EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2015) /09/2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office DG(SANTE) MR FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN LITHUANIA FROM 23 TO 27 FEBRUARY 2015 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE OFFICIAL CONTROLS ON CONSIGNMENTS IN TRANSIT In response to information provided by the Competent Authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary The report describes the outcome of an audit carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office in Lithuania from 23 to 27 February The objective of the audit was to evaluate the official control system implemented by the competent authorities on consignments transiting the EU. The official control system for transits meets the general requirements in relation to communication, training, and resources. The controls at the BIPs and at the Customs warehouses generally ensure that only consignments eligible for transit enter the Union territory and transiting consignments always leave the Union. The requirements for pre-notification and screening of available information on arriving consignments are not fully met which means that the identification and control of consignments subject to veterinary checks is compromised. Staff carry out official controls in accordance with documented procedures with the exception of controls on transits of live animals. The specific conditions for transit via the EU territory between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia are implemented following the requirements of EU legislation, with the exception of the identity checks which are limited to tail checks. This may lead to non-detection of consignments that do not tally exactly with the description in the accompanying document if this contains errors. The verification activities are well organized and lead to improvement of the system but their impact is compromised by the lack of detection of systematic deficiencies. The report makes a number of recommendations addressed to the competent authorities of Lithuania, aimed at rectifying the identified shortcomings and/or further enhancing the control measures in place. I

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Objectives and scope Legal Basis Background Findings and Conclusions Designation of competent authorities and operational criteria Official controls on transiting goods Controls at the entry Border Inspection Posts Controls at warehouses and ship suppliers Controls at the exit Border Inspection Posts Official controls implemented on specific transits: derogations for consignments from Russia (Kaliningrad) and destined to Russia Verification and review Overall Conclusions Closing Meeting Recommendations...14 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation BFVCD BIP CVED CVEDA CVEDP Direct transit IAD Indirect transit LVU QlikView SFVS TRACES Transit Explanation Border Food and Veterinary Control Department Border inspection post Common veterinary entry document Common veterinary entry document for animals Common veterinary entry document for products Movement of transit consignments across Union/EEA territory from the BIP of entry directly to the BIP of exit, or to a ship leaving the coastal waters of the Union/EEA territory Internal Audit Department Movement of transit consignments from the BIP of entry to a free zone, free/customs warehouse/ship supplier for storage first and then onto the BIP of exit, or a ship supplier, or a ship, leaving the coastal waters of the Union/EEA territory Local veterinary unit One of the features of TRACES allowing monitoring of data State Food and Veterinary Office, the central competent authority Trade control and expert system The movement of non-conforming consignments or, the movement of live animals conforming to EU requirements across Union/EEA territory by road, rail, or waterway transport from one third country to another III

5 1 INTRODUCTION The audit took place in Lithuania from 23 to 27 February The team comprised three auditors from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and was carried out as part of the FVO s planned audit programme. During the audit, the team was accompanied by representatives from the central competent authority, the Border Food and Veterinary Control Department (BFVCD) within the State Food and Veterinary Service (SFVS). An opening meeting was held on 23 February 2015 with representatives from the SFVS, BFVCD, the internal audit department (IAD) and Customs. At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for the audit were confirmed. 2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objective of the audit was the evaluation of the official control system implemented by the competent authorities on consignments transiting the EU, in particular: whether the controls are implemented in compliance with the general applicable requirements, and in particular those required under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2010; whether the implementation of those controls is effective and suitable in ensuring that (i) only consignments eligible for transit enter the Union territory, (ii) transiting consignments always leave the Union, and (iii) EU goods travelling via non-eu territories are allowed to enter the Union only if they still fulfil animal and public health and animal welfare requirements. In terms of scope, the audit covered: consignments not intended for the EU market, transiting the EU in their movement between third countries, transits/movements at entry and exit border inspections posts (BIPs), warehouses approved for storing non-conforming goods, and movements of goods between those points, taking place by road, railway and waterways, intra-community movements of EU goods moving via third countries ("external transits" for the purpose of this report, not to be confused with the T1 external transit procedure of Customs), products of animal origin and live animals, when appropriate, and the control and verification procedures implemented on the movements above, including operational criteria and relations between authorities. Controls on transhipments, personal consignments and movements of pet animals, and external transits via EFTA countries were excluded from the scope: 1

6 The table below lists sites visited and the meetings held in order to achieve the above objectives: Meetings Opening and closing meeting Kybartai road and rail BIPs Malku Ilankos port BIP Customs warehouse Competent authorities SFVS, BFVCD, IAD and Customs BFVCD, Customs BFVCD, Customs BFVCD 3 LEGAL BASIS The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation and, in particular Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Annex 1 comprises a list of legislation as audit criteria for this report. Legal acts quoted refer, where applicable, to the last amended version. The Commission General Guidance for consignments of live animals and animal products from third countries in transit and transhipment (SANCO/10844/2011 of 8 April 2011) (hereafter Guidance on transit) referred to above is also used as audit criterion. 4 BACKGROUND Council Directives 97/78/EC (for animal products) and 91/496/EEC (for live animals) set out the veterinary procedures and requirements for importing into the EU commercial consignments of live animals and animal products. While consignments to be imported must meet both animal and public health requirements, consignments of animal products in transit are only required to meet the animal health requirements. It is therefore necessary that the competent authorities ensure that those consignments, for which public health guarantees have not been provided, do not enter the EU market. Approximately 50% of consignments (products of animal origin) transited the EU through Lithuanian territory in their movement between third countries in The 11 (of 12) approved BIPs issued: 44,198 common veterinary entry documents for products (CVEDPs) for direct transit consignments. Those consignments consequently left the Union through 17 exit points (of which, 9 Lithuanian BIPs). Approximately 60% of these consignments are transiting between Russian territories. 121 common veterinary entry documents for animals (CVEDAs) for consignments of live animals (bovines and horses). 1,807 CVEDPs for indirect transit consignments, for consignments intended to be stored in Customs warehouses in Lithuania. Approximately 35% of the transiting consignments arrive via Kybartai road and rail BIPs. 2

7 Twenty-seven Customs warehouses are approved under Article 12 of Directive 97/78/EC for the temporary storage of products of animal origin in transit. The four super-local veterinary units (SLVUs) issued 7,937 subsequent CVEDPs for consignments transiting from the warehouses to third countries. At the time of the audit there were no warehouses approved under Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC for the temporary storage of products of animal origin destined for the supply of ships. The FVO carried out an audit on the import controls system in Lithuania in 2013 DG(SANCO) in order to evaluate the use of the TRACES system. The report is available here: An overview of the control systems in Lithuania and a more detailed description of the relevant competent authorities can be found in the country profile for Lithuania available at: 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 DESIGNATION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND OPERATIONAL CRITERIA Legal requirements Articles 4, 6, 8, 24 of and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/662/EEC. Findings 1. The BFVCD within the SFVS is the designated authority responsible for the transit controls of products of animal origin and live animals, in line with Article Art. 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The local veterinary units (LVUs) are responsible for the approval and supervision of the Customs warehouses. The 12 BIPs are under the supervision of BFVCD, which drafts procedures, prepares guidelines and instructions on transit controls and updates the manual of procedures at BIPs for border veterinary inspectors. 2. The system for controls of transits has a documented set of procedures (so-called quality programs) and working instructions as required by Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004/EC. The official controls of transits fall within the scope of the accreditation according to ISO standard 17020: The audit team noted that the competent authority made available to the staff of the BIPs visited the procedures related to transit movements (i.e. controls of transits at entry and exit BIPs and at Customs warehouses). The available procedures were up-to-date in the BIPs visited and staff also has access to the internal IT network of the competent authority which includes the entire documented system for the official import controls. 3

8 This is used by staff in order to be kept up-to-date in the area of their competence as required by Article 6(b) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The audit team noted the following exceptions: a. previous FVO audit report ( ) recommended that the competent authority develop the procedure in order to ensure that BIP staff is up-to-date on the specific provisions applicable to transits of live animals. The competent authority stated that this was under review and provided the draft version to the audit team. b. there was no procedure for the controls of external transits. BFVCD is the competent authority responsible but has not planned the controls of external transits, which are required by Article 6(1) of Directive 89/662/EEC. Those controls would aim at preventing that EU goods transiting via third countries with specific animal health risks re-enter the Union. However, due to geographical position and the trade patterns of Lithuania, those movements are limited. The audit team did not find evidence of such movements in TRACES and the competent authority confirmed this during the audit. 4. There is evidence of frequent communication and cooperation between the BFVCD and the BIP staff and also between the BFVCD and Customs at both central and local level. There is communication to the veterinary authorities if Customs detect non-compliances, and local agreements for joint controls exist at the BIPs visited. In addition, the BIP staff contact local Customs offices in relation to controls on transiting consignments (see finding 12). The audit team noted that the system meets the requirement of Articles 4(3), 4(5) and 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/ The competent authority delivers regular training related to transit controls as required by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The training targets both BIP staff and Customs officials working at central and local level (the last course was held in February 2015). The official staff met during the audit was technically competent to perform the official controls. 6. The audit team noted that at the BIPs visited there was a clear allocation of the tasks of staff as required by Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 882/

9 Conclusions on designation of competent authorities and operational criteria 7. The competent authority has implemented the requirements for communication, cooperation and training to support the overall functioning of the controls on transits, except in regard of transits of live animals (which was a recommendation of the 2013 FVO audit) and controls on external transits (which are not included in the planning of controls). 5.2 OFFICIAL CONTROLS ON TRANSITING GOODS Legal requirements Regulation (EC) No 136/2004, Regulation (EC) No 282/2004, Council Directive 97/78/EC, Council Directive 91/496/EC, Commission Decision 2000/571/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Decision 2000/208/EC. Findings Controls at the entry Border Inspection Posts Pre-notification 8. At the road and rail BIPs visited, the pre-notification of consignments is done via or fax. The audit team selected a random number of files at the road and rail BIPs and confirmed that pre-notification of consignments (including live animals) is done in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 136/2004/EC, Article 3(1) of Directive 91/496/EEC and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004. The competent authority confirmed that economic operators responsible for transiting consignments do not have TRACES accounts. Consequently, BIP staff need to introduce these data in TRACES themselves, which is very resource intensive: around 30,000 consignments in 2014 (i.e. approximately 96% of the official controls at the Lithuanian BIPs in 2014) were related to transiting consignments At the port BIP pre-notification is done by the operators using TRACES. Approximately 30% of randomly selected files examined by the audit team at the port BIP were late notifications of consignments arriving at the BIP, contrary to the requirement of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 136/2004/EC. The competent authority was not aware of this noncompliance therefore had not taken corrective action to address it. 10. The Customs database identifies automatically transit consignments that should be presented at the BIPs for controls, on the basis of the Customs nomenclature code. Some of the consignments are not flagged by the Customs database but identified by the Customs officials on the basis of the description of the goods. All identified consignments 1 In their response to the draft report the competent authority noted that Order No B1-752 of the SFVS Director was adopted on laying down that as from 1 November 2015, the person responsible for the load (consignments of animal origin products or live animals coming into the territory of EU from third countries) should present Part I of the CVEDP or CVEDA only via the TRACES system. 5

10 are directed to the BIPs to undergo official controls and there are local agreements between BIPs and Customs to release the consignments when a veterinary stamp is on the accompanying documents (if there is no need to perform veterinary controls) or after the presentation of a CVED where a control was needed. The audit team noted that the arrangements in place ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 4(1) of Directive 91/496/EEC and Article 3(1) of Directive 97/78/EC. 11. The competent authority stated that the port and rail BIPs visited conduct manifest checks (with a view to identifying possible cases of consignments not presented at the BIPs) on an ad hoc basis and there is no recording of these controls. The road BIP visited does not monitor incoming consignments in order to identify cases that should be subject to veterinary controls, contrary to the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 136/2004 and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 282/2004. The audit team noted that the procedure for controls of transits does not refer to the above-mentioned requirements Veterinary checks 12. In the 18 months prior to the audit, 325 consignments intended for direct transit were wrongly recorded as EU-conform in TRACES box 19, part I. 125 of them were consignments transiting between Russian territories. The competent authority attributed these cases to errors in completing TRACES. The CVEDs examined by the audit team had correctly indicated in box 34 part II that certified consignments were accepted for transit. The percentage of these consignments in relation to the total transit movements is low (approximately 0.5%) but the certificates indicating EU-conform (especially those under the scope of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2010), mean that those consignments could legally enter the Union. However, the competent authority had consulted Customs and confirmed the exit of all outstanding cases of direct transit consignments. 13. The audit team assessed randomly selected files of transiting consignments at entry BIPs and noted the following: a. Documentary checks for transit consignments are performed by the BIPs as required by Article 4 of Directive 97/78/EC. b. In most cases the competent authority issues correctly the CVED in TRACES as required by Annex II of Regulation (EC) 136/2004. All cases examined complied with the animal health requirements of EU legislation. c. TRACES is used for communication to destination (warehouse or exit BIP) as required by Article 11 of Directive 97/78/EC. The audit team noted that 35 consignments of products of animal origin were certified as destined to exit the EU through non-bips. 31 of them were not confirmed at exit. Even though it is plausible that the vehicles left the Union territory (without checks), the lack of exit confirmation undermines the guarantees that non-compliant products do not end up on the EU market, contrary to the requirements of Article 4(1) of Directive 91/496/EEC and Article 3(1) of Directive 97/78/EC. d. All direct transit consignments leaving the entry BIPs visited are sealed with a veterinary seal, and the number is indicated in box 38 of Part II of the CVEDP, as required by Article 11(2)(c) of Directive 97/78/EC. 6

11 14. The head of the port BIP visited stated that all multi-container transit consignments are destined to the Customs warehouses. The BIP issues one CVED after waiting for all the containers to be controlled. Each truck brings a copy of the original CVED and all are considered part of the entire consignment as presented to the BIP. This procedure is in accordance with the requirement of Article 11(2) of Directive 97/78/EC and the Guidance on transits. In addition: a. The head of the port BIP stated that all arriving consignments bear a seal, which is indicated in the health certificate accompanying the consignment. The BIP staff perform only seal checks for all transit consignments (excluding those destined to the Customs warehouses for which a full identification check is performed) following the requirements of Article 4(4)(a)(1) of Directive 97/78/EC. b. In the road and rail BIPs visited, the staff perform full identity checks for all transit consignments at entry with the exception of consignments presented in containers at the rail BIP, which are sealed and accompanied by a health certificate that indicates the seal number (approximately 15% of consignments presented at the rail BIP according to TRACES) (see finding 16). The competent authority explained that this decision is taken because Article 4(a)(i) of Directive 97/78/EC provides for performing only seal checks where products arrive in containers, and does not make explicit reference to rail wagons. 15. The audit team noted that the instruction for the controls of transits at entry BIPs is not sufficiently clear on the different cases faced by officials. In particular it is not clear when the BIP staff need to perform a full identity check and whether consignments that have been rejected should leave the BIP sealed (a case was noted in which the rail BIP performed a full identity check on a consignment and rejected it unsealed). The above may lead to a lack of consistency in the related controls among the different BIPs. 16. The audit team observed the control on a consignment that included five commodities in a truck. The full identity check was limited to the boxes of products in the front row of the truck door. The BIP staff stated that there is no unloading to verify that the identity and the quantities described in the accompanying documents match the content of the means of transport. The competent authority stated that full identity checks in the BIPs visited (Kybartai road and rail) were limited to tail checks. This increases the risk of consignments with a CVEDP which does not match the actual content of the means of transport. In 2014, a total of 26,307 consignments entered Lithuania from Kaliningrad intended for Russia via the two BIPs visited. The audit team noted that the high number of incoming transit consignments combined with the additional resources needed for the BIPs to fill in part I in TRACES (finding 8) makes it practically unfeasible to implement appropriately the full identity checks of the consignments Follow-up of transiting goods by the entry Border Inspection Posts 17. Entry BIPs keep a register to follow up the consignments in transit and to ensure that they leave the EU territory within 30 days, as laid down in Article 11(2)(c) of Directive 97/78/EC. In the majority of cases examined by the audit team, the exit BIPs had confirmed in TRACES that the consignment had left the EU territory. 7

12 18. In cases that confirmation of exit is not provided in TRACES within 30 days, the entry BIP contacts the local Customs office in order to verify that the consignment has left the EU territory in accordance with the requirements of Article 11(2)(e). Conclusions on controls at entry Border Inspection Posts 19. The official control system of transit consignments at the entry BIPs ensures that only consignments eligible for transits are accepted as required by EU legislation with the exception of specific shortcomings on (i) the enforcement of pre-notification requirements in one BIP and (ii) the screening of available information on arriving consignments in another BIP that reduce the ability to detect consignments that should undergo border controls Controls at warehouses 20. The LVU responsible for the Customs warehouse visited uses a checklist for the inspection and approval of the facilities under the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/ The competent authority had consulted Customs at central level in 2015 about outstanding cases of transit consignments not confirmed at exit. Customs confirmed all cases of outstanding direct transit consignments and part of the indirect transits (236 and 99 consignments remained outstanding for 2013 and 2014 respectively, at the time of the audit). The audit team noted that among the outstanding cases reported to Customs with the view to further investigation, officials in one Customs warehouse had not followed up 70% of those in 2013 and 25% in The competent authority had not identified the shortcoming. 22. The audit team found some cases of incoming ("mother") CVEDs with no seal number in box 38 part II TRACES. The competent authority stated that those consignments were sealed and by mistake this was not indicated in TRACES. 23. Several consignments of indirect transits indicated in part I of the CVEDP as being conform to EU requirements. For one BIP visited there were 91 such consignments in the 18 months prior to the audit. The CVEDs examined by the audit team had correctly indicated in box 34 part II that certified consignments were accepted for transit. 24. The audit team visited a warehouse which is indicated as a cold storage warehouse in the list provided by the competent authority to the Commission, available on its webpage: The audit team noted the following: The warehouse operator was sufficiently aware of customs procedures and legal requirements for the handling and storing of non-conforming consignments defined in Article 12 (4)(b) of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/571/EC. 8

13 The traceability system of the warehouse is based on electronic registration of entry of the product and identification of its position by scanning of the point (rack) of storage. The non-conforming products in storage were not identified with the reference CVED number, contrary to the requirement of the Article 1(5) of Decision 2000/571/EC. This was not identified by the officials in charge of the controls. TRACES is used correctly in most cases for confirmation of arrival of consignments of non-complying products into the warehouse as required by Article 3(2) of Decision 2004/292/EC. Most consignments dispatched from the warehouse were confirmed as having left EU territory as required by Article 12(8) of Directive 97/78/EC. The competent authority keeps an electronic register for each consignment received in, stored and dispatched from the warehouse. This register includes the local reference number indicated in the CVED, but not the CVED number, contrary to the recommendation of the Guidance on transits. However, the competent authority demonstrated the ability to reconcile the amounts at the warehouse, in accordance with the requirements of Article 3(2) of Decision 2000/571/EC. The audit team conducted a random traceability exercise both from records to the goods in storage and back, from a product in the warehouse to the records. Both results were satisfactory. The data from TRACES matched precisely with the information provided by the competent authorities' and the operator s records, and all cases examined were confirmed in TRACES as having exited. The competent authority issues exiting ( daughter ) CVEDPs which are properly linked in box 24 with the original CVEDPs issued by the entry BIP in compliance with Article 1(6) of Decision 2000/571/EC. The quantities leaving the warehouse matched the quantities arriving, ensuring traceability in TRACES. The audit team evaluated two examples of consignments where part of them needed to be sent for destruction (one case of some damaged carton boxes and one case of goods gone over the expiry date during storage). In both cases CVEDs were issued for the movement to destruction in compliance with the requirement of Article 5(1) of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 1 of Decision 2000/571/EC. The consignments had been sent for destruction with commercial documents as required by Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and the competent authority at the place of destruction had confirmed their arrival via TRACES. Conclusions on controls at warehouses 25. The system of controls of Customs warehouses ensures the traceability of nonconforming products arriving, stored and handled in the warehouses and that consignments shipped from the warehouses exit the EU. 9

14 5.2.3 Controls at the exit Border Inspection Posts 26. The BIPs staff perform checks on exit transit consignments. The local Customs offices have verbal agreements with the BIPs to notify them of exiting transit consignments lacking a veterinary stamp or CVED, in order to perform the required controls. The competent authority stated that when a CVED is presented at Customs, the officials notify the BIP staff. According to Customs, cases of consignments not confirmed at exit could be attributed to the inexperience of a number of Customs officials recently recruited. 27. The competent authority stated that BIP staff verify the identity of the exiting consignments by performing a seal check following the requirements of Article 3 of Decision 2000/208/EC. 28. After veterinary checks at the exit BIP, the relevant part of box 41 of the CVEDs is recorded in TRACES as required by Article 3 of Decision 2004/292/EC. 29. The audit team requested information about two CVEDs where box 41 indicated nonsatisfactory results in the seal checks. The competent authority stated that they were errors in completing box 41. The audit team noted that the relevant instruction does not describe the necessary actions for handling the possibility of a non-compliant outcome of the seal check at exit BIPs. Conclusion on controls at exit BIPs 30. The official controls of exit transit consignments are correctly implemented in the vast majority of cases ensuring that consignments leave the EU territory as required by EU legislation. 5.3 OFFICIAL CONTROLS IMPLEMENTED ON SPECIFIC TRANSITS: DEROGATIONS FOR CONSIGNMENTS FROM RUSSIA (KALININGRAD) AND DESTINED TO RUSSIA Legal requirements Articles 12(a) and 17(3) of Regulation (EC) 206/2010, Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008, Article 4(b) of Decision 2000/572/EC, Article 6 of Decision 2007/777/EC, Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 798/2008, Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 119/2009, Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 605/2010, Article 5 of Regulation 28/2012, Article 29 of Regulation (EC) 142/2011. Findings 31. The competent authority stated that more than 99% of the consignments arrive sealed and approximately 95% are sealed by the Russian local Customs authority at the place of the establishment of origin. The rest of the consignments are sealed by the food business operators in Russia. 32. The official veterinarians at the road BIP perform a full identity check in the vast majority of the consignments (see finding 16) and re-seal the consignments. 10

15 33. Every consignment arrives at the BIP of entry with a health certificate issued by the Russian veterinary service. The CVEDs that are produced in the BIP are stamped as ONLY FOR TRANSIT TO RUSSIA as required by Article 17 of Regulation 206/2010. Copies of the health certificates and the CVEDs were kept at the BIPs. 34. The entry BIPs keep a register to monitor and confirm that the consignments exit the EU. In cases where no feedback is provided via TRACES, the BIP staff contacts the BIP of exit. 35. As described in finding 16, the full identity checks in the road and rail BIPs were limited to tail checks. Even though there is no specific requirement to carry out routinely full identity checks on consignments in transit, whenever they are implemented the official should have access to the entire load of the consignment. 36. The competent authority has not established a regular verification procedure to ensure the number of consignments and the quantities of products leaving the Union territory matches the number and quantities entering contrary to the requirement of Article 17(3) of Regulation No 206/2010. However, the audit team confirmed that all relevant consignments of products of animal origin and live animals having transited Lithuania in 2014 were confirmed as having exited the EU. The audit team examined a random selection of related files and found no shortcomings in the related official controls and certification. Conclusion on the controls implemented on consignments transiting between Russian territories 37. The specific conditions for transit via the EU territory between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia are implemented following the requirements of EU legislation, with some weakness in the identity checks which are limited to tail checks that may lead to the non-detection of consignments that do not tally exactly with the description in the accompanying document. 5.4 VERIFICATION AND REVIEW Legal requirements Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Decision 2000/571/EC, Articles 12 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2010. Findings 38. In line with the requirement laid down in Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the internal audit department (IAD) has a 5-year internal audit plan, which foresees an audit in one BIP every year. The scope of these audits also covers the operation of the Customs warehouses. The audit plan covered three BIPs in 2013 (among them the port BIP visited during this FVO audit). In 2014 it covered the road BIP visited during this FVO audit and a Customs warehouse. 11

16 39. The central competent authority performs supervision of the BIPs with a view to complementing the audit activities (in 2013 and 2014 SFVS performed six visits at BIPs other than the ones that were covered by the IAD). 40. At local level there is a procedure that the head of each BIP conducts supervision of the activities of the BIP and of the Customs warehouses under his/her responsibility twice per year. In addition, the LVUs responsible for the approval and operation of the Customs warehouses perform one supervision per year in assessing, among other things, the facilities requirements described in Directive 97/78/EC. 41. The competent authority stated that the officials at central level, responsible for planning of verification activities, perform a regular review of TRACES via its reporting tool Qlikview in order to target correctly the BIPs/Customs warehouses to be assessed, on the basis of risk. 42. The audit team examined copies of audit and supervision reports and noted the following: a. The competent authority is using checklists for supervision, that follow, among others, the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Council Directive 97/78/EC, Regulation 853/2004/EC, Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and the planned arrangements under the scope of accreditation (finding 2). In general, the verification activities do not include in their criteria and scope the requirements of Articles 12(a) and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 206/2010 related to the transits between Russian territories and the content of the Guidance on transits. b. The audit conducted in 2014 at the road BIP identified that the local supervision was performed once per year (instead of twice) and recommended that the plan of the related procedure should be respected. There was no assessment of the requirements of Articles 12(a) and 17 of Regulation No 206/2010. c. Central supervision at the port BIP visited identified in November 2014 cases of TRACES not being used properly and a lack of recording in the register kept at the BIP to monitor the transit consignments destined for Customs warehouses. The audit team examined a random selection of relevant transit consignments controlled at the BIP after the central supervision and confirmed the correct use of TRACES and correct recording of entering transit consignments in the BIP register. d. Central supervision in other BIPs indicated correct implementation of transit controls with the exception of wrong/inadequate records in the related registers and some cases of consignments exiting the EU not being controlled/confirmed. These reports led to training at local level to raise staff awareness. e. The local supervision reports in the last two years covering the three BIPs and the Customs warehouse visited (including the supervision conducted by the LVU as regards the Customs warehouse visited) reported compliance to the legal requirements (with exceptions of sporadic errors in use of TRACES that were not significant enough to trigger corrective actions). 43. The major deficiencies identified by the audit team were not detected by the verification activities of the competent authority (findings 9, 21 and 24). In the case of the recommendation of the FVO 2013 report (see finding 3), the competent authority had not 12

17 finalised the development of the procedure in relation to transit movements at the time of the audit. Conclusions on verification and review 44. Whilst the verification activities cover the official controls on transits and lead to improvement of the official control system, their impact is compromised by the failure to detect systematic non-compliances (inadequate performance of identity checks). 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The official control system for transits meets the general requirements in relation to communication, training, and resources supporting the functionality of controls. The controls at the BIPs and at the Customs warehouses generally ensure that only consignments eligible for transit enter the Union territory, and transiting consignments always leave the Union. The requirements for pre-notification and screening of available information on arriving consignments are not fully met which means that the identification and control of consignments subject to veterinary checks is compromised. Staff carry out official controls in accordance to documented procedures with the exception of controls on transits of live animals. The specific conditions for transit via the EU territory between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia are implemented following the requirements of EU legislation, with the exception of the identity checks which are limited to tail checks. This may lead to the non-detection of consignments that do not tally exactly with the description in the accompanying document. Whilst the verification activities are well organised and lead to improvement of the system, their impact is compromised by the lack of detection of systematic deficiencies. 7 CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 27 February with representatives from the State Food and Veterinary Service and the Customs authority. At this meeting, the main findings and the preliminary conclusions of the audit were presented by the audit team. The central competent authority requested clarification in relation to some issues but did not express disagreement with the findings and conclusions presented. 13

18 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The competent authority is invited to provide details of the actions taken and planned aimed at addressing the recommendations set out below, including deadlines for their completion ('action plan'), within 25 working days of receipt of the translated draft audit report. No. Recommendation 1. To develop procedures, in line with requirements laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Recommendation based on conclusion 7. Associated findings: 3, 11 and To ensure that, when identity checks are implemented, they ensure that the veterinary certificate(s) or veterinary document(s) or other document(s) provided for by veterinary legislation tally with the product itself as specified in Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 97/78/EC. Recommendation based on conclusion 37. Associated with findings: 16 and To ensure that persons responsible for the load forward information to the competent authority in advance of the transit consignments before the physical arrival on EU territory as required by Article 3(3) of Directive 97/78/EC. Recommendation based on conclusion 19. Associated with finding: To gather and analyse relevant information to ensure that eligible transit consignments are subject to veterinary checks, as required by Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004. Recommendation based on conclusion 19. Associated with finding:

19 ANNEX 1 LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Reg. 882/ Article 45 (MS) OJ L 165, , p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 191, , p. 1 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules Dir. 89/662/EEC OJ L 395, , p Reg. 136/2004 OJ L 21, , p Reg. 282/2004 OJ L 49, , p Dir. 97/78/EC OJ L 24, , p Dir. 91/496/EEC OJ L 268, , p Dec. 2000/571/EC OJ L 240, , p Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 of 18 February 2004 introducing a document for the declaration of, and veterinary checks on, animals from third countries entering the Community Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC 2000/571/EC: Commission Decision of 8 September 2000 laying down the methods of veterinary checks for products from third countries destined for introduction into free zones, free warehouses, customs warehouses or operators supplying cross border means of sea transport

20 Reg. 1069/2009 OJ L 300, , p Reg. 853/2004 OJ L 139, , p. 55, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 226, , p. 22 Dec. 2001/812/EC OJ L 306, , p Reg. 206/2010 OJ L 73, , p Reg. 1251/2008 OJ L 337, , p Dec. 2000/572/EC OJ L 240, , p Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin 2001/812/EC: Commission Decision of 21 November 2001 laying down the requirements for the approval of border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced into the Community from third countries Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species 2000/572/EC: Commission Decision of 8 September 2000 laying down animal and public health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of minced meat and meat preparations from third countries and repealing Decision 97/29/EC

21 Dec. 2007/777/EC OJ L 312, , p Reg. 798/2008 OJ L 226, , p Reg. 119/2009 OJ L 39, , p Reg. 605/2010 OJ L 175, , p Reg. 28/2012 OJ L 12, , p /777/EC: Commission Decision of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of certain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements Commission Regulation (EC) No 119/2009 of 9 February 2009 laying down a list of third countries or parts thereof, for imports into, or transit through, the Community of meat of wild leporidae, of certain wild land mammals and of farmed rabbits and the veterinary certification requirements Commission Regulation (EU) No 605/2010 of 2 July 2010 laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions for the introduction into the European Union of raw milk and dairy products intended for human consumption Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 of 11 January 2012 laying down requirements for the certification for imports into and transit through the Union of certain composite products and amending Decision 2007/275/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009

22 Reg. 142/2011 OJ L 54, , p Dec. 2000/208/EC OJ L 64, , p Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive 2000/208/EC: Commission Decision of 24 February 2000 establishing detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 97/78/EC concerning the transit of products of animal origin from one third country to another third country by road only across the European Community