In brief

  • From the second duplicate onwards, an ear tag is no longer replaced on the spot. When an animal loses or damages its official means of identification for the second time, the authorised private veterinarian can no longer record the event in SNIIA on the day it is found. They must first ask the county veterinary directorate for approval, within 3 working days of finding it, and the directorate in turn has 3 working days to approve or refuse. The event is recorded only on the day the approval arrives.
  • The farmer’s deadlines stay the same, but the wait grows by six working days. The keeper still gives notice within 3 working days of the loss, and the duplicate is still applied within 20 working days of the event being recorded. The full chain, however, rises from 30 to 36 working days. For an event occurring on Monday 14 September 2026, the last day on which the duplicate could be applied was 26 October; under the new rule it becomes 3 November, eight calendar days later.
  • Animals that already carry a duplicate have a rule of their own, and it does not say the same thing. For them, the order requires the directorate’s approval only from the second event notified after 14 September 2026, however many duplicates the animal has in its history. Who is affected: keepers of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, camelids, deer and reindeer, SNIIA users, chiefly authorised private veterinarians, and the county veterinary directorates.
Act: Order of the President of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority no. 920 of 10 September 2026 amending and supplementing the Sanitary Veterinary Rule implementing the process of identification and registration of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, camelids, deer and reindeer, approved by Order of the President of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority no. 208/2022
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 776 of 14 September 2026
In force from: 14 September 2026, the date of publication

A farmer who loses the same animal’s ear tag a second time no longer gets the duplicate as quickly. The National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority has placed a new filter on the road between the lost ear tag and the replacement: from the second duplicate official means of identification onwards, the veterinarian can no longer record the event alone, but needs the approval of the county sanitary veterinary and food safety directorate. The measure comes in a year in which the state has repeatedly reworked the rules of animal husbandry, from the state aid that pays for the pen space rather than the animal to the fees charged for veterinary checks.

The change is contained in Order of the President of ANSVSA no. 920 of 10 September 2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 776 of 14 September 2026, at page 5. The order has four amending points and runs to a single page, but all four strike the same spot: the procedure by which the loss or failure of an official means of identification is declared and a duplicate is obtained.

The act being amended is the Sanitary Veterinary Rule implementing the process of identification and registration of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, camelids, deer and reindeer, approved by Order of the President of ANSVSA no. 208/2022 and published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 36 of 12 January 2023. This is the third time the rule has been amended: first in January 2024, through ANSVSA Order no. 174/2023, and then in June 2024, through ANSVSA Order no. 102/2024, the one that introduced the 20 working day deadline for applying the duplicate.

The order sets no later date of application, and Article 12(3) of Law no. 24/2000 on legislative drafting rules, republished, provides that acts issued by the heads of specialised bodies of the central public administration enter into force on the date of publication unless their text says otherwise. The rule therefore applies from 14 September 2026. The three-day period people usually have in mind concerns laws and ordinances, not orders of this kind.

What it changes in practice

For the farmer, the effect shows up in one place: at the counter, which means at the veterinarian. Until now, the keeper reported the loss, the vet confirmed the event, saved it in SNIIA the same day and handed over the event declaration form. From the second duplicate onwards, a request to the county directorate and a reply from it slip in between the confirmation and the entry into the system.

The order adds a new paragraph (22) to Article 13 of the rule, requiring the SNIIA user to ask the directorate for approval within 3 working days of finding the event. Article 13(12) gains a new point (c1), stating that, by way of exception from the usual rule of same-day recording, the event is entered into SNIIA on the day the approval arrives. Article 34, which lists the directorates’ obligations, gains point (k1): the directorate replies within 3 working days, by confirming the event and approving or refusing the recording.

The fourth point amends point (d) of the same paragraph (12) and concerns the file. Until now the vet kept, for at least 3 years, a copy of the event declaration form and a copy of the declaration given by the keeper. From now on they also keep proof of the directorate’s approval. In practice, at an inspection, a missing written approval in the file becomes a breach in its own right.

The second effect, less visible, is that the county directorate acquires the power to refuse the recording of an event. Nowhere until now did the rule say that a directorate could refuse to enter into the system a loss of an ear tag declared by a keeper. The order sets out neither the grounds for refusal nor what happens to the animal afterwards.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In the version in force until 13 September 2026, the procedure had three steps and no approval stage. A keeper who is not themselves an SNIIA user passed on the information within 3 working days of the event, under Article 12(20) of the rule. The SNIIA user answered the notification within 7 working days, under Article 13(2), confirmed the event, saved it in SNIIA on the same day as the confirmation, under Article 13(12)(c), and issued the form. The duplicate was applied within 20 working days of the event being recorded in the system, under Article 13(21).

End to end, that meant at most 30 working days between the day the animal lost its ear tag and the day it received the duplicate. From 14 September 2026, for the second duplicate and every one after it, the chain has two extra links: 3 working days for the vet’s request and 3 working days for the directorate’s reply. The total rises to 36 working days.

The difference of six working days means more on the calendar. For an animal that loses its ear tag on Monday 14 September 2026, the old procedure closed at the latest on Monday 26 October, that is after 42 calendar days. The new procedure closes on Tuesday 3 November, that is after 50 calendar days. The interval contains no public holiday, the first being 30 November, so the increase comes solely from the two added deadlines.

What has not changed deserves saying just as firmly. The keeper’s notification deadline stays at 3 working days from the event. An animal’s first duplicate is obtained exactly as before, with no approval. The 20 working day deadline for actually fitting the duplicate is untouched. The ear tag is still paid for by the keeper, who buys official means of identification directly from a primary or secondary supplier, under Article 10(3) and Article 12(3) of the rule. The order introduces no new fee and no charge for the directorate’s approval.

For animals already carrying a duplicate on 14 September 2026, Article II of the order lays down a separate rule: the directorate’s approval is required from the second event of this kind notified by the keeper, whatever the sequence number of the duplicate needed. In other words, for the existing herd the count appears to start again on the date of entry into force.

Identifying each animal counts for most where its movement is fenced in. In Greece, the map of foot and mouth restricted zones has doubled in two months, from 30 to 66, and the article shows what that means for Romanian keepers and hauliers of ruminants.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Repeated duplicates on the same animal have long been a weak point in traceability, because a code that can be reissued on request can end up on a different animal. A second level of checking, applied precisely from the second reissue, is proportionate to the risk and leaves ordinary cases alone.
  • The directorate’s obligation is written as a firm deadline, 3 working days, and sits in the same article as its other duties. It was not left to the discretion of each county, as often happens when a new approval stage is introduced.
  • The procedural burden falls on the SNIIA user and on the directorate, not on the farmer. The keeper has the same single obligation as before: to give notice within 3 working days.
  • Proof of the approval must go into the file kept for 3 years, which also protects the veterinarian: at an inspection they can show why the recording was made later than the day of confirmation.

What remains a problem

  • The period during which the animal moves around the holding without its official means of identification rises from 30 to 36 working days, and during that period the farmer no longer even has the event declaration form, because the recording is postponed until approval.
  • The order does not say what happens if the directorate refuses the recording. There are no approval criteria, no route of challenge, and no statement of the status of an animal left with no ear tag and no recorded event.
  • Silence from the directorate is not regulated. If no reply comes within the 3 working days, the rule provides neither tacit approval nor a right for the vet to record the event without approval.
  • The general deadline of 7 working days in Article 13(2), within which the SNIIA user must answer the notification, including by entering the event in SNIIA, has been left unchanged, even though the new procedure can overrun it.
  • Without written criteria, two county directorates can treat the same case differently, and the farmer has no way of predicting the answer.

Practical advice

  1. Report the loss or failure of the ear tag within 3 working days of noticing it. This deadline has not changed and remains the only obligation that falls on you directly.
  2. Ask the veterinarian, right at the first conversation, which duplicate this is for that animal. If it is the first, the form is issued as before. If it is the second or later, prepare for a wait of up to six extra working days.
  3. Ask for a copy of the veterinary directorate’s approval and keep it next to the event declaration form. The rule obliges the vet to archive it for 3 years, but at an on-farm inspection the document is useful to you too.
  4. Write down in the notification register at the veterinarian’s office the date on which you reported the event. It is the proof from which every other deadline runs and the only thing that protects you if the chain stalls further along.
  5. Do not move the animal off the holding while the event is unrecorded. The movement document is issued on the basis of the codes read from the means of identification, and an animal with no ear tag and no event in the system is exposed at an inspection.
  6. If the directorate does not reply within the 3 working days, ask the veterinarian in writing to resubmit the request and keep the correspondence. The rule says nothing about what happens where there is no reply, so a written trail is the only protection.
  7. Check the condition of the ear tags every time the animals are moved and replace electronic devices showing signs of failure in good time. An ear tag replaced at the first loss rather than the second stays outside the new procedure altogether.

Frequently asked questions

From when does the new rule apply?
From 14 September 2026, the date the order was published in the Official Gazette of Romania. The order sets no later date, and Article 12(3) of Law no. 24/2000, republished, provides that orders of the heads of specialised bodies of the central public administration enter into force on the date of publication unless they set a deadline of their own.
Who asks for the approval, me or the veterinarian?
The authorised private veterinarian, or any other SNIIA user operating on behalf of your holding. The obligation is placed in Article 13 of the rule, which is actually headed „Obligațiile utilizatorilor SNIIA” (Obligations of SNIIA users). The keeper keeps the obligation to give notice within 3 working days.
What does „the second duplicate official means of identification” mean?
A duplicate is, under the definition in the rule, the means of identification bearing the same unique code as the one lost or no longer working. So the count is kept per animal: an animal’s first duplicate is issued under the old procedure, while the second and any after it go through the directorate’s approval.
How long can it now take for an animal to get its replacement ear tag?
At worst, 36 working days from the event: 3 for your notification, 7 for the SNIIA user’s reply, 3 for the request to the directorate, 3 for the directorate’s reply and 20 for actually fitting the duplicate. Previously it was 30 working days.
What do I do if the directorate refuses to record the event?
The order provides nothing for that situation. There are no grounds for refusal, no deadline for resubmission and no route of challenge in the text of the rule. What is left is the general administrative procedure, that is a preliminary complaint to the directorate, which means a far longer road than the 3 working days of the approval stage.
Does anything change for the first duplicate?
No. An animal’s first duplicate is obtained exactly as before: notification within 3 working days, confirmation and recording of the event by the SNIIA user on the same day, and application of the duplicate within 20 working days of the recording.
Do I have to pay anything extra for the directorate’s approval?
The order introduces no fee. Ear tags, duplicates included, continue to be bought by the keeper, directly from a primary or secondary supplier, under Article 10(3) and Article 12(3) of the rule.
What happens to animals that already carry a duplicate?
For them, Article II of the order says the directorate’s approval is required from the second event of this kind notified by the keeper, however many duplicates the animal has in its history. That wording does not, however, match the general rule in Article I, which counts duplicates rather than events.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Article I point 2 leaves the SNIIA user caught between two deadlines that do not fit inside one another. The newly introduced point (c1) says the event is recorded in SNIIA „în aceeași zi cu primirea aprobării DSVSA” (on the same day as receipt of the DSVSA approval) and expressly derogates only from point (c). Article 13(2) of the rule, which this order does not amend, nevertheless obliges the SNIIA user to answer the owner’s notification within 7 working days, and the listed ways of answering include precisely „operarea în SNIIA […] a evenimentelor suferite de animale” (entering into SNIIA the events affecting the animals) and issuing the event declaration form. Adding up the new deadlines, the confirmation may take place on working day 7, the request to the directorate on day 10 and the directorate’s reply on day 13. In that case the recording required by point (c1) happens 13 working days after notification, six beyond the ceiling in paragraph (2), which the order did not bring into line. Anyone applying the text literally breaches paragraph (2); anyone observing paragraph (2) breaches point (c1).
  • Article I and Article II count different things for the same animals. Article I requires the directorate’s approval „începând cu al doilea mijloc oficial de identificare duplicat” (from the second duplicate official means of identification), so it counts the duplicates fitted to the animal. Article II, for animals that on 14 September 2026 already carry duplicates, requires approval „începând cu al doilea eveniment de acest tip notificat de către deținătorul animalelor, indiferent de numărul de ordine al duplicatului necesar” (from the second event of this kind notified by the keeper of the animals, whatever the sequence number of the duplicate needed), so it counts events occurring after entry into force. For a ewe that already carries one duplicate and loses its remaining ear tag in October 2026, Article I leads to the conclusion that this is the second duplicate and that approval is required, while Article II leads to the conclusion that this is the first notified event and that approval is not required. Article II does not use the wording „prin excepție” (by way of exception) or „prin derogare” (by way of derogation), although the same order uses it in Article I point 2, so it cannot be said that one rule displaces the other. The choice between them governs both the moment of recording in SNIIA and the content of the file that Article I point 3 requires to be archived for 3 years.

Editorial analysis

The problem the order is trying to solve is real and it is not new. A duplicate official means of identification carries, by definition, the same unique code as the one that was lost. A code that can be reissued on request, as often as it is requested, is exactly the gap through which an untraceable animal can enter a holding whose paperwork is in order. Placing the filter at the second reissue rather than the first is well calibrated: an ear tag lost on pasture is an ordinary accident, while a second loss on the same animal is already a coincidence worth looking at. The deadline given to the directorate, 3 working days, is short and written as an obligation rather than a recommendation, which is not often the case when a new approval stage is introduced.

The weakness is not the idea but the way the order stops halfway. It has four points and three of them describe what happens when the directorate approves. None says what happens when it refuses, even though point (k1) of Article 34 expressly gives it that power. There are no grounds for refusal, no deadline for resubmission, no route of challenge and, above all, no statement of the status of an animal whose loss event has been refused. The practical result is an animal that no longer carries its official means of identification, cannot receive a duplicate because the event is not recorded, and has no event declaration form with which the keeper could defend themselves at an inspection. Symmetrically, silence from the directorate is not regulated either: if no reply comes within the 3 working days, the rule offers neither tacit approval nor a right to proceed.

The second observation comes from the arithmetic of the deadlines rather than from reading the articles one by one. The order adds 3 working days for the SNIIA user’s request and 3 for the directorate’s reply, so the full chain rises from 30 to 36 working days. For an animal that loses its ear tag on Monday 14 September 2026, the final date for fitting the duplicate moves from 26 October to 3 November, eight calendar days later, with no public holiday in between. The point is not the delay in itself but the balance between the deadlines: the keeper is given 3 working days to report, while the administration reserves twice as long to check that report, even though the risk, namely the unidentified animal on the holding, stays with the keeper. And one more consequence follows from the same comparison: because recording in SNIIA is postponed until approval, so is the issue of the event declaration form, the only document that shows at an inspection that the loss was declared on time. The farmer’s window of exposure grows by exactly the six working days the administration has gained.

The third observation concerns the precision of the text. Paragraph (22) speaks of approval sought „pentru înregistrarea acestuia” (for the recording of the latter), meaning the duplicate means of identification, while point (c1), point (k1) and Article II all speak of approving the recording of the event. The practical effect is the same, because the form is not issued without the approval, but an act that creates a new approval stage ought to name the object of that approval once and once only. In the same vein, paragraph (22) has no expressed subject and borrows one from the preceding paragraph.

What should be changed

  • Bring the text into line with the 7 working day deadline in Article 13(2). The paragraph should be supplemented with an express exception for cases that go through the directorate’s approval; otherwise an SNIIA user who observes point (c1) breaches paragraph (2) and can be penalised for correctly applying a new rule.
  • A rule for silence from the directorate. If no reply comes within the 3 working days, the recording should go ahead without approval, on the SNIIA user’s responsibility. Without that safety valve, a single vacant post in a county directorate blocks every duplicate in the county indefinitely.
  • Written criteria for approval and refusal, plus a route to follow after a refusal. Without them, the same case gets different answers in two counties, and the animal that is refused is left in limbo: no ear tag, no recorded event and no document proving that the loss was declared.
  • Align Article II with Article I. The transitional rule should say expressly that it derogates from Article I and for how long, or it should use the same counting criterion. As published, every animal already carrying a duplicate has two answers to the question of whether approval is required.
  • A maximum total deadline, written into the rule. The sum of the five successive deadlines appears nowhere, even though it is the only figure the farmer cares about. Writing in the ceiling of 36 working days would make visible, to the issuing authority as well, how long an animal actually goes without its official means of identification.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 776 of 14 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 99 KB the act starts on page 5

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.