Special Report No 6/2004 The organisation of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals in the European Union together with the Commission’s replies (pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 248(4) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2004-07-08
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: aid system, beef, cattle, database management system, report, traceability

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF AUDITORS

The organisation of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals in the
European Union together with the Commission’s replies

SPECIAL REPORT No 6/2004

(pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 248(4) of the EC Treaty)

(2005/C 29/01)

Photograph: Animal wearing the two statutory ear tags

C 29/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

CONTENTS

Paragraph

Page

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Court’s audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Size of the bovine sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Setting up the cattle identification and registration system – background and justification

What is the cattle identification and registration system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ROLES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CATTLE
IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Council and the European Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I-X

1-6

1-3

4-6

7-32

7-10

11-17

18-26

27-32

27

28

The Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29-31

The various keepers of cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Legislation makes no provision for exchanges of information between the databases

Community legislation is not sufficiently precise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Commission has no mandate to adopt implementing measures in respect of national
databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There is room for improvement in the Commission’s rules concerning on-the-spot checks
and penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

Absence of precise rules on the management of national databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Absence of criteria for recognition of the fully operational character of databases

Supervision by the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inconsistencies in the management of premiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bovine premiums subject to controls in the context of the Integrated Administration
and Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Exceptional support measures for the beef market following the BSE crisis

FINDINGS OF THE COURT’S AUDITS IN THE MEMBER STATES VISITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

33-46

33-34

35-37

38-39

40-41

42-46

47-78

47-54

55-64

65-71

72-77

72-74

75-77

78-91

92-99

The Commission’s replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

4

4

4

5

5

9

9

12

12

13

13

13

13

13

13

14

15

17

18

18

20

22

24

24

24

25

29

31

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/3

SUMMARY

I.
Identifying and registering the bovine herd is an essential prerequisite in guaranteeing the traceability of
beef and veal and is also an element in the conditions attached to the various bovine premiums. These pre-
miums amounted to more than 7 000 million euro in 2002 and more than 8 000 million euro in 2004.

The main objective of the audit was to evaluate the cattle identification and registration system, at the
II.
Commission (design, implementation controls and follow-up) and in the Member States (operational system
allowing effective monitoring of animals from birth until slaughter and allowing verification of correct pay-
ment of all direct aid). The audit was carried out in the four Member States with the largest bovine herds (Ger-
many, France, Italy and the United Kingdom).

III.
The identification system has four components: ear tags, passports, herd registers and the computer-
ised database containing the details of all cattle. This database is one component of the system and was to be
operational on 31 December 1999 at the latest.

IV.
Cattle identification and registration systems were set up in the four Member States more than two
years after the target date of 31 December 1999 and still have some weaknesses. For example, the passports of
animals traded between Member States are not monitored, there is no exchange of information between
national databases, there are delays in updating the databases and the level of reliability of the information con-
tained in the databases must often be considered inadequate. The main finding is that the cattle identification
and registration system that was designed does not guarantee the traceability of intra-Community or extra-
Community cattle movements. These movements nevertheless involve approximately three million head of
cattle per year (approximately 4 % of the herd).

The general framework of the system was laid down by the Parliament and the Council. The Commis-
V.
sion was given the task of implementing certain components of the system, but responsibility for implement-
ing the system lies with the Member States. The legislation did not include procedures for Member States to
exchange data on cattle movements and the exchange was in any case compromised by the fact that data for-
mat varies from one Member State to another. All attempts to reconcile information from the various data-
bases have failed. The Member States interpreted certain elements of Community regulations in different ways,
in respect of the deadlines for tagging and reporting, the fundamental concept of ‘keeper of bovine animals’
and return of animal passports. The Commission was not given responsibility for adopting implementing mea-
sures for setting up and checking the databases. This explains, in part, the differences found between the Mem-
ber States.

VI.
The control and penalty systems in place have not been adapted to ensure that they are appropriate to
the various keepers of cattle, such as traders, assembly centres or slaughterhouses. In addition, the databases
contain certain data, such as retagging rates and delays in registration, which the Member States do not use as
control instruments. Control practices also vary greatly from one Member State to another.

VII.
As far as checks on the implementation and monitoring of the cattle identification and registration
system are concerned, the Commission has interpreted its own role in a restrictive manner and has given no
guidance on the setting-up of the databases. No standardised management rules have been issued and no qual-
ity indicator has been developed as regards the operation of the databases. The procedures for recognising the
‘fully operational character’ of the databases are unsatisfactory and the Commission’s role is too often limited
to confirming the technical existence of the databases, without evaluating their actual operation on the basis
of precise management rules or predefined quality indicators.

VIII.
The Commission should be given adequate resources to take on a genuine guiding role in the system,
in particular by drawing up standardised management rules, quality indicators and a format for the exchange
of data between national databases. The exchange of data between Member States, and even with third coun-
tries, should be organised with a view to retaining control over intra-Community and extra-Community
movements.

C 29/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

The administrative checks applied in the various Member States should also be compared and speci-
IX.
fications provided for cross-checks to be carried out between the identification and registration databases and
the IACS databases before the various premiums are paid. The system of on-the-spot checks should also be
reviewed, including the penalty mechanisms, and specific approaches for the different types of keepers of cattle
should be drawn up and an approach imposed which is fully integrated with IACS.

INTRODUCTION

General context

context of the Integrated Administration and Control System
(IACS) (3). The cattle identification and registration system, and,
especially, the computerised databases containing the cattle
records, is thus an important component in the Integrated Admin-
istrative and Control System (IACS) for the efficient administra-
tion and control of bovine premiums (4).

The specific regulation concerning the identification and
1.
registration of bovine animals (1) (cattle), on the one hand, estab-
lishes a system for the identification and registration of cattle at
the production stage and, on the other, creates a specific Com-
munity labelling system in the beef sector. These two systems are
interdependent: the fact that cattle can be traced by means of the
identification and registration system is a prerequisite for guaran-
teeing the safety of the food chain through the labelling system.
Veterinary and health reasons, and some of the requirements
relating to the management of a number of Community animal
premium schemes, all demand an efficient system of cattle iden-
tification and registration.

2.
This report focuses on the cattle identification and regis-
tration system and does not deal with the labelling of the mar-
keted products. The system comprises ear tags as a means of iden-
tifying individual animals, animal passports, individual registers
kept on each holding and computerised databases set up by the
Member States. The computerised databases, which were to be set
up by all Member States by 31 December 1999, are an important
part of the system. They must contain all the data on all the
movements of all cattle from birth through to slaughter.

3.
The computerised databases containing the cattle records
were originally set up for veterinary purposes (2), but are also used
by premium managers to carry out administrative checks in the

The Court’s audit

4.
The Court has examined cattle identification and registra-
tion on various occasions (5). The observations made on the basis
of these previous audits confirm that the system for the identifi-
cation and registration of bovine animals is an essential part of a
whole complex of control systems and that shortcomings exist in
relation to the approval, management and content of the cattle
identification and registration databases.

5.
The objective of the audit was to examine the design of the
cattle identification and registration system introduced at Euro-
pean Union level (see paragraphs 33 to 46) and to analyse the
controls and follow-up carried out by the Commission to verify
that the system has been implemented correctly in the various
Member States (see paragraphs 47 to 77). The audit also aimed to
verify that an effective system for identifying and registering cattle
had indeed been established and to evaluate whether, in terms of
the underlying principles and implementing rules, the regulations
setting up the system made it possible to achieve the prescribed
objectives.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification
and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef
and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
(OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1).

states,

(2) The preamble to Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 estab-
lishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine ani-
mals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ L 117,
7.5.1997 p. 1)
‘Whereas Article 3(1)(c) of Council
Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and
zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain
live animals and products with a view to the completion of the inter-
nal market states that animals for intra-Community trade must be
identified in accordance with the requirements of Community rules
and be registered in such a way that the original or transit holding,
centre or organisation can be traced’.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 820/97 states, ‘Whereas the management of cer-
tain Community aid schemes in the field of agriculture requires the
individual identification of certain types of livestock; whereas the iden-
tification and registration systems must, therefore, be suitable for the
application and control of such measures; whereas it is necessary to
ensure the rapid and efficient exchange of information between Mem-
ber States for the correct application of this Regulation’.

(4) Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of
11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the inte-
grated administration and control system for certain Community aid
schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92
(OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 11).

(5) Special Report No 4/2001 on the implementation of the integrated
administration and control system (OJ C 214, 31.7.2001, p. 1) and
Special Report No 14/2001 - Follow-up to Special Report No 19/98
on BSE (OJ C 324, 20.11.2001, p. 1).

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/5

The audit also evaluated the level of the system’s develop-
6.
ment in four Member States, namely Germany (Bavaria and Sax-
ony), France, Italy and the United Kingdom (Great Britain) (see
paragraphs 78 to 91). The aim was to examine the implementa-
tion of the system by checking that the proposed system ensures
that cattle are traceable on the European level, thus making it pos-
sible for all movements of cattle to be tracked from birth or
importation from a third country through to slaughter or export
from the European Union. In 2002, 64 % of the EU bovine herd
was to be found in the four Member States visited and they
received almost 59 % of bovine premiums. The audit also took
into consideration the Commission’s work and, in particular, the
reports on inspections in the Member States.

GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM

Size of the bovine sector

According to the survey carried out by Eurostat, there were
7.
81,1 million head of cattle in the European Union in May/June
2002 (1). France, with 20,5 million head, had more than a quar-
ter of the European herd, followed by Germany and the United
Kingdom with 14,0 and 10,4 million head respectively, i.e. 17,3
and 12,8 % of the European herd. Italy’s herd, like that of Ireland,
numbered more than 7,2 million head (8,9 %) and Spain’s more
than 6 million (see diagram 1).

Diagram 1

Overview of EU bovine herd in million head (2002 bovine herd survey)

8.
Intra-Community movements are relatively extensive,
whereas trade with third countries appears more limited. In
2001 almost
three million cattle were involved in intra-
Community and extra-Community trade, which represents
around 4 % of the European herd (see diagrams 2 and 3). Accord-
ing to the information available, exits of cattle were very con-
siderable in the case of France (1,4 million animals) and Ger-
many (0,5 million animals). These two Member States account
for more than 75 % of exits to other Community countries. In
contrast, exits of animals to other Member States involved fewer
than 25 animals in the case of Finland, the United Kingdom,
Portugal and Greece. The same phenomenon was observed in
the case of entries, where Italy (1,3 million animals),
Spain (0,5 million), the Netherlands (0,4 million) and France

(0,2 million) recorded 93 % of entries from other Member States.
The 11 other Member States registered less than 7 % of intra-
Community entries. The variations observed in respect of cattle
flow are a reflection of the specific characteristics of the beef and
veal sector in the different Member States. For example, France
is renowned for the large number of beef farms specialising in
the production of young animals for sale to other Member
States, where they are fattened. Italy, which has a deficit in beef,
is a particular case in point.

(1) Eurostat, Statistics in Focus, Agriculture and Fisheries, Theme 5 -

10/2001, bovine herd survey of November/December 2000.

C 29/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

Diagram 2

Exits of cattle to other Member States and third countries
Situation in 2001 (number of head)

Source: Comext database (extracted in January 2003).

Diagram 3

Entries of cattle from other Member States and third countries
Situation in 2001 (in number of head)

Source: Comext database (extracted in January 2003).

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/7

Budgetary expenditure on the common organisation of
9.
the market in beef and veal, which is constantly increasing, came
to 4 600 million euro, i.e. 11,5 % of total expenditure on agricul-
ture, in 1999, and to 7 100 million euro, i.e. 16,4 % of agricul-
in 2002. The budget provision for 2004
tural expenditure,

totalled 8 100 million euro, i.e. 17,2 % of total expenditure on
agriculture (see table 1). This rapid growth in expenditure in recent
years is the result of the increase in direct aid and the introduc-
tion of new forms of aid, such as the slaughter premium.

Table 1

Expenditure on beef/veal 1999 to 2004

Budget
heading

B1-210

B1-211

Categories of expenditure

Export refunds on beef/veal

Intervention storage of beef/veal

Direct aid

(million euro)

1999
expendi-
ture

2000
expendi-
ture

2001
expendi-
ture

2002
expendi-
ture

2003
Budget

2004
Budget

594,9

- 36,6

661,3

- 82,7

362,6

325,8

386,7

104,1

534,0

- 1,0

396,0

- 33,0

B1-2120

Suckler cow premium

1 594,7

1 565,9

1 705,3

1 888,3

2 060,0

2 060,0

B1-2121

Additional premiums for suckler cows

63,3

62,5

71,6

70,9

97,0

97,0

B1-2122

Special premiums for male bovine animals

1 297,3

1 299,3

1 530,0

1 748,4

1 967,0

1 959,0

B1-2123

Deseasonalisation premiums

23,7

2,6

B1-2124

Slaughter premiums

B1-2125

Extensification premiums

714,2

715,5

B1-2128

Additional payments

0,0

493,7

913,8

147,8

0,0

0,0

0,0

1 024,8

1 710,0

1 750,0

942,6

295,3

1 018,0

1 020,0

483,0

483,0

Subtotal

3 693,2

3 645,8

4 862,2

5 970,3

7 335,0

7 369,0

Direct aid in connection with BSE

B1-2124

Processing premiums for young male
calves

B1-2126

Exceptional support measures

B1-2127

Compulsory slaughter programme

B1-2128

Early slaughter premiums for calves

B1-2129

Other intervention

B1-219

Other interventions

Subtotal

76,1

218,7

11,4

35,6

0,0

341,8

- 14,7

8,4

0,0

0,0

0,0

292,5

20,9

0,0

1,6

323,4

- 8,3

245,6

242,4

54,8

0,0

212,4

512,8

- 9,4

68,3

0,0

329,4

640,1

- 29,3

344,0

100,0

0,0

100,0

544,0

- 8,0

0,0

327,0

100,0

0,0

10,0

437,0

- 8,0

B1-21

Total beef/veal

4 578,6

4 539,5

6 054,0

7 071,9

8 404,0

8 161,0

Direct aid as a percentage of total expenditure on
beef/veal

B1

Total expenditure on agriculture (not including
monetary reserve)

Expenditure on beef/veal as a percentage of total
expenditure on agriculture

80,7 %

80,3 %

80,3 %

84,4 %

87,3 %

90,3 %

39 540,8

40 466,7

42 083,3

43 214,3

44 780,5

44 761,4

11,6 %

11,2 %

14,4 %

16,4 %

18,8 %

18,2 %

Source: 1999 to 2002: Financial reports on EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure; 2003: Budget; 2004: Preliminary draft budget.

10.
Expenditure linked to direct aid rose from 3 700 mil-
lion euro in 1999 to 6 000 million euro in 2002, i.e. 80,7 % and
84,4 % respectively of total expenditure on beef and veal. The
budget for 2004 provides for a further increase in direct aid to
7 300 million euro, i.e. 90,2 % of total expenditure on beef and

veal. Table 2 shows the distribution of direct aid between the
various Member States in 2002, while table 3 shows the distri-
bution between the Member States, in 2002, of direct aid in con-
nection with BSE.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/8

%
9
6
7

,

E
S
B

h
t
i

w
n
o
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
c

n

i

K
U
d
n
a

y
l
a
t
I

,
e
c
n
a
r
F

,

y
n
a
m
r
e
G
y
b

d
e
v
i
e
c
e
r

d
i
a

t
c
e
r
i
d

l
a
t
o
t

f
o
%

2

e
l
b
a
T

e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M
y
b

,
s
l
a
m
n
a

i

e
n
i
v
o
b

r
o
f

2
0
0
2

n

i

d
i
a
p

d
i
a

t
c
e
r
i
D

)
o
r
u
e

n
o
i
l
l
i

m

(

5
1
-
U
E

K
U

E
S

I
F

T
P

T
A

L
N

U
L

T
I

E
I

R
F

S
E

L
E

E
D

K
D

E
B

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

t
e
g
d
u
B

g
n
i
d
a
e
h

,

3
8
8
8
1

,

7
3
8
2

,

9
4
2

,

9
0
7

2
7

,

0
0

,

,

4
8
4
7
1

,

6
2
4
3

,

5
1
4

,

8
4
2
0
1

,

8
1
1
1

,

6
2
2

,

6
2
4
9

,

6
4
8
1

,

0
9
2

,

3
5
9
2

,

1
0
4

5
5

,

0
5

,

3
0

,

,

6
6
3

,

7
7
1

,

7
7
1

1
4

,

,

1
0
5

,

8
4
5

6
6

,

,

9
1
3

,

0
7
1

,

2
0
3

9
3

,

1
0

,

,

9
2
5

,

4
2
3

,

5
3
4

,

9
7

3
9

,

0
0

,

,

3
8
1

,

4
6
6

2
1

,

,

7
6
1

3
3

,

0
0

,

6
3

,

7
3

,

0
1

,

0
0

,

,

3
4
9

,

0
8
1
2

,

2
0
7
6

,

4
1
5
2

,

9
7
2

,

4
5
0
1

,

5
9
1

,

8
6

,

4
4
7

,

4
9
7

,

1
5
1

,

8
3
2

,

0
0

8
1

,

,

7
8
2

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

,

7
1
5
2

,

3
3
4
3

,

4
0
3
1

,

2
7
2

,

5
2
1
3

,

2
8
3

,

5
3
9

,

4
8
1
2

,

6
5
9

0
6

,

,

2
5
9
1

,

0
1
3

,

5
4
4
1

,

1
0
4
2

,

7
3
5
1

,

1
0
2

,

2
0
2

,

2
0
6

,

0
1
2

1
2

,

,

6
2
5

,

8
5
5

2
6

,

9
7

,

,

5
0
7

,

4
9
1

,

3
3
4

,

1
4
3

1
3

,

,

1
6
2

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

e
n
i
v
o
b

e
l
a
m

r
o
f

s

i

m
u
m
e
r
p

l
a
i
c
e
p
S

2
2
1
2
-
1
B

s
w
o
c

r
e
l
k
c
u
s

r
o
f

s

i

m
u
m
e
r
p

l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
A

1
2
1
2
-
1
B

i

m
u
m
e
r
p
w
o
c

r
e
l
k
c
u
S

0
2
1
2
-
1
B

s

i

m
u
m
e
r
p

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
s
n
e
t
x
E

5
2
1
2
-
1
B

s
t
n
e
m
y
a
p

l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
A

8
2
1
2
-
1
B

s

i

m
u
m
e
r
p

r
e
t
h
g
u
a
l
S

4
2
1
2
-
1
B

,

3
0
7
9
5

,

0
0
7
9

,

5
3
2
1

,

4
1
8

,

7
9
3
1

,

6
1
9
1

,

9
1
1
1

,

6
1
1

,

8
3
9
2

,

9
7
2
7

,

0
4
3
5
1

,

8
0
8
6

,

3
3
8

,

5
1
2
7

,

8
2
0
1

,

5
6
9
1

l
a
t
o
T

,

%
0
0
0
1

%
2
6
1

,

%
1
2

,

%
4
1

,

%
3
2

,

%
2
3

,

%
9
1

,

%
2
0

,

%
9
4

,

%
2
2
1

,

%
7
5
2

,

%
4
1
1

,

%
4
1

,

%
1
2
1

,

%
7
1

,

%
3
3

,

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

s
’
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

f
o

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

a

s
A

.
)

2
0
0
2
/
2
7
/
I

R
G
A

(

.

2
0
0
2
0
1
5
1

.

-

.

1
0
0
2
0
1
6
1

.

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

e
e
t
n
a
r
a
u
G
-
F
G
G
A
E

-

.

2
0
0
2
2
1
1
1

.

f
o

t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C

:
e
c
r
u
o
S

%
9
8
5

,

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U
d
n
a

y
l
a
t
I

,
e
c
n
a
r
F

,

y
n
a
m
r
e
G
y
b

d
e
v
i
e
c
e
r

d
i
a

t
c
e
r
i
d

l
a
t
o
t

f
o
%

3

e
l
b
a
T

e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M
y
b

,

E
S
B

h
t
i

w
n
o
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
c

n

i

2
0
0
2

n

i

d
i
a
p

d
i
a

t
c
e
r
i
D

)
o
r
u
e

n
o
i
l
l
i

m

(

5
1
-
U
E

K
U

E
S

I
F

T
P

T
A

L
N

U
L

T
I

E
I

R
F

S
E

L
E

E
D

K
D

E
B

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

t
e
g
d
u
B

g
n
i
d
a
e
h

,

%
0
0
0
1

%
9
7
3

,

%
0
0

,

%
0
0

,

%
5
0

,

%
0
0

,

%
4
0
-

,

%
5
0

,

%
0
0

,

%
2
7
1

,

%
8
1
3

,

%
6
3

,

%
2
0

,

%
3
7

,

%
3
0

,

%
1
1

,

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

s
’
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

f
o

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

a

s
A

,

3
8
6

,

4
9
2
3

0
0

,

0
0

,

,

4
2
4
2

,

4
2
4
2

,

1
0
4
6

,

4
2
4
2

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

6
0

,

4
2

,

0
3

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

3
0

,

3
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

,

3
2
-

,

3
2
-

0
0

,

0
0

,

4
3

,

4
3

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

,

0
0

,

4
9
2

,

9
0
8

,

0
0

,

3
8
3

,

1
5
6
1

,

3
0
1
1

,

4
3
0
2

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

3
3
2

,

3
3
2

,

0
0

0
0

,

1
1

,

1
1

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

,

6
6
4

,

6
6
4

0
0

,

0
0

,

7
1

,

7
1

,

,

0
0

,

0
0

,

9
6

9
6

,

l
a
t
o
T

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

r
e
t
h
g
u
a
l
s

y
r
o
s
l
u
p
m
o
C

7
2
1
2
-
1
B

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

l
a
n
o
i
t
p
e
c
x
E

6
2
1
2
-
1
B

s
n
o
i
t
n
e
v
r
e
t
n

i

r
e
h
t
O

9
2
1
2
-
1
B

.
)

2
0
0
2
/
2
7
/
I

R
G
A

(

.

2
0
0
2
0
1
5
1

.

-

.

1
0
0
2
0
1
6
1

.

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

e
e
t
n
a
r
a
u
G
-
F
G
G
A
E

-

.

2
0
0
2
2
1
1
1

.

f
o

t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C

:
e
c
r
u
o
S

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/9

Setting up the cattle identification and registration system –
background and justification

11.
Well before 1992, a number of Member States had set up
cattle identification and registration systems on their own initia-
tive. These national systems did not guarantee that the identifica-
tion numbers were unique, with the result that several animals in
the same Member State could have the same identification num-
ber. Originally, these national identification systems were set up
mainly in response to veterinary concerns and were not designed
to fulfil the objectives of traceability,
in the strict sense of
the word.

intended objective. As from 1 January 1998, all cattle born,
imported or intended for intra-Community trade were to be given
an identification number and registered. As from 31 Decem-
ber 1999 fully operational computerised databases were to make
it possible to trace cattle from birth to slaughter or death, and on
1 January 2000 a compulsory labelling system was to be intro-
duced for beef.

15.
Due to the difficulties encountered by the Council and
Parliament in defining labelling standards and the practical con-
straints pointed out by distributors, the deadline of 1 Janu-
ary 2000 for the implementation of a compulsory labelling sys-
tem for beef was postponed until 1 January 2002 (6).

12.
The reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in
1992 appreciably increased existing direct aid, such as premiums
for male cattle and the suckler cow premiums, and introduced
new ones such as the deseasonalisation premium (1) and the
extensification premium (2). A new system for cattle identification
and registration was introduced at that time to make more effi-
cient control of budgetary expenditure possible and to avoid
undue payment of premiums.

16.
The introduction of new premiums (slaughter premiums
and additional payments (7)), in the context of the Agenda 2000
reform, made suckler cows eligible for one or more forms of
direct aid. According to the new market rules, only identified and
registered animals qualify for the direct payments provided (8).

13.
The 1992 reform thus made provision for the simulta-
neous introduction of a compulsory cattle identification and reg-
istration system (3) and the Integrated Administration and Con-
trol System (IACS) and required cross-checks (4) between these
databases with the aim of checking the direct payments made.
The identification and registration system should have been
operational on 1 October 1993 and the IACS databases on
1 January 1997. The majority of Member States complied with
neither of these deadlines.

14.
Animal health problems, and the first BSE crisis in par-
ticular, in 1996, led the Council to review the provisions govern-
ing cattle identification and registration and to demand traceabil-
ity of cattle from birth to slaughter and from slaughterhouse to
product distributor. In 1997 the Council therefore decided to
reinforce the legislation and to replace the Directive with a Regu-
lation (5) setting out three main phases in order to achieve the

(1) The aim of the deseasonalisation premium is to encourage slaughter
of cattle outside the annual
‘off-grass’ period. The premium is
designed to avoid too great a number of beef animals being slaugh-
tered during one and the same period, which could disturb the sta-
bility of the market and lead to a fall in prices.

(2) The aim of the extensification premium is to avoid the necessity of
developing production methods which are too intensive by making
premiums linked to fattening dependent on compliance with a maxi-
mum density factor for animals kept on the farm.

(3) Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identi-
fication and registration of animals (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32).
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1).
(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97.

17.
In addition, cattle identification and registration, and the
traceability which should be the result, are relevant to all expen-
diture for beef and veal (9), including expenditure on public stor-
age and export refunds. In fact, public storage and refunds can
only be granted for beef and beef products which are labelled in
such a way that a link can be established with the initial identifi-
cation of the animal (10).

What is the cattle identification and registration system?

18.
The key components of the system are ear tags for indi-
vidual identification of animals, animal passports, the individual
registers kept on each holding and the computerised databases set
up in every Member State.

(6) The

1997
(EC) No 1760/2000.

Regulation

was

replaced

by

Regulation

(7) This concerns additional payments paid from the Community bud-
get, which the Member States may decide to grant beef producers and
which are calculated per head and/or according to area subject to
objective criteria, such as production conditions and structures.
(8) Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999
on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ L 160,
26.6.1999, p. 21).

(9) This system also affects the rural development sector expenditure
based on per capita payments for cattle. It also applies to expendi-
ture in connection with slaughtering carried out in the context of the
foot and mouth crisis.

(10) Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.

C 29/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

All animals born on farms after 31 December 1997, or
19.
traded within the Community after this date, are identified by tags
approved by the competent authority, attached to each ear. The

two ear tags bear the same unique identification code, which
makes it possible to identify each animal individually, together
with the holding where it was born (see photograph 1).

Photograph 1: Ear tags, French (top left), British (top right) and German (bottom)

This core information (1) is included in the passports, in

20.
the registers and in the computerised databases.

14 days of notification of its new identification. When an animal
is moved, its passport accompanies it. In addition to the core data,
the passport also provides additional
(see
photograph 2).

information (2)

21.
As from 1 January 1998, for every animal that is to be
identified the competent authority in the Member State issues a
passport within 14 days of notification of the animal’s birth or,
in the case of animals imported from third countries, within

(1) The identity code of the animal, its date of birth, gender, breed or

information on the animal’s coat.

(2) The mother’s identity code (or, in the case of an animal imported from
a third country, the identity number allocated on entry, which is based
on its original identification number), the number of the farm of birth,
the identification numbers of all the farms on which the animal has
been kept and the dates of every movement, the signatures of the vari-
ous keepers, the name of the authority which issued the passport, the
passport’s date of issue and, for male cattle, information concerning
the animal’s status in respect of premiums.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/11

Photograph 2: Cattle passports: German (top - one page, recto verso), British (middle - page one of a book of 17 pages) and

French (bottom - one page, recto verso)

C 29/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

Every keeper of animals, with the exception of transport-

22.
ers, must keep an up-to-date register (1).

Box 1

The computerised cattle databases were to be operational
23.
in all Member States on 31 December 1999 and were to contain
various items of information on the animals and holdings. For
every animal, the database includes the identification code, date
of birth, gender, breed or information on the animal’s coat,
together with the identification code of the mother (or, in the case
of animals imported from third countries, the identification num-
ber given on entry, which is linked to the original identification
number), the identification number of the holding of birth, the
identification numbers of all the holdings where the animal has
been kept and the date of each movement. The database also
includes the date of slaughter or death. For every holding, the
database contains the name and address of the keeper and an
identification number consisting of a code of a maximum of
12 characters in addition to the country code.

The database must make it possible to find, at any given
24.
time, the identification numbers of all the cattle on a given hold-
ing, and all the movements of all the animals from birth or, in the
case of animals imported from third countries, from the holding
of entry (2), into the Member State.

25.
To ensure proper implementation of the identification
and registration system, the competent authority in each Mem-
ber State must carry out a minimum number of on-the-spot
checks (3), with the aim of verifying the identity of all animals on
a holding. These checks include a physical check, in order to
verify the ear tags, a documentary check to verify that the regis-
ter has been kept properly and that documentary evidence of
entries and exits exists, as well as checks that the obligation to
report all movements (births, deaths, purchases, sales, loans) to
the database manager has been met. The farmers to be checked
are selected on the basis of a risk analysis. The rules provide for
penalties which are proportionate to the gravity of the infringe-
ments discovered (4). Box 1 below summarises the penalties to be
applied in connection with the infringements discovered.

(1) In addition to the basic information contained in all forms of the
record, the register also contains the dates of arrival on, departure
from or death on the farm, the names and addresses of the keepers of
origin and destination or their identification codes, together with the
name and dated signature of the representative of the competent
authority which verified the register.

(2) The holding of entry is the agricultural holding which keeps the ani-
mal immediately after its arrival on the territory of the European
Union.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2630/97 of 29 December 1997 lay-
ing down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EC) No 820/97 as regards the minimum level of controls to be car-
ried out in the framework of the system for the identification and reg-
istration of bovine animals (OJ L 354, 30.12.1997, p. 23). Regulation
(EC) No 2630/97 was replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003
(OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 9).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/98 of 27 February 1998 laying
down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC)
No 820/97 as regards the application of minimum administrative
sanctions in the framework of the system for the identification and
registration of bovine animals (OJ L 60, 28.2.1998, p. 78).

If, for some animals, the identification and registration requirements
are not fully complied with, a restriction is imposed on the move-
ment of those animals until the requirements have been fully com-
plied with.

If the number of animals for which the identification and registra-
tion requirements are not fully complied with is in excess of 20 % of
the herd, a restriction is imposed on the movement of all the ani-
mals present on the holding.

If a keeper fails to report movements, births or deaths, a restriction
on movement of animals to and from that holding is imposed.

If one or more animals on a holding comply with none of the iden-
tification and registration provisions laid down, a restriction is
imposed on movement of all animals to and from that holding.

If the keeper of an animal cannot prove its identity within two work-
ing days, the animal must be destroyed without delay under the
supervision of the veterinary authorities and without compensation.

26.
The Member States with computerised databases which
the Commission has deemed to be fully operational may decide
to discontinue issuing passports for movements of cattle within
the Member State concerned; in this case, only cattle intended for
intra-Community trade are required to have a passport contain-
ing data based on the computerised database (5). The Member
States may also reduce the rate of on-the-spot checks from 10 to
5 % (6), if they have a fully operational database which enables
them to carry out effective cross-checks.

ROLES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES
INVOLVED IN THE
IDENTIFICATION AND
CATTLE
REGISTRATION SYSTEM

The Council and the European Parliament

27.
In respect of the protection of human health (7), the
Council and the European Parliament adopt the basic regulations
following a proposal by the Commission. In the case of agricul-
ture, the Council adopts regulations and directives proposed by
the Commission after consultation with the European Parliament.

(5) Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.
(6) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2630/97.
(7) Article 152(4)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/13

The Commission

The various keepers of cattle

28.
Basic Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (1) stipulates that
the Commission is to be assisted by a management committee
made up of representatives of the Member States (EAGGF Com-
mittee (2)) when taking the necessary measures to implement the
system and, in particular, the provisions concerning ear tags,
passports and registers, the minimum checks to be carried out,
the application of administrative sanctions and the transitional
arrangements. In addition, the basic regulation (3) also specifies
that the Commission’s experts, together with the competent
authorities, must, on the one hand, verify that the Member States
comply with the legislation and, on the other, carry out on-the-
spot checks in order to verify that controls are implemented in
conformity with the rules in force. Within this framework, the
Commission is assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food
Chain and Animal Health (4). Where the Commission deems it
appropriate, in view of the findings arising from the checks, the
situation is reviewed by the committee. The Commission may
adopt the necessary decisions. The Regulation also stipulates that
the Commission is to monitor developments in the situation and
may, where necessary, amend or repeal decisions.

The Member States

29.
It is the responsibility of each Member State to set up a
system for identifying and registering cattle in accordance with
the provisions of legislation. The Member States define and
administer the ear tags, define the format of the farm registers and
issue the animal passports.

30.
The Member States lay down the procedures for declar-
ing cattle movements in order to keep their national databases up
to date. These procedures are either manual (report forms) or
automated (transfer of files, Internet connection, etc).

31.
The Member States are also obliged to carry out checks
on keepers of cattle and to draw up an annual report on the find-
ings of these checks. This report must be submitted to the
Commission.

(1) Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.
(2) The committee referred to in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC)

No 1258/1999 (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103).

(3) Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.
(4) The committee referred to in Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 31,
1.2.2002, p. 1).

In relation to cattle, ‘keeper’ means any natural or legal
32.
person responsible for the animals, whether on a permanent or
on a temporary basis, including during transport or at a market.
With the exception of transporters, every keeper must report to
the competent authority all movements to and from the holding
and all births and deaths. Keepers must also maintain an up-to-
date register, make entries in the passports, attach ear tags at birth
and retag if the tags are lost (5).

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AT
COMMUNITY LEVEL

Introduction

33.
The legislative system adopted in respect of cattle identi-
fication and registration must be appropriate to the objectives to
be achieved. If the objective is to be able to track all cattle move-
ments on the territory of the European Union, the legislative
framework must be appropriate to this objective.

34.
The basic legislation governing the identification and reg-
istration of cattle is drafted in general terms and leaves the respon-
sibility for setting up the system, on their own territory, to the
Member States. The Commission has adopted implementing mea-
sures in respect of ear tags, passports, registers, controls (6) and
penalties (7), but not in respect of the computerised databases.

Legislation makes no provision for exchanges of information
between the databases

Community legislation sets out the measures required for
35.
veterinary
(EC)
No 1760/2000 requires Member States to take the necessary

zootechnical

Regulation

checks.

and

(5) Articles 2 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.
(6) Commission Regulations (EC) No 2629/97 (OJ L 354, 30.12.1997,
p. 19) and (EC) No 2630/97, codified by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1082/2003 (OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 9).

(7) Regulation (EC) No 494/98.

C 29/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

measures to ensure that the national computerised databases are
fully operational as soon as possible. Since it was aware of the
risks and realised that, in order to be able to track animals and
animal movements, it was necessary to introduce a transparent
procedure for the exchange of data between Member States on
animals and animal movements, the Commission drew up a pro-
posal to this effect. The Council did not follow up this proposal.
Legislation adopted in July 2000 makes no provision for
exchanges of data between the various national databases, only
for mutual assistance procedures between Member States. The
ANIMO system allows information to be communicated between
Member States in respect of batches of animals traded, but does
not provide information on the identity of the animals making up
the batches. As a result there is no systematic communication
between Member States concerning the state of health of the ani-
mals traded or their eligibility for premiums.

36.
At any rate, the exchange of data between the various
national databases was compromised from the outset because the
format of the data differs from one Member State to another. In
the absence of a mechanism for exchanging data between data-
bases, it is possible to monitor cattle movements by verifying
whether the passports of traded animals are returned. However,
the passport
(see
paragraph 38(c)).

return mechanism does not work

At present the Commission has no detailed description of
37.
the monitoring of movements overall, nor any study of how it
works in the context of the identification and registration system.
In the absence of any exchange of data between national data-
bases, the only assurance it can give is that the system allows
effective monitoring, at least in theory, of all movements of cattle
on Community territory.

containing certain obligatory items of information. The keep-
ing of this register has not been adapted to the requirements
of the different keepers’ activities. It ought to be possible to
take into consideration the characteristics which are specific
to certain categories of keeper, such as traders, assembly cen-
tres, or slaughterhouses (1). In view of the large number of
movements involved, it is not possible for a trader or the
manager of an assembly centre to enter the information
relating to the individual identification of all animals in a tra-
ditional register. The professional practices of these keepers
are not compatible with the current requirements concern-
ing the keeping of registers. Similar constraints exist at
slaughterhouse level.

(b) The term ‘keeper of bovine animals’ is interpreted in different ways

The legislation has defined a keeper as any natural or legal
person responsible for the animals, whether on a permanent
or temporary basis, including during transportation or at a
market. The aim of this broad definition is to include all the
categories of person who take charge of cattle from an ani-
mal’s birth or entry into the European Union until its death
or exit from the European Union. The Member States have
sometimes interpreted the term ‘keeper’ in different ways.
France has included assembly centres and knackers’ yards in
its cattle identification and registration system. This is not the
case in the three other Member States visited.

Community legislation is not sufficiently precise

(c) The passports of dead animals and of animals exported to another
Member State, for which new passports are issued, are not always
invalidated

38.
The current legislation has a number of imprecisions and
inconsistencies, which give rise to different ways of processing the
data, depending on the Member State, and may even be sources
of errors.

(a) Keepers’ obligations concerning registers have not been adapted to

meet the requirements of the different types of keeper

In the Member States visited, passports are required for all
movements of cattle. The legislation stipulates that when an
animal dies, the passport must be returned by the keeper to
the competent authority at the latest seven days after the ani-
mal’s death. If the animal is sent to a slaughterhouse, the
manager of the slaughterhouse is responsible for returning
the passport to the competent authority. The mechanisms
for returning passports are either non-existent or ineffective.

All keepers of cattle, with the exception of transporters, must
keep an up-to-date register, manually or by computer,

(1) The number of movements recorded by traders and assembly centres
is so large that the register, which must be kept manually, is a source
of error. The number of animals present cannot be calculated auto-
matically and the completeness of the entries must be verified (provi-
sion must be made for cross-checks).

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/15

Detailed implementing rules governing the return of pass-
ports and checks on the returns have not been specified. In
addition, no procedure for invalidating these passports has
been laid down. In the absence of systematic exchanges of
information between Member States and in view of the lack
of precision in the legislation, at the level of procedures,
checks and sanctions, passports which have not been invali-
dated could be reused in an irregular manner. In the case of
cattle from another Member State, if the passport is not re-
issued in the Member States of destination, there is no pro-
cedure for returning information on the animals included in
the national databases. Furthermore, if a passport is reissued,
the procedures for returning the old passport to the Member
State in which it was issued are either non-existent or
ineffective.

(d)

It is sometimes difficult to establish a link with the country
or holding of origin. For animals from third countries, the
system in place is based on the cattle being identified on the
first holding of destination and thus on ‘naturalisation’ on
entry, which does not always allow a link to be established
with the country or holding of origin.

The options offered by the Community legislation com-

39.
plicate the system unnecessarily:

(a)

Internal movements within a Member State, with or without a
passport

The option of requiring passports, or not, for internal move-
ments within a Member State is available to Member States
which have a database recognised as fully operational by the
Commission by 31 December 1999 at the latest. In the
Member States visited, the Court noted that the tests carried
out before an animal’s passport was issued, tests which were
undoubtedly of varying quality, made it possible to filter the
information entered in the database and this,
in turn,
increased the reliability of the databases. Legislation (1) allows
Member States to opt to abandon passports for internal
movements. In this event, the checks that are carried out
must provide assurance that the data contained in the data-
bases are sufficiently reliable.

(1) Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.

(b) The length of the cattle identification numbers varies (two letters
identifying the Member State followed by a maximum of 12 digits)

With regard to trade in cattle, the non-standardisation of ear-
tag codes causes administrative problems for a number of
Member States. France, for example, which only uses 10 dig-
its, creates virtual numbers to allow inclusion, in the data-
base, of animals from other Member States. Greater stan-
dardisation of identification numbers would have made it
possible for movements of cattle between Member States to
be registered automatically. The use of compatible, or stan-
dard, identification codes would make efficient and accurate
recording of data possible.

The Commission has no mandate to adopt implementing
measures in respect of national databases

40.
In contrast to the provisions concerning other parts of
the system (ear tags, passports, registers, on-the-spot checks,
administrative sanctions and transitional measures), the Commis-
sion has no legal competence (2) to adopt implementing rules on
setting up and controlling the various national databases (3) (see
paragraph 28). This major weakness in the system explains the
differences noted in the Member States visited, as every Member
State has developed its own database which operates in accor-
dance with criteria which the Member State itself defined (see
table 4).

(2) A broad interpretation of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000 would have enabled the Commission to play a more
active role in respect of recognition of the operational character of the
databases. This opinion is not shared by the Commission, which con-
siders that Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 does not
give it any prerogative concerning recognition of databases and that
only Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 provides a legal
base for recognition of the operational character of the databases.
(3) In view of the importance of setting up computerised databases with
an operational character that is equivalent in the various Member
States, the Commission had proposed in 1998 that it should be given
responsibility for defining implementing arrangements for achieving
this objective. This proposal also included a request that a transparent
procedure for the exchange of data between the Member States should
be put in place for the exchange of information on animals and their
movements. The Council took no action on this proposal, which
explains the absence of implementing arrangements.

y
t
i
l
a
u
Q

-
r
o
f
n

i

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
m

d
e
n
i
a
t
n
o
c

e
h
t

n

i

s
e
s
a
b
a
t
a
d

i

-
s
i
n
m
d
A

n
o
i
t
a
r
t

-
a
r
t
n

i

f
o

-
u
m
m
o
C

y
t
i
n

e
d
a
r
t

-
o
r
h
c
n
y
S

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n

l
a
c
o

l

f
o

i

-
s
i
n
m
d
A

n
o
i
t
a
r
t

s
e
s
a
b
a
t
a
d

-
e
v
o
m

f
o

h
t
i

w

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n

e
s
a
b
a
t
a
d

t
n
e
m

s
e
i
l
a
m
o
n
a

-
a
h
c
e
M

r
o
f

m

s
i
n

-
c
e
t
e
d

f
o

n
o
i
t

-
e
v
o
m

t
n
e
m

s
e
i
l
a
m
o
n
a

-
s
s
e
c
o
r
P

f
o

g
n

i

-
e
v
o
m

t
n
e
m

s
t
r
o
p
e
r

y
t
i
l
a
u
Q

-
r
o
f
n

i

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
m

d
e
n
i
a
t
n
o
c

-
e
v
o
m
n

i

t
n
e
m

s
t
r
o
p
e
r

e
h
t

r
o
f

s
e
s
o
p
r
u
p

-
i
n
o
m

f
o

g
n
i
r
o
t

s

w
o
l
f

-
r
o
t
i
n
o
M

f
o

g
n

i

s
t
r
o
p
s
s
a
p

e
n
i
v
o
b

f
o

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

d
e
d
a
r
t

n
e
e
w
t
e
b

r
e
b
m
e
M

s
e
t
a
t
S

t
o
n

d
e
t
a
u
l
a
v
e

s
e
s
a
b
a
t
a
d

d
e
s
i
r
e
t
u
p
m
o
C

s
t
r
o
p
s
s
a
P

s
g
n
i
d
o
h

l

n
o

t
p
e
k

s
r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

s
g
a
t

r
a
E

4

e
l
b
a
T

)
1
(
2
0
0
2

f
o

s
h
t
n
o
m
x
i
s

t
s
r
i
f

e
h
t

n

i

s
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

f
o

t
r
u
o
C
e
h
t

y
b

t
u
o

d
e
i
r
r
a
c

s
t
i
d
u
a

f
o

s
g
n
i
d
n
i
f

e
h
t

f
o

y
r
a
m
m
u
S

-
l
i
b
a
i
l
e
R

f
o

y
t
i

t
a
m
r
o
F

f
o

s
t
r
o
p
s
s
a
p

s
t
r
o
p
s
s
a
p

r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

y
b

d
e
s
u

-
h
g
u
a
l
s

-
r
e
t

,
s
e
s
u
o
h

-
e
l
o
h
w

s
r
e
l
a
s

d
n
a

s
r
e
d
a
r
t

r
e
t
s
i
g
e
R

y
b

d
e
s
u

s
r
e
m
r
a
f

t
a
m
r
o
F

-
s
i
g
e
r

f
o

-
n
o
c

r
e
t

i

g
n
n
i
a
t

-
r
o
f
n

i

l
l
a

n
o
i
t
a
m

d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

y
t
i
l
a
u
Q

r
a
e

f
o

s
g
a
t

-
e
u
q
i
n
U

f
o

s
s
e
n

,
s
g
a
t

r
a
e

g
n
i
g
g
a
t

l
l
a

f
o

e
l
t
t
a
c

g
a
t

r
a
E

t
a
m
r
o
f

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l
p
p
A

s
e
i
t
l
a
n
e
p

n
o
i
t
c
e
l
e
S

d
o
h
t
e
m

e
t
a
r

g
n
i
k
c
e
h
C

-
r
e
t
h
g
u
a
l
S

s
e
s
u
o
h

d
n
a

s
r
e
d
a
r
T

s
r
e
l
a
s
e
l
o
h
w

s
r
e
m
r
a
F

s
k
c
e
h
c

t
o
p
s
-
e
h
t
-
n
O

s
r
e
p
e
e
k

s
u
o
i
r
a
v

y
b

n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p

f
o

l
e
v
e
L

)

n
i
a
t
i
r
B

t
a
e
r
G

(

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

)

n
i
a
t
i
r
B

t
a
e
r
G

(

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

a
i
r
a
v
a
B

y
n
o
x
a
S

-

-

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

y
r
o
t
c
a
f
s
i
t
a
S

e
t
a
u
q
e
d
A

e
t
a
u
q
e
d
a
n
I

.
s
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

f
o

t
r
u
o
C

:
e
c
r
u
o
S

.
s
e
s
a
b
a
t
a
d

e
h
t
n

i

d
e
n
i
a
t
n
o
c

a
t
a
d

e
h
t

f
o
y
t
i
l
a
u
q

e
h
t

d
n
a

e
d
a
r
t

y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C
-
a
r
t
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
a

i

,
s
t
r
o
p
s
s
a
p
f
o
g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
m

,
r
a
l
u
c
i
t
r
a
p
n

i

,

n
r
e
c
n
o
c

s
t
n
e
m
m
o
c

e
h
T

.
t
r
o
p
e
r

l
a
i
c
e
p
s

e
h
t

f
o
y
d
o
b
n
i
a
m
e
h
t
n

i

d
n
u
o
f

e
b
n
a
c

e
l
b
a
t

s
i
h
t
n
o
s
t
n
e
m
m
o
c

s

’

O
C
N
A
S
G
D

)
1
(

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/17

The only competence assigned to the Commission by the
41.
basic regulation (1) is the assessment of whether the databases are
fully operational (2). This recognition allows Member States to
abolish the use of passports for movements of cattle on national
territory (see paragraph 39). However, Community legislation
does not specify the conditions for this recognition by the Com-
mission. This legal void explains why the Commission’s manage-
ment of this recognition procedure has undergone such profound
changes (see paragraphs 55 to 62).

There is room for improvement in the Commission’s rules
concerning on-the-spot checks and penalties

The identification and registration legislation lays down
42.
a system for on-the-spot checks and a system of specific penal-
ties. The aim of on-the-spot checks is to verify that all compo-
nents of the system have been put in place and are operating sat-
isfactorily. Community legislation provides for indirect financial
penalties for keepers of cattle only in cases of serious omission,
when there is provision for the animal to be slaughtered without
compensation. In all other cases, the only restrictions imposed are
on cattle movement restrictions. These movement restrictions
make it impossible to buy or sell the animals, which can have a
very disruptive impact on the economic activity of the farm con-
cerned. The penalties under Community legislation are applied in
different ways in the four Member States visited.

43.
The findings made in the four Member States visited
demonstrate that the system of on-the-spot checks and the pen-
alty mechanism were working with varying degrees of effective-
ness at the time of the audit. Box 2 shows some examples of
unsatisfactory application.

(1) Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.
(2) In addition, the printing of bar codes on passports should be obliga-
tory. Their standardisation at Community level would facilitate admin-
istration and at the same time remove a source of error during data
input.

Box 2

In Italy, veterinary officials carried out identification checks at the
same time as health checks. In the course of these checks welfare
aspects took priority over the technical and administrative aspects of
identification. No information relating specifically to the identifica-
tion checks was included in the control reports. Because of the small
number of infringements found, the number of penalties was also
very limited.

In Germany there was no procedure for following up anomalies. The
control reports were not sufficiently detailed.

In Great Britain the inspectors did not use the lists of movement
anomalies to target their checks.

In France inspections carried out in slaughterhouses and assembly
centres did not lead to the drawing-up of an ‘identification’ control
report. Compared to the number of anomalies discovered, the num-
ber of penalties was rather small.

44.
The control system, comprising risk analysis, the penalty
mechanism and the control statistics, was very appropriate to
checks on farmers before the national databases were set up.
However, it does not focus adequately on the control require-
ments in respect of other keepers, i.e. traders, markets, assembly
centres and slaughterhouses (see box 3).

Box 3

The classic on-the-spot check system aims to check the animals
present on the holding, verify their identity and check that the reg-
ister is kept properly and that the passports are in conformity with
the regulations. This check also aims to verify the movements of the
previous 12 months. This system was appropriate for cattle farm-
ers. Where ‘identification’ checks had to carried out in a slaughter-
house, on a trader’s premises or in an assembly centre, the usual con-
trol arrangements were difficult to apply in view of the number of
animals and the large volume of movements recorded by these vari-
ous keepers.

Furthermore, this control system has not been adapted to
45.
take into account the information available following the intro-
duction of the databases and the opportunities for carrying out a
more effective on-the-spot check using lists of anomalies detected
by the database, such as double entries, delays in reporting, retag-
ging rates, etc. Lastly, the content of on-the-spot checks has not
been defined. In Italy, the rate of on-the-spot checks exceeds 20 %
because compulsory preventive health checks are systematically
entered together with the identification checks. These checks do
not deal systematically with all the technical and administrative
aspects of identification.

C 29/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

The Community legislation allows on-the-spot checks
46.
under the identification and registration system to be carried out
in combination with other inspections and, with IACS inspec-
tions in particular. From the farmers’ point of view the two regu-
lations are very similar. The existence of two specific regulations
containing a number of differences gives rise to problems of inter-
pretation and logistical problems in the field (see box 4).

Box 4

Farmers did not necessarily make a distinction between identifica-
tion checks and ‘premium’ checks. For example, checks on reporting
deadlines and stocks of ear tags were carried out during identifica-
tion checks, but these elements were not checked in the context of
IACS checks.

Identification anomalies were not systematically included in reports
drawn up in the context of ‘premiums’ audits although they were
included in the case of identification checks.

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM
AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

Absence of precise rules on the management of national
databases

47.
As there are no rules on how the databases are to be
managed, the databases are very different from one Member State
to another. No provision was made for any guidance by the Com-
mission when the databases were set up in the Member States.
Each Member State developed its own database and bore a large
part of the design and development costs (1) (the United Kingdom
developed two independent systems; see paragraph 62). The data-
bases were not developed according to a common operating sys-
tem laid down at European level and the procedures for process-
ing the data were not harmonised.

48.
To be more precise, the situation is characterised by an
absence of definitions of the basic concepts, absence of standar-
dised management rules, absence of quality indicators and the
lack of a defined format for the exchange of data.

49.
The basic concepts include, for example, the minimum
information to be provided by keepers when reporting move-
ments and a full specification of what constitutes a keeper of

(1) These costs are borne by the Member States. A very small part was

financed from the Community budget.

bovine animals. In some cases the intermediate keepers make no
report, with the result that the audit trail for the animals con-
cerned is incomplete.

50.
The absence of standardised management rules means
that plausibility tests differ from one database to another and that
the circumstances covered by the movement anomalies are not
identical. As a result the reliability of the information contained
in the databases is very variable. Box 5 illustrates the disparities in
the situations encountered in the Member States in 2002.

Box 5

In order to check the information contained in the databases the
Member States have defined the anomalies that are to be detected
automatically by the system. With regard to the types of movement
anomaly specified by the four Member States visited, Italy has five,
while Germany has 55, Great Britain eight and France 35.

Examples of movement anomalies are: off-farm movements which
were not followed by any entry record by another keeper (farmer,
trader, slaughterhouse, etc), an exit date from the holding after the
entry date for the subsequent holding, discrepancies between the exit
date recorded by one keeper and the entry date recorded by the next.
This last example may be an indication of failure to record an inter-
mediate movement and hence loss of audit trail during a move-
ment.

The administrative rules concerning one and the same type of
anomaly varied greatly from one Member State to another. For
example, when an animal declared for ‘exit’ by one keeper was not
declared as an ‘entry’ by another keeper, the German system auto-
matically generated an anomaly if the difference was two days, the
French system generated an anomaly for a difference of 30 days,
while the Italian and British systems made no provision for this
anomaly. In the case of these two databases, therefore, there was no
automatic system for following up ‘lost’ animals.

On 1 January 2002, the Italian database contained 2 305 076
‘lost’ animals. These were animals that had been reported as live
‘exits’ by one keeper but were not registered as ‘entries’ by another
keeper. The causes of this situation were either absence of notifica-
tion and notification errors, or recording errors and miscellaneous
computer errors. In Great Britain, the same type of situation had led
the authorities to set up a ‘long dead programme’ which made it pos-
sible to eliminate anomalies relating to animals which must be con-
sidered dead.

Where an animal was registered with two keepers at the same time,
the German and British systems generated an anomaly on the first
day of the overlap. The French system generated an anomaly if the
overlap lasted 15 days and the Italian system made no provision for
this anomaly.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/19

The Member States had developed few quality indicators
51.
for the national databases. No appropriate anomaly threshold had
been set. In addition, management charts were either non-existent
or under development.

The absence of a defined compatible format for exchang-
52.
ing data between national databases prevents complete traceabil-
ity in respect of cattle moving from one Member State to another.

Compliance with reporting deadlines is vital to efficient
53.
tracing in real time. The Member States are not obliged to anal-
yse these data, or to forward them to the Commission. Analysis
of the information sent to the Court revealed substantial dispari-
ties in reporting times between types of movements and between
Member States (see diagram 4).

Percentage of movement reports subject to delay in 2001 (delays of more than seven days after the event)

Diagram 4

Source: National databases. The data for France do not permit identification of entries from other Member States.

C 29/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

When the databases were set up, the Commission did not
54.
provide assistance and did not give any advice to those Member
States that requested it. For example, Great Britain asked the
Commission for assistance during the design phase of its system,
but it was refused.

Absence of criteria for recognition of the fully operational
character of databases

The Commission issues an opinion (1) on the fully opera-
55.
tional character of the national databases before a Member State
abolishes passports for movements of cattle on its national terri-
tory (see paragraph 26). The Commission bases this recognition
that the databases are fully operational on an analysis of Member
States’ replies to a questionnaire and a two-day on-the-spot visit
to the Member States making the request. The object of this visit
is a presentation of the database in operation. The Commission
then publishes its decision recognising the national database to be
fully operational. Box 6 contains some examples of conditions
found in Commission decisions recognising the operational char-
acter of databases.

Box 6

The Commission has very often laid down conditions with which the
Member State must comply, to ensure that its database is entirely
reliable. When the Luxembourg database was recognised as fully
operational, the Commission brought to light, among other things,
two weaknesses, namely that the competent authority was unable to
correct errors or omissions rapidly and that the time allowed for
reporting movements, births and deaths was more than seven days.

In the case of Denmark, the Commission drew attention to the same
two weaknesses. In addition, passports were not authenticated and
there was no reporting of premium status.

In Belgium, not all types of movement were recorded in the database
and the competent authority was unable to correct errors or omis-
sions rapidly.

In the Netherlands, the competent authority was unable to correct
errors or omissions rapidly, the time allowed for reporting move-
ments, births and deaths was more than seven days and the provi-
sions of Regulation (EC) No 2630/97 were not applied correctly.

In Austria, not all animal movements were registered, there were
delays in corrections of errors and national legislation on deadlines
for reporting movements was not complied with.

In Sweden, neither slaughterings nor movements to knackers’ yards
were reported. There were delays in correcting errors and not all pro-
visions concerning new identification of cattle in case of loss of ear
tags were complied with. The deadlines for reporting movements were
not complied with.

In Northern Ireland, the authorities were advised to take the neces-
sary measures to improve the reliability of data recording, to improve
procedures relating to the replacement of ear tags, especially the
deadlines for distribution and traceability. They were also to improve
the procedures for authentification and validation of passports.

In France, the authorities were recommended to reduce the time
allowed for reporting movements, births and deaths to seven days, to
record all animal movements and to correct rapidly any error or
omission discovered during on-the-spot checks.

The conditions entered in the Commission’s decisions
56.
recognising the fully operational character of the databases and
the findings of the Food and Veterinary Office and the Directorate-
General for Agriculture concerning cattle identification and reg-
istration did not guarantee that the system in place allowed the
conditions required by the legislation to be verified, in respect of
reporting deadlines, the absence of reports, or penalties.

57.
The sole purpose of the decision to recognise the fully
operational character of a database was to confirm that the data-
base was fully operational in the technical sense. According to the
Commission, this recognition is limited to approving the design
of the system set up by a Member State. Furthermore, the Com-
mission has not applied precise management rules or predefined
quality indicators as to the basis for its evaluation of the actual
operation of the databases. The practical operation and ultimate
reliability of the database thus depend on the keepers who are to
input complete data and update the base rapidly.

58.
In addition, all decisions recognising databases to be fully
operational contain conditions with suspensive effect linked to a
formal commitment by the Member States concerned to make a
certain number of improvements to the operation of the data-
bases before the date on which formal recognition comes into
effect. Since 2001, the Commission has undertaken to monitor,
systematically, whether the recommendations issued have actu-
ally been implemented.

59.
Since 2001, the Food and Veterinary Office has carried
out various audit missions concerning traceability, and the find-
ings are taken into account in the evaluation of the design and
functioning of the databases. Although this approach has been
adopted, it was not applied at the time of the first evaluations of
the operational character of the databases. These in-depth checks
are now used as a basis for evaluating whether the databases are
operational. For this reason the Commission is attaching greater
importance to the database recognition procedure and to the role
it can play in this field.

(1) Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.

60.
At the beginning of 2004, the databases of nine Member
States and that of Northern Ireland had been recognised by the
Commission, on the dates shown in table 5.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/21

Dates of Commission decisions recognising the fully operational character of databases

Table 5

Member State (or region)

Decision

Date of decision

Actual date of recognition

Finland

Luxembourg

Denmark

Belgium

Netherlands

Austria

Sweden

United Kingdom
(Northern Ireland)

France

Germany

1999/317/EC

28 April 1999

1 May 1999

1999/375/EC

19 May 1999

1 August 1999

1999/376/EC

19 May 1999

1 October 1999

1999/377/EC

19 May 1999

1 July 1999

1999/546/EC

13 July 1999

1 October 1999

1999/571/EC

28 July 1999

1 October 1999

1999/693/EC

5 October 1999

1 November 1999

1999/696/EC

11 October 1999

1 November 1999

2001/399/EC

7 May 2001

2 September 2001

2002/67/EC

28 January 2002

Not specified

61.
The databases of six Member States had still not been rec-
ognised at the beginning of 2004. These were Greece, Spain, Ire-
land, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom (Great Britain). The
situation is set out in detail in box 7.

Box 7

In the case of Portugal, the Commission has suspended the draft rec-
ognition decision as from the date of their visit on 19 October 2000,
because of the weaknesses found during the visit by DG SANCO
inspectors.

The Spanish authorities returned the Commission’s questionnaire on
24 July 2001. They claimed they were ready for the Commission’s
visit in connection with the official recognition of their database, but
asked that the date on which recognition took effect should be the
date on which the questionnaire was sent to the Commission. Since
2002, the rate of on-the-spot checks has been reduced to 5 %.

The Commission visited Great Britain on 20 and 21 Novem-
ber 2001. A draft decision was drawn up proposing 1 April 2002
as the date on which the decision should come into effect, but here,
too, the Commission has suspended the decision because of weak-
nesses found during an inspection.

In a letter of 23 January 2002, the Irish authorities simply informed
the Commission that their database was fully operational and for
this reason they were reducing the rate of on-the-spot checks from 10
to 5 %.

As far as Italy is concerned, the Commission received the completed
standard questionnaire on 28 February 2002. The Italian authori-
ties said that they were ready to receive the Commission’s visit for
official recognition of their database.

In a letter of 24 July 2001, the Greek authorities informed the Com-
mission about their plans for setting up the database, which was
scheduled to become operational in June 2002.

62.
For some Member States (Portugal and United Kingdom),
the draft recognition decision has been suspended by the Com-
mission. These delays in the decision process are prejudicial to the
Member States concerned. Moreover, two Member States (Spain
and Ireland) granted themselves the benefits of recognition in the
absence of any formal decision on the part of the Commission by
reducing their rates of checks from 10 to 5 %.

The United Kingdom set up two separate databases, i.e.
63.
one in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland (1). The two
bases are incompatible, as evidenced by the failure of the work of
cross-checking animal movements in the two databases. The
work was carried out by the competent authority at the Court’s
request. The data available do not provide an audit trail for ani-
mals traded between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In addi-
tion, vets were using a different database and this was not in line
with the objectives of the legislation (2).

(1) In its reply to the sector letter, ‘The Commission acknowledges the fact
that the approval of more than one database per Member State is not
foreseen in the legislation in place’.

(2) To pursue the health objectives laid down in the legislation, British
vets set up a special database which is separate from the database set
up for identification (CTS - Cattle tracing system). This is counter to
the objectives of the legislation which, from the outset, combined
health regulation and premium management objectives.

C 29/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

The Commission recognised the database for Northern
64.
Ireland as fully operational as from 1 November 1999. The
setting-up of two separate databases in the United Kingdom and
the individual recognition of one of them by the Commission is
not in conformity with Community legislation. The incompatibil-
ity of the two databases means that they cannot be treated as a
single database for operational purposes.

visits to the Member States to evaluate the conduct of the checks
on the traceability of beef and beef products. In the course of
these visits the entire chain is analysed, from fattening to point of
sale. The reports containing the observations and recommenda-
tions are subject to contradictory procedures between the Office
and the Member States, and the final report is published on the
Commission’s Internet site. The Food and Veterinary Office visits
the 15 Member States over a period of 12 months in connection
with this work.

Supervision by the Commission

65.
Until 1999 responsibility for identification and registra-
tion lay with DG Agriculture. Since then, the responsibility has
been transferred to the Directorate-General for Health and Con-
sumer Protection (1). Nevertheless, it is DG Agriculture (IACS)
which is responsible for control and payment of animal premi-
ums. Since 1999 it has only been possible for animal premiums
for cattle to be paid if the cattle in question have been correctly
identified and registered in the Community system (2). These two
Directorates-General are therefore required to supervise the Com-
munity identification and registration system. The IACS legisla-
tion, like the legislation on the identification system, allows Mem-
ber States to reduce the minimum rate of on-the-spot checks
from 10 to 5 % when the national database is fully operational
and has allowed effective cross-checks to be carried out within the
IACS framework for more than one year (3).

DG Agriculture is involved at Member State level as part
68.
of the clearance of accounts procedure. In this context, it evalu-
ates the reliability of the information in the cattle database,
together with the procedures for exchanging information
between national audit units following the on-the-spot checks
carried out in the identification and registration context. The find-
ings of DG Agriculture during its ‘clearance of accounts’ visits
may reveal problems affecting cross-checks of data taken from
premium applications and data from the identification and regis-
tration database, delays in reporting movements, unsatisfactory
keeping of herd books and shortcomings in the system for vali-
dating passports. Negligence in the organisation of identification
checks may also be detected, such as an absence of checks on
keepers other than those applying for premiums or failure to
communicate the results of checks between the departments
responsible for managing premiums and those in charge of
identification.

Health and Consumer Protection DG is in charge of the
66.
procedure for recognising the fully operational character of the
national databases (see paragraphs 55 to 62) and is also respon-
sible for monitoring the statistics of on-the-spot identification and
registration checks which Member States are required to draw up
(see paragraph 46).

67.
The Food and Veterinary Office is part of Health and
Consumer Protection DG and is responsible for routine monitor-
ing of the identification and registration system. At the beginning
of 2002 the Food and Veterinary Office began a series of audit

Coordination of the work of the various Commission
69.
departments involved in the Member States has improved with
time. However, as there are no quantified quality indicators that
are used by all those involved, they have no means of assessing
whether the national databases are acceptable or not.

(1) Health and Consumer Protection DG has legislative responsibilities in
the food, veterinary, phytosanitary and public health fields. Health and
Consumer Protection DG is the result of the reorganisation of several
units from three Directorates-General (DG III - Internal Market, DG VI
- Agriculture and DG XXIV - Consumer Protection).
(2) Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999.
(3) Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001.

70.
With the exception of the weaknesses discussed in para-
graphs 44 and 92, the statistics drawn up by Member States on
on-the-spot checks on identification and registration are not
analysed or used as a tool for guidance by the Commission (see
table 6).

6

e
l
b
a
T

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

B
G

K
U

E
S

I
F

T
P

T
A

L
N

U
L

T
I

E
I

R
F

S
E

L
E

E
D

K
D

E
B

n
o
i
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

m
e
t
s
y
s

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
g
e
r

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
t
n
e
d
i

e
l
t
t
a
c

e
h
t

f
o

k
r
o
w
e
m
a
r
f

e
h
t

n
i
h
t
i

w
0
0
0
2

r
a
e
y

l
a
i
c
n
a
n
i
f

e
h
t

r
o
f

t
u
o

d
e
i
r
r
a
c

s
k
c
e
h
c

t
o
p
s
-
e
h
t
-
n
o

f
o

s
t
l
u
s
e
R

3
3
5
1
3

8
5
6
8
0
1

1
7
6
5
3

0
4
5
1
3

4
8
6
3
9

3
4
9
5
0
1

-

2
8
8
1

7
5
2
4
3
2

3
6
2
8
3
1

8
0
0
4
3
3

0
9
4
1
1
2

6
6
9
9
4
2

7
6
6
5
3

6
6
6
0
5

8
3
1
1

0
0
5
7

9
0
4
3

4
9
5
1

9
4
6
7

7
4
6
2
1

8
6
0
3

6
7
2

5
6
4
1
6

7
9
9
6
2

4
5
8
2
2

0
6
9
8
1

1
8
1
9
1

7
9
0
2

5
9
5
9

i

s
g
n
d
o
h

l

l
a
t
o
T

d
e
r
e
t
s
i
g
e
r

i

s
g
n
d
o
h

l

l
a
t
o
T

%
4

%
7

%
0
1

%
5

%
8

%
2
1

9
6
1
4
6
6
1

9
5
7
6
9
8
6

9
3
8
2
3
7
1

2
3
9
5
6
0
1

0
0
2
2
0
2
1

7
6
6
4
5
1
2

-

-

%
5
1

%
6
2

%
0
2

%
7

%
9

%
8

%
6

%
9
1

d
e
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

9
5
8
1
0
2

-

5
3
7
9
6
5
7

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2

8
6
6
3
3
8
6

0
7
0
9
3
1
1
1

1
8
5
7
7
9
1

9
9
7
0
1
0
3

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

e
n
i
v
o
b

l
a
t
o
T

e
h
t

t
a

d
e
r
e
t
s
i
g
e
r

e
h
t

f
o

i

g
n
n
n
i
g
e
b

d
o
i
r
e
p

3
8
0
9
2

2
0
2
8
0
6

1
5
2
3
3
2

7
9
8
0
8

9
9
6
0
1
1

7
7
3
0
8
4

0
8
4
7
3
3

2
0
4
6
4

7
4
1
8
2
9
1

7
1
9
6
9
9

4
9
5
7
8
5
1

5
2
9
3
8
7

1
2
2
8
7
1
1

8
3
2
9
7
1

0
9
9
7
5
7

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

e
n
i
v
o
b

l
a
t
o
T

0
9
3
3

4
1
3
1
5

4
2
1
4
1

1
2
1
2

9
2
2
6
1

-

%
2

%
9

%
3
1

%
8

%
9

%
2
2

-

-

-

-

%
8
6

8
4

3
8
6
4
3

%
8
0
0
0

,

0
9

%
1

-

-

9

%
0

-

-

7
7
6

%
4

9
5

%
3
5
0
0

,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

%
3
2

0
3
1

0
1

%
8

4

%
9
0
0
0

,

-

%
3
1

%
8

%
1
1

%
1
1

%
9

%
5
2

7
3
7
8

3
8
1
2

0
7
3
2
9
2

8
8
0
8
2

0
0
8
0
1

3
8
5
9

0
3
5

-

-

3
7
8

%
0
1

-

-

-

3
9
3

%
0

3
9

%
6
0
0
0

,

1
3
3

%
1

-

-

-

-

-

-

7
3

%
0

-

-

0
2
2

%
2
4

7

f
o

s
e
s
a
c

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

e
c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
c
-
n
o
n

d
n
u
o
f

d
e
s
o
p
m

i

s
e
i
t
l
a
n
e
P

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

d
e
y
o
r
t
s
e
d

%

d
e
k
c
e
h
c

%

%
1
0
0
0

,

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

f
o
(

%

)
d
e
k
c
e
h
c

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

i

s
g
n
d
o
h

l

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
h
t

s
r
e
h
t
o

,
)

T
I

,

E
B

(

d
e
s
o
p
m

i

s
e
i
t
l
a
n
e
p

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
h
t

e
d
i
v
o
r
p

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M
e
m
o
s

;

d
e
s
i
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
s

n
e
e
b

t
o
n

s
a
h

d
e
d
r
a
w
r
o
f

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

e
h
t

s
a

,
s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

f
o

n
o
s
i
r
a
p
m
o
c
w
o

l
l
a

t
o
n

o
d

’

d
e
s
o
p
m

i

s
e
i
t
l
a
n
e
p

‘

i

g
n
n
r
e
c
n
o
c

a
t
a
d

.
)
S
E
(

i

s
g
n
d
e
e
c
o
r
p

l
a
g
e
l

o
t

t
c
e
j
b
u
s

s
e
s
a
c

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
h
t

s
e
v
i
g

e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o

;
)
E
S
(

s
e
i
t
l
a
n
e
p

o
t

t
c
e
j
b
u
s

e
l
t
t
a
c

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
h
t

r
o

,
)

K
D

(

d
e
s
i
l
a
n
e
p

i

s
g
n
d
o
h

l

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
h
t

y
l
e
r
e
m

r
o

,
)

B
G
-
K
U

,
I
F

,

T
P

,

U
L

,

R
F
(

d
e
i
l

p
p
a

e
r
a

s
e
i
t
l
a
n
e
p

h
c
i
h
w
o
t

s
l
a
m
n
a

i

e
h
T

d
n
a

:

2
e
t
o
N

.
s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

l
l
a

r
o
f

e
m
a
s

e
h
t

t
o
n

s
i

d
o
i
r
e
p

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
e
r

e
h
T

:

1

e
t
o
N

.
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a

e
r
a

s
c
i
t
s
i
t
a
t
s

o
N

.

m
e
t
s
y
S

l

o
r
t
n
o
C
d
n
a

i

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
m
d
A
d
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
n
I

e
h
t

d
e
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

t
e
y

t
o
n

s
a
h

e
c
e
e
r
G

:

3

e
t
o
N

.

7
9
/
0
3
6
2

o
N

)

C
E
(

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
g
e
R
n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C
y
b

d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
t
r
o
p
e
R

l
a
u
n
n
A
e
h
t

:
e
c
r
u
o
S

C 29/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

Penalties are laid down in the two sets of regulations con-
71.
cerning the identification and registration system. The legislation
on that system, like other veterinary provisions, does not lay
down any financial penalties in the case of non-compliance with
the rules in force. In contrast, the legislation setting up IACS does
lay down financial penalties for non-compliance with the rules.
The work of DG Agriculture may thus result in financial correc-
tions (1) in cases where serious anomalies relating specifically to
identification are found during audits. The penalty arrangements
differ and no links have been provided between the two systems.

Box 8

Examples of movement anomalies: an off-farm movement which is
not followed by any entry record by another keeper (farmer, trader,
slaughterhouse, etc.), a date of exit after the date of entry at the next
farm, gaps between the date of exit recorded by one keeper and the
date of entry recorded by the next keeper (possibility that an inter-
mediate movement has not been recorded, with resultant loss of audit
trail).

Inconsistencies in the management of premiums

Exceptional support measures for the beef market following
the BSE crisis

Bovine premiums subject to controls in the context of the
Integrated Administration and Control System

72.
The legislation on the Integrated Administration and
Control System (IACS) stipulates that Member States are to carry
out administrative checks to verify that the conditions of eligibil-
ity for the granting of aid and premiums are fulfilled. These
administrative checks include, in particular, cross-checks with the
cattle database. IACS thus uses the computerised cattle database
(the core element of the identification and registration system) to
validate applications for premiums (2).

73.
The Commission ensures that all the Member States put
administrative checks in place. These must include checking all
the eligibility conditions against the identification and registration
database. The standard of checks on eligibility conditions varied
greatly in the four Member States visited.

75.
During the BSE crisis in 1996 the Commission intro-
duced a regulation which was applicable exclusively in the United
Kingdom (3) and provided for the slaughter and destruction of
cattle over 30 months old. During the second crisis, in 2000, the
Commission adopted new measures, which applied to the other
Member States. In this new regulation, the Commission stipulated
that in order to be eligible for the payments granted for slaughter
and destruction of cattle, animals must be identified and regis-
tered in conformity with the identification and registration
regulation (4).

76.
The regulation applicable to the United Kingdom was not
amended to incorporate this condition. This meant that the ani-
mals did not have to be identified and registered in accordance
with the appropriate legislation in order to be eligible for pay-
ments granted in case of slaughter and destruction of cattle. This
difference in treatment between the Member States is an incon-
sistency in the legislation. The Community cattle registration and
identification system was, in fact, set up in the EU in response to
the BSE crisis. The United Kingdom, the Member State mainly
affected by the disease, was the only one not legally obliged to
carry out cross-checks with the national database, and benefited
from payments for animals which were not identified and were
slaughtered in order to be destroyed.

74.
The Commission has provided a precise definition of the
administrative checks to be carried out in the context of bovine
premiums by breaking the checks down into key checks and aux-
iliary checks. It has not specified which anomalies found in
respect of identification are to be taken into account and has not
said whether these anomalies should lead to payments being fro-
zen or not. Box 8 below shows examples of movement anomalies.

77.
The Commission’s justification for the difference in treat-
ment was the objective of the 1996 regulation, which aimed to
withdraw older cattle from the market that were not subject to
the identification obligations and whose age could be determined
by examination of the teeth. This argument, which is now no
longer relevant, was justified inasmuch as imposing identification
requirements for older animals might have increased the risk of
illicit slaughter.

(1) The clearance of accounts procedure provides for financial corrections
equivalent to the amount of the risk incurred for Community funds.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 (OJ L 99, 20.4.1996, p. 14).
(4) Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 (OJ L 321,

(2) Article 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001.

19.12.2000, p. 47).

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/25

FINDINGS OF THE COURT’S AUDITS IN THE MEMBER STATES
VISITED

Box 9

78.
The situation encountered in the four Member States vis-
ited during the first half of 2002, i.e. more than 24 months after
the deadline of 31 December 1999 for setting up an efficient sys-
tem of identification and registration, revealed shortcomings.
Some Member States were still in the process of developing their
own systems at the time of the audit and improvements were
planned in all Member States visited. Although, in the meantime,
a number of the Court’s findings have become irrelevant, other
weaknesses identified at a certain point are the subject of recom-
mendations (see paragraphs 92 to 99) and must still be corrected.
Table 4 illustrates the situation observed in 2002 for the four
Member States visited, in five areas, namely ear tags, farm regis-
ters, passports, computerised databases and the level of partici-
pation in the system on the part of the various keepers.

Ear tags

79.
The legislation stipulates that the quantities of ear tags
distributed to farmers are to cover requirements for a maximum
period of one year. In the Member States visited, the ear tags were
not always restricted to these quantities. Generally, the format of
the ear tags corresponds to the legislative requirements (see
photograph 1).

80.
In Germany, France and Italy, the national authorities did
not use indicators such as rates of loss of ear tags or frequency of
retagging to evaluate the quality of the ear tags. Likewise, they did
not examine the procedures for awarding contracts. In contrast,
in Great Britain, where ear tags made by 12 different producers
were approved, statistical data are available (ear tag allocation sys-
tem) and show that 10,8 % of all ear tags had been replaced after
four years. This replacement rate varied greatly depending on
suppliers and was sometimes even as much as 23 %.

Farm registers

81.
The farm registers were not always in the format required
by the legislation. In all the Member States visited, the register
used by slaughterhouses, wholesalers and traders did not include
all the information required by the legislation (see box 9).

In France, the competent authority did not approve a specific register
for all categories of keeper, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1760/2000. The format of the register approved for
fattening holdings made no provision for continuous recording of
herd movements and did not make it possible to see, directly, the
number of cattle present on the farm.

In Italy, two different models of herd register were in existence. Nei-
ther of the models made provision for continuous registration of ani-
mal movements. There was no approved register for slaughterhouses.

In Great Britain, traders, managers of markets and slaughterhouses
did not always keep registers in the format approved by the compe-
tent authority.

Passports

82.
Passport formats varied considerably from one Member
State to another, as every Member State has developed its own
system. The passports were not comparable, one to another, and
it was difficult for a farmer from another Member State to deci-
pher the logic of the presentation in the various passports (see
photograph 2). Monitoring of passports of animals traded between
Member States was inadequate in the Member States visited (see
box 10).

Box 10

In Italy, there was no guarantee that the passports were reliable. In
some regions different passport models were in existence simulta-
neously, with handwritten passports continuing to circulate along-
side printed passports. In some cases passports of calves, imported
from third countries and identified on the farm of importation, con-
tained no indication of their place of consignment. The Italian
authorities elected not to issue new passports for animals from other
Member States, but the information contained in the bar codes of the
passports of traded animals was not systematically used, because the
bar codes had not been standardised. Passports of slaughtered ani-
mals were not systematically returned to the competent authority.
Some slaughterhouses sent the passports to the headquarters of the
national database, others sent them to local units and some kept
them for several years. There were no cross-checks between the pass-
ports of slaughtered animals and the slaughter information for-
warded by slaughterhouses to the databases.

In Bavaria and Saxony there was no procedure for following up the
return of passports after cattle had been slaughtered. Passports were
not systematically returned to the Regionalstelle of the Land. In addi-
tion, slaughterhouses did not complete the passports of all cattle
slaughtered. Where passports were reissued, there was no procedure
for checking the justification for them.

In France, the authorities issue new passports for animals coming
from other Member States. The passports of traded animals from
another Member State were not returned to the Member State of ori-
gin. These passports were stored either at the Ministry of Agricul-
ture or by local authorities to await their possible return to the Mem-
ber State of origin. There were no procedures for recording these
passports and no system for annulling them.

C 29/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

Computerised databases and quality of data

83.
The legislation specifies that keepers are to enter in the
database all movements to and from the holding, but does not
specify the type of information to be communicated. For this rea-
son, the information in the movement reports was not always
complete. For example, the French authorities received very lim-
ited information on the destination of cattle. The keepers only
had to indicate, as the reason for exit, either ‘slaughter’ or ‘fatten-
ing’ with no information on the actual destination of the animal
(French market or other countries). As a consequence, the data-
base provided no information on intra-Community or extra-
Community movements of animals. In Italy assembly centres did
not automatically report movements. In addition, considerable
delays were noted in the processing of the reports. In 2000 and
2001, for more than 95 % of reports of all types, the time taken
to record them in the database was in excess of the time allowed
by the legislation.

In France and Italy the local bases were not synchronised
85.
with the national databases. In France, the national base was sup-
plied with data from 43 local bases. For 75 % of the farms vis-
ited, quantitative and qualitative differences were found between
the data available in the national base and the data in the local
base. In Italy some of the 198 local databases had no direct access
to the national database. In addition, the slaughterhouses were
not connected to the national database. Differences between the
data from the various databases were found for all the farms
visited.

86.
The quality of the information contained in the databases
was considered adequate in Germany but inadequate in the three
other Member States. Few quality indicators had been developed
for the data contained in the base and external sources were not
used to validate the quality of the data.

Reports by the various keepers

84.
The mechanisms for detecting anomalies in movements
and the administration of the anomalies differed quite signifi-
cantly in the Member States visited (see box 11).

87.
With regard to reports, the level of participation by the
various keepers was considered to be satisfactory in the case of
the farmers. Nevertheless, traceability is not complete if all keep-
ers, even temporary ones such as traders, wholesalers and man-
agers of assembly centres, do not report entries and exits.

Box 11

In Germany a series of 600 a priori tests of control was implemented
to ensure optimum quality of the data entered in the base. Further a
posteriori tests were also carried out. In addition, the German
authorities developed a quality indicator for the data in the base. This
indicator gave the percentage of animals with anomalies in relation
to total movements.

In Italy, of the entry reports made in 2001, 515 967 reports did
not state the origin of the movement (21 % of the total). On 1 Janu-
ary 2002, 2 305 076 exits of animals had been reported with no
indication of their destination. In March 2002 the national data-
base contained 743 079 duplicate ear tag marks.

Delays in reporting movements were noted in Great Britain. Some
exit reports were not followed by entry reports, which meant that the
animals concerned were ‘lost’. In addition, some anomalies had been
corrected by means of an automatic procedure which generated the
missing movement (1 915 000 ‘corrective’ movements counted in
April 2002).

In France assembly centres and traders were not obliged to report
movements unless the animals remained with them for more than
30 days. As for the slaughterhouses, they were not obliged to report
movements.

In France, slaughterhouses were not an integral part of
88.
the system. The slaughterhouses constitute the link between the
identification as such and the labelling of beef. For this reason
they are a crucial link in achieving complete traceability.

Information on cattle flows

89.
The database of France, which is responsible for more
than 50 % of intra-Community exports, provided no information
on movements involving the other Member States. In the case of
the latter, the information from the computerised databases relat-
ing to intra-Community movements shows substantial diver-
gence between the exits declared by the Member State of consign-
ment and the entries declared by the Member State of destination
(see table 7). Box 12 gives some examples of the anomalies and
inconsistencies found between national databases.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/27

Cross-checks between national databases in respect of intra-Community movements

Table 7

MOVEMENTS FOR 2000

Movement from

Destination

Germany

France

Italy

Germany

Germany’s national database

Database of country of destination

Difference

Database of country of destination

France

France’s national database

Difference

Database of country of destination

Italy

Italy’s national database

Difference

Database of country of destination

United Kingdom databases (Great Britain and
Northern Ireland)

Difference

United Kingdom (Great
Britain and Northern
Ireland)

n.a.: data not available
Source: national databases.

MOVEMENTS FOR 2001

n.a.

51 432

n.a.

n.a.

174

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

18 255

79 691

61436

401 894

n.a.

n.a.

160

0

160

16 642

n.a.

n.a.

1 126

0

1126

0

0

0

Movement from

Destination

Germany

France

Italy

Germany

Germany’s national database

Database of country of destination

Difference

Database of country of destination

8 847

France

France’s national database

Difference

Database of country of destination

Italy

Italy’s national database

Difference

Database of country of destination

United Kingdom databases (Great Britain and
Northern Ireland)

Difference

United Kingdom (Great
Britain and Northern
Ireland)

n.a.: data not available
Source: national databases.

n.a.

n.a.

73

0

73

0

0

0

n.a.

62 809

n.a.

n.a.

353

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

22 687

114 820

92133

367 769

n.a.

n.a.

82

0

82

United Kingdom
(Great Britain
and Northern
Ireland)

52

23

29

202

n.a.

n.a.

5

160

155

United Kingdom
(Great Britain
and Northern
Ireland)

1 122

163

959

159

n.a.

n.a.

37

0

37

C 29/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

Box 12

The Italian database only reported 22 687 animals from Germany
for 2001, whereas the German database recorded 114 820 exited
to Italy. For 2000, the data are 18 255 and 79 691 respectively.
In addition, the Italian database did not report a single exit towards
Germany, whereas entries from Italy were recorded in the German
database (1 126 animals in 2000 and 73 animals in 2001).

The German database recorded exits of only 23 animals to the
United Kingdom in 2000, whereas the United Kingdom databases
showed 52. In 2001, the German database recorded 163 animals
exiting for the United Kingdom, while the United Kingdom data-
bases recorded 1 122.

While the United Kingdom databases reported no exits in 2000 or
2001, the Italian database included 160 entries of cattle in 2000
and 82 cattle in 2001, although these movements were actually for-
bidden.

There were other inconsistencies in respect of exits from Italy for the
United Kingdom. 160 animals were declared as exiting Italy for the
United Kingdom in 2000, whereas the United Kingdom databases
only mention 5. For 2001 the situation is reversed, as the Italian
database contained no exit to the United Kingdom, whereas 37
entries were recorded there.

90.
Trade with third countries in 2000 and 2001 also
showed substantial differences (see table 8) between Eurostat data
and the data in the national databases. According to the inquiries
carried out by the Court, there is no consistency between the data
from the two data sources. It was not possible to obtain a true
view of the movements of animals between the Member States
and third countries.

Table 8

Comparison of data on imports from third countries

IMPORTS FOR 2000

According to Eurostat

According to the national databases

Difference

%

n.a.: data not available
Source: Eurostat and national databases.

IMPORTS FOR 2001

According to Eurostat

According to the national databases

Difference

%

n.a.: data not available
Source: Eurostat and national databases.

Germany

France

Italy

United Kingdom

118 780

33 583

85 197

254

25

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

330 632

170 184

160 448

94

432

1 127

- 695

- 62

Germany

France

Italy

United Kingdom

74 730

21 637

53 093

245

8

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

310 739

128 515

182 224

142

49

65

- 16

- 25

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/29

On-the-spot checks

The databases developed in the Member States are very
94.
heterogeneous, which is a barrier to interconnection of the data-
bases (paragraphs 40 and 41).

The on-the-spot checks carried out by the Member States
91.
(see table 6) were evaluated as follows. In Germany, the on-the-
spot checks were organised at Länder level. In Bavaria, the mini-
mum checking rate of 10 % was not respected, the method of
selecting the beneficiaries to be audited was not based on an
annual risk analysis, the legal penalties were not applied and the
results of on-the-spot checks were not systematically forwarded
to the premium administrators. France and Great Britain did not
comply with the minimum rate of 10 % for on-the-spot checks.
In Italy, the quality of the checks, the recording of the results of
those checks, the application of penalties and the forwarding of
the results to the premium managers all raised doubts about the
reliability of the on-the-spot checks.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

— If the objective is to facilitate reliable interoperability between
national databases, the Commission should be authorised to
adopt common rules allowing interconnection of the Mem-
ber States’ databases (paragraphs 40 and 41).

Every Member State has adopted its own administrative
95.
rules for the cattle identification and registration system. Few
quality indicators have been developed (paragraphs 86 to 90).

92.
Considering that the objective of the legislation on cattle
identification and registration is to ensure the traceability of all
cattle movements on the territory of the European Union, the
regulatory framework put in place has some conceptual short-
comings (paragraphs 33 to 46). For example, Community legis-
lation makes no provision for procedures to monitor movements
of cattle between Member States, although between 3 and 4 % of
cattle change Member State every year.

— The Commission should be empowered to draw up, within
the framework of existing or amended procedures, precise
criteria for operation of the national databases (common
administrative rules, quality indicators, definition of a format
for the exchange of data between national databases, etc.)
(paragraphs 86 to 90).

— The legislative framework should make provision for system-
atic exchanges of information between databases in the
Member States so that intra-Community movements of cattle
can be traced in accordance with the requirements of the
Community legislation (paragraphs 35 to 37).

96.
The legislation stipulates, without laying down rules on
the procedures, that the Commission is to assess whether the
databases are fully operational. The aim of this recognition is to
authorise Member States to abolish passports for movements of
cattle on the national territory of a Member State and to reduce
the rate of checks for animal premiums from 10 to 5 %. This jus-
tification reduces the impact of recognition that databases are
operational (paragraphs 55 to 64).

93.
The current legislation has inconsistencies and impreci-
sions, which give rise to differences in treatment among Member
States (paragraph 38). In addition, the existence of options in the
system
application of
(paragraph 39).

legislation complicates

the

the

— All keepers of cattle should be included in the identification
and registration system (see paragraph 32). The reports
should be subject to precise rules which are identical in all
Member States. The keeping of registers should be adapted to
the activities of the various keepers and take into account
technological developments (machine-readable bar codes,
Internet, etc.). Procedures for checking and returning pass-
ports to the issuing body should be implemented. In addi-
tion, identification numbers should be rendered more com-
patible (paragraphs 38 and 39).

— If the aim is to have databases which are operational, the pro-
cedure for recognising databases should be strengthened by
redefining the objective and detailing the criteria that must be
met, in respect of both design and operation, in order for the
Commission to award recognition and renew it periodically
(paragraphs 55 to 65). The Commission should therefore
take on a guiding role in the system of cattle identification
and registration (paragraphs 38 to 40 and 47) and carry out
regular checks to ensure that the databases are fully opera-
tional (paragraphs 55 to 59, 65 to 69 and paragraph 71) by
setting up a coherent procedure for verifying the operation
of the system in the Member States, including annual certi-
fication of the quality of information in the national data-
bases (paragraphs 37 and 69).

C 29/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

The on-the-spot checks to be carried out by Member
97.
States are not appropriate for all types of keepers of cattle. In the
case of farmers, the ‘identification’ checks and the IACS checks
have not been systematically integrated. In this way multiple
checks ignore potential synergy effects (paragraphs 42 to 46). In
the absence of precise harmonised rules for all the Member States
(paragraphs 72 to 74), anomalies in identification have different
financial consequences in terms of the premiums paid in the vari-
ous Member States.

— A comparative analysis of the administrative checks in force
in the different Member States should result in controls being
defined which cover all the conditions governing eligibility
for premiums, as well as the cross-checks to be made between
the IACS databases and the identification and registration
databases before premiums are paid (paragraphs 72 to 74).
In addition, the system of on-the-spot checks should be
reviewed (including the penalty mechanisms), approaches
which are specific to the type of keeper should be laid down
and, especially in the case of farmers, an approach which is
fully integrated with IACS should be imposed, while purely
welfare matters should be covered by veterinary legislation
(paragraphs 43 to 46 and paragraph 71).

The legislative arrangements in force in the United King-
98.
dom do not require animals to be identified and registered in
accordance with the identification and registration regulation in
order to be eligible for payments granted in the case of slaughter
and destruction of cattle which are over 30 months old.

— The legislation should be amended to guarantee equality of
treatment in future between the other Member States and the
United Kingdom in the context of the exceptional support
measures in connection with BSE (paragraphs 75 to 77).

99.
The Court’s inquiry, carried out in 2002, at the Commu-
nity authorities and in four Member States showed that the objec-
tive of establishing an effective system of cattle identification and
registration at the production stage has not been fully attained.
There was no comprehensive guarantee of the traceability of all
cattle circulating in the EU. As a result, the special Community
labelling system has inevitably been constructed around a system
which is affected by weaknesses and has served as a vehicle for the
losses of traceability that occurred ‘upstream’ (paragraphs 78
to 91).

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 7 and
8 July 2004.

For the Court of Auditors
Juan Manuel FABRA VALLÉS
President

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/31

THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES

SUMMARY

I to IV.
The Commission takes note of the findings of the
auditors during their missions carried out from October 2001 to
June 2002 in the four Member States concerned. In 2002, the
Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carried out missions on trace-
ability to all Member States and provided recommendations to
address the shortcomings found by the inspectors.

The Commission has noted the shortcomings in the management
of passports for bovine animals which are traded within the Com-
munity. According to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000
of the European Parliament and of the Council, Member States
‘may issue a passport for animals from another Member State. In
such cases, the passport accompanying the animal on its arrival
shall be surrendered to the competent authority, which shall
return it to the issuing Member State (…) In the case of death of
an animal, the passport shall be returned by the keeper to the
competent authority within seven days after the death of the ani-
mal. If the animal is sent to the slaughterhouse, the operator of
the slaughterhouse shall be responsible for returning the passport
to the competent authority’. The legislator, the Council and the
European Parliament, laid down no detailed implementing rules
on this issue. Since the adoption of the Regulation the Commis-
sion has provided clarification on this issue during discussions in
several Commission working groups.

It is the responsibility of Member States to have in place a national
database for bovine animals and to ensure that the requirements
are met. The database must contain up-to-date information on all
bovine animals and all movements whereby the traceability is
ensured.

Furthermore, with regard to the traceability of animals in intra-
Community trade it should be noted that such animals must be
accompanied by a health certificate in accordance with Council
Directive 64/432/EEC, which includes information on the official
individual identification of the animals concerned.

V.
Responsibility for the implementation of Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000 lies with the Member States. Bovine animals must
be identified within a period determined by the Member State as
from the date of birth of the animal, at the latest at the age of 20
days and in any event before the animal leaves the holding of
birth (Article 4); births, deaths and movements must be notified
to the competent authority within a period fixed by the Member
State of between three and seven days (Article 7); and passports
must be returned to the competent authority by the last keeper
(Article 6).

However, the Commission has acknowledged the need for preci-
sion of the deadline for notification by the keeper of births to the
competent authority. To this effect Regulation (EC) No 911/2004
has been adopted which clarifies this issue.

The Commission takes note of the auditors’ statement
VI.
that the current provisions for controls and penalties are not
adapted to the activity of all categories of keepers. However, it
should be noted that the detailed rules laid down concern the
minimum level of controls and the minimum administrative pen-
alties leaving the option open to Member States to go beyond
these requirements. For controls it is specified that the minimum
rate shall be increased immediately when it is established that
Community legislation regarding identification has not been
complied with. According to the detailed rules for controls, which
were laid down in 1997 and codified by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1082/2003, the criteria for selecting holdings for on-the-
spot inspections must include proper communication of the data
to the competent authority.

VII.
The legislation places a clear obligation on the Member
States to put in place a national database for bovine animals,
which should be fully operational by 31 December 1999 and
must be able to supply, at any time, the identification number of
all animals present on a holding and a list of all movements to
and from the holding. It is the responsibility of Member States to
ensure that such requirements are met. The limited role of the
Commission’s recognition of the fully operational character of the
national databases as laid down in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000 is in line with the political choice made by the leg-
islator of having separate national databases in the different Mem-
ber States instead of a single Community database. It is also clear
that harmonisation of the characteristics of the national databases
has not been considered a desirable objective by the legislator,
which has left the Member States free to design their own data-
bases. Attempts made by the Commission to establish, if not har-
monise,
interoperability between the national databases have
been rejected by the Council of Ministers, as acknowledged by the
auditors.

VIII.
With regard to the national databases, the Commission
acknowledges the need for established transparent criteria and
benchmarks based on shared standards. Despite the legal vacuum,
the Commission services are pursuing the review and consolida-
tion of the criteria and benchmarks currently used.

IX.
The Commission considers that to integrate the identifi-
cation system with IACS would, given the systems’ different
objectives, jeopardise the smooth operation of the animal premi-
ums system and could be open to legal challenges. The IACS con-
cerns itself, inter alia, with animals for which CAP premium has
been claimed; therefore the only relevant ‘reconciliation control’
to be made, is to ensure that such animals appear in the SIEB.

C 29/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

In drafting IACS legislation and interpretations thereof, due care
has been taken to ensure that aid reductions or exclusions are
applied in proportion to the offence and only where appropriate.
The Commission believes that regulatory controls should be as
practical and efficient as possible, whilst providing the necessary
financial safeguards.

GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM

13.
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 clearly envis-
aged that the integrated system might not be applicable in its
entirety until
later, and that Member States were obliged to
adopt alternative compensating measures.

of

this

end

Article

Regulation

(EEC)
17(1)
To
No 3887/92 provided that ‘In cases where by virtue of Article 13
of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 certain features of the integrated
system are not yet in application each Member State shall take
whatever administrative and control measures are necessary to
ensure compliance with the terms on which the aids concerned
are granted.’

14.

The Council decided to reinforce the provisions in 1997.

Therefore the Commission prepared a proposal for a Council
Regulation (EC) establishing a system for the identification and
registration of bovine animals submitted on 2 October 1996.

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AT
COMMUNITY LEVEL

it has

The Commission has adopted detailed rules in all the
34.
fields where
competence under Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000. It has laid down detailed rules for ear tags, hold-
ing registers and passports
(Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2629/97), minimum levels of controls (Commission Regula-
tion (EC) No 2630/97 codified by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1082/2003) and application of minimum administrative
sanctions (Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/98).

ANIMO is a computerised system for exchange of
35 to 37.
information on consignments of animals traded between Mem-
ber States, while mutual assistance between the administrative
authorities of Member States and cooperation between Member
States and the Commission to ensure the correct application of
legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters is covered by
Council Directive 89/608/EEC. This Directive is referred to in
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, recital 11. The ANIMO system
will be replaced by Traces, which is a new IT system designed to
improve the management of animal movements both from out-
side and within the EU. The Commission introduced Traces in
April 2004. Traces will improve the amount and quality of infor-
mation to trace animal movements as well as facilitate the
exchange of information between national and EU authorities.

Concerning the health status of animals in intra-Community
trade, according to Council Directive 64/432/EEC bovine animals
shall be accompanied by a health certificate issued by an official
veterinarian including information on the sanitary status as well
as the identification of the animals, when they are dispatched to
other Member States.

38.

(a) Keeping a registry is a key element for the system
of identification and registration. The holding of
such a registry is a constraint that may be impor-
tant for some keepers. This has been taken into
consideration as the current legislation provides
the option for Member States to use barcodes and
the internet. This can facilitate the fulfilment of the
legal obligation of the keeper to maintain a hold-
ing register.

(b) The definition of the keeper is laid down in Regu-
lation (EC) No 1760/2000 and the Commission
services have provided guidance during the discus-
sions in the working group with participation of
all Member States as well as during the process of
recognition of the fully operational character of
the national databases. Certain Member States
have included rendering plants as keepers in the
national database. Although the definition of a
keeper in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 refers to
live animals only, the inclusion of rendering plants
in the national database strengthens the effective-
ness of the cross-checking facilities.

In absence of legal basis in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, the
Commission could not establish detailed rules for the national
databases.

(c) The Commission takes note of the findings of the
auditors that passports are not always invalidated
in the event of death or movement to another
Member State. Similar findings have been reported
by FVO.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/33

It should be noted that:

Under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, Member
States may issue a passport for animals from another Member
State. In such cases, the passport accompanying the animal on its
arrival shall be surrendered to the competent authority, which
shall return it to the issuing Member State.

In the case of the death of an animal, under Article 6(4), the
keeper shall return the passport to the competent authority
within seven days of the death of that animal.

In the case of animals exported to third countries, under
Article 6(5), the passport shall be surrendered by the last keeper
to the competent authority at the place where the animal is
exported.

The legislator has provided no detailed implementing rules on
this issue. However, the Commission has provided guidance dur-
ing the discussions in the working group with participation of all
Member States.

With regard to the possible difficulty of establishing a link to the
third country of origin, it should be noted that bovine animals
imported into the EU must be accompanied by a veterinary cer-
tificate including information on the official individual identifica-
tion as well as the sanitary status of the animals.

39.

(b) The Commission is aware of the difficulties related
to the absence of a standardised format for the
identification code on the ear tags as mentioned
by the auditors. This issue was discussed at several
meetings of Commission working groups, and the
legal basis did not allow the Commission to go
further than the maximum number of digits as
laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2629/97.

Detailed rules for the application of minimum adminis-
42.
trative sanctions are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 494/98. The Commission services have provided guidance in
the working group with participation of all Member States and
FVO has provided recommendations where appropriate.

The content of the controls is laid down in Regulation
45.
(EC) No 1082/2003, replacing Regulation (EC) No 2630/1997.
The Commission has provided guidance in the working group
with participation of all Member States and FVO has provided
recommendations where appropriate. The model for the annual
report of the Member States on the controls carried out has been
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 499/2004 with the
aim of clarity and comparability.

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM
AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

47.
The Commission regrets the legal vacuum which pre-
vents the laying down of harmonised rules as regards the national
databases, in particular as it made proposals on this matter. How-
ever, it has provided guidance on issues related to the databases
during discussions in several meetings of Commission working
groups with the participation of all Member States since 1997,
when the EU requirements for a national database for bovine ani-
mals were laid down with the adoption of Council Regulation
(EC) No 820/97. Furthermore, guidance was provided in the pro-
cess of the recognition of the fully operational character of the
national databases.

49.
Pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000,
any keeper, with the exception of transporters, is obliged to notify
all movements to the competent authority.

40.
The Commission has no legal basis to lay down rules for
the national databases. Such a possibility for exchange of infor-
mation between the national databases was included in the Com-
mission’s proposal of 1998 but was rejected by the Council.

The Commission submitted to the Council in 1998 a
52.
proposal on the exchange of information between the national
databases. This proposal was rejected by the Council.

41.
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 does not give any defi-
nition of the conditions that a national database should fulfil in
order to be recognised as operational. Having to cope with the
legal vacuum, the Commission has based the first round of assess-
ment and recognition of the fully operational character of
national databases on a set of pragmatic and coherent criteria.
The Commission services have developed a questionnaire and
established a practice based on an internal checklist for the pur-
poses of assessing the databases during ‘on the spot’ visits. Fur-
thermore the reports of FVO are taken into account.

Information on consignments of animals traded between Mem-
ber States is exchanged through the computerised system
ANIMO, which will be replaced by Traces, a new IT system
designed to improve the management of animal movements both
from outside and within the EU. The Commission introduced
Traces in April 2004. Traces will improve the amount and qual-
ity of information to trace animal movements as well as facilitate
the exchange of information between national and EU authorities.

C 29/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

Any keeper, with the exception of the transporter, is
53.
obliged to notify births, deaths and all movements to the compe-
tent authority within a period fixed by the Member State of
between three and seven days. The Commission has underlined
this obligation during the discussions on the national databases in
Commission working groups. The respect of the deadline for
notification is also one of the criteria for recognition by the Com-
mission of the fully operational character of the national data-
base, and it is included in the commitments undertaken by Mem-
ber States to improve the reliability of their database. Furthermore
proper communication of the data to the competent authority is
one element to be included in the risk analysis when selecting the
holdings for the controls in accordance with Regulation (EC)
No 1082/2003, and previously Regulation (EC) No 2630/97.

The Commission is of the opinion that the technical
57.
management and quality indicator used for the recognition of the
fully operational character of
the national databases were
adequate. Having to cope with the legal vacuum on the condi-
tions to recognise the operational character of national databases,
the Commission has based the first round of assessment and rec-
ognition of the fully operational character of national databases
on a set of pragmatic and coherent criteria (e.g. information
recorded, procedure for entry of data and to ensure the quality of
data). The Commission services have developed a questionnaire
and established a practice based on an internal checklist for the
purposes of assessing the databases during ‘on-the-spot’ visits.

54.
The United Kingdom was the only Member State request-
ing specific advice from the Commission. The Commission pro-
vided such advice and guidance in the working groups with the
participation of all Member States.

55.
Following the ‘on the spot’ visits in the process of estab-
lishing recognition of the fully operational character of the
national databases, the conclusions were discussed in the Com-
mission working group, and a decision was prepared for adop-
tion by the Commission. After adoption, the Commission Deci-
sion was published in the Official Journal of European Union.

It should be kept in mind that even the best software can only
work if data are properly introduced. This is the responsibility of
the Member States.

61 and 62.
During the process of recognition of the fully
operational character of the national databases of Portugal and
the United Kingdom (Great Britain), severe shortcomings were
found by the FVO. Therefore the draft decisions have not been
presented to the Commission for formal approval but are pend-
ing the appropriate actions by the Member States to overcome
these shortcomings.

Given the limitations imposed by the Council in the basic
64.
Regulation, the multiplicity of objectives pursued, and the vague-
ness of the regulatory framework, all the facts of each concrete
situation should be considered and weighted. There is no legal
basis to withdraw the recognition of the fully operational char-
acter of the Northern Ireland database.

In Germany, the authorities had undertaken the commitment to
improve the reliability of the database ensuring in particular that: (i)
further measures, including control measures should be taken to
ensure the observation of the deadline of seven days for notification
of movements, births and deaths; (ii) all kinds of movements are
recorded in the database, and the data are monitored; (iii) the exist-
ing measures for promptly correction of any errors or deficiencies,
which could be detected automatically or following the appropriate
on-the-spot inspections are reinforced; (iv) further measures should
be taken to ensure compliance on the national territory with Com-
mission Regulation (EC) No 2630/97.

67.
All the missions in question were completed in 2002. A
detailed report of the comments, conclusions and recommenda-
tions was drawn up, sent to each Member State for comment,
finalised and published on the Internet.

Each Member State was asked to submit an action plan to correct
the weaknesses identified.

56.
The Decision referred to in the response to point 55 was
based on the commitments undertaken by the Member State.
During the process of recognition of the fully operational char-
acter of the Portuguese and the British database, FVO found
shortcomings incompatible with the commitments undertaken
by the competent authorities, in particular late or absent notifi-
cations of births, deaths and movements and lack of rapid cor-
rections following controls.

The replies and action plans submitted by each Member State
were assessed by the FVO. Some of the action plans were not con-
sidered satisfactory and further information or commitments
were required.

All these reports were monitored and, in the most difficult cases,
further on-the-spot inspections were made to assess progress at
first hand.

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/35

A general report was also drawn up listing the major events in
this series of missions in the Member States. This too was pub-
lished on the Internet.

The Commission also used the information and experience it
gained from these missions to produce a document listing the
minimum criteria for validating the data entered in the databases,
and the requirements for each of these benchmarks.

The situation as regards statistical monitoring has
70.
changed since the Court carried out its audit. To improve the clar-
ity and the comparability of the annual reports of Member States
on controls made in the bovine sector regarding Community pro-
visions for identification and registration,
the Commission
adopted Regulation (EC) No 499/2004 amending Regulation (EC)
No 1082/2003 as regards the time limit and the model for
reporting in the bovine sector.

74.
The governing IACS Regulations are very specific regard-
ing irregularities to be penalised by application of aid reductions
or exclusions.

As regards the anomalies given as examples by the Court, Mem-
ber States should make appropriate recourse to the application of
the administrative penalties laid down by Article 10(e) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT’S AUDITS IN THE MEMBER STATES
VISITED

83.
Member States shall ensure that the national database is
fully operational since 31 December 1999 and that information
on each bovine animal and all holdings, where it has been kept,
can be provided at any time. Directive 64/432/EEC requires
bovine animals intended for intra-Community trade to be accom-
panied by a health certificate issued by an official veterinarian
including information on the identification of the animals con-
cerned as well as on the holding of destination. In addition for the
latter category of animals there shall be a notification from the
keeper on the holding from where the animal is moved.

of

The

keeper

definition

in Regulation

(EC)
88.
No 1760/2000 covers slaughterhouses, which shall therefore be
included in the national database. The Commission services raised
this issue during the process of recognition of the fully opera-
tional character of the French database, and the French authori-
ties undertook among other commitments to ensure that all kinds
of movements shall be recorded in the database. FVO has pro-
vided recommendations following findings similar to those of the
auditors.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

92.
As acknowledged by the Court, the Commission submit-
ted a proposal concerning the exchange of information between
the national databases, but this proposal was rejected by the
Council. Due to the legal vacuum no applicatory decisions can be
taken.

The ANIMO system is a computerised system for exchange of
information on consignments of animals traded between Mem-
ber States. This system will be replaced by Traces, which is a new
IT system designed to improve the management of animal move-
ments both from outside and within the EU. Traces will improve
the amount and the quality of the information to trace animal
movements as well as the exchange of information between
national and EU authorities and will provide a system of elec-
tronic veterinary certificates. The Commission introduced Traces
in April 2004 and a harmonised model certificate and inspection
report linked to intra-Community trade in animals and products
of animal origin has been laid down by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 599/2004. This model certificate includes information
on the identification of animals.

In addition, bovine animals shall be accompanied by a health cer-
tificate
issued by an official veterinarian according to
Directive 64/432/EEC including information on the sanitary sta-
tus as well as the identification of the animals, when they are dis-
patched to other Member States.

Furthermore mutual assistance between the administrative
authorities of Member States and cooperation between Member
States and the Commission to ensure the correct application of
legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters is covered by
Directive 89/608/EEC, which is referred to in Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000, recital 11.

87.
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 requires each keeper to
notify to the competent authority all movements to and from the
holding. Furthermore, proper communication of data to the com-
petent authority is an element of the risk analysis, which shall be
the basis for the selection of holdings to be inspected in the
framework of controls. The Commission has provided guidance
in the working group with participation of all Member States and
FVO has provided recommendations where appropriate.

93.
The Commission takes note of the recommendation of
the auditors that notifications should be subject to accurate and
identical rules in all Member States, but Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000, adopted by the European Parliament and the
Council, does not provide for the adoption of detailed rules on
the procedure for notification of the keeper to the competent
authority.

C 29/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2005

The Commission agrees with the recommendation of the audi-
tors with regard to adaptation of the holding register to the activ-
ity of the keeper taking into account the technological develop-
ments. However, it should be noted that the current legislation
provides the option for Member States to use bar codes and the
internet.

The Commission agrees with the recommendation of the audit-
ors with regard to the setting-up procedures for the control of the
return of passports to the issuing authority, but Regulation (EC)
No 1760/2000 does not provide for the adoption of detailed
rules for these procedures.

94.
The Commission submitted a proposal concerning the
exchange of information between the national databases, but this
proposal was rejected by the Council.

95.
There is a need for established transparent criteria and
benchmarks based on shared standards. Despite the legal vacuum,
the Commission services have started the review and consolida-
tion of the criteria and benchmarks currently used. These bench-
marks have already been discussed in several coordination meet-
ings with FVO and in Commission working groups with
participation of all Member States.

96.
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 does not provide for
renewal of the recognition of the operational character or annual
certification of the national databases. It is the responsibility of
Member States to have in place an operational national database.

The system of identification and registration of bovine animals,
including the national database, has been subject to inspections
by FVO, in particular during the round of inspection missions on
traceability carried out in 2002, but also during inspection mis-
sions covering issues where animal identification plays an impor-
tant role. Based on the findings of these missions, FVO has pro-
vided recommendations for the necessary actions to be taken by
the Member States concerned.

The Commission takes note of the recommendation of

97.
the auditors to review the rules for controls and sanctions.

The detailed rules for the application of minimum administrative
sanctions are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 494/98 leaving

open the possibility for Member States to establish other national
administrative or criminal penalties, taking into account the seri-
ousness of infringements.

The detailed rules for the minimum level of controls are laid down
in Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003, replacing Regulation (EC)
No 2630/1997.

The Commission considers that to integrate the identification sys-
tem with IACS would, given the systems’ different objectives,
jeopardise the smooth operation of the animal premiums system
and could be open to legal challenges. The IACS concerns itself,
inter alia, with animals for which CAP premium has been
claimed; therefore the only relevant ‘reconciliation control’ to be
made is to ensure that such animals appear in the SIEB.

The system of identification must provide for the tracing of ani-
mals through all movements for veterinary purposes, i.e. a rapid
tracing of infected animals when disease outbreaks occur to
ensure a speedy and efficient control of the disease.

In drafting IACS legislation and interpretations thereof, due care
has been taken to ensure that aid reductions or exclusions are
applied in proportion to the offence and only where appropriate.
The Commission believes that regulatory controls should be as
practical and efficient as possible, whilst providing the necessary
financial safeguards.

98.
First of all, amending the rules would not alter the fact
that cows aged over 30 months, which were not subject to
the obligations of identification and registration, are still pre-
sented at slaughterhouses and could even create a risk of these
animals being slaughtered clandestinely.

Secondly, in the light of the opinion of the ‘Food Safety Author-
ity’, the United Kingdom authorities intend, at a date which has
not yet been fixed but will probably be early in 2005, to stop the
slaughter of animals over 30 months.

99.
The Commission acknowledges that traceability of all
bovine animals cannot be absolutely guaranteed. However, given
the legal vacuum the efforts of the Commission services have
aimed at assisting Member States to increase the reliability of their
national databases through the on-going development of bench-
marks. Furthermore the introduction of Traces will contribute to
ensure the traceability of animals in intra-Community trade.