natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det var et eksempel p god praksis, da det gav de nationale myndigheder mulighed for at f kendskab til enkelthederne i udbudsprocedurerne, men sdan gjorde man ikke systematisk i andre lande. 
This represented good practice by allowing national authorities to become familiar with the detailed tendering procedures, but was not applied systematically in other countries.
Sledes anvendte man kun i yderst sjžldne tilfžlde denne praksis i Albanien, Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien og Serbien. 
For example, in Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia the practice was applied only in very rare cases.
Problemer med modtagerlandenes ejerskab til donorkoordinering 53. 
Lack of country ownership of donor co-ordination 53.
I henhold til CARDS-retningslinjerne skal al CARDS-stżtte koordineres med andre donorers stżtte. 
According to the CARDS guidelines all CARDS support should be co-ordinated with other donors.
Donorkoordineringen er en speciel udfordring i det vestlige Balkan, fordi der er s mange donorer, og fordi der findes to dagsordener: for EU en til-trždelsesdagsorden og for Verdensbanken, FN og en ržkke agenturer i EU-medlemsstaterne en fattigdomsbekžmpende udviklingsdagsorden. 
Donor co-ordination is particularly challenging in the western Balkans because of the high number of donors and the existence of two agendas: the accession agenda of the EU; and the development, poverty-reduction agenda of the World Bank, UN and some agencies of EU Member States.
ČParis-erklžringen om bistandseffektivitetÇ (1) bekržftede det princip, at modtagerlandene selv skulle lede koordineringen af bistanden p alle niveauer, mens donorerne skulle love at respektere partnerlandenes lederskab. 
The ÔParis Declaration on Aid EffectivenessŐ (1) confirmed the principle that the recipient countries themselves should take the lead in coordinating aid at all levels, while the donors should pledge to respect partner country leadership.
For s vidt angr CARDS-landene, viste revisionen nžsten ingen tegn p, at modtagerlandene havde den form for lederskab, eller p, at donorerne havde gjort noget som helst for at fremme disse modtagerlandes lederskab. 
In the CARDS countries the audit found almost no evidence of such leadership by the recipient countries or of any actions by donors to encourage beneficiary country leadership.
Det eneste synlige initiativ konstateredes i Albanien (jf. tekstboks 8). 
The only initiative was visible in Albania (see Box 8).
(1) Paris-erklžringen om bistandseffektivitet blev undertegnet efter det forum p hżjt plan, der blev afholdt i Paris i marts 2005. 
(1) The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was signed after the High Level Forum which was held in Paris in March 2005.
Blandt deltagerne var Europa-Kommissionen og 91 lande, heraf to i CARDS-omrdet (Albanien samt Serbien og Montenegro). 
Among the participants there was the European Commission and 91 countries, two of which represented the CARDS area (Albania and Serbia-Montenegro).
Tekstboks 8 Donorkoordinering i Albanien For at fremme donorkoordineringen i Albanien oprettede de fire multilaterale (Europa-Kommissionen, OSCE, FN og Verdensbanken) en mekanisme til sektorspecifik koordinering i december 2003. 
Box 8 Donor co-ordination in Albania In order to improve donor coordination in Albania, the four multi-laterals (EC, OSCE, UN and WB) set up a sectoral coordination mechanism in December 2003.
De aftalte en fordeling af ansvaret mellem sig p fire tematiske omrder. 
They agreed on the division of responsibilities between themselves in four thematic areas.
Til forvaltningen af koordineringsprocessen dannede de et teknisk sekretariat for donorerne. 
In order to manage the coordination process, they formed the Donor Technical Secretariat.
Det bidrager til at effektivisere komplementariteten og arbejdsdelingen. 
This contributes to a more effective complementarity and more effective division of labour.
Donorerne forventes hver isžr at udnytte sine relative fordele p sektorniveau og at delegere befżjelserne til de donorer, der er udpeget som ledere af programgennemfżrelsen. 
The donors are expected to make use of their respective comparative advantages at sector level and to delegate authority to the assigned lead donors for the execution of programmes.
Donorsamfundet medvirkede til at oprette et integreret planlžgnings-system, som blev igangsat af regeringen i Albanien i 2005, og som skulle hjžlpe landet med at lede sin egen udviklingsproces. 
The donor community contributed to establishing an Integrated Planning System, which was launched by the Government of Albania in 2005 and which should help the country to lead its own development process.
Det sigter mod at integrere de forskellige politikrammer i n enkelt mellemlangsigtet udviklingsplan i 2007 og at opstille en ny arkitektur for donorkoordinering og forvaltning af bistand til tredjelande. 
This aims to integrate the various policy frameworks into a single medium-term development plan in 2007 and to set up a new architecture for donor coordination and management of external assistance.
Inkonsekvent tilgang til overvgning og evaluering 55. 
Inconsistent approach to monitoring and evaluation 55.
Delegationerne og EGA har forskellige overvg-ningsprocedurer: a) Kommissionens HS og delegationerne har udliciteret overvgningen til tjenester, som anvender en standardmetode, den skaldt resultatorienterede overvgning (ROM). 
Delegations and the EAR have different monitoring procedures: (a) the Commission HQ and Delegations use outsourced monitoring services following a standard methodology called Result-Oriented Monitoring (ROM).
Den gr ud p, at bruge et klassificeringssystem for projektresultater, men giver ikke en formel registrering af opfżlgningen. b) EGA har sine egne overvgningsgrupper i hvert operativt center, samt en koordinator i HS. 
It includes the use of a rating system for the performance of the projects, but does not provide a formal record of the follow-up; (b) the EAR has its own monitoring teams in each Operational Centre, as well as a coordinator in the HQ.
Disse grupper brugte ROM-systemet fra begyndelsen af 2005. 
These teams used the ROM system from the beginning of 2005.
Opfżlgningen er formelt registreret i overvgningsdokumenterne. 
The follow-up is formally recorded in the monitoring documents.
En effektiv overvgning forudsžtter, at projekterne er udstyret med ml og objektivt kontrollerbare indikatorer, der kan lžgges til grund for overvgningen. 
Effective monitoring requires projects to have objectives and objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) to monitor against.
Men enten bliver der ikke opstillet sdanne indikatorer, eller ogs bliver de opstillet, men er hverken mlbare eller tidsbestemte. 
However, OVIs are either not provided, or when provided, they are not measurable or time-bound.
Sledes var n af de objektivt kontrollerbare indikatorer i et politiakademiprojekt passende undervisning af personalet, uden at der var fastsat deltagerantal og undervisningsplan. 
For instance in a Police Academy project one of the OVIs was Ôadequate teaching of staffŐ without specifying the number of participants foreseen or the curriculum.
I et andet projekt var der indikatorer som f.eks. udvidet operationel kapacitet uden specifikke kriterier. 
In another project, there were indicators such as Ôenhanced operational capacityŐ without specific criteria.
I overensstemmelse med CARDS-forordningen evaluerede Kommissionen programmet ved udgangen af juni 2004. 
In accordance with the CARDS regulation the Commission evaluated the programme by the end of June 2004.
I henhold til evalueringsmandatet skulle evalueringen give Europa-Kommissionen en uafhžngig og plidelig vurdering af bistands-strategien under CARDS og dens udvikling med en beskrivelse af de bredere politiske rammer. 
According to the evaluation terms of reference, its objective was to provide the European Commission with an independent and reliable assessment of the assistance strategy under CARDS and its evolution with its wider political setting.
Det džkkede perioden 2001-2003 (jf. ogs punkt 10). 
It covered the 2001 to 2003 period (see also paragraph 10).
27.11.2007 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 285/15 58. 
27.11.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/15 58.
Opfżlgningen p anbefalingerne fra evalueringen er et led i evalueringsprocessen, som er af afgżrende betydning for en forbedring af den finansielle forvaltning. 
In order to improve financial management a critical part of the evaluation process is the follow-up on the recommendations made.
I princippet har Kommissionen t r til at rapportere om sine opfżlgningsforanstaltninger. 
In principle, the Commission has one year to report on its follow-up actions.
I dette tilfžlde rapporterede Kommissionen over to r senere. 
In this case the Commission reported over two years later.
Noget af forklaringen herp kan have vžret, at Kommissionen ikke var tilfreds med kvaliteten af en ržkke af anbefalingerne. 
This may have been partly due to the Commission not being satisfied with the quality of some of the recommendations made.
Der var ganske vist ikke stillet formelle krav om evaluering af individuelle projekter eller sektorer, men det er god praksis, da det giver mulighed for mlrettede resultater og anbefalinger. 
While there was no formal requirement to evaluate individual projects or sectors, this is good practice as it would allow focused results and recommendations.
EGA udfżrte systematisk evalueringer p sektor-og projektniveau, og det udfżrte bde midtvejsevalueringer og efterfżlgende evalueringer. 
The EAR systematically carried out evaluations at sector and project level. Both mid-term evaluations and ex-post evaluations were made.
Resumerne fra disse evalueringer blev offentliggjort p EGAŐs websted og bidrog dermed til udbredelse af resultaterne. 
The executive summaries of these evaluations were published on the EAR website, thus contributing to a dissemination of the findings.
Delegationerne udfżrte derimod sjžldent projekt-eller sektorevalueringer, og de f rapporter, delegationerne udarbejdede, offentliggjorde de ikke p deres websteder. 
In contrast the Delegations rarely carried out project or sector evaluations and the few reports carried out by the Delegations were not published on their websites.
Ogs for s vidt angr udbredelsen af resultaterne af overvgningen og evalueringerne, er der forskelle mellem delegationerne og EGA. 
The dissemination of the results of monitoring and evaluation exercises also differs between the Delegations and the EAR.
EGA afholder regelmžssige mżder og workshopper for projekt-og programledere fra forskellige operative centre, og der kan de udveksle erfaringer. 
The EAR organises regular meetings and workshops for the Task and Programme Managers from different operational centres in order to exchange experience.
Men udvekslingen mellem delegationslandene nr ikke op p samme niveau. 
However, the same level of dissemination does not take place between Delegation countries.
Der er nogle kontakter mellem delegationerne og EGAŐs personale, men de er ikke systematiske. 
There are some contacts between Delegations and EAR staff but these are not systematic.
KONKLUSIONER OG ANBEFALINGER Var Kommissionens forvaltning af CARDS-programmet effektiv? 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS How effective was the CommissionŐs management of the CARDS programme?
Bistanden var dog mindre effektiv, nr det gjaldt om at forbedre den administrative kapacitet, fordi den i begyndelsen kun i ringe grad blev koncentreret om institutionsopbygning, og modtagerlandene ikke havde kapacitet nok til at absorbere den bistand, der blev ydet. 
However, the aid was less effective in improving administrative capacities, due to an initially low concentration on institution building and insufficient recipient country capacity to absorb the assistance provided.
Var den strategiske vejledning vedrżrende programmerne relevant og konsekvent? 
How far was the strategic guidance directing the programmes appropriate and coherent?
Kommissionens strategiske vejledning var meget generel og ikke mlrettet mod specifikke omrder. 
The CommissionŐs strategic guidance was very general and not targeted at specific areas.
Det var hensigtsmžssigt i forbindelse med genopbygningsfasen, men ikke med de mere kržvende institutionsopbygningsml. 
It was adequate for the reconstruction phase, but not for the more challenging institution building objectives.
Landestrategidokumenterne var bredt formuleret med det resultat, at de ikke fungerede godt nok som vejledning ned i detaljerne, isžr fordi de ikke byggede p veltimede sektorspecifikke strategier. 
The country strategy papers were broadly formulated with the result that they provided insufficient orientation at a detailed level, particularly as they were not supported by timely sectoral strategies.
I de flerrige vejledende programmer Ń som danner grundlag for den rlige planlžgning og projektidentifikationen Ń var der ikke foretaget en prioritering af eller inden for de forskellige interventionsomrder. 
The multi-annual indicative programmes Ń which form the basis for annual planning and the identification of projects Ń did not prioritise between or within the different areas of intervention.
Dermed var der ikke noget grundlag for en optimering af projektudvžlgelsen, hvad der resulterede i en ržkke ukoordinerede og isolerede projekter. 
As such there was no basis for optimising project selection resulting in a number of uncoordinated and isolated projects.
Tidligt i programmernes levetid blev bistanden isžr rettet mod projekter med genopbygningsinvestering, sjžldnere institutionsopbygning. 
Early in the programmes, aid was mostly directed towards reconstruction investment-type projects, rather than institution building.
Efterhnden som programmerne skred frem, flyttede fokus sig naturligt i retning af institutionsopbygning, som i dag repržsenterer langt hovedparten af udgifterne. 
As the programmes progressed, the focus naturally changed towards institution building which now represents the large majority of expenditure.
Retten noterer sig, at der lige fra begyndelsen blev fokuseret mere p institutionsopbygning i lande, hvor delegationerne forvaltede bistanden, end i lande, hvor EGA forvaltede den. 
The Court notes that from the very beginning the focus on institution building was more pronounced in countries where assistance was managed by the Delegations than in countries where it was managed by the EAR.
I sidstnžvnte tilfžlde forsinkede det indfżrelsen af twinning-projekter. 
In the latter case it delayed the introduction of twinning projects.
1 Den strategiske vejledning i implementering af det nye instrument til fżrtiltrždelsesbistand (Ipa) (1) bżr vžre s opmžrksom p individuelle interventionsomrder, at den sikrer, at bistanden fokuseres hensigtsmžssigt, at tilgangen p nżgleomrder er systematisk, og at projekterne prioriteres og udvžlges p et rimeligt grundlag. 
Recommendation 1 The strategic guidance for implementing the new Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (1) should give sufficient attention to individual areas of intervention to ensure an appropriate focus of aid, a systematic approach to key areas and an appropriate basis for prioritising and selecting projects.
Var de forvaltningstilgange, som Kommissionen havde etableret og anvendte, velegnede og produktive? 
How far were the management approaches established and used by the Commission appropriate and efficient?
De forvaltningstilgange, Kommissionen anvendte, egnede sig i vid udstržkning, men ikke i alle tilfžlde godt til forholdene og behovene i modtagerlandene. 
The management approaches used by the Commission were largely, but not always, appropriate for recipient countriesŐ circumstances and needs.
De var effektive til at sikre, at bistanden blev ydet hurtigt, men tog for lidt hensyn til at optimere bistandens nyttevirkning. 
They were effective in ensuring quick delivery of aid, but gave insufficient consideration to maximising the benefit from the aid.
Der blev brugt fire forskellige forvaltningstilgange, som det var hensigten skulle afspejle forholdene i de pgžldende modtagerlande. 
Four different management approaches were used, with the aim of reflecting the circumstances of the recipient countries concerned.
To af tilgangene (dekoncentreret forvaltning i delegationerne og EGA-forvaltning) Ń som blev anvendt til hovedparten af udgifterne Ń var overvejende effektive og hensigtsmžssige. 
Two of the approaches (i.e. devolved Delegations and the EAR) Ń covering the majority of expenditure Ń were mostly effective and appropriate.
De to żvrige (central og decentral forvaltning) var mindre produktive og mindre lydhżre for specifikke behov. 
The other two (i.e. centralised and decentralised management) were less efficient and responsive to the specific needs.
1085/2006 af 17. juli 2006 (EUT C 210 af 31.7.2006, s. 
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p.
C 285/16 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 27.11.2007 67. 
C 285/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 27.11.2007 67.
Det var isžr en fordel i gen-opbygningsfasen. 
This was of particular advantage during the reconstruction phase.
Men i forbindelse med institutionsopbygningen blev fokuseringen p tempoet ikke opvejet med tilstržkkelig hensyntagen til modtagerlandenes kapacitet til at optimere nytten af bistanden eller opfylde alle forhndsbetingelserne. 
However, for institution building, the focus on speed was not balanced by sufficient consideration of the ability of recipient countries to maximise the benefit from the aid or comply with all preconditions.
2 Kommissionen bżr fortsat fokusere p hurtig implementering af bistanden, men samtidig vžre tilstržkkelig opmžrksom p effektivitetsaspekter, som f.eks. om modtagerlandene har kapacitet til fuldt ud at absorbere bistanden (navnlig i forbindelse med institutionsopbygningsprojekter). 
Recommendation 2 The Commission should maintain its focus on rapid implementation of aid, but also pay sufficient attention to aspects of effectiveness such as the ability of beneficiaries to fully absorb the assistance provided (particularly in the context of institution building projects).
Fremmede de finansierede projekter modtagerlandenes ejerskab? 
To what extent did the projects financed encourage recipient country ownership?
Kommissionen prioriterede modtagerlandenes ejerskab hżjt, men alligevel blev der ikke brugt en konsekvent tilgang for at n dette ml, og de forvaltningstilgange, der blev brugt, fremmede ikke et sdant ejerskab. 
While recipient country ownership was considered a priority by the Commission, there was no consistent approach to achieving this aim and the management approaches used did not encourage such ownership.
Modtagerlandene var kun i begržnset grad involveret i projektidentifikationen og udbudsfaserne. 
Recipient countries had only a limited involvement in the project identification and tendering phases.
Hen imod programmets afslutning voksede inputtet fra de bistandsberettigede lande, selv om ejerskabet stadig var begržnset. 
Towards the end of the programme the input from recipient countries increased, although ownership remained limited.
Selv om modtagerlandene forpligtede sig til at koordinere de mange forskellige donorer p omrdet Ń en vigtig indikator for ejerskab Ń blev der ikke fundet beviser p, at der havde vžret en sdan koordination. 
Despite the recipient countries committing themselves to co-ordinating the many different donors in the area Ń an important indicator of ownership Ń the audit found no evidence that such coordination had taken place.
3 For s vidt angr Ipa-programmet, bżr Kommissionen tage fat p de vigtige aspekter af modtagerlandenes ejerskab gennem specifikke strategier p alle omrder for forvaltning og gennemfżrelse, sžrlig udbudsprocedurer. 
Recommendation 3 For the IPA programme the Commission should address the important aspect of recipient country ownership through specific strategies in all areas of management and implementation, in particular tendering.
Var overvgningen og evalueringen effektive til at identificere svagheder og sprede information, og var Kommissionens opfżlgning veltimet? 
How far was monitoring and evaluation effective in identifying weaknesses and disseminating information, and was timely subsequent action taken by the Commission?
Overvgningen og evalueringen fungerede til en vis grad godt, men var af svingende kvalitet. 
Monitoring and evaluation was good in parts, but of inconsistent quality.
Delegationerne og Det Europžiske Genopbygningsagentur havde forskellige overvgnings-procedurer, selv om der fra 2005 blev brugt en fžlles metode. 
Monitoring procedures differed between the Delegations and the European Agency for Reconstruction, although a common methodology was applied from 2005.
Det gjorde overvgningen mindre effektiv, at der ikke var opstillet hensigtsmžssige projektindikatorer. 
An absence of adequate project indicators compromised the effectiveness of monitoring.
Der blev som planlagt udfżrt en evaluering af CARDS-programmet, men Kommissionens opfżlgning kom for sent. 
An evaluation of the CARDS programme was carried out as foreseen, but the follow-up by the Commission was late.
Der er ubegrundede forskelle mellem delegationerne og EGA, for s vidt angr projekt-eller sektoreva-lueringernes intensitet og udbredelsen af resultaterne af overvgningen og evalueringerne. 
Unjustified inconsistencies exist between the Delegations and the EAR in respect of the intensity of project or sector evaluations and the dissemination of the results of monitoring and evaluation.
4 Overvgnings-og evalueringspraksis bżr harmoniseres, hvad der indebžrer, at EGAŐs praksis med at evaluere individuelle projekter/sektorer og udbrede resultaterne og erfaringerne ogs bżr anvendes i delegationerne. 
Recommendation 4 Monitoring and evaluation practices should be harmonised, including extending to the Delegations the EARŐs practice of evaluating individual projects/sectors and of disseminating results and lessons learnt.
Kommissionen bżr sikre, at der straks fżlges op p evalueringer. 
The Commission should ensure that it follows up evaluations promptly.
Vedtaget af Revisionsretten i Luxembourg p mżdet den 28. juni 2007. 
This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 28 June 2007.
Bistand til reform af 2002 retsvžsenet 6 Levering af udstyr til kriminalefterretningssystemet 2002 04/2003 Offentlig forvaltning 04/2003 Retsvžsen og politi 04/2003 Integreret gržnseforvaltning 12/2004 Regional udvikling I alt 05/2005 Integreret gržnseforvaltning 05/2003 Żkonomisk udvikling 02/2004 Żkonomisk udvikling 03/2005 Landbrug 02/2004 Retsvžsen og politi 12/2004 Retsvžsen og politi 7 Zadar bogbus 2002 07/2005 Demokratisk stabilisering I alt 1 Lokalt selvstyre. 
Assistance in the 2002 court reform 6 Supply for Equipment for the Criminal Intelligence System 2002 02/2004 04/2003 04/2003 04/2003 04/2003 12/2004 05/2005 05/2003 02/2004 03/2005 02/2004 Economic Development Public Administration Judiciary and Police Integrated Border Management Regional Development Integrated Border Management Total 7 Zadar City-Mobile Library 12/2004 2002 07/2005 Economic Development Economic Development Agriculture Judiciary and Police Judiciary and Police Democratic Stabilisation 1 Local self-governance.