Article 47 Animals and goods subject to official controls at border control posts
1. To ascertain compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), the competent authorities shall perform official controls, at the border control post of first arrival into the Union, on each consignment of the following categories of animals and goods entering the Union: (a) animals; (b) products of animal origin, germinal products, animal by-products, hay and straw and foodstuffs containing both products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin (‘composite products’); goods from certain third countries for which the Commission has decided, by means of implementing acts provided for in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article, that a measure requiring a temporary increase of official controls at their entry into the Union is necessary due to a known or emerging risk or because there is evidence that widespread serious non-compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) might be taking place; (f) animals and goods in relation to whose entry into the Union conditions or measures have been established by acts adopted in accordance with Article 126 or 128 respectively, or with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), which require that compliance with those conditions or measures be ascertained at the entry of the animals or goods into the Union. 2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts: establish lists which set out all the animals and goods referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, indicating their codes from the Combined Nomenclature; and (b) establish the list of goods belonging to the category referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1, indicating their codes from the Combined Nomenclature, and update it as necessary in relation to the risks referred to in that point. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to amend this Regulation concerning amendments to the categories of consignments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to include composite products, hay and straw, and other products strictly limited to products presenting a newly identified or a significantly increased risk to human, animal or plant health or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. 4. Unless otherwise provided by the acts establishing the measures or conditions referred to in points (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, this Article shall also apply to consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 when they are of a non-commercial nature. 5. Operators responsible for the consignment shall ensure that animals and goods of the categories referred to in paragraph 1 are presented for official controls at the border control post referred to therein.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 47 Animals and goods subject to official controls at border control posts):
2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to amend this Regulation concerning amendments to the categories of consignments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to include composite products, hay and straw, and other products strictly limited to products presenting a newly identified or a significantly increased risk to human, animal or plant health or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. 4. Unless otherwise provided by the acts establishing the measures or conditions referred to in points (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, this Article shall also apply to consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 when they are of a non-commercial nature. 5. Operators responsible for the consignment shall ensure that animals and goods of the categories referred to in paragraph 1 are presented for official controls at the border control post referred to therein.
Article 48 Animals and goods exempted from official controls at border control posts
The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules establishing the cases where, and the conditions under which, the following categories of animals and goods are exempted from Article 47, and when such exemption is justified: (a) goods sent as trade samples or as display items for exhibitions, which are not intended to be placed on the market; (b) animals and goods intended for scientific purposes; (c) goods on board means of transport operating internationally which are not unloaded and are intended for consumption by the crew and passengers; (d) goods which form part of passengers personal luggage and are intended for personal consumption or use; (e) small consignments of goods sent to natural persons which are not intended to be placed on the market; pet animals as defined in point (11) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429; (g) goods which have undergone specific treatment and do not exceed quantities to be established in those delegated acts; (h) categories of animals or goods posing a low risk or no specific risk and for which controls at border control posts are therefore not necessary.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 48 Animals and goods exempted from official controls at border control posts):
The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules establishing the cases where, and the conditions under which, the following categories of animals and goods are exempted from Article 47, and when such exemption is justified: (a) goods sent as trade samples or as display items for exhibitions, which are not intended to be placed on the market; (b) animals and goods intended for scientific purposes; (c) goods on board means of transport operating internationally which are not unloaded and are intended for consumption by the crew and passengers; (d) goods which form part of passengers personal luggage and are intended for personal consumption or use; (e) small consignments of goods sent to natural persons which are not intended to be placed on the market; (g) goods which have undergone specific treatment and do not exceed quantities to be established in those delegated acts; (h) categories of animals or goods posing a low risk or no specific risk and for which controls at border control posts are therefore not necessary.
Article 49 Official controls at border control posts
1. To verify compliance with the applicable requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2), the competent authorities shall perform official controls on the consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) upon arrival of the consignment at the border control post. Those official controls shall include documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks. 2. Physical checks shall be performed where those checks concern: (a) animals, except aquatic animals, or meat and edible meat offal, by an official veterinarian, who may be assisted by staff trained in accordance with the requirements established under paragraph 5 in veterinary matters and designated by the competent authorities for that purpose; (b) aquatic animals, products of animal origin other than the ones referred to in point (a) of this paragraph, germinal products or animal by-products, by an official veterinarian or by staff trained in accordance with the requirements established under paragraph 5 and designated by the competent authorities for that purpose; (c) plants, plant products and other objects, by an official plant health officer. 3. The competent authorities at border control posts shall systematically perform official controls on consignments of animals being transported and on means of transport to verify compliance with the animal welfare requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Competent authorities shall put in place arrangements to give priority to official controls on animals being transported and to reduce delays on such controls. 4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the practical arrangements for presentation of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1), the transport units or sub-entities which can constitute an individual consignment and the maximum number of such transport units or sub-entities in each consignment, taking into account the need to ensure the rapid and efficient handling of the consignments and the official controls to be performed by the competent authorities and, where relevant, international standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 5. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules establishing specific training requirements for staff referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article for the performance of the physical checks at the border control posts.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 49 Official controls at border control posts):
1. To verify compliance with the applicable requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2), the competent authorities shall perform official controls on the consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) upon arrival of the consignment at the border control post. Those official controls shall include documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks. 3. The competent authorities at border control posts shall systematically perform official controls on consignments of animals being transported and on means of transport to verify compliance with the animal welfare requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Competent authorities shall put in place arrangements to give priority to official controls on animals being transported and to reduce delays on such controls. 4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the practical arrangements for presentation of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1), the transport units or sub-entities which can constitute an individual consignment and the maximum number of such transport units or sub-entities in each consignment, taking into account the need to ensure the rapid and efficient handling of the consignments and the official controls to be performed by the competent authorities and, where relevant, international standards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 5. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules establishing specific training requirements for staff referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article for the performance of the physical checks at the border control posts.
Article 50 Certificates and documents accompanying consignments and split consignments
1. The original official certificates or documents, or electronic equivalents, which are required by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) to accompany consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred in Article 47(1) shall be presented to, and kept by, the competent authorities of the border control post unless otherwise provided for in the rules referred to in Article 1(2). 2. The competent authorities of the border control post shall issue the operator responsible for the consignment with an authenticated paper or electronic copy of the official certificates or documents referred to in paragraph 1 or, if the consignment is split, with individually authenticated paper or electronic copies of such certificates or documents. 3. Consignments shall not be split until official controls have been performed and the Common Health Entry Document (CHED) referred to in Article 56 has been finalised in accordance with Article 56(5) and Article 57. 4. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules establishing the cases where, and the conditions under which, the CHED is required to accompany consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) to the place of destination.
Article 51 Specific rules for official controls at border control posts
1. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules to establish: (a) the cases where, and the conditions under which, the competent authorities of a border control post may authorise the onward transportation of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) to the place of final destination pending the availability of the results of physical checks, where such checks are required; (b) the time limits and arrangements for carrying out documentary checks and, where necessary, identity checks and physical checks on categories of animals and goods subject to the official controls provided for in Article 47(1) which enter the Union by sea or by air transport from a third country, when those animals or goods are moved from a vessel or aircraft and are transported under customs supervision to another vessel or aircraft in the same port or airport in preparation for onward travel (‘transhipped consignments’); (c) the cases where, and the conditions under which, identity checks and physical checks of transhipped consignments and of animals arriving by air or sea and staying on the same means of transport for onward travel may be performed at a border control post other than the one of first arrival into the Union; (d) the cases where, and the conditions under which, the transit of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) may be authorised and certain official controls to be performed at border control posts on such consignments, including the cases and conditions for the storage of goods in specially approved customs warehouses or in free zones; (e) the cases where, and the conditions under which, derogations from the rules on identity checks and physical checks shall apply as regards transhipped consignments and transit of consignments of the goods referred to in point (c) of Article 47(1). 2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules to establish the cases where, and the conditions under which, derogations from the rules on documentary checks shall apply as regards transhipped consignments and transit of consignments of the goods referred to in point (c) of Article 47(1).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 51 Specific rules for official controls at border control posts):
2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules to establish the cases where, and the conditions under which, derogations from the rules on documentary checks shall apply as regards transhipped consignments and transit of consignments of the goods referred to in point (c) of Article 47(1).
Article 52 Details of documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks
For the purposes of ensuring the uniform implementation of Articles 49, 50 and 51, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down detailed rules on the operations to be carried out during and after the documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks referred to in those Articles to ensure the efficient performance of those official controls. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 53 Official controls not performed at border control posts
1. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning rules establishing the cases where and the conditions under which: (b) physical checks on consignments which have undergone documentary checks and identity checks at a border control post of first arrival into the Union may be performed at another border control post in a different Member State; (c) identity checks and physical checks on consignments which have undergone documentary checks at a border control post of first arrival into the Union may be performed at another border control post in a different Member State; specific control tasks may be performed by customs authorities or other public authorities, insofar as those tasks are not already falling under the responsibility of those authorities, on: (i) consignments referred to in Article 65(2); (ii) passengers’ personal luggage; (iii) goods ordered by sales through distance contracts, including by telephone or via the internet; (iv) pet animals which meet the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 14 ); (e) documentary checks on consignments of plant, plant products and other objects referred to in point (c) of Article 47(1) may be performed at distance from a border control post. 2. Point (b) of Article 56(3), point (a) of Article 57(2), Article 59(1), points (a) and (d) of Article 60(1) and Articles 62 and 63 shall also apply to the control points referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 53 Official controls not performed at border control posts):
2. Point (b) of Article 56(3), point (a) of Article 57(2), Article 59(1), points (a) and (d) of Article 60(1) and Articles 62 and 63 shall also apply to the control points referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article.
Article 54 Frequency of documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks
1. All consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) shall be subject to documentary checks. 2. Identity checks and physical checks shall be performed on consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) at a frequency dependent on the risk posed by each animal, good or category of animals or goods to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules for the uniform application of the appropriate frequency rate referred to in paragraph 2. Those rules shall ensure that those frequencies are higher than a zero frequency and shall establish: (i) information collected by the Commission in accordance with Article 125(1); (ii) the outcome of controls performed by Commission experts in accordance with Article 120(1); (iii) operators’ past record as regards compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (iv) data and information collected via the information management system for official controls (IMSOC) referred to in Article 131; (v) available scientific assessments; and (vi) any other information regarding the risk associated to the categories of animals and goods; (b) the conditions under which Member States may increase the frequency rates of identity checks and physical checks established in accordance with point (a) so as to take account of local risk factors; (c) the procedures for ensuring that the frequency rates of identity checks and physical checks established in accordance with point (a) are applied in a timely and uniform manner. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on: the frequency of identity checks and physical checks for the categories of goods referred to in point (d) of Article 47(1); and (b) the frequency of identity checks and physical checks for the categories of animals and goods referred to in points (e) and (f) of Article 47(1) as long as this is not already provided for in the acts referred to therein.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 54 Frequency of documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks):
1. All consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) shall be subject to documentary checks. 2. Identity checks and physical checks shall be performed on consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) at a frequency dependent on the risk posed by each animal, good or category of animals or goods to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 55 Decisions on consignments
1. A decision shall be taken by the competent authorities on each consignment of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) following the performance of official controls including documentary and, where necessary, identity checks and physical checks, indicating whether the consignment is in compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and, where relevant, the applicable customs procedure. 2. Decisions on consignments shall be taken by: (a) an official veterinarian where they concern animals, products of animal origin, germinal products or animal by-products; or (b) an official plant health officer where they concern plants, plant products and other objects. 3. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 2, competent authorities may decide that the decision on consignments of fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods intended for human consumption, be taken by appropriately trained staff who have been specifically designated by competent authorities for that purpose.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2019/6 1 , which enters into application on 28 January 2022, replaces the legal framework for veterinary medicinal products (“VMPs”) established by Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Article 118(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides that third country operators exporting animals and products of animal origin to the EU will have to respect the prohibition against using antimicrobials for growth promotion and yield increase (Article 107(2)), as well as the ban against using antimicrobials reserved for treatment of certain infections in humans (Article 37(5)) . Article 118(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts providing detailed rules on the application of the prohibitions referred to in Article 118. Regulation (EU) 2019/6 sets out the legal framework for the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products, whereas Article 118 of that Regulation by contrast applies to animals and products of animal origin. Unlike other legislation that lays down rules for animals and products of animal origin, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 does not contain any basic provisions on import conditions/requirements or on official controls of compliance of imports with these requirements. Import requirements and conditions (such as third country and establishment listing and certificates) for animals and for products of animal origin are laid down in relevant sectorial legislation, such as the Animal Health Law 2 , but may also be laid down on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (‘the Official Controls Regulation’) 3 . For a third country to be included in a list of third countries authorised to export to the Union, it needs, for example, to provide guarantees that the animals and goods concerned comply with the Union’s requirements or with requirements equivalent thereto laid down in the relevant legislation. However, Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation states that that Regulation does not apply to official controls for the verification of compliance with Directive 2001/82/EC on veterinary medicinal products. When Regulation (EU) 2019/6 enters into application on 28 January 2022, the reference to Directive 2001/82/EC will in effect become a reference to that Regulation. 4 Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation excludes the entirety of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 from its scope. In the absence of relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on official controls of compliance of imports with the requirements referred to in the preceding paragraph, i t would not be possible to implement and enforce Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 properly without amending the Official Controls Regulation . The objective of this amendment is to modify Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation to include an exception to the above exclusion, integrating controls to verify compliance with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. This would mean that the Union’s official control system for animals and products of animal origin could be used to ensure compliance with the prohibitions in Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6. This would in turn make it possible to implement and enforce Article 118 properly. Article 123 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, which was part of the Commission’s proposal, provides for controls of compliance with the Regulation by Member State competent authorities. However, these controls only apply to manufacturers and importers of VMPs and active substances (and other persons involved in the placing on the market and use of VMPs and active substances). To ensure that animals and products of animal origin imported into the Union comply with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, it is necessary to provide that controls of compliance with Article 118 are included into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. Under its Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU has set the ambitious target of reducing by 50% its overall EU sales of antimicrobials used for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 2030. Building on the One Health approach, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides for a wide range of concrete measures that will apply to EU operators in order to enhance the fight against antimicrobial resistance (‘AMR’) and promote a more prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials in animals. As a leader in the global fight against AMR, the Union also has the responsibility to encourage the reduction of use and consumption of antimicrobials in third countries, in particular linked to imports from third countries, and has the duty to promote its vision of a more sustainable use of antimicrobials to help preserve their efficiency on the international stage. Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 is a key element in the fight against AMR.
Revised version (Article 55 Decisions on consignments):
1. A decision shall be taken by the competent authorities on each consignment of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) following the performance of official controls including documentary and, where necessary, identity checks and physical checks, indicating whether the consignment is in compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and, where relevant, the applicable customs procedure. 2. Decisions on consignments shall be taken by: (a) an official veterinarian where they concern animals, products of animal origin, germinal products or animal by-products; or (b) an official plant health officer where they concern plants, plant products and other objects. Decisions on consignments shall be taken by: (a) an official veterinarian where they concern animals, products of animal origin, germinal products or animal by-products; or (b) an official plant health officer where they concern plants, plant products and other objects. 3. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 2, competent authorities may decide that the decision on consignments of fishery products, live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods intended for human consumption, be taken by appropriately trained staff who have been specifically designated by competent authorities for that purpose.
Article 56 Use of the Common Health Entry Document (CHED) by the operator and by the competent authorities
1. For each consignment of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) the operator responsible for the consignment shall complete the relevant part of the CHED, providing the information necessary for the immediate and complete identification of the consignment and its destination. 2. References in this Regulation to the CHED include a reference to its electronic equivalent. 3. The CHED shall be used by: (a) the operators responsible for consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) in order to give prior notification to the competent authorities of the border control post of arrival of those consignments; and the competent authorities of the border control post, in order to: (i) record the outcome of the official controls performed and any decisions taken on that basis, including the decision to reject a consignment; (ii) communicate the information referred to in point (i) through the IMSOC. 4. Operators responsible for the consignment shall give prior notification in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 3 by completing and submitting the relevant part of the CHED into the IMSOC for transmission to the competent authorities of the border control post prior to the physical arrival of the consignment into the Union. 5. The competent authorities of the border control post shall finalise the CHED as soon as: (a) all official controls required by Article 49(1) have been performed; (b) the results from physical checks, where such checks are required, are available; and (c) a decision on the consignment has been taken in accordance with Article 55 and recorded on the CHED.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 56 Use of the Common Health Entry Document (CHED) by the operator and by the competent authorities):
1. For each consignment of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) the operator responsible for the consignment shall complete the relevant part of the CHED, providing the information necessary for the immediate and complete identification of the consignment and its destination. 2. References in this Regulation to the CHED include a reference to its electronic equivalent. 4. Operators responsible for the consignment shall give prior notification in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 3 by completing and submitting the relevant part of the CHED into the IMSOC for transmission to the competent authorities of the border control post prior to the physical arrival of the consignment into the Union.
Article 57 Use of the CHED by customs authorities
1. The placing and handling of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) under a customs procedure, including the entry or handling in customs warehouses or free zones, shall be subject to the presentation of the CHED by the operator responsible for the consignment to the custom authorities, without prejudice to the exemptions referred to in Article 48 and the rules referred to in Articles 53 and 54. At this stage, the CHED shall have been duly finalised in the IMSOC by the competent authorities of the border control post. 2. Customs authorities shall: (a) not allow the placing of the consignment under a customs procedure different from the one indicated by the competent authorities of the border control post; and (b) without prejudice to the exemptions referred to in Article 48 and the rules referred to in Articles 53 and 54, only allow the release for free circulation of a consignment upon presentation of a duly finalised CHED which confirms that the consignment is in compliance with the applicable rules referred to in Article 1(2). 3. Where a customs declaration is made for a consignment of the categories of animals or goods referred to in Article 47(1) and the CHED is not presented, the customs authorities shall detain the consignment and immediately notify the competent authorities of the border control post. The competent authorities shall take the necessary measures in accordance with Article 66(6).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 57 Use of the CHED by customs authorities):
1. The placing and handling of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) under a customs procedure, including the entry or handling in customs warehouses or free zones, shall be subject to the presentation of the CHED by the operator responsible for the consignment to the custom authorities, without prejudice to the exemptions referred to in Article 48 and the rules referred to in Articles 53 and 54. At this stage, the CHED shall have been duly finalised in the IMSOC by the competent authorities of the border control post. 3. Where a customs declaration is made for a consignment of the categories of animals or goods referred to in Article 47(1) and the CHED is not presented, the customs authorities shall detain the consignment and immediately notify the competent authorities of the border control post. The competent authorities shall take the necessary measures in accordance with Article 66(6).
Article 58 Format, time requirements and specific rules for the use of the CHED
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on: (a) the format of the CHED and the instructions for its presentation and use, taking into account relevant international standards; and (b) the minimum time requirements for prior notification of consignments by operators responsible for the consignment as provided for in point (a) of Article 56(3) in order to enable the competent authorities of the border control post to perform official controls in a timely and effective manner. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 59 Designation of border control posts
1. Member States shall designate border control posts for the purpose of performing official controls on one or more of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1). 2. Member States shall notify the Commission before designating a border control post. That notification shall include all the information necessary for the Commission to verify that the proposed border control post complies with the minimum requirements laid down in Article 64. 3. Within three months of receiving the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall inform the Member State: (a) whether the designation of the proposed border control post is dependent upon the favourable outcome of a control performed by Commission experts in accordance with Article 116 in order to verify compliance with the minimum requirements laid down in Article 64; and (b) of the date of such a control, which is not to be later than six months from the notification. 4. In cases where the Commission has informed a Member State, in accordance with paragraph 3, that a control is not necessary, the Member State may proceed with the designation. 5. The Member State shall delay designating the border control post until the favourable outcome of the control has been communicated to it by the Commission. The Commission shall communicate the outcome of its control as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 at the latest within three months from the date of that control.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2019/6 1 , which enters into application on 28 January 2022, replaces the legal framework for veterinary medicinal products (“VMPs”) established by Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Article 118(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides that third country operators exporting animals and products of animal origin to the EU will have to respect the prohibition against using antimicrobials for growth promotion and yield increase (Article 107(2)), as well as the ban against using antimicrobials reserved for treatment of certain infections in humans (Article 37(5)) . Article 118(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts providing detailed rules on the application of the prohibitions referred to in Article 118. Regulation (EU) 2019/6 sets out the legal framework for the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products, whereas Article 118 of that Regulation by contrast applies to animals and products of animal origin. Unlike other legislation that lays down rules for animals and products of animal origin, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 does not contain any basic provisions on import conditions/requirements or on official controls of compliance of imports with these requirements. Import requirements and conditions (such as third country and establishment listing and certificates) for animals and for products of animal origin are laid down in relevant sectorial legislation, such as the Animal Health Law 2 , but may also be laid down on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (‘the Official Controls Regulation’) 3 . For a third country to be included in a list of third countries authorised to export to the Union, it needs, for example, to provide guarantees that the animals and goods concerned comply with the Union’s requirements or with requirements equivalent thereto laid down in the relevant legislation. However, Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation states that that Regulation does not apply to official controls for the verification of compliance with Directive 2001/82/EC on veterinary medicinal products. When Regulation (EU) 2019/6 enters into application on 28 January 2022, the reference to Directive 2001/82/EC will in effect become a reference to that Regulation. 4 Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation excludes the entirety of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 from its scope. In the absence of relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on official controls of compliance of imports with the requirements referred to in the preceding paragraph, i t would not be possible to implement and enforce Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 properly without amending the Official Controls Regulation . The objective of this amendment is to modify Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation to include an exception to the above exclusion, integrating controls to verify compliance with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. This would mean that the Union’s official control system for animals and products of animal origin could be used to ensure compliance with the prohibitions in Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6. This would in turn make it possible to implement and enforce Article 118 properly. Article 123 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, which was part of the Commission’s proposal, provides for controls of compliance with the Regulation by Member State competent authorities. However, these controls only apply to manufacturers and importers of VMPs and active substances (and other persons involved in the placing on the market and use of VMPs and active substances). To ensure that animals and products of animal origin imported into the Union comply with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, it is necessary to provide that controls of compliance with Article 118 are included into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. Under its Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU has set the ambitious target of reducing by 50% its overall EU sales of antimicrobials used for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 2030. Building on the One Health approach, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides for a wide range of concrete measures that will apply to EU operators in order to enhance the fight against antimicrobial resistance (‘AMR’) and promote a more prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials in animals. As a leader in the global fight against AMR, the Union also has the responsibility to encourage the reduction of use and consumption of antimicrobials in third countries, in particular linked to imports from third countries, and has the duty to promote its vision of a more sustainable use of antimicrobials to help preserve their efficiency on the international stage. Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 is a key element in the fight against AMR.
Revised version (Article 59 Designation of border control posts):
1. Member States shall designate border control posts for the purpose of performing official controls on one or more of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1). 2. Member States shall notify the Commission before designating a border control post. That notification shall include all the information necessary for the Commission to verify that the proposed border control post complies with the minimum requirements laid down in Article 64. 3. Within three months of receiving the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall inform the Member State: (a) whether the designation of the proposed border control post is dependent upon the favourable outcome of a control performed by Commission experts in accordance with Article 116 in order to verify compliance with the minimum requirements laid down in Article 64; and (b) of the date of such a control, which is not to be later than six months from the notification. Within three months of receiving the notification referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall inform the Member State: (a) whether the designation of the proposed border control post is dependent upon the favourable outcome of a control performed by Commission experts in accordance with Article 116 in order to verify compliance with the minimum requirements laid down in Article 64; and (b) of the date of such a control, which is not to be later than six months from the notification. 4. In cases where the Commission has informed a Member State, in accordance with paragraph 3, that a control is not necessary, the Member State may proceed with the designation. 5. The Member State shall delay designating the border control post until the favourable outcome of the control has been communicated to it by the Commission. The Commission shall communicate the outcome of its control as referred to in point (a) of paragraph 3 at the latest within three months from the date of that control.
Article 60 Listing of border control posts
1. Each Member State shall make available on the internet up-to-date lists of border control posts on its territory, providing the following information for each border control post: (a) its contact details; (b) its opening hours; (c) its exact location and whether it is a port, airport, rail or road entry point; and (d) the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1) which are included in the scope of its designation. 2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the format, categories, abbreviations for designations and other information to be used by Member States in the lists of border control posts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 60 Listing of border control posts):
2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the format, categories, abbreviations for designations and other information to be used by Member States in the lists of border control posts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 61 Withdrawal of approvals for, and re-designation of, existing border control entities
1. The approval of border inspection posts in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 6 of Directive 91/496/EEC, the designation of points of entry in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 and with Article 13c(4) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the designation of first points of introduction in accordance with Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2011 ( 15 ) shall be withdrawn. 2. Member States may re-designate border inspection posts, designated points of entry, points of entry and first points of introduction referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article as border control posts in accordance with Article 59(1) provided that the minimum requirements referred to in Article 64 are complied with. 3. Article 59(2), (3) and (5) shall not apply to the re-designation referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.
Article 62 Withdrawal of the designation of border control posts
1. Where border control posts cease to comply with the requirements referred to in Article 64, the Member States shall: (a) withdraw the designation provided for in Article 59(1) for all or for certain categories of animals and goods for which the designation was made; and (b) remove those border control posts from the lists referred to in Article 60(1), for the categories of animals and goods for which the designation is withdrawn. 2. Member States shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the withdrawal of the designation of a border control post as provided for in paragraph 1 and of the reasons for such withdrawal. 3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the cases where, and the procedures by which, border control posts for which the designation has only been partially withdrawn in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article may be re-designated by way of derogation from Article 59. 4. This Article shall be without prejudice to Member States’ competence to decide on the withdrawal of designation of border control posts for reasons other than those referred to in this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 62 Withdrawal of the designation of border control posts):
2. Member States shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the withdrawal of the designation of a border control post as provided for in paragraph 1 and of the reasons for such withdrawal. 3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the cases where, and the procedures by which, border control posts for which the designation has only been partially withdrawn in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article may be re-designated by way of derogation from Article 59. 4. This Article shall be without prejudice to Member States’ competence to decide on the withdrawal of designation of border control posts for reasons other than those referred to in this Regulation.
Article 63 Suspension of the designation of border control posts
1. A Member State shall suspend the designation of a border control post and order its activities to be stopped, for all or for certain categories of animals and goods for which the designation was made, in cases where such activities may result in a risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. In the case of a serious risk, the suspension shall be with immediate effect. 2. Member States shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States of any suspension of the designation of a border control post and the reasons for such a suspension. 3. Member States shall indicate the suspension of the designation of a border control post in the lists referred to in Article 60(1). 4. Member States shall remove the suspension provided for in paragraph 1 as soon as: (a) the competent authorities are satisfied that the risk referred to in paragraph 1 no longer exists; and (b) they have communicated to the Commission and to the other Member States the information on the basis of which the suspension is removed. 5. This Article shall be without prejudice to Member States’ competence to decide on the suspension of designation of border control posts for reasons other than those referred to in this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2019/6 1 , which enters into application on 28 January 2022, replaces the legal framework for veterinary medicinal products (“VMPs”) established by Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Article 118(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides that third country operators exporting animals and products of animal origin to the EU will have to respect the prohibition against using antimicrobials for growth promotion and yield increase (Article 107(2)), as well as the ban against using antimicrobials reserved for treatment of certain infections in humans (Article 37(5)) . Article 118(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts providing detailed rules on the application of the prohibitions referred to in Article 118. Regulation (EU) 2019/6 sets out the legal framework for the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products, whereas Article 118 of that Regulation by contrast applies to animals and products of animal origin. Unlike other legislation that lays down rules for animals and products of animal origin, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 does not contain any basic provisions on import conditions/requirements or on official controls of compliance of imports with these requirements. Import requirements and conditions (such as third country and establishment listing and certificates) for animals and for products of animal origin are laid down in relevant sectorial legislation, such as the Animal Health Law 2 , but may also be laid down on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (‘the Official Controls Regulation’) 3 . For a third country to be included in a list of third countries authorised to export to the Union, it needs, for example, to provide guarantees that the animals and goods concerned comply with the Union’s requirements or with requirements equivalent thereto laid down in the relevant legislation. However, Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation states that that Regulation does not apply to official controls for the verification of compliance with Directive 2001/82/EC on veterinary medicinal products. When Regulation (EU) 2019/6 enters into application on 28 January 2022, the reference to Directive 2001/82/EC will in effect become a reference to that Regulation. 4 Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation excludes the entirety of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 from its scope. In the absence of relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on official controls of compliance of imports with the requirements referred to in the preceding paragraph, i t would not be possible to implement and enforce Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 properly without amending the Official Controls Regulation . The objective of this amendment is to modify Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation to include an exception to the above exclusion, integrating controls to verify compliance with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. This would mean that the Union’s official control system for animals and products of animal origin could be used to ensure compliance with the prohibitions in Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6. This would in turn make it possible to implement and enforce Article 118 properly. Article 123 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, which was part of the Commission’s proposal, provides for controls of compliance with the Regulation by Member State competent authorities. However, these controls only apply to manufacturers and importers of VMPs and active substances (and other persons involved in the placing on the market and use of VMPs and active substances). To ensure that animals and products of animal origin imported into the Union comply with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, it is necessary to provide that controls of compliance with Article 118 are included into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. Under its Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU has set the ambitious target of reducing by 50% its overall EU sales of antimicrobials used for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 2030. Building on the One Health approach, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides for a wide range of concrete measures that will apply to EU operators in order to enhance the fight against antimicrobial resistance (‘AMR’) and promote a more prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials in animals. As a leader in the global fight against AMR, the Union also has the responsibility to encourage the reduction of use and consumption of antimicrobials in third countries, in particular linked to imports from third countries, and has the duty to promote its vision of a more sustainable use of antimicrobials to help preserve their efficiency on the international stage. Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 is a key element in the fight against AMR.
Revised version (Article 63 Suspension of the designation of border control posts):
1. A Member State shall suspend the designation of a border control post and order its activities to be stopped, for all or for certain categories of animals and goods for which the designation was made, in cases where such activities may result in a risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. In the case of a serious risk, the suspension shall be with immediate effect. 2. Member States shall immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States of any suspension of the designation of a border control post and the reasons for such a suspension. 3. Member States shall indicate the suspension of the designation of a border control post in the lists referred to in Article 60(1). 4. Member States shall remove the suspension provided for in paragraph 1 as soon as: (a) the competent authorities are satisfied that the risk referred to in paragraph 1 no longer exists; and (b) they have communicated to the Commission and to the other Member States the information on the basis of which the suspension is removed. Member States shall remove the suspension provided for in paragraph 1 as soon as: (a) the competent authorities are satisfied that the risk referred to in paragraph 1 no longer exists; and (b) they have communicated to the Commission and to the other Member States the information on the basis of which the suspension is removed. 5. This Article shall be without prejudice to Member States’ competence to decide on the suspension of designation of border control posts for reasons other than those referred to in this Regulation.
Article 64 Minimum requirements for border control posts
2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the cases where and conditions under which a border control post may be situated at a distance other than in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry into the Union in cases of specific geographical constraints. 3. Border control posts shall have: (a) a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff; (b) premises or other facilities appropriate to the nature and volume of the categories of animals and goods handled; (c) equipment and premises or other facilities to allow the performance of official controls for each of the categories of animals and goods for which the border control post has been designated; (d) arrangements in place to ensure, as appropriate, access to any other equipment, premise and service necessary to apply the measures taken in accordance with Articles 65, 66 and 67 in cases of suspicion of non-compliance, non-compliant consignments or consignments presenting a risk; (e) contingency arrangements to ensure the smooth operation of official controls and the effective application of the measures taken in accordance with Articles 65, 66 and 67 in cases of unforeseeable and unexpected conditions or events; (f) the technology and equipment necessary for the efficient operation of the IMSOC and, as appropriate, of other computerised information management systems necessary for the handling and exchange of data and information; (g) access to the services of official laboratories capable of providing analytical, testing and diagnostic results within appropriate deadlines and equipped with the information technology tools necessary to ensure the introduction of the results of analyses, tests or diagnoses carried out into the IMSOC as appropriate; (h) appropriate arrangements for the proper handling of different categories of animals and goods and to prevent risks which may result from cross-contamination; and (i) arrangements to comply with relevant biosecurity standards in order to prevent the spread of diseases into the Union. 4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down detailed rules on the requirements under paragraph 3 of this Article to take into account specific features and logistic needs related to the performance of official controls and to the application of the measures taken in accordance with Article 66(3) and (6) and Article 67 in relation to the different categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 5. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the cases and conditions under which border control posts designated for the imports of unprocessed logs and sawn and chipped wood may be exempted from one or more of the obligations referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article to take into account the needs of competent authorities in charge of official controls operating under specific geographical constraints, while ensuring the proper performance of the controls.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 64 Minimum requirements for border control posts):
2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the cases where and conditions under which a border control post may be situated at a distance other than in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry into the Union in cases of specific geographical constraints. 4. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down detailed rules on the requirements under paragraph 3 of this Article to take into account specific features and logistic needs related to the performance of official controls and to the application of the measures taken in accordance with Article 66(3) and (6) and Article 67 in relation to the different categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 5. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the cases and conditions under which border control posts designated for the imports of unprocessed logs and sawn and chipped wood may be exempted from one or more of the obligations referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article to take into account the needs of competent authorities in charge of official controls operating under specific geographical constraints, while ensuring the proper performance of the controls.
Article 65 Suspicion of non-compliance and intensified official controls
1. In the event of suspicion of non-compliance of consignments of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Articles 44(1) and 47(1) with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), the competent authorities shall perform official controls in order to confirm or to eliminate that suspicion. 2. Consignments of animals and goods which are not declared by operators to consist of the categories of animals and goods referred to in Article 47(1), shall be subject to official controls by the competent authorities where there is reason to believe that such categories of animals or goods are present in the consignment. 3. The competent authorities shall place the consignments referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 under official detention pending the outcome of the official controls provided for in those paragraphs. Where appropriate, those consignments shall be isolated or quarantined and animals shall be sheltered, fed, watered and as necessary treated, pending the outcome of the official controls. 4. Where the competent authorities have reasons to suspect fraudulent or deceptive practices by an operator responsible for the consignment or the official controls give grounds to believe that the rules referred to in Article 1(2) have been seriously or repeatedly infringed, they shall, where appropriate, and in addition to the measures provided for in Article 66(3), intensify as appropriate official controls on consignments with the same origin or use. 5. The competent authorities shall notify the Commission and the Member States through the IMSOC of their decision to perform intensified official controls, as provided for in paragraph 4 of this Article, indicating the reasons for their decision. 6. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the procedures for the coordinated performance by competent authorities of the intensified official controls referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 66 Measures to be taken in cases of non-compliant consignments entering the Union
1. The competent authorities shall place under official detention any consignment of animals or goods entering the Union which does not comply with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and shall refuse its entry into the Union. The competent authorities shall isolate or quarantine, as appropriate, any such consignment and the animals belonging to it shall be kept, cared for or treated under appropriate conditions pending any further decision. If possible, the competent authorities shall also take into account the interest of providing special care in respect of certain types of goods. 2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the practical arrangements for the isolation and quarantine provided for in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 3. The competent authority shall, as regards the consignment referred to in paragraph 1 order, without delay, the operator responsible for the consignment to: (a) destroy the consignment; re-dispatch the consignment outside the Union in accordance with Article 72(1) and (2); or (a) is such as to ensure compliance; (b) does not pose a risk to human, animal or plant health or to animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment; and (c) does not disrupt official control operations. 5. The competent authorities shall immediately notify any decision to refuse entry of a consignment as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, and any order issued in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 6 of this Article and with Article 67 to: (a) the Commission; (b) the competent authorities of the other Member States; (c) the customs authorities; (d) the competent authorities of the third country of origin; and (e) the operator responsible for the consignment. That notification shall be performed via the IMSOC. 6. If a consignment of the categories of animals or goods referred to in Article 47(1) is not presented for the official controls referred to therein, or is not presented in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 50(1) and (3), 56(1), (3) and (4), or with the rules adopted under Article 48, Article 49(4), Article 51, Article 53(1) and Article 58, the competent authorities shall order that such consignment be retained or recalled, and placed under official detention without delay. Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of this Article shall apply to such consignments. 7. The measures referred to in this Article shall be applied at the expense of the operator responsible for the consignment.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 66 Measures to be taken in cases of non-compliant consignments entering the Union):
1. The competent authorities shall place under official detention any consignment of animals or goods entering the Union which does not comply with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and shall refuse its entry into the Union. The competent authorities shall isolate or quarantine, as appropriate, any such consignment and the animals belonging to it shall be kept, cared for or treated under appropriate conditions pending any further decision. If possible, the competent authorities shall also take into account the interest of providing special care in respect of certain types of goods. 2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the practical arrangements for the isolation and quarantine provided for in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). That notification shall be performed via the IMSOC. 5a. Plants, plant products or other objects subject to the measures referred to in Article 1(2), point (g), which enter the Union as part of passengers’ personal luggage or through postal services intended for personal consumption or use, shall be exempted from the notification obligation set out in paragraph 5 of this Article, if the non-compliance concerns the absence of the phytosanitary certificate or other official attestation as referred to in Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031. The competent authorities shall keep a record of those cases of non-compliance and shall, on an annual basis, provide the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States with a report containing a summary of those records. That report shall be submitted via the IMSOC. 6. If a consignment of the categories of animals or goods referred to in Article 47(1) is not presented for the official controls referred to therein, or is not presented in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 50(1) and (3), 56(1), (3) and (4), or with the rules adopted under Article 48, Article 49(4), Article 51, Article 53(1) and Article 58, the competent authorities shall order that such consignment be retained or recalled, and placed under official detention without delay. Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of this Article shall apply to such consignments. 7. The measures referred to in this Article shall be applied at the expense of the operator responsible for the consignment.
Article 67 Measures to be taken on animals or goods entering the Union from third countries presenting a risk
Where official controls indicate that a consignment of animals or goods presents a risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment, such consignment shall be isolated or quarantined and the animals belonging to it shall be kept, cared for or treated under appropriate conditions pending any further decision. The competent authorities shall retain the consignment concerned under official detention and shall, without delay, order the operator responsible for that consignment to: (a) destroy the consignment in compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), taking all the measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or the environment, and as regards live animals including in particular the rules on the sparing of any avoidable pain, distress or suffering; or (b) subject the consignment to special treatment in accordance with Article 71(1) and (2). The measures referred to in this Article shall be applied at the expense of the operator responsible for the consignment.
Article 68 Follow-up of decisions taken in relation to non-compliant consignments entering the Union from third countries
1. The competent authorities shall: invalidate the official certificates and as appropriate other relevant documents accompanying consignments which have been subject to measures pursuant to Article 66(3) and (6) and Article 67; and (b) cooperate in accordance with Articles 102 to 108 to take any further measures necessary to ensure that it is not possible to reintroduce consignments into the Union which have been refused entry in accordance with Article 66(1). 2. The competent authorities in the Member State where the official controls were performed shall supervise the application of the measures ordered in accordance with Article 66(3) and (6) and Article 67 to ensure that the consignment does not give rise to adverse effects on human, animal or plant health, animal welfare, or the environment, during or pending the application of those measures. Where appropriate, such application shall be completed under the supervision of the competent authorities of another Member State.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 68 Follow-up of decisions taken in relation to non-compliant consignments entering the Union from third countries):
2. The competent authorities in the Member State where the official controls were performed shall supervise the application of the measures ordered in accordance with Article 66(3) and (6) and Article 67 to ensure that the consignment does not give rise to adverse effects on human, animal or plant health, animal welfare, or the environment, during or pending the application of those measures. Where appropriate, such application shall be completed under the supervision of the competent authorities of another Member State.
Article 69 Failure by the operator to apply the measures ordered by the competent authorities
2. If, after the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, no action has been taken by the operator concerned, the competent authorities shall order: (a) that the consignment be destroyed or subject to any other appropriate measure; (b) in the cases referred to in Article 67, that the consignment be destroyed in suitable facilities located as close as possible to the border control post, taking all measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or the environment. 3. The competent authorities may extend the period referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article for the time necessary to obtain the results of the second expert opinion referred to in Article 35, provided that this is without adverse effects to human, animal and plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. 4. The measures referred to in this Article shall be applied at the expense of the operator responsible for the consignment.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2019/6 1 , which enters into application on 28 January 2022, replaces the legal framework for veterinary medicinal products (“VMPs”) established by Directive 2001/82/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Article 118(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides that third country operators exporting animals and products of animal origin to the EU will have to respect the prohibition against using antimicrobials for growth promotion and yield increase (Article 107(2)), as well as the ban against using antimicrobials reserved for treatment of certain infections in humans (Article 37(5)) . Article 118(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts providing detailed rules on the application of the prohibitions referred to in Article 118. Regulation (EU) 2019/6 sets out the legal framework for the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products, whereas Article 118 of that Regulation by contrast applies to animals and products of animal origin. Unlike other legislation that lays down rules for animals and products of animal origin, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 does not contain any basic provisions on import conditions/requirements or on official controls of compliance of imports with these requirements. Import requirements and conditions (such as third country and establishment listing and certificates) for animals and for products of animal origin are laid down in relevant sectorial legislation, such as the Animal Health Law 2 , but may also be laid down on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (‘the Official Controls Regulation’) 3 . For a third country to be included in a list of third countries authorised to export to the Union, it needs, for example, to provide guarantees that the animals and goods concerned comply with the Union’s requirements or with requirements equivalent thereto laid down in the relevant legislation. However, Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation states that that Regulation does not apply to official controls for the verification of compliance with Directive 2001/82/EC on veterinary medicinal products. When Regulation (EU) 2019/6 enters into application on 28 January 2022, the reference to Directive 2001/82/EC will in effect become a reference to that Regulation. 4 Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation excludes the entirety of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 from its scope. In the absence of relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on official controls of compliance of imports with the requirements referred to in the preceding paragraph, i t would not be possible to implement and enforce Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 properly without amending the Official Controls Regulation . The objective of this amendment is to modify Article 1(4)(c) of the Official Controls Regulation to include an exception to the above exclusion, integrating controls to verify compliance with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. This would mean that the Union’s official control system for animals and products of animal origin could be used to ensure compliance with the prohibitions in Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6. This would in turn make it possible to implement and enforce Article 118 properly. Article 123 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, which was part of the Commission’s proposal, provides for controls of compliance with the Regulation by Member State competent authorities. However, these controls only apply to manufacturers and importers of VMPs and active substances (and other persons involved in the placing on the market and use of VMPs and active substances). To ensure that animals and products of animal origin imported into the Union comply with Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6, it is necessary to provide that controls of compliance with Article 118 are included into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation. Under its Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU has set the ambitious target of reducing by 50% its overall EU sales of antimicrobials used for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 2030. Building on the One Health approach, Regulation (EU) 2019/6 provides for a wide range of concrete measures that will apply to EU operators in order to enhance the fight against antimicrobial resistance (‘AMR’) and promote a more prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials in animals. As a leader in the global fight against AMR, the Union also has the responsibility to encourage the reduction of use and consumption of antimicrobials in third countries, in particular linked to imports from third countries, and has the duty to promote its vision of a more sustainable use of antimicrobials to help preserve their efficiency on the international stage. Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 is a key element in the fight against AMR.
Revised version (Article 69 Failure by the operator to apply the measures ordered by the competent authorities):
2. If, after the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, no action has been taken by the operator concerned, the competent authorities shall order: (a) that the consignment be destroyed or subject to any other appropriate measure; (b) in the cases referred to in Article 67, that the consignment be destroyed in suitable facilities located as close as possible to the border control post, taking all measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or the environment. If, after the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, no action has been taken by the operator concerned, the competent authorities shall order: (a) that the consignment be destroyed or subject to any other appropriate measure; (b) in the cases referred to in Article 67, that the consignment be destroyed in suitable facilities located as close as possible to the border control post, taking all measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or the environment. 3. The competent authorities may extend the period referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article for the time necessary to obtain the results of the second expert opinion referred to in Article 35, provided that this is without adverse effects to human, animal and plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment. 4. The measures referred to in this Article shall be applied at the expense of the operator responsible for the consignment.
Article 70 Consistency of application of Articles 66, 67 and 68
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules to ensure consistency across all border control posts referred to in Article 59(1), and control points referred to in point (a) of Article 53(1), of decisions and measures taken and orders issued by the competent authorities in accordance with Articles 66, 67 and 68 which are to be followed by the competent authorities when responding to common or recurring situations of non-compliance or risk. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 71 Special treatment of consignments
(a) treatment or processing, including decontamination, where appropriate, but excluding dilution, so that the consignment complies with the requirements of the rules referred to in Article 1(2), or with the requirements of a third country of re-dispatch; or (b) treatment in any other manner suitable for safe animal or human consumption or for purposes other than animal or human consumption. 2. The special treatment provided for in paragraph 1 shall: (a) be carried out effectively and ensure the elimination of any risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment; (b) be documented and carried out under the control of the competent authorities or, where appropriate, under the control of the competent authorities of another Member State by mutual agreement; and (c) comply with the requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2). 3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the requirements and the conditions in accordance with which the special treatment provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article is to take place. In the absence of rules adopted by delegated acts, such special treatment shall take place in accordance with national law.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 71 Special treatment of consignments):
3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation concerning the requirements and the conditions in accordance with which the special treatment provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article is to take place. In the absence of rules adopted by delegated acts, such special treatment shall take place in accordance with national law.
Article 72 Re-dispatch of consignments
1. The competent authorities shall allow the re-dispatch of consignments subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a) the destination has been agreed with the operator responsible for the consignment; (b) the operator responsible for the consignment has informed the competent authorities of the Member State in writing that the competent authorities of the third country of origin or, if different, the third country of destination have been informed of the reasons and circumstances for the refusal of the entry into the Union of the consignment of animals or goods concerned; (c) where the third country of destination is not the third country of origin, the operator has obtained the agreement of the competent authorities of that third country of destination and those competent authorities have notified the competent authorities of the Member State that they are prepared to accept the consignment; and (d) in the case of consignments of animals, the re-dispatch is in compliance with animal welfare requirements. 2. The conditions set out in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to consignments of the categories of goods referred to in point (c) of Article 47(1).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 72 Re-dispatch of consignments):
2. The conditions set out in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to consignments of the categories of goods referred to in point (c) of Article 47(1).
Article 73 Approval of pre-export controls performed by third countries
1. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, approve, upon request of a third country, specific pre-export controls that that third country carries out on consignments of animals and goods prior to export to the Union with a view to verifying that the exported consignments satisfy the requirements of the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Such approval shall only apply to consignments originating in the third country concerned and may be granted for one or more categories of animals or goods. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 2. The approval provided for in paragraph 1 shall specify: (a) the maximum frequency of official controls to be performed by the competent authorities of Member States at the entry of the consignments into the Union, where there is no reason to suspect non-compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) or fraudulent or deceptive practices; (b) the official certificates that must accompany consignments entering the Union; (c) a model for the certificates referred to in point (b); (d) the competent authorities of the third country under the responsibility of which pre-export controls must be performed; and (e) where appropriate, any delegated body to which those competent authorities may delegate certain tasks. Such delegation may only be approved if it meets the criteria set out in Articles 28 to 33 or equivalent conditions. 3. The approval provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article may only be granted to a third country if the evidence available and, where appropriate, a Commission control performed in accordance with Article 120, demonstrate that the system of official controls in that third country is able to ensure that: (a) the consignments of the animals or goods exported to the Union meet the requirements of the rules referred to in Article 1(2), or equivalent requirements; and (b) the controls performed in the third country prior to dispatch to the Union are sufficiently effective to replace or reduce the frequency of the documentary, identity checks and physical checks laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2). 4. The competent authorities or a delegated body specified in the approval shall: (a) be responsible for contacts with the Union; and (b) ensure that the official certificates referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 accompany each consignment that is controlled. 5. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down detailed rules and criteria for approving pre-export controls performed by third countries in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and for official controls performed by the competent authorities of the Member States on animals and goods subject to the approval referred in that paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 73 Approval of pre-export controls performed by third countries):
1. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, approve, upon request of a third country, specific pre-export controls that that third country carries out on consignments of animals and goods prior to export to the Union with a view to verifying that the exported consignments satisfy the requirements of the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Such approval shall only apply to consignments originating in the third country concerned and may be granted for one or more categories of animals or goods. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 5. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down detailed rules and criteria for approving pre-export controls performed by third countries in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and for official controls performed by the competent authorities of the Member States on animals and goods subject to the approval referred in that paragraph. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 74 Non-compliance with, and withdrawal of, the approval of pre-export controls performed by third countries
1. When official controls on consignments of categories of animal and goods in respect of which specific pre-export controls have been approved in accordance with Article 73(1) reveal serious and recurrent non-compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), Member States shall immediately: (a) notify the Commission and the other Member States and operators concerned via the IMSOC in addition to seeking administrative assistance in accordance with the procedures established in Articles 102 to 108; and (b) increase the number of official controls on consignments from the relevant third country and, where necessary to allow a proper analytical examination of the situation, keep an appropriate number of samples under appropriate storage conditions. 2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, withdraw the approval provided for in Article 73(1) where, following the official controls referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, there are indications that the requirements laid down in Article 73(3) and (4) are no longer being met. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 74 Non-compliance with, and withdrawal of, the approval of pre-export controls performed by third countries):
2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, withdraw the approval provided for in Article 73(1) where, following the official controls referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, there are indications that the requirements laid down in Article 73(3) and (4) are no longer being met. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).