Detalj anmälan | TRIS - European Commission

Utkast till kunglig förordning om fastställande av förteckningen över arter av sällskapsdjur och positivlistan över sällskapsdjur.

Anmälningsnummer:

2026/0351/ES (Spain)

Inkommet datum:

10/07/2026

Slut på frysning:

13/10/2026

Utkast:

ES EN FR DE

Konsekvensstudier:

ES EN

Klicka här för en utskriftsbar version av sidan

Message

Meddelande 001

Meddelande från kommissionen - TRIS/(2026) 1841

Direktiv (EU) 2015/1535

Anmälan: 2026/0351/ES

Anmälan av ett utkast till text från en medlemsstat

Notification – Notification – Notifzierung – Нотификация – Oznámení – Notifikation – Γνωστοποίηση – Notificación – Teavitamine – Ilmoitus – Obavijest – Bejelentés – Notifica – Pranešimas – Paziņojums – Notifika – Kennisgeving – Zawiadomienie – Notificação – Notificare – Oznámenie – Obvestilo – Anmälan – Fógra a thabhairt

Does not open the delays - N'ouvre pas de délai - Kein Fristbeginn - Не се предвижда период на прекъсване - Nezahajuje prodlení - Fristerne indledes ikke - Καμμία έναρξη προθεσμίας - No abre el plazo - Viivituste perioodi ei avata - Määräaika ei ala tästä - Ne otvara razdoblje kašnjenja - Nem nyitja meg a késéseket - Non fa decorrere la mora - Atidėjimai nepradedami - Atlikšanas laikposms nesākas - Ma jiftaħx il-perijodi ta’ dewmien - Geen termijnbegin - Nie otwiera opóźnień - Não inicia o prazo - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare - Nezačína oneskorenia - Ne uvaja zamud - Inleder ingen frist - Ní osclaíonn sé na moilleanna

MSG: 20261841.SV

1. MSG 001 IND 2026 0351 ES SV 10-07-2026 ES NOTIF

2. Spain

3A. Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, UE y Cooperación
DG Coordinación del Mercado Interior y Otras Políticas Comunitarias
SG Asuntos Industriales, Energéticos, de Transportes y Comunicaciones, y de Medio Ambiente
d83-189@maec.es

3B. Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030
Secretaría de Estado de Derechos Sociales
DG Derechos de los animales
areajuridicadgda@dsca.gob.es

4. 2026/0351/ES - C90A - Djurs och husdjurs välbefinnande

5. Utkast till kunglig förordning om fastställande av förteckningen över arter av sällskapsdjur och positivlistan över sällskapsdjur.

6. Förteckningen över arter av sällskapsdjur och positivlistan över sällskapsdjur.

7.

8. Enligt artikel 34a i lag 7/2023 av den 28 mars om skydd av djurs rättigheter och välbefinnande ska det behöriga ministeriet upprätta en förteckning över arter av sällskapsdjur (LEDC).

I artikel 37 i lag 7/2023 av den 28 mars föreskrivs att en kunglig förordning ska fastställa förfarandet för godkännande av förteckningarna över däggdjur, fåglar, reptiler, groddjur, fiskar och ryggradslösa djur som ska föras upp på positivlistan över sällskapsdjur, samt förfarandet för införande eller uteslutning och relevanta tidsfrister.

I den fjärde slutbestämmelsen i lag 7/2023 av den 28 mars 2023 föreskrivs att regeringen, inom högst 24 månader från ikraftträdandet av ovannämnda lag, ska godkänna förordningen om genomförande av den positivlista över djur (LPAC) som får hållas som sällskapsdjur som föreskrivs i kapitel V i avdelning II.

Det är därför nödvändigt att genomföra dessa bestämmelser genom denna kungliga förordning för att uppfylla kraven i artikel 37 och den fjärde slutbestämmelsen i lag 7/2023 av den 28 mars.

Dess innehåll inkluderar:
Förfarandet för godkännande av förteckningen över sällskapsdjur och dess innehåll.
Förfarandet för godkännande och uppdatering av positivlistan över sällskapsdjur, samt kriterierna för att föra upp och ta bort arter från den, liksom förfarandet för att föra upp och ta bort arter från listan.
Utarbetandet av rapporten av den vetenskapliga och tekniska kommittén för djurskydd och djurens rättigheter i enlighet med de fastställda kriterierna.
Tillstånd för djur som inte ingår i LPAC samt särskilt tillstånd för hållande, avel, transport av eller handel med vilda djur i fångenskap.

9. Begränsningen av vilka arter som får hållas som sällskapsdjur, genom införandet av positivlistor, såsom anges i motiveringen till lag 7/2023 av den 28 mars, syftar till att bevara den biologiska mångfalden, samt till att säkerställa sällskapsdjurens välbefinnande och skydda folkhälsan och människors säkerhet.

Upprättandet av en förteckning över arter av sällskapsdjur har sin grund i behovet av att reglera, som sällskapsdjur, de husdjursarter som inte är hundar (Canis familiaris), katter (Felis catus) eller illrar (Mustela putorius furo), vilka omfattas av definitionen av sällskapsdjur enligt lag 8/2003 av den 24 april om djurhälsa. I detta avseende är det värt att notera att ett husdjur tillhör en art eller underart som härstammar från en vild förfader. Därför är ett vilt djur som hålls i fångenskap inte ett domesticerat djur, utan ett djur som har blivit vant vid människors närvaro.

Positivlistan uppfyller dessutom det åtagande som gjorts genom ratificeringen av den europeiska konventionen om skydd av sällskapsdjur med avseende på deras hållande i enlighet med artikel 4, och särskilt när det gäller uppfyllandet av deras etologiska behov, i enlighet med deras art och ras, medan de hålls i fångenskap.

Utarbetandet av denna förteckning följer den trend som andra medlemsstater har slagit fast genom att redan ha upprättat positivlistor över sällskapsdjur i syfte att reglera hållandet av djur i hemmet, med hänsyn till eventuella risker för hälsa, säkerhet, miljö och/eller djurens välbefinnande.

9a. Upprättandet av positivlistor på grundval av vetenskaplig bedömning prioriterar förebyggande åtgärder och bygger på försiktighetsprincipen, till skillnad från negativa förteckningar, vars tillvägagångssätt till sin natur är reaktivt och mindre förebyggande, vilket betonas i Europaparlamentets resolution av den 24 november 2022 om förbättring av EU:s lagstiftning om vilda och exotiska djur som ska hållas som sällskapsdjur i Europeiska unionen genom en positivlista för EU.

Inga alternativa åtgärder föreslås, eftersom detta är ett genomförande av lag nr 7/2023 av den 28 mars.

9b. Upprättandet av en positivlista över sällskapsdjur fungerar som ett verktyg för att säkerställa välbefinnandet och skyddet av rättigheterna för de djur som omfattas av denna kungliga förordning samt för att skydda folkhälsan, den allmänna säkerheten och den biologiska mångfalden.

Det gör det också möjligt att förbättra övervakningen av olaglig handel med vilda arter och mildra de ekonomiska konsekvenser för lagliga aktörer som denna verksamhet ger upphov till. På samma sätt fungerar förteckningarna i denna förordning som ett sätt att öka allmänhetens medvetenhet om ansvaret för att skydda vilda arter och säkerställa en ansvarsfull djurhållning i hemmet, samt som ett förebyggande verktyg som utformats för att undvika de ekonomiska, ekologiska och hälsomässiga konsekvenser som orsakas av invasiva främmande arter.

9c. De planerade skyldigheterna anses stå i rimlig proportion till vikten av de mål som eftersträvas när det gäller djurhälsa och djurvälfärd samt folkhälsa.

Åtgärden begränsar sig till att fastställa krav utan att ålägga några skyldigheter som går utöver vad som är nödvändigt för att säkerställa lämpliga förhållanden för djur som klassificeras som vilda arter och som hålls som sällskapsdjur.

Avsaknaden av uppdaterade grundläggande bestämmelser kan göra det svårt att säkerställa välbefinnandet och de skyddsåtgärder som rör säkerhet, hälsa och skydd av den naturliga miljön för de berörda djuren. Denna skada är större än den börda som följer av efterlevnaden av listorna.

10. Hänvisning till grundtexter: Det finns inga grundtexter

11. Nej

12.

13. Nej

14. Nej

15. Ja

16.
TBT-aspekt: Nej

SPS-aspekt: Nej

**********
Europeiska kommissionen
Kontaktadress Direktiv (EU) 2015/1535
e-post: grow-dir2015-1535-central@ec.europa.eu

Disclosed messages

message-id	Året	Nummer	Land	Type	Title	Inkommet datum	Is answer to

Språk

Kommentarer från intressenter

Webbplatsen Tris gör det enkelt för dig eller din organisation att lämna synpunkter på de olika anmälningarna.

Du kan lämna dina synpunkter på vilket som helst av EU:s officiella språk. Vi ber dig att lämna in dina synpunkter minst en månad före slutet av frysningsperioden för att säkerställa att de behandlas i vederbörlig ordning med hänsyn till den tid som behövs för analys och intern behandling. Under alla omständigheter kommer dina kommentarer att tas emot fram till kl. 23:59:59 CET på datumet för frysningsperiodens slut. Dina kommentarer kommer att offentliggöras i Tris (översättningar till andra språk kommer inte att vara offentliga), såvida du inte meddelar att du vill att de ska vara konfidentiella.

Synpunkter från de berörda parterna är viktiga för kommissionen och medlemsstaterna i samband med bedömningen av de anmälningar som lämnas in enligt direktiv (EU) 2015/1535. Kommissionen fattar emellertid sina beslut oberoende mot bakgrund av den information som finns tillgänglig och i linje med sina interna beslutsregler.

Observera att du inte kommer att få någon ytterligare feedback angående innehållet i dina kommentarer.

I slutet av frysningsperioden kommer du att kunna hitta information om eventuella beslut av kommissionen och/eller medlemsstaterna på webbplatsen https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/sv, under avdelningen för anmälningar.

Skicka din kommentar

COMMENTS UNDER THE TRIS NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE 2026/0351/ES (Notification 28222)
Draft Royal Decree developing the List of Domestic Companion Animal Species and the Positive List of Companion Animals

1. Purpose of these comments

These comments are submitted within the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations laid down by Directive (EU) 2015/1535, under which this Draft has been notified. Their purpose is to draw the attention of the European Commission and the other Member States to the fact that the notified Draft implements a statutory prohibition which, for the reasons set out below, gives rise to a conflict with the primacy of European Union law and, in addition, constitutes an unjustified barrier to the free movement of goods within the internal market, contrary to Articles 26, 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), without satisfying the requirements of coherence and proportionality established by the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular the judgment of 19 June 2008, Andibel (C-219/07).

2. Procedural defects: the notified text lacks the mandatory reports required under national law

Before turning to the substance, it must be noted that the text notified has not completed the internal procedure that Spanish law itself requires before final adoption, a circumstance directly relevant to this procedure.

Under Article 26 of Law 50/1997, of 27 November, on the Government, the preparation of a royal decree of this nature requires, among other steps, the following, which do not appear to have been completed in respect of the notified text:

- Report from the Autonomous Communities and from the Cities of Ceuta and Melilla.
- Report from the ministerial departments concerned (Article 26(5), first paragraph, Law 50/1997), including the Ministries of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Economic Affairs, Trade and Business; Industry and Tourism; and Health, whose competences bear directly on the subject matter of the Draft and on its impact on domestic and intra-Community trade.
- Report from the Office for Regulatory Coordination and Quality (Article 26(9), Law 50/1997).
- Opinion of the Council of State, the issuance of which is a precondition of the very approval formula announced in the recitals of the Draft ("in agreement with the Council of State"), notwithstanding that no such opinion appears to have been issued as at the date of notification.
- Report of the State Council for Animal Protection (CEPA), a consultative body whose involvement in the regulatory development of Law 7/2023 is mandatory under its governing rules, and which does not appear to have been requested or issued in respect of the notified text.

The absence of these reports has a twofold bearing on this procedure. First, it shows that the notified text is not the final text: the outstanding reports, in particular the opinion of the Council of State and those of the ministries with competence in economic and trade matters, may lead to substantial amendments to the articles, which undermines the certainty of the subject matter on which the European Commission and the other Member States are being asked to comment. Second, the absence of the CEPA report and of the reports of the ministerial departments with competence in foreign trade and economic affairs deprives the Draft of precisely the internal channels through which the defects described in Section 4 below, and the impact of the Draft on the internal market, could have been identified and corrected before notification. It is accordingly requested that the standstill period not be treated as satisfied, or that it be reopened as appropriate, until the said reports, in particular the opinion of the Council of State, have been issued.

3. The Draft is a technical regulation with a direct effect on intra-Community trade

The Positive List of Companion Animals (LPAC) developed by the Draft operates as a positive list governing market access: only the species included on it may be kept, bred, transferred or traded as companion animals in Spanish territory (Article 7 et seq. of the Draft, read together with Article 32 of Law 7/2023). The non-inclusion of a species on the LPAC entails, under Article 10(11) of the Draft, the prohibition of its keeping, breeding and trade, save where an exceptional or specific authorisation applies.

This regulatory architecture conditions access to the Spanish market for specimens lawfully bred and traded in other Member States under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and under the harmonised regime applicable to specimens born and bred in captivity (Article 8(3) of that Regulation). The Draft therefore constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, and must be assessed in the light of Article 26 TFEU, which defines the internal market as an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods is ensured.

4. Defect at source: Article 32 of Law 7/2023 lacks a constitutional title over foreign trade and cannot restrict what is provided for in Regulation (EC) No 338/97

4.1. Regulation 338/97 as directly applicable European Union law. Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein is, pursuant to Article 288 TFEU, directly applicable in all Member States without the need for transposition. It governs not only the import and export of specimens, but also, in a secondary but effective manner, the conditions for the breeding, keeping and marketing of specimens born and bred in captivity, through the derogation contained in its Article 8(3).

4.2. The literal text of Article 32 of Law 7/2023. Article 32(1) of Law 7/2023 provides: "The keeping, breeding and trade of wild fauna in captivity is prohibited outside the cases permitted by this law." This is, accordingly, a general prohibition of full scope covering three activities, keeping, breeding and trade, which, precisely because of its breadth, bears directly upon the very same activities that Regulation (EC) No 338/97 permits and regulates in respect of specimens born and bred in captivity under Article 8(3) thereof. The conflict between the two instruments is neither incidental nor the product of an extensive interpretation: it follows from the literal wording of the Spanish provision itself, which contains no exception in favour of the European regime, and which, moreover, was enacted without the constitutional authorisation that would allow the State to legitimately affect foreign and intra-Community trade, as set out below.

4.3. Law 7/2023 does not invoke Article 149.1.10 of the Spanish Constitution for Article 32. The final provision that establishes the constitutional title of Law 7/2023 does not ground Article 32 in Article 149.1.10 of the Spanish Constitution, which reserves to the State exclusive competence over customs and tariff arrangements and foreign trade. Article 32 rests instead on the titles set out in Article 149.1.13, 16 and 23 of the Constitution (bases and coordination of general economic planning, bases and general coordination of health, and basic environmental legislation), none of which concerns the regulation of foreign or intra-Community trade.

4.4. Consequence: a conflict with the primacy of EU law, not a mere internal inconsistency. This omission is not a matter of domestic drafting technique devoid of European relevance. Insofar as Article 32 of Law 7/2023 purports to prohibit the keeping, breeding and trade of specimens whose circulation is specifically regulated and permitted by Regulation 338/97 under Article 8(3) thereof, that prohibition extends into a field over which the Spanish legislature neither claimed nor exercised the competence over foreign trade, and which is, in any event, already occupied by a directly applicable act of Union law. Under the settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the primacy of European Union law (Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal), a provision of national law that conflicts with a directly applicable EU regulation must be disapplied, irrespective of the internal allocation of competences between the State and its territorial entities; the additional circumstance that the Spanish legislature itself did not invoke the foreign-trade title confirms that the conflict with Regulation 338/97 was not even considered when the prohibition was enacted.

4.5. The Draft cannot cure the defect at source. The first final provision of the Draft now invokes, without precedent in earlier drafts, Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution alongside titles 13, 16, 23 and 29, without specifying its application to any particular provision. This invocation, made in the implementing decree rather than in the law it implements, cannot cure the constitutional insufficiency affecting Article 32 of Law 7/2023: an implementing royal decree cannot extend or complete the constitutional title under which the law it develops was enacted, in accordance with the principle of normative hierarchy (Article 9(3) of the Constitution) and the subordinate nature of implementing regulatory power (Article 128 of Law 39/2015). If Article 32 of Law 7/2023 is not grounded in Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution, the Draft implementing it cannot be so grounded by this means either; moreover, the undifferentiated invocation of that title in the first final provision constitutes a separate defect of statement of reasons, since it does not allow identification of which provisions of the Draft are enacted under each of the titles invoked, a matter of particular relevance to the test of accessibility and transparency required by the Andibel judgment.

5. A further manifestation of the same defect: the outward-facing authorisation that the Draft itself acknowledges

The defect at source described above is particularly evident in the very structure of the Draft, which acknowledges, being unable to prevent it precisely because it lacks the constitutional title to do so, the persistence of a channel for cross-border breeding and marketing in respect of specimens that the Draft excludes from the Spanish internal market.

Article 9(3)(b) of the Draft excludes from inclusion on the LPAC wild species protected under European Union law or under international treaties, "without prejudice to the exceptions or conditions laid down in that legislation or in those treaties permitting their keeping." This is not a drafting choice: it is the necessary consequence of the fact that Regulation 338/97, as directly applicable European Union law, cannot be displaced by a national rule lacking a constitutional title over foreign trade. The result is that the same Spanish operator may lawfully breed, hold for reproductive purposes and sell to a purchaser established in another Member State, or export to a third country, a specimen of a species that the same operator is, at the same time, prohibited from keeping, breeding or selling to a Spanish purchaser under Article 32 of Law 7/2023. The Draft does not prohibit the activity; it prohibits only its Spanish recipient, precisely because it is only in respect of that recipient that the State holds a constitutional title which, however deficiently articulated, the legislature did in fact invoke.

6. Consequences for the proportionality test required by the Andibel judgment

The Andibel judgment (C-219/07) requires that, for a national restriction on the keeping of species to be covered by Article 36 TFEU, the measure must be necessary and proportionate to the identified risk, and no less restrictive means capable of achieving the same objective while imposing a lesser burden on intra-Community trade may exist. The Court of Justice does not presume the proportionality of a positive list: it requires the Member State to demonstrate it, with sufficient information on the criteria applied, their practical application and the availability of remedies.

The defect at source described in Section 4, and its manifestation described in Section 5, deprive the Draft of that justification for a structural reason: if the risk to the safety of persons, public health, animal welfare or biodiversity, the grounds invoked in the recitals of the Draft, were real and properly identified, that risk would not disappear merely because the recipient of the specimen resides in France, in Portugal, or in a third country rather than in Spain. A regime that permits the breeding of a specimen and its departure from national territory, while prohibiting its retention within that territory, does not pursue the declared objective in a consistent and systematic manner, a requirement the Court of Justice consistently applies to any restriction relied upon on grounds of general interest (see, in addition to Andibel, Tridon and De Peijper).

This structural weakness is compounded by the matters set out in Section 2: in the absence of the CEPA report, of the reports of the ministries with competence in economic and trade matters, and of the opinion of the Council of State, the Draft also lacks the minimum internal technical and institutional support that would allow it, even prima facie, to sustain the proportionality assessment that Andibel requires the Member State to demonstrate.

Accordingly, the very structure of the Draft supplies the evidence that the domestic restriction is not necessary to protect the interests invoked, and that a less restrictive measure is, in fact, already operative, namely the traceability and authorisation regime under Regulation 338/97, which the Spanish legal order itself treats as sufficient where the destination is another Member State or a third country, without that treatment reflecting a deliberate exercise of the foreign-trade competence, but rather the impossibility of displacing a directly applicable act of Union law. This places the Draft outside the scope of Article 36 TFEU and characterises it as an unjustified restriction under Article 34 TFEU, with a direct bearing on the functioning of the internal market guaranteed by Article 26 TFEU.

7. Requests

On the basis of the foregoing, it is requested that these comments be recorded within this notification procedure, and that their content be communicated to the Spanish authorities so that:

a) Evidence be provided that the outstanding mandatory reports, from the Autonomous Communities, the ministerial departments concerned, the Office for Regulatory Coordination and Quality, the State Council for Animal Protection, and the opinion of the Council of State, have been issued before this procedure is treated as concluded, and that, where the resulting text differs substantially from the text currently notified, that text be notified accordingly.

b) The scope of the constitutional title invoked in the first final provision of the Draft be clarified and delimited, specifying which provisions of the Draft are enacted under Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution, it being understood that such invocation cannot be treated as curing the constitutional title under which Article 32 of Law 7/2023 was enacted.

c) It be expressly acknowledged that, insofar as Article 32 of Law 7/2023 and its implementing provisions purport to restrict the keeping, breeding or trade of specimens covered by the derogation in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, that restriction is inapplicable as against the Regulation by reason of the primacy of European Union law, and that the text of the Draft be amended to remove the asymmetry described above between the domestic regime and the regime governing breeding and marketing for destinations in other Member States or third countries.

d) The standstill period provided for in Directive (EU) 2015/1535 be suspended until the constitutional defect and the inconsistency identified above have been remedied, and until the mandatory reports referred to in point (a) have been shown to have been issued.

CONTRIBUTION TO NOTIFICATION 2026/0351/ES (Notification 28222) - Directive (EU) 2015/1535
Draft Royal Decree developing the List of Domestic Companion Animal Species and the Positive List of Companion Animals
Subject: barriers to trade in the internal market and legal uncertainty

I submit this contribution as an interested person within the procedure for the provision of information on technical regulations under Directive (EU) 2015/1535. In my view, the notified Draft Royal Decree - and Law 7/2023 which it implements - constitute a barrier to trade in captive-bred companion animals, both through the restriction they impose and through the serious legal uncertainty they generate, and the reasons given in the notification message do not justify them.

1. THE MEASURE CLOSES THE SPANISH MARKET TO ANIMALS LAWFULLY TRADED IN THE UNION

The Positive List of Companion Animals (LPAC) works as a market-access list: only listed species may be kept, bred or traded in Spain, and any non-listed species is prohibited (Article 10(11)). This prohibition reaches animals born and bred in captivity that are lawfully bred and sold in other Member States under Regulation (EC) No 338/97. It is therefore a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and it fragments the internal market guaranteed by Article 26 TFEU.

2. THE PROHIBITION DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE WILD-CAUGHT ANIMAL AND THE CAPTIVE-BRED ONE

Union law does distinguish between the two, and the Draft ignores this:
- Article 12(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) limits the prohibition of keeping, transport and sale to "specimens taken in the wild", not to captive-bred ones.
- The Court of Justice, in Didier Vergy (C-149/94), distinguished captive-bred specimens from those taken in the wild.
- Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 expressly derogates from the commercial ban for animals born and bred in captivity with their documentation.
- The Court of Justice, in Tridon (C-510/99), held that an absolute ban on trading captive-bred animals is disproportionate.

The Draft, by contrast, prohibits alike on the basis of the species, without regard to the origin of the animal. Its recitals even state that an animal bred in captivity "is not a domestic animal, but merely habituated to human presence", which contradicts Article 465 of the Civil Code (as amended by Law 17/2021), which assimilates domesticated animals to domestic or companion animals.

3. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE NOTIFICATION MESSAGE DO NOT WITHSTAND ANALYSIS

- The CETS 125 Convention and its Article 4 do not authorise any list of species: Article 4 governs the welfare conditions of an animal already kept, not which species may be kept. The Convention defines a companion animal by its function, without lists.
- The European Parliament Resolution of 24 November 2022 is not binding. Moreover, the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM(2022) 581 final), to which that Resolution refers, confines any positive list to "specimens taken from the wild", confirming the very distinction that the Draft erases.
- The claim that positive lists are better than negative ones is an opinion, not a technical fact. Several Member States use negative lists that are fully precautionary.
- The control of illegal trafficking is already regulated by Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and, in Spain, by RD 7/2018. The list adds nothing to that control and instead prohibits captive-bred animals that those instruments permit.

4. A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRITERION: THE RD 570/2020 LIST TURNED INTO A MARKET VETO

Criterion (k) of Annex I excludes from the LPAC any species included in Royal Decree 570/2020. But that Royal Decree is a rule for controlling the IMPORTATION of non-native species from third countries, enacted under the foreign-trade competence (Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution). The Royal Decree itself expressly acknowledges in its recitals that it "does not address the importation of specimens circulating freely within EU territory, but only that of species coming from third States". In other words: any of those species may be freely brought into Spain from a German or Portuguese port, and RD 570/2020 admits it. It was never a barrier to internal trade.

Moreover, appearing on that list does not even entail a ban on importing: it is enough for the risk analysis of the first importation to be favourable for the species to be removed from the list and subsequent imports to be free. It is a case-by-case screening with assessment, not a veto.

The Draft turns that import list into grounds for automatic exclusion from the internal market, and it does so WITHOUT carrying out the risk assessment that the rule of origin itself requires, and without weighing any criterion (Article 12.4 allows any of them to be "exclusionary"). The result is absurd: the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) - bred in captivity for over a century, not in any CITES Appendix or in the European list of invasive species - would be excluded from the LPAC merely for appearing on a list designed to control imports at ports and airports, even though it can be freely brought in from any other Member State. The same would happen with the chinchilla, the guppy or the Gouldian finch, species commonly found in aquariums and aviaries across Europe. The measure inverts the logic of its rule of origin: where that one assessed in order to permit, this one excludes without assessing.

5. THE RISKS INVOKED ARE ALREADY REGULATED BY THE UNION, AND NO ASSESSMENT IS PROVIDED

The notification message acknowledges that the measure affects trade and merely states that the obligations "are considered proportionate", without providing any risk assessment. But the precautionary principle justifies restrictions only where there is a real risk demonstrated with scientific data, and the burden of proving it lies with the State (Andibel judgment, C-219/07). Moreover, the risks it invokes are already covered by European legislation that assesses species by species:
- Invasive-species risk: Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014.
- Sanitary and disease risk: Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (Animal Health Law).
- Animal welfare: Article 13 TFEU and Article 4 of CETS 125.
A blanket species-based prohibition, superimposed on those frameworks and without a risk assessment, is neither necessary nor proportionate, and cannot be covered by Article 36 TFEU.

6. THE GREATEST OBSTACLE IS LEGAL UNCERTAINTY: NO ONE CAN KNOW WHICH RULE APPLIES

In Spain, each law must state expressly under which constitutional competence it is enacted; a competence that is not claimed is not deemed to have been exercised. Foreign trade belongs exclusively to the State under Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution, and it is by that route that Regulation (EC) No 338/97 is applied in Spain. Now, Article 32 of Law 7/2023 - which prohibits the keeping, breeding and trade of wild fauna in captivity - was NOT enacted under that Article 149.1.10 (the law reserved it solely to its Article 61). That is why Article 32 cannot prevent the breeding, sale or keeping of captive-bred animals that the European Regulation permits, and that is why the primacy of Union law is triggered: where a national rule conflicts with a directly applicable European regulation, the national rule must be disapplied (Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal judgments).

The Draft Royal Decree tries to fix this through the back door, by invoking Article 149.1.10 in its first final provision. But a regulation cannot claim a competence that its enabling law did not exercise (Article 9(3) of the Constitution; Article 128 of Law 39/2015). The result is that no one - neither the breeder, nor the buyer, nor the administration - can know with certainty what is permitted. Added to this is the internal incoherence of the text, which calls the same animal "domestic", "wild" or "wild in captivity" depending on which article is applied. For an operator in another Member State it is impossible to know whether an animal that is legal in the Union may be sold in Spain. That legal uncertainty is, in itself, a barrier to the internal market contrary to Article 26 TFEU.

7. FURTHERMORE, THE TEXT WAS NOTIFIED WITHOUT THE MANDATORY REPORTS

The notified text has not even completed its internal procedure: there is no record of the reports of the Autonomous Communities, of the ministries with economic and trade competence, of the Office for Regulatory Coordination and Quality, of the State Council for Animal Protection, or of the opinion of the Council of State that the Draft itself presupposes. The text is not final and may change substantially, and it is precisely the bodies that would have identified its impact on trade that have not reported.

8. I REQUEST

That this contribution be communicated to the Spanish authorities so that:
a) It be recognised that Article 32 of Law 7/2023 and its Royal Decree cannot restrict the keeping, breeding or trade of animals covered by Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, for lack of competence over foreign trade and by reason of the primacy of Union law.
b) The distinction between the wild-caught animal and the captive-bred one be recognised, in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Didier Vergy judgment, Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM(2022) 581 final).
c) Criterion (k) of Annex I be deleted or reformulated, as it turns an import-control list (RD 570/2020) into an internal-market veto without weighing or risk assessment.
d) The State be required to provide the risk assessment it asserts but does not supply, bearing in mind that those risks are already managed by Regulation (EU) 1143/2014, Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and the welfare obligations of Article 13 TFEU and CETS 125.
e) The incoherence with the definition of wild fauna in Article 3.5 of Law 8/2003 and with Article 465 of the Civil Code be corrected, so that the scope and the prohibitions are clear.
f) It be evidenced that the outstanding mandatory reports - in particular the opinion of the Council of State - have been issued, and the standstill period under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 be suspended until the unjustified restriction, the legal uncertainty and the procedural defect identified above have been remedied.

CONTRIBUTION TO NOTIFICATION 2026/0351/ES (Notification 28222) - Directive (EU) 2015/1535
Draft Royal Decree developing the List of Domestic Companion Animal Species and the Positive List of Companion Animals
Subject: barriers to trade in the internal market and legal uncertainty

I submit this contribution as an interested person within the procedure for the provision of information on technical regulations under Directive (EU) 2015/1535. In my view, the notified Draft Royal Decree - and Law 7/2023 which it implements - constitute a barrier to trade in captive-bred companion animals, both through the restriction they impose and through the serious legal uncertainty they generate, and the reasons given in the notification message do not justify them.

1. THE MEASURE CLOSES THE SPANISH MARKET TO ANIMALS LAWFULLY TRADED IN THE UNION

The Positive List of Companion Animals (LPAC) works as a market-access list: only listed species may be kept, bred or traded in Spain, and any non-listed species is prohibited (Article 10(11)). This prohibition reaches animals born and bred in captivity that are lawfully bred and sold in other Member States under Regulation (EC) No 338/97. It is therefore a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and it fragments the internal market guaranteed by Article 26 TFEU.

2. THE PROHIBITION DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE WILD-CAUGHT ANIMAL AND THE CAPTIVE-BRED ONE

Union law does distinguish between the two, and the Draft ignores this:
- Article 12(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) limits the prohibition of keeping, transport and sale to "specimens taken in the wild", not to captive-bred ones.
- The Court of Justice, in Didier Vergy (C-149/94), distinguished captive-bred specimens from those taken in the wild.
- Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 expressly derogates from the commercial ban for animals born and bred in captivity with their documentation.
- The Court of Justice, in Tridon (C-510/99), held that an absolute ban on trading captive-bred animals is disproportionate.

The Draft, by contrast, prohibits alike on the basis of the species, without regard to the origin of the animal. Its recitals even state that an animal bred in captivity "is not a domestic animal, but merely habituated to human presence", which contradicts Article 465 of the Civil Code (as amended by Law 17/2021), which assimilates domesticated animals to domestic or companion animals.

3. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE NOTIFICATION MESSAGE DO NOT WITHSTAND ANALYSIS

- The CETS 125 Convention and its Article 4 do not authorise any list of species: Article 4 governs the welfare conditions of an animal already kept, not which species may be kept. The Convention defines a companion animal by its function, without lists.
- The European Parliament Resolution of 24 November 2022 is not binding. Moreover, the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM(2022) 581 final), to which that Resolution refers, confines any positive list to "specimens taken from the wild", confirming the very distinction that the Draft erases.
- The claim that positive lists are better than negative ones is an opinion, not a technical fact. Several Member States use negative lists that are fully precautionary.
- The control of illegal trafficking is already regulated by Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and, in Spain, by RD 7/2018. The list adds nothing to that control and instead prohibits captive-bred animals that those instruments permit.

4. A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRITERION: THE RD 570/2020 LIST TURNED INTO A MARKET VETO

Criterion (k) of Annex I excludes from the LPAC any species included in Royal Decree 570/2020. But that Royal Decree is a rule for controlling the IMPORTATION of non-native species from third countries, enacted under the foreign-trade competence (Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution). The Royal Decree itself expressly acknowledges in its recitals that it "does not address the importation of specimens circulating freely within EU territory, but only that of species coming from third States". In other words: any of those species may be freely brought into Spain from a German or Portuguese port, and RD 570/2020 admits it. It was never a barrier to internal trade.

Moreover, appearing on that list does not even entail a ban on importing: it is enough for the risk analysis of the first importation to be favourable for the species to be removed from the list and subsequent imports to be free. It is a case-by-case screening with assessment, not a veto.

The Draft turns that import list into grounds for automatic exclusion from the internal market, and it does so WITHOUT carrying out the risk assessment that the rule of origin itself requires, and without weighing any criterion (Article 12.4 allows any of them to be "exclusionary"). The result is absurd: the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) - bred in captivity for over a century, not in any CITES Appendix or in the European list of invasive species - would be excluded from the LPAC merely for appearing on a list designed to control imports at ports and airports, even though it can be freely brought in from any other Member State. The same would happen with the chinchilla, the guppy or the Gouldian finch, species commonly found in aquariums and aviaries across Europe. The measure inverts the logic of its rule of origin: where that one assessed in order to permit, this one excludes without assessing.

5. THE RISKS INVOKED ARE ALREADY REGULATED BY THE UNION, AND NO ASSESSMENT IS PROVIDED

The notification message acknowledges that the measure affects trade and merely states that the obligations "are considered proportionate", without providing any risk assessment. But the precautionary principle justifies restrictions only where there is a real risk demonstrated with scientific data, and the burden of proving it lies with the State (Andibel judgment, C-219/07). Moreover, the risks it invokes are already covered by European legislation that assesses species by species:
- Invasive-species risk: Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014.
- Sanitary and disease risk: Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (Animal Health Law).
- Animal welfare: Article 13 TFEU and Article 4 of CETS 125.
A blanket species-based prohibition, superimposed on those frameworks and without a risk assessment, is neither necessary nor proportionate, and cannot be covered by Article 36 TFEU.

6. THE GREATEST OBSTACLE IS LEGAL UNCERTAINTY: NO ONE CAN KNOW WHICH RULE APPLIES

In Spain, each law must state expressly under which constitutional competence it is enacted; a competence that is not claimed is not deemed to have been exercised. Foreign trade belongs exclusively to the State under Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution, and it is by that route that Regulation (EC) No 338/97 is applied in Spain. Now, Article 32 of Law 7/2023 - which prohibits the keeping, breeding and trade of wild fauna in captivity - was NOT enacted under that Article 149.1.10 (the law reserved it solely to its Article 61). That is why Article 32 cannot prevent the breeding, sale or keeping of captive-bred animals that the European Regulation permits, and that is why the primacy of Union law is triggered: where a national rule conflicts with a directly applicable European regulation, the national rule must be disapplied (Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal judgments).

The Draft Royal Decree tries to fix this through the back door, by invoking Article 149.1.10 in its first final provision. But a regulation cannot claim a competence that its enabling law did not exercise (Article 9(3) of the Constitution; Article 128 of Law 39/2015). The result is that no one - neither the breeder, nor the buyer, nor the administration - can know with certainty what is permitted. Added to this is the internal incoherence of the text, which calls the same animal "domestic", "wild" or "wild in captivity" depending on which article is applied. For an operator in another Member State it is impossible to know whether an animal that is legal in the Union may be sold in Spain. That legal uncertainty is, in itself, a barrier to the internal market contrary to Article 26 TFEU.

7. FURTHERMORE, THE TEXT WAS NOTIFIED WITHOUT THE MANDATORY REPORTS

The notified text has not even completed its internal procedure: there is no record of the reports of the Autonomous Communities, of the ministries with economic and trade competence, of the Office for Regulatory Coordination and Quality, of the State Council for Animal Protection, or of the opinion of the Council of State that the Draft itself presupposes. The text is not final and may change substantially, and it is precisely the bodies that would have identified its impact on trade that have not reported.

8. I REQUEST

That this contribution be communicated to the Spanish authorities so that:
a) It be recognised that Article 32 of Law 7/2023 and its Royal Decree cannot restrict the keeping, breeding or trade of animals covered by Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, for lack of competence over foreign trade and by reason of the primacy of Union law.
b) The distinction between the wild-caught animal and the captive-bred one be recognised, in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Didier Vergy judgment, Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM(2022) 581 final).
c) Criterion (k) of Annex I be deleted or reformulated, as it turns an import-control list (RD 570/2020) into an internal-market veto without weighing or risk assessment.
d) The State be required to provide the risk assessment it asserts but does not supply, bearing in mind that those risks are already managed by Regulation (EU) 1143/2014, Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and the welfare obligations of Article 13 TFEU and CETS 125.
e) The incoherence with the definition of wild fauna in Article 3.5 of Law 8/2003 and with Article 465 of the Civil Code be corrected, so that the scope and the prohibitions are clear.
f) It be evidenced that the outstanding mandatory reports - in particular the opinion of the Council of State - have been issued, and the standstill period under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 be suspended until the unjustified restriction, the legal uncertainty and the procedural defect identified above have been remedied.

APORTACIÓN A LA NOTIFICACIÓN 2026/0351/ES (Notificación 28222) - Directiva (UE) 2015/1535
Proyecto de Real Decreto de desarrollo del Listado de Especies Domésticas de Compañía y el Listado Positivo de Animales de Compañía
Asunto: obstáculos al comercio en el mercado interior e inseguridad jurídica

Presento esta aportación como persona interesada en el marco del procedimiento de información en materia de reglamentaciones técnicas de la Directiva (UE) 2015/1535. A mi juicio, el proyecto de Real Decreto notificado —y la Ley 7/2023 que desarrolla— constituyen una traba al comercio de animales de compañía criados en cautividad, tanto por la restricción que imponen como por la grave inseguridad jurídica que generan, sin que las razones ofrecidas en el mensaje de notificación lo justifiquen.

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

El Listado Positivo de Animales de Compañía (LPAC) funciona como una lista de acceso al mercado: solo las especies incluidas pueden tenerse, criarse o comercializarse en España, y toda especie no incluida queda prohibida (artículo 10.11). Esta prohibición alcanza a los animales nacidos y criados en cautividad que se crían y venden legalmente en otros Estados miembros al amparo del Reglamento (CE) n.º 338/97. Es, por tanto, una medida de efecto equivalente a una restricción cuantitativa a la importación, contraria al artículo 34 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE), y fragmenta el mercado interior que garantiza el artículo 26 TFUE.

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

El Derecho de la Unión sí distingue entre ambos, y el proyecto lo ignora:
- El artículo 12.2 de la Directiva 92/43/CEE (Directiva Hábitats) limita la prohibición de posesión, transporte y venta a los "especímenes recogidos en la naturaleza", no a los nacidos en cautividad.
- El Tribunal de Justicia, en la sentencia Didier Vergy (C-149/94), diferenció los especímenes nacidos en cautividad de los recogidos en la naturaleza.
- El artículo 8.3 del Reglamento (CE) n.º 338/97 exceptúa expresamente del veto comercial a los animales nacidos y criados en cautividad con su documentación.
- El Tribunal de Justicia, en la sentencia Tridon (C-510/99), consideró desproporcionada una prohibición absoluta de comercializar animales nacidos en cautividad.

El proyecto, en cambio, prohíbe por igual según la especie, sin atender al origen del animal. Su preámbulo llega a afirmar que un animal criado en cautividad "no es un animal doméstico, sino habituado a la presencia del ser humano", lo que contradice el artículo 465 del Código Civil (tras la Ley 17/2021), que asimila los animales domesticados a los domésticos o de compañía.

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

- El Convenio CETS 125 y su artículo 4 no autorizan ninguna lista de especies: el artículo 4 regula las condiciones de bienestar del animal ya poseído, no qué especies pueden tenerse. El Convenio define al animal de compañía por su función, sin listas.
- La Resolución del Parlamento Europeo de 24 de noviembre de 2022 no es vinculante. Además, el propio Plan de Acción de la UE contra el tráfico de especies silvestres (COM(2022) 581 final), al que esa Resolución se remite, ciñe la eventual lista positiva a los "especímenes capturados en la naturaleza", confirmando la distinción que el proyecto borra.
- La afirmación de que las listas positivas son mejores que las negativas es una opinión, no un dato técnico. Varios Estados miembros usan listas negativas plenamente cautelares.
- El control del tráfico ilegal ya está regulado por el Reglamento (CE) n.º 338/97 y, en España, por el RD 7/2018. El listado no añade control y, en cambio, prohíbe animales nacidos en cautividad que esos instrumentos permiten.

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

El criterio k) del Anexo I excluye del LPAC a toda especie incluida en el Real Decreto 570/2020. Pero ese Real Decreto es una norma de control de la IMPORTACIÓN de especies alóctonas desde terceros países, dictada bajo la competencia de comercio exterior (artículo 149.1.10 de la Constitución). El propio Real Decreto reconoce expresamente en su exposición de motivos que "no aborda la importación de ejemplares que circulen libremente por el territorio de la UE, sino únicamente la de especies que proceden de terceros Estados". Es decir: cualquiera de esas especies puede traerse libremente a España desde un puerto alemán o portugués, y el RD 570/2020 lo admite. Nunca fue una barrera al comercio interior.

Además, figurar en esa lista ni siquiera implica una prohibición de importar: basta con que el análisis de riesgo de la primera importación sea favorable para que la especie se elimine de la lista y las importaciones posteriores queden libres. Es un cribado con evaluación caso por caso, no un veto.

El proyecto convierte esa lista de importación en causa de exclusión automática del mercado interior, y lo hace SIN realizar el análisis de riesgo que la propia norma de origen exige, y sin ponderar ningún criterio (el artículo 12.4 admite que cualquiera sea "excluyente"). El resultado es absurdo: el periquito australiano (Melopsittacus undulatus) —criado en cautividad desde hace más de un siglo, que no está en ningún Apéndice CITES ni en la lista europea de especies invasoras— quedaría excluido del LPAC solo por figurar en una lista pensada para controlar importaciones en puertos y aeropuertos, pese a poder introducirse libremente desde cualquier otro Estado miembro. Lo mismo ocurriría con la chinchilla, el guppy o el diamante de Gould, especies habituales de acuario y pajarera en toda Europa. La medida invierte la lógica de su norma de origen: donde aquella evaluaba para permitir, esta excluye sin evaluar.

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

El mensaje de notificación reconoce que la medida afecta al comercio y se limita a decir que las obligaciones "se consideran proporcionadas", sin aportar ninguna evaluación de riesgo. Pero el principio de precaución solo justifica restricciones ante un riesgo real y demostrado con datos científicos, y la carga de probarlo corresponde al Estado (sentencia Andibel, C-219/07). Además, los riesgos que invoca ya están cubiertos por normativa europea que evalúa especie por especie:
- Riesgo de especies invasoras: Reglamento (UE) n.º 1143/2014.
- Riesgo sanitario y de enfermedades: Reglamento (UE) 2016/429 (sanidad animal).
- Bienestar animal: artículo 13 TFUE y artículo 4 del CETS 125.
Una prohibición general por especie, superpuesta a esos marcos y sin evaluación de riesgo, no es necesaria ni proporcionada, y no puede ampararse en el artículo 36 TFUE.

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

En España, cada ley debe indicar expresamente bajo qué competencia constitucional se dicta; una competencia que no se reclama no se entiende ejercida. El comercio exterior corresponde en exclusiva al Estado por el artículo 149.1.10 de la Constitución, y es por esa vía como se aplica en España el Reglamento (CE) n.º 338/97. Pues bien, el artículo 32 de la Ley 7/2023 —que prohíbe la tenencia, cría y comercio de fauna silvestre en cautividad— NO se dictó bajo ese artículo 149.1.10 (la ley lo reservó solo a su artículo 61). Por eso ese artículo 32 no puede impedir la cría, venta ni tenencia de los animales nacidos en cautividad que el Reglamento europeo permite, y por eso se activa la primacía del Derecho de la Unión: donde una norma nacional choca con un reglamento europeo directamente aplicable, la norma nacional debe inaplicarse (sentencias Costa/ENEL y Simmenthal).

El proyecto de Real Decreto intenta arreglar esto por la puerta de atrás, invocando el artículo 149.1.10 en su disposición final primera. Pero un reglamento no puede reclamar una competencia que su ley no ejerció (artículo 9.3 de la Constitución; artículo 128 de la Ley 39/2015). El resultado es que nadie —ni el criador, ni el comprador, ni la administración— puede saber con seguridad qué está permitido. A ello se suma la incoherencia interna del texto, que llama a un mismo animal "doméstico", "silvestre" o "silvestre en cautividad" según el artículo que se aplique. Para un operador de otro Estado miembro es imposible saber si su animal, legal en la Unión, puede venderse en España. Esa inseguridad jurídica es, por sí sola, un obstáculo al mercado interior contrario al artículo 26 TFUE.

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

El texto notificado ni siquiera ha completado su tramitación interna: no constan los informes de las comunidades autónomas, de los ministerios con competencia económica y comercial, de la Oficina de Coordinación y Calidad Normativa, del Consejo Estatal de Protección Animal, ni el dictamen del Consejo de Estado que el propio proyecto da por supuesto. El texto no es definitivo y puede cambiar de forma sustancial, y precisamente los órganos que habrían advertido su impacto sobre el comercio son los que no han informado.

8. SOLICITO

Que se traslade esta aportación a las autoridades españolas para que:
a) Se reconozca que el artículo 32 de la Ley 7/2023 y su Real Decreto no pueden restringir la tenencia, cría ni comercio de los animales amparados por el artículo 8.3 del Reglamento (CE) n.º 338/97, por falta de competencia sobre comercio exterior y por primacía del Derecho de la Unión.
b) Se reconozca la distinción entre el animal capturado en la naturaleza y el nacido en cautividad, conforme al artículo 12.2 de la Directiva 92/43/CEE, a la sentencia Didier Vergy, al artículo 8.3 del Reglamento (CE) n.º 338/97 y al Plan de Acción de la UE contra el tráfico de especies silvestres (COM(2022) 581 final).
c) Se suprima o reformule el criterio k) del Anexo I, que convierte una lista de control de importaciones (RD 570/2020) en un veto de mercado interior sin ponderación ni evaluación de riesgo.
d) Se exija al Estado la evaluación de riesgo que afirma pero no aporta, teniendo en cuenta que esos riesgos ya se gestionan por el Reglamento (UE) 1143/2014, el Reglamento (UE) 2016/429 y las obligaciones de bienestar del artículo 13 TFUE y del CETS 125.
e) Se corrija la incoherencia con la definición de fauna silvestre del artículo 3.5 de la Ley 8/2003 y con el artículo 465 del Código Civil, para que el ámbito y las prohibiciones sean claros.
f) Se acredite que se han emitido los informes obligatorios pendientes —en especial el dictamen del Consejo de Estado— y se suspenda el plazo de statu quo previsto en la Directiva (UE) 2015/1535 hasta que se corrijan la restricción injustificada, la inseguridad jurídica y el defecto de tramitación señalados.

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

CONTRIBUTION TO NOTIFICATION 2026/0351/ES (Notification 28222) - Directive (EU) 2015/1535
Draft Royal Decree developing the List of Domestic Companion Animal Species and the Positive List of Companion Animals
Subject: barriers to trade in the internal market and legal uncertainty

I submit this contribution as an interested person within the procedure for the provision of information on technical regulations under Directive (EU) 2015/1535. In my view, the notified Draft Royal Decree - and Law 7/2023 which it implements - constitute a barrier to trade in captive-bred companion animals, both through the restriction they impose and through the serious legal uncertainty they generate, and the reasons given in the notification message do not justify them.

1. THE MEASURE CLOSES THE SPANISH MARKET TO ANIMALS LAWFULLY TRADED IN THE UNION

The Positive List of Companion Animals (LPAC) works as a market-access list: only listed species may be kept, bred or traded in Spain, and any non-listed species is prohibited (Article 10(11)). This prohibition reaches animals born and bred in captivity that are lawfully bred and sold in other Member States under Regulation (EC) No 338/97. It is therefore a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and it fragments the internal market guaranteed by Article 26 TFEU.

2. THE PROHIBITION DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE WILD-CAUGHT ANIMAL AND THE CAPTIVE-BRED ONE

Union law does distinguish between the two, and the Draft ignores this:
- Article 12(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) limits the prohibition of keeping, transport and sale to "specimens taken in the wild", not to captive-bred ones.
- The Court of Justice, in Didier Vergy (C-149/94), distinguished captive-bred specimens from those taken in the wild.
- Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 expressly derogates from the commercial ban for animals born and bred in captivity with their documentation.
- The Court of Justice, in Tridon (C-510/99), held that an absolute ban on trading captive-bred animals is disproportionate.

The Draft, by contrast, prohibits alike on the basis of the species, without regard to the origin of the animal. Its recitals even state that an animal bred in captivity "is not a domestic animal, but merely habituated to human presence", which contradicts Article 465 of the Civil Code (as amended by Law 17/2021), which assimilates domesticated animals to domestic or companion animals.

3. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE NOTIFICATION MESSAGE DO NOT WITHSTAND ANALYSIS

- The CETS 125 Convention and its Article 4 do not authorise any list of species: Article 4 governs the welfare conditions of an animal already kept, not which species may be kept. The Convention defines a companion animal by its function, without lists.
- The European Parliament Resolution of 24 November 2022 is not binding. Moreover, the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM(2022) 581 final), to which that Resolution refers, confines any positive list to "specimens taken from the wild", confirming the very distinction that the Draft erases.
- The claim that positive lists are better than negative ones is an opinion, not a technical fact. Several Member States use negative lists that are fully precautionary.
- The control of illegal trafficking is already regulated by Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and, in Spain, by RD 7/2018. The list adds nothing to that control and instead prohibits captive-bred animals that those instruments permit.

4. A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRITERION: THE RD 570/2020 LIST TURNED INTO A MARKET VETO

Criterion (k) of Annex I excludes from the LPAC any species included in Royal Decree 570/2020. But that Royal Decree is a rule for controlling the IMPORTATION of non-native species from third countries, enacted under the foreign-trade competence (Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution). The Royal Decree itself expressly acknowledges in its recitals that it "does not address the importation of specimens circulating freely within EU territory, but only that of species coming from third States". In other words: any of those species may be freely brought into Spain from a German or Portuguese port, and RD 570/2020 admits it. It was never a barrier to internal trade.

Moreover, appearing on that list does not even entail a ban on importing: it is enough for the risk analysis of the first importation to be favourable for the species to be removed from the list and subsequent imports to be free. It is a case-by-case screening with assessment, not a veto.

The Draft turns that import list into grounds for automatic exclusion from the internal market, and it does so WITHOUT carrying out the risk assessment that the rule of origin itself requires, and without weighing any criterion (Article 12.4 allows any of them to be "exclusionary"). The result is absurd: the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) - bred in captivity for over a century, not in any CITES Appendix or in the European list of invasive species - would be excluded from the LPAC merely for appearing on a list designed to control imports at ports and airports, even though it can be freely brought in from any other Member State. The same would happen with the chinchilla, the guppy or the Gouldian finch, species commonly found in aquariums and aviaries across Europe. The measure inverts the logic of its rule of origin: where that one assessed in order to permit, this one excludes without assessing.

5. THE RISKS INVOKED ARE ALREADY REGULATED BY THE UNION, AND NO ASSESSMENT IS PROVIDED

The notification message acknowledges that the measure affects trade and merely states that the obligations "are considered proportionate", without providing any risk assessment. But the precautionary principle justifies restrictions only where there is a real risk demonstrated with scientific data, and the burden of proving it lies with the State (Andibel judgment, C-219/07). Moreover, the risks it invokes are already covered by European legislation that assesses species by species:
- Invasive-species risk: Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014.
- Sanitary and disease risk: Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (Animal Health Law).
- Animal welfare: Article 13 TFEU and Article 4 of CETS 125.
A blanket species-based prohibition, superimposed on those frameworks and without a risk assessment, is neither necessary nor proportionate, and cannot be covered by Article 36 TFEU.

6. THE GREATEST OBSTACLE IS LEGAL UNCERTAINTY: NO ONE CAN KNOW WHICH RULE APPLIES

In Spain, each law must state expressly under which constitutional competence it is enacted; a competence that is not claimed is not deemed to have been exercised. Foreign trade belongs exclusively to the State under Article 149.1.10 of the Constitution, and it is by that route that Regulation (EC) No 338/97 is applied in Spain. Now, Article 32 of Law 7/2023 - which prohibits the keeping, breeding and trade of wild fauna in captivity - was NOT enacted under that Article 149.1.10 (the law reserved it solely to its Article 61). That is why Article 32 cannot prevent the breeding, sale or keeping of captive-bred animals that the European Regulation permits, and that is why the primacy of Union law is triggered: where a national rule conflicts with a directly applicable European regulation, the national rule must be disapplied (Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal judgments).

The Draft Royal Decree tries to fix this through the back door, by invoking Article 149.1.10 in its first final provision. But a regulation cannot claim a competence that its enabling law did not exercise (Article 9(3) of the Constitution; Article 128 of Law 39/2015). The result is that no one - neither the breeder, nor the buyer, nor the administration - can know with certainty what is permitted. Added to this is the internal incoherence of the text, which calls the same animal "domestic", "wild" or "wild in captivity" depending on which article is applied. For an operator in another Member State it is impossible to know whether an animal that is legal in the Union may be sold in Spain. That legal uncertainty is, in itself, a barrier to the internal market contrary to Article 26 TFEU.

7. FURTHERMORE, THE TEXT WAS NOTIFIED WITHOUT THE MANDATORY REPORTS

The notified text has not even completed its internal procedure: there is no record of the reports of the Autonomous Communities, of the ministries with economic and trade competence, of the Office for Regulatory Coordination and Quality, of the State Council for Animal Protection, or of the opinion of the Council of State that the Draft itself presupposes. The text is not final and may change substantially, and it is precisely the bodies that would have identified its impact on trade that have not reported.

8. I REQUEST

That this contribution be communicated to the Spanish authorities so that:
a) It be recognised that Article 32 of Law 7/2023 and its Royal Decree cannot restrict the keeping, breeding or trade of animals covered by Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, for lack of competence over foreign trade and by reason of the primacy of Union law.
b) The distinction between the wild-caught animal and the captive-bred one be recognised, in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Didier Vergy judgment, Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM(2022) 581 final).
c) Criterion (k) of Annex I be deleted or reformulated, as it turns an import-control list (RD 570/2020) into an internal-market veto without weighing or risk assessment.
d) The State be required to provide the risk assessment it asserts but does not supply, bearing in mind that those risks are already managed by Regulation (EU) 1143/2014, Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and the welfare obligations of Article 13 TFEU and CETS 125.
e) The incoherence with the definition of wild fauna in Article 3.5 of Law 8/2003 and with Article 465 of the Civil Code be corrected, so that the scope and the prohibitions are clear.
f) It be evidenced that the outstanding mandatory reports - in particular the opinion of the Council of State - have been issued, and the standstill period under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 be suspended until the unjustified restriction, the legal uncertainty and the procedural defect identified above have been remedied.

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

1. LA MEDIDA CIERRA EL MERCADO ESPAÑOL A ANIMALES QUE SE COMERCIALIZAN LÍCITAMENTE EN LA UNIÓN

2. LA PROHIBICIÓN NO DISTINGUE ENTRE EL ANIMAL CAPTURADO EN LA NATURALEZA Y EL NACIDO EN CAUTIVIDAD

3. LAS RAZONES DEL MENSAJE DE NOTIFICACIÓN NO SE SOSTIENEN

4. UN CRITERIO ESPECIALMENTE GRAVE: LA LISTA DEL RD 570/2020 CONVERTIDA EN VETO DE MERCADO

5. LOS RIESGOS QUE SE INVOCAN YA ESTÁN REGULADOS POR LA UNIÓN, Y NO SE APORTA NINGUNA EVALUACIÓN

6. EL MAYOR OBSTÁCULO ES LA INSEGURIDAD JURÍDICA: NADIE PUEDE SABER QUÉ NORMA SE APLICA

7. ADEMÁS, EL TEXTO SE HA NOTIFICADO SIN LOS INFORMES OBLIGATORIOS

8. SOLICITO

Subject: Observation and critical contribution regarding TRIS Notification 2026/0351/ES – Draft Royal Decree on the Positive List of companion animals.

As a private citizen and European herpetoculturist, I wish to express my formal opposition to the approach of the Draft Royal Decree notified by Spain, with particular reference to the restrictive criteria applied to the class Reptilia and, specifically, to the order Serpentes (Snakes).

Main Arguments:

Damage to the conservation of biodiversity and genetic variability:
Imposing rigid rules and arbitrary exclusion thresholds (such as the 2 kg adult weight limit) precludes the keeping and captive breeding of many harmless snake species that have been stably and regularly bred for decades. At a historical moment when natural habitats are severely compromised by deforestation and climate change, responsible private breeding represents an irreplaceable "genetic bank" and a concrete opportunity for ex situ conservation.
The irreplaceable role of private herpetoculture compared to public institutions:
Official or commercial facilities such as zoos, aquariums, and wildlife parks—however commendable—are bound by business logic, reduced budgets, and limited space. Consequently, they cannot numerically and quantitatively ensure the conservation of such a broad range of species. The widespread network of private breeders and hobbyists, driven by passion and deep specialization, achieves annual results in terms of reproducibility, genetic diversity, and animal welfare that are unattainable for public institutions alone.
Need for regulation, not prohibition:
Restricting or banning the activity of responsible hobbyists does not protect nature; rather, it risks extinguishing bloodlines bred exclusively in captivity (captive-bred), paradoxically increasing the risks of a black market. Therefore, I request that generalized bans be replaced with proportionate regulation based on traceability and compliance with real ethological standards, eliminating arbitrary exclusion criteria and recognizing herpetoculture as a fundamental resource for the safeguarding of species.