Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:528
Date: 2009-09-10
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Veterinary legislation
Concepts: General;Animal welfare
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Greece

summary of an inspection report, and set a new time-limit of the end of February 2004 for carrying out the inspection. In September 2004, the ministry asked the competent authorities in each of the prefectures to inform it by 27 September 2004 of the results of the inspections carried out, but by the end of mission No 7273/2004, which lasted from 4 to 8 October 2004, the competent authorities in 50% of the prefectures had still not produced the results of the inspections. 166. It is then apparent from point 5.7 of mission report No 8042/2006 that the time-limits set for producing the inspection results were extended over and over again and that the time-limit was finally set as 30 July 2005. During mission No 7273/2004, which lasted from 21 February to 1 March 2006, the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food indicated that the competent authorities in 38 of the 54 prefectures had undertaken the inspection in slaughterhouses. It is therefore apparent from that mission report that an inspection was carried out in 70.37% of prefectures, but not in 29.63%. 167. In my opinion, it is possible to find, on the basis of those data, that the plea by which the Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not undertake an inspection in slaughterhouses and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 93/119 is well founded. 168. Firstly, it is apparent from the aforementioned data that the Hellenic Republic did not ensure that an effective inspection was carried out in slaughterhouses, since the time-limits for implementing the inspections were being extended over and over again and the competent authorities did not carry out those inspections within the prescribed time frames. Secondly, after many extensions of the time-limit or, to be more precise, after more than four years had elapsed since the time-limit first set of the end of 2001, the competent authorities in just 70.37% of the prefectures had carried out inspections. Those facts prove that the Greek authorities developed a consistent practice of not carrying out inspections in slaughterhouses. 169. So far as the lack of cooperation by the Greek authorities with the FVO inspectors is concerned, it is to be noted that Article 8 of Directive 93/119 gives rise to no obligation to cooperate with the FVO inspectors. (81) Moreover, the Commission indicated at the hearing that it did not allege lack of cooperation by the Greek authorities as a specific plea. (82) 170. In my view, it must, therefore, be held that, by not taking the measures necessary to ensure inspections and controls in slaughterhouses, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 93/119. c) Outcome of the analysis 171. On the basis of the above reasoning, I am of the opinion that, by not adopting the measures necessary to ensure inspections and controls in slaughterhouses, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 93/119. 4. Outcome of the analysis of the pleas in law concerning the protection of animals at the time of slaughter 172. On the basis of the analysis of the pleas in law concerning the protection of animals at the time of slaughter, I am of the opinion that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the rules relating to the stunning of animals during slaughter, and to ensure inspections and controls in slaughterhouses, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 6(1) and 8 of Directive 93/119. D – Costs 173. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. However, under the first subparagraph of Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order the parties to bear their own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, or where the circumstances are exceptional. 174. In this case, the Commission’s action has been only partially successful, and I therefore suggest that the Court should order that the Commission and the Hellenic Republic bear their own costs. VI – Conclusion 175. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should: (1) declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary: – to ensure the provision of rest facilities for animals after unloading, in the ports or in their immediate vicinity, and – to ensure that inspections of means of transport and animals during transport by road are actually carried out, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under point 48.7(b) of Chapter VII of the Annex to and point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995; (2) declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary: – to ensure compliance with the rules relating to the stunning of animals at the time of slaughter, and – to ensure inspections and controls in slaughterhouses, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing; (3) dismiss the remainder of the action; (4) order the Commission of the European Communities and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. 1 – Original language: Slovene. 2 – OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17. 3 – OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1. 4 – OJ 1993 L 340, p. 21. 5 – In its claims and throughout the grounds of its action, the Commission refers to ‘point 7(b)’ of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628, but that reference is not entirely correct since that provision comes under point 48 of that annex, headed ‘Watering and feeding interval, journey times and resting periods’. Consequently, the reference to ‘point [48.]7(b)’ of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 is entirely correct. That mode of citation of that annex is also found in the Court’s case-law; see, for example, Case C‑300/05 ZVK [2006] ECR I‑11169, paragraph 1, and Case C‑277/06 Interboves [2008] ECR I‑7433, paragraph 1. In this Opinion, instead of referring to ‘point 7(b)’, I shall therefore employ the more accurate reference of ‘point 48.7(b)’ of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628. 6 – The protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter under Community law reflects the general effort directed by the Community towards the protection and welfare of animals. Thus, under Protocol 33 on protection and welfare of animals, which, pursuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam, was annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Member States, ‘desiring to ensure improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings’, agreed upon the following provision, which is to be annexed to the EC Treaty: ‘In formulating and implementing the Community’s agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, the Community and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage’. It should be added that, as part of the efforts directed towards the protection of animals, the Community has also acceded to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport, which was adopted within the framework of the Council of Europe. The Community acceded to it by Council Decision 2004/544/EC of 21 June 2004 on the signing of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport (revised) (OJ 2004 L 241, p. 21). 7 – Wilkins, D.B. (ed.), Animal Welfare in Europe. European Legislation and Concerns, Kluwer Law International, London, The Hague, Boston, 1997, p. 4, points out that the transport of live animals from one Member State to another influences the spread of diseases within the Community. 8 – In that regard, it should be added that much is also said in that public debate about ‘animal rights’ and not only about the protection of animals. See, to that effect, Brooman, S. and Legge, D., ‘Animal transportation’, New Law Journal Practitioner, No 6706/1995, p. 1131. 9 – See the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006-10 (COM (2006) 13 final). Among the main areas of action identified, the action plan places particular emphasis on upgrading existing minimum standards for animal protection and welfare, but also on continuing to support international initiatives to raise awareness and create a greater consensus on animal welfare. 10 – In the literature, to this effect, for example, Marguenaud, J.-P., ‘Arrêt “Danske Svineproducenter”: la protection communautaire des animaux transportés’, Journal de droit européen, No 151/2008, p. 206. Similarly, Nentwich, M., ‘Die Bedeutung des EG-Rechts für den Tierschutz’, in Harrer, F. and Graf, G. (eds), Tierschutz und Recht, Orac, Vienna, 1994, p. 87, notes that the Community is very active in the field of animal protection, an area in which it has adopted numerous provisions. Caspar, J., Zur Stellung des Tieres im Gemeinschaftsrecht, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2001, p. 89, notes that some fundamental questions of animal protection are governed by Community law. Bowles, D. and Fisher, C., ‘Trade Liberalisation in Agriculture: The Likely Implications for European Farm Animal Welfare’, in Bilal, S. and Pezaros, P. (eds), Negotiating the Future of Agricultural Policies: Agricultural Trade and the Millennium WTO Round, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000, p. 202, point out that standards of animal protection in the European Union are usually higher than standards in the countries competing with it. 11 – See, for example, Case C‑387/99 Commission v Germany [2004] ECR I-3751, paragraph 42; Case C-494/01 Commission v Ireland [2005] ECR I-3331, paragraph 28; Case C-278/03 Commission v Italy [2005] ECR I-3747, paragraph 13; and Case C-441/02 Commission v Germany [2006] ECR I-3449, paragraph 47. In the literature, see, for example, Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., Maselis, I. and Bray, R., Procedural Law of the European Union, 2nd edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2006, p. 132, point 5-008; Karpenstein, P. and Karpenstein, U., in Grabitz, E., Hilf, M. and Nettesheim, M. (eds), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, Beck, Munich, 2008, commentary on Article 226, point 25. 12 – See, for example, Case C‑387/99 Commission v Germany, paragraph 42, and Commission v Ireland, paragraph 28, cited above in footnote 11; Case C-287/03 Commission v Belgium [2005] ECR I-3761, paragraph 29; Case C‑441/02 Commission v Germany, cited above in footnote 11, paragraph 50; and Case C-135/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I-3475, paragraph 21. 13 – See, for example, Commission v Ireland, cited above in footnote 11, paragraphs 46 and 47, and Commission v Italy, cited above in footnote 12, paragraph 32. 14 – See Article 33 of Regulation No 1/2005, which provides inter alia that Directive 91/628 is to be repealed from 5 January 2007 and that references to the repealed directive are to be construed as references to Regulation No 1/2005. 15 – See point 6 of the Commission’s reply, in which it indicates precisely when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion for the fulfilment of the obligations expired. In point 11 of its reply, it also explains that point 39 of its application incorrectly states that the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion for the fulfilment of the obligations expired in November 2006. 16 – See Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989, paragraph 42; Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraph 32; and Case C‑377/03 Commission v Belgium [2006] ECR I-9733, paragraph 33. In the literature, see, for example, Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., Maselis, I. and Bray, R., Procedural Law of the European Union, cited above in footnote 11, p. 159, point 5‑052; Rideau, J. and Picod, F., Code des procédures juridictionnelles de l’Union européenne, 2nd edition, Litec, Paris, 2002, p. 175; Karpenstein, P. and Karpenstein, U., in Grabitz, E., Hilf, M. and Nettesheim, M. (eds), Das Recht der Europäischen Union, cited above in footnote 11, commentary on Article 226, point 17. 17 – See Commission v Italy, cited above in footnote 16, paragraph 36; Case C‑363/00 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-5767, paragraph 22; Commission v Belgium, cited above in footnote 16, paragraph 34. See also my Opinion in Case C‑275/07 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I‑0000, point 73. In the literature, see, for example, Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., Maselis, I. and Bray, R., Procedural Law of the European Union, cited above in footnote 11, p. 158, point 5-048. 18 – See Case C‑363/00 Commission v Italy, cited above in footnote 17, paragraph 22, and Commission v Belgium, cited above in footnote 16, paragraph 34. See also the Opinion in Case C‑275/07 Commission v Italy, cited above in footnote 17, point 73. 19 – Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1/2005 further specifies that these are the authorisations referred to in Article 10(1) or Article 11(1) of that regulation. Article 10(1) of that regulation lays down requirements for transporter authorisation, while Article 11(1) lays down requirements for long-journey transporter authorisations. 20 – Article 13(4) of Regulation No 1/2005 further provides that the transporter’s name and authorisation number are to be made publicly available during the period of validity of the authorisation; public access to other data in relation to transporters’ authorisations is to be granted by Member States in accordance with Community and/or national rules regarding privacy protection; the database is also to include decisions notified under Article 26(4)(c) and (6). 21 – Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1/2005 provides that the competent authority is to grant authorisations to transporters provided that the applicants are established, or in the case of applicants established in a third country, are represented, in the Member State where they apply for authorisation; if the applicants have demonstrated that they have sufficient and appropriate staff, equipment and operational procedures at their disposal to enable them to comply with the regulation, including where appropriate good practice guides; and if they have no record of serious infringements of Community legislation and/or national legislation on the protection of animals in the three years preceding the date of the application except where the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the competent authority that it has taken all necessary measures to avoid further infringements. 22 – Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1/2005 provides that the competent authority is to grant authorisations to transporters provided that they comply with the provisions of Article 10(1) and have submitted valid certificates of competence for drivers and attendants; valid certificates of approval for all means of transport by road to be used for long journeys; details of the procedures enabling transporters to trace and record the movements of road vehicles under their responsibility and to contact the drivers concerned at any time during long journeys; and contingency plans in the event of emergencies. 23 – See, for example, Case C-157/94 Commission v Netherlands [1997] ECR I-5699, paragraph 59; Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 27; Commission v Ireland, cited above in footnote 11, paragraph 41; Case C‑490/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I‑6095, paragraph 48; and Case C‑189/07 Commission v Spain [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 82. In the literature, see, with regard to the burden of proof resting upon the Commission, for example, Cremer, W., in Calliess, C. and Ruffert, M. (eds), EUV/EGV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar, 3rd edition, Beck, Munich, 2007, p. 1991, point 33, who observes that an action is well founded if the facts relied on by the Commission are correct and if it is apparent from those facts that there has been a breach of Community law which must be attributed to the defendant Member State; it is for the Commission to prove the existence of those facts. Eberhard, G. and Riedl, E., in Mayer, H. (ed.), Kommentar zu EU- und EG-Vertrag, Manz, Vienna, 2005, commentary on Article 226, point 76, point out that, in accordance with settled case-law, the Commission carries the burden of proof with respect to breaches of Community law. 24 – In that regard, see, for example, Case 272/86 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 4875, paragraph 21, Case C-119/04 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-6885, paragraph 41, and Case C‑82/06 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I-83, paragraph 35; see also point 35 of my Opinion in Case C-265/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I‑2245. 25 – It is also apparent from this point of the report that the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food asked the competent local authorities to send those lists to it by 20 June 2005. However, the remainder of the report, where it is indicated that those lists were available, does not make clear whether or not the competent local authorities discharged that obligation. 26 – See point 8 of the defence. 27 – See point 8 of the rejoinder. 28 – In that regard, it should be mentioned that, whenever the Court has found a failure to fulfil obligations under Community law due to an administrative practice in a particular Member State, it has based its judgment on very specific data relating to the number of instances in practice in which the Community provisions had not been complied with; see, for example, the judgment of 6 October 2005 in Case C-502/03 Commission v Greece, paragraph 8, and Case C‑423/05 Commission v France [2007] ECR I‑47, paragraph 12. 29 – See, to that effect, Case C‑387/99 Commission v Germany, cited above in footnote 11, paragraph 42; Commission v Ireland, cited above in footnote 11, paragraph 28; Commission v Belgium, cited above in footnote 12, paragraph 29; Case C‑441/02 Commission v Germany, cited above in footnote 11, paragraph 50; and Commission v Italy, cited above in footnote 12, paragraph 21. 30 – See point 7 of the defence. 31 – See point 43 of the application. 32 – Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628 does admittedly contain the obligation to inspect means of transport and animals during transport by road but, in the context of this plea, the Commission relies only on points (b) and (d) of the first paragraph of Article 8 of that directive. See point 49 of the application. 33 – Article 9 of Directive 91/628 further provides that the destination and use of the carcases of these animals are to be governed by the provisions laid down in Directive 64/433/EEC (Council directive of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (OJ, English Special Edition 1963–-1964 (I), p. 185)). That article also provides that any measure taken pursuant to the second subparagraph is to be notified by the competent authority by the Animo network according to the procedures, including financial procedures, to be established according to the procedure provided for in Article 17. 34 – In its application, the Commission does not expressly rely on this point of mission report No 7273/2004, but I cite its content because that point is important in the context of this plea. 35 – For example, in the prefecture of Larissa, overlong journey times were stated in numerous route plans and, in the prefecture of Phthiotis, important information was missing from route plans. 36 – The Commission also relies on point 5.3 of mission report No 7273/2004 from which, it claims, it is apparent that the checking of route plans was carried out only in one of the four prefectures inspected: the prefecture of Phthiotis. But what the Commission claims, namely that the checking of route plans was carried out only in that prefecture, is not stated in that point of the report; rather, what it states is that, in the prefecture of Phthiotis, transporters’ written undertakings relating to the plans of their usual routes were verified. 37 – See point 77 of this Opinion. 38 – With regard to the correct mode of citation of point 48.7(b) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628, see footnote 5 to this Opinion. 39 – [This footnote concerns only the Slovene version of the Opinion.] 40 – For more details in this regard, see, point 97 of this Opinion. 41 – In the literature, with regard to the maximum journey times for animals, Radford, M., ‘Animal passions, animal welfare and European policy making’, in Craig, P.and Harlow, C. (eds), Lawmaking in the European Union, Kluwer Law International, London, 1998, p. 424, points out that the positions of the Member States on this question were very diverse at the time of the adoption of Directive 91/628. 42 – See point [48.]2 of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628. 43 – For the precise provisions on the additional requirements to be met by vehicles, see point [48.]3 of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628. 44 – See point [48.]4(b) and (c) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628. 45 – See point [48.]4(d) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628. 46 – In practice, account will also have to be taken of the fact that it is often difficult to ensure rest at the time when the maximum journey time allowed for a particular animal species expires; if, for example, the transport of pigs by sea takes 23 hours and the unloading takes half an hour, it will have to be ensured that the rest facility for the animals is situated in the immediate vicinity of the port. In addition, account must be taken of the Court’s ruling in ZVK, cited above in footnote 5: transport includes the time taken to load and unload the animals; the total journey time is thereby further extended. 47 – Cited above in footnote 5. 48 – See Interboves, cited above in footnote 5, paragraph 30. See also point 33 of the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Interboves, from which it is clear that a rest period of one hour during transport by sea is redundant. 49 – Interboves, cited above in footnote 5, paragraph 32. 50 – They concern the following decisions imposing fines: No 1537 of 17 March 2006, No 2324 of 19 April 2007, No 5505 of 24 September2007, No 1556 of 23 August 2006, No 16 of 8 January 2007 and No 2961 of 2 October 2006. The documents proving the initiation of mutual assistance procedures with other Member States are: No 308252 of 25 September 2006, No 308313 of 14 November 2006, No 261133 of 7 March 2007, No 304840 of 12 June 2007, No 304908 of 24 July 2007 and No 304856 of 25 June 2007. 51 – That article further provides that the competent authorities are to check such compliance in accordance with the principles and rules of control laid down in Directive 90/425/EEC (Council directive of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29)). 52 – That article further provides that the proportions are to be determined in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1/2005. 53 – Article 27(2) of Regulation No 1/2005 could be equivalent to the third paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628, but the Commission does not refer to it. 54 – Point 5.5 of mission report No 7273/2004 does not indicate the nature of these measures. 55 – See point 16 of the defence. 56 – See point 118 of this Opinion. 57 – As regards the unfoundedness of that part of the plea relating to the failure to fulfil the obligations arising under point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628, see point 83 of this Opinion; as to the unfoundedness of that part of the plea relating to the failure to fulfil the obligations arising under point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628, see point 84 of this Opinion. 58 – In that regard, I would add that the Greek Government’s argument that, in order to find an infringement of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628, it is necessary to prove the total absence of inspection of means of transport and animals and that the competent authorities enjoy unfettered discretion when determining how and where those inspections are to be carried out cannot be accepted. The types of inspection listed in points (a) to (d) of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628 are cumulative, and not alternative, in nature and, by carrying out only one type of inspection, Member States do not discharge all their obligations under the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 91/628. 59 – See Wilkins, D.B. (ed.), Animal Welfare in Europe. European Legislation and Concerns, cited above in footnote 7, pp. 3 and 4. 60 – The two cases cited are: (1) an administrative fine of EUR 2 935 for infringement of Directive 91/628, which was imposed on 17 March 2006 in the prefecture of Achaea for overloading a vehicle and lack of space for the animals to be able to remain in their natural position; and (2) an administrative fine of EUR 1 000 for infringement of Directive 91/628, which was imposed on 23 August 2006 for an inadequate watering system for cattle and a faulty device for watering sheep. 61 – See, to that effect, Case C-384/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-3823, paragraph 35; Case C-152/98 Commission v Netherlands [2001] ECR I-3463, paragraph 21; Case C-423/00 Commission v Belgium [2002] ECR I-593, paragraph 14; Case C-350/02 Commission v Netherlands [2004] ECR I-6213, paragraph 31; Case C-254/05 Commission v Belgium [2007] ECR I-4269, paragraph 39; Case C‑152/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I‑39, paragraph 15; and Case C‑265/06 Commission v Portugal, cited above in footnote 24, paragraph 25. 62 – See footnote 60 to this Opinion. 63 – At the hearing, the Hellenic Republic stated that the infringements had indeed been found before the expiry of the period which had been prescribed in the reasoned opinion for it to fulfil its obligations, but it adduced no evidence to support that assertion; consequently, it is impossible, in my view, to accept that assertion. 64 – The Greek Government refers to the decisions imposing fines cited in footnote 50 to this Opinion. 65 – That article further provides that the Member States are to notify those provisions, as well as provisions for the application of Article 26 of the regulation, to the Commission by 5 July 2006 at the latest and notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them. 66 – That article further provides that such prohibition is possible only if all the possibilities afforded by mutual assistance and exchange of information as provided for in Article 24 of the regulation have been exhausted. Article 24(1) of the regulation provides that the rules and information procedures set out in Council Directive 89/608/EEC of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters (OJ 1989 L 351, p. 34) are to apply for the purposes of the regulation, whereas Article 24(2) provides that each Member State is to communicate details of a contact point for the purposes of the regulation to the Commission, including, where available, an electronic address, within three months of the date of entry into force of the regulation as well as any update of such data. The Commission is to forward details of the contact point to the other Member States within the framework of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. 67 – A fine of EUR 3 000 to EUR 15 000 is provided for in the case of infringement of the rules on the protection of animals during transport, together with suspension or withdrawal of the transport authorisation, whereas a fine of EUR 1 500 to EUR 3 000 is provided for in the case of an infringement of the rules on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter. 68 – Those irregularities included, for example, a cargo of 2 345 pigs from the Netherlands, 184 of which were dead on arrival, while 150 were in a weak state. The competent local authority notified the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food which in turn notified the competent Dutch authorities and the Commission. 69 – In that regard, point 5.4.3 of mission report No 8042/2006 does not state what the other form of penalty was. 70 – This information is taken from the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing (COM(2008) 553 final, p. 3). 71 – See point 1(A) of Annex C to Directive 93/119. 72 – Thus, for example, Wilkins, D.B. (ed.), Animal Welfare in Europe. European Legislation and Concerns, cited above in footnote 7, p. 3, notes that, on the basis of the research carried out into stunning methods, much more is known about, for example, the quantity of electric current needed for the animal to lose consciousness, the manufacture of captive bolt pistols and the use of carbon dioxide to stun pigs. 73 – Proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing, cited in footnote 70, p. 3. 74 – More specifically, in that slaughterhouse, there were no restraining straps for the stunning of animals, no screens displaying the voltage or current, no spare stunning equipment, and the tongs used to administer electric shocks were not properly cleaned. 75 – These irregularities included ineffective stunning of cattle, insufficient maintenance and cleaning of tethering equipment, insufficient maintenance of the equipment for the stunning of all animal species, malfunctioning of the captive bolt pistol and non-functioning of the electrical equipment for the stunning of sheep, in addition to which there was no suitable spare stunning equipment available. 76 – In one of the three slaughterhouses visited in the prefecture of Serres, the area for sick animals was inadequate and there was an uncovered manhole; in addition, the watering installations were not working. In the second slaughterhouse, the equipment for the stunning of small ruminants was unsuitable. In the poultry slaughterhouse, crude and unsuitable equipment for shackling the poultry was discovered, the water in the waterbath used to stun the poultry was overflowing. During stunning, the amperage was too low, with the result that the poultry were not effectively stunned. 77 – In the two slaughterhouses which were visited in the prefecture of Thesprotia, the FVO inspectors discovered unsuitable stunning equipment, the absence of spare stunning equipment, poor maintenance of the animal rest facilities and no facilities for watering the animals. In one of the two slaughterhouses, slaughter was recorded at a later time than that at which it was actually carried out, because, on the date when slaughter was carried out, authorisation had not been issued. 78 – In the prefecture of Messinia, the FVO inspectors discovered overlong intervals between stunning and slaughter and the absence of spare stunning equipment. 79 – At a relatively new slaughterhouse in the prefecture of Laconia, the FVO inspectors found that there were overlong intervals between the stunning and slaughter of pigs, the captive bolt pistol was inadequately maintained and that the measuring device for the electrical stunning of animals did not work. 80 – In the prefecture of Elis, it was found that the time elapsing in the slaughterhouse between stunning and killing was too long, and that the screen on the device for measuring current was not displaying correct data. 81 – Such an obligation to cooperate could be inferred, at the most, from Article 14(3) of that directive, which provides that a Member State in whose territory a check is being carried out is to give all the necessary assistance to the experts in carrying out their duties. However, since the Commission does not allege a failure to fulfil the obligations arising under Article 14(3) of Directive 93/119, that article cannot be taken into account in the analysis of the pleas in law. 82 – It should also be pointed out that, as regards the lack of cooperation on the part of the Greek authorities, the Commission does indeed allege a breach of Article 10 EC in the reasoned opinion, but that, in its application, it no longer alleges a breach of that article. This supports the conclusion that the Commission restricted the legal basis of its application as compared with that of the reasoned opinion. Consequently, nor can Article 10 EC be taken into account in the analysis of the pleas in law.