natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fžllesskabsbistanden blev ydet af Den Europžiske Flygtningefond i form af medfinansierede foranstaltninger. 
Community aid was granted by the European Refugee Fund by means of co-financed actions.
Den finansielle stżtte fra fonden kunne hżjst džkke 50 % af de samlede udgifter til foranstaltningen. 
The co-financing was established at a maximum of 50 % of the total cost of the measure.
Denne andel kunne forhżjes til 75 % i de lande, der var omfattet af Samhżrighedsfonden. 
This share was increased to a maximum of 75 % for countries covered by the Cohesion Fund.
Kommissionens betalinger til medlemsstaterne blev afholdt i form af forskud samt mellemliggende og endelige betalinger. 
Commission payments to Member States were made in the form of pre-financing, interim and final payments.
Sammenfatning af de vžsentligste forskelle mellem ERF I og ERF II 10. 
Synthesis of main changes between ERF I and ERF II 10.
Siden er anden fase af programmet (ERF II), som džkker perioden 2005-2010 (4), blevet ivžrksat. 
A second phase of the programme (ERF II) has since been launched, covering the period 2005 to 2010 (4).
Nedenstende sammenligning viser kun de vžsentligste forskelle mellem ERF I og ERF II. 
The following comparison highlights only the main differences between ERF I and ERF II.
Der foretages hverken en analyse eller en vurdering af žndringerne. 
It is neither an analysis nor an evaluation of those changes.
Bilag I indeholder en detaljeret sammenligning mellem ERF I og ERF II. 
A detailed comparison between ERF I and ERF II is given in Annex I.
(4) Rdets beslutning 2004/904/EF af 2. december 2004 om Den Europžiske Flygtningefond for perioden 2005-2010 (EUT L 381 af 28.12.2004). 
(4) Council Decision 2004/904/EC of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004).
Danmark deltager ikke i ERF. 
Denmark is not participating in the ERF.
Forvaltningen af ERF var delt (2) mellem Kommissionen 6. 
Implementation and management provision: Ń the management of the ERF remains shared.
Gennemgangen af bestemmelserne vedrżrende ERF II viser, at de anbefalinger, der fremsžttes i denne beretning, ikke er blevet fulgt i forbindelse med ERF II. 
12. A review of the ERF II rules showed that the recommendations presented in this report have not been acted upon in ERF II.
Kommissionen har ogs fremsat forslag til et rammeprogram for perioden 2007-2013, som ogs omfatter ERF. 
The Commission has also proposed a framework programme for the period 2007 to 2013 which would include the ERF.
Retten reviderede forvaltningen af den fżrste fase af Den Europžiske Flygtningefond (2000-2004). 
The Court carried out an audit of the management of the first phase of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004).
Mlet med revisionen var at f besvaret fżlgende spżrgsml: Ń Var fordelingen af midlerne til medlemsstaterne hensigtsmžssig? Ń Var Kommissionens og medlemsstaternes forvaltning forsvarlig? 
The objectives of the audit were to conclude on the following questions: Ń was the distribution of funds to Member States sound? Ń was the management by the Commission and the Member States sound?
Ń Hvilken virkning havde ERF p medlemsstaternes indsats p asylomrdet? 
Ń what was the impact of the ERF on national efforts in the area of asylum?
Som led i denne revision og i revisionserklžringerne for regnskabsrene 2003 og 2004 (1) reviderede Retten de relevante kommissionstjenester (GD JLS og Eurostat) i Bruxelles og i Luxembourg. 
In the context of this audit and the annual Statements of Assurance for 2003 and 2004 (1), the relevant Commission services (DG JLS and Eurostat) in Brussels and Luxembourg were audited.
Retten besżgte ogs de ansvarlige nationale myndigheder og endelige stżttemodtagere i fżlgende medlemsstater: Tyskland, Gržkenland, Spanien, Frankrig, Italien, Żstrig, Sverige og Det Forenede Kongerige. 
In addition, responsible national authorities and final beneficiaries were visited in the following Member States: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
I henhold til ERF-bestemmelserne (2) skulle Kommissionen forelžgge en endelig rapport for Europa-Parlamentet og Rdet senest den 1. september 2005. 
According to the ERF rules (2), the Commission had to submit a final report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 September 2005.
Retten kunne ikke tage resultaterne af den endelige rapport i betragtning, da den fżrst blev fžrdiggjort, efter at Retten havde afsluttet sin revision. 
The Court could not take into consideration the results of the final report, as it was finalised after the completion of the CourtŐs audit.
Grundlaget for fordelingen af midlerne 17. 
Basis for the distribution of amounts 17.
Midlerne blev udbetalt i form af et mindre fast belżb og et stżrre variabelt belżb. 
ERF funds were distributed annually and were composed of a small fixed amount and a larger variable amount.
Det faste belżb faldt fra 500 000 euro pr. medlemsstat i 2000 til 100 000 euro i 2004. 
The fixed amount has decreased from 500 000 euro per Member State for 2000 to 100 000 euro for 2004.
(1) Kapitel 6, s. 200, 201 og 202 i rsberetningen for regnskabsret 2003 (EUT C 293 af 30.11.2004), kapitel 6, s. 
(1) Chapter 6, pp. 200 to 202, of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2003 (OJ C 293, 30.11.2004); Chapter 6, pp. 165 to 166, 176 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2004 (OJ C 301, 30.11.2005).
(2) Artikel 20 i beslutning 2000/596/EF. 
(2) Article 20 of Decision 2000/596/EC.
C 178/6 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 31.7.2007 18. 
C 178/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 18.
Den variable del af den rlige bevilling blev fordelt mellem medlemsstaterne i forhold til det antal tredjelandsstatsborgere eller statslżse, medlemsstaten havde modtaget (1) i lżbet af de tre r, der gik forud for programret. 
The variable part of the annual allocation was distributed to the Member States in proportion to the number of third country nationals or stateless persons they had received (1) during the three years preceding the programme year.
65 % af midlerne blev fordelt p grundlag af antallet af asylansżgere, mens 35 % af midlerne blev fordelt p grundlag af antallet af flygtninge (2). 
65 % of this allocation was based on the number of asylum seekers, while 35 % of the allocation was based on the number of refugees (2).
Bilag II viser fordelingen af midlerne i rene 2000-2004. 
The distribution of funds for the years 2000 to 2004 is presented in Annex II.
I bilag III beskrives tildelingsproceduren. 
The description of the allocation procedure is shown in Annex III.
Referencetallene for beregningen af den variable del af den rlige bevilling var medlemsstaternes seneste tal indsamlet af De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Statisitiske Kontor (Eurostat) (3). De statistiske data, der blev anvendt som basis for tildelingen, var ufuldstžndige og uplidelige 20. 
The basis for the variable part of the annual allocation had to be the most recent figures established by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) (3), which were provided by the Member States Statistical data used as allocation basis were incomplete and not reliable 20.
Rdets beslutning indeholdt en ržkke overgangsbestem-melser, i henhold til hvilke der kunne tages udgangspunkt i tallene fra medlemsstaterne, hvis Eurostats statistikker var ufuldstžndige. 
The Council Decision provided for a transitional period, in which data supplied by Member States could be used if Eurostat statistics were incomplete.
Overgangsperioden skulle oprindeligt kun omfatte ERF 2000 og 2001, men blev udvidet til ERF 2002 og 2003. 
This transitional period should have been limited to ERF 2000 and 2001, but it was extended to ERF 2002 and 2003.
Fżrst i 2005 Ń efter flere rs forberedelser Ń fremsatte Kommissionen et forslag om harmonisering af EF-statistikkerne over migration og international beskyttelse (4). 
It took the Commission until 2005, after several years of preparatory actions, to make a proposal on harmonising Community statistics on migration and international protection (4).
I forslaget ppeger Kommissionen: ČDet er isžr betžnkeligt, at der mangler store mžngder data i dataindsamlingerne. 
In its proposal the Commission pointed out that Ôthere are particular concerns about the large amounts of data that are missing from the data collections.
Der er ogs alvorlige problemer forbundet med den manglende harmonisering, bde hvad angr de anvendte datakilder og de definitioner, som statistikkerne er baseret pÇ (5). 
There are also serious problems relating to a lack of harmonisation Ń both in terms of the data sources used and the definitions applied to the statisticsŐ (5).
Et andet punkt er, at det er usikkert, om dataene er plidelige, s lžnge hverken Kommissionen eller medlemsstaterne har verificeret dem p medlemsstatsniveau. 
Another point is that the reliability of the data is questionable as long as they have been verified at Member State level neither by the Commission nor the Member State.
Fortolkningsforskelle blandt medlemsstaterne forvrider fordelingsgrundlaget 23. 
Differences in interpretation among Member States distort the basis 23.
Definitionen af mlgrupperne er blevet fortolket forskelligt i medlemsstaterne og er i nogle medlemsstater blevet žndret over rene. 
The definition of target groups has been interpreted differently by Member States and changed inside some Member States over the years.
(1) Artikel 3 i beslutning 2000/596/EF. 
(1) Article 3 of Decision 2000/596/EC.
(2) Artikel 10, stk. 2, i beslutning 2000/596/EF. 
(2) Article 10(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC.
(3) Artikel 10, stk. 3, i beslutning 2000/596/EF. 
(3) Article 10(3) of Decision 2000/596/EC.
(4) Forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets forordning om EF-statistikker over migration og international beskyttelse, KOM(2005) 375 endelig Bruxelles, 14. september 2005, 2005/0156 (COD). 
(4) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD).
(5) Forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets forordning om EF-statistikker over migration og international beskyttelse, KOM(2005) 375 endelig Bruxelles, 14. september 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), s. 
(5) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), p.
Der blev ikke fuldt ud taget hensyn til žndringer af allerede validerede data ved den senere fordeling af midlerne, eller žndringerne var ikke dokumenteret godt nok 24. 
Revisions of previously validated data were not taken fully into account for future distributions or were not adequately documented 24.
I hele ERF I-perioden var nogle af de tal, som var blevet valideret et r, blevet žndret i de fżlgende r. 
Over the entire ERF I period, some of the figures that had been validated one year were modified in subsequent years.
Žndring af officielle statistikker er normal praksis og kritiseres ikke som sdan. 
The revision of official statistics is a common practice and is not criticised as such.
Men nr Kommissionen žndrer statistikkerne efterfżlgende, bżr den tage de žndrede data i betragtning, ikke blot nr den skal fordele midler, men ogs i forbindelse med tidligere rs fordelinger. 
Nonetheless, when the Commission revises the statistics ex post, it should take account of the revised information not only for current distributions but also for previous yearsŐ distributions.
I en ržkke tilfžlde, hvor fordelingen af midler var baseret p žndrede statistikker, forel der hverken i GD JLS eller i Eurostat dokumentation for, hvorfor žndringerne var blevet foretaget. 
In a number of cases, where the allocation of funds was based on modified statistics, there was no documentation available on the reasons why changes had been made either at DG JLS or at Eurostat.
(6) CIREAŐs (Oplysnings-, Analyse-og Udvekslingscenter for Asyl) rsberetning for 1999 og 2000. 
(6) CIREA (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum) annual report for 1999 and 2000.
(7) CIREAŐs rsberetning for 1999 og 2000 og Monthly Statistics on asylym report, august 2002. 
(7) CIREA annual report for 1999 and 2000 and Monthly statistics on asylum report Ń August 2002.
Ń De fleste lande angav antallet af asylansżgninger som antal enkeltpersoner; i nogle lande, f.eks. Det Forenede Kongerige og Frankrig, blev det derimod angivet som antal sager (en ČsagÇ kan udover den primžre ansżger omfatte dennes familiemedlemmer) (6). 
Ń For most countries, the number of asylum applications indicated the number of individuals; in some countries, in contrast, e.g. the United Kingdom and France, it indicated the number of cases (one ÔcaseŐ may include family members in addition to the principal applicant) (6).
Ń Nogle medlemsstater (Sverige, Irland, Finland og Żstrig) skelnede ikke mellem fżrstegangsansżgninger og genan-sżgninger. 
Ń Some Member States (Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Austria) did not make a distinction between first applications and repeated applications.
Ń Tysklands 1999-tal for asylansżgninger var angivet som antal sager, mens tallene for august 2002 var angivet som antal enkeltpersoner (7). 
Ń For Germany, the 1999 figure for asylum applications indicated the number of cases, but the August 2002 figures indicated the number of individuals (7).
Ń I Frankrig blev der konstateret vžsentlige uoverensstemmelser mellem de tal, der blev forelagt i henholdsvis 2002 og 2003. 
Ń In France major discrepancies were noted between the figures provided in 2002 and 2003.
I ERF-tallene for asylansżgninger i 2003 indgik ogs personer, der er omfattet af Čterritorialt asylÇ, som er en ny kategori, der ikke fandtes i 2002. 
The 2003 ERF figures for asylum applications included persons benefiting from Ôterritorial asylumŐ, a new category not included in 2002.
For eksempel blev dataene for Frankrig žndret mellem 2002 og 2003, hvor antallet af anmeldte personer blev forhżjet med 17 606 (det samlede tal for personer anmeldt af Frankrig for ERF 2003 kumuleret for perioden 1999-2001: 238 947). 
As an example, a data revision occurred between 2002 and 2003 in France, for which the number of persons declared was increased by 17 606 (the total number of persons declared for France for ERF 2003; cumulative total for the years 1999 to 2001: 238 947).
Kommissionen reducerede Italiens tildeling for 2004 betydeligt (0,7 millioner euro) i forhold til 2003 (2,4 millioner euro), primžrt fordi Kommissionen ikke var i stand til at validere tidligere rs statistikker over antallet af personer anmeldt af Italien for referenceperioden 2001. 
In the case of Italy, the Commission reduced the allocation significantly for 2004 (0,7 million euro) compared with the year 2003 (2,4 million euro), mainly because it was not able to validate the previous yearsŐ statistics on the number of persons declared by Italy for the reference period 2001.
31.7.2007 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 178/7 25. 
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/7 25.
Disse problemer kunne have vžret undget, hvis ERF fra starten var blevet baseret p plidelige og harmoniserede data. 
The difficulties encountered could have been avoided if the ERF had been based on reliable and harmonised data from the beginning.
Definitionen af mlgrupperne er ikke žndret vžsentligt under ERF II (1). Tildelingen af midlerne er fortsat baseret p Eurostats statistikker (2), og disse er endnu ikke blevet harmoniseret. 
For ERF II the definition of target groups has not changed significantly (1) and the allocation of funds continues to be based on statistics produced by Eurostat (2) and those statistics have not yet been harmonised.
VAR KOMMISSIONENS OG MEDLEMSSTATERNES FORVALTNING FORSVARLIG? 
WAS THE MANAGEMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES SOUND?
Gennemfżrelsesbestemmelserne vedrżrende ERF blev offentliggjort sent 26. 
ERF implementing rules were published late 26.
Eftersom ERF var et nyt program, burde medlemsstaterne have fet klare forvaltningsretningslinjer fra programmets start. 
As the ERF was a new programme, the Member States ought to have been given clear management guidelines from the start of the programme.
Kommissionen offentliggjorde reglerne for stżtteberettigelse (3) i april 2001, dvs. seks mneder efter at ERF-programmet var blevet ivžrksat. 
The Commission published the rules governing eligibility of expenditure (3) in April 2001, six months after the launch of the ERF.
Gennemfżrelsesbestemmelserne vedrżrende forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemerne blev imidlertid vedtaget mere end 18 mneder efter oprettelsen af ERF. 
However, the Commission published the detailed rules for management and control systems more than 18 months after ERF had been established.
Tildelingsproceduren var kendetegnet ved lav produktivitet 27. 
Low efficiency of the allocation procedure 27.
Tildelingsproceduren var tung, og den medfżrte i praksis forsinkelser og ineffektivitet. 
The allocation procedure was cumbersome in design and subject to delays and inefficiencies in practice.
Fžllesskabslovgivningens procedure for tildeling af midler fra ERF I var som fżlger: Ń senest den 1. juni skulle Kommissionen give medlemsstaterne et skżn over det belżb, de ville f tildelt det efterfżlgende r Ń medlemsstaterne skulle fremsžtte deres medfinansieringsansżgning senest den 1. oktober Ń Kommissionen skulle godkende medfinansieringsansżgnin-gen inden for en frist p tre mneder (dvs. senest inden udgangen af december), Kommissionen skulle vedtage en beslutning om medfinansiering Ń Kommissionen skulle udbetale et acontobelżb (svarende til 50 % af det tildelte belżb), s snart den havde vedtaget beslutningen om medfinansiering (og efterfżlgende udbetale de mellemliggende og endelige belżb). 
The allocation procedure for ERF I set out in EU legislation was as follows: Ń by 1 June the Commission was required to inform Member States of their estimated allocations for the following year, Ń Member States had until 1 October to submit a request for co-financing, Ń the Commission was required to approve requests for co-financing within three months (i.e. at the latest by the end of December), a Commission decision on co-financing had to be approved, Ń the Commission was required to make an initial payment (i.e. 50 % of the sum due) as soon as it had adopted a decision on co-financing (with subsequent interim and final payments).
Det er ikke klart, hvilken rolle medfinansieringsansżgnin-gen skulle spille i forbindelse med tildelingen af ressourcer til de enkelte medlemsstater. 
In the context of the distribution of resources to each Member State, it is unclear what role the request for co-financing was intended to play.
Som anfżrt i punkt 18 var tildelingerne udelukkende baseret p antallet af asylansżgere og flygtninge. 
As explained in paragraph 18 above, allocations were based exclusively on asylum and refugee figures.
(1) Artikel 3 i beslutning 2004/904/EF. 
(1) Article 3 of Decision 2004/904/EC.
(2) Artikel 17, stk. 3, i beslutning 2004/904/EF. 
(2) Article 17(3) of Decision 2004/904/EC.
(3) Artikel 14, stk. 2, i beslutning 2000/596/EF. 
(3) Article 14(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC.
I praksis blev tidsplanen for tildeling og betaling vžsentlig forsinket. 
In practice the timetable for allocation and payment was subject to significant delays.
Hvert r vedtog Kommissionen ikke en, men to beslutninger om medfinansiering. Fżrst en beslutning, som var baseret p budgetforslaget for det fżlgende r, og dernžst en žndret beslutning baseret p det endeligt vedtagne budget. 
In each year there were two, not one, Commission decisions on co-financing: a first decision based on the draft budget for the coming year, and a revised decision based on the budget that was finally adopted.
Disse beslutninger blev typisk vedtaget flere uger efter de relevante stadier i budgetproceduren. 
These decisions were typically taken several weeks after the relevant steps in the budgetary procedure.
Nedenstende eksempel viser, hvordan ERF 2003-tidsplanen for alle medlemsstater fungerede i praksis. 
For ERF 2003 the example below illustrates the timetable for all Member States in practice.
Ń I april 2002 blev det forelżbige budgetforslag for 2003 vedtaget af Kommissionen. Ń Budgetforslaget for 2003 blev vedtaget af Rdet den 22. juli 2002. 
Ń In April 2002 the 2003 preliminary draft budget had been adopted by the Commission Ń The 2003 draft budget was established by the Council on 22 July 2002.
Ń Den 19. september 2002 vedtog Kommissionen beslutningen om den forelżbige tildeling af midler til medlemsstaterne. 
Ń On 19 September 2002 the Commission adopted the decision on the preliminary allocation of funds to the Member States.
Ń Efter beslutningen om den forelżbige tildeling af midler skulle medlemsstaterne fremsžtte deres medfinansie-ringsansżgninger. 
Ń Following the preliminary allocation of funds, the Member States had to submit their requests for co-financing.
Ń Det endelige budget for 2003 blev vedtaget den 19. december 2002. 
Ń The 2003 final budget was adopted on 19 December 2002.
Ń Den 20. december 2002 vedtog Kommissionen beslutningen om medfinansiering, som var baseret p de forelżbige tildelinger, der var blevet meddelt medlemsstaterne i september 2002 Ń Den 12. februar 2003 vedtog Kommissionen beslutningen om den endelige tildeling af midler til medlemsstaterne. 
Ń On 20 December 2002 the Commission approved the decision on co-financing, which was based on the preliminary allocations communicated to the Member States in September 2002. Ń On 12 February 2003 the Commission adopted the decision on the final allocation of funds to the Member States.
Ń I februar og marts 2003 blev der fremsat žndrede med-finansieringsansżgninger, som blev analyseret. 
Ń In February and March 2003 submission and analysis of revised requests for co-financing.
Ń Den 20. marts 2003 vedtog Kommissionen en žndret beslutning om medfinansiering p basis af det endeligt vedtagne budget og forhżjede medlemsstaternes tildelinger med 3 millioner euro. 
Ń On 20 March 2003 the Commission took a revised decision on co-financing, which was based on the final budget adopted, increasing the Member StatesŐ allocations by 3 million euro.
Disse forsinkelser i Kommissionens betalinger resulterede i, at medlemsstaternes betalinger til de endelige stżttemodtagere blev forsinket, eftersom de fleste medlemsstater fżrst kunne betale, nr de havde modtaget deres andel af fondens midler. 
These delays in Commission payments triggered delays in payments by Member States to final beneficiaries, as most Member States could only pay once they had received their share of the Fund.
C 178/8 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 31.7.2007 32. 
C 178/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 32.
Generelt blev projekterne ivžrksat, inden medlemsstaterne havde afholdt de fżrste betalinger. 
In general, projects started before the first payments from the Member States had been received.
Ovennžvnte bestemmelser er til en vis grad blevet žndret under ERF II: Ń Alle tidsfristerne i punkt 27 er blevet forlžnget for at lżse problemet i ERF I Ń Udgifter afholdt efter den 1. januar i det pgžldende r kan vžre stżtteberettigede under fonden, uanset hvornr medfi-nansieringsansżgningen er godkendt (jf. punkt 32) Ń Ud over et forskud p 50 % kan der udbetales et mellemliggende belżb p op til 50 % mod 30 % under ERF I. Medlemsstaterne fortolker ERF-reglerne forskelligt 34. 
Under ERF II there have been some modifications in these arrangements: Ń the deadlines in paragraph 27 above have all been extended, with a view to resolving the problem in ERF I, Ń sums disbursed after 1 January of the year in question may be eligible for support by the Fund regardless of when the request for co-financing is approved (cf paragraph 32 above), Ń besides a 50 % initial payment, there may be an interim payment of up to 50 %, compared with 30 % in ERF I. Different interpretation of ERF rules by Member States 34.