the commission' s mAnAGement  of
the  sYstem  of VeteRinARY checKs
foR meA t imPoR ts foLL oWinG the
2004 hYGiene  LeGisLAtion  Refo Rms 
issn  1831-0834 
euR oPeAn  
couR t of AuditoRs
en
2010special Report  no 14

the  commission 's 
mAnAGement  of the  
sYstem  of VeteRinARY 
checKs  foR meA t 
imPoR ts foLL oWinG 
the  2004 hYGiene  
LeGisLA tion  RefoRms  special Report  no  14  2010
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, tfeu)
euR oPeAn couR t of AuditoRs
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformseuR oPeAn couR t of AuditoRs 
12, rue Alcide d e Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LuXemBouRG
tel. +352 4398-1
fax +352 4398-46410
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu
special Report no 14  2010
A great deal of additional information on the e uropean union is available on the i nternet.
it can be accessed through the e uropa server (http://europa.eu).
cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications o ffice of the e uropean union, 2011
isBn 978-92-9207-972-7 
doi:10.2865/60524 
© european union, 2011
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
3
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformscontents
paragraph
 AbbreviA tions
i–vi  executive summ Ary
1–11  introduction
12–15  Audit scope And Appro Ach
16–86  observ Ations
16–32  revision of the community hygiene regulAtions relAting to meAt imports
17  AVAiLABiLit Y of consoLid Ated VeRsions of the ReLe VAnt LeGisLA tion WouLd f AciLit Ate  
A coRRect And unifoRm APPLic Ation of the RuLes
18–19   timinG  of the Amendment of decisions Affects the VeteRinARY  ceR tific Ates suBmitted  
With meA t imPoR ts
20–26  ReVieW of AuthoRisA tions foR  eXPoR t to the eu
27–29  need foR  common indic AtoRs to e VAL uAte VeteRinARY  AGReements
30–31   Reduced contR oL RAtes shouLd Be moRe fuLLY  justified
32 VeteRinARY  AGReements do not PRecL ude diffeRence of tReA tment Bet Ween memBeR  stAtes
33–45  informAtion systems relAting to veterinAry checks
34–37  oPtimisinG  the use of tRA ces  dAtABAse
38–40  mAKinG  the Best use of the RAPid ALeR t sY stem
41–42  need foR  inteRf Ace Bet Ween tRA ces  And ReLe VAnt nA tionAL  dAtABAses
43–45   ncts  — RisK  of e VAdinG  VeteRinARY  checK s
4
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms46–75   surveillAnce by the commission of the nAtionAl systems for mAnAging veterinAry 
checks
47–56   need foR  An eu stRA teGY  foR  the PRePARA tion And e VAL uAtion of suRVeiLLAnce PLAns
57–59  fees And PenAL ties not hARmonised
60–61  ceR tAin BiPs hAVe A VeRY  LoW  LeVeL  of ActiVit Y
62–64  Limited RoLe of the inteRnAL  Audit in nA tionAL  contR oL sYstems
65 need foR  PeRfoRm Ance indic AtoRs to monitoR  PRoGRess on the ‘hYGiene PAcKAGe’  oBjectiVes
66–73  need foR  BetteR  tARGetinG  of BiPs And consiGnments on the BAsis of RisK  AnALY sis
74–75  RePeA ted Recommend Ations oVeR  seVeRAL  missions
76–86  coordinAtion And evAluAtion of the veterinAry checks system
77–83  c ooRdinA tion of the memBeR  stAte VeteRinARY  checKs sY stems needs imPR oVement
84–86  imPA ct of moRe stRinGent eu stAnd ARds on the comPetitiVeness of eu PRoduceRs
87–91 c onclusions And recommend Ations
reply  of the  commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsAlop : appropriate level of sanitary protection
bip : border inspection post, within the meaning of c ouncil directives 91/496/eec and 97/78/ec  
bse : bovine spongiform encephalopathy
circ A: communication and information Resource centre Administrator, a collaborative workspace with 
partners of the e uropean i nstitutions
comext : eurostat’s reference database for external trade
cved : common Veterinary entry document for products of animal origin, within the meaning of  
Annex iii to commission Regulation (ec ) no 136/2004, and live animals, within the meaning of Annex i  
to c ommission Regulation (ec ) no 282/2004
cwe : carcass weight equivalent
dg: directorate-General
dg A gri : directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural d evelopment
dg rtd : directorate-General for Research
dg sAnco : directorate-General for health and c onsumers
dg tAxud : directorate-General for taxation and c ustoms unionABBRe ViAtions
6
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformseeA : european e conomic Area
efsA : european f ood s afety Authority
eur-l ex: online portal for e uropean union law
eurostat : statistical office of the e uropean union
fAo: food and Agriculture organisation of the united nations
fvo : food and Veterinary o ffice
hygiene package : the set of new legislation adopted since 2004 which mainly entered into force 
in 2006, establishing a new legislation framework for food safety in the e uropean union
iso : international organisation for s tandardisation
ncts : new c omputerised transit s ystem
mAncp : multiannual national control plan 
potsdam g roup : working party of veterinary experts
rAsff : Rapid Alert system for feed and food, a network of national authorities, managed by the 
commission
scofc Ah: standing c ommittee on the f ood chain and Animal healthABBRe ViAtions
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms7
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformssps : sanitary and phytosanitary measures
tAric : online customs tariff database
trAces : tRAde c ontrol and expert s ystem
White p aper : White Paper on food safety
Wto: World trade organisationABBRe ViAtions
The Food and Veterinary Office, based in Ireland, is a body of experts,  
mainly composed of veterinary professionals.
© European Commission
8
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformseXecutiVe   
summ ARY
i.
Veterinary checks on meat and meat prod -
uct imports are an important component  
of the european union’s food safety policy. 
there is the risk that imported meat may  
be a vector for the transmission of dis -
eases not only to consumers but also to  
livestock, affecting european union ( eu)  
production.
ii.
While imports represent less than 4 % of  
eu meat consumption — and there is no  
evidence that the major health crises suf -
fered in the past 15 years have been due  
to shortcomings in the import veterinary  
checks — public awareness and concern  
with regard to animal health and food  
safety have increased greatly. moreover,  
while the eu budget normally allocates 300 
million euro for veterinary disease preven -
tion and eradication, and 100 million euro 
for feed and food safety related measures, 
the late 1990s crisis (mainly bovine spong -
iform encephalopathy (Bse)) imposed very 
substantial additional expenditure on the 
eu budget as well as on the budgets of the 
member s tates.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms99
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformseXecutiVe   
summ ARY
iii.
the audit examined the commission’s  
supervision of the eu system of veterinary 
checks carried out at the border inspec -
tion posts (B iPs) on meat imports under  
the new framework introduced by the 2004 
regulations forming part of the so-called  
‘hygiene package’ , which came into force  
in 2006. the authorities and B iPs of four  
member states were visited (f rance, the  
netherlands, spain, Romania) and court  
auditors participated in inspection visits  
of the commission’s food and Veterinary  
office (fVo ) carried out in three member  
states (Lithuania, the united Kingdom,  
Greece). some relevant associations of  
stakeholders were interviewed (producers, 
importers, industries and consumers). the 
fVo's planning and reporting procedures  
were the subject of close scrutiny, in view 
of the particularly relevant role it plays in 
the commission's supervision and control 
of the eu veterinary checks.
iv.
the audit concluded that the implemen -
tation of the 2004 ‘hygiene package’ has  
been delayed and has still to be completed 
in important regulatory aspects. more -
over, substantial reductions in the levels  
of import controls were accepted in some 
‘equivalence agreements’ established with 
third countries which are not supported by 
reasonable justifying evidence.v.
the information systems ( tRAde control  
and expert system ( tRA ces) and Rapid  
Alert system for feed and food (RAsff)) on 
which veterinary checks on meat imports  
rely are widely and usefully employed  
across the eu. however, certain BiPs in  
three member states still do not enter all  
the relevant data. this in particular affects 
the completeness and reliability of the  
data captured and the information systems 
as a whole.
vi.
mainly through its fVo , the commission  
continuously supervises the veterinary  
checks on meat imports. however, further 
initiatives are to be taken by the commis -
sion in order to overcome the detected  
shortcomings:
— complete the ‘hygiene package’ regula -
tory framework and consolidate it in a  
codified, user-friendly manner;
— further develop tRA ces and RAsff and 
their utilities;
— provide further guidelines and the per -
formance indicators necessary for im -
plementing an eu strategy for veterinary 
checks and for determining whether the 
‘hygiene package’ objectives have been 
achieved;
— f u r t h e r  i m p r o v e  t h e  r i s k  a s s e s s m e n t 
m o d e l s  u s e d  b y  t h e  fVo f o r  i t s  a u d i t 
work planning;
— succeed in ensuring that member states 
ove rco m e  a ny  we a k n e s s e s  d e te c te d  i n 
meat import veterinary checks in the  
shortest reasonable period of time.eXecutiVe
summ ARY
10
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms1. in modern societies food safety has become a major political 
concern since it is indispensable to public health in countries 
with industrialised agriculture and highly developed agri-food 
sec tors. ensuring the highest standards of food safet y is thus 
clearly a political priority in the e uropean union. 
2. in the wake of the serious health crises of the 1990s (Bse and 
dioxin-contaminated chicken), the regulations on food safety 
were thoroughly overhauled. on the basis of a White Paper1 
published by the commission in 2000, a new legislative frame -
work, otherwise known as the ‘hygiene package’ , has replaced 
or expanded upon earlier regulations. most of the new regula -
tory provisions came into force on 1 january 2006.
3. imported meat products, by their very nature, have a potential 
role as a source of and vector for the transmission of disease 
not only to consumers but also to livestock, i.e. to eu produc -
tion. throughout the world there are many epizootic outbreaks 
of diseases and production conditions elsewhere do not neces -
sarily meet eu standards. 
4. the veterinary checks on imports into the eu and in the cor -
responding exporting third countries (see Graph 1 ) are carried 
out by the national authorities, with their cost being borne  
mostly by the operators and ultimately by the consumer. com-
munity expenditure in this area essentially consists of the  
administrative expenditure of dG sAnco  and, in particular,  
of its fVo , plus expenditure on training courses for national 
inspectors. the eu budget has also financed the setting-up  
and running of the information systems known as tRA ces, re -
sponsible for monitoring imports of products of animal origin, 
and RAsff .1 White Paper on food safety, 
com(1999) 719 final, 12.1.2000.intR oduction
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms11
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5. the cost to the eu budget of health crises — which can, in prin-
ciple, result from poor implementation of the veterinary checks —  
can be par ticularly high, involving emergenc y measures which 
by their nature need to be extensively applied. in some   
periods of crisis it may work out at well over 500 million euro of 
eu budgetar y expenditure if the cost of veter inar y measures 
to eradicate the disease is added to the expenditure on pro -
grammes to compensate farmers. however, in practice there 
is no evidence that any of the major health crises suffered by 
the eu in the past 15 years has been due to shortcomings in 
the performance of import veterinary checks. the origin of the 
diseases has been either internal to the eu or connected with 
illegal movements (fraud) or else failure to apply the appropri -
ate measures for disposing of kitchen waste in international 
transport.
6. meat consumption and impor ts have been increasing and this 
trend is expected to continue at least until 2015 (see Graphs  2 
and 3).
12
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsmAin imports of meA t And meA t products in 2009gr Aph 1
Argentina
33 %
Uruguay
26 %Brazil
18 %Australia
5 %New Zealand
5 %Namibia
4 %Botswana
4 %United States
     3 %Chile
1 %Paraguay
1 %
Croatia
1 %Beef meat
(225 838 tonnes)
Brazil
85 %Argentina
7 %Chile
6 %Israel
1 %Poultry meat
(196 801 tonnes)
Australia
8 %Argentina
3 %Chile
2 %Uruguay
1 %
Iceland
1 %Former Yugoslav
Republic of 
Macedonia
1 %Sheep and goat meat
(220 986 tonnes)
New Zealand
84 %
Source:  comext — trade statistics (i mports), eu-27.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms13
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformseu meA t consumption projections 2006–15 (1  000 tonnes c We)gr Aph  2 
40 00040 50041 00041 50042 00042 50043 00043 50044 00044 50045 000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
gr Aph 3 Source:  data from ‘Prospects for agricultural markets and income, 2008–15’ , dG AGRi.
1 3501 4001 4501 5001 5501 6001 6501 7001 7501 8001 850
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015eu meA t import projections 2006–15 (1  000 tonnes c We)
Source:  data from ‘Prospects for agricultural markets and income, 2008–15’ , dG AGRi.
14
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms7. overall, for the four main categories of animals, meat imports 
account for 3,6 % of community consumption. the share of  
imports is high for sheep/goat meat, significant for beef and 
poultry meat and insignificant for pork (see Table 1 ). the total 
value of the imports for these different categories was 3 375 
million euro in 2009.
8. the basic principle underlying the eu system of veterinary  
checks on meat imports is that products entering the eu must 
satisfy sanitary requirements that are at least equivalent to  
those laid down by the eu for its internal production. in order 
to ensure that this principle is upheld there are t wo levels of 
control.
tAble  1 
projection regArding import And consumption in eu in 2010  
(1 000 tonnes c We1)
SpeciesImports  
forecast%
of total importsConsumption  
forecast%
Imports/Consumption
Beef meat 391 26,4 8 126 4,8
Sheep and goat meat 264 17,8 1 100 24,0
Pork meat 32 2,2 20 428 0,2
Poultry meat 795 53,6 11 601 6,9
TOTAL 1 482  41 255 3,6
1 ‘1 000 tonnes cwe’ = 1 000 tonnes carcass weight equivalent as calculated based upon agreed standards.
Source:  dG AGRi, ‘short-term outlook for the arable crop, meat and dairy markets’ , o ctober 2010.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms15
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms2 see com(1997) 183 final 
(30.4.1997) and com (1998)  
32 final (28.1.1998) on the fVo 
organisation.
3 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/
ir_search_en.cfm9. firstly, to be authorised for importation into the eu, prod -
ucts of animal origin must originate from an establishment  
that has been approved by the commission and is located in 
a third country that is also authorised and must have been  
certified by the exporting country's veterinary authorities to 
the effect that the community requirements have been met. 
otherwise, a trade facilitating arrangement is that there is an 
‘equivalence’ agreement with that third country, i.e. the con -
trol system of the third country has been accepted by the eu 
as being equivalent to its own system.
10.  t he second level of checks takes place in the member states. 
every consignment of goods must be presented at a commis -
sion-approved BiP , where it is subject to inspection procedures 
and granted a certificate by the national veterinary author -
ities. once accepted by a B iP , the consignments can be moved 
freely from one m ember s tate to another.
11.  Verifying that member states ensure that the requirements of 
eu legislation on the safet y of food and veter inar y produc ts 
are being satisfied is the responsibility of the food and Vet -
erinary office ( fVo)2, one of the directorates of the commis -
sion’s dG sAnco . it has a body of experts, mainly composed of 
veterinary professionals, and its inspections follow an annual 
work programme that has to be drawn up on the basis of risk 
analysis (228 inspections in 2008, of which 160 were in the  
member states, 60 in third countries and eight in candidate  
countries). the fVo's reports, which are published and avail -
able on the internet3, provide a central source of evidence for 
t h e  co m m i s s i o n' s  s u p e r v i s i o n  o f  e u fo o d  s a fe t y  t h ro u g h o u t 
eu territory. 
16
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms12.  t he objective of the audit was to assess the commission's man -
agement of the eu system of veterinary checks for meat and 
meat products imports following the reforms of the hygiene 
legislation decided in 2004 and in force since 2006.
13.  t he following questions were examined:
has the revision of the community regulations initiated  ο
by the White Paper of 2000 been completed?
does the commission ensure that the information sys -  ο
tems relating to veterinary checks on meat imports are 
performing effectively?
does the commission (fVo ) make sure that the nation -  ο
al systems for managing veterinary checks are working 
properly?
does the commission carry out its role of coordination  ο
between the member states and make general evalua -
tions of the sanitary check system for meat imports? 
14.  in addition, when carrying out its work, the court collected  
information on how the commission takes into account the  
interests of the various stakeholders (producers, processors, 
importers, consumers) when considering the stipulations spe -
cific to the c ommunity regulations.Audit scoPe And APPR oAch
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms17
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms15.  t he following audit work was carried out in 2009:
examination of relevant dG sAnco activities, in particular  ο
those carried out by the fVo;
visits to the responsible authorities and BiPs in four  ο
member states (f rance, the netherlands, spain and  
Romania);
participation in fVo audits which took place in Lithuania,  ο
the united Kingdom and Greece; 
interviews with associations representing relevant stake -  ο
holders (producers, importers, industries and consum -
ers)4.4 uec BV (european Livestock 
and m eat trading union), coPA 
(committee of Professional 
Agricultural organisations)-
coGec A (General c onfederation 
of Agricultural cooperatives 
in the european union), ciAA 
(confederation of the food and 
drink industries of the european 
union)- cLitRAVi (Liaison c entre for 
the m eat Processing i ndustry in the 
european union), Beuc (e uropean 
consumers’ organisation).
© European Court of Auditors
Every consignment of goods must transit a Commission-approved BIP .
18
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsrevision of the community hygiene  
regul Ations rel Ating to meA t imports
16.  t he White Paper on food safety foresaw the revision of the  
regulations on food safety, most of which have been replaced 
by the new legislative framework known as the ‘hygiene pack -
age’ . the following paragraphs examine whether the relevant 
changes introduced in the ‘hygiene package’ were implement -
ed and reflected in the veterinary agreements with third coun -
tries.
AvAil Ability of consolid Ated versions of  
the relev Ant legisl Ation Would f Acilit Ate  
A correct And uniform Applic Ation of the  
rules  
17.  t he rules governing imports of meat and meat products are  
contained in more than 50 legislative texts, to which must be 
added veterinary agreements (see Table 2 ). in paragraph 67, 
the White Paper under lines that individual legislation needs 
to be clear, simple and understandable for all operators to put 
into effect. however, in the absence of consolidated versions —  
or even a wholesale reformulation of the import rules — the 
sheer number of rules and their current complexity create  
difficulties and give rise to a variety of interpretations that  
prevent them from being applied in a single correct manner. 
this is the case, for example, for the practical rules for making 
re i n fo rce d  c h e c k s,  w h i c h  dG  sAn co  a n d  t h e  me m b e r  st a te s 
have returned to repeatedly since 1997 (see Box 1 ). oBseRVA tions
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms19
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformstiming of the Amendment of decisions  
Affects the veterinAry certific Ates  
submitted With meA t imports  
18.  As the purpose of the hygiene regulations is to guarantee  
a high level of protection in matters of food safety, it is   
important, and required by Article 1(g) of Regulation (ec )  
no 852/2004, that third countries should cer tify that the foods 
they expor t are of the same or equivalent hygiene standard as 
food produced in the eu. if the conditions for the certification 
of imports are not updated at the correct time, it is possible 
that the products concerned will not be subject to the same 
rigorous production and control requirements.
19.  t he obligation for veterinarians in the country of origin to  
c o n f i r m  t h a t  m e a t  s a t i s f i e s  t h e  hy g i e n e  r e g u l a t i o n s  ( w h i c h 
entered into force on 1 january 2006) did not take effect un -
til August 2006 in the case of poultry, november 2006 in the 
case of meat products and july 2008 in the case of fresh and 
processed meat other than poultry.
box 1 
legisl Ation on reinforced checks uncleAr
Article 24 of council directive 97/78/ ec sets out the rules for reinforced checks, which can be launched 
by a RA sff  message after an infringement has been detected at a B iP. it requires that ‘ member states 
shall carry out more stringent checks on all consignments of products from the same origin. in particu -
lar, the next 10 consignments from the same origin must be impounded, and a deposit lodged against 
inspection costs, at the border inspection post for a physical check, including the taking of samples and 
the laboratory tests provided for in Annex iii. ’  
however, it was found that the procedure related to the reinforced checks is implemented differently by 
member states. some member states take only the next 10 consignments from the same type of prod -
uct at the same BiP where the error occurred, others take the next 10 at any BiP in their territory from 
the same type of product and origin or even establishment up to a maximum period of six months and 
others take only the next three consignments as they consider it to be not just a national but rather a 
european issue. As the legislation is not precise enough and is interpreted differently, there is neither a 
single, harmonised approach within the eu nor is it possible to monitor the process or assess the con -
trols by dG sAnco or the fVo . indeed, the fVo may well not be in a position to check that there is no 
systematic problem with goods from the same origin coming into the eu, especially if they enter the eu 
through various BiPs in several m ember s tates.
20
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsrevie W of AuthorisA tions for export to the eu 
20.  in 2004 the Parliament and the council adopted a directive5 
validating the lists of approved establishments and author -
ised third countries then in existence until such time as  
the hygiene regulations came into force on 1 january 2006,  
stating the following reservation: ‘Pending the adoption of  
the necessary provisions on the basis of Regulations (ec )  
no 852/2004/ec6, no 853/2004/ec7 and no 854/2004/ec8, or 
directive 2002/99/ec9’.
21.  t he established procedure for expanding the list of establish -
ments approved for export to the eu was that the third country 
authorities must certify that each new establishment satisfied 
the requirements of the hygiene regulations. however, at the 
time of the audit the commission had not yet reviewed the  
authorisations that had been granted to third countries and 
establishments before 2006 — i.e. before the ‘hygiene package’  
entered into force. the purpose of this review was to allow  
the commission to verify the equivalence of the third coun -
tries' legislation and control systems with the new community 
requirements. nor had the commission yet completed its re -
working of the guideline concerning the information, which  
third countries were to provide on the general organisation  
and performance of checks.
22.  t he ‘hygiene package’ was adopted at the end of 2004 and  
came into force on 1 january 2006. At the time of the audit  
(end of 2009) the commission managed to renegotiate three 
of the 11 agreements previously existing in this sector with  
the eu ’s major trading partners10.
23.  t he audit examined four of the most important such agree -
ments (with canada, new Zealand, the usA and switzerland), 
which are shown in Table 2 . the text of the agreements was  
scrutinised, the heads of the departments which had taken  
part in negotiations were interviewed and information was  
obtained from the competent authorities in the member states 
visited. 5 directive 2004/41/ec of the 
european Parliament and of the 
council of 21 April 2004 repealing 
certain directives concerning food 
hygiene and health conditions for 
the production and placing on 
the market of certain products of 
animal origin intended for human 
consumption and amending 
council directives 89/662/eec and 
92/118/eec and c ouncil d ecision 
95/408/ec ( oj L 157, 30.4.2004, 
p. 33, ( corrigendum oj L 195, 
2.6.2004, p. 12).
6 Regulation (ec ) no 852/2004 
of the european Parliament and 
of the council of 29 April 2004 on 
the hygiene of foodstuffs ( oj L 139, 
30.4.2004, p. 1, ( corrigendum  
oj L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 3).
7 Regulation (ec ) no 853/2004 
of the e uropean Parliament and of 
the c ouncil of 29 April 2004 laying 
down specific hygiene rules for 
food of animal origin ( oj L 139, 
30.4.2004, p. 55, ( corrigendum  
oj L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 22).
8 Regulation (ec ) no 854/2004 
of the european Parliament and 
of the c ouncil of 29 April 2004 
laying down specific rules for the 
organisation of official controls on 
products of animal origin intended 
for human consumption ( oj L 139, 
30.4.2004, p. 206, ( corrigendum  
oj L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 83).
9 council directive 2002/99/ec of 
16 d ecember 2002 laying down the 
animal health rules governing the 
production, processing, distribution 
and introduction of products of ani -
mal origin for human consumption 
(oj L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11).
10 Andorra, canada, chile, eeA 
states, faeroe islands, Liechtenstein, 
mexico, new Zealand, san marino, 
switzerland and the usA.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms21
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformstAble 2 
veterinAry Agreements ex Amined
Third CountryDate of entry into  
forceDate of first amendment taking  
account of the ‘hygiene package’  
regulationsImports (2009)  
in tonnes
(Comext  data )
1. Canada 17.12.1998 11 073
2. New Zealand  26.2.19971.9.2006 (Agreement) Commission Decision  ο
2006/854/ eC of 26 July 2006 approving on behalf 
of the european Community amendments to 
Annexes V and VIII to the Agreement between the 
european Community and New Zealand on sanitary 
measures applicable to trade in live animals and 
animal products.
25.12.2006 ( ο Certificates) Commission Decision 
2006/855/ eC of 24 August 2006 amending Decision 
2003/56/eC on health certificates for the importa -
tion of live animals and animal products from New 
Zealand.222 698
3. Switzerland 1.6.20011.12.2006 ( ο entry into force) Decision No 1/2006 of 
the Joint Veterinary Committee created by an agree -
ment between the european Community and the 
Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products 
of 1 December 2006 amending Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, 6 and 10 to Annex 11 to the Agreement .19 475
4. USA 1.8.1999 14 780
Sources :  http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/trade/agreements_en.htm  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm  
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/decisions06_e.htm 
22
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms11 Article 46(1) of Regulation (ec ) 
no 882/2004: ‘ such official controls 
shall have particular regard to: 
… (g) the extent and operation 
of official controls on imports of 
animals, plants and their products’ .24.  n aturally, the success of negotiations also depends on the  
other party. nonetheless, owing to the length of the negotia -
tions — which thus postponed the application to impor ts of 
the same ‘hygiene package’ rules that were compulsory for  
eu producers — the audit found that the reviewed agreement 
with new Zealand did not take effect until eight months after 
the package entered into force, despite the fact that the eu 
accepted to maintain a relatively limited level of checks (for 
w h i c h  n o  a c c e p t a b l e  re a s o n  w a s  g i ve n  i n  t h e  co m m i s s i o n ' s 
records).
25.  dG sAnco has no data on the physical pre-export checks (la-
boratory analyses) that were made in canada and new Zealand 
on products bound for the eu. moreover, the reports avail -
able from the food and Veterinary office (fVo ) do not usually 
include an evaluation of the extent and operation of official 
controls by third countries on their own imports of animal  
products11.
26.  however, the eurostat figures for 2008 show that the united 
Kingdom imported 111 930 tonnes of sheep meat, including 
82 898 tonnes from new Zealand (around 77 %) which were  
redistributed to the other member states. despite the scale  
of these imports to the eu, the competent authorities in the 
united Kingdom informed the court’s auditors that, in contra -
vention of the general rule that identity checks are to be made 
in all cases, some BiPs checked only 2 % of consignments — 
the same rate as for physical checks. this practice was justified 
by the fact that the agreement with new Zealand includes no 
definition of identity checks. 
need for common indic Ators to ev Alu Ate  
veterinAry Agreements  
27.  Where evaluations were in favour of maintaining equivalence, 
they were performed without first defining qualitative or  
quantitative indicators. no objective comparison was made  
between the level of sanitary protection (AL oP) conferred by 
the new hygiene regulations, the level that existed before  
the package adoption and the level of protection achieved  
by means of the control systems implemented by the third  
countries that were party to an agreement.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms23
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms28.  f or example, new Zealand's legislation was reviewed against 
the hygiene regulations by a technical working group compris -
ing representatives from dG sAnco , experts from new Zea -
land and the Potsdam Group12 (members from the commis -
sion, Greece, finland and the united Kingdom). the evaluation 
concluded that new Zealand's legislation was such that the  
‘hygiene package’ objectives could be met. the annexes to the 
agreement were then amended accordingly, and equivalence 
was maintained. however, there was no detailed documenta -
tion demonstrating that the conclusions of the working group 
and the Potsdam Group were based on evidence that allowed 
‘Yes-1’ equivalence13 to be maintained.
29.  Lastly, the audit found that there was no common procedure 
for revision based on quantitative and qualitative indicators, 
and that there was no record that the observations made by 
the fVo in the course of its controls had been taken into ac -
count during negotiations. 12 the group was set up to assess 
the degree of equivalence of third 
country legislation. i t is composed 
as decided by the c ouncil (note 
10225/08 AGRiLeG 91) and 
comprises representatives from the 
council and the commission and 
experts from a limited number of 
member states chosen with regard 
to the third country concerned.
13 ‘Yes-1’ means that equivalence 
has been recognised and a 
simplified certificate may be used; 
‘Yes-2’ means that equivalence 
is recognised subject to a 
number of production and/or 
control conditions; ‘Yes-3’ means 
that equivalence is recognised 
in principle and subject to 
certain specific conditions, with 
certification similar to that required 
from other third countries with 
which there is no agreement.
box 2 
mAin difficul ties for revie Wing the sps  Agreements
usA : legal difficulties for the application of the ‘hygiene package’ , for the harmonisation of audit fre -
quency and for agreeing on the methodology for the verification of the equivalence.
switzerland : most of the eu hygiene provisions have been transposed into the swiss legislation. how -
ever, since it is not yet a member of the RA sff  (Rapid Alert system for food and feed), switzerland has 
to use other communication procedures (through dG sAnco or via the ciRcA system). forthcoming 
negotiations should overcome this situation.
new Zealand : the updated agreement did not come into force until eight months after the ‘hygiene 
package’ . moreover, the agreement provides for a very low level of controls which has not, however, 
been based on a documented risk analysis.
canada : the delay in updating the agreement annexes in line with the ‘hygiene package’ was caused 
by difficulties in establishing equivalence, the need to make amendments to the canadian legal texts 
and publication delays.
24
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms14 commission Regulation (ec ) 
no 136/2004 of 22 january 2004 
laying down procedures for 
veterinary checks at community 
border inspection posts on products 
imported from third countries ( oj L 
21, 28.1.2004, p. 11).
15 council directive 97/78/ec of 18 
december 1997 laying down the 
principles governing the organisation 
of veterinary checks on products 
entering the c ommunity from third 
countries ( oj L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9).reduced control r Ates should be more fully  
justified  
30.  t h e  k e y  co m m u n i t y  r u l e s ,  w h i c h  i n c l u d e  t h e  p r o v i s i o n s  o f 
Regulation (ec ) no 136/200414 and directive 97/78/ec15, re -
quire veterinary officials to carry out systematic documentary 
and identity checks. these shall be supplemented by physical 
checks of animal products at entry into the territory of the eu. 
in the case of meat imports from canada and new Zealand,  
t h e  f re q u e n c y  o f  p hy s i c a l  c h e c k s  h a s  b e e n  re d u c e d  t o  1 0  % 
and 2 % respectively. however, where no specific decision or 
equivalence agreement exists the rate is 20 % (fresh pork, beef 
and veal, sheep and horse meat) or 50 % (poultry). 
box 3 
Applic Ation of reduced physic Al inspection r Ates  
Where reduced physical inspection rates are applied, the consignment selection method varies from one 
member state to another. Generally speaking, checks should take due account of the results of statis-
tical sampling and relevant risk factors16; often planning is left to the discretion of inspectors at B iPs. in 
france, the central veterinary authority has drawn up a selection grid which shows how consignments 
should normally be prioritised for verification. the advantage of this procedure is that it guarantees that 
selection will be random and unpredictable. According to the french authorities this procedure was not 
followed by the Roissy BiP , which is the busiest in terms of number of consignments. in the netherlands, 
by contrast, sampling is done randomly and electronically at the moment a pre-notification is entered. 
to improve the effectiveness of checks, the dutch electronic selection system factors in a range of sub-
populations, such as ‘product type’ and ‘third country of origin’ . 
in spain, the frequency of physical checks exceeded the statutory reduced rates by 20 % to 30 %, yet 
the percentage of consignments found to be non-compliant was not necessarily higher17. similarly, in 
Romania around 36 % (compared with the standard rate of 20 % in third countries, 10 % in canada and 
2 % in new Zealand) of red meat consignments were checked physically in 2008. there was also no cen -
tral verification procedure to ensure that thresholds were reached, and the selection procedure offered 
no guarantees that the consignments to be inspected were selected at random. 
16 Relevant risk factors include the risk to human health from the product or its packaging, the probability of non-compliance with the stated 
requirements, the target consumer group, the extent and nature of any further processing of the product, the exporting country's inspection and 
certification arrangements, and the compliance record of the third country producers and importers.
17 in 2008, for example, three consignments (meat and milk) out of a total of 4 694, or 0,06 %, were refused following a physical check. the overall 
figure for consignments refused was 0,63 % ( eu average: 0,88 % in 2006). 
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms25
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms31.  t h e  a u d i t  fo u n d  t h a t  t h e  r e s u l t s  o f  t h e  l a b o r a t o r y  a n a l y s e s 
carried out as a component of physical checks — initiated  
by a BiP in the member states and/or by the third countries  
themselves prior to export — were not subjected to statisti -
cal analysis (e.g. contaminants detected, origin of the meat, 
point of entry). such an analysis could form the basis of a  
more objective risk assessment and would undeniably be of  
use in negotiations with third countries — either to justify  
the frequency of physical checks by BiPs or to provide great -
e r  s u p p o r t  w h e n  d e t e r m i n i n g  w h a t  t y p e  o f  a n a l y t e  t o  l o o k 
for in imported foodstuffs. to give an idea of the importance 
of exploiting this kind of statistical data, one report submit -
ted in new Zealand18 showed that 101 out of 103 samples of 
sheep tested positive for hormones despite being under the 
maximum residue limit. these data lend good support to the 
notion that the BiPs that are most concerned should act more 
selectively when taking samples for checking.
veterinAry Agreements do not preclude  
difference of treA tment bet Ween member  
stAtes  
32.  t he agreement with canada did not guarantee that there would 
be no discrimination among member states, as at the time  
of the audit the canadian authorities had not yet autho rised 
i m p o r t s  f ro m  fo u r  me m b e r  st a t e s.  si m i l a r l y,  t h e  a u t h o r  i t i e s 
in the usA, where export controls are a matter for national  
departments, treat each member state as a separate entity,  
a l t h o u g h  a l l  me m b e r  st a te s  a re  o b l i g e d,  u n d e r  t h e  te r m s  o f 
the current agreement, to accept meat imports from the usA. 
in one member state just one slaughterhouse had been ap -
proved for expor t to the usA. fur thermore, 11 member states' 
applications for equivalence, the earliest of which was lodged 
back in 2000, had not yet been approved by the us author -
ities. 18 new Zealand national chemical 
Residues and c ontaminant Report 
(eu) of d ecember 2008.
26
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsinform Ation systems rel Ating to  
veterinAry checks  
33.  t he eu finances the setting up and maintaining of the infor -
mation systems known as tRA ces ( tRAde control and expert 
system), used for monitoring imports of animal origin, and  
RAsff (Rapid Alert system for feed and food). the following 
paragraphs examine whether these systems fully meet the ob -
jectives of the ‘hygiene package’ and, in the case of tRA ces, 
whether the system contributes to decision-making.
optimising the use of trAces  dAtAbAse
34.  d espite tRA ces ’ contribution to the harmonisation of control 
procedures in the eu, some member states still prefer to use 
the non- tRA ces -compatible software they developed due to 
the lack of some functionalities deemed important for their  
controls. Although compulsory, some BiPs in Germany, the  
netherlands and spain do not yet enter all the relevant meat 
i m p o r t  d at a  i nto  tR Ac e s .  th i s  a f fe c t s  tR Ac e s ’ co m p l e te n e s s 
and, inter alia, the reliability of its statistical output. moreo -
ver, in most member states no link has been established with 
the customs databases allowing for the reconciliation of the 
data on meat imports registered in both systems. the com -
m i s s i o n  m a n a g e s  tR Ac e s  a t  e u l e v e l  a n d  c o n t r i b u t e s  t o  i t s 
financing and development (2,25 million euro in 2009). the  
audit revealed that further developments are still needed to 
overcome the existing technical shortcomings concerning,  
for instance, the access security required for using tRA ces,  
the electronic issuing of certified cVeds ( common Veterinary 
entry documents) and the production of statistics useful for 
carrying out risk analyses so as to focus veterinary inspections 
better.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms27
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms35.  t he development of tRA ces should have further explored the 
ways and means to link and/or ensure the necessary recon -
c i l i a t i o n  b e t w e e n  t h e  r e l e v a n t  d a t a  p r o c e s s e d  f o r  c u s t o m s 
purposes and the data captured by tRA ces19. the main rea -
sons given to explain the ongoing difficulties related to the  
customs’ specific requirements in respect of the codes used  
for identifying products. nevertheless, it became clear from  
a pilot projec t run in collaboration with french customs that 
the existing interface problems could be overcome.
36.  t he visits to member states revealed that the use of tRA ces  
is limited especially as regards the following possible range  
of useful functions:
the selection of consignments for random or non-random (a) 
physical checks, with and/or without laboratory analysis; 
the obligation to perform reinforced checks and monitor - (b) 
ing of such checks;
automatic compliance and authentication checks of veter - (c) 
inary certificates by, for example, cross-checking the data 
entered by the issuing third country (certificate number,  
identification — certifying officer's e-mail address and  
model signature20, model stamp of the certifying depart -
ment); 
the possibility of scanning irregular certificates; (d) 
the possibility of entering a 10-digit tARic (customs   (e) 
nomenclature) code; 
automatic cross-checks with customs data; (f) 
simplification of the procedure for entering products im - (g) 
ported by private individuals in excess of the duty-free  
limit21; 
the possibility of stating the place of first origin of reim- (h) 
port ed shipments; 
the possibility of entering in detail the reasons why a BiP (i) 
has refused to allow an import; 
the uniform automatic calculation of fees and penalties; (j) 
t h e  co m p u l s o r y  e nte r i n g  o f  i nt ra - co m m u n i t y  s h i p m e nt s (k) 
of imported foodstuffs, which would enable them to be  
more swiftly recalled in an emergency.19 the importance of that link is 
identified namely by Articles 5 
and 6 of commission Regulation 
(ec) no 282/2004 of 18 f ebruary 
2004 introducing a document for 
the declaration of, and veterinary 
checks on, animals from third 
countries entering the community 
(oj L 49, 19.2.2004, p. 11) and 
Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (ec )  
no 136/2004.
20 certifying officers are persons 
who are accredited or approved 
by the cA in the exporting country 
to draw up and issue official 
certificates.
21 With the exception of a limited 
number of third countries and 
small quantities that are intended 
for personal consumption, the 
community rules do not authorise 
imports of meat or meat products 
by private individuals unless they 
have submitted a prior declaration 
and a veterinary certificate.
28
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms37.  G e n e r a l l y  s p e a k i n g,  u s e r s  c a n  o n l y  a c c e s s  t h o s e  s e c t i o n s  o f 
tRA ces which concern them. however, in 2007 an external  
study22 highlighted the need for periodic audits of the sys -
tem’s securit y. Where meat impor ts are concerned, tRAces  is 
used by new caledonia, mexico and new Zealand. however,  
the european food and safety Authority ( efsA) did not have 
direct access to tRAces  when it needed to gather data in all 
areas with a direct or indirect impact on food safety.
mAking the best use of the r Apid Alert  
system  
38.  t he RAsff compiles all admissible alerts that are issued by a 
member state and/or third countries. however, the conditions 
in which member states can issue an alert may not be formally 
established until 201123.22 Gartner france, ‘ hosting traces 
project’ , 2007, dG sAnco .
23 the c ommission was waiting 
for the judgment of 29 october 
2009 by the c ourt of f irst i nstance 
of the european communities in 
Commission  v. Bowland Dairy  
Products Ltd .
© European Commission (DG SANCO)
RASFF compiles all admissible alerts that are issued by  
a Member State or third country.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms29
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms39.  t he auditors found that there was widespread satisfaction  
within the union concerning the utility and operation of the 
RAsff system. however, the intensity of member states' reac -
tions to alerts issued by other member states varied according 
to their interpretation of the application of reinforced checks 
a n d  t h e  ‘q u a l i t y ’ o f  t h e  a l e r t .  fo r  e x a m p l e,  fr a n c e  d o e s  n o t 
launch reinforced checks unless the issuing country shares its 
criteria for analysis.
40.  o verall, there is no clearly understood set of rules relating   
to the RAsff , either for launching an alert of a risk to   
human health at national level or for consequently launching 
it in all member states. there is a similar lack of consistency 
as regards implementing more stringent checks following an 
alert or launching an enquiry under the supervision of the  
commission’s responsible services. the audit revealed that, in 
one case of meat exported to the eu that was reported by the 
national authorities in the third country of origin, the system 
was not capable of responding sufficiently early to trigger  
reinforced checks and ensure that all the meat in question  
was withheld from the market and returned to the countr y of 
origin. the member states were not actually informed until  
one week later, the commission's special prevention arrange -
ments (e.g. the safeguard cell) were not activated, and there 
was therefore a delay in the launch of reinforced checks.
30
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsneed for interf Ace bet Ween trAces  And  
relev Ant nA tionAl d AtAbAses
41.  it is still difficult, for a number of reasons linked to the rules 
and requirements of international trade, to cross-check the  
data in tRA ces against customs information:
company databases are not universally accessible;  ο
the international rules do not require shipments (mari -  ο
time or otherwise) to be described in detail;
there is no obligation to enter the 10-digit tARic code  ο
for imported goods on the summary declaration (mani -
fest);
national customs data are not automatically transferred  ο
in real time to dG tAXud . moreover, the customs service 
of the final destination which releases the imported meat 
may not be that of the member state through which the 
meat entered the eu .
42.  it is generally the case that the member states have not estab -
lished national procedures for reconciling the data in tRA ces  
(e.g. volume of meat imports) with those logged in local sys -
tems or customs records, in comext24 and/or by the third coun -
try inspection bodies. for example, the visit to the Le havre  
BiP revealed that, whereas the national database recorded  
some 14 560 consignments of meat imported for human con -
sumption in 2008, the corresponding figure in the local system 
was 14 750.
ncts  — risk of ev Ading veterinAry checks  
43.  t he ncts25 is a computerised system that was introduced in  
2003 to enable businesses to enter data on the movement of 
goods ‘in transit’26, for which final clearance may take place at 
any internal customs office of destination rather than at the 
point of entry into the eu .24 comext is e urostat's reference 
database for external trade.
25 ncts (new c omputerised 
transit s ystem) — d ecision 
no 105/2000/ec of the e uropean 
Parliament and of the c ouncil of 
17 d ecember 1999 amending 
decision no 210/97/ec adopting 
an action programme for customs 
in the c ommunity ( customs 2000) 
and repealing c ouncil d ecision 
91/341/eec ( oj L 13, 19.1.2000,  
p. 1).
26 ‘transit’ is defined in the 
veterinary rules as relating to 
shipments between two third 
countries via the territory of the eu .
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms31
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms44.  t he relevant community legislation does not require a tARic  
code to be given when an entry is made in the ncts. in the  
a b s e n c e  o f  f i l t e r s  w h i c h  wo u l d  a l l o w  d e c l a r a t i o n s  o f  g o o d s 
concerned by the sanitary legislation to be identified, it is  
entirely possible for clearance to take place although no vet -
erinar y checks were made when the goods entered the eu. it 
is at the discretion of each customs administration to examine 
its operations and internal structure and decide whether such 
filters should be set up. following a recent incident in which 
goods imported by air were forwarded elsewhere by road be -
fore being inspected, the spanish customs authorities modi -
fied their national ncts so that shipments of this sort can be 
detected and subjected to veterinary checks as soon as they 
enter the country.
45.  s everal fVo reports27 draw attention to the absence of ap -
propriate filters in national nctss. despite this, there has still 
been no amendment to remedy this omission in eu law.
surveill Ance by the commission of  
the nA tionAl systems for m AnA ging  
veterinAry checks
46.  each member state is required to prepare a multiannual na -
tional control plan in order to promote a consistent, compre -
h e n s i ve  a n d  i n t e g r a t e d  a p p ro a c h  fo r  i t s  o f f i c i a l  c o n t ro l s  o n 
the feed and food chain, as well as on the implementation of 
legislation on animal health and animal welfare, and on im -
ports.
need for An eu str Ategy for the prep ArAtion  
And ev Alu Ation of surveill Ance pl Ans  
47.  t o date, the commission has not taken the initiative to provide 
guidelines (e.g. for harmonised sampling and laboratory test -
ing) for the drafting of the national monitoring plans defined 
in Regulation (ec ) no 136/2004, which is left entirely to the  
discretion of the member states. Although the fVo verifies  
through its audits that such plans exist and are being applied 
in practice, it does not examine their relevance in detail. 27 dG(sAnco )/ 2009-8203 - mR –  
finAL (slovenia); dG(sAnco )/ 
2009-8085 - mR – finAL (sweden); 
dG(sAnco )/ 2009-8081 - mR – 
finAL (Lithuania).
32
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms48.  it was found that the national monitoring plans are prepared 
on the basis of a risk analysis and the results of the analyses 
which national laboratories are accredited to perform. how -
ever, it depends on the member state whether the risk analysis 
takes account of the elements of directive 96/23/ec28 (findings 
of national residue monitoring plans) and of Regulations ( ec) 
no 2073/200529, no 466/200130 and no 1881/200631 (existence 
of eu or international rapid alerts and efsA scientific opinions, 
and the characteristics and findings of and risks revealed by 
third country residue plans32). moreover, the plans were of ten 
found to suffer from budgetary constraints.28 council directive 96/23/ec  
of 29 April 1996 on measures to 
monitor certain substances and 
residues thereof in live animals 
and animal products and repealing 
directives 85/358/ eec and  
86/469/eec and d ecisions 89/187/eec   
and 91/664/ eec (oj L 125, 
23.5.1996, p. 10).
29 commission Regulation (ec ) 
no 2073/2005 of 15 november 
2005 on microbiological criteria for 
foodstuffs ( oj L 338, 22.12.2005,  
p. 1).
tAble  3 
different levels of l Abor Atory AnAlysis
Number of consignments subjected  
to laboratory analysis / number of loads × 100  
(approximate percentage )Remarks
Country Red meat White meat 2008
Lithuania ≤ 10 % every 10th consignment sampled 
France 3 % two analyses made systematically 
Spain 0,4 % 1,8 % Plan provided for 5 % analysis rate
Greece 0,02 % to 0,2 % 0,02 % to 0,5 % 1 % of physical checks
Netherlands ≤ 1,0 % residue + ≤ 0,5 % microbiology% calculated on number of analyses not number of 
consignments sampled 
Romania 1 % to 3 % planned depending on category of goods Data on testing unavailable
United
Kingdom0,02 % to 0,2 % 0,02 % to 0,5 % 1 % of physical checks  
(e.g. 0,02 % of meat from New Zealand)
Source:  data collected during on-the-spot audits in the m ember s tates. 
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms33
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms49.  f or instance, it was found that the united Kingdom and spanish 
plans do not specify particular types of analyte to be looked 
for by third country of origin. in spain, Lithuania and Ro -
mania, meanwhile, where the choice of tests is limited by the 
capacity of laboratories to perform certain analyses, and/or  
whether they have the accreditation to do so, the monitoring 
plans for 2008 did not cover the detection in meat of certain 
categories of hormonal residue (anabolics) and/or environ -
mental contaminants (dioxins, heavy metals). Lastly, Greece  
had not yet drawn up a national monitoring plan, and as a  
result the veterinarians at Greek BiPs themselves determined 
which analytes they would be seeking.
50.  According to the french authorities, increases in the workload 
of certain BiPs might cause them to exhaust their budgets be -
fore the end of the year and thus be unable to implement their 
monitoring plans in full, meaning that the choice of analysis 
could be dictated by financial rather than scientific consid -
erations. it was found at one Romanian BiP that just 20 of the 
63 laboratory analyses provided for in the 2008 plan had been 
c a r r i e d  o u t .  ow i n g  t o  b u d g e t a r y  c o n s t r a i n t s,  t h e  2 0 0 9  p l a n 
now contained just 44.
51.  eu legislation does not set minimum percentages either for  
overall numbers or for each type of laboratory test to be per -
formed by volume, type of product or place of origin. however 
it foresees that implementing decisions will be adopted set -
ting harmonised sampling and laboratory testing. As a result, 
the percentage of laborator y analyses that are to be made is 
specified in the national monitoring plan. Values for the vari -
ous levels of laboratory tests that were planned and/or carried 
out in 2008 in the member states visited during the on-the-
spot audit are given in Table 3 .
52.  different member states operate different surveillance strat -
egies. some use a sampling frequency calculated on the number  
of import consignments and/or the nature/origin of the prod -
uct concerned, while perhaps also allowing some discretion  
to BiP veterinarians. others tie the sampling frequency to the 
physical checking rate specified in eu law, in which case la-
b o rato r y  te s t s  m ay  b e  p a r t i c u l a r l y  ra re  o n  fo o d s t u f fs  f ro m  a 
third country with which the eu has signed an sPs (sanitary  
and phytosanitary measures) agreement (e.g. 0,02 % in the  
case of meat from new Zealand). 30 commission Regulation (ec ) 
no 466/2001 of 8 m arch 2001 
setting maximum levels for certain 
contaminants in foodstuffs ( oj L 
77, 16.3.2001, p. 1).
31 commission Regulation ( ec) no 
1881/2006 of 19 d ecember 2006 
setting maximum levels for certain 
contaminants in foodstuffs ( oj L 
364, 20.12.2006, p. 5).
32 http://ec.europa.eu/food/
food/chemicalsafety/residues/
third_countries_en.htm#3
34
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms53.  t he audit also revealed that the import controls in member  
states did not always cover the entire distribution chain from 
the point of entry (BiP) to the final consumer, via the bodies  
responsible for loading (which are required to complete cer -
tain formalities with customs/BiPs), shippers, importers and  
distributors. it was also found that no reference is made to the 
objectives of the multiannual national control plan (m AncP)  
defined in Article 42 of Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004 when as -
sessing the results given in the annual reports which the mem-
ber s tates submit under Article 44 of the same regulation.
54.  Although the main responsibility for a consignment's entry  
into the eu lies with the importer, that responsibility is often 
s h a re d  w i t h  s h i p p i n g  a n d / o r  c u s to m s  a g e nt s,  w h i c h  t a k e  o n 
tasks such as the giving of prior notification and the presenta -
tion of shipments to the BiP . 
Customs take on tasks such as the presentation of shipments to the BIP .
© European Court of Auditors
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms35
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms55.  dG sAnco has no data on the results of checks made at these 
‘s t a k e h o l d e r s’ i n  t h e  s h i p p i n g  p ro ce s s,  d e s p i te  t h e  f a c t  t h a t 
t h e y  m u s t  b e  a b l e  to  p rov i d e  e v i d e n ce  o f  t h e  t ra ce a b i l i t y  o f 
goods and store them in appropriate conditions.
56.  t he results that were obtained and included in the annual re -
por ts were not sufficiently assessed in terms of the objec tives 
set out in the mAncPs. the first commission annual report  
referred to in Article 44(6) of Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004 on 
the implementation of integrated multiannual national control 
plans was published on 25 August 201033. 
fees And penAl ties not hArmonised  
57.  in line with World trade organisation (W to) and food and  
Agriculture organisation of the united nations (f Ao) guide -
lines, the commission had stated in its White Paper34 that the 
fees applied to import controls should be limited to the cost 
of those controls and that they should be applied in a uniform 
manner so as to avoid distorting trade. in practice, however, 
Article 27 of Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004 requires the mem-
ber states either to charge fees on imports at the minimum  
established rates or to cover the costs occasioned by official 
controls.
58.  t he audit revealed that the commission does not have pre -
cise information on whether the costs of controls correspond 
closely to the fees collected, especially where a member state 
applies rates lower than the established minima. in two of  
the four member states visited, the audit also found that the 
competent national authorities were unable to demonstrate  
by means of financial supporting documents that the statu -
tory eu target of a balance between control expenditure and 
revenue had been achieved. A recent study35 made for the  
commission has also shown that the calculation methods used 
by the m ember s tates are wanting in transparency.
59.  in the same way as with fees, it is important to avoid trade  
distortions by harmonising the penalties that can be im -
posed when controls reveal shortcomings. the audit found  
that, in the course of its on-the-spot checks, the fVo deter -
mines whether penalties are available and are actively ap -
plied against businesses that are at fault. however, no general 
guidelines or good practices have been defined in this area, 
and the commission's services were unable to give an opinion 
as to whether the various schemes that are implemented in the 
member s tates are proportional and have dissuasive force.33 com(2010) 441 final, 25.8.2010.
34 Annex c, Article 1(f), of the W to 
agreement on the application 
of sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures provides that ‘any fees 
imposed for the procedures on 
imported products should be 
no higher than the actual cost 
of the service’ . Paragraph 18 of 
fAo standard c Ac/GL 20-1995 
provides that ‘ ... any fees imposed 
by importing countries should 
be limited to what is reasonable 
and necessary’ . chapter 6, 
paragraph 87, of the WPfs states: 
‘guarantees should be introduced 
to ensure that fees are used only 
for the financing of controls’ . 
35 food chain e valuation 
consortium ( fcec ) from April 
to november 2008, Agra ceAs  
consulting.
36
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformscert Ain bips hA ve A very lo W level of Activity
60.  As regards the setting-up of the BiPs, cases were detected in 
spain, Greece and Romania where the transactions were so  
insignificant that the need for such BiPs — which require the 
permanent availability of experienced and updated exper ts —  
is called into question. in fact, some B iPs exist for internal  
reasons not related to management efficiency or control ef -
fectiveness, and no cost/benefit analysis is available to justify 
their remaining in activity.
61.  m oreover, the audit on the spot has also shown that frequently 
BiPs have no access to the databases or relevant par ts thereof 
available to the customs services. this hinders their ability  
to easily cross- check if all relevant consignments have been 
prenotified to the BiP for veterinary checks.
limited role of the internAl Audit in  
nAtionAl control systems
62.  in three out of the four member states visited without the fVo  
inspectors, the internal control function was not appropriately 
organised and did not operate in accordance with either the 
applicable eu regulations (e.g. Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004) 
or the relevant iso standards36 (e.g. existence of an audit plan, 
a description of tasks, quality control arrangements, an organ -
ised follow-up, a supervision audit committee). moreover, the 
commission has issued guidelines37 for national internal audits 
in line with the abovementioned standards but they are not  
binding and they are not appropriately applied. the principle 
of the internal auditors’ independence was not respected in  
two of the four abovementioned member states since the in -
ternal auditors were not placed under the direct dependence 
of the highest level of the hierarchy of the competent national 
authority.
 436 iso  19011: 2002 ‘Guidelines 
for quality and/or environmental 
management systems auditing’ , 
international organisation for 
standardisation, 1 october 
2002; iso 9000: 2000, ‘Quality 
management systems — 
fundamentals and vocabulary’ , 
international organisation for 
standardisation, d ecember 2000.
37 commission decision  
2006/677/ ec of 29 september 2006 
setting out the guidelines laying 
down criteria for the conduct 
of audits under Regulation (ec ) 
no 882/2004 of the e uropean 
Parliament and of the c ouncil 
on official controls to verify 
compliance with feed and food law, 
animal health and animal welfare 
rules ( oj L 278, 10.10.2006, p. 15).
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms37
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms63.  t he deficiencies detected in the member states' internal audit 
procedures include:
planning on the basis of informal risk analyses (spain,   (a) 
Romania), without allowance for the workload of BiPs   
(Romania) or slavishly following a five-year cycle (Lithuania);
audits not focused on the objectives in the mAncPs, or  (b) 
focusing on the compliance of installations rather than on 
that of the control procedures actually in place;
controls carried out by just one inspector who may be  (c) 
insufficiently trained in performing veterinary checks on 
meat imports;
control reports which do not conform, in structure and  (d) 
c o n t e n t ,  t o  g e n e r a l l y  a c c e p t e d  p r a c t i c e ,  e s p e c i a l l y  a s 
regards the description of shortcomings and the iden -
tification and prioritisation of the necessary corrective  
measures.
64.  if the audit methods and techniques currently in use at the  
fVo were brought into line with the internal audits of the  
member state authorities carrying out import checks, the fVo  
wo u l d  b e  a b l e  to  t a k e  a cco u nt  o f  t h e  re s u l t s  o f  t h o s e  a u d i t s 
and adjust the frequenc y of its visits and/or target the weak 
links in the control chain with a view to improving the control 
procedure.
need for perform Ance indic Ators to monitor  
progress on the ‘hygiene p AckAge’ objectives  
65.  c ontrary to what was affirmed in the White Paper38, the com-
mission has not yet defined performance indicators for na -
tional control systems. Where third country exporters to the 
eu are concerned, there has also been no formal adoption of 
performance indicators in relation to the controls made at  
every stage in the production chain prior to export.38 one of the objectives referred 
to in chapter 6 (paragraph 91) of 
the White Paper reads as follows: 
‘there is therefore a clear need 
for a community framework of 
national control systems … this 
community framework would have 
… c ommunity control guidelines. 
these would … [set] c ommunity 
indicators of performance. ’
38
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsneed for better t Argeting of bips And  
consignments on the b Asis of risk AnAlysis
66.  Article 2 of commission decision 2001/881/ ec as amended by 
commission decision 2005/13/ec of 3 january 2005 states in 
paragraph 339 that  ‘inspections by the commission veterinary 
exper ts will be based upon assessment of all relevant fac tors 
as detailed in paragraph 4 and the potential risks and impact 
of those factors for animal health and public health in the  
community’  and in paragraph 4:  ‘the commission establishes 
destination and frequenc y priorities when planning missions 
of the food and Veterinary office, taking into account the  
history of previous inspections made in any member state,  
the data collected under the tRA ces system, information re -
ported by member states under commission Regulation (ec ) 
no 745/2004 and the following parameters:
the quantitative and qualitative patterns of trade con -  ο
cerning any member state, including the type and spe -
cies of animals or of products concerned, and their coun -
try of origin,
relevant information concerning possible illegal imports  ο
and the potential risk of introduction of disease,
information available under the Rapid Alert s ystem,  ο
any other relevant information. ’   ο
67.  d espite its limited resources the commission's fVo has a solid 
body of experts and plays an important role, together with na -
tional responsible entities, in maintaining the necessary con -
trol pressure on the quality of the control checks performed 
in the BiPs all across the eu. overall, appropriate standards  
and detailed guidelines and procedures were adopted for the 
fVo's work planning, execution, reporting and follow-up. fVo  
inspections are performed in an organised manner and carried 
out in accordance with the rules adopted. however, there is  
room for further improvement, mainly as regards the formal  
risk analysis per formed for establishing the annual audit work 
plan and regarding the targeting of missions on the follow-up 
of previous observations.39 commission d ecision  
2001/881/ec ( oj L 326,  
11.12.2001, p. 44) was repealed by 
commission d ecision 2009/821/ec   
(oj L 296, 12.11.2009, p. 1),  
but the principles set out in 
paragraph 3 remain relevant for 
risk analysis.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms39
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms68.  in order to comply with the legal requirements, each year the 
inspection work of the fVo has to be planned with the suppor t 
of a transparent risk model. the fVo has developed a model 
in excel, the output of which is the allocation of a level of risk 
(green/orange/red) to each m ember s tate.
69.  t here is some consistency between the risk criteria used and 
the fVo template for mission reports. As regards the weighting 
of the different criteria the fVo emphasised that the number 
of sub-criteria used for each main criterion gives more weight 
to some criteria than to others.
70.  however, it is not clear why the criteria adopted by the fVo40 
have been chosen while trade volume and relevant information 
obtained from tRA ces or from RAsff have not been included 
even though their consideration is required by the relevant  
fVo s t a n d a rd  o p e r a t i n g  p ro c e d u re.  fu r t h e r m o re,  n e i t h e r  i s 
the weighting given to each criterion clear nor is there a clear 
rule for allocating a weighting to a member state with a red, 
orange or green light in respect of a specific criterion in the 
planning table. 
71.  t he fVo inspection planning is presented to the member  
states and they are asked to comment on it. however, very  
few comments have been received so far. 
72.  t his being so, the risk model adopted for the annual priori -
tisation of the fVo inspections in member states does not  
integrate important and legally required information facilitat -
ing a quantified analysis to sustain the prioritisation result.  
the relative impor tance of the criteria and of the sub - criteria 
used is neither sufficiently clear nor fully justified. As a con -
sequence, the model adopted has limited value for explaining 
or for communicating the results of the analysis performed by 
the fVo in a transparent manner.40 standard operating Procedure 
PL-soP01: Planning of the sAnco  
mission Programme. Paragraph 4.4 
identification of Priorities.
40
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms73.  t he audit has also highlighted the need for further formalisa -
tion of the choices made when planning inspections in the  
member state (e.g. BiPs selected, cold stores, type of consign -
ments, weakness of internal control) and of the role played  
by risk analyses in this process (factors such as findings in  
t h e  l a s t  v i s i t ,  t y p e  o f  co n s i gn m e n t s  re ce i ve d  a n d  a n o m a l i e s 
detected/registered in tRA ces). on the basis of their personal 
experience the fVo inspectors tend to take these factors into 
account. however, there is a need for a more structured plan -
ning process, formally justifying the planning decisions taken, 
so as to allow effective external quality control of the inspec -
tions and to help to minimise the difficulties resulting from  
staff turnover.
repeA ted recommend Ations over sever Al  
missions  
74.  t he audit examined the successive inspection reports of the 
fVo issued for three of the seven member states visited:  
Greece (2007–09), spain (2002–08) and the united Kingdom  
(2001–09). the shortcomings reported recur very frequently  
and mainly relate to facilities, equipment and implemented  
procedures. indeed the fVo reports repeated the same re -
marks frequently for four to five years for situations that had 
not yet been redressed.
FVO inspections are performed in  
an organised manner and carried out  
in accordance with the rules adopted.
© European Commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms41
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms75.  As the fVo generally follows up its findings, there is evidence 
that member states frequently do not effectively remedy the 
shortcomings detected within a reasonable time period. this 
shows that, at this stage, dG sAnco  does not succeed in ensur -
ing that the required corrections are made, despite the almost 
annual frequenc y of its inspec tion visits (e.g. monitoring plan 
introduced late, non-compliant infrastructure at certain BiPs, 
delayed application of fee rates, shortcomings in the system 
for identifying shipments, incomplete records in tRA ces).
coordinA tion And ev Alu Ation of the  
veterinAry checks system
76.  t he commission is entitled to coordinate the actions under -
taken by member states when it becomes aware of ac tivities 
that could be contrary to feed and food law.
coordinA tion of the member stAte  
veterinAry checks systems needs  
improvement
77.  in accordance with title iV of Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004, the 
commission has taken several initiatives with a view to speed -
ing up the harmonisation of B iP controls. examples include  
the ‘Better training for safer food’ training programme for BiP 
o f f i ce r s  f ro m  a  ra n g e  o f  me m b e r  st ate s,  t h e  p a r t i c i p at i o n  o f 
national experts in the fVo's teams of on-the-spot auditors, 
the issue of guidelines for the application of cer tain provisions 
of the hygiene regulations and other guidelines on imports.
42
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms41 oj L 306, 23.11.2001, p. 28. 78.  h owever, at the time of the audit around 49 communit y B iPs 
(out of around 300) had still not been inspected by the fVo  
since before decision 2001/812/ec laying down the require -
ments for the approval of border inspection posts responsible 
for veterinary checks on products introduced into the com -
munity from third countries was adopted41. this is in spite  
of the fact that fVo inspections are a tool favoured by the  
commission to verify the implementation of the eu legisla -
tion ensuring that good practices are implemented in all eu 
BiPs and that national authorities take whatever corrective  
measures are necessary at the appropriate time.
79.  t he audit also found that several key ‘guidelines’ are still in  
preparation or being updated. these include guidelines relat -
ing to the rules implementing council directive 2002/99/ ec of 
16 december 2002 laying down the animal health rules gov -
erning the production, processing, distribution and introduc -
tion of products of animal origin for human consumption.
80.  t he audit has shown that the reinforced checks are imple -
mented differently in the various m ember s tates (see Box 1 ).
81.  t h e  a u d i t  h a s  a l s o  h i g h l i g hte d  t h e  f a c t  t h at  t h e  u p d at i n g  o f 
the food and veterinary legislation in force is a heavy bur -
den for all the administrative actors concerned. Legislation  
is frequently updated, amended and supplemented (e.g. sPs  
agreements, approved establishments or list of approved BiPs). 
in order to be informed in an up-to-date manner and have a 
comprehensive set of applicable legislation the fVo organises 
an internal updating itself. therefore one member of the fVo’s 
BiP inspection team is tasked with checking the official jour -
nal and informing the other colleagues of changes introduced. 
According to the fVo this procedure is necessar y as there is 
no other source available where the consolidated and com -
prehensive set of legislation can be consulted. for the time  
b e i n g,  l e gi s l a t i ve  d o c u m e n t s  a re  a cce s s i b l e  t h ro u g h  t h e  dG 
sAnco  website and euR-Lex. however, none of these sources 
provides a user-friendly way of easily obtaining exhaustive  
and complete information as no systematically consolidated 
versions are available (e.g. sPs agreements).
 
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms43
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms82.  Although the fVo ’s import team already designates one mem -
ber of a team of six to this task and member states have mostly 
established their own system or use an existing commercial  
system, which is subject to a charge, it would be beneficial  
if this information were to be provided centrally by the com-
mission in a consolidated and comprehensive manner. if the 
commission were to supply such a tool, this would avoid the 
27 member states and the fVo and other commission ser vices 
having to develop and maintain their own system and would 
mitigate the risks of gaps and delays in updating.
83.  t he commission has not facilitated the preparation and/or  
updating of the member states' national plans (m AncPs) in  
relation to imports. At the time of the audit, all the mem-
b e r  st a t e s  h a d  a  mAn cP  a n d  h a d  s e n t  a  f i r s t  a n n u a l  r e p o r t 
to the fVo , which is supposed to produce an analysis of the  
documents received (plans and annual reports). the three-year 
programme of ‘general’ audits provides for audited member  
states to be sent an initial set of findings. however, no mem-
ber states visited during the court’s audit had received views 
on either their mAncPs or their first annual reports; nor had 
they been sent any written recommendations concerning the 
establishment of an action plan. 
imp Act of more stringent eu st And Ards on  
the competitiveness of eu producers
84.  t he audit highlighted that certain standards (mainly on ani -
mal welfare) imposed on eu farmers and operators involved  
in meat production which are complementary to the inter -
national sanitary standards accepted by the W to cannot be  
i m p o s e d  o n  p ro d u c e r s  o f  i m p o r t e d  m e a t .  A ny  l i m i t a t i o n  o n 
impor ts for sanitar y reasons must be backed up by scientific 
evidence.
 
44
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms85. As regards the costs and benefits of such standards, the in -
formation available is incomplete. some analyses and partial 
information on costs (e.g. regarding traceability) were pro -
vided in a 2005/06 dG R td study on cross-compliance. A cer -
tain amount of information — relating in particular to agri -
cultural marketing standards (labelling) — was also provided 
in the 2008 Green Paper on agricultural product quality42. in 
addition, sanitary measures were discussed in the dG sAnco  
standing committee on the food chain and Animal health  
(sc ofc Ah), and representatives of the parties which bear the 
brunt of the additional costs that are incurred when legislation 
is adopted (e.g. producers and processors) have the oppor -
tunity to raise their concerns through consultative committees, 
including the Advisory Group on the food chain and Animal 
and Plant health43. Lastly, consultation of professional stake -
holders has improved in recent years, a view shared by the  
organisations interviewed representing the main chain of food 
and feed — producers, impor ters, industries and consumers —  
even if feedback from the commission services is still seen  
as weak. 
86.  t he audit found, nonetheless, that the commission cannot  
at present draw on a sufficiently comprehensive and reliable 
study comparing the costs and benefits of the controls im -
posed on eu farmers and operators with those applicable to 
meat imports, especially where other public grants to eu farm -
ers have to be taken into consideration. the council invited  
the commission44 to present a report to it and the Parliament, 
before the end of 2010, on the effectiveness and coherence  
of sanitary and phytosanitary import controls on foodstuffs. 
the Parliament has also commissioned a study of ‘the cost of 
complying with eu legislation in the field of environmental,  
animal welfare and food safety’ , the results of which may help 
to remedy the weaknesses of the information available in the 
commission’s services in this respect.42 com (2008) 641 final, 
15.10.2008.
43 A committee composed of 
representatives of a range of 
associations, set up by commission 
decision 2004/613/ ec of 6 August 
2004 ( oj L 275, 25.8.2004, p. 17).
44 council c onclusions  
(section 4.2), 16.12.2008,  
17169/08 Add 1.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms45
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms87.  t he commission's review and adaptation of the legal frame -
work governing the veterinary checks on imported meat initi -
ated in 2000 by the White Paper and finally decided in 2004  
with the adoption of the ‘hygiene package’ have been delayed 
and still have to be completed in several important aspects. 
indicators on pre-export checks and for evaluating the veter-  
 inary agreements are missing (paragraphs 17 to 29). Reduc -
tions in the levels of checks imposed on imports were ac -
c e p t e d  u n d e r  e q u i v a l e n c e  a g r e e m e n t s  w i t h  t h i r d  c o u n t r i e s 
w h i c h  a r e  n o t  s u f f i c i e n t l y  d o c u m e n t e d ,  a n d  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 
against the exports of some member states was not avoided 
(paragraphs 30 to 32).
88.  t he two information systems ( tRA ces and RAsff) on which  
the veterinary checks on eu meat imports rely are widely used 
but they need improving. cer tain B iPs of some member states 
still do not enter meat impor t data in tRAces , and inter faces 
with customs or other national databases have not yet been 
established. the RAsff does not ensure that the relevant alerts 
a r e  l a u n c h e d  a n d  t h a t  p r e v e n t i v e  a c t i o n  i s  a l w a y s  t a k e n  a s 
quickly as required throughout the eu (paragraphs 34 to 45).
89.  m ainly through its fVo, the commission continuously carries 
out inspections in the m ember s tates. however, according to 
the fVo — whose reports can be consulted on the correspond -
ing website together with the responses from the national  
authorities — the shor tcomings detec ted have of ten still not 
been remedied by member states more than two years later  
(paragraphs 47 to 83). the audit concluded that there is still 
room for further improvements. conc Lusions  And 
Recommend Ations
46
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms90.  in the framework of its supervisory and coordination compe -
tences it is recommended that the commission take appropri -
ate action on the following:
endeavour to ensure that all member states have the  ο
same rights to export to the third countries with which 
veterinary agreements have been concluded by the eu;
further development of the regulatory framework neces -  ο
sary for the implementation of the ‘hygiene package’ and 
its presentation in a consolidated, user-friendly manner;
further development of the tRA ces and RAsff informa -  ο
tion systems so that all the necessary data are available 
in a timely manner and alerts are quickly communicated 
and acted upon, in similar ways, in all the participating 
countries;
development of guidelines for the national monitoring  ο
and control plans implementing a common eu veterinary 
checks strategy, with harmonised fees and effective BiPs 
checked by appropriate internal controls;
development of a common set of indicators for assess -  ο
ing the implementation of the ‘ hygiene pack age’ and its 
achievement of the corresponding eu objectives;
further improvement of the type and transparency of the  ο
risk assessment models used by the fVo for risk analysis 
in the framework of its audit work planning; 
need to take the appropriate initiatives, including le -  ο
gislative or judicial action if necessary, to overcome the 
present situation under which recurrent findings and 
recommendations to the member states' authorities fre -
quently remain waiting for corrective action for several 
years;
harmonisation among member states of the rules for  ο
launching a sanitary alert and for implementing the con -
sequent reinforced checks.
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms47
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms91.  t he competitiveness of eu meat production may be affected  
by the abovementioned animal welfare standards which go  
beyond the internationally accepted standards agreed by the 
Wto. the commission should carry out an assessment of the  
effect of these specific rules on the competitiveness of eu pro -
ducers. in this regard, the commission has been invited by the 
council to present a report on the veterinary checks on imports 
by the end of 2010. moreover, the results of a study commis -
sioned by the european Parliament should also be available  
by the end of 2010 and may shed light on the impact of the  
abovementioned measures (paragraphs 84 to 86).
this report was adopted by chamber i, headed by mr michel cRetin , 
member of the court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 
17 n ovember 2010.
For the Court of Auditors
Vítor m anuel da si LVA c ALdeiRA
President
48
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsexecutive  summ Ary
iv. 
the general food law and the ‘hygiene  
package’ , including Regulation (ec )  
no 882/2004, came into being in 2002 and 
2004 respectively. Appropriate measures  
were taken to ensure that any delay in the 
implementation of measures under the  
hygiene package did not lead to a lower  
level of hygiene protection.
the frequenc y of physical checks has been 
reduced for third countries under veter -
inary agreements (VAs), because of the reli -
ability  of the central authorities’ perform -
ance on controls for specific commodities 
expor ted to the eu. 
v. 
the RAsff and tRA ces are designed to  
ensure dissemination of information when 
non-compliances are found during controls 
on food and feed on the eu market. they  
also provide the capability to track imports 
of goods into the eu and intra- eu trade in 
live animals. tRA ces is a relatively recent  
system which is still under development.
tRA ces is a very ambitious initiative and  
there have been inevitable delays in member 
states (mss) adapting to its  requirements  
in a uniform manner. the commission has  
already taken action to encourage the mem-
ber s tates to use tRA ces  properly. vi. 
these recommendations will be taken into 
account in the commission’s ongoing work 
to ensure that import controls remain fit  
for purpose.
second indent
the commission agrees to further develop 
tRA ces and RAsff and their utilities. in  
fact, the work is already in progress.
third indent
the current legislation does not provide  
the commission with legal powers to do  
so. the feasibility of such a proposal could 
be investigated. 
fourth indent
staff within the fVo and dG sAnco ’s policy 
directorates are required to agree the cri -
teria that are considered for setting poten -
tial mission priorities and, in the prioriti -
sation process itself, to demonstrate and  
document that these criteria have been  
consistently applied. this in turn leads  
to more transparent choices in the event  
that changes have to be made to the pro -
gramme. the exercise will, however, con -
tinue to be qualitative rather than quan -
titative. When a ‘quantitative model’ has  
been developed in the past, it has been  
found to be ver y cumbersome and has not 
provided any better result than the quali -
tative approach currently used (even when 
quantitative data, such as trade data, are  
considered).RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms4949
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsintroduction
2. 
neither of the crises referred to originated 
from imported meat or meat products. 
the general food law and the ‘hygiene  
package’ , including Regulation (ec )  
no 882/2004, came into being in 2002 and 
2004 respectively. Appropriate measures  
were taken to ensure that any delay in the 
implementation of measures under the  
‘hygiene package’ did not lead to a lower  
level of hygiene protection.
5. 
Legal imports of meat and meat products  
(or even of food of animal origin) are not  
a significant source of outbreaks of these  
diseases.
9. 
the equivalence determination in veter -
inary agreements addresses legislation and 
standards and does not include perform -
ance of the control system unless specified 
otherwise.
Audit  scope  And  Appro Ach
12. 
the legal basis for veterinary checks on  
meat imports remains council directive  
97/78/ec, which is still in force (as are the 
decisions implementing it). observ Ations
17. 
the commission has already started the  
exercise of simplifying the import leg -
islation and also plans a review of such  
legislation, which will include the possi -
bility of more user-friendly and uniform  
regula  tory requirements. i n the meantime,  
all rel evant information, i.e. import guar -
antees, certificates and lists of authorised 
third countries and approved establish -
ments, is available in the tRA ces system  
so that member state controllers at BiPs  
know which checks have to be carried out. 
economic operators also have access to  
the system, i.e. to certificates, the list of  
approved establishments and the legisla -
tion on the specific requirements. consoli -
dated versions of eu legislation are avail -
able from the ceLeX database, which is  
accessible to the general public. 
A guide on reinforced checks is being  
drafted, including use of tRA ces to ensure 
general application and harmonisation  
of the reinforced checks throughout the  
member states. 
box 1 — l egislation on reinforced 
checks unclear
see response to the observation above.RePLY of the  
commission
50
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms18. 
the commission has always been careful to 
ensure that any delays in making changes 
to import requirements to reflect cor -
responding changes to requirements in the 
eu itself are kept to the minimum. Pending 
such changes, the existing requirements,  
which may be stricter, remain in place.  
directive 2004/41/ec of the european Par -
liament and of the council of 21 April 2004 
was adopted, inter alia, for this purpose. 
19. 
these delays had no implications in terms 
of risks to health in connection with  
imported meat and meat products.
20. 
the commission acted on this reservation 
by making sure that there was no legal  
vacuum between the entry into force of  
the hygiene package and of certain provi -
sions implementing it. 
21. 
Based on the priorities set for its mission  
programme, the fVo carries out regular  
inspections in third countries exporting  
significant quantities of meat and meat  
produc ts to the eu. 
Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004 only requires 
third countries to provide the commission 
with information on their control system  
for each type of product intended to be  
exported to the eu. consequently, such  
guidelines on the general organisation and 
performance of checks carried out by third 
country cAs are not necessary or required 
under eu legislation.24. 
the delays were kept to the minimum and 
had no implications in terms of risks to  
human health in connection with imported 
meat and meat products and there was no 
legal vacuum between the entry into force 
of the ‘hygiene package’ and of certain  
provisions implementing it.
the measures which took effect after eight 
months were the result of the ongoing  
implementation of the agreement and the 
update of the references to legislation.  
the reduced checks were the result of the 
original negotiations on the agreement in 
1996/97 and are not related to the ‘hygiene 
package’ . 
25. 
Pre-export checks are not compulsory in  
the eu legislation on meat and meat prod -
uct imports, as there are four levels of con -
trol. these are: the approval of the coun -
try, listing of the country for the residue  
monitoring plan, listing of establishments 
and a harmonised health certificate setting 
animal and public health conditions. these 
levels rely on the third country cAs’ con -
trol system for the commodities exported  
to the eu .
fVo inspections always include verifica -
tion of the capacity of the third country’s  
control system to use only eu-authorised  
sources of meat and meat products. this  
includes their import requirements. RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5151
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms26. 
there is a general consensus that the ani -
mal health and hygiene status in new Zea -
land is among the very best in the world.  
nonetheless, the next amendment to the  
veterinary agreement with new Zealand  
will clarify (in Annex Viii) that 100 % iden -
tity checks are required for imports from  
new Zealand. 
27. 
the process for determining equivalence  
in international organisations (W to and  
codex Alimentarius) is not based on use of 
indicators. 
the AL oP for the eu did not change before 
or after the ‘hygiene package’ . first, it  
is set at political level, then the result -
ant measures are established in order to  
achieve the AL oP and not the other way  
around, which would mean that the AL oP  
is the result of the measures. determina -
tion of equivalence is based on assessment 
of the measures and the standards without 
taking into account control system per -
formance. 
28. 
this exercise was solely for information for 
both sides. it concluded that equivalence  
was not affected by the new eu legislation. 
consequently, all that needed to be done  
was to amend the annexes with references 
to the new regulation. 
29. 
As stated in the reply to observation 27,  
no revision as such was necessary for the  
veterinary agreements and the various lev -
els of equivalence achieved. therefore, ‘no 
common procedure for revision based on  
established quantitative and qualitative  
indicators’ was necessary.originally, for the veterinary agreements  
the method for establishing equivalence  
recommended by the codex Alimentarius  
based on comparison of legislation was  
used.
the fVo is not responsible for evaluat -
ing equivalence but for verifying that the  
standards laid down in the agreements are 
properly applied. 
box 2 — main difficulties for reviewing 
the sps agreements
As explained in the reply to observa -
tion  24, the reduced checks were the result 
of the original negotiations on the agree -
ment in 1996/97 and are not related to the 
‘hygiene package’ . today, experience has  
proved that new Zealand is the best per -
former at meeting eu import conditions.
box 3 — the physical check rates are 
minima. m ember s tates may do more. 
impor t checks are conformit y controls and 
not in themselves sufficient to establish  
applicable import conditions. further pro -
posals for harmonising some procedures  
and increasing use of tRA ces by member  
states are currently under way. further -
more, the legislation on import controls is 
already under review and revision is very  
possible. footnote 16 refers to risk fac -
tors which are not necessarily known at  
the BiP , for example, the target consumer  
group, the extent and nature of any fur -
ther processing, the exporting country’s  
inspection arrangements or the compli -
ance record of the third country produc -
ers.RePLY of the  
commission
52
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsin line with the principle of subsidiarity,  
responsibility for the consignment selec -
tion method lies primarily with the mem-
ber states, which are best placed to exer -
cise this role. the commission nonetheless, 
both through fVo inspection reports and  
in its coordination work with member  
states, promotes best practices and coop -
eration in identifying risks.
31. 
the results of laboratory analysis are one of 
a wide range of factors taken into account 
in risk assessment. dG sAnco is consider -
ing a more targeted risk-based system of  
physical controls and will be using such  
data to inform member states of the fre -
quency of physical checks needed, which  
third countries/establishments need to be 
more closely monitored and which analytes 
to target in imported foodstuffs. 
hormones are naturally produced at low  
levels in animals and these results give no 
reason to suspect abuse or misuse of hor -
mones as growth fac tors. 
32. 
Progress continues to be made on increas -
ing the number of member states recog -
nised as fully equivalent. 
Regarding the usA, no full equivalence  
status exists in either direction (except for 
fishery products imported into the eu).  
consequently, us federal legislation and  
eu legislation apply to trade. for all mem-
ber states the import legislation is harmo -
nised, so they should accept what is stated 
in the VA. in practice, for meat and meat  
products the general import guarantees  
and relevant certificates apply, as for all  
other third countries. 
see above.34. 
member states’ acceptance of tRA ces is  
continuing to increase and improve. the  
legal obligation to use tRA ces (d ecision  
2004/92/ec ) does not preclude use of  
national software.
there was a problem with convincing the  
three member state named to use tRA ces. 
however, implementation of tRA ces in  
every member states is now nearly com -
plete.
improvement of the tRA ces system is  
indeed an ongoing process.
the commission is seeking to address  
the issue raised by the court in order to  
consider how to use such data for devel -
opment of a risk-based approach to vet -
erinary checks in BiPs’ relevant model cer -
tificates.
35. 
comparing statistical data serving differ -
ent aims is currently neither relevant nor  
practicable. Reconciliation of such data is 
therefore not yet operational. discussions 
are ongoing between the relevant depart -
ments. 
tRA ces contains data on all consignments 
checked and released or refused or for  
transit to third countries at the border,  
whereas the customs authorities use two  
different systems, one for consignments  
released for free use in the eu at the bor -
der and one for consignments released   
for free use in the eu at their destination  
in a m ember s tate. RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5353
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms36. 
the relevant dG sAnco staff are aware of  
several of these points and are working on 
them. the court’s views will be helpful in  
this work. 
37. 
efsA was provided with the data when it  
requested information for its assessment. 
38. 
Article 50 of Regulation ( ec) no 178/2002 
laid down the general conditions for noti -
fying information to the RAsff . more  
detailed application measures drawn  
from experience (see footnote 23 of this  
report) as stipulated in Article 51 should  
be adopted in 2011.
39. 
the commission welcomes the widespread 
satisfaction expressed by the member  
states.
in line with the principle of subsidiarity,  
member states have discretion on how to  
react, but the commission is actively work -
ing to promote a common approach.
40. 
see response to observation 38.
the risk posed to public health from expo -
sure to this meat in this case was con -
sidered negligible.
the commission considers that the system 
reacted proportionately and in timely fash -
ion — see above. 41. 
As the aims of this data differ, their recon -
ciliation is therefore not yet operational.  
continuous cooperation exists between  
dG sAnco and dG tAXud and a specific  
project group has been set up to define  
the links between the customs databases  
and tRA ces.
the obligation to include the 10-digit  
tARic code on the summary declaration  
was raised several times. however, stake -
holders in the dG tAXud working groups  
refused to include the code.
42. 
tRA ces contains data on all consignments 
checked and released or refused or for  
transit to third countries at the border,  
whereas the customs authorities use two  
different systems, one for consignments  
released for free use in the eu at the bor -
der and one for consignments released   
for free use in the eu at their destination  
in a m ember s tate.
44. 
inclusion of the list of products in the  
Annex to decision 2007/275/ec in the  
tARic list and in the ncts has been dis -
cussed several times. however, this  
requires the agreement of customs author -
ities, which has not been forthcoming. dis-
cussions will continue in the context of the 
review of import control legislation.
45. 
this is the responsibility of the member  
states, but the commission actively pro -
motes a common approach.RePLY of the  
commission
54
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms47. 
Regulation (ec ) no 136/2004 imposes no  
legal requirement for the commission to  
draf t such guidelines. 
in addition to verifying the existence  
and application of the monitoring plans  
required by Regulation (ec ) no 136/2004,  
the fVo assesses the appropriateness of the 
plans (see the reply to observation 49). 
48. 
the relevance of these findings is very  
limit  ed in terms of exposure of consumers 
to risks to human health and, especially, to 
chemical contaminants. moreover, for food 
of animal origin, including aquaculture  
products, authorised third countries are  
listed on the basis of a residue and envi -
ronmental contaminants monitoring plan.
the commission has no powers over the  
budget allocated by member states gov -
ernments to c As’ control plans.
49. 
the legislation in relation to such moni -
toring plans is not prescriptive and it is to 
be expected that the monitoring plan for  
each member states is tailored to national 
needs. Where there are shortcomings in  
the design of the plan, the fVo highlights 
this. 
Any remedial action would need to take  
account of the subsidiarity principle.
51. 
this was intended by the legislative  
authorities to ensure flexibility and sub -
sidiarity to work. since there is no detailed 
legal requirement, such variations are to  
be expected and thus are not an infringe -
ment against eu legislation. 52. 
the surveillance strategies are the respon -
sibility of the m ember s tates.
53. 
the eu legislation stipulates that all con -
signments of imported food of animal ori -
gin must be controlled at BiPs. these con -
signments and possible further controls on 
them are tracked on the basis of Regula -
tion (ec ) no 882/2004.
55. 
the person responsible for the load signs  
the cVed , committing himself to pay any  
fees due and stating the origin and deliv -
ery address of the goods. this guarantees 
full traceability. 
Regarding conditions of storage, these  
consignments are subject to the normal  
rules on post-B iP release of intra- commu -
nity goods.
57. 
the harmonisation of control fees is a  
complex and controversial issue where  
progress has proved difficult despite the  
commission’s best efforts. once legislation 
has been formulated in coordination with 
the european Parliament and the council, 
it is fully applicable in the member states. 
the commission, as guardian of the trea -
ties, is duty bound to ensure that it is  
implemented as it stands.
58. 
the commission is required only to exam -
ine whether the fees comply with the  
requirements of Article 27 of Regulation  
(ec) no 882/2004. RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5555
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsthe commission has already announced  
that it intends to revise the current con -
trol fee structure. the related impact  
assessment is currently being conducted.  
if appropriate, a commission proposal to  
amend the rules on the financing of offi -
cial controls will be presented in 2012  
(together with the other planned reviews  
involving Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004).
59. 
the aim of harmonisation is not included  
in the legal basis (Article 55 of Regulation 
(ec ) no 882/2004). in addition, in terms of 
sanctions, the subsidiarity principle is par -
ticularly relevant.
during its audits, the fVo verifies correct  
implementation of Article 55.
As harmonisation of penalties is not  
included in the legal basis (Article 55 of  
Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004), formulation 
of guidelines or good practices is not an  
issue.
60. 
this is a power reserved for member states 
under eu law. if a member state requests  
approval of a BiP , all the commission can  
do is to ascertain whether the facilities,  
equipment and staff in place comply with 
eu legislation. it has no powers to decide  
on its utility or otherwise.62. 
similar findings have been reported by the 
fVo . Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004 intro -
duced the requirement for an internal  
audit (or to have external audits carried  
out). Given the complexity of such audit  
systems and the need to address issues of 
a higher priority, it is understandable that 
they have not yet been fully developed  
and that member states are at different  
stages of development. however, the fVo  
has been evaluating member states’ audit 
systems in the series of general audits of  
member states’ control systems. the first  
round of this series will be completed  
in 2010. the fVo has already produced  
numerous findings, conclusions and rec -
ommendations regarding audit systems.  
structured follow-up of these recommen -
dations is already in place.
these are the legal provisions adopted by 
the european Parliament and the council, 
which decided that such measures should 
not be binding. however they are taken  
into account by the fVo in its inspection  
activities.
63. 
see the reply to observation 62. internal  
control functions are in place in some  
member states and the number should  
increase over time.
(c) 
due to the various commodities and ani -
mals/animal products imported via BiPs,  
inspectors cannot be specialists in every  
product. this is why the tRA ces system is 
a very valuable tool to provide BiP inspec -
tors with updated documentation. RePLY of the  
commission
56
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms64. 
in view of the court’s assessment of   
member states’ internal controls in obser -
vation 62, it is too early to suggest align -
ing the commission’s controls with those  
of the member states. however, once Regu -
lation (ec ) no 882/2004 has been fully  
implemented in the member states, the  
commission’s objective would be to put in 
place such a coordinated approach.
65. 
the White Paper is a policy document and 
is not in itself a sufficient legal basis for  
any action.
see above. furthermore, Regulation ( ec)  
no 882/2004 applies only partly to third  
countries.
67. 
the fVo is constantly assessing the effi -
cacy of its work to ensure that resources  
are put to the best use.
68. 
this model takes into account most of   
the relevant parameters specified in para -
graph 3 of Article 2 of the repealed deci-
sion 2001/881/ec.
70. 
trade volumes are closely monitored by  
the fVo. they are part of the corporate  
knowledge of the inspection teams and  
are taken into account when planning mis -
sions. the RAsff messages are of limited  
value for selecting the member states but 
may be used for selecting consignments to 
be evaluated at the individual BiPs or for  
selecting certain third countries or estab -
lishments there for an inspection.the weighting given to each criterion is  
reflected in the number of associated sub-
criteria. the assessment gives a snapshot  
of the situation as good, average or poor.
71.
the absence of comments is not indica -
tive of a problem. member states take the 
mission programme very seriously, as it is 
both important to health protection and a 
serious demand on their resources.
72. 
A ‘quantitative model’ was developed in  
the past. it has been found to be very cum -
bersome and has not proved to provide any 
better result than the qualitative approach 
currently used (even if quantitative data,  
such as trade data, are considered). more -
over, the mission prioritisation is discussed 
and agreed with member states whose  
input in deciding priorities is invaluable.
see the reply to observation 73.
efforts to make better use of data in decid -
ing priorities continue.
73. 
the commission is fully implementing the 
recommendations made in the independent 
evaluation of mission priority-setting in  
this respect. dG sAnco establishes criteria 
for setting potential mission priorities. in  
the prioritisation process itself, they must 
demonstrate and document that these cri -
teria have been consistently applied. this  
in turn leads to more transparent choices  
in the event that changes have to be made 
to the programme. 
staff turnover, for the past several years,  
has not been very high. RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5757
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms75. 
member states are requested to present  
action plans to the fVo indicating how  
they intend to address any shortcomings  
identified in inspections. Verification of  
corrective action is an integral part of the 
fVo ’s activity and the fVo revisits member 
states regularly to monitor progress.
implementation of recommendations is  
continuously monitored by the commis -
sion. indicators are used for this purpose  
and demonstrate the effectiveness of the  
fVo’s activities. overall, by the end of  
2009, member states had taken action on  
86 % of the recommendations made to  
them by the fVo since 2004. Action was  
in progress on a further 10 %. in 4 % of  
cases, member states had yet to commit  
themselves to corrective measures. these  
cases are followed up continuously by dG 
sAnco . 
78. 
the fVo carries out on-the-spot checks  
in order to verify member states’ control/
audit systems. eu legislation does not stip -
ulate when BiPs are to be revisited. scru -
tiny of tRAces  data shows that the 49 B iPs 
referred to have low throughput and, thus, 
limited control activities. this indicates  
that priority is given to the most impor -
tant ones. the fVo’s task is not to report on best  
practices but to verify proper and effec -
tive implementation of official controls  
and enforcement of the eu legislation by  
evaluating the performance of member  
state cAs’ control system. the action plans 
submitted by member states to the fVo  
are followed up by internal procedures and 
supervised by a specific dG sAnco man -
agement committee.
79. 
As already stated in the reply to observa -
tion 19, these delays had no implications  
in terms of risks posed to human health by 
imported meat and meat products.
81. 
Regarding import controls, all current  
health certificates are available to BiP offi -
cials and the fVo via tRA ces and also ‘eu  
authorised’ third countries and their estab -
lishments. A link is also provided to eu leg -
islation for specific requirements.
changes in legislative requirements are  
obviously closely monitored but this is not 
a resource demanding exercise and cer -
tainly does not require a full staff mem -
ber.
82. 
there are extensive information systems  
available to ensure that fVo staff are  
informed of relevant changes to legisla -
tion, including their formal consultation  
in the legislative process itself. dG sAnco  
also has a dedicated section of its website 
focused on import requirements and con -
trols.RePLY of the  
commission
58
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms83. 
Guidelines for drafting mAncPs, and action 
described by the court in point 77, are suf -
ficient to allow member states to carry out 
import controls effectively.
Regulation (ec ) no 882/2004 imposes no  
obligation on the commission to assess  
mAncPs. however, each member state  
receives feedback from the fVo on its  
mAncP in the general audit on the coun -
try. on completion of each general audit, a 
report is addressed to the member state. it 
contains recommendations. 
this regulation imposes no obligation on  
the commission to provide any assessment 
of or advice on member states’ annual  
reports. however, the first commission  
report required by Article 44 of Regulation 
(ec) no 882/2004 was adopted in August  
2010.
84. 
the rules on imports of meat into the eu 
include a requirement that animals must  
be humanely slaughtered in accordance  
with eu legislation. the question of com -
petitiveness with third countries has been 
assessed in a commission report to the  
council and Parliament ( com(2002) 626  
final), concerning animal welfare legisla -
tion for farmed animals in third countries  
and the implications for the eu. the com -
mission is now reassessing the issue in the 
context of its evaluation of eu policy on  
animal welfare, that was due to be pub -
lished in d ecember 2010.85. 
the costs referred to are clearly important 
to the competitiveness of european pro -
ducers. Any comparison of costs of con -
trols would have to take into account a  
wide variety of economic factors, includ -
ing direct subsidies, indirect support (e.g. 
in the form of preferential interest rates),  
the costs of land, building, feed and labour 
and many other factors. it should also be  
noted that the eu producers benefit from  
this situation in terms of complete access  
to the eu market including for live animals, 
while third countries' producers may be  
able to access such market only for certain 
products and therefore in a much more  
limited manner. the commission remains  
committed to continue to consult stake -
holders. 
86. 
this report will be presented to the coun -
cil and Parliament before the end of 2010, 
as requested, and will focus on the effec -
tiveness and consistency of the measures  
in place to control imports of food, feed,  
animals and plants.
concerning the european Parliament, the  
commission launched the call for tenders  
of the pilot project assessing the end-user 
costs of compliance with eu legislation  
in 2009, but discontinued the procedure  
because it had received only one offer. A  
literature study on this subject is currently 
being prepared.
the results of the european Parliament  
study will be scrutinised, where relevant,  
by the relevant c ommission departments.RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms5959
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformsconclusions  And   
recommend Ations
87. 
Veterinary rules for import checks are  
governed by directive 97/78/ec and were  
largely unaffected by the White Paper and 
the ‘hygiene package’ . Rules on approval  
of third countries and establishments were 
redrafted in the ‘hygiene package’ but  
remain similar to the previous rules. 
indicators on pre-export checks are not  
required either by the eu legislation on  
pre-export checks (which are not even  
required) or by international recommenda -
tions or standards regarding determination 
of equivalence. 
VAs have been signed with highly devel -
oped countries, in which trust has been  
established with their cAs. Reductions in  
physical checks on imports were agreed  
only in cases of highly positive fVo reports 
on the cAs’ control systems for the rele -
vant commodities.
88. 
the obligation to conduct veterinary  
checks on meat imports is enshrined in eu 
legislation. the RAsff , tRA ces and fVo  
inspection mission reports and other infor -
mation from third countries merely serve  
as tools to help the commission establish 
the risk involved and thus determine the  
levels of physical checks applicable.
tRA ces is a relatively new tool and every  
effort is being made to ensure that it is  
used uniformly by every m ember s tate. users of the RAsff alert system depend on 
the timeliness and accuracy of the informa -
tion found in it, much of which they them -
selves are responsible for supplying. the  
commission is constantly looking for ways 
to ensure that this system provides up-to-
date and accurate information on alerts  
in order to facilitate the risk management 
decisions needed to ensure that preven -
tive and/or corrective action is taken as  
and when required. the system operates in 
a timely and proportionate manner. 
89. 
the reply to observation 75 explained how 
member states commit themselves to cor -
rective action and how the commission  
monitors implementation thereof. it also  
explains the state of implementation at  
the end of 2009. 
90. 
first indent
under the VAs, total equivalence is rarely  
achieved, meaning that the national leg -
islation of the importing third country  
applies to exports from member states.  
differences could therefore exist between 
member states in achieving third coun -
tries’ sanitary requirements or level of offi -
cial control of these requirements. in addi -
tion, regarding animal health status, tcs  
are often slow to accept member states’  
guarantees. Lastly, third countries do not  
always consider the eu as a single entity  
when considering m ember s tates’ exports.RePLY of the  
commission
60
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformssecond indent
the general food law and the ‘hygiene  
package’ , including Regulation (ec )  
no 882/2004, came into being in 2002 and 
2004 respectively. the commission has  
already simplified its regulatory framework 
in order to consolidate it and make it more 
user-friendly. the commission is commit -
ted to continue this process as part of its  
overall efforts to promote better regula -
tion. most of the consolidated versions of 
eu legislation are available in the ceLeX  
database, which is accessible to the gen -
eral public, and in the tRA ces database,  
which is accessible to BiPs and operators.
third indent
the new RAsff system is a web-based  
application that allows member states  
and the commission to enter information  
on alerts and notifications directly in the  
application. tRA ces does not need to be  
further developed to display any data,  
but the legal base ( commission decision  
2004/292/ec ) imposing the obligation on  
the member states to use tRA ces must  
be changed to ensure that member states 
enter relevant information before the  
movement of commodities. this is essen -
tial to obtain all relevant data and to pro -
vide accurate information in the event of a 
sanitary alert. the manner in which tRA ces  
operates will be further strengthened in  
the animal health law.fourth indent
current legislation does not provide the  
commission with legal powers to develop 
such guidelines. this notwithstanding,  
the commission engages in many differ -
ent activities which ensure a harmonised  
approach to the veterinary checks carried 
out in BiPs. these include regular meetings 
with competent authorities from the mem-
ber states in different working groups,  
for example the Veterinary checks Work -
ing Group that meets three to four times  
a year, training provided to BiP staff under 
the ‘Better training for safer food’ pro -
gramme (B tsf) and, of course, through eu 
legislation which is very prescriptive and  
clear as to the exact roles of BiPs.
fifth indent
current legislation does not provide the  
commission with legal powers to develop 
such indicators. fVo audit mission reports, 
follow-up action and various reports are,  
however, tools that are in place which  
allow an assessment to be made of the  
implementation of eu legislation, includ -
ing control and enforcement, especially  
with respect to the ‘hygiene package’ .RePLY of the  
commission
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms6161
special Report no 14/2010 — the c ommission’s management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reformssixth indent
An external evaluation made recommenda -
tions on the risk assessment models used  
by the fVo which have been followed by  
the fVo . however, quantitative models  
have very important limitations due to  
the complexity of the risk factors impact -
ing on imports and could indeed lead to  
seriously misleading signals on priorities. 
Accordingly, the mission prioritisation  
process continues to rely extensively on  
experience, judgement and consultation  
of relevant stakeholders and especially the 
member states’ control authorities. in addi -
tion, quantitative factors such as import  
quantities and t ypes of produc ts impor ted 
are data integrated in the analyses made  
prior to mission planning. the scope of the 
recommendation goes beyond the sector  
audited. only one risk assessment model  
has been looked at by the court. A process 
to formalise further selection of the BiPs  
to be visited has commenced. 
seventh indent
in addition to carrying out specific follow-
up inspections in specific sectors, the fVo  
introduced ‘general follow-up missions’ in 
2005 in order to review progress on imple -
mentation of the recommendations made  
across all sectors. this process highlights  
issues where member states have failed to 
take corrective measures. these cases are  
followed up continuously and, depending 
on the gravity of each specific case, the  
need for specific enforcement action is  
routinely assessed. An internal follow-up  
procedure already exists in order to pro -
duce further improvements following neg a-
tive fVo findings and is used in the same  
way and with the same degree of severity 
with regard to import control issues as  
member s tates’ production controls. eighth indent
Agreed and in progress.
91. 
Wto member states are permitted to  
apply sPs measures that go beyond inter -
nationally accepted standards if these are 
demonstrated to be science-based, non-
discriminatory and proportionate. import  
rules must remain focused on safety whilst 
simultaneously respecting international  
obligations. the commission is fully com -
mitted to carrying out impact assessments 
on proposals with implications for compet -
itiveness, in keeping with the policy objec -
tives of the ‘Better regulation’ and ‘e urope 
2020’ initiatives.
this report will be presented to the coun -
cil and Parliament before the end of 2010, 
as requested, and will focus on the effec -
tiveness and consistency of the measures  
in place to control imports of food, feed,  
animals and plants. 
the results of the european Parliament  
study will be scrutinised, where relevant,  
by the relevant c ommission departments.RePLY of the  
commission

63
european c ourt of Auditors
special report n o 14/2010
the c ommission's management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene 
legislation reforms
Luxembourg: Publications o ffice of the e uropean union
2011 — 61 pp. — 21 × 29,7 cm
isBn 978-92-9207-972-7
doi:10.2865/60524

how to obtain eu publications
free publications:
•	 via	EU	Bookshop	 (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•		at	the	European	 Union’s	representations	 or	delegations.	 You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	 
on the internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
priced publications:
•	 via	EU	Bookshop	 (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union  and reports 
of cases before the court of justice of the european union):
•		via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	 Office	of	the	European	 Union	 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
Qj-AB-10-012-en-c
in the WAKe of the seRious heAL th cRises of the 1990s And 
on the BAsis of the White P APeR  on food sAfet Y, A ne W 
LeGisLAtiVe f RAmeWo RK KnoWn As the ‘h YGiene PAcKAGe’  WAs 
decided on in 2004. the Audit of the couR t Assessed the 
commission's m AnAGement of the eu sYstem of VeteRinARY  
checKs foR  meA t And meA t PRoducts imPoR ts. it concL uded 
thA t the imPLement Ation of the ‘ hYGiene  PAcKAGe ’  hAs Y et to 
Be com PLeted And th At the Re is sti LL Room fo R imPRoVement 
With  ReGARd to the infoRm Ation sY stems AVAiLABLe to 
BoRdeR  insPection Posts And the contR oLs the Y AssuRe.
euR oPeAn  couR t of AuditoRs