[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"category-agriculture-eu-2026":3},{"detail":4,"years":98},{"category":5,"year":11,"latestYear":11,"monthlyCounts":12,"decisions":38,"total":23,"page":14,"limit":97},{"id":6,"slug":7,"name":8,"country":9,"createdAt":10},25,"agriculture-eu","Agriculture","EU","2026-07-08T14:16:12.945Z",2026,[13,15,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36],{"month":14,"count":14},1,{"month":16,"count":17},2,0,{"month":19,"count":17},3,{"month":21,"count":17},4,{"month":23,"count":14},5,{"month":25,"count":17},6,{"month":27,"count":19},7,{"month":29,"count":17},8,{"month":31,"count":17},9,{"month":33,"count":17},10,{"month":35,"count":17},11,{"month":37,"count":17},12,[39,52,59,72,85],{"id":40,"ecli":41,"slug":42,"caseNumber":41,"courtId":43,"decisionDate":44,"publicationDate":44,"fullText":45,"summary":46,"language":47,"source":48,"sourceUrl":49,"sourceTimestamp":44,"parsedAt":50,"updatedAt":51},"230","52026DC0576","52026dc0576",53,"2026-07-07T00:00:00.000Z","EUROPEAN COMMISSION\n\nStrasbourg, 7.7.2026\n\nCOM(2026) 576 final\n\nCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS\n\nEU strategy on livestock\n\n{SWD(2026) 576 final}\n\n  \n\n\n1.Introduction \n\nLivestock farming is one of humanity’s oldest activities. Since animals were first domesticated over 10.000 years ago, it has played a pivotal role in the social and economic development of civilisations. Across the centuries, livestock farming has not only been an indispensable part of our food system. It has also sustained European livelihoods, has become a backbone of rural economies and a defining element of our landscapes. 1 The EU livestock farming sector plays a crucial role in contributing to food security by providing high quality protein, not only in the EU but also at global level, with a positive EU trade balance and a growing demand for EU products thanks to world-leading standards, quality and sustainability ( 2 ), which allow them to carry the flag of European excellence across the globe. \n\nAs a key strategic sector for the Union competitiveness and open strategic autonomy, this strategy sets out actions to tackle its existing vulnerabilities and increase its resilience in a world of growing market competition. At the same time, the sector needs to better respond to the increasing societal expectations, in particular on animal welfare, turn its environmental footprint into positive externalities and strengthen its territorial anchorage. Improvements in the food chain integration and taking a full circular approach would enable the valorising of all by-products and biomass to generate additional income for farmers, while reducing the carbon footprint of livestock production. \n\nAs announced in the Vision for Agriculture and Food ( 3 ), the EU livestock sector deserves a long-term strategy that respects the diversity and specificities of livestock production across Europe. Continuing the transition towards a resilient, competitive and sustainable livestock sector in the EU is key to fighting depopulation in the most vulnerable territories while at the same time contributing to the goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050. Such transition will be among the objectives supported by the CAP post-2027, thereby underpinning the implementation of the Generational Renewal Strategy ( 4 ), the EU Bioeconomy Strategy ( 5 ), the forthcoming new rural action plan ( 6 ), the Fertiliser Action Plan ( 7 ) and the communication on wildfire risk management ( 8 ). At international level, the Commission engages with multilateral bodies to accompany that transition through the alignment of international standards, notably the FAO in the framework of the Global Plan of Action for Sustainable Livestock. \n\nTo ensure the long-term viability of the EU livestock sector, a strategy is needed to: \n\n-Advance towards a resilient livestock system that withstands crisis and is better adapted to climate stress, \n\n-Strengthen its competitiveness at EU and global level, \n\n-Future-proof the sector by strengthening animal welfare conditions and minimising its climate and environmental footprint, \n\n-Ensure that livestock production systems continue to fit the unique characteristics of different regions, sustain rural economies and traditions across Europe and continue to contribute to the maintenance of their rich biodiversity, \n\n-Foster excellence in livestock production as a distinct European approach to livestock farming that is recognised and valued by consumers, in particular when it comes to animal welfare. 9 2.The EU livestock sector today \n\n2.1.Challenges and opportunities \n\nThe EU livestock sector is facing a combination of structural and day-to-day pressures. These pressures are already contributing to farm exits in some regions, particularly in cattle, sheep and goats, and raise concerns about the long-term continuity of livestock activity in parts of the Union. For example, France lost 16% of its bovine population in the last decade and, in the same period, Germany lost 22% of its pig population. \n\nA central challenge is profitability. High input costs, market volatility, and exposure to price fluctuations in feed and energy continue to compress margins. At the same time, compliance with high EU standards necessary to protect animal welfare, food safety, climate and environmental protection may generate production costs that are not always reflected in market prices. Farmers also face weak bargaining power towards the buyers. \n\nThe EU livestock sector also faces sustainability challenges. It is a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia and nutrient pollution, affecting climate, air, water quality and biodiversity. While emissions have been consistently declining, the pace is slow. The concentration of livestock production in some EU areas creates nutrient imbalances, resulting in nutrient pollution. At the same time, extensive grazing livestock is essential to maintain grasslands that support biodiversity, rural biotopes, conserve nature and help prevent land abandonment and depopulation of rural areas. \n\nSeveral structural vulnerabilities further shape the sector’s outlook. An ageing farming population, insufficient generational renewal, labour shortages—including in rural veterinary services— and demanding working conditions threaten its future capacity. Climate change impacts and animal disease outbreaks weigh on economic results. \n\nThe future of the EU livestock sector must build on its important strengths and opportunities. The EU livestock sector is rooted in tradition but underpinned by innovation and entrepreneurship. Its diversity of production systems, species, and territories enhances resilience and adaptability. High EU standards fortify consumer trust and enable strong positioning in premium markets. In several sectors, efficient production systems, advanced veterinary services and well-developed supply chains support productivity and export performance. Innovation and the adoption of circular bioeconomy approaches are improving both the competitiveness and environmental outcomes. Increasingly, farmers are not only food producers, but also guardians of nature, tourism accommodation providers and “energy-farmers”, producing renewable energy for on-farm purposes and in many cases for wider consumption, reducing EU dependencies on fossil-based alternatives. \n\n3.The Strategy \n\nThe Union of 2040 must be a place where sustainable livestock farming not only survives but thrives. \n\nThe sector must be supported by a coherent policy framework that is simple, predictable and takes farming realities into account. In the next programming period and without prejudging ongoing MFF negotiations, the CAP will continue to be the key pillar of support, both for income, investments and incentives, within the future National and Regional Partnership plans, complemented by the proposed Horizon Europe Programme ( 10 ) and European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) ( 11 ) to stimulate innovation. \n\nThis strategy delivers a long-term direction for the sector's competitiveness and sustainability, in a context of increased preparedness. It translates into operational action points at EU, Member-State and stakeholder level, with an emphasis on targeted, territorial solutions adapted to different production systems and regions, taking a holistic, coherent, cross-policy approach. \n\nThe Commission intends to maintain the livestock workstream as a forum for discussion and further development of certain initiatives identified below, as it provides an inclusive way of delivering the Strategy. \n\n3.1.A resilient livestock sector that withstands crisis \n\nA resilient livestock system is essential for the Union’s food security, strategic autonomy and rural vitality. Resilience means more than the capacity to recover after a shock. It also means being able to anticipate risks, reduce vulnerabilities, adapt to structural changes and continue to provide safe, sustainable and affordable food under increasingly difficult conditions. For the livestock sector, this is now a pressing priority. Producers face growing pressure from volatile markets, rising input and fixed costs, climate change, water scarcity, animal diseases, labour shortage and lack of skilled workers, geopolitical instability and unfair global competition. A stronger and more resilient sector is therefore necessary both to protect farmers’ livelihoods and to preserve the Union’s capacity to produce. \n\nA first priority is to strengthen the framework for risk management. Livestock farmers need better access to finance, insurance, reinsurance, mutual funds and income stabilisation tools that reflect the specific risks of the sector, including climate events, market disruption and animal diseases. Future policy should improve coherence between risk management and crisis management so that emergency support does not substitute for preparedness but complements it. 12 The risk management toolbox under the current and future CAP is already quite comprehensive ( 13 ), giving Member State options to choose and adapt those tools to their needs. The Commission will prepare a manual with practical orientations on risk management, drawing on EU and international expertise, so that Member States can better reflect these needs in their future NRP plans. This will complement CAP recommendations that will also cover risk management aspects. The Commission will also assess and reduce, where relevant, administrative barriers in the setting-up of specific risk management tools, as mutual funds, to address low uptake, particularly by small farms. \n\nA second priority is to strengthen disease prevention and response. Animal diseases including zoonoses remain among the most serious threats to livestock resilience, biodiversity and potentially human health. Recent outbreaks, which have intensified strongly in their frequency, have shown the scale of the economic and social damage they can cause, including the destruction of large numbers of animals and disruptions to trade and rural activity. Strong biosecurity measures remain a first line of defence and are an essential element of prevention. Furthermore, the evaluation of the Animal Health Law will provide a basis for updating the Union’s One Health approach to disease management, including a broader and science-based use of preventive vaccination where appropriate. To reinforce adaptability to emerging risks and diseases, the Commission will review whether the current disease categorisation system remains fit for purpose and whether the categorisation criteria adequately address specific challenges. To strengthen harmonised disease control measures across the EU, the Commission will continue to propose updates to legislation in line with the latest scientific developments and international standards as laid down by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and will adopt implementing rules to clarify roles and responsibilities more clearly. To support a wider and science-based use of preventive vaccination, the Commission will also assess whether the current vaccination rules and principles remain appropriate. \n\nThis work should be based on the latest scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and supported by stronger international engagement to promote acceptance of EU sanitary measures. To address the uneven recognition by third countries of regionalisation, the Commission will further support Member States by developing guidance on the application of vaccination coupled with regionalisation and compartmentalisation, while continuing to advocate recognition of the EU’s regionalisation approach including vaccination with trading partners in bilateral and multilateral fora. 14 As part of the preventive measures, the Commission will continue to support and strengthen Member States’ capacity in the surveillance of the relevant animal diseases, ensuring early detection and early action. Early warning mechanisms are very important. The Commission will assess how to finance the improvement of existing systems, better integrate digitalisation in detection and warning, as well as how to improve information dissemination to the farmers across the EU (apps, hotlines). \n\nAt the same time, adequate EU financing is key for prevention, surveillance, control and eradication, especially for emergency measures in the event of outbreaks. The EU facility proposed under the MFF enables a common policy in the areas of health and safety (including for animals) and can provide dedicated support in case of animal diseases, subject to annual budgetary procedures. Member States could also provide within their NRP plans enhanced farmers’ access to and uptake of preventive tools, including biosecurity and vaccines and ensure adequate advisory services and sufficient veterinary staffing by introducing financial incentives for veterinarians in rural areas, while stakeholders are expected to enhance on-farm biosecurity measures and mainstream best practices to prevent animal diseases. \n\nA third priority is to invest more in climate change adaptation, mitigation and innovation. This could include support for innovations that reduce emissions intensity, improve nutrient management and strengthen the contribution of livestock systems to circular economy, alongside adaptation measures. Resilience depends increasingly on the sector’s ability to cope with climate stress and use resources more efficiently. Increasing water use efficiency can contribute to both water and farmers’ resilience. This includes the preservation and sustainable use of genetic resources and breeding strategies that improve resilience traits such as drought tolerance, heat resistance. Cutting-edge genomic and animal breeding techniques are a win-win for both economic and environmental outcomes. They lead to lower feed use and reduce emissions, meaning savings for the farmers and less exposure to volatile price fluctuations. Better resilience also requires improved housing and ventilation, flood protection and other climate-resilient infrastructure. 15 Resilience also requires that the livestock sector must become less dependent on imported inputs and more capable of relying on domestic and circular resources, as developed in the Protein Plan and the Fertiliser Action Plan. At the same time, closer integration with candidate and partner countries offers opportunities to strengthen the Union’s resilience and strategic autonomy by gradually developing more integrated and sustainable agri-food value chains. \n\nExample of cooperative investment projects for resilience: \n\n·Installing on-farm solar panels and a shared biogas unit using manure, reducing dependence on external energy and fertilisers. \n\n·Building a water storage and recycling system to cope with droughts and heatwaves. \n\n·Joining a mutual fund and climate insurance scheme supported by Member State policies to stabilise income during extreme weather events. \n\nMember States should continue supporting agricultural practices that integrate resilience and sustainability into their business models, such as organic farming, and incentivise transition to long-term resilience through transition payments. Generational renewal measures should better reflect the specific situation of livestock farming. \n\nBetter cooperation along the supply chain can help reduce price volatility and improve access to inputs, while participation in knowledge-sharing platforms and innovation partnerships can speed up the spread of good practices.   \n  \n\u003Ctable>  \n\u003Ctr>  \n\u003Ctd>\n\n\n\nExample: In an area vulnerable to bluetongue, lumpy skin disease or avian influenza, authorities and stakeholders ensure a coordinated disease prevention system: \n\n·Member States through NRP plans co-fund biosecurity upgrades (disinfection stations, controlled farm access, separation zones). \n\n·Farmers receive, through NRPP funds, training via advisory services and EIP-AGRI groups on disease prevention and contingency planning. \n\n·Member States and livestock value chain embark on a cost-sharing framework to jointly fund responses to disease outbreaks, including compensation for affected producers, based on pre-arranged financial mechanisms (costs for eradication, containment and recovery are split between public and private levies\u002Finsurance pools). \n\n·A public-private vaccination and surveillance programme is rolled out as new vaccines become available through EU-supported R&I. \n\n\n\u003C\u002Ftd> \u003C\u002Ftr> \u003C\u002Ftable>\n\nMember States have a central role in turning these objectives into practical support on the ground: \n\n-by including resilience investments in their NRP plans and improving farmers’ access to disease prevention tools, \n\n-promoting insurance and mutual funds tailored to livestock sectors, \n\n-ensuring that training and farm advisory services include strong expertise on livestock resilience, \n\n-supporting investments and agri-environmental and climate actions (AECAs), including efficiency schemes, that help preserve and sustainably use livestock genetic resources that strengthen resilience of the livestock sector and support biodiversity, healthy soils and water resilience as a basis for livestock sector resilience, \n\n-considering measures to address shortages in rural veterinary services, for example through targeted incentives or digital consultations, and support digital skills, connectivity and investment at farm level, \n\n-supporting producer organisations, cooperative models and CAP sectoral interventions can help strengthen farmers’ bargaining power and capacity to manage risk collectively. \n\n3.2.A competitive livestock sector at EU and global level \n\nTo effectively compete in the global market, the livestock sector needs a more predictable long-term framework for investments, use the leverage of advanced technologies and innovative practices, while benefitting from a level playing field and reduced regulatory burden. The current trend of decapitalisation needs to be halted, and profitability increased, if the European value chain for livestock is to remain competitive and attract new entrants into the profession. The maintenance of high EU food safety and animal health, animal welfare and environmental standards must allow the sector to respond robustly to the pressure of global competition. 16 While the Commission is assessing the impact of its animal welfare review, certain studies estimate that the transition to cage-free systems entails significant investment needs ( 17 ). Such financing needs cannot be met from a single source but require a combination of instruments and measures by both the EU and Member States. Those include better market remuneration, public support, access to financial instruments and private investments, as well as tapping into the potential of new circular business models and better valorising by-products. It requires also skills, financial literacy and adequate advice as well as more stable and clearer legal framework. \n\nThe CAP remains a key tool to support farmers’ income, incentivise them to make sustainability efforts and provide investment support, and the next financing period offers opportunities tailored to different needs, from small to large farms. With a combination of various measures, including investments in infrastructure and support for innovative projects, the proposed NRP plans and the ECF could help scale up investments in sustainability, competitiveness and resilience. \n\nThe Commission will consider all options, including exploring a potential dedicated financial instrument for the livestock sector to bridge the financing gap for investments in the transition to higher levels of sustainability and animal welfare. \n\nMember States should also consider other initiatives, such as better access to loans, state-guaranteed loans, public procurement instruments, market measures and more favourable loan conditions for all farmers, in particular young and new entrants. The Commission will explore with the European Investment Bank preferential access to loans for farmers engaged in a transition to cage-free systems based on the outcome of the legislative revision. In parallel, schemes rewarding carbon farming and nature credits could provide additional value to farms investing in more sustainable livestock systems. 18 To stimulate better reward from the market, it is necessary to work on better informing consumers, aligning consumer expectations with fair pricing mechanisms and pursuing market diversification to benefit from high value markets. 19 Sustainability and circularity are a strong business case for the farmers. Circular practices and the bioeconomy enhance feed autonomy and maximise biomass valorisation (including animal by-products), which in turn reduce waste, and provide more predictable income for farmers. By-products such as wool or manure are not a waste but rather a resource that has value and serves multiple purposes in a circular bioeconomy, and legislation should recognise their characteristics and potential. Downstream actors (e.g. dairy or meat producers) increasingly see the business case for offering rewards to farmers that reduce on-farm emissions, making sustainable livestock operations more competitive. 20 Fairness is not only internal, but also external. Fostering reciprocity and greater alignment in production standards across the globe requires appropriate controls, effective safeguards and a continuous drive for high standards. This is ongoing work and a clear priority. Import of products produced to lower standards not only disadvantage EU producers commercially but also displace rather than reduce global emissions. The enhancement of controls on food, animal and plant products entering the EU is under way and has been significantly strengthened ( 21 ). Safeguards are standard practices in agreements concluded by the Union, and they protect European farmers against any harmful imports. This includes well-calibrated quotas with volumes linked to EU market conditions and automatic safeguard clauses for certain agreements that provide an additional layer of protection. High food safety standards, especially on antimicrobial and hormone usage, are rigorously enforced. Animal welfare rules are being reviewed to ensure better alignment of standards for imported products. For the future financial period, the proposal to establish a Unity Safety Net with substantial budget will equip the Union to better protect the farmers in times of market volatility. At the same time, the Commission will engage in a dedicated agri-food diplomacy, step up its high-level missions and promotion measures to open new market opportunities for European exports. \n\nSimplification is an essential component of competitiveness. Important work has been launched but further effort is needed to enable agri-food sector to benefit from a legal framework that is conducive to innovation and competitiveness, while respecting animal health, welfare and food and feed safety standards. The ongoing discussion on the food and feed safety omnibus will provide much needed simplification. There is a need to make EU hygiene legislation more agile and to make better use of the flexibility provisions therein, allowing adaptations to the structure and layout of low-capacity slaughterhouses, while respecting food safety and animal welfare standards and effectively combining them with operational practicality. The proposed amendment to the feed additives regulatory framework in the food and feed omnibus will provide a favourable environment for the development and availability of new innovative feed additives, while the work on further simplification needs is on-going, including as part of the broader implementation dialogues as well as Food Dialogues. In addition, the animal by-product rules require adjustments to better facilitate circular economy, without jeopardising animal health, food and feed safety standards. \n\n3.3.A sustainable livestock sector 22 Success depends on the ability of farmers to invest. This is why the transition to address sustainability challenges must be fair and balanced. Raising sustainability ambition brings questions about how the costs are distributed along the value chain. In some cases, transition to sustainability improvements can entail higher production costs for farmers, lower yields or reduced stocking densities. Some agricultural practices like organics allow to maintain high-environmental and animal welfare ambition with profitability for farmers. For other systems, when these costs cannot be fully absorbed by farmers or the rest of the supply chain, they are ultimately reflected in higher food prices, borne by consumers, without increasing producers’ income and possibly leading to falling demand. This underlines the need for a carefully calibrated transition that delivers sustainability gains for farmers and society, while managing trade-offs and maintaining social acceptability. \n\nThe Union and Member States should enable the farmer to choose measures supporting the transition best suited for their individual farms and practices and facilitate the decision on how to make their business more sustainable. \n\nValue chain sustainability agreements in which all actors, including the intermediary and retail sectors, assume part of the responsibility are promising tools for supporting a fair transition. They allow, for example, the retail sector to reward higher standards undertaken by the farmers. The Commission, Member States and private actors should further promote such form of cooperation. \n\nAny long-term vision for the livestock sector needs to start with leveraging its diversity. The rich EU mosaic cannot be sustained through a one-size-fits-all approach. It requires tailored, place-based solutions that reflect local realities and build on regional strengths. 23 Animal welfare is at the heart of citizens’ concerns when it comes to livestock farming. As stated by the European Parliament, “the expected global increase in animal protein consumption represents an opportunity for the EU to position itself as a global leader in climate- and animal-friendly agriculture”. Enforcement of existing rules and a progressive follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative “End the Cage Age” is needed to address citizens’ concerns, focusing on sectors where a transition to non-confined housing system is feasible, is evidence-based and accompanied by sufficient transition periods and financial support allowing farmers to adapt. Given the scale of the investments needed, the transition will require support that spans the next financing period and beyond. \n\nHigh welfare standards improve resource efficiency for example by reducing mortality rates, extending animals' productive lifespans and improving feed conversion. While today the laying hens’ sector mainly relies on the killing of male day-old chicks, citizens’ ethical demands can be addressed by stopping this practice by relying on in-ovo sexing technologies, which are now available. They can strengthen the EU’s egg sector’s reputation for premium, ethically produced goods. While being available and used in certain Member States, the technology is not yet fully accessible and affordable for small and medium-sized hatcheries across the EU. This requires further efforts to bring down the costs and scale up the deployment. By the end of 2026, the Commission intends to propose a targeted revision of animal welfare rules for laying hens and broilers, focusing on the phasing-out of cages, practical on-farm welfare indicators, ending the systematic killing of male chicks and equivalent import requirements. To valorise the transition away from male day-old chick killing, the Commission will explore the possibility to update egg marking rules to better inform consumers, including in third countries, about improvements made by farmers. By Q2 2027, a similar proposal will address pig welfare, including the transition from crates to pen systems. \n\nThe debate around the export of live animals to third countries, especially for immediate slaughter, has become pivotal in recent years. New outbreaks and reoccurring animal diseases in EU Member States result in – sometimes unjustified – frequent trade barriers. At the same time, natural disasters and fluctuating security situations around destination countries threaten the plannability of such practices both on road and on sea. These may also raise animal welfare concerns. Therefore, the Commission will closely exchange with relevant stakeholders, civil society and destination third countries, and depending on the outcome of these exchanges, will consider further steps, including possible alternatives to the export of animals for slaughter from the EU to third countries, while maintaining the market positions of European livestock producers. \n\nThese high standards for EU producers must be met with reciprocal requirements for imported products, with adequate enforcement tools. Third countries may have lower animal welfare practices while EU citizens expect all products on the EU market to follow high welfare standards. The modernisation of EU’s animal welfare rules and the EU’s Trade agreements provide an essential opportunity to introduce equivalent animal welfare requirements for imported products, in line with WTO standards. \n\nSustained efforts to reduce emissions from livestock remains one of the priorities. While EU enteric methane emissions from livestock represent a small share at the global level, they represent the largest source ( 24 ) of agricultural emissions in the EU. Addressing these emissions requires a science- and systems-based approach, building on existing good practices and further supported by innovation and technology. Different livestock productions have different climate externalities and potentials to address them, which must be taken into account too. \n\nFirst and foremost, effective methane reduction policy requires accurate measurement. Certain existing methodologies for estimating livestock emissions do not fully reflect the actual variation in emissions across diverse production systems, breeds and feeding regimes. The IPCC methodology Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches could underrepresent the value of on-farm improvements and genetic diversity. At the same time, discussions are on-going to explore the need to take account of the biogenic nature of methane emissions as part of a short-term carbon cycle. More refined approaches are needed to better reflect real management practices and ensure a more accurate and fair assessment of livestock’s climate performance. The Commission will therefore work on a harmonised methodology for livestock GHG emissions at farm level and will promote monitoring tools that better reflect measures implemented at farm level and are more adapted to the needs of EU livestock sector. It will build on the work started by certain Member States ( 25 ) aimed at developing Tier 3 emissions that enable more accurate and differentiated emissions accounting. This work will link to the further development of production methods under the marketing standards and the EU excellence approach (see point 3.5 below). Results should also help to improve the accuracy of Member States’ national GHG inventories. The EU also stands ready to exchange on measurement and mitigation practices with global partners in accordance with its global leadership on methane abatement through the Global Methane Pledge and related initiatives. In close cooperation with farmers representatives and stakeholders of the food value chain, the Commission is developing a voluntary, on-farm sustainability compass for farmers. This science-based framework will enable practical and comparable assessment of the key dimensions of sustainability across diverse farming systems. The compass can also be used as a management tool to guide decisions, track progress, and report performance transparently over time, and to engage in premium schemes or contracts that reward verified emission reductions, improved animal welfare, and the delivery of ecosystem services. It will enable the assessment of performance based on results achieved on the ground, gradually moving away from a requirements-based approach. In addition, based on a pilot certification methodology, the Commission is assessing the inclusion of livestock emission reductions in the scope of the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation. \n\nIt also needs to take into account the fact that food production is inherently rooted in natural biological processes and that in spite of complying with high EU standards causes unavoidable endogenic emissions that entail certain trade-offs that cannot be entirely eliminated. Demand is an important driver of transition, as explained in the protein Plan, and it is important to acknowledge that reduced EU production could lead to increased imports and higher emissions in non-EU regions. 26 Member States have the opportunity to include biogas and biomethane investments in their future NRPPs and\u002For support them through other national programmes. The State Aid Framework also offers various options for such support. Biogas installation transforms manure and agricultural residues into renewable energy, digestate for fertilising and in some cases dewatered digestate in bedding material for livestock. The produced energy can be used on-farm or even sold on the market, notably by using the EU biomethane mechanism, thus creating complementary income, enhancing resilience and business viability of agricultural holdings while reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels and synthetic fertilisers. \n\nProtection of natural resources against pollution and ensuring good soil health are essential attributes of a long-term strategy for the future of livestock farming. Considering its wide diversity, certain livestock practices have a significant impact on the environment linked to negative externalities (such as nutrient losses, air emissions...), in particular in areas with high livestock concentrations, while other practices like extensive grazing and organic farming positively contribute to nature management and conservation. Therefore, environmental challenges must be addressed in a tailored way and in partnership with farmers. \n\nThe future CAP is an opportunity to make advancements towards higher environmental performance. \n\nMember States should promote cooperation across the value chain and could provide support, particularly in high livestock density areas, to improve manure and nutrient management and reduce pressure on natural resources, including by making use of the new interventions that the Commission has put forward in its CAP proposal. Member States have tools at their disposal to provide enhanced support for grazing-based systems based on their needs. They are also encouraged to expand the use of cover crops, diverse crop rotations and alternative feed sources, grant support to increase manure storage capacities, and to simplify procedures for investments in renewable energy, nutrient recycling infrastructure and precision farming. Continued support for organic farming is important for the delivery of these objectives. \n\nThe Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream, will promote the exchange of knowledge and best practices, with the objective of building a Livestock Platform with a comprehensive repository of proven solutions for climate, environment and animal welfare by 2027. This repository will identify effective mitigation measures, showcase successful on-farm approaches, and provide guidance on the CAP instruments and support mechanisms available to facilitate their uptake. \n\nEU farmers already respect high environmental standards laid down in different pieces of legislation, some with significant impact on farmers’ operations. The Commission is evaluating and stress-testing some of these rules in the context of wider simplification effort. 27 The Commission is also stress-testing the rules of Birds and Habitats Directives which will be integrated into a report due end of 2026 and will allow to inform future decisions. The proposal on the acceleration of permit-granting procedures and the proposal for a regulation on speeding up environmental assessments (2025\u002F0391 (COD)) already partially addresses some of the long-standing demands to accelerate and make more predictable permitting process. Targeted facilitation of permitting procedures is also important to accompany the legislative revision phasing out cages in the laying hens and pig sectors and is justified considering that the number of animals kept would remain constant in adapted barns. The potential for better alignment between environmental goals and agricultural vitality lies also in innovation. In the EU, livestock farming generated annually more than 1.4 billion tonnes of manure during the period 2016–2019. While associated with nitrogen pollution in certain regions, using innovation, manure can also present an opportunity. The Commission is exploring the possibility to extend the RENURE act for certain types of liquid digestates based on manure with appropriate environmental safeguards and will deliver a first preliminary assessment in Q3 2026. Equally, the use of digestate from bio-waste to be used as fertilisers as such or for the production of other bio-based fertilisers, can limit livestock negative externalities, enable better distribution of carbon-rich bio-fertilisers, reduce dependence on synthetic fertilisers and strengthen EU feed and food production autonomy, while contributing to the domestic energy production (biomethane). The Commission will work on facilitating the use of animal by-products without jeopardising animal health, food and feed safety standards and review potential regulatory bottlenecks. \n\nA key element is better spatial balancing and enabling nutrient transfer from surplus to deficit regions to both optimise use and reduce local environmental pressures. Building on this, the Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream, will develop a dedicated roadmap to support practical implementation, strengthen logistics, reduce pressure, better implement the regulatory framework in a coherent way, and regulatory coherence, and enable a more efficient and sustainable circulation of nutrients across the EU. \n\n3.4.A livestock sector fitting European territorial diversity \n\nEuropean territorial diversity requires diverse livestock production systems tailored to the unique characteristics of different regions across Europe. 28 Decline in livestock farming is closely linked with land abandonment in many European regions. The JRC estimates ( 29 ) that around 11% of EU agricultural land could be abandoned by 2030, whilst almost a quarter (1.38 million ha) of all agricultural abandonment in the EU will likely occur in mountain areas. This also has significant demographic implications. These challenges should be addressed in a coherent and integrated manner, including through our future policies on demography. Rural areas hold incredible potential to become a powerhouse of European resilience, sustainable growth and preparedness. Creating economically attractive and liveable rural areas will help retain and attract people, thereby contributing to the long-term vitality of these regions. \n\nThe opportunity to turn rural vulnerabilities into a tangible long-term asset is greater than ever. The EU is embarking on a more coordinated and integrated planning to support its sustainable economic growth, using the NRP as integrated planning tool. \n\nTo address this challenge, the Commission will work with the Member States to develop a plan on how to address the specific needs of regions and rural areas at risk of abandonment, taking into account the specific situation in the Eastern Border Region bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The aim is to bring back sustainable livestock production where it naturally belongs and is desirable for its environmental, social and economic benefits, while securing the performance of more competitive regions and communities. Such a move could be driven by attracting all actors needed for an effective value chain to be anchored in rural communities, from farmers to consumers via slaughterhouses, artisan processors and local markets. 30 With the future CAP, Member States have many tools at their disposal to target support to vulnerable livestock areas. Targeted coupled income and support for areas with natural constraints should be focused on sectors and areas where they are most needed. One of the key tasks will be to attract a new generation of farmers in areas where livestock has left a social gap, through start-up aid, social innovation, entrepreneurship and investment, land access policies, income support and incentives. However, the challenge goes beyond what the CAP alone can deliver. The development of locally integrated livestock value chains requires coordinated investments in infrastructure, processing facilities, digitalisation and market structures, supported by social and labour policies and, where relevant, by practical support to help farmers address wildlife-related pressure. \n\nOne example that could regenerate local economy and at the same time improve animal welfare are investments into low-capacity and mobile slaughterhouses in remote areas. The Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream , will dedicate specific resources to developing a roadmap on slaughterhouses, examining how to foster their presence in rural areas, whether fixed or mobile, drawing on projects already financed ( 31 ) and taking into account animal welfare aspects.   \n  \n\u003Ctable>  \n\u003Ctr>  \n\u003Ctd>\n\n\n\nExample: Flexible local processing network with low-capacity and mobile slaughterhouses (rural value chain resilience model). In sparsely populated or mountainous regions, Member States support a hybrid processing system combining small permanent facilities with mobile slaughterhouses. \n\n·A regional livestock cooperative is established, pooling farmers’ resources to manage logistics and scheduling. \n\n·The Member State co-finances mobile slaughter units that travel between farms or designated collection points while maintaining animal health and food safety standards. \n\n·Legislative simplification and optimisation at EU and national level, including for registration and recognition. \n\n·This is complemented by small cutting and packaging facilities and cold storage located in rural towns, modernised with EU support. \n\n·The system is integrated into a quality certification scheme reflecting EU excellence to reinforce product identity and value. \n\n·Digital tools (booking platforms, traceability systems) are introduced to optimise routes, ensure animal welfare compliance and reduce waiting times. With more local slaughter, animal welfare is improved thanks to less long-distance transport for live animals. \n\n\n\u003C\u002Ftd> \u003C\u002Ftr> \u003C\u002Ftable>\n\nModern digital infrastructure is crucial for the attractiveness of rural areas and enhancing livestock farming's contribution to rural livelihoods. Member States should accelerate investments in high-speed broadband, 5G, satellite and off-grid connectivity to enable deployment of smart farming technologies, remote livestock management systems and access to online services. \n\nSocial resilience is of critical importance too. The EU livestock farmers’ wellbeing and mental health are influenced not only by income pressures but also by demanding working conditions, long hours and social isolation, particularly in more remote rural areas. Access to replacement and relief services is therefore important, as it allows farmers to take leave, in case of illness or family responsibilities, and reduce stress and burnout. Gender-specific needs and differences should also be adequately addressed. Skills development is another key social factor, with farmers increasingly training in animal welfare, environmental practices, digital tools and business management to remain resilient and adapt to changing policy and market demands. The role of advisory services and rural development policies is critical in this regard. \n\nRegional feed resources enhance resilience, sustainability, and strategic autonomy while reducing import dependencies. By integrating grasslands, co-products, and EU-grown protein crops, these systems cut emissions, support rural economies, and align with circular bioeconomy goals. These are key drivers of the Commission Plan for resilience, strategic autonomy and sustainability of the EU protein system. \n\n3.5.Excellence in livestock production \n\nQuality is one of Europe’s strategic assets. In a context of growing societal expectations, global competition and territorial fragilities, the European Union must maintain and develop its ambition for excellence in livestock production. \n\nThe future of the EU livestock sector will depend not only on its capacity to remain competitive and resilient, but also on its ability to make visible, credible and economically rewarding what distinguishes the European model of production. It reflects a model of livestock farming that is not based on the lowest cost, but on value creation through good practices, quality, sustainability, ethics and responsibility. \n\nExcellence must be understood broadly, not limited to niche or premium products. It should progressively characterise all livestock value chains and all production models . Every livestock farm should have the possibility to perform at its best, to improve continuously, and to have these efforts recognised and rewarded by the market and by public policy. \n\nThe Commission intends to develop an ambitious pathway for excellence in livestock production with the Livestock Workstream. This pathway should allow the Union to articulate more clearly what distinguishes European livestock production, both within the internal market and in global competition. \n\nA first priority is improving the market recognition and valorisation of excellence. Farmers can sustain ambitious standards only if these are economically rewarded. Greater transparency across the food chain, including clearer information and labelling, is essential. The Commission will help consumers make informed choices and recognise the value of EU livestock products. \n\nA key element is clearer identification of EU origin. The Commission intends to gradually strengthen the role of EU origin in livestock marketing through marketing standards, exploring an expanded legal basis under the Common Market Organisation. It will first build on poultry meat rules to enhance origin communication and draw lessons for other sectors. \n\nThe Commission will work on valorising the higher standards and specific characteristics of EU livestock production through optional reserved terms under the Common Market Organisation. This would enable, on a voluntary basis, a clearly identifiable “European excellence” term, supported by regulatory specifications, allowing credible and harmonised communication of defined characteristics. The Commission will assess criteria such as low-carbon production, environment-friendly practices, local feed use, rearing and slaughter, and high animal welfare standards. These optional reserved terms could be used to demonstrate compliance with the sustainability requirements requested by national or European funds for access to investments, allowing farmers to access funding opportunities without having to repeatedly submit the same evidence (‘once-only principle’). \n\nThe Commission will also consider how existing tools can better support the valorisation of quality in livestock production, including meat quality. The current Union carcass classification framework is based mainly on quantitative criteria. While it ensures a common market language and price transparency, it does not reflect the full range of quality attributes relevant to consumers and market valorisation. The Commission will assess whether, on a voluntary basis, it could be further developed to include certain qualitative characteristics, such as organoleptic or production-method attributes, and whether these could be supported by optional reserved terms to enhance differentiation, value creation, and recognition of quality. \n\nAs a second priority, the Commission will give greater visibility to territorially embedded livestock systems. It will use EU promotion policy to highlight the quality, sustainability, high welfare standards, in particular cage-free farming systems and egg production without male chick culling, and territorial anchoring of EU livestock products in both internal and external markets. Stronger support will be directed to systems closely linked to rural areas, improving communication of added value and reinforcing premium positioning where justified. \n\nTo maximise market returns, stakeholders and Member States are encouraged to cooperate notably on territorial product branding that links livestock products to the historical identity and natural characteristics of their specific regions or breed; agri-tourism and diversification initiatives; and collective landscape management to protect biodiversity and manage landscapes within livestock-based ecosystems. \n\nTo support these efforts on a larger scale, the EU Agricultural Promotion Policy could dedicate a specialised promotional window focusing on territorially embedded livestock systems, accelerating their market penetration. \n\nThe third priority builds on the EU’s existing quality policy, in particular Geographical Indications (GIs) and organic production. The Commission will continue to support their uptake, promotion, and protection as key tools. To strengthen these frameworks, the Commission will review the organic and GI action plans. \n\n4.Conclusions \n\nIn an increasingly hard-edged global economy, the Union response is to make the objectives of resilience, competitiveness, sustainability, territoriality and excellence mutually reinforcing as the European way of livestock farming. \n\nThe EU livestock strategy presents a cohesive vision for the future of the livestock sector. The Commission promotes a positive, balanced narrative on livestock, recognising both its challenges, including the environmental and climate footprint, and the sector’s contributions to food supply, employment, territorial cohesion, biodiversity, and cultural value. \n\nResilience will be bolstered through coordinated efforts to combat climate change, strengthen biosecurity, tackle social challenges and enhance market and supply chain robustness. \n\nCompetitiveness will be enhanced by addressing the financing gap and declining livestock situation in certain regions, fostering innovation, digitalisation, skilling and ensuring fairness in trade. \n\nSustainability will be achieved by reducing environmental footprints, supporting biodiversity, and promoting circular and animal welfare-oriented farming systems that sustain rural vitality. \n\nTerritoriality recognises Europe’s varied landscapes and local conditions, empowering new generations of farmers and strengthening regional economies. \n\nCollectively, these coordinated efforts by the Commission, Member States, and stakeholders will construct a robust framework of excellence that supports the livestock sector in thriving amid global competition. \n\nThe Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream, will monitor and report on progress. By actively engaging in these strategic initiatives, the sector can look forward to a sustainable, fair, and prosperous future. \n\n     (1) () Communication on the EU’s eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine COM(2026) 82 final \n     (2) () Globally, meat consumption is expected to still grow due to rapid population and income growth. The Union is a leading global trader in animal products. In 2025, the EU exported EUR 53 billion worth of animal products, while imports amounted to EUR 16 billion. Dairy products are leading: in 2025 they were worth EUR 20.7 billion with a net trade surplus of EUR 18 billion. The EU’s trade balance in animal products has been positive over the past decade. \n     (3) () A Vision for agriculture and food: Shaping together an attractive EU farming and food sector for future generations, COM\u002F2025\u002F75 final \n     (4) () Strategy for generational renewal in agriculture, COM (2025) 872 final \n     (5) () A Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU Bioeconomy, COM(2025) 960 final \n     (6) () Reviewed EU rural action plan Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward, SWD\u002F2024\u002F451 final \n     (7) () Fertiliser Action Plan: Partnership for ensuring the availability, affordability and strategic autonomy in home-grown EU fertilisers, COM (2026) 310 final \n     (8) () Communication on integrated wildfire risk management, COM (2026) 330 final \n     (9) () 2025\u002F2053(INI) \n     (10) () Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing Horizon Europe, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, for the period 2028-2034 laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021\u002F695, COM\u002F2025\u002F543 final \n     (11) () Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on establishing the European Competitiveness Fund ('ECF’), including the specific programme for defence research and innovation activities, repealing Regulations (EU) 2021\u002F522, (EU) 2021\u002F694, (EU) 2021\u002F697, (EU) 2021\u002F783, repealing provisions of Regulations (EU) 2021\u002F696, (EU) 2023\u002F588, and amending Regulation (EU) [EDIP], COM\u002F2025\u002F555 final \n     (12) () fi-compass, 2025, an overview of agricultural climate risk trends across Europe under the current climate and in 2050 - Insurance and Risk Management Tools for Agriculture in the EU ( \u003Chttps:\u002F\u002Fwww.fi-compass.eu\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002Fpublications\u002FEAFRD_AGRI_Insurance_Risk_MA.pdf> ) \n     (13) () World Bank: Solutions for Better Agri-Risk Management in the European Union (https:\u002F\u002Fdocuments.worldbank.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublication\u002Fdocuments-reports\u002Fdocumentdetail\u002F099032326044016306) \n     (14) () DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) vaccines are a specialised type of vaccine designed to distinguish between animals that have been vaccinated and those that have been naturally infected with a disease. This distinction is crucial for effective disease control, surveillance, and trade regulations in livestock and other animal. \n     (15) () Different financial instruments under the MFF post-2027 could support a stronger and more coordinated R&I effort on sustainable and resilient livestock systems, covering animal health and welfare, disease prevention and vaccines, mixed systems, climate adaptation and mitigation, environmental impact reduction, feed and nutrient efficiency, genetic resources and breeding for resilience traits, circular bioeconomy solutions, social innovation, and digital technologies. \n     (16) () https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fi-compass.eu\u002Flibrary\u002Fmarket-analysis\u002Ffinancial-gap-eu-agricultural-sector?page=1 \n     (17) () Studies commissioned by farmers organisations to estimate the impact of transitioning to cage-free systems in the laying hens and pig sector indicate investment needs at EU level of some €6.7 billion for the pig sector1(EUR 0,02 per kg of pig meat for a 15 year depreciation period), and €2.6 billion for the laying hen sector2 (EUR 0,0017 per egg for a 15 year depreciation period). Costs arise primarily from the need to convert or replace existing housing facilities and install the infrastructure and equipment required for cage-free production. These data are cited by way of example only. The Commission is preparing an impact assessment analysing all relevant data and issues linked to its planned proposals. 1 Potori et al. (2024). An Assessment of the Impacts of the Phasing Out of Cages in EU Livestock Farming: The Pig Sector. Agriculture, 14(1), 111. 2 Majewski et al. (2024). An Assessment of the Impacts of the Phasing Out of Cages in EU Livestock Farming: The Layer Sector. Agriculture, 14(2), 187. \n     (18) () Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives (EU) 2018\u002F2001, (EU) 2019\u002F944, (EU) 2024\u002F1788 as regards acceleration of permit-granting procedures – COM(2025) 1007 \n     (19) () Directive (EU) 2019\u002F633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. ELI: http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Fdir\u002F2019\u002F633\u002Foj \n     (20) () Regulation (EU) No 1308\u002F2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922\u002F72, (EEC) No 234\u002F79, (EC) No 1037\u002F2001 and (EC) No 1234\u002F2007. ELI: http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2013\u002F1308\u002Foj \n     (21) () [Commission announces reinforcement of controls on products imported into the EU](https:\u002F\u002Fec.europa.eu\u002Fcommission\u002Fpresscorner\u002Fdetail\u002Fen\u002Fip_25_2979)\n     (22) () The [EU Bioeconomy Strategy](https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=CELEX:52025DC0960) “A Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU Bioeconomy. COM\u002F2025\u002F960 final” will work on assessing best bioeconomy practices and innovations to increase nitrogen use efficiencies in bioeconomy systems and value networks \n     (23) () FAO: Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems, Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2022 \n     (24) () BOSCO, S., CHEN, M., BIELZA, M., MONTERO CASTAÑO, A., SCHIEVANO, A. et al., Livestock Feeding and Sustainability: Mapping Environmental, Climate, and Productivity Outcomes, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Fdoi\u002F10.2760\u002F3398918 (online), JRC143817. \n     (25) () Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF): https:\u002F\u002Fwww.icbf.com\u002Fmethane\u002F \n     (26) () DG AGRI estimation based on own calculations and scenarios described in the [2022 agricultural outlook report](https:\u002F\u002Fagriculture.ec.europa.eu\u002Fdocument\u002Fdownload\u002Fa353812c-733e-4ee9-aed6-43f8f44ca7f4_en?filename=agricultural-outlook-2023-report_en_0.pdf)\n     (27) () Council Directive 91\u002F676\u002FEEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, pp. 1–8 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT). ELI: http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Fdir\u002F1991\u002F676\u002Foj \n     (28) () [Extensive livestock systems and nature in Europe | Publications | European Environment Agency (EEA)](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.eea.europa.eu\u002Fen\u002Fanalysis\u002Fpublications\u002Fextensive-livestock-systems-and-europes-nature) , 07\u002F2026. EEA’s briefing states that one-third of Annex I habitats under the Habitats Directive depend on extensive grazing \n     (29) () https:\u002F\u002Fpublications.jrc.ec.europa.eu\u002Frepository\u002Fhandle\u002FJRC113718 \n     (30) () Strategy for generational renewal in agriculture. COM\u002F2025\u002F872 final \n     (31) () Examples of projects funded under EAFRD for innovation and improvement of animal welfare in DE: [TadeLoS - Onfarm Slaughtering of Cattle without Stress | EU CAP Network](https:\u002F\u002Feu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu\u002Fprojects\u002Ftadelos-onfarm-slaughtering-cattle-without-stress_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com) and [Fully mobile slaughter unit in Thuringia | EU CAP Network](https:\u002F\u002Feu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu\u002Fprojects\u002Ffully-mobile-slaughter-unit-thuringia_de?utm_source=chatgpt.com) . see also example of project funded under H2020 to implement a mobile slaughter house in France: [Practical case: Mobile Slaughter Unit | EU CAP Network](https:\u002F\u002Feu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu\u002Fprojects\u002Fpractice-abstracts\u002Fpractical-case-mobile-slaughter-unit_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n  \n\n\nEUROPEAN COMMISSION\n\nStrasbourg, 7.7.2026\n\nCOM(2026) 576 final\n\nANNEX  \n\n\nto the \n\nCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS\n\nEU strategy on livestock\n\n{SWD(2026) 576 final}\n\n  \n\n\nANNEX: Commission key actions \n\nFor a successful strategy on livestock, the Commission will deliver on the following key actions. The livestock workstream will accompany the implementation of the strategy, continuing to act as a forum for exchanging ideas and best practices. \n\nFor the strategy to be fully realised, Member States will need to take steps to offer the relevant tools, and stakeholders will have to seize the opportunities offered. Member States and stakeholders need to continue investing for making the livestock sector resilient, competitive, sustainable, territorially fitting and delivering on excellence. \n\nActions for a resilient livestock sector that withstands crisis \n\n1.Work with financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank, for exploring the possibility of developing a dedicated risk-management financial scheme under the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework, covering climate-related insurance and reinsurance needs and extending support to risks linked to animal diseases. \n\n2.Include relevant risk management aspects and needs in the CAP recommendations to Member States for their National and Regional Partnership Plans. \n\n3.Ensure adequate financing of prevention, surveillance, control and eradication of animal diseases and zoonoses, especially for emergency measures in case of major outbreaks. \n\n4.Prepare a manual with practical orientations to Member States on risk management, drawing on EU and international expertise. Through a Livestock Platform, promote exchange of good practices to facilitate dialogue and dissemination of lessons learned across Member States. \n\n5.Review whether the current animal disease categorisation system remains fit for purpose and whether the disease categorisation criteria adequately address specific challenges. Propose updates to legislation in line with the latest scientific developments and international standards as laid down by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and adopt implementing rules to clarify roles and responsibilities. \n\n6.Support a wider and science-based use of preventive vaccination and assess whether the current vaccination rules and principles remain appropriate. Develop guidance on the application of vaccination coupled with regionalisation and compartmentalisation, while continuing to advocate recognition of the EU’s regionalisation approach with trading partners. . \n\n7.Explore ways to improve and finance early-warning systems, digital detection tools and farmer information channels. \n\n8.Support research, innovation, and knowledge exchange to accelerate the deployment of resilient farming solutions. Cover livestock-related needs in the communication “New strategic approach to research and innovation Agri2040 and Food 2040”. \n\nActions for a competitive livestock sector at EU and global level \n\n9.Consider a potential dedicated financial instrument for the livestock sector to bridge the financing gap for investments in the transition to higher levels of sustainability and animal welfare. \n\n10.Explore with the European Investment Bank preferential access to loans for farmers engaged in a transition to cage-free systems. \n\n11.Continue facilitation of permitting procedures at EU and national level, including for enabling the phasing-out of cages. \n\n12.Support and facilitate circularity, bioeconomy and biomass valorisation. Assess how transparency on farmers’ renumeration for bioeconomy activities and by-product valorisation can be integrated in the work of the EU agri-food chain Observatory. \n\n13.Pursue alignment of standards for imported products for animal welfare and ensure strict enforcement of EU food safety rules. Engage in a dedicated agri-food diplomacy, enhance high-level missions and promotion measures to open new market opportunities for European exports. \n\n14.Pursue further simplification of agri-food legislation and make better use of exisiting flexibility provisions, including on animal by-products legislation and EU hygiene framework. Hold an implementation dialogue in Q4 2026 on the feed legal framework. \n\nActions for a sustainable livestock sector \n\n15.Promote value chain sustainability cooperation across the food chain to support sustainability and socio-economic objectives. \n\n16.By the end of 2026, propose a targeted revision of animal welfare rules for laying hens and broilers, focusing on the phasing-out of cages, practical on-farm welfare indicators, ending the systematic killing of male chicks and introducing WTO-compliant equivalent import requirements. \n\n17.By Q2 of 2027, propose a targeted revision of animal welfare rules for pigs, including the transition from crates to pen systems, practical on-farm welfare indicators, and introducing WTO-compliant equivalent import requirements. \n\n18.Closely exchange with relevant stakeholders, civil society and destination third countries and, depending on the outcome of these exchanges, consider further steps, incuding possible alternatives to the export of animals for slaughter from the EU to third countries, while maintaining the market positions of European livestock producers. \n\n19.Develop a harmonised methodology for livestock GHG emissions at farm level and promote monitoring tools that better reflect measures implemented at farm level and are more adapted to the needs of EU livestock sector. In addition, exchange on measurement and mitigation practices with global partners through the Global Methane Pledge and related initiatives. Assess the inclusion of livestock emission reductions in the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming regulation. \n\n20.When issuing the future CAP recommendations, ask Member States to support the reduction of environmental pressure including from nutrients in areas with high livestock concentrations. \n\n21.Build a Livestock Platform with a comprehensive repository of proven solutions for climate, environment and animal welfare by 2027. \n\n22.In September 2026, launch a process to identify best practice and simplification potential in the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, notably on calendar farming practices, certain sustainable livestock practices and nutrient management at farm level, adapted to local circumstances. In the context of the future CAP, the Member States are invited to make use of the tools available to support farmers to reduce pressure from nutrients on the environment in areas with high concentration of livestock. \n\n23.By the end of 2026, publish a report stress-testing the rules of the Birds and Habitats Directives. \n\n24.By Q3 2026, present the first assessment of the action to extend the RENURE act for certain types of liquid digestates based on manure with appropriate environmental safeguards. \n\n25.Develop a dedicated roadmap to enable a more efficient and sustainable circulation of nutrients across the EU. \n\nActions for a livestock sector fitting European territorial diversity \n\n26.Develop a plan on how to address the specific needs of regions at risk of abandonment with the aim to bring back sustainable livestock production, in conjunction with the work on the Land Observatory. \n\n27.Develop a roadmap on slaughterhouses, examining how to foster their presence in rural areas. \n\nActions to foster excellence in livestock production \n\n28.Strengthen the role of EU origin information in livestock marketing standards and labelling. \n\n29.Develop European Excellence scheme to valorise the higher standards and specific characteristics of EU livestock production through optional reserved terms under the Common Market Organisation, including criteria for recognising low-carbon, environmentally friendly, locally sourced and high-welfare livestock production systems. \n\n30.Explore ways to better recognise and communicate livestock quality attributes beyond current carcass-classification criteria. \n\n31.Consider a special window under the EU promotion policy to highlight the quality, sustainability, high welfare standards and territorial anchoring of EU livestock products in both internal and external markets. \n\n32.Continue supporting the uptake, promotion, and protection of geographical indications and organic production. Review the EU organic action plan and the Geographical Indications action plan.","","en","eurlex","http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fcellar\u002Fc62fe23e-7a13-11f1-bf5e-01aa75ed71a1","2026-07-08T13:11:26.567Z","2026-07-13T00:30:05.157Z",{"id":53,"ecli":54,"slug":55,"caseNumber":54,"courtId":43,"decisionDate":44,"publicationDate":44,"fullText":56,"summary":46,"language":47,"source":48,"sourceUrl":57,"sourceTimestamp":44,"parsedAt":50,"updatedAt":58},"242","52026XC03578","52026xc03578","Official Journal   \nof the European Union\n\nEN\n\nC series\n\n* * *\n\nC\u002F2026\u002F3578\n\n7.7.2026\n\nPublication of the communication of an approved standard amendment to a product specification of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 5(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\u002F27 (1)\n\n(C\u002F2026\u002F3578)\n\nCOMMUNICATION OF APPROVAL OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT\n\n(Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2024\u002F1143) \n\n‘Fontina’ \n\nEU Ref. Number: PDO-IT-0008-AM02 – 8.4.2026 \n\n1\\. Name of product \n\n‘Fontina’\n\n2\\. Geographical indication type \n\n☑\n\nPDO\n\n☐\n\nPGI\n\n3\\. Sector \n\n☑\n\nAgricultural products\n\n☐\n\nWines\n\n☐\n\nSpirit drinks\n\n4\\. Country to which the geographical area belongs \n\nItaly\n\n5\\. Member State authority communicating the standard amendment \n\nName \n\nMASAF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry)\n\n6\\. Qualification as standard amendment \n\nThe amendments are standard amendments as they do not include a change in the name or in the use of the name, do not risk voiding the link and do not entail further restrictions on the marketing of the product.\n\n7\\. Description of the approved standard amendment(s) \n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the product specification and points 4.2 and 4.3 of the single document as regards the raw material used\n\nDescription \n\n— The option has been added of making Fontina not only from raw milk but also from thermised milk.\n\n— The requirement to use milk from a single milking has been removed.\n\n☑\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 8 of the product specification and point 4.2 of the single document as regards the description of the product\n\nDescription \n\n— The meaning of ‘Alpeggio’ [mountain pasture] has been explained.\n\n— It has been specified that the words ‘Lunga Stagionatura’ [long ripening] may be added for cheese wheels that have been ripened for more than 180 days.\n\n— It has been clarified that the designation Fontina PDO may no longer be used if, after a cheese wheel has been marked with the logo and before it has been released for consumption, the rind characteristics are lost and\u002For the identifiability of the logo is impaired.\n\n☑\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 5 of the product specification and point 4.3 of the single document as regards the raw material used\n\nDescription \n\n— It has been specified that enzymes are selected in the production area.\n\n☑\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 5 of the product specification as regards the method of production\n\nDescription \n\n— The period within which the milk from one or several milkings must be sent for processing has been specified.\n\n— The storage temperatures for milk not immediately sent for processing have been specified.\n\n— It has been specified how thermisation is to be carried out, with the minimum temperature and the duration of this process being given.\n\n— The drying stage and its maximum duration have been better explained so as to make clear the starting point of the ripening period, which does not include the drying period.\n\n☐\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 5 of the product specification as regards salting\n\nDescription \n\n— The operation whereby the cheese wheels are salted and turned has been rewritten and described in more detail.\n\n☐\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Articles 6 and 7 of the product specification as regards ripening and the facilities where it takes place\n\nDescription \n\n— The word ‘stagionatura’ [ripening] has been added as a synonym for ‘maturazione’ [maturation].\n\n— The temperatures at which Fontina cheese wheels must be kept have been specified, and the possibility of using freezing and\u002For deep freezing techniques has been explicitly ruled out.\n\n— The option has been added for cheese wheels that have already been certified to undergo HPP (High Pressure Processing) before being placed on the market so as to significantly reduce the risk that they contain the pathogenic microorganisms that can be present in products made from raw milk.\n\n☐\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 10 of the product specification as regards the means of identifying the product\n\nDescription \n\n— Some slight editorial amendments have been made so as to better describe the means of identifying the cheese wheels as well as concerning the fact that the cheese wheel identification stamps are unique and how they are used.\n\n— It has been made clear that the logo is ink-based and that it must be applied only to cheese wheels that have the characteristics laid down and have ripened for a minimum of 80 days.\n\n☐\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 11 of the product specification on packaging and labelling and points 4.5 and 4.6 of the single document\n\nDescription \n\n— The conservation stage has been made clearer; this, along with the storage and packaging stages, must take place under specific environmental conditions as regards temperature and humidity.\n\n— More details have been given in the section on applying the various packaging elements with graphics to the flat side of the cheese wheels and to the labels on the packaged product.\n\n☑\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nTitle \n\nAmendment to Article 11 of the product specification as regards the processes permitted before packaging\n\nDescription \n\n— The option has been introduced of carrying out, before packaging, not only scraping but also similar processes.\n\n☐\n\nThe amendment affects the single document\n\nSINGLE DOCUMENT\n\nDesignations of origin and geographical indications of agricultural products \n\n‘Fontina’ \n\nEU Ref. Number: PDO-IT-0008-AM02 – 8.4.2026 \n\n1\\. Name(s) \n\n‘Fontina’\n\n2\\. Geographical indication type \n\n☑\n\nPDO\n\n☐\n\nPGI\n\n3\\. Country to which the defined geographical area belongs \n\nItaly\n\n4\\. Description of the agricultural product \n\n4.1. Classification of the agricultural product in accordance with the Combined Nomenclature heading and code, as referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024\u002F1143 \n\n0406 — Cheese and curd\n\n4.2. Description of the agricultural product to which the registered name applies \n\nFontina is a springy, smooth, melt-in-the-mouth cheese produced from whole, raw or thermised cow’s milk from Valdostana cattle whose diet is based on forage obtained in the area of origin. It must be ripened for at least 80 days. Fontina may be marketed in whole wheels, in portions or sliced.\n\nFontina must have the following characteristics:\n\n— cylindrical, typically flattened shape, flat sides, originally concave heel that is not always noticeable after ripening;\n\n— size: diameter from 30 to 45 cm, height from 7 to 10 cm;\n\n— weight of the wheel: between 7,5 and 12 kg;\n\n— external appearance: thin, firm rind ranging from light to dark brown depending on maturation conditions and the duration of ripening, soft or semi-hard as the cheese becomes riper;\n\n— paste colour ranging from ivory white to straw yellow of varying intensity;\n\n— paste texture: springy and smooth, varying according to the period of production, with characteristic eyes throughout;\n\n— the cheese melts in the mouth and has a characteristic mild, delicate flavour that becomes stronger as the cheese ripens;\n\n— high content of live lactic cultures.\n\nThe word ‘Alpeggio’ [mountain pasture] may be added for cheeses produced in mountain pasture areas using only milk milked in such areas. For the purposes of this product specification, grazing in mountain pasture (‘alpeggio’) refers to the traditional way of managing the herds in summer, whereby the cattle are taken from their sheds on the valley floor to grazing locations at progressively higher altitudes so as to best exploit the productive capacity of the pastures in terms of both quantity and quality. Grazing in mountain pasture (‘alpeggio’) can involve a variable number of grazing locations (which combine land, any buildings for housing the livestock and the premises for processing the product). These are identified by assigning specific pasture codes that are input and recorded chronologically as the grazing locations change. The duration of the mountain grazing period varies according to the pastures’ altitude, exposure and vegetation.\n\nThe words ‘Lunga Stagionatura’ [long ripening] may be added for cheeses that have been ripened for at least 180 days.\n\nThe designation Fontina PDO may not be used for any cheese wheels which, after being marked with the logo and before being released for consumption, no longer have the characteristics of the washed rind described above, or for which the identifiability of the logo is impaired.\n\n4.3. Derogations on sourcing of feed (for products of animal origin designated by a Protected Designation of Origin only) and restrictions on sourcing of raw materials (for processed products designated by a Protected Geographical Indication only) \n\nThe diet of the dairy cows must comply with the following requirements:\n\n— forage: concentrate (F:C) ratio ≥ 67:33;\n\n— at least 60 % of the dry matter in the diet must be produced within the geographical area defined in point 4.\n\nWithin the geographical area, which is entirely located in mountain territory, it is not technically practicable to obtain all of the feed necessary to give lactating cattle a correct and balanced diet (cereals and protein cattle-cake), meaning that provision has been made for the percentage of feed originating from the production area to be less than 100 %.\n\nHaving 60 % of the feed come from the geographical area ensures that the quality and characteristics of the product, which are essentially due to the geographical environment, are not compromised, since it is the dried fodder produced in the geographical area and the grass eaten in the grazing period that give the milk and thus the product the unique characteristics attributable to the area.\n\nThe composition of the compound feedingstuffs must be essentially cereals and protein cattle-cake. It is forbidden to use grass silage, fermented feed or other feed with characteristics that are not appropriate to Fontina production (e.g. extraction meal and protein meal of animal origin, animal and plant meal and oils, seeds, roots, vegetables, fruit, industrial by-products, nitrogen sources, antibiotics, hormones and\u002For stimulants, fermentation media, silica, chemically treated straw, fresh or dry bread).\n\nThe milk that is processed to produce Fontina must be produced in Valle d’Aosta and be:\n\n— raw or thermised;\n\n— whole;\n\n— from cattle from the Valdostana breed (Pezzata Rossa, Pezzata Nera, Castana) and crosses between them.\n\nOnly cultures of indigenous lactic acid bacteria (enzymes) – selected in the production area and stored under the responsibility of the Consorzio Produttori e Tutela della DOP Fontina, which freely releases them to all Fontina PDO producers – may be added to the milk.\n\n4.4. Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area \n\nThe following must take place in the identified geographical area: production and processing of the milk and ripening of the Fontina PDO cheese.\n\n4.5. Specific rules concerning packaging, slicing, grating etc. of the agricultural product the registered name refers to \n\nFontina may be marketed in whole wheels, in portions or sliced.\n\nIn the interests of consumer protection, in order to guarantee the authenticity of pre-packaged, portioned and sliced Fontina PDO cheese when placed on the market, portioning and subsequent packaging must take place in the identified geographical area.\n\nThis is necessary because the markings that identify a whole cheese as Fontina PDO are lost or are not visible on the portioned cheese, meaning that the origin of the pre-packaged product needs to be guaranteed.\n\nFontina has a moist rind and a level of moisture of the paste which are such that warehousing, storing, conservation and packaging are extremely delicate procedures to be carried out within a short timescale, maintaining the ideal environmental conditions (temperature and moisture) and paying particular attention to how workers handle the wheels. Rapidly carrying out the various stages makes it possible to minimise the risk of mould developing on the rind or inside the cheese itself. The development of mould, as well as discolouration of the rind as a result of the development of fungal mycelia, can easily undermine the integrity of the thin rind, thereby adversely affecting the properties of the cheese itself, leading to discolouration and a strong, unpleasant taste, characteristics that are not appreciated by consumers. In order to preserve the organoleptic characteristics of the product when marketed in portions, superficial cleaning of the rind is permitted at the time of packaging so as to remove any damp residue that may have formed during ripening. This operation must not hinder identification of the Fontina PDO logo imprinted on the cheeses. The rind may be removed from the product marketed in slices or intended for other forms of processing.\n\n4.6. Specific rules concerning labelling of the agricultural product the registered name refers to \n\nThe Fontina logo, which is imprinted in ink on the wheels, is a circle in the centre of which is a stylised image of a mountain above the word ‘FONTINA’. Underneath this word is the abbreviation ‘D.O.P.’ [PDO] inside an ellipse, while the circumference of the circle features the words ‘ZONA DI PRODUZIONE - REGIONE AUTONOMA VALLE D’AOSTA’ [Production area - Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta].\n\n(Image 1)\n\nThe packaging elements with graphics (paper and other labels, shrink wrap, screen prints, wrapping paper, etc.) used for the product marketed as whole wheels or in portions must feature:\n\n— the Community logo;\n\n— the wordings ‘Prodotto di montagna’ and ‘Produit de montagne’ [mountain product];\n\n— the Fontina PDO logo.\n\nThe official logo attesting to compliance with the requirements granting the right to use the Fontina PDO protected designation of origin has been slightly modified so as to make it more legible even when it is printed in smaller sizes, incorporating all of the information present and, for the word ‘Fontina’, retaining the same font.\n\n(Image 2)\n\nFor printing, use should be made of a colour that contrasts with the background, thus ensuring ease of legibility, while maintaining the proportions between the various elements.\n\nFor entire cheese wheels, packaging elements with graphics must not cover the Fontina PDO logo branded onto the cheese.\n\n(a) The packaging elements with graphics placed on the flat side of cheese wheels must use the following logos as commercial identifiers and comply with the graphical parameters for reproduction: Fontina PDO: the classic green logo must appear on a white background.  (Image 3) Fontina PDO with the word ‘Alpeggio’ [mountain pasture]: the white logo must appear on a green background, while the red band and the wording must always have the colour and proportions indicated.  (Image 4) Fontina PDO with the words ‘Lunga Stagionatura’ [long ripening]: the white logo must appear on a black background, while the gold-coloured band and the wording must always have the colour and proportions indicated.  (Image 5)\n\n(b) Given the small size of the packaging elements with graphics used for products packaged by authorised portioners, their labelling must use the following simplified logos as commercial identifiers, using a colour that contrasts with the background, thus ensuring ease of legibility, while maintaining the proportions between the various elements: Fontina PDO  (Image 6) Fontina PDO with the word ‘Alpeggio’  (Image 7) Fontina PDO with the words ‘Lunga Stagionatura’  (Image 8)\n\n5\\. Concise definition of the geographical area \n\nThe production, ripening and portioning area for Fontina cheese is the entire territory of the Valle d’Aosta.\n\n6\\. Link with the geographical area \n\nSummary of the link \n\nThe geographical environment from which Fontina originates and where it is produced is the unique mountain environment of the Valle d’Aosta, an Alpine valley with a specific climate, flora and fauna. An indigenous breed of cattle, the Valdostana, is reared in this region. This breed has three characteristic features: its muscular and compact morphology which allows it to move to mountain pastures and directly consume the available forage, its capacity to make the most of the local hay forage and the fact that it produces ideal milk for traditional cheese production. The indigenous Valdostana breed thus makes it possible for the grass – the mountain area’s abundant resource – to be transformed into an original cheese product. This interdependence is enhanced by the fact that the cattle all graze in mountainland in summer and in pastureland in autumn and spring, eating fresh grass that confers specific qualities to the raw material that are directly reflected in the characteristics of the cheese. The Valdostana breed and Fontina cheese are a reflection of the environment that gave rise to them: the relationship between the three elements – environment, breed and cheese – is not hierarchical, but rather holistic. Indeed, the Valdostana breed and Fontina are important guardians of the environment. The botanical composition of the pastures and meadows (which is the result of the dry summer climate of this Alpine valley) and the biochemical uniqueness of the milk obtained from the Valdostana breed are thus the basis for Fontina as a designation of origin.\n\nAs regards human factors, in addition to the historic importance of the cheese in the local economy, it should be noted that the complex production and ripening operations for Fontina are based on traditional, artisanal cheese-making techniques: the addition of lactic acid bacteria selected in the production area, the addition of calf rennet at the ideal temperature, the moulding of the wheels and dry salting are techniques that have been handed down over the centuries in the identified geographical area.\n\nFontina is a melt-in-the-mouth semi-cooked cheese that ranges in colour from ivory white to straw yellow of varying intensity. Its characteristic mild and delicate flavour varies in line with a number of factors such as, in particular, whether the cattle feed on grass or dried fodder and the length of ripening.\n\nElectronic (URL) reference to publication of the product specification \n\n\u003Chttps:\u002F\u002Fwww.masaf.gov.it\u002Fflex\u002Fcm\u002Fpages\u002FServeBLOB.php\u002FL\u002FIT\u002FIDPagina\u002F3340>\n\n* * *\n\n(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\u002F27 of 30 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2024\u002F1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules concerning the registration and the protection of geographical indications, traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664\u002F2014 ([OJ L, 2025\u002F27, 15.1.2025, ELI: http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg_del\u002F2025\u002F27\u002Foj](https:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg_del\u002F2025\u002F27\u002Foj)).\n\n* * *\n\nELI: http:\u002F\u002Fdata.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002FC\u002F2026\u002F3578\u002Foj\n\nISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)\n\n* * *","http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fcellar\u002F22003ad0-799e-11f1-bf5e-01aa75ed71a1","2026-07-13T00:30:05.374Z",{"id":60,"ecli":61,"slug":62,"caseNumber":46,"courtId":63,"decisionDate":64,"fullText":65,"summary":46,"language":66,"source":67,"sourceUrl":68,"sourceTimestamp":69,"parsedAt":70,"updatedAt":71},"1762","ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:7700","ecli-nl-rbrot-2026-7700",61,"2026-07-03T00:00:00.000Z","RECHTBANK ROTTERDAM\n\nBestuursrecht\n\nzaaknummers: ROT 24\u002F11226 en ROT 24\u002F11960\n uitspraak van de enkelvoudige kamer van 3 juli 2026 in de zaken tussen\n [eiseres], uit [plaats], eiseres\n\n(gemachtigde: mr. F.Th.M. Peters),\n\nen\n\nde minister van Landbouw, Visserij, Voedselzekerheid en Natuur, verweerder\n\n(gemachtigde: mr. D.J. van der Bij).\n\nSamenvatting\n\n1. Deze uitspraak gaat over twee bestuurlijke boetes van elk € 2.500,- die verweerder met de besluiten van 10 mei 2024 (ROT 24\u002F11226) en 16 augustus 2024 (ROT 24\u002F11960) aan eiseres heeft opgelegd voor een overtreding van de Wet dieren. Eiseres is het niet eens met deze boetes en voert daartoe een aantal beroepsgronden aan. Aan de hand van deze beroepsgronden beoordeelt de rechtbank de rechtmatigheid van de boetes.\n\n1.1.. De rechtbank komt in deze uitspraak tot het oordeel dat verweerder de boetes ten onrechte heeft opgelegd. Eiseres krijgt dus gelijk en de beroepen zijn gegrond. Hierna legt de rechtbank uit hoe zij tot dit oordeel komt en welke gevolgen dit oordeel heeft.\n\n1.2.. Onder 2. staat het procesverloop in deze zaken. Onder 3. staan de van belang zijnde feiten en omstandigheden die hebben geleid tot de bestreden besluiten. De beoordeling door de rechtbank volgt vanaf 4. Aan het eind staan de beslissing van de rechtbank en de gevolgen daarvan. De wettelijke regels en beleidsregels die van belang zijn voor deze zaak, staan in de bijlage bij deze uitspraak.\n\nProcesverloop\n\n2. Met de bestreden besluiten van 5 november 2024 en 28 november 2024 op de bezwaren van eiseres is verweerder bij de boetebesluiten gebleven.\n\n2.1.. \n\nEiseres heeft beroep ingesteld tegen de bestreden besluiten onder kenmerk ROT 24\u002F11226, respectievelijk ROT 24\u002F11960.\n\n2.2.. Verweerder heeft op de beroepen gereageerd met een verweerschrift.\n\n2.3.. De rechtbank heeft de beroepen op 10 februari 2026 op zitting behandeld. Hieraan hebben deelgenomen: de gemachtigde van eiseres, de gemachtigde van verweerder en [naam], toezichthouder bij de Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (NVWA).\n\n2.4.. Ter zitting heeft de rechtbank het onderzoek geschorst en verweerder de gelegenheid gegeven de keuze voor de grondslag van de boetes toe te lichten. Dit heeft verweerder bij brief van 18 februari 2026 gedaan. Bij brief van 3 april 2026 heeft eiseres daarop gereageerd. Nadat geen van de partijen te kennen heeft gegeven op een nadere zitting te willen worden gehoord, heeft de rechtbank op 22 mei 2026 het onderzoek in beide zaken gesloten.\n\nTotstandkoming van het besluit\n\n3.1.. \n\nVerweerder heeft zijn besluit in ROT 24\u002F11226 gebaseerd op een rapport van bevindingen van 19 februari 2024, opgemaakt door een toezichthouder van de NVWA. In het rapport staat over de bevindingen van de toezichthouder tijdens regulier toezicht bij eiseres onder meer het volgende:\n\n“Datum en tijdstip van de bevinding: 15 februari 2024 omstreeks 12.55 uur.[…]\n\nTijdens mijn inspectie bevond ik mij in de darmwasserij bij [eiseres] in deze darmwasserij is het bedrijf [bedrijf B] werkzaam. In deze ruimte worden darmpakketten gesplitst in bruikbare onderdelen. Bij binnenkomst van de darmwasserij ben ik richting koelcel 2 gelopen. Daar staan de producten gereed voor verzending.\n\nIn de koelcel zag ik na het openen van een recipiënt met varkensscheilvet (Ruffle fat), dat er bovenop een stuk lag met nog darmen eraan met vezelachtige partikels en de groen\u002Fbruine kleur, door mij herkend als fecale bezoedeling (zie foto 1). Dit materiaal had als categorie 2 dierlijke bijproducten aangemerkt moeten worden. Op de recipiënt zat een sticker met daarop de slachtdatum, product omschrijving en het erkenningsnummer 28 (zie foto 2). Doordat het erkenningsnummer [erkenningsnummer] op het recipiënt was aangebracht is het geschikt verklaard voor humane consumptie. Op mijn aanwijzen is het materiaal als categorie 2 dierlijke bijproducten afgevoerd. Hieruit bleek mij dat de dierlijke bijproducten niet identificeerbaar waren en tijdens het verzamelen niet gescheiden en identificeerbaar bleven, terwijl dat wel vereist was.”\n\n3.2.. \n\nVerweerder heeft zijn besluit in ROT 24\u002F11960 gebaseerd op een rapport van bevindingen dat op 6 mei 2024 is opgemaakt door een toezichthouder van de NVWA. In dit rapport schrijft de toezichthouder over zijn bevindingen tijdens regulier toezicht bij eiseres onder meer het volgende:\n\n“Datum en tijdstip van de bevinding: 1 mei 2024 omstreeks 13:00 uur.[…]\n\nTijdens mijn inspectie bevond ik mij in de darmwasserij bij [eiseres] in deze darmwasserij is het bedrijf [bedrijf B] werkzaam. In deze ruimte worden darmpakketten gesplitst in bruikbare onderdelen. Bij binnenkomst van de darmwasserij ben ik richting de koelcel gelopen. Daar staan de producten gereed voor verzending.\n\nIn de koelcel zag ik een recipiënt staan met varkens netvet (net fat) (zie foto 1, 2, 3 en 4). Ik zag dat er op de recipiënt een sticker was aangebracht met daarop de slachtdatum, product omschrijving en het erkenningsnummer 28 (zie foto 1). Doordat het bedrijf [erkenningsnummer] op het label heeft staan is het product geschikt verklaard voor humane consumptie. Ik zag geen andere stickers die categorisering voor dierlijke bijproducten suggereerden. Ik zag dat het netvet (net fat) zichtbaar was verontreinigd met een bruin\u002Fgroene verontreiniging en vezelachtige partikels, door mij herkend als fecale bezoedeling (zie foto 2, 3 en 4). Fecale bezoedeling behoort als categorie 2 (destructie) aangemerkt te worden en als zodanig verzameld te worden.\n\nIk zag in dezelfde ruimte na het openen van een recipiënt met varkens scheilvet (Ruffle fat), dat het varkens scheilvet zichtbaar was verontreinigd met een groen\u002Fbruine verontreiniging met vezelachtige partikels door mij herkend als fecale bezoedeling (zie foto 6, 7, 8 en 9). Dit materiaal had als categorie 2 (destructie) aangemerkt moeten worden. Op de recipiënt zat een sticker met daarop de slachtdatum, product omschrijving en het erkenningsnummer [erkenningsnummer] (zie foto 5). Doordat het erkenningsnummer [erkenningsnummer] op het recipiënt was aangebracht is het geschikt verklaard voor humane consumptie. Op mijn aanwijzen is het materiaal als categorie 2 (destructie) afgevoerd.\n\nHieruit bleek mij dat de dierlijke bijproducten niet identificeerbaar waren en tijdens het verzamelen niet gescheiden en identificeerbaar bleven, terwijl dat wel vereist was.”\n\n3.3.. \n\nOp grond van de rapporten van bevindingen heeft verweerder vastgesteld dat eiseres het volgende beboetbare feit heeft gepleegd:\n\n“De exploitant zag er niet op toe dat dierlijke bijproducten voldeden aan de eisen inzake identificatie van bijlage VIII, van Verordening 142\u002F2011. De exploitant heeft niet alle nodige maatregelen getroffen om ervoor te zorgen dat dierlijke bijproducten tijdens het verzamelen op de plaats van oorsprong gescheiden en identificeerbaar blijven.”\n\nVolgens verweerder heeft eiseres daarmee een overtreding begaan van artikel 6.2, eerste lid, van de Wet dieren, in verbinding met artikel 3.3, eerste lid, onder b, van de Regeling dierlijke producten, en met artikel 17, eerste lid, en Bijlage VIII, Hoofdstuk II, punt 1, aanhef en onder a, van Verordening 142\u002F2011, gelet op artikel 21, eerste lid, van Verordening 1069\u002F2009.\n\nBeoordeling door de rechtbank\n\n4.1.. Eiseres voert aan dat het gaat om bezoedeld ruffle fat en netvet, voor humane consumptie bestemde en goedgekeurde halffabricaten die zijn gewonnen in de darmwasserij. Het betreffen levensmiddelen en daarop is Verordening 852\u002F2004van toepassing. Verordening 142\u002F2011 is pas van toepassing nadat een product uit de humane voedselketen is gehaald en wordt aangemerkt als een bijproduct. Dit zou voor het ruffle fat en netvet pas gelden nadat het op basis van HACCP-protocollen zou zijn afgewaardeerd naar categorie 3 of categorie 2 materiaal, maar dat stadium was hier nog niet bereikt. Het ruffle fat en netvet heeft namelijk nog verdere bewerking nodig bij een ander bedrijf ([bedrijf B]) en daar vindt een inslagcontrole plaats. Verder vindt eiseres dat zij niet als overtreder kan worden aangemerkt omdat de darmwasserij door [bedrijf B] wordt gebruikt. Daarnaast voert eiseres aan dat sprake is van bijzondere omstandigheden op grond waarvan de boete moet worden gematigd. De halffabricaten leiden vanuit de slachterij namelijk nimmer naar een eindgebruiker en de goederen worden bij ontvangst door [bedrijf B] (wederom) onderworpen aan een HACCP-controle. Voorts is van belang dat het ruffle fat en netvet bij eindgebruik altijd gedurende langere tijd tot hoge temperaturen wordt verhit of gefrituurd, zodat de risico’s of gevaar voor de volksgezondheid afwezig zijn. Eiseres doet daarbij een beroep op artikel 3.2 van het Besluit handhaving en overige zaken Wet dieren.\n\n4.2.. Verweerder stelt zich op het standpunt dat de boetes op de juiste grondslag zijn opgelegd. Er was sprake van fecale bezoedeling op weefsel in recipiënten met andere varkensscheilvetten en netvetten en dat verspreidt zich over de gehele recipiënt. Het is niet meer weg te snijden, zoals een fecale bezoedeling bij een karkas dat wel is. Dit maakt dat de gehele recipiënten niet meer geschikt waren voor humane consumptie en direct als categorie 2 materiaal aangemerkt hadden moeten worden. Dit heeft eiseres nagelaten en daarom heeft verweerder een boete opgelegd voor overtreding van Verordening 142\u002F2011 en niet voor overtreding van Verordening 852\u002F2004. Verder vindt verweerder dat eiseres terecht als overtreder is aangemerkt omdat de recipiënten waren voorzien van het EG-nummer van eiseres. Ten slotte stelt verweerder dat de overtredingen een ernstig gevaar voor de volksgezondheid kunnen opleveren en ziet daarom geen reden voor matiging van de boetes.\n\nHeeft verweerder bewezen dat eiseres de overtreding heeft begaan?\n\n5.1.. De rechtbank stelt vast dat eiseres niet betwist dat zich in recipiënten in de koeling bezoedelde varkensscheilvetten (ruffle fat) en netvetten bevonden die waren goedgekeurd voor humane consumptie. Verweerder verwijt eiseres dat zij daarmee artikel 17, eerste lid, aanhef en onder a, en Bijlage VIII, Hoofdstuk II, punt 1, aanhef en onder a, van Verordening 142\u002F2011 heeft overtreden. Hierin staat – kort gezegd – dat exploitanten ervoor moeten zorgen dat dierlijke bijproducten identificeerbaar zijn en tijdens het verzamelen op de plaats van oorsprong van de dierlijke bijproducten alsook tijdens het vervoer gescheiden en identificeerbaar blijven.\n\n5.2.. Onder meer is in geschil of Verordening 142\u002F2011 in deze situaties en op de momenten van de constateringen van de toezichthouders op de recipiënten met bezoedelde vetten van toepassing was. Uit de titel van deze verordening volgt dat deze dient ter uitvoering van Verordening 1069\u002F2009 en ziet op niet voor menselijke consumptie bestemde dierlijke bijproducten en afgeleide producten. In Verordening 1069\u002F2009 worden dierlijke bijproducten ingedeeld in drie categorieën, gebaseerd op het risico voor de volks- en diergezondheid. Categorie 1 materiaal heeft het hoogste risico (bijvoorbeeld een kadaver van een koe besmet met BSE) en categorie 3 materiaal heeft het laagste risico (bijvoorbeeld veren of bepaalde etensresten). In beide verordeningen staan voorschriften over onder meer de hantering en de wijze van verzameling van dierlijke bijproducten, de traceerbaarheid ervan bij vervoer en de toegestane verwerkingsmethoden per soort dierlijk bijproduct. Op grond van artikel 3 van Verordening 1069\u002F2009 gaat het bij dierlijke bijproducten om producten die niet voor menselijke consumptie bestemd zijn.\n\n5.3.. Volgens eiseres was in deze zaak op het varkensscheilvet en netvet Verordening 852\u002F2004 van toepassing en die verordening ziet op levensmiddelen. In Verordening 178\u002F2002wordt onder een levensmiddel verstaan: alle stoffen en producten, verwerkt, gedeeltelijk verwerkt of onverwerkt, die bestemd zijn om door de mens te worden geconsumeerd of waarvan redelijkerwijs kan worden verwacht dat zij door de mens worden geconsumeerd.\n\n5.4.. De rechtbank stelt vast dat het varkensscheilvet en netvet in de recipiënten door eiseres bestemd waren voor humane consumptie. De toezichthouder heeft gezien dat vetten in de recipiënten bezoedeld waren met fecaliën. Volgens verweerder betekent de aanwezigheid van die bezoedeling dat de vetten direct als dierlijke bijproducten moeten worden gekwalificeerd, maar dit volgt de rechtbank niet. Het varkensscheilvet en netvet is door eiseres namelijk steeds bestemd geweest voor humane consumptie en een fecale bezoedeling op deze producten maakt dit niet direct anders. Verweerder wijst erop dat bezoedeld varkensscheilvet en netvet niet meer geschikt is voor humane consumptie, wat ook navolgbaar is, maar dit maakt nog niet dat vetten of gehele recipiënten daarom ook direct als dierlijke bijproducten moeten worden gekwalificeerd. Voor dierlijke bijproducten is immers vereist dat ze niet (langer) bestemdzijn voor humane consumptie. Eiseres heeft gewezen op HACCP-controles die worden verricht. Als bij zo’n controle een bezoedeling wordt ontdekt, worden de vetten zo nodig afgewaardeerd. Op dat moment bestemt de exploitant de vetten niet langer voor humane consumptie en worden de vetten aangemerkt als dierlijke bijproducten. Dit punt was ten tijde van de constateringen door de toezichthouders (nog) niet bereikt. Op dat moment waren de vetten nog bestemd voor humane consumptie en dus aan te merken als levensmiddel, waarop niet Verordening 142\u002F2011 maar Verordening 852\u002F2004 van toepassing is.\n\n5.5.. In het bestreden besluit in ROT 24\u002F11960 stelt verweerder zich op het standpunt dat eiseres ookniet heeft voldaan aan punt 3 van hoofdstuk IX van Bijlage II, van Verordening 852\u002F2004. Dit voorschrift is naar het oordeel van de rechtbank in deze zaken wel van toepassing. Op grond van dit voorschrift moeten namelijk levensmiddelen worden beschermd tegen elke vorm van verontreiniging waardoor de levensmiddelen ongeschikt kunnen worden voor menselijke consumptie. Door de aanwezigheid van fecale bezoedeling op de levensmiddelen varkensscheilvet en netvet is daar niet aan voldaan. Verweerder heeft de boetes evenwel niet opgelegd voor overtreding van dit voorschrift. Overigens kan de rechtbank – los van het voorgaande – verweerder evenmin volgen in zijn betoog dat zowel een overtreding van Verordening 142\u002F2011 als van Verordening 852\u002F2004 aan de boete ten grondslag had kunnen worden gelegd, omdat eerstgenoemde verordening ziet op dierlijke bijproducten en laatstgenoemde verordening ziet op levensmiddelen. Een product kan niet op hetzelfde moment zowel een dierlijk bijproduct als een levensmiddel zijn. Een product is immers wel of niet bestemd voor humane consumptie.\n\n5.6.. De rechtbank concludeert dat verweerder in beide zaken ten onrechte heeft vastgesteld dat artikel 17, eerste lid, en Bijlage VIII, Hoofdstuk II, punt 1, aanhef en onder a, van Verordening 142\u002F2011, gelet op artikel 21, eerste lid, van Verordening 1069\u002F2009 is overtreden. De boetes zijn dus ten onrechte opgelegd. Gelet op dit oordeel behoeven de overige gronden van eiseres over overtrederschap en matiging van de boete geen bespreking meer.\n\nRedelijke termijn\n\n6. De rechtbank beoordeelt ambtshalveof de redelijke termijn, bedoeld in artikel 6 van het EVRM, is overschreden. Dit is bij punitieve sancties het geval als, behoudens bijzondere omstandigheden, de rechtbank niet binnen twee jaar nadat deze termijn is aangevangen uitspraak doet. De redelijke termijn is aangevangen met het uitbrengen van de voornemens.\n\n6.1.. In ROT 24\u002F11226 is het voornemen uitgebracht op 4 april 2024. Op het moment van deze uitspraak is de redelijke termijn in dit beroep met ruim drie maanden overschreden. Nu de boete vervalt en eiseres niet heeft verzocht om vergoeding van immateriële schade vanwege overschrijding van de redelijke termijn, volstaat de rechtbank met de constatering dat de redelijke termijn in ROT 24\u002F11226 is overschreden.\n\n6.2.. In ROT 24\u002F11960 is het voornemen uitgebracht op 10 juli 2024 en is de redelijke termijn op het moment van deze uitspraak niet overschreden.\n\nConclusie en gevolgen\n\n7. De beroepen zijn gegrond omdat verweerder niet bevoegd was de boetes op te leggen. De rechtbank vernietigt daarom de bestreden besluiten. De rechtbank voorziet zelf in de zaak en herroept de primaire besluiten. Dit betekent dat de boetes vervallen.\n\n8. Omdat de beroepen gegrond zijn moet verweerder het griffierecht aan eiseres vergoeden. Dit bedraagt € 371,- per beroep, dus in totaal € 742,-. Ook krijgt eiseres een vergoeding van haar proceskosten. Deze vergoeding wordt met toepassing van het Besluit proceskosten bestuursrecht (Bpb) vastgesteld. De rechtbank merkt beide zaken in de beroepsfase aan als samenhangende zaken als bedoeld in artikel 3 van het Bpb, omdat de beroepen gelijktijdig op zitting zijn behandeld en de werkzaamheden van de gemachtigde in beide beroepen nagenoeg identiek zijn geweest. In de bezwaarfase was hiervan geen sprake. Dit betekent dat de zaken voor de bepaling van de hoogte van de te vergoeden kosten voor rechtsbijstand in de beroepsfase als één zaak en in de bezwaarfase als twee zaken worden beschouwd. In bezwaar heeft elke proceshandeling een waarde van € 666,-. In beroep heeft elke proceshandeling een waarde van € 934,-. De gemachtigde heeft in beide zaken een bezwaarschrift ingediend, de hoorzitting bijgewoond, een beroepschrift ingediend en aan de zitting van de rechtbank deelgenomen. De vergoeding bedraagt dan in totaal € 4.532,-.\n\nBeslissing\n\nDe rechtbank:\n\nverklaart de beroepen gegrond;\n\nvernietigt de bestreden besluiten van 5 november 2024 en 28 november 2024;\n\nherroept de primaire besluiten;\n\nbepaalt dat deze uitspraak in de plaats treedt van de vernietigde besluiten;\n\nbepaalt dat verweerder het griffierecht van in totaal € 742,- aan eiseres moet vergoeden;\n\nveroordeelt verweerder tot betaling van € 4.532,- aan proceskosten van eiseres.\n\nDeze uitspraak is gedaan door mr. S.M. Goossens, rechter, in aanwezigheid van mr. A.L. van der Duijn Schouten, griffier. Uitgesproken in het openbaar op 3 juli 2026.\n\ngriffier\n\nrechter\n\nEen afschrift van deze uitspraak is verzonden aan partijen op:\n\nInformatie over hoger beroep\n\nEen partij die het niet eens is met deze uitspraak, kan een hogerberoepschrift sturen naar het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven waarin wordt uitgelegd waarom deze partij het niet eens is met deze uitspraak. Het hogerberoepschrift moet worden ingediend binnen zes weken na de dag waarop deze uitspraak is verzonden.\n\nDigitaal hoger beroep instellen kan via “Formulieren en inloggen” op www.rechtspraak.nl. Hoger beroep instellen kan eventueel ook nog steeds door verzending van een brief aan het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, Postbus 20021, 2500 EA ’s-Gravenhage.\n\nKan de indiener de behandeling van het hoger beroep niet afwachten, omdat de zaak spoed heeft, dan kan de indiener de voorzieningenrechter van het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven vragen om een voorlopige voorziening (een tijdelijke maatregel) te treffen.\n\nBIJLAGE: voor deze uitspraak belangrijke wet- en regelgeving\n\nVerordening 142\u002F2011\n\nArtikel 17, eerste lid, aanhef en onder a\n\nExploitanten zien erop toe dat dierlijke bijproducten en afgeleide producten:\n\na) voldoen aan de eisen inzake verzameling, vervoer en identificatie van bijlage VIII, hoofdstukken I en II.\n\nBijlage VIII, Hoofdstuk II, punt 1, aanhef en onder a,\n\n1. Alle nodige maatregelen moeten worden getroffen om ervoor te zorgen dat:\n\na) zendingen dierlijke bijproducten en afgeleide producten identificeerbaar zijn en tijdens het verzamelen op de plaats van oorsprong van de dierlijke bijproducten alsook tijdens het vervoer gescheiden en identificeerbaar blijven.\n\nVerordening 1069\u002F2009\n\nArtikel 3, aanhef en eerste lid\n\nIn deze verordening worden verstaan onder:\n\n„dierlijke bijproducten”: dode dieren of delen van dieren, producten van dierlijke oorsprong of andere producten die uit dieren zijn verkregen en die niet voor menselijke consumptie bestemd zijn, met inbegrip van oöcyten, embryo’s en sperma;\n\nArtikel 21, eerste lid\n\nExploitanten verzamelen, identificeren en vervoeren dierlijke bijproducten onverwijld onder voorwaarden ter voorkoming van risico's voor de volksgezondheid en de diergezondheid.\n\nVerordening 178\u002F2002\n\nArtikel 2\n\nIn deze verordening wordt verstaan onder \"levensmiddel\" (of \"voedingsmiddel\"): alle stoffen en producten, verwerkt, gedeeltelijk verwerkt of onverwerkt, die bestemd zijn om door de mens te worden geconsumeerd of waarvan redelijkerwijs kan worden verwacht dat zij door de mens worden geconsumeerd. […]\n\nVerordening 852\u002F2004\n\nBijlage II, hoofdstuk IX, punt 3\n\nIn alle stadia van de productie, verwerking en distributie moeten levensmiddelen worden beschermd tegen elke vorm van verontreiniging waardoor de levensmiddelen ongeschikt kunnen worden voor menselijke consumptie, schadelijk worden voor de gezondheid, dan wel op een zodanige wijze kunnen worden verontreinigd dat zij redelijkerwijze niet meer in die staat kunnen worden geconsumeerd.\n\nWet dieren\n\nArtikel 6.2, eerste lid\n\nHet is verboden in strijd te handelen met bij of krachtens algemene maatregel van bestuur of bij ministeriële regeling aangewezen voorschriften van EU-verordeningen betreffende onderwerpen waarop deze wet van toepassing is.\n\nArtikel 8.7\n\nOnze Minister kan een overtreder een bestuurlijke boete opleggen.\n\n Verordening (EU) nr. 142\u002F2011 van de Commissie van 25 februari 2011 tot uitvoering van Verordening (EG) nr. 1069\u002F2009 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad tot vaststelling van gezondheidsvoorschriften inzake niet voor menselijke consumptie bestemde dierlijke bijproducten en afgeleide producten en tot uitvoering van Richtlijn 97\u002F78\u002FEG van de Raad wat betreft bepaalde monsters en producten die vrijgesteld zijn van veterinaire controles aan de grens krachtens die richtlijn.\n\n Verordening (EG) nr. 1069\u002F2009 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 21 oktober 2009 tot vaststelling van gezondheidsvoorschriften inzake niet voor menselijke consumptie bestemde dierlijke bijproducten en afgeleide producten en tot intrekking van Verordening (EG) nr. 1774\u002F2002.\n\n Verordening (EG) nr. 852\u002F2004 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 29 april 2004\n\ninzake levensmiddelenhygiëne\n\n Verordening (EG) nr. 178\u002F2002 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 28 januari 2002 tot vaststelling van de algemene beginselen en voorschriften van de levensmiddelenwetgeving, tot oprichting van een Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid en tot vaststelling van procedures voor voedselveiligheidsaangelegenheden. Op grond van artikel 2, tweede lid, van Verordening 852\u002F2004 zijn die definities van Verordening 178\u002F2002 eveneens van toepassing.\n\n Gelet op ECLI:NL:CBB:2025:7 en ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:4761\n\n Zie bijv. ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1337 en ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1422","nl","rechtspraak_nl","https:\u002F\u002Fdeeplink.rechtspraak.nl\u002Fuitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:7700","2026-07-01T00:00:00.000Z","2026-07-08T16:52:53.682Z","2026-07-13T00:29:37.596Z",{"id":73,"ecli":74,"slug":75,"caseNumber":76,"courtId":77,"decisionDate":78,"fullText":79,"summary":80,"language":81,"source":82,"sourceUrl":46,"sourceTimestamp":78,"parsedAt":83,"updatedAt":84},"2195","ECLI:DE:NEURIS:WBRE202600329","ecli-de-neuris-wbre202600329","3 B 32.25 (3 C 2.26)",34,"2026-05-13T00:00:00.000Z","#  BVerwG, 13.05.2026, 3 B 32.25 (3 C 2.26) \n\n## Tenor\n\nDie Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Rheinland-Pfalz über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil vom 2. Juli 2025 wird aufgehoben.\n\nDie Revision wird zugelassen.\n\nDie Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.\n\nDer Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 10 000 € festgesetzt.\n\n## Gründe\n\n1\\. Die zulässige Beschwerde des Beklagten ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie wird voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Fragen beitragen, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen die Verwendung des Namens einer in die Weinbergsrolle eingetragenen Lage ohne den Zusatz eines Gemeinde- oder Ortsteilnamens zur Kennzeichnung eines Weins a) mit Art. 120 Abs. 1 Buchst. g der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1308\u002F2013 i. V. m. Art. 55 der Verordnung (EU) 2019\u002F33 vereinbar ist, b) eine geografische Bezeichnung, bei deren Benutzung eine Gefahr der Irreführung über die geografische Herkunft besteht, im Sinne des § 22b Abs. 2 WeinG sein kann. \n\n2\\. Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 i. V. m. § 47 Abs. 1 und § 52 Abs. 1 GKG.","BVerwG, 13.05.2026, 3 B 32.25 (3 C 2.26)","de","jurionline_de","2026-07-08T22:19:33.555Z","2026-07-10T22:04:59.265Z",{"id":86,"ecli":87,"slug":88,"caseNumber":89,"courtId":90,"decisionDate":91,"publicationDate":91,"fullText":92,"summary":46,"language":47,"source":93,"sourceUrl":94,"sourceTimestamp":91,"parsedAt":95,"updatedAt":96},"267","ECLI:EU:C:2026:19","ecli-eu-c-2026-19","C-52\u002F25",50,"2026-01-15T00:00:00.000Z","OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL\n\nBIONDI 1 Joined Cases C‑52\u002F25 and C‑53\u002F25 [Binanrier ( i )]\n\nRZ,\n\nGT (C‑52\u002F25)\n\nAX,\n\nUI (C‑53\u002F25)\n\nv\n\nRégion wallonne\n\n(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons  \n(Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium)) \n\n(Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Regulation (EU) No 702\u002F2014 – Block exemption for certain types of aid to the agriculture and forestry sectors – Aid to compensate for damage caused by an adverse climatic event that can be assimilated to a natural disaster – Reduction of the amount of aid in the event of failure to take out insurance – No possibility for the beneficiary of the aid to take out the required insurance)\n\n**I.** **Introduction**\n\n1\\. By its requests for a preliminary ruling in these two joined cases, the Cour d’appel de Mons (Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium; ‘the referring court’) has referred three questions to the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 702\u002F2014, ( 2 ) a provision concerning aid intended to compensate small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) active in primary agricultural production for damage caused by adverse climatic events that can be assimilated to natural disasters. Aid that complies with all the conditions set out in that article and in Chapter I of that regulation is exempt from the requirement to notify the European Commission laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.\n\n2\\. More specifically, the three questions referred by the referring court concern paragraph 9 of Article 25 of Regulation No 702\u002F2014, which provides that compensation constituting such aid is to be ‘reduced by 50% unless it is granted to beneficiaries who have taken out insurance covering at least 50% of their average annual production or production-related income and the statistically most frequent climatic risks in the Member State or region concerned for which insurance coverage is provided’. ( 3 )\n\n3\\. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling arise in proceedings concerning claims for compensation brought by a number of farmers (RZ, GT, AX and UI; ‘the appellants in the main proceedings’) who suffered damage as a result of the drought that affected Belgium from August 2016 to June 2017. That drought has been recognised by the Belgian authorities as an agricultural disaster giving rise to entitlement to compensation. For the purpose of calculating the compensation, the Belgian authorities applied a national provision ( 4 ) implementing Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014, under which the amount of compensation is reduced by 50% ‘if the injured party has not taken out insurance covering at least 50% of his or her production against climatic risks’.\n\n4\\. In the present case, since the appellants in the main proceedings had not taken out any insurance against climatic risks, the competent Belgian authorities reduced their compensation by 50% in accordance with the abovementioned national provision.\n\n5\\. However, the appellants in the main proceedings lodged an appeal with the Belgian courts, arguing that they had been unable to take out insurance because, at the time the damage occurred, it was not possible in Belgium to insure their farms against certain climatic risks, such as drought.\n\n6\\. Following various proceedings, the Cour d’appel de Mons (Court of Appeal, Mons) was seised of the disputes referred to in the main proceedings. It emerges from the order for reference that, first, the risk of drought is not one of the most frequent climatic risks in Belgium, since the most frequent climatic risk in that Member State is hail; second, at the time of the events, there was no insurance against drought in Belgium, but there was insurance against hail; and, third, the appellants in the main proceedings asserted that their farms consist of permanent and temporary meadows and grassland used for feeding livestock, and that, as such, those meadows and that grassland are not insurable against the risk of hail.\n\n7\\. The referring court therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer three questions for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014.\n\n8\\. At the request of the Court of Justice, the present Opinion focuses on the third question referred for a preliminary ruling, in which the referring court asks: ‘Does [Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014] allow the Member State concerned not to reduce the aid intended to compensate farmers for damage caused by a climatic event considered to be a natural disaster, where the aid beneficiary demonstrates that the type of production in which he or she engages (in this case, permanent and temporary meadows, as well as grassland for feeding livestock, and not crops) is not insurable in the Member State concerned (in this case, Belgium) against the statistically most frequent climatic risks, up to an amount of at least 50% of the average annual production or production-related income of his or her farm?’\n\n**II.** **Analysis**\n\n9\\. By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may be authorised not to reduce by 50% aid intended to compensate for damage caused by adverse climatic events that can be assimilated to natural disasters, where the beneficiary of the aid demonstrates that it was not possible to obtain insurance cover for the type of production of his or her farm against the statistically most frequent climatic risks, as that was not insurable in that Member State.\n\n10\\. To answer the third question referred for a preliminary ruling by the referring court, it is necessary to interpret Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014.\n\n11\\. According to settled case-law, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. ( 5 )\n\n12\\. First of all, with regard to Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014, referred to in point 2 of the present Opinion, that provision stipulates that the aid in question is to be reduced by 50% unless the beneficiary has taken out an insurance policy that must meet two requirements.\n\n13\\. In the first place, that insurance policy must cover at least 50% of the average annual production or corresponding income, and, in the second place, it must cover the climatic risks that are statistically most frequent in the Member State or region concerned for which insurance cover is provided.\n\n14\\. With regard to the second requirement, it is clear from the wording of the provision in question (in most of the language versions, as noted in point 17 of the present Opinion) that insurance cover for the most frequent climatic risks must be ‘provided’. In my opinion, it follows, conversely, that if insurance cover is not provided for those most frequent climatic risks, the condition relating to the need to take out an insurance policy cannot apply and, consequently, the reduction in aid cannot apply either. Furthermore, such a condition appears to be reasonable: it seems illogical to require, as a condition for obtaining part of the compensation, that an insurance contract be entered into where cover for the relevant risk is not available.\n\n15\\. A literal analysis of the provision in question would therefore seem to lead to an interpretation whereby the reduction in compensation does not apply if it can be demonstrated that it was not possible to take out the insurance policy on which the non-application of that reduction is conditional, since the beneficiary is not provided with insurance cover for the statistically most frequent climatic risks.\n\n16\\. Two further observations are relevant in that regard.\n\n17\\. First, the different language versions of the provision in question do not all coincide perfectly. However, the Italian-language version of the provision from which I have derived the abovementioned interpretation is confirmed by the text of several other language versions, including the English-language version, which refers to ‘risks … for which insurance coverage is provided’, the German-language version, which mentions ‘ *Risiken … für die Versicherungsschutz gegeben ist* ’, and the Spanish-language version, which refers to ‘ *riesgos … para los que se proporciona cobertura de seguros* ’. Several other language versions of the provision are also along the same lines. ( 6 ) The French-language version is less clear on that point, but its wording is not incompatible with the interpretation of the provision in question considered in point 15 above. ( 7 )\n\n18\\. Second, that interpretation is confirmed in the Communication from the Commission on guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas. ( 8 )\n\n19\\. Point 363 of the 2014 Guidelines, concerning aid to compensate for damage to agricultural production or the means of agricultural production and to prevent damage, expressly states that ‘derogation from this condition is only possible if a Member State can convincingly show that, despite all reasonable efforts, affordable insurance covering the statistically most frequent climatic risks in the Member State or region concerned was not available at the time the damage occurred.’ ( 9 )\n\n20\\. It can therefore be inferred from that point in the abovementioned Guidelines that the only possible derogation from the condition of taking out an insurance policy in order to avoid a 50% reduction in compensation is the lack of availability, on the date on which the damage occurred, of insurance covering the risks in question, despite the injured party having made all reasonable efforts to obtain such a policy.\n\n21\\. Although a document such as the Guidelines is binding only on the Commission ( 10 ) and therefore does not necessarily bind either the Court of Justice or the national courts in their interpretation of the provision in question, it nevertheless constitutes an important source of interpretation. That is especially true in a case such as the present one, where the question of interpretation relates to a regulation issued by the Commission itself. In such circumstances, a document such as the Guidelines constitutes the interpretation of the act by the institution that adopted that act.\n\n22\\. The interpretation of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014, set out in point 15 of the present Opinion, appears to be confirmed by both contextual and teleological analysis.\n\n23\\. In contextual terms, that provision must be placed within the general context of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in which risk management has become a crucial element, with the aim of increasing the resilience of farms facing growing risks, particularly those linked to increasingly frequent catastrophic events related to climate change, while promoting the spread of practices that increase risk prevention and adaptation. Those objectives have been considered fundamental both in the current programming period 2023 to 2027, which envisages an integrated risk management system, ( 11 ) and in the previous period (2014 to 2022). ( 12 ) Adaptation to climate change and increasing the resilience of farms in that context are also considered key priorities within the CAP, in the light of which risk management must be considered. ( 13 )\n\n24\\. Regulation No 702\u002F2014 and the new Regulation 2022\u002F2472 fit within that framework and constitute an implementation of those policy objectives. Under those regulations, aid to compensate for losses caused by adverse climatic events that can be assimilated to natural disasters, as referred to in Article 25 of Regulation No 702\u002F2014, falls within the framework of ‘risk and crisis management aid’, along with aid for the costs of the prevention and eradication of animal diseases and plant pests, and aid for insurance premiums. ( 14 )\n\n25\\. In that context, from a teleological point of view, as highlighted by the parties who have submitted observations to the Court, ( 15 ) the specific purpose of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 is to encourage farmers to take out insurance against the climatic risks that cause most of the damage eligible for compensation, in order to reduce the financial burden on the community through agricultural aid granted to compensate for damage related to adverse climatic events.\n\n26\\. That purpose of the provision in question is apparent from recital 54 of Regulation No 702\u002F2014, from which it can be inferred that, since ‘primary agricultural production is exposed to particular natural, climatic and health risks and crises … good risk and crisis management is a key tool for a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector’. In that context, therefore, ‘State aid for making good losses caused by adverse climatic events that can be assimilated to natural disasters … should be limited to helping beneficiaries facing particular difficulties despite having undertaken reasonable efforts to minimise such risks’.\n\n27\\. In the same vein, the abovementioned Commission Guidelines ( 16 ) emphasise that ‘in order to further improve risk management, beneficiaries must be encouraged to take out insurance wherever possible’.\n\n28\\. With that objective in mind, in order for the reduction not to be applied, aid beneficiaries must therefore have made all reasonable efforts to limit the risks associated with damage resulting from the adverse climatic event. However, once that has been demonstrated – as stated in the Commission’s own Guidelines – an undertaking that cannot be covered by insurance for such losses should be granted the maximum aid intensity. ( 17 )\n\n29\\. An analysis of the purpose of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 confirms the interpretation that the reduction in compensation does not apply where it is demonstrated that it was not possible to take out the insurance policy in question because insurance cover was not available for the statistically most frequent climatic risks. However, it adds the further condition that it must also be demonstrated that the beneficiaries of the aid have made all reasonable efforts to take out such a policy to limit the risks associated with damage resulting from the adverse climatic event.\n\n30\\. The arguments raised by the Commission in its observations do not preclude this interpretation of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014.\n\n31\\. Indeed, in the first place, as can be seen from points 12 to 21 of the present Opinion, this interpretation is consistent with the wording of the provision, which, although it does not refer – as asserted by the Commission – to the reasons for the absence of insurance, nevertheless expressly stipulates that insurance cover must be provided.\n\n32\\. In the second place, my interpretation of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 is not contrary to the settled case-law of the Court, according to which the provisions of a regulation on State aid providing for a block exemption and the conditions laid down therein must be interpreted strictly. ( 18 ) Indeed, such an interpretation does not attribute to the regulatory provision and the conditions laid down therein a broader scope than that which can be inferred from its literal wording. On the contrary, the proposed interpretation, in accordance with the wording of the provision itself, avoids a possible interpretation that, as noted in point 14 of the present Opinion, would lead to an unreasonable application of the conditions laid down therein.\n\n33\\. In the third place, that interpretation does not conflict with the need – referred to by the Commission – to ensure uniform interpretation of the regulation at issue in the various Member States. Indeed, it guarantees that the provision can be applied on the basis of objective criteria (a demonstration that cover is impossible and that the beneficiary has made all reasonable efforts), which are applicable in the same way in all Member States, even though the circumstances (such as whether it is possible to take out an insurance policy in a given case) might vary.\n\n34\\. In the fourth place, the Commission refers in its observations to the requirement for Member States to notify the Commission of any aid that is more favourable to farmers so as to take account of the fact that they are unable to insure themselves against the statistically most frequent climatic risks.\n\n35\\. On that point, I note that the Court has observed that Regulation No 702\u002F2014, which was adopted pursuant to Article 108(4) TFEU, provides, in Article 3, that, notwithstanding the general obligation to notify each measure intended to grant or alter ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 108(3) TFEU, which constitutes one of the fundamental features of the monitoring system in the field of State aid, a Member State may, under that regulation, rely on the exemption from that requirement if an aid measure which it adopted or an aid project which it plans to adopt fulfils the conditions laid down therein. ( 19 )\n\n36\\. Therefore, an interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 that, in the absence of notification by the Member State, would deny the compensation provided for therein to a beneficiary who fulfils the conditions referred to in that provision for the grant of aid would be contrary to the scheme of the regulation itself.\n\n37\\. On that point, I note that the condition relating to the conclusion of the insurance contract provided for in paragraph 9 of that article is not a condition relating to the grant of the aid but concerns the amount of the aid granted.\n\n38\\. In the same vein, an interpretation of that provision to the effect that, in the absence of notification by the Member State, a beneficiary who satisfies all the conditions under that provision cannot receive the full amount of the aid even if it is established by a court that insurance covering the most frequent climatic risks was not objectively available to that beneficiary at the time the damage occurred, would not be merely contrary to the wording of that provision, as follows from points 12 to 21 above. It would also be contrary to the scheme of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 inasmuch as it would deny full compensation to a beneficiary who meets the requirements laid down in Article 25(1) of that regulation for receiving the aid. Such an interpretation would also go beyond the objectives pursued by that regulation, referred to in points 25 to 29 above, and would be contrary to the principle of proportionality referred to in recital 8 of Regulation No 702\u002F2014.\n\n39\\. In conclusion, it follows from the foregoing considerations that Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014 must, in my view, be interpreted as meaning that the 50% reduction in compensation in respect of aid intended to make good damage caused by adverse climatic events that can be assimilated to natural disasters, laid down in that provision, does not apply where the beneficiary of the aid demonstrates that, despite having made all reasonable efforts to take out an insurance policy to limit the risks associated with damage resulting from the adverse climatic event, it was not possible to take out an insurance policy because no insurance cover was available for the type of production of his or her farm for the statistically most frequent climatic risks.\n\n40\\. In the present case, the appellants in the main proceedings have argued that although, in general, at the time the adverse event occurred in Belgium, it was possible to obtain insurance cover for the most frequent climatic risks, namely hail, such cover was not available for the specific type of production carried out by the appellants in the main proceedings.\n\n41\\. It is for the referring court to verify those factual circumstances and to determine that the appellants in the main proceedings made all reasonable efforts to take out an insurance policy to limit the risks associated with damage resulting from adverse climatic events and that the type of production of the appellants in the main proceedings was indeed not insurable in the Member State concerned against the statistically most frequent climatic risks.\n\n**III.** **Conclusion** 1 ( i ) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.\n\n42\\. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the third question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de Mons (Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium) as follows: Article 25(9) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 702\u002F2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the 50% reduction in compensation in respect of aid intended to make good damage caused by adverse climatic events that can be assimilated to natural disasters, laid down in that provision, does not apply where the beneficiary of the aid demonstrates that, despite having made all reasonable efforts to take out an insurance policy to limit the risks associated with damage resulting from the adverse climatic event, it was not possible to take out an insurance policy because no insurance cover was available for the type of production of his or her farm for the statistically most frequent climatic risks. It is for the referring court to ascertain those specific factual circumstances.\n\n* * *\n\n( 2 ) Commission Regulation of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ([OJ 2014 L 193, p. 1](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Foj\u002FJOL_2014_193_R_TOC)). That regulation was in force until 31 December 2022 and was replaced, as of 1 January 2023, by Commission Regulation (EU) 2022\u002F2472 of 14 December 2022 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] ([OJ 2022 L 327, p. 1](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Foj\u002FJOL_2022_327_R_TOC)). 3 ( 4 ) Article 6 of the arrêté du Gouvernement wallon considérant comme une calamité agricole la sécheresse d'août 2016 à juin 2017, délimitant l’étendue géographique de cette calamité et déterminant l'indemnisation des dommages (Order of the Walloon Government considering the drought from August 2016 to June 2017 to be an agricultural disaster, delimiting the geographical extent of that disaster and determining compensation for the damage).\n\n( 5 ) See judgment of 19 September 2024, Agrarmarkt Austria ([C‑350\u002F23](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2024%3A771), [EU:C:2024:771](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2024%3A771), paragraph [57](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2024%3A771#point57) and the case-law cited). 6 ( 7 ) The French-language version of Article 25(10) of Regulation 2022\u002F2472 has undergone a change in its last sentence compared to the text of Article 25(9) of Regulation No 702\u002F2014. Such a change cannot be found in the other language versions. Whereas the version of the text in Regulation No 702\u002F2014 referred to the ‘ *risques climatiques statistiquement les plus fréquents dans l’État membre ou la région concernés* , couverte par une assurance’, the new version refers to the ‘ *risques climatiques statistiquement les plus fréquents dans l’État membre ou la région concernés* que couvre l’assurance’. That amendment is in line with my interpretation of the provision.\n\n( 8 ) Communication from the Commission, European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020 ([OJ 2014 C 204, p. 1](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Foj\u002FJOC_2014_204_R_TOC); ‘the 2014 Guidelines’); see also Communication from the Commission, Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas ([OJ 2022 C 485, p. 1](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Foj\u002FJOC_2022_485_R_TOC); ‘the 2022 Guidelines’). 9 ( 10 ) See judgment of 8 March 2016, Greece v Commission ([C‑431\u002F14 P](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2016%3A145), [EU:C:2016:145](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2016%3A145), paragraphs [69](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2016%3A145#point69) and [70](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2016%3A145#point70)). 11 ( 12 ) See, inter alia, Regulation (EU) No 1305\u002F2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698\u002F2005 ([OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Foj\u002FJOL_2013_347_R_TOC)), in particular Article 36, entitled ‘Risk management’, and Annex VI.\n\n( 13 ) On that point, see recitals 29 and 30 of Regulation (EU) 2021\u002F2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305\u002F2013 and (EU) No 1307\u002F2013 ([OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Foj\u002FJOL_2021_435_R_TOC)). 14 ( 15 ) Namely, the Commission and the Kingdom of Belgium. 16 ( 17 ) The points of the Guidelines referred to in the previous footnote state that, ‘regarding aid to compensate for losses caused by adverse climatic events which can be assimilated to a natural disaster, in order to avoid the risk of distorting competition, aid at the maximum aid intensity should be granted only to an undertaking that cannot be covered for such losses by insurance.’\n\n( 18 ) See judgment of 20 May 2021, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania ([C‑128\u002F19](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2021%3A401), [EU:C:2021:401](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2021%3A401), paragraph [42](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2021%3A401#point42) and the case-law cited).\n\n( 19 ) See judgment of 20 May 2021, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania ([C‑128\u002F19](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2021%3A401), [EU:C:2021:401](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2021%3A401), paragraph [42](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2021%3A401#point42)), and, by analogy, judgment of 5 March 2019, Eesti Pagar ([C‑349\u002F17](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2019%3A172), [EU:C:2019:172](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2019%3A172), paragraph [59](http:\u002F\u002Fpublications.europa.eu\u002Fresource\u002Fecli\u002FECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2019%3A172#point59) and the case-law cited).","cjeu","https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002FHTML\u002F?uri=CELEX:62025CC0052","2026-07-08T14:16:03.557Z","2026-07-13T00:30:06.032Z",20,[11]]