natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Svage afgržnsninger mellem fondene og utilstržkkelige mekanismer til sikring af komplementaritet gjorde det ofte vanskeligt at foretage en effektiv koordinering med andre EU-midler og med nationale, regionale og lokale midler. 
Effective coordination with other EU, national, regional or local funds was often affected by weak demarcation lines and insufficient mechanisms to ensure complementarity.
Risikoen for dżdvžgt var ikke blevet mindsket effektivt, selv om der blev konstateret en ržkke gode praksis. - Udvžlgelsesprocedurerne rettede ikke altid midlerne mod de mest omkostningseffektive projekter, risikoen for uforholdsmžssigt hżje projektomkostninger var ikke blevet begržnset effektivt, og bžredygtighedskravene var ikke tilpasset investeringernes levetid. 
The risk of deadweight was not effectively mitigated, though some good practices were identified; — selection procedures did not always direct funding towards the most cost-effective projects, the risk of excessive project costs was not effectively limited and the sustainability-related requirements did not take into account the useful life of investments.
Endvidere indvirkede store administrative forsinkelser - navnlig i forbindelse med godkendelsen af tilskudsansżgninger - p foranstaltningernes produktivitet og effektivitet. - Overvgnings-og evalueringssystemet gav ikke fyldestgżrende oplysninger. 
Long delays in the administrative processes, especially with regard to the approval of grant applications, also impacted the measures’ efficiency and effectiveness; — the monitoring and evaluation system did not produce adequate information.
De reviderede projekter leverede de forventede fysiske output, men ofte manglede der plidelige oplysninger om, hvad der konkret var opnet ved hjžlp af EU-midlerne, hvilket gżr det svžrt at mlrette den fremtidige politik og forvalte budgettet med fokus p resultater. 
While the audited projects delivered the expected physical output, reliable information on what has actually been achieved with the public funds spent was often unavailable, making it difficult to direct future policy and manage the budget by results.
IV Kommissionen tilbżd ikke medlemsstaterne tilstržkkelig vejledning ved begyndelsen af programmeringsperioden 2007-2013. 
IV The Commission did not offer sufficient guidance to Member States at the start of the 2007-2013 programming period.
Siden 2012 har Kommissionen haft en mere proaktiv og koordineret tilgang. 
Since 2012, the Commission has adopted a more proactive and coordinated approach.
Hvis žndringerne gennemfżres korrekt, bżr denne tilgang kunne fżre til bedre żkonomisk forvaltning i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. 
If the changes are implemented properly, this should lead to better financial management in the 2014-2020 programming period.
Der vil dog sandsynligvis fortsat vžre svagheder for s vidt angr koordineringen af fondene og med hensyn til resultatoplysninger. 
However, certain weaknesses concerning the coordination of funds and performance information are likely to persist.
Resum 08 VRetten mener, at der kan opns vžsentligt mere med de eksisterende finansielle ressourcer, og anbefaler fżlgende: a) Medlemsstaterne bżr have en koordineret tilgang til stżtte til infrastruktur i landdistrikterne, s det sikres, at behovene og finansieringshullerne kvantificeres, og at anvendelsen af LDP-foranstaltninger er berettiget. 
Executive summary 08 VThe Court believes that significantly more can be achieved with the given financial resources and recommends that: (a) The Member States should have a coordinated approach for supporting rural infrastructure, which quantifies needs and funding gaps and justifies the use of the RDP measures.
De bżr gżre bedre brug af de eksisterende koordineringsstrukturer. b) Kommissionen bżr bygge videre p de fżrste initiativer, der er truffet for at sikre en effektiv koordinering, og foretage en grundig vurdering af komplementariteten mellem de forskellige EU-fonde, som medlemsstaterne skal bruge i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. c) Medlemsstaterne bżr fastlžgge kriterier og anvende dem ensartet for at sikre, at de mest omkostningseffektive projekter udvžlges4, tage hensyn til investeringernes levetid, nr de fastlžgger krav og kontroller vedrżrende bžredygtighed samt fastsžtte og overholde en rimelig tidsramme for behandlingen af projektansżgninger og betalingsanmodninger. d) I perioden 2014-2020 bżr Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne indsamle rettidige, relevante og plidelige data, der giver nyttige oplysninger om resultaterne af de finansierede projekter og foranstaltninger. e) Medlemsstaterne bżr sżrge for, at der opstilles klare og specifikke ml for de projekter, som der afsžttes midler til. 4 Jf. sžrberetning nr. 
They should make better use of the existing coordination structures. (b) The Commission should build upon the first steps taken to ensure effective coordination and carry out a thorough assessment of the complementarity between the different EU funds to be used by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. (c) Member States should establish and consistently apply criteria to ensure the selection of the most cost-effective projects4, take into account the useful life of the investments when establishing the sustainability-related requirements and checks, and set a reasonable timeframe for processing grant and payment applications and respect it. (d) For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission and the Member States should collect timely, relevant and reliable data that provides useful information on the achievements of the projects and measures financed. (e) Member States should ensure that clear, specific objectives are set for the projects to which funds are committed.
22/2014 ČŻkonomisering: holde omkostningerne til tilskud til EU-finansierede landdistriktsprojekter under kontrolÇ (http://eca.europa.eu). 
4 See Special Report No 22/2014 ‘Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed rural development project grants under control’ (http://eca.europa.eu).
Indledning 09 Betydningen af infrastrukturinvesteringer i Den Europžiske Unions landdistrikter 01 Landdistrikterne str over for store udfordringer, f.eks. affolkning og mangel p żkonomiske muligheder. God infrastruktur (veje, vandforsyningssystemer, kloaksystemer, systemer til forebyggelse af oversvżmmelse, kunst-vandingsledninger osv.) medvirker til at styrke den żkonomiske vžkst og gżre landdistrikterne mere attraktive. 
Introduction 09 The importance of rural infrastructure investments in the European Union Rural development support for infrastructure investments 02 Some 13 billion euro, amounting to 13.5 % of the total EAFRD funding, were allocated to infrastructure investments in the 2007-2013 programming period (see Annex I).
De samlede offentlige udgifter, som medlemsstaterne havde programmeret i deres LDPŐer (landdi-striktsprogrammer), dvs. inklusive den nationale medfinansiering, belżb sig til 19 milliarder euro, hvoraf nžsten 12 milliarder euro var blevet brugt ved udgangen af 2013. 
The total public expenditure programmed by Member States in their RDPs, including national co-financing, was 19 billion euro, of which almost 12 billion euro had been spent by the end of 2013.
2013 markerer programmeringsperiodens udlżb, men gennemfżrelsen fortsžtter indtil den 31. december 20156. 
Although 2013 corresponds to the end of the programming period, this is not the end of its implementation, which extends until 31 December 20156.
Medregner man ogs stżttemodtagernes egne bidrag, forventes det samlede investeringsvolumen at n op p nžsten 29 milliarder euro. 
Taking into account the beneficiaries’ own contributions, the total volume of investment is expected to reach nearly 29 billion euro.
03 I deres LDPŐer for programmeringsperioden 2007-2013 havde medlemsstaterne hovedsagelig valgt at yde stżtte til infrastruktur under fżlgende foranstaltninger: - foranstaltning 125: ČInfrastruk-tur af betydning for udviklingen og tilpasningen af landbrug og skovbrugÇ - foranstaltning 321: ČBasale tjenester for erhvervslivet og befolkningen i landdistrikterneÇ - foranstaltning 322: ČFornyelse og udvikling af landsbyerÇ - foranstaltning 323: ČBevarelse og opgradering af natur-og kulturvžrdien i landdistrikterneÇ. 
03 The main measures chosen by the Member States to support infrastructure under their RDPs in the 2007-2013 programming period were the following: — measure 125: ‘Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry’; — measure 321: ‘Basic services for the economy and rural population’; — measure 322: ‘Village renewal and development’; — measure 323: ‘Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage’.
Disse foranstaltninger kaldes i denne beretning ČinfrastrukturforanstaltningerÇ. 
The abovementioned measures will be referred to in this report as ‘infrastructure measures’.
5 Rdets afgżrelse 2006/144/EF af 20. februar 2006 om Fžllesskabets strategiske retningslinjer for udvikling af landdistrikterne (programmeringsperioden 2007-2013) (EUT L 55 af 25.2.2006, s. 
5 Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p.
20) fastsžtter Fžllesskabets prioriteter for landdistriktsudviklingen i overensstemmelse med Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1698/2005 af 20. september 2005 om stżtte til udvikling af landdistrikterne fra Den Europžiske Landbrugsfond for Udvikling af Landdistrikterne (ELFUL) (EUT L 277 af 21.10.2005, s. 
20) sets out the Community priorities for rural development, as required by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p.1).
6 Ifżlge ČN+2-reglenÇ kan medlemsstaterne afholde udgifter under programmerne for perioden 2007-2013 indtil udgangen af 2015. 
6 Under the ‘N+ 2 rule’, the Member States can incur expenditure for the 2007-2013 programmes until the end of 2015.
Indledning 10 04 EUŐs forordning om udvikling af landdistrikterne i programmeringsperioden 2007-2013 fastsžtter hverken de maksimale stżttebelżb eller de maksimale stżttestatser for projekter under disse foranstaltninger. 
Introduction 10 04 The EU rural development regulation applicable to the 2007-2013 programming period sets neither the maximum eligible amount nor the maximum aid rate for projects under these measures.
Medlemsstaterne fastsžtter disse elementer i deres LDPŐer i overensstemmelse med EUŐs regler for statsstżtte. 
Member States determine these elements in their RDPs, in accordance with EU state aid rules.
Standard-stżttesatserne er normalt hżje - i de undersżgte LDPŐer l de mellem 70 % og 100 %. 
The standard aid rates are usually high, and ranged from 70 % to 100 % in the RDPs audited.
Tekstboks 1 viser typiske eksempler p projekter finansieret under disse foranstaltninger, der hovedsagelig blev brugt af offentlige stżttemodtagere, men ogs var bne for private. 
Box 1 gives typical examples of the projects funded under each of these measures, which were mainly used by public beneficiaries, but were also open to private beneficiaries.
Eksempler p projekter finansieret under foranstaltningerne vedrżrende infrastruktur i landdistrikterne Markveje i Italien (Sicilien) (foranstaltning 125, privat stżttemodtager) Stżtteberettigede omkostninger: 1 330 000 euro Stżttesats: 80 % Udvidelse af et dagplejecenter i Tyskland (Sachsen) (foranstaltning 321, offentlig stżttemodtager) Stżtteberettigede omkostninger: 145 000 euro Stżttesats: 100 % Tekstboks 1 
Examples of projects funded by the rural infrastructure measures Farm roads in Italy (Sicily) (measure 125, private beneficiary) Eligible cost: 1 330 000 euro Aid rate: 80 % Extension of a day care centre in Germany (Saxony) (measure 321, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 145 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Box 1
Indledning 11 Anlžggelse af et vandforsynings-og kloaksystem i Rumžnien (foranstaltning 322, offentlig stżttemodtager) Stżtteberettigede omkostninger: 2 200 000 euro Stżttesats: 100 % Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret. 
Introduction 11 Construction of a water supply and sewerage system in Romania (measure 322, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 2 200 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Restoration of a rural path for livestock in Spain (Extremadura) (measure 323, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 120 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Source: European Court of Auditors.
Genetablering af en kvžgsti i Spanien (Extremadura) (foranstaltning 323, offentlig stżttemodtager) Stżtteberettigede omkostninger: 120 000 euro Stżttesats: 100 % 05 Afhžngigt af, hvilken foranstaltning de stżttes under, skal infrastrukturprojekter enten bidrage til at opfylde mlet om at forbedre landbrugs-og skovbrugssektorens konkurrenceevne eller mlet om at forbedre livskvaliteten i landdistrikterne (foranstaltning 321, 322 og 323). 
05 Depending on the measure under which they are supported, infrastructure projects should contribute either to the objective of improving the competitiveness of the agriculture and forestry sector (measure 125) or to the objective of improving the quality of life in rural areas (measures 321, 322 and 323).
Infrastruktur-projekter, der bidrager til at opfylde disse ml, kan ogs gennemfżres ved hjžlp af en bottom-up-metode (ČLeadermetodenÇ)7. 
Infrastructure projects contributing to the same objectives could also be implemented following a bottom-up (‘LEADER’) approach7.
06 Regelsžttet for tildeling af ELFUL-stżtte til infrastrukturprojekter bygger p delt forvaltning. 
06 The regulatory framework for allocating EAFRD funding to infrastructure projects is based on shared management.
Under dette system indsender medlemsstaterne deres LDPŐer til godkendelse hos Kommissionen. 
Under this system, the Member States submit their RDPs for the Commission’s approval.
Kommissionens rolle er at overvge, at forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemerne i medlemsstaterne fungerer korrekt, og sikre, at principperne for forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning er overholdt8. 
The Commission’s role is to supervise the proper functioning of the management and control systems in Member States and ensure the respect of the principles of sound financial management8.
P grundlag af de godkendte LDPŐer udvžlger medlemsstaterne de projekter, der skal finansieres. 
Based on the approved RDPs, Member States select the projects to be funded.
7 En metode til opfyldelse af mlene for EUŐs politik for udvikling af landdistrikterne. I modsžtning til den traditionelle top-down-metode er denne metode bottom-up-orienteret. 
7 A method to achieve the objectives of the EU’s rural development policy through bottom-up implementation rather than the traditional top-down approach.
8 Jf. artikel 73 i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1698/2005. 
8 See Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
Indledning 12 07 Figur 1 viser, hvordan der tildeles midler til infrastrukturprojekter. 
Introduction 12 07 Figure 1 shows how funding is allocated to infrastructure projects.
De forskellige trin skal sikre, at midlerne gr til de projekter, der bedst matcher de overordnede politikml og samtidig opfylder de behov og prioriteter, der er fastlagt p nationalt eller regionalt niveau. 
The different steps are intended to ensure that funding is directed to the projects that best match the overall policy objectives while meeting the needs and priorities established at Member State or regional level.
08 EU-forordningen for programmeringsperioden 2014-20209 viderefżrer stort set de lovgivningsmžssige krav, der i programmeringsperioden 2007-2013 gjaldt for de reviderede foranstaltninger og aktioner. 
08 The EU regulation for the 2014-2020 programming period9 broadly retains the legal requirements set for the 2007-2013 programming period with regard to the audited measures and operations.
Medlemsstaterne har żremžrket over 14,65 milliarder euro til infrastrukturforanstaltninger i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. 
Member States have earmarked more than 14.65 billion euro for infrastructure measures in the 2014-2020 programming period.
Denne beretnings revisionsresultater, konklusioner og anbefalinger er sledes ogs relevante for programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. 
Thus, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are also relevant for the 2014-2020 programming period.
9 Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets forordning (EU) nr. 
9 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.
Regelsžttet for tildeling af ELFUL-stżtte til projekter EUŐs politik for udvikling af landdistrikterne (Fžllesskabets strategiske retningslinjer, Rdets forordning) Foresls af Kommissionen og vedtages af Rdet Strategisk programmering p medlemsstatsniveau (national strategiplan og landdistriktsprogram) Foresls af medlemsstaten og godkendes af Kommissionen Detaljerede regler og procedurer p medlemsstatsniveau (national eller regional lovgivning, procedurer og vejledninger) Projektudvžlgelse Stżtte til infrastrukturprojekter i landdistrikterne Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret. 
Regulatory framework for allocating EAFRD funding to projects Rural development policy established at EU level (Community strategic guidelines, Council regulation) Proposed by the Commission and approved by the Council Strategic programming at Member State level (National strategy plan, rural development programme) Proposed by the Member States and approved by the Commission Detailed rules and procedures at Member State level (National or regional legislation, procedures, guides) Project selection Funding allocated to rural infrastructure projects Source: European Court of Auditors.
Revisionens omfang 13 og revisionsmetoden 09 Retten forsżgte at f besvaret fżlgende spżrgsml: Har stżtten til infrastrukturinvesteringer i landdistrikterne givet medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen valuta for pengene? 
Audit scope and approach 13 09 The audit sought to answer the following question: Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the support for rural infrastructure investments?
10 Retten vurderede begrundelsen for at anvende EUŐs fonde til infrastruktur i landdistrikterne og koordineringen med andre midler (beretningens del I). 
10 The Court assessed the justification of the need for EU funds for rural infrastructure and the coordination with other funds (Part I of the report).
Flere nżgleaspekter ved medlemsstaternes gennemfżrelse af foranstaltningerne blev analyseret nžrmere: anvendelsen af udvžlgelseskriterier, kontrollen af omkostningernes rimelighed, bžredygtighedskravene og rettidigheden af de administrative processer (del II). 
Several key aspects related to the Member States’ implementation of the measures were further analysed: the application of selection criteria, the checks on the reasonableness of costs, the sustainability-related requirements and the timeliness of the administrative processes (Part II).
Retten undersżgte ogs, om foranstaltningernes resultater var blevet overvget og evalueret p en sdan mde, at medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen kunne konstatere og reagere p eventuelle problemer og fremlžgge objektive oplysninger om resultaterne af de finansierede foranstaltninger (del III). 
The Court also assessed whether the results of the measures had been monitored and evaluated in such a way as to allow the Member States and the Commission to identify and respond to any problems which may have arisen, and to provide objective information on the results of the measures financed (Part III).
11 Revisionen blev udfżrt mellem november 2014 og juni 2015 og vedrżrte udformningen og gennemfżrelsen af infrastrukturforanstaltningerne i programmeringsperioden 2007-2013. 
11 The audit, which was carried out between November 2014 and June 2015, concerns the design and implementation of the infrastructure measures in the 2007-2013 programming period.
Nr det var muligt, vurderede Retten ogs žndringerne med henblik p programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. 
Where possible, the changes in place for the programming period 2014-2020 were also covered by the Court’s assessment.
Der blev aflagt revisionsbesżg hos Kommissionen og i fem medlemsstater, som blev udvalgt p grundlag af stżrrelsen af de belżb, de havde bevilget til infrastruktur i landdistrikterne10. 
Audit visits were made to the Commission and to five Member States, selected on the basis of the significance of the amounts allocated to rural infrastructure10.
Disse medlemsstater var: Tyskland (Sachsen), Spanien, (Extremadura), Italien (Sicilien), Polen og Rumžnien. 
These Member States were: Germany (Saxony), Spain (Extremadura), Italy (Sicily), Poland and Romania.
12 Revisionen havde fokus p infrastrukturinvesteringer finansieret under foranstaltning 125, 321, 322 og 323. 
12 The audit focused on infrastructure investments financed under measures 125, 321, 322 and 323.
I Tyskland (Sachsen) og Spanien (Extremadura) omfattede revisionen projekter finansieret efter Leadermetoden, da disse to regioner brugte denne metode til store infrastrukturinvesteringer. 
Projects financed using the LEADER approach were audited in Germany (Saxony) and Spain (Extremadura), as these two regions used this approach for significant infrastructure investments.
13 Revisionen var koncentreret om veje, vandforvaltningsinfrastruktur og social og kulturel infrastruktur, da disse projekttyper er de vigtigste under de relevante foranstaltninger. 
13 In terms of project types, the audit concentrated on rural roads, water management infrastructure and social and cultural infrastructure, as these are the main project categories supported under the relevant measures.
14 Retten analyserede de systemer, som forvaltningsmyndighederne og/ eller betalingsorganerne brugte til at gennemfżre stżtten til infrastrukturprojekter, samt de centrale ledelsesoplysninger fra medlemsstaternes kontrol-og overvgningsaktiviteter. 
14 The audit analysed the systems used by managing authorities and/or paying agencies to implement support for infrastructure projects, as well as the key management information derived from Member States’ control and monitoring activities.
Til dette forml undersżgte Retten en stikprżve p 48 projekter udvalgt blandt infrastrukturprojekter, der var typiske for de finansierede projekter i de pgžldende medlemsstater. 
This entailed the examination of 48 project files, selected as a sample of infrastructure projects typical of those financed in the Member State concerned.
32 af disse projekter blev besżgt p stedet, og der blev bl.a. gennemfżrt samtaler med stżttemodtagerne, mens de resterende 16 projekter blev kontrolleret ved dokumentgennemgang. 
Site visits, involving interviews with the beneficiaries, were made to 32 of these projects, while the remaining 16 project files were checked through a documentary review.
Der gives flere oplysninger om de besżgte projekter i bilag II. 
More information about the projects visited can be found in Annex II.
10 I bilag I gives detaljerede finansielle oplysninger om de enkelte medlemsstaters programmerede og afholdte udgifter. 
10 See Annex I for detailed financial figures on programmed and realised expenditure per Member State.
Bemžrkninger 14 Del I - Begrundelsen for at anvende EUŐs fonde til udvikling af landdistrikterne var utilstržkkelig, og koordineringen med andre midler var svag 15 Infrastrukturinvesteringer i landdistrikterne kan stżttes med finansiering fra flere kilder. 
Observations 14 Part I — Insufficient justification for using EU rural development funds and weak coordination with other funds 15 Infrastructure investments in rural areas can receive funding from several sources.
Ud over ELFUL kan ogs Den Europžiske Fond for Regionaludvikling (EFRU) og Samhżrighedsfonden finansiere infrastruktur i landdistrikterne. 
At EU level, in addition to the EAFRD, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund may also finance rural infrastructure.