REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural holding, animal welfare, audit, data collection, livestock farming, protection of animals, veterinary inspection

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.9.2016  COM(2016) 558 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
COUNCIL 

on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of 
animals kept for farming purposes 

1. 

Introduction 

Article 5(2) of Directive 98/58/EC requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council 
based on the experience gained by Member States since its implementation. 

Commission Decision 2006/778/EC1 lays down provisions concerning minimum requirements 
for collecting information during inspections of production sites on which certain animals are 
kept for farming purposes. Its annexes contain tables of the requirements to be checked with 
regard to non-compliance. Under this Decision, Member States have been obliged to send the 
Commission annual reports since June 2009. Also, recital (9) of this Decision indicates that 
“the  collection  of  data  on  animal  welfare  inspections  is  essential  for  the  Community  to 
evaluate the impact of its policy in this field”. 

The EU Animal Welfare Strategy 2012-20152 identifies lack of enforcement of EU legislation 
as  one  of  the  main  problems  affecting  the  welfare  of  animals.  In  addition  the  report  to  the 
Council on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the 
protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming  purposes3  provides  valuable  insight  into  areas  of 
enforcement. 

2.   Methodology 

The report covers the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2014. 

Three sources of information have been used in compiling this report: 

Firstly, the data used stem from reports of the Commission containing the results of its audits 
performed in Member States. The reports are mainly from the years 2011-2013, as the audits 
performed in those years specifically targeted the on-farm situation (see Table 1 of Annex I).  

Secondly, each  Member State must  ensure that animal welfare inspections are performed in 
line with the rules on official controls laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/20044. National 
competent authorities are responsible for reporting the findings of these inspections annually 
to the Commission. The Commission has used the data provided by the Member States5 for 
the years 2013 and 2014 as these data tend to reflect the most recent situation. An overview of 

1  

2  
3  
4  

5  

Commission  Decision 2006/778/EC of  14 November 2006  concerning minimum  requirements  for  the 
collection of information during the inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept 
for farming purposes; OJ L 314, 15.11.2006, p. 39. 
COM(2012) 6 final/2. 
OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23. 
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of 29 April 2004 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. 
Certain data from these reports have been extrapolated and are presented in Annex I. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
the number of holdings subject to inspection and the percentage of sites inspected is shown in 
Table 2 of Annex I.  

Finally, the Commission at times receives complaints6 concerning the alleged failure of one or 
more Member States to apply Union law. These complaints can also provide valuable insight 
into areas that are perceived by citizens to not be properly enforced. 

3.  

Findings 

3.1 

System for surveillance and inspections 

Commission  audits  show  that  Member  States  have  put  in  place  a  risk  based  system  for 
selecting sites for inspection. A significant reason for carrying out risk-based animal welfare 
inspections  on  farms  was  Regulation  882/2004  on  official  controls  and  cross-compliance 
checks for single farm payments7. 

Several  Member  States  describe  in  detail  their  system  for  selecting  the  holdings  to  be 
inspected  which  also  confirms  the  use  of  a  risk-based  approach.  In  addition,  EU  legislation 
requires  that  the  absolute  number  of  inspections  must8  be  proportionate  to  the  scale  of 
production and the number of animals involved. 

Moreover  Member  States  need  to  follow  up  any  recommendation  made  during  audits.  The 
Commission noted in its audits that national officials took action in all cases. Nevertheless it 
also found that the measures were insufficient to achieve compliance in three of the Member 
States. In two of these Member States this was found to be due to the lack of sanctions that 
were dissuasive enough while one Member State had not pursued the case adequately. 

3.2.   Variations in Member States’ reporting 

The  considerable  differences  in  Member  States’  reporting  make  the  interpretation  and 
comparison of the data generally more difficult. 

An online form was developed in 2012 based on the tables of Decision 2006/778/EC, which 
Member  States  have  been  using  in  2013  and  2014.  This  online  form  has  allowed  the 
Commission to analyse the reported figures more efficiently. However some inconsistencies 
persist.  This  is  especially  true  of  domestic  fowl.  According  to  the  definition  of  the  term 
‘domestic  fowl9’  this  column  should  only  be  used  for  chickens  kept  for  meat  production 

6  

7  

8  

9  

COM/2012/0154  final  -  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  Updating  the  handling  of  relations  with  the  complainant  in  respect  of  the  application  of 
Union law. 
Farmers  may  receive  direct  payments  provided  that  they  maintain  their  land  in  good  agricultural 
condition and comply with the standards on public health, animal and plant health, the environment and 
animal welfare (cross-compliance) contained in the Regulation. 
Directives  2008/120/EC  and  2008/119/EC  require  inspections  to  ‘each  year  cover  a  statistically 
representative sample of the different rearing systems used in each Member State’. 
Commission Decision 2006/778/EC, Annex IV, Table 2: Domestic fowl refers to poultry of the species 
Gallus gallus with the exception of laying hens. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(broilers).  However,  several  Member  States  have  also  included  figures  for  small  laying  hen 
holdings10  in  the  domestic  fowl  column.  It  is  therefore  impossible  to  know  whether  the 
findings are representative of broiler or laying hen holdings. 

A  similar  problem  exists  for  the  ‘cattle’  category  which  includes  both  beef  and  dairy 
production  systems.  As  the  risks  to  animal  welfare  in  the  two  systems  differ,  a  separate 
analysis of the data would be useful. 

3.3. Technical findings 

Firstly,  for  the  findings  to  be  considered  representative  of  the  production  system,  the 
percentage of holdings inspected compared to the total number of holdings needs to be high 
enough (see Figure 1 of Annex I). In only one case did the Commission experts highlight that 
the  number  of  facilities  inspected  was  quite  low  compared  to  the  scale  of  production.  The 
Commission reported no inadequacies relating to the risk-based selection of holdings. 

It should be noted that the number of holdings inspected was particularly high for both laying 
hens and sows in 2013 and 2014. This may be due to the ban on unenriched cages for laying 
hens (2012) and the introduction of group housing of sows (2013), and the linked obligation 
to ensure full compliance. 

Secondly, with regard to the number of non-compliances, it is important to bear in mind that 
these include all types of breaches of EU legislation, even minor ones. Categories A and B in 
Table 3 cover administrative acts of non-compliance, which result in a request to address the 
issue  either  within  three  months  or  sometimes  longer.  Category  C  covers  more  severe 
breaches which result in immediate action for administrative or criminal penalties. By way of 
illustration,  only  8.1 %  of  the  breaches  in  domestic  fowl  holdings  registered  in  2014  were 
severe, resulting in immediate action. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  take  into  account  that,  following  a  risk  based  approach  those 
holdings  where  breaches  are  most  likely  to  occur  are  targeted  specifically.  As  a  result,  any 
increase in the number of breaches recorded does not necessarily indicate a worsened welfare 
situation. In addition, the risk-based approach should in general result in animal welfare issues 
being more rapidly addressed and an improved situation for the animal. 

With due regard to methodological weaknesses, these are the findings: 

Commission audits 
Eighteen of the Commission audits in 2011-13covered laying hens (13) and/or sows (8). The 
outcomes of these audits provide a good reflection of the situation prior to the introduction of 
the ban on unenriched cages for laying hens and the transition to group housing of sows. 

10   

Less than 350 hens. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  most  of  the  Member  States  audited  with  regard  to  the  keeping  of  pigs,  the  Commission 
experts  also  reported  non-compliance  relating  to  the  provision  of  manipulable  material  and 
the avoidance  of tail-docking. The findings in  these Member States are quite diverse.  Some 
were found to be doing very little with regard to preventing routine tail-docking or providing 
manipulable material.  

There  was  frequently  a  lack  of  insistence  by  the  competent  authority  to  impose  other 
measures, such as changes to environmental conditions or management systems. In addition, 
unsuitable  materials  such  as  metal  chains  were  considered  acceptable  by  a  majority  of  the 
Member  States’  officials  while  suitable  materials  were  e.g.  considered  incompatible  with 
drainage systems.  

Four Member States had issued guidance or introduced measures to reduce non-compliances. 
Yet,  the  audits  highlighted  that  Member  State  officials  often  lacked  expertise  on  how  to 
interpret  the  requirements  for  the  provision  of  manipulable  materials,  and  for  management 
and environmental changes to be made before allowing routine tail-docking. 

The  Commission  also  performed  9  audits  in  201411  which  found  that  data  from 
slaughterhouses  was  used  to  assess  welfare  of  domestic  fowl/broiler  farms.  However  only 
three Member States audited effectively used this data to check farms. In the other Member 
States severe lesions were regularly seen at slaughter but with little feedback to those carrying 
out farm checks.  

Member States’ reports 
Information about breaches reported by the Member States for the farmed species covered by 
EU animal welfare rules may be found in Table 3 of Annex I. 

'Record keeping' is one of the categories where there are a high number of non-compliances 
for almost all farmed species. This category relates to the insufficient traceability of medicinal 
treatments and mortalities observed by the farmer, and is an important source of information. 

As  regards  the  requirements  affecting  the  animal  itself,  the  most  frequent  negative  finding 
relate to ‘buildings and accommodation’. The improper design of buildings, floors and fittings 
falls  under 
the 
building/cage/pen  as  well  as  inadequate  use  of  the  facilities  such  as  poor  regimes  for 
ventilation or lighting. 

this  heading.  In  addition 

it  encompasses 

the  equipment 

inside 

The main other types of non-compliance found vary depending on the animal species farmed. 
For calves it was ‘freedom of movement’, which includes an animal's ability to move around 
and  rules  concerning  tethering,  while  for  domestic  fowl  it  related  to  regular  checks  on  the 
functioning of ‘automatic and mechanical equipment’. Problems relating to ‘feed, water and 

11  

Reference  numbers  of  audit  reports:  Spain  7079,  United  Kingdom  7080,  Denmark  7061,  Germany 
7073, Czech Republic 7060, Hungary 7072, Belgium 7059, The Netherlands 7078 and Italy 7075. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
other substances’ were quite frequent for free-range laying hens, cattle, sheep and goats. This 
last  issue  covers  the  diet  itself,  an  animal's  access  to  feed  and  water  and  the  checks  on  any 
automated feeders or drinkers. 

Member States' reports show a rate of non-compliance of 8.4% in 2013 concerning pigs and 
the provision of manipulable material. For mutilations (i.e. tail-docking but also castration and 
teeth clipping) the rate of non-compliance registered by the Member States was 2.2%. 

Complaints 
In  2013  and  2014  the  Commission  registered  eight  complaints  concerning  Member  States’ 
failure to provide pigs with manipulable material and routine tail docking. These complaints 
also reflect the findings of the Commission audits. Of these, five have so far been closed. In 
the meantime, the Commission has issued guidance in this area12.  

Though there have been complaints on other animal welfare issues such as the production of 
foie  gras,  transport  and  welfare  at  slaughter,  numbers  remain  low  for  each  topic.  All 
complaints have been closely assessed and it has been concluded that there were not sufficient 
grounds to proceed in any of them. Thus the majority of them have been closed. 

4.  

Conclusion 

The  general  principles  and  provisions  contained  in  Directive  98/58/EC  concerning  the 
protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming  purposes  have  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  a 
common  framework  for  the  welfare  of  farmed  animals  in  the  EU.    The  Directive  has  also 
supported  the  Member  States  in  ensuring  that  these  rules  are  properly  enforced  and 
implemented.  Crucially,  the  Member  States  are  obliged  to  submit  annual  reports  on  the 
outcome of their checks on the application of animal welfare rules and to identify new targets 
to  improve  enforcement;  this  has  led  to  prioritization  of  welfare  issues.  Indeed  the  reports 
indicate  that  Member  States  seem  to  be  working  systematically  to  address  any  non-
compliance identified and to enforce EU animal welfare rules. This is corroborated by figures 
from the previous Commission report of 200613 and figures reported by the Member States for 
2013  and  2014.  There  has  been  a  noticeable  improvement  in  the  number  of  compliant 
holdings.  

In  fact,  with  regard  to  the  latest  two  measures  introduced  –  banning  unenriched  cages  for 
laying hens (2012) and individual stalls for sows (2013) – action taken by the Commission to 
encourage all Member States to properly enforce these bans has proved effective. Currently, 
according to information available to the Commission, all Member States are compliant and 
are  using  either  enriched  cages  or  alternative  systems  for  laying  hens.  As  regards  group 

12  

13  

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 on the application of Council Directive 
2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce 
the need for tail-docking; OJ L 62, 9.3.2016, p. 20; 
SWD(2016) 49final http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/practice/farm/pigs/index_en.htm  
COM(2006) 838final. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
housing of sows 25 Member States are compliant while three have declared full compliance. 
The  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  checking  the  documentation  provided  to  substantiate 
these claims. 

In most cases, the data indicates slight improvements between 2013 and 2014. For example, 
the  registered  compliance  for  domestic  fowl  and  the  requirement  relating  to  ‘automatic  and 
mechanical  equipment’  increased  from  82.1 %  to  86.4 %.  There  was  also  a  general 
improvement  reported  from  2013  to  2014  in  ‘record  keeping’  and  ‘buildings  and 
accommodations’  for  the  majority  of  species  and  production  systems.  A  majority  of  those 
Member States  who have provided an analysis of their findings  also mention that there is a 
general trend towards a change for the better. Some also highlighted that lack of knowledge is 
often the cause of non-compliance and have for this reason introduced measures on training in 
their action plans for the coming year. 

This  overall  improvement,  including  on  the  part  of  Member  States  is  supported  by  the 
Commission's  audits  undertaken  during  the  same  period.    These  have  concluded  that  the 
Member  States  had  followed  up  recommendations  and  that  the  situation  had  improved 
compared to previous audits. 

It  is  however  necessary  to  continue  to  work  with  the  Member  States  to  introduce  further 
improvements  in  the  way  compliance  with  animal  welfare  rules  are  reported.  For  instance, 
since  Decision  2006/778/EC  was  issued,  other  legal  requirements  in  the  field  of  animal 
welfare  have  been  adopted14.  Such  legislative  changes  introduced  at  a  later  date  are  not 
reflected  in  today’s  reporting  obligations.  Consideration  on  how  best  to  ensure  the 
harmonious  transfer  of  this  additional  data,  whilst  simultaneously  keeping  administrative 
burdens to a minimum is needed.  

Finally, from the information gathered, it becomes clear that a better common understanding 
of existing animal welfare rules and how they are to be applied and enforced is required. This 
is  particularly  true  of  certain  legal  requirements  for  the  welfare  of  pigs.  Between  2013  and 
2014,  data  from  the  Member  States  data  shows  that  there  was  only  a  small  increase  in 
breaches registered as regards the provision of manipulable material and that the number of 
breaches concerning the tail docking of pigs decreased. This is in contrast to the Commission 
audit reports showing a much higher number of breaches for these two requirements in most 
of the Member States audited. Moreover, the numbers of complaints on these issues seem to 
indicate increased awareness among EU citizens and an interest in the well-being of pigs. The 
lower  figures  reported  by  the  Member  States  could  result  from  a  failure  to  recognise  non-
compliance. Commission audits showed that with regard to tail docking most Member States 
considered that they were compliant with Union law. Meanwhile, work has been ongoing on 
this  subject  for  several  years  with  a  view  to  increasing  knowledge  and  changing  attitudes. 
Commission  Recommendation  (EU)  2016/336  of  8  March  2016  introduces  a  number  of 
parameters that are pertinent in reducing tail-biting and lists the characteristics of an optimal 
enrichment  material.  The  accompanying  Staff  working  document  provides  Member  States 

14  

Directive 2007/43/EC. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
with further details on the issue and also gives them tools and indicators that can be used in 
assessing the on farm situation.  

to  monitor  compliance  with 

the  Commission  will  continue 

the 
As  a  minimum, 
implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC.  However, it is apparent from the action plans 
and comments provided that the Member States use various tools to better enforcement in this 
area.  In  parallel  the  Commission  considers  it  essential  to  develop  further  stakeholder 
dialogues in order to favour specific initiatives and projects in this field that could be mutually 
beneficial both from an economic and animal welfare point of view. Against this background 
the  Commission  is  currently  working  on  a  more  systematic  and  visible  format  for  this 
dialogue, so that all interested parties (animal welfare organisations, scientists, veterinarians, 
farmers, food processors, food retailers, etc.) could express their concerns, share knowledge 
and resources to build common activities. 

Furthermore, the adoption of a Commission proposal on official controls15 will open the way 
for  the  establishment  of  European  Reference  Centres  for  Animal  Welfare  that  could  also 
contribute to further improvements through the creation and exchange of better technical and 
scientific knowledge. 

15   

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls and other 
official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and 
welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant protection products and amending  Regulations 
(EC)  No  999/2001,  1829/2003,  1831/2003,  1/2005,  396/2005,  834/2007,  1099/2009,  1069/2009, 
1107/2009,  Regulations  (EU)  No  1151/2012,  652/2014  and  Directives  98/58/EC,  1999/74/EC, 
2007/43/EC,  2008/119/EC,  2008/120/EC  and  2009/128/EC  (Official  controls  Regulation);  Inter-
institutional File: 2013/0140(COD). 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
Annex I 

Table 1 

List of Commission audits 2010 - 2014 

Member State 

Report 
number 

Subject of animal welfare audit 

Malta 

2010-8386 

farms and transport (laying hens, calves, pigs, 2006/778) 

Luxembourg 

2010-8385 

farms and transport (98/58, 2006/778, laying hens, pigs) 

France 

Poland 

Italy 

Romania 

Bulgaria 

2010-8390 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs, 2006/778) 

2010-8387 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) 

2010-8388 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs) 

2010-8389 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) 

2010-8383 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) 

Czech Republic 

2010-8384 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Austria 

Portugal 

Poland 

2010-8391 

farms and transport (2006/778, laying hens, pigs) 

2010-8392 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) 

2011-6096 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) 

2011-6052 

farms and transport (broilers, laying hens, calves, pigs) 

2011-6049 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) 

Belgium 

2011-6039 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) 

Date 

Jan 2010  

Jan 2010  

Feb 2010  

Feb-Mar 
2010  

Mar 2010  

Apr 2010  

Apr 2010  

Jun 2010  

Oct 2010  

Nov 2010  

Jan 2011  

May 2011  

May-Jun 
2011  

Jun-Jul 
2011  

2011-6045 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, broilers, pigs, Council of Europe (CoE) geese)  Sep 2011  

Hungary 

Slovakia 

Italy 

Ireland 

Slovenia 

2011-6053 

farms and transport (laying hens, broilers, pigs) 

2011-6048 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) 

2012-6379 

laying hens on farms  

2012-6375 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) 

Netherlands 

2012-6376 

farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers, CoE cattle) 

Bulgaria 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

France 

Romania 

2012-6454 

farms and transport (laying hens, broilers, pigs) 

2012-6525 

farms and transport (98/58, 2006/778, laying hens, pigs, broilers, calves, CoE cattle, 
CoE fur farms) 

2012-6526 

farms and transport (98/58, pigs, broilers, CoE fur farms) 

2012-6446 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs, broilers, CoE Muscovy ducks) 

2012-6374 

farms and transport (laying hens, pigs, broilers, CoE turkeys, CoE ducks) 

United Kingdom 

2013-6822 

major farmed species and chickens for meat production (broilers, CoE turkeys) 

Denmark 

2013-6807 

major farmed species and chickens for meat production (broilers, CoE fur farms, CoE 
cattle) 

Austria 

2013-6805 

major farmed species -Council of Europe requirements (2006/778, CoE cattle, CoE 
turkeys, CoE geese) 

Nov 2013 

9 

Sep 2011  

Nov 2011  

Mar 2012  

Apr 2012  

May 2012  

Jun 2012  

Oct 2012  

Nov 2012  

Nov 2012  

Nov 2012  

Feb-Mar 
2013 

Oct 2013 

 
 
 
 
Table 2 

Summary of all Member States’ reports for 2013 – 2014 by species 

2013 

Category Description 

Laying hens 
Free range 

Laying hens 
Barn 

Laying hens 
Enriched 

Turkeys 

Domestic fowl 

Ducks 

Geese 

Production sites subject to inspection 

                   6.731  

                  3.490  

                  3.236  

                 19.768  

                  111.115  

                29.877  

                 13.553  

Production sites inspected 

Production sites without non-compliance 

Total Non-compliance Cat 

Category Description 

20.1 % 

89.8 % 

198 

Ratites 

33.6 % 

89.4 % 

189 

Pigs 

40 % 

87.5 % 

224 

Cattle (except 
calves) 

5.1 % 

90.7 % 

122 

Calves 

5.3 % 

82.7 % 

1275 

Sheep 

2.8 % 

89.9 % 

132 

Goats 

5.6 % 

89 % 

127 

Fur animals 

Production sites subject to inspection 

                     788  

              685.660  

            1.503.586  

              942.407  

               549.713  

               186.632  

                  3.956  

Production sites inspected 

Production sites without non-compliance 

13.5 % 

90.6 % 

4.3 % 

80.8 % 

4.5 % 

86.2 % 

4.1 % 

87.2 % 

3 % 

86.4 % 

2.5 % 

80.7 % 

28.8 % 

85.1 % 

2014 

Category Description 

Laying hens 
Free range 

Laying hens 
Barn 

Laying hens 
Enriched 

Turkeys 

Domestic fowl 

Ducks 

Geese 

Production sites subject to inspection 

                 12.099  

                 12.772  

                  3.565  

                26.395  

               183.920  

                75.420  

                 37.241  

Production sites inspected 

Production sites without non-compliance 

Category Description 

17.3% 

91.8% 

Ratites 

16% 

92.3% 

Pigs 

40.5% 

86.4% 

Cattle (except 
calves) 

5.6% 

88.4% 

Calves 

4.1% 

83.5% 

Sheep 

1.9% 

91.5% 

3.3% 

90.7% 

Goats 

Fur animals 

Production sites subject to inspection 

                    1.716  

              767.042  

             1.626.413  

              978.358  

               653.721  

              235.205  

                   4.317  

Production sites inspected 

Production sites without non-compliance 

11.2% 

92.2% 

4.7% 

82.2% 

4.6% 

86.6% 

4.5% 

84.7% 

3.4% 

89.5% 

2.9% 

81.4% 

28.7% 

85.6% 

10 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 

Percentage of production sites inspected 2013 and 2014 

11 

 
 
 
 
Number of production sites in the Member States subject to inspection and percentage of non-compliances in 2013 and 2014  

- main farmed species 

Table 3 

Category Description 

Production sites subject to inspection 
Production sites inspected 
Production sites without non-compliance 
Number of Non-Compliances 
Staffing 
Inspection 
Record keeping 
Freedom of movement 
Space allowances 
Buildings and accommodation 
Minimum lighting 
Flooring surfaces (for pigs) 
Manipulable materials (for pigs) 
Automatic and mechanical equipment 
Feed, water and other substances 
Haemoglobin (for calves) 
Fibrous food (calves and sows) 
Mutilations 
Breed procedures (not for laying hens) 
Number of Categories of Non-Compliance 
Category A 
Category B 
Category C 

2013 

Laying hens 
Free range 

2014 

Laying hens 
Free range 

6.731 
20.1 % 
89.8 % 

5.6 % 
6.1 % 
22.7 % 
0.5 % 
5.6 % 
78.3 % 
2.5 % 
0 % 
0 % 
6.6 % 
28.3 % 
0 % 
0 % 
0.5 % 
0 % 

56.1 % 
37.9 % 
6.1 % 

12.099 
17.3% 
91.8% 

5.6% 
8.9% 
27.1% 
2.8% 
5.1% 
84.6% 
3.3% 
0% 
0% 
5.6% 
35% 
0% 
0% 
1.9% 
0% 

64% 
25.7% 
10.3% 

2013 

Pigs 

685.660 
4.3 % 
80.8 % 

2.9 % 
7.8 % 
15.5 % 
3 % 
13 % 
27.5 % 
5.5 % 
8.8 % 
8.4 % 
4.7 % 
11.8 % 
0 % 
0.2 % 
2.2 % 
2 % 

64.2 % 
20.3 % 
15.6 % 

12 

2014 

Pigs 

767.042 
4.7% 
82.2% 

3.1% 
9.2% 
13.5% 
4.1% 
6.3% 
28.5% 
8.8% 
9.3% 
10% 
4.2% 
11.5% 
0% 
0.2% 
1.8% 
1.3% 

66.1% 
22.1% 
11.8% 

2013 

Calves 

942.407 
4.1 % 
87.2 % 

2.4 % 
7.8 % 
17.4 % 
14.2 % 
6.9 % 
40.9 % 
1.9 % 
0 % 
0 % 
3 % 
13.3 % 
0.4 % 
0.2 % 
0.3 % 
1.1 % 

73.3 % 
15.1 % 
11.5 % 

2014 

Calves 

978.358 

4.5% 

84.7% 

2.3% 

8.8% 

12.8% 

14.3% 

7% 

39.3% 

2.8% 

0% 

0% 

3.3% 

16.4% 

0.5% 

1% 

0.3% 

1% 

76.6% 

12.9% 

10.5% 

2013 

Domestic 
fowl 

111.115 
5.3 % 
82.7 % 

14 % 
8.2 % 
44.5 % 
3.4 % 
4 % 
36.4 % 
0.8 % 
0 % 
0 % 
17.9 % 
7.2 % 
0 % 
0 % 
0.8 % 
11 % 

69.8 % 
23.4 % 
6.8 % 

2014 

Domestic 
fowl 

183.920 

4.1% 

83.5% 

10.5% 

7.4% 

30.5% 

4.4% 

5.1% 

37.3% 

2.7% 

0% 

0% 

14.6% 

8.3% 

0% 

0% 

0.4% 

7.1% 

73.2% 

18.5% 

8.3% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Overview of animal welfare legislation relevant to the on farm situation 

Annex II 

Council  Directive  98/58/EC  of  20  July  1998  concerning  the  protection  of  animals  kept  for 
farming purposes; OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23 

Council  Directive  1999/74/EC  of  19  July  1999  laying  down  minimum  standards  for  the 
protection of laying hens; OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53 

Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection 
of chickens kept for meat production; OJ L 182, 12.7.2007, p. 19 

Council  Directive  2008/119/EC  of  18  December  2008  laying  down  minimum  standards  for 
the protection of calves; codified version; OJ L 10; 15.1.2009, p. 7 

Council  Directive  2008/120/EC  of  18  December  2008  laying  down  minimum  standards  for 
the protection of pigs; codified version; OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5 

Commission  Directive  2002/4/EC  of  30  January  2002  on  the  registration  of  establishments 
keeping laying hens, covered by Council Directive 1999/74/EC; OJ L 30, 31.1.2002, p. 44 

Commission  Decision  2006/778/EC  of  14  November  2006  concerning  minimum 
requirements  for  the  collection  of  information  during  the  inspections  of  production  sites  on 
which certain animals are kept for farming purposes; OJ L 314, 15.11.2006, p. 39 

13