natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der manglede en eksplicit logik til at forbinde de overordnede mlsžtninger med de specifikke ml for forskning og skabelse af viden. Europa-Kommissionen: ČFive-year Assessment of the European Union Research Framework Programmes, 1999-2003Ç, rapport fra panelet af uafhžngige eksperter under forsžde af Erkki Ormala (15.12.2004), afsnit 6: ČEvaluating the Framework ProgrammeÇ, s. 
It lacks an explicit logic connecting the highest objectives to the specific research and knowledge goals’ ‘Five-year Assessment of the European Union Research Framework Programmes, 1993–2003’, Report of the Independent Expert Panel chaired by Erkki Ormala (15 December 2004): Section 6 ‘Evaluating the Framework Programme’, p.
Effektiviteten af forskningssamarbejdet blev vurderet i forhold til den faktiske opfyldelse af forventningerne til projektet, overfżrslen af eksisterende og ny videnskabelig viden og anvendelsen af god praksis for, hvordan forskning udfżres. 
The effectiveness of research collaboration was assessed by reference to the actual achievement of project deliverables, the transfer of existing and new scientific knowledge as well as the use of good practices concerning the way in which research is carried out.
Retten konkluderer, at de RP6-instrumenter, undersżgelsen džkkede, havde fremmet et godt forskningssamarbejde mellem projektdeltagerne. 
The Court concludes that the FP6 instruments covered by the audit had promoted a good level of research collaboration between project participants.
UNDERSŻGERNES VURDERING AF DET OPNEDE FORSKNINGSSAMARBEJDE UNDERSŻGERNES VURDERING AF SAMARBEJDETS EFFEKTIVITET Har samarbejdet mellem deltagerne vžret effektivt? 
Indeed: Has the collaboration between the participants been effective?
Ekspertisenet 101 projekter 1 % Ekspertisenetprojekter 16 FIGUR 3 298 projekter 1% 32 % 23 % Ja Delvis Nej 67 % 76 % Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret Ń Horisontal analyse af projektundersżgelsesrapporter pr. 31. december 2007. Sžrberetning nr. 
NoEs 101 projects 1 % IPs 298 projects 1% 16 32 % 23 % Yes Partially No 67 % 76 % Source: European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007.
Hertil kommer, at undersżgelsen af deltagerne viser en samlet tilfredshed med de to gennemgede instrumenter (jf. figur 4). 
Moreover, the survey of participants reveals an overall satisfaction with the two instruments audited (see Figure 4).
Offentlige forskningscentre og universiteter fandt ekspertisenet sžrlig vellykkede, mens private partnere (inklusive SMV) fandt samarbejdet mindre frugtbart. 
NoEs were found to be particularly successful by public research centres and universities, while private partners (including SMEs) considered collaboration less fruitful.
Bde offentlige og private partnere fandt samarbejdet i forbindelse med integrerede projekter effektivt. 
Concerning IPs, the cooperation was considered effective by both public and private partners.
17 FIGUR 4 Hvor tilfredsstillende anser De projektet for at vžre med hensyn til ... 
17 FIGURE 4 How satisfactory do you consider project in terms of ...
PROJEKTPLANERNE ER I FLERE TILFŽLDE BEDRE END DE IMPLEMENTEREDE PROJEKTER 25. 
PROJECT PLANS BETTER THAN IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS IN A NUMBER OF CASES 25.
Projektkvaliteten hžnger sammen med iden om videnskabelig og teknologisk ekspertise og graden af innovation. 
Project quality is associated with the concept of scientific and technological excellence and the degree of innovation.
Det er en normal praksis for forskningsprojekter, at deres kvalitet vurderes af ligemžnd. 
It is a normal practice for research projects that their quality be assessed by peers.
Under RP6 deltog uafhžngige eksperter i den indledende udvžlgelse af forslag samt overvgningen og evalueringen af de implementerede projekter19. 
For FP6, independent experts were involved in the initial selection of proposals as well as in the monitoring and evaluation of projects implemented19.
Projektundersżgernes efterfżlgende vurdering er baseret p: Ń hvor langt projektet er net i retning af at opfylde sine ml Ń om ressourcerne er anvendt hensigtsmžssigt Ń i hvor hżj grad forskningssamarbejdet har vžret effektivt Ń om projektforvaltningen har vžret forsvarlig Ń hvordan den viden, projektet har skabt, er blevet anvendt og formidlet. 
Project reviewers’ ex post assessment is based on: — the progress towards the achievement of its objectives; — the adequate use of resources; — the degree to which research collaboration has been effective; — the soundness of project management, and — the use and dissemination of knowledge arising from the project.
19 ČEvaluatorerneÇ deltager i evalueringen og vurderer de indkomne forslags kvaliteter i forhold til de kriterier, Kommissionen har opstillet i indkaldelsen af forslag. 
19 ‘Evaluators’ participate in the evaluation process, assessing the merits of each of the proposals received against the criteria defined by the Commission in the corresponding call for proposals.
P grundlag af evaluatorernes vurdering afgżr Kommissionen, hvilke forslag der fortjener finansiering. 
Based on the evaluators’ assessment, the Commission decides which proposals deserve to be funded.
ČUndersżgerneÇ kommer p banen et godt stykke tid efter, at projektet faktisk er startet. 
‘Reviewers’ intervene well after the project has actually started.
Ud fra et vurderingsskema udarbejdet af Kommissionen vurderer de regelmžssig, hvordan det enkelte projekt er skredet frem i en referenceperiode. 
They periodically assess progress achieved by a given project during a reference period, on the basis of an assessment form prepared by the Commission.
P grundlag af denne vurdering beslutter Kommissionen, om projektet m fortsžtte, eller om det tvžrtimod bżr standses fżr den planlagte afslutningsdato. 
Based on this assessment, the Commission decides whether the project may continue or if, on the contrary, it should be terminated before the planned completion date.
ČEvaluatorerneÇ og ČundersżgerneÇ udvžlges fra den samme database, som Kommissionen oprettede ved programmets start. 
‘Evaluators’ and ‘Reviewers’ are selected from the same database constituted by the Commission at the start of the programme.
18 FIGUR 5 UNDERSŻGERNES VURDERING AF PROJEKTETS KVALITET 19 % 0% 42 % 39 % Godt til udmžrket projekt Acceptabelt projekt Utilfredsstillende projekt Intet svar 18 % 2% 44 % 36 % Ekspertisenet 101 projekter Ekspertisenetprojekter SAMLET VURDERING AF PROJEKTETS KVALITET 298 projekter Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret Ń Horisontal analyse af projektundersżgelsesrapporter pr. 31. december 2007. 
18 FIGURE 5 % REVIEWERS’ ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT QUALITY 19 % 0% 42 39 % Good to excellent project Acceptable project Unsatisfactory project No reply 18 % 2% 44 % 36 % NoEs 101 projects IPs 298 projects OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT’S QUALITY Source: European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007.
Rettens analyse af eksperternes undersżgelsesrapporter viser, at over en tredjedel af projekterne blev betegnet som Čgodt til udmžrketÇ (jf. figur 5). 
The Court’s analysis of the experts’ review reports shows that more than one third of projects were qualified as ‘good to excellent’ (see Figure 5).
Kun seks ud af 399 projekter, der var implementeret som ekspertisenet og integrerede projekter, blev betragtet som utilfredsstillende. 
Only six out of 399 projects implemented as NoEs and IPs were considered unsatisfactory.
Men mange projekter (174 projekter, eller 44 % af alle de gennemgede projekter) fik kun vurderingen ČacceptabeltÇ. 
However, a large number of projects (174 projects, or 44 % of all projects reviewed) were assessed as not more than ‘acceptable’.
I betragtning af, at alle projekterne var blevet betegnet som Čudmžr-ketÇ af eksperter p det tidspunkt, hvor Kommissionen udvalgte dem, viser undersżgelsesresultaterne, at projektkvaliteten daler i implementeringsfasen. 
Considering that experts had qualified all projects as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection by the Commission, the review results indicate that project quality is declining in the implementation phase.
OPFYLDELSE AF DE SPECIFIKKE ML FOR DE NYE INSTRUMENTER 28. 
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEW INSTRUMENTS’ SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 28.
Som allerede anfżrt (jf. punkt 9-10) sigtede ekspertisenettene primžrt mod at skabe en omfattende og vedvarende integration af netvžrkspartnernes forskningsaktiviteter. 
As previously indicated (see paragraphs 9 and 10), NoEs were aimed primarily at creating a substantial and lasting integration of the research activities of the network partners.
De integrerede projekter var udformet til at opbygge den viden, der skal til for at implementere de udvalgte temaer, ved at n ambitiżse, klart definerede videnskabelige og teknologiske ml med en europžisk dimension. 
IPs were designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives of a European dimension.
For begge instrumenter var hovedvžgten lagt p at integrere en Čkritisk masseÇ af ekspertise, aktiviteter og ressourcer som en forudsžtning for langsigtede forskningsaktiviteter og -partnerskaber samt for at opn reel videnskabelig, industriel eller żkonomisk effekt. 
For both instruments, the emphasis was on integrating a ‘critical mass’ of expertise, activities and resources as a pre-condition for long-term research activities and partnerships as well as for achieving a real impact in scientific, industrial or economic terms.
Det specifikke SMV-ml skal ses i lyset af deres afgżrende rolle i den europžiske żkonomi. 
The specific target for SMEs has to be considered in view of their crucial role in the European economy.
EKSPERTISENETTENES INTEGRATION OFTE ERSTATTET AF TRADITIONEL FORM FOR SAMARBEJDE 29. 
NOES’ INTEGRATION OFTEN REPLACED BY TRADITIONAL FORM OF COLLABORATION 29.
Retten mener ikke, at de reviderede ekspertisenet Ń trods deres succes med at fremme forskningssamarbejde og projekter af en rimelig kvalitet Ń har net deres specifikke ml. 
The Court considers that, notwithstanding their success in promoting research collaboration and projects of reasonable quality, NoEs audited have not achieved their specific objective.
Det kan isžr fremhžves, at: a) hovedparten af deltagerne knyttede kun en relativt lille andel af deres forskningskapacitet til netvžrket b) det ikke lykkedes ekspertisenettene at f kontrol over anvendelsen af de ressourcer, der var stillet til rdighed, og at sikre en hensigtsmžssig koordinering af projektaktiviteterne. 
In particular: (a) Most participants allocated a relatively small proportion of their research capacities to the network. (b) NoEs failed to reach control over resources made available and to ensure the adequate coordination of project activities.
De deltagende organisationer accepterede ikke, at det er ekspertisenettenes ledelsesstrukturer, der afgżr, hvordan netvžrksressourcerne skal anvendes c) det i de fleste tilfžlde ikke lykkedes at involvere fremtrždende forskere i ekspertisenettene d) ingen af de reviderede ekspertisenet havde skabt holdbare langsigtede forskningsaktiviteter og partnerskaber, og det fremtidige samarbejde derfor afhang af fortsat offentlig stżtte. 
Participant organisations did not accept that NoEs’ governance structures decide how networked resources should be used. (c) In most cases the involvement of key high-level scientists in NoEs was not realised. (d) Self-sustainable long-term research activities and partnerships were not achieved for any of the audited NoEs, thus making future collaboration subject to continued public support.
Resultaterne af de uafhžngige eksperters projektundersżgelser viser, at aktiviteterne kun blev omstruktureret fuldstžndigt og partnerne kun integreret helt i under to tredjedele af de vurderede ekspertisenet (59 ud af 101). 
The results of the project reviews carried out by the independent experts show that full restructuring of activities and integration between partners took place in less than two thirds of the NoEs assessed (59 out of 101).
Allerede i 2004 erkendtes det i en tidligere rapport20, at det var vanskeligt for ekspertisenettene at opn den żnskede Čvarige integrationÇ. 
Already in 2004, a previous report20 acknowledged the difficulties of NoEs in achieving the required ’durable integra-tion‘.
P det seneste har en undersżgelse, der er foretaget p Kommissionens vegne21, bekržftet, at kun et mindretal af ekspertisenettene har bevžget sig overbevisende i retning af holdbar integration med overlevelsesmuligheder p lžngere sigt, efter at EU-finansieringen er ophżrt. 
More recently, a study carried out on behalf of the Commission21 confirmed that only a minority of NoEs have moved convincingly towards self-sustainable integration with prospects for longer-term survival beyond the ending of EU funding.
Ekspertisenettene etablerede i mange tilfžlde kun traditionelle former for forskningssamarbejde om enkeltstende aktioner og ikke kohž-rente og langsigtede fžlles aktiviteter og partnerskaber. 
NoEs often put in place only traditional forms of research collaboration on individual actions, instead of coherent and long-term joint activities and partnerships.
Isžr to faktorer kan forklare, hvorfor det er s vanskeligt for ekspertisenettene at opn varig integration. 
Two main factors can explain the difficulty that NoEs have in achieving lasting integration.
For det fżrste kržver mlet om at oprette en ny form for europžisk netvžrk ved at integrere institutioner, der tidligere har konkurreret indbyrdes, en ny tilgang til forskningssamarbejde. 
Firstly, the goal of setting up a new kind of intra-European network, by integrating institutions previously in competition with each other, requires a new approach to research collaboration.
Mange organisationers modvilje mod at indg en langsigtet forpligtelse virkede ikke til fordel for dette ml. 
The reluctance of many organisations to engage in a long-term commitment did not favour this aim.
Offentlige forskningscentre, et centralt element for ekspertisenettenes ml, fandt det vanskeligt at integrere sig med hinanden p grund af deres institutionelle struktur og budgetmžssige begržnsninger. 
Public research centres, at the heart of the NoEs’ objective, found difficulties in integrating with each other due to their institutional structure and budgetary constraints.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI. 
20 See Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI.
Rapport fra et ekspertpanel p hżjt niveau under ledelse af professor R. Marimon af 21. juni 2004) (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/ instruments_review/). 
Report of the High-Level Expert Panel chaired by Professor R. Marimon, 21 June 2004 (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/ instruments_review/).
21 Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence, Final Report, september 2008, s. 16 og 47. 
21 See Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence, Final Report, September 2008, pp. 16 and 47.
For det andet er der omrder, hvor en vžsentlig integration kun kan opns gradvis. 
Secondly, there are areas where substantial integration can only be achieved progressively.
I praksis viste den maksimale lżbetid p fem r sig ikke at vžre realistisk. 
In practice, the maximal duration of five years proved not to be realistic.
Men i en ržkke tilfžlde (fem af de otte besżgte ekspertisenet) var projektets lżbetid oven i kżbet blevet reduceret p forhandlingsstadiet. 
However, in several cases (five of the eight NoEs visited) the project duration had been even reduced during the negotiation stage.
At de fleste ekspertisenet finansieret under RP6 ikke har opnet en varig integration, skaber tvivl om, under hvilke omstžndigheder det er berettiget fortsat at finansiere dem ud over den oprindelige lżbetid under det nuvžrende, syvende rammeprogram (RP7). 
The fact that most NoEs financed under FP6 have not reached durable integration raises the question as to the conditions under which it is justified to continue their financing beyond the initial duration, under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).
21 TEKSTBOKS 3 EKSPERTISENET Ń GODE OG DRLIGE RESULTATER t ekspertisenet, som Retten vurderede, vedrżrte et projekt inden for omrdet informationssamfunds-teknologier, og involverede et konsortium af et stort antal bde private (SMV og store virksomheder) og offentlige deltagere (universiteter). 
21 BOX 3 LIGHT AND SHADE CONCERNING NoE PERFORMANCE One NoE assessed by the Court concerned a project in the field of information society technologies involving a consortium of a large number of both private (SMEs and large industries) and public participants (universities).
Konsortiet var blevet samlet med henblik p strukturering af den ukoordinerede europžiske forskning p det specifikke videnskabelige omrde, begržnsning af dobbeltarbejde, forżgelse af ekspertise og formidling af videnskab. 
The consortium had been assembled in order to structure fragmented European research in the specific scientific field, reduce duplication, boost excellence and spread scientific knowledge.
Retten gennemgik projektets resultater p grundlag af projektdokumentation og samtaler med repržsentanter for tre reviderede deltagere. 
The Court reviewed the project’s achievements based on project documentation and interviews with representatives of three participants audited.
Der blev taget hensyn til, hvad de uafhžngige eksperter, som udfżrte projektundersżgelserne, havde givet udtryk for. 
The opinion expressed by the independent experts who carried out the project reviews was taken into account.
Retten konkluderede, at projektet bidrog til udveksling af ny viden og til at overfżre allerede eksisterende viden. 
The Court concluded that the project contributed to sharing new knowledge and to transferring pre-existing knowledge.
Forskningssamarbejdet blev frem-met, og der opstod ny viden, som blev udbredt via websteder, deltagelse i og afholdelse af konferencer mv. 
Research collaboration was promoted and new knowledge generated and disseminated through websites, the participation and organisation of conferences, etc.
Denne viden havde kommercielt potentiale. 
This knowledge had potential commercial applications.
Der blev oprettet et Čvirtuelt ekspertisecenterÇ (en internetportal, som projektdeltagere havde bygget, med ajourfżrte oplysninger om offentlig og privat forskning p det specifikke videnskabelige omrde). 
A ‘Virtual Centre of Excellence’(VCE) was created (a web portal built by project participants containing updated information on public and private research in the specific scientific field).
En ržkke deltagere har oprettet en skole p det specifikke omrde for projektet. 
A school in the specific field of the project has been created by several participants.
Da projektet sluttede, anmodede konsortiet om supplerende finansiering i en anden projektfase, hvilket det fik. 
At the end of the project, the consortium requested additional funding for a second project phase, which was obtained.
De besżgte deltagere erklžrede, at deres deltagelse i integrationsaktiviteterne var betinget af, at de fik stillet supplerende EU-midler til rdighed. 
The participants visited declared that their involvement in the integrating activities undertaken depended on the availability of additional EU funds.
Nr finansieringen ophżrte, ville disse aktiviteter ikke kunne opretholdes. Sžrberetning nr. 8/2009 Ń ČEkspertisenetteneÇ og Čde integrerede projekterÇ i Fžllesskabets forskningspolitik Ń nede de deres ml? 
Once the funding ceased, it would be impossible to maintain these activities. Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?
INTEGREREDE PROJEKTER: STORE PROJEKTER OG RELATIVT BESKEDENT FINANSIELT ENGAGEMENT FRA DELTAGERNES SIDE 36. 
IPS: LARGE PROJECTS, AND RELATIVELY LOW PARTICIPANTS’ FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT 36.
Integrerede projekter var udformet til Ń gennem opfyldelse af ambitiżse ml med en europžisk dimension Ń at skabe den viden, som implementeringen af de udvalgte temaer kržvede. 
Integrated Projects were designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving ambitious objectives of a European dimension.
22 TEKSTBOKS 4 INTEGREREDE PROJEKTER Ń GODE OG DRLIGE RESULTATER Der blev oprettet et integreret projekt, som skulle udvikle innovative miljżvenlige emballager, som var baseret p fornyelige rstoffer og var af positiv vžrdi for bde producenter og forbrugere. 
22 BOX 4 LIGHT AND SHADE CONCERNING IPs PERFORMANCE An Integrated Project was created to develop an innovative environment-friendly packaging based on renewable materials, being of positive value to both producers and the consumers.
Projektet samlede de stżrste producenter af rstofferne og af det endelige produkt for at skabe synergi. 
The IP assembled the main producers of the raw material and of the final product in order to create synergies.
Overslaget over omkostningerne til de aktiviteter, der skulle udfżres under projektet, var p over 25 millioner euro (hvoraf 56,5 % blev finansieret af Fžllesskabet). 
The estimated cost of activities to be carried out within the project exceeded 25 million euro (56,5 % of which was financed by the Community).
Det lykkedes projektet at integrere implicerede parter fra flere forretningsomrder (vertikal integration), fra den offentlige og den private sektor (sektorintegration), fra forskellige fagomrder (horisontal inte-gration) og fra bde grundforskning og anvendt forskning (integration af aktiviteter). 
The project succeeded in integrating stakeholders within several business areas (vertical integration), from the public and private sectors (sectoral integration), from different disciplines (horizontal integration), both fundamental and applied (activity integration).
Projektet tiltrak dog ikke nogen anden finansieringskilde til at bidrage til opfyldelsen af mlene for projektet. 
However, the project did not attract any other source of funding contributing to the achievement of the project goals.
Dette forhold forhindrede, at der blev opnet den finansielle integration, som dette specifikke RP6-instrument er forbundet med. 
This situation has prevented the achievement of financial integration, associated with this specific FP6 instrument.
Revisionens viste, at de gennemgede integrerede projekter generelt har opfyldt de ml, der sigtedes mod p deres forskningsomrde, og har rejst betydelige ressourcer (menneskelige, finansielle og tekniske). 
The evidence shows that the audited IPs have achieved, in general, the objectives pursued in their research field and have mobilised a significant volume of resources (human, financial, technical).
Dette skyldes navnlig, at de har varet lžngere og haft flere deltagere end tidligere eksisterende instrumenter22. 
This is due in particular to a longer duration and an increased number of participants when compared to pre-existing instruments22.
Men det er ikke lykkedes de reviderede integrerede projekter at tiltržkke supplerende offentlig og privat finansiering. 
However, the audited IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and private funding.
MLET OM SMV-DELTAGELSE IKKE FULDT UD NET 39. 
SME PARTICIPATION TARGET NOT FULLY ACHIEVED 39.
SMV spiller en vigtig rolle i den europžiske żkonomi som fżlge af deres betydning i erhvervslivet og for beskžftigelsen. 
SMEs play a key role in the European economy, given their weight in the business sector and their importance in employment.
Som omtalt i punkt 8 forsżgte RP6 at tage hensyn til deres sžrlige behov og opstillede derfor som ml, at de skulle modtage mindst 15 % af det samlede budget for RP6Ős udvalgte temaer mod 10 % under RP523. 
As mentioned in paragraph 8, FP6 sought to take their particular needs into account and set for this purpose a target of at least 15 % of the total budget for the FP6 thematic priorities, as compared to 10 % in FP523.