natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
6 Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets afgżrelse nr. 1513/2002/EF af 27. juni 2002 om Det Europžiske Fžllesskabs sjette rammeprogram for forskning, teknologisk udvikling og demonstration som bidrag til realiseringen af det europžiske forskningsrum og til innovation (2002-2006) (EFT L 232 af 29.8.2002, s. 
6 Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 concerning the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) (OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p.
10 FIGUR 2 RP6ŐS VŽSENTLIGSTE KOMPONENTER OG GRUNDLŽGGENDE PRINCIPPER RP6Ős vžsentligste komponenter Integrering Strukturering af europžisk forskning af det europžiske forskningsrum Styrkelse af grundlaget for EFR Koordinering Forenkling Koncentreret om udvalgte forskningsomrder FP6 grundlžggende principper Struktureringseffekt gennem stžrkere forbindelser med nationale, regionale og andre europžiske initiativer Kilde: Kommissionens retningslinjer ČParticipating in European ResearchÇ, 2. udgave, februar 2004 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/how-to-participate_en.pdf). Sžrberetning nr. 
10 FIGURE 2 FP6 MAIN COMPONENTS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES Integrating European Research Concentrating on selected priority research areas FP6 Main Components Structuring the European Research Area FP6 Basic Principles Structuring effect through stronger links with national, regional and other European initiatives Strengthening the foundations of the ERA Coordination Simplification Source: Commission’s guide ‘Participating in European Research’, 2nd Edition, February 2004 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/how-to-participate_en.pdf).
17 milliarder euro for rene 2002-2006 og finansierede indtil udgangen af 2008 investeringer i ČindirekteÇ FTU-aktiviteter7 med en skżnnet vžrdi af 25 milliarder euro. 
With a budget of around 17 billion euro for the years 2002–06, FP6 financed until the end of 2008 ‘indirect’ RTD activities worth 25 billion euro in estimated investments7.
75 %) blev afholdt p budgetomrdet ČIntegration og styrkelse af det europžiske forskningsrumÇ, inden for syv Čudvalgte temaerÇ8, dvs. programmer, der džkker specifikke forskningstemaer. 
Most expenditure (around 75 %) was carried out under the heading ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’, within seven ‘thematic priorities’8, i.e. programmes covering specific themes of research.
Med henblik p at udvikle sm og mellemstore virksomheders (SMVŐs) teknologiske kapacitet og lette deres adgang til forskning af hżj kvalitet blev der i RP6 specielt fokuseret p disse virksomheder. 
In view of developing their technological capacity and facilitating their access to high-quality research, FP6 put special emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Til dette forml var der et żremžrket belżb p 1,8 milliarder euro, dvs. 15 % af det samlede budget for de udvalgte temaer (en tredjedel mere end i det forudgende rammeprogram). 
An amount of 1,8 billion euro was earmarked for this purpose, i.e. 15 % of the total budget of the thematic priorities (one third more than in the previous Framework Programme).
DE NYE INSTRUMENTER OG MLENE FOR DEM 9. 
THE NEW INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR OBJECTIVES 9.
Ekspertisenet og integrerede projekter kunne gennemfżres inden for ethvert af de syv Čudvalgte temaerÇ (jf. fodnote 8). 
NoEs and IPs could be carried out in any of the seven ‘thematic priorities’ (see footnote 8).
Lovgiver mente, at disse instrumenter var hovedmidlerne til at skabe mervžrdi ud over, hvad der kunne opns gennem nationale bestržbelser (euro-pžisk mervžrdi), gennem en integrering af den europžiske forsknings kapacitet. 
These instruments were recognised by the legislator as being the main means to generate added value over and above that which could be achieved through national efforts (European added value), by integrating European research capacities.
Det forventedes, at denne ville n en kritisk masse af ekspertise, aktiviteter og ressourcer (personale, kvalifikationer, kompetenceomrder, finanser, infrastruktur, udstyr). 
This was supposed to achieve a critical mass in terms of expertise, activities and resources (staff, skills, competences, finances, infrastructure, equipment).
Det forventedes ogs, at de nye instrumenter skulle bidrage vžsentlig til, at mlet om at anvende 15 % af budgettet for de udvalgte temaer p SMV blev net (jf. punkt 8). 
Also the new instruments were supposed to play an important role in achieving the target of spending 15 % of the budget of the thematic priorities on SME (see paragraph 8).
7 ČIndirekteÇ FTU-aktioner implementeres af bistandskontrahenter i modsžtning til ČdirekteÇ aktioner, som Kommissionen udfżrer via sit Fžlles Forskningscenter. 
7 ‘Indirect’ RTD activities designate actions to be implemented by grant contractors, as opposed to ‘direct’ activities carried out by the Commission through its Joint Research Centre.
8 De syv Čudvalgte temaerÇ er: biovidenskab, genomforskning og bioteknologi i sundhedens tjeneste; informationssamfundsteknologier; nanoteknologi og nanovidenskab, videnbaserede multifunktionelle materialer, nye produktionsprocesser og nyt produktionsudstyr; luftfart og rumfart; fżdevarekvalitet og -sikkerhed; bžredygtig udvikling, globale miljżžndringer og żkosystemer; borgere og styreformer i et videnbaseret samfund. 
8 The seven ‘thematic priorities’ are: life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health; information society technologies; nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices; aeronautics and space; food quality and safety; sustainable development, global change and ecosystems; citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society.
9 Specifikke mlrettede projekter, koordinerede aktioner, sžrlige stżtteprojekter, Marie Curie-aktiviteter, integrerede infrastrukturinitiativer og tiltag efter artikel 169. 
9 Specific targeted projects, coordinated actions, specific support projects, Marie Curie actions, integrated infrastructure initiatives and Article 169 actions.
Tekstboks 1 og 2 giver eksempler p den type aktioner, der gennemfżres i ČekspertisenetÇ og Čintegrerede projekterÇ. 
Boxes 1 and 2 provide examples of the type of activities carried out in ‘NoEs’ and ‘IPs’.
PROJEKTUDVŽLGELSE OG -FORVALTNING 12. 
PROJECT SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT 12.
I Kommissionen er RP6 flere generaldirektoraters (GDŐers)10 fžlles ansvar. 
Within the Commission, FP6 is a joint responsibility of several Directorates-General (DGs)10.
Som i tidligere rammeprogrammer offentliggjorde Kommissionen regelmžssig indkaldelser af forslag med en beskrivelse af de brede aktivitetsomrder. 
As in previous Framework Programmes, the Commission published periodically calls for proposals describing the broad areas of activity.
De potentielle tilskudsmodtageres anmodninger om finansiering blev vurderet med hjžlp fra uafhžngige eksperter (ČevaluatorerÇ). 
Request for funding submitted by potential beneficiaries were assessed with the help of independent experts (‘evaluators’).
Forslagene blev evalueret i relation til de videnskabelige og tekniske kriterier, der var fastsat i forslagsindkaldelsen, herunder forvaltningskriterier sammenholdt med forslagsstillerens potentielle kapacitet til at implementere projekterne. 
Proposals were evaluated against the scientific and technical criteria defined in the call for proposals, including management criteria linked with the proposers’ potential capacity to implement the projects.
De projekter, som ifżlge evalueringen fortjente EU-finansiering mest, blev udvalgt af Kommissionen, og tilskuddene blev tildelt. 
Projects considered most deserving of EU funding were selected by the Commission and grants awarded.
Kommissionen overvgede projektets forlżb og vurderede det regelmžssig, herunder i forhold til de ml, der specifikt var opstillet for det enkelte instrument. 
Project progress was monitored and periodically assessed by the Commission, including by reference to the objectives specifically assigned to each instrument.
Denne overvgning blev udfżrt med assistance af uafhžngige eksperter (undersżgere)11. 
This monitoring was carried out with the assistance of independent experts (reviewers)11.
10 Ud over GD for Forskning, som udfżrer hovedparten af forvaltningen og koordineringen af aktiviteterne under RP6, var der fire andre GDŐer, der ogs forvaltede dele af specifikke programmer: GD for Informationssamfundet og Medier, GD for Energi og Transport, GD for Erhvervspolitik og GD for Maritime Anliggender og Fiskeri. 
10 Together with DG Research, which is the main Directorate-General managing and coordinating FP6 activities, four other DGs also managed parts of specific programmes: DG Information Society and Media, DG Energy and Transport, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
11 Jf. punkt 25 og fodnote 19. 
11 See paragraph 25 and footnote 19.
12 TEKSTBOKS 1 HVILKE AKTIONSTYPER BLEV GENNEMFŻRT I EKSPERTISENET? 
12 BOX 1 WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT IN NoEs?
Alle ekspertisenet er forskellige. 
Every NoE is different.
Der blev da gennemfżrt fżlgende specifikke aktiviteter: Integration af aktiviteter implementeret under de undersżgte ekspertisenet omfattede udveksling af ph.d.-studerende og forskningspersonale, afholdelse af fžlles workshopper, oprettelse af virtuelle arbejdsgrupper om internet-baseret forskning, etablering af virtuelle laboratorier og institutter og tilrettelžggelse af besżg med henblik p adgang til eksterne faciliteter. 
Examples of the specific activities carried out include: Integration of activities implemented under the NoEs examined included the exchange of PhD students and research staff, the organisation of joint workshops, the creation of virtual Internet-based research working groups, the establishment of virtual labs and institutes, and the organisation of visits intended to provide access to off-site facilities.
Fžlles forskningsaktiviteter implementeret under de gennemgede ekspertisenet omfatter finansiering af individuelle forskningsprojekter, ofte gennem interne indkaldelser af forslag, der implementeres med seniorforskere som ansvarlige. 
Joint research activities implemented under the NoEs examined include the funding of individual research projects, often through internal calls for proposals implemented under the responsibility of scientific task leaders.
Udbredelsen af ekspertiseaktiviteterne omfattede virksomhedsbesżg, deltagelse i internationale konferencer, afholdelse af sommerkurser og andre uddannelsesarrangementer, formidling af information om projektet via en sžrlig webside, nyhedsbreve, pressemeddelelser, samt offentliggżrelse af artikler. Sžrberetning nr. 
Spreading of excellence activities included visits to industry, participation in international conferences, organisation of summer school sessions and other training events, the dissemination of project information through a dedicated web page, newsletters, press releases, and the publication of articles.
De projekter, der blev sat i gang under ekspertisenet og integrerede projekter, tegnede sig for nžsten 50 % af midlerne til RP6. 
Projects undertaken under NoEs and IPs attracted almost 50 % of FP6 funds.
Ifżlge Kommissionens oplysninger fik ekspertisenettene og samarbejdsprojekter, der minder om integrerede projekter, under syvende rammeprogram (2007-2013) frem til februar 2009 16 % af den samlede finansiering, der var tildelt RP712. 15. 
According to the Commission’s data under the Seventh Framework Programme (2007–13) NoEs and those collaborative projects that assume IP characteristics received 16 % of the total FP7 funding allocated up to February 2009.12 15.
RP6 finansierede 167 projekter som ekspertisenet, med i alt ca. 5 000 deltagere og et kumuleret EU-bidrag p 1,2 milliarder euro (mod stżtteberettigede investeringsomkostninger p 1,9 milliarder euro). 
FP6 financed 167 projects as NoEs, involving some 5 000 participants and a cumulative EU contribution of 1,2 billion euro (against eligible investment costs of 1,9 billion euro).
Hvert ekspertisenet omfattede i gennemsnit ca. 30 partnere og et EU-bidrag p 7 millioner euro pr. kontrakt. 
On average, each NoE involved around 30 partners and an EU contribution of 7 million euro per contract.
Nžsten 700 projekter blev finansieret som Čintegrerede projekterÇ. 
Almost 700 projects were financed as ‘IPs’.
De omfattede ca. 17 000 deltagere og et kumuleret EU-bidrag p 6,5 milliarder euro (mod stżtteberettigede investeringsomkostninger p 10,7 milliarder euro). 
They involved some 17 000 participants and a cumulative EU contribution of 6,5 billion euro (against eligible investment costs of 10,7 billion euro).
Hvert integreret projekt omfattede i gennemsnit ca. 25 partnere og et EU-bidrag p 9,5 millioner euro pr. kontrakt. 
On average, each IP involved around 25 partners and an EU contribution of 9,5 million euro per contract.
Samlet set kunne kun t ud af fem indkomne forslag finansieres med de disponible midler under RP6. 
Overall, FP6 available funds permitted the financing of only one out of five proposals received.
Dette forhold er stort set som under finansieringsordningerne under US National Science Foundation, men er lavere end under det tidligere rammeprogram (26 %). 
This ratio is similar to that of the US National Science Foundation funding schemes, but lower than that of the previous Framework Programme (26 %).
12 Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets afgżrelse nr. 1982/2006/ EF af 18. december 2006 om Det Europžiske Fžllesskabs syvende rammeprogram for forskning, teknologisk udvikling og demonstration (2007-2013) (EUT L 412 af 30.12.2006, s. 
12 Decision No 1982/2006/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p.
ČSamarbejdsprojekterÇ under RP7 kan omfatte de aktiviteter, som Čintegrerede projekterÇ tidligere udfżrte. 
Under FP7, ‘Collaborative Projects’ may include the activities previously carried out by ‘Integrated Projects’.
13 TEKSTBOKS 2 HVILKE AKTIONSTYPER BLEV GENNEMFŻRT I INTEGREREDE PROJEKTER? 
13 BOX 2 WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT IN IPs?
De aktioner, der var džkket af et projekt, der blev gennemfżrt under integrerede projekter, ligger inden for en af fżlgende kategorier: Ľ aktiviteter vedrżrende forskning og teknologisk udvikling med det direkte sigte at skabe ny viden, herunder innovationsrelaterede aktiviteter og formidlingsaktiviteter Ľ demonstrationsaktiviteter, hvis forml er at pvise levedygtigheden af nye teknologier, som indebžrer en potentiel żkonomisk fordel, men som ikke kan markedsfżres direkte (f.eks. afprżvning af prototyper) Ľ uddannelsesaktiviteter med det forml at bidrage til den faglige udvikling blandt forskere og andre nżglemedarbejdere, forskningsledere, erhvervsledere (navnlig fra SMV) og potentielle brugere af den viden, projektet skaber. Sžrberetning nr. 8/2009 Ń ČEkspertisenetteneÇ og Čde integrerede projekterÇ i Fžllesskabets forskningspolitik Ń nede de deres ml? 
The activities covered by a project carried under IPs fall within one of the following categories: • research and technological development activities directly aimed at creating new knowledge, including innovation-related and dissemination activities; • demonstration activities designed to prove the viability of new technologies that offer a potential economic advantage but which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of prototypes); • training activities intended to contribute to the professional development of researchers and other key staff, research managers, industrial executives (in particular for SMEs), and potential users of the knowledge generated by the project.
REVISIONENS OMFANG OG REVISIONSMETODE REVISIONENS OMFANG Mlene for revisionen var at vurdere, i hvilket omfang: Ń ekspertisenet og integrerede projekter bidrog til at n de ml for forskningspolitikken, som er fastsat i traktaten, og deres egne specifikke ml Ń Kommissionen effektivt stżttede implementeringen af projekterne ved at give stżttemodtagerne den nżdvendige vejledning, forvalte kontrakterne og overvge projektforlżbet Ń RP6 havde tilskyndet til FTU-investeringer. 
AUDIT SCOPE The objectives of the audit were to assess to what extent: — Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects contributed to achieve the research policy objectives set by the Treaty as well as their own specific objectives. — The Commission effectively supported the projects’ implementation, by providing the necessary guidance to beneficiaries, managing the contracts and monitoring the progress achieved; and — FP6 had stimulated RTD investment.
REVISIONSMETODE Revisionsbeviset blev fremskaffet ved hjžlp af: Ń gennemgang af dokumentation om RP6 (forberedende dokumenter, lovgrundlaget og Kommissionens vejledning samt oplysninger om implementeringen) Ń besżg hos 36 projektkoordinatorer og deltagere involveret i 14 projekter i 15 forskellige medlemsstater13 Ń en ržkke rundbordssamtaler med deltagelse af 60 forskere fra 44 forskellige organisationer, der deltog i RP614 Ń en undersżgelse af 387 FTU-organisationer (274 programdeltagere, 104 forslagsstillere og ni ikke-deltagere) Ń en analyse af udvalgte forvaltningsomrder, der har en central funktion for instrumenternes resultater (inklusive gennemgang af implementeringen af otte indkaldelser af forslag og en analyse af konklusionerne af 399 uafhžngige projektundersżgelser udfżrt fżr den 31. december 2007) Ń gennemgang af yderligere dokumentation om instrumenternes effektivitet Ń inddragelse af de synspunkter, som en ržkke sammenslutninger, der er aktive inden for fžllesskabsforskning, har givet udtryk for. 
AUDIT APPROACH Audit evidence was collected through: — Review of documentation on FP6 (preparatory documents, legal framework and Commission guidance, implementation data). — Visits to 36 project coordinators and participants involved in 14 projects in 15 different Member States13. — A series of ‘round table’ discussions with 60 researchers from 44 different organisations participating in FP614. — A survey of 387 RTD organisations (274 programme participants, 104 proposers and nine non-participants). — An analysis of selected management areas playing a key role in the performance of the instruments (including the review of the implementation of eight calls for proposals and an analysis of the conclusions of 399 independent project reviews conducted before 31 December 2007). — The review of secondary evidence on the effectiveness of the instruments. — Consideration of the opinions expressed by some associations active in Community research.
13 Belgien, Danmark, Den Slovakiske Republik, Det Forenede Kongerige, Estland, Finland, Frankrig, Italien, Nederlandene, Polen, Portugal, Spanien, Sverige, Tyskland og Żstrig. 
13 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
14 Der blev Ń med assistance af RP6-koordinatorerne af de nationale kontaktpunkter Ń afholdt rundbordskonferencer i Det Forenede Kongerige, Finland, Frankrig, Polen og Spanien. 
14 Round tables were organised with the assistance of the FP6 National Contact Point coordinators in Finland, France, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom.
15 REVISIONSBEMŽRKNINGER BIDRAG TIL FŽLLESSKABETS FTU-ML GENERELT 19. 
15 AUDIT OBSERVATIONS CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY RTD OBJECTIVES IN GENERAL 19.
I henhold til EF-traktaten har Fžllesskabets FTU-politik det overordnede ml at styrke det videnskabelige og teknologiske grundlag for Fžllesskabets industri og at fremme udviklingen af dens internationale konkurrenceevne. 
According to the EC Treaty, Community RTD policy has the overall aim to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international level.
Inden for rammerne af en tidligere revision p forskningsomrdet ppegede Retten, at der mangler en eksplicit interventionslogik til at forklare, hvordan de forskellige instrumenter og programmer skal bidrage til at opfylde Fžllesskabets FTU-ml15. 
In the framework of a previous audit in the field of research, the Court pointed out the lack of an explicit intervention logic, explaining how the different instruments and programmes were supposed to contribute to Community RTD goals15.
Hertil kommer, at der hverken blev fastsat SMART-ml16 eller resultatindikatorer for de individuelle forskningsprogrammer, hvad der undergravede grundlaget for en forsvarlig overvgning og evaluering17. 
In addition, no SMART objectives16 and performance indicators were defined for the individual research programmes, thus undermining the basis for sound monitoring and evaluation17.
Med manglen p en eksplicit interventionslogik18 in mente undersżgte Retten de nye instrumenters bidrag til Fžllesskabets FTU-politik generelt, for s vidt angr fżlgende aspekter: Ń effektiviteten af det etablerede forskningssamarbejde Ń den videnskabelige kvalitet af individuelle projekter som bedżmt af eksperterne. 
Bearing in mind the lack of an explicit intervention logic18, the Court has examined the contribution of the new instruments to the Community RTD policy in general as regards the following aspects: — The effectiveness of the research collaboration put in place; and — The scientific quality of individual projects as assessed by the experts.
17 Jf. punkt 28 og 30 i sžrberetning nr. 9/2007. 
17 See paragraphs 28 and 30 of Special Report No 9/2007.
15 Sžrberetning nr. 9/2007 ČEvaluering af EUŐs rammeprogrammer for forskning og teknologisk udvikling Ń kan Kommissionens tilgang forbedres?Ç (punkt 22-37) (EUT C 26 af 30.1.2008). 
15 Special Report No 9/2007 concerning ‘Evaluating the EU Research and Technological Development (RTD) framework programmes — Could the Commission’s approach be improved?’ (see paragraphs 22 to 37) (OJ C 26, 30.1.2008).
Kommissionen skriver, at en interventionslogik begrebsmžssigt forbinder en interventions input med frembringelsen af dens output og dens efterfżlgende effekt p samfundet i form af resultater og udfald (Europa-Kommissionen, ČEvaluating EU activities: a practical guide for the Commission servicesÇ, juli 2004, s. 87 og 106). 
Intervention logic is defined by the Commission as ‘the conceptual link from an intervention’s inputs to the production of its outputs and, subsequently, to its impacts on society in terms of results and outcomes’ (European Commission, ‘Evaluating EU activities: A practical guide for the Commission services’, July 2004, pp. 87 and 106).
16 SMART str for specifikke, mlelige, realiserbare, relevante og tidsbestemte (p engelsk: Čspecific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timedÇ). 
16 SMART stands for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed.
Med henblik p at sikre forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning er det et generelt princip i EUŐs finansforordning, at der skal fastsžttes SMART-ml (jf. artikel 27, stk. 3 i Rdets forordning (EF, Euratom) nr. 1605/2002) (EFT L 248 af 16.9.2002, s. 
The definition of SMART objectives constitutes a general principle of the EU Financial Regulation to ensure sound financial management (see Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p.
18 F.eks. blev effekten af, at der manglede en interventionslogik, allerede i 2004 fremhžvet af det femrsevalueringen 1999-2003. Panelet bemžrkede i sin rapport, at det selv og lignende paneler bliver bedt om at udfylde tomrummet mellem dataene, der hovedsagelig er indsamlet p projektniveau, og de sociożkonomiske forskningsml, der er fastsat p et hżjere politisk niveau. 
18 For example, the impact of the absence of an explicit intervention logic was already highlighted in 2004 by the panel in charge of the Five-year Assessment 1999–2003, which stated that ‘...panels like ours are asked to fill a gap between, on the one side, evidence mainly collected at project level and, on the other side, the higher level socio-economic goals of research policy.