natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen havde ikke givet medlemsstaterne retningslinjer vedrżrende de kontroller, de skulle foretage, og de bevisdokumenter, de skulle opbevare. De sagsmapper, Retten gennemgik p stedet, var derfor ufuldstžndige: Der manglede i mange tilfžlde en attest som bekržftelse af, at dyrene var blevet aflivet, og i de fleste af de kontrollerede medlemsstater var der enten ikke foretaget krydskontrol mellem kvžg identificeret i de nationale databaser og antallet af nedslagne dyr, eller kontrollen havde vist, at der var mange uoverensstemmelser. 
In the absence of Commission guidelines on the checks to be carried out by Member States and the supporting information to be kept, the beneficiary files examined on the spot were incomplete: in many cases slaughter certificates were missing, cross-checks of the number of cattle identified in the national databases against the number of cattle slaughtered had either not been carried out or revealed numerous discrepancies in most of the Member States audited.
Selv om mange af disse funktionssvigt kan tilskrives krisens omfang, s ville de have fet mindre betydning, hvis beredskabsplanerne havde vžret mere džkkende (jf. punkt 30-32), og Kommissionen havde opstillet mere pržcise kriterier. 
Even though many of these shortcomings can be attributed to the scale of the crisis, fuller contingency plans (see paragraphs 30 to 32) and more precise Commission criteria could have reduced the importance of them.
For s vidt angr de andre kategorier af dyr, som ikke var registreret, eftersom kravet om individuel identifikation i henhold til fžllesskabsbestemmelserne kun gjaldt for kvžg (82), kunne Retten ikke skaffe sig sikkerhed for, at det antal dyr, der var anmeldt, var korrekt. 
For the other categories of animals, which were not recorded because the Community regulations provided for individual identification only in the case of cattle (82), it was not possible to obtain assurance as to the reliability of the number declared.
Efter krisen pržciserede Kommissionen kriterierne for stżtteberettigelse, som er defineret i beslutning 90/424/EŻF samt de dokumenter, der skal vedlžgges, for at man kan f udbetalt fžllesskabsgodtgżrelse (jf. indrammet tekst nr. 7). 
After the crisis the Commission specified the eligibility criteria mentioned in Decision 90/424/EEC, together with the necessary documents for obtaining Community reimbursement (see Box 7).
Som Kommissionen selv anfżrer i sit svar til dette punkt, har den ikke žndret reglerne for stżtteberettigelse i beslutning 90/424/EŻF vžsentligt siden 1990. 
As the Commission itself said, in its reply to this paragraph, it had not made any substantial changes to the eligibility rules contained in Decision 90/424/EEC since 1990.
Denne beslutning er ikke pržcis nok og kan fortolkes p flere mder. 
The decision in question is not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in various ways.
Indrammet tekst nr. 7 Kriterierne for at f udbetalt godtgżrelse og den nżdvendige dokumentation blev fżrst pržciseret efterfżlgende Forebyggende nedslagninger i de medlemsstater, der havde importeret fr fra Det Forenede Kongerige i mneden forud for krisen; disse nedslagninger blev godtgjort i Frankrig, selv om Kommissionen ikke havde vedtaget en beslutning herom. 
Box 7 Criteria and documents needed for reimbursement to take place were specified ex post facto Protective culling in the Member States that had imported sheep from the United Kingdom the month before the crisis: in France there was reimbursement for the animals slaughtered, even though there was no Commission decision on the reimbursement.
Forebyggende nedslagninger af en del af dyrene omkring udbrudsstederne i Irland, Frankrig og Det Forenede Kongerige (inden for en zone p 3 km i Cumbria Ń udgifter til et samlet belżb af 112,3 millioner euro); Kommissionen traf beslutningen om godtgżrelse til Frankrig i juli 2002, til Det Forenede Kongerige og Irland i december 2003, og beslutningen om godtgżrelse til Nederlandene var under fžrdiggżrelse, da denne rapport blev udarbejdet. 
Partial protective culling around outbreaks in Ireland, France and the United Kingdom (3 km slaughter zone in Cumbria gave rise to expenditure to a sum total of some 112,3 million euro); reimbursement decisions were adopted by the Commission in July 2002 for France, in December 2003 for the United Kingdom and Ireland and, at the time when this report was being drafted, were still being finalised in the case of the Netherlands.
(82) Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1760/2000. 
(82) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.
Forebyggende nedslagninger i de medlemsstater, som ikke havde haft nogen udbrud (Belgien, Tyskland, Spanien og Portugal); Kommissionens beslutning blev fżrst vedtaget i august 2003, eller nžsten to r efter, at krisen var slut (83). 
Protective culling by Member States where there had been no outbreaks (Belgium, Germany, Spain and Portugal): the decision was not adopted by the Commission until August 2003, almost two years after the end of the crisis (83).
Beslutningerne om finansiering af driftsomkostninger med pržcisering af de oplysninger, der skal sendes til Kommissionen (udgifter til dyrlžge, destruktion og desinficering), disse beslutninger blev fżrst vedtaget i 2003 (84). 
Decisions on the financing of associated costs, with details of the information to be supplied to the Commission (veterinary costs, destruction costs, disinfecting costs): were not adopted until 2003 (84).
Fžllesskabet yder tilskud til medlemsstaternes udgifter p betingelse af, at disse straks har truffet de foranstaltninger, der er fastsat af Fžllesskabet, f.eks. at de, s snart mistanken om sygdommen er opstet, har isoleret bedriften, og efter den officielle bekržftelse af sygdommen har aflivet alle dyr og destrueret dem samt rengjort og desinficeret bedriften (85). 
The Community contributes to Member StatesŐ expenditure on condition that they have immediately implemented Community measures such as isolating holdings as soon as disease is suspected, combined with slaughter of all animals, destruction of the carcases and cleansing and disinfecting of premises as soon as the disease has been confirmed officially (85).
De finansieringsover-sigter, der i henhold til beslutningerne om finansielt tilskud til medlemsstaterne skal indsendes til Kommissionen, og som den skal bruge for at kunne afgżre, hvor stort et belżb de skal have udbetalt, omfatter kun en del af de elementer, der er nżdvendige for at kunne vurdere, om deres udgifter er stżtteberettigede, jf. Rdets beslutning 90/424/EŻF (86). 
However, the financial reports which, according to its decisions granting financial assistance to Member States, the Commission requires in order to determine the reimbursement due, only contain part of the information needed for assessing the eligibility of the expenditure mentioned in Council Decision 90/424/EEC (86).
(83) Kommissionens beslutninger 2003/619/EF (EUT L 216 af 28.8.2003, s. 
(83) Commission Decisions 2003/619/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p.
42), 2003/620/EF (EUT L 216 af 28.8.2003, s. 
42), 2003/620/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p.
45), 2003/621/EF (EUT L 216 af 28.8.2003, s. 
45), 2003/621/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p.
48) og 2003/622/EF (EUT L 216 af 28.8.2003, s. 
48) and 2003/622/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p.
53) om EF-tilskud til de forholdsregler over for mund-og klovesyge, som Belgien, Tyskland, Spanien og Portugal har taget. 
53), concerning a financial contribution by the Community towards the precautionary measures against FMD taken by Belgium, Germany, Spain and Portugal.
19)), Frankrigs (beslutning 2003/183/EF (EUT L 71 af 15.3.2003, s. 
19)), France (Decision 2003/183/EC (OJ L 71, 15.3.2003, p.
22)) og Irlands (beslutning 2003/184/EF (EUT L 71 af 15.3.2003, s. 
22)), Ireland (Decision 2003/184/EC (OJ L 71, 15.3.2003, p.
25)) vedkommende blev Kommissionens beslutninger om finansielt tilskud til driftsomkostningerne til udryddelse af mund-og klovesyge og til destruktion, desinficering og rengżring fżrst vedtaget den 14. marts 2003 og for Det Forenede Kongeriges vedkommende den 24. september 2003 (beslutning 2003/676/EF (EUT L 249 af 1.10.2003, s. 
25)) and 24 September 2003 for the United Kingdom (Decision 2003/676/G (OJ L 249, 1.10.2003, p.
45)). 
45)).
(85) Beslutning 90/424/EŻF, artikel 3, stk. 2. 
(85) Decision 90/424/EEC, Article 3(2).
3.3.2005 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 54/23 Der gik lang tid, fżr medlemsstaterne fik udbetalt tilskuddet 82. 
3.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 54/23 Delays in reimbursing Member StatesŐ expenditure 82.
Da medlemsstaterne havde vedtaget forskellige godtgżrelsesordninger (jf. punkt 62-73) og foretaget žndringer i anmodningerne om tilskud, blev det en kompliceret opgave for Kommissionen at finde frem til den stżtteberettigede vžrdi for hvert dyr eller i det mindste for hver dyrekategori. Endvidere herskede der usikkerhed om det nżjagtige antal nedslagne dyr. 
Due to the variety of compensation systems adopted by the Member States (see paragraphs 62 to 73) and the amendments to reimbursement claims submitted by Member States, the CommissionŐs task of identifying within reimbursement claims the eligible value of each animal, or, at least, each category of animal, proved to be complex.
Derfor havde hverken Irland, Nederlandene eller Det Forenede Kongerige fet udbetalt EF-tilskuddet pr. 1. oktober 2003, dvs. mere end to r efter, at epizootien var afsluttet, selv om producenterne generelt havde fet udbetalt godtgżrelsen senest tre mneder efter de nedslagninger, der var foretaget i 2001. 
This was why, as of 1 October 2003, more than two years after the end of the epidemic, neither Ireland, the Netherlands nor the United Kingdom had received any Community reimbursements, even though as a general rule farmers had received compensation within three months, after the culls in 2001.
Medfinansieringssatserne er kun blevet harmoniseret for svin 84. 
Cofinancing rates aligned in the pig sector 84.
I Rdets beslutning 90/424/EŻF er EF-tilskuddet defineret som vžrende lig med 60 % af medlemsstaternes stżtteberettigede udgifter (jf. tabellen) til bekžmpelse af mund-og klovesyge. 
Council Decision 90/424/EEC specifies that the Community contribution is equal to 60 % of the eligible costs incurred by the Member State in controlling FMD (see Table).
Forvaltningen og ansvaret for de specifikke regler for godtgżrelsessatserne og de kompensationer, der skal udbetales til producenterne, er fortsat delt mellem Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug og Generaldirektoratet for Sundhed og Forbrugerbe-skyttelse: Generaldirektoratet for Sundhed og Forbrugerbeskyttelse forvalter kompensationerne i forbindelse med de fleste dyresygdomme, undtagen kompensationerne for kvžg, der er aflivet p grund af transmissibel spongiform encephalopati (TSE), som fortsat forvaltes af Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug. 
Management and specific regulations concerning reimbursement rates and compensation payable to farmers continue to be divided between the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection and the Directorate General for Agriculture: the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection handles the compensation for most animal diseases, with the exception of compensation for cattle slaughtered because of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), which is still managed by the Directorate General for Agriculture.
Selv om Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug og Generaldirektoratet for Sundhed og Forbrugerbeskyttelse anvender samme godtgżrelses-sats i svinesektoren, s er dette ikke tilfžldet, nr der er tale om mund-og klovesyge og TSE. For mund-og klovesyge er satsen 60 %, mens den for TSE er 70 %. 
Even though the reimbursement rates applied by the Directorate General for Agriculture and the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection have been aligned for the pig sector, this does not apply for FMD and TSE: the rate is 60 % for FMD, while for TSE it is 70 %.
For de andre dyresygdomme, herunder svinepest, er satsen 50 %. 
For other animal diseases, including swine fever, it is 50 %.
Fżlgelig varierer godtgżrelsessatserne for de samme dyrekategorier afhžngigt af, hvilken sygdom der er rsag til nedslagningen. 
It follows that the reimbursement rates for the same categories of animal vary according to the disease that was the reason for slaughtering.
Retten har ikke kunnet finde nogen grund til, at der anvendes forskellige satser, hvilket har vžret tilfžldet siden 1996. 
The Court was unable to find the reason for these variations in the rates, which have been in force since 1996.
Producenterne bidrager ikke til Fžllesskabets finansiering af bekžmpelsesordningen 86. 
Farmers do not contribute to Community financing of the control system 86.
I sit svar til Rettens sžrberetning om svinepest (87) erkendte Kommissionen, at producenterne burde Čhave stżrre ansvar for de finansielle aspekter af udryddelsen af dyresyg-dommeÇ, og gav udtryk for, at den havde Čtil hensigt at vurdere muligheden for at hjžlpe medlemsstaterne med at oprette disse ordninger i forbindelse med revisionen af EF-retsforskrifterne vedrżrende disse spżrgsmlÇ. 
In its reply to the CourtŐs Special report on classical swine fever (87), the Commission recognised that Ôproducers should share greater responsibility for the financial aspects of the eradication of animal diseasesŐ and said that it intended Ôto evaluate the possibility of supporting the Member States in establishing these schemes, in the framework of the revision of Community legislation on these issuesŐ.
Kommissionen har ikke tilbudt en sdan hjžlp, hverken for s vidt angr svinepest eller mund-og klovesyge. 
The Commission has not made any proposals for such support, neither for classical swine fever nor for FMD.
Erhvervet som helhed (producenterne, hvad enten de er berżrt af epizootien eller ej) bidrager ikke til finansieringen af Fžllesskabets omkostninger i forbindelse med udryddelsen af sygdommen, selv om en del af erhvervet, nemlig de producenter, som hverken var berżrt af restriktionerne med hensyn til flytning af dyr eller af nedslagningerne, havde kunnet żge deres fortjeneste som fżlge af prisstigninger, som det fremgr af en universi-tetsundersżgelse foretaget p vegne af det irske landbrugsministerium (88). 
No-one in this branch of agriculture (neither farmers affected by the epidemic nor those unaffected) contributes to Community eradication costs, although, as a study carried out by a university on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture in Ireland shows (88), some of them, namely farmers who were unaffected by movement restrictions or slaughter measures, were able to benefit from price rises.
107 millioner euro i 2001, fżrst og fremmest som fżlge af żget eksport til Det Forenede Kongerige og hżjere priser for det eksporterede kżd. 
The study quantified agriculture-related benefits in Ireland as some 107 million euro for 2001, essentially due to the increase in the volume and prices of exports to the United Kingdom.
I nogle medlemsstater blev der imidlertid, uafhžngigt af Kommissionen, taget initiativer, enten af den offentlige sektor eller af erhvervet selv. Disse initiativer blev delvist taget for at mindske de nationale udgifter forbundet med udryddelsen eller som supplement hertil. 
However, some initiatives were taken in some Member States independently of the Commission, by either the public sector or the agricultural sector in question, partly with a view to reducing or supplementing the national expenditure on eradication.
Efter svinepestkrisen var der i Nederlandene blevet oprettet en dyresundhedsfond, som skulle betale godtgżrelserne i tilfžlde af en epidemi. 
In the Netherlands, following the classical swine fever crisis, an animal health fund was set up, to pay compensation in the event of an epidemic.
Denne fond fr tilfżrt midler fra tre kilder: producenterne, EU-budgettet (hvis det er relevant) og det nederlandske landbrugsbudget. 
It is funded from three sources: farmers, the European budget (where relevant) and the Dutch agriculture budget.
I Det Forenede Kongerige er man for żjeblikket ved at undersżge mulighederne for at indfżre en lignende ordning. 
The majority of contributions come from farmers. A similar system is currently under study in the United Kingdom.
I Frankrig opretter producenter, der er medlemmer af sammenslutninger for sundhedsbeskyttelse inden for hus-dyrbruget, p frivillig basis udligningskasser, som i tilfžlde af en krise skal anvendes til udbetaling af kompensation til medlemmer, hvis tab som fżlge af restriktionerne med hensyn til handel med dyr ikke džkkes af EF-tilskuddet (89). 
In France farmers who are members of animal health associations (groupe-ments de dfense sanitaire) voluntarily set up equalisation funds to compensate members who, in times of crisis, incur losses as a result of measures restricting animal movements if there is no Community reimbursement to compensate for such losses (89).
(87) Sžrberetning nr. 1/2000, punkt 81. 
(87) Special Report No 1/2000, paragraph 81.
(88) Economic Evaluation of Foot and Mouth Disease, udfżrt af Trinity College Dublin, Department of Agriculture and Food, Irland, marts 2002. 
(88) Economic evaluation of foot-and-mouth disease, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Ireland, March 2002, carried out by Trinity College, University of Dublin.
(89) Der er ogs udviklet forsikringsordninger i Spanien og i Tyskland. 
(89) Systems of insurance have also been developed in Spain and Germany.
C 54/24 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 3.3.2005 89. 
C 54/24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.3.2005 89.
Hertil kommer, at selv om nogle af disse initiativer vil kunne reducere medlemsstaternes bidrag til bekžmpelsesordningen, er der ingen af dem, som garanterer, at udgifterne for Fžllesskabet vil kunne mindskes. 
Moreover, although some of these initiatives may result in a reduction of Member StatesŐ contributions to the system for controlling disease, none of them offers any guarantee that the cost to the Community can be reduced.
KOMMISSIONENS FORVALTNING EFTER KRISEN Aktionen p veterinžromrdet 90. 
COMMISSION MANAGEMENT AFTER THE CRISIS Action in the veterinary field 90.
I december 2002 forelagde Kommissionen et nyt forslag til direktiv. 
In December 2002 the Commission presented a new proposal for a directive.
(90) Rdets direktiv 2003/85/EF. 
(90) Council Directive 2003/85/EC.
(91) Direktiv 2003/85/EF, artikel 72, stk. 10. 
(91) See Directive 2003/85/EC, Article 72(10).
(92) Direktiv 2003/85/EF, artikel 2 og bilag I. 
(92) See Directive 2003/85/EC, Article 2 and Annex I.
(93) I henhold til artikel 86 i direktiv 2003/85/EF skal medlemsstaterne fastsžtte sanktioner. 
(93) Article 86 of Directive 2003/85/EC requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties.
Sanktionerne skal vžre effektive, st i et rimeligt forhold til overtrždelsen og have afskržkkende virkning. 
Penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Men de bestemmelser, der er vedtaget indtil nu, har ikke i tilstržkkelig grad taget en ržkke aspekter i betragtning, og med hensyn til disse aspekter er bestemmelserne fortsat minimale: a) Der er ikke indfżrt et incitament til at żge producenternes interesse i hurtigt at anmelde sygdommen, som f.eks. at gżre udbetalingen af tilskuddet betinget af, at dette er sket. b) Medlemsstaternes frist til at underrette Kommissionen om det fżrste udbrud er ikke blevet kortere, men er stadig 24 timer efter, at sygdommen er bekržftet, selv om erfaringerne har vist, at denne frist kunne gżres kortere. c) Det er obligatorisk at dyrene aflives, s snart udbruddet er bekržftet; en oplysning der nu foreligger hurtigere, men det er ikke pržciseret, at nedslagningen skal foreg straks, og inden de administrative procedurer vedrżrende beregningen af dyrenes vžrdi er afsluttet. 
However, the measures adopted thus far have not taken some aspects sufficiently into account and remain minimal in these respects: (a) the desirability of farmersŐ notifying the disease quickly has not been reinforced by means of incentive measures or by imposing conditions on the payment of compensation to them; (b) the time allowed for Member States to notify the Commission of the first outbreak has not been reduced and is still 24 hours from confirmation of the disease, whereas experience showed that this time could be shortened; (c) slaughter of animals is compulsory as soon as an outbreak is confirmed.
(94) Beslutning 2002/995/EF. 
(94) Decision 2002/995/EC.
(95) Rdets direktiv 2002/99/EF. 
(95) Council Directive 2002/99/EC.
(96) Forordning (EF) nr. 1774/2002. 
(96) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 .
(97) KOM(2002) 729 endelig udg. af 13. december 2002. 
(97) COM (2002) 729 final of 13 December 2002.
(98) Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 21/2004 af 17. december 2003 om indfżrelse af en ordning for identifikation og registrering af fr og geder (EUT L 5 af 9.1.2004, s. 
(98) Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals (OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p.
3.3.2005 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 54/25 93. 
3.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 54/25 93.
Hertil kommer, at Kommissionen, som det ogs var tilfžldet i forbindelse med svinepest (99), heller ikke p dette omrde har ajourfżrt sin indledende undersżgelse, selv om flere af de data, der ikke forel dengang, har vžret disponible siden krisen i 2001 (100). 
Moreover, as was the case for classical swine fever (99), the Commission has not updated its initial study, even though some of the data that were missing at the time have become available since the 2001 crisis (100).
Cost-benefit-analysen af fžllesskabsstrategien med anvendelse af nżdvaccination og tilladelse til konsum af kżd fra vaccinerede dyr p EUŐs omrde er ikke blevet ajourfżrt p trods af, at Det Internationale Kontor for Epizootier (jf. punkt 3) har žndret fristerne for, hvornr de handelsmžssige aktiviteter kan genoptages efter en epizooti. 
The cost/benefit analysis of the new Community strategy of using emergency vaccination and authorising consumption of meat from animals vaccinated on European territory has not been updated, despite the changes introduced by the Office International des Epizooties (see paragraph 3) concerning the time limits for resuming commercial activities after an epidemic.
Under revisionen konstaterede Retten, at mange lande, hvoraf nogle havde indget veterinžraftaler med Fžllesskabet, fortsatte med at blokere for eksport fra EU, efter at de ramte medlemsstater igen havde fet status som smittefrit omrde (101). 
At the time of the audit the Court pointed out that a number of countries, some of which had concluded veterinary agreements with the Community, continued to block exports from the EU after the countries concerned had recovered their disease-free status (101).
Kommissionen har imidlertid ikke sat tal p, hvor meget eksportstoppet har kostet p fžllesskabsniveau. 
The Commission, however, has not quantified the Community-level cost of export bans.
Sdanne eksport-stop risikerer at blive mere omfattende, nr EU anvender nżdvaccination, fordi man risikerer, at tredjelande, som ikke vaccinerer, vanskeligere vil kunne acceptere eksport fra omrder, hvor der anvendes vaccination. 
There is a risk of bans becoming more significant if the EU pursues emergency vaccination, because of the risk that third countries that do not vaccinate may be reluctant to accept exports from zones that do.
(99) Sžrberetning nr. 1/2000, punkt 82. 
(99) Special Report No 1/2000, paragraph 82.
(100) The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, 21. juni 2002, The Stationery Office, London, punkt 1.23-1.29. 
(100) The 2001 Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, 21 June 2002, The Stationery Office, London, paragraphs 1.23 to 1.29.
De er vurderet til mellem 4 500 og 5 400 millioner pund sterling alene for Det Forenede Kongerige (dvs. mellem 7 213 og 8 656 millioner euro efter kursen i december 2001). 
In the case of the 2001 crisis they were valued at between 4 500 and 5 400 million pounds sterling for the United Kingdom alone (between 7 213 and 8 656 million euro at December 2001 rates).