Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 specifies the need for transit certificates for live aquaculture fish, fish eggs and uneviscerated fish for human consumption. The model health certificate for transit for storage in specially approved warehouses of these products is laid down in Part C of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008.
For transit of fishery products to third countries, no such model health certificate is laid down. However, the footnotes of the health certificate for fishery products as laid down in Appendix IV to Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005, detail the cases in which the animal health attestations provided for in that certificate do not apply. These mirror the cases described in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 for which animal health attestations are necessary. Therefore, for consignments of fishery products in transit to third countries or for storage in specially approved warehouses, it is not necessary to present the EU model health certificate for transit at the EU border inspection post.
For products of animal origin destined for human consumption (HC) in transit from Russia to Russia there is no requirement for a transit certificate certifying the animal health conditions. There are procedural requirements, e.g. stamp on the Russian certificates, sealing of the consignments, confirmation of exit etc.. Would this apply also to consignments from third countries unloaded in Kaliningrad and sent to Russia?
Yes, the procedure as foreseen in Art.12 (b) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 is applicable for these consignments and the certificate to Russia has to be stamped accordingly.
At the moment there is an agreement between Lithuania and the European Commission that Lithuanian BIPs use the same procedure as for the consignments of meat and meat products, pending the adoption of rules for such consignments under the forthcoming revised Regulation on animal by-products. They stamp the Russian certificate of the consignment intended for transit to Kaliningrad and each consignment is sealed.
No, because BIPs authorised for live animals only are not competent for the tasks covered by Council Directive 97/78/EC
The definition of a BIP in that same directive reads: "border inspection post’ means any inspection post, designated and approved in accordance with Article 6, for the carrying out of veterinary checks on products arriving from third countries at the border of one of the territories listed in Annex I". The whole Directive does not make any reference to live animals.
Moreover there are other Directives which deal with the import of live animals (e.g. Council Directive 90/426/EEC with the import of horses).
The definition of products in Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 97/78/EC with its cross references is far from clear but if you read Article 1 of Council Directive 90/425/EC (one of the reference) it is clear that here animals and products are clearly distinguished. "Member States shall ensure that the veterinary checks to be carried out on live animals and products which are covered by the Directives listed…"
Therefore, Council Directive 97/78/EC and related acts only deal with products and not with live animals.
That the institutions that check live animals are also called Border Inspection Posts is a coincidence. The coincidence in name does not provide them automatically with the same function. For the purpose of products, they are defined as above (carrying out of veterinary checks on products).
Recital 5, which reads: "It is also important to specify the category of approval of the border inspection post of exit to ensure that the personnel operating there are familiar with the products that are presented for examination" is only helpful in respect that it demonstrates that the intention was that the personnel available at the check post is competent for the task. If it was necessary to distinguish BIPs for fishery products from other product BIPs, it appears logic that BIPs for products and those for live animals are also distinguished.