natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rettens revision viste imidlertid, at INLBŐs undersżgelsesomrde ikke defineres p samme mde i alle medlemsstater, og der blev konstateret fżlgende forhold, som kan indvirke p resultaternes sammenlignelighed: a) Minimumstžrsklen for bedrifternes żkonomiske stżrrelse er sat s hżjt i n medlemsstat, at undersżgelsesomrdet for rene 1995 og 1997 džkker under 90 % af standarddžkningsbidraget (Żstrig). b) Landbrugsbedrifter, der har form af selskaber, er ikke omfattet, eller er forholdsmžssigt underrepržsenteret (Nederlandene). c) n medlemsstats oversżiske departementer er ikke omfattet (Frankrig) (3). 
The audit nevertheless showed that the FADN field of survey is not defined in a uniform manner in all Member States; the following features, which are liable to affect the comparability of the results, were found: (a) the economic size threshold of the holdings was set so high in one Member State, that, for 1995 and 1997, the field of survey covered less than 90 % of the SGM (Austria); (b) farms in the form of corporations are proportionally under-represented (Netherlands); (c) the overseas regions of one Member State are excluded (France) (3).
Udvžlgelse af bedrifter til stikprżven 13. 
Selection of the holdings to be included in the sample 13.
For at sikre resultater af den bedst mulige kvalitet, skal de enkelte elementer i stikprżven vžre udvalgt tilfžldigt (4). 
In order to optimise the quality of the results obtained, the individual components of the sample must be selected at random (4).
I praksis er der imidlertid to forhold, der forhindrer, at stikprżveudtagningen reelt er tilfžldig: For det fżrste foreligger der kun et begržnset antal relevante regnskabsdokumenter, og for det andet er det frivilligt for landbrugerne, om de vil deltage i INLB (de kan ikke tvinges til at oplyse data). 
Nevertheless, in practice, two conditions stand in the way of genuine random sampling, the availability of suitable accounts documents and the fact that farmer participation in the FADN is voluntary (they cannot be forced to provide data).
Ses der bort fra disse to faktorer, skal udvžlgelsen s vidt muligt foretages i nżje overensstemmelse med princippet om tilfžldig stikprżveudtagning: Stikprżven skal udtages tilfžldigt i den underenhed af undersżgelsesomrdet, som bestr af landbrugere, der opfylder de to ovennžvnte betingelser (5). 
Disregarding these two factors, selection must be carried out as rigorously as possible in accordance with the principle of random sampling Ń the sample must be drawn at random from the subset of farms within the field of survey which fulfil the two conditions mentioned (5).
Dette er et ufravigeligt metodologisk krav, hvis der skal kunne foretages en gyldig ekstrapolering af stikprżven. 
As far as methodology is concerned, this is an essential condition for a valid extrapolation of the results of the sample.
Rettens kontrol i medlemsstaterne viste, at princippet om tilfžldig udvžlgelse af bedrifter ikke altid overholdes. 
The checks carried out in the Member States showed that the principle of the random selection of the holdings was not always complied with.
I n medlemsstat inddeles populationen af bedrifter i flere underenheder, hvis elementer ikke alle har lige stor sandsynlighed for at blive udtaget til stikprżven (Frankrig). 
In one of the Member States, the population of the holdings is divided up among several subsets, whose components do not all have the same probability of being taken up in the sample (France).
(5) http: //europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rica/methodology2_en.cfm. sżger en national udvžlgelseskomit hver enkelt bedrifts repržsentativitet (Tyskland). 
In another Member State, a national selection committee examines the representativeness of each individual holding (Germany).
Og i en tredje medlemsstat udvžlger en tjenestemand efter behag de bedrifter, der skal indg i stikprżven (Gržkenland). 
In a third Member State, an official selects the holdings to be included in the sample at his own discretion (Greece).
En analyse af Kommissionens data viste, at andelen af bedrifter, der var blevet udvalgt i 1995, og som igen indgik i stikprżven i 1999, var p mellem 28 % og 88 %. 
An analysis of the CommissionŐs data showed that the proportion of holdings that were selected in 1995 and still included in the 1999 sample ranged between 28 % and 88 %.
Det vil sige, at i det ene tilfžlde var kun ca. 4 % af bedrifterne blevet udskiftet hvert r, mens nžsten 24 % af stikprżven var blevet udskiftet i det andet tilfžlde. 
This means that, in one case, only about 4 % of the holdings were replaced each year, while in the other, almost 24 % of the sample was renewed.
Disse tal afspejler to forskellige hensyn: Den ČkonservativeÇ metode lžgger vžgt p den langsigtede udvikling i de bedrifter, der indgr i stikprżven, mens der ved hurtig udskiftning fokuseres p at bevare stikprżvens repržsentativitet og nżje fżlge udviklingen i landbrugsstrukturerne. 
These figures reflect two different concerns: whereas the ÔconservativeŐ approach to the sample stresses the long-term development of the holdings contained in the sample, its rapid renewal aims at preserving its representativeness by monitoring the development of agricultural structures as closely as possible.
Stikprżvens repržsentativitet 16. 
Representativeness of the sample 16.
Ifżlge artikel 4, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning nr. 79/65/EŻF skal de udvalgte landbrugsbedrifter vžre repržsentative for INLB-undersżgelsesomrdet. 
Pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation No 79/65/EEC, the selected agricultural holdings must be representative of the FADN field of survey.
Bedrifterne inddeles derfor i flere grupper efter driftsform, bedriftens stżrrelse og region i overensstemmelse med klassifikationen af Fžllesskabets landbrugsbedrifter. 
The holdings are therefore divided up into cells, by type of farming, size and region in accordance with the Community typology.
Fra disse grupper udtages der en stikprżve. 
A sample is taken from these cells.
Teknisk set er udvžlgelsesplanen og gennemfżrelsesrapporten de redskaber, der anvendes til at kontrollere, at stikprżven er repržsentativ (6). 
From a technical point of view, the selection plan and the implementation report are the tools used for controlling the representativeness of the sample (6).
I udvžlgelsesplanen er det fastsat, hvor mange bedrifter fra hver enhed der skal indg i stikprżven, og i gennemfżrelsesrapporten oplyses det, hvor mange landbrugsbedrifter der faktisk er blevet udvalgt. 
Whereas the selection plan determines the number of holdings to be represented in the sample for each individual cell, the implementation report states the number of agricultural holdings actually selected.
Rettens undersżgelse af udvžlgelsesplaner og gennemfżrelsesrapporter gav fżlgende resultater: a) I n medlemsstat er stikprżveprocenten det eneste kriterium for stikprżvens stżrrelse; der mangler statistiske oplysninger om inddelingen af bedrifterne i henhold til fžllesskabsklas-sifikationen (Gržkenland). 
An examination of the selection plans and implementation reports led to the following observations: (a) in one Member State, the sampling rate is the only criterion applied to determine sample size; there are no statistical data on the stratification of the holdings according to the Community typology (Greece).
Det er derfor ikke muligt at vurdere, om stikprżven er repržsentativ i de forskellige regioner. b) I samme medlemsstat var udvžlgelsesplanen ufuldstžndig, og den var ikke blevet ajourfżrt mellem 1983 og 1997, alts i over 14 r (Gržkenland). 
It is therefore not possible to evaluate the representativeness of the sample in the various regions; (b) in the same Member State, the selection plan was incomplete and had not been updated between 1983 and 1997, i.e. over a period of more than 14 years (Greece).
For nogle r har denne medlemsstat desuden ikke udarbejdet en gennemfżrelsesrapport, og for andre r har den fremlagt en ufuldstžndig rapport. 
Furthermore, this Member State did not draw up an implementation report for certain years and supplied incomplete reports for other years.
En anden medlemsstats udvžlgelsesplan fulgte ikke fžllesskabs-klassifikationen vedrżrende bedrifternes żkonomiske stżrrelse og driftsform (Nederlandene). (6) Artikel 6, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 
The selection plan of another Member State did not follow the Community typology concerning economic size and farming type (Netherlands); (6) Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 79/65/EEC.
20.2.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 45/7 c) Der er somme tider vžsentlige forskelle mellem udvžlgelsesplanen og gennemfżrelsesrapporten (Nederlandene). 
2. 20.
Disse forskelle viser, at den oprindeligt planlagte udvžlgelse ikke er blevet gennemfżrt, som den skulle, eller at gennemfżrelsesrapporterne ikke giver et korrekt billede af den faktiske situation. d) Kommissionen udnytter ikke udvžlgelsesplanerne og gennemfżrelsesrapporterne systematisk. 
These differences show that the selection initially envisaged was not properly implemented, or that the implementation reports do not accurately reflect reality; (d) the Commission does not systematically make use of the selection and implementation reports.
Stikprżvernes repržsentativitet undersżges ikke regelmžssigt, og udvžlgelsesplanerne afstemmes ikke systematisk med gennemfżrelsesrapporterne. 
It does not regularly examine the representativity of the samples and there is no systematic reconciliation between the selection and implementation reports.
Ifżlge Kommissionen vil sammenligningen ske automatisk for de data, der vedrżrer 2001, og som vil foreligge i Kommissionen ved udgangen af 2003. e) Kommissionen har aldrig pržciseret begrebet stikprżvens repržsentativitet. 
According to the Commission, this comparison will be carried out automatically for the data concerning the financial year 2001, which will be available to the Commission at the end of 2003; (e) the Commission has never clarified the concept of the representativity of the sample.
Medlemsstaterne benytter forskellige indikatorer til at vurdere repržsentativiteten. 
The Member States rely on different indicators to assess representativity.
Anvendelsen af den indikator, der er beskrevet i bilag II til forordning (EŻF) nr. 1859/82 (1) (forholdet mellem antallet af bedrifter i stikprżven og antallet af bedrifter i den tilsvarende populations-gruppe) har fżrt til vžsentlige afvigelser i flere medlemsstater. 
The application of the indicator mentioned in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1859/82 (1) (the relationship between the number of holdings in the sample and the number of holdings in the corresponding population cell) led to substantial differences in several Member States.
Kommissionen har ikke truffet foranstaltninger til at harmonisere metoden. 
The Commission took no steps to harmonise the approach.
Frist for fremsendelse af bedriftsskemaer 18. 
Deadline for the transmission of farm returns 18.
Forbindelsesorganerne skal fremsende bedriftsskemaerne til Kommissionen senest ni mneder efter udgangen af det regnskabsr, skemaerne omhandler (2). 
The liaison agencies forward the farm returns to the Commission no later than nine months after the end of the accounting year to which they relate (2).
Kommissionen udbetaler en fast godtgżrelse for hvert korrekt udfyldt bedriftsskema, som den fr tilsendt inden for den fastsatte frist (132 euro i 2001 (3)). 
A standard fee is paid by the Commission for each duly completed farm return that is forwarded to it within the period prescribed (132 euro in 2001 (3)).
I praksis fremsendes dataene med store forsinkelser. 
In practice, there are considerable delays in the forwarding of data.
I 1997 blev de i gennemsnit fremsendt 133 dage for sent, i 1998 blev de fremsendt 238 dage for sent og i 1999 139 dage for sent. 
In 1997, an average delay of 133 days was noted; this was 238 days in 1998 and 139 days in 1999.
I et af de besżgte lande blev dataene regelmžssigt fremsendt med ca. et rs forsinkelse (Gržkenland). 
In one of the countries visited, the data was regularly transmitted with a delay of approximately a year (Greece).
INLBŐs resultater for regnskabsret 1997-1998 kunne fżrst offentliggżres i 2001 i 1999-rapporten om landbrugets stilling i Den Europžiske Union, dvs. ca. to r for sent. 
It was therefore only possible to publish the results of the FADN for the financial year 1997-1998 in 2001, in the 1999 report on the situation of agriculture in the European Union, i.e. with a delay of approximately two years.
Kommissionen straffede ikke disse forsinkelser ved at reducere den faste godtgżrelse, der blev udbetalt til de pgžldende medlemsstater. 
The Commission has not penalised these delays by reducing the standard fee paid to the Member States concerned.
I juli 2002 besluttede Kommissionen sammen med den fžlles komit for INLB undtagelsesvis at forlžnge fristen for (1) Kommissionens forordning (EŻF) nr. 1859/82 af 12. juli 1982 om udvžlgelse af regnskabsfżrende bedrifter med henblik p at konstatere indkomstforhold i landbrugsbedrifter (EFT L 205 af 13.7.1982, s. 
In July 2002, the Commission decided, in agreement with the Community Committee of the FADN, to have the period for the transmission of the data extended exceptionally from nine to (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/82 of 12 July 1982 concerning the selection of returning holdings for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings (OJ L 205, 13.7.1982, p. 5).
(2) Artikel 3, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1915/83/EŻF. 
(2) Article 3 paragraph 1 of Commission Regulation No 1915/83/EEC.
368/2001 af 23. februar 2001 om fastsžttelse af den faste godtgżrelse pr. bedriftsskema for regnskabsret 2001 i informationsnettet for landżkonomisk bogfżring (EFT L 55 af 24.2.2001, s. 
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 368/2001 of 23 February 2001 fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 2001 accounting year of the Farm Accountancy Data Network (OJ L 55, 24.2.2001, p.
40). fremsendelse af data fra ni til 22 mneder for 2000 og 2001 (4). 
40). 22 months for 2000 and 2001 (4).
Kom missionen begrundede denne foranstaltning med, at tilfžldene af mund-og klovsyge og kogalskab havde gjort det vanskeligt at overholde den fastsatte frist. 
The Commission justified this measure with the fact that foot-and-mouth disease and BSE had affected compliance with deadlines for forwarding the data.
Denne ekstra frist ville imidlertid have kunnet f medlemsstaterne til at indsende dataene for 2002 fżr dataene for 2001, hvilket ville have skabt problemer for forvaltningen. 
However, this extension might have led to Member States transmitting the data for 2002 before those for 2001, which would have caused administrative problems.
Derfor blev fristen for indsendelse af dataene for regnskabsret 2002 ogs forlžnget fra ni til 15 mneder (5). 
The transmission period for the data concerning the 2002 accounting year was therefore extended, in turn, from nine to 15 months (5).
For dataene for regnskabsret 2003 gžlder fristen p ni mneder igen. 
For the data concerning the 2003 accounting year the maximum period of nine months will apply once more.
Kontrol af dataene i bedriftsskemaerne 21. 
Verification of the data contained in the farm returns 21.
Forbindelsesorganerne skal blandt andet samle de bedriftsskemaer, som de fr tilsendt fra regnskabskontorerne, og kontrollere, at de er udfyldt korrekt(6). 
The liaison agencies are required to collect the farm returns sent in by the accountancy offices and verify that they have been duly completed (6).
Et bedriftsskema er korrekt udfyldt, nr indholdet stemmer med de faktiske forhold, og nr regnskabsdataene er udarbejdet i overensstemmelse med de relevante fžllesskabsbestemmelser (7). 
A farm return is duly completed where its contents are factually accurate and the accountancy data given comply with the relevant Community provisions (7).
Indtil 2001 (dataene vedrżrende regnskabsret 1999) kontrollerede Kommissionen selv, om der var sammenhžng i de data, medlemsstaterne havde indsendt. 
Until 2001 (data concerning the 1999 accounting year), the Commission itself checked the consistency of the data forwarded by the Member States.
Kommissionens edb-program kontrollerede, om dataene i bedriftsskemaerne var sammenhžngende, og om bestemte maksimums-eller minimumstžrskler var overholdt. 
Amongst other things, the CommissionŐs software checked whether the data contained in the farm returns were consistent and whether certain maximum and minimum thresholds had been complied with.
Kommissionen underrettede forbindelsesorganerne om konstaterede fejl. 
The Commission reported any errors to the liaison agencies.
Det phvilede disse organer at analysere fejlene, rette dem og fremsende de korrigerede data til Kommissionen. 
It was the responsibility of these agencies to analyse the errors found, rectify them and forward the corrected data to the Commission.
Kommissionen udbetaler kun godtgżrelse for bedriftsskemaer uden fejl, s forbindelsesorganerne havde interesse i at foretage de nżdvendige rettelser og fremsende de korrigerede bedriftsskemaer til Kommissionen. 
As the Commission only pays for farm returns which are completely free of errors, it was in the liaison agenciesŐ interest to carry out the necessary corrections and send the corrected farm returns to the Commission.
I det nye system for indsamling og kontrol af data (INLB-1), foretager medlemsstaterne selv kontrollen ved hjžlp af programmer, som Kommissionen leverer. 
Under the new system for collecting and checking the data (FADN-1), the Member States carry out checks themselves with the help of programmes provided by the Commission.
Forbindelsesorganerne kan sledes behandle fejlmeldingerne direkte. 
The liaison agencies are thus in a position to process the error reports directly.
Mlet for Rettens revision i medlemsstaterne var at undersżge en stikprżve af de fejl, Kommissionen havde konstateret, finde rsagen til fejlene og kontrollere, at de var blevet rettet. 
The aim of the audit carried out in the Member States visited was to examine a sample of the errors reported by the Commission in order to establish the cause of the errors and ascertain that they had been corrected.
Da ingen af de besżgte medlemsstater havde dokumentation, der begrundede rettelserne, var det ikke altid muligt at n dette ml. 
As none of the Member States visited kept records of the reasons for the corrections made, it was not always possible to achieve this objective.
I n medlemsstat, hvor den nationale stikprżve er stżrre end fastsat i fžllesskabsbestemmelserne, erstattes de fejlbehžftede bedriftsskemaer ganske enkelt med korrekte skemaer, men fejlene rettes ikke (Tyskland). 
In one Member State, where the national sample is much larger than required by the Community provisions, farm returns with errors are simply replaced with correct returns, but the errors are not rectified (Germany).
Ikke alle de besżgte medlemsstater benytter sig af muligheden for at afstemme dataene med andre databaser, (4) Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1251/2002 af 11. juli 2002 (EFT L 183 af 12.7.2002, s. 
Not all the Member States visited made use of the opportunities for cross-checking against other databases, for (4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2002 of 11 July 2002 (OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p.
1409/2003 af 7. august 2003 om fravigelse af forordning (EŻF) nr. 1915/83 om visse gennemfżrelsesbestemmelser vedrżrende bogfżring med henblik p konstatering af landbrugsbedrifternes indkomster (EUT L 201 af 8.8.2003, s. 
(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1409/2003 of 7 August 2003 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings (OJ L 201, 8.8.2003, p.
(6) Artikel 6, stk. 1, litra d), i forordning nr. 79/65/EŻF. 
(6) Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation No 79/65/EEC.
(7) Artikel 4 i forordning (EŻF) nr. 1915/83. 
(7) Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83.
C 45/8 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 20.2.2004 navnlig IFKS (1) (Tyskland). 
C 45/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.2.2004 example the IACS (1) (Germany).
Nogle medlemsstater foretager faktisk en sdan krydskontrol med henblik p at begržnse fejlrisikoen mest muligt, men Kommissionen sżrger ikke for, at der bliver udvekslet erfaringer p omrdet. 
A number of Member States do carry out such cross-checks with the aim of limiting, as far as possible, the risk of error but the Commission does not organise any opportunities for an exchange of information concerning the experience gained in this area.
Landbrugsbedrifter, der har form af selskaber 24. 
Agricultural holdings organised as corporations 24.
Informationsnettet for landżkonomisk bogfżring (INLB) er helt og holdent udformet med henblik p registrering af traditionelle familiebedrifter. 
The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) is wholly geared to traditional family farms.
Denne indikator svarer til udbyttet efter fradrag af betalte renter og forpagtningsafgifter samt udgifter til arbejdskraft. 
This indicator shows profit after deduction of interest, farm rent and labour costs.
For landbrugeren og hans familie svarer denne indikator til forrentningen af den investerede kapital. 
For the farmer and his family, this represents their return on land use, capital and labour.
Denne indikator kan imidlertid ikke anvendes, nr der er tale om juridiske personer, da der ikke tages hżjde for investorernes og de ansattes indkomster (2). 
However, this indicator cannot be applied to legal entities, as it does not take into account the incomes of investors and those employed in agriculture (2).
Bedrifter, der har form af selskaber, ville ikke udgżre noget stort problem, hvis der kun var nogle f af dem. 
Holdings organised as companies would not represent a major problem if there were only a few of them.
Men faktisk spiller de en vžsentlig rolle i to af de seks besżgte medlemsstater. 
But, actually, in two of the six Member States their role is by no means insignificant.
I Frankrig har staten siden 1970Őerne skabt tre sžrlige selskabs-former til landbrugssektoren: Čgroupement agricole dŐexploitation en communÇ (GAEC), Čentreprise agricole  responsabilit limiteÇ (EARL) og Čsocit civile dŐexploitation agricoleÇ. 
In France, since the 1970s, the Government has created three types of company specially designed for the agricultural sector: the Ôgroupement agricole dŐexploitation en communŐ (GAEC), the Ôentreprise agricole  responsabilit limiteŐ (EARL) and the Ôsocit civile dŐexploitation agricoleŐ.
Antallet af sdanne selskaber er steget fra 3 % af landbrugsbedrifterne i 1979 til 17 % i 2000 (3), og i 2000 stod de for ca. 40 % af den franske landbrugsproduktion (4). 
The number of these companies increased from 3 % of agricultural holdings in 1979 to 17 % in 2000 (3) and they accounted for 40 % of French agricultural production for 2000 (4).
Det samme gżr sig gžldende i Tysklands nye delstater. 
A similar situation exists in the new Lnder in Germany.
De tidligere landbrugskooperativer (ČLandwirtschaftliche Produkti-onsgenossenschaftÇ) er i mange tilfžlde blevet omdannet til juridiske personer. 
Many of the former agricultural cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften) have been transformed into legal entities.
Strukturen i disse bedrifter, som har form af privatretlige juridiske personer, og hvis gennemsnitlige landbrugsareal i 2001 var 931,7 ha (5), er grundlžggende forskellig fra strukturen i de traditionelle enkeltmandsfirmaer, som i gennemsnit har et landbrugsareal p 27,9 ha. 
The structure of these holdings (which are legal entities under private law and, in 2001, had an average agricultural area of 931,7 ha (5)) is fundamentally different from that of the traditional private holdings, whose average agricultural area is 27,9 ha.