natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Disse data viste generelt, at investeringerne havde haft en positiv effekt. 
The data generally showed a positive effect of the investments.
Et projekt vedrżrende genas-faltering af en vej i et turistomrde i Spanien (Extremadura) havde dog ikke haft en positiv effekt p antallet af turister. 
However, one project for relaying asphalt on a rural road in a tourist area of Spain (Extremadura) did not have a positive impact on the number of tourists.
I rene efter projektets afslutning var det gennemsnitlige antal besżgende faktisk faldet i forhold til fżr projektets begyndelse. 
The average number of visitors had actually decreased in the years following the project completion, compared to the average number of visitors before the project.
Der var ingen oplysninger om investeringens effekt p landbrugsbedrifterne. 
There was no information regarding the effects of the investment on the agricultural holdings.
Revisorerne fik tilsendt kvantificerede ml-og resultatdata fra fire af de fem reviderede projekter i Rumžnien, som modtog tilskud p mellem 1 og 2,4 millioner euro. 
In Romania, the beneficiaries provided to the auditors quantified target and result data for four of the five audited projects, which received grants ranging between 1 and 2.4 million euro.
Kun t projekt havde opfyldt sit ml om at tilslutte 575 brugere til et nyt vand-og kloaksystem. 
Only one project had reached its target of connecting 575 users to the new water and sewerage system.
De tre andre projekter var stadig langt fra at have opfyldt deres ml nžsten tre r efter projektets afslutning: I de to vandprojekter var under halvdelen af det planlagte antal brugere blevet tilsluttet kloaknettet, og i det sidste projekt var der ikke blevet skabt nye job, selv om jobskabelse var et af dets ml. 
Three other projects were still far from achieving their targets almost 3 years after project completion: less than half of the target number of users had been connected to the sewerage network for two water projects and no new jobs had been created for the remaining project, although creating employment was one of its objectives.
I Tyskland (Sachsen) var de data, der blev rapporteret under de tre vigtigste resultatindikatorer for foranstaltningerne, baseret p myndighedernes antagelser om det sandsynlige resultat af investeringerne. 
In Germany (Saxony), the data reported for the three main result indicators established for the measures were based on the authorities’ assumptions on the likely result deriving from an investment.
Der forel ingen ml og konkrete resultatdata for disse indikatorer. 
Targets and actual result data were not available for these indicators.
De oplysninger, Retten kunne indhente om de reviderede projekter, var derfor begržnset til basisindikatorer ssom antallet af husholdninger, der blev betjent af de finansierede veje. 
The information that could be obtained by the auditors for the audited projects was therefore limited to basic indicators such as the number of households served by the financed roads.
Modtagerne af stżtte til fire af de fem reviderede projekter i Polen havde sendt forvaltningsmyndigheden data om projektresultaterne, som viste, at antallet af brugere var steget, og at projektmlene generelt var opfyldt. 
In Poland, for four of the five audited projects, the beneficiaries reported to the managing authority data on project results, which showed an increase in the number of users and a general achievement of project objectives.
I tre tilfžlde forel der imidlertid ingen dokumentation, som gjorde det muligt for Retten at efterprżve de rapporterede tal. 
However, in three cases, no supporting evidence was provided to allow the Court to verify the reported figures.
Tekstboks 16 
Box 16
Bemžrkninger 42 Kommissionen har opfordret medlemsstaterne til at forbedre deres overvgning og evaluering, men 86 Kommissionen accepterede de indberettede tal for resultatindikatoren ČBefolkning i landdistrikter, der modtager bedre tjenesteydelserÇ, som blev brugt under foranstaltning 321, 322 og 323, selv om der var en risiko for, at antallet af brugere var sat for hżjt. 
86 As regards the result indicator used for measures 321, 322 and 323, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, the Commission accepted the reported figures, despite the risk of over-estimating the number of users.
I perioden 2014-2020 vil der blive brugt en lignende resultatindikator under disse foranstaltninger (ČProcent-del af befolkningen i landdistrikter, der nyder godt af forbedrede tjenesteydel-ser/infrastrukturÇ). 
For the 2014-2020 period, a similar result indicator will be used for these measures (‘Percentage of rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures’).
I forbindelse med den nye resultatindikator vil Kommissionen ikke acceptere, at den samme befolkning tžlles med flere gange (n gang for hvert projekt i omrdet). Denne beregningsmetode er derimod eksplicit tilladt med hensyn til den nye outputindikator ČIndbyggere, som nyder godt af forbedrede tjenesteydelser eller forbedret infrastrukturÇ. 
The Commission will not accept the same population being reported several times (for each project implemented in the area) for the new result indicator; however, such a reporting method is explicitly allowed for the new output indicator, ‘Population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures’.
87 Da revisionen fandt sted, kunne Retten ikke vurdere, i hvilket omfang de nye indikatorer vil afhjžlpe de svagheder, der var forbundet med de tidligere indikatorer. 
87 The Court could not assess at the time of the audit to what extent the new indicators will remedy the weaknesses of the previous ones.
I betragtning af de store forskelle mellem de finansierede projekter vil man imidlertid ikke f et fuldstžndigt billede af, om midlerne til foranstaltningerne giver gode resultater, hvis man blot vurderer deres effektivitet ud fra žndringen i landbrugsproduktionen, procentdelen af arealer, der omstilles til mere effektive vandingssystemer, og antallet af indbyggere, som nyder godt af den nye infrastruktur. 
However, assessing the effectiveness of the measures only on the basis of the change in agricultural output, percentage of land switching to a more efficient irrigation system and the population benefiting from the new infrastructure will not provide a complete picture on the success or otherwise of the funds allocated to the measures, given the great diversity of projects financed.
37 Artikel 79 i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 
37 Article 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
Bemžrkninger 43 88 I programmeringsperioden 2007-2013 var der p grund af vžsentlige forsinkelser i gennemfżrelsen af infrastrukturforanstaltningerne et tidsmžssigt misforhold mellem udgiftscyklussen og rapporteringskravene. 
Observations 43 88 In the 2007-2013 programming period, due to the significant delays in the implementation of infrastructure measures, there was a mismatch between the spending cycle and the timing of the reporting requirements.
Det betżd, at der manglede relevante data til midtvejsevalueringerne, og efter al sandsynlighed vil ogs de efterfżlgende evalueringer blive foretaget for tidligt til, at der vil vžre adgang til plidelige data. 
This led to a lack of pertinent data for mid-term evaluations and, most likely, even the ex post evaluations will come too early to be able to use reliable data.
Hvis overvgnings-og evalueringsoplysningerne ikke foreligger, nr de centrale rapporter skal indsendes, kan medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen ikke bruge dem til at forbedre gennemfżrelsen af foranstaltningerne. 
If monitoring and evaluation information is not available at key reporting moments, Member States and the Commission cannot use it to improve the implementation of the measures.
89 Sdan vil situationen sandsynligvis ogs vžre i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020, eftersom medlemsstaterne skal udarbejde den fżrste udvidede rlige gennemfżrelsesrapport med evalueringsresultater i 2017, selv om afholdelsen af udgifter begyndte forholdsvis sent p grund af forsinkelser i forbindelse med godkendelsen af LDPŐerne38. 
89 This situation is likely to persist in the 2014-2020 programming period, as Member States are required to prepare the first ‘enhanced annual implementation report’ including evaluation findings, in 2017, even though spending started quite late due to delays in the RDP approval process38.
Manglen p rettidige, plidelige og relevante oplysninger om resultaterne af de offentlige investeringer i infrastruktur gżr det vanskeligt at sikre en resultatbaseret forvaltning af fremtidige midler. 
The absence of timely, reliable and pertinent information on the results of the use of the public funds invested in infrastructure makes the result-based management of future funds difficult to achieve.
38 I september 2015 havde Kommissionen kun godkendt 78 af de 118 LDPŐer. 
38 Only 79 of the 118 RDPs had been approved by the Commission by September 2015.
Konklusioner 44 og anbefalinger 90 I perioden 2007-2013 gav EU 13 milliarder euro i stżtte til projekter vedrżrende infrastruktur i landdistrikterne for at styrke landbrugs-og skovbrugs-virksomhedernes effektivitet og konkurrenceevne og forbedre livskvaliteten p landet. 
Conclusions and 44 recommendations 90 In 2007-2013 the EU provided 13 billion euro for rural infrastructure projects aimed at boosting the competitiveness of agricultural and forestry holdings and improving the quality of life in the countryside.
Inklusive medlemsstaternes medfinansiering blev der i alt ydet 19 milliarder euro gennem fire foranstaltninger til udvikling af landdistrikterne. 
Together with Member States’ co-financing, the total support channelled through four rural development measures reached 19 billion euro.
91 Infrastrukturforanstaltningerne blev gennemfżrt under delt forvaltning, idet Kommissionen godkendte landdistriktsprogrammer (LDPŐer) fra medlemsstaterne, som derefter udvalgte projekter til finansiering. 
91 Infrastructure measures were implemented under shared management, whereby the Commission approved the RDPs submitted by Member States, which then selected the projects to be funded.
92 Retten forsżgte at f besvaret fżlgende spżrgsml: Har stżtten til infrastrukturinvesteringer i landdistrikterne givet medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen valuta for pengene? 
92 The Court’s audit sought to answer the following question: Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the support for rural infrastructure investments?
93 Selv om de enkelte projekter havde leveret de forventede fysiske output og i nogle tilfžlde havde en positiv effekt i landdistrikterne, konstaterede Retten, at medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen, som forvaltede projekterne i fžllesskab, kun havde fet begržnset valuta for pengene, fordi stżtten ikke systematisk var blevet rettet mod de projekter, der var mest omkostningseffektive med hensyn til at n LDPŐernes ml, og at der ikke var tilstržkkelige oplysninger til at dokumentere, om foranstaltningerne havde givet gode resultater. 
93 Even though the individual audited projects delivered their expected physical outputs and, in some cases, made a clear positive contribution to the rural areas, the Court found that the Member States and the Commission, acting through shared management, had achieved only limited value for money, as aid was not systematically directed towards the most cost-effective projects addressing the objectives set in the RDPs and there was insufficient information to demonstrate the success or otherwise of the measures.
94 Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne deler ansvaret for at gennemfżre et meget stort antal infrastrukturprojekter p hele struturfondsomrdet og ikke kun vedrżrende udvikling af landdistrikterne. 
94 The Commission and the Member States share the responsibility for the implementation of a huge number of infrastructure projects, not only related to rural development but across the spectrum of structural funds.
Trods dette var der ikke meget, der tydede p effektiv koordinering eller udveksling af bedste praksis med henblik p at forbedre forvaltningen af midlerne og opn mere valuta for pengene, f.eks. ved hjžlp af projektudvžlgelsesprocedurer, kontrol af omkostningernes rimelighed og bžredygtighedskontrol. 
Despite this, there was little evidence of effective coordination or sharing of best practice in order to improve the management of the funds and achieve greater value for money through, for example, project selection procedures, checks on the reasonableness of costs and sustainability-related checks.
Der er stadig mulighed for mere samarbejde, og det ville gżre det muligt at f meget mere ud af de midler, der er til rdighed. 95 I det fżlgende redegżres der nžrmere for de konstaterede svagheder og Rettens anbefalinger til, hvordan de kan afhjžlpes. 
There remains scope for greater cooperation, which would allow for far more to be achieved with the existing level of funding. 95 The weaknesses identified and the Court’s related recommendations are further developed below.
Konklusioner og anbefalinger 45 96 Retten konstaterede, at medlemsstaterne manglede en koordineret tilgang til kvantificering af landdistrikternes infrastrukturbehov (f.eks. antallet af reparationskržvende veje og det nżdvendige budget) og identificering af finansieringskilder. 
Conclusions and recommendations 45 96 The audit found that the Member States lacked a coordinated approach for quantifying rural infrastructure needs (e.g. the number of roads needing repairs and the corresponding budget needed) and identifying sources of financing.
Ingen af de undersżgte LDPŐer tog hensyn til de nationale, regionale og lokale midler samt private midler, der kunne bruges - eller allerede blev brugt - til at afhjžlpe de samme behov som LDPŐerne. 
None of the audited RDPs considered the existing national, regional, local public or private funds that could address — or were already addressing — the same needs as the RDPs.
Der blev derfor ikke gjort noget forsżg p at kvantificere det finansieringshul, der kunne berettige en ELFUL-finansieret intervention (jf. punkt 20-22). 
Therefore, there was no attempt to quantify the remaining funding gap — which would justify the EAFRD intervention — for such investments (see paragraphs 20 to 22).
97 Nr der ikke findes en koordineret tilgang, der omfatter alle finansie-ringsmuligheder, kan det forekomme, at midler erstattes med andre midler, hvilket fżrer til en uproduktiv anvendelse af de knappe ressourcer. 
97 In the absence of a coordinated approach encompassing all financing possibilities, substitution of funds may occur, leading to an inefficient use of scarce resources.
I to af de reviderede medlemsstater var der tegn p, at erstatning af midler med andre midler havde fundet sted, idet de nationale eller regionale budgetter til veje i landdistrikterne var blevet afskaffet eller reduceret, netop da der begyndte at blive ydet stżtte til sdanne projekter under LDPŐerne (jf. punkt 23 og 24). 
In two of the audited Member States, there were indications that substitution had occurred, as the national or regional funds available for rural roads were cancelled or decreased precisely when similar projects started to be supported under the RDP (see paragraphs 23 to 24).
98 Retten konstaterede en ržkke gode praksis, men medlemsstaterne kanaliserede ikke systematisk LDP-midlerne til projekter med bevisligt behov for offentlig stżtte. 
98 Although some good practices were identified, Member States did not systematically channel the RDP funding to projects for which there was a demonstrable need for public support.
Der er derfor risiko for dżdvžgt, og projekternes resultater kan ikke nżdvendigvis tilskrives stżtten (jf. punkt 25-30). 
As a consequence, there is a risk of deadweight and the results achieved by projects cannot necessarily be attributed to the grant (see paragraphs 25 to 30).
99 Der manglede klare afgržnsninger, hvilket i nogle tilfžlde fżrte til skiftende brug af forskellige fonde til at finansiere den samme type infrastruktur og dermed en iboende risiko for unżdvendig overlapning af forvaltningsstrukturer (jf. punkt 31 og 32). 
99 The lack of clear demarcation lines led in some cases to the alternate use of different funds for the same types of infrastructure, with the inherent risk of needlessly duplicating management structures (see paragraphs 31 to 32).
100 Fire af de fem reviderede medlemsstater havde oprettet koordineringsstrukturer, men disse fremmede ikke aktivt komplementariteten mellem de forskellige fonde. 
100 Whilst four of the five Member States audited had set up coordination structures, they did not actively promote complementarity between funds.
Der var tilfžlde, hvor den manglende komplementaritet med nationale og lokale midler indvirkede negativt p projekternes produktivitet og effektivitet (jf. punkt 33-36). 
There were cases where the lack of complementarity with national and local funds jeopardised the efficiency and effectiveness of the projects (see paragraphs 33 to 36).
101 Kommissionen har taget skridt til at forbedre koordineringen mellem EU-fondene i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020, men medlemsstaternes programmeringsdokumenter giver endnu ikke tilstržkkelig sikkerhed for, at de nye tilgange vil sikre bedre koordinering (jf. punkt 37-41). 
101 The Commission took steps to improve coordination between EU funds in the 2014-2020 programming period, but the Member States’ programming documents do not yet provide sufficient assurance that the new approaches will lead to better coordination (see paragraphs 37 to 41).
Konklusioner og anbefalinger 46 Anbefaling 1 - Behovsanalyse og koordinering af finansieringskilder a) Medlemsstaterne bżr have en koordineret tilgang til stżtte til infrastruktur i landdistrikterne, s det sikres, at behovene og finansieringshullerne kvantificeres, og at anvendelsen af LDP-foranstaltninger er berettiget. 
Conclusions and recommendations 46 Recommendation 1 — Analysis of needs and coordination between funding sources (a) The Member States should have a coordinated approach for supporting rural infrastructure, which quantifies needs and funding gaps and justifies the use of the RDP measures.
Denne tilgang bżr tage hensyn til de EU-midler, nationale, regionale og lokale midler samt private midler, der kan bruges - eller allerede bliver brugt - til at afhjžlpe de samme behov som LDPŐet. 
This approach should consider the EU, national, regional and local public funds and the private funds that could address — or are already addressing — the same needs as the RDP.
F.eks. kunne medlemsstaterne prioritere de projekter, der passer bedst ind i de nationale, regionale eller lokale planer for den integrerede infrastrukturudvikling. d) Kommissionen bżr bygge videre p de fżrste initiativer, der er truffet for at sikre en effektiv koordinering af de forskellige EU-fonde, og foretage en grundig vurdering af komplementariteten mellem de forskellige EU-midler, som medlemsstaterne skal bruge i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. 
For example, Member States could prioritise projects that best fit with national, regional or local plans for the integrated development of infrastructure. (d) The Commission should build upon the first steps taken to ensure effective coordination between the different EU funds and carry out a thorough assessment of the complementarity between the different EU funds to be used by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period.
Kommissionen bżr proaktivt tilskynde medlemsstaterne til at tržkke p deres erfaringer med andre fonde, der stżtter infrastruktur (ssom EFRU og Samhżrighedsfonden), for at gżre forvaltningen af foranstaltningerne mere effektiv. 
The Commission should be proactive in encouraging Member States to draw on the experience gained with other funds supporting infrastructure (such as the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund) to improve the efficiency of the management of the measures.
I forbindelse med den udvidede rlige gennemfżrelsesrapport, som medlemsstaterne skal indsende i 2019, bżr den vurdere koordineringsme-kanismernes effektivitet og foresl forbedringer efter behov. 
It should take the opportunity provided by the enhanced annual implementation report to be submitted by Member States in 2019 to assess the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and suggest improvements where necessary.
Konklusioner og anbefalinger 47 102 I henhold til EU-lovgivningen skal medlemsstaterne fastlžgge udvžlgelseskriterier. Disse kriterier skal gżre det muligt at prioritere de mest effektive og produktive projekter og afvise projekter, der ikke giver valuta for pengene. 
Conclusions and recommendations 47 102 EU legislation requires Member States to establish selection criteria; these should allow the most effective and efficient eligible projects to be prioritised, and provide a basis for rejecting those that do not represent value for money.
Retten konstaterede, at de reviderede medlemsstater ikke havde fastlagt udvžlgelseskriterier eller havde fastlagt kriterier, som ikke altid fżrte til en reel prioritering af projekterne p grundlag af LDP-mlene (jf. punkt 43-49). 
In the Member States audited, selection criteria were either not set out or they did not always lead to actual prioritisation of the most cost-effective projects in relation to the RDP objectives (see paragraphs 43 to 49).
103 Retten fandt svagheder i medlemsstaternes systemer til vurdering af projektomkostningernes rimelighed. 
103 The Court identified weaknesses in the systems put in place by the Member States to assess the reasonableness of project costs.
Disse svagheder żger risikoen for, at de offentlige midler ikke bruges p den mest sparsommelige mde. 
These weaknesses increase the risk of public funds not being spent in the most economical way.
De reviderede medlemsstater anvendte referencepriser og offentlige udbud til at sikre, at omkostningerne var rimelige. 
The Member States audited mainly relied on the use of reference prices and public procurement procedures to ensure the reasonableness of costs.
Disse vžrktżjer blev imidlertid ikke i tilstržkkeligt omfang anvendt til at sikre omkostningernes rimelighed, hvilket Retten ogs har bemžrket i tidligere beretninger. 
However, these tools were not adequately applied to ensure reasonableness of costs, as the Court has noted in its previous reports.
Medlemsstaterne anvendte i vidt omfang systemer baseret p referenceprislister, men systemerne havde alvorlige svagheder, fordi referencepriserne ofte var hżjere end de priser, markedet reelt fastsžtter (f.eks. nr der afholdes konkurrencebaserede udbud). 
Although widely used, the systems based on reference price lists showed serious limitations, as reference prices were often set above the real market prices at which transactions happen (for example when competitive tenders are organised).
I flere tilfžlde hindrede de offentlige indkżbsprocedurer fair konkurrence og rimelige omkostninger (jf. punkt 50-54). 
In several cases, public procurement processes hindered fair competition and reasonableness of costs (see paragraphs 50 to 54).
104 De reviderede medlemsstater hndhžvede generelt den forpligtelsesperiode p fem r, som skal sikre investeringernes bžredygtighed, og som for de fleste projekters vedkommende i praksis var meget kortere. 
104 To ensure the sustainability of investments, the audited Member States generally applied the standard 5-year commitment period requirement — which in practice was reduced to much less for most of the projects.
For nogle projekter fastsatte tre af de reviderede medlemsstater lžngere forpligtelsesperioder, der passede bedre til investeringernes levetid. 
For certain projects, three of the audited Member States applied longer commitment periods, which were more in line with the useful life of the investments.
Men ingen af de reviderede medlemsstater bad stżttemodtagerne om at indsende en detaljeret vedligeholdelsesplan og afsžtte et budget til vedligeholdelse (jf. punkt 55-60). 
However, none of the audited Member States asked beneficiaries to provide a detailed maintenance plan and to set aside some budget for maintenance (see paragraphs 55 to 60).