natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I stedet er resultatet fżlgende: a) Dokumenterne fokuserer navnlig p, hvor vanskeligt det er at gennemfżre en forhndsevaluering, at definere de prioriterede indsatsomrder og at mle effekten af programmerne; de er ikke sžrlig anvendelige i forbindelse med indfżrelsen af et system, der skal gżre det muligt at vurdere effekten af EF-initiativ-programmerne. b) For s vidt angr indikatorer, er dokumenterne temmelig uklare; det anbefales, at der opstilles et begržnset antal indikatorer, og samtidig opregnes p stribe kontekst-, effekt-, samarbejds-/integrations-, gennemfżrelses-, resultat-og nżg-leindikatorer, og det anbefales, at der anvendes kvalitative indikatorer; der gives eksempler p gennemfżrelse, resultat og effekt; det er ikke helt klart, hvordan der skelnes mellem disse forskellige kategorier, navnlig er gržnsen mellem gennemfżrelses-og resultatindikatorer uklar. 
Instead, the documents: (a) emphasise above all the difficulties of making an ex ante evaluation, defining priorities for action and measuring programme impact. They are not really suited to the task of setting up a system with which to assess the impact of CIPs; (b) maintain a certain degree of confusion as regards indicators: while advocating that the indicators be limited in number, they refer successively to indicators of context, impact, cooperation/integration, output and result, as well as to key indicators, and recommend the use of qualitative indicators.
For eksempel betragtes antallet af projektdeltagere undertiden som resultatindikator. (1) Der er ČtaleÇ om arbejdspapir 6 (5. maj 2000) Čvaluation ex ante et indicateurs pour Interreg (Volet A)Ç og arbejdspapir 7 (oktober 2000), som har samme indhold som arbejdspapir 6 suppleret med en gennemgang af linje B. Forhndsevalueringen skal blandt andet indeholde en vurdering af sammenhžngen mellem strategien og de opstillede ml, under hensyn til de konstaterede stžrke og svage punkter. c) Arbejdspapirerne džkker ikke linje C. Indikatorerne for denne linje skulle opstilles hen ad vejen, for Kommissionen havde med denne linje skabt en ramme for det tvžrregionale samarbejde, selv om den ikke kendte de specifikke behov og ml (jf. punkt 24). 
Moreover, the definition of these separate categories is somewhat unclear, in particular as regards output and result indicators: the number of project participants, for example, is seen at times as a result indicator; (1) ÔWorking paper 6 (5 May 2000) Ń Ex ante evaluation and indicators (Strand A)Ő Ń and working paper 7 (October 2000), which expands the content of working paper 6 to include Strand B. The ex ante evaluation should seek in particular to assess the consistency of the strategy and the designated objectives, account being taken of the strengths and weaknesses identified. (c) fail to address Strand C, for which it was decided to define indicators in the course of implementation, since the Commission conceived of this Strand as a framework for cooperation without precise knowledge of the specific needs and corresponding objectives (see paragraph 24).
Selv om der under EFRU er blevet givet stżtte til projekter vedrżrende tvžrregionalt samarbejde siden 1995, havde Kommissionen ikke evalueringer af disse projekter, da den udarbejdede retningslinjerne for linje C. Mlretning af foranstaltningerne 22. 
Although interregional cooperation projects had been in receipt of ERDF support since 1995, the Commission had no access to the relevant evaluations when preparing the Strand C guidelines. Targeting of measures 22.
Kommissionens retningslinjer omfatter en liste, som kun er vejledende, over foranstaltninger under linje A. Kommissionen har givet medlemsstaterne mulighed for at oprette meget omfattende programmer. Ligesom ml 1-og ml 2-interventions-pro-grammerne kan de omfatte foranstaltninger p omrderne żkonomi, sociale forhold, kultur og miljż, men der gžlder sžrlige betingelser for gennemfżrelsen af dem, som sigter mod at styrke det gržnseoverskridende samarbejde. 
Where the InitiativeŐs Strand A is concerned, the Commission guidelines contain a list of purely discretionary measures. The Member States have the option of setting up programmes that are very broad in scope. While, along the lines of the intervention programmes run under Objectives 1 and 2, these may include economic, social, cultural and environmental measures, their implementation is subject to special conditions that aim at strengthening cross-border cooperation.
Samtidig er der afsat langt fžrre finansielle ressourcer til dem end til disse traditionelle programmer, navnlig i betragtning af, hvor store de omrder er, der er stżtteberettigede under EF-initiativ-programmerne. Disse omrder kan ogs omfatte omrder, der ikke er berettigede til EFRUŐs ml 1-og ml-2-interventioner, dvs. omrder, hvor der ikke er sžrlige udviklings-eller omstillingsproblemer. 
At the same time, they enjoy far less funding than these traditional programmes, especially if account is also taken of the geographical extent of CIP-eligible areas, which may include zones that are ineligible for ERDF assistance under Objective 1 or 2 because they are not experiencing particular development or conversion difficulties.
Disse elementer er yderligere grunde (jf. punkt 20) til, at Kommissionen ved undersżgelsen af medlemsstaternes programforslag skal sikre sig, at interventionerne er mlrettede (jf. punkt 59-63). 
Given these considerations, there is all the more reason (see paragraph 20) for the Commission to ensure, when examining the Member StatesŐ programme proposals, that measures are targeted (see paragraphs 59 to 63).
Under linje B skal der i henhold til retningslinjerne tages hżjde for omrder, der er hżjt prioriterede i EF-politikken, f.eks. tvžreuropžiske net og anbefalingerne om regionaludvikling i ČDet Europžiske Fysiske og Funktionelle UdviklingsperspektivÇ (EFFU) (jf. glossaret). 
As regards Strand B, the guidelines call for attention to be given to the CommunityŐs policy priorities, and above all to the trans-European networks and the territorial development recommendations contained in the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP Ń see glossary).
Dermed giver Kommissionen ret konkrete retningslinjer for denne linje, men da den džkker et meget stort omrde, og de finansielle ressourcer er begržnsede, skal der tržffes et valg mellem de forskellige interventionsmuligheder. 
This Strand thus gains a certain degree of specificity, although, since it applies to a vast spatial area and enjoys limited financial resources, choices have to be made concerning the possibilities for intervention.
For s vidt angr linje C, indeholder Kommissionens oprindelige retningslinjer kun et generelt ml: effektivisering af regionaludviklings-og samhżrighedspolitikker og -instrumenter (jf. tabel 3), og samarbejdsomrderne er endnu ikke defineret. 
Where Strand C is concerned, the CommissionŐs initial guidelines outline a single general objective, namely, to improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion (see Table 3).
I en anden meddelelse offentliggjort den 15. maj 2001 blev indholdet af samarbejdet pržciseret, idet der blev fastsat fem omrder for tvžrregionalt samarbejde (2), heriblandt en kategori Čandre omr-derÇ. 
A second communication published on 15 May 2001 delimitated the content of cooperation by identifying five themes for interregional cooperation (2), among them a heading of ÔOther subjectsŐ.
Siden gennemfżrelsen af EF-initiativ-programmerne under denne linje startede, er det i denne kategori, der har vžret flest interventionsansżgninger og er blevet givet mest stżtte, hvad der viser, at denne linje džkker et alt for bredt spektrum. 
Since the implementation of Strand C CIPs began, this last theme has attracted the majority of aid applications and agreements, which underlines the fact that, as a whole, this Strand is too broad.
(2) ČAktiviteter, der stżttes under strukturfondsml 1 og 2Ç, ČTvžrregionalt samarbejde, der sammenknytter offentlige myndigheder eller lignende organer under andre Interreg-programmerÇ, ČTvžrregionalt samarbejde inden for byudviklingÇ, ČTvžrregionalt samarbejde, der sammenknytter regioner, som deltager i en eller flere aktioner under de tre samarbejdsomrder for regionale nyskabende aktioner for 2000-2006Ç og ČAndre omrder, der er velegnede til tvžrregionalt samarbejdeÇ. 
(2) ÔActivitiessupportedunderObjective1and2oftheStructuralFundsŐ, ÔInterregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other Interreg programmesŐ, ÔInterregional cooperation in the field of urban developmentŐ, ÔInterregional cooperation linking regions involved under one or several of the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000 to 2006Ő and ÔOther subjects appropriate to interregional cooperationŐ.
C 303/10 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 7.12.2004 25. 
C 303/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 25.
Det er netop det, Kommissionen i arbejdspapir 6 anfżrer som rsag til, at kvaliteten af evalueringerne af de tidligere programmer er s utilfredsstillende. 
It is in precisely these terms that the CommissionŐs working paper 6 explains the mediocre quality of earlier programme evaluations.
Koncentration af interventionerne er imidlertid et af de vžsentligste principper for SF-interventionen; det skal sikre, at interventionerne er effektive. 
Yet one of the key principles for the effectiveness of SF intervention is the concentration of assistance.
Er de stżtteberettigede omrder klart defineret? 
Are the eligible areas clearly defined?
Da der ikke fandtes et instrument, hvormed omrdet kunne opdeles finere, blev de stżtteberettigede omrder igen fastsat p grundlag af NUTS III-nomenklaturen (jf. glossaret). 
In the absence of a more subtle zoning instrument, the areas were once again defined on the basis of the NUTS III nomenclature (see glossary).
Nogle af dem ržkker s langt som 200 kilometer fra gržnsen og i en ržkke medlemsstater endnu lžngere. 
As a result, some areas extend up to 200 km from the border, and further in certain Member States.
Nžsten alle de reviderede EF-initiativ-programmer under linje A omfatter stżtteberettigede omrder, der ržkker mere end 70 kilometer fra gržnsen (EF-initiativ-programmet for Ems-Dollart-omrdet, EF-initiativ-programmet for Alpeomrdet, EF-initiativ-programmet for Irland-Wales, EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal). 
Almost all of the Strand A CIPs examined cover eligible areas stretching more than 70 km from the border (Ems-Dollart Region, Alps, Ireland-Wales and Spain-Portugal).
Dette spżrgsml vedrżrer ikke linje B og C, fordi det her ikke som under linje A drejer sig om samarbejde mellem naboomrder. 
This issue does not arise for Strands B and C, which, unlike Strand A, do not cover cooperation between neighbouring regions.
KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMGANG AF FORSLAGENE TIL EF-INITIATIV-PROGRAMMER 30. 
THE COMMISSIONŐS PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINING CIP PROPOSALS 30.
Kommissionen vurderer, om EF-initiativ-programmerne er i overensstemmelse med retningslinjerne. 
The Commission checks that all CIPs conform to the guidelines.
Retten mener, at undersżgelsen bżr vžre tilstržkkelig detaljeret, og at de svagheder, den konstaterer, derefter bżr fżre til forbedringer af EF-initiativ-programmerne. 
The Court feels that the examination procedure needs to be sufficiently detailed and that the shortcomings that are revealed should lead to improvements in the CIPs.
Endelig er det vigtigt, at EF-initiativ-programmerne vedtages uden forsinkelse, for at det samarbejde, der er igangsat under Interreg II, ikke skal blive afbrudt, og for at de disponible bevillinger kan blive udnyttet. 
Lastly, it is crucial that the CIPs be adopted on time in order to avoid interrupting the cooperation established by Interreg II and allow utilisation of the available appropriations.
Der er blevet defineret og indfżrt procedurer for undersżgelsen af forslag til programmer. De foregr i to faser. 
Procedures for the examination of programme proposals have been devised and put in place and consist of two stages.
I den anden fase undersżges kvaliteten af programmerne, og p grundlag af denne undersżgelse udarbejdes de žndringer af indholdet, som Kommissionen forelžgger under forhandlingerne med medlemsstaterne. 
The second stage focuses on programme quality and serves as a basis for the improvements that will be agreed to programme content in the course of negotiations with the Member States.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene anvendte kun i den fżrste fase en liste over kriterierne for undersżgelsen af forslagene til EF-initiativ-programmer. 
The Commission services applied a list of criteria for examining CIP proposals during the first stage only.
Listen var ret generel, og sigtet med kontrollerne var kun at undersżge, om programforslagene indeholdt bestemte formelle elementer. 
The list in question is fairly general, and the sole purpose of checking was to obtain assurance that certain formal elements were present in the programme proposals.
Under Rettens revision var det ikke muligt at spore kilden til samtlige bemžrkninger fra den anden fase, som Kommissionen havde meddelt medlemsstaterne. 
The Court was unable during its audit to source clearly every one of the observations made during the second examination stage and forwarded by the Commission to the Member States.
Sagsakterne omfattede ikke i alle tilfžlde et opfżlgningsdoku-ment, hvoraf det fremgik, om kravene eller bemžrkningerne i Kommissionens brev til medlemsstaterne var blevet efterlevet (det gžlder dog ikke EF-initiativ-programmet for Irland-Wales, EF-initiativ-programmet for Rheintal-Bodensee-Hochrhein, EF-initiativ-programmet for Ems-Dollart-omrdet, og til dels EF-initiativ-programmet for det vestlige Middelhav). 
Records did not always include a monitoring document indicating to what extent a response had been made to the requests or observations contained in the letter to the Member States (save in the cases of Ireland-Wales, Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein and Ems-Dollart Region and, in part, Western Mediterranean).
Punktet blev taget op igen under Kommissionens forhandlinger med medlemsstaterne. 
This matter re-emerged during the CommissionŐs negotiations with the Member States.
Selv om indholdet af programforslaget ikke blev žndret, vedtog Kommissionen det senere. b) Selv om forslagene til EF-initiativ-programmer blev žndret i mange tilfžlde, blev vžsentlige mangler ikke afhjulpet. 
Although no substantive changes were made, the Commission subsequently adopted the programme proposal; (b) notwithstanding the many changes that were made to the CIP proposals, serious failings were not redressed.
Nogle svagheder, f.eks. vedrżrende strategi og indikatorer (EF-initiativ-programmet for Alpeomrdet, EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal og EF-initiativ-programmet for det vestlige Middelhav) var endda blevet konstateret allerede i den fżrste undersżgelsesfase. 
However, shortcomings concerning strategy and indicators, for example, had been identified as early as the first stage of examination (Alps, Spain-Portugal and Western Mediterranean).
7.12.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 303/11 34. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/11 34.
I betragtning af, hvor mange programmer der skal undersżges, og hvor kompleks denne undersżgelse er, kunne man f EF-initiativ-programmer af bedre kvalitet, hvis man strukturerede arbejdet bedre og anvendte detaljerede kriterier, der kunne give gennemsigtige og ensartede evalueringer (jf. punkt 51-78). 
Given the number of programmes to be examined and the complexity of the examination procedure, improvements to CIP content could have been achieved through a more structured approach based on detailed criteria and aimed at obtaining a transparent, homogeneous evaluation (see paragraphs 51 to 78).
Sdanne kriterier kunne man s have meddelt medlemsstaterne i et af Kommissionens arbejdspapirer, fżr de begyndte forberedelsen af EF-initiativ-programmerne (jf. punkt 21). 
These criteria should then have been communicated to the Member States, in one of the working documents drawn up by the Commission, before they embarked on the task of preparing the CIPs (see paragraph 21).
Godkendte Kommissionen EF-initiativ-programmerne inden for de fastsatte frister? 
Did the Commission approve the CIPs within the agreed deadlines?
Mange af oplysningerne i disse programtillžg var gentagelser og besvžrlig-gjorde hele forberedelsesarbejdet (1). 
The programme complements contain a good deal of repetition and placed significant constraints on the preparation process (1).
Selv om programmerne godkendes med forsinkelse, betyder det ikke, at stżtteberettigelsesperioden for de endelige stżttemodtageres udgifter i medlemsstaterne forrykkes. 
Delays in programme adoption do not affect the start of the eligibility period of the final beneficiariesŐ expenditure in the Member States.
Stżtteberettigelsesperioden fastsžttes nemlig ud fra den dato, hvor Kommissionen har modtaget et acceptabelt forslag til EF-initiativ-program. 
This period is ruled to start on the date on which the Commission receives an admissible CIP proposal.
Men sdanne forsinkelser giver et afbržk i samarbejdsprocessen. 
None the less, these delays interrupt the cooperation process.
Stżttemodtagerne foretržkker faktisk at vente med at begynde at ivžrksžtte deres projekt, indtil deres ansżgning er blevet godkendt, og det kan den fżrst blive, nr Kommissionen har godkendt programmet, og nr andre elementer som f.eks. kriterierne for projektudvžlgelsen er blevet fastsat og indfżrt. 
The reason is that beneficiaries prefer to wait for their applications to be approved before starting to implement their projects, and this is only possible after the Commission has adopted the programme and other elements, such as the project selection criteria, have been agreed and put in place.
36. de 66 forslag til EF-initiativ-programmer under linje A og B blev indsendt inden fristens udlżb. 
Only 27 of the 66 CIP proposals for Strands A and B were submitted within the agreed deadline.
Ikke et eneste forslag var blevet godkendt inden for fristen p 5 mneder. 
Not one proposal was adopted within the five-month deadline.
Rettens undersżgelse af stikprżven p otte programmer viste, at denne godkendelsesprocedure gennemsnitligt kunne opdeles sledes: a) godkendelse af et program: knap en mned b) udarbejdelse af skriftlige bemžrkninger til medlemsstaterne om det modtagne forslag: nžsten tre mneder c) forhandlinger med medlemsstaterne, udarbejdelse af et žndret forslag, gennemgang af dette forslag og godkendelse: otte mneder. 
Analysis of the decision-making process for the eight-programme sample reveals that on average the adoption period breaks down as follows: (a) almost one month to declare the programme admissible; (b) just under a further three months to submit written observations on the proposal to the Member States; (c) eight months to negotiate with the Member States and receive, examine and adopt the amended proposal.
Selve beslutningsprocessen, efter at det endelige program var blevet fastlagt i samarbejde med medlemsstaterne: gennemsnitligt ca. n mned. 
The decision-making process per se, once the programme has been finalised by agreement with the authorities of the Member States, takes an average of around one month.
Nr Kommissionen havde godkendt hvert enkelt program, havde overvgningsudvalget for hvert enkelt EF-initiativ-program tre mneder til at udarbejde og godkende et program-tillžg. 
Finally, once each programme had been approved by the Commission, the monitoring committee for each CIP had three months to prepare and adopt a programme complement.
Dette tillžg skal indeholde en beskrivelse af gennemfżrelsen og overvgningen. 
The purpose of this document is to clarify certain aspects of the implementation and monitoring process.
Programtillžgget til adskillige af de reviderede programmer var ikke blevet godkendt af overvgningsudvalget inden for den fastsatte frist (EF-initiativ-programmet for Irland-Wales og EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal). 
The complements for several of the programmes examined were not adopted by the monitoring committee within the agreed deadline (Ireland-Wales and Spain-Portugal).
I en ržkke tilfžlde var tillžgget af s drlig De foreskrevne frister blev overskredet meget. 
The statutory deadlines were exceeded by a very consid-
C 303/12 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 7.12.2004 Samarbejder medlemsstaterne om gennemfżrelsen af EF-initiativ-programmerne? 
C 303/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 Do the Member States cooperate on the implementation of CIPs?
En af de vigtigste žndringer af programmerne under tredje generation af Interreg (jf. punkt 7) er enhedsreglen: n forvaltningsmyndighed, n betalingsmyndighed, t overvgningsudvalg, n bankkonto, som EFRU-stżtten indbetales p, n finansieringsplan, t FTS og t styringsudvalg. 
The main changes affecting the third generation of Interreg programmes (see paragraph 7) include the establishment of shared managing authorities, paying authorities, monitoring committees, financial plans and bank accounts into which ERDF aid is to be paid, as well as the constitution of JTSs and steering committees.
Inden for hvert enkelt program blev der udpeget n forvaltningsmyndighed og n betalingsmyndighed. 
A single managing authority and a single paying authority were designated for each programme.
Der oprettedes t styringsudvalg sammensat af repržsentanter for de forskellige deltagende lande. 
A steering committee was set up comprising representatives from each country concerned.
Forsżgene p at f oprettet EŻFGŐer, der skulle deltage i gennemfżrelsen af Interreg-programmerne, gav ikke resultat (EF-initiativ-programmet for Alpeomrdet og EF-initiativ-programmet for Nordvesteuropa), selv om Kommissionen havde foreslet en sdan lżsning (jf. punkt 16). Sdanne juridiske personer kunne imidlertid repržsentere de forskellige medlemsstater, der deltager i et EF-initiativ-program. 
Attempts to establish EEIGs as agents for the implementation of Interreg programmes were unsuccessful (Alps and north-west Europe), despite Commission encouragement (see paragraph 16). However, legal entities of this description could provide representation for the Member States involved in a CIP, a situation which is not possible when regional governments act as the single authorities, as in the case of the programmes that were examined.
FTSŐerne blev oprettet efter forskellige modeller, som i en ržkke tilfžlde ikke var i retningslinjernes nd: at fremme samarbejdet mellem de organer, der skulle gennemfżre EF-initiativ-programmerne. 
The different models used for the constitution of JTSs were sometimes far removed from the spirit of the guidelines, which is also to promote cooperation between the bodies implementing CIPs.
Kommissionen godkendte dem imidlertid, fordi den żnskede at f godkendt programmerne uden yderligere forsinkelser: a) Den mest vellykkede model er et FTS, som er oprettet p t sted, som er sammensat af personer fra de forskellige involverede medlemsstater, og som i de fleste tilfžlde har afdelinger i nogle eller alle medlemsstater. 
However, the Commission accepted the different models because it was concerned above all that the programmes be adopted without further exacerbating the delays: (a) the most successful model is that of a JTS set up in a single location and consisting of representatives of each of the Member States concerned, usually with offices in some or all of the Member States.
Det FTS, der fungerer bedst, er etableret inden for et organ for tvžreuropžisk samarbejde, som medlemsstaterne har oprettet (EF-initiativ-programmet for Ems-Dollart-omrdet). 
In the best case examined (Ems-Dollart Region), the JTS is part of an organisation for trans-European cooperation that was set up by the Member States.
Et andet FTS hżrer ind under en sammenslutning, der ikke har noget med gennemfżrelsen af EF-initiativ-programmet at gżre, men som er tvžreuropžisk (EF-initiativ-programmet for Nordvesteuropa). 
In another case (north-west Europe), it is part of an undertaking unconnected with the implementation of the CIP but nonetheless retains a trans-European character.