natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De vžsentligste konklusioner var: a) Projekterne var ikke gržnseoverskridende, og det skortede p gržnseoverskridende samarbejde, ogs i forvaltningen af EF-initiativ-programmerne. b) Der var ikke fastlagt indikatorer, og virkningen af EF-initiativ-programmerne blev ikke evalueret tilfredsstillende. c) Kommissionen havde overskredet fristen for vedtagelse af programmerne. 
The main conclusions highlighted: (a) the projectsŐ lack of a cross-border character and the absence of cross-border cooperation, inter alia, in the management of the Community Initiative programmes (CIPs); (b) the absence of indicators and the unsatisfactory nature of the assessment of the CIPsŐ impact; (c) delays in the adoption of the programmes by the Commission.
Ved udgangen af den anden gennemfżrelsesperiode (Interreg II) konstaterede Kommissionen, at projekterne ikke opfyldte kravet om, at de skulle vžre gržnseoverskridende, tilfredsstillende, og at forhndsevalueringen og indikatorsystemerne burde forbedres (5). 
At the end of the second implementation period (Interreg II), the Commission reported that the projectsŐ cross-border character, the ex ante evaluations and the systems of indicators needed to be improved (5).
1260/1999 skal 5,35 % af strukturfondenes forpligtelsesbevillinger i perioden 2000-2006, som belżber sig til 195 milliarder euro i 1999-priser, anvendes til finansiering af fžllesskabsinitiativer (Interreg, Urban, Leader og Equal). 
(3) PursuanttoArticle7ofRegulation(EC)No1260/1999,5,35%ofthe commitment appropriations from the Structural Funds for the period 2000 to 2006, or 195 000 million euro at 1999 prices, is allocated to the CIs (Interreg, Urban, Leader and Equal).
I artikel 20 tilfżjes det, at 2,5 % af dette belżb p 195 milliarder skal tildeles Interreg. 
Article 20 adds that 2,5 % of this 195 000 million euro is assigned to Interreg.
(4) rsberetningen for regnskabsret 1994, punkt 4.61-4.72 og 4.89 (EFT C 303 af 14.11.1995). 
(4) Annual Report concerning the financial year 1994, paragraphs 4.61 to 4.72 and 4.89 (OJ C 303, 14.11.1995).
(5) Jf. ČInitiative communautaire Interreg II 1994-1999: un premier bilanÇ, januar 2000) og arbejdspapir 6 (5. maj 2000) Čvaluation ex ante et indicateurs (Volet A)Ç. 
(5) See ÔCommunity Initiative Interreg II 1994 to 1999: an initial evaluationŐ, January 2000, and ÔWorking paper 6 (5 May 2000) Đ Ex ante evaluation and indicators for Interreg (Strand A)Ő.
I arbejdspapir 7 er sidstnžvnte dokument blevet suppleret med en gennemgang af linje B. 
Working paper 6 was expanded to include Strand B and reissued as working paper 7.
7.12.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 303/7 De vžsentligste kendetegn ved initiativet i perioden 2000-2006 6. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/7 Main features of the Initiative for the period 2000 to 2006 6.
Interreg III gennemfżres via tre linjer (1): A vedrżrende gržnseoverskridende samarbejde mellem naboregioner (53 EF-initiativ-programmer), B vedrżrende tvžrnationalt samarbejde mellem stżrre grupper af regioner (13 EF-initiativ-programmer), og C vedrżrende tvžrregionalt samarbejde i hele EF (fire EF-ini-tiativ-programmer). 
Interreg III comprises three strands (1): Strand A covers cross-border cooperation between neighbouring regions (53 CIPs); Strand B covers transnational cooperation across large groupings of regions (13 CIPs); and Strand C covers interregional cooperation across the Community as a whole (four CIPs).
Linjerne er beskrevet i hovedtržk i tabel 3. 
The main features of each Strand are shown in Table 3.
Initiativet džkker alts ikke mere kun det gržnseoverskridende samarbejde, der var grundlaget for dets oprettelse i 1990. 
The Initiative is therefore no longer limited to cross-border cooperation, although this was the basis for its establishment in 1990.
Det er blevet et initiativ for tvžreuropžisk (jf. glossaret) (2) samarbejde. 
It has become a trans-European cooperation initiative (see glossary) (2).
(1) Meddelelse fra Kommissionen til medlemsstaterne af 28. april 2000 om retningslinjer for et fžllesskabsinitiativ vedrżrende tvžreuropžisk samarbejde, der skal fremme en harmonisk og afbalanceret udvikling inden for det europžiske territorium Ń Interreg III (EFT C 143 af 23.5.2000, s. 
(1) Communication from the Commission to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory Đ Interreg III (OJ C 143, 23.5.2000, p.
6) og meddelelse fra Kommissionen til medlemsstaterne af 7. maj 2001 ČTvžrregionalt samarbejdeÇ Ń Linje C under EUŐs Interreg III-initiativ (EFT C 141 af 15.5.2001, s. 2). 
6) and Communication from the Commission to the Member States of 7 May 2001 Đ ÔInterregional cooperationŐ Đ Strand C of the Interreg III Community Initiative (OJ C 141, 15.5.2001, p. 2).
(2) Ganske vist deltager nogle regioner i kandidatlandene og i tredjelande i gennemfżrelsen af en ržkke EF-initiativ-programmer under Interreg (jf. navnet p en ržkke EF-initiativ programmer p kort nr. 1, de skraverede regioner p kort nr. 2 og en ržkke regioner eller lande p kort nr. 
(2) Although regions from the accession States and third countries are partners in a number of Interreg CIPs (see the titles of some CIPs on map 1, the hatched regions of map 2 and some regions and countries on map 3), they do not receive funding under the CI.
Interventionen til fordel for dem kommer fra andre EF-instrumenter end SF. 
The assistance from which they benefit derives from Community instruments other than the SFs.
(3) Tidligereblevderudpegetetsžrskiltgennemfżrelsesorganogforskel-lige endelige stżttemodtagere i hver enkelt medlemsstat, som deltog i et EF-initiativ-program. 
(3) Previously, each of the Member States involved in a CIP designated a separate implementing body and different final beneficiaries.
(4) Tidligere omfattede et EF-initiativ-program lige s mange finansieringsplaner som antallet af medlemsstater, som deltog i EF-initiativ-programmet, og EF-betalingerne blev indbetalt p lige s mange bankkonti. 
(4) Previously, each CIP had as many financial plans and bank accounts receiving Community payments as there were Member States involved.
Enhedsreglen for gennemfżrelsesorganerne og for de finansielle elementer burde i princippet tilskynde til, at der anlžgges en fžlles strategi for det berżrte omrde og anvendes en fžlles fremgangsmde. 
This ÔpoolingŐ of the implementing bodies and financial elements should in principle encourage the emergence of a common strategy and approach for the area concerned.
Desuden kan den lette Kommissionens forvaltning af EF-initiativ-programmerne i forhold til tidligere, hvor Kommissionen havde lige s mange forhandlingspartnere og betalingsanmodninger som antallet af medlemsstater, hvert enkelt EF-initiativ-program omfattede. 
It could also simplify the CommissionŐs management of CIPs, since hitherto the Commission had to handle as many representatives and payment requests as there were Member States involved in each programme.
I żvrigt lžgges der i de nye retningslinjer vžgt p stżrre komplementaritet med de żvrige SF-interventioner, og for at forenkle procedurerne finansieres EF-initiativet Interreg nu kun over EFRU. Rettens revision 10. 
The new guidelines also introduce the need for enhanced complementarity with other SF interventions. Moreover, in the interests of simplification, Interreg has now been assigned exclusively to the ERDF. The CourtŐs audit 10.
Retten besluttede at revidere programmeringen under Interreg III p grund af initiativets omfang (jf. punkt 3), p grund af de vanskeligheder, der var konstateret (jf. punkt 4 og 5), og p grund af de vžsentlige žndringer af initiativet, der blev indfżrt for perioden 2000-2006 (jf. punkt 7). 
In view of the importance of the Initiative (see paragraph 3) , the difficulties that were detected (see paragraphs 4 and 5) and the substantial changes that were made for the period 2000 to 2006 (see paragraph 7), the Court resolved to audit the programming of Interreg III.
Rettens revision džkkede perioden, fra Kommissionen udarbejdede retningslinjerne, til de fżrste beslutninger om at godkende stżttemodtageres projekter blev truffet. 
The audit covered the period from the preparation of the Commission guidelines to the first decisions to adopt beneficiariesŐ projects.
Disse projekter havde endnu ikke givet anledning til udgiftsanmeldelser. De fżrste to spżrgsml blev undersżgt i Kommissionen. De tre fżlgende blev undersżgt i medlemsstaterne. 
No statements of expenditure had yet been submitted in respect of these projects. The first two questions were examined at the level of the Commission, and the remaining three at Member State level.
Retten udvalgte en stikprżve p otte EF-initiativ-programmer, der var repržsentativ for de forskellige situationer, dvs. de forskellige linjer, som er defineret i retningslinjerne, og for forskellige sammenhžnge (jf. tabel 4). 
Eight CIPs were selected so as to form a representative sample of the situations encountered, i.e. of each of the strands set out in the Commission guidelines, and of a variety of contexts (see Table 4).
Programmerne tegner sig for 20 % af det budgetbelżb, der er afsat til initiativet. 
These CIPs account for 20 % of the budgetary envelope allocated to the Initiative.
Revisionen džkkede ikke de aspekter, der er forbundet med samarbejdet over de ydre gržnser, da disse aspekter er meget specielle, navnlig for s vidt angr samordningen med andre finansielle instrumenter (5). 
The audit was not concerned with matters connected with cooperation at external borders, which constitute a separate case, especially as regards coordination with other financial instruments (5).
(5) Jf. rsberetningen for regnskabsret 2002, punkt 7.46-7.59 (Tacis-programmet for gržnseoverskridende samarbejde) og 8.51-8.57 (Phare-programmet for gržnseoverskridende samarbejde) (EUT C 286 af 28.11.2003). 
(5) See the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2002, paragraphs 7.46 to 7.59 (Tacis cross-border cooperation programme) and 8.51 to 8.57 (Phare cross-border cooperation programme) (OJ C 286, 28.11.2003).
C 303/8 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 7.12.2004 KOMMISSIONENS RETNINGSLINJER 12. 
C 303/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 THE COMMISSION GUIDELINES 12.
For hvert EF-initiativ udarbejder Kommissionen retningslinjer, hvori en ržkke betingelser pržciseres, som skal sikre mervžrdi i forhold til traditionelle ml 1-og 2-interventioner (jf. glossaret). 
The Commission sets guidelines for each CI. The purpose is to establish conditions aimed at ensuring added value vis--vis the traditional measures applied under Objectives 1 and 2 (see glossary).
Retten mener, at disse retningslinjer bżr fastlžgge sžrlige krav til de projekter, stżttemodtagerne ivžrksžtter, sžrlige gennemfżrelsesbestemmelser for EF-initiativ-programmerne og de stżtteberettigede omrder. 
In the CourtŐs view, the guidelines should lay down desiderata concerning the projects to be implemented by beneficiaries, as well as operational rules specific to the CIPs, and define the eligible areas.
Der skal ogs opstilles specifikke, operationelle og mlelige ml, og foranstaltningerne skal vžre mlrettede. 
There must also be a definition of specific, measurable and operational objectives and targeted measures.
Hvis retningslinjerne skal kunne tages i betragtning i det nżdvendige omfang, skal de foreligge, fżr forberedelsen af EF-initiativ-programmerne begynder. 
If the guidelines are to be sufficiently taken into account, it is crucial that they be made available before the work of preparing CIPs gets under way.
Defineres det tvžreuropžiske projekt hensigtsmžssigt i retningslinjerne? 
Do the guidelines contain an adequate definition of trans-European projects?
Kommissionen definerer det tvžreuropžiske (1) projekt ved en beskrivelse af gennemfżrelse og effekt: tiltagene skal Čvžl-ges og gennemfżres i fžllesskab, enten i to eller flere medlemsstater eller tredjelande eller i n medlemsstat, hvor det kan godtgżres, at tiltaget har store fordele for andre medlemsstater eller tredjelandeÇ (2). 
The Commission guidelines define trans-European projects (1) in terms of their implementation and impact: operations must be Ôselected jointly and implemented, either in two or more countries or third countries, or in a single Member State, where it can be shown that the operation has a significant impact on other Member States or third countriesŐ (2).
I retningslinjerne pržciseres det ogs, at det ved samtlige foranstaltninger og projekter skal pvises, hvilke fordele den tvžreuropžiske metode har. 
The guidelines also stipulate that all measures and projects must demonstrate the added value of a trans-European approach.
Definitionen p det tvžreuropžiske projekt skal alts omsžttes i praksis inden for rammerne af hvert EF-initiativ-program, og p dette niveau skal det sikres, at projekterne bidrager til en lżsning af de gržnserelaterede problemer (jf. punkt 66-69). 
It is therefore important at the level of each CIP to put the definition of trans-European projects into practice and ensure that projects contribute to the resolution of problems caused by the existence of a border (see paragraphs 66 to 69).
Omfatter retningslinjerne specifikke gennemfżrelsesbestemmelser? 
Do the guidelines include specific implementing rules?
Allerede i den efterfżlgende evaluering af Interreg I, som Retten gennemfżrte p Kommissionens anmodning, fremsatte den forskellige anbefalinger vedrżrende gennemfżrelsen. 
Various recommendations concerning implementation were formulated at the time of the ex post evaluation of Interreg I, which was carried out at the CommissionŐs request.
Derefter udarbejdede Kommissionen inden for rammerne af projektet ČLinkage Assistance and Cooperation for the European border regionsÇ (LACE) (3) en typologi for EF -initiativ-programmerne (1) Term,deranvendessomfžllesbetegnelseforalleinitiativetstrelinjer: gržnseoverskridende samarbejde (linje A), tvžrnationalt samarbejde (linje B) og tvžrregionalt samarbejde (linje C). 
Subsequently, the ÔLinkage Assistance and Cooperation for the European Border RegionsŐ (LACE) project (3) drew up a typology of Interreg II (1) AgenerictermusedforthethreestrandsoftheInitiative:cross-border cooperation (Strand A), transnational cooperation (Strand B) and interregional cooperation (Strand C).
(2) Punkt 7 i meddelelsen til medlemsstaterne af 28. april 2000. 
(2) Paragraph 7 of the Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000.
(3) Den efterfżlgende evaluering af de gržnseoverskridende EF-initiativ-programmer i perioden 1989-1993 Ń evaluering af initiativet Interreg I udfżrt af Fre Consultants Ń august 1996. 
(3) Ex post evaluation of the Interreg I cross-border CIPs for 1989 to 1993, which was carried out by FERE Consultants in August 1996.
Projektet ČLinkage Assistance and Cooperation for the European border regionsÇ (LACE) blev gennemfżrt af ČEuropžiske Gržnseregioners ArbejdsfžllesskabÇ (AGEG). 
The ÔÔLinkage Assistance and Cooperation for the European Border RegionsŐ (LACE) project was run by the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR).
AGEG blev oprettet i 1971 med det ml at repržsentere de europžiske gržnseoverskridende regioner. Arbejdsfžllesskabet omfatter nžsten 80 medlemmer, der džkker 160 gržnseomrder ved Den Europžiske Unions indre og ydre gržnser. 
This body, which was set up in 1971 with the aim of representing European cross-border regions, has almost 80 members in 160 zones adjacent to the European UnionŐs internal and external borders.
Det har bl.a. udarbejdet fżlgende dokumenter: ČCross-border cooperation on maritime bordersÇ (juni 1998), ČAspects institutionnels de la coopration transfrontalireÇ (marts 1999) og ČInterreg IIIA: modles de gestion de pro-grammeÇ (november 1999). 
Documents that it has produced address the following subjects: cross-border cooperation on maritime borders (June 1998), institutional aspects of cross-border cooperation (March 1999) and programme management models for Interreg IIIA (November 1999).
Der er ogs udarbejdet andre dokumenter, men fżrst efter at retningslinjerne var udarbejdet: ČLa gestion financire transfrontalireÇ (januar 2000) og ČDocument dŐorientation oprationnel pour la prparation et la gestion des programmes Interreg IIIA (2000-2006)Ç (juni 2000). under Interreg II ud fra gennemfżrelsesbestemmelserne for programmerne, hvor der blev lagt vžgt p de mest integrerede metoder. 
Other documents, published after the guidelines were prepared, concern cross-border financial management (January 2000) and operational guidance on the preparation and management of Interreg IIIA programmes (June 2000).
Retningslinjerne foreslr som mulighed, at der etableres europžiske żkonomiske firmagrupper (EŻFG) (jf. glossaret), s samarbejdet gennemfżres via strukturer, der virkelig er fžlles. 
The guidelines provide for the establishment of European Economic Interest Groupings (EEIGs Đ see glossary) in order to ensure that the bodies implementing cooperation are genuinely shared.
Medlemsstaterne har imidlertid peget p en ržkke juridiske problemer, som Kommissionen ikke har haft tid til at beskžftige sig nžrmere med (jf. punkt 44). 
However, some Member States drew attention to a number of legal problems that the Commission had insufficient time to address in detail (see paragraph 44).
I januar 2003 indledte Kommissionen en undersżgelse af, hvilke juridiske instrumenter der kan anvendes inden for rammerne af det tvžreuropžiske samarbejde. 
In January 2003, the Commission launched a study of legal instruments that might be used in the field of trans-European cooperation.
For s vidt angr ml og indikatorer, pegede Retten allerede i den efterfżlgende evaluering af Interreg I p fżlgende: a) Der var behov for at klarlžgge formlet med samarbejdet, fordi Interreg-programmerne forfżlger samme ml som de traditionelle programmer. 
Regarding objectives and indicators, the ex post evaluation of Interreg I drew attention to: (a) the need to clarify the purpose of cooperation, since Interreg programmes pursue the same objectives as traditional programmes.
Men de traditionelle programmer har langt mere omfattende finansielle ressourcer til rdighed, og de stżtteberettigede regioner under disse programmer har ikke alle sammen udviklingsproblemer. b) Der manglede klare og kvantificerede udgangsml. c) Det var nżdvendigt at indfżre relevante indikatorer. 
However, the latter can call on far more generous financial resources, and the eligible regions are not all affected by development difficulties; (b) the absence of clear, quantified initial objectives; (c) the need to establish relevant indicators.
Med henblik p Parlamentets udtalelse om retningslinjerne for Interreg III udarbejdede Kommissionen en kort redegżrelse, som faktisk var en fżrste evaluering af Interreg II (4). 
In anticipation of a Parliament opinion on the Interreg III guidelines, the Commission prepared a brief information paper consisting of an initial review of Interreg II (4).
Denne redegżrelse er imidlertid meget generel og omhandler spżrgsml vedrżrende gennemfżrelsen. 
However, this document is very general and focuses on matters of implementation.
Trods de analyser, der omtales i punkt 15, og resultaterne af midtvejsevalueringen af EF-initiativ-programmerne under Interreg II havde Kommissionen generelt hverken for Interreg IŐs eller Interreg IIŐs vedkommende en analyse af de stżtteberettigede omrders specifikke forhold (4) ČInitiative communautaire Interreg II 1994-1999: un premier bilanÇ, januar 2000, Den Europžiske Union Ń Regionalpolitik. 
Usually, despite the studies referred to in paragraph 15 and the results of the Interreg II interim evaluation, no analysis of the specific situation of eligible areas or information concerning the progress made towards attaining the CI objectives or the specific CIP objectives under either Interreg I or Interreg II (4) ÔCommunity Initiative Interreg II 1994-1999: an initial evaluationŐ, January 2000, European Union Ń regional policy.
Ml og indikatorer 19. 
Objectives and indicators 19.
I retningslinjerne for Interreg III er de specifikke ml for hver enkelt linje formuleret bredt (jf. tabel 3). 
In the Interreg III guidelines, each Strand has many far-reaching specific objectives (see Table 3).
Det fastsls ogs i retningslinjerne, at aktionerne skal tage hżjde for de generelle retningslinjer for SF og for EF-politikkerne og tage sigte p fremme af beskžftigelsen, konkurrencen, en bžredygtig udvikling og lige muligheder for mžnd og kvinder. 
The guidelines also state, in the light of the general guidelines of the SFs and Community policy, that preference will be given to employment, competitiveness, sustainable development and the promotion of equal opportunities for women and men.
Kommissionen overlod det til de myndigheder i medlemsstaterne, der var ansvarlige for EF-initiativ-programmerne, at opstille konkrete ml p grundlag af en analyse af de gržnserelaterede problemer. 
The Commission has entrusted the authorities responsible for CIPs in the Member States with the task of setting concrete objectives on the basis of an analysis of the problems facing border areas.
Kommissionen har ganske vist fastsat regler (jf. punkt 7, 15 og 16), men ikke opstillet specifikke og mlelige ml. 
It has established operational rules (see paragraphs 7,15 and 16) but no specific measurable objectives.
Ved undersżgelsen af medlemsstaternes programforslag er det derfor specielt nżdvendigt, at Kommissionen sżrger for, at der tržffes velbegrundede og mlrettede valg. 
It is therefore especially important that, when examining the Member StatesŐ programme proposals, it should ensure that substantiated, targeted choices have been made.
I de dokumenter (1), der skulle vžre en stżtte for de nationale myndigheder, som skulle forberede EF-initiativ-programmerne, nr de skulle foretage forhndsevalueringen og fastlžgge sžrlige Interreg-indikatorer, burde Kommissionen fżrst og fremmest have redegjort for de grundtanker, der l bag dens prioritering Ń specielt med henblik p den efterfżlgende evaluering. 
The documents produced in order to guide the authorities preparing CIPs through the ex ante evaluation and the selection of indicators specific to Interreg (1) should have focused above all on key ideas translating the CommissionŐs priorities, with a view in particular to the ex post evaluation.
Det havde sledes vžret gavnligt, hvis den havde foreslet et fžlles system til fastlžggelse af minimumsindikatorer, der kunne anvendes p alle programmerne i n og samme linje, p dette grundlag og p grundlag af erfaringerne fra de to forudgende Interreg-generationer. 
With this in mind, and on the basis of the experience acquired during the two previous generations of the CI, it would have been helpful, say, to devise a minimum common system of indicators that could be applied to all programmes under the same strand.