final report of a specific audit carried out in cyprus

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONHEALTH & CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office

DG(SANCO)/ 2009-8076 - MR - FINAL

FINAL REPORT OF A SPECIFIC AUDITCARRIED OUT IN

CYPRUSFROM 18 MAY TO 22 MAY 2009

IN ORDER TOEVALUATE THE IMPORT/TRANSIT CONTROL SYSTEM AND BORDER

INSPECTION POSTSIN THE CONTEXT OF A GENERAL AUDIT

In response to information provided by the Competent Authority, any factual error noted in the draftreport has been corrected;any clarification appears in the form of an endnote.

Executive SummaryThis report describes the outcome of an audit carried out by the Food and VeterinaryOffice (FVO) in Cyprus, from 18 to 22 May 2009.

Its overall objectives were to evaluate the import/transit control system in place forproducts of animal origin (POAO), including non-EU-complying, transiting andconsignments for personal consumption, as well as live animals, and to verify theapplication of EU requirements in two listed border inspection posts (BIPs).

The main conclusions are as follows:

A functioning import/transit control system is in place and in most areas theimport/transit controls are carried out correctly. Almost everything is implemented butthe effectiveness is not always ensured. Veterinary checks and veterinary decision aremostly carried out properly and the infrastructure of BIPs complies with EUrequirements. The CAs are designated except in few areas where certain overlappingexists. A manual of procedures is in place and frequent supervision from central level iscarried out. Some individual problems were noted for certain procedures. Previousshortcomings for pre-notification were not fully corrected including for consignments fortranshipments and free zones and for supervision of customs warehouses. In some casesthe instructions are not always followed in the same way. Good progress was noted forco-operation with other authorities but is not yet formalised.

Although kitchen waste is destroyed there are gaps in documentation and its supervision.However, a checklist in order to improve supervision was presented at the closingmeeting.

Problems were noted in the correct application of the rules for non-commercial petsnon-EU complying, regarding procedures for keeping under home quarantine, althoughthe local veterinarian makes on-the-spot monthly visits.

The CA took immediate action during the mission to rectify certain shortcomings whilefor the remainder assurances were given that everything would be corrected so as toensure the effectiveness of the system.

The report makes a number of recommendations addressed to Cyprus competentauthorities, aimed at rectifying the identified shortcomings and/or further enhancing thecontrol measures in place.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION...................................................................................... 1

3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION.................................................................................. 2

4 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2

5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 3

5.1 Competent Authority Performance...................................................................... 35.1.1 Management structure and organisation of CCA........................................ 35.1.2 Allocation of competencies among Competent Authorities (CAs) ............... 35.1.3 Staff and training......................................................................................... 45.1.4 Control and verification procedures............................................................ 55.1.5 Communication and co-operation between services.................................... 6

5.2 Legislative and administrative provisions........................................................... 75.2.1 Transposition/effectiveness of application of EU legislation....................... 85.2.2 Administrative provisions for implementation............................................. 85.2.3 Implementation of TRACES....................................................................... 105.2.4 Databases and distribution of documentation/information ....................... 105.2.5 Application of legal powers available to official services......................... 11

5.3 Controls of consignments at entry BIPs............................................................ 125.3.1 System to ensure presentation of consignments for veterinary checks...... 125.3.2 Veterinary checks....................................................................................... 135.3.3 Monitoring plans for sampling imported consignments............................ 145.3.4 Decision on the consignment..................................................................... 155.3.5 Animal welfare at BIPs.............................................................................. 16

5.4 Controls of transit/non-EU-complying consignments .......................................165.4.1 Monitoring of transit consignments by entry BIPs.................................... 165.4.2 Monitoring of transit consignments by exit BIPs....................................... 175.4.3 Free zones, free and customs warehouses, and ship suppliers.................. 17

5.5 Import controls on personal and non-commercial traffic.................................. 185.5.1 Personal baggage and mail....................................................................... 185.5.2 Non-commercial pet animals..................................................................... 20

5.6 Controls on kitchen waste ..................................................................................21

5.7 Bips: Facilities, Equipment and hygiene........................................................... 225.7.1 Approval/withdrawal procedures for BIPs................................................ 225.7.2 BIP facilities............................................................................................... 225.7.3 Ancillary facilities for BIPs........................................................................ 23

6 OVERALL CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 23

ii

7 CLOSING MEETING.................................................................................................... 24

8 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 24

iii

ABBREVIATIONS & SPECIAL TERMS USED IN THE REPORT

Abbreviation Explanation

AHWD Animal Health and Welfare Division

Approvalcategories

Categories of live animals and animals products for theintroduction via BIPs approved in accordance with CommissionDecision 2001/881/EC, as follows:

HC Products fit for human consumption

NHC Other products (Products not fit for humanconsumption)

NT No temperature requirements

(2) Packed products only

O Live animals: other animals (including zoo animals)

BIP Border Inspection Post as defined in Council Directives 97/78/ECand 91/496/EEC

CA Competent Authority

CCA Central Competent Authority

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora

Customs Customs and Excise Department of the Ministry of Finance of theRepublic of Cyprus

CVED

Common veterinary entry document for products of animal originas laid down in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No136/2004 and for live animals as laid down in Annex I toCommission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004.

Decision on theconsignment

The decision made by the OV at the BIP and entered on theCVED, as to the outcome of veterinary checks and the resultingfate of consignments.

DVO District Veterinary Office

FVO Food and Veterinary Office

Kitchen waste Catering waste from means of transport operating internationallyas defined in Art. 4 (1) (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002

MANCP Integrated Multi-Annual National Control Plan (2007 to 2009) forCyprus

Manifest A document specifying in detail the items carried by boat, rail or

iv

Abbreviation Explanation

aeroplane arriving in ports/rails/airports of destination for aspecific destination

MANRE Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment

MF Ministry of Finance

MH Ministry of Health

MS Member States of the EU

NCTS New Computerised Transit System

POAO Products of Animal Origin

Positive listList of commodities of animal origin which are subject toveterinary checks in BIPs, as specified in Commission Decision2007/275/EC

RASFF messages Messages used in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed of theEuropean Commission

THESEAS Customs database used in Cyprus for the clearance of importedconsignments

TRACES TRAde Control and Expert System introduced by CommissionDecision 2004/292/EC

VS Veterinary Services of MANRE

v

1 INTRODUCTION

This audit to Cyprus took place from 18 to 22 May 2009. The audit team comprised twoinspectors from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). The mission was carried out aspart of the FVO’s planned mission programme. During the audit, the audit team wasaccompanied by representatives from the Central Competent Authority (CCA),Veterinary Services (VS) of the Republic of Cyprus and the Veterinary Attaché (VA)from the Permanent Representation of Cyprus in the EU.

An opening meeting was held on 18 May 2009 with the representatives from the CCA,the VA, the Regional veterinary services, Customs and Port Authorities. At this meeting,the audit team confirmed the objectives of and itinerary for the audit. Additionalinformation required for the satisfactory completion of the audit was requested from theCCA.

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION

The objectives of the audit were:

- To evaluate the import/transit control system in place for products of animal origin(POAO) and live animals

- To assess the implementation of EU measures regarding products of animal origin forpersonal consumption,

- To verify the application of EU requirements and within this context, to assess theimplementation of the action plans developed in response to previous FVO-missions,

- To verify whether the relevant EU requirements in relation to infrastructure,equipment, hygiene, staffing and documentation are correctly applied at approved Borderinspection Posts (BIPs).

The audit scope covered the import/transit control system at central and local levelincluding various categories of entry points, and the general elements of the systems putin place to prevent and detect illegal imports to give effect to EU rules on imports ofPOAO and live animals including transit controls and supervision of non-EU-complyingconsignments.

In terms of the criteria applied, the assessment was undertaken against the requirementsset out in Council Directives 97/78/EC, 91/496/EEC, and the relevant implementingRegulations and Decisions, Commission Regulation (EC) No 206/2009, Regulation (EC)No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Regulation (EC) No882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

In pursuit of these objectives, the following were visited/meetings were held with:

1

Competent authorities Comments

Authority Central/

Local

Opening and closingmeetings, meetings incourse of visits to BIPs

Customs Central/

Local

Opening and closingmeeting and on-the-spotvisits

Entry points 4 2 BIPs, 1 airport non-BIPpoint of entry, 1 mail PostOffice

Caterer 1 Supplying aircraftstravelling internationally

3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION

The mission was carried out under the general provisions of Community legislation andin particular under the requirements of Art. 2 of Commission Decision 2001/881/EC, Art.6 of Council Directive 2002/99/EC, Art. 19 of Directive 91/496/EEC and Art. 45 ofRegulation (EC) No 882/2004.

Legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex 1 and refer, where applicable, tothe last amended version.

4 BACKGROUND

The last mission concerning import controls was in 2006. The results of which aredescribed in DG(SANCO)/2006-8057-MR Final (hereafter: report 2006/8057) and areavailable on the Internet at:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm

In response to report 2006/8057, the CCA provided an action plan which was judged toprovide an acceptable response to the recommendations made although for some of them(in relation to the CITES points of entry, customs warehouses and veterinary checks)there was no precise date of completion given.

The details of BIPs visited are given in the table below:

Location Type Approvalas in

Decision2001/881/EC

Last visit Lastreport

Consign-ments in

2006

Transitexit

2

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm

Larnaka Airport HC(2),NHC-NT(2),O

02/2006 2006/8057 951 0

Lemesos Port HC(2),NHC-NT

02/2006 2006/8057 1372 0

5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 COMPETENT AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE

5.1.1 Management structure and organisation of CCAFindings

Management structure and organisation of the VS of the Republic of Cyprus CCA aredetailed in the country profile for Cyprus DG(SANCO)/7708/2008-CP Final available onthe internet at:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles_en.cfm

• VS has a direct line of command from central to peripheral level for BIPs.Conclusion

There is a satisfactory management organisation of the VS for the implementation ofimport/transit control requirements.

5.1.2 Allocation of competencies among Competent Authorities (CAs)Legal Requirements

Art. 4.1 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires Member States (MS) to designate thecompetent authorities responsible for official controls.

Findings

The Animal Health and Welfare Division (AHWD) within the Ministry of Agriculture,Natural Resources and Environment (MANRE) is the CA for the controls ofimports/transit of live animals and products of animal origin and is also responsible forthe supervision of the operation of the BIPs in Cyprus, which is carried out by theImports and Animal Trade Control Section (IATCS) of the AHWD.

The mission team noted:

• With respect to checks of POAO in passenger baggage and post parcels, as requiredby Regulation (EC) No 206/2009, the AHWD is overall responsible including for

3

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles_en.cfm

the supply and display of posters in all points of entry. For distribution of leaflets atthe airports the airport authorities are responsible. Customs are responsible for thecontrols carried out in traveller baggages and in parcels, including seizures, but at aBIP entry point the seizure is carried out by the BIP veterinarian. This arrangementhas not been formalised. However, the BIPs or DVOs are responsible for thedestruction of personal consignments detained or seized by Customs.

• District Veterinary Offices (DVOs) are responsible for the checks on movement ofnon-commercial pet animals introduced from third countries, in the framework ofRegulation (EC) No 998/2003 and for non-commercial pet birds as required inDecision 2007/25/EC. Customs inform the DVOs if such animals are found at theborder. However, in a circular issued by the CCA on 18.10.2006 and published inthe Commission website it is stated that Customs carry out legal and documentarychecks of non-commercial pets.

• BIP staff are responsible for supervision of the destruction of kitchen waste atLarnaka airport, while the DVO is responsible for that at the port Lemesos.

• The caterers from hygiene point of view are supervised by the Public HealthServices (PHS) of the Ministry of Health (MH), but the responsibility for theapproval under Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 is under the VS of MANRE.As a consequence of overlapping of responsibilities there is no approval given yet tocaterers supplying food to international airlines in accordance to the aboveRegulation.

• The points of entry for CITES consignments are under the responsibility of theEnvironmental Services of MANRE. The VS of the same Ministry is responsible forthe approval of incinerators where waste from international means of transport isdestroyed and for other processing plants that fall under the scope of Regulation(EC) No 1774/2002.

• The PHS of the MH is the national contact point for RASFF messages. The liaisonin VS for transmission of these messages to/from BIPs is the Veterinary PublicHealth Division (VPHD).

• With respect to official controls in free zones and customs warehouses the DVOsare responsible for their supervision from hygiene point of view but theimport/transit control matters are not yet included in these control activities.

Conclusion

The competencies for official controls of the import/transit control system are ingeneral clearly allocated among the responsible authorities, except certain areas wherecompetencies have not been defined such as between VS and Customs for personalbaggage and non-commercial pets, which increases the risk that controls may be notcarried out correctly and between VS and MH for the approval of caterers which has ledto the lack of appropriate approval of the caterer visited.

5.1.3 Staff and trainingLegal Requirements

4

Artt. 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 require competent authorities to ensurethat they have sufficient number of suitable staff who received appropriate training, arekept up-to-date in their competencies, and have an aptitude for multidisciplinaryco-operation. Resource and training requirements are also prescribed in the second indentof Annex II to Directive 97/78/EC and in point 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision2001/812/EC.

Findings

At central level there is one veterinarian responsible for BIP matters and there are 3official veterinarians working at the two BIPs. Additionally, veterinarians from theDVOs may be provided, if needed, to replace BIP veterinarians.

Training is carried out internally and externally (e.g. for RASFF, TRACES) for technicaland veterinary BIP staff, who also participated in training provided by the Commission inthe framework of "better training for safer food".


• In relation to core import controls, staff were found to be generally competent.

• The number of BIP staff was sufficient and staff met were highly motivated. All theofficial veterinarians, except new staff, had participated in training seminarsnecessary for their job and they were experienced in relation to import controlmatters; records of training were kept at the BIPs visited. There is a system fordissemination of information obtained from training seminars to other staff. For newstaff on-the-job training was provided. However, this was not formalised.

• There was no evidence of how the training needs were identified and how theeffectiveness of the training was assessed. However, the BIPs had informed orallythe CCA about their training needs. No annual training programme had beendeveloped yet for all BIP staff for 2009. The CCA stated that this was due to thesmall number of BIPs and staff but they intended to do so.

• No training had been developed yet for Customs in relation to personal baggagechecks.

Conclusion

BIP staff numbers are sufficient and the personnel are highly motivated and generallycompetent to core import controls. Training is provided to officials performing officialcontrols and has allowed staff to keep updated in their areas of competence and performtheir duties in a consistent manner. However, the shortcomings noted in relation tocertain procedures may indicate a need for additional training in some areas forVeterinary staff. The lack of training for Customs increases the risk of misapplication inthose areas for which they are responsible e.g. for personal baggage.

5.1.4 Control and verification proceduresLegal Requirements

Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires MS to carry out internal audits, or haveexternal audits carried out.

5

Art. 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires procedures in place to verifyeffectiveness of official controls and that effectiveness of corrective action is ensured.

Art. 1 of Directive 91/496 and Art. 1 of Directive 97/78/EC require that MS shall ensurethat veterinary checks on live animals and products of animal origin from third countriesare carried out in accordance with these Directives.

Findings.

Internal quarterly inspections are carried out from the central IATCS to BIPs. A report isdrawn up and a copy is given to the BIP.

Internal audit for BIPs in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 is plannedfrom the Internal Auditing Section (IAS) of the VS, consisting of 1 official veterinarianand 1 technical assistant, and the Section will report directly to the CVO. This audit isplanned to take place for the first time in June 2009 and general procedures for it arealready in place since 18.11.2008. However, there is no specific checklist prepared yet inrelation to BIP matters.


• The current supervision for BIPs was for very general issues as there was nodetailed checklist in place. No major shortcomings were found by IATCS duringtheir regular inspections, reports were prepared and some improvement was notedsuch as for shortening the delays for some laboratory tests.

• In some cases the shortcomings observed during this mission in one BIP (e.gincorrect re-import procedure and lack of sampling of fishmeal for mammalianprotein) had not been detected from central level.

• There are no procedures in place to verify the effectiveness of official controls forPOAO in personal baggage, for non-commercial pets, for kitchen waste and for thesupervision of free zones and customs warehouses.

Conclusion

Internal or external audits were not yet carried out for BIPs in line with Art. 4 (6) ofRegulation (EC) No 882/2004. Certain gaps in the system of supervision and verificationof effectiveness of the official controls for specific issues indicate that the current systemin place is not fully sufficient to detect and correct all the weaknesses and failures and tofully guarantee the effectiveness of official controls.

5.1.5 Communication and co-operation between servicesLegal Requirements

Close co-operation between the various services involved in import controls isspecifically required by paragraph 5 (1) of the Annex to Decision 2001/812/EC and isnecessary in order to ensure that Art. 3 of Directive 97/78/EC is being implementedproperly, i.e. that all consignments are being presented for checking at the BIP.Co-operation and co-ordination is also essential for the exchange of relevant informationbetween services and to ensure access to electronic systems in accordance with Artt. 6and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Artt. 5 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EC)No 282/2004.

6

Point 5 (3) of the Annex to Decision 2001/812/EC requires the BIP to be aware of thearrangements for the disposal of kitchen waste from international means of transport andshould liase closely with the body responsible for supervision of its disposal.

Findings

Cooperation between VS and Customs is in place but not formalised. Meetings take placeonly if problems arise. Cooperation with other authorities in the framework of theMANCP is in place and a review is planned for September 2009.


• There was evidence of exchange of information and good cooperation between VSand Customs, as BIP staff have access to the electronic information included in theCustoms database THESEAS for the arriving consignments intended for imports.However, the requirement of Art. 24 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 forauthorisation by the CA before Customs allow entry and unloading in free zones ofproducts requiring veterinary checks has not yet been implemented.

• Cooperation with Customs, MH and VS was effective and after a meeting carriedout on 11.12.2007 it was decided that veterinary checks for hay and straw under thepositive list of Decision 2007/275/EC will be under the responsibility of VS.

• Co-operation was in progress with port authorities in relation to the organisation ofthe destruction of kitchen waste unloaded from ships but it was not yet ensured if allships and all ports participated in the collection programme of kitchen wasteunloaded from international means of transport.

Conclusion

Progress was noted for the co-ordination and co-operation between competent authoritieswhich is generally sufficient. The lack of a procedure between Customs and VS toauthorise entry of relevant consignments to free zones potentially weakens the controls.Cooperation was in progress with port authorities for the assurance of destruction ofkitchen waste unloaded from all international ships.

5.2 LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Legal Requirements

Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the MS to have the legal powers to carryout official control and to take measures to guarantee application of EU legislation, andto ensure the impartiality, quality and consistency of official controls at all levels,including the import/transit control system.

Art. 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Councilrequires documented procedures which contain information and instructions or a manualof procedures for personnel carrying out veterinary checks in order to allow correct anduniform implementation of the requirements. Several pieces of EU legislation requireentry point lists or certain establishment lists linked to controls to be established (Art. 2(3) of Commission Decision 2007/25/EC, Art. 13 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council, Artt. 8 (6) and 12 (4) of Directive 97/78/EC,Chapter XI of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament

7

and of the Council).

5.2.1 Transposition/effectiveness of application of EU legislationFindings

The CCA stated that all Community Veterinary legislation for import and transit controlslaid down in Directives has been transposed into national legislation and implemented byLaws, Orders and Ordinances. EU Decisions and Regulations are directly applicable. TheVS issue update of legislation for all involved authorities.

• Due to a translation mistake in the Greek version of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002(the word "diathesi" in Greek has not the meaning of destruction), as a result thecommercial document which was used for the transportation of kitchen waste ascategory 1 material does not properly document destruction.

• Fees were collected in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.Conclusions

No gaps related to transposition and application of import/transit control legislation laiddown in the relevant EU provisions was noted as the EU Directives have beentransposed. The translation mistake in the commercial document of Regulation (EC) No1774/2002 means that destruction of this material is not properly documented.

5.2.2 Administrative provisions for implementationFindings

A manual of import/transit control instructions prepared at central level covers essentialimport procedures and controls. It is regularly updated by the AHWD and is distributedto the BIPs.


• The type of products which must undergo a channeling procedure was not clarifiedin the manual. There is a list of approved ABP establishments but no establishmenthas been specifically approved in the country in line with Art. 8 (6) of Directive98/78/EC in order to receive channeled consignments. However, a list ofestablishments in relation to channeling appears in the Commission website forveterinary border controls.

• The instruction for non-commercial pets 94/89/3 dated 23.05.2005 to VS for theimplementation of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, in general provided the requiredprinciples except for those cases where a health certificate from the third country isrequired rather than a passport. There was a circular issued on 14.09.2005 forinformation to the public and personnel. Another instruction regarding checks onnon-commercial pet animals accompanying their owner had been issued for theCustoms on 18.05.2005 in order to detain them and direct for the checks to VSofficials. Additionally, there were circulars for information to DVOs, BIPs andCustoms issued on 01.07.2008 and 14.08.2008 (file no 94/89/36). For non-EUcomplying pets without vaccination for rabies it was permitted this to be carried outand the owner to keep the animal at home under official control for a period of 6

8

months.

• For POAO in personal baggage and parcels, instructions were sent from the CCA tothe relevant VS and central Customs including the update for Regulation (EC) No206/2009. For the latter, Customs also issued a circular dated 29.04.2009. Anotherinstruction was sent from VS to Customs dated 06.03.2009 in order to increasechecks and awareness due to emerging animal health risks (e.g. for FMD, classicalswine fever from Middle East countries). Customs issued a circular on 13.03.2009for targeted checks for travellers coming from Middle East countries.

• A list of entry points for non-commercial pet animals including birds and CITES hasbeen sent to the Commission on 18.10.2006. However, it is not clear if the list forbirds is the one foreseen in Art. 2 (3) of Decision 2007/25/EC.

• For kitchen waste several circulars and instructions are in place, such as the basiccircular from 13.07.2007 (file 41/90/31, 164/89/48) and for the updated commercialdocument the circular from 17.09.2008 (file 71/90/40).

• According to a circular issued from the laboratory of VS from 16.02.2009, thesampling of feedingstuffs imported from third countries for the detection ofmammalian protein should be carried out for all consignments.

• The CCA had prepared a draft for the sanctions to be applied in relation to theinfringements of the prohibition of trade, imports and exports of dog and cat fur andthe products containing such fur. The draft was sent to the Legal Service on31.03.2009. Meanwhile, the Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 was sent to BIPs,Customs and other services involved in relation to this prohibition. However, therewas a difficulty regarding the detection methods for dog and cat fur.(see Endnote)

Based on Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection ofspecies of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, list (1999/C 356/02)catalogues all places of introduction and export designated by Member States for tradewith third countries in accordance with Art. VIII (3) of the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

• The CITES list, was not corrected after report 2006/8057 and was not consistentwith the list of BIPs. There was incomplete follow up although assurances weregiven for the correction. The CCA planned to have further meetings with theEnvironment Service of MANRE regarding CITES in order to correct this list. Forexample Paphos airport, Nicosia Customs, Post Office in Nicosia etc are points ofentry for CITES under the veterinary check regime while they are not BIPs.Additionally, the list of CITES points of entry published in the Commission websitefor pets was different to the updated one which is in the EU Official Journal 2008/C72/02.

Conclusions

Administrative measures in place are generally sufficient to ensure adequate functioningof the import/transit control system. In some areas incomplete implementingmeasures such as for channeling, personal consignements, non-commercial petsand kitchen waste cannot guarantee the correct and uniform application in these fields.Additionally, the fact that the CITES and BIP lists are inconsistent could lead to the

9

presentation of POAO and live animals at an entry point where there is no approved BIP.

5.2.3 Implementation of TRACESLegal Requirements

Art. 3 (3) of Commission Decision 2004/292/EC requires that the TRACES system beused for all consignments presented to BIPs. This system replaced the ANIMO-systemwhich is foreseen by EU legislation as communication means for specific consignmentsreceived at BIPs, e.g. live animals, channelled and rejected consignments,non-EU-complying consignments for transit, warehouse storage or ship supply.

Findings

All consignments for import are introduced into the TRACES system as required by Art.3 (3) of Decision 2004/292/EC. Part I of the CVED is used by the importers to notifyrelevant consignments to the BIPs. In case of transhipments these are not introduced intoTRACES, nor is part I of the CVED used to notify these consignments.(see Endnote)


• The information of part I of the CVED in TRACES was mostly correct, only a fewtyping mistakes were noted such as for the number of boxes and weight of theconsignment.

Conclusions

The TRACES system is largely used as required by EU legislation, except fortranshipments.

5.2.4 Databases and distribution of documentation/informationLegal Requirements

The registers and records to be maintained in BIPs are laid down in points 4 and 5 of theAnnex to Decision 2001/812/EC, whereas point 4 specifies the alternative records to bekept in electronic or paper form at the BIP, such as registers in accordance withCommission Decisions 97/394/EC and 97/152/EC and a register on the reducedfrequency of checks (Commission Decision 94/360/EC) as well as one of all samplestaken for laboratory tests, if the data are not entered into TRACES.

Art. 5 (2) of Decision 2001/812/EC requires that inspection centres shall keep a specificrecord of the consignments examined at the centre.

Records of checks made and anomalies found must be kept, where arrangements for thedisposal of waste POAO are under the responsibility of the BIP and records todemonstrate that regular checks have been made at free zones, free/customs warehousesor ship suppliers within, or closely associated with, the BIP area.

The range of documents which must be available in BIPs is specified in point 3 of theAnnex to Decision 2001/812/EC, whereas in ICs only documentation relevant for thechecks in this centre are required (Art. 5 (3) of Decision 2001/812/EC). These documents(legislation, lists of approved establishments, etc.) are necessary to enable BIP staff tocarry out import/transit controls correctly and in accordance with most recent EU

10

legislation.

Findings

Documentation, which is sent from central level to the BIPs, is complete includingsafeguard Decisions and other information which was sent by the Commission and theBIPs had a very good system of archiving. BIPs have also access directly to Internet andother sources of electronic information such as the EU official Journal, TAIEX databasesetc. BIPs receive the RASFF messages directly but are also warned for relevant messagesby the central level. Registers were kept in both BIPs visited.


• No specific registers, as required by point 4 (3) of the Annex to Decision2001/812/EC, were in place in relation to consignments needed further monitoringand deadlines for action such as for re-imports and for re-dispatched consignments.However, these consignments were very few and all the records were available.

• No records and report of any anomalies found were kept by the BIP Larnaka in onecaterer for which the BIP was responsible for supervision of the destruction kitchenwaste from international means of transport. For another caterer, under DVOresponsibility in Larnaka, the relevant information for the disposal of kitchen wasnot available at the BIP. For Lemesos the BIP veterinarian also did not haveavailable the relevant information for disposal of kitchen waste, which was underDVO's supervision.

• No records of the checks carried out in nearby free zones and customs warehouseswere available at the BIP, although checks were carried out by DVOs at some ofthem.

• There was a register for the reduced frequency of physical checks but was not pereach category of product, not in accordance with Art. 1 of Decision 94/360/EC.

Conclusions

There is a good archiving system and documentation and registers broadly comply withthe requirements of Annex to Decision 2001/812/EC. However, the lack of registers formonitoring consignments needing follow up (for re-imports and re-dispatched) could notensure a prompt reaction when the relevant deadlines elapse.

The register for the reduced frequency of physical checks was incomplete. The lack ofrecords and incomplete knowledge of the results of the checks in free zones, customswarehouses and kitchen waste hinders effectiveness of the official controls in theseplaces.

5.2.5 Application of legal powers available to official servicesLegal Requirements

Art. 54 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires a competent authority which identifiesnon-compliance to take appropriate action to ensure that the operator remedies thesituation and Art. 55 states that MS shall lay down the rules on sanctions applicable toinfringements of relevant Community provisions and shall take all measures necessary toensure that they are implemented. The sanctions provided for must be effective,

11

proportionate and dissuasive. Art. 6 of Regulation EC No 206/2009 states that thecompetent authority may impose costs or penalties for the person responsible for anypersonal consignment that is found to be in breach of the rules laid down in thisRegulation.

Findings

In general the CA identifies the non-compliances during inspections. Measures likesuspension and withdrawal of the approval can be applied to BIPs and warehouses incase of non-compliances under the Law 98(1) of 2002 and Orders 229 and 282 of 2004.

Sanctions such as administrative penalties and court prosecution for shortcomings in thearea of import and transit controls are laid down in the Law 116(I) of 2007 and Law 80(I)of 2006. Additionally, sanctions for non-compliance are laid down in Art. 33 of the Law98(I) of 2002.


• For personal baggage checks no specific sanctions have been implemented to date,other than seizure of products which travellers attempt to import illegally and nocosts for destruction are applied although prosecution is possible under the Law149(1) of 2004.

• There are no sanctions applied for lack of prenotification before arrival in the EUterritory although prosecution to the court is possible under the Law 149(1) of 2004.

• The BIPs and the CCA took prompt action during the mission in order to correctcertain shortcomings while for the rest assurances were given for the correction inorder to ensure the effectiveness of official controls.

Conclusions

Corrective actions are provided for in the system of import controls but sanctions are notgenerally used which may lead to repeated and persistent non-compliances.

5.3 CONTROLS OF CONSIGNMENTS AT ENTRY BIPS

5.3.1 System to ensure presentation of consignments for veterinary checksLegal Basis

Art. 4 (1) of Directive 91/496/EEC and Art. 3 (1) of Directive 97/78/EC require that MSshall ensure that no consignment from a third country is introduced into EU territorywithout having been subjected to veterinary checks at a BIP. Additionally, Art. 7 ofDirective 2002/99/EC stipulates that POAO intended for human consumption areintroduced only if they comply with the EU requirements for animal health.

Art. 2 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 requires notification of consignments ofPOAO before their physical arrival on Community territory to the BIP staff and Art. 1 (1)of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 specifies the same for live animals at least one workingday before their physical arrival on Community territory.

Art. 9 of Directive 97/78/EC specifies requirements for consignments in transhipment

12

and Commission Decision 2000/25/EC clarifies the minimum and maximum timeperiods following arrival, which determine the type of veterinary checks to be carriedout: either documentary or identity and physical depending on the time elapsed.

Findings

In general, prenotification is received from the importer by the completion of the I part ofCVED which is entered in TRACES before the arrival of the consignment to the EUterritory.


• There is no system in place at either BIP for them to receive prenotification fortranshipments by the completion of the I part of the CVED from the personresponsible. A few consignments in transhipment either to third countries or foreventual import are received in both BIPs and the BIP monitored their time ofarrival and departure from manifest information. According to this informationconsignments did not stay longer than the period after which veterinary checks arerequired.

• In some cases for imported consignments, mostly in the port, prenotification wasreceived after arrival of products while for live animals 6 to 12 hours before insteadof 1 working day before arrival at the airport. In the BIP Lemesos a warning letterwas issued on 21.05.2009 to all involved importers and customs agents in order tocorrect immediately the situation for the lack of prenotification by the completion ofthe I part of CVED before arrival of the consignments in the EU territory.

• Both BIPs had access to the customs electronic system THESEAS for the arrivingconsignments. Additionally, in Lemesos the BIP had access to the port electronicsystem CYPOS for the arriving ships. Cross checks between manifests andprenotifications were carried out but were not always documented.

• The Customs clearance system THESEAS for imports was linked to the updatedpositive list but it was not possible for this to be demonstrated on-the-spot. TheCCA stated that the updated positive list has been introduced into the customssystem since 2007. However, the system NCTS used by Customs to process transitconsignments did not have a link to the positive list of products subject to veterinarychecks under Decision 2007/275/EC.

Conclusions

There is a system in place to ensure that consignments will be presented to the BIP asrequired in Art. 3 (2) of Directive 97/78/EC. However, the lack in some cases ofprenotification including the incomplete information for transhipments, weakens thesystem considerably. The absence of links between the positive list and the NCTScustoms database increases the likelihood that consignments are not subject to thenecessary veterinary checks upon entry.

5.3.2 Veterinary checksLegal Requirements

Procedures for veterinary checks on consignments of animal origin or live animals are

13

laid down in Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC, in Regulations (EC) No 136/2004and 282/2004 and in Commission Decisions such as 94/360/EC, 97/794/EC and2001/812/EC.

Findings

Veterinary checks were generally carried out properly. Reinforced checks were correctlyapplied in line with Art. 24 of Directive 97/78.


• Some cases of fishmeal from Peru were accompanied with replacement certificateswithout the BIP having an appropriate explanation.

• No sampling for mammalian protein as required by part II (Bb) of Annex ofRegulation (EC) No 999/2001 was carried out for fishmeal.

• Reduced physical checks were carried out but for several categories of productswhich had the same percentage of checks but not per product (e.g. collectively forfishery products and fresh meat and animal casings etc.). Therefore, the minimumfrequency required for each type of product was not ensured. The regime was notunpredictable as it was not performed randomly (every fifth consignment waschecked) which is not in line with Art. 2 of Decision 94/360/EC.

• Laboratory checks were carried out and when required, a detention document forinformation of the importer, the regional veterinarian and the port authority wasissued. However, these consignments were not kept under official supervision andthey were sent for storage at destination to the importer’s facilities. In other casesthey were sent inside the port but no clear procedure was in place for officialsupervision.(see Endnote)

• In some cases the results of laboratory checks were delayed e.g. for malachite greenabout 5 months after sampling.

Conclusions

Veterinary checks are properly carried out as provided for in EU legislation. However,the lack of a clear procedure for supervision of official detention according to Regulation(EC) No 882/2004 increases the risk of unauthorised release of detained consignments.The system in place to perform reduced checks may be predicted; additionally in somecases leads to a frequency of checks for each category lower than the one prescribed inArt.1 (3) of Decision 94/360/EC and might be an indication for the need to have moretraining or guidance in this area.

5.3.3 Monitoring plans for sampling imported consignmentsLegal Requirements

Point 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 requires MS to submitconsignments of POAO presented for importation to a monitoring plan to detect residues,pathogenic organisms or other substances dangerous to humans, animals or theenvironment.

Point 4 of Annex II to the above Regulation stipulates that each MS shall inform the

14

Commission monthly of favourable and unfavourable results of laboratory testing carriedout in its BIPs.

Findings

The annual monitoring sampling plan for BIPs is prepared by the Veterinary PublicHealth Division (VPHD) of the VS. This plan has been developed for this year and wasavailable to the BIPs since January 2009. The number and type of samples to be taken areindicated to the BIPs, which take many samples at their discretion. The results of thelaboratory tests were sent to the Commission services.


• The plan on imported consignments has not taken into account all the required testssuch as microbiological tests, tests of fishmeal for mammalian protein, andsafeguard measures e.g. crystal violet for aquaculture fishery products from China.For the BIP Larnaka prohibited substances (category A6) such as chloramphenicolwere not included.

• When positive results were received, the BIP informed the VS at central level whichthen informed the MH in order to notify consequently the Commission RASFFteam.

Conclusions

Sampling for imported consignments is implemented and many tests are carried out, butthe plan does not fully meet the requirements of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No136/2004 as not all the relevant risks were addressed.

5.3.4 Decision on the consignmentLegal Requirements

Procedures for the veterinary decision on consignments of animal origin and live animalsand the follow up of such specific consignments are laid down in Directives 91/496/EECand 97/78/EC, in Regulations (EC) No 136/2004 and 282/2004 and in Decisions such as97/794/EC and 2001/812/EC.

Findings

Decision on consignments was generally correctly taken at the two BIPs visited and onlyrelatively few shortcomings were noted.


• In one case for live fish the part III of the CVED indicated follow up to destinationin the EU but at the same time re-dispatch to the third country.

• The commercial document used, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No1774/2002, to accompany rejected consignments in some cases was not completelyfilled out (no category of the material, no weight).

• In one case a re-imported consignment was not returned to the establishment oforigin but was sent to another establishment approved as a biogas plant, the addressof which was not entered in the CVED. Therefore, no confirmation of arrival to the

15

establishment of origin neither from the biogas plant was received at the BIP and nofurther follow up action was taken from the BIP to the official veterinarian at theplace of destination. Additionally, no T5 document was issued and no customssupervision until the place of destination as the consignments were cleared at theborder.

Conclusions

The decisions on consignments were taken properly. However, in a few cases the lack offollow up for re-imported consignments and in certain cases incomplete accompanyingdocumentation hinders traceability and follow up of arrival at destination.

5.3.5 Animal welfare at BIPsLegal Requirements

Details of the checks at BIPs are laid down in Art. 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005whereas Art. 22 of the same Regulation stipulates that the CA shall ensure that specialarrangements are made at the BIPs to give priority to the transport of animals and that if aconsignment of animals has to be detained for more than two hours appropriatearrangements are made for the care of the animals and, where necessary, their feeding,watering and accommodation.

Despite the general requirement of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 to avoid injury or unduesuffering to live animals category "O", this Regulation does not provide any specificrequirements how this should be achieved.

Findings

There are general provisions for the animal welfare of all categories of live animalsincluding the category "O" laid down in the Animal Protection and Welfare Law from1994.


• At the airport BIP, a copy of the IATA regulations (35th edition of October 2008)was kept in order to assess the animal welfare conditions for consignments of liveanimals. The live animal consignments received were mainly ornamental fish.

Conclusions

There is sufficient guidance available to BIP staff to ensure satisfactory and uniformimplementation of animal welfare requirements.

5.4 CONTROLS OF TRANSIT/NON-EU-COMPLYING CONSIGNMENTS

5.4.1 Monitoring of transit consignments by entry BIPsLegal Requirements

Art. 9 of Directive 91/496/EEC and Artt. 11 and 12 of Directive 97/78/EC lay downspecific requirements in relation to consignments in transit including deadlines for exit.These consignments must enter and leave the EU via an approved BIP and detailedrequirements including deadlines for delivery are specified in Commission Decisions

16

2000/208/EC and 2000/571/EC. Such consignments must fulfill the animal healthrequirements laid down in Art. 7 of Directive 2002/99/EC.

The first indent of Art. 11 (2) (b) of Directive 97/78/EC provides for the possibility thatdocumentary checks will be confined to the examination of the on-board manifests incase of consignments which are destined for transit but not unloaded from ships/aircraft.

Findings

• There were no entry transits.

5.4.2 Monitoring of transit consignments by exit BIPsLegal Requirements

Art. 9 of Directive 91/496/EEC and Artt. 11 and 12 (8) of Directive 97/78/EC lay downspecific requirements in relation to consignments in transit. These consignments mustleave the EU via an approved BIP and additional requirements are specified in Decision2000/208/EC.

Findings

• There were no exit transits.

5.4.3 Free zones, free and customs warehouses, and ship suppliersLegal Requirements

Artt. 12 and 13 of Directive 97/78/EC and Decision 2000/571/EC lay down specificrequirements in relation to non-EU-complying consignments, unloaded and stored infree/customs warehouses or at ship suppliers, in order to prevent these consignmentsbeing released for free circulation within the EU territory. These include requirements inrelation to approval of warehouses and conditions for storage, labelling and recordkeeping in relation to these consignments. Confirmation of arrival of the consignment atdestination (either ship or warehouse) must be provided to the authority responsible fordispatching the consignment (BIP of entry or warehouse). Such consignments must,however, fulfil the animal health requirements laid down in Art. 7 of Directive2002/99/EC. According to the provisions of Art. 24 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004customs services shall not allow the entry or handling in free zones or free warehouses ofconsignments subject to veterinary checks without the agreement of the competentauthority.

Findings

There are three free zones in Cyprus. There are neither customs warehouses approvedunder Art. 12 of Directive 97/78/EC, nor authorised ship suppliers under Art. 13 of thesame Directive. No precise date of completion of the action was given after the previousreport 2006/8057 concerning the results of an investigation which was carried out fromthe CA regarding the compliance or not of consignments stored in customs warehousesincluding in the free zone and the CCA could not give a definite reply if approval will begiven in accordance to Art. 12 (4) of Directive 97/78/EC.


17

• There is one customs warehouse inside the free zone Lemesos but there is nosupervision from the VS from hygiene and import control point of view. The CCAwas not aware of the list of free zones and there was no system for authorisationof POAO consignments unloaded there.

• There are customs warehouses in the port area where the CCA indicated thatEU-complying consignments are stored and a system of supervision with a detailedchecklist from hygiene point of view is in place but no checks are carried out onincoming documentation of imported consignments.

Conclusions

A system of control and supervision in customs warehouses addresses only hygieneissues, except in one customs warehouse in the free zone where there is no supervision.The lack of an effective control system in warehouses means there is a risk thatconsignments may be present without veterinary checks especially in the free zones.

5.5 IMPORT CONTROLS ON PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC

5.5.1 Personal baggage and mailLegal Requirements

Art. 3 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 requires a certain minimum of information to bedisplayed by the Member State and Art. 4 requires from the passenger transport operatorsto alert travellers to the prohibitions and limits applicable in the EU for POAO inpersonal baggage of travellers from third countries.

Art. 5 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 requires that at European Community points ofentry, the CA and the authorities responsible for official controls shall, in co-operationwith port and airport operators and with operators responsible for other points of entry,organise effective controls to detect the presence of illegal consignments of POAO. Forthe organisation of these controls it is necessary to define the means of detection and thetasks of the officials, backed up with knowledge of the requirements in order to ensure aneffective prevention against illegal importation into the EU. Art. 6 requires if suchconsignments are found they must be seized and destroyed and the Member State mayimpose fines on the persons who have breached the rules.

Art. 7 of Regulation EC (No) 206/2009 requires that Member States report annually tothe Commission services statistics in relation to seizures made; this requires the MemberState to have reliable reporting arrangements and accurate statistics on all seizures asrequested in Annex V to this Regulation.

Art. 6 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 requires that MS ensure that the nationallegislation applicable for the seizure and destruction of personal consignments identifiesthe natural or legal person liable for the costs of destruction. of seized products.

Findings

Official controls are carried out by Customs for consignments of POAO in personalluggage and parcels at 6 points of entry (ports, airports and post office). Customs are

18

permanently present in all points of entry and these checks are part of their routinechecks also in the framework of other risks such as for drugs, tobacco etc. In a mainairport, as a routine 15-20% of baggages are opened while in case of suspicious flightsscanning of baggage is also carried out at a level 90%. The checks on passenger luggageare random or targeted taking also into consideration alert situations and informationreceived from VS.

For 2008 the relevant report had not yet been sent to the Commission, although thedeadline was elapsed.(see Endnote) According to the annual report submitted for 2007 tothe Commission, there were 103 POAO personal consignments seized having a weight of360 kg for meat and 166.5 kg for milk products. However, these concerned only 2 entrypoints (Larnaka airport and Lemesos port). In addition statistics were not kept in relationto the list of third countries from which passengers have most regularly been subject totargeted customs searches, including the number of searches and the quantity and type ofproducts found, as laid down in Annex IV (e) of Regulation (EC) No 745/2004.


• In one main airport point of entry there was sufficient information displayed throughposters in multiple languages and leaflets available to passengers but in anothernon-BIP airport less information was provided (only Greek language and no leafletsavailable). Air transport operators are reluctant to provide such information totravellers and the existing video or other means were not used, which is not inaccordance with Art. 4 to Regulation (EC) No 206/2009.

• In the post office a system is in place, Customs are permanently present, all parcelsare opened and documentary and physical checks are carried out for all arrivingconsignments. A few CITES consignments were received on-the-spot. Inaccordance with Art. 6 of Directive 97/78/EC and Artt. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Decision2001/812/EC such consignments should be imported through a BIP. However, inrelation to these consignments, the local DVO was called to clear them.

• According to the reply to the pre-mission questionnaire provided by CCA forpersonal consignments, Nicosia customs was a point of entry for personal baggage.However, this cannot be a border entry point into the Community for arrivingconsignments.

• Duplicate records of seizures are kept by Customs and BIPs or DVO's for the sameconsignment. A documented procedure is in place for the cleaning and disinfectionof the means of transport, after each transportation.In a BIP-point of entry illegal POAO are detained by Customs and the form 71A is

completed. Then the BIP staff seizes the POAO and signs this form. The consignment islabelled for "destruction only", and remains in a refrigerator under Customs control.When the consignment is delivered to the transporter for onwards destruction, acommercial document is issued by the BIP for the seized POAO. However, in theCustoms circular 12.3.19 from 29.04.2009 it is stated that the Customs have theresponsibility for the seizure and destruction of POAO in personal baggage.

In a non-BIP point of entry Customs seize the POAO personal consignment andthen is given to the DVO who is responsible for its destruction. In the post office the

19

DVO is called in order to seize the consignment. The seizures are considered ascategory 1 material and are destroyed to an approved incinerator in accordance withRegulation (EC) No 1774/2002.

Conclusions

There is an organised system in place in order to detect illegal consignments in personalbaggage but this was not followed in the same way in the different entry pointsconcerning seizures and information to travelers. The information provided by airtransport operators and airport authorities to travellers is incomplete. There was anadequate system for destruction of seized consignments in accordance with theprovisions of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.

5.5.2 Non-commercial pet animalsLegal Requirements

Art. 13 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 stipulates that a list of points of entry, where thechecks of non-commercial pet animals coming from third countries are carried out, bedrawn up by each MS. Decision 2007/25/EC specifies a similar requirement for importsof pet birds.

Art. 11 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 requires each MS to inform the public about theconditions of entry and to provide adequate training to staff in order to ensure itseffective implementation.

Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and Art. 2 of Decision 2007/25/EC requiredesignation of competent authorities for checks on non-commercial pet animals and birdsas well as certain checks to be carried.

Findings

The CCA has designated 5 entry points for non-commercial pet animals as foreseen inArt. 13 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. The DVOs carried out the documentary andidentity checks at these entry points. Non-commercial pet animals which were notcomplying for entry into the country may be rejected, isolated or euthanasied.

National provisions provide for home quarantine in case of non-compliance of theanimals (dogs, cats and ferrets) and two documents was necessary to be issued. Onedocument was filled out with the results of the examination concerning compliance or notof the animal with the import conditions. A second document was filled outhaving information about the import conditions and asking the commitment fromthe owner in order to comply with these conditions. No health requirements have beendefined in the procedure before the animals are released from the point of entry e.g. noaccompanying documentation, identification etc.


• There was a quite detailed leaflet issued since July 2008 from the VS for providingfull information to the public regarding the requirements for non-commercial petanimals. Non-EU complying non-commercial pets were allowed to enter the EUterritory and to be kept at home quarantine until 6 months while the DVO carried

20

out monthly visits.

• For non-commercial pet birds, turtles, rabbits, rodents an import licence wasnecessary.

Conclusions

In general, there is a system in place to check non-commercial pet animals in accordancewith the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. However, for non-commercial petanimals which were not in accordance to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, the measures toensure that the animals remain under official control for the time necessary to meet healthrequirements are not sufficient including the procedure before the animals are releasedfrom the point of entry.

5.6 CONTROLS ON KITCHEN WASTE

Legal Requirements

Art. 16 of Directive 97/78/EC foresees the destruction of kitchen waste unloaded frommeans of transport operating internationally and point 5 (3) of the Annex to Decision2001/812/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 lay down further provisions regardingthe arrangements for the disposal of this waste. Kitchen waste may also be disposed offin landfill sites approved under the requirements laid down in Council Directive1999/31/EC.

Findings

The supervision of the destruction of kitchen waste from international means of transportis carried out by BIP staff in one caterer in Larnaka airport and by the relevant DVOs inLemesos port and in another caterer in Larnaka airport. This supervision was notyet formalised and during the closing meeting the CCA indicated that they intend to carryout twice yearly checks and presented a check list to be used during these checks.Kitchen waste is considered by the CCA as animal by product category 1 material and isdestroyed according to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.


• Although progress was noted, the Port Authority could not confirm that kitchenwaste from all the ships in all ports was destroyed in accordance to Regulation (EC)No 1774/2002.

• Shortcomings in relation to the filling out of the commercial document were notedin a port (e.g. no name of transporter, no approval number of incinerator, noidentification of truck). Additionally, front line staff referred to the wrong circular inforce in relation to the commercial document.

• A caterer receiving kitchen waste from aircraft was visited. The BIP staff carried outregular monthly inspections to control the destruction of the waste, but there was nochecklist used and no reports were available. The kitchen waste was treated ascategory 1 material and kept identifiable and separated from other waste and sent fordestruction. This material was correctly labelled, stored, transported and destroyedin an approved incinerator. However, there was no approval number indicated in thecommercial document for the incinerator which was necessary as in the same site

21

there was also a rendering plant belonging to the same company. Additionally, theseparation was incomplete and part of category 1 material was mixed with category3 material and the latter was sent to a landfill not approved in accordance toDirective 1999/31/EC.

• The CA provided in the closing meeting a quite detailed checklist, dated21.05.2009, which will be used for the formalisation and reporting of thesupervision for the destruction of kitchen waste.

Conclusions

There is an organised system in place to control the disposal of kitchen waste frominternational means of transport. The shortcomings found in the separation and in thedocumentation accompanying the waste weaken its effectiveness. The lack of detailedsupervision and reporting means that the CCA cannot ensure that all provisions are metin all cases (e.g. from all ships in all ports).

5.7 BIPS: FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND HYGIENE

5.7.1 Approval/withdrawal procedures for BIPsLegal Requirements

The procedures for addition of new BIPs to and withdrawal of BIPs from the list of BIPsare laid down in Artt. 6 of Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC.

Findings

The detailed findings for each BIP may be found in Annex 2 to this report.


• The Law 98 (1) of 2002 together with the Orders 282 and 229 of 2004 implementthe approval and withdrawal procedure for BIPs for POAO and live animalsimported from third countries.

• The Law 150 (1) of 2003 implements the provisions for approval and withdrawalprocedure for establishments of POAO including for warehouses.

5.7.2 BIP facilitiesLegal Requirements

The requirements for BIP facilities, their equipment and hygiene are laid down inDirective 91/496/EEC concerning live animals and in Directive 97/78/EC and Decision2001/812/EC concerning POAO.

Findings


• The two BIPs visited had the necessary facilities, equipment and hygiene as requiredby the EU provisions in accordance with their current approval.

22

Conclusions

The BIPs visited complied with the requirements for structure, equipment and hygiene.

5.7.3 Ancillary facilities for BIPsLegal Requirements

In order to correctly perform veterinary checks, the BIPs must have the services of aspecialised laboratory and the services of an establishment qualified to carry outnecessary treatment of consignments (Annex A to Directive 91/496/EEC and Annex II toDirective 97/78/EC), if necessary the services of an undertaking in the immediate vicinitywhich has the facilities and equipment to house, feed, water, treat and, if necessary,slaughter the animals (Annex A to Directive 91/496/EEC), an approved quarantinefacility for imported birds other than poultry (Art. 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No318/2007) and an approved quarantine facility for live aquaculture animals CommissionDecision 2008/946/EC.

Findings

The two BIPs visited had access to accredited laboratories, rendering plants andincinerators.


• There were no quarantine facilities for imported birds in accordance with Regulation(EC) No 318/2007, nor for live animals under Directive 91/496/EEC, nor for liveaquaculture animals.(see Endnote)

Conclusions

The BIPs have access to appropriate auxiliary services to perform the required controlsexcept for quarantines which means that the relevant live animals should not be acceptedby Cypriot BIPs.

6 OVERALL CONCLUSION

A functioning import/transit control system is in place and in most areas theimport/transit controls are carried out correctly. Almost everything is implemented butthe effectiveness is not always ensured. Veterinary checks and veterinary decision aremostly carried out properly and the infrastructure of BIPs complies with EUrequirements. The CAs are designated except in few areas where certain overlappingexists. A manual of procedures is in place and frequent supervision from central level iscarried out. Some individual problems were noted for certain procedures. Previousshortcomings for pre-notification were not fully corrected including for consignments fortranshipments and free zones and for supervision of customs warehouses. In some casesthe instructions are not always followed in the same way. Good progress was noted forco-operation with other authorities but is not yet formalised.

Although kitchen waste is destroyed there are gaps in documentation and its supervision.However, a checklist in order to improve supervision was presented at the closing

23

meeting.

Problems were noted in the correct application of the rules for non-commercial petsnon-EU complying, regarding procedures for keeping under home quarantine, althoughthe local veterinarian makes on-the-spot monthly visits.

The CA took immediate action during the mission to rectify certain shortcomings whilefor the remainder assurances were given that everything would be corrected so as toensure the effectiveness of the system.

7 CLOSING MEETING

A closing meeting was held on 22 May 2009 with representatives from the CCA, the VA,Customs and Postal Services as well as on-the-spot in each BIP visited. At this meeting,the main findings and the preliminary conclusions of the mission were presented by theinspection team. The CCA agreed with the findings and provided assurances that theshortcomings identified would be corrected as soon as possible.

A number of clarifications were provided by the mission team in relation to certainfindings presented.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Cypriot competent authorities are requested to provide, within one month ofreceipt of the report, a response including an action plan setting out the actionsplanned/undertaken to satisfactorily address the following recommendations, alongwith a timetable for completion of these actions, within the deadlines indicated inArt. 6 of Decision 2001/812/EC (for all recommendations, 3 months of the receiptof the translated report).

No. Recommendation

1

To implement further measures in order to ensure that pre-notification is providedin advance of the arrival of the consignment on EU territory including completepre-notification for transhipments in accordance to Art 3 of Directive 97/78/EC,Art. 3 of Directive 91/496/EEC, Art. 2 of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Art.1 of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004. To ensure that there is a link in customssystems for the transit consignments such as NCTS with the positive list under theDecision 2007/275/EC in order to better implement Art. 3 to Directive 97/78/EC.

2To improve certain co-operation and co-ordination between VS and Customsregarding the veterinary authorisation and supervision of consignments entered infree zones in accordance with Art. 24 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

3

To ensure that the procedures for veterinary checks and decision, including there-import and channelling procedure including customs supervision under T5document, to be followed in accordance with Directives 97/78/EC and91/496/EEC. To develop an unpredictable system for the reduced frequency ofphysical checks and to ensure that the minimum frequencies are followed per type

24

No. Recommendation

of product and per third country as required in Artt.1 and 2 of Decision94/360/EC.

4

To complete the registers for consignments needed further follow up and haveavailable at the BIPs the records of results of checks in free zones, customswarehouses and kitchen waste in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Annex toDecision 2001/812/EC.

5

To ensure that a procedure is in place for detained consignments to be kept underveterinary control in an appropriate storage as laid down in Art. 4 (3) of Decision2001/812/EC, in Art. 17 of Directive 97/78/EC and Art. 18 of Regulation (EC)No 882/2004.

6

To complete the instructions such as for channelling, personal consignments,non-commercial pets and birds, free zones, customs warehouses and kitchenwaste. To further develop the documented procedures taking into account thefindings in this report in order to ensure that official controls are carried outuniformly and are of consistently high quality as required in Art. 8 (1) ofRegulation (EC) No 882/2004.

7

Procedures are put in place in order to ensure that non-commercial pet animalswhich do not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 areisolated under the provisions of Art. 14 (b) of the same Regulation, if they are notreturned to origin or euthanasied.

8

To establish a system in order to detect training needs for VS and Customsofficials and to provide a training plan for 2009 in order to ensure that all staffinvolved in official controls receive appropriate training and keep up to date intheir areas of competence as required in Art. 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

9

To complete the annual monitoring sampling plan including all the relevant riskssuch as pathogens and other dangerous substances and non mammalian protein infishmeal in accordance with point 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No136/2004.

10

To implement the planned internal audit in all areas of import/transit officialcontrols and establish the relevant checklists for the verification procedures inorder to ensure that any specific shortcomings are detected and corrected asrequired in Artt. 4 (6) and 8 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

11

To clarify better the responsibilities for POAO in personal baggage andnon-commercial pets in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 206/2009,998/2003 and Decision 2007/25/EC and for the approval of caterers supplyingflights in accordance with Art. 4 to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 in order toapply better Art. 31 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.

12

To correct the commercial document for the destination of kitchen waste so thatto ensure its destruction in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. Toensure that supervision is carried out in all points where kitchen waste is unloadedand the accompanying documentation for the destruction of kitchen waste is

25

No. Recommendation

completely filled out in accordance to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.

The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_cyprus_8076_2009.pdf

9 ENDNOTES

Concerning Detail

Section 5.2.2

In their comments to the draft report the CCA clarified that they haveinformed the Commission (letter ref 153/89/6 dated 15/7/2009) that theyhave designated the "Gene Facts Analyse Labor", Saarbrücken, Germanyto perform the tests for identifying the origin of fur for Cyprus.

Section 5.2.3In their comments to the draft report the CCA informed that part I of theCVED is completed and submitted to BIP Larnaca to notify the arrival ofconsignments in transhipment.

Section 5.3.2In their comments to the draft report the CCA clarified that for the BIPLarnaca the consignments sampled on suspicion are detained in thepremises of the BIP.

Section 5.5.1In their comments to the draft report the CCA informed that the reportaccording to Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 was sent to theCommission on 16/7/2009.

Section 5.7.3

In their comments to the draft report the CCA clarified that only BIPLarnaca is approved for the import of consignments of live animalscategory “others”. Since no quarantine facilities for imported birds areapproved according to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007, no such animalsare accepted to enter Cyprus from a third country. Furthermore, thosespecies of aquaculture animals from third countries that according toDecision 2008/946/EC need to be placed in quarantine are not acceptedto enter Cyprus unless they are place in quarantine in the country oforigin.

26

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_cyprus_8076_2009.pdf

ANNEX 1 - LIST OF LEGISLATION REFERENCED IN THE REPORT

Reference OJ Ref. Detail

Directive91/496/EEC

OJ L 268,24.9.1991, p.56–68

Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991laying down the principles governing theorganization of veterinary checks on animalsentering the Community from third countries andamending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and90/675/EEC

Directive2002/99/EC

OJ L 18,23.1.2003, p.11–20

Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December2002 laying down the animal health rules governingthe production, processing, distribution andintroduction of products of animal origin for humanconsumption

Decision2001/881/EC

OJ L 326,11.12.2001, p.44–62

2001/881/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December2001 drawing up a list of border inspection postsagreed for veterinary checks on animals and animalproducts from third countries and updating thedetailed rules concerning the checks to be carriedout by the experts of the Commission

Directive97/78/EC

OJ L 24,30.1.1998, p.9–30

Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997laying down the principles governing theorganisation of veterinary checks on productsentering the Community from third countries

Regulation(EC) No745/2004

OJ L 122,26.4.2004, p.1–9

Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 of 16April 2004 laying down measures with regard toimports of products of animal origin for personalconsumption


OJ L 165,30.4.2004, p.1, Correctedandre-published inOJ L 191,28.5.2004, p. 1

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 onofficial controls performed to ensure the verificationof compliance with feed and food law, animalhealth and animal welfare rules


OJ L 146,13.6.2003, p.1–9

Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 onthe animal health requirements applicable to thenon-commercial movement of pet animals andamending Council Directive 92/65/EEC


OJ L 273,10.10.2002, p.1–95

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002laying down health rules concerning animalby-products not intended for human consumption

27



OJ L 338,22.12.2005, p.83–88

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 of 5December 2005 laying down transitionalarrangements for the implementation of Regulations(EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No882/2004 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil and amending Regulations (EC) No853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004


OJ L 3,5.1.2005, p.1–44

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22December 2004 on the protection of animals duringtransport and related operations and amendingDirectives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC andRegulation (EC) No 1255/97

Decision2007/25/EC

OJ L 8,13.1.2007, p.29–34

2007/25/EC: Commission Decision of 22 December2006 as regards certain protection measures inrelation to highly pathogenic avian influenza andmovements of pet birds accompanying their ownersinto the Community

Decision2000/571/EC

OJ L 240,23.9.2000, p.14–18

2000/571/EC: Commission Decision of 8September 2000 laying down the methods ofveterinary checks for products from third countriesdestined for introduction into free zones, freewarehouses, customs warehouses or operatorssupplying cross border means of sea transport


OJ L 61,3.3.1997, p.1–69

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna andflora by regulating trade therein

Decision2004/292/EC

OJ L 94,31.3.2004, p.63–64

2004/292/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March2004 on the introduction of the Traces system andamending Decision 92/486/EEC

Decision97/394/EC

OJ L 164,21.6.1997, p.42–43

97/394/EC: Commission Decision of 6 June 1997establishing the minimum data required for thedatabases on animals and animal products broughtinto the Community

Decision97/152/EC

OJ L 59,28.2.1997, p.50–52

97/152/EC: Commission Decision of 10 February1997 concerning the information to be entered inthe computerized file of consignments of animals oranimal products from third countries which arere-dispatched

Decision2007/275/EC

OJ L 116,4.5.2007, p.9–33

2007/275/EC: Commission Decision of 17 April2007 concerning lists of animals and products to besubject to controls at border inspection posts underCouncil Directives 91/496/EEC and 97/78/EC

28


Directive1999/31/EC

OJ L 182,16.7.1999, p.1–19

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 onthe landfill of waste


OJ L 49,19.2.2004, p.11–24

Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 of 18February 2004 introducing a document for thedeclaration of, and veterinary checks on, animalsfrom third countries entering the Community


OJ L 77,24.3.2009, p.1–19

Commission Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 of 5March 2009 on the introduction into theCommunity of personal consignments of productsof animal origin and amending Regulation (EC) No136/2004

Decision2001/812/EC

OJ L 306,23.11.2001, p.28–33

2001/812/EC: Commission Decision of 21November 2001 laying down the requirements forthe approval of border inspection posts responsiblefor veterinary checks on products introduced intothe Community from third countries

Decision97/794/EC

OJ L 323,26.11.1997, p.31–36

97/794/EC: Commission Decision of 12 November1997 laying down certain detailed rules for theapplication of Council Directive 91/496/EEC asregards veterinary checks on live animals to beimported from third countries

Decision94/360/EC

OJ L 158,25.6.1994, p.41–45

94/360/EC: Commission Decision of 20 May 1994on the reduced frequency of physical checks ofconsignments of certain products to be implementedfrom third countries, under Council Directive90/675/EEC


OJ L 139,30.4.2004, p.1, Correctedandre-published inOJ L 226,25.6.2004, p. 3

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 onthe hygiene of foodstuffs


OJ L 139,30.4.2004, p.55, Correctedandre-published inOJ L 226,25.6.2004, p.22

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004laying down specific hygiene rules for food ofanimal origin

29



OJ L 139,30.4.2004, p.206, Correctedandre-published inOJ L 226,25.6.2004, p.83

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004laying down specific rules for the organisation ofofficial controls on products of animal originintended for human consumption


OJ L 302,19.10.1992, p.1–50

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12October 1992 establishing the Community CustomsCode


OJ L 21,28.1.2004, p.11–23

Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinarychecks at Community border inspection posts onproducts imported from third countries


OJ L 84,24.3.2007, p.7–29

Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23March 2007 laying down animal health conditionsfor imports of certain birds into the Community andthe quarantine conditions thereof

Decision2000/25/EC

OJ L 9,13.1.2000, p.27–28

2000/25/EC: Commission Decision of 16 December1999 establishing the detailed rules for theapplication of Article 9 of Council Directive97/78/EC concerning the transhipment of productsat a Border Inspection Post where the consignmentsare intended for eventual import into the EuropeanCommunity, and amending Commission Decision93/14/EEC

Decision2000/208/EC

OJ L 64,11.3.2000, p.20–21

2000/208/EC: Commission Decision of 24 February2000 establishing detailed rules for the applicationof Council Directive 97/78/EC concerning thetransit of products of animal origin from one thirdcountry to another third country by road only acrossthe European Community

Directive92/65/EEC

OJ L 268,14.9.1992, p.54–72

Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992laying down animal health requirements governingtrade in and imports into the Community ofanimals, semen, ova and embryos not subject toanimal health requirements laid down in specificCommunity rules referred to in Annex A (I) toDirective 90/425/EEC


OJ L 147,31.5.2001, p.1–40

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001laying down rules for the prevention, control and

30


eradication of certain transmissible spongiformencephalopathies


OJ L 343,27.12.2007, p.1–4

Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007banning the placing on the market and the import to,or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur,and products containing such fur

31

final report of a specific audit carried out in cyprus

Documents