natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 I overensstemmelse med artikel 86, stk. 1, i den italienske lov nr. 163/2006 om offentlige indkżb bestr proceduren af fire trin: 1) de hżjeste og laveste 10 % af de modtagne bud udelukkes; 2) gennemsnittet af ČrabatterneÇ i de resterende bud (besparelserne i forhold til den anslede kontraktvžrdi) beregnes; 3) til dette gennemsnit lžgges variansen i de rabatter, der ligger over gennemsnittet; 4) kontrakten tildeles den bydende, hvis rabat ligger lige under den vžrdi, der fremkommer ved beregningen i trin 3. 
22 In line with Article 86.1 of the Italian public procurement law 163/2006, this procedure consists of four steps: (1) excluding the top and bottom 10 % of the offers received; (2) calculating the average of the ‘rebates’ (i.e. discounts as compared to the estimated value of the contract) of the remaining offers; (3) adding to this average the variance of the rebates which are above the average; and (4) awarding the tender to the offer proposing a rebate just under the value of the rebate as calculated after step 3.
Bemžrkninger 31 Bžredygtighedskravene var ikke tilpasset investeringernes levetid 55 De finansierede investeringers bžredygtighed spiller en vžsentlig rolle med hensyn til at opfylde projektmlene og de bredere LDP-ml. 
Observations 31 Sustainability-related requirements did not take into account the useful life of the investments 55 The sustainability of financed investments is a key factor in achieving project and wider RDP objectives.
Bžredygtighed er sžrlig vigtig i forbindelse med infrastrukturinvesteringer p grund af deres lange forventede leve-tid23, det store antal brugere, behovet for at sikre fortsat adgang til offentlige tjenester og de hżje omkostninger, der er forbundet med bde den oprindelige investering og den efterfżlgende vedligeholdelse. 
Sustainability is a particular concern with infrastructure investments due to their long expected useful life23, the large number of users, the need to ensure continued access to public services and the high costs associated with both the initial investment and subsequent maintenance.
Forskellige undersżgelser har vist, at omkostningerne ved at genetablere forfalden infrastruktur er meget hżjere end omkostningerne ved at opretholde den oprindelige kvalitet24. 
Various studies have shown that the costs of restoring infrastructure that has fallen into disrepair are much higher than the costs of retaining initial quality levels24.
Fordelene ved en hensigtsmžssig vedligeholdelsesplanlžgning ržkker ud over de finansielle hensyn, da de ogs har indvirkning p livskvaliteten og sikkerhedsstandarderne. 
The benefits of adequate maintenance planning extend beyond financial considerations, as they also have an impact on the quality of life and safety standards.
Det har derfor afgżrende betydning for disse investeringers effektivitet, at der findes en hensigtsmžssig vedligeholdelsesplan og et sžrskilt budget. 
The existence of an adequate maintenance plan and a dedicated budget are therefore vital to the effectiveness of these investments.
56 Ingen af de reviderede medlemsstater havde bedt stżttemodtagerne om at indsende en detaljeret vedligeholdelsesplan med en beskrivelse af kravene og omkostningerne til regelmžssig og ekstraordinžr vedligeholdelse. 
56 None of the audited Member States had asked beneficiaries to submit a detailed maintenance plan setting out the regular and extraordinary maintenance requirements and costs.
Stżttemodtagerne skulle ikke żremžrke midler til vedligeholdelse eller oplyse, hvilke finansieringskilder der ville blive anvendt. 
Beneficiaries were not required to earmark funds for maintenance or to indicate the financing sources to be used.
57 I Rumžnien fremhžvede det nationale revisionskontor, at LDP-finansie-rede investeringer i social og kulturel infrastruktur potentielt ikke er bžredygtige, fordi stżttemodtagerne kan have svžrt ved at finansiere aktiviteter over det lokale budget, nr projektet er afsluttet. 
57 In Romania, the national audit office highlighted the potential unsustainability of RDP-funded investments in social and cultural infrastructure, as, once the project is complete, the beneficiaries may have difficulties in financing the related activities from the local budget.
Denne risiko blev siden bekržftet, da stżttemodtagerne i over halvdelen af de 191 projekter, der blev kontrolleret af betalingsorganet i 2014, ikke kunne bevise, at de planlagte aktiviteter faktisk blev gennemfżrt efter afslutningen af projektet. 
This risk was subsequently confirmed, as the beneficiaries of more than half of the 191 projects checked by the paying agency in 2014 could not prove that the activities planned were actually carried out following the completion of the project.
58 Risikoen for, at projektoutput og -resultater ikke er bžredygtige, konstaterede vi ogs i forbindelse med veje i landdistrikterne i Italien (Sicilien), hvor forvaltningsmyndigheden ville bruge LDPŐet for 2014-2020 til at stżtte istandsžttelsen af veje, der kun ca. ti r tidligere var blevet anlagt eller istandsat med EU-midler25. 
58 The risk that project outputs and results may not be sustainable was also found in the case of rural roads in Italy (Sicily), where the managing authority intended to use the 2014-2020 RDP to support the rehabilitation costs for roads which had been built or rehabilitated using EU funds just some 10 years earlier25.
Dette tyder p, at vejenes tilstand forholdsvis hurtigt er blevet vžsentligt forringet p grund af mangelfuld vedligeholdelse. 
This suggests that roads may have deteriorated substantially in a relatively short timeframe due to a lack of adequate maintenance.
23 I sin vejledning om cost-benefit-analyse af investeringsprojekter (offentliggjort i juli 2008) angav Kommissionen, at de finansielle prognoser skulle have en tidshorisont p mindst 20 r og ikke overskride projektets levetid. 
23 In its guide to the cost-benefit analysis of investment projects (published in July 2008), the Commission indicated that for the majority of infrastructures, the time horizon over which financial forecasts should be made, and which should not exceed the economic useful life of the project, is at least 20 years.
F.eks. fastsatte vejledningen den anbefalede tidshorisont for vejprojekter til 25 r og for vandinfrastrukturprojekter til 30 r. 
For example, the guide sets the recommended time horizon for road projects at 25 years and for water infrastructure at 30 years.
24 Eksempler p sdanne undersżgelser gives i fodnote 13. 
24 Examples of such studies are given in footnote 13.
25 Denne mulighed blev indfżrt i det udkast til LDP for programmeringsperioden 2014-2020, der blev sendt til Kommissionen i juli 2014 (sektion M04 - Investeringer i fysiske aktiver (artikel 17), side 221). 
25 This possibility was included in the draft RDP for the programming period 2014-2020, sent to the Commission in July 2014 (section M04 — Investments in physical assets (Article 17), page 221).
Bemžrkninger 32 59 For at sikre investeringernes varighed er det fastsat i forordning (EF) nr. 1698/2005 om udvikling af landdistrikterne, at medlemsstaterne skal inddrive ELFUL-bidraget, hvis et investeringsprojekt undergr en vžsentlig žndring, der berżrer dets Čart eller gennemfżrelsesbetingelserÇ, inden for fem r (kaldet forpligtelsesperioden) efter forvaltningsmyndighedens beslutning om finansiering26. 
Observations 32 59 To ensure the durability of investments, the rural development regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, requires Member States to recover the EAFRD contribution if an investment project undergoes a substantial modification that ‘affects its nature or implementation conditions’ within 5 years (known as ‘commitment period’) from the managing authority’s funding decision26.
I denne bestemmelse skelnes der imidlertid ikke mellem forskellige typer investeringer. 
However, this requirement is not differentiated by type of investment.
Kun Tyskland (Sachsen), Italien (Sicilien) og Rumžnien fastsatte lžngere forpligtelsesperioder for bestemte typer investeringer, og den begržnsede tidsramme for efterfżlgende kontrol svžkkede stżttemodtagernes incitament til at overholde deres forpligtelser (jf. tekstboks 12). 
Only Germany (Saxony), Italy (Sicily) and Romania specified longer commitment periods for certain types of investment, although the limited timeframe of ex post checks weakened the incentive on beneficiaries to respect their commitments (see Box 12).
26 Artikel 72 i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1698/2005. 
26 Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
Medlemsstaternes gode praksis til sikring af infrastrukturinvesteringernes bžredygtighed og deres begržnsninger Tyskland (Sachsen) I programmeringsperioden 2007-2013 var der fastsat forskellige forpligtelsesperioder27 p mellem fem og 20 r efter afslutningen af projektet, afhžngigt af projektets type og de samlede stżtteberettigede omkostninger. 
Good practices implemented by Member States to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments and their limitations Germany (Saxony) In the 2007-2013 programming period, there were differentiated commitment periods27 which ranged between 5 and 20 years after the completion of the project, depending on the type of project as well as on the total eligible costs.
Forpligtelsesperioderne blev taget i betragtning i den risikovurdering, der fżrte til stikprżveudtagelse af projekter til efterfżlgende kontrol, s der var stżrre sandsynlighed for, at žldre projekter ville blive udtaget. 
These commitment periods were taken into account in the risk assessment leading to the sampling of projects for the ex post checks, making it more likely that older projects would be sampled.
Et andet element, der fremmede bžredygtige investeringer i skoler, var kravet om, at ansżgerne (kommuner) sammen med deres ansżgninger skulle indsende en skriftlig udtalelse fra Ministeriet for Kultur og Sport, som bekržftede, at de skoler, der var omfattet af moderniseringsprojekter, forventedes at fungere i yderligere fem eller ti r. 
Another element favouring sustainable investments in schools was the requirement that applicants (com-munes) submit with their application a written confirmation from the Ministry of Culture and Sport that the school concerned by the modernisation project is expected to remain in operation for 5 or 10 years.
Rumžnien En af stżttebetingelserne under foranstaltning 125 (der stżtter mark-og skovveje samt kunstvandingsinfra-struktur) var, at stżttemodtagerne forpligtede sig til at vedligeholde og reparere den finansierede infrastruktur i hele dens levetid. 
Romania As part of the eligibility conditions for measure 125 (that supports farm and forest roads and irrigation infrastructure), beneficiaries were required to commit to maintaining and repairing the financed infrastructure throughout its entire useful life.
Den efterfżlgende kontrol, hvor det efterprżves, om denne forpligtelse overholdes, foretages imidlertid kun i op til fem r efter indgelsen af tilskudsaftalen. 
Ex post checks during which this commitment could be checked are, however, only performed for up to 5 years after the date of the grant agreement.
1303/2013 af 17. december 2013 om fžlles bestemmelser for Den Europžiske Fond for Regionaludvikling, Den Europžiske Socialfond, Samhżrighedsfonden, Den Europžiske Landbrugsfond for Udvikling af Landdistrikterne og Den Europžiske Hav-og Fiskerifond og om generelle bestemmelser for Den Europžiske Fond for Regionaludvikling, Den Europžiske Socialfond, Samhżrighedsfonden og Den Europžiske Hav-og Fiskerifond og om ophžvelse af Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1083/2006 (EUT L 347 af 20.12.2013, s. 
27 These commitment periods have been revised downwards in the 2014-2020 programming period to the standard 5-year period stated in Article 71 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.
Bemžrkninger 33 60 De reviderede medlemsstater hndhžvede generelt femrskravet og brugte den efterfżlgende kontrol28 til at efterprżve, om stżttemodtagerne havde overholdt deres forpligtelser. 
Observations 33 60 The audited Member States generally applied the 5-year requirement and used the ex post checks28 to verify that the beneficiaries had respected their commitments.
Hvert r omfatter den efterfżlgende kontrol mindst 1 % af de stżtteberettigede offentlige udgifter til investe-ringsoperationer, hvortil den endelige betaling er foretaget af ELFUL. 
Each year the ex post checks cover at least 1 % of the eligible public expenditure for investment operations for which the final payment has been made from the EAFRD.
Det er imidlertid muligt at n op p 1 % ved blot at kontrollere et enkelt projekt. 
However, it is possible for the 1 % to be reached by checks on just one project.
Eftersom forpligtelsesperioden p fem r i Polen og Rumžnien blev regnet fra finansieringsafgżrelsen, var der i praksis tale om meget kortere tid efter afslutningen af projektet. 
In addition, as in Poland and Romania the commitment period of 5 years was counted from the date of the funding decision, it was reduced in practice to much less time after the completion of the project.
F.eks. blev syv af de ti undersżgte projekter i disse to medlemsstater afsluttet mere end to r efter finansieringsafgżrelsen. 
For example, seven out of the 10 projects audited in these two Member States were completed more than 2 years after the funding decision.
I praksis havde femrskravet og den tilhżrende kontrol derfor begržnset relevans med hensyn til at sikre projekternes bžredygtighed. 
So, the ‘5 years’ requirement and the corresponding checks had a reduced relevance in practice in carrying out their function to ensure the sustainability of the projects.
Store forsinkelser i de administrative processer indvirkede p foranstaltningernes produktivitet og effektivitet 61 For at gżre ELFUL-finansieringen attraktiv for potentielle stżttemodtagere og give projekterne mulighed for hurtigt at blive til gavn for landdistrikterne m de administrative procedurer ikke vžre for lange og besvžrlige. 
Long delays in the administrative process impacted the measures’ efficiency and effectiveness 61 To make EAFRD funding attractive to potential beneficiaries and to allow projects to generate timely benefits for rural areas, administrative procedures should not be excessively long and burdensome.
62 Tre af de fem reviderede medlemsstater (Italien (Sicilien), Rumžnien og Polen) fastsatte frister for behandlingen af projektansżgninger og endelige betalingsanmodninger. 
62 Three (Italy (Sicily), Romania and Poland) out of the five audited Member States set time limits for processing project applications and final payment claims.
Fristerne var generelt p mellem n og fire mneder. 
These limits were generally between 1 and 4 months.
63 For de fleste af de reviderede foranstaltningers vedkommende var medlemsstaternes frister for behandling af tilskudsansżgninger overskredet (jf. figur 5)29. 
63 The time limits set by the Member States for processing grant applications were exceeded for most of the measures audited (see Figure 5)29.
I Tyskland (Sachsen), Polen og Rumžnien tog det30 fra 3,5 til ni mneder at behandle tilskudsansżg-ninger, mens myndighederne i Italien (Sicilien) brugte ca. 16 mneder til at behandle ansżgninger under foranstaltning 125 og 321 - og i ekstreme tilfžlde mere end tre r. 
In Germany (Saxony), Poland and Romania, it took30 from 3.5 to 9 months to process grant applications, while the Italian (Sicilian) authorities needed around 16 months to process applications under measures 125 and 321, with extreme cases lasting more than 3 years.
Det skyldtes hovedsagelig, at det tog alt for lang tid at foretage den nżdvendige kontrol af modtagernes stżtteberettigelse. 
This was mainly due to the excessive time required to perform the required checks on the eligibility of the beneficiaries.
64 Betalingsanmodninger blev generelt behandlet hurtigere end tilskudsansżgninger. Der blev dog igen konstateret betydelige forsinkelser i Italien (Sicilien) (jf. figur 6). 
64 Payment claims were generally processed quicker than grant applications; however notable delays were again incurred in Italy (Sicily) (see Figure 6).
28 Udfżres i henhold til artikel 30 i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1975/2006 af 7. december 2006 om gennemfżrelsesbestemmelser til Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 
28 Made in accordance with Article 30 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p.
29 Det var ikke muligt at udarbejde en sdan statistik for Spanien (Extremadura), da der ikke forel oversigtsdata om alle de projekter, der var godkendt under de reviderede foranstaltninger. 
29 For Spain (Extremadura), it was not possible to calculate such statistics as there was no overview data available for all approved projects under the audited measures.
30 Medianvžrdi: en vžrdi i et ordnet sžt vžrdier, for hvilken det gžlder, at der er lige mange vžrdier over og under den (det aritmetiske gennemsnit af de to midterste vžrdier, hvis der ikke er et middeltal). 
30 Median value: a value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values (or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no middle number).
Bemžrkninger 34 Behandling af tilskudsansżgninger (medianvžrdi i mneder) Tyskland (Sachsen) Italien (Sicilien) Polen Rumžnien Foranstaltning 125 Foranstaltning 321 * Foranstaltning 322 ** 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 mneder * Den anfżrte vžrdi for Italien (Sicilien) under foranstaltning 321 gžlder kun for den reviderede delforanstaltning ČAzione 2Ç. I Rumžnien gennemfżres foranstaltning 321 sammen med foranstaltning 322. ** I Polen gennemfżres foranstaltning 322 sammen med foranstaltning 323. 
Observations 34 Processing of grant applications (median value, in months) Germany (Saxony) Italy (Sicily) Po la n d Romania * The information presented for Italy (Sicily) under measure 321 only applies to the audited sub-measure, ‘Azione 2’; in Romania, measure 321 is implemented jointly with measure 322. ** In Poland, measure 322 is implemented jointly with measure 323.
Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret p grundlag af data fra medlemsstaterne. 
Source: European Court of Auditors, based on data provided by Member States.
Behandling af betalingsanmodninger (medianvžrdi i mneder) Tyskland (Sachsen) Italien (Sicilien)* Polen Rumžnien Foranstaltning 125 Foranstaltning 321 Foranstaltning 322 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 mneder * I Italien (Sicilien) var det kun dataene vedrżrende behandling af endelige betalingsanmodninger, der blev brugt ved beregningen, og der forel derfor ingen oplysninger om foranstaltning 321, da der i december 2014 endnu ikke var afholdt endelig betaling til nogen af de godkendte projekter. 
Processing of payment applications (median value, in months) Measure 125 Measure 321 * Measure 322 ** Germany (Saxony) Italy (Sicily)* Po la n d Romania Measure 125 Measure 321 Measure 322 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 months 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 months * In Italy (Sicily), only the data regarding the processing of final payment requests was used for the calculation; also in Italy (Sicily), information regarding measure 321 was not available, as none of the approved projects had received its final payment by December 2014.
Figur 6 Figur 5 
Figure 6 Figure 5
Bemžrkninger 35 65 Retten konstaterede, at Rumžnien havde udarbejdet en god praksis for at modvirke de vžsentligste rsager til forsinkelser og begržnse ansżgernes administrative byrde. 
Observations 35 65 The audit found that Romania had devised a good practice in addressing the main causes of delays and limiting the administrative burden on the applicant.
For at sžtte fart i processen vil betalingsorganet i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020 gżre det muligt lżbende at indsende fuldstžndige ansżgninger (inklusive al dokumentation) online, og der vil blive offentliggjort udvžlgelsesrapporter med kortere mellemrum end i den foregende programmeringsperiode. 
In order to speed up the project submission and evaluation process, in the 2014-2020 programming period the paying agency will allow applications to be submitted online in full (including all the supporting documents), on an ongoing basis, and selection reports will be published at shorter intervals than in the previous programming period.
67 Derfor afslżrede Kommissionens revisioner kun nogle f af de ovennžvnte svagheder: hovedsagelig dem, der vedrżrte Rumžniens anvendelse af reglerne for offentlige indkżb, og som fżrte til en finansiel korrektion31 i 2014. 
67 Consequently, the Commission’s audits identified only a few of the above weaknesses — mainly those with respect to the application of public procurement rules in Romania, which gave rise to a financial correction31 in 2014.
Kommissionen begyndte fżrst i 2013 systematisk at fżlge op p de tiltag, medlemsstaterne havde ivžrksat for at behandle de grundlžggende rsager til fejl i foranstaltningerne til udvikling af landdistrikterne, herunder fejl med relation til projektudvžlgelsen, kontrollen af omkostningernes rimelighed og anvendelsen af offentlige udbud. 
Only in 2013 did the Commission start to systematically follow up on actions taken by Member States to address the root causes of errors in rural development measures, including errors related to the project selection system, checks on the reasonableness of costs and public procurement.
Af de reviderede medlemsstater er det kun Italien (Sicilien) og Rumžnien, der som fżlge heraf har indfżrt eller er ved at indfżre nye procedurer med henblik p at tackle nogle af de konstaterede svagheder. 
As a result of this exercise, out of the Member States audited, only Italy (Sicily) and Romania have introduced or are in the process of developing new procedures that intend to tackle some of the weaknesses identified.
Disse žndringer kom imidlertid for sent til at kunne indvirke p hovedparten af de udgifter, der blev afholdt i programmeringsperioden 2007-2013. 
However, these changes arrived too late to have an influence on the bulk of the expenditure incurred in the 2007-2013 programming period.
68 Kommissionen har erkendt de tidligere problemer og med henblik p programmeringsperioden 2014-2020 foretaget žndringer, der skal forbedre situationen. 
68 Recognising past problems, the Commission has made changes for the 2014-2020 programming period, which are intended to improve the situation.
69 Med hensyn til projektudvžlgelse er det et eksplicit krav, at LDPŐerne for 2014-2020 angiver principperne for fastlžggelse af udvžlgelseskriterier. 
69 On project selection, it is an explicit requirement for the 2014-2020 RDPs to include the principles guiding the establishment of selection criteria.
I marts 2014 udsendte Kommissionen en vejledning, hvori den opfordrede medlemsstaterne til at sikre, at stżtteberettigelses- og udvžlgelseskriterierne anvendes p en gennemsigtig og ensartet mde i hele programmeringsperioden, at der ogs anvendes udvžlgelseskriterier i tilfžlde, hvor budgettet er stort nok til at finansiere alle de stżtteberettigede projekter, og at projekter med et samlet pointtal under en vis gržnse udelukkes fra finansiering. 
The Commission issued guidance in March 2014 encouraging Member States to ensure that eligibility and selection criteria are applied in a transparent and consistent way throughout the programming period, that selection criteria are applied even in cases when the budget available is sufficient to fund all eligible projects and that projects with a total score that is below a certain threshold are excluded from support.