natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Still in the context of market support measures, provision for payment of a slaughtering premium for cattle is included in a Council Regulation (79) requiring an abattoir certificate to confirm that the animal has been slaughtered. 
Fortfarande inom ramen fr marknadsstdjande tgrder, faststlls utbetalningen av ett bidrag fr slakt av ntboskap i en rdsfrordning (79) dr det ocks krvs ett intyg frn slakteriet som bekrftelse p att djuret har slaktats.
This Regulation, however, does not specify the nature of the slaughtering, i.e. whether it is for purposes of human consumption (EAGGF Guarantee Section - market support) or on health grounds (EAGGF Guarantee Section - veterinary). 
I frordningen specificeras dock inte vilket slag av slakt det gller, det vill sga om det handlar om slakt fr mnsklig konsumtion (EUGFJ-garanti-marknadsstdsdelen) eller slakt av sanitra skl (EUGFJ-garantisektionen-veterinra delen).
Depending on the interpretation it was possible for the slaughter premium to be paid in addition to the FMD compensation, but only to a small minority of farmers whose contaminated animals were slaughtered at an abattoir. 
Detta har tolkats som att det var mjligt att betala ut slaktbidrag utver kompensationen fr mul-och klvsjuka, men endast till den lilla minoritet uppfdare vars smittade djur hade slaktats p slakteri.
This led to inequality in the treatment of farmers within Member States, according to where slaughter took place. 
Detta ledde till att uppfdare inom medlemsstaten behandlades olika beroende p var slakten hade gt rum.
When questioned on the subject by one of the Member States the Commission did not resolve the matter, and did not give a reply on the interpretation to be adopted before the deadline of 30 June 2002 set by the regulations for payment of the 2001 slaughter premiums. 
En av medlemsstaterna stllde en frga till kommissionen rrande detta som kommissionen varken avgjorde eller besvarade nr det gllde vilken tolkning som skulle anvndas, innan den faststllda tidsfristen fr utbetalning av slaktbidrag 2001 gick ut den 30 juni 2002.
As a result the Member States adopted differing decisions, leading to inequalities of treatment among farmers. 
Medlemsstaterna kom drfr att fatta olika beslut vilket ledde till att uppfdarna behandlades olika.
On the other hand, in Ireland, where part of the culling was also carried out in abattoirs, the premiums were paid; they were recovered, (76) Cattle and ewe premiums. 
Nederlnderna, dr en stor del av slakten skett p slakterier, (76) Ntboskapsbidrag och tackbidrag.
(77) The official rate used by the Commission (1 euro = 0,62380 pounds sterling) is the rate for December 2001, the date when the United Kingdom submitted its request for reimbursement. 
(77) Den officiella vxelkurs som kommissionen anvnt (en euro = 0,62380 pund sterling) r den som gllde i december 2001 nr Frenade kungariket lade fram sitt krav p ersttning.
(78) A total of around 800 animals, corresponding to a sum total of 38 000 euro. 
(78) Totalt ungefr 800 djur, motsvarande ett sammanlagt belopp p omkring 38 000 euro.
(79) Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999. however, after the CourtŐs audit visit. In the United Kingdom the premiums were not paid, in order to avoid possible duplication with the FMD compensation, which already included them. 
Dessa kunde emellertid tervinnas som en fljd av revisionsrttens besk. I Frenade kungariket hade bidragen inte betalats ut fr att man ville undvika en eventuell dubblering med kompensationen fr mul-och klvsjuka dr de redan ingick.
In France the question did not arise because contaminated animals were not slaughtered at abattoirs, and so slaughtering premiums were not paid either. 
I Frankrike var frgan inte aktuell p grund av att de smittade djuren inte hade slaktats vid slakterier varfr inte heller ngra slaktbidrag hade betalats ut.
Rules and procedures governing eligibility of Member StatesŐ expenditure for Community reimbursement were defined late 74. 
Bestmmelserna och frfarandena fr medlemsstaternas rtt till gemenskapsersttning fr sina utgifter faststlldes sent 74.
Under Decision 90/424/EEC the Commission, with the help of the Standing Veterinary Committee (80), is responsible for laying down procedures for implementing the Community financial contribution to Member StatesŐ expenditure. 
Enligt beslut 90/424/EEG skall kommissionen faststlla tillmpningsfreskrifter fr gemenskapens finansiella std till medlemsstaternas utgifter med hjlp av Stndiga veterinrkommittn (80).
Before the crisis, the Commission had not made any proposals for procedures for implementing the Community financial contribution, despite the undertaking it had given earlier in response to the follow-up of the CourtŐs 1995 Annual Report, Ôto issue guidelines to the Member States concerning both procedures and the calculation of compensation with regard to Community co-financing of veterinary measuresŐ (see Box 4). 
Kommissionen hade inte lagt fram frslag p tillmpningsfreskrifter fr gemenskapens finansiella deltagande fre krisen, trots det tidigare tagandet i svaret p revisionsrttens rsrapport 1995 att verlmna direktiv till medlemsstaterna vad gller bde frfaranden och berkning av kompensation inom ramen fr medfinansiering frn gemenskapen av veterinra tgrder (se ruta 4).
Neither had it provided Member States with details of the nature of the supporting documents that they would need to keep if their expenditure was to be allowed for Community reimbursement. 
Kommissionen hade inte heller specificerat fr medlemsstaterna vilka tillfrlitliga underlag som skulle sparas fr att deras utgifter skulle kunna beviljas gemenskapsersttning, och hrigenom uteslt man ett viktigt instrument fr sin egen kontroll.
Six months after the start of the crisis it informed the Member States (81) that it would only reimburse compensation for animals Ôat the value the animals had immediately before they became affectedŐ, whereas all the Member States concerned had already paid a substantial part of the compensation to farmers, using different methods (see paragraphs 62 to 66). 
Sex mnader efter det att krisen brutit ut (81) meddelade kommissionen medlemsstaterna att man endast skulle erstta djur med det vrde de hade innan de blev smittade.
(80) The Committee was set up by Council Decision 68/361/EEC (OJ L 255, 18.10.1968, p. 
(80) Kommittn, som inrttades genom rdets beslut 68/361/EEG (EGT L 255, 18.10.1968, s.
23) and gives an opinion on the CommissionŐs draft proposals on action to be taken. 
23), yttrar sig om de frslag till tgrder som kommissionen lgger fram.
(81) The Member States were notified virtually at the end of the epidemic, namely: Ń for Ireland: Decision 2001/646/EC, Ń for France: Decision 2001/653/EC, Ń for the Netherlands: Decision 2001/652/EC, Ń for the United Kingdom: Decision 2001/654/EC. 
(81) Medlemsstaterna underrttades nr epidemin var s gott som ver, eller nr det gllde Ń Irland: beslut 2001/646/EG; Ń Frankrike: beslut 2001/653/EG; Ń Nederlnderna: beslut 2001/652/EG; Ń Frenade kungariket: beslut 2001/654/EG.
C 54/22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.3.2005 77. 
C 54/22 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning 3.3.2005 77.
Similarly, in the absence of Commission instructions, the Member StatesŐ requests for reimbursement included compensation paid to farmers who had not complied with national provisions implementing the Community directives on notification and movement restrictions (some 972 876 euro in the United Kingdom and 58 769 euro in France, see paragraph 56). 
Eftersom det saknades instruktioner frn kommissionen hll medlemsstaterna ocks fast vid sina krav p ersttning av kompensation som betalats ut till de uppfdare som inte fljt de nationella tillmpningsfreskrifterna i frga om anmlan och begrnsningar gllande frflyttningar (972 876 euro i Frenade kungariket och 58 769 euro i Frankrike Đ se punkt 56).
In the absence of Commission guidelines on the checks to be carried out by Member States and the supporting information to be kept, the beneficiary files examined on the spot were incomplete: in many cases slaughter certificates were missing, cross-checks of the number of cattle identified in the national databases against the number of cattle slaughtered had either not been carried out or revealed numerous discrepancies in most of the Member States audited. Even though many of these shortcomings can be attributed to the scale of the crisis, fuller contingency plans (see paragraphs 30 to 32) and more precise Commission criteria could have reduced the importance of them. 
I brist p riktlinjer frn kommissionen om vilka kontroller medlemsstaterna skulle genomfra och vilka tillfrlitliga underlag som skulle sparas, var stdmottagarnas akter som undersktes p plats ofullstndiga: det saknades i mnga fall intyg om slakt, det hade inte gjorts ngon dubbelkontroll mellan ntkreatur identifierade i nationella databaser och antalet slaktade ntkreatur eller s visade en sdan kontroll p mnga avvikelser i de flesta av de kontrollerade medlemsstaterna. ven om mnga av dessa brister kan hnfras till krisens omfattning skulle mer kompletta beredskapsplaner (se punkterna 30Đ32) och tydligare kriterier frn kommissionen ha kunnat minska deras omfattning.
For the other categories of animals, which were not recorded because the Community regulations provided for individual identification only in the case of cattle (82), it was not possible to obtain assurance as to the reliability of the number declared. 
Nr det gller vriga djurkategorier, som inte r registrerade eftersom gemenskapslagstiftningen endast freskriver enskild identifiering av ntkreatur (82), gick det inte att erhlla ngon skerhet om huruvida uppgifterna om det deklarerade antalet var tillfrlitligta.
After the crisis the Commission specified the eligibility criteria mentioned in Decision 90/424/EEC, together with the necessary documents for obtaining Community reimbursement (see Box 7). 
Efter krisen faststllde kommissionen i beslut 90/424/EEG i efterhand kriterierna fr stdberttigande, liksom vilka dokument som krvdes fr att f ersttning frn gemenskapen (se ruta 7).
As the Commission itself said, in its reply to this paragraph, it had not made any substantial changes to the eligibility rules contained in Decision 90/424/EEC since 1990. 
Som kommissionen sjlv sger i svaret p denna punkt har man sedan 1990 inte gjort ngra strre ndringar av reglerna fr stdberttigande i beslut 90/424/EEG.
The decision in question is not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in various ways. 
Detta beslut r inte tillrckligt exakt och kan tolkas p olika stt.
Box 7 Criteria and documents needed for reimbursement to take place were specified ex post facto Protective culling in the Member States that had imported sheep from the United Kingdom the month before the crisis: in France there was reimbursement for the animals slaughtered, even though there was no Commission decision on the reimbursement. 
Ruta 7 Kriterier och ndvndiga dokument fr ersttning faststlldes i efterhand Frebyggande slakt i de medlemsstater som hade importerat fr frn Frenade kungariket under mnaden fre krisen. Denna slakt ersattes i Frankrike trots att kommissionen inte hade fattat beslut om att erstta den.
Partial protective culling around outbreaks in Ireland, France and the United Kingdom (3 km slaughter zone in Cumbria gave rise to expenditure to a sum total of some 112,3 million euro); reimbursement decisions were adopted by the Commission in July 2002 for France, in December 2003 for the United Kingdom and Ireland and, at the time when this report was being drafted, were still being finalised in the case of the Netherlands. 
Frebyggande slakt i viss utstrckning som utfrts runt utbrott i Irland, Frankrike och Frenade kungariket (slaktomrde 3 km i Cumbria fr ett sammanlagt utgiftsbelopp p 112,3 miljoner euro): Kommissionen fattade beslut om ersttningar i juli 2002 fr Frankrike, i december 2003 fr Frenade kungariket och Irland, och fr Nederlnderna hll beslutet p att slutfras nr denna rapport utarbetades.
(82) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. 
(82) Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning (EG) nr 1760/2000.
Protective culling by Member States where there had been no outbreaks (Belgium, Germany, Spain and Portugal): the decision was not adopted by the Commission until August 2003, almost two years after the end of the crisis (83). 
Frebyggande slakt i medlemsstater som inte hade haft ngot utbrott (Belgien, Tyskland, Spanien och Portugal): Kommissionen fattade inte beslut frrn i augusti 2003, det vill sga nstan tv r efter det att krisen var ver (83).
Decisions on the financing of associated costs, with details of the information to be supplied to the Commission (veterinary costs, destruction costs, disinfecting costs): were not adopted until 2003 (84). 
Beslut om finansiering av tillhrande kostnader med precisering av vilka uppgifter som skulle lmnas till kommissionen (veterinrkost-nader, destrueringskostnader, desinficeringskostnader): Dessa beslut fattades inte frrn 2003 (84).
The Community contributes to Member StatesŐ expenditure on condition that they have immediately implemented Community measures such as isolating holdings as soon as disease is suspected, combined with slaughter of all animals, destruction of the carcases and cleansing and disinfecting of premises as soon as the disease has been confirmed officially (85). 
Gemenskapsbidrag fr medlemsstaternas utgifter lmnas under frutsttning att medlemsstaterna omgende infrt gemen-skapstgrderna, ssom isolering av jordbruksfretagen s snart misstanke uppsttt och slakt av samtliga djur, destruering av dem, samt rengring och desinficering s snart sjukdomen bekrftats officiellt (85).
However, the financial reports which, according to its decisions granting financial assistance to Member States, the Commission requires in order to determine the reimbursement due, only contain part of the information needed for assessing the eligibility of the expenditure mentioned in Council Decision 90/424/EEC (86). 
De ekonomiska rapporter som kommissionen krver fr att besluta om ekonomiskt bistnd till medlemsstaterna och faststlla den ersttning som skall betalas, innehller dock endast en del av de upplysningar som behvs fr att avgra om medlemsstaternas utgifter r stdberttigande enligt definitionen i beslut 90/424/EEG (86).
The claims varied widely and, again, contained numerous errors, so that Commission staff were obliged to extend their checks and, therefore, to delay their final reimbursements. 
Dessa var oenhetliga och innehll fortfarande mnga fel som gjorde att kommissionens avdelningar mste frlnga sina kontroller, vilket frsenade de slutliga betalningarna av ersttning.
(83) Commission Decisions 2003/619/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p. 
(83) Kommissionens beslut 2003/619/EG (EUT L 216, 28.8.2003, s.
42), 2003/620/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p. 
42), 2003/620/EG (EUT L 216, 28.8.2003, s.
45), 2003/621/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p. 
45), 2003/621/EG (EUT L 216, 28.8.2003, s.
48) and 2003/622/EC (OJ L 216, 28.8.2003, p. 
48) och 2003/622/EG (EUT L 216, 28.8.2003, s.
53), concerning a financial contribution by the Community towards the precautionary measures against FMD taken by Belgium, Germany, Spain and Portugal. 
53) om finansiellt std frn gemenskapen fr frsiktighetstgrder mot mul-och klvsjuka som Belgien, Tyskland, Spanien och Portugal vidtog.
(84) The Commission did not adopt the decisions on reimbursement of expenditure to Member States for related costs, destruction, disinfection and cleansing until 14 March 2003 for the Netherlands (Decision 2003/182/EC (OJ L 71, 15.3.2003, p. 
(84) Kommissionen antog inte dessa beslut om ersttning av medlemsstaternas utgifter fr tillhrande kostnader, destruering, desinficering och rengring frrn den 14 mars 2003 fr Nederlnderna (beslut 2003/182/EG (EUT L 71, 15.3.2003, s.
19)), France (Decision 2003/183/EC (OJ L 71, 15.3.2003, p. 
19)), Frankrike (beslut 2003/183/EG (EUT L 71, 15.3.2003, s.
22)), Ireland (Decision 2003/184/EC (OJ L 71, 15.3.2003, p. 
22)) och Irland (beslut 2003/184/EG (EUT L 71, 15.3.2003, s.
25)) and 24 September 2003 for the United Kingdom (Decision 2003/676/G (OJ L 249, 1.10.2003, p. 
25)) och den 24 september 2003 fr Frenade kungariket (beslut 2003/676/EG (EUT L 249, 1.10.2003, s.
(85) Decision 90/424/EEC, Article 3(2). 
(85) Beslut 90/424/EEG, artikel 3.2.
3.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 54/23 Delays in reimbursing Member StatesŐ expenditure 82. 
3.3.2005 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 54/23 Tidstgng fr ersttning av medlemsstaternas utgifter 82.
Due to the variety of compensation systems adopted by the Member States (see paragraphs 62 to 73) and the amendments to reimbursement claims submitted by Member States, the CommissionŐs task of identifying within reimbursement claims the eligible value of each animal, or, at least, each category of animal, proved to be complex. Added to this was the lack of assurance as to exactly how many animals had been culled. 
P grund av de olika ersttningssystem som medlemsstaterna hade infrt (se punkterna 62Đ73) och ndringarna av begran om ersttning som medlemsstaterna lmnade in, visade sig kommissionens identifiering av det stdberttigande vrdet fr varje djur eller tminstone fr varje kategori av djur, vilket r basen i varje begran om ersttning, vara en komplex uppgift.
This was why, as of 1 October 2003, more than two years after the end of the epidemic, neither Ireland, the Netherlands nor the United Kingdom had received any Community reimbursements, even though as a general rule farmers had received compensation within three months, after the culls in 2001. 
Detta r orsaken till att ersttningarna frn gemenskapen inte hade betalats ut den 1 oktober 2003, det vill sga mer n tv r efter det att epidemin var ver, varken till Irland, Nederlnderna eller Frenade kungariket, trots att uppfdarna i allmnhet hade ftt sin ersttning inom tre mnader efter slakt som gjordes under 2001.
Cofinancing rates aligned in the pig sector 84. 
Medfinansieringsgraden har endast utjmnats fr svin 84.
Council Decision 90/424/EEC specifies that the Community contribution is equal to 60 % of the eligible costs incurred by the Member State in controlling FMD (see Table). 
I rdets beslut 90/424/EEG faststlls att gemenskapens std skall motsvara 60 % av de stdberttigande utgifter medlemsstaten samkats (se tabell) fr bekmpning av mul-och klvsjuka.
Management and specific regulations concerning reimbursement rates and compensation payable to farmers continue to be divided between the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection and the Directorate General for Agriculture: the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection handles the compensation for most animal diseases, with the exception of compensation for cattle slaughtered because of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), which is still managed by the Directorate General for Agriculture. 
Frvaltningen och det specifika regelverket fr ersttningsniver och kompensationer som skall betalas till uppfdarna delas mellan Generaldirektoratet fr jordbruk och Generaldirektoratet fr hlsa och konsumentskydd. Generaldirektoratet fr hlsa och konsumentskydd handlgger kompensationerna fr flertalet djursjukdomar, med undantag fr ntkreatur som slaktats p grund av bovin spongiform encefalopati (BSE) som fortfarande handlggs av Generaldirektoratet fr jordbruk.
Even though the reimbursement rates applied by the Directorate General for Agriculture and the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection have been aligned for the pig sector, this does not apply for FMD and TSE: the rate is 60 % for FMD, while for TSE it is 70 %. 
De ersttningsniver som tillmpades av Generaldirektoratet fr jordbruk och Generaldirektorat fr hlsa och konsumentskydd har anpassats till varandra nr det gller svin, men detta har inte gjorts fr mul-och klvsjuka och fr BSE; ersttningsnivn r 60 % fr mul-och klvsjuka medan den r 70 % fr BSE.
For other animal diseases, including swine fever, it is 50 %. 
Fr vriga djursjukdomar, inklusive svinpest, r den 50 %.
It follows that the reimbursement rates for the same categories of animal vary according to the disease that was the reason for slaughtering. 
Hrav fljer att ersttningsnivn fr samma kategori djur varierar beroende p vilken sjukdom som r sklet till slakt.
The Court was unable to find the reason for these variations in the rates, which have been in force since 1996. 
Revisionsrtten har inte kunnat hitta ngon orsak till dessa olika niver som gller sedan 1996.
Farmers do not contribute to Community financing of the control system 86. 
Uppfdarna bidrar inte till gemenskapsfinansieringen av bekmpningssystemet 86.
In its reply to the CourtŐs Special report on classical swine fever (87), the Commission recognised that Ôproducers should share greater responsibility for the financial aspects of the eradication of animal diseasesŐ and said that it intended Ôto evaluate the possibility of supporting the Member States in establishing these schemes, in the framework of the revision of Community legislation on these issuesŐ. 
Som svar p revisionsrttens srskilda rapport om svinpest (87) hll kommissionen med om att Óproducenterna br ha strre ansvar fr de finansiella aspekterna av utrotningen av djursjukdomarÓ och att man hade fr avsikt att Ói samband med versynen av gemenskapens lagstiftning p detta omrde utvrdera mjligheten att hjlpa medlemsstaterna att infra sdana systemÓ.
The Commission has not made any proposals for such support, neither for classical swine fever nor for FMD. 
Kommissionen har inte freslagit ngon sdan hjlp, varken fr svinpest eller mul-och klvsjuka.
No-one in this branch of agriculture (neither farmers affected by the epidemic nor those unaffected) contributes to Community eradication costs, although, as a study carried out by a university on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture in Ireland shows (88), some of them, namely farmers who were unaffected by movement restrictions or slaughter measures, were able to benefit from price rises. 
Yrkeskren som helhet (bde uppfdare som berrs av den epizootiska sjukdomen och sdana som inte gr det) deltar inte i gemenskapens utgifter fr utrotning, trots att en del av dem, det vill sga uppfdare som varken berrdes av begrnsningar gllande frflyttningar eller av slakt, kunde gra vinst till fljd av hjda priser, vilket framkommer av en univeristetsstudie som utfrts p uppdrag av Irlands jordbruksministerium (88).
The study quantified agriculture-related benefits in Ireland as some 107 million euro for 2001, essentially due to the increase in the volume and prices of exports to the United Kingdom. 
Enligt studien uppgick vinsterna fr denna verksamhetsgren i Irland till omkring 107 miljoner euro fr 2001, och de berodde till strsta delen p den kade volymen och de hjda priserna p exporten till Frenade kungariket.
However, some initiatives were taken in some Member States independently of the Commission, by either the public sector or the agricultural sector in question, partly with a view to reducing or supplementing the national expenditure on eradication. 
Oberoende av kommissionen har det emellertid i vissa medlemsstater tagits initiativ, antingen av den offentliga sektorn eller av yrkeskren, delvis fr att minska de nationella kostnaderna fr utrotning eller fr att komplettera dem.
In the Netherlands, following the classical swine fever crisis, an animal health fund was set up, to pay compensation in the event of an epidemic. 
I Nederlnderna skapades efter krisen med svinpest en fond fr djurhlsa vars uppgift r att betala ersttning vid epidemier.
It is funded from three sources: farmers, the European budget (where relevant) and the Dutch agriculture budget. 
Fondens medel kommer frn tre kllor: uppfdarna, gemenskapsbudgeten (i frekommande fall) och Nederlndernas jordbruksbudget.
A similar system is currently under study in the United Kingdom. 
I Frenade kungariket studeras just nu ett liknande system.