natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der er ingen 5 ( ) Inspektioner vedrżrende kżdhygiejne, handel og identifikation af dyr 6 er ikke medregnet. ( ) Isžr Belgien, Danmark, Tyskland, Spanien, Frankrig, Irland, Italien, Luxembourg, Portugal og Finland. 
6 ( ) trade or animal identification. Particularly Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland.
20.11.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 324/17 procedure, som gżr det muligt at anvende finansielle korrektioner eller plžgge bżder eller sanktioner (1) i forbindelse med veterinžrudgifter eller markedsforanstaltninger, hvis veterinžrlovgiv-ningen ikke overholdes. 
20.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 324/17 procedure for imposing financial corrections or penalties and sanctions (1) on veterinary expenditure or market measures because of failure to comply with veterinary legislation.
Disse forhold kan sammenholdes med Generaldirektoratet for Landbrugs procedure for regnskabsafslutning, hvor generaldirektoratet p grundlag af inspektionsrapporter kan udelukke belżb fra Fžllesskabets finansiering af de pgžldende foranstaltninger. 
This can be contrasted with the DG AGRI clearance of accounts procedure, where inspection reports can be used to exclude amounts from Community funding for the market measures concerned.
I perioden 1997-1999 indledte Kommissionen 19 overtrždelsesprocedurer mod 13 medlemsstater (dvs. alle undtagen Żstrig og Irland (2). 
In the period 1997 to 1999, 19 infringement procedures were opened by the Commission against 13 Member States (the exceptions were Austria and Ireland (2).
De fleste blev indledt i perioden 1997-1998 og vedrżrer gennemfżrelsen af foderforbuddet og behandlingen af animalsk affald. 
Most of these date from the period 1997 to 1998, and relate to the implementation of the feed ban and treatment of animal waste.
Den eneste af disse sager, der er net s langt som til at blive indbragt for EF-Domstolen, vedrżrer det indre marked: Sagen om Frankrigs (3) nžgtelse af at genoptage importen af oksekżd fra Det Forenede Kongerige kom for Domstolen i 2000. 
Of these, the only infringement taken as far as the European Court of Justice concerns the internal market: in 2000 for FranceŐs (3) refusal to resume beef imports from the United Kingdom.
Kommissionen forfulgte ikke de andre procedurer, enten fordi medlemsstaterne gav tilsagn om at forbedre deres kontrol, eller fordi den kontrol, som var fastsat i den relevante BSE-lovgivning, p det pgžldende tidspunkt var beskrevet i s generelle vendinger, at det ikke ville vžre muligt at f medlemsstaterne dżmt for overtrždelse af reglerne. 
The other procedures were not pursued by the Commission either because the Member States involved undertook to improve their controls, or because the controls required by the relevant BSE legislation at the time were too general to allow Member States to be successfully prosecuted for non-compliance.
Truslen om overtrždelsesprocedurer mod medlemsstater, som ikke overholder EU-lovgivningen, har ikke vžret s stžrk, at den har tilskyndet medlemsstaterne til at gennemfżre EUŐs BSE-lovgivning korrekt. 
The threat of carrying forward infringement action against Member States that do not comply with EU legislation has not been a sufficiently strong incentive to Member States to correctly implement the EUŐs BSE legislation.
KONKLUSION 47. 
CONCLUSIONS 47.
Revisionsrettens vžsentligste anbefaling i sžrberetning nr. 19/ 1998 var, at Kommissionen burde udarbejde en handlingsplan for, hvordan kriser som BSE-krisen skal hndteres. 
The main recommendation of the Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 19/98 was that the Commission should develop an action plan to deal with the BSE crisis.
Under sin opfżlgning har Retten konstateret, at Kommissionens strategi er rigtig, men at der er problemer med medlemsstaternes gennemfżrelse af den, og at det har taget urimeligt lang tid at f vedtaget og gennemfżrt centrale BSE-kontrolforanstaltninger (jf. punkt 25 og 27). 
This follow-up review has found that the CommissionŐs strategy is basically sound, but that implementation by Member States is problematic, and inappropriate delays occurred in the adoption and implementation of key BSE control measures (see paragraphs 25 and 27).
Den anden BSE-krise skal ses p den baggrund, at medlemsstaterne ikke har gennemfżrt den eksisterende EU-lovgivning effektivt nok (jf. figur 6). 
The second BSE crisis has to be seen in the context of Member StatesŐ poor implementation of existing EU legislation (see Figure 6).
Den mangelfulde overvgning (jf. punkt 21), den mangelfulde gennemfżrelse af forbuddet mod foder med kżd-og benmel fra pattedyr (jf. punkt 30-31) i de fleste medlemsstater (med undtagelse af Det Forenede Kongerige siden 1996 og Portugal siden 1999), og den mangelfulde kontrol af handelen med kżd-og benmel og dyrefoder (jf. punkt 31) kan have medvirket til, at BSE ikke blev udryddet, men spredt til andre medlemsstater. 
Poor surveillance (see paragraph 21), and poor implementation of the mammalian MBM feed ban (see paragraphs 30 and 31) in most Member States (with the exception, since 1996, of the United Kingdom, and since 1999, of Portugal), and poor controls over trade in MBM and animal feed (see paragraph 31), might have contributed to preventing BSE from being eradicated, and to its spread to other Member States.
Foderforbuddet fra 1994 er ikke blevet hndhžvet effektivt. 
The 1994 feed ban has not been effectively implemented.
Alle de medlemsstater, som har konstateret tilfžlde af BSE i deres nationale besžtninger, undtagen Luxembourg, har konstateret BSE hos dyr fżdt efter 1994-forbuddet mod foder med kżd-og benmel fra pattedyr (jf. punkt 30). 
All Member States which have reported cases of BSE in their native herds (except Luxembourg) have had BSE cases born after the ban on feeding mammalian MBM was introduced in 1994 (see paragraph 30).
I inspektionsrapporter fra 1998 til 2000 konstaterede Levnedsmiddel-og Veterinžrkontoret, at der i perioden frem til 2000 var stor risiko for kontaminering af foder til drżvtyggere med kżd-og benmel fra pattedyr i de fleste medlemsstater. 
FVO inspection reports between 1998 and 2000 found significant risk of contamination of ruminant feed with mammalian MBM in most Member States.
Problemerne vedrżrende forarbejdning, anvendelse og krydskontaminering af kżd-og benmel har vžret kendt siden 1996, men det midlertidige forbud mod anvendelse af animalske proteiner i foder til alle husdyr blev fżrst gennemfżrt med virkning fra 1. januar 2001 (jf. punkt 31). 
The problems of safe processing, use and cross-contamination of MBM have been known since 1996, but the temporary ban on the use of processed animal proteins for all farm animals was only implemented with effect from 1 January 2001 (see paragraph 31).
99 % af de BSE-tilfžlde, som til dato er konstateret i EU, er konstateret i Det Forenede Kongerige (jf. punkt 9). 
99 % of cases of BSE reported to date in the EU have been in the United Kingdom (see paragraph 9).
Ifżlge Levnedsmiddel-og Veterinžrkontorets inspektionsrapporter er det dog sandsynligt, at det konstaterede antal BSE-tilfžlde i andre medlemsstater i hvert tilfžlde indtil udgangen af 2000 var for lavt. 
However, according to FVO inspection reports, the true incidence of BSE was probably under-detected by other Member States until at least the end of 2000.
Og hertil kommer, at medlemsstater, som lžnge har hžvdet at vžre fri for BSE (Tyskland, Italien, Spanien) er begyndt at rapportere tilfžlde (jf. punkt 21). 
Moreover, Member States which had long claimed to be free from BSE (Germany, Italy, Spain) have started reporting cases (see paragraph 21).
EU-budgettets udgifter til BSE-krisen har vžret og vil fortsat vžre store (jf. punkt 1, 4 og 15-16). 
The cost of the BSE crisis to the EU budget has been, and will continue to be high (see paragraphs 1, 4, 15 and 16).
Med den gžldende lovgivning kan Kommissionen ikke plžgge medlemsstaterne at gennemfżre aktioner vedrżrende folke-og dyresundhed, hvis medlemsstaterne modsžtter sig det (jf. punkt 25 og 27). 
Under the current legislation, the Commission, when faced with sufficient opposition from Member States is unable to impose action on Member States in matters involving human or animal health (see paragraphs 25 and 27).
Den institutionelle lovgivningsproces har ogs bevirket, at det har taget uacceptabelt lang tid at f gennemfżrt centrale BSE-kontrolforanstaltninger, selv om der var behov for hurtige aktioner til beskyttelse af folke-og dyresundheden (jf. punkt 18, 25 og 29). 
The institutional legislative process has also caused inappropriately long delays in the implementation of key BSE control measures, even though speedy action was required to implement measures to protect animal and human health (see paragraphs 18, 25 and 29).
De foranstaltninger, Kommissionen kan gżre brug af i dag for at hndhžve gennemfżrelsen af BSE-lovgivningen i medlemsstaterne, er ikke tilstržkkelige (jf. punkt 44 og 46), og de har ikke kunnet tilskynde medlemsstaterne til at gennemfżre BSE-foranstaltningerne korrekt. 
The measures currently available to the Commission to enforce the implementation of BSE legislation by Member States are not adequate (see paragraphs 44 and 46) and have not been a sufficient incentive for Member States to correctly implement BSE measures.
Til sammenligning kan Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug i forbindelse med regnskabsafslutningen af markedsforanstaltningerne foretage finansielle korrektioner i EUGFL-stżtten og dermed tilskynde medlemsstaterne til at tržffe korrigerende foranstaltninger. 
This is in contrast with the DG AGRI clearance of accounts procedure for market measures, whereby financial corrections in EAGGF support encourages Member States to take corrective action.
Levnedsmiddel-og Veterinžrkontorets inspektionsrapporter tyder p, at foderindustrien ikke fulgte EUŐs BSE-lovgivning fuldt ud. 
According to FVO inspection reports, there is evidence that the agro-feed industry was not rigorous enough in implementing the EUŐs BSE legislation.
Isžr konstaterede Levnedsmiddel-og Veterinžrkontoret, at foder til drżvtyggere var kontamineret med kżd-og benmel, og at foder med kżd-og benmel ikke altid var mžrket korrekt (jf. punkt 33). 
In particular, the FVO found that ruminant feed was contaminated with MBM, and feed containing MBM was not correctly labelled (see paragraph 33).
(1) 2 () 3 ( ) Dog plžgges der sanktioner for manglende overholdelse af kravene om identifikation og registrering af dyr i henhold til pržmieordningerne under det integrerede forvaltnings-og kontrolsystem. 
(1) 2 ( ) 3 () Except for penalties imposed for failures to implement animal identification and registration requirements under the integrated administration and control system premium schemes.
Der blev desuden indledt overtrždelsesprocedurer mod Tyskland, men Tyskland traf korrigerende foranstaltninger, og derfor forfulgte Kommissionen ikke sagen. 
In addition, infringement procedures were taken against Germany, but as Germany took corrective action, the case was not proceeded with.
C 324/18 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende 20.11.2001 53. 
C 324/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20.11.2001 53.
Den omfattende handel med kvžg og kżd-og benmel inden for Fžllesskabet var ogs en medvirkende rsag til, at BSE blev spredt til hele EU (jf. punkt 36). 
The extensive intraĐCommunity trade in bovines and MBM also contributed to the spread of BSE throughout the EU (see paragraph 36).
Den aktuelle krise understreger behovet for en revurdering af foderpraksis og kvžgavlsmetoder (jf. punkt 35). 
The current crisis underlines the need to reassess bovine feeding and husbandry practices (see paragraph 35).
BSE ville ikke vžre blevet spredt, hvis kvžget var blevet avlet ekstensivt og havde fet deres naturlige foder. lovforslag om beskyttelse af dyre-eller folkesundhed. 
BSE would not have been propagated if bovines had been reared extensively and fed their natural diet. 54.
54. i kontrolforanstaltningerne ikke blev gennemfżrt effektivt nok (jf. figur 6 og bilag 2), dels fordi der (indtil oktober 2000) ikke fandtes en fžlles EU-definition af SRM (jf. punkt 25). 
Consumers (and animals) were exposed to different levels of risks in the Member States, through a combination of poor implementation of BSE control measures (see Figure 6 and Annex 2), and a lack (until October 2000) of an EU-wide definition of SRMs (see paragraph 25).
Det er paradoksalt, at medlemsstaterne Ń via Rdets anbefalinger i forbindelse med dechargeproceduren (jf. punkt 3) Ń p den ene side har anbefalet Kommissionen at udforme en BSE-strategi, og p den anden side ofte har vžret for passive, nr denne strategi har skullet vedtages og gennemfżres. 
It is paradoxical that on the one hand, the Member States, through the Council recommendations on discharge (see paragraph 3) support the need for the Commission to formulate a BSE strategy, yet have often been remiss when it comes to adoption or implementation of the strategy.
ANBEFALINGER 55. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 55.
Retten har fżlgende anbefalinger: a) Det bżr overvejes, om Kommissionen bżr tildeles sžrlige, midlertidige befżjelser, nr medlemsstaterne ikke er enige i EUŐs forbrugere (og dyr) blev udsat for risiko i forskellig grad de forskellige medlemsstater, dels fordi BSE-Vedtaget af Revisionsretten i Luxembourg p mżdet den 13. september 2001. 
This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 13 September 2001.
P Revisionsrettens vegne Jan O. KARLSSON Formand (1) Retten bemžrker, at en lignende anbefaling blev fremsat i Hvidbogen om fżdevaresikkerhed (KOM(1999) 719 endelig af 12. januar 2000, punkt 94). 
For the Court of Auditors Jan O. KARLSSON President (1) The Court notes that a similar recommendation was made in the White Paper on Food Safety COM(1999) 719 final of 12 January 2000, paragraph 94.
20.11.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 324/19 BILAG 1 DEN VIDENSKABELIGE STYRINGSKOMITS UDTALELSE OM DEN GEOGRAFISKE BSE-RISIKO (GBR) (1) 1. 
20.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 324/19 ANNEX 1 SCIENTIFIC STEERING COMMITTEEŐS OPINION ON GEOGRAPHICAL RISK OF BSE (GBR) (1) 1.
Den geografiske BSE-risiko (GBR) er en kvalitativ indikator for sandsynligheden for, at et eller flere kreaturer er inficeret med BSE, pržklinisk eller klinisk, p et givet tidspunkt i et givet land. 
The geographical BSE risk (GBR) is a qualitative indicator of the likelihood of the presence of one or more cattle being infected with BSE, pre-clinically as well as clinically, at a given point in time, in a given country.
GBR er ikke en indikator for truslen mod folkesundheden Ń den afhžnger af de foranstaltninger til risikostyring, som tržffes for at forhindre, at BSE-inficeret materiale indgr i fżdekžden. 
The GBR is not an indicator of the risk to human health Ń this is dependent on the risk management measures taken to prevent BSE-infected matter ending up in the human food chain.
I overensstemmelse med den metodologi, som blev fastsat i 1998, tages otte faktorer i betragtning ved opstillingen af GBR: kvžgpopulationens struktur og udvikling, BSE-overvgning, BSE-relateret slagtning, indfżrsler af kvžg og kżd-og benmel, foder, forbud mod kżd-og benmel, forbud mod SRM, udsmeltning. 
Eight factors are taken into account for the GBR, in accordance with methodology established in 1998 Ń structure and dynamics of the bovine population, BSE surveillance, BSE-related culling, cattle and MBM imports, feeding, MBM-bans, SRM-bans and rendering.
Siden juli 2000 er der opstillet GBR for samtlige medlemsstater Ń undtagen Gržkenland Ń og 32 andre lande, og GBR for yderligere 13 lande er under udarbejdelse (maj 2001). 
The GBR has been established for all Member States except Greece and 32 other countries since July 2000, and is currently (May 2001) on-going for another 13 countries.
GBR-niveau IŃ forekomst meget usandsynlig II Ń forekomst usandsynlig, men ikke udelukket III Ń forekomst sandsynlig, men ikke bekržftet, eller lav forekomst bekržftet IV Ń hżj forekomst bekržftet Medlemsstater (1) Żstrig, Finland, Sverige Belgien, Danmark, Tyskland (2) , Frankrig, Irland, Italien (2) , Luxembourg, Nederlandene, Spanien (2) Portugal, Det Forenede Kongerige Tredjelande Argentina, Australien, Botswana, Brasilien, Chile, Costa Rica, Namibia, Nicaragua, Norge, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Swaziland, Uruguay Canada, Colombia, Indien, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, Slovenien, USA Albanien, Cypern, Tjekkiet, Estland, Ungarn, Litauen, Polen, Rumžnien, Slovakiet, Schweiz Ingen (1) Der er ikke udarbejdet en GBR for Gržkenland, fordi der ikke er indsendt de nżdvendige oplysninger. 
GBR level I Ń highly unlikely II Ń unlikely but not excluded III Ń likely but not confirmed, or confirmed at a lower level IV Ń confirmed, at a higher level Member States (1) Austria, Finland, Sweden Belgium, Denmark, Germany (2), France, Ireland, Italy2(2), Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain ( ) Portugal, United Kingdom Non-member countries Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Namibia, Nicaragua, Norway, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Swaziland, Uruguay Canada, Colombia, India, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, Slovenia, USA Albania, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Switzerland None (1) No GBR has been produced for Greece, as the requisite information was not provided.
VSK mente derfor, at det var klogest at antage, at den geografiske BSE-risiko er hżj i Gržkenland (udtalelse om GBR, afsnit 3.4, ČThe case for GreeceÇ). 
The SSC therefore considered it prudent to assume that the geographical BSE risk in Greece was at a high level (opinion on GBR, Section 3.4 ÔThe case for GreeceŐ).
(2) Pr. rapporteringsfristen (juli 2000) var der ikke bekržftet BSE-tilfžlde i de nationale besžtninger. 
(2) At the report date (July 2000), there were no confirmed domestic cases.
Ifżlge VSK er der i alle EUŐs medlemsstater en vis risiko for, at der er BSE i de nationale besžtninger BSE (2): a) For syv medlemsstaters vedkommende (Belgien, Danmark, Frankrig, Irland, Luxembourg, Nederlandene og Spanien) mente VSK ikke, at det kunne udelukkes, at der ville blive konstateret flere tilfžlde af BSE. b) Med hensyn til Tyskland, Italien og Spanien, som endnu ikke havde konstateret tilfžlde af BSE i de nationale besžtninger, konkluderede VSK, at der sandsynligvis var BSE i de nationale kvžgpopulationer, men p et niveau, som ikke ville blive opdaget ved passiv overvgning. 
According to the SSC, all EU Member States are faced with a certain risk of having BSE in their national herds (2): (a) in seven Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Spain) the SSC considered that Ôfor the time being, it cannot be excluded that (more) BSE cases may occur...Ő; (b) for Germany, Italy and Spain, which at the time of the opinion had no reported cases of BSE in domestic herds, the SSC GBR concluded that BSE is likely to be present in the domestic cattle population, but at levels below the limits of passive surveillance.
VSK udtalte sig ogs om GBRŐs udvikling i den nžrmeste fremtid (3). VSK forventede, at GBR ville falde i nžsten alle medlemsstater,hvisdeforesledebeslutningeromudsmeltning(99/534/EFfor1.7.2000)ogSRM(2000/418/EFfor 1.10.2000) blev korrekt gennemfżrt. 
The opinion also indicated what the expected GBR trend would be in the foreseeable future (3) Ń it was expected to decrease in almost all the Member States if the proposed decisions for rendering (1999/534/EC for 1 July 2000) and SRM (according to 2000/418/EC, planned for 1 October 2000) were appropriately implemented.
Dog forventedes GBR at stige for fire medlemsstater (Belgien, Tyskland, Italien og Luxembourg) trods disse foranstaltninger. 
However, for four Member States (Belgium, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg), the GBR was expected to increase even with these measures in place.
(1) VSKŐs endelige udtalelse om GBR, vedtaget den 6. juli 2000. 
(1) Final opinion of SSC on the GBR, adopted 6 July 2000.
(2) Udtalelse om GBR, bilag 2, afsnit 3 Ń lande med GBR-niveau III Ń og tabel 3. 
(2) Opinion on GBR, Annex 2, Section 3 Ń countries with current GBR level III and Table 3.
(3) Udtalelse om GBR, afsnit 3.1 og tabel 6 Ń oversigt over resultaterne af GBR-vurderingen af 23 lande. 
(3) Opinion on GBR, Section 3.1 and Table 6 overview of results of GBR assessment for 23 countries.
C 324/20 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende 20.11.2001 Belgien (1) BSE-stikprżveprogrammet er ikke tilstržkkeligt mlrettet. 
C 324/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20.11.2001 Belgium (1) The BSE sampling programme is not correctly targeted.
Officielle inspektioner af foderstoffabrikker er ikke tilstržkkeligt mlrettede, og de gennemfżres ikke effektivt nok. 
Official inspections at feedmills are inadequately targeted and implemented.
Der foreligger ikke tilfredsstillende garantier for, at beslutning 2000/418/EF gennemfżres korrekt. Der er risiko for, at SRM kan indg i fżde-eller foderkžden. 
No satisfactory guarantees that Decision 2000/418/EC is being implemented correctly; risk that SRM could end up in the food or the feed chain.
Danmark (2) Tyskland (3) Det kan ikke udelukkes, at BSE-tilfžlde ikke er blevet konstateret, for overvgningsprogrammet er ikke džkkende. 
Denmark (2) Germany (3) Under-reporting of BSE suspects cannot be ruled out, as the monitoring programme is inadequate.
Et besżgt udsmeltningsanlžg overholdt ikke forarbejdningsnormerne fastsat i beslutning 96/449/EF. 
A rendering plant visited was not operating in accordance with the processing standards of Decision 96/449/EC.
Gržkenland (4) BSE-stikprżveprogrammet opfylder ikke kravene i Kommissionensbeslutning98/272/EFmedhensyn til stikprżvernes stżrrelse og de kategorier af dyr, der skal undersżges. 
Greece (4) The BSE sampling programme does not comply with Commission Decision 98/272/EC in terms of sample size and category of animals to be tested.
Udsmeltning blev ikke foretaget i overensstemmelsemeddefastsatte normer. 
Rendering was not carried out to the required standards.
Overvgning Foderforbud Specificeret risikomateriale Udsmeltning Der er en hżj sandsynlighed for, at BSE-tilfžlde ikke er blevet opdaget. 
Surveillance Feed ban Specified risk materials Rendering There is a high probability that cases of BSE have gone undetected.
Foderforbuddet er ikke blevet hndhžvet effektivt, og der var hyppige forekomster af krydskontaminering af foder til drżvtyggere med kżd-og benmel. 
The feed ban has not been applied effectively, and there was frequent cross-contamination of ruminant feed by MBM.
P grund af manglende officiel dokumentation for transport af SRM, kan systemet som helhed endnu ikke anses for at vžre plideligt. 
Based on the lack of official movement documentation for SRM materials, the overall system cannot yet be considered as reliable.
En del kżd-og benmel blev i praksis forarbejdet (med henblik p anvendelse i foder) i overensstemmelse med en lavere norm end den, der er fastsat i beslutning 96/449/EF. 
Some MBM was in fact being processed (for use as feeding stuff) to a lower standard than that specified in Decision 96/449/EC.
Overvgnings-og undersżgelsesprogrammerne var ikke džkkende. 
The monitoring and testing programmes were inadequate.
BILAG 2 BSE-kontrol i medlemsstaterne Oversigt over problemer konstateret af Levnedsmiddel-og Veterinžrkontoret, 1998-2000 Krydskontaminering af steriliseret kżd-og benmel med ikke-steriliseret kżd-og benmel kunne ikke udelukkes p det besżgte genanvendelsesanlžg. 
ANNEX 2 BSE controls in the Member States Ń overview of issues reported by the Food and Veterinary Office, 1998 to 2000 Cross-contamination of sterilised MBM by non-sterilised MBM could not be excluded, at the reprocessing plant visited.
20.11.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 324/21 Spanien (5) Overvgningsprogrammet er ikke tilstržkkeligt mlrettet.DetvarikkedžkkendeiCastilien-Leon, mens der var sket forbedringer i Galicien. 
20.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 324/21 Spain (5) The surveillance programme is not correctly targeted.
Foderforbuddet blev hndhžvet strengereeftervedtagelsenafny national lovgivning. 
Implementation of the feed ban was improved by recent national legislation.