natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission would refer to its remarks in paragraph 21(a). (b) The Commission believes that the analyses at its disposal 18. were adequate for defining the general objectives in the guidelines. 
The Commission would refer to its remarks in paragraph 21(a). (b) The Commission believes that the analyses at its disposal 18. were adequate for defining the general objectives in the guidelines.
The Interreg III guidelines state the general aims and objectives to be pursued. 
The Interreg III guidelines state the general aims and objectives to be pursued.
It is, however, the situation in a particular border region that should determine the specific types of action that need to be covered by a programme. 
It is, however, the situation in a particular border region that should determine the specific types of action that need to be covered by a programme.
The definition of the concrete objectives and priorities for the programmes by the Member States’ authorities on the bases of the Interreg guidelines is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. 
The definition of the concrete objectives and priorities for the programmes by the Member StatesŐ authorities on the bases of the Interreg guidelines is in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Given the diverse situations the Commission preferred not to set common indicators ex ante; instead it suggested examples of indicators to Member States. 
Given the diverse situations the Commission preferred not to set common indicators ex ante; instead it suggested examples of indicators to Member States.
Defining indicators is a process which must be carried out on an ongoing basis and in partnership between the Commission, the management authorities and the monitoring and steering committees. 
Defining indicators is a process which must be carried out on an ongoing basis and in partnership between the Commission, the management authorities and the monitoring and steering committees.
7.12.2004 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 303/31 25. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/31 25.
In concentrating operations, preference is given to projects with a heavy cooperation content, whatever the area, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 17 and 22 for cross-border projects and 24 for interregional projects. 
In concentrating operations, preference is given to projects with a heavy cooperation content, whatever the area, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 17 and 22 for cross-border projects and 24 for interregional projects.
Sectoral concentration is appropriate in regions which have marked sectoral problems but not for a territory confronted with the general problem of weak socio-economic links because of the border. 
Sectoral concentration is appropriate in regions which have marked sectoral problems but not for a territory confronted with the general problem of weak socio-economic links because of the border.
In this area at least it is the intangible nature of the effects of cooperation, in particular, which limits the possibilities of precise indicators for evaluation purposes. 
In this area at least it is the intangible nature of the effects of cooperation, in particular, which limits the possibilities of precise indicators for evaluation purposes.
The Commission was concerned not to complicate programme management, as any definition of areas not based on NUTS III would make analyses and the organisation of partnership more difficult and would also lead to disputes about the geographical eligibility of projects. 
The Commission was concerned not to complicate programme management, as any definition of areas not based on NUTS III would make analyses and the organisation of partnership more difficult and would also lead to disputes about the geographical eligibility of projects.
The Commission discussed drafts of the guidelines with the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions on 30 November and 13 and 20 December 1999. 
The Commission discussed drafts of the guidelines with the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions on 30 November and 13 and 20 December 1999.
Before the formal approval of the guidelines the Commission services were also in regular contact with the regions and gave advice on the drafting of programmes. 
Before the formal approval of the guidelines the Commission services were also in regular contact with the regions and gave advice on the drafting of programmes.
Drafts of the specific guidance on ex ante evaluation and indicators for Interreg III were available to Member States in the Technical Group on Evaluation as early as November 1999. 
Drafts of the specific guidance on ex ante evaluation and indicators for Interreg III were available to Member States in the Technical Group on Evaluation as early as November 1999.
As stated in paragraph 28 the content of the guidelines was known well before they were finally published. 
As stated in paragraph 28 the content of the guidelines was known well before they were finally published.
The Commission does not therefore believe that the date of publication affected the quality of the proposals. 
The Commission does not therefore believe that the date of publication affected the quality of the proposals.
THE COMMISSION’S PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINING CIP PROPOSALS 32. 
THE COMMISSIONŐS PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINING CIP PROPOSALS 32.
The second phase of the examination of proposals involved inter-service consultations and culminated in a position paper. 
The second phase of the examination of proposals involved inter-service consultations and culminated in a position paper.
This was drawn up in accordance with internal instructions intended to ensure that the programmes were of good quality. 
This was drawn up in accordance with internal instructions intended to ensure that the programmes were of good quality.
It served as a basis for negotiations with the Member States’ authorities. 
It served as a basis for negotiations with the Member StatesŐ authorities.
All the comments made during the inter-service consultation and all correspondence with the Member States were filed in the computer system and in hard copy. 
All the comments made during the inter-service consultation and all correspondence with the Member States were filed in the computer system and in hard copy.
Desk officers systematically followed up the points raised in the position papers and discussed in the negotiation meetings. 
Desk officers systematically followed up the points raised in the position papers and discussed in the negotiation meetings.
The Commission had to find a balanced solution in partnership with the Member States. (a) The first version of the Spain-Portugal CIP provided only for the creation of secretariats working separately just for the subprogrammes. 
The Commission had to find a balanced solution in partnership with the Member States. (a) The first version of the Spain-Portugal CIP provided only for the creation of secretariats working separately just for the subprogrammes.
The corrected version of the programme, which was judged admissible, added the creation of a ge-nuine JTS for support for the overall management of the programme (in the managing authority) and of the subprogram-mes as regards operations coming under the responsibility of the central authorities of the two countries. 
The corrected version of the programme, which was judged admissible, added the creation of a genuine JTS for support for the overall management of the programme (in the managing authority) and of the subprogrammes as regards operations coming under the responsibility of the central authorities of the two countries.
In order not to delay programme start-up, the Commission accepted this proposal which it felt was not ideal but was an improvement. 
In order not to delay programme start-up, the Commission accepted this proposal which it felt was not ideal but was an improvement.
Subsequently the Commission took a number of steps to ask for the position of the JTS to be improved. (b) The Spain-Portugal programme proposal was found inadmis-sible after the check of the first proposal of 18 December 2000. 
Subsequently the Commission took a number of steps to ask for the position of the JTS to be improved. (b) The Spain-Portugal programme proposal was found inadmissible after the check of the first proposal of 18 December 2000.
The proposal was found admissible on 14 February 2001 after additional documentation had been supplied. 
The proposal was found admissible on 14 February 2001 after additional documentation had been supplied.
The comments of the coordination unit on the admissibility of the MEDOC programme were of a qualitative nature and could not be used to justify declaring the programme proposal inadmissible. 
The comments of the coordination unit on the admissibility of the MEDOC programme were of a qualitative nature and could not be used to justify declaring the programme proposal inadmissible.
The comments were of a type to be considered in the context of the position paper. 
The comments were of a type to be considered in the context of the position paper.
The Commission considers that the internal instructions were adequate to ensure a consistent and transparent treatment of the programmes, while allowing the necessary flexibility to deal with the wide variety of programme areas and of quality in the programme proposals. 
The Commission considers that the internal instructions were adequate to ensure a consistent and transparent treatment of the programmes, while allowing the necessary flexibility to deal with the wide variety of programme areas and of quality in the programme proposals.
It also considers that the Member States received adequate instructions for drafting proposals (see reply to paragraph 28). 
It also considers that the Member States received adequate instructions for drafting proposals (see reply to paragraph 28).
Further instructions would have run counter to the principle of subsidiarity and to the need to keep rules as simple as possible. 
Further instructions would have run counter to the principle of subsidiarity and to the need to keep rules as simple as possible.
The exceeding of the time limit for the approval of programmes was largely due to delays in programme authorities’ revision of their proposals, which first had to be agreed with their partners (see the Court’s observation in paragraph 37(c)). 
The exceeding of the time limit for the approval of programmes was largely due to delays in programme authoritiesŐ revision of their proposals, which first had to be agreed with their partners (see the CourtŐs observation in paragraph 37(c)).
Within the Commission, too, it was a considerable challenge to process a large volume of dossiers at the same time, with nearly half of the programme proposals arriving within the space of a few weeks around the deadline for submission. 
Within the Commission, too, it was a considerable challenge to process a large volume of dossiers at the same time, with nearly half of the programme proposals arriving within the space of a few weeks around the deadline for submission.
As stated in its reply to paragraph 19 of Special Report No 7/2003 (see FN 19), the Commission believes that the regulation time limits were not very realistic, particularly for Interreg. 
As stated in its reply to paragraph 19 of Special Report No 7/2003 (see FN 19), the Commission believes that the regulation time limits were not very realistic, particularly for Interreg.
37 (c) The Commission would refer to its reply to paragraph 36. 
37 (c) The Commission would refer to its reply to paragraph 36.
The Commission has announced that programme com-plements will be dropped for the next programming period. 
The Commission has announced that programme complements will be dropped for the next programming period.
C 303/32 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 7.12.2004 39. 
C 303/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 39.
Many actors were still occupied with projects under the old Interreg II programmes, which could be implemented until the end of 2001. 
Many actors were still occupied with projects under the old Interreg II programmes, which could be implemented until the end of 2001.
This reduced in practice the potential for new projects under the new programmes and therefore also reduced the effect of the delay in the publication of the guidelines and in the approval of programmes. 
This reduced in practice the potential for new projects under the new programmes and therefore also reduced the effect of the delay in the publication of the guidelines and in the approval of programmes.
The Commission would also refer to its communication of 20 September 2002 (COM(2002) 528) on the evolution of budget execution of the Structural Funds, in particular outstanding commitments (RAL). 
The Commission would also refer to its communication of 20 September 2002 (COM(2002) 528) on the evolution of budget execution of the Structural Funds, in particular outstanding commitments (RAL).
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE INITIAL ANALYSIS AND CHOICE OF MEASURES AND THE ADDED VALUE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS TO BE ADOPTED 52. 
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE INITIAL ANALYSIS AND CHOICE OF MEASURES AND THE ADDED VALUE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS TO BE ADOPTED 52.
The Commission would refer to methodology working document No 2 ‘Ex ante evaluation of Structural Fund operations’ which recommends an independent and objective evaluation, underlines the principle of proportionality, advocates an interactive link between ex ante evaluation and preparation of the strategy and proposes that the work of the evaluators be transmitted to the Commission either as an annex or as a document or series of separate documents. 
The Commission would refer to methodology working document No 2 ÔEx ante evaluation of Structural Fund operationsŐ which recommends an independent and objective evaluation, underlines the principle of proportionality, advocates an interactive link between ex ante evaluation and preparation of the strategy and proposes that the work of the evaluators be transmitted to the Commission either as an annex or as a document or series of separate documents.
The cooperation projects managed as ERDF innovative actions were completed at the end of 2002, i.e. after strand C was launched. 
The cooperation projects managed as ERDF innovative actions were completed at the end of 2002, i.e. after strand C was launched.
Although there was no external evaluation of these projects, the experience acquired helped the secretariats responsible for implementing the CIPs of this strand. 
Although there was no external evaluation of these projects, the experience acquired helped the secretariats responsible for implementing the CIPs of this strand.
COOPERATION IMPLEMENTATION DURING PREPARATION AND 41. 
COOPERATION IMPLEMENTATION DURING PREPARATION AND 41.
Due to the specificities of the three strands, the involvement of the various partners was different. 
Due to the specificities of the three strands, the involvement of the various partners was different.
As laid down in the guidelines (paragraphs 22 and 23), cross-border cooperation programmes were to be drawn up by the regional or local authorities in partnership with the national authorities, whereas transnational cooperation programmes were to be drawn up by the national authorities in close cooperation with the regional or local authorities. 
As laid down in the guidelines (paragraphs 22 and 23), cross-border cooperation programmes were to be drawn up by the regional or local authorities in partnership with the national authorities, whereas transnational cooperation programmes were to be drawn up by the national authorities in close cooperation with the regional or local authorities.
The Commission would refer to its replies to paragraphs 59 to 63. 
The Commission would refer to its replies to paragraphs 59 to 63.
An attempt was made in the north-west Region Interreg III B programme to set up a transnational association in the form of a European Economic Interest Grouping to host the managing authority and the joint technical secretariat of the programme. 
An attempt was made in the north-west Region Interreg III B programme to set up a transnational association in the form of a European Economic Interest Grouping to host the managing authority and the joint technical secretariat of the programme.
However, it was found during the negotiations that not all Member States provide for this type of institution with public responsibilities in their legislative systems. 
However, it was found during the negotiations that not all Member States provide for this type of institution with public responsibilities in their legislative systems.
Concerning a possible new legal instrument for cooperation in the new period, the Commission refers to its reply to at point 16. 
Concerning a possible new legal instrument for cooperation in the new period, the Commission refers to its reply to at point 16.
The guidelines state that the joint technical secretariat should assist the managing authority with the implementation and operational management of the programmes. 
The guidelines state that the joint technical secretariat should assist the managing authority with the implementation and operational management of the programmes.
Emphasis is placed on effectiveness and operational aspects, while the strategic aspects are left to the managing authority and the monitoring committee. 
Emphasis is placed on effectiveness and operational aspects, while the strategic aspects are left to the managing authority and the monitoring committee.
For this reason, a JTS set up in a single location and consisting of representatives of the Member States concerned is, as a rule, better adapted to the guidelines. 
For this reason, a JTS set up in a single location and consisting of representatives of the Member States concerned is, as a rule, better adapted to the guidelines.
In the guidelines the Commission had suggested that the system of financial management should allow a transfer from the ERDF, but preferably also national co-financing (point 25 of the guidelines). 
In the guidelines the Commission had suggested that the system of financial management should allow a transfer from the ERDF, but preferably also national co-financing (point 25 of the guidelines).
57. effectiveness of regional development policies and instruments, the Commission believes that it is for the decentralised public authorities to identify areas of cooperation. 
57. effectiveness of regional development policies and instruments, the Commission believes that it is for the decentralised public authorities to identify areas of cooperation.
It is quite right that descriptions should present development-related problems, because the main problem created by borders is that of the inadequate intensity of economic and social relations between neighbouring actors, which is an obstacle to development. 
It is quite right that descriptions should present development-related problems, because the main problem created by borders is that of the inadequate intensity of economic and social relations between neighbouring actors, which is an obstacle to development.
This is a tricky problem which takes time to re-solve, as it involves developing cooperation between administrations and organisations of all kinds on both sides of the border. 
This is a tricky problem which takes time to resolve, as it involves developing cooperation between administrations and organisations of all kinds on both sides of the border.
The missing links therefore concern a great many sectors of activity. 
The missing links therefore concern a great many sectors of activity.
On this point see the reply to paragraph 17. (b) The examples show the differences in cooperation needs between different programmes. 
On this point see the reply to paragraph 17. (b) The examples show the differences in cooperation needs between different programmes.
They also confirm the Commission’s opinion that regions should have considerable scope to choose for themselves the types of cooperation they find most urgent. 
They also confirm the CommissionŐs opinion that regions should have considerable scope to choose for themselves the types of cooperation they find most urgent.
It is true that the bottom-up approach, which the Commission considers essential in regional development, is potentially at odds with the principle of concentrating financial resources ‘on a limited number of topics and measures’ (point 11 of the guidelines). 
It is true that the bottom-up approach, which the Commission considers essential in regional development, is potentially at odds with the principle of concentrating financial resources Ôon a limited number of topics and measuresŐ (point 11 of the guidelines).
In particular, for programmes where there is long experience of cooperation and a limited development gap (at old internal bor-ders), the tendency is to cover a large number of topics in order to take cooperation further, rather than concentrate on a limited number of topics. 
In particular, for programmes where there is long experience of cooperation and a limited development gap (at old internal bor-ders), the tendency is to cover a large number of topics in order to take cooperation further, rather than concentrate on a limited number of topics.
In focusing strand C on the objective of improving the 
In focusing strand C on the objective of improving the
7.12.2004 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 303/33 60. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/33 60.
The strand A Interreg programmes differ from traditional operation programmes in that they are directed at cooperation and use rather innovative mechanisms to achieve this goal. 
The strand A Interreg programmes differ from traditional operation programmes in that they are directed at cooperation and use rather innovative mechanisms to achieve this goal.
In view of the problems facing these areas as set out in paragraphs 17, 21, 22 and 58, it is normal that the topics covered should be the same as in traditional programmes. 
In view of the problems facing these areas as set out in paragraphs 17, 21, 22 and 58, it is normal that the topics covered should be the same as in traditional programmes.
What distinguishes strand B from strand A is that those who devised these programmes followed the recommendations of the ESDP to structure their cooperation. 
What distinguishes strand B from strand A is that those who devised these programmes followed the recommendations of the ESDP to structure their cooperation.
As a result virtually all the strand B CIPs have a structure related to the ESDP priorities, namely polycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationship, clarity of access to infrastructure and knowledge and wise management of the natural and cultural heritage. 
As a result virtually all the strand B CIPs have a structure related to the ESDP priorities, namely polycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationship, clarity of access to infrastructure and knowledge and wise management of the natural and cultural heritage.
The Commission does, however, acknowledge that some of these CIPs could have been more targeted, but this is not always possible in trans-national partnership. 
The Commission does, however, acknowledge that some of these CIPs could have been more targeted, but this is not always possible in trans-national partnership.
The Commission would refer to its reply to paragraph 57. 
The Commission would refer to its reply to paragraph 57.