No C 269/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 14.10. 91 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) laying down the principles governing 
the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third 
countries (*) 
(91/C 269/12) 
On 15 April 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 14 June 1991, in the light of the Report 
by Mr Wick. 
At its 288th plenary session (meeting of 3 July 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
The Committee welcomes the proposal. It closes a gap 
in the future system of veterinary checks on live animals 
imported from third countries which will be required 
by the forthcoming completion of the internal market; 
it also contributes to the protection of human and 
animal health, the prevention of unnecessary obstacles 
to the flow of goods and the certainty that all market 
participants will be treated in accordance with the same 
principles. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Council has already adopted the following 
rules for intra-Community trade in animal products 
and the hygiene requirements to be observed for the 
protection of the consumer (Directive 89/662 EEC); a 
second set of rules on intra-Community trade laying 
down the measures necessary to prevent the introduc­
tion of communicable animal diseases via live animals 
and animal products (Directive 90/425/EEC); and rules 
on veterinary checks on the import of animal products 
from third countries (Directive 90/675/EEC). 
1.2. These rules have hitherto all been enshrined in 
Directives, but the current proposal takes the form 
of a Regulation. The Committee feels that uniform 
application of EC rules can be achieved via both Regu­
lations and Directives, provided that realistic deadlines 
are set for implementing Directives. 
The Committee wonders whether in addition to 
Article 43 Article 100a should not also be used as a 
legal basis since questions of human and animal health 
are involved. 
1.3. The Committee has issued Opinions on each of 
the abovementioned Directives, most recently on the Directive concerning the import of animal products 
from third countries (OJ No C 60, 8 March 1991, 
p. 37). As these Directives have strong parallels in terms 
of content and procedure with the current proposal, 
reference will be made in particular to the latter 
Opinion. 
1.4. The Committee notes with interest the adoption 
of the proposal it made at the time, namely that in order 
to avoid practical difficulties, separate rules should be 
drawn up for live animals and products. 
1.5. The Committee notes that no financial record 
sheet is attached to the proposal. The proposed Com­
munity checks at external frontiers will however entail 
additional staffing and material costs, mainly for the 
Member States but also for the Commission. 
The Council Decision (90/C 288/01) (2) of 15 October 
1990 called for the expansion before the end of 1993 of 
Community and national veterinary services and their 
staffing, in order to ensure uniform application and 
observance of Community rules and the introduction 
of machinery for checks at the Community's external 
frontiers. 
In the interests of animal protection, which has particu­
larly high priority, and in order to avoid disruptions to 
trade, the Committee feels that the rapid handling of 
consignments for import and transit must be ensured. 
Staffing levels must be commensurate with the ability 
to carry out checks. The Committee also made this 
point in its Opinion on Directive 90/675/EEC. See also 
the specific recommendations in point 3.1 below. 
1.6. The earlier Directives on veterinary checks (see 
point 1.1) differ in form and content from the current 
(L) OJ No C 89, 6. 4. 1991, p. 5. (2) OJNoC288,16.11.1990. 
14.10. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 269/37 
proposal. The current proposal has particularly strong 
parallels with Directive 90/675/EEC on the import of 
products from third countries and it is recommended 
that its wording and content be aligned as closely as 
possible with Directive 90/675/EEC in order to prevent 
discrepancies and differences of interpretation. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 2(2) 
The same definitions should be used as in Directive 90/ 
675/EEC. In the German text the term 'Tierbeschau' 
should be replaced by the more correct 'Tieruntersu-
chung'. Definitions of 'importer', 'consignment', 'bor­
der inspection post' and 'competent authority' should 
be inserted. 
2.2. Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 4(1) 
When animals are imported from third countries, par­
ticular care must be taken to prevent the introduction 
of animal diseases. It is unacceptable for veterinary 
inspections to be confined to spot checks. Documen­
tary, identity and physical checks must be carried out 
systematically on all consignments. 
In the interests of uniformity and reliability all checks 
should ideally be carried out at border inspection posts. 
But in the light of practical and cost considerations, it 
would also be acceptable for the documentary check to 
be carried out at the point of entry, with consignments 
then being forwarded under customs supervision to the 
border inspection post for the remaining checks. 
2.3. In the case of products imported from third 
countries, the Member States are to require the 
importers to notify the border inspection post, at which 
the products are to be presented, of the quantity and 
nature of the products and of their scheduled date of 
arrival. The Committee feels that the need for such 
rules is at least as great in the case of live animal 
imports from third countries. 
2.4. Article 5(2) 
The possibility of waiving the requirement that the 
inspection post be located in the immediate vicinity of 
the point of entry is welcomed. The relevant conditions 
should however be laid down in the Regulation itself, 
rather than being determined under the Veterinary 
Committee procedure. 2.5. Article 5(5) 
For the reasons outlined in point 1.6 above, it is rec­
ommended that the approval of inspection posts be 
handled under the procedure specified in Article 9(3) 
of Directive 90/675/EEC (the national authorities and 
the Commission to check whether the minimum 
requirements are fulfilled; the Member States to provide 
the Commission with a list of inspection posts). 
2.6. Article 6(1) and (2) 
Quarantine checks should be carried out either at 
approved quarantine centres, or—where epidemiologi­
cal considerations permit—at a suitable farm located 
close to the border. 
2.7. Additional provisions should be incorporated 
into the proposal (e.g. under Article 6) specifying the 
conditions under which import or transit is to be pro­
hibited. 
2.8. Article 8 
The rules on transit could be more clearly worded. In 
particular, in order to ensure the effectiveness of checks 
on animals in transit within the Community, there 
should be a requirement that the results of the checks 
stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 satisfy the competent 
veterinary authority. 
2.9. Article 10 
The measures provided in the event of identification of 
a communicable animal disease are endorsed. However, 
at the very least, the Member State's other inspection 
posts and the Commission should be notified—at all 
events if re-exportation is ordered—in order to prevent 
possible irregularities). 
The Committee feels that notification of the Com­
mission of irregularities in checks should be compul­
sory. In paragraph 3 the words 'where appropriate' 
should therefore be deleted. 
2.10. The earlier Directives (see point 1.1) rightly lay 
down separate rules for harmonized and non-harmoni­
zed areas. The current proposal does not contain any 
rules for the non-harmonized area. In order to prevent 
two parallel systems of checks at external frontiers, 
the rules should—mutatis mutandis—also apply to the 
non-harmonized area. 
No C 269/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 10. 91 
2.11. Article 12(1) 
The Committee suggests that the text relating to protec­
tive measures be clarified as follows: 
'If, in the territory of a third country, ... or public 
health reason so warrants, or if imported animals 
are subsequently found to be the source of such 
diseases or threats, the Commission may, as a pro­
tective measure, prohibit imports or apply special 
conditions to imports of animals originating directly 
or indirectly in the third country concerned or part 
of the territory thereof.' 
2.12. Article 15(1) 
The opening sentence should define the respective areas 
of competence as follows: 'Veterinary experts from the 
Commission shall, to the extent that this is necessary 
for uniform application of the rules, in collaboration 
with the competent authorities check...' 
2.13. Article 18 
With regard to the rules on the exchange of information 
and the notification of the competent authorities, the 
Council decided on 15 October 1990 (Decision 90/C 
288/01) to set up forthwith a computer system linking 
border crossing points and tied in with the network 
linking veterinary authorities which the Commission 
was required to set up under Article 30(1) of Directive 
90/425/EEC 
The Committee supports the resulting call for a uniform 
information system for all checks. 
Done at Brussels, 3 July 1991. 2.14. Articles 20 and 21 
The Committee accepts that there are good reasons 
for the proposed procedures which have also been 
employed in other veterinary legislation, but would like 
to see regular reports drawn up on matters dealt with 
under the Veterinary Committee procedure and any 
specific infringements uncovered. 
2.15. Article 24(2) and Article 25 
The Committee is surprised to note that yet again 
the proposed deadlines are much too short. The time 
allowed for the procedure should be more realistic. 
3. Specific recommendations 
3.1. Particular attention should be paid to animal 
protection in connection with the import of live ani­
mals. The international transport of live animals is 
governed by Directive 77/489/EEC on the protection of 
animals during international transport even in cases of 
import from a third country or transit. Checks should 
be specifically stipulated at an appropriate point in the 
proposal. 
3.2. Unlike the earlier Directives (see point 1.1) the 
current proposal makes no provision for fees for vet­
erinary checks. The Committee refers to its Opinion on 
the import of products from third countries which 
calls for check fees to be harmonized. The Committee 
stresses once again that a uniform fee framework is 
needed in order to prevent distortions of competition. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fran?ois STAEDELIN