NOT ALL LIVESTOCK FARMERS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION - OPINION OF THE LEGAL SERVICES - Filenews 6/8 by Angelos Nikolaou
The process of paying compensation to livestock farmers affected by the measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease is on track and their applications show discrepancies. Following a relevant opinion of the Legal Service, the cases of the beneficiaries that remained pending are now undertaken to be examined by the Veterinary Services, in order to proceed with the payments.
The question to the Legal Service was submitted by the director of the Veterinary Services, as during the inspections of the Evaluation Committees serious violations of veterinary legislation were found, and therefore asks to know whether livestock farmers whose animals are killed as part of measures to deal with foot-and-mouth disease are entitled to compensation, when serious violations of veterinary legislation are found.
Specifically, out of the 121 farms, two were illegal and two concern local breed animals (fat and red cows in Dromolaxia). A total of 117 files have been prepared, including pig farms.
100 files have been signed for beneficiaries in charge of cattle, sheep, goats and pig farms after the opinion from the Legal Service and the completion of their payment is progressing. However, 23 owners from 117 farms, 20% of the total number of units that have been killed, which show discrepancies were notified by letter that their file is being examined and will be re-evaluated by the Veterinary Services.
In particular, the following were identified:
• Discrepancies between the actual number of animals on farms and those declared in the database.
• Undeclared movements and deficiencies in signage.
• Stay of animals in livestock farms beyond the legal limit of 29 days.
The Veterinary Services expressed concern that these violations affect traceability and may have contributed to the spread of the disease, raising the question of whether these breeders are entitled to state compensation.
The legal interpretation of Article 11(5) of the Animal Health Act
The Senior Advocate of the Republic, Elena Symeonidou, clarifies in her opinion the interpretation of Article 11(5) of the Animal Health Law (109(I)/2001).
In order for a farmer to be deprived of compensation, it must be objectively established that the slaughter or destruction of the animals was made necessary by the infringement.
In the present case, the slaughter was imposed because of the foot-and-mouth disease infection and not because the traceability records were not kept. Therefore, an administrative or criminal offence does not automatically entail the loss of the right to compensation, unless a causal link is established.
How the 8 key questions were answered
Question 1: Do violations affect the right to compensation? Is proof of causation required?
Full proof that the violation caused the slaughter is required. If it is not proven that the violation led to the contamination, compensation is paid. However, if it is proven that illegal movement from farm A contaminated farm B, then they both lose compensation. Also, animals without marking are slaughtered as dangerous and are not compensated, in case it is found on a farm that there are animals that are not marked in violation of the legislative framework.
Question 2: Can compensation be excluded due to a high degree of discrepancy or systematization?
Nope. The law does not provide for the percentage of deviation as a deprivation criterion for compensation. The large discrepancy is only taken into account as an aggravating factor for the imposition of an administrative fine or penalties. It could be taken into account as an aggravating factor in case the discrepancy is large, when imposing the administrative fine by the competent authority. In the case of criminal prosecution, the degree of deviation could be taken into account by the Court when imposing the sentence.
Question 3: What evidence is considered sufficient for deviations of more than 50-70%?
They are not determined in advance. The principle of proof of a causal link between an infringement and the necessity of slaughter applies. The deprivation of compensation could only be justified if it is proven, with the evidence you have collected, that the slaughter of the animals was necessary due to the violation of the provisions of the Law, Regulations and Decrees.
Question 4: Does the exclusion justify the omission of a movement declaration that makes tracing difficult?
Nope. The compensation compensates for the financial damage caused by the mandatory measures due to the virus. In order to change this, the State must proceed with a legislative amendment of Article 11(5). Through this article, the legislator expressly chose to exclude the payment of compensation in cases where the slaughter became necessary due to a violation of the applicable legislation by the owner.
In this case, the slaughter was made necessary due to the infection of the herds with foot-and-mouth disease, regardless of any violation of other obligations of the current legislation. Therefore, if there is no connection between the necessity of the slaughter and the violations of the current legislation, then a refusal to pay compensation cannot be justified.
Question 5: Is there a possibility of partial exclusion of compensation (e.g. only for ineligible animals) depending on the severity?
It is covered by answers 1 and 2 (the rule of causation applies).
Question 6: Is the exclusion applied holistically or only for the animals linked to the infringement (they were not present at the control, while they were registered in the database)?
There is no need to answer, as no evidence has been provided linking the massacre to the violation.
Question 7: Are animals that have remained on livestock farms for more than 29 days eligible?
By law (RAA 94/2012), these animals should have already been compulsorily removed. If animals are found to be born in such units that are prohibited, they are confiscated and killed without compensation. In such cases, the person in charge of the farm is denounced.
Question 8: How are these animals treated if they are deemed eligible?
It is fully covered by the answer to question 7.
Sanctions and amendment of legislation
The opinion makes it clear that the non-deprivation of compensation does not amnesty the offenders. The Veterinary Services are called upon to exercise their powers by imposing administrative fines of up to €5,000 or referring cases to justice for criminal prosecution.
At the same time, the Legal Service indicates to the competent Ministries that, if they wish in the future for the violation of traceability rules to automatically lead to the excision of compensation, they should submit a relevant amending bill, which will be examined in the light of the principle of proportionality.
The process of paying compensation to livestock farmers affected by the measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease is on track and their applications show discrepancies. Following a relevant opinion of the Legal Service, the cases of the beneficiaries that remained pending are now undertaken to be examined by the Veterinary Services, in order to proceed with the payments.
The question to the Legal Service was submitted by the director of the Veterinary Services, as during the inspections of the Evaluation Committees serious violations of veterinary legislation were found, and therefore asks to know whether livestock farmers whose animals are killed as part of measures to deal with foot-and-mouth disease are entitled to compensation, when serious violations of veterinary legislation are found.
Specifically, out of the 121 farms, two were illegal and two concern local breed animals (fat and red cows in Dromolaxia). A total of 117 files have been prepared, including pig farms.
100 files have been signed for beneficiaries in charge of cattle, sheep, goats and pig farms after the opinion from the Legal Service and the completion of their payment is progressing. However, 23 owners from 117 farms, 20% of the total number of units that have been killed, which show discrepancies were notified by letter that their file is being examined and will be re-evaluated by the Veterinary Services.
In particular, the following were identified:
• Discrepancies between the actual number of animals on farms and those declared in the database.
• Undeclared movements and deficiencies in signage.
• Stay of animals in livestock farms beyond the legal limit of 29 days.
The Veterinary Services expressed concern that these violations affect traceability and may have contributed to the spread of the disease, raising the question of whether these breeders are entitled to state compensation.
The legal interpretation of Article 11(5) of the Animal Health Act
The Senior Advocate of the Republic, Elena Symeonidou, clarifies in her opinion the interpretation of Article 11(5) of the Animal Health Law (109(I)/2001).
In order for a farmer to be deprived of compensation, it must be objectively established that the slaughter or destruction of the animals was made necessary by the infringement.
In the present case, the slaughter was imposed because of the foot-and-mouth disease infection and not because the traceability records were not kept. Therefore, an administrative or criminal offence does not automatically entail the loss of the right to compensation, unless a causal link is established.
How the 8 key questions were answered
Question 1: Do violations affect the right to compensation? Is proof of causation required?
Full proof that the violation caused the slaughter is required. If it is not proven that the violation led to the contamination, compensation is paid. However, if it is proven that illegal movement from farm A contaminated farm B, then they both lose compensation. Also, animals without marking are slaughtered as dangerous and are not compensated, in case it is found on a farm that there are animals that are not marked in violation of the legislative framework.
Question 2: Can compensation be excluded due to a high degree of discrepancy or systematization?
Nope. The law does not provide for the percentage of deviation as a deprivation criterion for compensation. The large discrepancy is only taken into account as an aggravating factor for the imposition of an administrative fine or penalties. It could be taken into account as an aggravating factor in case the discrepancy is large, when imposing the administrative fine by the competent authority. In the case of criminal prosecution, the degree of deviation could be taken into account by the Court when imposing the sentence.
Question 3: What evidence is considered sufficient for deviations of more than 50-70%?
They are not determined in advance. The principle of proof of a causal link between an infringement and the necessity of slaughter applies. The deprivation of compensation could only be justified if it is proven, with the evidence you have collected, that the slaughter of the animals was necessary due to the violation of the provisions of the Law, Regulations and Decrees.
Question 4: Does the exclusion justify the omission of a movement declaration that makes tracing difficult?
Nope. The compensation compensates for the financial damage caused by the mandatory measures due to the virus. In order to change this, the State must proceed with a legislative amendment of Article 11(5). Through this article, the legislator expressly chose to exclude the payment of compensation in cases where the slaughter became necessary due to a violation of the applicable legislation by the owner.
In this case, the slaughter was made necessary due to the infection of the herds with foot-and-mouth disease, regardless of any violation of other obligations of the current legislation. Therefore, if there is no connection between the necessity of the slaughter and the violations of the current legislation, then a refusal to pay compensation cannot be justified.
Question 5: Is there a possibility of partial exclusion of compensation (e.g. only for ineligible animals) depending on the severity?
It is covered by answers 1 and 2 (the rule of causation applies).
Question 6: Is the exclusion applied holistically or only for the animals linked to the infringement (they were not present at the control, while they were registered in the database)?
There is no need to answer, as no evidence has been provided linking the massacre to the violation.
Question 7: Are animals that have remained on livestock farms for more than 29 days eligible?
By law (RAA 94/2012), these animals should have already been compulsorily removed. If animals are found to be born in such units that are prohibited, they are confiscated and killed without compensation. In such cases, the person in charge of the farm is denounced.
Question 8: How are these animals treated if they are deemed eligible?
It is fully covered by the answer to question 7.
Sanctions and amendment of legislation
The opinion makes it clear that the non-deprivation of compensation does not amnesty the offenders. The Veterinary Services are called upon to exercise their powers by imposing administrative fines of up to €5,000 or referring cases to justice for criminal prosecution.
At the same time, the Legal Service indicates to the competent Ministries that, if they wish in the future for the violation of traceability rules to automatically lead to the excision of compensation, they should submit a relevant amending bill, which will be examined in the light of the principle of proportionality.
