Parliamentary question - E-4926/2010Parliamentary question

Commission Regulation (EU) No 388/2010 of 6 May 2010

Question for written answer E-4926/2010
to the Commission
Rule 117
Ulrike Rodust (S&D)

In response to breaches of the provisions of Regulation No 998/2003[1] on the transport of animals by disreputable animal protection agencies who had engaged in an illicit trade in dogs, the Commission has enacted a new regulation (Regulation (EU) No 388/2010[2]), which entered into force on 27 May 2010.

Under the regulation, people transporting more than five dogs will be required to show more than just pet passports with proof of valid anti-rabies inoculation if they wish to take the animals across borders.

In future, health certificates will be needed in such cases[3].

The animals must undergo a veterinary examination less than 24 hours before departure to ensure that their identification is valid, that they have had all necessary vaccinations and that they are fit to travel. The veterinary authorities in the country of destination are then notified electronically using Traces.

Sled dog races are generally held in regions where snowfall is guaranteed, making international travel with dogs unavoidable. Owing to uncertain weather conditions and snowfall, the decision to take part in an event is often taken only shortly before a weekend. However, on a Friday it is no easy task to find a veterinary officer with the time to examine 10 or 20 dogs.

Is it true that anyone wishing to travel to another EU country with more than five dogs will be required to contact the competent veterinary authorities well in advance of their departure?

Is it true that the regulation applies to people taking part in sled dog racing, who usually keep more than five dogs?

Has the Commission considered the fact that the mandatory examination and associated electronic notification will leave these sportsmen and women facing disproportionately high costs?

How can such sportsmen and women comply with the provisions of the regulation when they have to travel from one sporting event to another?

OJ C 191 E, 01/07/2011