should be presented with alternative policy courses so that they can express a preference?
Unfortunately, opinions and alternatives proposed by stakeholders have not been taken into account. Does the Council accept that more proportionate alternatives to bans should always be explored with stakeholders first?
30 March 2009
Reply by the council
Council Directive 98/58/EC(1) lays down the general minimum requirements for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. The scope of this directive covers animals kept for the production of fur, including foxes. However, there are no detailed animal welfare requirements in Community legislation that specifically address fox farming.
In accordance with Article 10 of the directive, Member States may, in compliance with the general rules of the Treaty, maintain or apply within their territories stricter provisions than those laid down in the directive. They must inform the Commission of any such measures. The Council has no role in this procedure.
Likewise, it is not for the Council to interpret the legal provisions of a Member State or to comment on a ruling handed down by the Court of Justice or comments addressed by another Institution to a Member State.
The Honourable Member might therefore consider addressing her questions about the Commission's comments on Denmark's notification regarding the planned ban on fox farming directly to that Institution.
(1) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes; OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.
In the light of the Commission’s comments on Denmark’s notification regarding the planned ban on fox farming (Notification 200-402 DK), can the Council explain how a national farming ban can be justified on animal welfare grounds?
Foxes are indeed farmed in the following Member States: Finland, Ireland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Norway is the second biggest fox producer in Europe after Finland. Animal welfare is guaranteed through EU farming directives and specific fox farming guidelines from the Council of Europe.
Denmark partly justifies its ban on moral grounds. Could the Council clarify how a farming ban can be justified on moral grounds in the light of the following European Court of Justice ruling?
Please note:
The ECJ has ruled that ‘public morality is not invoked as a separate justification but is an aspect of the justification relating to the protection of animal health’ and, secondly, ‘a Member State cannot rely on the views or the behaviour of a section of national public opinion in order unilaterally to challenge a harmonising measure adopted by the Community institutions’.(For reasoning in Case C 1/96, 19 March 1998, paragraphs 38 to 69.)
Furthermore, there are no conclusive government data to support the call by public opinion for a ban in preference to more proportionate measures. Does the Council accept, that in democracies, the public should be presented with alternative policy courses so that they can express a preference?
Unfortunately, opinions and alternatives proposed by stakeholders have not been taken into account. Does the Council accept that more proportionate alternatives to bans should always be explored with stakeholders first?
30 March 2009
Reply by the council
Council Directive 98/58/EC(1) lays down the general minimum requirements for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. The scope of this directive covers animals kept for the production of fur, including foxes. However, there are no detailed animal welfare requirements in Community legislation that specifically address fox farming.
In accordance with Article 10 of the directive, Member States may, in compliance with the general rules of the Treaty, maintain or apply within their territories stricter provisions than those laid down in the directive. They must inform the Commission of any such measures. The Council has no role in this procedure.
Likewise, it is not for the Council to interpret the legal provisions of a Member State or to comment on a ruling handed down by the Court of Justice or comments addressed by another Institution to a Member State.
The Honourable Member might therefore consider addressing her questions about the Commission's comments on Denmark's notification regarding the planned ban on fox farming directly to that Institution.
(1) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes; OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.