natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derefter vurderes en stikprżve af driftsprogrammer for at afgżre, om de finansierede foranstaltninger medfżrte fremskridt med hensyn til at n ordningens ml. 
It then assesses a sample of operational programmes to determine whether the measures financed resulted in progress towards the schemeŐs objectives.
Er stżtteordningen blevet gennemfżrt p en sdan mde, at det sikres, at driftsprogrammerne sandsynligvis vil vžre effektive? 
Has the aid scheme been implemented in a way to ensure that operational programmes are likely to be effective?
Kommissionens kontrol af, at medlemsstaterne yder EU-stżtten i overensstemmelse med princippet om forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning 20. 
Commission checks to ensure that Member States grant the EU aid according to the principles of sound financial management 20.
Medlemsstaterne godkender de driftsprogrammer, som producentorganisationerne foreslr, men i henhold til traktaten har Kommissionen det endelige ansvar for, at den żkonomiske forvaltning af EU-budgettet er forsvarlig, og den overvger medlemsstaterne. 
Member States approve the operational programmes proposed by the producer organisations, but under the Treaty, the Commission retains final responsibility for the sound financial management of the EU budget and supervises the Member States.
Som led i regnskabsafslutningsproceduren besżger Kommissionen medlemsstaterne for at kontrollere, at stżtten er udbetalt i overensstemmelse med fžllesskabsreglerne. 
In the ÔClearance of AccountsŐ process, the Commission visits Member States to check that the aid payments have been made in compliance with Community rules.
Med rdsforordningen oprettedes der ogs et sžrligt inspektżrkorps for frugt-og grżntsagssektoren, der bl.a. har til opgave at sikre, at reglerne anvendes ensartet i hele EU. 
The Council regulation also set up a ÔSpecial Corps of InspectorsŐ for the fruit and vegetable sector with the role, inter alia, of ensuring a uniform application of the rules across the EU.
I praksis er det de samme embedsmžnd, der kontrollerer udgifterne med henblik p regnskabsafslutningen. 
In practice, these are the same officials that check expenditure for the Clearance of Accounts.
I forhold til andre EU-politikker p landbrugsomrdet kržver denne stżtteordning, at medlemsstaterne i hżjere grad bruger deres dżmmekraft, nr de skal afgżre, om de vil godkende, afvise eller kržve žndringer af de foranstaltninger, der foresls i et driftsprogram. 
In relation to other EU agricultural policies, the operational programme aid scheme requires Member States to exercise a greater degree of judgment in deciding whether to approve, reject or require changes to the measures proposed in an operational programme.
Men siden de fżrste kontroller af medlemsstaternes procedurer, som Kommissionen foretog i 1997 og 1998, har Kommissionen koncentreret sig om at undersżge, om kriterierne for udgifternes stżtteberettigelse er opfyldt, og den har ikke kontrolleret, at medlemsstaternes procedurer for godkendelse og overvgning af driftsprogrammerne, der er beskrevet i punkt 18, fungerer p en sdan mde, at de sikrer, at driftsprogrammerne sandsynligvis vil vžre effektive. 
However, since the initial checks of the Member StatesŐ procedures in 1997 and 1998, Commission inspections have focused on compliance with the criteria for the eligibility of expenditure and have not checked whether the Member State procedures for approving and monitoring operational programmes shown in paragraph 18 operate in a way to ensure that operational programmes are likely to be effective.
Fżlgelig har Kommissionen kontrolleret berettigelsen af den stżtte, som medlemsstaterne har udbetalt i forbindelse med regnskabsafslutningen, men den har ikke kontrolleret, om stżtten er ydet under overholdelse af princippet om forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning, navnlig for s vidt angr effektivitet. 
Consequently, while the Commission has checked the eligibility of the aid paid out by Member States for Clearance of Accounts purposes, it has not checked whether this aid has been granted respecting the sound financial management principles, in particular, of effectiveness.
Medlemsstaternes gennemfżrelse af stżtteordningen Nžrmere beskrivelse af revisionen i medlemsstaterne 24. 
Member StatesŐ implementation of the aid scheme Details of the audit in the Member States 24.
I betragtning af den centrale rolle, medlemsstaterne spiller, nr driftsprogrammerne skal godkendes, reviderede Retten de procedurer, der anvendes i alle 14 berżrte medlemsstater (tekstboks 5). 
Given the Member StatesŐ key role in approving operational programmes, the Court audited the procedures applied in all 14 Member States concerned (Text box 5).
Da gennemfżrelsen af ordningen er decentraliseret i nogle medlemsstater, reviderede Retten endvidere procedurerne i 19 regionale og lokale administrationer i Italien, Spanien, Frankrig og Gržkenland. 
As implementation of the scheme is decentralised in some Member States, the procedures were also checked at a further 19 regional and local administrations in Italy, Spain, France and Greece.
Det giver medlemsstaterne fleksibilitet til at organisere disse procedurer, s det passer til forholdene i det enkelte land. 
This gives Member States the flexibility to organise these procedures according to their context.
Hver enkelt administration har derfor gennemfżrt ordningen p sin mde, og nedenstende bemžrkninger vedrżrer ikke alle medlemsstater (1) i lige hżj grad. 
Consequently, each administration has implemented the scheme in a different way and the findings below do not apply equally in all Member States (1).
Tekstboks 5 Nžrmere beskrivelse af revisionen i medlemsstaterne Vi baserede revisionen af medlemsstaternes procedurer p en tilfžldigt udvalgt stikprżve p 30 driftsprogrammer, der blev afsluttet i 2003 og 2004. 
Text box 5 Details of the audit in the Member States: We based the audit of the Member StatesŐ procedures on a random sample of 30 operational programmes completed in 2003 and 2004.
Vi aflagde revisionsbesżg hos de myndigheder i medlemsstaterne, der var ansvarlige for at godkende programmerne, og i de berżrte producentorganisationer. 
We visited the Member StatesŐ administrations responsible for approving those programmes and the producer organisations concerned.
Antal udvalgte driftsprogrammer Spanien 11 Frankrig 8 Italien 4 Gržkenland 2 Portugal 2 Det Forenede 1 Kongerige Nederlandene 1 Irland 1 De udvalgte driftsprogrammer var blevet godkendt af medlemsstaterne mellem 1998 og 2001. 
Number of operational programmes selected Spain 11 France 8 Italy 4 Greece 2 Portugal 2 United Kingdom 1 Netherlands 1 Ireland 1 The selected operational programmes were approved by the Member States between 1998 and 2001.
For at f tilstržkkelig sikkerhed og for at sikre, at resultaterne stadig var relevante, undersżgte vi dokumentation fra 1998 til 2005 for yderligere 94 driftsprogrammer og 103 evalueringsrapporter. 
To obtain sufficient evidence, and ensure that findings were still relevant, we examined documentation from 1998 to 2005 for a further 94 operational programmes and 103 evaluation reports.
Vi udvalgte disse rapporter tilfžldigt hos de myndigheder i medlemsstaterne, vi besżgte. Vi gennemfżrte en mere begržnset revision af de procedurer, som de żvrige seks medlemsstater fulgte. 
We selected these randomly at the Member State authorities we visited. We undertook a more limited audit of the procedures followed by the other six Member States, based on a questionnaire and a check of documentation concerning randomly selected operational programmes.
(1) Retten har oplyst medlemsstaterne om de specifikke revisionsresultater, der vedrżrer dem. 
(1) The Court has informed Member States of the specific findings that concern them.
20.11.2006 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 282/39 Kriterier for vurdering af gennemfżrelsen af programmeringsmodellen 26. 
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/39 Criteria for assessing the implementation of the programming model 26.
I overensstemmelse med princippet om forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning bżr medlemsstaterne tage hensyn til principperne sparsommelighed, produktivitet og effektivitet, nr de skal godkende et driftsprogram og dermed yde EU-stżtte. 
To comply with the requirements for sound financial management, Member States should apply the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in deciding whether to approve an operational programme, thereby granting the EU aid.
Stżtten er effektiv, hvis hver enkelt aktion, der finansieres i programmet, har en effekt: Aktionen bżr bidrage til, at t eller flere af de 11 ml i rdsforordningen opfyldes. 
For the aid to be effective, each action financed in the programme should have an effect: the action should result in progress being made towards one or more of the 11 objectives set by the Council Regulation.
Medlemsstaterne bżr derfor basere deres afgżrelse om, hvorvidt de skal godkende, forkaste eller kržve žndringer til et driftsprogram, p, om producentorganisationen p tilfredsstillende vis har dokumenteret, at det er sandsynligt, at aktionerne kan bidrage til at virkeliggżre disse ml. 
Consequently, Member States should base their decision on whether to approve, reject or require changes to an operational programme on whether the producer organisation has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed actions are likely to achieve these objectives.
Medlemsstaterne har behov for detaljerede oplysninger fra producentorganisationerne for at kunne begrunde deres beslutninger om at yde stżtte p disse betingelser. 
Member States need detailed information from the producer organisations to be able to justify their decisions to award the aid in these terms.
Det er nżdvendigt, at de for hvert ml kender producentorganisationens udgangssituation og ved, hvilken effekt aktionen (aktionerne) forventes at have. 
They need to know, for each objective, the producer organisationŐs initial situation and what impact the action(s) is expected to have.
Med udgangspunkt i denne logik og i de sžrlige krav i forordningen (jf. punkt 16-18) har Retten udviklet revisionskriterier for, hvad man med rimelighed vil kunne forvente i et ČgodtÇ system (tekstboks 6). 
Following this logic, and the specific requirements of the Regulation (see paragraphs 16 to 18), the Court developed audit criteria for what would be reasonable to expect in a ÔgoodŐ system (Text box 6).
Hvis disse kriterier er opfyldt, er det sandsynligt, at medlemsstaternes procedurer kan sikre, at stżtten vil vžre effektiv. 
If these criteria are met, Member StatesŐ procedures are likely to ensure that the aid will be effective.
Disse kriterier kan kort gengives p fżlgende mde: Ń I dokumenterne vedrżrende driftsprogrammet bżr producentorganisationens udgangssituation for s vidt angr alle programmlene vžre beskrevet. 
These criteria can be summarised as follows: Ń Operational programme documents should show the producer organisationŐs initial situation in respect of each of the programmesŐ objectives.
Mlene bżr vžre ČSMARTÇ (specifikke, mlelige, opnelige, relevante og tidsrelaterede): specifikke, s der ikke er tvivl om, hvad producentorganisationen żnsker at opn; mlelige (og tidsrelaterede), s deres opfyldelse kan overvges; opnelige, hvis de aktioner, der foresls i programmerne, gennemfżres, og relevante: De bżr hžnge sammen med producentorganisationens situation og markedssituationen og med EUŐs 11 ml. 
The objectives should be ÔSMARTŐ (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed): specific so that there is no doubt about what the producer organisation aims to achieve; measurable (and timed) so that their achievement can be monitored; achievable through implementing the actions proposed in the programmes; and relevant: coherent with the producer organisationŐs situation and market outlook, and with the EUŐs 11 objectives.
For hvert enkelt af de overordnede ml bżr producentorganisationerne angive mlene for driftsprogrammet i forhold til udgangssituatio-nen. 
Producer organisations should give targets for each objective in relation to the initial situation.
Dokumenterne bżr vise, hvordan de foreslede aktioner vil opfylde programmlene. 
The documents should show how the proposed actions will achieve the programmeŐs objectives.
Ved afslutningen af programmet bżr producentorganisationen gżre rede for, i hvilket omfang de overordnede ml er blevet opfyldt i forhold til udgangssituationen og mlene for driftsprogrammet. 
At the end of the programme the producer organisation should report on the extent to which the objectives have been achieved in relation to the initial situation and targets.
Ń Medlemsstaterne bżr sikre sig, at mlene for driftsprogrammerne er i overensstemmelse med mlene i EU-forordningen, og at de foreslede aktioner reelt bidrager til opfyldelsen af disse ml, samt at omkostningerne forbundet hermed er rimelige. 
Ń Member States should ensure that the operational programme objectives correspond to those in the EU regulation, and that the actions proposed represent a real advance towards the objectives at a reasonable cost.
De bżr bruge oplysningerne i producentorganisationernes endelige evalueringsrapporter til at kontrollere driftsprogrammernes effektivitet og bruge erfaringerne herfra til at gżre fremtidige programmer mere effektive. 
They should use the evaluation information in the producer organisationsŐ final reports to monitor the effectiveness of the operational programmes and apply the lessons learned to improve the effectiveness of future programmes.
Tekstboks 6 Metodologi: Nogle af Rettens kriterier for at vurdere medlemsstaternes gennemfżrelse af stżtteordningen gr lžngere end den formelle opfyldelse af kravene i forordningen (jf. bilaget). 
Text box 6 Methodology: Some of the CourtŐs criteria for assessing the Member StatesŐ implementation of the aid scheme go beyond formal compliance with the letter of the regulation (see Annex).
F.eks. skal producentorganisationen ifżlge forordningen beskrive sin udgangssituation, og medlemsstaten skal kontrollere, at oplysningerne er korrekte. 
As an illustration, to comply with the regulation the producer organisation has to describe its initial situation, and the Member State has to check its accuracy.
For at opfylde revisionskriterierne bżr medlemsstaterne ogs sikre, at beskrivelsen er knyttet til mlene og foranstaltningerne i det foreslede program. 
To meet the audit criteria, the Member State should also ensure that the description is related to the objectives and actions in the proposed programme.
I modsat fald giver det ikke meget mening at beskrive udgangs-situationen. Beskrivelsen af udgangssituationen er ikke sat i relation til mlene for driftsprogrammerne 30. 
If not, the description of the initial situation has little purpose. The initial situation description is not related to the operational programme objectives 30.
Alle de undersżgte driftsprogrammer, bortset fra to, indeholdt et afsnit om ČudgangssituationenÇ, og over halvdelen (60 %) opfyldte formelt kravene i forordningen ved at angive produktion, afsžtning og udstyr, selv om beskrivelsen var ganske kortfattet. 
All but two of the operational programmes examined included a section called Ôinitial situationŐ and more than half (60 %) formally complied with the regulation by mentioning production, marketing and equipment, even if very briefly.
Nogle medlemsstater kržvede, at producentorganisationerne opfżrte deres udstyr og anlžg p en liste og udarbejdede et skema over deres produktion i tons og i vžrdi, men de kržvede ikke, at det blev sat i relation til programmlene eller aktionerne. 
Some Member States required producer organisations to list their equipment and facilities and give a table of their production in tonnes and by value, but without requiring this to be related to the programmeŐs objectives or actions in any way.
Andre medlemsstater udstedte ingen sžrlige instrukser og godtog meget generelle beskrivelser, i nogle tilfžlde blot en eller to sžtninger. 
Other Member States issued no particular instructions, and accepted very general descriptions, in some cases of only one or two sentences.
Kun f producentorganisationer beskrev deres udgangssituation med hensyn til miljż, produktkvalitet og produktionsomkostninger, men nžsten alle driftsprogrammerne havde ml p disse omrder (jf. tekstboks 7). 
Few producer organisations described their initial situation in respect of the environment, product quality and production costs, yet nearly all operational programmes had these objectives (see Text box 7).
Ingen producentorganisation beskrev udgangssituationen for hvert enkelt af mlene for dens driftsprogram. 
No producer organisation described the initial situation for each of the objectives in its operational programme.
Tekstboks 7 De regionale myndigheder i Spanien godkendte et driftsprogram, der omfattede ti aktioner med samlede omkostninger p 770 000 euro. 
Text box 7 Regional authorities in Spain approved an operational programme containing ten actions with a total cost of 770 000 euros.
Seks af disse aktioner havde til forml at forbedre produktkvaliteten, otte havde til forml at reducere produktionsomkostningerne, og to havde til forml at forbedre miljżpraksis. 
Six of these actions had the objective of improving product quality, eight had the objective of reducing production costs, and two had the objective of improving environmental practices.
Producentorganisationen anfżrte i udgangssituationen de former for frugt, der blev dyrket, og arealet, men gav ingen oplysninger om frugtens kvalitet, produktionsomkostningerne eller miljżet inden programmet. 
The producer organisation listed in the initial situation the types of fruit grown and the surface area, but gave no information on the initial quality of the fruit, the costs of production, or the environment.
C 282/40 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 20.11.2006 31. 
C 282/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 31.
I nogle f tilfžlde beskrev producentorganisationerne udgangssituationen i forhold til specifikke aktioner, hvilket f.eks. er pkržvet i Nederlandene. 
In a few cases, producer organisations described the starting situation in relation to specific actions, which is a requirement in the Netherlands, for example.
Dermed blev kriterierne til dels opfyldt, men producentorganisationens udgangssituation var ikke tilstržkkeligt beskrevet for s vidt angr mlene. 
This went some way to meeting the criteria, but did not sufficiently describe the producer organisationŐs initial situation in terms of its objectives.
Indholdet af driftsprogrammerne var ikke altid sat i relation til de erklžrede ml 32. 
The contents of operational programmes do not always relate to the stated objectives 32.
Flere medlemsstater kržvede, at producentorganisationerne angav direkte i deres driftsprogrammer, hvilke EU-ml der hang sammen med hver enkelt aktion. 
Several Member States required producer organisations to explicitly state in their operational programmes which EU objectives related to each action.
I disse tilfžlde var der p papiret automatisk sammenhžng mellem ml og program, og medlemsstaternes kontrol af mlenes overensstemmelse med forordningen blev dermed til en formalitet. 
In these cases, the correspondence between the objective and the programme was automatic on paper, making the Member StatesŐ check of the compliance of objectives with those in the regulation a formality.
I et forsżg p at begrunde programmet eller den specifikke aktion opfżrte mange producentorganisationer imidlertid ethvert ml, som syntes relevant, uanset om det var det egentlige forml med aktionen eller ej (tekstboks 8 og 9). 
However, many producer organisations listed any objective that seemed relevant in an attempt to justify the programme or particular action, regardless of whether that was their real objective or not (Text boxes 8 and 9).
I Italien og Gržkenland udfžrdigede myndighederne detaljerede lister over mulige aktioner, som producentorganisationen kunne vžlge imellem, og angav et forudfastsat ml for hver enkelt aktion. 
In Italy and Greece, the authorities developed detailed lists of possible actions, from which the producer organisation could choose, and gave a predetermined objective to each action.
Ogs de franske myndigheder havde en liste over mulige aktioner, men de var inddelt efter art, og ikke efter ml. 
The French authorities also issued a list of possible actions, but classified according to their nature, not their objective.
For s vidt angr miljż og kvalitet, fremgik de relevante ml almindeligvis klart, men for kategorien Čforanstaltninger i forbindelse med produktionsanlžgÇ var det ikke altid tilfžldet. 
For the environmental and quality categories of actions the relevant objective was usually evident, but for the category Ômeasures linked to production facilitiesŐ sometimes it was not.
For nogle af aktionerne var det derfor ikke muligt at identificere mlet p grundlag af dokumentationen for driftsprogrammet (tekstboks 10). 
As a result it was not possible to identify the objective of some of the actions on the basis of the operational programme documentation (Text box 10).
De italienske, gržske og franske myndigheder forsżgte ikke at kontrollere mlene for de enkelte programmer, da de mente, at aktionernes overensstemmelse med EU-mlene var blevet fastslet, da den nationale liste over aktioner blev udfžrdiget. 
The Italian, Greek and French authorities did not attempt to check the objectives of individual programmes as they considered that the compliance of the actions with the EU objectives had been established when drafting the national lists of actions.
Žndringer i klassificeringen over tid havde imidlertid den virkning, at de ČžndredeÇ mlene for det operationelle program for en bestemt aktion (tekstboks 11). 
However, changes over time to the classification had the effect of ÔchangingŐ the operational programmesŐ objectives for a given action (Text box 11).
Kun myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige kržvede formelt, at producentorganisationerne skulle fastsžtte mlelige ml for driftsprogrammerne, selv om man ikke i praksis sikrede sig, at det blev gjort. 
Only the United Kingdom authorities formally required producer organisations to set measurable objectives for operational programmes, although in practice it did not ensure that this was done.
I Spanien, Italien og Nederlandene kržvede myndighederne, at de forventede resultater af hver enkelt foranstaltning eller aktion var angivet, men der blev fokuseret p output Ń hvordan det kunne bevises, at aktionerne var gennemfżrt Ń snarere end p mlopfyldelse. 
In Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, the authorities required the expected results to be shown for each measure or action, but this was focused on the outputs Ń how the implementation of the actions could be demonstrated Ń rather than on the achievement of the objective.
I 10 % af de undersżgte driftsprogrammer havde producentorganisationerne, nr det var lige ud ad landevejen, sat tal p mlene for mindst en aktion, som f.eks. den forventede reduktion i omkostningerne, eller det antal hektarer, der skulle omstilles til żkologisk produktion. 
In 10 % of the operational programmes examined, producer organisations gave quantified objectives for at least one action where this was straightforward, such as for the expected reduction in costs, or the number of hectares to be converted to organic production.
Det var isžr tilfžldet i Spanien og Italien. 
These cases were mostly in Spain and Italy.
Ellers opstillede producentorganisationerne ikke targets og indikatorer, som kunne bruges til at mle, om mlene var opfyldt. 
Otherwise, producer organisations did not set targets or indicators by which achievement of the objectives could be monitored.
Tekstboks 9 I et driftsprogram, der blev godkendt af de regionale myndigheder i Spanien, kżbte en producentorganisation en gaffeltruck til 25 000 euro. 
Text box 9 In an operational programme approved by the regional authorities in Spain, a producer organisation purchased a fork-lift truck at a cost of 25 000 euro.