An Overview of Greece’s Newly Established Progressive Stray Dog Management Laws
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease note - I am not an expert in this Greek law, so I am reviewing this as a reader with interest but without the ability to cross check against the actual wording of the law. Links to the official gazette where the law is accessible are provided in the references, but for non-Greek speakers, this is of limited use. Is there an English translation of the discussed laws available that could also be provide in the references, for readers such as myself that would like to understand the exact wording?
Line 70-71 – Can you clarify who is responsible for updating the database within 5 days in the case of a lost dog? Is that the responsibility of the owner – requiring them to contact the vet to update this record in the database as a lost dog?
Line 110 – In this line, the term hobby breeders is introduced – implying there are 3 types of owners of unsterilised dogs: commercial breeders, hobby breeders and owners of unsterilised dogs. The definition of these 3 different types of owners is not clear. Line 112 talks about ‘the necessary license’ – is there one license for all dog breeding or different licenses depending on what type of owner you are?
Line 123-126 – Please clarify if these categories (a-f) are created by the authors or categories stated within the legislation.
Line 127 – Clarify what is meant by ‘registered’ animal welfare organisations – is the registration process outlined in the same legislation?
Line 136 - This paragraph introduces the option of CNVR - but in a very restricted way - you need to have a full shelter, or the individual animal needs to have been offered for adoption and failed for 3 months. This doesn't fit well with the approach outlined in WOAH's TAHC chapter 7.7, which is more welcoming of CNVR as an alternative approach to sheltering for individual animals that are suitable for return. Nor does it fit with the European Convention on the Protection of Pet animals, which as explained earlier in the manuscript, says strays should be kept or killed, it doesn't include CNVR at all. This is not essential - but would the authors consider adding to the discussion their thoughts on how this legislation covers CNVR with regards to dogs, or dogs and cats? Comparing it to international (WOAH) and regional (European Convention) guidelines and perhaps also common practice in CNVR – for example, returning animals to their point of capture after 3 months living in a shelter is questionable, this is usually done within days.
Line 151 – The amounts of money are difficult to keep track of in the text – is the 5 million described in this line, and also in line 155, in addition to the previously mentioned 40 million? Which is also described as covering sterilisation.
Line 154 – Comma missing between “finance” and “municipalities”?
Line 160 – Was the total of 1.6 million allocated for the whole of 2023, or for the month of Feb 2023? I assume for the whole year, in which case the sentence would be clearer if it started “In 2023, a total of 1.6 million was allocated…” – no need for the February detail.
Line 167 – This is a clumsy sentence and this part at least needs to be reworded “… with the aim for it to be a financially self-sustaining entity.”
Line 171 – “reduce between” should be “reduced to between”
Line 175-177 – This sentence needs rewording – it’s difficult to understand - what was the direct decision of the Minister of Interior? That specific part of the legislation? Or who is appointed to the special monitoring committee?
Line 222 – “These penalties are enshrined into law as a means to promote responsible companion animal ownership…” can penalties be used to promote responsible behaviour? Or is it more accurate to say that they reduce irresponsible behaviour? Promoting responsible behaviour tends to be more about increasing access to vet services and financial incentives such as lower registration costs for sterilised dogs etc.
Table 1 – This violation in table 1: “Posting online or printed advertisements for selling or breeding companion animals (dogs, cats) without fulfilling legal requirements” – implies there are commercial breeder licenses and regulations or standards required to obtain those licenses – these aren’t explained in much detail elsewhere in the text – are they perhaps part of a different piece of legislation? Clarification in the text would be helpful. This also seems to contradict the previous text? Line 112-114 "Finally, online or printed dog advertisements and displaying dogs (pet shops) are strictly prohibited (Article 8)." Is this because you can't advertise unless you are a commercial breeder? If so, this should be made clearer when first discussing article 8.
Table 1 – This violation in table 1: “Breeding animals beyond the age of nine or breeding the same animal more than six times in its lifetime” - This seems to contradict previous text - "In terms of breeding dogs, hobby breeders can only breed up to two dogs once a year and all dog owners of unsterilised dogs are only permitted to breed their dog once in the dog’s lifetime (Article 8)." - again, this may be because there are different rules for commercial and hobby breeders? This needs to be made clearer when article 8 is first introduced.
Table 1 – This violation in table 1: “Failure to report, microchip, or register breeding animals, including up-dates to their data, such as gender changes or births” – “gender changes” of the breeding animals?! Is this supposed to be sterilisation or reproductive status?
Table 3 – This violation in table 3: “Use of animals in outdoor public exhibitions for economic gain without adhering to cultural or local traditions and conditions (e.g., raffles, lotteries).” - I don't understand this sentence - is "without" the wrong word? Do you mean there are exceptions for cultural or local traditions and conditions?
Table 5 – there are 2 instances of “(EΦΑΓΓΣ)” – can this be translated into English?
Table 5 – This violation in table 5: “Failure to comply with welfare, hygiene, and police regulations concerning companion animals, including exceeding allowed numbers in multi-animal households.” - What are the allowed numbers? I don't think a maximum number has been explained yet? Only that everyone as the right to 2 companion animals.
Table 5 – This violation in table 5: “Violation of welfare rules, including failing to euthanize terminally ill or incapacitated animals without a valid medical reason.” - Are the “welfare rules” a different set of regulations? If so, they need to be referenced properly.
Table 5 – This violation in table 5: “Incorrect registration of a companion animal by a veterinarian or submission of genetic material to the National Laboratory for Storing and Analysing Companion Animal DNA.” - This sounds like a rule relating to what the vet does? But this is in the owner responsibility table - either this should be worded as owners providing incorrect information to the vet or this needs to be in table 6.
Table 6 – first row is in bold but its not a heading. Need to insert the heading above row 1.
Line 250 – Rather than the passive “It can be argued…” I suggest “We argue…” or “The authors propose…” – something that makes it clear that this discussion in where you as authors express your opinion on the legislation that has been introduced in the rest of the paper.
Line 262 – “supported” is not the right word. They have proposed / argued / protested.
Line 278 – “optout” should be 2 words? This is my suggestion, the journal editor may feel differently!
Line 311 - Not sure “illegal” breeding is the right word here - backyard and unplanned breeding? Introducing new legislation to reduce illegal breeding doesn't make sense - the introduction of new legislation increases the amount of illegal breeding because it creates more ways in which breeding can be defined as illegal.
Line 309-317 - This paragraph is difficult to understand without being introduced earlier to the rules relating to commercial breeders. Suggest the legislation with regards to commercial breeding is described more clearly earlier in the manuscript.
Line 336 – Can you provide references for the “loud voices”
Line 340 – The journal editors may feel differently about this, but if ‘absurd’ is a direct quote, I think you should put “absurd” in quotation marks and give the page number on which it appears in the citation.
Line 346 – For clarity, can you provide the year rather than “5th year” – I think its 2026?
Line 355 – no need for the “s” at the end of offspring – it can be used to mean singular or plural without an “s”.
Author Response
We would like to thank the first reviewer for their constructive and insightful comments. We have addressed their concerns and are confident that our manuscript’s quality has enhanced due to these amendments. Please find below point by point notes:
Please note - I am not an expert in this Greek law, so I am reviewing this as a reader with interest but without the ability to cross check against the actual wording of the law. Links to the official gazette where the law is accessible are provided in the references, but for non-Greek speakers, this is of limited use. Is there an English translation of the discussed laws available that could also be provide in the references, for readers such as myself that would like to understand the exact wording?
Thank you, yes there is an English translation which can be found in one of the references we have provided (Animal Action Greece, n.d.). We have now included this as citation at page 1 alongside the source of the Greek version. We should however declare that the English translation is not an official translation, and we have not checked it for accuracy.
Line 70-71 – Can you clarify who is responsible for updating the database within 5 days in the case of a lost dog? Is that the responsibility of the owner – requiring them to contact the vet to update this record in the database as a lost dog?
Thank you for your comment, we have updated the manuscript for clarity. It is the owners’ responsibility.
Line 110 – In this line, the term hobby breeders is introduced – implying there are 3 types of owners of unsterilised dogs: commercial breeders, hobby breeders and owners of unsterilised dogs. The definition of these 3 different types of owners is not clear. Line 112 talks about ‘the necessary license’ – is there one license for all dog breeding or different licenses depending on what type of owner you are?
Thank you, yes, the interpretation is correct, there are three types of owners of unsterilised dogs. For the owners of unsterilised dogs (who own them for companion purposes) the regulations of DNA submission and breeding only once in the dog’s lifetime applies. Hobby breeders are only allowed up to two dogs and can breed only once a year. In these instances, they need to be issued a licence by either the Hellenic Kennel Club or the Association of Amateur Dog Breeders of Greece. This has been added to the manuscript for clarity. In addition, the information about the professional breeders’ licence has also been included for clarity.
Line 123-126 – Please clarify if these categories (a-f) are created by the authors or categories stated within the legislation.
These categories are stated within the legislation. A literal translation of the categories is:
Municipalities are required to have a comprehensive operational programme for managing stray animals, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 3, which must include, at a minimum, the following on a twelve-month basis:
(a) collection of stray animals,
(b) provision of veterinary care,
(c) electronic identification and registration in the National Companion Animal Registration Database,
(d) sterilisation,
(e) finding foster caregivers, and
(f) facilitating their adoption.
This responsibility may also be exercised by municipal associations or through inter-municipal collaborations.
We have also included a reference to Article 10 in which these specific categories are given.
Line 127 – Clarify what is meant by ‘registered’ animal welfare organisations – is the registration process outlined in the same legislation?
Apologies, the wording of ‘registered’ was included to separate voluntary unofficial welfare groups as those are not official entities under Greek Law. The registration process of an animal welfare organisation can be found in this link (English): https://www.gov.gr/en/upourgeia/upourgeio-esoterikon/esoterikon/metroo-philozoikon-somateion-kai-organoseon-zoon-suntrophias
To reduce confusion the word ‘registered’ has been removed.
Line 136 - This paragraph introduces the option of CNVR - but in a very restricted way - you need to have a full shelter, or the individual animal needs to have been offered for adoption and failed for 3 months. This doesn't fit well with the approach outlined in WOAH's TAHC chapter 7.7, which is more welcoming of CNVR as an alternative approach to sheltering for individual animals that are suitable for return. Nor does it fit with the European Convention on the Protection of Pet animals, which as explained earlier in the manuscript, says strays should be kept or killed, it doesn't include CNVR at all. This is not essential - but would the authors consider adding to the discussion their thoughts on how this legislation covers CNVR with regards to dogs, or dogs and cats? Comparing it to international (WOAH) and regional (European Convention) guidelines and perhaps also common practice in CNVR – for example, returning animals to their point of capture after 3 months living in a shelter is questionable, this is usually done within days.
Thank you for this comment. Yes, the new Greek law includes CNVR. This is due to the law prohibiting euthanasia of healthy animals and not having the infrastructure to house them all. We agree that the European Convention on the Protection of companion animals does not include CNVR and only discussed strays to be kept of killed. The international literature suggests that the reason it has been excluded is because it was not considered a widespread/best practice at the time of the drafting in 1987 but has since been recognised as a best practice management approach. As Greece prohibits the killing of healthy animals, it has inserted CNVR management approach. Article 3 clearly states that municipalities are required to ensure ‘the care and monitoring of stray animals that have been vaccinated, sterilised, electronically identified, and reintroduced into their local environment within the administrative boundaries of the municipality where they were collected’. Hence this aligns with the WOAH TAHC chapter 7.7 approach. Prior to this law, Greece, too, practiced CNVR and returned the animal to their familiar environment within days. However, this new law seems to have been introduced to allow ‘visibility’ of the animals for three months and the opportunity to be adopted. (Anecdotal evidence suggest this approach increases adoption likelihood compared to release of animal within days).
Line 151 – The amounts of money are difficult to keep track of in the text – is the 5 million described in this line, and also in line 155, in addition to the previously mentioned 40 million? Which is also described as covering sterilisation.
Apologies, this has now been corrected for more clarity. The 40 million is the total and the other funds are a piece of that for specific efforts.
Line 154 – Comma missing between “finance” and “municipalities”?
Thank you. This has been included.
Line 160 – Was the total of 1.6 million allocated for the whole of 2023, or for the month of Feb 2023? I assume for the whole year, in which case the sentence would be clearer if it started “In 2023, a total of 1.6 million was allocated…” – no need for the February detail.
Thank you this has now been corrected.
Line 167 – This is a clumsy sentence and this part at least needs to be reworded “… with the aim for it to be a financially self-sustaining entity.”
Thank you. This has now been reworded as ‘Once established, the laboratory will operate on a fee-based model, aiming to become a financially self-sustaining entity’.
Line 171 – “reduce between” should be “reduced to between”
Thank you. Now corrected.
Line 175-177 – This sentence needs rewording – it’s difficult to understand - what was the direct decision of the Minister of Interior? That specific part of the legislation? Or who is appointed to the special monitoring committee?
Thank you, we have reworded for better clarity.
Line 222 – “These penalties are enshrined into law as a means to promote responsible companion animal ownership…” can penalties be used to promote responsible behaviour? Or is it more accurate to say that they reduce irresponsible behaviour? Promoting responsible behaviour tends to be more about increasing access to vet services and financial incentives such as lower registration costs for sterilised dogs etc.
Thank you for this comment, we agree and have reworded to reflect this.
Table 1 – This violation in table 1: “Posting online or printed advertisements for selling or breeding companion animals (dogs, cats) without fulfilling legal requirements” – implies there are commercial breeder licenses and regulations or standards required to obtain those licenses – these aren’t explained in much detail elsewhere in the text – are they perhaps part of a different piece of legislation? Clarification in the text would be helpful. This also seems to contradict the previous text? Line 112-114 "Finally, online or printed dog advertisements and displaying dogs (pet shops) are strictly prohibited (Article 8)." Is this because you can't advertise unless you are a commercial breeder? If so, this should be made clearer when first discussing article 8.
Thank you, yes, we have now included a brief reference of the licence for professional breeders based on your previous comment. Article 8 explicitly allows professional breeders to advertise. We have included this in the manuscript for better clarity.
Table 1 – This violation in table 1: “Breeding animals beyond the age of nine or breeding the same animal more than six times in its lifetime” - This seems to contradict previous text - "In terms of breeding dogs, hobby breeders can only breed up to two dogs once a year and all dog owners of unsterilised dogs are only permitted to breed their dog once in the dog’s lifetime (Article 8)." - again, this may be because there are different rules for commercial and hobby breeders? This needs to be made clearer when article 8 is first introduced.
Yes, thank you. This is specific to professional breeders. We have now included details in the section that Article 8 is first introduced, as suggested in your previous comment.
Table 1 – This violation in table 1: “Failure to report, microchip, or register breeding animals, including up-dates to their data, such as gender changes or births” – “gender changes” of the breeding animals?! Is this supposed to be sterilisation or reproductive status?
Thank you for pointing this out. Seems to be a miswriting. It has now been correct with the correct translation of the violation ‘and details of the female parent.’
Table 3 – This violation in table 3: “Use of animals in outdoor public exhibitions for economic gain without adhering to cultural or local traditions and conditions (e.g., raffles, lotteries).” - I don't understand this sentence - is "without" the wrong word? Do you mean there are exceptions for cultural or local traditions and conditions?
Thank you for pointing this out. Again, a miswriting. This has now been corrected ‘Use of animals in outdoor public exhibitions for economic gain or as part of cultural or local traditions without adhering to required conditions (e.g., raffles, lotteries)’
Table 5 – there are 2 instances of “(EΦΑΓΓΣ)” – can this be translated into English?
Apologies, these have now been deleted. They were the Greek acronym for the National Companion Animal Registration Database.
Table 5 – This violation in table 5: “Failure to comply with welfare, hygiene, and police regulations concerning companion animals, including exceeding allowed numbers in multi-animal households.” - What are the allowed numbers? I don't think a maximum number has been explained yet? Only that everyone as the right to 2 companion animals.
Yes, this is the allowed number of companion animals. If exceeded (more than 2) then you would get fined. We have added an explanation for clarity ‘(keeping three or more companion animals in apartment buildings where the building regulations explicitly prohibit it)’
Table 5 – This violation in table 5: “Violation of welfare rules, including failing to euthanize terminally ill or incapacitated animals without a valid medical reason.” - Are the “welfare rules” a different set of regulations? If so, they need to be referenced properly.
Thank you for pointing this out. The welfare rules have been discussed in the manuscript, these include veterinary examinations, vaccinations etc. We have reworded this for better clarity ‘Failure to comply with the welfare rules of companion animals, including failing to ensure veterinary examinations, annual vaccinations, as well as the amputation of the animal without a valid medical reason.
Table 5 – This violation in table 5: “Incorrect registration of a companion animal by a veterinarian or submission of genetic material to the National Laboratory for Storing and Analysing Companion Animal DNA.” - This sounds like a rule relating to what the vet does? But this is in the owner responsibility table - either this should be worded as owners providing incorrect information to the vet or this needs to be in table 6.
Thank you, as the law states that the checks of accuracy of information are set as a responsibility of a certified veterinarian during the compulsory annual veterinary examination of the animal, it should be placed in Table 6. Thank you for this observation, we have now inserted it into Table 6.
Table 6 – first row is in bold but its not a heading. Need to insert the heading above row 1.
Thank you. This has been corrected.
Line 250 – Rather than the passive “It can be argued…” I suggest “We argue…” or “The authors propose…” – something that makes it clear that this discussion in where you as authors express your opinion on the legislation that has been introduced in the rest of the paper.
Thank you for your recommendation, we have amended to ‘We argue’
Line 262 – “supported” is not the right word. They have proposed / argued / protested.
Thank you we have changed the word to ‘proposed’
Line 278 – “optout” should be 2 words? This is my suggestion, the journal editor may feel differently!
We looked it up in a dictionary and opt-out is a noun/adjective while opt out is a verb. We have included it as opt-out.
Line 311 - Not sure “illegal” breeding is the right word here - backyard and unplanned breeding? Introducing new legislation to reduce illegal breeding doesn't make sense - the introduction of new legislation increases the amount of illegal breeding because it creates more ways in which breeding can be defined as illegal.
Thank you we have changed the word ‘illegal’ with ‘unplanned’.
Line 309-317 - This paragraph is difficult to understand without being introduced earlier to the rules relating to commercial breeders. Suggest the legislation with regards to commercial breeding is described more clearly earlier in the manuscript.
Thank we have included more information regarding professional breeders.
Line 336 – Can you provide references for the “loud voices”
We have provided examples of these. The Hellenic Veterinary Association (2024b) has argued that the law was not developed using a scientific, evidence-based approach. Similarly, the Hellenic Hunting Confederation has stated that ‘If the Government insists on ignoring all social objections and observations, if it continues to disregard the thousands of citizens and scientific bodies who overwhelmingly rejected the provisions of the law during the public consultation, it will be responsible for all the 'chaos' that will follow.’ (Dasarxeio, 2024).
Line 340 – The journal editors may feel differently about this, but if ‘absurd’ is a direct quote, I think you should put “absurd” in quotation marks and give the page number on which it appears in the citation.
The word was translated from the Greek ‘ανόητος’. This word can be translated as: "foolish," "silly," "senseless," "stupid" or “absurd”. Given your comment, we have decided to use the more mellow version of ‘foolish’.
Line 346 – For clarity, can you provide the year rather than “5th year” – I think its 2026?
Thank you, we have included it instead.
Line 355 – no need for the “s” at the end of offspring – it can be used to mean singular or plural without an “s”.
Thank you. This has now been corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI went trough this paper with a certain interest as several dog population management measures, like dog identification & registration, are already mandatory in many European countries since a number of years. However, sometimes the process failed to achieve the actual application of the norms, with very poor results in terms of free-roaming dogs control. The Greek legislation appears to questionable in terms of concrete applicability, mainly in relation to its imperative approach with an apparent very marginal investment in public awareness and education, essential elements for the sustainability of the proposed operational framework. It would be interesting if the authors could explore more in deep this aspect and focus on the educational spirit and goals of the norm, more than on the sanctioning system and penalties for the single violations.
Introduction - Perhaps it would be advisable to integrate the introduction by reminding that Greece is one of the183 members of the World Organization for Animal Heath (WOAH), an inter-governmental organization that aims to improve animal health and welfare worldwide. According to Chapter 7.7 of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code, regulatory frameworks legislation that addresses DPM are essential for the sustainability and efficiency of Dog Population Management, to be carried out with respect to animal welfare guiding principles. In addition, the Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (the Animal Health Law) already in force, requires the approval and registration of breeding establishments, together with the traceability requirements for identifying and registering pets involved in cross-border movements. Finally, on 7 December 2023 the EU commission has published a proposal on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats. These rules aim at establishing consistent EU standards for the breeding, housing and handling of these animals in breeding establishments, pet shops and shelters. Such a proposal seeks to reinforce the traceability of dogs and cats through their mandatory identification and registration in national databases, combat illegal dog trade and ensure better living conditions. All cats and dogs would have to be identified by means of electronic transponders and registered in a national database, before being placed on the market. It would be interesting to have the author’s opinion about the path taken by Greece in this wider context.
In addition:
Line 116 - Under Article 40.1, the law explicitly enshrines the responsibility of law implementation to Municipalities and sets them accountable for all the practical aspects of the law. Please make clear that you refer to the most recent law, N.4873/2021 please clarify (1) who was responsible for the implementation of the former legislation Nr. 4039/2012 introducing mandatory identification of companion animals and (2) what is the current rate of dogs identified and registered in the Greek National Companion Animal Registration Database.
Line 201- If available, please provide an example of a 12 month operational Municipal programme along with related Key Performance Indicators (KPI).
Author Response
We would like to thank the second reviewer for their constructive and insightful comments. We have addressed their concerns and are confident that our manuscript’s quality has enhanced due to these amendments. Please find below point by point notes:
I went trough this paper with a certain interest as several dog population management measures, like dog identification & registration, are already mandatory in many European countries since a number of years. However, sometimes the process failed to achieve the actual application of the norms, with very poor results in terms of free-roaming dogs control. The Greek legislation appears to questionable in terms of concrete applicability, mainly in relation to its imperative approach with an apparent very marginal investment in public awareness and education, essential elements for the sustainability of the proposed operational framework. It would be interesting if the authors could explore more in deep this aspect and focus on the educational spirit and goals of the norm, more than on the sanctioning system and penalties for the single violations.
Thank you very much for your comments. This is very important and aligns with our own thinking. The specific policy mainly focuses on the operational and sanctioning systems as well as laying out the new penalties for each violation. These are unprecedented (in scope) within the Greek legislative context and as such we have decided to focus on this in our manuscript.
Unfortunately, the current law does not provide much guidance or regulations on education and raising awareness. It only has two very small paragraphs in Article 31 and a line in Article 10:
Article 31 (translation):
The Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior, ensures the integration of topics related to animal welfare and protection into the curricula of primary and secondary education.
Municipalities, in cooperation with animal welfare organizations and other relevant entities, organise training and awareness programmes for citizens on issues of animal protection and welfare.
Article 10 (translation):
Municipalities collaborate with educational institutions, animal welfare organizations, and other bodies to promote animal welfare and educate citizens on issues related to animal protection.
We agree with you that this is a very important factor in the success of the policy and are currently researching this aspect. We hope to have a manuscript on citizen awareness and education soon.
Introduction - Perhaps it would be advisable to integrate the introduction by reminding that Greece is one of the183 members of the World Organization for Animal Heath (WOAH), an inter-governmental organization that aims to improve animal health and welfare worldwide. According to Chapter 7.7 of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code, regulatory frameworks legislation that addresses DPM are essential for the sustainability and efficiency of Dog Population Management, to be carried out with respect to animal welfare guiding principles. In addition, the Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (the Animal Health Law) already in force, requires the approval and registration of breeding establishments, together with the traceability requirements for identifying and registering pets involved in cross-border movements. Finally, on 7 December 2023 the EU commission has published a proposal on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats. These rules aim at establishing consistent EU standards for the breeding, housing and handling of these animals in breeding establishments, pet shops and shelters. Such a proposal seeks to reinforce the traceability of dogs and cats through their mandatory identification and registration in national databases, combat illegal dog trade and ensure better living conditions. All cats and dogs would have to be identified by means of electronic transponders and registered in a national database, before being placed on the market. It would be interesting to have the author’s opinion about the path taken by Greece in this wider context.
Thank you for this detailed information, we have now integrated it into our introduction:
Greece was one of the 28 founding members of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), now known as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), established in 1924 (WOAH, n.d.) and…
Thank you for the information regarding the recent proposal of the European Commission for the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats (2023). As this is at the proposal stage and the Greek Law was established and implemented prior to the drafting of this proposal we would like to keep the focus of the manuscript on the Greek Law and its provisions rather than discussing the new EU proposal and how Greece sits within that. We thank you for this very interesting aspect and acknowledge that such a discussion would provide valuable insights for both the development of the EU-wide approach and the potential amendments needed for the Greek Law to harmonize. We thank you and will keep an eye on the developments of this proposal with the aim to look into the results of the post-implementation results in 2026 and how the EU proposal (which we expect will have formed into more concrete provisions at that point) would allow improvements to the domestic regulations.
In addition:
Line 116 - Under Article 40.1, the law explicitly enshrines the responsibility of law implementation to Municipalities and sets them accountable for all the practical aspects of the law. Please make clear that you refer to the most recent law, N.4873/2021 please clarify (1) who was responsible for the implementation of the former legislation Nr. 4039/2012 introducing mandatory identification of companion animals and (2) what is the current rate of dogs identified and registered in the Greek National Companion Animal Registration Database.
Thank you, we have amended to:
Under Article 40.1 of the most recent legislation, N.4873/2021, the responsibility of law implementation is explicitly assigned to Municipalities and sets them accountable for all the practical aspects of the law. Prior to this, law N. 4039/2012 had assigned the responsibility to companion animal owners and veterinarians.
Apologies but the current rate of identification and registration on the database is not publicly available information.
Line 201- If available, please provide an example of a 12 month operational Municipal programme along with related Key Performance Indicators (KPI).
Apologies this information is not publicly available.
