natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ukazatele výsledku 1. počet podpořených projektů 2. počet podpořených iniciativ spolupráce 3. počet studií a základních plánovacích 1. ekonomický rozvoj 2. územní rozvoj a rozvoj v oblasti ži-Ukazatele výsledku, které byly přijaty pro každou prioritu, se snaží zjišťovat počet projektů v určitých oblastech, např. počet projektů, jejichž cílem je podpořit daný region a počet projektů v oblasti přenosu inovací. 
Number of 1. Economic development 2. Environmental and spatial develop-The result indicators adopted for each priority seek to measure the number of projects in certain fields, e.g. the number of projects that aim to promote the region and the number of projects in the field of innovation transfer.
Celkový cíl je široce postavený a je doprovázen velkým počtem dílčích cílů. 
The overall objective is wide and accompanied by numerous sub-objectives.
Dané ukazatele jsou s ohledem na rozsah cílů nedostačující. 
The indicators are insufficient, given the scale of the objectives.
7.12.2004 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 303/25 Západní Středomoří (okruh B) Zvýšit územní konkurenceschopnost v rámci celé oblasti západního Středomoří; posílit soudržnost oblasti spolupráce prostřednictvím zvýšení míry souladu rozvojových politik pro dané území cestou zvýšeného propojení mezi institucemi; podporovat a zahajovat pestřejší a početnější nadnárodní iniciativy spolupráce za účelem dosažení udržitelného rozvoje v rozsahu evropských regionů způsobilých k účasti Ukazatele výsledku 1. počet organizací zahrnutých do pro-Čtyři priority: Příklady ukazatelů dopadu pro prioritu 1: Severní oblast (okruh C) Zvýšení účinnosti politik a nástrojů regio-— nálního rozvoje a soudržnosti prostřednictvím vytvoření sítí, zvláště v rámci zaostávajících regionů a regionů pro-— — PIS Celkový cíl Ukazatel celkového dopadu nebo výsledku Priority a dílčí cíle Ukazatel dopadu nebo výsledku v programu, a to spolu s nečlenskými zeměmi na jižním pobřeží Středomoří. dvě země nebo nejméně jednu nečlen-skou zemi Celkový cíl je velmi široce postavený a nemůže být měřen pomocí přijatých ukazatelů. cházejících přeměnou. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/25 Western Mediterranean (Strand B) To increase territorial competitiveness throughout the Mdoc area; strengthen the cohesion of the cooperational area by making land development policies more consistent through enhanced interinstitutional integration; to foster and initiate richer, more numerous, transnational cooperation initiatives with a view to sustainable development on the scale of the European regions eligible for the programme, and with the non-member countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean.
Cíle okruhu C a příslušných PIS nebyly dosud přiměřeně určeny. 
The Strand C objectives and CIPs have not yet been adequately defined.
Dosud nejsou k dispozici ukazatele. 
There are no indicators as yet.
(1) Pojem „dopad“ zohledňuje dlouhodobé účinky, zatímco „výsledky“ jsou přímé a okamžité. jektu 2. počet provedených územních a strate-1. 
(1) The term ÔimpactŐ refers to long-term effects, while ÔresultsŐ are direct and immediate. projects 2.
2. středozemní pánev regionální rozvojová strategie a urbanistické systémy dopravní systémy a informační společnost životní prostředí, podpora dědictví a udržitelný rozvoj — — počet financovaných projektů k rozvoji středomořské oblasti počet dohod mezi orgány na dvou březích Středomoří gických studií 3. počet sítí zahrnujících veřejné orgány 4. počet projektů zahrnujících více než 3. 
Number of strategic and spatial studies 1. 2. Mediterranean basin Regional development strategy and urban systems Transport systems and information society Environment, heritage promotion and sustainable development Ń Ń Number of projects to develop the Mediterranean area being financed Number of agreements between authorities on the two shores of the Mediterranean carried out 3.
4. — — počet školených osob počet portálů sdílených více než jedním podnikatelským subjektem na dvou březích Středomoří růst míry používání nových technologií ze strany financovaných orgánů a podnikatelských subjektů — 
Number of projects involving more Ń Ń Number of people trained Number of portals shared by more than one undertaking on the two shores of the Mediterranean Increase in the rate of use of the new technologies by the authorities and undertakings being financed than two countries, or at least one non-member country. Ń
C 303/26 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 7.12.2004 S I G o i g e R Interreg IIIA programms (2000-2006) Canarias (E) 1. 
C 303/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 S I G o i g e R Interreg IIIA programms (2000-2006) Canarias (E) 1.
52 0 100 500km © EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries 43 47 44 12 8 22. 
52 0 100 500km Š EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries 44 12 8 22.
13 14 15 25 26 42 21 16 20 17 28 27 35 18 40 19 24 22 29 30 32 34 33 39 23 31 38 11 9 10 41 46 50 51 6 5 36 37 3 1 11. 
13 14 15 25 26 42 21 16 20 17 28 27 35 18 40 19 24 22 29 30 32 34 33 39 23 31 38 11 9 10 41 46 50 51 6 5 36 37 3 1 11.
7 Guadeloupe Martinique Réunion 2 4 16. 
7 Guadeloupe Martinique Runion 2 4 16.
48 49 Mapa 1 (F) (F) Guyane (F) (F) Madeira (P) Açores (P) 20. 
48 49 Map 1 (F) (F) Guyane (F) (F) Madeira (P) Aores (P) 20.
7.12.2004 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie Mapa 2 Interreg IIIB (2000-2006): Cooperation areas C 303/27 Northern Periphery North Sea Baltic Sea North West Europe Atlantic Area CADSES South West Europe Western Mediterranean Alpine Space Northern Periphery North West Europe South West Europe North Sea Atlantic Area Archimed Non-E.U. areas are indicative only. © EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries S G I R e g i o Zdroj: Komise, GŘ REGIO. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union Map 2 Interreg IIIB (2000-2006): Cooperation areas C 303/27 Northern Periphery North Sea Baltic Sea North West Europe Atlantic Area CADSES South West Europe Western Mediterranean Alpine Space Northern Periphery North West Europe South West Europe North Sea Atlantic Area Archimed Non-E.U. areas are indicative only.
Western Mediterranean Caribbean Area Açores, Madeira, Canarias Area Indian Ocean Area Açores - Madeira - Canarias Area Caribbean Area 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km Baltic Sea CADSES Alpine Space Archimed 0 100 500 km 0 50 250 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km Indian Ocean Area 0 100 500 km 
Western Mediterranean Caribbean Area Aores, Madeira, Canarias Area Indian Ocean Area Aores - Madeira - Canarias Area Caribbean Area 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km Baltic Sea CADSES Alpine Space Archimed 0 100 500 km 0 50 250 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km 0 100 500 km Indian Ocean Area 0 100 500 km
C 303/28 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 7.12.2004 S I G R e g i o INTERREG IIIC (2000-2006) South West North East North East South West Zdroj: Komise, GŘ REGIO. 
C 303/28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 S I G R e g i o INTERREG IIIC (2000-2006) South West North East North East South West Source: Commission, DG REGIO.
Mapa 3 Canarias (E) Guadeloupe Martinique Réunion (F) (F) Madeira (P) (F) Guyane (F) Açores (P) INTERREG IIIC 0 100 500km © EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries 
Map 3 Canarias (E) Guadeloupe Martinique Runion (F) (F) Madeira (P) (F) Guyane (F) Aores (P) INTERREG IIIC 0 100 500km Š EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries
7.12.2004 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 303/29 SHRNUTÍ III. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/29 THE COMMISSIONŐS REPLIES SUMMARY III.
S ohledem na velký počet přeshraničních programů, různorodost dotčených oblastí a prioritní cíl rozvoje přeshraničních ekonomických a sociálních pólů si Komise ve svém zaměření zvolila přístup „zdola“. 
In view of the large number of cross-border programmes, the many different types of area concerned and the priority objective of developing cross-border economic and social centres, the Commission opted in its guidelines for a bottom-up approach.
Z tohoto důvodu se zaměření na části A a C vztahuje k prioritním oblastem z pohledu relativně širokého, i když ne vyčerpávajícího. 
This is why the guidelines for strands A and C refer to the priority areas in relatively broad and non-exhaustive terms.
Přidaná hodnota spočívá v rozvoji přeshraniční spolupráce a v následných podpůrných účincích. 
The added value is to be found in the development of cross-border cooperation and in the catalyst effect this produces.
Ukazatele by měly měřit pokrok, jehož se v této oblasti dosáhlo. 
The indicators should measure progress made in this field.
Nicméně jelikož byl velký počet akcí jiného než hmotného charakteru, bylo obtížnější sledované ukazatele zjišťovat. 
However, the intangible nature of a great many operations made it difficult to devise targeted indicators.
Hlavní subjekty byly seznámeny se základními liniemi metodických pokynů a Komise s nimi udržovala pravidelné kontakty ještě před zveřejněním těchto metodických pokynů. 
The main actors were familiar with the general points of the guidelines, and the Commission had been in regular contact with them well before the guidelines were published.
I když je vždy možné určité zlepšení, Komise se domnívá, že postupy připravila dostatečně a že odstranila hlavní nedostatky v rámci možností daných vyjednáváním. Zpoždění bylo způsobeno především dobou potřebnou na odstranění těchto nedostatků, protože bylo nutné dosáhnout dohody všech dotčených členských států. 
Even though improvements are always possible, the Commission believes that the procedural stages were adequately prepared and that the main shortcomings had been corrected, as far as was possible given that there had to be some negotiation.
Dopad zpoždění na zahájení programů byl malý. 
The delays had little impact on the start-up of the programmes.
V. Vytvoření opravdových společných struktur řízení, stanovujících právní subjektivitu by usnadnilo zavádění programů spolupráce. 
V. The creation of genuine joint management structures with their own legal personality would facilitate implementation of cooperation programmes.
Komise ve své třetí zprávě o hospodářské a sociální soudržnosti oznámila svůj záměr navrhnout Radě nový právní nástroj ve formě struktury evropské spolupráce. 
In its third report on economic and social cohesion the Commission announced that it intended to propose to the Council a new legal instrument, in the form of a European cooperation structure.
Přístup zdola odhalil obavy, jež nebyly zjištěny v odborných rozborech, avšak vyjádřily se o nich regionální a místní orgány, jež podporují strategii a volbu priorit. 
The bottom-up approach brings out concerns not identified by expert analysis but expressed by regional and local authorities which feed into the strategy and choice of priorities.
Jelikož globálním cílem přeshraničních PIS (programů iniciativy Společenství) je přispět k rozvoji přeshraničních hospodářských a sociálních pólů, může se na dosažení tohoto cíle podílet každý projekt podporující tuto spolupráci. 
As the overall objective of the cross-border CIPs is to contribute to the development of cross-border economic and social centres, any project which facilitates cooperation on this point can participate in the objective.
Komise si je vědoma obtíží při hledání vhodných ukazatelů, které souvisejí s tím, že přidaná hodnota iniciativy Interreg se projevuje v celé řadě forem. 
The Commission recognises that there is a difficulty in finding suitable indicators due to the fact that the added value of the Interreg Initiative takes a variety of forms.
Slibným začátkem jsou v tomto směru soubory ukazatelů pro jednotlivé programy Interreg III. 
The sets of indicators in individual Interreg III programmes are, however, a promising start in this direction.
Komise vybídla členské státy, aby vytvořily informatické systémy na řízení projektů a databáze na shromažďování informací o ukazatelích. 
The Commission encouraged Member States to put in place IT project management systems and databases to compile information for use with indicators.
Na základě závěrů průběžného hodnocení Komise často naléhala na řídící orgány programů, aby systémy sledování ukazatelů zlepšily. 
After the mid-term assessments, the Commission urged many programme management authorities to improve the systems of indicators.
Ve snaze o zjednodušení Komise členské státy vyzvala, aby zjednodušily a snížily počet ukazatelů svých výsledků. 
As part of the simplification drive, the Commission called on Member States to simplify and reduce the number of their impact indicators.
Volba tohoto přístupu ovlivňuje možnost předvídat standardní ukazatele, i když tato oblast ještě skýtá možnosti zlepšení. 
The choice of this approach affects the possibility of laying down standard indicators, even if improvements are possible in this field.
X. Komise předloží metodické pokyny a dokumenty dostatečně včas před začátkem příštího programovacího období. 
X. The Commission will present the guidelines and methodology documents well before the next programming period gets under way.
Komise zvažuje roli hodnocení ex-ante v rámci příprav nových nařízení. 
The Commission is reviewing the role of ex ante evaluation in preparing the new regulations.
Komise prostuduje doporučení Dvora v kontextu příprav příštího programovacího období. 
The Commission will examine the CourtŐs recommendation when preparing the next programming period.
INTRODUCTION ODPOVĚDI KOMISE 4. (a) The Commission would point out that the recommendation made in 4(a) has been taken into account in the guidelines for Interreg III. 
INTRODUCTION 4. (a) The Commission would point out that the recommendation made in 4(a) has been taken into account in the guidelines for Interreg III.
It would refer to the Court’s observations at 7(b). 
It would refer to the CourtŐs observations at 7(b).
THE COMMISSION GUIDELINES 12. 
THE COMMISSION GUIDELINES 12.
The Commission shares the Court’s view that it is important that guidelines are adopted before the preparation of programmes starts. 
The Commission shares the CourtŐs view that it is important that guidelines are adopted before the preparation of programmes starts.
On the question of making available the guidelines for Interreg III, the Commission would refer to its reply to paragraph 28. 
On the question of making available the guidelines for Interreg III, the Commission would refer to its reply to paragraph 28.
On the question of specific operational and measurable objectives and targeted measures, it would refer to its replies in paragraphs 17 to 25. 
On the question of specific operational and measurable objectives and targeted measures, it would refer to its replies in paragraphs 17 to 25.
15. (b) Cross-border institutions had been involved in Interreg programmes in some regions. 
15. (b) Cross-border institutions had been involved in Interreg programmes in some regions.
However, the different national legal situations meant that the Commission could not prescribe cooperation structures and the guidelines therefore limited themselves to requiring joint governing bodies. 
However, the different national legal situations meant that the Commission could not prescribe cooperation structures and the guidelines therefore limited themselves to requiring joint governing bodies.
C 303/30 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 7.12.2004 16. 
C 303/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 16.
In its guidelines the Commission gives European economic interest groupings (EEIGs) as one of the avenues to be explo-red; this was done in a number of programmes but the results were rather disappointing, as is stated in paragraph 44. 
In its guidelines the Commission gives European economic interest groupings (EEIGs) as one of the avenues to be explored; this was done in a number of programmes but the results were rather disappointing, as is stated in paragraph 44.
The Final Report on the ex post evaluation of Interreg II published in December 2003 has since confirmed that the EEIG instrument is not geared towards cooperation between public law based authorities and that it is very time and resource consuming to set up and created practical difficulties in operation. 
The Final Report on the ex post evaluation of Interreg II published in December 2003 has since confirmed that the EEIG instrument is not geared towards cooperation between public law based authorities and that it is very time and resource consuming to set up and created practical difficulties in operation.
On completion of the work carried out in the wake of the study on legal cooperation instruments, the Commission envisaged, in the proposals contained in the third report on economic and social cohesion, creating a legal instrument to facilitate the management of cooperation programmes. (a) Some of the most important benefits of Interreg are not quantifiable. 
On completion of the work carried out in the wake of the study on legal cooperation instruments, the Commission envisaged, in the proposals contained in the third report on economic and social cohesion, creating a legal instrument to facilitate the management of cooperation programmes. (a) Some of the most important benefits of Interreg are not quantifiable.
One of the main ones is to create, often for the first time, a context where cooperation between individuals, public and private institutions and enterprises across borders can take place. 
One of the main ones is to create, often for the first time, a context where cooperation between individuals, public and private institutions and enterprises across borders can take place.
The greater the intangible content of projects, the greater the difficulty of developing indicators. 
The greater the intangible content of projects, the greater the difficulty of developing indicators.
The Commission has concentrated on developing indicators to measure the concrete results of cross-border and transnational cooperation in particular programmes. 
The Commission has concentrated on developing indicators to measure the concrete results of cross-border and transnational cooperation in particular programmes.
The current sets of indicators in individual Interreg III programmes represent a start in this direction. (b) Despite the inherent difficulty of quantifying effects that are largely intangible, the Commission aimed in its documents to give examples of indicators that could be used in practice. 
The current sets of indicators in individual Interreg III programmes represent a start in this direction. (b) Despite the inherent difficulty of quantifying effects that are largely intangible, the Commission aimed in its documents to give examples of indicators that could be used in practice.
In the light of the experience gained in using the indicators, the Commission recognises that there is room for improvement in the guidance on indicators. (c) The Commission was aware of the needs in terms of interregional cooperation (strand C). 
In the light of the experience gained in using the indicators, the Commission recognises that there is room for improvement in the guidance on indicators. (c) The Commission was aware of the needs in terms of interregional cooperation (strand C).
Over the period 1994 to 1999, it had organised five calls for proposals which had attracted over 1 500 applications each representing a number of partners. 
Over the period 1994 to 1999, it had organised five calls for proposals which had attracted over 1 500 applications each representing a number of partners.
In response to these calls it financed and monitored some 150 cooperation projects. 
In response to these calls it financed and monitored some 150 cooperation projects.
On the basis of this experience the Commission decided to focus this type of cooperation on improving the effectiveness of regional development and cohesion policies and instruments. 
On the basis of this experience the Commission decided to focus this type of cooperation on improving the effectiveness of regional development and cohesion policies and instruments.
The Commission would emphasise the usefulness of this type of cooperation in an enlarged, 25-member Union with many bodies and authorities conducting policies or managing regional development measures. 
The Commission would emphasise the usefulness of this type of cooperation in an enlarged, 25-member Union with many bodies and authorities conducting policies or managing regional development measures.
The Commission adopted the approach of a basket of options from which the Member States could choose because of the diversity of situations in the regions. 
The Commission adopted the approach of a basket of options from which the Member States could choose because of the diversity of situations in the regions.
Both in the guidelines and during the negotiations the Member States were recommen-ded, inter alia, because of the limited funds available, to focus the actions in each programme on certain prioritised measures deriving from the socio-economic analysis of the situation in the regions concerned. 
Both in the guidelines and during the negotiations the Member States were recommended, inter alia, because of the limited funds available, to focus the actions in each programme on certain prioritised measures deriving from the socio-economic analysis of the situation in the regions concerned.
Only NUTS III areas along the border could be included. 
Only NUTS III areas along the border could be included.
Such regions may be disadvantaged in comparison with the average of the NUTS II regions to which they belong. 
Such regions may be disadvantaged in comparison with the average of the NUTS II regions to which they belong.
For example the NUTS III areas on the Bavarian-Czech border face a different socio-economic situation than the average of the NUTS II areas of Niederbayern or Oberpfalz, which are close to the 2001 EU15 average. 
For example the NUTS III areas on the Bavarian-Czech border face a different socio-economic situation than the average of the NUTS II areas of Niederbayern or Oberpfalz, which are close to the 2001 EU15 average.
The Commission wanted to leave the decentralised public authorities the choice of areas in which they wished to cooperate to improve their development policies and instruments. 
The Commission wanted to leave the decentralised public authorities the choice of areas in which they wished to cooperate to improve their development policies and instruments.
This allows steering committees to select the projects best suited to the regional development and cohesion objectives. 
This allows steering committees to select the projects best suited to the regional development and cohesion objectives.
17. (a) Cross-border programmes have similar objectives to those of traditional Structural Fund programmes, but with the specific feature set out in point 9 of the guide-lines, namely the development of cross-border economic and social centres. 
17. (a) Cross-border programmes have similar objectives to those of traditional Structural Fund programmes, but with the specific feature set out in point 9 of the guidelines, namely the development of cross-border economic and social centres.
This can only be achieved by developing as many links as possible between neighbouring socio-economic fabrics which, because of borders, have no links. 
This can only be achieved by developing as many links as possible between neighbouring socio-economic fabrics which, because of borders, have no links.
The fundamental problem for border areas is the limited exchanges between actors on the two sides of the border. 
The fundamental problem for border areas is the limited exchanges between actors on the two sides of the border.
The intangible nature of a great many Interreg operations make it difficult to quantify the impact. 
The intangible nature of a great many Interreg operations make it difficult to quantify the impact.