natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionens kontrolarbejde og dens rapportering om restfejlfrekvensen i sine rlige aktivitetsrapporter De rlige aktivitetsrapporter er Kommissionens vigtigste redskab til rapportering af, om den har rimelig sikkerhed for, at de indfżrte kontrolprocedurer sikrer udgifternes formelle rigtighed. 
The CommissionŐs assurance work and its reporting of the residual error rate in its annual activity reports Annual activity reports (AARs) are the CommissionŐs key tool for reporting whether it has reasonable assurance that the control procedures put in place ensure the regularity of expenditure.
Sidste r ppegede vi, at rapporteringskravene for de rlige aktivitetsrapporter ikke er blevet tilpasset tilstržkkeligt til den nye kontrol-og sikkerhedsramme for 2014-2020. 
Last year, we pointed out that the reporting requirements for AARs had not been sufficiently adapted to the 2014-2020 control and assurance framework.
Siden da har Kommissionen gjort en indsats for at forbedre sine ordninger for rapportering om formel rigtighed. 
Since then, the Commission has made efforts to improve its arrangements for reporting on regularity.
I sine rlige aktivitetsrapporter for 2018 ajourfżrte Kommissionen sin nżgleresultatindikator (KPI) for formel rigtighed og rapporterede, at restfejlfrekvensen for regnskabsret 2015/2016 var under vžsentlighedstžrsklen p 2 % for begge GDŐer. 
In its 2018 AARs, the Commission updated its key performance indicator (KPI) on regularity and reported that the residual error rate for the 2016/2017 accounting year was below 2 % for both DGs.
Vi konstaterede imidlertid forhold, der pvirker plideligheden af disse tal. 
However, we identified issues that affect the reliability of these figures.
Derfor rapporterede vi, at disse restfejlfrekvenser endnu ikke er endelige, nr Kommissionen offentliggżr dem, og at de kun kan betragtes som minimumsfejlforekomster. 
To this end, we reported that these rates are not yet final when the Commission publishes them and that they can only be considered to be minimum error rates .
Kommissionen anslr i sin rlige forvaltnings-og effektivitetsrapport vedrżrende EU-budgettet, at risikobelżbet ved betalingen for de relevante 2018-udgifter p omrdet ČŻkonomisk, social og territorial samhżrighedÇ er 1,7 %. 
In its Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU budget (AMPR) the Commission estimates that the amount of risk at payment for the 2018 relevant expenditure in the area of ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ is 1.7 %.
Dette tal omfatter imidlertid udgifter, der endnu ikke har vžret igennem hele kontrolcyklussen. 
However, this figure includes expenditure, which has not yet gone through the full control cycle.
Fżrst fra og med 2020 vil disse udgifter have vžret igennem hele kontrolcyklussen. 
This will only happen as from 2020.
Vi identificerede ogs en ržkke spżrgsml, der kunne pvirke afslutningen af OPŐer fra programmeringsperioden 2014-2020 med en endelig restfejlprocent p under 2 %. 
We also identified a number of issues that could affect the closure of OPs from the 2014-2020 programming period with a final residual error rate below 2 %.
Vores arbejde med de forskellige elementer i vores revision viser, at vi stadig ikke kan forlade os p de fejlforekomster vedrżrende ČŻkonomisk, social og territorial samhżrighedÇ, der er angivet i Kommissionens rlige forvaltnings-og effektivitetsrapport for 2018 og de rlige aktivitetsrapporter for 2018. 
Our work on the different elements of our audit shows that the error rates for ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ presented in the CommissionŐs 2018 AMPR and AARs currently can still not be relied upon.
Vurdering af performance I 2018 undersżgte vi, om medlemsstaterne opstillede output-og resultatindikatorer i deres OPŐer, som var relevante for deres ml, og om projekternes output-og resultatml svarede til OPŐernes ml. 
Performance assessment In 2018, we examined whether Member States set up output and result indicators in their OPs that were relevant to their objectives and whether the output and result objectives specified for projects corresponded to the OP objectives.
Vi undersżgte ogs, om medlemsstaterne havde etableret en database med oplysninger om performance p projektniveau, og i hvilket omfang revisionsmyndighederne kontrollerede disse oplysningers plidelighed. 
We also examined whether Member States had set up a database with information on performance at project level and to what extent audit authorities checked the reliability of that information.
Selv om medlemsstaterne har overvgningssystemer til at registrere oplysninger om performance, konstaterede vi en ržkke tilfžlde, hvor myndighederne ikke havde opstillet resultat-eller outputindikatorer p projektniveau, og enkelte tilfžlde, hvor der slet ikke var nogen indikatorer eller ml til mling af projekternes performance. 
Although Member States have monitoring systems to record information on performance, we found a number of cases where authorities had not set result or output indicators at project level, and few cases where there were no indicators or targets at all with which to measure project performance.
Endvidere konstaterede vi, at afsluttede projekter ikke altid har net deres performanceml fuldt ud. 28 
Furthermore, we found that completed projects have not always fully achieved their performance objectives. 28
Hvad vi anbefaler Vi fremhžvede, at fire af vores anbefalinger fra sidste r vedrżrer forhold, vi konstaterede igen i r, og de er derfor ikke blevet fremsat p ny. 
What we recommend We highlighted that four of our recommendations from last year concern issues that we found again and have therefore not been repeated.
Vi identificerede endvidere nye forhold og anbefaler Kommissionen: o at sikre, at enten revisionsmyndigheden eller en revisor udvalgt af EIB-Gruppen foretager regelmžssige kontroller p baggrund af en repržsentativ stikprżve af udbetalinger til de endelige modtagere hos de finansielle formidlere o at udvikle og gennemfżre passende kontrolforanstaltninger for at forhindre, at der er mulighed for vžsentlige regelstridige udgifter ved afslutningen, sfremt de regelmžssige kontroller er utilstržkkelige o at tage de nżdvendige skridt til at sikre, at de tjeklister, der anvendes af forvaltnings-og revisionsmyndighederne, indeholder kontrol af overensstemmelse med artikel 132 i forordningen om fžlles bestemmelser, hvori det hedder, at stżttemodtagerne skal modtage de samlede stżtteberettigede udgifter senest 90 dage fra indgivelsen af den tilhżrende betalingsanmodning o at tackle de konstaterede svagheder ved afslutningen og sikre, at ingen programmer afsluttes med et vžsentligt niveau af regelstridige udgifter. Vil du vide mere? 
In addition we identified new issues and recommend that the Commission: o ensure that regular checks, based on a representative sample of disbursements to final recipients, are carried out at the level of financial intermediaries either by the audit authority or by an auditor selected by the EIB Group; o develop and implement appropriate control measures to prevent the possibility of material irregular expenditure at closure, where the regular checks were found to be insufficient; o take the necessary steps to ensure that the checklists used by managing and audit authorities include verifications of compliance with article 132 of the Common Provisions Regulation, which states that beneficiaries must receive the total amount of eligible expenditure due no later than 90 days from the submission of the related payment claim; and o address weaknesses identified at closure, and ensure that no programme can be closed with a material level of irregular expenditure. Want to know more?
Alle oplysninger om vores revision af EUŐs udgifter vedrżrende ČŻkonomisk, social og territorial samhżrighedÇ kan findes i kapitel 6 i vores rsberetning for 2018. 29 
Full information on our audit of EU expenditure for ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ can be found in Chapter 6 of our 2018 annual report. 29
Naturressourcer I alt: 58,0 milliarder euro Hvad vi reviderede Dette udgiftsomrde džkker den fžlles landbrugspolitik, den fžlles fiskeripolitik og dele af EUŐs udgifter til miljż og klimaindsats. 
Natural resources Total: Ű58.0 billion What we audited This spending area covers the common agricultural policy (CAP), the common fisheries policy, and part of EU spending on the environment and climate action.
Den fžlles landbrugspolitik tegner sig for 98 % af udgifterne under ČNaturressourcerÇ. 
The CAP accounts for 98 % of spending on ÔNatural resourcesŐ.
Dens tre generelle ml, som er fastsat i EU-lovgivningen, er: o bžredygtig fżdevareproduktion med fokus p landbrugsindkomster, produktivitet i landbruget og prisstabilitet o bžredygtig forvaltning af naturressourcerne og klimapolitik med fokus p udledning af drivhusgasser, biodiversitet, jord og vand o afbalanceret territorial udvikling. 
Its three general objectives set in EU legislation are: o viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability; o the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water; and o balanced territorial development.
Kommissionen og navnlig Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter (GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter) deler forvaltningen af den fžlles landbrugspolitik med betalingsorganerne i medlemsstaterne. 
The Commission, in particular the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agriculture and Rural Development), shares management of the CAP with paying agencies in the Member States.
Udgifterne til den fžlles landbrugspolitik hżrer under tre brede kategorier: o direkte betalinger til landbrugerne, som finansieres fuldt ud over EU-budgettet o markedsforanstaltninger p landbrugsomrdet, som ogs finansieres fuldt ud over EU-budgettet, bortset fra visse foranstaltninger, der medfinansieres af medlemsstaterne, f.eks. salgsfremstżd og skoleordningen for frugt, grżntsager og mžlk o medlemsstaternes programmer for udvikling af landdistrikterne, som medfinansieres over EU-budgettet. 
CAP spending falls into three broad categories: o direct payments to farmers, which are fully funded by the EU budget; o agricultural market measures, also fully funded by the EU budget, with the exception of certain measures co-financed by the Member States, such as promotion measures and the school fruit, vegetable and milk scheme; and o Member StatesŐ rural development programmes, co-financed by the EU budget. For 2018, expenditure of Ű58.1 billion was subject to audit in this area.
Hvad vi konstaterede De direkte betalinger som helhed var uden vžsentlig fejlforekomst Direkte betalinger til landbrugere er hovedsagelig baseret p det landbrugsareal, som angives af landbrugerne. 
What we found Direct payments as a whole were free from material error Direct payments to farmers are mainly based on the area of agricultural land declared by farmers.
Disse betalinger tegner sig for 72 % af udgifterne under FFR-udgiftsomrdet ČNaturressourcerÇ. 
These payments account for 72 % of spending under the MFF heading ÔNatural resourcesŐ.
30 Belżb omfattet af vores revision Var omrdet vžsentlig fejlbehžftet? 
30 Amount subject to audit Affected by material error?
Den anslede mest sandsynlige fejlforekomst 58,1 milliard euro Ja 2,4 % (2017: 2,4 %) 
Estimated most likely level of error Ű58.1 billion Yes 2.4 % (2017: 2.4 %)
Det vigtigste redskab til forvaltning af direkte betalinger er det integrerede forvaltnings-og kontrolsystem (IFKS), som omfatter markidentifikationssystemet (LPIS). 
The main management tool for direct payments is the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), which incorporates the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS).
IFKS har bidraget til at nedbringe fejlforekomsten i direkte betalinger, og LPIS yder et vžsentligt bidrag hertil. 
IACS has helped to bring down the level of error in direct payments, with the LPIS making a particularly significant contribution.
Vi kontrollerede 95 direkte betalinger og konstaterede, at 77 ikke var behžftet med fejl. 
We checked 95 direct payments and found that 77 were unaffected by error.
Vi konkluderer, at de direkte betalinger som helhed var uden vžsentlig fejlforekomst. 
We conclude that direct payments, as a whole, were free from material error.
Udvikling af landdistrikter, markedsforanstaltninger, fiskeri, miljż og klimaindsats Komplekse betingelser for stżtteberettigelse żger risikoen for fejl p disse udgiftsomrder. 
Rural development, market measures, fisheries, environment and climate action Complex eligibility conditions increase the risk of error in these spending areas.
Vi testede 156 betalinger og konstaterede, at 40 var behžftet med fejl. 
We tested 156 payments and found that 40 were affected by error.
De vigtigste typer af fejl var: o ikkestżtteberettigede modtagere, aktiviteter eller omkostninger (jf. eksemplet) o angivelse af unżjagtige oplysninger om arealer eller antal af dyr o manglende overholdelse af regler om udbud eller tildeling af tilskud o administrative fejl. 
The main sources of error were: o ineligible beneficiaries, activities or costs (see example); o the provision of inaccurate information on areas or animal numbers; o non-compliance with procurement or grant award rules; and o administrative errors.
31 Eksempel: En stżttemodtager overholdt ikke stżtteberettigelsesreglerne vedrżrende investeringer i bedriften Vi undersżgte et tilfžlde, hvor en stżttemodtager sammen med andre familiemedlemmer indsendte en fžlles ansżgning om stżtte til bygning af en svinestald med plads til op til 600 sżer. 
31 Example: A beneficiary failed to comply with the eligibility rules for on-farm investments We examined a case where a beneficiary, together with other family members, submitted a joint application for support to construct a pigsty, with capacity for up to 600 sows.
Hver af de fžlles modtagere ansżgte om maksimumsstżtten, som var p ca. 
Each of the joint beneficiaries applied for the maximum level of support, which was around Ű215 000.
Eftersom formlet med foranstaltningen var at stżtte udviklingen af sm og mellemstore bedrifter, fastsatte betingelserne for stżtteberettigelse, at ansżgernes bedrifter ikke mtte have en żkonomisk stżrrelse p over 250 000 euro eller et areal p over 300 hektar. 
Since the purpose of the measure was to support the development of small and medium-sized farms, the eligibility conditions stipulated that applicantsŐ holdings must have neither an economic size above Ű250 000 nor an area greater than 300 hectares. The beneficiaries claimed to operate independent businesses.
Vi konstaterede, at de havde andele i en familievirksomhed, som blev drevet p samme sted. 
We found that they held shares in a family company operating on the same site.
Nr man tog stżttemodtagerens andel af familievirksomheden i betragtning, oversteg hans samlede landbrugsvirksomhed loftet for żkonomisk stżrrelse. 
When taking into account the beneficiaryŐs share of the family company, his holding exceeded the ceiling for economic size.
Forebyggende og korrigerende foranstaltninger Kommissionen og medlemsstaternes myndigheder havde truffet korrigerende foranstaltninger, som direkte pvirkede 53 af de 251 transaktioner, vi undersżgte. 
Preventive and corrective measures The Commission and the Member StatesŐ authorities had applied corrective measures that directly affected 53 of the 251 transactions examined.
Uden disse foranstaltninger ville den anslede fejlforekomst for dette kapitel have vžret 0,6 procentpoint hżjere. 
Without these measures, our estimated level of error for this chapter would have been higher by 0.6 percentage point.
I 12 tilfžlde med kvantificerbare fejl havde de nationale myndigheder endvidere tilstržkkelige oplysninger til at forhindre eller opdage og korrigere fejlene, fżr de anmeldte udgifterne til Kommissionen. 
At the same time, in 12 cases of quantified error, the national authorities had sufficient information to prevent, or to detect and correct, the error before declaring the expenditure to the Commission.
Hvis de nationale myndigheder havde anvendt alle de oplysninger, de havde til rdighed, korrekt, ville den anslede fejlforekomst have vžret 0,6 procentpoint lavere. 
Had the national authorities made proper use of all the information at their disposal, the estimated level of error would have been 0.6 percentage point lower.
Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikters rapportering om den formelle rigtighed af udgifterne til den fžlles landbrugspolitik GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter anvender de nationale kontrolstatistikker, det modtager fra betalingsorganerne. 
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs reporting on regularity of CAP spending DG Agriculture and Rural Development uses national control statistics it receives from the paying agencies.
Det foretager ogs justeringer baseret p resultaterne af certificeringsorganernes revisioner, sine egne kontroller og sin faglige vurdering for at n frem til et skżn over risikobelżbet ved betalingen. 
It also makes adjustments based on the results of the certification bodiesŐ audits, and on its own checks and professional judgement, to arrive at an estimation of the amount at risk at payment.
Direktżren for hvert af de 76 betalingsorganer sender GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter en rlig forvaltningserklžring om kontrolsystemernes effektivitet og en rapport med resultaterne af betalingsorganets kontrol. 
The director of each of the 76 paying agencies provides DG Agriculture and Rural Development with an annual management declaration on the effectiveness of their control systems and a report on the paying agencyŐs checks.
For at give yderligere sikkerhed har certificeringsorganerne siden 2015 skullet afgive en rlig udtalelse for hvert betalingsorgan om lovligheden og den formelle rigtighed af de udgifter, som medlemsstaterne har anmodet om at f godtgjort. 
Since 2015, in order to provide additional assurance, the certification bodies have been required to give an annual opinion for each paying agency on the legality and regularity of the expenditure for which the Member States have requested reimbursement.
GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikters kontrol viste mangler i certificeringsorganernes arbejde. 
DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs checks identified shortcomings in the certification bodiesŐ work.
Som vi bemžrkede sidste r, er der behov for fortsatte forbedringer i certificeringsorganernes arbejde, hvis Kommissionen skal anvende deres arbejde som sin primžre kilde til sikkerhed for s vidt angr den formelle rigtighed af udgifterne til den fžlles landbrugspolitik. 
As we noted last year, continued improvement in the certification bodiesŐ work is required if the Commission is to use their work as its primary source of assurance on the regularity of CAP spending.
Medlemsstaterne rapporterede p baggrund af deres betalingsorganers kontrolstatistikker en samlet fejlforekomst tžt p 1 % for udgifterne til den fžlles landbrugspolitik som helhed. 
Based on their paying agenciesŐ control statistics, Member States reported an overall level of error close to 1 % for CAP spending as a whole.
Vi gennemgik GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikters justeringer af medlemsstaternes fejlforekomster. 
We reviewed DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs adjustments to Member State error rates.
GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter baserede som i de foregende r de fleste af sine justeringer p sine egne kontroller af betalingsorganernes systemer og udgifter. 
As in previous years, DG Agriculture and Rural Development based most of its adjustments on its own checks of paying agency systems and spending.
GD for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter beregner stżrstedelen af disse justeringer ved at anvende faste satser, som skal afspejle vigtigheden og omfanget af de svagheder, det finder i kontrolsystemerne. 
DG Agriculture and Rural Development calculates the majority of these adjustments as flat rates, intended to reflect the significance and extent of weaknesses it identified in control systems.
Kommissionen fremlžgger ogs disse resultater i sin rlige forvaltnings-og effektivitetsrapport. 
The Commission also presents these results in its AMPR.
Kommissionens skżn er i overensstemmelse med vores konklusion, som indikerer en vžsentlig fejlforekomst for udgifterne til ČNaturressourcerÇ som helhed, men ikke for de direkte betalinger. 
The CommissionŐs estimate is consistent with our conclusion indicating a material level of error for ÔNatural resourcesŐ spending as a whole, but not for direct payments.
Vurdering af performance Vi gennemgik 113 stikprżveudtagne aktioner vedrżrende udvikling af landdistrikterne i 18 medlemsstater. 
Performance assessment We reviewed 113 sampled rural development actions in 18 Member States.
Vi konstaterede, at de fleste aktioner havde leveret de forventede output, og at medlemsstaterne generelt kontrollerede omkostningernes rimelighed, men kun gjorde begržnset brug af forenklede omkostningsmuligheder Vi undersżgte Kommissionens og medlemsstaternes performancemling og -rapportering under den fžlles overvgnings-og evalueringsramme for den fžlles landbrugspolitik (CMEF). 
We found that most actions had produced the expected outputs and that Member States generally checked the reasonableness of costs, but had made little use of simplified cost options. We examined the Commission and Member StatesŐ performance measurement and reporting under the CAP common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF).
Vi fokuserede p anvendelsen af resultatindikatorer i forbindelse med 113 betalinger til udvikling af landdistrikterne og 95 direkte betalinger. 
We focused on their use of result indicators for 113 rural development payments and 95 direct payments.
I trd med resultaterne af vores tidligere revisioner af performancemling i forbindelse med landbrugsudgifter og udgifter til udvikling af landdistrikterne konstaterede vi flere svagheder i den 32 mde, hvorp Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne brugte CMEF-resultatindikatorerne til mling og rapportering af udgifternes performance. 
In line with the findings of our previous audits on performance measurement in agricultural and rural development spending, we identified several weaknesses in the way in which the Commission and Member States had applied the CMEF result indicators to measure and report on the performance of spending. 32
I sit forslag om at indfżre en performancebaseret gennemfżrelsesmodel for den fžlles landbrugspolitik i perioden efter 2020 definerede Kommissionen fžlles output-, resultat-og effektindikatorer. 
In the proposal to introduce a performance-based delivery model for the CAP for post-2020 period, the Commission defined common output, result and impact indicators.
I vores udtalelse nr. 7/2018, hvor vi hilste overgangen til en performancebaseret model velkommen, vurderede vi, at disse indikatorer endnu ikke var fžrdigudviklede, og fremsatte specifikke bemžrkninger til de foreslede indikatorer. 
In our opinion No 7/2018 on the proposal, while we welcomed the shift to a performance-based model, we found that these indicators were not yet fully developed and made specific comments on the proposed indicators.
Hvad vi anbefaler I vores rsberetning for 2017 fremsatte vi tre anbefalinger til Kommissionen med en mldato for gennemfżrelse ved udgangen af 2019. 
What we recommend In our 2017 annual report, we made three recommendations to the Commission with a target implementation date end of 2019.
De vedrżrte medlemsstaternes foranstaltninger til adressering af rsagerne til fejl og kvaliteten af certificeringsorganernes arbejde. 
They were related to the Member StatesŐ actions to address the causes of errors and the quality of the work of certification bodies.
Disse anbefalinger er ogs relevante for dette rs resultater og konklusioner, og vi vil fżlge op p dem, nr det bliver aktuelt. 
These recommendations are also relevant to this yearŐs findings and conclusions, and we will follow them up in due course.