Commission asks Ireland to comply with Directive on Animal Experiments

June 28, 2002

Brussels June 2002

The Commission is sending a second written warning or Reasoned Opinion to Ireland asking for compliance with a 2001 European Court of Justice ruling with regard to the Animal Experiments Directive. The Court found that Ireland had used too narrow a definition of the term "experiment" and had also failed to put in place adequate penalties for people who breach the required safeguards. Ireland has not informed the Commission of any steps it has taken to comply with the ruling, despite a first written warning sent in March of this year. Commenting on the decision to send a Reasoned Opinion, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said: "I am disappointed that Ireland has not yet taken steps to bring its 19th century legislation fully into line with EU rules on animal experiments."

The Animal Experiments Directive(1) aims to ensure that, where animals are used for experimental or other scientific purposes, certain common animal protection provisions are applied across the Community. The requirements of the Directive include controls on breeding centres for laboratory animals. It defines general and specific criteria concerning the housing of animals, restrictions on their freedom of movement, the close monitoring of their physical condition, measures that must be taken to prevent pain and undue suffering and the timely elimination of any physical defect of suffering that might occur. The relevant public authority must approve or register the centres, which must keep detailed records on the animals in their care.

Irish regulations used to implement the Directive are based on the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. This legislation uses too narrow a definition of "experiment" which excludes, for example, genetic experiments that can cause animals lasting physical damage. In addition, the fines imposed as a deterrent to abusive animal experimentation practices are too small to be effective.

These problems in the legislation led to a Court ruling against Ireland on 18 October 2001 (Case C-1999/354). The Commission wrote to Irish authorities on 12 November 2001 to inquire how Ireland intended to rectify the situation. As no response was received within two months, the Commission decided the open Article 228 infringement proceedings against Ireland. This gives the Commission the power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous ruling of the Court of Justice. The Article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a fine on the Member State concerned. A first written warning was sent to Ireland in March 2002, but no response has been received.

The Reasoned Opinion requires Ireland to comply with the Court ruling within two months. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice for a second time and to a propose a daily penalty.

For current statistics on infringements in general, please visit the following web-site:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infra ctions

(1) Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes

DN: IP/02/946 Date: /06/2002

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns