natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Et sidste FTS er juridisk en del af forvaltningsmyndigheden, men fysisk placeret uden for den, og de forskellige omrder i medlemsstaterne er repržsenteret i det (EF-initiativ-programmet for Alpeomrdet). b) En anden FTS-model, der ikke er helt i retningslinjernes nd, er et FTS, som er fysisk placeret i forvaltningsmyndigheden. De żvrige medlemsstater er ikke repržsenteret, men de bliver dog hżrt (EF-initiativ-programmet for Irland-Wales og EF-initiativ-programmet for Rheintal-Bodensee-Hochrhein). c) En sidste model er endnu mindre i retningslinjernes nd (EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal). Der er kun oprettet kontorer under de regionale forvaltninger p hver side af gržnsen. 
In one final case (Alps), while legally a part of the managing authority, it is located separately and has representatives from the different regions of the Member States; (b) a model that reflects the spirit of the guidelines less well is that of a JTS that is physically part of the managing authority but has no representatives from the other Member States, although these are approached for consultation (Ireland-Wales and Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein); (c) a final model (Spain-Portugal) is even further removed from the spirit of the guidelines. This model consists of no more than offices under the aegis of the regional authorities on both sides of the border.
Kontorerne er i mange tilfžlde placeret uden for det stżtteberettigede omrde, som i żvrigt stržkker sig meget langt fra gržnsen. 
They are often situated outside the eligible area, which itself extends a good distance from the border.
For hvert enkelt af de reviderede programmer gžlder det, at EF-midlerne blev indbetalt p n bankkonto. 
Each of the programmes examined operates a single bank account for the receipt of Community funds.
For hvert enkelt af de reviderede EF-initiativ-programmer gžlder det ogs, at der kun var n finansieringsplan, dvs. at midlerne ikke blev fordelt p medlemsstaterne. 
Each of the CIPs examined also has a single financial plan, i.e. a plan that does not indicate the share of each Member State.
Men i nogle tilfžlde angav finansieringsplanen i et bilag til programtillžgget, som Kommissionen havde kontrolleret, fordelingen p medlemsstaterne (EF-initiativ-programmet for Alpeomrdet). I andre tilfžlde var hver enkelt medlemsstats andel af EFRU-stżtten angivet i EF-initiativ-programmet (EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal og EF-initiativ-programmet for det vestlige Middelhav). 
On occasion, however, a breakdown of the plan by Member State is attached to the programme complement, the content of which has been verified by the Commission (Alps), or the CIP indicates each Member StateŐs share in ERDF aid (Spain-Portugal and Western Mediterranean).
I t tilfžlde var i żvrigt kun den ene af de to medlemsstaters andele nžvnt i informationsmaterialet om EF-initiativ-programmet (EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal). 
In one instance, moreover (Spain-Portugal), promotional material on the CIP refers exclusively to the share of one of the two Member States.
Den finansieringsplan, der efter enhedsreglen udarbejdes for hvert enkelt EF-initiativ-program, udarbejdes nemlig p grundlag af fordelingen af EFRU-tildelingerne p medlemsstater og p interventionstyper (1) og hver enkelt medlemsstats fordeling af disse tildelinger p Interreg-programmerne p grundlag af medlemsstatens egne prioriteter. 
Indeed, the single financial plan for each CIP is drawn up on the basis of, on the one hand, the distribution of ERDF resources by Member State and type of intervention (1) and, on the other hand, the way each Member State distributes these resources among the Interreg programmes, according to its own priorities.
Endelig anbefales det i retningslinjerne, at stżtteaftalerne indgs med n modtager kaldet projektlederen, som derefter skal indg aftale om sine rettigheder og pligter med sine tvžreuropžiske partnere i det pgžldende projekt. 
Finally, the guidelines recommend that aid contracts be concluded with a single beneficiary having the status of project leader, which must then agree its rights and obligations vis--vis its trans-European partners in the project in question.
Dette princip var blevet fulgt i forbindelse med alle de reviderede programmer, undtagen i t tilfžlde, hvor hvert enkelt stżtteforslag var blevet underskrevet af alle projekternes partnere (EF-initiativ-programmet for Irland-Wales). 
This principle was observed in each of the programmes examined, the one exception being where each aid proposal was signed by all the project partners (Ireland-Wales).
Der er stadig forhold, der hindrer samarbejdet mellem alle partnerne i de reviderede EF-initiativ-programmer. 
There remain some obstacles to cooperation between all the partners involved in the CIPs that were examined.
Disse forhold vedrżrer juridiske aspekter og tildelingen af EFRU-midlerne til EF-initiativet. 
These obstacles relate to legal questions and the allocation to the CI of ERDF funding.
Alligevel bevirkede retningslinjerne for Interreg III, at samarbejdet mellem alle partnerne blev styrket, selv om parternes engagement i samarbejdet varierede fra EF-initiativ-program til EF-initiativ-program. 
None the less, the Interreg III guidelines made it possible to strengthen cooperation between all partners, although the level of commitment to cooperation varies from one CIP to another.
SAMMENHŽNGEN MELLEM DEN GRUNDLŽGGENDE ANALYSE OG VALGET AF FORANSTALTNINGER OG DE FŻRSTE GODKENDTE PROJEKTERS MERVŽRDIEFFEKT 51. Det er fastsat i retningslinjerne, at processen for udarbejdelse af EF-initiativ-programmerne skal vžre analog med den, der er foreskrevet i SF-grundforordningen, hvor de foranstaltninger, som stżttemodtagernes projekter omfattes af, udvžlges p grundlag af en analyse af forholdene i regionen. 
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE INITIAL ANALYSIS AND CHOICE OF MEASURES AND THE ADDED VALUE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS TO BE ADOPTED 51. The guidelines provide that the process of planning the CIPs should be analogous to that set out in the basic instrument establishing the Structural Funds. This process seeks to base the choice of measures for which beneficiariesŐ projects are eligible on an analysis of the regional situation.
Bde i analysen og ved udarbejdelsen af EF-initiativ-programmet skal der tages hensyn til en udtalelse fra en myndighed, medlemsstaterne har udpeget. 
Both analysis and planning must take account of the opinion of an assessor appointed by the Member States.
Om EF-initiativet bliver vellykket, afhžnger navnlig af, om denne proces er kohžrent, alts om foranstaltningerne er egnede til at afhjžlpe de problemer, der er konstateret ved analysen. 
The success of the CI is largely dependent on the consistency of this process, namely, on the appropriateness of the measures to the problems diagnosed.
Projekterne skal ogs bidrage til at lżse de gržnserelaterede problemer, det er ikke nok, at de kan accepteres som tvžreuropžiske. 
It is not enough to qualify as trans-European: projects must also contribute to the resolution of border-related problems.
(1) Denne fordeling blev besluttet p stats-og regeringschefernes mżde i Berlin den 24. og 25. marts 1999. 
(1) This distribution was agreed at the meeting of Heads of State and Government in Berlin on 24 and 25 March 1999.
7.12.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 303/13 Var forhndsevalueringen en hjžlp ved udarbejdelsen af programmerne? 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/13 Is the ex ante evaluation used in the drafting of programmes?
Forhndsevalueringerne havde i mange tilfžlde i hżj grad vžret en hjžlp ved forberedelsen og udarbejdelsen af EF-initiativ-programmerne. De udarbejdede dokumenter, de skaldte forhndsevalueringer, omfattede generelt dels tekster, hvis fulde ordlyd allerede fandtes i EF-initiativ-programmerne, dels oplysninger, der skulle dokumentere indholdet. 
The ex ante assessors often made a significant contribution to the preparation and drafting of CIPs. The documents produced under the heading Ôex ante evaluationŐ are composed, as a rule, of texts which have already been incorporated in their entirety into the CIPs, and of notes explaining the content of those texts.
De evaluatorer, der udfżrte forhndsevalueringen, udtalte sig derfor generelt ikke kritisk om de programforslag, der blev indsendt til Kommissionen, og som de havde vžret med til at udarbejde. 
Consequently, the ex ante assessors usually did not comment critically on the programme proposals that were submitted to the Commission, and to which they had contributed.
I t tilfžlde (EF-initiativ-programmet for Nordvesteuropa) indeholdt forhndsevalueringen dog kritik af flere principielle forhold, ssom at mlet for EF-initiativ-programmet var for bredt, og at det ville vžre en fordel at f fastsat t klart og utvetydigt ml. 
However, in one case (Europe), a number of fundamental criticisms were formulated, observing, for example, that the CIPŐs objective was too broad and that it would be beneficial to define a single, clear and unambiguous objective.
Men de vigtigste spżrgsml kom fżrst frem i forhndsevalueringen, hvor evaluator ikke havde haft noget at gżre med forberedelsen af EF-initiativ-programmet (EF-initiativ-programmet for Irland-Wales): nytten af at have flere forskellige analyser, den manglende sammenhžng mellem analysen og fastsžttelsen af prioriteter og foranstaltninger og den upržcise beskrivelse af gržnserelaterede problemer og potentialer. 
Yet it was where the assessor was not involved in preparation of the CIP (Ireland-Wales) that he raised the most important questions: the usefulness of multiple analyses, the weakness of the link between the analysis and the definition of priorities and measures, and the poor identification of border-related problems and potential.
Det faktum, at der manglede et kritisk blik p forslagene til EF-initiativ-programmerne under udarbejdelsen, kombineret med at mlene for EF-initiativet var for generelle, og at der manglede specifikke oplysninger om hvert enkelt stżtteberettiget omrde (jf. punkt 17-25), samt at der ikke p forhnd var opstillet detaljerede kvalitetskriterier (jf. punkt 34), var medvirkende til, at der ikke kunne udarbejdes EF-initiativ-programmer af hżj kvalitet. 
The lack of objective criticism during the drafting stage of CIP proposals, the general nature of the CI objectives, the lack of specific information on each eligible area (see paragraphs 17 to 25) and the failure to establish detailed qualitative criteria in advance (see paragraph 34) all combined to form an obstacle to the preparation of quality CIPs.
Blev der taget hensyn til resultaterne af den forudgende programmeringsperiode? 
Were the results of the previous programming period taken into account?
Da Interreg III-programmerne skulle forberedes, forel kun midtvejsevalueringerne af den forudgende periode. 
When the Interreg III programmes were being prepared, only the mid-term evaluations for the previous period were available.
Anbefalingerne heri med henblik p den nye periode var meget forskellige. 
The content of these evaluations, in terms of recommendations for the new period, varies greatly.
De vžsentligste aspekter i midtvejsevalueringerne, som der ikke blev taget hensyn nok til, var fżlgende: at der deltager flere medlemsstater pr. program. 
The most significant aspects noted by the assessors, which, it seems, were not given sufficient consideration, are the following: by the higher number of Member States participating in each programme.
56. Disse analyser var ikke sžrlig anvendelige, fordi de ikke opfyldte to vigtige funktioner: a) b) Strategien og prioriteterne for programmerne var ikke tilstržkkeligt klart beskrevet (jf. punkt 58-63). 
Interregional 56. two (a) (b) 57. lines to provide a clear identification of needs (see paragraph 24) is echoed in the CIPs under this strand, which refer to no analysis in any form.
Det gżr det vanskeligt at definere mlene for disse programmer og at bestemme, hvordan resultaterne skal mles. 
It is therefore difficult to specify the objectives of these programmes and determine a method for measuring the progress to be achieved.
Er de problemer, der sigtes til, gržnserelaterede? 
Can the problems addressed be attributed to the existence of a border?
I beskrivelserne ppeges udviklingsproblemer ligesom i traditionelle EFRU-interventionsprogrammer. 
The descriptions present development-related problems, in the same way as traditional ERDF intervention programmes, but do not usually focus on the problems created by the existence of borders, such as missing links (1).
Det gžlder navnlig miljżproblemer, som, nr de opstr p den ene side af gržnsen, ogs indvirker p den anden side (vandkvalitet, beskyttelse mod brand, gentilplantning med skov, fžlles aktioner i beskyttede omrder, naturkatastrofer mv.). b) En ržkke programmer har en oversigt over det gržnseoverskridende samarbejde og de fordele, det kan give inden for bestemte sektorer ssom arbejdsmarkedet, transport og kommunikation, videnskab og sundhed (EF-initiativ-programmet for Rheintal-Bodensee-Hochrhein og EF-initiativ-programmet for Ems-Dollart-omrdet). 
This is true in particular of environmental problems on one side of a border that also impact on the opposite side (water quality, fire prevention, reafforestation, joint action in protected zones, natural hazards, etc.); (b) some programmes include an assessment of cross-border cooperation and of the advantages which this can bring in specific sectors, such as the labour market, transport and communications, science and health (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein and Ems-Dollart Region).
I et andet program (EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal) beskrives fordelene ved samarbejde p en ržkke omrder som jernbane-forbindelser samt forvaltning af arealer, floder og vandressourcer p begge sider af gržnserne i gržnseregionerne. (1) Udtrykket anvendes i Kommissionens arbejdspapir 6 (5. maj 2000) Čvaluation ex ante et indicateurs pour Interreg (Volet A)Ç, s. 
Another programme (Spain-Portugal) highlights the advantage of cooperation in certain fields, in the cross-border area, such as railway connections, spatial management, rivers and water resources; (1) This expression is used on page 7 of the CommissionŐs ÔWorking paper 6 (5 May 2000) Ń ex ante evaluation and indicators for Interreg (Strand A)Ő.
Disse Čmissing linksÇ er gržnsens barriereeffekt. 
The missing link refers to the barrier effect of a border.
C 303/14 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 7.12.2004 c) Under linje B (EF-initiativ-programmet for Nordvesteuropa) viser en ržkke nye temaer inden for regionaludvikling (EFFU), at det tvžrnationale aspekt har stor betydning. 
C 303/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 (c) one Strand B programme in particular (Europe) demonstrates the transnational significance of a series of new themes linked to spatial development (ESDP).
Det drejer sig om temaer som udvikling af alternative transportmetoder og undersżgelser af, hvordan de kan supplere hinanden gensi-digt, koordinering af forvaltningen af de store floder i regionen, gentilplantning med skov, foranstaltninger, der fremmer komplementariteten mellem byer, bedre adgang til transport-nettene fra regionens randomrder, koordinering af aktioner til bekžmpelse af forureningen af Den Engelske Kanal mv. 
These include the development and complementarity of alternative modes of transport, coordination in the management of regional rivers, reafforestation, measures to increase complementarity between urban areas, the development of transport from the regionŐs peripheral areas and the coordination of measures to prevent pollution of the English Channel.
Svarer programmernes prioriteter til de identificerede behov? 
Are programme priorities synonymous with identified needs?
Hovedparten af programmerne i linje A blev udarbejdet p grundlag af Čbottom-upÇ-princippet, som Kommissionen gik ind for i retningslinjerne: Potentielle partnere i EF-initiativet blev opfordret til at stille forslag til, p hvilke omrder der kunne gennemfżres projekter. 
Most of the Strand A programmes were drawn up using the Ôbottom-upŐ approach advocated in the Commission guidelines: potential partners in a CI were invited to propose areas in which projects could be implemented.
Disse forslag blev anvendt, da foranstaltningerne under EF-initiativ-programmerne og siden hen ogs prioriteterne blev fastlagt Ń der fandt ikke nogen udvžlgelse sted. 
These proposals were used to determine CIP measures and, subsequently, priorities, without any choices being made.
Man ville helst have meget brede programmer, s flest mulige aktżrer kunne deltage i gennemfżrelsen af dem. I nogle tilfžlde var de involverede medlemsstater blevet enige om foranstaltningerne, fżr analysen af udgangssituationen i regionen forel (EF-initiativ-programmet for Ems-Dollart-omrdet, EF-initiativ-programmet for Spanien-Portugal). 
There was rather a tendency to establish very broad programmes so that as many partners as possible could then be involved in implementation. Sometimes the Member States concerned agreed on measures before analysing the regional situation (Ems-Dollart Region and Spain-Portugal).
Resultatet blev i mange tilfžlde meget brede programmer med grupper af foranstaltninger, som ikke hżrte naturligt sammen, og abstrakte prioriteter og ml, hvor mlopfyldelsen ikke kan mles. 
This often results in very broad programmes composed of artificial groupings of measures and in the formulation of abstract priorities and objectives. It is impossible to measure whether such objectives have been achieved.
I evalueringerne af de forudgende perioder og i en ržkke forhndsevalueringer er der blevet fremsat lignende bemžrkninger (jf. punkt 52 og 53). 
Similar criticisms were voiced of the evaluations of previous periods and, here, by certain ex ante assessors (see paragraphs 52 and 53).
Alle de reviderede programmer under linje A havde for eksempel foranstaltninger vedrżrende fżlgende omrder: żkonomi, socialomrdet, udvikling i landdistrikterne, menneskelige ressourcer, miljż, kulturarv og turisme. 
For example all the Strand A programmes examined included measures in the economic, social, rural development, human resources, environment, cultural heritage and tourism sectors.
Det forklarer, hvorfor disse EF-initiativ-programmer ikke adskiller sig fra de traditionelle interventionsprogrammer ved andet end de sžrlige gennemfżrelsesbestemmelser til initiativet (jf. punkt 43-49). 
This explains why these CIPs are no different from traditional intervention programmes, save as regards the specific implementing rules attached to the Initiative (see paragraphs 43 to 49).
I t tilfžlde, hvor Kommissionen havde fundet foranstaltningerne for brede (EF-initiativ-programmet for Rheintal-Bodensee-Hochrhein), blev en af prioriteterne slżjfet, men foranstaltningerne under denne prioritet blev overfżrt til de tilbagevžrende prioriteter. 
In one case where the Commission found the measures to be too broad in scope (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein), one priority was cancelled, only for the measures under this priority to be transferred to the remaining priorities.
Foranstaltningerne under linje B er mere specifikke, for de to programmer, Retten reviderede, har forbindelse til EFFU. 
Under Strand B, measures are more specific because, in the two cases examined, a connection exists with the ESDP.
EFFUŐs forskellige prioriteter (1) blev imidlertid fastholdt, og der blev tilfżjet andre, fordi de forskellige medlemsstater skulle n til enighed. 
Nevertheless, for the sake of agreement between the different Member States, the various ESDP priorities (1) were retained and supplemented with others.
Det omrde, programmet vedrżrer, er p stżrrelse med Unionens stżrste medlemsstater, s hver enkelt foranstaltning har kun begržnset betydning. 
Given that the geographical area of the programme is greater than that of the largest EU Member States, none of the measures has much significance.
(1) EFFUŐs prioriterede omrder vedrżrer: fysisk udvikling med flere centre og et nyt forhold by/land, lige adgang til infrastrukturer og viden og forsvarlig forvaltning af natur og kulturarv. 
(1) The ESDP priorities concern Ôpolycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationshipŐ, Ôparity of access to infrastructure and knowledgeŐ and Ôwise management of the natural and cultural heri-tageŐ.
Programmerne under linje C omfatter ikke behovsanalyser og heller ikke en oversigt over fordelingen af det overordnede ml, der er fastsat for denne linje i retningslinjerne, og de er ikke opdelt p prioriteter og foranstaltninger. 
The Strand C programmes, which contain no needs analysis and no breakdown of the general objective assigned to the Strand by the guidelines, are not broken down by priority and measure.
For alle de reviderede programmer under linje A og B gžlder det derfor, at der ikke er sammenhžng mellem analysen af den Interreg-stżtteberettigede region og den strategi og de prioriteter, der blev fastlagt for programmerne. 
In all the Strand A and B programmes examined, therefore, there is a discrepancy between the analysis of the region eligible for Interreg and the definition of a strategy and priorities for the programme.
De centrale program-foranstaltninger blev fastsat ud fra andre hensyn, som ikke nžvnes udtrykkeligt i programmerne, og deres indhold er meget bredt. 
The key programme measures were drawn up on the basis of other concerns which the programmes do not make explicit, and there is a very broad content base.
Med kombinationen af Čtop-downÇ-og Čbottom-upÇ-metoderne skulle man kunne tage hensyn bde til de behov, som pvises via analyserne, og til de behov, de lokale aktżrer giver udtryk for. 
By combining the Ôtop-downŐ and Ôbottom-upŐ approaches, it should be possible to take account both of the needs emerging from the preliminary analyses and of those expressed by local partners.
Enhedsreglen for de organer, der gennemfżrer EF-initiativ-programmerne, og for de finansielle elementer fremmer ganske vist samarbejdet (jf. punkt 50), men den har ikke resulteret i, at der er fastlagt en mlrettet strategi for, hvordan gržnserelaterede problemer kan lżses. 
Although the sharing of the implementing bodies and financial elements is conducive to cooperation (see paragraph 50), it has not resulted in a targeted strategy that might resolve border-related problems.
Er EF-initiativ-programmerne under Interreg III og EFRUŐs traditionelle interventioner komplementžre? 
Is there complementarity between the Interreg III CIPs and traditional ERDF interventions?
I nogle af de reviderede EF-initiativ-programmer under linje A er der argumenter, som skal vise, at programmerne er komplementžre med traditionelle interventionsprogrammer. 
The Strand A CIPs examined sometimes include arguments that seek to demonstrate complementarity with traditional intervention programmes.
I virkeligheden er der komplementaritet, simpelthen fordi EF-initiativ-programmerne under Interreg er s brede og omfatter mange foranstaltninger, der ligner de traditionelle interventionsprogrammer, generelt er den eneste forskel gennemfżrelsesbestemmelserne (2) (jf. punkt 22-25, 59 og 60). 
In fact, this complementarity is simply the consequence of the very broad scope of the CIPs, which comprise many measures resembling those implemented through traditional intervention programmes, the only difference in general being in the implementing rules (2) (see paragraphs 22 to 25, 59 and 60).
Revisionen omfattede ikke en sdan sammenligning for linje BŐs og CŐs vedkommende, for de regioner, de džkker, er generelt stżtteberettigede under et tocifret antal forskellige ml 1-og ml 2-programmer. 
The audit did not perform the same comparison in respect of Strands B and C, since the regions concerned are generally eligible under scores of different Objective 1 and 2 programmes.
I de tilfžlde, hvor komplementariteten fremhžves, er der kun tale om en formel reaktion p kravene i lovgivningen (EF-initiativ-programmet for Nordvesteuropa). 
Any emphasis on complementarity is a formal response to legislative requirements (Europe).
Er de fżrste projekter, der blev godkendt, tvžreuropžiske, og har de mervžrdieffekt? 
Do the first projects adopted qualify as trans-European and do they offer added value?