natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission points out that it does not have the legal authority to harmonise the national indemnification systems in the event of an epidemic. 
The Commission points out that it does not have the legal authority to harmonise the national indemnification systems in the event of an epidemic.
There were four Commission Regulations governing the United Kingdom, Portugal, France and Ireland on the compensation system laid down under measures for monitoring and eradicating bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) for animals slaughtered under the selective reform provided for by a Member State eradication plan and approved by the Commission. 
There were four Commission Regulations governing the United Kingdom, Portugal, France and Ireland on the compensation system laid down under measures for monitoring and eradicating bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) for animals slaughtered under the selective reform provided for by a Member State eradication plan and approved by the Commission.
The same principles regarding the compensation system were enshrined in all four Regulations, including Regulation (EC) No 164/97 on France. 
The same principles regarding the compensation system were enshrined in all four Regulations, including Regulation (EC) No 164/97 on France.
As regards animals which have contracted BSE, the Commission emphasises that indemnification of the owners is not covered by the emergency fund (Articles 3, 4, 6 and 11) of Decision 90/424/EEC (1). 
As regards animals which have contracted BSE, the Commission emphasises that indemnification of the owners is not covered by the emergency fund (Articles 3, 4, 6 and 11) of Decision 90/424/EEC (1).
It is firstly up to the Member States to decide on compensation depending on actual market conditions. 
It is firstly up to the Member States to decide on compensation depending on actual market conditions.
Recent decisions on the Community contribution to costs incurred by Member States stipulated the level of indemnification eligible for Community funding. 
Recent decisions on the Community contribution to costs incurred by Member States stipulated the level of indemnification eligible for Community funding.
Only the market value of the animal immediately prior to slaughtering is eligible for Community funding. 
Only the market value of the animal immediately prior to slaughtering is eligible for Community funding.
Adequate compensation was defined as the market value of animals immediately before slaughtering; the losses of income mentioned are therefore not eligible for Community funding and any such applications were rejected. 
Adequate compensation was defined as the market value of animals immediately before slaughtering; the losses of income mentioned are therefore not eligible for Community funding and any such applications were rejected.
The cattle database established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and Article 14 of Directive 64/432/EEC is an important tool for tracing the movement of animals, but is of limited value for valuation purposes. 
The cattle database established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and Article 14 of Directive 64/432/EEC is an important tool for tracing the movement of animals, but is of limited value for valuation purposes.
While it provides information on the age, sex, colour or breed and the identification code of the mother, it does not provide information whether or not an animal is a purebred breeding animal entered in a herd book. 
While it provides information on the age, sex, colour or breed and the identification code of the mother, it does not provide information whether or not an animal is a purebred breeding animal entered in a herd book.
The Commission proposal to include the herd-book status was not adopted by the Member States. 
The Commission proposal to include the herd-book status was not adopted by the Member States.
(1) The principle of transfer of the ‘Market guarantee’ to ‘Veterinary guarantee’ of the selective compulsory slaughtering programmes will take effect on 1 January 2005. 
(1) The principle of transfer of the ÔMarket guaranteeŐ to ÔVeterinary guaranteeŐ of the selective compulsory slaughtering programmes will take effect on 1 January 2005.
The Commission has no legal authority to harmonise the Member States’ systems for indemnification of livestock farmers nor do the Member States want them to be harmonised. 
The Commission has no legal authority to harmonise the Member StatesŐ systems for indemnification of livestock farmers nor do the Member States want them to be harmonised.
The differences in the Member States noted by the Court were also noted by the Commission during its in situ checks and are the result of the choices made by the Member States. 
The differences in the Member States noted by the Court were also noted by the Commission during its in situ checks and are the result of the choices made by the Member States.
The Commission made appropriate financial adjustments for any irregularities having an impact on the Community budget, as detailed below. 
The Commission made appropriate financial adjustments for any irregularities having an impact on the Community budget, as detailed below.
The Commission takes care to preserve the principle of equal treatment of the Member States in all its co-funding decisions. 
The Commission takes care to preserve the principle of equal treatment of the Member States in all its co-funding decisions.
The fact that the decisions are subject to the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health helps to ensure that this is the case. 
The fact that the decisions are subject to the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health helps to ensure that this is the case.
67 to 71. 
67 to 71.
The exemptions granted by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2001 adopted on 17 July 2001 on the application of premium schemes are to be seen in the light of the principle that the direct payment system is designed to compensate for the effects on producers’ income of the progressive reduction of the level of market support introduced by the Agenda 2000 reform. 
The exemptions granted by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2001 adopted on 17 July 2001 on the application of premium schemes are to be seen in the light of the principle that the direct payment system is designed to compensate for the effects on producersŐ income of the progressive reduction of the level of market support introduced by the Agenda 2000 reform.
The Commission therefore holds that the premiums may be granted to the producer irrespective of any other circumstances linked to the health situation of animals in the Member States. 
The Commission therefore holds that the premiums may be granted to the producer irrespective of any other circumstances linked to the health situation of animals in the Member States.
The Member States affected by the FMD epidemic asked for exemptions to be adopted from the end of April 2001. 
The Member States affected by the FMD epidemic asked for exemptions to be adopted from the end of April 2001.
In response to these requests, the Commission found that the producers were unable to meet certain obligations under the regulations establishing the premium schemes because of measures which restricted the movements of animals in certain regions, adopted under the provisions for combating the spread of the FMD epidemic. 
In response to these requests, the Commission found that the producers were unable to meet certain obligations under the regulations establishing the premium schemes because of measures which restricted the movements of animals in certain regions, adopted under the provisions for combating the spread of the FMD epidemic.
The Commission granted a temporary exemption from certain rules applicable in normal circumstances, especially with regard to the holding of animals. 
The Commission granted a temporary exemption from certain rules applicable in normal circumstances, especially with regard to the holding of animals.
A series of proposals was put before the Beef Management Committee in mid-May, on which it finally gave a favourable opinion on 29 June 2001. 
A series of proposals was put before the Beef Management Committee in mid-May, on which it finally gave a favourable opinion on 29 June 2001.
The process of adopting Regulation (EC) No 1458/2001 hence took two months from the time when the Commission was asked to take action. 
The process of adopting Regulation (EC) No 1458/2001 hence took two months from the time when the Commission was asked to take action.
As direct payments can be granted under these circumstances, the Commission feels that it is up to the Member States to ensure, during accompanying or subsequent checks of amounts set in another context for indemnification of producers in compliance with veterinary provisions, that producers do not receive the premiums twice. 
As direct payments can be granted under these circumstances, the Commission feels that it is up to the Member States to ensure, during accompanying or subsequent checks of amounts set in another context for indemnification of producers in compliance with veterinary provisions, that producers do not receive the premiums twice.
3.3.2005 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 54/39 The Commission considers that, under such circumstances it would in future be advisable to include, either in the rules governing direct payments or in the veterinary decisions conferring entitlement to indemnification, a clause to guarantee that no double payments are made and to place the responsibility for this clearly in the hands of the Member States. 
3.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 54/39 The Commission considers that, under such circumstances it would in future be advisable to include, either in the rules governing direct payments or in the veterinary decisions conferring entitlement to indemnification, a clause to guarantee that no double payments are made and to place the responsibility for this clearly in the hands of the Member States.
Nevertheless, as part of its task of disease management, the Commission has taken the necessary measures to limit the impact of over-assessment of the price of animals on the Community budget. 
Nevertheless, as part of its task of disease management, the Commission has taken the necessary measures to limit the impact of over-assessment of the price of animals on the Community budget.
Following in situ checks, the average correction rate for the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland was 55 % or EUR 583 million of a total requested of 1 051 million. 
Following in situ checks, the average correction rate for the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland was 55 % or EUR 583 million of a total requested of 1 051 million.
72 and 73. 
72 and 73.
The system of direct payments, including the slaughtering premium, is designed to compensate for the effect on producers’ income of the gradual reduction of the level of market support introduced by the Agenda 2000 reform. 
The system of direct payments, including the slaughtering premium, is designed to compensate for the effect on producersŐ income of the gradual reduction of the level of market support introduced by the Agenda 2000 reform.
The Commission took the view that there was good reason for granting a premium for animals slaughtered to combat FMD, if the regulatory conditions for granting the premium were met and the animals were slaughtered in a slaughterhouse. 
The Commission took the view that there was good reason for granting a premium for animals slaughtered to combat FMD, if the regulatory conditions for granting the premium were met and the animals were slaughtered in a slaughterhouse.
The regulations in force do not make the application for a slaughtering premium contingent upon veterinary acceptance or the animal’s destination and, in particular, fitness for human consumption. 
The regulations in force do not make the application for a slaughtering premium contingent upon veterinary acceptance or the animalŐs destination and, in particular, fitness for human consumption.
The scope of these regulations was confirmed on several occasions, particularly by the Beef Management Committee at the time of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 on exceptional measures to support the beef market (purchase for destruction system). 
The scope of these regulations was confirmed on several occasions, particularly by the Beef Management Committee at the time of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 on exceptional measures to support the beef market (purchase for destruction system).
It was communicated in June 2001 to the authorities of the Netherlands in response to their question on the eligibility for the premium of animals slaughtered in the course of a FMD epidemic and was confirmed in February 2004 to the Netherlands Mi-nister of Agriculture, specifying that the premium could be granted for animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse as long as the sum of the premium was neither included in the evaluation of animals for the purposes of veterinary compensation nor paid on that count, in order to prevent double payment. 
It was communicated in June 2001 to the authorities of the Netherlands in response to their question on the eligibility for the premium of animals slaughtered in the course of a FMD epidemic and was confirmed in February 2004 to the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, specifying that the premium could be granted for animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse as long as the sum of the premium was neither included in the evaluation of animals for the purposes of veterinary compensation nor paid on that count, in order to prevent double payment.
The procedure followed and the decisions notified were intended not to be detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries. 
The procedure followed and the decisions notified were intended not to be detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries.
Under the regulations in force, the slaughtering premium may be paid beyond the deadline in duly substantiated exceptional cases. 
Under the regulations in force, the slaughtering premium may be paid beyond the deadline in duly substantiated exceptional cases.
The information supplied by the Netherlands Agricultural Services show that of 1 278 holdings affected, 791 had the animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse. 
The information supplied by the Netherlands Agricultural Services show that of 1 278 holdings affected, 791 had the animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse.
Council Decision 90/424/EC affords only limited legal scope for establishing the arrangements for the Community to contribute to expenditure incurred by the Member State. 
Council Decision 90/424/EC affords only limited legal scope for establishing the arrangements for the Community to contribute to expenditure incurred by the Member State.
To this effect, any draft regulation prepared by the Commission laying down rules for eligibility for Community financing must have Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 as its legal basis. 
To this effect, any draft regulation prepared by the Commission laying down rules for eligibility for Community financing must have Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 as its legal basis.
The draft decision laying down rules for eligibility to Community financing of emergency action and combating FMD comprises an annex setting out the supporting documents to be provided on request by the competent supervisory authorities. 
The draft decision laying down rules for eligibility to Community financing of emergency action and combating FMD comprises an annex setting out the supporting documents to be provided on request by the competent supervisory authorities.
Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 is applicable with respect to supporting documents, as is pointed out specifically in each veterinary co-financing decision. 
Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 is applicable with respect to supporting documents, as is pointed out specifically in each veterinary co-financing decision.
The Member States therefore know what information they need to provide and sub-stantiate when checks are carried out. 
The Member States therefore know what information they need to provide and substantiate when checks are carried out.
The examples quoted by the Court, which were also noted by the Commission during its in situ audits, do not really indicate a problem in defining supporting documents, but highlight the poor quality of them in certain Member States. 
The examples quoted by the Court, which were also noted by the Commission during its in situ audits, do not really indicate a problem in defining supporting documents, but highlight the poor quality of them in certain Member States.
Any consistencies determined are, as a rule, the result of inadequate administrative organisation by the Member States at the time of the epidemic. 
Any consistencies determined are, as a rule, the result of inadequate administrative organisation by the Member States at the time of the epidemic.
As the Commission has not yet had any problems of access to administrative information with the Member States and each national administrative system and each epidemic is different, it would appear difficult to draw up a priori an exhaustive list of supporting documents to be provided. 
As the Commission has not yet had any problems of access to administrative information with the Member States and each national administrative system and each epidemic is different, it would appear difficult to draw up a priori an exhaustive list of supporting documents to be provided.
Having said that, the Commission did have a problem with access to the data held by livestock farmers (operating registers, invoices for the purchase of slaughtered animals, etc.) during its checks. 
Having said that, the Commission did have a problem with access to the data held by livestock farmers (operating registers, invoices for the purchase of slaughtered animals, etc.) during its checks.
This point will be clarified legally with the Member States with a view to future Community reimbursement. 
This point will be clarified legally with the Member States with a view to future Community reimbursement.
In general, the Member States are familiar with the idea of indemnifying animals ‘at their value prior to being contamina-ted’, as it had already been used previously for funding purposes. 
In general, the Member States are familiar with the idea of indemnifying animals Ôat their value prior to being contami-natedŐ, as it had already been used previously for funding purposes.
The Member States did not therefore ask the Commission for any clarification on this notion during the epidemic. 
The Member States did not therefore ask the Commission for any clarification on this notion during the epidemic.
The Commission would like to emphasise that it did give instructions to Member States on how to apply for reimbursement. 
The Commission would like to emphasise that it did give instructions to Member States on how to apply for reimbursement.
C 54/40 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 3.3.2005 Also, Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 obliges Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of feed and food law and other Community provisions relating to the protection of animal health and welfare, and to take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. 
C 54/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.3.2005 Also, Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 obliges Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of feed and food law and other Community provisions relating to the protection of animal health and welfare, and to take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.
The sanctions provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 
The sanctions provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
In its proposal for a Regulation on feed and food controls (COM(2003) 52), failures to comply with the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the movement of animals or products were listed as criminal offences (Annex VI, Point 7 (b)). 
In its proposal for a Regulation on feed and food controls (COM(2003) 52), failures to comply with the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the movement of animals or products were listed as criminal offences (Annex VI, Point 7 (b)).
These provisions were not maintained by the Council and the European Parliament. 
These provisions were not maintained by the Council and the European Parliament.
In the event of an outbreak it is only important to know which animals of susceptible species are on the holding in order to apply the measures correctly and in particular to prevent or detect illegal movement of potentially infected or contaminated animals. 
In the event of an outbreak it is only important to know which animals of susceptible species are on the holding in order to apply the measures correctly and in particular to prevent or detect illegal movement of potentially infected or contaminated animals.
Therefore, in the case of a suspected or confirmed outbreak Directive 85/511/EEC requires the competent authorities to carry out a census of all animals on the holding, including the animals that died from the disease. 
Therefore, in the case of a suspected or confirmed outbreak Directive 85/511/EEC requires the competent authorities to carry out a census of all animals on the holding, including the animals that died from the disease.
These inventories must be kept up-to-date, which cannot be always ensured by other data bases. 
These inventories must be kept up-to-date, which cannot be always ensured by other data bases.
The shortcomings identified by the Court are not the result of a lack of guidance by the Commission but by the administrative di-sorganisation attributable to the Member States, which can be accounted for to some extent by the circumstances of the crisis. 
The shortcomings identified by the Court are not the result of a lack of guidance by the Commission but by the administrative disorganisation attributable to the Member States, which can be accounted for to some extent by the circumstances of the crisis.
The Commission does not share the Court’s view that the arrangements for reimbursement were not laid down in good time. (i) The Commission has not changed the eligibility rules appreciably since Decision 90/424/EC was adopted. 
The Commission does not share the CourtŐs view that the arrangements for reimbursement were not laid down in good time. (i) The Commission has not changed the eligibility rules appreciably since Decision 90/424/EC was adopted.
The Commission’s specific financing decisions were always adopted as soon as it was technically possible, i.e. when the Commission had received an application for co-funding, the statement of expenditure supplied by the Member State was sufficiently reliable and the budgetary authority had made provision for financial cover for the funding. 
The CommissionŐs specific financing decisions were always adopted as soon as it was technically possible, i.e. when the Commission had received an application for co-funding, the statement of expenditure supplied by the Member State was sufficiently reliable and the budgetary authority had made provision for financial cover for the funding.
Financing decisions also require time to be taken to study the Member States’ financial forecasts, which are often unreliable or imprecise during epidemics, and a favourable vote by the Member States in the veterinary committee followed by formal adoption by the Commission. 
Financing decisions also require time to be taken to study the Member StatesŐ financial forecasts, which are often unreliable or imprecise during epidemics, and a favourable vote by the Member States in the veterinary committee followed by formal adoption by the Commission.