Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2015)45 - Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on trade in seal products - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2015)45 - Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on trade in seal products. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2015)45  |
| date | 06-02-2015 |
Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products sets out a general ban on placing of these products on the Union's market (“Basic Regulation”). The Basic Regulation contains an exception from the general ban for seal products derived from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities that contribute to their subsistence ("the IC exception"). It also contains exceptions for the import of seal products derived from seals hunted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources on a not-for profit basis and not for commercial reasons ("the MRM exception") as well as for imports of an occasional nature and which consist exclusively of goods for the personal use of travellers or their families. An Implementing Regulation, Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010, lays down detailed rules for the implementation of the Basic Regulation (“Implementing Regulation”).
Both acts (“the EU seal regime”) were challenged by Canada and Norway in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the dispute on EC – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (DS400 and DS401). On 18 June 2014, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports. While the WTO reports concluded that the ban on seal products can, in principle, be justified for moral concerns regarding the welfare of seals, they took issue with the two exceptions, the IC exception and the MRM exception. The MRM exception was found not to be justified as the possible difference in the commercial dimension of commercial hunts and MRM hunts (small scale, non-profit) was not sufficient to justify the distinction. With regard to the IC exception, while in principle reflecting a legitimate distinction, the Appellate body ruled, that some elements of its design and application amounted to “arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination”.
On 10 July 2014 the European Union notified the DSB that it intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute in a manner that respects its WTO obligations.
On 5 September 2014, the European Union, Canada and Norway agreed that the reasonable period for implementing the DSB recommendations and rulings would be 16 months. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time will expire on 18 October 2015.
The purpose of this legislative proposal is to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings with regard to the Basic Regulation. It also creates the legal basis for bringing Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 in compliance with the said rulings. The concerns regarding the MRM exception are remedied by removing the MRM exception from the Basic Regulation. The concerns relating to the design and application of the IC exception are addressed by modifying the exception, in particular by linking its use to the respect of animal welfare and providing for a limit to the placing of the market of seal products if the scale of the hunt or other circumstances are such as to indicate that the hunt is being conducted primarily for commercial purposes. In addition, experts from the Commission are working together with experts from Canada in order to set up the necessary attestation system to enable Canadian Inuit to make use of the Inuit exception under the EU seal regime.
In addition, it is also necessary to use this initiative to align the reference to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Given the tight timeframe for compliance with the WTO rulings and to allow for a swift adoption of the proposal by the legislator, the Commission exceptionally took on board in this proposal an amendment of the Parliament proposed in the context of proposal COM (2013)451 (this proposal also covered the alignment of Regulation 1007/2009) in relation to the duration of the delegation.
Contents
No impact assessment was carried out as this action does not present a new policy initiative but is required to bring the EU’s current legislation into compliance with the WTO ruling thereby ensuring fulfilment of Union's international obligations. The limited modifications introduced by this proposal did not call for a new impact assessment as compared to the impact assessment undertaken before the adoption of the Basic Regulation in 2009.
· Legal basis
The legal basis for this proposal is Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which was the legal basis for the Basic Regulation which is being modified by the present proposal. According to Article 114 TFEU the European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The Basic Regulation was adopted with the objective of eliminating obstacles to the functioning of the internal market due to differences in national measures regulating trade in seal products.
· Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality
Bringing the Basic Regulation into compliance with the recommendations and rulings adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body can only be achieved by modifying the Basic Regulation with regard to the contested aspects. The proposal is limited to what is necessary to achieve the WTO compatibility of the contested measure.
· Choice of instruments
Proposed instrument: Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council
Other means would not be adequate as a regulation can only be modified by the same instrument, i.e. a regulation.
This proposal has no implications for the budget of the European Union.
5. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS
Not applicable