natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fonden har et rligt budget p 1 milliard euro og intervenerer (2): a) hvis en medlemsstat eller tiltrždelsesstat rammes af en stżrre katastrofe, dvs. en naturkatastrofe, der forvolder skader, som vurderes til mere end 0,6 % af bruttonationalindkomsten eller mere end 3 milliarder euro, hvis bruttonationalindkomsten i det berżrte land er p over 500 milliarder euro (2002-priser) (1) Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 2012/2002 af 11. november 2002 om oprettelse af Den Europžiske Unions Solidaritetsfond (EFT L 311 af 14.11.2002, s. 
With an annual budget of EUR 1 billion, the Fund intervenes (2): (a) if a Member or Accession State is affected by a major disaster, i.e. a natural disaster resulting in a damage estimated at more than 0,6 % of gross national income or more than EUR 3 billion if gross national income of the disaster affected country is above EUR 500 billion (2002 prices); (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p.
3. grundlag af den samlede direkte skade, som staten har lidt. 
The grant rate for all disasters is calculated in relation to the total direct damage suffered by the state.
Ved stżrre katastrofer anvendes der to satser: 2,5 % for den del af ska-den, der ligger under 3 milliarder euro, og 6 % for den del af ska-den, der ligger over dette belżb. 
For major disasters the aid comprises two rates: for damage which is less than the EUR 3 billion the rate of aid is 2,5 % and for damage above this amount the rate is 6 %.
Ved regionale katastrofer og katastrofer i nabolande anvendes der en enkelt sats p 2,5 % af den samlede direkte skade. 
For regional and neighbouring disasters there is a single rate of 2,5 % of the total direct damage.
Fonden forvaltes af Generaldirektoratet for Regionalpolitik (GD for Regionalpolitik). 
The fund is operated by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy (Regional Policy DG).
I perioden fra fondens oprettelse til udgangen af 2006 modtog GD for Regionalpolitik 41 ansżgninger om stżtte. 
From the start of the Fund to the end of 2006 Regional Policy DG received 41 applications for aid.
Nžsten halvdelen af stżtteansżgningerne vedrżrte oversvżmmelser. 
Nearly half of the applications for aid were connected with flooding disasters.
I tabel 1 vises arten af de katastrofer, ansżgningerne omhandlede. 
See Table 1 for details of the different types of disasters covered by all the applications.
C 153/4 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 18.6.2008 Katastrofens art Oversvżmmelse Skovbrande Storm Jordskžlv Olieudslip Ugunstigt vejr Vulkanudbrud Eksplosion Ialt Tabel 1 Antal katastrofer fordelt efter art (i stżtteansżgningerne) r 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 I alt 4337219 0 3 7 0 1 11 000505 011002 010001 0100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 11 12 01 0 1 1 1 4 41 Kilde: GD for Regionalpolitiks register over ansżgninger. 
C 153/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.6.2008 Type of disaster Flooding Forestfires Storm Earthquake Oilspill Adverse weather Volcanic eruption Explosion Total In year 2002 2003 2004 2005 Table 1 Numbers of different types of disaster (in aid application) Total 2006 4337219 0 3 7 0 1 11 000505 0 1 1 0 0 2 010001 010001 010001 000011 4 10 11 12 4 41 Source: Regional Policy DG records of applications.
I alt blev der i denne periode ydet 1 084 millioner euro i stżtte p baggrund af 23 godkendte ansżgninger, som vist i tabel 2 (en detaljeret liste findes i bilag I). 
Overall, aid totalling EUR 1 084 million was granted during this period for 23 approved applications as shown in Table 2 (for a detailed list of cases see Annex I).
Tabel 2 Antal ansżgninger og stżttebelżb i perioden 2002-2006 fordelt efter kategori b) Blev stżtten ydet effektivt? c) Reagerede fonden smidigt over for ansżgerne uden at over-tržde princippet om retfžrdig behandling? d) Er ansżgerne tilfredse med fonden? 
Table 2 Numbers of applications and amount of aid in the years 2002-2006 by category of emergency (b) Was the aid granted efficiently? (c) Was the FundŐs response to applicants flexible without compromising the principle of equitable treatment? (d) Are applicants satisfied with the Fund?
Revisionen blev hovedsagelig foretaget ved hjžlp af interviews, gennemgang af sagsakter i Kommissionen og analyse af de indsamlede data. 
The audit was mainly carried out through interviews, file examination at the Commission and analysis of the data collected.
Derudover foretog Retten et elektronisk rundspżrge ved at sende spżrgeskemaer til 37 af de 41 ansżgere i 17 stater, der havde sżgt om stżtte fra fonden (jf. bilag I). 
In addition, the Court carried out an electronic survey by addressing questionnaires to the 37 applicants out of 41 in 17 states that had sought aid from the Fund (see Annex I).
Retten modtog svar fra 33 ansżgere fra 15 medlemsstater (en svarprocent p 89 %). 
The Court received answers from 33 applicants from 15 Member States (89 % response rate).
BEMŽRKNINGER Hurtighed Hvor lang tid efter katastrofen blev stżtten udbetalt? 
OBSERVATIONS Rapidity How much time did it take from the disaster to the payment of aid?
I forbindelse med de 23 godkendte ansżgninger gik der i gennemsnit 375 dage, fżr stżtten blev modtaget. 
The average time for the 23 successful applications to receive aid was 375 days.
Retten undersżgte, hvor lang tid det havde taget at f stżtte fra fonden, ved at opdele behandlingen af ansżgningerne i faser. 
The Court examined the time taken for obtaining aid from the Fund by dividing the processing of applications into phases.
Fra den dato, hvor katastrofen indtržffer, til udbetalingsda-toen bestr den administrative proces af fem faser (jf. figur 1). 
There are five main phases in the administrative process from the date of disaster to the date of payment (see Figure 1).
Katastrofens kategori Stżrre naturkatastrofe Katastrofe i naboland Regional katastrofe I alt Ydet Modtagne Godkendte Afviste stżttebelżb ansżgninger ansżgninger ansżgninger (millioner euro) 15 14 2 2 24 7 41 23 1 0 17 (1) 18 961,3 1,6 121,1 1 084 (1) Herunder to ansżgninger, der ikke blev afvist, men trukket tilbage. 
Category of emergency Major natural disaster Neighbouring country Regional disaster Total Applications Applications Applications Amount of aid granted (million EUR) 961,3 1,6 121,1 1 084 received approved 15 14 2 2 24 7 41 23 rejected 1 0 17 (1) 18 (1) Includes two cases which were withdrawn rather than rejected.
Kilde: GD for Regionalpolitiks register over ansżgninger. 
Source: Regional Policy DG records of applications.
REVISIONSMETODE OG REVISIONENS OMFANG 6. 
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 6.
Mlet med revisionen var at vurdere, om Kommissionens gennemfżrelse af fonden siden begyndelsen har vžret hurtig, effektiv og smidig. 
The objective of the audit was to assess the rapidity, efficiency and flexibility of the implementation of the Fund by the Commission since its inception.
Med henblik herp gennemgik Retten alle de 41 stżtteansżgninger, GD for Regionalpolitik havde modtaget i perioden fra fondens oprettelse (2002) til udgangen af 2006. 
This was done by reviewing all 41 aid applications received between the commencement of the Fund (2002) and the end of 2006 by the Regional Policy DG.
7. a) Retten forsżgte at f besvaret fżlgende spżrgsml: Reagerede fonden hurtigt over for ansżgerne, dvs. stater eller regioner, der var berżrt af katastrofer? 
7. (a) The Court sought to answer the following questions: Did the Fund provide a rapid response to the applicants, i.e. states or regions affected by a disaster?
18.6.2008 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 153/5 Figur 1 Faser i behandlingen af ansżgninger om stżtte fra fonden 11. 
18.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/5 Figure 1 Phases in the processing of applications for aid from the Fund 11.
Tabel 3 viser, hvor lang tid behandlingens forskellige faser varede i gennemsnit. 
Table 3 below shows the average time taken for each phase in the process.
Gennemsnitstiden for de fżrste to faser er beregnet p grundlag af alle 41 ansżgninger, mens gennemsnitstiden for de sidste tre faser kun er beregnet p grundlag af de 23 godkendte ansżgninger. 
Whilst the average time for the first two phases refers to all 41 applications, the average time for the last three phases refers only to the 23 successful applications.
Tabel 3 Gennemsnitligt antal dage pr. fase i behandlingen af ansżgninger om stżtte fra fonden Fase Gennemsnitstid i kalenderdage Ansżgningsfase 66 Vurderingsfase 148 Budgetfase 65 Tilskudsbeslutningsfase 94 Betalingsfase 24 Kilde: GD for Regionalpolitiks register over ansżgninger. 
Table 3 Average number of days per phase in the processing of applications for aid from the Fund Phase Average time in calendar days Application 66 Assessment 148 Budget 65 Grant decision 94 Payment 24 Source: Regional Policy DG records of applications.
Der gr i gennemsnit ca. to mneder, fżr Kommissionen modtager statens ansżgning. 
About two months on average to receive an application from a state.
Som vist i tabel 3 varer ansżgningsfasen i gennemsnit 66 dage. 
As shown in Table 3, the average duration of the application phase is 66 days.
Det er fastsat i forordningen om stżtte fra fonden, at ansżgninger skal sendes til Kommissionen Čs hurtigt som muligt og senest ti uger efter den fżrste skade i forbindelse med katastro-fenÇ (1). 
The Regulation governing the aid from the Fund requires that applications be sent to the Commission Ôas soon as possible and no later than ten weeks after the first damage caused by the disasterŐ (1).
I syv sager (nžsten 17 %) blev ansżgningerne imidlertid indsendt mere end ti uger efter katastrofen, dvs. efter den fastsatte frist. 
However, in seven cases (almost in 17 % of cases) the application was submitted more than ten weeks after the disaster, hence after the deadline.
Ansżgerne skal benbart bruge mindst to mneder til at udarbejde ansżgningen. 
Apparently, the applicants need at least two months to prepare the application.
Grunden til, at det tager s lang tid, er, at der skal indsamles dokumentation til underbyggelse af ansżgningen, herunder oplysninger om, hvor stor en del af befolkningen, der er ramt af katastrofen. 
The application takes such time because it is necessary to collect evidence to support the application including information on the proportion of the population affected by the disaster.
(1) Artikel 4, stk. 
(1) Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002.
C 153/6 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 18.6.2008 Kommissionen bruger i gennemsnit nžsten fem mneder p at indhente manglende oplysninger og vurdere, om ansżgningen er berettiget. 
C 153/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.6.2008 Almost five months on average for Commission to obtain missing information and assess the eligibility of the application.
Det fremgr af tabel 3, at vurderingsfasen er den lžngste af alle faserne i behandlingen af ansżgninger om stżtte fra fonden. 
As shown in Table 3, the assessment phase is the longest of all the phases in the processing of applications for aid from the Fund.
Denne fase tegner sig for over en tredjedel af den tid, der gr fra den dato, hvor katastrofen indtržffer, til udbetalingsdatoen. 
It accounts for more than one third of the time from the date of disaster to the date of payment.
Nr Kommissionen har modtaget en ansżgning, kontrollerer den, om ansżgningen er berettiget, hvilket i nžsten alle sager betyder, at den beder ansżgerstaten om yderligere oplysninger (jf. tekstboks 1). 
After receiving an application the Commission checks the eligibility of the application, which implies, in almost all cases, asking for additional information from the applicant state concerned (see Textbox 1).
Vurderingsfasen afsluttes med en principbeslutning om, om der skal ydes stżtte eller ej. 
This stage ends with a decision in principle whether or not to provide assistance.
Tekstboks 1 Indsendelse af de nżdvendige oplysninger til Kommissionen Det varierer meget, hvor lang tid Kommissionen skal bruge til at analysere en ansżgning og bede om yderligere oplysninger. 
Textbox 1 Providing the Commission with the necessary information The time needed for the Commission to analyse an application and request additional information varies significantly.
I forbindelse med en oversvżmmelse i 2005 blev der umiddelbart efter katastrofen og fżr den officielle ansżgning indsendt en masse oplysninger Ń isžr elektroniske data. 
In a flooding in 2005, a lot of information Ń and in particular electronic data Ń was sent immediately after the disaster occurred and before the official application was submitted.
Det medfżrte, at Kommissionen bad om yderligere oplysninger 1,6 mneder, fżr den modtog ansżgningen, og at vurderingsfasen blev kortere end gennemsnittet. 
The result was that the Commission requested further information 1,6 months before it received the application and the assessment stage was shorter than the average.
I en skovbrandssag i 2003 sendte myndighederne de nżdvendige oplysninger til Kommissionen allerede dagen efter, at den havde bedt om dem. 
In a forest fire case in 2003, the authorities sent the Commission the information it had requested the next day.
Det resulterede i en samlet vurderingstid p kun 1,5 mneder. 
This resulted in an overall assessment time of 1,5 months only.
I den modsatte ende af skalaen finder man en anden sag fra 2003, som det tog 12,5 mneder at vurdere. 
At the other extreme, in a case of 2003, the assessment took 12,5 months.
Grunden var, at de nationale myndigheder sendte en kžm-pestor, men ufuldstžndig, pakke underbyggende dokumentation skrevet p deres eget sprog. 
The reason was that the national authorities sent a huge but incomplete package of supporting documentation in their national language.
Retten undersżgte, hvad ansżgerne mener om vurderingsfasens varighed (jf. tabel 4). 
The Court examined how the applicants view the duration of the assessment phase (see Table 4).
Ifżlge rundspżrgets resultater syntes over halvdelen af de godkendte ansżgere og ogs to tredjedele af de afviste ansżgere, at den tid, Kommissionen havde brugt p at vurdere deres ansżgning, var rimelig. 
According to the survey data, more than half of the successful applicants and also two thirds of the unsuccessful applicants found the CommissionŐs time spent for the assessment of their application to be reasonable.
Godkendte ansżgere er de ansżgere, hvis ansżgninger blev godkendt, og afviste ansżgere er de ansżgere, hvis ansżgninger blev afvist. 
The successful applicants are those whose applications were approved, the unsuccessful are those whose applications were rejected.
Tabel 4 Ansżgernes mening om vurderingsfasens varighed 15. 
Table 4 Percentage of applicants considering the assessment phase as reasonable, too long or having some other opinion Applicants 15.
I tabel 5 vises den gennemsnitlige varighed af de vurderingsfaser, som ansżgerne fandt rimelige, og den gennemsnitlige varighed af de vurderingsfaser, som ansżgerne fandt for lange. 
Furthermore, Table 5 shows the average duration of the assessment phase considered by the applicants as reasonable and the average duration of the assessment phase considered by the applicants as too long.
Det er interessant, at de afviste ansżgere synes at vžre mere Čtl-modigeÇ end de godkendte ansżgere. 
Interestingly enough, the unsuccessful applicants appear to be more ÔpatientŐ than the successful applicants.
Og det er vžrd at bemžrke, at kun n afvist ansżger mente, at Kommissionen havde brugt Čfor langÇ tid. 
It is worth remarking that only one unsuccessful applicant considered the time taken by the Commission as Ôtoo longŐ.
Tabel 5 Forholdet mellem ansżgningens godkendelse, vurderingsfasens varighed og ansżgernes mening Godkendte ansżgninger Afviste ansżgninger Gennemsnitlig varighed for de ansżgere, der Gennemsnitlig varighed for de ansżgere, der Gennemsnitlig varighed for de ansżgere, der Gennemsnitlig varighed for de ansżgere, der opfattede varighe-opfattede varighe-opfattede varighe-opfattede varigheden som rimelig den som for lang den som rimelig 101 dage 171 dage 129 dage den som for lang 181 dage Kilde: Data fra ansżgerne indhentet ved Rettens rundspżrge. 
Table 5 Relationship between the success of the application, the duration of the assessment phase and the applicantsŐ opinion Approved applications Rejected applications Average time for those applicants who considered the time spent as reasonable Source: Average time for those applicants who considered the time spent as too long Average time for those applicants who considered the time spent as reasonable Average time for those applicants who considered the time spent as too long 171 days Survey data obtained from the applicants by the Court.
Mening om vurderingsfasens varighed Ansżgere Der gr i gennemsnit over to mneder, fżr de finansielle ressourcer stilles til rdighed p EUŐs budget. 
181 days 101 days 129 days Opinion on the duration of the assessment phase More than two months on average to make the financial resources available in the EU budget.
Nr Kommissionen har truffet sin principbeslutning, begynder budgetfasen. 
Following the decision in principle by the Commission, the budget phase commences.
EUSF-budgetposten er kun et promemo-ria. 
The budget line for EUSF is only a token entry.
Kommissionen udarbejder en ČbudgetansżgningÇ, som forelžgges budgetmyndigheden (Rdet og Europa-Parlamentet). 
The Commission prepares a Ôbudgetary requestŐ which is presented to the budgetary authority (Council and Parliament).
Denne budgetžndringsprocedure varer i gennemsnit over to mneder, men den kan vare op til fire mneder i perioder med ferie (jf. tekstboks 2). 
This budgetary amending procedure takes more than two months on average but can increase to four months during holiday periods (see Textbox 2).
Tekstboks 2 Gennemfżrelse af budgetžndringsproceduren I forbindelse med to ansżgninger om stżtte efter oversvżmmelser i 2005 blev principbeslutningen truffet i december 2005, men budgetžndringen blev fżrst godkendt i april 2006, fire mneder senere. 
Textbox 2 Passing the budgetary amending procedure For two flooding applications in 2005, the decision in principle was taken in December 2005 but the budget amendment was only approved in April 2006, four months later.
I forbindelse med en sag om stżtte efter oversvżmmelser i 2004 blev principbeslutningen truffet i juni 2005, men budgetžndringen blev fżrst godkendt i september 2005, tre mneder senere. 
For a flooding case in 2004, the decision in principle was taken in June 2005 and the budget amendment was only approved in September 2005, three months later.
Det tager i gennemsnit tre mneder at f alle dokumenterne underskrevet. 
Three months on average to get all documents signed.
Nr de nżdvendige finansielle ressourcer er blevet stillet til rdighed p budgettet, vedtager Kommissionen en tilskudsbe-slutning og indgr en aftale med ansżgeren. 
Once the necessary financial resources have been made available in the budget, the Commission adopts a grant decision and concludes an agreement with the applicant.
Denne aftale beskriver arten af de tiltag, der skal finansieres af fonden, og hvor de skal udfżres. 
This agreement sets out the type and location of operations to be financed by the Fund.
Som det fremgr af tabel 3, varer denne fase i gennemsnit tre mneder. Der blev imidlertid konstateret usždvanlig lange forsinkelser i syv sager, hvor ansżgerne havde vžret for lžnge om at indsende de nżdvendige dokumenter Ń somme Rimelig For lang Andet Ikke oplyst Godkendte 50 % 39 % 11 % 0 % 100 % Afviste 67 % 11 % 11 % 11 % 100 % I alt Kilde: Data fra ansżgerne indhentet ved Rettens rundspżrge. 
As shown in Table 3, on average, this phase takes three Successful 50 % 39 % 11 % NA 0% Total 100 % Unsuccessful 67 % 11 % 11 % 11 % 100 % Reasonable Too long Other Source: Survey data obtained from the applicants by the Court.
18.6.2008 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 153/7 tider noget s simpelt som nummeret p den bankkonto, pengene skulle betales til. Der kan ogs opst forsinkelser p grund af den mde, hvorp dokumenterne sendes til Kommissionen. 
18.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/7 months. Abnormal delays were however observed in seven cases which were due to the applicants taking too much time to submit the requested documents, which is sometimes as simple as the bank account identification number for the payment. The method by which documents are sent to the Commission can also cause delay.
For eksempel sendte nogle ansżgerstater den underskrevne tilskudsaftale med diplomatisk post til deres faste repržsentation, som derefter sendte den til Kommissionen, men det viste sig, at det faktisk tog lžngere tid end almindelig post. 
For instance some applicants who returned the signed grant agreement by diplomatic mail to their permanent representation, who then forwarded it to the Commission found that this in fact was slower than direct post mail.
Sammenlagt udgżr den gennemsnitlige varighed af budgetfasen og tilskudsbeslutningsfasen nžsten halvdelen af den tid, der i gennemsnit gr fra den dato, hvor katastrofen indtržffer, til den dato, hvor stżtten modtages fra fonden. 
The sum of the average time for the budget phase and the average time for the grant decision phase represents almost half of the average time from the date of disaster to the date of obtaining aid from the Fund.
Det tager alts lige s lang tid at stille de finansielle ressourcer til rdighed og f alle dokumenterne underskrevet, som det tager at vurdere en ansżgning. 
Hence, making the financial resources available and getting all documents signed takes as much time as assessing an application.
Som vist i tabel 3 varer betalingsfasen i gennemsnit 24 dage. 
As shown in Table 3, the average time for the payment phase is 24 days.
Nr aftalen er blevet underskrevet af begge parter, tager det normalt under en mned at foretage betalingen, men det kan tage lžngere tid, hvis Kommissionen modtager den underskrevne aftale ved begyndelsen af budgetret. 
Once the agreement has been signed by both parties, the payment itself usually takes less than one month, but it can take longer. This is the case if the signed agreement is only received by the Commission at the beginning of the budget year.
P grund af de regnskabsmžssige procedurer ved afslutningen og begyndelsen af ret vil betalingen i s fald fżrst blive foretaget i marts mned. 
Then Ń due to accounting procedures at the end and beginning of the year Ń the payment will not be made before the month of March.
Hvilke faktorer forklarer forskellene p den tid, det tog at f stżtte fra fonden? 
What factors account for variation in time taken for obtaining aid from the Fund?
Indtil nu har denne beretning omhandlet den gennemsnitlige varighed af de fem faser i processen med at f stżtte fra fonden, men der var store udsving fra gennemsnittet. 
So far, this report has presented the average time taken for each of the five phases in the process of obtaining aid from the Fund. There was a wide variation around the average time.
Retten forsżgte at identificere faktorer, som kunne forklare forskellene. 
The Court sought to identify factors which might account for the variation.
Den undersżgte derfor, i hvilken udstržkning forskellene kunne forklares med henvisning til katastrofens kategori, katastrofens art og det land, hvor katastrofen indtraf. 
So the Court examined the extent to which variation is explained by the category of the disaster, the type of the disaster and the country where the disaster took place.
Der blev skelnet mellem tre kategorier af katastrofer: stżrre katastrofer, katastrofer i nabolande og regionale katastrofer. 
Three categories of disaster were distinguished: major, neighbouring and regional disasters.
Med hensyn til art blev katastroferne klassificeret som oversvżmmelse, skovbrande, storm, jordskžlv, olieudslip, ugunstigt vejr, vulkanudbrud eller eksplo-sion. 
With respect to their type, the disasters were classified as flooding, forest fire, storm, earthquake, oilspill, adverse weather, volcanic eruption and explosion.
Retten konstaterede, at der ikke var nogen vžsentlig sammenhžng mellem katastrofens kategori og den tid, det tog at f stżtte fra fonden. 
No significant relationship between the category of disaster and time taken for obtaining aid from the Fund was found.