natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The passports of traded animals from another Member State were not returned to the Member State of origin. 
Potni listi živali, namenjenih za trgovino, iz druge države članice se niso vračali v izvorno državo članico.
These passports were stored either at the Ministry of Agriculture or by local authorities to await their possible return to the Member State of origin. 
Ti potni listi so se hranili na ministrstvu za kmetijstvo ali pri lokalnih oblasteh v pričakovanju na morebitno ponovno vrnitev v izvorno državo članico.
C 29/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2005 Computerised databases and quality of data 83. 
C 29/26 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 4.2.2005 Računalniške podatkovne baze in kakovost podatkov 83.
The legislation specifies that keepers are to enter in the database all movements to and from the holding, but does not specify the type of information to be communicated. 
Zakonodaja določa, da morajo imetniki v podatkovno bazo vnesti vse premike na gospodarstvo in z njega, ne da bi bila pri tem navedena vrsta informacij, ki jih je treba sporočiti.
For this reason, the information in the movement reports was not always complete. 
Zaradi tega podatki v prijavah premikov niso bili vedno popolni.
For example, the French authorities received very limited information on the destination of cattle. 
Tako so francoske oblasti prejemale zelo skope podatke o namembnem kraju goveda.
The keepers only had to indicate, as the reason for exit, either ÔslaughterŐ or Ôfatten-ingŐ with no information on the actual destination of the animal (French market or other countries). 
Imetniki so kot vzrok za izstop morali navesti samo „zakol“ ali „vzreja“, brez podatkov o dejanskem namembnem kraju goveda (francoski trg ali druge države).
As a consequence, the database provided no information on intra-Community or extra-Community movements of animals. 
Tako podatkovna baza ni zagotavljala nobenih informacij o premikih živali znotraj države članice Skupnosti in med njimi.
In Italy assembly centres did not automatically report movements. 
V Italiji zbirni centri niso sistematično poročali o premikih.
In addition, considerable delays were noted in the processing of the reports. 
Poleg tega je bilo opaziti večje zamude pri obdelavi prijav.
In 2000 and 2001, for more than 95 % of reports of all types, the time taken to record them in the database was in excess of the time allowed by the legislation. 
Leta 2000 in 2001 se je v podatkovno bazo vneslo več kot 95 % prijav vseh vrst z daljšim rokom od zakonsko predpisanega.
The mechanisms for detecting anomalies in movements and the administration of the anomalies differed quite significantly in the Member States visited (see box 11). 
Mehanizem za ugotavljanje nepravilnosti pri premikih in njihovo upravljanje je bil v obiskanih državah članicah zelo različen (glej okvirček št. 11).
Box 11 In Germany a series of 600 a priori tests of control was implemented to ensure optimum quality of the data entered in the base. 
11 V Nemčiji je bil opravljen niz 600 predhodnih kontrolnih preizkusov za zagotovitev optimalne kakovosti podatkov, vnesenih v bazo.
Further a posteriori tests were also carried out. 
Opravljeni so bili tudi drugi naknadni preizkusi.
In addition, the German authorities developed a quality indicator for the data in the base. 
Poleg tega so nemške oblasti uvedle kazalec kakovosti podatkov v bazi.
This indicator gave the percentage of animals with anomalies in relation to total movements. 
Ta kazalec je zagotavljal odstotek živali z nepravilnostmi v primerjavi z vsemi pre-miki.
In Italy, of the entry reports made in 2001, 515 967 reports did not state the origin of the movement (21 % of the total). 
V Italiji 515 967 vseh prijav vstopov leta 2001 ni navajalo izvora premika (21 % skupnega števila).
On 1 January 2002, 2 305 076 exits of animals had been reported with no indication of their destination. 
1. januarja 2002 je bilo 2 305 076 živali prijavljenih, da so zapustile gospodarstvo brez navedbe njihovega namembnega kraja.
In March 2002 the national database contained 743 079 duplicate ear tag marks. 
V nacionalnih podatkovnih bazah je bilo marca 2002 vpisanih 743 079 dvojnikov ušesnih znamk.
Delays in reporting movements were noted in Great Britain. 
V Veliki Britaniji so zabeležili zamude pri prijavljanju premikov.
Some exit reports were not followed by entry reports, which meant that the animals concerned were ÔlostŐ. 
Določenemu številu izstopov ni sledil vstop, kar je pomenilo, da so bile zadevne živali „izgubljene“.
In addition, some anomalies had been corrected by means of an automatic procedure which generated the missing movement (1 915 000 ÔcorrectiveŐ movements counted in April 2002). 
Poleg tega so se nekatere pomanjkljivosti popravile s samodejnim postopkom, ki je ustvaril manjkajoči premik (1 915 000 naštetih „popravljalnih“ premikov aprila 2002).
In France assembly centres and traders were not obliged to report movements unless the animals remained with them for more than 30 days. 
V Franciji zbirnim centrom in trgovcem ni bilo treba prijavljati premikov, razen če so živali pri njih ostale dlje kot 30 dni.
In France and Italy the local bases were not synchronised with the national databases. 
V Franciji in Italiji lokalne baze niso bile usklajene z nacionalno bazo.
In France, the national base was supplied with data from 43 local bases. 
V Franciji je nacionalna baza črpala podatke iz 43 lokalnih baz.
For 75 % of the farms visited, quantitative and qualitative differences were found between the data available in the national base and the data in the local base. 
Za 75 % obiskanih gospodarstev so bile med podatki v nacionalni in lokalni bazi ugotovljene razlike glede količine in kakovosti.
In Italy some of the 198 local databases had no direct access to the national database. 
V Italiji vseh 198 lokalnih baz ni imelo neposrednega dostopa do nacionalne baze.
In addition, the slaughterhouses were not connected to the national database. 
Poleg tega klavnice niso bile povezane z nacionalno bazo.
Differences between the data from the various databases were found for all the farms visited. 
Na vseh obiskanih gospodarstvih je bilo mogoče opaziti razlike med podatki iz različnih baz.
The quality of the information contained in the databases was considered adequate in Germany but inadequate in the three other Member States. 
Ocenjeno je bilo, da je kakovost informacij v podatkovnih bazah zadovoljiva v Nemčiji, vendar nezadovoljiva v treh drugih državah članicah.
Few quality indicators had been developed for the data contained in the base and external sources were not used to validate the quality of the data. 
Za podatke v bazi ni bilo razvitih veliko kazalcev kakovosti in za potrjevanje kakovosti podatkov se niso uporabljali nobeni zunanji viri.
Reports by the various keepers 87. 
Poročila različnih imetnikov 87.
With regard to reports, the level of participation by the various keepers was considered to be satisfactory in the case of the farmers. 
V zvezi s poročili je bilo ocenjeno, da je stopnja vključenosti različnih imetnikov zadovoljiva za rejce.
Nevertheless, traceability is not complete if all keepers, even temporary ones such as traders, wholesalers and managers of assembly centres, do not report entries and exits. 
Vendar pa izsledljivost ni popolna, če vsi imetniki, celo začasni, kot so trgovci, grosisti in vodje zbirnih centrov, ne prijavljajo vstopov in izstopov.
In France, slaughterhouses were not an integral part of the system. 
V Franciji klavnice niso bile vključene v sistem.
The slaughterhouses constitute the link between the identification as such and the labelling of beef. 
Klavnice so bile povezava med identifikacijo v ožjem pomenu besede in označevanjem govejega mesa.
For this reason they are a crucial link in achieving complete traceability. 
Zato so ključni člen pri doseganju popolne izsledljivosti.
Information on cattle flows 89. 
Informacije o tokovih goveda 89.
The database of France, which is responsible for more than 50 % of intra-Community exports, provided no information on movements involving the other Member States. 
Francoska podatkovna baza, ki ji pripada več kot 50 % izvoza med državami članicami Skupnosti, ni dala nobenih informacij o premikih v druge države članice in iz njih.
In the case of the latter, the information from the computerised databases relating to intra-Community movements shows substantial divergence between the exits declared by the Member State of consignment and the entries declared by the Member State of destination (see table 7). 
Za druge države članice informacije iz računalniških podatkovnih baz o tokovih živali med državami članicami Skupnosti kažejo občutne razlike med izstopi, ki jih je prijavila država članica porekla, in vstopi, ki jih je prijavila namembna država članica (glej tabelo 7).
Box 12 gives some examples of the anomalies and inconsistencies found between national databases. 
12 so navedeni primeri ugotovljenih nepravilnosti in neskladnosti med nacionalnimi podatkovnimi bazami.
4.2.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union Table 7 Cross-checks between national databases in respect of intra-Community movements C 29/27 United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 52 23 202 n.a. 
4.2.2005 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 29/27 PREMIKI LETA 2000 Država porekla Nemčija Francija Italija Združeno kraljestvo (Velika Britanija in Severna Irska) Razlika Vir: Nacionalne podatkovne baze.
5 160 MOVEMENTS FOR 2000 Movement from Germany France Italy United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) n.a.: data not available Source: national databases. 
PREMIKI LETA 2001 Država porekla Nemčija Francija Italija Združeno kraljestvo (Velika Britanija in Severna Irska) Razlika Vir: Nacionalne podatkovne baze. Italija 18 255 79 691 401 894 n.p.
MOVEMENTS FOR 2001 Movement from Germany France Italy United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) n.a.: data not available Source: national databases. 
Združeno kraljestvo (Velika Britanija in Severna Irska) 52 23 202 n.p.
Destination Germany France Database of country of destination n.a. 
5 160 Tabela 7 Primerjanje premikov znotraj Skupnosti med nacionalnimi podatkovnimi bazami Namembna država Nemčija Francija Podatkovna baza namembne države n.p.
GermanyŐs national database 51 432 Difference Database of country of destination 16 642 FranceŐs national database n.a. Difference Database of country of destination 1 126 n.a. 
Podatkovna baza Nemčije 51 432 razlika Podatkovna baza namembne države 16 642 Podatkovna baza Francije n.p. razlika Podatkovna baza namembne države 1 126 n.p.
ItalyŐs national database 0 174 Difference Database of country of destination 0 n.a. 
Podatkovna baza Italije 0 174 razlika Podatkovna baza namembne države 0 n.p.
United Kingdom databases (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 0 0 Difference Italy 18 255 79 691 401 894 n.a. 
Podatkovna baza Združenega kraljestva (Velika Britanija in Severna Irska) 0 0 n.p.
1126 n.a. n.a. 
61 436 29 n.p.
61436 29 n.a. n.a. n.a. 
1 126 n.p. n.p. n.p.
155 160 0 0 n.a. 
155 160 0 0 n.p.
160 Destination Germany France Database of country of destination n.a. 
Namembna država Nemčija Francija Podatkovna baza namembne države n.p.
GermanyŐs national database 62 809 Difference Database of country of destination 8 847 FranceŐs national database n.a. Difference Database of country of destination 73 n.a. 
Podatkovna baza Nemčije 62 809 razlika Podatkovna baza namembne države 8 847 Podatkovna baza Francije n.p. razlika Podatkovna baza namembne države 73 n.p.
ItalyŐs national database 0 353 Difference Database of country of destination 0 n.a. 
Podatkovna baza Italije 0 353 razlika Podatkovna baza namembne države 0 n.p.
United Kingdom databases (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 0 0 Difference Italy United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 1 122 163 159 n.a. 
Podatkovna baza Združenega kraljestva (Velika Britanija in Severna Irska) 0 0 Italija Združeno kraljestvo (Velika Britanija in Severna Irska) 1 122 163 159 n.p.
37 0 22 687 114 820 367 769 n.a. 
37 0 22 687 114 820 367 769 n.p.
82 0 n.a. 
82 0 n.p.
92133 959 n.a. n.a. n.a. 
92 133 959 n.p. n.p. n.p.
73 n.a. 
73 n.p.
37 0 n.a. 
37 0 n.p.
82 
C 29/28 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 4.2.2005 Okvirček št. 12 Italijanska podatkovna baza je za leto 2001 poročala o samo 22 687 živalih iz Nemčije, medtem ko je bilo v nemški bazi zabeleženih 114 820 živali, ki so odšle v Italijo.
82 
Za leto 2000 so te številke znašale 18 255 in 79 691.
In addition, the Italian database did not report a single exit towards Germany, whereas entries from Italy were recorded in the German database (1 126 animals in 2000 and 73 animals in 2001). 
Poleg tega italijanska baza ni zabeležila nobene živali, ki bi odšla v Nemčijo, medtem ko so bili v nemško podatkovno bazo vpisane živali, ki so v Nemčijo prišle iz Italije (1 126 goved leta 2000 in 73 leta 2001).
The German database recorded exits of only 23 animals to the United Kingdom in 2000, whereas the United Kingdom databases showed 52. 
V nemško podatkovno bazo je bilo vpisanih samo 23 živali, ki so leta 2000 odšle v Združeno kraljestvo, medtem ko so jih podatkovne baze Združenega kraljestva zabeležile 52.
In 2001, the German database recorded 163 animals exiting for the United Kingdom, while the United Kingdom databases recorded 1 122. 
Leta 2001 je bilo v nemško podatkovno bazo vpisanih 163 živali, ki so odšle v Združeno kraljestvo, medtem ko so jih podatkovne baze Združenega kraljestva zabeležile 1 122.
While the United Kingdom databases reported no exits in 2000 or 2001, the Italian database included 160 entries of cattle in 2000 and 82 cattle in 2001, although these movements were actually forbidden. 
Medtem ko podatkovne baze Združenega kraljestva niso zabeležile nobenega izstopa, je italijanska baza leta 2000 vsebovala 160 vpisov goved in leta 2001 82, čeprav so bili ti premiki pravzaprav prepovedani.
There were other inconsistencies in respect of exits from Italy for the United Kingdom. 
Druge neskladnosti lahko ugotovimo na ravni izstopov iz Italije v Združeno kraljestvo.
160 animals were declared as exiting Italy for the United Kingdom in 2000, whereas the United Kingdom databases only mention 5. 
Leta 2000 je bilo prijavljenih 160 živali, da so izstopile iz Italije proti Združenemu kraljestvu, medtem ko jih podatkovne baze Združenega kraljestva navajajo samo 5.
For 2001 the situation is reversed, as the Italian database contained no exit to the United Kingdom, whereas 37 entries were recorded there. 
Za leto 2001 je stanje ravno nasprotno, saj italijanska podatkovna baza ne navaja nobenega izstopa v Združeno kraljestvo, medtem ko je bilo tam zabeleženih 37 vstopov.
Trade with third countries in 2000 and 2001 also showed substantial differences (see table 8) between Eurostat data and the data in the national databases. 
Trgovina s tretjimi državami leta 2000 in 2001 prav tako razkriva velika odstopanja (glej tabelo 8) med podatki Eurostata in podatki v nacionalnih podatkovnih bazah.
According to the inquiries carried out by the Court, there is no consistency between the data from the two data sources. 
Po preiskavah, ki jih je opravilo Sodišče, ni nobene skladnosti med podatki iz obeh virov podatkov.
It was not possible to obtain a true view of the movements of animals between the Member States and third countries. 
Zato ni mogoče dobiti dejanske slike o tokovih živali med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.
IMPORTS FOR 2000 According to Eurostat According to the national databases Difference Germany 118 780 33 583 85 197 France Italy 25 330 632 n.a. 
UVOZI LETA 2000 Po podatkih Eurostata Po podatkih iz nacionalnih podatkovnih baz Razlika Nemčija 118 780 33 583 85 197 Francija Italija 25 330 632 n.p.
170 184 n.a. 
170 184 n.p.
160 448 n.a. 
160 448 n.p.
94 Italy 8 310 739 n.a. 
Francija Italija 8 310 739 n.p.
128 515 n.a. 
128 515 n.p.
France Germany 74 730 21 637 53 093 n.a. 142 
142 % Združeno kraljestvo 65 – 16 – 25 % Nemčija 74 730 49 21 637 53 093
4.2.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/29 On-the-spot checks 91. 
4.2.2005 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 29/29 Kontrole na kraju samem 91.
The on-the-spot checks carried out by the Member States (see table 6) were evaluated as follows. 
Kontrole na kraju samem, ki so jih opravile države članice (glej tabelo 6), so bile ocenjene na naslednji način.
In Germany, the on-the-spot checks were organised at Lnder level. 
V Nemčiji so bile kontrole na kraju samem organizirane na ravni dežel.
In Bavaria, the minimum checking rate of 10 % was not respected, the method of selecting the beneficiaries to be audited was not based on an annual risk analysis, the legal penalties were not applied and the results of on-the-spot checks were not systematically forwarded to the premium administrators. 
Na Bavarskem se ni upoštevala najnižja 10-odstotna raven kontrole, izbor upravičencev, ki jih je treba preveriti, se ni izvedel z letno analizo tveganja, zakonsko določene kazni se niso uporabljale in rezultati kontrol na kraju samem se niso sistematično pošiljali upraviteljem premij.
France and Great Britain did not comply with the minimum rate of 10 % for on-the-spot checks. 
V Franciji in Veliki Britaniji se ni upoštevala najnižja 10-odstotna raven kontrol na kraju samem.
In Italy, the quality of the checks, the recording of the results of those checks, the application of penalties and the forwarding of the results to the premium managers all raised doubts about the reliability of the on-the-spot checks. 
V Italiji so kakovost kontrol, beleženje rezultatov teh kontrol, uporaba kazni in pošiljanje rezultatov upraviteljem premij sprožili dvome o zanesljivosti kontrol na kraju samem.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 92. 
ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 92.
Considering that the objective of the legislation on cattle identification and registration is to ensure the traceability of all cattle movements on the territory of the European Union, the regulatory framework put in place has some conceptual shortcomings (paragraphs 33 to 46). 
Če upoštevamo, da je cilj zakonodaje o identifikaciji in registraciji goveda zagotoviti sledljivost vseh premikov goveda na ozemlju Evropske unije, ima vzpostavljeni ureditveni okvir temeljne pomanjkljivosti (odstavki 33–46).
For example, Community legislation makes no provision for procedures to monitor movements of cattle between Member States, although between 3 and 4 % of cattle change Member State every year. 
Tako zakonodaja Skupnosti ne določa nobenega postopka za spremljanje premikov goveda med državami članicami, čeprav med 3 % in 4 % goveda vsako leto zamenja državo članico.
96. The legislation stipulates, without laying down rules on the procedures, that the Commission is to assess whether the databases are fully operational. 
96. da mora Komisija oceniti, ali so podatkovne baze popolnoma operativne.
The aim of this recognition is to authorise Member States to abolish passports for movements of cattle on the national territory of a Member State and to reduce the rate of checks for animal premiums from 10 to 5 %. 
Cilj tega priznanja je države članice pooblastiti, da odpravijo potne liste za premike goveda na nacionalnem ozemlju države članice in znižajo raven kontrol za živalske premije z 10 na 5 odstotkov.
This justification reduces the impact of recognition that databases are operational (paragraphs 55 to 64). Ń If the aim is to have databases which are operational, the procedure for recognising databases should be strengthened by redefining the objective and detailing the criteria that must be met, in respect of both design and operation, in order for the Commission to award recognition and renew it periodically (paragraphs 55 to 65). 
Ta utemeljitev zmanjšuje vpliv priznanja operativnega značaja podatkovnih baz (odstavki 55–64). — Če je cilj imeti operativne podatkovne baze, je treba okrepiti postopek priznavanja podatkovnih baz, ponovno opredeliti njihov cilj in navesti merila, ki jih je treba upoštevati na ravni oblikovanja in delovanja, da lahko Komisija izvede to priznavanje ter redno obnavljanje (odstavki 55–65).
The Commission should therefore take on a guiding role in the system of cattle identification and registration (paragraphs 38 to 40 and 47) and carry out regular checks to ensure that the databases are fully operational (paragraphs 55 to 59, 65 to 69 and paragraph 71) by setting up a coherent procedure for verifying the operation of the system in the Member States, including annual certification of the quality of information in the national databases (paragraphs 37 and 69). 
Tako bi morala Komisija zagotoviti usmerjevalno vlogo za sistem identifikacije in registracije goveda (odstavki 38–40, 47) ter redno preverjati popolnoma operativen značaj podatkovnih baz (odstavki 55–59, 65–69 in 71) z uvedbo skladnega postopka za preverjanje delovanja sistema identifikacije in registracije goveda v državah članicah, vključno z letnim potrjevanjem kakovosti informacij v nacionalnih podatkovnih bazah (odstavka 37 in 69).
The current legislation has inconsistencies and impreci-93. sions, which give rise to differences in treatment among Member States (paragraph 38). 
Trenutna zakonodaja je nenatančna ali neskladna, kar 93. povzroča različno obravnavo v državah članicah (odstavek 38).
In addition, the existence of options in the application of the legislation complicates the system (paragraph 39). Ń All keepers of cattle should be included in the identification and registration system (see paragraph 32). 
Poleg tega sistem otežuje tudi obstoj možnosti pri uporabi zakonodaje (odstavek 39). — Vsi imetniki goveda bi morali biti vključeni v sistem identifikacije in registracije goveda (glej odstavek 32).
The reports should be subject to precise rules which are identical in all Member States. 
Pri poročilih bi bilo treba v vseh državah članicah upoštevati natančna in enaka pravila.
The keeping of registers should be adapted to the activities of the various keepers and take into account technological developments (machine-readable bar codes, Internet, etc.). 
Vodenje registra bi moralo biti prilagojeno dejavnostim različnih imetnikov ob upoštevanju tehnološkega napredka (strojno čitljive črtne kode, internet itd.).
Procedures for checking and returning passports to the issuing body should be implemented. 
Uvesti bi bilo treba postopke preverjanja in vračanja potnih listov organu izdajatelju.
C 29/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2005 97. 
C 29/30 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 4.2.2005 97.
The on-the-spot checks to be carried out by Member States are not appropriate for all types of keepers of cattle. 
Kontrole na kraju samem, ki jih morajo izvesti države članice, niso prilagojene vsem vrstam imetnikov goveda.
In this way multiple checks ignore potential synergy effects (paragraphs 42 to 46). 
Tako se pri številnih različnih pregledih prezrejo možni vplivi sinergije (odstavki 42–46).
In the absence of precise harmonised rules for all the Member States (paragraphs 72 to 74), anomalies in identification have different financial consequences in terms of the premiums paid in the various Member States. Ń A comparative analysis of the administrative checks in force in the different Member States should result in controls being defined which cover all the conditions governing eligibility for premiums, as well as the cross-checks to be made between the IACS databases and the identification and registration databases before premiums are paid (paragraphs 72 to 74). 
Ker ni natančnih in usklajenih pravil za vse države članice (odstavki 72–74), imajo nepravilnosti pri identifikaciji finančne posledice z vidika premij, izplačanih v različnih državah članicah. — Primerjalna analiza veljavnih administrativnih kontrol v različnih državah članicah bi morala privesti do tega, da se opredelijo kontrole, ki zajemajo vse pogoje za upravičenost do izplačila premij, ter navzkrižna preverjanja, ki jih je treba izvesti pred izplačilom premij, med podatkovnimi bazami sistema identifikacije in registracije goveda ter bazami integriranega administrativnega in kontrolnega sistema (odstavki 72–74).