natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
31 P baggrund af sine revisionsresultater kan Kommissionen ivžrksžtte procedurer, som betyder, at EUŐs finansiering til den pgžldende medlemsstat nedsžttes for at kompensere for de pviste svagheder. 
31 Following its audit findings, the Commission may launch procedures whereby EU funding for the Member State concerned is reduced to compensate for the shortcomings identified.
Disse procedurer kaldes Čfinansielle korrektionerÇ. 
These procedures are referred to as ‘financial corrections’.
Bemžrkninger 36 70 Med hensyn til offentlige indkżb udarbejdede Kommissionen ved udgangen af 2014 retningslinjer for, hvordan man undgr almindelige fejl i forbindelse med projekter, der medfinansieres af EU32. 
Observations 36 70 On public procurement, at the end of 2014 the Commission developed guidelines on how to avoid common errors in EU co-funded projects32.
I dette dokument kritiserer Kommissionen anvendelsen af gen-nemsnitspriser - hvor bud, der ligger tžt p gennemsnittet af samtlige bud, fr flere point end bud, der afviger fra gennemsnittet - da denne metode fżrer til forskelsbehandling af de bydende og navnlig er til ugunst for bydende med gyldige, lave bud. 
In this document, the Commission criticises the use of the ‘average pric-ing’ method, whereby tenders close to the average for all tenders receive more points than tenders deviating from the average, as this methodology ‘represents unequal treatment of tenderers, particularly those with valid low tenders’.
Der gives yderligere vejledning om emner ssom valg af den rigtige indkżbspro-cedure, tidsfrister og udvžlgelses-og tildelingskriterier. 
Further guidance is given on topics such as the selection of the appropriate public procurement procedure, time limits and selection and award criteria.
Ikke desto mindre havde Rumžnien ikke opfyldt forhndsbetingelsen vedrżrende offentlige indkżb33, da revisionen fandt sted, og Italien (Sicilien) og Polen havde kun opfyldt betingelsen delvis. 
Nevertheless, at the time of the audit, the ex ante conditionality33 related to public procurement had not been fulfilled by Romania and it had only been partially fulfilled by Italy (Sicily) and Poland.
Hvis denne forhndsbetingelse ikke er opfyldt ved udgangen af 2016, kan betalingerne til de pgžldende medlemsstater suspenderes, hvilket Retten for nylig har anbefalet34. 
The non-fulfilment of this ex ante conditionality by the end of 2016 may lead to a suspension of payments to Member States, as the Court has recently recommended34.
71 I 2014-2015 afholdt Kommissionen en ržkke workshops om begrebet omkostningernes rimelighed og forenklede omkostningsordninger. 
71 The Commission organised a series of workshops on the topic of reasonableness of costs and simplified cost options in 2014-2015.
De vejledningsdokumenter, der blev drżftet p disse workshops, behandlede imidlertid ikke spżrgsmlet om fastsžttelse og anvendelse af referencepriser (jf. punkt 51). 
However, the issue of setting and using reference prices (see paragraph 51) was not addressed in the guidance documents discussed during these workshops.
72 Kommissionen har ikke truffet specifikke tiltag vedrżrende medlemsstaternes bžredygtighedskrav og -kontrol. 
72 The Commission has not taken any specific action with regard to Member States’ project sustainability requirements and checks.
Del III - Overvgnings-og evalueringssystemet gav ikke fyldestgżrende oplysninger om projekternes resultater 73 Der er behov for resultatoplysninger om udgifternes effektivitet og udgifts-produktiviteten, s det kan dokumenteres, hvad der er opnet ved hjžlp af EUŐs budget til udvikling af landdistrikterne, og for at vise, at det er blevet anvendt hensigtsmžssigt (ansvarlig-gżrelse). 
Part III — The monitoring and evaluation system did not produce adequate information on project results 73 Performance information on the effectiveness and efficiency of rural development spending is needed to demonstrate what has been achieved with the EU budget and to show that it has been spent well (accountability).
Endvidere skal oplysningerne bruges til at forbedre EU-midlernes produktivitet og effektivitet ved at tjene som rettesnor for den lżbende forvaltning af foranstaltningerne, pege p mulige forbedringer og bidrage til at forme den fremtidige politik, f.eks. ved at vise, hvilke typer investeringer der har givet gode resultater. 
Furthermore, it is used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU budget by guiding ongoing management of the measures, pointing to possible improvements and helping to shape future policy, for example by revealing the types of investment that performed well.
74 For at kunne dokumentere, hvad der er opnet ved hjžlp af de EU-midler, der er brugt p foranstaltninger vedrżrende infrastruktur i landdistrikterne, skal medlemsstaterne indsamle data om projekternes output og resultater. 
74 In order to show what has been achieved with the EU budget spent on rural infrastructure measures, Member States should collect data on the outputs and results achieved by projects.
Det er fastsat i den fžlles overvgnings- og evalueringsramme (CMEF), at medlemsstaterne som minimum skal indsamle oplysninger om fżlgende output-og resultatindikatorer (jf. tabellen). 
Under the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF), Member States must collect information for at least the following output and result indicators (see Table).
32 ČPublic Procurement Guidance for Practitioners on the avoidance of common errors in ESI Funded projectsÇ. 
32 ‘Public procurement guidance for practitioners on the avoidance of common errors in ESI-Funded projects’.
33 Artikel 2 og 19 i forordning (EU) nr. 1303/2013 fastsžtter forhndsbetingelser som forudsžtninger for en effektiv og virkningsfuld opnelse af specifikke ml for EU-prioriteter. 
33 Ex ante conditionalities have been introduced by Articles 2 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as prerequisites for the effective and efficient achievement of specific objectives for Union priorities.
Forhndsbetingelsen vedrżrende offentlige indkżb er, at der skal foreligge Čordninger, som sikrer effektiv anvendelse af Unionens lovgivning om offentlige indkżb inden for de europžiske struktur-og investeringsfondeÇ. 
The ex ante conditionality on public procurement refers to ’the existence of arrangements for the effective application of Union public procurement law in the field of the European Structural Investment Funds’.
10/2015 ČBestržbelserne p at afhjžlpe problemerne med offentlige indkżb i relation til EUŐs samhżrighedsudgifter bżr intensiveresÇ, anbefaling 2 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
34 ECA Special Report No 10/2015 ‘Efforts to address problems with public procurement in EU cohesion expenditure should be intensified’, recommendation No 2 (http://eca.europa. eu).
Bemžrkninger 37 Oversigt over de obligatoriske output-og resultindikatorer i CMEF for programmeringsperioden 2007-20131 Kode Foranstaltning Outputindikatorer Resultatindikatorer 125 Infrastruktur af betydning for udviklingen og tilpasningen af landbrug og skovbrug - Antal stżttemodtagende operationer - Samlet investeringsvolumen Stigning i bruttovžrditilvžkst i stżttemodtagende bedrifter/virksomheder 321 Basale tjenester for erhvervslivet og befolkningen i landdistrikterne - Antal stżttemodtagende aktioner - Samlet investeringsvolumen Befolkning i landdistrikter, der modtager bedre tjenesteydelser 322 Fornyelse og udvikling af landsbyer - Antal landsbyer, hvor der har fundet aktioner sted - Samlet investeringsvolumen 323 Bevarelse og opgradering af natur-og kulturvžrdien i landdistrikterne - Antal stżttemodtagende aktioner til fremme af natur-og kulturvžrdien i landdistrikterne - Samlet investeringsvolumen 1 I forbindelse med landdistriktspolitikken erstattes CMEF i perioden 2014-2020 af det fžlles overvgnings-og evalueringssystem (CMES). 
Observations 37 Overview of the compulsory output and result indicators under the CMEF for the 2007-2013 programming period1 Code Measure Output indicators Result indicators 125 Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry — Number of operations supported — Total volume of investments Increase in gross value added (GVA) in supported holdings/enterprises 321 Basic services for the economy and rural population — Number of actions supported — Total volume of investments Population in rural areas benefiting from improved services 322 Village renewal and development — Number of villages where actions took place — Total volume of investments 323 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage — Number of rural heritage actions supported — Total volume of investments 1 As regards rural development policy, the CMEF will be replaced in the 2014-2020 period by the ‘Common monitoring and evaluation system (CMES)’.
Der gives nžrmere oplysninger om det nye system fra punkt 85. 
Details about the new system are provided from paragraph 85 onwards.
75 Medlemsstaterne medfinansierer projekterne og har derfor - uanset kravene om overvgning og evaluering i den fžlles overvgnings-og evalueringsramme - selv en interesse i overvgning, da det er et vigtigt vžrktżj til at fżlge projekternes fremskridt og holde sig ajour med, om de skaber de forventede resultater og opfylder LDP-mlene. 
75 Given the co-financing element, and irrespective of the monitoring and evaluation work required by the CMEF, Member States have a vested interest in project monitoring, as this is an important tool with which to keep track of projects’ progress and to be kept informed as to whether they are achieving the expected results and the RDP objectives.
Overvgningen kan foretages ved hjžlp af de eksisterende administrative oplysninger og kontroloplysninger og ved regelmžssigt at indsamle relevante oplysninger fra stżttemodta-gerne35. 
Monitoring could be carried out by using the administrative and control information available and by periodically collecting relevant information from the beneficiaries35.
Medlemsstaterne kan opstille yderligere, programspecifikke indikatorer (i eller uden for CMEF). 
Member States can set additional, programme-specific indicators (within or outside the CMEF system).
76 Retten undersżgte dataindsamlings-og overvgningssystemerne i de reviderede medlemsstater og konstaterede, som i tidligere beretninger36, at der ikke forel relevante og plidelige oplysninger, som gjorde det muligt at drage en konklusion om disse foranstaltningers effektivitet. 
76 The Court examined the data collection and monitoring systems in the Member States audited and found, as in previous reports36, that there was an absence of relevant and reliable information to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of these measures.
Retten vurderede derfor projektresultaterne og, hvor det var muligt, opfyldelsen af de specifikke projektml p grundlag af den dokumentation, som den fik under sine besżg p projekterne. 
Therefore, the auditors measured project results and, where applicable, the achievement of the specific project objectives, on the basis of evidence obtained from project visits.
Der gives flere oplysninger om de undersżgte projekter i bilag II. 
More information on the audited projects can be found in Annex II.
35 Som minimum indtil udlżbet af den periode p fem r, hvor aktiverne ifżlge artikel 72 i forordning (EF) nr. 1698/2005 skal opretholdes. 
35 At least until the expiry of the 5-year period for retaining the assets determined by Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
36 Jf. sžrberetning nr. 8/2012, 1/2013, 6/2013 og 12/2013 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
36 See Special Reports Nos 8/2012, 1/2013, 6/2013 and 12/2013 (http://eca.europa.eu).
Tabel Bemžrkninger 38 De undersżgte projekter leverede de forventede fysiske output, men ofte forel der ikke plidelige oplysninger om projektresultaterne 77 Alle de 32 undersżgte projekter leverede de forventede fysiske output (f.eks. istandsžttelse af en vej eller anlžggelse af et kloaksystem), og 20 af dem overholdt fristerne i tilskudsaftalen og/ eller bygge-og anlžgskontrakten. 
Table Observations 38 The audited projects delivered the expected physical outputs, but reliable information on project results was often unavailable 77 All 32 audited projects delivered the expected physical outputs (e.g. modernisation of a road, construction of a sewerage system) and 20 of them respected the deadlines indicated in the grant agreement and/or in the contract for works.
De konstaterede forsinkelser kunne i nogle tilfžlde delvis forklares med drlige vejrforhold eller andre omstžndigheder, som stżttemodtagerne ikke var herre over. 
The delays that occurred were in certain cases partially justified by bad weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the beneficiaries’ control.
78 Ved at levere de forventede output opfyldte nogle af projekterne ogs automatisk deres resultatml, f.eks. ved at sikre bedre beskyttelse mod oversvżmmelse i et bestemt omrde (jf. tekstboks 13). 
78 By achieving the expected outputs, some of the projects also automatically achieved their objectives in terms of results, for example by improving the flood protection of a certain area (see Box 13).
Eksempel p et projekt, der leverede det forventede output og resultat Polen Det undersżgte projekt omfattede udvidelse og modernisering af en pumpestation, og de forventede omkostninger var 700 000 euro. Projektet blev gennemfżrt i overensstemmelse med de tekniske specifikationer med en besparelse p ca. 100 000 euro i forhold til det godkendte budget (takket vžre konkurrencebaserede udbud) og med en forsinkelse p fem mneder, som skyldtes, at et administrativt dokument blev leveret for sent. 
Example of a project that generated the expected output and result Poland The audited project involving the extension and modernisation of a pumping station, with an estimated cost of 700 000 euro, was completed in line with technical specifications, with approximately 100 000 euro in savings compared to the budget approved (obtained through competitive tendering), and with a delay of 5 months due to the late delivery of an administrative document.
I 2001 var nžsten 800 ha i regionen blevet oversvżmmet, og der var derfor behov for denne nye, kraftigere pumpestation til at sikre bedre beskyttelse af 320 ha landbrugsjord mod rstidsbetingede oversvżmmelser. 
The new, more powerful pumping station was needed after the extensive flooding of almost 800 ha in the region in 2001 and improved the protection of 320 ha of agricultural land against seasonal flooding.
Tekstboks 13 
Box 13
Bemžrkninger 39 79 Sdan er det imidlertid ikke altid. 
Observations 39 79 However, this is not always the case.
Det kan ske, at projekter ikke opnr de żnskede resultater, selv om de leverer de aftalte fysiske output. 
It is possible for projects to fail to achieve the intended results, despite delivering the agreed physical outputs.
Retten konstaterede, at medlemsstaterne ikke indsamlede plidelige oplysninger om projekternes opfyldelse af LDP-mlene og de projektspecifikke ml p kort og mellemlang sigt. 
The audit found that the Member States did not collect reliable information regarding the short-to medium-term success of the projects in terms of achieving RDP objectives and the project-specific targets.
Det skyldtes hovedsagelig, at der ikke var opstillet relevante indikatorer, og at ansżgningen og til-skudsafgżrelsen manglede overordnede og specifikke ml. 
This was mainly due to the failure to establish relevant indicators and an absence of specific objectives and targets in the application and grant decision.
LDPŐet for Italien (Sicilien) havde f.eks. et overordnet ml om at opn vandbesparelser gennem investeringer i vandinfrastruktur, men myndighederne havde ikke opstillet en indikator, der satte dem i stand til at vurdere opfyldelsen af dette overordnede ml, og projekterne manglede ogs relevante kvantificerbare ml. 
For example, although the RDP for Italy (Sicily) set the objective of achieving water savings through investments in water infrastructure, the authorities had not established an indicator that would allow them to assess the achievement of this objective; the projects audited also lacked related quantifiable targets.
80 Da revisionen fandt sted, havde tre af de fem reviderede medlemsstater (Spanien, (Extremadura), Italien (Sicilien) og Polen) endnu ikke indsendt de obligatoriske overvgningsoplys-ninger vedrżrende resultatindikatoren ČStigning i bruttovžrditilvžkst i stżttemodtagende bedrifterÇ under foranstaltning 125. 
80 At the date of the audit, three out of the five Member States audited (Spain (Extremadura), Italy (Sicily) and Poland) had not submitted the mandatory monitoring information required by the CMEF regarding the measure 125 result indicator, ‘increase in gross value added in supported holdings’.
De resterende to medlemsstater (Tyskland (Sachsen) og Rumžnien) anfżrte en vžrdi for denne indikator, men havde beregnet den p grundlag af uplidelige oplysninger (jf. tekstboks 14). 
The remaining two Member States (Germany (Saxony) and Romania) reported a value for this indicator, which was however based on unreliable information (see Box 14).
Uplidelig dataindsamlingsmetode: Bedrifternes finansielle oplysninger indgik ikke i mlingen af deres konkurrenceevne Rumžnien Indikatoren ČStigning i bruttovžrditilvžkst i stżttemodtagende bedrifterÇ skal kvantificere foranstaltning 125Ős effekt p de stżttede landbrugs-og skovbrugsbedrifters konkurrenceevne. 
Unreliable data collection method: financial data from farms not taken into account in measuring their competitiveness Romania The indicator ‘increase in gross value added in supported holdings’ aims to quantify the impact of measure 125 on the competitiveness of agricultural and forestry holdings supported.
I Rumžnien var det imidlertid effekten p hele den kommune, hvor projektet blev gennemfżrt, der blev beregnet (p grundlag af kommu-neregnskabet), og ikke effekten p de bedrifter, der havde gavn af de nye veje. 
However, in Romania the indicator was calculated at the level of the whole commune where the project was implemented (based on the commune’s financial accounts) and not for the farms benefiting from the new roads.
81 Med hensyn til resultatindikatoren ČBefolkning i landdistrikter, der modtager bedre tjenesteydelserÇ - foranstaltning 321, 322 og 323 - opgav medlemsstaterne befolkningstallet i hele den kommune, hvor projektet blev gennemfżrt, uanset hvor mange personer der rent faktisk brugte den finansierede infrastruktur (jf. tekstboks 15). 
81 As regards the result indicator for measures 321, 322 and 323, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, Member States reported the entire population of the commune where the project was implemented, irrespective of the number of actual users of the financed infrastructure (see Box 15).
Denne metode fżrer til alt for hżje tal, isžr fordi hele befolkningen rapporteres i forbindelse med hvert enkelt projekt, nr der gennemfżres flere projekter i samme kommune, og derfor bliver talt med flere gange, nr tallene lžgges sammen. 
This reporting method leads to inflated figures, especially since when several projects are implemented in a single commune, the entire population of the commune is reported for each of these projects, and is thus counted several times when the figures are aggregated.
Tekstboks 14 
Box 14
Bemžrkninger 40 Eksempel p et projekt, hvor en ny investering blev betragtet som vžrende til gavn for hele befolkningen, selv om projektet kun vedrżrte et begržnset antal indbyggere Tyskland (Sachsen) I forbindelse med et projekt vedrżrende istandsžttelse af 200 meter landsbyvej anfżrte de tyske myndigheder under resultatindikatoren ČBefolkning i landdistrikter, der modtager bedre tjenesteydelserÇ - foranstaltning 322 -, at 40 631 mennesker havde gavn af denne investering. 
Observations 40 Example of a project for which the total population of a commune was considered as benefiting from a new investment, although the project concerned only a limited number of inhabitants Germany (Saxony) For a project concerning the refurbishment of a 200-metre stretch of village road, the German authorities reported under the result indicator for measure 322, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, that 40 631 people were benefiting from this investment.
Det er det samlede antal indbyggere i kom-munen. Det er imidlertid kun en lille del af dem, der faktisk bruger vejen, da der kun bor ca. 
This is the total number of people living in the commune; however, only a small proportion of them actually use the road, as about 300 people live in the village where the project was implemented.
I sin rlige statusrapport for 2014 rapporterede Sachsen under denne resultatindikator for foranstaltning 322, at 2,9 millioner mennesker i landdistrikterne modtog bedre tjenesteydelser. 
In its annual progress report for 2014, Saxony reported under the measure 322 result indicator that 2.9 million people were benefiting from improved services in rural areas.
Delstatens samlede landbefolkning er imidlertid kun p ca. 2 millioner mennesker. 82 Selv i de tilfžlde, hvor de reviderede medlemsstater havde opstillet yderligere, programspecifikke indikatorer, kunne disse ikke bruges til at mle, om interventionerne var vellykkede. 
This is more than the state’s total rural population of about 2 million people. 82 Even when the audited Member States did set out additional, programme-specific indicators, these were incapable of measuring the success of the interventions.
Det skyldes fżrst og fremmest to forhold. 
This was due to two main issues.
For det fżrste havde medlemsstaterne ikke fastsat ml. 
Firstly, Member States did not set targets.
For det andet mlte de ekstra indikatorer output ssom antallet af kilometer repareret vej i stedet for resultater med relation til de overordnede LDP-ml, f.eks. at opn vandbesparelser, at gżre det muligt for landbrugerne at reducere deres transportomkostninger og at levere bestemte tjenesteydelser til befolkningen i landdistrikterne. 
Secondly, the additional indicators measured outputs such as the number of kilometres of road repaired, rather than results related to the RDP objectives, such as achieving water savings, allowing farmers to reduce transport costs and providing certain services to the rural population.
83 20 af de 32 undersżgte projekter havde ingen mlbare resultatml. 
83 Twenty of the 32 audited projects lacked measurable targets for results.
Det lykkedes dog revisorerne at indhente nogle data om de faktiske resultater (jf. eksemplerne i tekstboks 16 og de detaljerede oplysninger i bilag II). 
However, the auditors could obtain some data on the actual results achieved (see examples in Box 16 and detailed information in Annex II).
I 13 tilfžlde kunne der konstateres positive resultater, men i ti af dem var der ikke tilstržkkelige oplysninger til, at Retten kunne drage en konklusion om projekternes effektivitet med hensyn til at opfylde LDP-mlene. 
Whilst certain positive results were observed in 13 cases, in 10 of these the information was not sufficient to allow the auditors to conclude on the projects’ effectiveness in addressing RDP objectives.
I fire tilfžlde viste de relevante indikatorer, at mlene ikke var opfyldt. 
In four cases, the relevant indicators showed that targets had not been achieved.
I de tre sidste tilfžlde var de indhentede oplysninger ikke plidelige. 
In three further cases, the information obtained was not reliable.
Tekstboks 15 
Box 15
Bemžrkninger 41 Begržnset dokumentation for positive resultater og uplidelige data I Italien (Sicilien) og Spanien (Extremadura) indsamlede myndighederne ikke data om de enkelte projekters resultater. 
Observations 41 Limited evidence of positive results and unreliable data In Italy (Sicily) and Spain (Extremadura), the authorities did not collect data on individual project results.
Kun tre af de otte reviderede stżttemodtagere i den fżrste region og to af de syv reviderede stżttemodtagere i den anden kunne i en vis udstržkning efterkomme Rettens anmodning om kvantificerede resultatdata. 
Upon the auditors’ request, only three of the eight and respectively two of the seven audited beneficiaries in these two regions could provide some quantified result data.