natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Five of the above mentioned newly acceding Member States (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia) were visited and 25 slaughterhouses that benefited from EU funding (five in each Member State) were audited on the spot. 
Five of the above mentioned newly acceding Member States (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia) were visited and 25 slaughterhouses that benefited from EU funding (five in each Member State) were audited on the spot.
The audit work at the Commission services responsible for food safety included an examination of documentation and procedures concerning food safety audit and inspection missions, the management of training programmes and relevant guidelines for use by FBOs and competent authorities. 
The audit work at the Commission services responsible for food safety included an examination of documentation and procedures concerning food safety audit and inspection missions, the management of training programmes and relevant guidelines for use by FBOs and competent authorities.
At the Commission services responsible for funding, the audit included the examination of documentation concerning the rural development programmes (RDPs) through the pre-accession funds (Sapard), EAGGF and EAFRD and examination of relevant documentation concerning the implementation of the programmes in the Member States visited during the audit. 
At the Commission services responsible for funding, the audit included the examination of documentation concerning the rural development programmes (RDPs) through the pre-accession funds (Sapard), EAGGF and EAFRD and examination of relevant documentation concerning the implementation of the programmes in the Member States visited during the audit.
20 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. 
20 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.
In the Member States, the audit focused on the examination of the management systems for implementing the EU hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses, and included a review of the contribution of EU-funded programmes to this end. 
In the Member States, the audit focused on the examination of the management systems for implementing the EU hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses, and included a review of the contribution of EU-funded programmes to this end.
The audit at slaughterhouses examined the application of the related procedures. 
The audit at slaughterhouses examined the application of the related procedures.
15 Special Report No 14/2012 – Implementation of EU hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses of countries that joined the EU since 2004 
15 Special Report No 14/2012 – Implementation of EU hygiene legislation in slaughterhouses of countries that joined the EU since 2004
16 OBSERVATIONS SUPERVISION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS 22. 
16 OBSERVATIONS SUPERVISION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS 22.
The audit examined the Commission’s supervision of the actions taken in Member States and the Member States’ supervision of FBOs’ activities. 
The audit examined the Commission’s supervision of the actions taken in Member States and the Member States’ supervision of FBOs’ activities.
The Court’s audit found that overall, the design of systems for supervision of hygiene requirements by the Commission and the competent authorities in the Member States visited (paragraph 18) was adequate, but that there was scope for improvement of their implementation in a number of important respects as set out hereunder. 
The Court’s audit found that overall, the design of systems for supervision of hygiene requirements by the Commission and the competent authorities in the Member States visited (paragraph 18) was adequate, but that there was scope for improvement of their implementation in a number of important respects as set out hereunder.
The implementation of hygiene requirements had not yet been completely reviewed by the Commission (paragraphs 24 to 25). 
The implementation of hygiene requirements had not yet been completely reviewed by the Commission (paragraphs 24 to 25).
At the level of the Member States audited, there were weaknesses in the implementation of the MANCPs (paragraphs 26 to 27) and the performance of veterinary controls (paragraph 28). 
At the level of the Member States audited, there were weaknesses in the implementation of the MANCPs (paragraphs 26 to 27) and the performance of veterinary controls (paragraph 28).
THE COMMISSION HAS ONLY PARTIALLY REVIEWED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 HYGIENE PACKAGE IN THE MEMBER STATES 24. 
THE COMMISSION HAS ONLY PARTIALLY REVIEWED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 HYGIENE PACKAGE IN THE MEMBER STATES 24.
The Health and Consumers DG checks the implementation of hygiene requirements in Member States through inspections carried out by its FVO Directorate. 
The Health and Consumers DG checks the implementation of hygiene requirements in Member States through inspections carried out by its FVO Directorate.
The FVO performs some 250 inspection missions per year, of which more than one third are carried out in third countries. 
The FVO performs some 250 inspection missions per year, of which more than one third are carried out in third countries.
The Health and Consumers DG establishes priorities for their inspections on an annual basis, and considers risk, regulatory factors, current strategy and previous inspection results. 
The Health and Consumers DG establishes priorities for their inspections on an annual basis, and considers risk, regulatory factors, current strategy and previous inspection results.
Sector-specific inspections21, general follow-up inspections and specific follow-up inspections are performed. 
Sector-specific inspections21, general follow-up inspections and specific follow-up inspections are performed.
In 2006, the FVO reviewed the implementation of the requirements of the 2004 hygiene package (paragraph 8) concerning the red meat sector in all the Member States that joined the EU since 2004. 
In 2006, the FVO reviewed the implementation of the requirements of the 2004 hygiene package (paragraph 8) concerning the red meat sector in all the Member States that joined the EU since 2004.
A follow-up of unsatisfactory levels of implementation identified during that review was being completed at the time of the audit in 2011. 
A follow-up of unsatisfactory levels of implementation identified during that review was being completed at the time of the audit in 2011.
In the poultry meat sector, however, the review started only in 2008. 
In the poultry meat sector, however, the review started only in 2008.
At the time of the audit in 2011 (five years after the deadline for implementation of the hygiene requirements), this review and its subsequent follow-up were also still in progress22. 
At the time of the audit in 2011 (five years after the deadline for implementation of the hygiene requirements), this review and its subsequent follow-up were also still in progress22.
21 E.g. 
21 E.g.
‘Food Hygiene — food of animal origin’ audits carried out in 2006 in all Member States. 
‘Food Hygiene — food of animal origin’ audits carried out in 2006 in all Member States.
22 Estonia and Romania had not yet been covered. 
22 Estonia and Romania had not yet been covered.
17 SHORTCOMINGS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIANNUAL NATIONAL CONTROL PLANS (MANCP) BY THE MEMBER STATES AUDITED 26. 
17 SHORTCOMINGS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIANNUAL NATIONAL CONTROL PLANS (MANCP) BY THE MEMBER STATES AUDITED 26.
The implementation of Member States’ MANCPs (paragraph 9 and Glossary) is evaluated by the FVO during general follow-up audits. 
The implementation of Member States’ MANCPs (paragraph 9 and Glossa-ry) is evaluated by the FVO during general follow-up audits.
Weaknesses in that implementation23 were identified by the FVO in the MANCPs of three of the newly adhering Member States visited (Hungary, Romania and Slovenia), which reduced their suitability as a basis for the performance of official controls. 
Weaknesses in that implementation23 were identified by the FVO in the MANCPs of three of the newly adhering Member States visited (Hungary, Romania and Slovenia), which reduced their suitability as a basis for the performance of official controls.
In addition, the Court’s audit found that in Romania the controls planned by the MANCP for 2009 had not been fully implemented. 
In addition, the Court’s audit found that in Romania the controls planned by the MANCP for 2009 had not been fully implemented.
WEAKNESSES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF MEMBER STATES’ VETERINARY CONTROLS 28. 
WEAKNESSES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF MEMBER STATES’ VETERINARY CONTROLS 28.
Member State competent authorities should carry out official veterinary controls in slaughterhouses in accordance with documented procedures24. 
Member State competent authorities should carry out official veterinary controls in slaughterhouses in accordance with documented proced-ures24.
Effective controls require these procedures to be clearly established and correctly implemented (see Annex II). 
Effective controls require these procedures to be clearly established and correctly implemented (see Annex II).
The audit found that in general there were suitable procedures in place to comply with the requirements. 
The audit found that in general there were suitable procedures in place to comply with the requirements.
However, specific shortcomings were detected. 
However, specific shortcomings were detected.
These related to problems with coordination and the documentation of sampling programmes and control results (see Box 1). 
These related to problems with coordination and the documentation of sampling programmes and control results (see Box 1).
23 E.g., in Hungary, the MANCP did not provide sufficient information on specific aspects relating to the poultry sector; responsibilities of approved veterinarians; the risk assessment; and the system used to establish the frequency of the official controls. 
23 E.g., in Hungary, the MANCP did not provide sufficient information on specific aspects relating to the poultry sector; responsibilities of approved veterinarians; the risk assessment; and the system used to establish the frequency of the official controls.
In Romania, the MANCP did not provide sufficient information on whether sanctions were effective, proportionate and dissuasive; the prioritisation of official controls was not detailed in a harmonised way; and the plan did not cover the procedures for verifying the work of official veterinarians. 
In Romania, the MANCP did not provide sufficient information on whether sanctions were effective, proportionate and dissuasive; the prioritisation of official controls was not detailed in a harmonised way; and the plan did not cover the procedures for verifying the work of official veterinarians.
In Slovenia, the MANCP did not provide sufficient information on procedures to ensure impartiality and consistency of official controls; and the plan was incomplete. 
In Slovenia, the MANCP did not provide sufficient information on procedures to ensure impartiality and consistency of official controls; and the plan was incomplete.
24 Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. 
24 Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.
18 IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES BY THE FBOs 29. 
18 IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES BY THE FBOs 29.
The Court examined the implementation by the FBOs of hygiene and food safety requirements at slaughterhouses, under the supervision of Member States’ competent authorities. 
The Court examined the implementation by the FBOs of hygiene and food safety requirements at slaughterhouses, under the supervision of Member States’ competent authorities.
The audit found that overall there were suitable procedures in place in FBOs to comply with the requirements. 
The audit found that overall there were suitable procedures in place in FBOs to comply with the requirements.
Nevertheless the following observations show that the implementation of hygiene and food safety requirements by the FBOs still requires a reinforced verification by the national competent authorities and a close supervision of the latter by the Commission. 
Nevertheless the following observations show that the implementation of hygiene and food safety requirements by the FBOs still requires a reinforced verification by the national competent authorities and a close supervision of the latter by the Commission.
BOX 1 WEAKNESSES IN OFFICIAL VETERINARY CONTROLS In Poland, the audit of official veterinary controls by the competent authorities was, at the time of the Court’s audit, performed under the responsibility of the same inspection services which perform veterinary controls. 
BOX 1 WEAKNESSES IN OFFICIAL VETERINARY CONTROLS In Poland, the audit of official veterinary controls by the competent authorities was, at the time of the Court’s audit, performed under the responsibility of the same inspection services which perform veterinary controls.
This poses a risk to the independence of the work. 
This poses a risk to the independence of the work.
In Romania one report of an inspection carried out by the competent authorities to verify the performance of the official veterinarian’s tasks contained findings regarding the activity of the slaughterhouse and the implementation of own controls which are in fact the responsibility of the FBO. 
In Romania one report of an inspection carried out by the competent authorities to verify the performance of the official veterinarian’s tasks contained findings regarding the activity of the slaughterhouse and the implementation of own controls which are in fact the responsibility of the FBO.
Member States’ veterinary services check whether the design and implementation of FBOs’ HACCP systems meet regulatory requirements. 
Member States’ veterinary services check whether the design and implementation of FBOs’ HACCP systems meet regulatory requirements.
In Hungary, however, the central veterinary services did not have an overview of the application of HACCP. 
In Hungary, however, the central veterinary services did not have an overview of the application of HACCP.
Furthermore, the information concerning shortcomings frequently identified was not sufficiently collated. 
Furthermore, the information concerning shortcomings frequently identified was not sufficiently collated.
Consequently, it was not possible to supervise the overall application and implementation of the HACCP system. 
Consequently, it was not possible to supervise the overall application and implementation of the HACCP system.
In Slovenia there was a lack of clear guidelines and standard documentation for reporting veterinary control results, resulting in differences in the reporting of controls. 
In Slovenia there was a lack of clear guidelines and standard documentation for reporting veterinary control results, resulting in differences in the reporting of controls.
This created a risk to their quality and completeness. 
This created a risk to their quality and completeness.
In some of the small slaughterhouses visited during the audit, there was an inadequate demarcation between the responsibilities of the FBO and those of the official veterinarian. 
In some of the small slaughterhouses visited during the audit, there was an inadequate demarcation between the responsibilities of the FBO and those of the official veterinarian.
This may affect the independence of official controls. 
This may affect the independence of official controls.
19 SHORTCOMINGS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS 30. 
19 SHORTCOMINGS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS 30.
The audit noted weaknesses in the implementation of hygiene requirements in nine of the 25 slaughterhouses visited. 
The audit noted weaknesses in the implementation of hygiene requirements in nine of the 25 slaughterhouses visited.
These related to inappropriate cleaning, disinfection and stunning equipment, the separation of ‘clean’ from ‘dirty’ areas and a lack of adequate storage facilities for meat declared unfit for human consumption (see Box 2). 
These related to inappropriate cleaning, disinfection and stunning equipment, the separation of ‘clean’ from ‘dirty’ areas and a lack of adequate storage facilities for meat declared unfit for human consumption (see Box 2).
BOX 2 SHORTCOMINGS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS Although the flow of production in slaughterhouses should be designed to prevent cross-contamination, in one slaughterhouse visited in Romania staff could move freely from dirty to clean areas and the audit team had to go back on the flow from the dirty area to the clean area because no other exit was available. 
BOX 2 SHORTCOMINGS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS Although the flow of production in slaughterhouses should be designed to prevent cross-contamination, in one slaughterhouse visited in Romania staff could move freely from dirty to clean areas and the audit team had to go back on the flow from the dirty area to the clean area because no other exit was available.
In a second Romanian slaughterhouse the meat from the storage facilities had to be brought back to the cutting plant to be labelled for dispatch. 
In a second Romanian slaughterhouse the meat from the storage facilities had to be brought back to the cutting plant to be labelled for dispatch.
In both slaughterhouses, the lack of separation in space or time of activities in the slaughterhouse may present a risk of cross-contamination. 
In both slaughterhouses, the lack of separation in space or time of activities in the slaughterhouse may present a risk of cross-contamination.
In a third slaughterhouse, knives were not stored properly during the slaughtering operation. 
In a third slaughterhouse, knives were not stored properly during the slaughtering operation.
In a fourth slaughterhouse, staff handled pig carcasses immediately after cleaning the floors without first washing their hands. 
In a fourth slaughterhouse, staff handled pig carcasses immediately after cleaning the floors without first washing their hands.
In a slaughterhouse visited in the Czech Republic, facilities for cleaning hands and boots were not appropriate to ensure that all staff actually used them before entering the clean areas. 
In a slaughterhouse visited in the Czech Republic, facilities for cleaning hands and boots were not appropriate to ensure that all staff actually used them before entering the clean areas.
In this case and in a second slaughterhouse, there was no clear separation between different areas, allowing free access to facilities without taking appropriate disinfection measures. 
In this case and in a second slaughterhouse, there was no clear separation between different areas, allowing free access to facilities without taking appropriate disinfection measures.
In a third slaughterhouse visited, cages used to transport live chickens were not completely cleaned after the unloading of the birds, which could lead to a risk of cross-contamination. 
In a third slaughterhouse visited, cages used to transport live chickens were not completely cleaned after the unloading of the birds, which could lead to a risk of cross-contamination.
In one slaughterhouse visited in Poland, the stunning equipment used did not function properly, causing unnecessary distress to the animals as replacement equipment was not readily available to finish the stunning in a reasonable time. 
In one slaughterhouse visited in Poland, the stunning equipment used did not function properly, causing unnecessary distress to the animals as replacement equipment was not readily available to finish the stunning in a reasonable time.
In another slaughterhouse visited in Poland there were no available separate cooling facilities for the storage of meat unfit for human consumption. 
In another slaughterhouse visited in Poland there were no available separate cooling facilities for the storage of meat unfit for human consumption.
20 INSUFFICIENT ASSURANCE RELATED TO THE HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS (HACCP) SYSTEM 31. 
20 INSUFFICIENT ASSURANCE RELATED TO THE HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS (HACCP) SYSTEM 31.
Appropriate documentation (for example, concerning the cold chain) forms an essential part of HACCP systems25. 
Appropriate documentation (for example, concerning the cold chain) forms an essential part of HACCP systems25.
The HACCP plans of the slaughterhouses visited provided for the recording of monitoring activities of critical control points (CCPs). 
The HACCP plans of the slaughterhouses visited provided for the recording of monitoring activities of critical control points (CCPs).
However, in five of the slaughterhouses visited, HACCP procedures were not applied for CCPs related to temperature and the documentation of CCP checks was incomplete and/or unreliable (see Box 3). 
However, in five of the slaughterhouses visited, HACCP procedures were not applied for CCPs related to temperature and the documentation of CCP checks was incomplete and/or unreliable (see Box 3).
This reduced the assurance of the reported critical control. 
This reduced the assurance of the reported critical control.
25 Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 (see also the Glossary). 
25 Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 (see also the Glossary).
BOX 3 INCOMPLETE CHECKS ON CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS In a slaughterhouse visited in Slovenia, the maximum temperature of meat before dispatching fixed by the regulations (7°C) was used as a limit for CCP, and temperature readings were systematically taken. 
BOX 3 INCOMPLETE CHECKS ON CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS In a slaughterhouse visited in Slovenia, the maximum temperature of meat before dispatching fixed by the regulations (7°C) was used as a limit for CCP, and temperature readings were systematically taken.
If a temperature reading found that meat ready for dispatch was not cold enough, it should be chilled further. 
If a temperature reading found that meat ready for dispatch was not cold enough, it should be chilled further.
However the audit noted documented deliveries of meat from the slaughterhouse with temperature readings over 8°C without further chilling. 
However the audit noted documented deliveries of meat from the slaughterhouse with temperature readings over 8°C without further chilling.
In a slaughterhouse visited in Hungary, the temperature in chilling rooms was subject to a CCP. 
In a slaughterhouse visited in Hungary, the temperature in chilling rooms was subject to a CCP.
However the temperature monitoring system did not give sufficient warnings in case of temperature deviations from levels set in the HACCP plan. 
However the temperature monitoring system did not give sufficient warnings in case of temperature deviations from levels set in the HACCP plan.
In another slaughterhouse visited, the documentation for CCPs was only completed when problems occurred. 
In another slaughterhouse visited, the documentation for CCPs was only completed when problems occurred.
No documentary evidence of temperature readings within permitted levels was available. 
No documentary evidence of temperature readings within permitted levels was available.
In one slaughterhouse visited in Romania, the temperature records in chilling rooms were not considered reliable. 
In one slaughterhouse visited in Romania, the temperature records in chilling rooms were not considered reliable.
The same temperature was consistently recorded in these records for temperature readings taken four times a day over several weeks by the same person. 
The same temperature was consistently recorded in these records for temperature readings taken four times a day over several weeks by the same person.
In a second slaughterhouse visited in Romania, the temperature records were filled in advance showing always ‘C’ for ‘compliant’. 
In a second slaughterhouse visited in Romania, the temperature records were filled in advance showing always ‘C’ for ‘compliant’.