natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til to af de tre vandinfrastrukturprojekter konstaterede Retten, at brugerne rent faktisk betalte takster, der var henholdsvis syv og ni gange hżjere end anslet i stżttemodtagernes projektdo-kumentation, som var blevet brugt til at dokumentere behovet for stżtte og var blevet godkendt af myndighederne. 
For two of the three water infrastructure projects audited, the Court found that the actual tariffs paid by users were respectively seven times and nine times higher than the beneficiary’s estimates indicated in the project documentation, which had been used to justify the need for support and received the approval of the authorities.
Bemžrkninger 20 Uklare afgržnsninger mellem fondene og utilstržkkelige mekanismer til sikring af komplementaritet gjorde det ofte vanskeligt at foretage en effektiv koordinering Medlemsstaternes afgržnsningskriterier tillod overlapning mellem offentlige midler til bestemte typer projekter 31 Med hensyn til afgržnsning mellem de forskellige EU-fonde viste revisionen, at medlemsstaternes nationale strategiplaner og landdistriktsprogrammer for 2007-2013 generelt fastlagde klare afgržnsningskriterier, men at disse ikke altid stemte overens med kriterierne i andre programmeringsdokumenter, og at overlapning mellem fonde i nogle tilfžlde specifikt var tilladt: - I Tyskland (Sachsen) fastlagde LDPŐet afgržnsningen mellem ELFUL-midler og EFRU-midler til skolemoderniseringsprojek-ter p grundlag af elevantallet: ELFUL ydede kun finansiering til skoler med under 350 elever. 
Observations 20 Effective coordination of funds was often affected by weak demarcation lines and insufficient mechanisms to ensure complementarity The demarcation criteria set by Member States allowed overlapping of public funds for certain types of projects 31 As regards demarcation between the different EU funds, the audit showed that, although the Member States’ national strategy plans and RDPs for 2007-2013 generally set out clear demarcation criteria, these were not always consistent with criteria from other programming documents and overlaps of funds were explicitly allowed in some cases: — In Germany (Saxony), according to the RDP, the demarcation between the EAFRD and ERDF funds for school modernisation projects was based on the number of pupils: the EAFRD only financed schools of less than 350 pupils.
Det operationelle program under EFRU fastsžtter imidlertid ikke, at kun projekter vedrżrende skoler med et vist antal elever er stżtteberettigede. - I Italien (Sicilien) fastsatte LDPŐet, at EFRU kun kunne finansiere infrastrukturprojekter i landsbyer med over 500 indbyggere, men det operationelle program under EFRU omtalte ikke dette afgržns-ningskriterium. 
However, the ERDF operational programme does not set a pupil threshold for eligible projects. — In Italy (Sicily), while the RDP stated that the ERDF could only fund infrastructure projects in villages with more than 500 inhabitants, the ERDF operational programme itself did not mention this demarcation criterion.
Retten konstaterede under sit besżg p et af de undersżgte projekter, at der var gennemfżrt et EFRU-finansieret projekt i en landsby med under 500 indbyggere. - I Polen var finansiering af infrastrukturprojekter i landdistrikterne mulig under bde ELFUL og EFRU. 
When visiting one of the audited projects, the auditors found that an ERDF-funded project had been carried out in a village of less than 500 inhabitants. — In Poland, both the EAFRD and the ERDF allowed for the financing of infrastructure projects in rural areas.
Mindre projekter blev primžrt finansieret af ELFUL, men kunne ogs finansieres af EFRU, hvis ansżgerne havde net tilskudsloftet under ELFUL (som varierede fra foranstaltning til foranstaltning). 
Smaller projects were primarily financed under the EAFRD, but could also be financed under the ERDF if applicants had reached their grant limit under the EAFRD (which varied, depending on the measure).
72 % af de kloakinfrastrukturprojekter, der blev godkendt til finansiering fra det operationelle program under EFRU, blev gennemfżrt af stżttemodtagere, som ogs havde brugt ELFUL-midler til den samme type projekter. 
72 % of the sewerage infrastructure projects approved under the ERDF operational programme were implemented by the same beneficiaries that had used EAFRD funds for the same type of projects.
32 Endvidere var der ingen afgržnsning mellem EUŐs fonde til udvikling af landdistrikterne og medlemsstaternes midler til finansiering af infrastruktur i landdistrikterne. 
32 Moreover, there was no demarcation between EU rural development funds and Member State funds for rural infrastructure.
Der var ikke foretaget en kritisk vurdering af argumen-terne for at lade flere fonde stżtte den samme type projekter uafhžngigt af hinanden, selv om dette betżd overlappende forvaltningsstrukturer og kržvede mere arbejde for at sikre koordinering mellem fondene og undg dobbeltfinansiering. 
There was no critical assessment of the arguments in favour of having several funds acting independently to provide support for similar projects, despite the fact that this led to a duplication of management structures and required a greater effort to ensure coordination between funds and avoid double funding.
Bemžrkninger 21 Komplementaritet blev ikke fremmet aktivt 33 Fire af de fem reviderede medlemsstater oprettede koordineringsorganer til at overvge EU-fondenes udgifter, og i to medlemsstater deltog repržsentanter for forvaltningsmyndigheder med ansvar for andre EU-fonde i tilsynsudvalgene vedrżrende udvikling af landdistrikterne. 
Observations 21 Complementary actions were not actively promoted 33 Four out of the five audited Member States set up coordination bodies to supervise the spending of EU funds and in two Member States representatives of the managing authorities of other EU funds participated in the rural development monitoring committees.
Der forel imidlertid ikke dokumentation for, hvordan dette havde bidraget til at sikre bedre komplementaritet mellem fondene ved at džkke finansieringshuller og skabe synergi med henblik p opfyldelse af fžlles ml. 
However, no evidence was available to show how this helped ensure better complementarity between funds, i.e. by filling funding gaps and operating in synergy in order to achieve common objectives.
Begrebet Čkomplementa-ritetÇ blev brugt i medlemsstaternes LDPŐer og p hżjniveaumżder, men ofte blev det brugt forkert som betegnelse for afgržnsninger og regler til forhindring af dobbeltfinansiering. 
Although the term ‘comple-mentarity’ was mentioned in Member States’ RDPs and during high-level meetings, it was often misused to refer to demarcation and the rules aimed at avoiding double funding.
34 Man kunne have fremmet komplementaritet ved f.eks. at bruge forskellige fonde til at prioritere projekter, der byggede videre p hinanden, eller parallelle projekter, der supplerede hinanden med henblik p at opn flere fordele. 
34 Complementarity could have been encouraged by, for example, using different funds to prioritise successive projects that build upon each other or parallel projects that complement each other in order to achieve additional benefits.
I de reviderede medlemsstater identificerede Retten kun n mekanisme, der havde til forml at fremme komplementaritet: I Rumžnien blev der under foranstaltning 322 brugt udvžlgelseskriterier, som prioriterede kloakinfrastrukturprojekter, der supplerede projekter stżttet under Samhżrighedsfonden med det forml at opfylde mlene i spildevandsdirektivet. 
The audit only identified one mechanism aimed at promoting complementarity in the Member States audited: in Romania, selection criteria used under measure 322 prioritised sewerage infrastructure projects that complemented projects supported under the Cohesion Fund with the aim to achieve the objectives of the waste water directive.
35 Medlemsstaternes almindelige praksis var at lade det vžre op til de potentielle stżttemodtagere at koordinere anvendelsen af de forskellige midler (jf. tekstboks 5). 
35 The common approach taken by Member States was to leave it up to the potential beneficiaries to coordinate their use of the different funds (see Box 5).
Et eksempel p skiftende brug af forskellige midler afhžngigt af deres tilgžngelighed Tyskland (Sachsen) En kommune i Tyskland (Sachsen) brugte forskellige finansieringskilder (nationale midler, egne midler og LDP-midler) til at stżtte de forskellige stadier i et skolerenoveringsprojekt fra 2009 til 2011. 
An example of the alternate use of funds based on availability Germany (Saxony) A commune in Germany (Saxony) used several funds (national, own funds and RDP funds) to support the consecutive stages of a school renovation project from 2009 to 2011.
LDP-midlerne blev brugt til den samme type investering som de nationale midler, nemlig udskiftning af skolens vinduer. 
The RDP funds were used for the same type of investment as the national funds, e.g. the replacement of school windows.
Dette er ikke et eksempel p komplementaritet, men p, at man skifter mellem forskellige midler afhžngigt af deres tilgžngelighed. 
This does not represent complementarity, but rather the practice of switching between different funds, depending on their availability.
Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret. 
Source: European Court of Auditors.
Bemžrkninger 22 36 Retten konstaterede to tilfžlde, hvor den manglende komplementaritet med nationale og lokale midler indvirkede negativt p ELFUL-projekters produktivitet og effektivitet (jf. tekstboks 6). 
Observations 22 36 The audit identified two cases where the lack of complementarity with national and local funds jeopardised the efficiency and effectiveness of the EAFRD projects (see Box 6).
Eksempel p manglende komplementaritet mellem forskellige midler Rumžnien I en kommune, der havde modtaget LDP-stżtte til anlžggelse af et vejnet, var den hovedvej, der fżrte til de finansierede veje, i meget drlig stand. 
Examples of a lack of complementarity between funds Romania In a commune that had received RDP support for building a network of roads, the main road leading to these financed roads was in very poor condition.
Efter planen skulle hovedvejen istandsžttes for lokale midler, men den godkendte finansiering blev aldrig udbetalt. 
The main road was supposed to be upgraded with local funds, but never received the approved funding.
Kilde: www.geoportal.gov.ro Kilde: Den Europžiske Revisionsret. 
Source: www.geoportal.gov.ro Source: European Court of Auditors.
Italien (Sicilien) Et af de undersżgte projekter omfattede anlžggelse af en ny vej som et alternativ til en eksisterende kommu-nevej, der var blevet ubrugelig p grund af manglende vedligeholdelse. 
Italy (Sicily) One of the audited projects involved building a new road as an alternative to an existing communal road that had become unusable through lack of maintenance.
Vejen var nedslidt, fordi kommune-veje ikke var berettigede til LDP-stżtte, og regionens eget budget til vejvedligeholdelse var blevet afskaffet (jf. tekstboks 2). 
The road had fallen into disrepair because communal roads were not eligible for RDP support and the region’s own budget for road maintenance had been cancelled (see Box 2).
At anlžgge en ny vej i stedet for at vedligeholde en eksisterende vej13 er klart uproduktivt, og eksemplet afslżrer et finansieringshul, der skyldes manglende komplementaritet. 
Building a new road rather than regularly maintaining an existing one is clearly inefficient13 and reveals a gap between the funds, which do not complement each other.
13 Blandt de seneste rs undersżgelser og rapporter om dette emne kan nžvnes: Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense: ČRepair Priorities: Transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roadsÇ, 2011; McKinsey Global Institute: ČInfrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a yearÇ, 2013; Europa-Parlamentet, Generaldirektoratet for Interne Politikker: ČEU Road Surfaces: Economic and Safety Impact of the Lack of Regular Road MaintenanceÇ, 2014. 
13 Recent studies and reports on this topic include the following: Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, ‘Repair priorities: transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads’, 2011; McKinsey Global Institute, ‘Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year’, 2013; European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, ‘EU road surfaces: economic and safety impact of the lack of regular road maintenance’, 2014.
Veje finansieret under foranstaltning 322 Vejstržkning godkendt til finansiering med nationale midler Tekstboks 6 
Roads financed by measure 322 Road section approved for financing from national funds Box 6
Bemžrkninger 23 I programmeringsperioden 2014-2020 satte Kommissionen fokus p bedre koordinering for 39 Bedre koordinering og sammenhžngende gennemfżrelse af de forskellige fonde var blandt de vigtigste ml for udarbejdelsen af et fžlles sžt regler for EUŐs fem struktur-og investeringsfonde i programmeringsperioden 2014-2020. 
39 In the 2014-2020 programming period, improving coordination and ensuring consistent implementation of the various funds were among the main goals behind drafting a single set of rules covering the EU’s five Structural and Investment Funds.
Disse regler understreger betydningen af stżrre sammenhžng mellem EU-fondene. 
These rules highlight the importance of greater consistency between the EU funds.
Den nye fremgangsmde har mindre fokus p afgržnsning og mere p komplementaritet. 
The new approach focuses less on demarcation and more on complementarity.
Det er et positivt element, at der under foranstaltningen ČBasale tjenesteydelser og landsbyfornyelseÇ nu ogs kan ydes stżtte til udviklingsplaner for kommuner og landsbyer, s de tilskyndes til at foretage investeringer p en sammenhžngende mde. 
A positive element for rural infrastructure is the fact that the measure ‘basic services and village renewal’ can now also offer support to the development plans for municipalities and villages, thus encouraging them to carry out investments in a coherent way.
40 Retten gennemgik den tjekliste, som Kommissionen bruger til at sikre, at der er sammenhžng i LDPŐerne for 2014-2020. 
40 The Court reviewed the checklist used by the Commission to ensure the consistency of the 2014-2020 RDPs.
Tjeklisten indeholder punkter vedrżrende komplementaritet mellem EUŐs struktur-og investeringsfonde p omrderne lokale veje, kunstvanding og vandrensning, men den omfatter ikke kontrol af risikoen for, at midler erstattes med andre midler. 
The checklist included points that refer to the complementarity of the EU’s Structural and Investment Funds in the areas of local roads, irrigation and water treatment; however, it did not include any checks on the risk of substitution of funds.
2, og artikel 78 i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1698/2005 fastsžtter fżlgende: ČKommissionens repržsentanter kan p eget initiativ deltage i overvgningsudvalgets arbejde som rdgivereÇ, og ČOvervgningsudvalget pser, at landdistriktudviklingspro-grammet gennemfżres effektivtÇ. 
14 Article 77(2) and Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 state that ‘At their own initiative, Commission representatives may participate in the work of the Monitoring Committee in an advisory capacity’, and that ‘The Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the implementation of the rural development programme’.
Dette gżres ved at vurdere og revidere udvžlgelseskriterierne, overvge opfyldelsen af de overordnede og specifikke ml osv. at afhjžlpe de tidligere svagheder 37 Ansvaret for at dokumentere behovet for LDP-interventioner og sikre god koordinering af fondene ligger hovedsagelig hos medlemsstaterne. 
This is done by considering and revising selection criteria, monitoring progress toward objectives, the achievement of targets, etc.
Bemžrkninger 24 41 Som fremhžvet i Rettens rsberetning for 201415 er der ikke meget i partnerskabsaftalerne - nżglemekanismen til koordinering af EU-fondene - der tyder p, at mlene om komplementaritet og synergi bliver omsat til praksis af medlemsstaterne. 
Observations 24 41 As highlighted in the Court’s 2014 annual report15, partnership agreements, as the key mechanism for coordinating EU funds, have provided little evidence that the aims of complementarity and synergy are being put into practice by Member States.
Endvidere konstaterede Retten, at LDPŐerne for 2014-2020 fra Tyskland (Sachsen), Polen og Rumžnien16 stadig ikke beskriver de mekanismer, der skal anvendes til at fremme komplementaritet og synergi mellem de forskellige finansieringskilder. 
Furthermore, despite the Commission’s checks, the 2014-2020 RDPs for Germany (Saxony), Poland and Romania16 still do not provide a description of the mechanisms to be used to promote complementarity and synergies between the different sources of funding.
Programmernes fokus ligger fortsat p afgržnsning og forhindring af dobbeltfinansiering. 
The focus of the programmes remains on demarcation and avoiding double funding.
Del II - gennemfżrelsen af de undersżgte foranstaltninger gav kun i begržnset omfang valuta for pengene 42 For at f valuta for pengene17 bżr medlemsstaterne: - anvende udvžlgelsesmetoder, der prioriterer de mest omkostningseffektive projekter, dvs. de projekter, der pr. omkostningsenhed potentielt kan levere det stżrste bidrag til opfyldelse af LDP-mlene - sikre sig, at omkostningerne er rimelige, fżr de godkender tilskudsansżgninger og betalingsanmodninger - fżr de godkender tilskudsansżgningerne sikre sig, at ansżgerne kan dokumentere, at deres projekter sandsynligvis vil vžre bžredygtige - sżrge for, at de administrative procedurer gżr det muligt at gennemfżre projekterne inden for en rimelig tidsramme. 
Part II — Limited value for money in the implementation of the measures audited 42 In order to achieve value for money17, Member States should: — apply selection methods that prioritise the most cost-effective projects, i.e. the projects with the potential to make the greatest contribution towards the RDP objectives per unit of cost; — ensure that costs are reasonable before approving grant applications and payment claims; — ensure, before approving grant applications, that applicants have been able to show that their projects are likely to be sustainable; — ensure that the administrative procedures allow projects to be implemented within a reasonable time frame.
Kommissionen bżr gennem sin vejledning og sine revisionsaktiviteter sikre, at medlemsstaterne overholder principperne for forsvarlig żkonomisk forvaltning (sparsommelighed, produktivitet og effektivitet). 
The Commission, through its guidance and audit activities, should ensure that Member States observe the principles of sound financial management (economy, efficiency and effectiveness).
Udvžlgelsesprocedurerne rettede ikke altid finansieringen mod de mest omkostningseffektive projekter 43 For at sikre, at finansieringen rettes mod opfyldelse af LDP-mlene, skal medlemsstaterne fastsžtte stżttebetingelserne - som f.eks. beskriver de stżttede investeringstyper, de kategorier af stżttemodtagere, der kan ansżge om tilskud, og stżttens karakter. 
Selection procedures did not always direct funding towards the most cost-effective projects 43 To ensure that funding is directed towards the RDP objectives, Member States must set out the conditions for eligibility — which identify, for example, the types of investments supported, the categories of beneficiaries that can apply for a grant and the nature of the support.
Retten konstaterede, at de reviderede medlemsstater generelt havde fastlagt klare og objektive stżtteberettigelseskriterier. 
The Court found that the eligibility criteria set by the audited Member States were generally clear and objective.
I Italien (Sicilien) konstaterede Retten dog et sžrligt tilfžlde, hvor et stżtteberettigelseskriterium vedrżrende vejprojekter i landdistrikterne under foranstaltning 125 ikke var i overensstemmelse med de behov, der var beskrevet i LDPŐet (jf. tekstboks 7). 
However, a specific case was identified in Italy (Sicily) where an eligibility criterion applicable to rural road projects supported under measure 125 was not in line with the needs described in the RDP (see Box 7).
15 De revisionsresultater, der pržsenteres i rsberetningen, vedrżrer en stikprżve p fem partnerskabsaftaler, nemlig med Tyskland, Frankrig, Letland, Polen og Portugal. 
15 The findings presented in the annual report are based on a sample of five partnership agreements: those of Germany, France, Latvia, Poland and Portugal.
16 Retten gennemgik ikke LDPŐerne for 2014-2020 fra de to andre reviderede regioner (Spanien (Extremadura) og Italien (Sicilien)), da de endnu ikke var blevet godkendt, da revisionen fandt sted. 
16 The 2014-2020 RDPs for the remaining two regions audited (Spain (Extremadura) and Italy (Sicily)) have not been reviewed because they had not yet been approved by the date of the audit.
2, i forordning (EU, Euratom) nr. 966/2012. 
17 In accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness set out in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.
Bemžrkninger 25 Et stżtteberettigelseskriterium, der ikke var i overensstemmelse med mlene i LDPŐet og landdistrikternes behov Italien (Sicilien) Selv om LDPŐet angav, at der under foranstaltning 125 skulle gives fortrin til projekter vedrżrende istandsžttelse af eksisterende markveje, fastsatte stżtteberettigelseskriterierne i indkaldelsen af forslag, at hżjst 40 % af de stżtteberettigede projektomkostninger mtte g til istandsžttelse, og at de resterende 60 % skulle g til anlžggelse af nye veje. 
Observations 25 An eligibility criterion inconsistent with the RDP objectives and needs of rural areas Italy (Sicily) Although the RDP indicates that projects supported under measure 125 should favour the rehabilitation of existing farm roads, the eligibility criteria set in the call for proposals required that a maximum of 40 % of the eligible project costs was spent on rehabilitation, while the remaining 60 % had to be spent on building new roads.
Dette krav fżrte til, at der blev finansieret projekter, der ikke matchede landdistrikternes behov, som de var beskrevet i LDPŐet. 
This requirement resulted in the financing of some projects which did not match the needs of the rural areas as identified in the RDP.
I et af de undersżgte projekter var den fżrste stržkning af den eksisterende tilkżrselsvej f.eks. i drlig stand og burde istandsžttes, men for at holde istandsžttelsesomkostningerne under 40 % af de stżtteberettigede omkostninger blev denne del holdt uden for projektet. 
For example, in one of the audited projects, the initial section of the existing access road was in bad condition and would have warranted rehabilitation, yet it was not included in the project to keep the costs for rehabilitation under 40 % of the eligible project costs.
Dertil kom, at ca. en tredjedel af den nyanlagte vej kun betjente to af de 31 bedrifter i den sammenslutning, der gennemfżrte projektet, dvs. kun 5,5 % af sammenslutningens samlede landbrugsareal. 
On the other hand, around one third of the length of the newly built road served only two out of the 31 farms included in the association which implemented the project, i.e. only 5.5 % of the total agricultural land owned by the association.
44 Mens stżtteberettigelseskriterierne skal udelukke projekter, der ikke bidrager til at opfylde LDP-mlene, skal udvžlgelseskriterierne gżre det muligt at foretage en objektiv og gennemsigtig vurdering af de foreslede projekters relative fordele, s medlemsstaterne bruger det disponible budget p de projekter, der bidrager mest til at opfylde mlene. 
44 Whereas eligibility criteria should exclude projects that do not address the RDP objectives, selection criteria should enable the relative merits of project proposals to be evaluated on an objective and transparent basis, so that Member States spend the available budget on those projects that contribute most to the objectives.