natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Similar constraints exist at slaughterhouse level. (b) The term Ôkeeper of bovine animalsŐ is interpreted in different ways The legislation has defined a keeper as any natural or legal person responsible for the animals, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, including during transportation or at a market. 
Samalaadsed piirangud ilmnevad ka tapamajade osas. b) Veiste pidaja mistet tlgendatakse erinevalt Íigusaktides mratletakse loomapidajana mistahes fsiline vi juriidiline isik, kes vastutab loomade eest ajutiselt vi alaliselt, sealhulgas nende transportimisel ja turustamisel.
The aim of this broad definition is to include all the categories of person who take charge of cattle from an animalŐs birth or entry into the European Union until its death or exit from the European Union. 
Selle laia mratluse eesmrgiks on hlmata kiki osapooli, kes vastutavad veiste eest alates nende snnihetkest vi Euroopa Liitu sisenemisest kuni nende surmani vi Euroopa Liidust vljumiseni.
The Member States have sometimes interpreted the term ÔkeeperŐ in different ways. 
Liikmesriigid on loomapidaja mistet mnikord erinevalt tlgendanud.
France has included assembly centres and knackersŐ yards in its cattle identification and registration system. This is not the case in the three other Member States visited. (c) The passports of dead animals and of animals exported to another Member State, for which new passports are issued, are not always invalidated In the Member States visited, passports are required for all movements of cattle. 
Kolmes lejnud vaadeldud liikmesriigis on olukord erinev. c) Alati ei ole kehtetuks kuulutatud loomapasse, mis kuuluvad surnud loomadele vi teise liikmesriiki eksporditud loomadele, kelle kohta on vljastatud uus loomapass Klastatud liikmesriikides kasutatakse loomapasse veiste kikide liikumiste korral.
The legislation stipulates that when an animal dies, the passport must be returned by the keeper to the competent authority at the latest seven days after the animalŐs death. 
Íigusaktides nhakse ette, et looma surma korral tagastatakse tema loomapass loomapidaja poolt pdevale ametiasutusele hiljemalt seitsme peva jooksul prast looma surma.
If the animal is sent to a slaughterhouse, the manager of the slaughterhouse is responsible for returning the passport to the competent authority. 
Kui loom on saadetud tapamajja, vastutab loomapassi pdevale ametiasutusele tagastamise eest tapamaja juhataja.
The mechanisms for returning passports are either non-existent or ineffective. 
Loomapasside tagastamise mehhanismid kas puuduvad ldse vi on ebaefektiivsed.
(1) The number of movements recorded by traders and assembly centres is so large that the register, which must be kept manually, is a source of error. 
Tpsustatud ei ole loomapasside tagastamise ja selle kontrollimist puudutavaid (1) Kaubastajate vi kogumiskeskuste poolt registreeritavate liikumiste arv on sedavrd suur, et ksitsi peetav register muutuks omakorda vigade allikaks.
The number of animals present cannot be calculated automatically and the completeness of the entries must be verified (provision must be made for cross-checks). 
Olemasolevate registreeritud loomade arvu automaatne vhendamine ei ole lubatav ning tagada tuleb registreeritud andmete tielikkus (vajadusel tuleb ette nha ristkontrolli vimalus).
4.2.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/15 (d) Detailed implementing rules governing the return of passports and checks on the returns have not been specified. 
4.2.2005 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 29/15 d) ksikasjalikke rakenduseeskirju.
In addition, no procedure for invalidating these passports has been laid down. 
Peale selle ei ole nende loomapasside osas stestatud kehtetuks tunnistamise menetlust.
It is sometimes difficult to establish a link with the country or holding of origin. For animals from third countries, the system in place is based on the cattle being identified on the first holding of destination and thus on ÔnaturalisationŐ on entry, which does not always allow a link to be established with the country or holding of origin. (b) The length of the cattle identification numbers varies (two letters identifying the Member State followed by a maximum of 12 digits) With regard to trade in cattle, the non-standardisation of ear-tag codes causes administrative problems for a number of Member States. 
Kolmandatest riikidest prinevate loomade kohta kehtiv identifitseerimisssteem lhtub nende esimesest sihtmajandist, seega nende ŇnaturalisatsioonistÓ riiki sisenemisel, mis ei vimalda alati mratleda sidet pritoluriigi vi -majandiga. b) Veiste identifitseerimisnumbri pikkus varieerub (2 thte, mis mratlevad liikmesriiki, millele jrgneb kuni 12 numbrit) Krvamrkidele kantud koodide htse standardi puudumine phjustab mnedes liikmesriikides loomade vahetamisel haldusprobleeme.
The Commission has no mandate to adopt implementing measures in respect of national databases 40. 
Komisjonil vastuvtmiseks siseriiklike andmebaaside suhtes 40.
In contrast to the provisions concerning other parts of the system (ear tags, passports, registers, on-the-spot checks, administrative sanctions and transitional measures), the Commission has no legal competence (2) to adopt implementing rules on setting up and controlling the various national databases (3) (see paragraph 28). 
Erinevalt ssteemi teiste elementide (krvamrkide, loomapasside, registrite, kohapealsete kontrollide, halduskaristuste ja leminekumeetmete) kohta kehtestatud korrast, ei laiene komisjoni pdevus (2) rakendusmeetmete vastuvtmisele ja kontrollile erinevate siseriiklike andmebaaside kohta (3) (vt punkt 28).
This major weakness in the system explains the differences noted in the Member States visited, as every Member State has developed its own database which operates in accordance with criteria which the Member State itself defined (see table 4). 
See ssteemi oluline puudus vimaldab selgitada liikmesriikide klas-tamisel theldatud suuri erinevusi, kuivrd iga liikmesriik oli vlja ttanud omaenda andmebaasi, mille aluseks on andmed, mis vastavad liikmesriigi poolt vabalt valitud kriteeriumidele (vt tabel 4).
(2) A broad interpretation of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 would have enabled the Commission to play a more active role in respect of recognition of the operational character of the databases. 
(2) Mruse (E) nr 1760/2000 artikli 22 like 2 laiem tlgendamine oleks vimaldanud komisjonil aktiivsemalt osaleda andmebaaside tieliku kasutuselevtu tunnustamise protsessis.
This opinion is not shared by the Commission, which considers that Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 does not give it any prerogative concerning recognition of databases and that only Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 provides a legal base for recognition of the operational character of the databases. 
Komisjon ei jaga seda seisukohta ning leiab, et mruse (E) nr 1760/2000 artikli 22 like 2 kohaselt ei anta komisjonile mingeid volitusi andmebaaside tunnustamise osas ning et ksnes mruse (E) nr 1760/2000 artikli 6 lige 3 annab igusliku aluse andmebaaside tieliku kasutuselevtu tunnustamiseks.
(3) In view of the importance of setting up computerised databases with an operational character that is equivalent in the various Member States, the Commission had proposed in 1998 that it should be given responsibility for defining implementing arrangements for achieving this objective. 
(3) Andes endale aru elektrooniliste andmebaaside rakendamise olulisusest ning sellest, et nende andmebaaside erinevates liikmesriikides kasutuselevtu tase peab olema vrdne, esitas komisjon 1998. aastal ettepaneku, mille kohaselt ta peaks vlja ttama selle eesmrgi saavutamiseks vajalikud rakenduseeskirjad.
This proposal also included a request that a transparent procedure for the exchange of data between the Member States should be put in place for the exchange of information on animals and their movements. 
Ettepanekus sisaldus muuhulgas soov rakendada lbipaistvat ssteemi liikmesriikide vaheliseks teabevahetuseks, mis hlmaks andmeid loomade ja nende liikumiste kohta.
4.2.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/17 41. 
4.2.2005 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 29/17 41.
The only competence assigned to the Commission by the basic regulation (1) is the assessment of whether the databases are fully operational (2). 
Ainsaks algmrusega (1) komisjoni pdevusalasse anta-vaks valdkonnaks on otsustamine selle le, kas andmebaasid on ties ulatuses tle rakendatud.
This recognition allows Member States to abolish the use of passports for movements of cattle on national territory (see paragraph 39). 
(2) Selle tunnustuse saamine vimaldab liikmesriikidel loobuda veiste loomapasside kasutamisest veiste liikumisel liikmesriigi territooriumi piires (vt punkt 39).
However, Community legislation does not specify the conditions for this recognition by the Commission. 
Samas ei stestata henduse seadusandlusega nimetatud komisjonipoolse tunnustamise tingimusi.
This legal void explains why the CommissionŐs management of this recognition procedure has undergone such profound changes (see paragraphs 55 to 62). 
Sellise igusliku lngaga on seletatav asjaolu, et nimetatud tunnustamismenetlus on oluliselt muutunud (vt punktid 55Đ62).
The aim of on-the-spot checks is to verify that all components of the system have been put in place and are operating satisfactorily. 
Veiste identifitseerimise ja registreerimise ssteemiga seotud seadusandlusega mratletakse kohapealse kontrolli lbiviimise ssteem ning spetsiifiliste karistuste ssteem.
These movement restrictions make it impossible to buy or sell the animals, which can have a very disruptive impact on the economic activity of the farm concerned. 
Nimetatud liikumispiirangud muudavad vimatuks veiste ostmise ja mgi, mis vib olulisel mral mjutada knealuse majandi majandustegevust.
The penalties under Community legislation are applied in different ways in the four Member States visited. 
Neljas klastatud liikmesriigis rakendatakse henduse igusaktidega ette nhtud karistusi erinevalt.
The findings made in the four Member States visited demonstrate that the system of on-the-spot checks and the penalty mechanism were working with varying degrees of effectiveness at the time of the audit. 
Neljas klastatud liikmesriigis tuvastatud leidudest ilmneb, et kohapealse kontrolli vahendi ja karistuste mehhanismi toimimine auditi lbiviimise ajal ei olnud tasakaalus.
(1) Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. 
(1) Mruse (E) nr 1760/2000 artikli 6 lige 3.
(2) In addition, the printing of bar codes on passports should be obligatory. 
(2) Sealjuures on vtkoodide trkkimine loomapassidele kohustuslik.
Box 2 In Italy, veterinary officials carried out identification checks at the same time as health checks. 
Lahter 2 Itaalias kontrollisid veterinaarid identifitseerimist samaaegselt loomatervise kontrolliga.
In the course of these checks welfare aspects took priority over the technical and administrative aspects of identification. 
Kontrollide ajal domineerisid loomade heaolu ksimused loomade identifitseerimisega seotud tehniliste ja haldus-ksimuste le.
No information relating specifically to the identification checks was included in the control reports. 
Kontrolliaruanne ei sisaldanud mingit identifitseerimise kontrolliga seotud spetsiifilist teavet.
Because of the small number of infringements found, the number of penalties was also very limited. 
Arvesse vttes tuvastatud rikkumiste vga vikest arvu, oli ka rakendatud karistuste hulk rmiselt piiratud.
In Germany there was no procedure for following up anomalies. 
Saksamaal ei rakendatud tuvastatud krvalekallete osas jrelevalve-menetlust.
The control reports were not sufficiently detailed. 
Kontrolliaruanded ei olnud piisavalt ksikasjalikud.
In Great Britain the inspectors did not use the lists of movement anomalies to target their checks. 
Suurbritannias ei kasutanud inspektorid loomade liikumise alaste krvalekallete nimekirja oma kontrollitegevuse paremaks suunamiseks.
The control system, comprising risk analysis, the penalty mechanism and the control statistics, was very appropriate to checks on farmers before the national databases were set up. 
Enne riiklike andmebaaside loomist kasutatud riskiana-lsi, karistusmehhanisme ja kontrollistatistikat hlmav kontrollissteem oli loomakasvatajate kontrollimiseks hsti kohandatud.
However, it does not focus adequately on the control requirements in respect of other keepers, i.e. traders, markets, assembly centres and slaughterhouses (see box 3). 
Samas ei keskendunud see kontrollissteem piisavalt lejnud loomapidajate, nagu kaubastajad, turud, kogumiskeskused ja tapamajad, kontrollimisele (vt lahter 3).
Where ÔidentificationŐ checks had to carried out in a slaughterhouse, on a traderŐs premises or in an assembly centre, the usual control arrangements were difficult to apply in view of the number of animals and the large volume of movements recorded by these various keepers. 
Samas on traditsioonilisi toiminguid identifitseerimise kontrollimiseks tapamajas, kaubastaja vi kogumiskeskuse puhul raske praktiliselt rakendada, kuivrd loomade ja nende erinevate loomapidajate poolt registreeritud liikumiste arv on vga suur.
Furthermore, this control system has not been adapted to take into account the information available following the introduction of the databases and the opportunities for carrying out a more effective on-the-spot check using lists of anomalies detected by the database, such as double entries, delays in reporting, retagging rates, etc. Lastly, the content of on-the-spot checks has not been defined. 
Lisaks sellele ei olnud nimetatud kontrolli kohandatud andmebaaside tlerakendamise jrgselt kttesaadava teabe arvesse vtmiseks ning kohapealsete kontrollide efektiivsemaks muutmiseks, kasutades andmebaaside abil vljatoodavaid tpiliste krvalekallete loendeid, nagu kahekordne registreerimine, teatamisega hilinemine, mbermrgistamiste mr jne. Lisaks ei mratletud kohapealsete kontrollide ulatust.
These checks do not deal systematically with all the technical and administrative aspects of identification. 
Samas ei ksitletud nende kontrollide kigus sstemaatiliselt kiki identifitseerimisega seonduvaid tehnilisi ja haldusksimusi.
C 29/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2005 46. The Community legislation allows on-the-spot checks under the identification and registration system to be carried out in combination with other inspections and, with IACS inspections in particular. From the farmersŐ point of view the two regulations are very similar. 
C 29/18 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 4.2.2005 46. henduse igusaktid vimaldavad veiste identifitseerimise ja registreerimise ssteemiga seotud kohapealseid kontrolle viia lbi samaaegselt muude inspekteerimistoimingutega, eesktt htse haldus-ja kontrollissteemi (IACS) raames lbiviidavate ins-pekteerimistoimingutega. Loomakasvatajate seisukohalt on mlemad mrused vga sarnased.
The existence of two specific regulations containing a number of differences gives rise to problems of interpretation and logistical problems in the field (see box 4). 
Kahe mitmeid erinevusi sisaldava mruse olemasolu toob kaasa tlgendus-ja logistilisi probleeme (vt lahter 4).
FINDINGS CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL Absence of precise rules on the management of national databases 47. 
LEIUD SEOSES SSTEEMI HALDAMISEGA HENDUSE TASANDIL Tpsete eeskirjade puudumine siseriiklike andmebaaside haldamise osas 47.
As there are no rules on how the databases are to be managed, the databases are very different from one Member State to another. 
Kuivrd kski eeskiri ei tpsusta andmebaaside haldamise meetodeid, on andmebaasid erinevates liikmesriikides rmiselt erinevad.
No provision was made for any guidance by the Commission when the databases were set up in the Member States. 
Ette ei ole nhtud ka komisjonipoolset koordineerivat tegevust andmebaaside loomiseks liikmesriikides.
Each Member State developed its own database and bore a large part of the design and development costs (1) (the United Kingdom developed two independent systems; see paragraph 62). 
Iga liikmesriik arendas vlja oma andmebaasi ning kandis olulise osa selle lesehitamise ja arendamisega seotud kuludest (1) (hendku-ningriigis ttati vlja kaks sltumatut ssteemi, vt punkt 62).
The databases were not developed according to a common operating system laid down at European level and the procedures for processing the data were not harmonised. 
Andmebaaside vljaarendamine ei toimunud leeuroopalisel tasandil vlja ttatud ldise kava kohaselt ning andmete ttlemiseks kasutatavad menetlused ei htlustatud.
In some cases the intermediate keepers make no report, with the result that the audit trail for the animals concerned is incomplete. 50. 
Teatavatel juhtudel ei esita vahendavad loomapidajad mingeid teateid, seega ei ole asjassepuutuvate loomade liikumise jlgitavus tielik.
Box 5 illustrates the disparities in the situations encountered in the Member States in 2002. 
Lahter 5 illustreerib liikmesriikides 2002. aastal esinenud ebahtlast olukorda.
Box 5 In order to check the information contained in the databases the Member States have defined the anomalies that are to be detected automatically by the system. 
Lahter 5 Andmebaasides sisalduva teabe kontrollimiseks on liikmesriigid mratlenud teatavad krvalekalded, mida ssteem avastab automaatselt.
Examples of movement anomalies are: off-farm movements which were not followed by any entry record by another keeper (farmer, trader, slaughterhouse, etc), an exit date from the holding after the entry date for the subsequent holding, discrepancies between the exit date recorded by one keeper and the entry date recorded by the next. This last example may be an indication of failure to record an intermediate movement and hence loss of audit trail during a movement. 
Nidetena liikumiste osas esinevate krvalekallete kohta vib tuua jrgmisi: teade majandist vljaveo kohta, millele ei jrgne teise loomapidaja (pllumajandustootja, kaubastaja, tapamaja) teadet sisseveo kohta, teade majandist vljaveo kohta, mille kuupev on hilisem kui teise majandisse sisseveo kuupev, ajavahe he loomapidaja poolt registreeritud vljaveo ja jrgmise loomapidaja poolt registreeritud sisseveo vahel.
For example, when an animal declared for ÔexitŐ by one keeper was not declared as an ÔentryŐ by another keeper, the German system automatically generated an anomaly if the difference was two days, the French system generated an anomaly for a difference of 30 days, while the Italian and British systems made no provision for this anomaly. 
Niteks kui he loomapidaja registreeritud vljaveoteatele ei jrgne teise loomapidaja sisseveoteadet, loeb Saksamaa ssteem selle krvalekaldeks, kui ajavahe letab kaks peva, Prantsusmaa ssteemis on kriitiliseks ajavahemikuks 30 peva, samas kui Itaalia ja Suurbritannia ssteemid ei pea sellist olukorda ldse krvalekaldeks.
On 1 January 2002, the Italian database contained 2 305 076 ÔlostŐ animals. 
2002. aasta 1. jaanuari seisuga sisaldas Itaalia andmebaas 2 305 076 ŇkadunudÓ looma.
These were animals that had been reported as live ÔexitsŐ by one keeper but were not registered as ÔentriesŐ by another keeper. 
Nende loomade kohta oli loomapidaja teatanud looma majandist vljaveost, kuid kski teine loomapidaja polnud esitanud sisseveoteadet.
The causes of this situation were either absence of notification and notification errors, or recording errors and miscellaneous computer errors. 
Sellise olukorra phjuseid tuleb otsida teatamisssteemi puudustest ja vigadest vi arvutissteemi sisestamisvigadest vi teistest tehnilistest probleemidest.
In Great Britain, the same type of situation had led the authorities to set up a Ôlong dead programmeŐ which made it possible to eliminate anomalies relating to animals which must be considered dead. Where an animal was registered with two keepers at the same time, the German and British systems generated an anomaly on the first day of the overlap. The French system generated an anomaly if the overlap lasted 15 days and the Italian system made no provision for this anomaly. 
Suurbritannias kivitasid ametiasutused samasuguse olukorra tttu spetsiaalse Ňlong deadÓ programmi, mis vimaldas parandada krvalekalded, mis olid seotud loomadega, keda vis pidada surnuks. Kui loom oli registreeritud samaaegselt mitme loomapidaja juures, mratlesid Saksamaa ja Suurbritannia ssteemid sellise olukorra krvalekaldena samal peval, Prantsusmaa ssteem kahe ndala prast ning Itaalia ssteemis ei olnud selline krvalekalle mratletud.
4.2.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/19 51. 
4.2.2005 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 29/19 53.
The Member States had developed few quality indicators for the national databases. 
Liikmesriigid on riiklike andmebaaside osas vlja ttanud ksikuid kvaliteedinitajaid.
No appropriate anomaly threshold had been set. 
Kohast krvalekallete piirvr-tust mratletud ei ole.
The absence of a defined compatible format for exchanging data between national databases prevents complete traceability in respect of cattle moving from one Member State to another. 
Riiklike andmebaaside vahelise andmeedastusformaadi puudumine hirib hest liikmesriigist teise liikuvate veiste liikumise tielikku jlgimist.
C 29/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2005 54. 
C 29/20 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 4.2.2005 54.
When the databases were set up, the Commission did not provide assistance and did not give any advice to those Member States that requested it. 
Andmebaaside loomisel ei ole komisjon pakkunud omapoolset abi ega nustamist liikmesriikidele, kes on seda ksinud.
For example, Great Britain asked the Commission for assistance during the design phase of its system, but it was refused. 
Niteks palus Suurbritannia komisjoni abi oma ssteemi kavandamise faasis, kuid seda abi komisjon ei vimaldanud.
Absence of criteria for recognition of the fully operational character of databases 55. 
Puuduvad kriteeriumid andmebaaside tieliku kasutuselevtu tunnustamiseks 55.
The Commission issues an opinion (1) on the fully operational character of the national databases before a Member State abolishes passports for movements of cattle on its national territory (see paragraph 26). 
Enne kui liikmesriik vib loobuda loomapasside kasutamisest loomade liikumisel antud liikmesriigi piires, langetab komisjon otsuse (1) andmebaaside tieliku kasutuselevtu kohta (vt punkt 26).
The Commission then publishes its decision recognising the national database to be fully operational. 
Seejrel avaldab komisjon otsuse riikliku andmebaasi tieliku kasutuselevtu kohta.
Box 6 contains some examples of conditions found in Commission decisions recognising the operational character of databases. 
Lahtris 6 on esitatud mned nited komisjoni antud otsustes andmebaaside tieliku kasutuselevtu kohta esitatud tingimustest.
Box 6 The Commission has very often laid down conditions with which the Member State must comply, to ensure that its database is entirely reliable. 
Lahter 6 Komisjon on vga tihti esitanud liikmesriikidele tingimusi, mida liikmesriik peab arvestama, et tema andmebaas oleks tiel mral usaldusvrne.
When the Luxembourg database was recognised as fully operational, the Commission brought to light, among other things, two weaknesses, namely that the competent authority was unable to correct errors or omissions rapidly and that the time allowed for reporting movements, births and deaths was more than seven days. 
Luksemburgi andmebaasi tunnustamisel ti komisjon vlja kaks puudust: asjaolu, et pdeval ametiasutusel ei olnud vimalik andmebaasis esinevaid vigu ja lnki kiiresti parandada vi tita ning asjaolu, et liikumisest, snnist ja surmast teatamise thtaeg oli pikem kui seitse peva.
In the case of Denmark, the Commission drew attention to the same two weaknesses. 
Taani puhul ti komisjon vlja samad kaks puudust.
In addition, passports were not authenticated and there was no reporting of premium status. 
Lisaks ei olnud tagatud loomapasside autentsuskontroll ning puudusid andmed mratud lisatasude kohta.