natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With the exception of the weaknesses discussed in paragraphs 44 and 92, the statistics drawn up by Member States on on-the-spot checks on identification and registration are not analysed or used as a tool for guidance by the Commission (see table 6). 
Frutom de brister som beskrivs i punkterna 44 och 92 har kommissionen varken analyserat statistiken ver de kontroller p plats som medlemsstaterna genomfr inom ramen fr systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur eller anvnt den som ett styrmedel (se tabell 6).
Description BE DK DE EL ES FR IE IT LU NL AT PT FI SE Northern Ireland Total holdings registered 249 966 19 181 19% 6% 8% 211 490 18 960 334 008 22 854 138 263 26 997 234 257 61 465 1 882 276 - 3 068 105 943 12 647 93 684 7 649 31 540 1 594 35 671 3 409 108 658 7 500 Total holdings inspected 50 666 9 595 35 667 2 097 % Total bovine animals registered at the beginning of the period 3 010 799 1 977 581 11 139 070 6833668 21000000 7569735 - 201859 - 2154667 1202200 1065932 1732839 6896759 1664169 Total bovine animals checked 757 990 179 238 1 178 221 783 925 1 587 594 996 917 1 928 147 46 402 337 480 480 377 110 699 80 897 233 251 608 202 29 083 % 25% 9% 11% 11%8%13%-23% 28088 292370 2183 8737 130 -22%9%8%13%9%2% - - 16229 2121 14124 51314 3390 Number of cases of non-compliance found 530 9 583 10 800 Penalties imposed %42%0%-331393-87310 - 677 9 9034683 - - 4%0%1%68%---59--48- 220 37 - Number of animals 7 - - destroyed -93--4 - 0,006% - - 0,009% - - 0,053% - - 0,008% - % (of number of 0,001 % - - animals checked) Note 1: Note 2: The reference period is not the same for all Member States. 
Beskrivning Beslut DK DE EL ES FR IE IT LU NL AT PT FI SE Storbritannien Totalt antal registrerade anlggningar 50 666 9 595 35 667 2 097 249 966 211 490 18 960 334 008 22 854 138 263 26 997 234 257 61 465 1 882 276 - 3 068 105 943 12 647 93 684 7 649 31 540 1 594 35 671 3 409 108 658 7 500 Totalt antal kontrollerade anlggningar 19 181 % 19% 6% 8% Totalt antal registrerade ntkreatur i brjan av perioden 3 010 799 1 977 581 11 139 070 6833668 21000000 7569735 - 201859 - 2154667 1202200 1065932 1732839 6896759 1664169 Totalt antal kontrollerade ntkreatur 757 990 179 238 1 178 221 783 925 1 587 594 996 917 1 928 147 46 402 337 480 480 377 110 699 80 897 233 251 608 202 29 083 % 25% 9% 11% 11%8%13%-23% 28088 292370 2183 8737 130 -22%9%8%13%9%2% - - 16229 2121 14124 51314 3390 Antal konstaterade vertrdelser 530 9 583 10 800 220 37 - Utdmda pfljder %42%0%-331393-87310 - 677 9 9034683 - - 4%0%1%68%---59--48- Antal djur som har 7 - - destruerats -93--4 - 0,006% - - 0,009% - - 0,053% - - 0,008% - % (i frhllande till 0,001 % - - kontrollerade djur) Anm 1: Anm 2: Referensperioden r inte samma fr alla medlemsstater.
The data concerning Ôpenalties imposedŐ do not allow comparison of Member States, as the information forwarded has not been standardised; some Member States provide the number of penalties imposed (BE, IT), others the number of holdings and animals to which penalties are applied (FR, LU, PT, FI, UK-GB), or merely the number of holdings penalised (DK), or the number of cattle subject to penalties (SE); one Member State gives the number of cases subject to legal proceedings (ES). 
Vissa medlemsstater uppger antalet utdmda pfljder (BE, IT), andra uppger antalet anlggningar och Tabell 6 Resultat av kontroller p plats genomfrda under budgetret 2000 inom ramen fr systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur 31 533 1 138 9% 7% 20% 26% 15% - 12% 8% 5% 10% 7% 4% 1%0%10%8% djur som r freml fr pfljder (FR, LU, PT, FI, UK-Storbritannien), eller endast antalet anlggningar med pfljder (DK), eller antalet ntkreatur som r freml fr pfljder (SE), en medlemsstat uppger antal fall som har gtt vidare till domstol (ES).
Greece has not yet implemented the Integrated Administration and Control System. 
Grekland har nnu inte infrt det integrerade systemet fr administration och kontroll.
No statistics are available. the Annual Reports required by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2630/97. 
Anm 3: Klla: rsrapporter i enlighet med kommissionens frordning (EG) nr 2630/97. UK Nordirland
C 29/24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2005 71. 
C 29/24 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning 4.2.2005 71.
Penalties are laid down in the two sets of regulations concerning the identification and registration system. 
I de tv frordningarna om systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur freskrivs pfljder.
In contrast, the legislation setting up IACS does lay down financial penalties for non-compliance with the rules. 
I lagstiftningen om IACS fresls det dremot att ekonomiska pfljder skall utdmas om reglerna inte fljs.
The work of DG Agriculture may thus result in financial corrections (1) in cases where serious anomalies relating specifically to identification are found during audits. 
De arbeten som generaldirektoratet fr jordbruk gr kan allts leda till finansiella korrigeringar (1) i allvarliga fall av identifieringsanomalier som konstaterats vid kontroller.
The penalty arrangements differ and no links have been provided between the two systems. 
De tv pfljdsordningarna r olika, och det finns ingen verbryggning mellan dem.
Inconsistencies in the management of premiums Bovine premiums subject to controls in the context of the Integrated Administration and Control System 72. 
Inkonsekvenser i bidragsfrvaltningen Ntkreatursbidrag som kontrolleras inom ramen fr det integrerade administrations-och kontrollsystemet 72.
The legislation on the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) stipulates that Member States are to carry out administrative checks to verify that the conditions of eligibility for the granting of aid and premiums are fulfilled. 
I gemenskapslagstiftningen om det integrerade administrations-och kontrollsystemet (IACS) faststlls det att medlemsstaterna skall genomfra administrativa kontroller fr att kunna garantera att villkoren fr beviljande av std och bidrag fljs.
These administrative checks include, in particular, cross-checks with the cattle database. 
Dessa administrativa kontroller bestr i synnerhet av dubbelkontroller mot databasen om ntkreatur.
IACS thus uses the computerised cattle database (the core element of the identification and registration system) to validate applications for premiums (2). 
Inom IACS anvnder man allts databasen om ntkreatur (den viktigaste delen i systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur) fr att kontrollera att bidragsanskningarna r giltiga (2).
The Commission ensures that all the Member States put administrative checks in place. 
Kommissionen ser till att samtliga medlemsstater genomfr dessa administrativa kontroller.
The Commission has provided a precise definition of the administrative checks to be carried out in the context of bovine premiums by breaking the checks down into key checks and auxiliary checks. 
Kommissionen har i detalj faststllt utformningen av de administrativa kontrollerna genom att dela upp dem i nyckelkontroller och hjlpkontroller som skall genomfras inom ramen fr ntkreatursbidrag.
It has not specified which anomalies found in respect of identification are to be taken into account and has not said whether these anomalies should lead to payments being frozen or not. Box 8 below shows examples of movement anomalies. 
Kommissionen har inte frtydligat vilka pvisade identifieringsanomalier som skall beaktas och om det skall g att stoppa utbetalningar p grund av dem. I ruta 8 finns en versikt ver anomalier som gller frflyttningar.
(1) The clearance of accounts procedure provides for financial corrections equivalent to the amount of the risk incurred for Community funds. 
(1) I frfarandet fr avslutning av rkenskaper r det mjligt att gra finansiella korrigeringar av beloppet motsvarande den risk som gemenskapsmedlen lper.
(2) Article 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001. 
(2) Artikel 16 b i kommissionens frordning (EG) nr 2419/2001.
Box 8 Examples of movement anomalies: an off-farm movement which is not followed by any entry record by another keeper (farmer, trader, slaughterhouse, etc.), a date of exit after the date of entry at the next farm, gaps between the date of exit recorded by one keeper and the date of entry recorded by the next keeper (possibility that an intermediate movement has not been recorded, with resultant loss of audit trail). 
Ruta 8 Exempel p anomalier som gller frflyttningar r: utfrsel frn en anlggning som inte fljs upp av en registrering av infrsel gjord av en annan djurhllare (jordbruksfretagare, handlare, slakteri osv.), ett datum fr utfrsel frn anlggningen som r senare n infrseldatumet p nsta anlggning, avvikelser mellan utfrseldatum som registrerats av en djurhllare och infrseldatum som registrerats av nsta djurhllare (eventuella frflyttningar i mellanled har inte registrerats, och det r inte lngre mjligt att spra djuren).
Exceptional support measures for the beef market following the BSE crisis 75. 
Undantagstgrder till std fr ntkttsmarknaden i anslutning till BSE-krisen 75.
During the BSE crisis in 1996 the Commission introduced a regulation which was applicable exclusively in the United Kingdom (3) and provided for the slaughter and destruction of cattle over 30 months old. 
Under BSE-krisen 1996 infrde kommissionen en frordning om slakt och destruering av ntkreatur ldre n 30 mnader som endast var tillmplig i Frenade kungariket (3).
During the second crisis, in 2000, the Commission adopted new measures, which applied to the other Member States. 
Vid den andra krisen 2000 faststllde kommissionen nya tgrder som var tillmpliga i vriga medlemsstater.
In this new regulation, the Commission stipulated that in order to be eligible for the payments granted for slaughter and destruction of cattle, animals must be identified and registered in conformity with the identification and registration regulation (4). 
I denna nya frordning faststllde kommissionen att fr att vara berttigade till utbetalningar vid slakt och destruering av ntkreatur skall djuren vara identifierade och registrerade i enlighet med frordningen om systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur (4).
The regulation applicable to the United Kingdom was not amended to incorporate this condition. 
Den frordning som r tillmplig i Frenade kungariket ndrades inte nr detta villkor infrdes.
This meant that the animals did not have to be identified and registered in accordance with the appropriate legislation in order to be eligible for payments granted in case of slaughter and destruction of cattle. 
Allts behvde djuren inte vara identifierade och registrerade i enlighet med frordningen om systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur fr att vara berttigade till de utbetalningar som grs vid slakt eller destruering av ntkreatur.
This difference in treatment between the Member States is an inconsistency in the legislation. 
Denna skillnad i behandling mellan medlemsstaterna innebr att frordningarna r inkonsekventa.
The Community cattle registration and identification system was, in fact, set up in the EU in response to the BSE crisis. 
Systemet fr identifiering och registrering av ntkreatur infrdes i EU till fljd av BSE-krisen.
The United Kingdom, the Member State mainly affected by the disease, was the only one not legally obliged to carry out cross-checks with the national database, and benefited from payments for animals which were not identified and were slaughtered in order to be destroyed. 
Endast Frenade kungariket, den medlemsstat som var mest drabbad av sjukdomen, hade ingen rttslig skyldighet att genomfra dubbelkontroller mot den nationella databasen och erhll utbetalningar fr djur som inte var identifierade och som slaktats fr att destrueras.
The CommissionŐs justification for the difference in treatment was the objective of the 1996 regulation, which aimed to withdraw older cattle from the market that were not subject to the identification obligations and whose age could be determined by examination of the teeth. 
Kommissionen motiverade skillnaderna i hanteringsst-tet genom frordningen frn 1996 dr syftet var att gamla kor som inte omfattades av kraven p identifiering och vars lder kunde avgras genom en granskning av tanduppsttningen skulle tas bort frn marknaden.
This argument, which is now no longer relevant, was justified inasmuch as imposing identification requirements for older animals might have increased the risk of illicit slaughter. 
Dessa argument som inte lngre r relevanta berttigades av att risken fr olaglig slakt skulle ha kat om man hade infrt villkor fr identifiering av gamla djur.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 (OJ L 99, 20.4.1996, p. 
(3) Kommissionens frordning (EG) nr 716/96 (EGT L 99, 20.4.1996, s.
(4) Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 (OJ L 321, 19.12.2000, p. 
(4) Artikel 4.3 i kommissionens frordning (EG) nr 2777/2000 (EGT L 321, 19.12.2000, s.
4.2.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union FINDINGS OF THE COURTŐS AUDITS IN THE MEMBER STATES VISITED 78. 
4.2.2005 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning RESULTAT AV REVISIONSRTTENS GRANSKNING I DE MEDLEMSSTATER SOM BES KTS 78.
The situation encountered in the four Member States visited during the first half of 2002, i.e. more than 24 months after the deadline of 31 December 1999 for setting up an efficient system of identification and registration, revealed shortcomings. Some Member States were still in the process of developing their own systems at the time of the audit and improvements were planned in all Member States visited. Although, in the meantime, a number of the CourtŐs findings have become irrelevant, other weaknesses identified at a certain point are the subject of recommendations (see paragraphs 92 to 99) and must still be corrected. 
Revisionsrtten konstaterade brister i de fyra medlemsstater som besktes under frsta halvret 2002, det vill sga tjugofyra mnader efter tidsfristen den 31 december 1999 som var det datum d ett effektivt system fr identifiering och registrering skulle vara infrt. Vissa medlemsstater hll fortfarande p att utveckla det egna systemet vid tiden fr granskningen och frbttringar planerades i alla de beskta medlemsstaterna. ven om vissa av revisionsrttens resultat inte lngre r relevanta utfrdas rekommendationer som gller andra konstaterade brister (se punkterna 92Đ99), och fortfarande gller att de br rttas till.
Table 4 illustrates the situation observed in 2002 for the four Member States visited, in five areas, namely ear tags, farm registers, passports, computerised databases and the level of participation in the system on the part of the various keepers. Ear tags 79. 
I tabell 4 beskrivs de iakttagelser som gjordes 2002 p fem omrden i de fyra medlemsstater som besktes. Det gller ronmrken, anlggningarnas register, passen, databaserna och i vilken utstrckning de olika djurhllarna deltar i systemet. ronmrken 79.
The legislation stipulates that the quantities of ear tags distributed to farmers are to cover requirements for a maximum period of one year. 
Enligt lagstiftningen skall det antal ronmrken som distribueras till jordbruksfretagaren tcka maximalt ett rs behov.
In the Member States visited, the ear tags were not always restricted to these quantities. 
I de medlemsstater som besktes fanns ibland fler ronmrken n s.
Generally, the format of the ear tags corresponds to the legislative requirements (see photograph 1). 
Formatet p ronmrkena stmmer i allmnhet verens med kraven i lagstiftningen (se foto 1).
In Germany, France and Italy, the national authorities did not use indicators such as rates of loss of ear tags or frequency of retagging to evaluate the quality of the ear tags. 
I Tyskland, Frankrike och Italien hade de nationella myndigheterna inte utvrderat kvaliteten p ronmrkena genom att anvnda index ssom hur mnga ronmrken som frsvunnit eller hur ofta det gjorts ommrkningar.
In contrast, in Great Britain, where ear tags made by 12 different producers were approved, statistical data are available (ear tag allocation system) and show that 10,8 % of all ear tags had been replaced after four years. 
I Storbritannien dremot, dr ronmrken frn tolv olika producenter hade godknts, finns det tillgnglig statistik (ÓEar Tag Allocation SystemÓ) som visar att 10,8 % av samtliga ronmrken hade bytts ut efter fyra r.
This replacement rate varied greatly depending on suppliers and was sometimes even as much as 23 %. 
Andelen ommrkningar varierade kraftigt beroende p leverantr och kunde uppg till s mycket som 23 %.
Farm registers 81. 
Anlggningarnas register 81.
The farm registers were not always in the format required by the legislation. 
Anlggningarnas register hade inte alltid det format som krvs enligt lagstiftningen.
In all the Member States visited, the register used by slaughterhouses, wholesalers and traders did not include all the information required by the legislation (see box 9). 
I samtliga de medlemsstater som besktes fanns inte all den information som krvs enligt lagstiftningen i de register som anvndes av slakterierna, grossisterna och handlarna (se ruta 9).
C 29/25 Box 9 In France, the competent authority did not approve a specific register for all categories of keeper, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. 
C 29/25 Ruta 9 I Frankrike hade den behriga myndigheten inte godknt ett faststllt register fr alla kategorier av djurhllare, ssom freskrivs i artikel 7.3 i frordning (EG) nr 1760/2000.
In Italy, two different models of herd register were in existence. 
I Italien fanns det tv olika sorters djurregister samtidigt.
In Great Britain, traders, managers of markets and slaughterhouses did not always keep registers in the format approved by the competent authority. 
I Storbritannien frde inte alltid handlarna, frvaltarna av marknader och slakterier register i det format som godknts av den behriga myndigheten.
Passports 82. 
Pass 82.
Passport formats varied considerably from one Member State to another, as every Member State has developed its own system. 
Passens format varierade kraftigt frn en medlemsstat till en annan eftersom varje medlemsstat hade utvecklat ett eget system.
The passports were not comparable, one to another, and it was difficult for a farmer from another Member State to deci-pher the logic of the presentation in the various passports (see photograph 2). 
Passen var inte jmfrbara, och det var svrt fr en uppfdare frn en annan medlemsstat att tyda de olika passens upplgg (se foto 2).
Monitoring of passports of animals traded between Member States was inadequate in the Member States visited (see box 10). 
Uppfljningen av pass fr djur som hade slts mellan medlemsstater var otillrcklig i de medlemsstater som beskts (se ruta 10).
Box 10 In Italy, there was no guarantee that the passports were reliable. 
Ruta 10 I Italien fanns inga garantier fr att passen var tillfrlitliga.
In some regions different passport models were in existence simultaneously, with handwritten passports continuing to circulate alongside printed passports. 
I vissa regioner fanns det i sjlva verket flera olika passmodeller samtidigt, eftersom handskrivna pass fortfarande var i omlopp vid sidan av de tryckta passen.
In some cases passports of calves, imported from third countries and identified on the farm of importation, contained no indication of their place of consignment. 
Passen fr kalvar som importerats frn ett tredjeland och som identifierats p den anlggning djuret frst anlnde till innehll i vissa fall ingen uppgift om var kalvarna kom ifrn.
The Italian authorities elected not to issue new passports for animals from other Member States, but the information contained in the bar codes of the passports of traded animals was not systematically used, because the bar codes had not been standardised. 
De italienska myndigheterna har valt att inte utfrda nya pass fr de djur som kommer frn andra medlemsstater, men den information som finns i streckkoderna p passen fr djur som slts eller kpts hade inte anvnts systematiskt p grund av att dessa streckkoder inte var standardiserade.
Passports of slaughtered animals were not systematically returned to the competent authority. 
Passen fr slaktade djur tersndes inte systematiskt till den behriga myndigheten.
Some slaughterhouses sent the passports to the headquarters of the national database, others sent them to local units and some kept them for several years. 
Vissa slakterier skickade passen till stet fr den nationella databasen, andra skickade dem till de lokala enheterna och vissa behll dem i flera r.
There were no cross-checks between the passports of slaughtered animals and the slaughter information forwarded by slaughterhouses to the databases. 
Det fanns ingen dubbelkontroll mellan passen fr slaktade djur och den information om slakt som slakterierna meddelat till databaserna.
In Bavaria and Saxony there was no procedure for following up the return of passports after cattle had been slaughtered. 
I Bayern och Sachsen fanns det inga frfaranden fr uppfljning av tersndande av pass efter slakt av ntkreatur.
Passports were not systematically returned to the Regionalstelle of the Land. In addition, slaughterhouses did not complete the passports of all cattle slaughtered. 
Passen hade inte systematiskt snts tillbaka till det regionala centrumet i respektive delstat. Dessutom fyllde slakterierna inte i passen fr alla djur som slaktades.
In France, the authorities issue new passports for animals coming from other Member States. 
I Frankrike utfrdar myndigheterna nya pass fr djur som kommer frn andra medlemsstater.
The passports of traded animals from another Member State were not returned to the Member State of origin. 
Pass fr uppkpta djur som kommer frn en annan medlemsstat hade inte terlmnats till ursprungslandet.
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. 
Dessa pass samlades in antingen av jordbruksministeriet eller av de lokala myndigheterna i vntan p att eventuellt tersndas till den medlemsstat djuren kom frn.
There were no procedures for recording these passports and no system for annulling them. 
Det fanns varken frfaranden fr registrering av dessa pass eller ngot system fr annullering av dem.
C 29/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2005 Computerised databases and quality of data 83. 
C 29/26 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning 4.2.2005 Databaserna och kvaliteten p uppgifterna 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. 
I lagstiftningen str det att djurhllarna till databasen skall anmla alla frflyttningar till eller frn anlggningen, men det frtydligas inte vilket slags uppgifter som skall meddelas.
For this reason, the information in the movement reports was not always complete. 
Drfr var informationen i anmlningarna om frflyttning inte alltid kompletta.
For example, the French authorities received very limited information on the destination of cattle. 
De franska myndigheterna fick drfr mycket begrnsad information om ntkreaturens destinationer.
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). 
Djurhllarna behvde endast uppge antingen ÓslakteriÓ eller ÓuppfdningÓ som motiv till utfrseln utan ngon information om djurets faktiska destination (franska marknaden eller andra lnder).
As a consequence, the database provided no information on intra-Community or extra-Community movements of animals. 
Fljaktligen fanns det i databasen ingen information nr djuren frflyttades inom eller utanfr gemenskapen.
In Italy assembly centres did not automatically report movements. 
I Italien meddelade uppsamlingsstllena inte systematiskt frflyttningarna.