natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Verification of the appropriateness of methods of sampling, methods of analysis and detection tests. 
Verification of the appropriateness of methods of sampling, methods of analysis and detection tests.
Any other activity or information required for the effective functioning of the official controls. 
Any other activity or information required for the effective functioning of the official controls.
The new regulations merge, harmonise and simplify detailed and complex hygiene requirements previously contained in a number of Council directives covering the hygiene of foodstuffs and the production and placing on the market of products of animal origin. 
The new regulations merge, harmonise and simplify detailed and complex hygiene requirements previously contained in a number of Council directives covering the hygiene of foodstuffs and the production and placing on the market of products of animal origin.
They innovate in making a single, transparent hygiene policy applicable to all food and all food operators right through the food chain ‘from the farm to the fork’, together with effective instruments to manage food safety and any future food crises throughout the food chain. 
They innovate in making a single, transparent hygiene policy applicable to all food and all food operators right through the food chain ‘from the farm to the fork’, together with effective instruments to manage food safety and any future food crises throughout the food chain.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s conclusion that overall the design of systems for supervision of hygiene requirements by the Commission and the competent authorities in the newly acceding Member States were adequate. 
The Commission welcomes the Court’s conclusion that overall the design of systems for supervision of hygiene requirements by the Commission and the competent authorities in the newly acceding Member States were adequate.
The Commission agrees with the Court that the observed weaknesses do not individually or collectively call into question the overall design of the systems to ensure that hygiene requirements are applied. 
The Commission agrees with the Court that the observed weaknesses do not individually or collectively call into question the overall design of the systems to ensure that hygiene requirements are applied.
Under EU food law, food business operators are required to ensure the safety of the food they produce. 
Under EU food law, food business operators are required to ensure the safety of the food they produce.
Member States are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of food law through a system of official controls and the Commission oversees that these official control systems are effective in ensuring food safety across the Union. 
Member States are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of food law through a system of official controls and the Commission oversees that these official control systems are effective in ensuring food safety across the Union.
Within the Commission, the Health and Consumers DG takes the lead and verifies the enforcement of EU food law, in part through the audits carried out by its Directorate F — FVO under Regulation no. 
Within the Commission, the Health and Consumers DG takes the lead and verifies the enforcement of EU food law, in part through the audits carried out by its Directorate F — FVO under Regulation no.
(EC) 882/2004 on official feed and food controls. 
(EC) 882/2004 on official feed and food controls.
Where weaknesses are identified, the FVO issues recommendations and the actions taken by the Member States to address these recommendations are systematically followed up to ensure real improvements in food safety. 
Where weaknesses are identified, the FVO issues recommendations and the actions taken by the Member States to address these recommendations are systematically followed up to ensure real improvements in food safety.
35 Concerning investment support to slaughterhouses under rural development, Article 28(c) of Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) stipulates that support under this measure shall be granted for investments which respect the Community standards applicable to the investment concerned (e.g. EU hygiene standards). 
35 Concerning investment support to slaughterhouses under rural development, Article 28(c) of Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) stipulates that support under this measure shall be granted for investments which respect the Community standards applicable to the investment concerned (e.g.
If this is not respected the support shall be recovered. 
If this is not respected the support shall be recovered.
The Commission is committed to encouraging Member States to effectively perform their veterinary controls and will use every opportunity to do so for the future. 
The Commission is committed to encouraging Member States to effectively perform their veterinary controls and will use every opportunity to do so for the future.
IV. and V. The Commission will continue to work with the Member States using the mechanisms and processes already established (guidelines, MANCP network, annual reports) to ensure that multiannual national control plans (MANCPs) are useful tools in ensuring the effectiveness of official controls. 
IV. and V. The Commission will continue to work with the Member States using the mechanisms and processes already established (guidelines, MANCP network, annual reports) to ensure that multiannual national control plans (MANCPs) are useful tools in ensuring the effectiveness of official controls.
As part of the Commission’s general audit process, the shortcomings identified by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in the first round of MANCPs produced by the Member States were the subject of detailed feedback to each Member State. 
As part of the Commission’s general audit process, the shortcomings identified by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in the first round of MANCPs produced by the Member States were the subject of detailed feedback to each Member State.
Clear standard operating procedures between the Commission and the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC) adequately address mutual exchange of information on a regular basis. 
Clear standard operating procedures between the Commission and the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC) adequately address mutual exchange of information on a regular basis.
Through regular meetings with Member States on the ‘Better training for safer food’ (BTSF) programme, the Commission ensures a clear involvement of Member States in the design of the annual BTSF programmes and regular feedback on their implementation. 
Through regular meetings with Member States on the ‘Better training for safer food’ (BTSF) programme, the Commission ensures a clear involvement of Member States in the design of the annual BTSF programmes and regular feedback on their implementation.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION VII. 
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION VII.
The Commission is of the opinion that it has adequately addressed in its legislation and in the Sapard and IPARD programmes the issues of sustainability and the selection of projects. 
The Commission is of the opinion that it has adequately addressed in its legislation and in the Sapard and IPARD programmes the issues of sustainability and the selection of projects.
However, the final implementation of the projects is under decentralised management. 
However, the final implementation of the projects is under decentralised management.
The future rural development policy post 2013 clearly requires Member States to set selection criteria in the rural development programmes. 
The future rural development policy post 2013 clearly requires Member States to set selection criteria in the rural development programmes.
The Commission, through FVO audits, regularly reviews the implementation of food safety legislation by the Member States, and this is a constant and ongoing task. 
The Commission, through FVO audits, regularly reviews the implementation of food safety legislation by the Member States, and this is a constant and ongoing task.
The Commission will continue to work with the Member States using the mechanisms and processes already established. 
The Commission will continue to work with the Member States using the mechanisms and processes already established.
Under the rural development policy, the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) provides a single framework for monitoring and evaluation of all rural development interventions. 
Under the rural development policy, the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) provides a single framework for monitoring and evaluation of all rural development interventions.
The CMEF establishes means for improving programme performance, ensuring the accountability of programmes and allowing an assessment of the achievement of established objectives. 
The CMEF establishes means for improving programme performance, ensuring the accountability of programmes and allowing an assessment of the achievement of established objectives.
The Commission set up, as part of the European Rural Development Network, an Evaluation Network, to facilitate an exchange of expertise and support implementation and evaluation of the rural development policy. 
The Commission set up, as part of the European Rural Development Network, an Evaluation Network, to facilitate an exchange of expertise and support implementation and evaluation of the rural development policy.
The overall aim of the evaluation network is to help establish good practice and capacity building in evaluation, thereby increasing the utility of monitoring and evaluation as tools for programme management. 
The overall aim of the evaluation network is to help establish good practice and capacity building in evaluation, thereby increasing the utility of monitoring and evaluation as tools for programme management.
In the rural development policy post 2013, the monitoring and evaluation system will be further simplified and improved. 
In the rural development policy post 2013, the monitoring and evaluation system will be further simplified and improved.
36 OBSERVATIONS Combined reply to paragraphs 23. to 26. 
36 OBSERVATIONS Combined reply to paragraphs 23. to 26.
Within the Commission, the Health and Consumers DG takes the lead and verifies the enforcement of EU food law, in part through the audits carried out by its Directorate F — FVO under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official feed and food controls. 
Within the Commission, the Health and Consumers DG takes the lead and verifies the enforcement of EU food law, in part through the audits carried out by its Directorate F — FVO under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official feed and food controls.
The FVO reports on its audit findings and makes recommendations for improvement where appropriate. 
The FVO reports on its audit findings and makes recommendations for improvement where appropriate.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 27. 
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 27.
With regard to the implementation of its MANCP by Romania in 2009, the Commission continues to monitor the implementation of official controls by Romania through a range of mechanisms, including through FVO audits, review of the annual report on the implementation of the MANCP and by other reports required under various sectoral legislation. 
With regard to the implementation of its MANCP by Romania in 2009, the Commission continues to monitor the implementation of official controls by Romania through a range of mechanisms, including through FVO audits, review of the annual report on the implementation of the MANCP and by other reports required under various sectoral legislation.
EU hygiene regulations provide the competent authorities with the possibility to allow alternative control arrangements as long as the objective of the legislation is met. 
EU hygiene regulations provide the competent authorities with the possibility to allow alternative control arrangements as long as the objective of the legislation is met.
Box 1 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 does not require supervision of official controls to be carried out by services different from the service performing official controls. 
Box 1 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 does not require supervision of official controls to be carried out by services different from the service performing official controls.
Supervision, through verifying the effectiveness of official controls and implementing corrective action, is a normal function of line management. 
Supervision, through verifying the effectiveness of official controls and implementing corrective action, is a normal function of line management.
The requirement for independent scrutiny relates only to the conduct of audits by the competent authority. 
The requirement for independent scrutiny relates only to the conduct of audits by the competent authority.
It is the responsibility of the FBO to implement own controls and it is the responsibility of the competent authorities to verify that the FBO has an appropriate own control system in place. 
It is the responsibility of the FBO to implement own controls and it is the responsibility of the competent authorities to verify that the FBO has an appropriate own control system in place.
If this is not the case, the competent authorities have to act, report the deficiency and if required take action, which is what the Court is describing. 
If this is not the case, the competent authorities have to act, report the deficiency and if required take action, which is what the Court is describing.
EU legislation does not require the central competent authority to have ‘an overview of the application of HACCP systems’ . 
EU legislation does not require the central competent authority to have ‘an overview of the application of HACCP systems’ .
The absence of such an overview is not a hindrance to the competent authority’s supervision of the effective and appropriate application overall of the HACCP system. 
The absence of such an overview is not a hin-drance to the competent authority’s supervision of the effective and appropriate application overall of the HACCP system.
The FVO systematically follows up on the implementation by all Member States of its recommendations through a combination of general and specific follow-up audits (as outlined in paragraph 24 of the Court’s observations). 
The FVO systematically follows up on the implementation by all Member States of its recommendations through a combination of general and specific follow-up audits (as outlined in paragraph 24 of the Court’s observations).
These verification mechanisms continue to be deployed in the Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and after, and corrective actions have already been taken in the majority of cases. 
These verification mechanisms continue to be deployed in the Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and after, and corrective actions have already been taken in the majority of cases.
Any remaining open recommendations continue to be the subject of monitoring through to completion of necessary corrective actions. 
Any remaining open recommendations continue to be the subject of monitoring through to completion of necessary corrective actions.
The shortcomings identified by the FVO in the first round of MANCPs produced by the Member States were the subject of detailed feedback to each Member State as part of the general audit process. 
The shortcomings identified by the FVO in the first round of MANCPs produced by the Member States were the subject of detailed feedback to each Member State as part of the general audit process.
Member States prepare their MANCPs with the aid of guidelines contained in Commission Decision 2007/363/ EC of 21 May 2007 on guidelines to assist Member States in preparing the single integrated multiannual national control plan provided for in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
Member States prepare their MANCPs with the aid of guidelines contained in Commission Decision 2007/363/ EC of 21 May 2007 on guidelines to assist Member States in preparing the single integrated multiannual national control plan provided for in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
With a view to the continuous improvement of MANCPs, a network of Member State experts was established in 2008 by the FVO and meets twice a year. 
With a view to the continuous improvement of MANCPs, a network of Member State experts was established in 2008 by the FVO and meets twice a year.
This network provides a forum for the exchange of good practice. 
This network provides a forum for the exchange of good practice.
In addition, Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the Member States to provide the Commission with an annual report on the implementation of their MANCP. 
In addition, Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the Member States to provide the Commission with an annual report on the implementation of their MANCP.
These annual reports are reviewed by the FVO and feedback is given to the Member States. 
These annual reports are reviewed by the FVO and feedback is given to the Member States.
See reply to paragraph 28. 
See reply to paragraph 28.
The Commission is committed to ensuring that Member States effectively perform the controls required under EU food law and, through a range of measures including the audits carried out by the FVO and their follow-up, BTSF training, high level contacts with the Member States and ultimately infringement proceedings, works to ensure that EU food law is implemented throughout the Union. 
The Commission is committed to ensuring that Member States effectively perform the controls required under EU food law and, through a range of measures including the audits carried out by the FVO and their follow-up, BTSF training, high level contacts with the Member States and ultimately infringement proceedings, works to ensure that EU food law is implemented throughout the Union.
Box 2 See reply to paragraph 30. 
Box 2 See reply to paragraph 30.
In Box 2 the Court observes that in one slaughterhouse in Romania ‘the meat from the storage facilities had to be brought back to the cutting plant to be labelled for dis-patch.’ 
In Box 2 the Court observes that in one slaughterhouse in Romania ‘the meat from the storage facilities had to be brought back to the cutting plant to be labelled for dis-patch.’
This is not a deficiency and is not an issue for food safety as long as cross-contamination is avoided. 
This is not a deficiency and is not an issue for food safety as long as cross-contamination is avoided.
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 requires slaughterhouses to have available lockable cooling facilities for the storage of meat unfit for human consumption. 
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 requires slaughterhouses to have available lockable cooling facilities for the storage of meat unfit for human consumption.
However, it should be noted that competent authorities may accept alternative arrangements. 
However, it should be noted that competent authorities may accept alternative arrangements.
Box 3 See reply to paragraph 30. 
Box 3 See reply to paragraph 30.
Regarding the Court’s observation concerning the system for monitoring the temperature in chilling rooms in a slaughterhouse in Hungary, it should be noted that alternative monitoring systems (e.g. manual monitoring) are acceptable as long as the objective of the legislation is met. 
Regarding the Court’s observation concerning the system for monitoring the temperature in chilling rooms in a slaughterhouse in Hungary, it should be noted that alternative monitoring systems (e.g. manual monitoring) are acceptable as long as the objective of the legislation is met.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Box 4 See reply to paragraph 30 The corrective measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 require improvements in slaughter hygiene and review of process controls as well as withdrawal from the market as the case may be. 
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Box 4 See reply to paragraph 30 The corrective measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 require improvements in slaughter hygiene and review of process controls as well as withdrawal from the market as the case may be.
Nonetheless, sending the samples for analysis as soon as possible is good practice. 
Nonetheless, sending the samples for analysis as soon as possible is good practice.
Box 5 See reply to paragraph 30. 
Box 5 See reply to paragraph 30.
In the EU hygiene legislation, the legislator does not provide a definition of ‘small food businesses’ because it is the competent authorities and FBOs who are best placed to decide who should be covered by this definition and who could profit from the derogation foreseen for ‘small slaughterhouses’. 
In the EU hygiene legislation, the legislator does not provide a definition of ‘small food businesses’ because it is the competent authorities and FBOs who are best placed to decide who should be covered by this definition and who could profit from the derogation foreseen for ‘small slaughterhouses’.
The Commission considers that this does not result in an inconsistency with the requirement that all establishments, irrespective of their size, have to apply the hygiene legislation in force and Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 which allows derogations for small slaughterhouses. 
The Commission considers that this does not result in an inconsistency with the requirement that all establishments, irrespective of their size, have to apply the hygiene legislation in force and Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 which allows derogations for small slaughterhouses.
For example, the minimum requirement foresees to take a sample once a week independent from the size of slaughterhouse. 
For example, the minimum requirement fore-sees to take a sample once a week independent from the size of slaughterhouse.
Small slaughterhouses can do less based on a risk analysis. 
Small slaughterhouses can do less based on a risk analysis.
The smooth implementation of the BTSF programme is ensured firstly by formal meetings every two months between the Health and Consumers DG and the EAHC, and secondly by routine information exchanged on a day-to-day basis. 
The smooth implementation of the BTSF programme is ensured firstly by formal meetings every two months between the Health and Consumers DG and the EAHC, and secondly by routine information exchanged on a day-to-day basis.
Clear standard operating procedures between the Commission and EAHC have been formalised and adopted in 2011 to adequately address working relations, including the regular exchange of information and consultation. Special Report No 14/2012 – Implementation of EU hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses of countries that joined the EU since 2004 
Clear standard operating procedures between the Commission and EAHC have been formalised and adopted in 2011 to adequately address working relations, including the regular exchange of information and consultation. Special Report No 14/2012 – Implementation of EU hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses of countries that joined the EU since 2004
The Commission started in 2010 to exchange views with Member States on possible methods for disseminating and monitoring dissemination. 
The Commission started in 2010 to exchange views with Member States on possible methods for disseminating and monitoring dissemination.
However, the Commission considers that a ‘common framework at the EU level for the manner in which the dissemination activities are to be per-formed’ would not increase effectiveness or efficiency. 
However, the Commission considers that a ‘common framework at the EU level for the manner in which the dissemination activities are to be per-formed’ would not increase effectiveness or efficiency.
To assess dissemination and its progress is one of the objectives of the Commission’s regular evaluation of the BTSF programmes. 
To assess dissemination and its progress is one of the objectives of the Commission’s regular evaluation of the BTSF programmes.