natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen rapporterede ikke om, hvor godt Sapard opfyldte mlene, men fokuserede i stedet p institutionsopbygning. 
The Commission did not report on how well Sapard achieved its objectives, but instead focused on institution building.
Der er opnet positive resultater med institutionsopbygning, og det har givet de nationale myndigheder mulighed for at f praktisk erfaring, der kan bruges til forvaltningen af EU-midler efter tiltrždelsen. 
This has been positive, because Sapard could provide national administrations with hands-on experience for the management of EU funds after accession.
For en af de vigtigste foranstaltninger efter tiltrždelsen, miljżforanstaltninger i landbruget, har effekten imidlertid vžret begržnset (jf. punkt 48-57). 
However, for one of the most important measures after accession, agri-environment, the effect was limited (see paragraphs 48 to 57).
Et af kravene i forbindelse med Sapard er, at Kommissionen p grundlag af sin egen revision skal forhndsgodkende de systemer, som de berżrte lande opretter. 
A requirement under Sapard is prior approval, by the Commission, based on its audits, of the systems set up by the countries concerned.
P den mde har det vžret muligt at sikre, at der blev indfżrt veldefinerede systemer med centrale kontroller, inden der kunne udbetales midler. 
This has ensured that well-defined systems with key controls were in place before any funds could be spent.
Denne betingelse er en afgżrende forskel i forhold til de programmer, der gennemfżres i medlemsstaterne, og som kan ivžrksžttes, uden at Kommissionen har foretaget sdan revision eller godkendt systemerne p forhnd (jf. punkt 58-60). 
This requirement is a key difference from comparable programmes in Member States, which can start with implementation without such audits or prior approval of the systems by the Commission (see paragraphs 58 to 60).
(1) De ti lande er: Bulgarien, Den Tjekkiske Republik, Estland, Letland, Litauen, Polen, Rumžnien, Slovakiet, Slovenien og Ungarn. 
(1) These 10 countries are: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.
C 295/4 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 30.11.2004 IX. 
C 295/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.11.2004 IX.
Med hensyn til Sapard-systemerne konstaterede Retten, at de centrale koncepter var medtaget, at procedurerne var godt dokumenterede, at de systemer, der fandtes p papiret, generelt ogs fungerede i praksis, og at kontrolprocedurerne, for s vidt angr de fleste af de undersżgte dossierer, var blevet fulgt. 
The Court found for the Sapard systems that key concepts were included, that procedures were well-documented, that the systems which existed on paper were generally working in practice and that for most files reviewed the checking procedures were followed.
Det var et problem, at de andre systemer, der var tilknyttet Sapard-systemerne og leverede input til dem, men som Kommissionen ikke skulle godkende p forhnd, ikke var af samme kvalitet. 
A difficulty was that other related systems, which provided input to the Sapard systems but which did not receive prior approval by the Commission, were not of the same quality.
Det var navnlig tilfžldet med den nationale kontrol af overholdelsen af kvalitets-og sundhedsnormer og krav med hensyn til miljżbeskyttelse, som Retten fandt var utilstržkkelige (jf. punkt 61-80). 
This was in particular the case for the national checks on compliance with quality, health and environmental standards, which were found to be insufficient (see paragraphs 61 to 80).
X. Et centralt problem ved gennemfżrelsen var, at de potentielle modtagere ikke havde tilstržkkelige egne midler, havde svžrt ved at optage ln og blev mżdt med besvžrlige administrative procedurer. 
X. Key implementation problems were that potential beneficiaries lacked own resources, had difficulties in obtaining credit and were faced with heavy administrative procedures.
Det medfżrte, at Sapard begunstigede modtagere, der havde en god żkonomi, og som var godt organiserede og havde tilstržkkelig kapital eller mulighed for at optage ln. 
The result of this was that Sapard favoured the financially strong and the better organised with sufficient capital or access to loans.
Det var et vžsentligt handicap for mindre bedrifter og virksomheder, der har svžrest ved at opfylde standarderne, modernisere produktionen og forbedre deres effektivitet (jf. punkt 81-97). 
For smaller farms and firms which have the greatest efforts to make in meeting standards to modernise and increase efficiency, this was a major handicap (see paragraphs 81 to 97).
Reglerne om indgelse af private aftaler og om generalomkostninger og kontrollen heraf var utilstržkkelige. 
The rules and the checks for private procurement and for general costs were insufficient.
Der blev ikke foretaget effektiv kontrol for at hindre, at der blev godkendt og betalt fakturaer vedrżrende for hżje belżb (jf. punkt 98-109). 
Effective checks to prevent the acceptance and payment of overstated invoices were not made (see paragraphs 98 to 109).
INDLEDNING Hvad er Sapard? 
INTRODUCTION What is Sapard?
P Det Europžiske Rds mżde i Luxembourg i december 1997 blev der truffet beslutning om at indlede udvidelsespro-cessen. Mlet var at forberede ansżgerlandene p at tiltržde Unionen. 
The Luxembourg European Council of December 1997 took decisions to launch the enlargement process with the objective of preparing the applicant countries for accession to the Union.
Dette omfattede en styrket fżrtiltrždelsesstrategi, der tog sigte p at gżre det muligt for landene i Central-og Żsteuropa med tiden at blive medlemmer af Den Europžiske Union og med det ml for żje at tilpasse sig den gžldende fžllesskabsret (1) s meget som muligt. 
This included an enhanced pre-accession strategy intended to enable the countries of central and eastern Europe to eventually become members of the European Union and, to that end, to align themselves as far as possible with the Community acquis (1).
Som led i fżrtiltrždelsesstrategien blev det vedtaget, at fżrtiltrždelsesstżtten skulle żges vžsentligt. Ud over det allerede eksisterende Phare-program (2) skulle der oprettes et strukturpolitisk instrument, og der skulle ydes landbrugsstżtte fra 2000. 
As part of the pre-accession strategy, it was decided to increase substantially pre-accession aid: alongside the already existing Phare programme (2), it would comprise a structural instrument and aid for agriculture as from 2000.
I overensstemmelse hermed blev det sžrlige program for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter (Sapard) igangsat den 1. januar 2000. 
Accordingly, the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) was launched on 1 January 2000.
I henhold til Sapard-forordningen (3) er mlene for programmet, at: Ń bidrage til gennemfżrelse af den gžldende fžllesskabsret vedrżrende den fžlles landbrugspolitik og beslžgtede politikker og at Ń lżse prioriterede og sžrlige problemer i forbindelse med bžredygtig tilpasning af landbrugssektoren og landdistrikterne i disse lande. (1) Den samlede EU-lovgivning om de fžlles rettigheder, som medlemmerne af Den Europžiske Union har, og de fžlles forpligtelser, der phviler dem. 
The Sapard Regulation (3) specifies that the objectives of the programme are to: Ń contribute to the implementation of the acquis communautaire concerning the common agricultural policy and related policies, Ń solve priority and specific problems for the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the applicant countries. (1) Body of EU law setting out the common rights and obligations which bind the Member States of the European Union.
(2) Phare -programmet er det fżrste fżrtiltrždelsesinstrument, som blev oprettet ved Rdets forordning (EŻF) nr. 3906/89 af 18. december 1989 (EFT L 375 af 23.12.1989). 
(2) The Phare programme is the first pre-accession instrument and was set up by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/1989 of 18 December 1989 (OJ L 375, 23.12.1989).
1268/1999 af 21. juni 1999 om fžllesskabsstżtte til fżrtiltrždelsesforanstaltninger inden for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter i ansżgerlandene i Central-og Żsteuropa i fżrtiltrždelsesperioden (EFT L 161 af 26.6.1999). 
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999) on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period.
Programmet er blevet forvaltet under kapitel 1, afsnit B7-0 (fżrtiltrždelsesstrategi), p budgettet (4). 
The programme has been managed under Chapter 1 of Title B7 (Pre-accession strategy) of the budget (4).
Der blev stillet 2 183 millioner euro (5) til rdighed til de ti Sapard-lande i perioden 2000-2003. 
The amounts made available for the 10 Sapard countries for the years 2000-2003 were 2 183 million euro (5).
I bilag 1 vises fordelingen af dette belżb pr. land. 
Annex 1 provides a breakdown by country of this amount.
Landbrugsproducenter kan f op til 50 % i stżtte fra Sapard (navnlig til investeringer i landbrugsmaskiner p bedriften) og for-arbejdningsanlžg (navnlig investeringer i udstyr). Stżtten kommer fra EU og nationale midler, og resten (50 % eller mere) finansieres af modtageren (6). 
Sapard provides aid from EU and national funds of up to 50 % to agricultural producers (mainly for on-farm investments in agricultural machines) and processing plants (mainly for investments in equipment), the remaining part (50 % or more) being financed by the beneficiary (6).
Nr der er tale om lokalsamfund, kan Sapard-stżtten udgżre helt op til 100 % (til udvikling af infrastrukturer i landdistrikter, f.eks. veje og spildevandssystemer). 
In the case of local communities (for rural development infrastructure such as local roads and sewage systems) the Sapard aid is up to 100 %.
I alle tilfžlde (uanset om der ydes op til 50 % eller op til 100 % i offentlig stżtte) yder EU 75 % af den udbetalte stżtte, mens de resterende 25 % medfinansieres med nationale midler. 
In all cases (whether the public aid granted is up to 50 % or 100 %), the EU contributes 75 % of the aid paid, while national co-financing provides the remaining 25 %.
Sapard er enestende i den forstand, at det er det fżrste bistandsprogram til tredjelande, der forvaltes decentralt. 
Sapard is unique in the sense that it is the first external aid programme which is implemented in a decentralised manner.
Det betyder, at Kommissionen ikke skal forhndsgodkende udvžlgelse af projekter, udbud og indgelse af kontrakter (7). 
This latter aspect means that there is no ex ante approval by the Commission for project selection, tendering and contracting (7).
Den decentrale forvaltning i Sapard-landene er modelleret nżje over de systemer, der er oprettet i EU, og Kommissionen har bl.a. godkendt et (4) DenEuropžiskeUnionsalmindeligebudget.Fra2004forvaltesSapard under budgetkapitel 5, afsnit 5 (Landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter) og omfatter kun nye tildelinger til Bulgarien og Rumžnien. 
Decentralised management in the Sapard countries has closely followed the systems set up in EU Member States, including the approval by the Commission of a ÔProgramme for Agriculture and (4) GeneralbudgetoftheEuropeanUnion.Asfrom2004,Sapardisman-aged under Chapter 5 of title 5 (Agriculture and rural development) of the budget, and only includes new allocations for Bulgaria and Romania.
(5) Bevillinger til forpligtelser. 
(5) Appropriations for commitment.
(6) Det offentlige stżtteniveau afhžnger af, hvilken form for foranstaltning eller projekt det drejer sig om. 
(6) The level of public aid is a function of the type of measure or project.
For indtžgtsskabende investeringer kan stżttesatsen normalt hżjst udgżre 50 % af de samlede stżtteberettigede omkostninger. 
For revenue-generating investments the normal maximum aid level is 50 % of the total eligible cost.
(7) Som defineret i artikel 12 i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 
(7) As defined in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 of 21 June 1999 on coordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999).
30.11.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 295/5 Čprogram for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikterÇ i hvert enkelt Sapard-land. 
30.11.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/5 Rural DevelopmentŐ for each Sapard country.
I henhold til Sapard-forordningen skal programmerne bygge p planer, som disse lande udarbejder, og som vedrżrer de 15 foranstaltninger, der er defineret i forordningen. 
The Sapard Regulation stipulates that the programmes should be based on plans drawn up by those countries, which should relate to the 15 measures defined in the Regulation.
Midlerne har vžret koncentreret om de foranstaltninger, der fokuserer p investeringer i landbrugsforarbejdning (forbedring af forarbejdningen og afsžtningen af landbrugsprodukter og fiskerivarer og investeringer i landbrugsbedrifter) og de investeringer, der vedrżrer udvikling af landdistrikter (udvikling og forbedring af landdistrikternes infrastruktur). 
There has been a concentration on those measures which focus on investments in agricultural processing (improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products, and investments in agricultural holdings) and those which develop rural areas (development and improvement of rural infrastructure).
Sapard-landene prioriterede disse foranstaltninger hżjere end andre mulige foranstaltninger, navnlig miljżforanstaltninger i landbruget og foranstaltninger vedrżrende skovbrug og skovrejsning, som kun fik tildelt 4 % af de samlede midler. 
The Sapard countries granted these a higher priority than other possible measures such as those for agri-environment, forestry and afforestation to which they allocated only 4 % of all resources.
I bilag 1 vises fordelingen pr. land af EU-bidraget til de vigtigste typer modtagere og foranstaltninger. 
Annex 1 provides a breakdown by country of the allocation to the main type of measure and beneficiary.
Implementerings-og betalingsfunktionerne i Sapard-landene er Sapard-kontorets ansvar. 
Implementation and payment functions in the Sapard countries are the responsibility of the Sapard Agency.
Potentielle modtagere sender ansżgninger til dette kontors lokale afdelinger. 
Potential beneficiaries send applications to local offices of this agency.
Et separat organ under finansministeriet, kaldet Čden nationale fondÇ, anmoder om og modtager betalinger fra Kommissionen og overdrager midlerne til Sapard-kontoret. 
A separate body in the Ministry of Finance, called the National Fund, requests and receives payments from the Commission, and makes funds available to the Sapard Agency.
Hvordan reviderede vi Sapard? 
How did we audit Sapard?
Fra 1999 til 2000 steg fżrtiltrždelsesbudgettet kraftigt, blev faktisk fordoblet, og for Sapards vedkommende skulle det forvaltes af nye strukturer inden for rammerne af nye regler. Derfor vedtog Retten at foretage en revision for at f fżlgende spżrgsml besvaret: ČEr Sapard blevet forvaltet godt?Ç Retten definerede tre revisionsml. Den ville undersżge: Ń de forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemer, Kommissionen bruger i forbindelse med programmet Ń kvaliteten af de systemer, der er oprettet i de ansżgerlande, der er omfattet af Sapard, og Ń de nationale og regionale myndigheders udvžlgelse, godkendelse og gennemfżrelse af projekter. 
Due to the large increase in the pre-accession budget in general, which effectively doubled from 1999 to 2000 and which, for Sapard, was to be managed by newly created structures under newly created rules, the Court decided to perform an audit which aimed at answering the question: ÔHas Sapard been well managed?Ő Three audit objectives were defined, which sought to review: Ń the CommissionŐs management and control systems for the programme, Ń the quality of systems set up in the applicant Sapard countries, and Ń project selection, approval and implementation by national and regional authorities.
Disse revisionsml gjorde det muligt for Retten at afgżre, om forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemerne var effektive og blev anvendt hensigtsmžssigt, eller om de ikke var tilstržkkeligt džkkende. 
These objectives allowed the Court to analyse whether the management and control systems were effective and applied reasonably or whether they were insufficient in their coverage.
Revisionen blev foretaget i Kommissionen (Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug) og i fire Sapard-lande (Bulgarien, Litauen, Polen og Rumžnien). 
Audits were carried out in the Commission (DG Agriculture) and in four Sapard countries (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland and Romania).
Retten gennemfżrte bilagsrevison af en stikprżve p 76 projekter, heraf blev 42 besżgt p stedet mellem november 2002 og september 2003. 
Documentary checks were made for a sample of 76 projects, of which 42 were visited on the spot between November 2002 and September 2003.
Projekterne i stikprżven džkkede de vigtigste foranstaltninger, der var gennemfżrt p tidspunktet for revisionen, og de udgjorde ca. 95 % af alle de indgede aftaler og afholdte betalinger i disse fire lande (1). 
The projects in the sample covered the main measures implemented at the time of the audit, which themselves represented around 95 % of all contracts concluded and payments made in these four countries (1).
Derudover reviderede Retten centrale elementer i de systemer, der var oprettet i Sapard-landene. 
In addition, key elements of the systems set up in the Sapard countries were reviewed.
De ansatte i de overordnede revisionsorganer i de besżgte lande har arbejdet sammen med og ledsaget Rettens revisorer. 
The staff of the Supreme Audit Institutions of the countries visited have worked with and accompanied the CourtŐs auditors.
Revisionen af Sapard byggede p resultaterne af tidligere revisioner, der specielt vedrżrte programfastlžggelsen og Kommissionens analyse og overvgning af Sapard-systemerne. Disse resultater er offentliggjort i Revisionsrettens rsberetninger (2). 
The audit of Sapard built on the results of previous audits, which had focused on the setting up of the programme and the CommissionŐs analysis and monitoring of the Sapard systems, which have been published in the CourtŐs Annual Reports (2).
Hovedkonklusionen var som fżlger: Det tog lang tid at udarbejde Sapard-instrumentet, og navnlig tog det lang tid at afklare og udarbejde detaljerne i det komplekse retsgrundlag. Forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemerne omfattede ikke tilstržkkelig kontrol p centrale risikoomrder, som f.eks. personale, sikring af, at projekter ikke blev dobbeltfinansieret, forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning, renteafkast og opfyldelse af mindstekrav med hensyn til miljż, hygiejne og dyrevelfžrd. 
The main conclusions were that considerable time was used in setting up the Sapard instrument, in particular in clarifying and working out the details of the complex legal basis, and that the management and control systems foresaw insufficient checks in risk areas such as staffing, prevention of double funding, sound financial management, bank interest, and compliance with minimum standards for environment, hygiene and animal welfare.
DE FORSKELLIGE STADIER I GENNEMFŻRELSEN AF SAPARD En stor del af de disponible midler er ikke blevet udnyttet 11. 
STAGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAPARD Large proportions of available funds remained unused 11.
Figuren viser de forskellige stadier i gennemfżrelsen af Sapard-programmet fra det fżrste forslag til forordning og frem til 31. december 2003. 
The diagram shows the stages in the implementation of the Sapard programme from the first proposal for legislation until 31 December 2003.
Kasserne giver oplysning om, hvornr vigtige stadier blev afsluttet. 
The boxes give information about when key steps were completed.
Belżbene anfżrt i afsnit ČAÇ viser forskellen mellem det samlede fžllesskabsbidrag opfżrt p det almindelige budget (3) og det samlede belżb, som der er indget kontrakter for med modtagerne. 
The amounts indicated in section ÔAŐ show the gap between the total Community financial contribution in the general budget (3) and the total amount for which contracts have been concluded with beneficiaries.
Denne forskel svarer sledes til det belżb, der er til rdighed p budgettet, og som Sapard-landene ikke har udnyttet, fordi det tog tid at f deres systemer godkendt, og derefter som fżlge af de forsinkelser, som opstod i disse lande p grund af gennemfżrelsesvanskeligheder. 
The difference thus reflects the amount available in the budget which was not used by the Sapard countries because of the time needed to have their systems approved, and, following this, the delays in those countries arising from difficulties in implementation.
De to stżrste gennemfżrelsesproblemer beskrives i punkt 81-95. 
The two main implementation problems are presented in paragraphs 81 to 95.
(1) Devigtigsteforanstaltningerer:investeringerilandbrugsbedrifter,for-bedring af forarbejdningen og afsžtningen af landbrugsprodukter og fiskerivarer og udvikling og forbedring af landdistrikternes infrastruktur. 
(1) The main measures are: investments in agricultural holdings, improving the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products, and development and improvement of rural infrastructure.
80 % af de forpligtelser, der var indget i alle ansżgerlandene. 
This represents some 80 % of commitments made in all applicant countries.
(2) rsberetningen for regnskabsret 2000, punkt 6.41-6.53 (EFT C 359 af 15.12.2001), rsberetningen for regnskabsret 2001, punkt 6.8-6.32 (EFT C 295 af 28.11.2002) og rsberetningen for regnskabsret 2002, punkt 8.23-8.31 (EUT C 286 af 28.11.2003). 
(2) Court of Auditors Annual Reports concerning the financial year 2000 (OJ C 359, 15.12.2001) (paragraphs 6.41 to 6.53); 2001 (OJ C 295, 28.11.2002) (paragraphs 6.8 to 6.32); and 2002 (OJ C 286, 28.11.03) (paragraphs 8.23 to 8.31).
(3) Kumulative bevillinger til forpligtelser. 
(3) Cumulative appropriations for commitment.
C 295/6 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 30.11.2004 FIGUR De forskellige stadier i gennemfżrelsen af Sapard 1998-2003 Belżb opfżrt p EU-budgettet, som der ikke var indget kontrakter for. 
C 295/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.11.2004 DIAGRAM Implementation of Sapard 1998-2003 A = B = C = Source Amounts in the EU budget for which contracts were not signed.
Indgede, men endnu ikke betalte kontrakter. 
Contracts concluded but not yet paid.
A = B = C = Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret: betalinger og kontrakter pr. 31. december 2003. 
Amounts paid to beneficiaries. : European Court of Auditors: payments and contracts as at 31 December 2003.
12. I afsnit ČBÇ vises det antal kontrakter, der er indget med endelige modtagere, men som endnu ikke er blevet betalt. 
12. with final beneficiaries but which have not yet been paid.
Det viser, hvor lang tid det tager at gennemfżre projekterne. Det er f.eks. normalt, at byggeprojekter tager over et r, men der har ogs vžret administrative forsinkelser (jf. punkt 16 ff.). 
This reflects the time needed for the implementation of projects, which, for example for construction projects, can normally take more than a year, but also reflects administrative delays (see paragraph 16 et seq).
Afsnit ČCÇ viser det faktiske flow af midler til modtagerne. p grund af den tid, det tog at fastlžgge programmet 13. 
Section ÔCŐ shows the actual flow of funds to beneficiaries. because of the time needed for setting up the programme 13.
I juni 1999 vedtog Rdet Kommissionens forslag til forordning om Sapard. 
In June 1999, the Council adopted the CommissionŐs proposal for a Regulation on Sapard.
Heri var fastsat en ny og kompleks juridisk ramme, som det var nżdvendigt at definere nžrmere. 
This set out a new and complex legal framework, which required further definition.
Det tog Kommissionen syv mneder at fastlžgge gennemfżrelsesprincip-perne, og derefter tog det seks mneder at udarbejde og vedtage de detaljerede regler og siden yderligere seks mneder at udarbejde, forhandle og vedtage aftalerne med Sapard-landene. 
It took the Commission seven months to set out the implementation principles; then six months to draft and adopt the detailed rules; then a further six months to draft, negotiate and adopt the agreements with the Sapard countries.