Report from the Commission to the Council on the experience acquired on the implementation of Directive 98/58/EC on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes
Date: 2006-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: livestock farming, protection of animals, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 19/12/2006 
COM(2006) 838 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

on the experience acquired on the implementation of Directive 98/58/EC on the 
protection of animals kept for farming purposes 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

on the experience acquired on the implementation of Directive 98/58/EC on the 
protection of animals kept for farming purposes 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

The  proper  enforcement  of  Community  legislation  in  the  field  of  animal  welfare 
represents a priority for the EU citizens. In the last 25 years the EU has developed a 
substantial set of legislation on the protection of farmed animals and Member States 
are primarily responsible for its implementation. 

The  Commission  has  emphasized  the  need  for  securing  efficient  enforcement  of 
existing EU legislation in this field. Indeed, this report is part of the key actions for 
2006  by  the  Community  Action  Plan  on  the  Protection  and  Welfare  of  Animals1 
which stresses the need for a better implementation. 

Directive 98/58/EC2 on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes provides 
for  general  animal  welfare  requirements  which  derives  from  the  approval  by  the 
Community3  of  the  European  Convention  for  the  protection  of  animals  kept  for 
farming  purposes  (Council  of  Europe  Convention).  This  Convention  contains 
subsequent  recommendations  on  many  animals'  categories  that  Member  States  are 
due to implement. In addition the EU legislation on the protection of farm animals is 
further detailed by specific directives on laying hens (Directive 1999/74/EC4), calves 
(Directive 91/629/EEC5) and pigs (Directive 91/630/EEC6). 

Article 5(2) of Directive 98/58/EC requires for the Commission to submit a report to 
the  Council  on  the  experience  acquired  by  the  Member  States  since  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive,  if  appropriate  accompanied  by  proposals.  Before 
submitting any proposal to the Council, the Commission thinks that a more accurate 
picture of situation needs to be established, in particular through the improvement of 
the reporting system of the Member States. 

This  report  will  review  the  level  of  implementation  by  the  Member  States  of  the 
above-mentioned  Community  legislation  and  inform  the  Council  of  a  Commission 
Decision  which  will  replace  Commission  Decision  2000/50/EC7  concerning  the 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

COM(2006)13 and COM(2006)14. 
OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23. 
Decision 78/923/EEC (OJ L 323, 17.11.1978, p. 12). 
OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53. 
OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 28. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision 97/182/EC (OJ L 76, 
18.3.1997, p. 30). 
OJ  L 340, 11.12.1991,  p.  33.  Directive  as last  amended by  Commission  Directive  2001/93/EC (OJ L 
316, 1.12.2001, p. 36). 
OJ L 19, 25.1.2000, p. 51. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
minimum requirements for the inspection of holdings on which animals are kept for 
farming purposes. 

The  experience  acquired  by  the  Commission  on  the  enforcement  of  Decision 
2000/50/EC indicated that it was necessary to: 

– 

– 

improve  the  transparency  of  the  results  of  inspections  carried  out  by  the 
Member States in this field and, 

adapt this instrument to the new approach to food chain monitoring introduced 
by Regulation (EC) No 882/20048on official controls of the food chain. 

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 foresees that Member States shall implement control 
plans  and  annual  reports  indicating  the  results  of  inspections  conducted  in  several 
fields related to food safety including animal welfare. The regulation took effect on 1 
January 2006. 

Furthermore  since  2003,  the  reform  of  the  Common  Agriculture  Policy  has 
introduced  the  concept  of  cross-compliance.  In  this  framework  direct  payments  to 
farmers will be granted only if compliance is met with certain animal welfare rules9. 
This  condition  will  apply,  as  far  as  animal  welfare  rules  are  concerned,  from  1 
January 2007. In this context there is an additional motivation for the Commission to 
anticipate the development of tools for evaluating enforcement of EU animal welfare 
rules on farm animals. 

2. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

2.1  Sources of information 

Today in each Member State, animal welfare inspections are performed in the 
field  and  the  findings  reported  to  the  central  competent  authority,  which  in 
turn, sent the data to the Commission. These data constitute the Member States' 
reports  required  by  Decision  2000/50/EC  (see  Table  4  to  9  of  the  annex).  In 
addition this report is also based on the inspection reports of experts from the 
Commission. Those experts are in charge of checking the proper enforcement 
of Community legislation in this field (see Tables 2 and 3 of the annex). 

2.2  Transposition of EU legislation, guidance and training of officials 

Today  transposition  of  the  EU  legislation  in  national  laws  is  satisfactory  in 
most  of  the  Member  States  visited  by  the  experts  from  the  Commission.  The 
reality of the transposition of the EU legislation is however quite mixed. Some 
that  go  beyond 
Member  States  have 
Community standards while other Member States have delayed the application. 

implemented  welfare  standards 

8 

9 

Regulation  (EC)  No  882/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  official  controls 
performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal 
welfare rules (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1). 
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
In addition in certain cases, the experts from the Commission identified that in 
certain  Member  States  insufficient  training  or  guidance  of  the  official 
inspectors was the biggest factor resulting in unsatisfactory inspections.  

2.3 

Improvements still needed for planning and performing inspections 

From 2000 to 2003 the experts from the Commission found that few competent 
authorities  set  up  specific  national  programmes  that  could  provide  a 
satisfactory level of monitoring and enforcement. However from 2004 to 2005 
progress has been achieved in many Member States to address this deficiency. 

Checks  were  often  made  on  the  farm  for  other  purposes  (i.e.  for  example 
animal  health  programs,  residue  checks).  The  integrated  approach  for 
inspecting farms presents many advantages, provided that all the aspects to be 
inspected are planned and performed with equal efficiency. However, in many 
instances, animal welfare was left to local initiatives while other programs get 
much higher priorities. 

This situation has lead in some cases to perform animal welfare inspections in 
a rather superficial way. This problem has been partially corrected by a number 
of  competent  authorities  who  have  developed  more  detailed  checklists  on 
animal welfare. 

There  is  also  a  recent  improvement  in  some  Member  States  concerning  the 
selection  of  farms  to  be  inspected.  It  seems  to  derive  from  the  progressive 
implementation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  882/2004  as  well  as  the  increasing 
awareness of the authorities of the immanent link between the compliance with 
welfare requirements and the granting of direct payments (Regulation on cross-
compliance). 

However  there  is  still  progress  to  be  achieved  where  inspections  on  animal 
welfare are not performed in any meaningful detail.  

2.4  Recording and reporting system: mixed results 

The  data  available  today  to  the  Commission  demonstrate  that  details  of 
inspections  and  subsequent  actions  were  not  systematically  recorded  in  some 
Member States with sometimes no proper reporting system in place.  

On  the  other  hand,  some  Member  States  have  developed  electronic  reporting 
systems that allow quick and accurate consolidation of data. 

Experience  shows  that  the  use  of  proper  checklists  that  includes  all  the 
requirements of Directive 98/58/EC is essential to cover all the welfare aspects 
of a holding. Although progress has  been  achieved recently in  some Member 
States, there are still too many cases where checklists are limited to the species 
specific  legislative  requirements  or  sometimes  even  missing.  This  fact  limits 
the importance of the information collected. 

In addition, to obtain a proper picture of the situation at national and EU level 
data on inspection should be collected under harmonised categories as the ones 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provided by Decision 2000/50/EC. The experts from the Commission reported 
that checklist design do not always ensure that all the criteria were inspected. 

2.5  Major  difficulties  in  obtaining  and  interpreting  the  data  from  Member 

States (Tables 4 to 9 of the annex) 

For  period  2000-2001  only  three  Member  States  sent  satisfactory  reports  on 
time  (i.e.  before  30  April  2002)  and  only  one  for  the  2002-2003  period.  For 
both  periods  the  Commission  had  to  remind  the  Member  States  of  their 
reporting  obligations  either  because  no  report  was  provided  or  not  under  the 
appropriate  format  or  because  the  data  presented  major  inconsistencies  (see 
Table 1 of the annex). 

Member States data are difficult to interpret for two reasons: 

(a) 

Inconsistency of the data provided by the same Member States; 

(b)  Likelihood of very different methodologies in collecting data between the 

Member States. 

The  Commission  tends  to  conclude  that  differences  in  data  between  Member 
States may be more due to differences in the way the number of inspections is 
calculated rather than the actual performance. 

2.6  Technical findings from Member States reports 

The  infringements  reported  by  Member  States  were  mostly  related  to  four 
categories defined by Commission decision 2000/50/EC: buildings, freedom of 
movements, record keeping and inspection. 

As regards the category "buildings", the definition includes improper design of 
the buildings and equipments as well as inadequate use of the facilities such as 
ventilation or lighting programs. Pigs farms are more frequently mentioned in 
this category of infringements than other species. 

The category "freedom of movements" includes overcrowding of animals. This 
category  of  infringement  is  reported  equally  for  all  species  (calves,  pigs  and 
laying hens). 

The  categories  "inspection"  and  "record  keeping"  relates  respectively  to  the 
improper  examination  of  the  animals  and  the  insufficient  traceability  of  the 
medical treatments and mortalities observed by the farmer. 

Officials  of  the  Commission  regularly  carry  out  on-the-spot  visits  as  to 
stimulate  the  efforts  of  the  Member  States  for  better  rate  of  compliance. 
Furthermore  since  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  882/200410, 
Member States need to adjust their national control plan as to take into account 
the  results  of  their  official  controls  as  well  as  the  one  carried  out  by  the 
Community. 

10 

1 January 2006. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.  COMMISSION DECISION 2006/778/EC11 

From the above, it appears that although Member States carry out controls on animal 
welfare,  the  reporting  lacked  consistency  and  transparency.  As  a  consequence  the 
data available to the Commission are of little use in order to improve the situation, in 
particular  to  support  the  initiatives  foreseen  in  the  Community  Action  Plan  for  the 
Protection and Welfare of Animals. 

As a consequence, the Commission adopted a Decision as to improve the reporting 
system of the Member States. This decision, which will apply from 1 January 2008, 
addresses a number of issues identified in this report. 

It will contribute to harmonise the methodology for the reporting by Member States 
on  the  results  of  their  inspections.  It  will  also  help  the  Member  States  to  better 
manage  their  resources  and  improve  the  visibility  of  their  action  to  the  general 
public. 

Furthermore it will facilitate the work of the Commission in evaluating the respect of 
the  EU  legislation  and  contribute  in  the  decision  making  process,  in  particular 
allowing  an  impact  assessment  of  the  future  policies.  This  is  the  case  for  animals' 
categories  covered  by  recommendations  of  the  European  Convention  for  the 
Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. 

4. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

However the Commission believes that the present mandate12 given by the Council 
for  implementing  Directive  98/58/EC  can  not  address  all  issues  raised  here  and 
further initiatives are necessary. 

First  there  is  a  concern  expressed  by  certain  competent  authorities  over  excessive 
bureaucracy.  The  Commission  is  also  of  the  opinion  that  procedures  need  to  be 
simplified as to privilege actions over paperwork. At the same time, citizens ask for 
more  transparency  and  communication  on  the  actions  carried  out  by  their  public 
administration. 

Secondly  there  is  an  increasing  integration  of  animal  welfare  issues  within  other 
Community  policies  and  in  particular  within  the  Common  Agriculture  Policy 
(organic  farming,  rural  development,  cross-compliance)  and  the  Research  Policy. 
This  implies  that  the  developing  an  accurate  reporting  system  at  Community  level 
will  not  only  serve  animal  welfare  objectives  but  also  will  contribute  in  the 
evaluation of other EU policies and to better address future research needs. 

Thirdly  it  is  necessary  for  competent  authorities  to  improve  the  level  of  awareness 
and  technical  know-how  of  their  officials  in  charge  of  checking  animal  welfare 
requirements in farms. 

11 
12 

OJ L 314, 15.11.2006, p. 39. 
Comitology procedure is mainly limited to the reporting obligations of the Member States (Article 6(3) 
of Directive 98/58/EC). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
To address those issues the Community is studying the possibility to: 

• 

• 

• 

make Member States reports on animal welfare inspections publicly available 
through  internet,  subject  to  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1049/200113  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and 
Commission documents; 

Realise  a  feasibility  study  on  the  development  of  a  software  application 
assisting the Member States in collecting information related to animal welfare 
inspections at farms; 

Develop  a  more  comprehensive  training  policy  for  Member  States  officials 
responsible for inspections on animal welfare at farm.  

13 

OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
TABLE 1 – LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE

14

 OF THE MEMBER STATES' REPORTS  

ANNEX 

Type of 
compliance/ non 
compliance 

2000-2001 reports 

2002-2003 reports 

Full compliance 

DE, FI, LU 

DE 

In compliance but 
not on time 

In compliance after 
reminder 

BE, FR, IE, UK 

AT, BE, FI, IE, UK 

AT, DK, IT, NL, SE 

DK, ES, FR, IT, SE, LU, NL 

Not in compliance 

ES, EL, PT 

EL, PT 

14 

Compliance  with  Decision  2000/50/EC  concerning  the  minimum  requirements  for  the  inspection  of 
holdings on which animals are kept for farming purposes. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
TABLE 2 - LIST OF INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY EXPERTS FROM THE COMMISSION 
2000-2003 

Scope 

Pigs 

Calves 

Laying 
hens 

Member States  

Dates 

Reference 

AT Austria 

BE Belgium 

DE Germany 

June 2000 

DG SANCO 1099/2000 

May 2000 

DG SANCO 1009/2000* 

September 2000 

DG SANCO 1103/2000 

May 1999 / Jan. 
2000 

DG SANCO 1012/2000* 

November 2001 

DG SANCO 3382/2001 

March 2000 

DG SANCO 1057/2000* 

DK Denmark 

May 2000 

DG SANCO 1098/2000 

ES Spain 

September 2001 

DG SANCO 3344/2001 

EL Greece 

June 2002 

DG SANCO 8522/2002 

March 2000 

DG SANCO 1133/2000* 

FR France 

October 2000 

DG SANCO 1263/2000 

FI Finland 

June 2001 

DG SANCO 3312/2001 

June 2000 

DG SANCO 1160/2000* 

IT Italy 

October 2001 

DG SANCO 3385/2001 

IE Ireland 

October 2001 

DG SANCO 3383/2001 

LU Luxembourg 

November 2001 

DG SANCO 3343/2001 

January 2000 

DG SANCO 1013/2000* 

PT Portugal 

May 2000 

DG SANCO 1158/2000* 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

SE Sweden 

April 2000 

DG SANCO 1135/2000* 

March 2000 

DG SANCO 1101/2000 

x 

x 

UK United Kingdom 

March 2000 

DG SANCO 1102/2000 

TOTAL 

21 

x 

13 

x 

13 

15 

* 

Missions on poultry meat that include a section on the welfare of laying hens 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 3 - LIST OF INSPECTION CARRIED OUT BY EXPERTS FROM THE COMMISSION 
2004-2005 

Member States  

Dates 

Reference 

Scope 

Pigs 

Calves 

Laying 
hens 

DE Germany 

March 2004 

DG(SANCO)7018/2004 

DK Denmark 

January 2004 

DG(SANCO) 7208/2004 

EE Estonia 

September 2005 

DG(SANCO)7714/2005 

x 

ES Spain 

February 2004 

DG(SANCO)7230/2004 

February/March 
2005 

DG(SANCO)7548/2005 

x 

FR France 

March 2004 

DG(SANCO)7231/2004 

IT Italy 

May 2004 

DG(SANCO)7010/2004 

May 2005 

DG(SANCO)7636/2005 

LV Latvia 

May/June 2005 

DG(SANCO)7637/2005 

NL Netherlands 

January- February 
2005 

DG(SANCO)7512/2005 

PT Portugal 

February 2005 

DG(SANCO)7544/2005 

PL Poland 

June/July 2005 

DG(SANCO)7638/2005 

UK United Kingdom 

January 2004 

DG(SANCO)7019/2004 

TOTAL 

13 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

7 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

6 

0 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LAYING HENS 
2000+2001 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
a
(

)
1
(
s
g
n
d

i

l
o
h

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
b
(

)
2
(
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

NA 

NA 

1.184 
333 
5.814 
253 

26.588 
470 
36.798 
78 

AU Austria 
BE Belgium 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
ES Spain 
EL Greece 
FR France 
FI Finland 
IT Italy 
IE Ireland 
LU Luxembourg 
NL Netherlands 
PT Portugal 
SE Sweden 
UK United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL EU 
14.002 
Percentage of infringement per inspection 

179 
229.073 
1.053 
1.538 
117 
741 
1.500 

170 
225 
65 
1.516 
76 
2.962 
133 
41 
895 

331.772 

27.537 

6.100 

335 

NA 

TABLE 4 – MEMBER STATES REPORTS ON LAYING HENS (2000-2001) 

)
a
/

b
(
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

4,45% 
70,85% 
15,80% 
324,36% 
NA 
94,97% 
0,10% 
6,17% 
98,57% 
64,96% 
399,73% 
8,87% 
- 

14,67% 

1,22% 

4,22%

(c) Number of infringements per technical area 

f
f
a
t
S

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
I

g
n
i
p
e
e
k
d
r
o
c
e
R

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
F

s
g
n
i
d
l
i
u
B

t
n
e
m
p
i
u
q
E

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a
g
n
i
d
e
e
F

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
s

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
i
t
u
M

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p
g
n
i
d
e
e
r
B

9 
4 
64 
0 

48 
21 
169 
9 

99 
19 
353 
0 

36 
10 
173 
33 

15 
6 
176 
2 

13 
49 
85 
1 

9 
0 
22 
0 

10 
0 
30 
0 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
23 

16 

6 
2 
5 
0 
5 
0 
4 
29 

11 

7 
1 
7 
0 
5 
0 
4 
8 

6 

19 
0 
7 
7 
2 
8 
12 
33 

26 

2 
0 
7 
5 
2 
0 
24 
65 

26 

2 
0 
8 
4 
1 
0 
21 
19 

27 

4 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 

2 

9 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 

0 

117 

366 
0,84% 2,21% 3,64% 2,61% 

309 

509 

330 

18 
2,36% 1,64% 0,26% 0,34% 0,13%

230 

37 

47 

r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
d
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n
I

248 
109 
1.072 
45 

NA 
NA 

40 
3 
38 
16 
15 
8 
66 
189 

114 

1.963 

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n

i

%

)
b

/

d
(

20,95% 
32,73% 
18,44% 
17,79% 
- 
- 
17,78% 
4,62% 
2,51% 
21,05% 
0,51% 
6,02% 
160,98% 
21,12% 

34,03% 
14,02% 

(1) the number of holdings is an average within the period 

(2) total number of inspections declared for the period 

NA non available 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 5 – MEMBER STATES REPORTS ON LAYING HENS (2002-2003) 

(c) Number of infringements per technical area 

LAYING HENS 
2002+2003 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
a
(

)
1
(
s
g
n
d

i

l
o
h

AT Austria 
BE Belgium 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
ES Spain 
EL Greece 
FR France 
FI Finland 

IT Italy 

IE Ireland 

LU Luxembourg 

52.821 
429 
40.529 
318 
2.051 
201 
2.357 
902 

1.172 

237 

16 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
b
(

)
2
(
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

1.543 
388 
6.452 
240 
405 
133 
846 
136 

1.836 

46 

62 

1.350 
NA 
5.373 

NL Netherlands 
PT Portugal 
SE Sweden 
UK United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL EU 
Percentage of infringement per inspection 

139.036 

31.282 

27 
NA 
1.626 

14.255 

515 

)
a
/

b
(
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

2,92% 
90,44% 
15,92% 
75.47% 
19,75% 
66,17% 
35,89% 
15,08% 
156,72
% 
19,41% 
400,00
% 
2,00% 
NA 
30,27% 

1,65% 

10.25% 

f
f
a
t
S

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
I

760 
13 
117 
0
0 
0 
9 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
NA
4 

25 

870 
18 
356 
8
32 
0 
73 
1 

3 

2 

1 

1 
NA
15 

30 

g
n
i
p
e
e
k
d
r
o
c
e
R

840 
13 
458 
3
43 
0 
65 
3 

14 

1 

2 

1 
NA
1 

23 

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
F

809 
14 
298 
13 
64 
0 
0 
6 

4 

6 

0 

0 
NA 
26 

50 

s
g
n
i
d
l
i
u
B

t
n
e
m
p
i
u
q
E

775 
12 
391 
51
6 
0 
22 
4 

6 

16 

0 

0 
NA
47 

44 

700 
9 
150 
20
37 
0 
38 
1 

4 

7 

1 

0 
NA
10 

40 

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
s

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a
g
n
i
d
e
e
F

767 
2 
100 
0
4 
0 
0 
2 

0 

0 

0 

0 
NA
0 

29 

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p
g
n
i
d
e
e
r
B

760 
0 
31 
0
9 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
NA
1 

0 

r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
d
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n
I

7.040 
87 
2.017 
95
203 
0 
231 
17 

31 

32 

4 

2 
NA
104 

266 

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
i
t
u
M

759 
6 
116 
0
8 
0 
24 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
NA
0 

25 

928 
0,97% 

1.420 
1,48% 

1.467 
1,54% 

1.290 
1,35% 

1.374 
1,44% 

1.017 
1,07% 

904 
0,95% 

938 
0,98% 

801 
0,84% 

10.129 

)
b
d
(

/

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n

i

%

456,25% 
22,42% 
31,26% 
39,58% 
50,12% 
0,00% 
27,30% 
12,50% 

1,69% 
69,57% 

6,45% 
7,41% 
NA 
6,40% 

51,65% 
71,06% 

(1) the number of holdings is an average within the period 

(2) total number of inspections declared for the period 

NA non available 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
TABLE 6 – MEMBER STATES REPORTS ON CALVES (2000-2001) 

)
a
/

b
(
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

10,81% 
50,64% 
18,49% 
2,28% 

CALVES 
2000+2001 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
a
(

)
1
(

s
g
n
d

i

l
o
h

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
b
(

)
2
(
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

8.701 
199 
28.931 
845 

NA 

80.477 
393 
156.491 
37.100 
NA 
3.707 
236.533 
27.388 
31.327 
79.084 
1.843 
2.400 
NA 
28.500 

AU Austria 
BE Belgium 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
ES Spain 
EL Greece 
FR France 
FI Finland 
IT Italy 
IE Ireland 
LU Luxembourg 
NL Netherlands 
PT Portugal 
SE Sweden 
UK United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL EU 
Percentage of infringement per inspection 

788.142 

102.899 

49 
9.106 

867 

86.665 

- 
85,81% 
3.181 
0,07% 
163 
3,35% 
917 
70,79% 
22.177 
1.067 
1,35% 
7.372  400,00% 
3.090  128,75% 

- 
31,95% 

0,84% 

11,00%

(c) Number of infringements per technical area 

f
f
a
t
S

29 
9 
289 
0 

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
I

104 
1 
813 
2 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

0 
0 
0 
0 
8 
0 
0 
186 

79 

11 
8 
8 
2 
12 
0 
0 
422 

47 

g
n
i
p
e
e
k
d
r
o
c
e
R

171 
2 
1.076 
64 

NA 
NA 

7 
0 
108 
5 
262 
82 
0 
76 

80 

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
F

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m

264 
8 
1.306 
94 

NA 
NA 

5 
178 
13 
6 
0 
0 
0 
329 

26 

t
n
e
m
p
i
u
q
E

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a
g
n
i
d
e
e
F

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
s

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
i
t
u
M

g
n
i
d
e
e
r
B

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

30 
0 
137 
17 

40 
0 
163 
0 

45 
0 
76 
3 

28 
0 
0 
0 

s
g
n
i
d
l
i
u
B

53 
3 
954 
13 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

82 
37 
6 
24 
8 
0 
12 
709 

104 

45 
0 
9 
0 
0 
5 
0 
225 

18 

27 
3 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
48 

0 

0 
0 
5 
0 
0 
5 
0 
74 

9 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
106 

5 

600 
0,69% 

1.430 
1,65% 

1.933 
2,23% 

2.229 
2,57% 

2.005 
2,31% 

486 
0,56% 

285 
0,33% 

217 
0,25% 

140 
0,16% 

r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
d
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n
I

764 
23 
4.814 
193 

NA 
NA 

177 
226 
150 
37 
290 
96 
12 
2.175 

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n

i

%

)
b

/

d
(

8,78% 
11,56% 
16,64% 
22,84% 

- 
- 
108,59% 
24,65% 
0,68% 
3,47% 
3,93% 
3,11% 
24,49% 
23,89% 

368 

42,45% 

9.325 

10,76% 

(1) the number of holdings is an average within the period 

(2) total number of inspections declared for the period 

NA non available 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CALVES 
2002+2003 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
a
(

)
1
(
s
g
n
d

i

l
o
h

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
b
(

)
2
(
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

62.422 
184 
160.601 
34.360 
35.309 
1.833 
24.500 
25.178 
43.394 
75.823 
1.621 
39.000 
NA 
25.021 

AT Austria 
BE Belgium 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
ES Spain 
EL Greece 
FR France 
FI Finland 
IT Italy 
IE Ireland 
LU Luxembourg 
NL Netherlands 
PT Portugal 
SE Sweden 
UK United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL EU 
Percentage of infringement per inspection 

9.378 
175 
31.021 
1.086 
5.218 
1.112 
503 
890 
22.308 
1.049 
6.484 
4.380 
NA 
10.987 

596.700 

95.427 

67.455 

TABLE 7 – MEMBER STATES REPORTS ON CALVES (2002-2003) 

(c) Number of infringements per technical area 

)
a
/

b
(
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

15,02% 
95,11% 
19,32% 
3,16% 
14,78% 
60,67% 
2,05% 
3,53% 
51,41% 
1,38% 
400,00% 
11,23% 
NA 
43,91% 

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
I

3.006 
10 
1.757 
5
104 
0 
81 
23 
52 
11 
27 
182 
NA
327 

i

g
n
p
e
e
k
d
r
o
c
e
R

3.065 
7 
1.852 
73
349 
0 
49 
39 
13 
1 
158 
380 
NA
29 

f
f
a
t
S

2.968 
7 
426 
0
4 
0 
0 
1 
4 
12 
38 
0 
NA
113 

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
F

3.025 
8 
2.160 
80 
145 
0 
1 
307 
20 
9 
15 
14 
NA 
153 

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a

i

g
n
d
e
e
F

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
s

2.923 
7 
252 
0
72 
0 
0 
35 
3 
0 
1 
8 
NA
1 

t
n
e
m
p

i

u
q
E

2.951 
7 
144 
3
67 
0 
189 
0 
17 
0 
0 
21 
NA
124 

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
i
t
u
M

2.944 
7 
219 
8
60 
0 
0 
0 
13 
0 
0 
2 
NA
2 

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p
g
n

i

d
e
e
r
B

2.922 
0 
25 
0
66 
0 
0 
0 
6 
1 
16 
0 
NA
24 

r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
d
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n
I

26.747 
62 
8.546 
182
978 
1 
391 
510 
191 
63 
286 
610 
NA
1.455 

s
g
n
d

i

l
i

u
B

2.943 
9 
1.711 
13
111 
1 
71 
105 
63 
29 
31 
3 
NA
682 

836 

1,24% 

64 

32 

54 

65 

91 

55 

12 

49 

5 

427 

15,99% 

3.637 
3,81% 

6.069 
5.617 
5,89%  6,36% 

6.002 
6,29% 

5.863 
6,14% 

3.578 
3,75% 

3.314 
3,47% 

3.304 
3,46% 

3.065 
3,21% 

40.449 

)
b
d
(

/

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n

i

%

285,21% 
35,43% 
27,55% 
16,76% 
18,74% 
0,09% 
77,73% 
57,30% 
0,86% 
6,01% 
4,41% 
13,93% 
NA 
13,24% 

51,08% 
42,39% 

(1) the number of holdings is an average within the period 

(2) total number of inspections declared for the period 

NA non available 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
TABLE 8 – MEMBER STATES REPORTS ON PIGS (2000-2001) 

(c) Number of infringements per technical area 

PIGS 2000+2001 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
a
(

)
1
(
s
g
n
d

i

l
o
h

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
b
(

)
2
(
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

3.430 
4.510 
25.848 
366 

NA 

59.395 
12.465 
146.529 
21.750 
NA 

AU Austria 
BE Belgium 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
ES Spain 
EL Greece 
FR France 
FI Finland 
IT Italy 
IE Ireland 
LU Luxembourg 
NL Netherlands 
PT Portugal 
SE Sweden 
UK United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL EU 
Percentage of infringement per inspection 

860 
59.549 
4.386 
16.368 
554 
322 
14.000 
NA  
5.750 

353.049 

11.121 

628 
168 
140 
10.026 
230 
1.288 
4.134 
373 
1.903 

54.183 

1.139 

)
a
/

b
(
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

5,77% 
36,18% 
17,64% 
1,68% 

NA 
73,02% 
0,28% 
3,19% 
61,25% 
41,52% 
400,00% 
29,53% 
- 
33,10% 

10,24% 

15,35%

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
I

57 
83 
1.253 
34 

NA 
NA 

14 
1 
8 
8 
12 
41 
126 
111 

68 

f
f
a
t
S

3 
61 
148 
1 

- 
- 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
6 
54 

88 

i

g
n
p
e
e
k
d
r
o
c
e
R

861 
384 
1.687 
80 

NA 
NA 

42 
0 
24 
0 
54 
3 
2 
15 

55 

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
F

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m

71 
77 
813 
42 

NA 
NA 

2 
1 
18 
6 
3 
179 
19 
40 

39 

s
g
n
d

i

l
i

u
B

33 
691 
1.465 
5 

NA 
NA 

32 
1 
29 
29 
5 
0 
178 
154 

195 

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a

i

g
n
d
e
e
F

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
s

11 
27 
115 
0 

t
n
e
m
p

i

u
q
E

21 
50 
430 
43 

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
i
t
u
M

g
n

i

d
e
e
r
B

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
d
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n
I

15 
66 
82 
32 

3 
0 
1 
0 

1.075 
1.439 
5.994 
237 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

NA 
NA 

18 
0 
46 
52 
2 
218 
302 
58 

50 

7 
6 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
9 

0 

1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
32 

8 

6 
0 
7 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25 

18 

122 
10 
135 
95 
76 
442 
633 
498 

521 

11.277 

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n

i

%

)
b

/

d
(

31,34% 
31,91% 
23,19% 
64,75% 
- 
- 
72,62% 
7,14% 
1,35% 
41,30% 
5,90% 
10,69% 
169,71% 
26,17% 

45,74% 
20,81% 

362 

1.290 
0,67% 3,35% 5,92%  2,42%  5,20% 2,38% 

1.816 

1.310 

2.817 

3.207 

177 

60 
0,33% 0,44% 0,11% 

238 

(1) the number of holdings is an average within the period 

(2) total number of inspections declared for the period 

NA non available 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PIGS 2002+2003 

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
a
(

)
1
(
s
g
n
d

i

l
o
h

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
b
(

)
2
(
s
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

55.958 
10.814 
141.120 
20.175 
95.840 
600 
59.549 
3.716 
26.569 
1.192 
321 
11.000 
NA 
3.834 

AT Austria 
BE Belgium 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
ES Spain 
EL Greece 
FR France 
FI Finland 
IT Italy 
IE Ireland 
LU Luxembourg 
NL Netherlands 
PT Portugal 
SE Sweden 
UK United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL EU 
Percentage of infringement per inspection 

2.625 
2.294 
33.014 
526 
2.978 
403 
942 
139 
10.868 
212 
1.284 
1.330 
NA 
2.854 

441.038 

60.667 

10.353 

1.198 

TABLE 9 – MEMBER STATES REPORTS ON PIGS (2002-2003) 

)
a
/

b
(
n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n

i

%

4,69% 
21,21% 
23,39% 
2,61% 
3,11% 
67,22% 
1,58% 
3,74% 
40,91% 
17,79% 
400,00% 
12,09% 
NA 
74,45% 

(c) Number of infringements per technical area 

f
f
a
t
S

1.314 
28 
372 
0
10 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
2 
0 
NA
12 

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
I

1.351 
146 
1.903 
37
46 
0 
144 
2 
7 
4 
31 
28 
NA
57 

i

g
n
p
e
e
k
d
r
o
c
e
R

1.435 
38 
2.596 
162
281 
0 
175 
0 
17 
3 
53 
0 
NA
7 

f
o
m
o
d
e
e
r
F

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m

1.363 
29 
832 
26 
91 
0 
16 
7 
7 
31 
0 
40 
NA 
14 

s
g
n
d

i

l
i

u
B

1.339 
406 
2.162 
9
40 
0 
209 
12 
49 
73 
24 
3 
NA
121 

r
e
h
t
o
d
n
a

i

g
n
d
e
e
F

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
s

1.316 
0 
367 
0
13 
0 
0 
9 
5 
0 
0 
0 
NA
0 

t
n
e
m
p

i

u
q
E

1.379 
43 
567 
61
117 
0 
75 
0 
53 
11 
12 
109 
NA
32 

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
i
t
u
M

g
n

i

d
e
e
r
B

s
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

1.333 
83 
326 
72
164 
0 
221 
0 
0 
0 
6 
0 
NA
5 

1.314 
0 
218 
0
143 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
6 
0 
NA
1 

11,57% 

160 

59 

99 

176 

202 

98 

40 

120 

34 

13,76% 

1.901 
1.718 
4.649 
1,99%  4,00%  5,10%  2,76%  4,87%  2,68%  1,83%  2,44%  1,80% 

3.815 

4.866 

2.632 

2.330 

2.557 

1.750 

r
e
b
m
u
n

l
a
t
o
T

)
d
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n
I

12.144 
773 
9.343 
367
905 
0 
840 
30 
142 
123 
134 
180 
NA
249 

988 

26.218 

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
i
r
f
n

i

%

)
b

/

d
(

462,63% 
33,70% 
28,30% 
69,77% 
30,39% 
0,00% 
89,17% 
21,58% 
1,31% 
58,02% 
10,44% 
13,53% 
NA 
8,72% 

82,47% 
13,22% 

(1) the number of holdings is an average within the period 

(2) total number of inspections declared for the period 

NA non available 

EN 

16 

EN