Folketingets Udvalg for Fødevarer, Landbrug og fiskeri Christiansborg 1240 København K København, den Sagsnr.: 4848 ./. Hermed fremsendes Notat til Fødevareudvalget om Kommissionens rapport om tilbagebetaling s- krav på eksportrestitutioner  for levende dyr af 3. oktober 2005 samt ./. Kommissionens rapport om tilbagebetalingskrav på eksportrestitutioner for levende dyr. Hans Chr. Schmidt /Camilla Bjerre Søndergaard

Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fisk eri Direktoratet for Fødev areErhverv Sagsnr.:  4848 Den 3. oktober 2005 Notat til Fødevareudvalget om Kommissionens rapport om tilbagebetalingskrav på ekspor  t- restitutioner for levende dyr Baggrund Ved samråd i Fødevareudvalget den 11. maj 2005 om eksportstøtte til levende kvæ g blev det aftalt, at Kommissionens forventede rapport om eksportstøtte til levende dyr skulle oversendes efter mo d- tagelse, hvorefter Fødevareudvalget skulle inviteres til en drøftelse heraf. Ved SEC(2005) 1035 af 26. juli 2005 har Kommissionen fremsendt rapport om tilbagebetalingskrav på eksportrestitutioner for levende dyr. Rapporten omhandler udelukkende levende kvæg. Rapporten er modtaget i Fødev   a- reministeriet den 19. september 2005. I Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1254/1999 om den fælles markedsordning f   or oksekød art 33 stk. 9, er det fastsat, at ydelse af restitutioner for eksport af levende dyr er betinget af, at dyrevelfærd  s- bestemmelserne i fællesskabsforskrifterne, navnlig om beskyttelse af dyr under tran  sport, overhol- des. Der kan for øjeblikket ydes  restitutioner til eksport af levende dyr til slagtning til Ægypten og Libanon. Spørgsmålet om restitutioner til levende dyr har været genstand for en del debat. I fo råret offentli g- gjorde en række organisationer en video og en rapport om behandli  ngen af dyr eksporteret til 3. lande med eksportstøtte. Efterfølgende sendte landbrugskommi  ssær Marian Fischer Boel brev af 8. april 2005 til medlemslandenes kompetente ministre, hvor det oplyses, at der vil blive taget initiativ til en opstramning af kravene i forordning (EF) nr. 639/2003. Spørgsmålet om anvendelse af eksportstøtte til levende kvæg blev endvidere drøftet u nder eventuelt på rådsmødet (landbrug og fiskeri) den 26. april 2005 efter dansk anmo   dning. Her afviste kommis- særen det danske ønske om at afsk   affe restitutioner til levende dyr til slagtning. Kommissæren u  d- talte, at man ønsker at afvente resultatet af de igan gværende WTO  -forhandlinger, og at en afskaffel- se af støtten i EU vil bet yde, at Libanon i stedet vil importere fra fjernere liggende lande med en helt anden dyrevelfærdsmæssig standard. Kommissæren henviste til Brasilien, der i 2003 eksport e- rede 10.000 dyr til Libanon. Reglerne om kontrol I Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 639/2003 er der fastsat en overvågningsor dning, som omfatter kontrol ved udførsel fra EU og kontrol ved aflæsningen i det endelige b   estemmelsestredjeland. Kontrollen skal foretages af en dyrlæge ved et godkendt græns ekontrolsted. Når dyrene har forladt EU’s toldområde skal eksportøren sikre, at dyrene kontrolleres af en     dyrlæ- ge, hvor de skifter transportmiddel, medmindre udskiftningen af transportmiddel ikke er planlagt og skyldes usædvanlige og uforudsete forhold. På stedet for den første aflæsning i det endelig beste m- melsestredjeland skal en dyrlæge foretage kontrol af   dyrene i henhold til de veterinære regler. Ko  n- trollen skal foretages af et kontrol- og overvågningsfirma, der er godkendt til formålet eller af en o  f- ficiel tjeneste i modtagerlandet.

Eksportrestitutioner udbetales pr. dyr. Der udbetales ikke restitution for dyr, der er døde under transporten, som har født eller aborteret under transporten, eller hvor det skønnes, at dyrevelfærd s- bestemmelserne ikke er overholdt. Hvis flere dyr er berørt nedsættes r   estitutionerne yderligere eller bortfalder helt. Kommissionens forslag til skærpelse af kontrolreglerne Kommissionen har udarbejdet et forslag, der skærper bestemmelserne i Kommissi  onens forordning (EF) nr. 639/03. Forslaget er udsendt i foråret 2005 og behandles i Forval tningskomiteen for Han- delsmekanismer. Forslaget er sat til afstemning på n æ  ste møde i forvaltningskomitéen den 11. okto- ber 2005. Notat og grundnotat af 30. juni 2005 er oversendt til Folketingets Europaudvalg og Folke- tingets Udvalg for Fødevarer, Lan dbrug og Fiskeri. Forslaget indebærer som omtal  t i Grundnotat til Folketingets Europaudvalg af 30. juni 2005, at det fremover skal være et krav, at en dyrlæge skal kontrollere, at lovgi vningen om dyrevelfærd er ove  r- holdt, når dyrene har forladt EU's toldområde. Kontrollen skal som hidtil finde sted dels de steder, hvor der skiftes transportmiddel, undtagen hvor en sådan ændring ikke var planlagt og skyldes usædvanlige og uforuds ete forhold, dels på stedet for første aflæsning i det endelige bestemmelsestredj   eland. Som udgangspunkt skal kontrollen udfø res af en dyrlæge med eksamensbevis, attest e  ller andet bevis for formel kompetence i virksomhed som dyrlæge, jf. artikel 2 i direktiv 78/1026/EØF. Dog kan medlemsstater vedtage regler, hvorefter dy r- læger fra tredjelande kan blive godkendt til at udføre fø romtalte kontrol, forudsat de besidder den nødvendige viden i relation til Rådets direktiv 91/628/EØF. Den seneste revision af forslaget indeholder specifikke krav til den dyrlæg  eattest, der skal afgives i tredjeland i forbindelse med afslutning af eksporten – dvs. ved dyrenes ankomst til tredjelandet. Medlemsstaterne skal påse og verificere, at de pågæ ldende kontrol- og overvågningsfirmaer rent faktisk kontrollerer de pågældende dyrlægers kompetencer i relation til direktiv 91/628/EØF. Ydermere skal kontrollen fra disse firmaer foretages på en måde, der sikrer en rimelig, en objektiv og en upartisk vurdering af dette forhold, og at de nødvendige procedurer hertil forefi ndes. Tillige er rapporteringskravene om anvendelsen af forordningen foreslået skærpe   t i det reviderede forslag, herunder at der kræves mere præcise oplysninger om de san ktioner, som medlemsstaterne anvender ved manglende overholdelse af forordningen. Kommissionens rapport Kommissionens rapport indeholder data fra perioden 16. oktober 2003 til 15. oktober 2004. Data fra de nye EU-medlemslande er medtaget fra deres indtræden den 1. maj 2004. Antallet af levende dyr der udføres med eksportrestitutioner er faldet fra 245.763 i 2002 til 229.278 i 2003, hvilket formentlig skyldes, at det i 2003 blev vedtaget, at der alene skulle gives eksportresti- tutioner til eksport af levende dyr, som skal slagtes i 3. lande af kulturelle/ religiøse årsager (Egy  p- ten, Libanon). Fra 2003 er der sket en svag stigning fra 229.278 til 236.427 i 2004 (EU-25). Specielt er der sket en stigning i eksporten fra Tyskland, Danmark, Spanien, Frankrig, Holland og Østrig, mens Irland har oplevet en tilbagegang. Eksporten af levende dyr fra Danmark med eksportrestituti- oner er steget fra 1.416 dyr til 2003 til 1.638 dyr i 2004. Der er alene tale om avlsdyr. I rapporten har Kommissionen endvidere udarbejdet statistiske oversigter over restitutionsansø g- ninger, der er afvist, eller hvor restitutionen er krævet tilbagebetalt på grund af overtrædelse af d y- revelfærdsreglerne. Gener  elt er mængden af afvisninger eller tilbag  ebetalingskrav faldet fra € 1.670.139 i 2003 til € 873.130 i 2004. Andelen i relation til den samlede udbetalte eksportst øtte er

faldet fra 2,9 % i 2003 til 2,1 % i 2004. Dette kan ses som en indikation af, at stramningen af reg- lerne i 2003 har virket efter hensigten. Det fremgår, at sagerne med afvisninger hovedsagelig vedrører Tyskland, Holland og Østrig. Tys k- land er involveret i omkring 56 % af de sager, hvor restitutioner er afvist eller krævet tilbagebetalt. Dette skal ses i lyset af Tysklands generelt store eksport af levende dyr med eksportrestitution.    For så vidt angår begrundelserne for afvisning af restitutionsudbetalinger er der ikke nogen præcis statistik, idet der alene for Østrig og Holland er opg  ivet årsag og antal dyr. For Hollands vedko m- mende har 7 dyr født under transporten, 9 dyr er blevet nødslagtes på grund af manglende overho   l- delse af dyrevelfærdsregler, og for 174 dyrs vedkommende er den maks  imale transporttid overtrådt. Også for andre lan de er der grove tilfælde af overtrædelse af d yrevelfærdsreglerne. I Danmark har der i den angivne periode fra 16. oktober 2003 til 15. oktober 2004 ikke været nogen sager, hvor restitution er afvist eller krævet tilbagebetalt. Danmark ekspo  rterer alene avlsdyr. Disse dyr, der skal være forsynet med stamtavle, er så værdifu lde, at der ikke er grund til at formode, at de forsætligt behandles uforsvarligt under tran  sport. Afslutning Rapporten viser klart, at der fortsat er problemer med overholdelse af reglerne om dyrevelfærd u  n- der transport af levende dyr. Fra dansk side ønsker man, at lange transporter af levende dyr begrænses mest muligt, hvo   rfor rest i- tutionerne for levende dyr til slagtning bør afskaffes. EU skal ikke ved ek sportstøtten give et inc i- tament til lange transporter af levende dyr. Regeringen agter at fortsætte arbejdet med henblik på afskaffelse af eksportrestitut   ioner til levende dyr. Det forekommer imidlertid ikke realistisk, at Kommissionen vil fremsætte forslag om fjernelse af eksportrestitutioner til levende dyr før en ny WTO -aftale, bl.a. om udfasning af eksportrestitutio- ner, er opnået. Herefter vil regeringen arbejde for, at eksportstøtten til levende dyr afskaffes som noget af det første. Kommissionen fo rventes at fortsætte arbejdet   med at vedtage regler, der skærper kontrollen med overholdelsen af reglerne om dyrevelfærd under tran  sport.

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 16 September 2005 (16.09) (OR. fr) 12354/05 LIMITE AGRIORG 44 AGRILEG 121 AGRIFIN 62 COVER NOTE from: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Patricia BUGNOT, Director date of receipt: 26 July 2005 to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative Subject: Commission Staff Working Document: Report on the recovery of export refunds for live animals in 2004 Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2005) 1035 . Encl.: SEC(2005) 1035

EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 25.7.2005 SEC(2005) 1035 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REPORT ON THE RECOVERY OF EXPORT REFUNDS FOR LIVE ANIMALS IN 2004

EN 6 EN 1. INTRODUCTION In their joint declaration of 22 November 2001 on the recovery of export refunds for beef and veal, the Parliament and the Council requested the Commission to submit an annual report to the budgetary authority by 31 May. This report highlighted on the implementation of and compliance with Community legislation, on the recovery of refunds in the event of a failure to comply with Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport¹. Parliament and the Council issued another joint declaration along the same lines on 25 November 2002. The Commission responded to this request by sending to the budgetary authority, in December 2002, an interim report covering part of 2002 and the preceding years (1 September 1998 to 30 June 2002). The succeeding report covering 2002² incorporated information on the applica- tion of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 during 2002 as a whole, on the refusal and recovery of re- funds, and the statistical data of the first report were supplemented. The Commission strengthened existing legislation by adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport³. This instrument replaces Regulation (EC) No 615/98 and applies to export declarations accepted from 1 October 2003. The annual reports are based on the number of export declarations of live bovine animals for which the refunds have been paid [Article 8(a)] during the previous calendar year . It may take 6 months or more to complete the process from lodging the export declaration, transporting the animals to the third country, collecting the returned relevant customs and veterinary docu- ments and deciding on the definitive payment of the refunds. Moreover, another aspect of the time gap is that information on refusal or recovery of refunds may be based on export trans- ports having taken place in 2003. It has to be taken in consideration that data concerning export refunds reflect the EAGGF fi- nancial year from 16 October 2003 to 15 October 2004. Furthermore, data from new Member States reflect the period from the date of their accession to the European Union (1 May 2004) onwards. Member States structured their reports based on the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 (Article 8); the same structure will be followed in this consolidated report. 1 OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 19. 2 SEC(2003) 691, 6.6.2003. 3 OJ L 93, 10.4.2002, p. 10.

EN 7 EN 2. COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 639/2003 OF 9 APRIL 2003 LAYING DOWN DE- TAILED  RULES  PURSUANT  TO  COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC)  NO  1254/1999  AS  RE- GARDS  REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE  GRANTING OF  EXPORT REFUNDS  RELATED TO THE WELFARE OF LIVE BOVINE ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT Article 33(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common or- ganisation of the market in beef and veal⁴ subjects the payment of refunds for exports of live animals to compliance with Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particu- lar, the protection of animals during transport. Regulation (EC) No 615/98 has laid down spe- cific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements in this sector in order to ensure compliance with legislation concerning animal welfare in the framework of export re- funds arrangements. Regulation (EC) No 639/2003, replacing Regulation (EC) No 615/98 strengthened the specific detailed rules. Refunds are paid providing the provisions have been met of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 and those of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals⁵. The Regulation establishes a system of checks and provides for financial consequences for exporters who fail to comply with the pro- visions on the transport of animals. The checks and the financial consequences relate to the payment of the refund. They apply without prejudice to the checks provided for by Direc- tive 91/628/EEC. Checks are carried out at three points: At the point of exit from the Community (Article 2): before the animals leave Community ter- ritory, the official veterinarian must check whether the conditions set in Directive 91/628/EEC have been fulfilled from the point of departure to the point of exit and whether the means of transport and the animals are fit for continuing the journey. The veterinarian must also check that provisions have been made for the care of the animals during the succeeding journey in accordance with the Directive. On the spot where the means of transport are changed (Article 3): where the means of trans- port are changed in a third country the exporter must ensure that checks are carried out on the change. In the third country of final destination (Article 3): the purpose of these checks is to determine, on the basis of the general condition of the animals unloaded at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination, whether they have been transported in accordance with Directive 91/628/EEC. The competent official veterinarian is responsible for checks at the exit point and enters his or her comments on the document that proves the animals have left the Community customs ter- ritory, which may be either the T5 control document or the appropriate national document. Checks in third countries are carried out by veterinarians either employed by international con- trol and supervisory agencies approved for this purpose by a Member State either by veteri- narians charged for the function by an official agency of a Member State. The veterinarians must draw up an inspection report. The T5 control document, or the national document, and the inspection reports are sent to the paying agencies who take them into account when decid- ing whether to pay refunds, reject applications or, where appropriate, apply penalties. The financial consequences for exporters who fail to comply with the provisions on the trans- port of animals are as follows: 4 OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. 5 OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

EN 8 EN Non-payment of the refund [Article 5(1)] The refund is not paid for animals that die during transport, that have given birth or aborted before their first unloading in the third country, or for which the competent authority considers that Directive 91/628/EEC was not complied with. To that end, the competent authority must take account of the documents concerning checks or of any other element concerning compli- ance with the provisions of the Regulation and the Directive. Death during transport by proved force majeure after leaving the customs territory may give right to partially payment of the to- tal of the export refund. Reduction of the refund [Article 6(1)] Where the number of animals for which no refund is paid amounts to more than 1% of the to- tal number indicated in the accepted export declaration, provided it is at least two animals, or where it is more than five animals, the refund for those animals is further reduced by an amount equal to the amount of refund not paid. Animals for which the exporter proves that death, birthing or abortion was not the result of non-compliance with the provisions on the protection of animals are not taken into account. Refusing refunds [Article 6(2)] If no refund is paid for individual animals and their number is more than 5% of the number endorsed in the export declaration with a minimum of 3 animals, or 10 animals, but at least 2%, no refund will be paid for the whole lot declared in the export declaration. Again, animals for which the exporter proves that death, birthing or abortion was not the result of non- compliance with the provisions on the protection of animals are not taken into account. The general refunds penalty system pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 does not apply in the system of non-payment, reduction or refusal. Recovery of refunds (Article 7) If it is established after payment of the refund that the provisions on the protection of animals during transport have not been complied with , the refund or the relevant part of the refund shall be recovered including where appropriate the penalty. These financial consequences for the exporter fall within the area of responsibility of the com- petent authorities of the Member State where the export declaration was accepted. Where Member States do not correctly apply the provisions on the payment of refunds, financial cor- rections may be adopted under the clearance of accounts procedure.

EN 9 EN 3. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS (EC) NO 615/98 AND (EC) NO 639/2003 IN 2004 3.1. Amounts of export refunds paid The payment of the refund for exports of live animals pursuant to Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 paid in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 is shown in the following table: AMOUNTS OF EXPORT REFUNDS ON LIVE BOVINE ANIMALS PAID IN 2004*, 2003* AND 2002* 2004 (EUR) 2003 (EUR) 2002 (EUR) DK 237 768 377 956 539 768 DE 28 886 136 27 247 746 18 248 364 ES 917 008 988 541 6 353 867 FR 13 039 370 17 459 011 21 455 871 IE 2 031 764 8 187 379 4 681 772 IT 14 632 168 952 532 343 LU 5 066 NL 3 899 434 2 509 281 1 796 709 AT 2 579 477 1 766 008 1 998 597 SE 223 018 188 157 123 123 Subtotal 51 833 673 58 893 031 55 730 414 HU** 60 172 SI** 17 725 Total 51 911 570 * EAGGF financial year 2002 (16 October 2001 – 15 October 2002) * EAGGF financial year 2003 (16 October 2002 – 15 October 2003) * EAGGF financial year 2004 (16 October 2003 – 15 October 2004) **   N.B. for new Member States export operations started with accession on 1.5.2004. Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Finland, the United Kingdom as well as Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania,  Latvia,  Malta  and  Poland,  Slovakia,  Czech  Republic  did  not  pay  refunds for  the  export  of live  bovine  animals  in the  above  mentioned  period  of  the  EAGGF financial year 2004. 3.2. Information  transmitted  by  member  states  related  to  export  refunds  for  live animals Since 2000, the Commission has asked Member States to send annual data on the amounts of refund refused or recovered. The table in Annex 1 gives an overview of the figures sent by the Member States on the year 2004. This chapter compares the information of the years 2004, 2003 and 2002.

EN 10 EN 3.2.1. The number of export declarations of live animals exported with refunds The number of export declarations increased by 9.4% from 6 078 in 2003 to 6 651 in 2004 (fi- gures of the EU-25). As one export declaration may cover a number of animals varying from a truckload to a shipload, it is not possible to establish a general direct relation between the number of export declarations and the number of animals exported. Further details are given in the table below. * Member State Declarations 2004 Declarations 2003 Declarations 2002 DK 57 46 64 DE 4 223 3 681 3 486 ES 22 103 242 FR 1 409 1 631 2 313 IE 11 27 27 IT 1 7 67 LU 1 NL 531 385 217 AT 356 182 196 SE 6 15 23 PT 3 1 Subtotal 6 620 6 078 6 635 CZ 7 HU 16 SI 8 Total 6 651 * This table and the following tables have been established in using the data communicated by the Member States at the date of 31 March 2005 –  latest date of communication foreseen in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003. 3.2.2. The number of live animals exported with refunds The total number of exported live bovine animals, based on the number of export declarations for which refunds were paid, increased with 7 149 animals (3.1%) from 229 278 animals in 2003 to 236 427 animals in 2004 (figures for the market of EU - 25). Increase of exports took in particular place in Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Austria whereas in Ireland there was a net decrease from 37 776 animals exported in 2003 to 10 572 animals ex- ported in 2004. In Italy the export market has come to a standstill with only 2 animals ex- ported in 2004. Germany stays the largest exporter of animals with refunds, a position that both absolutely and relatively increased from 123 431 animals (53.8%) in 2003 to 145 627 animals (61.59%) in 2004. France comes next with an increase from 42 815 animals (18.7%) in 2003 to 44 108 animals (18.66%) in 2004. The biggest relative increase can be noted for Austria from 4 937 animals in 2003 (2.2%) to 8 764 animals in 2004 (3.71%). For more de- tails, please see the table below.

EN 11 EN NUMBER OF LIVE ANIMALS EXPORTED WITH REFUNDS Member State 2004 2003 2002 animals % animals % animals % DK 1 638 0.69% 1 416 0.60% 1 787 0.70% DE 145 627 61.59% 123 431 53.80% 116 562 47.40% ES 5 955 2.52% 5 206 2.30% 7 872 3.20% FR 44 108 18.66% 42 815 18.70% 72 145 29.40% IE 10 572 4.47% 37 776 16.50% 31 678 12.90% IT 2 0.00% 145 0.10% 3 064 1.20% LU 17 0.01% NL 18 022 7.62% 12 723 5.50% 7 169 2.90% AT 8 764 3.71% 4 937 2.20% 5 083 2.10% SE 729 0.31% 818 0.40% 403 0.20% PT 55 0.02% 11 0.00% 0.00% subtotal 235 489 99.60% 229 278 100.00% 245 763 100.00% CZ 234 0.10% HU 512 0.22% SI 192 0.08% Total 236 427 100.00% 3.2.3. The number of export declarations and animals for which payment of the refund was partly or totally refused or recovered According to the requirements of Article 8(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 the Member States communicated the following information: The Member States refused to pay the refund in full or in part for 408 (2003: 474) export dec- larations, concerning 2 160 (2003: 3 804) animals. For another 83 (2003: 115) export declara- tions, concerning 1 183 (2003: 2 643) animals, the export refunds had to be recovered. In total for 1.41% (2003: 2.81%) of the exported animals irregularities occurred in either the refund provisions (like refund code) or in the welfare conditions as mentioned in Direc- tive 91/628/EEC or in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003. The reasons for such partly or total refusals or partly and total recoveries reported by the Member States are mentioned under point 3.2.5 of this report. Further details are given in Annex 2. 3.2.4. Amounts of refunds not paid or recovered and recovery still running According to the information provided under Article 8(e) and (f) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 the major amounts of refunds not paid or recovered were dealt with by Germany, which is also the major exporter (see point 3.2, page 7). In total Germany was involved in €   610 881 not paid or recovered refunds (incl. still running recovery), which is 55.96% of the total EU amount of €   1 091 690.

EN 12 EN The relatively largest amount of non-paid refunds including the still running recovery process occurred in the Netherlands. In a total expenditure of €   1 091 690 the non-paid share is 7.93% followed by Austria with the second largest amount of non-payment share of 5.01%. Further details are given in the table below: Member State Refunds not paid (EUR) (1) Refunds re- covered (EUR) (2) Recovery still running (EUR) (3) Total refunds not to be paid (EUR) [sum (1) to (3)] Refunds paid (see table 1) % Refunds not paid DK 237 768 0.00% DE 368 698 225 910 16 273 610 881 28 886 136 2.11% ES 917 008 0.00% FR 32 045 32 045 13 039 370 0.25% IE 3 695 6 304 444 10 443 2 031 764 0.51% IT 14 632 0.00% LU 5 066 0.00% NL 14 974 92 300 201 843 309 117 3 899 434 7.93% AT 129 204 129 204 2 579 477 5.01% SE 223 018 0.00% PT CZ HU 60 172 0.00% SI 17 725 0.00% SK Total 548 616 324 514 218 560 1 091 690 51 911 570 2.10% The Regulation provides in either (partly) non-payment if the refunds were not yet definitively paid (Articles 5 and 6) or recovery of payment if it is established after payment that Direc- tive 92/628/EEC has not been complied with (Article 7). A comparison between 2002, 2003 and 2004 as regards the amount involved shows the following result: The amount of unpaid or recovered refunds decreased from €   1 670 139 in 2003 to €   873 130 in 2004. In 2003 the amount refused and recovered represented 2.9% of the total expenditure on refunds; in 2004 this was 2.1%. The both absolute and relatively decrease may be explained by several developments: the  still  pending  amounts  of  refunds  to  recover,  which  was  €   58 680  in  2003  but €   218 560 in 2004; possible better compliance to welfare  conditions by exporters leading to less impact of the customs and veterinary controls; the time-lag effects as described in the introduction of this report; the scale of transport means (truck or ship). Further details are given in the table below.

EN 13 EN Partly or completely non payment Payment definitively recovered Total Declarations 2004 408 83 491 Animals 2004 2 160 1 183 3 343 2004 (EUR) 548 616 324 514 873 130 Declarations 2003 474 115 589 Animals 2003 3 804 2 643 6 447 2003 (EUR) 978 270 691 868 1 670 139 Declarations 2002 294 79 315 Animals 2002 2 047 1 869 3 916 2002 (EUR) 332 636 514 037 846 673 3.2.5. The reasons for refusal and recovery of refunds for live animals in 2004 According to the requirements of Article 8(d) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 the Member States communicated the following information to the Commission on the reasons for the non- payment and the recovery of the refund for the animals referred to in Articles 8(b) and 8(c) of the same Regulation. Germany Incomplete plan of transport; no proof of arrival furnished by surveillance agency; police and/or Veterinary services recorded essentially inadequate headroom in the load- ing part of the truck intended to transport the animals; non respect of transport and rest periods; death/calving during transport of animals. France During checks at the point of exit of the Customs territory it was found that fewer ani- mals were loaded than declared; the veterinary check was negative at the point of destination; death during transport of animals before arriving at the point of exit of the Customs terri- tory; death/calving during transport of animals; abortion/calving  during  transport  of  animals  as  appeared  during  checks  at  the  point  of exit of the Customs territory; the means of transport were not in conformity with the welfare conditions as was estab- lished in the veterinary check at the point of exit of the Customs territory; animals  were  not  fit  for  transport  as  appeared  during  checks  at  the  point  of  exit  of  the Customs territory; animals died during quarantine at destination; animals died during unloading at destination;

EN 14 EN abortion during quarantine. Ireland Non compliance with Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2003. The Netherlands The refund code was incorrect for 12 declarations concerning 13 animals; for 2 declarations with 65 animals the  carrier had no authorization according to  Direc- tive 91/628/EEC; for 4 declarations it appeared that 4 animals were not brought into free circulation in the third country; for   5   declaration   concerning   174   animals   the   travel   time   according   to   Direc- tive 91/628/EEC was exceeded; for 1 declaration concerning 36 animals it was found that the capacity of the vessel was exceeded; for 5 declarations it appeared that 9 animals were slaughtered in emergency at the point of destination as the welfare conditions during the journey were not met; for 1 declaration 1 animal with injuries had to be put down; for 6 declarations it was found that 7 animals calved before release into free circulation in the country of destination; for 1 declaration it was found that 1 animal had an abortion during transport; for 1 declaration animals were declared on an estimated weight and the real weight de- termined  later  was  more  than  10%  bigger  than  the  estimated  weight  which  affects  the amount of refunds payable (Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999; for 1 declaration it was found that 2 animals had to be slaughtered in the country of des- tination due to sickness; for 10 declarations it was found that 19 animals had to be slaughtered in emergency in the country of destination and the reason for this measure could not be established. Austria For 2 declarations concerning 64 animals the food and drink conditions during the trans- port were not compliant to the animal welfare provisions; an   excess   of   the   travel   period   was   established   for   12   declarations   concerning 318 animals; death during transport for 2 declarations concerning 4 animals; for 1 declaration concerning 2 animals abortion during transport; for 1 declaration concerning 1 animal death during unloading. Slovakia Formal problems (No licence, no refund code). 3.3. Clearance of accounts by the Commission The clearance of accounts procedure has been finalised concerning a series of audits in late 2000 and early 2001 of expenditure on export refunds for bovine animals. Decision 2004/561/CE, published in Official Journal L 250 of 14 July 2004, excluded from Community financing €1   064 627.33 of expenditure incurred by the Netherlands because it did not comply with Community rules. Decision 2005/354/CE, published in Official Journal L 112 of 3 May 2005, excluded for the same reason €13   823 822.23 and €1   649 755. 75 in respect of expend i- ture incurred by Germany and France respectively.

EN 15 EN 4. REINFORCEMENT OF LEGISLATION 4.1. Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 As announced in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy⁶, the Commission has strengthened existing legislation and, on 9 April 2003, adopted Regulation (EC) No 639/2003. Reinforcement is provided in the mandatory veterinary checks on transport and animals in third countries, in the norms for penalties and on the communication of information by the Member States. 4.2. Regulation (EC) No 118/2003 Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2003 of 23 January 2003 fixing the export refunds on beef and veal and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural prod- uct nomenclature for export refunds and (EC) No 1445/95 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector⁷ reduces the number of cases in which a refund may be granted for the export of live bovine animals. This Regulation came into force on 3 February 2003. It abolished export refunds for live animals in the situations where the trade with third countries was insignificant. Since 3 February 2003, export refunds have no longer been paid for animals intended for slaughter, except in the case of third countries which tradi- tionally import them for cultural and/or religious reasons (Egypt, Lebanon). In addition, where it concerns pure-bred breeding animals, in order to prevent any abuse, export refunds are lim- ited to female animals of a maximum of 30 months of age. Although the information in this report is influenced by time-lags (see introduction), it may be assumed that this Regulation partly will have attributed to the decline in the number of exported animals from 245 763 in 2002 to 229 278 in 2003 (see page 7). The reason for the slight increase of exported animals to 236 427 in 2004 mainly resulted, according to an inquiry to the main Member States con- cerned, from reinforced export of pure breed animals in some Member States (e.g. Austria, the Netherlands). In Germany there was an increase concerning the export of pure breed animals and slaughter animals. 4.3. The possible further amendment of legislation Following complaints by the Non Governmental Organisations GAIA (Global Action in the Interest of Animals), ECL (European Coalition for Livestock) and CIWF (Compassion in World Farming), the Commission has started again in 2005 to study possibilities for rein- forcement of the legislation in the light of the allegations made. 6 COM(2002) 394 final. 7 OJ L 20, 24.1.2003, p. 3.

EN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property name. ENEN 16 Error! Unknown document property Annex 1 –  Overview Article 8(a) Total number Article 8(b) refund not paid Article 8(b) Refund partially not paid Article 8 (c) Refund recovered Article 8(e) Refund not paid Recovery declarations animals declarations animals declaration animals declarations animals € not paid € recovered declarations 57 1 638 4 223 145 627 40 1 316 222 250 43 890 368 698 225 910 2 22 5 955 1 409 44 108 106 134 32 045 11 10 572 7 20 6 13 3 695 6 304 1 1 2 1 17 531 18 022 15 51 34 280 14 974 92 300 14 356 8 764 18 389 129 204 6 729

EN 17 EN 17 3 55 7 234 16 512 8 192 1 74 6 651 236 427 186 1 910 222 250 83 1 183 548 616 324 514 17 States FR, NL, AT, IE reported the amount of refunds partially not paid included in the amount of refunds not paid. Annex 2 Article 8(b) Refund not paid Article 8(b) Refund partially not paid Article 8(c) Refund recovered Total animals Art. 8(b) + 8(c) Total animals ex- por ted (see table 2) declarations animals declarations animals declarations animals animals 1 638 40 1 316 222 250 43 890 2 456 145 627 5 955 106 134 134 44 108 7 20 6 13 33 10 572 2 17 15 51 34 280 331 18 022 18 389 389 8 764 729 55 234 512 192 1 74 74 186 1 910 222 250 83 1 183 3 343 236 427 refund code, no licence ** total amount exclusive SK