COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the   Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals   SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  [COM(2009) 268 final] [SEC(2009) 776]
Date: 2009-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, animal health, animal welfare, domestic animal, health certificate, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.6.2009 
SEC(2009) 777 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
amending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
laying down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial 
movement of pet animals 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

[COM(2009) 268 final] 
[SEC(2009) 776] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
amending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
laying down the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial 
movement of pet animals 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

[COM(2009) aaa final] 
[SEC(2009) bbbb] 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  item  is  part  of  the  Commission  agenda  planning/work  programme  under  the 
reference 2008/SANCO/010. 

1. 

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 

1.1. 

Legal background 

1.1.1.  Legal obligation to review 

Regulation (EC) No 998/20031 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the 
Regulation’)  lays  down  harmonised  animal  health  requirements  applicable  to  the 
non-commercial movement of pet animals within and into the Community (‘general 
regime’). 

However,  the  Regulation  grants  a  transitional  period  to  the  United  Kingdom  (‘the 
UK’), Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Finland to make the entry of pet animals into their 
territory  subject  to  compliance  with  certain  additional  requirements  to  prevent  the 
risk of introducing rabies, echinococcus and ticks (‘transitional regime’).  

The  Regulation  lays  down  a  legal  obligation  to  review  the  rules  by  the  end  of  the 
transitional  period  and  requests  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  to  the  Council  a  report  based  on  experience  gained  and  on  a  risk 
evaluation  together  with  proposals  for  the  regime  to  be  applied  at  the  end  of  the 
transitional period. The Commission adopted its report on 8 October 2007, together 
with  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  to 
briefly extend the transitional measures until September 2009 (further deferred to 30 
June 2010 by Regulation (EC) No 454/20082) to allow sufficient time to consider all 
aspects and consult all interested parties on the options. 

Based  on  its  report,  the  outcome  of  various  consultations  conducted,  including  the 
consultation  of  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  ('EFSA'),  and  available 
information  on  the  diseases  concerned  in  the  whole  EU,  the  Commission  is  now 
assessing the long-term options, and in particular the case for extending the general 
regime to the Member States currently under the transitional regime. 

1.1.2.  General regime 

The  Regulation  provides  that  pet  animals  travelling  with  their  owner  from  one 
Member  State  to  another  must  be  identified  and  accompanied  by  an  EU  passport 
which provides proof of a valid anti-rabies vaccination. The regime applicable to pet 
animals  entering  the  EU  from  listed  or  non-listed  third  countries  depends  on  the 
quality of the guarantees provided by the third country of origin as regards rabies. 

1.1.3.  Transitional regime 

This regime which has been granted to Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK, 
is summarised in Table 1. This is a combination of EU and national rules. It provides 

1 
2 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/2003/R/02003R0998-20081122-en.pdf. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:145:0238:0239:EN:PDF  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for  additional  entry  requirements,  which  vary  according  to  the  Member  State  of 
destination  and  the  disease.  It  also  provides  for  exemptions  between  the  Member 
States  currently  under  the  transitional  regime  and  even  with  other  Member  States 
(e.g. Denmark), so called bilateral arrangements. 

1.1.4.  Free movement regime 

The UK and Ireland apply a mutual free movement regime for dogs and cats without 
the need for pet identification (marking) or passports. This regime is neither part of 
the general regime nor of the transitional regime provided for by the Regulation. 

1.2. 

Issues to tackle  

1.2.1.  The  current  national  rules  are  complex  and  place  a  considerable  burden  on  pet 

owners  

The  transitional  regime  allows  Finland,  Ireland,  Malta,  Sweden  and  the  UK  to 
maintain their national rules, irrespective of the pet health status of the Member State 
of origin. These rules — additional animal health requirements and/or transport and 
route  requirements  —  differ  considerably,  making  it  difficult  for  travellers  to 
understand  the  conditions  in  force  in  the  Member  States  and  hampering  long 
journeys that pass through these Member States.  

This  situation  not  only  causes  additional  costs  for  pet  owners  (See  Table  2  — 
estimated costs), but has given rise to complaints from individuals and Member State 
authorities. 

1.2.2.  Equivalence of health status for rabies, Echinococcosis (E. multilocularis) and ticks 

in the Member States — EFSA opinions 

1.2.2.1.  Rabies 

The EFSA recommended applying risk mitigating measures to primo-vaccinated pet 
animals  coming  from  areas  where  the  prevalence  of  rabies  in  the  pet  population  is 
more than one case per million pets per year, namely the Baltic States.  

Countries where the rate of reported rabies cases in wildlife was higher (e.g. Baltic 
States) have made over the past three years additional efforts to eradicate the disease 
and continue to monitor the situation. 

As  a  result,  the  disease  occurrence  in  domestic  animals  has  diminished  and  the 
situation can now be considered as roughly equivalent in all EU-27 Member States 
and  comparable  to  the  situation  in  those  EU-15  Member  States  where  rabies  in 
wildlife had still been a significant problem when Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 was 
adopted. 

No  cases  of  rabies  caused  by  legal  cross-border  pet  movements  within  the  EU, 
including  from  the  Baltic  States,  have  been  recorded  for  many  years,  particularly 
since the Regulation entered into force.  

The  Community  criteria  so  far  applicable  to  the  listing  of  a  third  country  are  not 
based on the prevalence of rabies in the pet population used by the EFSA, since they 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
take into account the implementation of regulatory measures to prevent and control 
rabies, how competent authorities guarantee the validity of the certification and the 
quality  of  the  monitoring  system  and  vaccines.  Thus,  third  countries,  such  as  the 
United States of America and the Russian Federation, have been accepted by the EU 
under the general regime, despite having a higher incidence of rabies in wildlife than 
the Baltic States. 

1.2.2.2.  Echinococcosis (Echinococcus multilocularis) 

According  to  the  EFSA,  a  number  of  isolated  surveys  in  wildlife  show  great 
variations  from  one  country  to  another  and  even  between  regions  in  the  same 
country. Therefore it is extremely difficult to compare epidemiological situations and 
any evaluation of the epidemiology can only be an approximation. Very few data on 
the infection rates of pet dogs and cats are available, and existing data are difficult to 
interpret due to a lack of information on the sampling strategies.  

Surveys conducted in Finland to detect E. multilocularis in dogs and rodents have so 
far  yielded  negative  results.  Ireland,  Malta,  Sweden  and  the  UK  have  not  provided 
any information on surveillance in domestic dogs but claim absence in wildlife and 
indigenous people.  

From  the  limited  number  of  published  surveys  on  infection  in  pets  in  Europe,  it 
seems that tapeworm infection rates in domestic carnivores are low, most likely due 
to low exposure to the intermediate stages of the parasite and to routine deworming.  

Imported human cases have been reported in non-endemic areas. This shows that the 
risk of people travelling to endemic areas (whether or not from non-endemic areas) 
and contracting the disease by accidentally ingesting tapeworm eggs through contact 
with infected pets or contaminated wild or cultivated fruits and vegetables cannot be 
excluded.  

1.2.2.3.  Ticks 

According  to  the  EFSA,  tick  species  harboured  by  pets  are  widespread  in  Europe, 
including  in  the  UK,  Ireland  and  probably  Malta.  Surveillance  systems  for  tick 
species  and  tick-transmitted  diseases  are  limited  and  incomplete.  The  current 
available  data  indicate  a  lack  of  systematic  specimen  collection,  epidemiological 
background  and  effective  control  measures.  Some  of  the  available  information  is 
either anecdotal or outdated. 

2. 

OBJECTIVES 

The overall objectives are to be seen in the light of the free circulation of people (EC 
Treaty) and the new Animal Health Strategy.  

The specific objectives are: 

• 

To  harmonise  requirements  to  remove  disproportionate  obstacles  to  the 
movement of pets for non-commercial purposes across the EU or entering the 
EU from third countries, while properly protecting public and animal health , in 
particular with regard to rabies.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
• 

To provide EU rules that are proportionate, avoid causing difficulties and give 
clear benefits in terms of clarity and simplification for travelling pet owners. 

The  operational  objective  is  to  determine  the  regime  to  be  applied  as  from  1  July 
2010. 

3. 

KEY POLICY OPTIONS 

The Commission has identified four policy options to achieve the objectives: 

Option 1: No Action 

This  would  mean  that  after  30  June  2010,  Finland,  Ireland,  Malta,  Sweden  and  the 
UK  will  no  longer  make  the  entry  of  pet  animals  into  their  territory  subject  to 
additional  requirements  regarding  rabies,  echinococcus  and  ticks.  The  particular 
bilateral arrangements existing between those Member States will also cease. 

Option 2: Extension of the transitional regime 

This  would  mean  a  further  temporary  extension  of  the  transitional  period  until  the 
end of 2011, which is when the Commission expects to end EU support to national 
programmes  to  eradicate  sylvatic  rabies  in  the  Baltic  States.  A  substantially 
improved  situation  in  those  Member  States  would  fully  address  the  risks  identified 
by the EFSA and render its recommendations for mitigating measures obsolete. 

Option 3: Adjustment of the current rules applicable to all Member States 

This would mean ending the specific conditions applied by the five Member States 
including the bilateral arrangements and proposing a technically reviewed regime in 
line with the EFSA which recommends that the health status of the Member State of 
origin should determine the regime.  

Option 4: Continuation of the transitional regime on a permanent basis 

This  would  mean  an  indefinite  extension  of  the  transitional  regime  and  therefore 
enable  the  five  Member  States  to  systematically  request  additional  guarantees.  It  is 
not excluded that other Member States complying with OIE criteria for a rabies-free 
country  or  claiming  a  special  status  with  regard  to  tick  borne  disease  or 
echinococcosis, would equally request additional conditions. 

4. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS  

4.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

Under  the  Regulation,  the  cost  of  preparing  a  pet  dog  or  cat  for  travel  varies 
according to the country of origin and the Member State of destination (See Table 2 
—  cost  of  a  travel  for  the  first  time,  meaning  that  identification,  vaccination  and, 
where necessary, antibody titration must be carried out before travel). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Table 2 does not take into account the particular arrangements existing between the 
Member States under the transitional regime that may lead to a significant reduction 
of preparation costs.  

Table  2  shows  that  it  is  more  expensive  for  an  EU  citizen  to  travel  with  its  pet  to 
Member States under the transitional regime, except to Finland, than to return from a 
non-listed third country under the general regime. 

4.2. 

Option 1 

4.2.1.  Economic impacts 

This option would certainly benefit citizens by removing the costs due to additional 
requirements  requested  by  the  Member  States  under  the  transitional  regime. 
Conversely,  citizens  originating  in  and  moving  between  Member  States  currently 
under  the  transitional  regime  will  be  affected  since  the  bilateral  arrangements  will 
cease. 

Authorised  veterinarians  would  certainly  benefit  from  an  expected  increase  in 
numbers of travelling pets. 

The impact of this option on EU-approved labs should be minimal since laboratory 
incomes generated  by testing pet animals entering or re-entering the  EU from  non-
listed  countries  would  not  be  affected.  Impacts  would  be  more  important  for  labs 
which have exclusively oriented their activities to respond to those obligations. 

There should be no or marginal impacts on suppliers of medicines for the treatment 
against tick or echinococcus since such treatments are also recommended for animal 
and public health reasons. 

This  option  is  unlikely  to  have  negative  impacts  on  transport  companies  ('carriers') 
since  the  checking  system  would  be  simplified.  It  can  be  assumed  that  with  this 
option, new business opportunities will be open to carriers to offer their services to 
travellers with pet animals. 

This option may have a significant impact on the business of the quarantine facilities 
in  Ireland,  Malta,  Sweden  and  the  UK.  A  number  of  facilities  which  license  into 
long-term quarantine pet animals originating in non listed third countries may cease 
operations.  However  short-term  stays  may  remain  for  reasons  other  than  incorrect 
anti-tick/echinococcus treatment.  

4.2.2. 

Social impacts 

EU-approved labs may suffer if this option is selected. However, most labs intend to 
redeploy staff to other lab activities.  

This option, which simplifies the rules, may have a positive impact on tourism and 
therefore on employment in general. 

Pets  will  no  longer  be  separated  from  their  owners  as  the  long-term  quarantine 
system will disappear. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
As  regards  public  health  impacts,  the  risk  of  introducing  rabies  by  pets  travelling 
from the Baltic States under the general regime can be estimated with high degree of 
certainty to be no higher than the risk associated with movements between the other 
Member States or from listed third countries, such as the United States of America or 
the Russian Federation, despite a more sinister rabies situation in their wildlife. 

Pets  are  not  the  only  cause  of  human  infection  from  alveolar  echinoccocosis.  It  is 
therefore  unjustified  to  concentrate  risk-mitigating  measures  exclusively  on  pet 
animals travelling with their owners. No causative impacts on public health, and in 
particular  on  the  extension  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  tick  species  and  tick 
borne diseases, will necessarily be recorded. 

4.2.3.  Environmental impacts 

The  simplification  would  certainly  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  number  of  pet 
movements.  However,  impacts  of  this  option  on  the  environment  are  difficult  to 
quantify.  

4.3. 

Option 2 

4.3.1.  Economic impacts 

Until  the  end  of  2011,  citizens  will  continue  to  pay  additional  costs  and  probably 
contribute to sustaining the income of veterinarians and EU-approved laboratories. 

This will also help temporarily sustain carriers and quarantine facilities' incomes due 
to the monopoly situation generated by the current system. 

4.3.2. 

Social impacts 

Until  the  end  of  2011,  no  impact  on  employment  is  expected  and  trip  disturbances 
will remain. 

As regards the public health impacts, the recent figures published in Rabies Bulletin 
Europe indicate that rabies is likely to be eradicated in the Baltic States by the end of 
this extension period. This option would help make pet movements in EU safer and 
as a result decrease the potential risk to public health. However, as no human cases 
of rabies have been traced to pets travelling from the Baltic States, the difference is 
expected to be very minimal. 

4.3.3.  Environmental impacts 

No major change from the current situation is expected. 

4.4. 

Option 3 

4.4.1.  Economic impacts 

This  option  would  lead  to  additional  costs  for  owners  of  primo-vaccinated  pets 
originating in the Baltic States, as recommended by the EFSA.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Veterinary incomes should not increase substantially since the population concerned 
is rather limited. 

This  option  would  have  a  similar  impact  on  anti-parasite  suppliers,  carriers  and 
quarantine facilities than Option 1.  

4.4.2. 

Social impacts 

Since  the  population  of  pet  animals  covered  by  specific  additional  rules  is  rather 
limited, the impacts on pet owners and tourism would also be limited. 

Practical findings have indicated that the negative impacts on public health would be 
marginal. 

4.4.3.  Environmental impacts 

No  major  impacts  on  the  environment  can  be  predicted  since  the  impact  of  this 
option on the number of pet movements cannot be quantified. 

4.5. 

Option 4 

4.5.1.  Economic impacts 

In  the  longer  term,  citizens  will  continue  to  face  additional  costs  when  going  or 
returning to Member States currently under the transitional regime. On the contrary, 
citizens  originating  in  and  moving  between  Member  States  currently  under  the 
transitional regime will continue to benefit from the bilateral arrangements. 

This  option  will  probably  help  sustain  the  income  of  EU-approved  labs  and  due  to 
the monopoly situation generated by the current system, the income of carriers and 
quarantine facilities as well. 

4.5.2. 

Social impacts 

The  work  of  EU-approved  serology  laboratories,  ‘carriers’,  quarantine  facilities, 
authorised  veterinarians  and  anti-parasite  treatment  suppliers  would  continue  and 
should not give rise to particular unemployment risks. 

Pet  animals  entering  the  EU  from  non-listed  third  countries  or  those  not  in 
compliance with the national rules (short-term quarantine stays) would still be put in 
quarantine.  In  these  cases,  social  (and/or  welfare)  impacts  should  be  considered 
where pet animals are separated from their owners for at least six months. 

It can be reasonably assumed that there will be no significant clear benefits in terms 
of public health (as explained in section 1.2.2.1). 

4.5.3.  Environmental impacts 

Although pet travel is on the increase and may impact the environment, it is difficult 
to establish a correlation between the current restrictive regimes and the number of 
pets (and pet owners) travelling. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
4.6. 

Conclusions 

Options  3  and  4  do  not  appear  to  provide  added  value  to  solving  the  most  acute 
problems  voiced  by  administrations  and  citizens  affected  by  a  complicated, 
burdensome  and  inconsistent  system  of  excessive  and  unjustified  animal  health 
requirements, in particular regarding rabies. 

Option  3  would  not  only  increase  confusion  amongst  travellers  dealing  with  new 
regimes according to the country of origin, but also completely disregard other risk-
relevant aspects considered in listing third countries. It would give the Baltic States 
an  unjustifiable  bad  reputation  and  discriminate  against  them  in  favour  of  certain 
listed third countries. This is contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU Treaty. 
It  would  also  disregard  Member  State  requests  for  simplification  based  on  field 
evidence. 

Option  4  would  continue  to  place  a  heavy  burden  on  citizens  travelling  to  or  re-
entering the five Member States and possibly other disease-free Member States.  

These  options  are  a  far  cry  from  the  desire  of  most  Member  States  to  achieve 
harmonisation and simplify pet movements within and into the EU, considering the 
similarity of the animal health situation in the EU. 

Options  1  and  2  are  similar  in  principle.  Either  would  entail  removing,  sooner  or 
later,  the  unjustified  disparities,  discrimination  and  burden  on  citizens,  including 
citizens  from  the  five  Member  States  who  are  affected  by  additional  requirements 
when returning from abroad.  

At the same time, both options would maintain a high level of safety for pet animals 
travelling within and into the EU by applying the general regime, which has proven 
to be effective in preventing human and pet animal cases of rabies caused by lawful 
movement of pets between and into Member States.  

There is a slight advantage in selecting Option 2 over Option 1. In terms of lowering 
the  public  health  risk,  a  reasonable  extension  of  the  transitional  measures  would 
defer the application of the general regime throughout the EU to a point in time when 
EU-supported measures to eradicate remaining pockets of sylvatic rabies in the EU 
(and  neighbouring  territories)  will  render  the  EFSA  recommendations  on  risk 
mitigation redundant.  

5. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

To  ensure  that  the  new  regime  achieves  the  objectives  set  in  Section  2,  the 
Commission will regularly monitor several indicators to assess its performance. 

Data on indicators will be collected through different existing sources of information. 
Additional  data  may  be  generated,  especially  surveys  and/or  interviews  to  measure 
the level of satisfaction among the population/pet owners. Data from Member State 
authorities (on pet movements and on public health) will be collected regularly at EU 
level as part of reinforced cooperation processes with Member States by the Standing 
Committee for Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH).  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
External  evaluations  at  this  stage  are  considered  disproportionate.  The  monitoring 
mechanisms  will  provide  sufficient  information  to  assess  the  case  for  revising  the 
Regulation at a later stage (in 5-10 years) unless the situation changes. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Table 1: Overview of the rules applied by Member States under the transitional regime 
Legal 
regime 

Measures 

IE  MT 

SE 

UK FI 

General 
Regime 

Identification  by  passport  and  microchip  or  tattoo 
until 2011 (Article 4) 
Valid anti-rabies vaccination (Article 5) 
Simplified  import  regime  for  pet  animals  (Article 
8(3)(b)) 

Microchip compulsory 

)
1
(
6

e
l
c
i
t
r

A

)
1
(
8

e
l
c
i
t
r

A

Mandatory antibody titration before entry into their 
territory to confirm a protective level of anti-rabies 
antibodies 
Exemptions  from  the  anti-rabies  vaccination  and 
antibody titration requirements for pet dogs and cats 
moving between these Member States 
Pet  animals  entering  from  listed  third  countries 
must comply with same rules as pets from other EU 
Member States  
Pet animals entering from non-listed third countries 
are to be put in quarantine 

  Mandatory 
6
1

Echinococcus/ticks 

anti-parasite 

treatment 

against 

1
2

  Exemptions 

from 

anti-rabies 
vaccination  and  antibody  titration  requirements  for 
Danish dogs and cats transiting through Sweden  

passport, 

the 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Norway 

x 

n/a 

x 

n/a 

x 

n/a 

x 

n/a 

x 

x 

n/a 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Denmark3  

  Exemptions  from  anti-parasite  treatment  against 
6
1

Echinococcus/ticks 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
g
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
g
e
R

Approved transport companies  

x 

x 

Exemptions  from  the  identification  and  passport 
requirements for pet dogs and cats moving between 
Ireland and the UK 

x 

x 

x 

s
n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
p
y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C

s
e
l
u
R

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

s
e
l
u
R

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
n
o
i
t
i
s
n
a
r
T

e
m
i
g
e
r

t
n
e
m
e
v
o
m
e
e
r
F

e
l
c
i
t
r

A

e
l
c
i
t
r

A

e
l
c
i
t
r

A

n
i

s
i
s
a
b

l
a
g
e
l

o
N

n
i

s
i
s
a
b

l
a
g
e
l

o
N

3 

Commission Decision 2004/557/EC (OJ L 249, 23.7.2004, p. 18). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: ESTIMATED COSTS  
for a dog of average size travelling within the EU or re-entering the EU after a trip abroad (source: Member States' competent authorities) 

Identification 
(microchip + 
passport) 

Vaccination 
documented in 
the passport 

Sampling + 
certification 

test 

Anti-tick 
treatment 

Anti-
echinococcus 
treatment 

‘Carriers’ 

Quarantine 

Total 

Pet 
within EU 

travelling 

Pet  re-entering  EU 
from 
third 
listed 
countries  
Pet  re-entering  EU 
from 
listed 
non 
third countries 

entering/re-
Pet 
entering  UK, 
IE, 
MT from the rest of 
EU  

Pet 
entering/re-
entering  SE  from 
the rest of EU  
entering/re-
Pet 
entering FI from the 
rest of EU  
Pet  entering  UK, 
IE,  MT,  SE  from 
non 
third 
listed 
countries  

€42.93 4 
(€15 to 95.5) 
€42.93 4 
(€15 to 95.5) 

€42.93 4 
(€15 to 95.5) 

€22.50 4 
(€2 to 63) 
€22.50 4 
(€2 to 63) 

€22.50 4 
(€2 to 63) 

General regime 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€29.20 4 
(€5 to 53) 

€50 
(€30 to 88) 

Transitional regime 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€50.50 
(€15 to 107) 

€26.70 
(€2 to 63) 

€34 
(€5 to 69) 

€50 
(€30 to 88) 

€18.80 
(€5 to 56) 

€16.80 
(€1 to 39.30)  

€50.50 
(€15 to 107) 

€50.50 
(€15 to 107) 

€26.70 
(€2 to 63) 

€26.70 
(€2 to 63) 

- 

- 

€34 
(€5 to 69) 

€50 
(€30 to 88) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€16.80 
(€1 to 39.30)  

€16.80 
(€1 to 39.30)  

- 

UK: N/A 
IE: ferry=€ 20, 
plane=€910, 
MT: €72 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

UK: €3480 
IE: €2500 
MT: €1000 
SE: €3350 

€65.43 

€65.43 

€144.63 

€ 196.80 
(+ carriage 
costs) 

€178 

€94 

€3480 
€2500 
€1000 
€3350 

4 

Figures excluding those provided for by the UK, IE, MT, SE and FI. 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
EN 

14 

EN