natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I forbindelse med sidstnžvnte betragtning skal det bemžr- C 214/26 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende 31.7.2001 Belgien Danmark Tyskland: P landsplan Rioja Frankrig Bayern Nordrhein-Westfalen Schleswig-Holstein Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Gržkenland Spanien: P landsplan Andalusien Aragonien Cantabrien Castilien-Leon Castilien-La Mancha Catalonien Galicien Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige: England og Nordirland Overholdelse af frister Elektroniske databaser System til identifikation af marker Stżtteansżgninger Administrativ kontrol Kontrol p stedet Sanktioner Overholdelse af frister Elektroniske databaser System til identifikation og registrering af dyr Stżtteansżgninger Administrativ kontrol Kontrol p stedet Sanktioner Andet Tabel 4 Oversigt over svagheder konstateret af Kommissionen i medlemsstaterne vedrżrende ret 1998 (kontrolrapporter fra 1998 til juni 2000) Arealstżtte Dyrepržmier Skotland NB: ČČVžsentligeÇÇ og ČżvrigeÇ svagheder i kontrollen er defineret i henhold til Kommissionens retningslinjer for plžggelse af sanktioner i forbindelse med proceduren for regnskabsafslutning, dog behandles i denne tabel kontrol med dobbeltbetalinger og den korrekte anvendelse af sanktioner som Čvžsentlig kontrolÇ. 
C 214/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 31.7.2001 Belgium Denmark Germany: national level Bavaria North Rhine-Westphalia Schleswig-Holstein Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Greece Spain: national level Andalucia Aragon Cantabria Castile-Leon Castile-La Mancha Cataluna Rioja France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden Galicia UK: England and Northern Ireland Scotland Identifica-Respect Compute-tion Aid Identification and registra-Aid Adminis-On-the- Table 4 Summary of weaknesses identified by the Commission in the Member States regarding the year 1998 (mission reports from 1998 to June 2000) Area aid Animal premiums Respect of rised system applica-trative spot Penalties of rised tion applica-trative spot Penalties Other deadlines databases for parcels tions Adminis-controls On-the-controls deadlines Compute-databases system for animals tions controls controls NB: ÔKeyŐ and ÔancillaryŐ control weaknesses are defined according to the CommissionŐs guidelines for imposing penalties under the clearance-of-accounts procedure, except that controls over duplicate payments, and the correct application of penalties, are treated in this table as ÔkeyŐ controls.
Vžsentlige svagheder i kontrollen Żvrige svagheder i kontrollen Ingen svagheder konstateret Omrdet ikke undersżgt Kilde: Revisionsrettens gennemgang af Kommissionens kontrolrapporter til medlemsstaterne. 
Key control weakness identified Ancillary control weakness identified No control weaknesses identified Area not examined Source: Court of Auditors review of Commission mission reports to Member States.
31.7.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 214/27 Medlemsstater og regioner og integrerede Stżtteansżgninger Administrativ kontrol Kontrol p stedet Sanktioner Stżtteansżgninger Administrativ kontrol Kontrol p stedet Sanktioner Andet Tyskland: Centralt niveau Bayern Niedersachsen Spanien: Centralt niveau Navarra Frankrig Catalonien Irland Portugal Det Forenede Kongerige: Centralt niveau Kilde: Revisionsretten. Skotland Wales Ikke relevant p dette niveau Godt Ń fungerer uden problemer Tilfredsstillende Ń fungerer med nogle problemer Drligt Ń fungerer ikke acceptabelt Elektroniske databaser System til identifikation af marker Elektroniske databaser og integrerede kontrolsystemer System til identifikation og registrering af dyr kontrolsystemer Tabel 5 Oversigt over svagheder konstateret af Retten i de besżgte medlemsstater (stżtteansżgninger i 1998 Ń hovedsagelig 1999-budgettet) Arealstżtte Dyrepržmier 
31.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/27 Germany: central level region of Bavaria region of Lower Saxony Spain: central level region of Catalonia region of Navarre Member States and regions and integrated Penalties controls Other France Ireland Portugal United Kingdom: central level Source: Court of Auditors. region of Scotland region of Wales Not applicable at this level Good Ń functioning without problems Average Ń functioning with some problems Poor Ń not functioning at an acceptable level Computerised databases Identification system for parcels Aid applications Adminis-On-the- trative spot controls controls Computerised databases and integrated control system Identification and registration system for animals Aid applications Administrative controls On-the-spot Penalties control system Table 5 Summary of weaknesses identified by the Court of Auditors in the Member States visited (for 1998 applications Ń mainly budget 1999) Area aid Animal premiums
C 214/28 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende 31.7.2001 Andre resultater 67. 
C 214/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 31.7.2001 Other findings 67.
Med hensyn til arealstżtten kontrolleres medlemsstaternes beregninger af overskridelserne af basisarealerne p kommissionsniveau af markedsenheden og direktoratet for regnskabsafslutning. 
With regard to area aid, Member StatesŐ calculations of overshoots of base areas are checked at Commission level by the Market and the Clearance-of-Accounts Directorates.
Retten kritiserede denne kontrol i sin rsberetning for 1996 (1), og Kommissionen sżrgede for, at medlemsstaterne indsendte bedre dokumentation, hvilket gav bedre kontrol. 
These checks were criticised by the Court in its 1996 Annual Report (1) and the Commission took action to strengthen the information provided by the Member States, allowing better controls.
Med virk-ningfra2000(2)harKommissionenigenforbedretprocedurerne for medlemsstaternes beregning af overskridelserne. 
From 2000 (2), the Commission again improved the procedures to be used by the Member States to calculate the overshoots.
Disse procedurer sikrer endnu ikke 100 % nżjagtighed, men de kan sammenholdes med forholdene omkring lofterne for den sžrlige okse-kżdspržmie, hvor der ikke findes et lignende system til indberetning og kontrol af overskridelserne (jf. punkt 54.b)). 
This procedure, even though not yet guaranteeing 100 % accuracy, can be contrasted withspecialbeefpremiumceilings,wherethereisnosimilar framework to declare and control the overshoot (see paragraph 54(b)).
Der er derfor risiko for, at en medlemsstats ukorrekte beregning af en overskridelse ikke vil blive opdaget af Kommissionen, og der vil blive betalt for meget i stżtte. 
There is therefore a risk that incorrect calculation of an overshoot by a Member State would go unnoticed by the Commission, leading to overpayments.
Retten har konstateret risiko for sdanne fejl i Spanien, Frankrig og Portugal. 
The Court has identified risk of such errors in Spain, France and Portugal.
MEDLEMSSTATERNES ROLLE 68. 
THE ROLE OF THE MEMBER STATES 68.
Medlemsstaterne skal oprette IFKS (3). 
Member States are responsible for setting up IACS (3).
Al behandling af stżtteansżgninger Ń herunder anvendelse af computersystemer og databaser Ń finder sted p medlemsstatsniveau. 
All management of aid applications, including computer systems and databases, is located at Member State level.
I overgangsperioden kunne Kommissionen anmode medlemsstaterne om at foretage žndringer i gennemfżrelsesforanstaltningerne (4). 
During the transitional stage, the Commission could request changes to the Member StatesŐ measures for implementing IACS (4).
Siden 1997 har Kommissionen grebet ind i mere begržnset omfang (jf. punkt 34). 
Since 1997, the CommissionŐs interventions have been more limited (see paragraph 34).
De vžsentligste revisionsresultater p medlemsstatsniveau 69. 
Main findings at Member State level 69.
Under revisionen i de seks medlemsstater af stżtteansżgningerne for 1998 konstaterede Retten, at ikke alle elementer af systemet var fuldt gennemfżrt i alle medlemsstater to r efter fristen for indfżrelsen af IFKS. Der blev konstateret mange svagheder, og der havde vžret betydelige forsinkelser. 
During the audit of 1998 aid applications in the six Member States the Court found that, two years after the deadline for its introduction, not all features of IACS were fully in place in all Member States: numerous weaknesses were found and considerable delays had occurred.
Tabel 5 er en oversigt over situationen samt en evaluering af, om gennemfżrelsen i de forskellige regioner kunne betegnes som god, tilfredsstillende eller drlig. 
Table 5 offers a concise overview of the situation encountered, with an evaluation according to three categories: good, average and poor.
70. Som det fremgr af tabellen, konstaterede Retten fżlgende: a) Kun i Tyskland og Irland var gennemfżrelsen af IFKS i 1998 ikke behžftet med alvorlige svagheder. b) I Spanien var der stor forskel p, hvor langt man var kommet med gennemfżrelsen. 
70. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 71. (a) As indicated on this table, the audit found that: onlyinGermanyandIrelandweretherenomajorweaknesses in respect of the implementation of IACS in 1998; in Spain, the level of development varied greatly between the Autonomous Community of Navarre, which had no major weaknesses, and the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, where, in particular, there were no cross-checks on the parcels.
Desuden var de nationale instrukser i nogle tilfžlde ikke i overensstemmelse med fžllesskabsforordningen. 
In addition, the national instructions sometimes did not comply with the Community Regulation.
Endvidere var den nationale krydskontrol af kvžg meget ufuldstžndig. c) I Frankrig var der svagheder ved kontrollen p stedet af ansżgninger om arealstżtte, hovedsagelig fordi kontrollen i vidt omfang blev udfżrt af midlertidigt ansatte, som arbejdede alene og modtog et fast belżb for hver ansżgning, de kontrol-lerede. Desuden blev der ikke plagt sanktioner med tilbagevirkende kraft i de tilfžlde, hvor der i forbindelse med administrativ kontrol eller kontrol p stedet var konstateret forkerte oplysninger i ansżgningerne for tidligere r. d) I Portugal var krydskontrollen af dyr langt fra fuldstžndig (en ržkke kriterier for stżtteberettigelse blev ikke kontrolleret, f.eks. om dyrene var żremžrket korrekt, og betalingsdossieret for handyr blev ikke krydskontrolleret med betalingsdossieret for ammekżer (5), og der var ikke konsekvens i den mde, hvorp der var plagt sanktioner. e) I Det Forenede Kongerige (Skotland og Wales) var krydskontrollen af dyr ufuldstžndig, isžr med hensyn til ammekżer Ń der blev ikke foretaget landsdžkkende krydskontrol af ammekżer. 
Furthermore, where administrative controls or field inspections revealed anomalies relating to previous years, retroactive sanctions were not applied; in Portugal, the cross-checks on animals were far from complete (lack of verification of several eligibility criteria, e.g. existence of eartag number allocated; no cross-checking between the payment file for male bovine animals and the payment file for suckler cows (5)) and the penalties were applied inconsistently; in the United Kingdom (Scotland and Wales) cross-checks on the animals were incomplete, in particular in respect of suckler cows, for which a national cross-check was not carried out.
Der var anlagt mange sager i Tyskland (Bayern og Niedersachsen), mens de żvrige medlemsstater, som Retten besżgte, i mange sager havde undladt at udelukke modtageren fra stżtte det fżlgende r, og de havde anlagt meget f sager ved domstolene. 
Many cases were prosecuted in Germany (Lnder of Bavaria and Lower Saxony), while the other Member States visited did not exclude many cases from aid for the following year, and sent very few cases for prosecution.
Det betyder, at landbrugerne ikke behandles p samme mde i hele EU. 
This means that farmers are not treated in the same way throughout the EU.
Muligheden for anlžggelse af retssager er et vigtigt afskržkkelsesmiddel, som ikke udnyttes, nr der kun anlžgges f sager. Krydskontrolleres pržmiebetalingerne for handyr ikke med pržmiebetalingerne for ammekżer, er der en risiko for, at der betales stżtte for det samme dyr to gange, uanset at pržmierne betales for dyr af forskelligt kżn. 
Where few cases are prosecuted, an important dissuasive tool is lost; In the absence of such a cross-check between premium payments for male bovine animals and suckler cows, there is a risk that aid is paid twice for the same animal, notwithstanding the fact that the premiums are paid for animals of different sex.
Sdanne dobbeltbetalinger forekom i Portugal. 
Such duplicate payments occurred in Portugal.
3887/92, artikel 17, sidste afsnit. () 31.7.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 214/29 b) I 1998 blev der handlet levende kvžg mellem medlemsstaterne svarende til 1,6 millioner ton (ca. 
31.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/29 (b) in 1998, trade in live bovine animals between the Member States amounted to the equivalent of 1,6 million tonnes (around 20 % of EU production (1)).
Selv om det er fastsat i forordningerne, at medlemsstaterne skal samarbejde om at gennemfżre IFKS (2), var der i mange tilfžlde ikke etableret noget samarbejde om udveksling af oplysninger om flytning af kvžg mellem medlemsstaterne. 
Even if the Regulations provide that Member States should cooperate with each other to implement IACS (2), there was often a lack of such cooperation regarding the exchange of information on the movement of bovine animals between Member States.
Resultatet var, at dyrenes identitet og stżtteberettigelse i det importerende land ikke var kontrolleret godt nok. c) Der er ligheder mellem IFKS og den veterinžre lovgivning, som skyldes, at de ansvarlige tjenester samarbejdede, da reglerne blev udformet. 
This resulted in insufficient checks on the identification and eligibility of animals for aid in the importing Member State; (c) there are similarities between IACS and veterinary legislation which result from interservice cooperation at the time of drafting.
Med hensyn til den kontrol, der er fastlagt i den nye forordning om identifikation og registrering af kvžg (jf. punkt 18), var den veterinžre kontrol (dvs. identifikation og registrering af kvžg) og IFKS-kontrollen ikke koordineret. Det indebžrer en risiko for unżdvendigt dobbeltarbejde. 
Regarding the controls required by the new bovine identification and registration Regulation, as described in paragraph 18, there was a general lack of coordination between the veterinary (i.e. bovine identification and registration) and IACS inspections, with a risk of unnecessary duplication of effort.
Kontrolprocenten er den samme i begge forordninger (10 % af bedrifterne ved veterinžr kontrol og 10 % af stżtteansżgningerne ved IFKS-kontrol), men det er muligt at udfżre disse kontroller p grundlag af de samme stikprżver, da kriterierne for risikoanalyse er meget ens. 
Both Regulations stipulate checks on 10 % (of herds for veterinary inspections and of aid applications for IACS inspections) but it is quite possible to carry out these checks using similarsamples,astherisk-analysiscriteriaarealsoverysimi-lar.
Og nr kontrollerne ikke koordineres, er der desuden risiko for, at fejl, der konstateres i forbindelse med den ene kontrol, ikke automatisk meddeles den myndighed, der er ansvarlig for den anden (jf. punkt 42.a)). 
Furthermore, where there is an absence of coordination, there is a risk that errors found on one type of inspection will not automatically be communicated to the authority responsible for the other (see paragraph 42(a)).
KONKLUSION OG ANBEFALINGER Konklusion 72. 
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion 72.
I 1999 blev 63,6 % af EUGFL, Garantisektionens udgifter bearbejdet enten direkte eller indirekte i IFKS. 
In 1999, 63,6 % of EAGGF-Guarantee Section expenditure was processed by IACS, either directly or indirectly.
I 2004 vil der vžre tale om over 80 % (jf. punkt 6). 
In 2004, this percentage should exceed 80 % (see paragraph 6).
Det er derfor vigtigt, at systemet er hensigtsmžssigt udformet og stort set fungerer effektivt, s der kan fżres kontrol med EUŐs landbrugsudgifter, og uberettigede betalinger kan undgs. 
It is therefore important that this system has been well designed, and for the most part is effectively implemented in order to control the European UnionŐs agricultural expenditure and avoid undue payments.
De hovedprincipper, Kommissionen har fastlagt for IFKS, er tilfredsstillende. 
The overall concept of IACS by the Commission is satisfactory.
Systemet hviler p to sżjler, nemlig identifikation af marker og identifikation af dyr. 
The system rests on two pillars, namely the identification of parcels of agricultural land and the identification of animals.
Begge sżjler skal vžre solide (alle marker og alle dyr skal vžre korrekt identificeret), og alle elektroniske databaser og procedurer skal vžre udformet hensigtsmžssigt og vžre operationelle. 
Both pillars have to be sound (all parcels of agricultural land and all animals have to be correctly identified) and all computer databases and procedures have to be well designed and implemented.
IFKS udgżr et godt grundlag for kontrollen af hovedparten af EUGFL, Garantisektionens udgifter. 
IACS provides a sound basis for controlling most of the EAGGF-Guarantee Section expenditure.
(1) Kommissionens database Comext og EurostatŐs mnedlige statistikker vedrżrende kżd (11-2000). 
(1) CommissionŐs Comext database and Eurostat monthly statistics of meat (11-2000).
(2) Kommissionens forordning (EŻF) nr. 3887/92, artikel 15. 
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, Article 15.
I 1998, det sjette r efter oprettelsen af IFKS og det andet r efter udlżbet af overgangsperioden, blev der konstateret svagheder ved gennemfżrelsen af systemet i alle de besżgte medlemsstater. 
In 1998, the sixth year after its creation and the second after the end of the transitional period, there were weaknesses in the implementation of IACS in all the Member States visited.
Svaghederne bestod i nogle tilfžlde i, at dele af systemet ikke var gennemfżrt i en sdan grad, at det var muligt at foretage effektiv kontrol, og i nogle tilfžlde var dele af IFKS endog slet ikke ivžrksat (jf. punkt 69-70). 
The weaknesses sometimes concerned elements which had not yet reached an acceptable level of completion to allow effective controls and even elements of IACS which had not yet been put in place (see paragraphs 69 and 70).
Der blev ogs konstateret mangel p koordinering mellem den veterinžre kontrol og IFKS-kontrollen. 
A lack of coordination between the veterinary and IACS inspections could also be observed.
Dette har fżrt til dobbeltkontrol af landbrugerne og żgede udgifter for medlemsstaterne. 
This deficiency has resulted in a multiplication of the checks on farmers and financial burdens for the Member States.
Det ville vžre en fordel af indfżre integreret kontrol p dette omrde (jf. punkt 71). 
The implementation of integrated controls at this level would seem appropriate (see paragraph 71).
Kommissionens direktorat for regnskabsafslutning kontrollerer og reviderer udgifterne og plžgger medlemsstaterne finansielle sanktioner i forbindelse med proceduren for regnskabsafslutning. 
The CommissionŐs Clearance-of-Accounts Directorate is responsible for the control and audit of expenditure, and for imposing financial penalties on Member States.
Det forvalter og administrerer ogs IFKS, forbereder žndringer til forordningerne og udarbejder vejledninger til medlemsstaterne. 
It is also responsible for the management and administration of IACS, for the organisation of changes to the Regulations and for the issuing of guidance to Member States.
I forbindelse med regnskabsafslutningsarbejdet har direktoratet koncentreret sig om at undersżge medlemsstaternes forvaltning, og arbejdet med at udarbejde retningslinjer for IFKS og vejlede medlemsstaterne om systemets gennemfżrelse bżr prioriteres hżjere. 
While the Directorate has been concentrating on assessing the performance of Member States in the context of the clearance-of-accounts procedure, more attention should be given to the role of setting policy and guiding Member States.
Hertil kommer, at IFKS-forordningerne er komplicerede og ofte žndres. 
Furthermore IACS Regulations are complex and subject to frequent amendments.
Selv om Kommissionen har udarbejdet fortolkninger af forordningerne, fortolkes de stadig forskelligt i medlemsstaterne eller i regionerne inden for den samme medlemsstat, hvilket fżrer til, at EUŐs landbrugere ikke behandles ens. 
Despite interpretations given by the Commission, there are still different interpretations in the Member States or between the regions of the same Member State and, as a consequence, unequal treatment of the farmers of the European Union.
Kommissionen m gżre mere for at vejlede medlemsstaterne, s man undgr misforstelser, og s det sikres, at forordningerne anvendes korrekt og konsekvent i hele EU (jf. punkt 43-45). 
The Commission needs to do more to guide Member States so as to ensure that the Regulations are properly understood and correctly and consistently applied throughout the Union (see paragraphs43to45).
Med hensyn til den nye forordning om identifikation og registrering af kvžg, og isžr bestemmelserne om, at databaserne skal anerkendes som fuldt operationelle, var der i 1999 generelt ingen koordinering mellem Generaldirektoratet for Sundhed og Forbrugerbeskyttelse og Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug. 
As regards the new bovine identification and registration Regulations, and particularly the approval of the databases, there was a general lack of coordination between the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General and the Agriculture Directorate-General in 1999.
Desuden var proceduren for anerkendelse af databaser ikke god nok, og der fandtes ikke noget program til kontrol af, om de anerkendte databaser stadig er fuldt operationelle og opfylder betingelserne for anerkendelse (jf. punkt 42). 
Furthermore, the procedure for approving databases was not adequate and there was no monitoring programme to check whether approved databases remain fully operational and comply with the terms of approval (see paragraph 42).
Fžllesskabsforordningerne har adskillige usždvanlige bestemmelser. 
The Community Regulations contain several anomalies.
31. december 1991 Ń et af de afgżrende kriterier for berettigelse til arealstżtte Ń er meget omkostningskržvende at kontrollere (jf. punkt 48). 
The use of land at 31 December 1991, one of the main eligibility criteria for area aid, is very costly to control (paragraph 48).
Der er ogs konstateret uoverensstemmelser mellem de forskellige forordninger (jf. punkt 49-51). 
Inconsistencies between the various Regulations have also been noted (paragraphs49to51).
Fžllesskabsbestemmelserne om sanktioner var ikke tilstržkkelig pržcise i 1998, isžr med hensyn til arealstżtte (jf. punkt 52) og med hensyn til konstatering og kontrol af tilfžlde, hvor der forsžtligt var indgivet urigtige anmeldelser (jf. punkt 53). 
The Community provisions relating to sanctions were not sufficiently precise in 1998, in particular, with regard to area aid (paragraph 52), and to detection and monitoring of cases of deliberate false declarations (paragraph 53).
C 214/30 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende 31.7.2001 80. 
C 214/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 31.7.2001 80.
Medlemsstaterne indsender ikke tilstržkkeligt mange oplysninger, og kvaliteten af dem bżr forbedres. 
The extent and quality of the information provided by the Member States needs to be improved.
Kommissionen bżr fortsat gżre en indsats for at f forbedret og evalueret disse oplysninger, s den bedre kan fżre tilsyn med medlemsstaternes gennemfżrelse af IFKS, isžr nr det gžlder husdyrstżtteordningerne. 
The Commission should continue its efforts to improve and evaluate this information, in order to better manage the Member StatesŐ implementation of IACS, particularly for the animal aid schemes.
Medlemsstaterne er ofte lžnge om at indsende de nżdvendige oplysninger til Kommissionen (jf. punkt 54-60). 
Member States are often slow in providing necessary information to the Commission (see paragraphs 54 to 60).