natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til de resterende 217 projekter konkluderede midtvejsgennemgangen, at frigżrelserne i sidste ende kan belżbe sig til n milliard euro, dvs. 
For the remaining 217 projects, the MTR concluded that decommitments might eventually amount to one billion euro, i.e. twenty times more than the sum recovered.
Der er endnu ikke truffet en formel beslutning om, hvordan man skal reagere p disse oplysninger. 
There has not yet been a formal decision as to how to act upon this information.
Ifżlge vores interview med INEA-ansatte kan de fremtidige frigżrelser blive endnu hżjere. 
According to our interviews with INEA staff, future decommitments might be even higher.
70 I CEF-E er der ingen planer om at reducere tilskuddene og genbruge midler i programmet. 
70 In CEF-E, there are no plans to reduce grants and re-inject funds into the programme.
Der er ingen endelig gennemfżrelsesfrist og ingen midtvejsgennemgang. 
There is no final implementation deadline and no MTR exercise.
Hidtil har gennemfżrelsen vžret langsommere p energi-end p transportomrdet (jf. tabel 4). 
To date, implementation has been slower for energy than for transport (see Table 4).
Som fżlge heraf kan gennemfżrelsen af CEF-E blive forsinket langt ud over programmeringsperiodens afslutning. 
As a consequence, the implementation of CEF-E could be delayed well beyond the end of the programming period.
INEA's korrigerende foranstaltninger vedrżrende projekter, der ikke er p rette spor, adresserer ikke risiciene fuldt ud 71 Selv om INEA kan beregne absorptionsgraderne temmelig nżjagtigt ved hjžlp af sine forskellige overvgningsvžrktżjer, har de hidtil trufne foranstaltninger ikke adresseret de aktuelle risici fuldt ud. 
INEA’s corrective steps for projects that are not on track do not fully address the risks 71 Although INEA is able to forecast absorption rates quite accurately through its various monitoring tools, the action taken so far has not fully addressed the present risks.
INEA rapporterer forsinkelser til de overordnede GD'er, men dets mandat til at tržffe korrigerende foranstaltninger er ikke pržciseret i detaljer. 
While INEA reports delays to the parent DGs, its mandate to take corrective action has not been spelled out in detail.
72 Eftersom perioden 2014-2020 slutter nžste r, er der risiko for, at der vil komme en betydelig ophobning af betalinger, frigjorte midler og tilbagefżrsler i de kommende mneder. 
72 With the 2014-2020 period due to end next year, there is a risk that payments, decommitments and reflows will build up significantly in the coming months.
Dette kan indvirke negativt p gennemfżrelsen: Hvis frigżrelserne foretages for sent i programmeringsperioden, kan INEA have for lidt tid til at genbruge midlerne i andre projekter. 
This may negatively impact implementation: if decommitments are made too late in the programming period, INEA could have little time to reinject funds into other projects.
17/2018 om delt forvaltning af EU's samhżrighedsfinansiering konstaterede vi en risiko for, at foranstaltninger, der tager sigte p at forbedre absorptionen hen imod slutningen af en programmeringsperiode, kun har begržnset fokus p resultater. 
73 In our special report 17/2018 on shared management in EU Cohesion funding, we found that measures to enhance absorption towards the end of a programming period may give little consideration to results.
Derfor er det vigtigt at bruge alle eksisterende vžrktżjer til at sikre en effektiv anvendelse af midlerne i hele gennemfżrelsesperioden. 
Therefore it is important to use all existing tools to ensure the effective use of funds during the entire implementation period.
Vi konstaterede ogs, at nr der stadig er betydelige midler tilovers, som skal forvaltes, efter at det efterfżlgende program er startet, kan der vžre en afsmittende virkning, som forsinker gennemfżrelsen af dette program29. 
We also found that, when a large amount of funding remains to be managed after the start of a successor programme, there may be a knock-on effect delaying that programme’s implementation29.
Den eksisterende performanceramme er ikke velegnet til at vise, hvordan projekterne bidrager til at opfylde programmlene 74 Der bżr vžre mekanismer til at overvge og evaluere, hvorvidt og hvordan projekter bidrager til at opfylde CEF-programmets ml. 
The existing performance framework is not well-suited to demonstrate how projects contribute to programme objectives 74 Mechanisms should be in place to monitor and evaluate whether and how projects contribute to achieving the CEF programme objectives.
Der bżr vžre klarhed omkring, hvem der er ansvarlig for at overvge de opnede resultater. 
There should be clarity as to who is in charge of monitoring the results achieved.
75 Performancerammen er ikke velegnet til INEA's overvgning af, hvorvidt og hvordan de finansierede projekter bidrager til at opfylde programmlene. 
75 The performance framework is not well suited for INEA to monitor whether and how the funded projects contribute to the programme objectives.
Forskellige retskilder indeholder indikatorer og ml, der skal overvges, men de er ikke fuldstžndig klare eller konsekvente. 
Different legal sources lay out indicators and targets to be monitored, but they are not fully clear or consistent.
udtrykkeligt INEA til opgave at udarbejde en performanceramme og rapportere om projektfremskridt. 
The INEA delegation act does not explicitly charge INEA with developing a performance framework and reporting on project progress.
76 I 2017 nedsatte INEA og de overordnede GD'er en arbejdsgruppe, som skulle undersżge egnetheden af de indikatorer, der var fastlagt i CEF-programerklžringen. 
76 In 2017, INEA and the parent DGs formed a working group to examine the suitability of the indicators defined in the CEF programme statement.
Arbejdsgruppen konkluderede, at ingen af indikatorerne var direkte egnede til overvgningsforml: 10 indikatorer kunne blive egnede med sm forbedringer, men 34 kržvede store forbedringer eller var fuldstžndig uegnede eller l uden for INEA's ansvarsomrde. 
The working group concluded that no indicator was directly suitable for monitoring purposes: 10 indicators would be suitable with minor improvements, but 34 needed major improvements, or were completely unsuitable or outside the scope of INEA.
Som eksempel kan nžvnes, at CEF-forordningen indeholder en generel definition af termen "flaskehals" p transportomrdet, men at den ikke udgżr et tilstržkkeligt grundlag for mling af projekternes performance p dette punkt30. 
For example, although the CEF Regulation provides a general definition of the term “bottleneck” in the field of transport, this is insufficient to measure the performance of projects in this respect30.
Det kan fżre til inkonsekvent rapportering om projekter af forskellig stżrrelse (jf. tekstboks 5). 
This may lead to inconsistent reporting between projects of different magnitude (see Box 5).
77 I starten af 2018 sendte INEA de overordnede GD'er et forslag om nye transport-og energiindikatorer for CEF II. 
77 In early 2018, INEA submitted a proposal to the parent DGs for new transport and energy indicators for CEF II.
Processen stod dog stille, da revisionen fandt sted. 
However, the process was at a standstill at the time of the audit.
78 Trods disse vanskeligheder foretager INEA en vis performanceovervgning og indsamler oplysninger fra stżttemodtagerne vedrżrende ni outputindikatorer. 
78 Despite these difficulties, INEA carries out some performance monitoring, collecting information from beneficiaries for nine output indicators.
For bedre at registrere de faktiske projektoutput afviger disse indikatorer lidt fra dem i CEF-forordningen. 
To better capture actual project outputs, these indicators differ slightly from those in the CEF Regulation.
79 Denne overvgning fokuserer dog hovedsagelig p input og output, f.eks. antallet af anlagte kilometer eller forsyningspunkter med alternative bržndstoffer, og registrerer ikke resultater, f.eks. tidsbesparelser eller żgede trafikmžngder. 
79 This monitoring, however, mostly focuses on inputs and outputs, such as the number of kilometres or supply points for alternative fuel constructed, and does not capture results, such as generated time-savings or increased traffic volumes.
Dette er i overensstemmelse med INEA's mandat og uddelegeringsafgżrelserne fra de overordnede GD'er. 
This is in accordance with INEA’s mandate and delegation acts with its parent DGs.
Tilskudsaftalerne indeholder tekniske bilag med beskrivelser af 30 Arbejdsgruppen konkluderede, at den aktuelle indikator for flaskehalse, som INEA indsamler data om, kržver store forbedringer p grund af sin ringe informationsvžrdi. 37 projektresultaterne, hvilket ville forbedre performanceovervgningen betydeligt. 
While grant agreements have technical annexes with descriptions of objectives, activities and milestones, they do not include KPIs for evaluating project results, which would significantly enhance performance monitoring.
80 Vi har allerede i flere tidligere beretninger bemžrket, at projektovervgningen hovedsagelig er outputorienteret og ikke giver en vurdering af resultaterne31. 
80 We have already observed in several past reports that project monitoring is mainly output-oriented and fails to assess results31.
Der foreligger sledes ingen systematiske oplysninger om, hvorvidt og hvordan EU-medfinansierede projekter - individuelt og/eller i forbindelse med hovednetkorridorerne - har net de forventede resultatbaserede ml og haft den forventede effekt p den żkonomiske udvikling. 
Thus, there is no systematic information as to whether and how EU co-funded projects, taken individually and/or in the context of the core network corridors, have achieved the expected result-based objectives and impact on economic development.
Konklusioner og anbefalinger 81 INEA har udfżrt sine delegerede opgaver som fastlagt i sit mandat og leveret de forventede fordele med visse begržnsninger, som skyldes rammeforhold. 
Conclusions and recommendations 81 INEA has fulfilled the delegated tasks as defined in its mandate and delivered expected benefits, with some limitations, related to framework constraints.
Vi konstaterede mangler i de ellers veltilrettelagte CEF-udvžlgelsesprocedurer, risici i gennemfżrelsen af programmet og svagheder i performancerapporteringen. 
We found shortcomings in the otherwise well organised CEF selection procedures, risks in the implementation of the programme and weaknesses in performance reporting.
82 De forventede fordele ved at uddelegere ansvar fra Kommissionen til INEA er blevet opnet, men med visse begržnsninger, som skyldes rammeforhold. 
82 The expected benefits of externalising responsibilities from the Commission to INEA have been achieved, but with some limitations related to framework constraints.
INEA har udviklet standardiserede procedurer, der har forenklet gennemfżrelsen af de delegerede programmer. 
INEA has developed standardised procedures that have simplified the implementation of the delegated programmes.
INEA's samlede administrationsudgifter ligger under de oprindelige skżn (punkt 20-24). 
Its overall administrative expenditure is below the initial estimates (paragraphs 20 to 24).
83 INEA har truffet en ržkke foranstaltninger for at skabe grundlag for synergier mellem Horisont 2020 og CEF og mellem de forskellige CEF-sektorer. 
83 INEA has taken a number of measures to prepare the ground for synergies between H2020 and the CEF, and between the CEF sectors.
Trods dette er der hidtil kun opnet f synergier, hvilket skyldes hindringer i retsgrundlaget samt forskelligheder i programmlene og projekternes modenhedsniveau. 
Despite this, few synergies have been deployed so far, owing to obstacles in the legal framework, unaligned programme objectives and different project readiness levels.
INEA og EASME deler ansvaret for gennemfżrelsen af Horisont 2020-energiforskningsprogrammet, og eftersom organerne forvalter deres respektive dele af programmet separat, er der administrative omkostninger for begge parter (punkt 25-30). 
INEA and EASME share responsibility for implementing the H2020 energy research programme, and since each agency separately administers its part of the programme, there are administrative costs on both sides (paragraphs 25 to 30).
Anbefaling 1 - Forbedre potentialet for synergier a) Kommissionen og INEA bżr inden for deres ansvarsomrde fjerne lovgivningsmžssige hindringer for synergier, inkludere de nżdvendige elementer i strategiske dokumenter og arbejdsprogrammer og indfżre relevante bestemmelser om evaluering af de opnede synergier. b) Kommissionen bżr vurdere, om gennemfżrelsen af lignende programmer, f.eks. p energiforskningsomrdet, kun skal uddelegeres til t forvaltningsorgan i nžste programmeringsperiode. 
Recommendation 1 – Improve the potential for synergies (a) The Commission and INEA should, within their remit, remove obstacles to synergies, include the necessary elements in strategic documents and work programmes, and introduce relevant provisions to evaluate the achieved synergies. (b) The Commission should assess whether to delegate the implementation of similar programmes, such as in the energy research field, to only one executive agency in the next programming period.
Tidsramme: fżr starten p gennemfżrelsen af CEF for 2021-2027. 
Timeframe: start of implementation of the 2021-2027 CEF.
84 INEA har udfżrt sine delegerede opgaver og opfyldt sine nżgleresultatindikatorer. 
84 INEA has fulfilled the tasks delegated to it and delivered on its key performance indicators.
De eksisterende rammer skaber dog nogle begržnsninger. 
However, the existing framework creates constraints.
Eftersom personaleantallet er knyttet til de delegerede programmer, har INEA ikke tilstržkkelig fleksibilitet til at omplacere sit personale til de mest presserende opgaver. 
Since staff numbers are linked to the delegated programmes, INEA does not have sufficient flexibility to reassign staff to the most pressing tasks.
ikke specifikt resultatorienterede: De er ikke specifikt rettet mod at mle programforvaltningens kvalitet (punkt 31-40). 
39 oriented: they are not specifically targeted to measuring the quality of programme management (paragraphs 31 to 40).
Anbefaling 2 - Styrke rammen for INEA's forvaltning af de delegerede programmer a) Til hndtering af kortvarige udsving i behovet for menneskelige ressourcer bżr Kommissionen fastlžgge en ramme, der gżr det muligt for INEA at omfordele personale p en mere fleksibel mde mellem og p tvžrs af programmerne. b) Kommissionen og INEA bżr gżre brug af mere resultatorienterede ml og indikatorer. 
Recommendation 2 – Strengthen the framework for INEA’s management of the delegated programmes (a) To address short-term fluctuations in human resources needs, the Commission should define a framework, which would allow INEA to re-allocate staff more flexibly between and across programmes. (b) The Commission and INEA should make use of more results-oriented goals and indicators.
Tidsramme: fra 2021. 
Timeframe: from 2021.
85 Procedurerne for udvžlgelse af CEF-projekter er veltilrettelagte, men vi konstaterede svagheder i gennemfżrelsen. 
85 Procedures for the selection of CEF projects are well-organised, but we found implementation weaknesses.
De bżr harmoniseres bedre p tvžrs af de tre CEF-sektorer. 
They need to be better harmonised across the three CEF sectors.
I CEF-T er sandsynligheden for udvžlgelse uafhžngig af de scorer, som de eksterne eksperter giver anbefalede projekter. rsagerne til afvigelser fra vurderingerne bżr dokumenteres bedre. 
In CEF-T, the probability of being selected is independent of the scores given by the external experts’ for recommended projects. The reasons for departing from the assessment need to be better documented.
Der er ogs forskelle i anvendelsen af tildelingskriterierne (punkt 42-56). 
Also, differences in the application of award criteria (paragraphs 42 to 56).
Anbefaling 3 - Sikre stżrre harmonisering og gennemsigtighed i projektudvžlgelsesprocedurerne Med henblik p at forbedre projektudvžlgelsesprocedurerne bżr Kommissionen og INEA: a) foretage en struktureret analyse af procedurerne i de tre CEF-sektorer for at identificere bedste praksis og potentielt harmonisere dem b) give en mere detaljeret definition af tildelingskriterierne - for bde den eksterne og den interne evaluering. Navnlig bżr modenhedskriteriet defineres nżje, og vurderingen af det bżr styrkes. 
Recommendation 3 – Ensure greater harmonisation and transparency of project selection procedures With a view to enhancing project selection procedures, the Commission and INEA should: (a) undertake a structured analysis of the procedures in the three CEF sectors to identify best practices, and potentially harmonise them; (b) define – both for the external and the internal evaluation – in more detail the award criteria; in particular, the maturity criterion should be precisely defined and its assessment should be reinforced.
Andre tildelingskriterier bżr formuleres mere udtrykkeligt og gżre det muligt at pvise, at de udvalgte projekter vil have en betydelig effekt og EU-mervžrdi 39 
Other award criteria should be more explicitly formulated and make it possible to demonstrate that selected projects will have a significant impact and EU added value;
c) sżrge for bedre dokumentation af sammenhžngen mellem de eksterne eksperters udtalelse og Kommissionens endelige vurdering, navnlig med hensyn til begrundelser for afvigelser. 
(c) better document the link between the opinion of external experts and the final assessment by the Commission, with particular reference to the justification of divergences.
Tidsramme: inden udgangen af 2020. 
Timeframe: by the end of 2020.
86 CEF-programmet risikerer ikke at blive gennemfżrt fuldt ud. 
86 The CEF programme risks not being fully implemented.
Tidligere erfaringer har vist, at foranstaltninger til forbedring af absorptionen hen imod slutningen af en programmeringsperiode risikerer ikke at have tilstržkkelig fokus p resultaterne. 
Experience of the past has shown that measures to enhance absorption towards the end of a programming period risk having less consideration for results.
Nr der stadig er betydelige midler tilovers, som skal forvaltes, efter at det efterfżlgende program er startet, kan dette desuden have en afsmittende virkning i form af forsinkelser. 
And, a high amount of funds still to be managed after the start of a successor programme can create a knock-on effect of delays.
87 Den sžrlig lave betalingssats for CEF-E og CEF-T hžnger sammen med forsinket og ufuldstžndig projektgennemfżrelse. 
87 The particularly low rate of payments in CEF-E and CEF-T is linked to the delayed implementation and under-execution of projects.
Det underliggende problem er ikkepržsterende projekter, som ikke kan udnytte de bevilgede midler fuldt ud. 
The underlying issue is non-performing projects, which are not able to fully use the funds granted to them.
For nžrvžrende planlžgger Kommissionen ikke sine indkaldelser af forslag p flerrig basis, hvilket betyder, at der indsendes forslag af forskellig modenhed. 
The Commission does not currently plan its calls for proposals on a multiannual basis, resulting in the submission of proposals with different maturity.
88 INEA's korrigerende foranstaltninger vedrżrende projekter, der ikke er p rette spor, adresserer ikke disse risici fuldt ud. 
88 INEA’s corrective steps for projects that are not on track do not fully address these risks.
Standardtilskudsaftalerne kžder ikke finansieringen direkte sammen med opfyldelsen af delml. 
Model grant agreements do not directly link funding to the achievement of milestones.
Vžrktżjerne til grundig projektovervgning bżr forbedres (punkt 58-73). 
Tools for the in-depth monitoring of projects require enhancement (paragraphs 58 to 73).
For alle CEF-sektorers vedkommende bżr INEA fokusere yderligere p rettidig projektgennemfżrelse i tžt samarbejde med de overordnede GD'er, medlemsstaterne og stżttemodtagerne. 
For all CEF sectors, INEA should focus further on the 40 timely implementation of projects in close cooperation with the parent DGs, Member States and beneficiaries.
Kommissionen bżr stżtte INEA med hensyn til at tržffe korrigerende foranstaltninger, nr projekter ikke er p rette spor. 
The Commission should support INEA in taking corrective steps when projects are not on track.
89 Den nuvžrende performanceramme mler ikke i tilstržkkelig grad, hvordan projekterne bidrager til opfyldelsen af CEF-programmets ml. 
89 The current performance framework does not sufficiently measure how projects contribute to the achievement of the CEF programme objectives.
INEA overvger indikatorer, som hovedsagelig fokuserer p projekternes output og ikke gżr det muligt at vurdere programmets effektivitet. 
INEA monitors indicators which focus mainly on project outputs but do not allow an assessment of the programme efficiency.
INEA udarbejdede reviderede indikatorer i 2018, men processen bżr viderefżres (punkt 75-80). 
INEA prepared revised indicators in 2018, but the process has yet to be taken further (paragraphs 75 to 80).
Anbefaling 5 - Žndre performancerammen med henblik p bedre overvgning af projektresultater a) P baggrund af erfaringerne fra TEN-T-og CEF-projekterne bżr INEA og Kommissionen fastlžgge en performanceramme, der udmżnter CEF-programmets ml i klare og mlbare indikatorer, som džkker alle CEF-sektorerne, og opstiller forventede projektresultater b) INEA bżr pržcisere disse indikatorer i beskrivelsen af indkaldelsernes ml, tage hżjde for dem i evalueringen af projektforslag, overvge dem gennem tilskudsaftaler og regelmžssigt rapportere om dem til Kommissionen. 
Recommendation 5 – Redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results (a) Based on experience and lessons learned from TEN-T and CEF projects, INEA and the Commission should define a performance framework that breaks down the objectives of the CEF programme into clear and measurable indicators, covering all CEF sectors, and expected project results. (b) INEA should specify these indicators in call objectives, consider them in the evaluation of project proposals, monitor them through grant agreements and report on them on a regular basis to the Commission.
Vedtaget af Afdeling II, der ledes af Iliana Ivanova, medlem af Revisionsretten, i Luxembourg p mżdet den 25. september 2019. 
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mrs Iliana Ivanova, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 25 September 2019.
P Revisionsrettens vegne Klaus-Heiner Lehne 41 Formand 
For the Court of Auditors Klaus-Heiner Lehne President 41