natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifżlge artikel 37, stk. 3, i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 1257/1999 skal det med programmeringen af udviklingen af landdistrikter kunne bevises, at en anmodning om en undtagelse ikke underminerer sammenhžngen mellem den 1. og 2. sżjle. 
According to Article 37(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, it is the role of rural development (RD) programming to prove that a request for an exception does not undermine the coherence between the first and second pillar.
Sammenhžngen mellem den fžlles markedsordning for frugt og grżnsager og udviklingen af landdistrikter vil indg i den bredere, igangvžrende vurdering. 
The coherence between the CMO Fruit and Vegetables and RD will be considered as part of the wider impact assessment, which is currently ongoing.
KONKLUSIONER 87. 
CONCLUSIONS 87.
Kommissionen drżfter regelmžssigt stżtteordningens funktion, herunder spżrgsml vedrżrende effektivitet, med medlemsstaterne p mżder i forvaltningsudvalget. 
The Commission regularly discusses the functioning of the aid scheme, including issues related to effectiveness, with Member States in the Management Committee meetings.
Spżrgsml, der kržver yderligere undersżgelser, behandles p bilaterale mżder mellem Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne. 
Furthermore, matters requiring clarification are dealt with in bilateral meetings between the Commission and Member States.
20.11.2006 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 282/57 Under Kommissionens forskellige regnskabsafslutningsbesżg og skrivebordskontroller har den vžret sžrligt opmžrksom p at sikre, at medlemsstaternes forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemer giver tilstržkkelig stor sikkerhed for, at de anmeldte udgifter stemmer overens med kravene i lovgivningen. 
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/57 During its various Clearance of Accounts missions and desk audits, the Commission paid particular attention to ensuring that Member StatesŐ systems of management and control offer reasonable assurance that expenditure declared conforms to the regulatory requirements.
I over 70 % af de sager, som Revisionsretten har gennemget, har man dog kunnet konstatere eller antage, at der er gjort et vist fremskridt mod at n de forskellige mlsžtninger. 
However, some progress towards the related objectives could either be clearly seen or assumed in over 70 % of cases the Court audited.
Kommissionen har indfżrt lister over stżtteberettigelse med (i det omfang det har vžret muligt inden for rimelighedens gržnser) tydelig angivelse af, hvad der kunne ydes stżtte til. 
The Commission introduced eligibility lists, which (as far as was reasonably possible) clearly set out what could be funded.
Medlemsstaterne fastsžtter selv deres detaljerede administrative ordninger, og Kommissionen kontrollerer, at de stemmer overens med forordningerne, hvor kontrolgraderne er fastsat til et rimeligt niveau. 
Member States decide on their own detailed administrative arrangements and the Commission verifies that these are in compliance with the regulations, which fix the control rate at a reasonable level.
Kommissionens bemžrkninger i forbindelse med sine 2005-revisioner tyder p, at medlemsstaterne i adskillige tilfžlde har fortolket EU-retten meget bredt. 
The CommissionŐs observations arising from its 2005 audit missions indicate several cases where the Member States interpreted EU law very broadly.
Kommissionen noterer med tilfredshed, at Revisionsrettens resultater alt i alt giver et positivt billede af de fremskridt, som producentorganisationerne har gjort takket vžre Fžllesskabets stżtte. 
The Commission is pleased to note that the CourtŐs findings give a positive global picture of progress made by producer organisations thanks to Community support.
Kommissionen mener, at selvom en aktivitet ikke ser ud til effektivt at have gjort fremskridt hen imod en af de mlsžtninger, der er fastlagt i Rdets forordning i artikel 15, stk. 
The Commission considers that even if an action may not appear effective in achieving a significant advance towards one of the objectives specified in Article 15(4) of the Council Regulation, the aid should be considered effective in terms of improving producersŐ incomes through improving their competitiveness, which is one of the overall policy aims.
Kommissionen erkender, at driftsprogrammernes indvirkning ikke kan opfattes som den eneste faktor, der skubber producenterne i retning af mlsžtningerne i Rdets forordning. 
The Commission acknowledges that operational programmes effects cannot be seen as the only factor pushing producers towards the objectives set in the Council Regulation.
Men de bidrager dog til en mere markedsorienteret tilgang. 
However, they do contribute to a more market oriented approach.
Og isžr p det seneste har markedskržfterne sat producenterne under et enormt pres, hvilket har fżrt til store kriser for fżrende EU-produkter (dvs. ferskner, citrusfrugter, spisedruer, tomater og tomater til forarbejdning). 
Market forces, particularly recently, have put producers under enormous pressure, resulting in major crises for leading EU products (i.e. peaches, citrus, table grapes, tomatoes, tomatoes for processing).
Som fżlge af disse kriser er producenterne mske mindre opmžrksomme p kvalitetsaspekterne og overser miljżhensyn i kampen for at overleve żkonomisk. 
As a result of these crises, in a struggle for economic survival and having cost reduction as a priority, producers may pay less attention to quality aspects and neglect environmental concerns.
Denne risiko gżr driftsprogrammerne til et vigtigt element, som kan bidrage til at f producenterne til at koncentrere sig om kvalitets-og miljżaspekter i deres handlinger. 
This risk makes the operational programmes an important element for keeping producers focussed on quality and environment issues in their actions.
Kommissionen er bekendt med de mangler, Revisionsretten ppeger. 
The Commission is aware of the shortcomings pointed out by the Court.
I lyset af den żgede markedsadgang, som er en del af Doha-udviklingsdagsordenen, og den żgede koncentration p efterspżrgselssiden er denne politiske tilgang dog stadig det instrument, der er mest velegnet til at sikre en bedre balance i kžden (fra producent til forbruger). 
However, this policy approach, having in mind the increased market access implied by the Doha Development Agenda and the increasing concentration of the demand side, is still the best instrument to try to achieve a better balanced chain (from producer to consumer).
Et af mlene med den kommende reform er at rette op p svaghederne og styrke de eksisterende instrumenter, navnlig ved at tilskynde til sammenlžgninger mellem producentorganisationer, sammenslutninger af producentorganisationer, samarbejde mellem producentorganisationer og producentorganisationer med en tvžrnational dimension. 
One of the aims of the incoming reform is to address the weaknesses and to reinforce the available instruments, in particular by favouring mergers between producer organisations, Associations of producer organisations, cooperation between producer organisations, and producer organisations with a transnational dimension.
Kommissionen mener ikke, at dens tjenestegrenes ex ante-kontrol af medlemsstaternes anmodninger om undtagelser i medfżr af artikel 37, stk. 3, i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 
The Commission considers that the ex ante check made by its services on Member StatesŐ requests for exceptions under Article 37(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 were sufficient to ensure coherence between the two instruments.
1257/1999 var nok til at sikre sammenhžng mellem de to instrumenter. rsagerne til producenternes utilfredsstillende deltagelse i ordningen vil blive bedżmt i kommende evalueringer. 
The reasons for the unsatisfactory participation of producers in the scheme will be assessed in future evaluations.
Dette forhold vil blive vurderet og inddraget i den kommende gennemgang af den fžlles markedsordning (ultimo 2006), sledes at ordningen kan blive enklere og mere effektiv i fremtiden. 
This issue will be assessed and appropriately addressed in the forthcoming review of the CMO (end 2006), with the aim of making the aid scheme simpler and more effective in the future.
Evalueringens resultater kan betyde, at Kommissionen tager nye lovgivningsmžssige initiativer, hvis den mener, at det vil bidrage til at opfylde ordningens mlsžtninger. 
The results of the evaluation could lead to additional legislative initiatives from the Commission, if these are considered to help achieve the schemeŐs objectives.
Kommissionen vil foretage en konsekvensanalyse som forberedelse til det forslag til reform af den fžlles markedsordning, som den fremlžgger senere i 2006. 
The Commission is carrying out an impact assessment in preparation for the CMO reform proposal to be presented later in 2006.
Den tilslutter sig de ml, som kommer til udtryk i Revisionsrettens henstillinger, og vil som led i den nžvnte konsekvensanalyse afsżge mulighederne for, hvordan disse bedst kan ns. 
It agrees with the aims expressed in the CourtŐs recommendations and will, as part of the impact assessment, explore how best they can be achieved.
Kommissionen vil i sit forslag til reform tage hnd om den manglende organisering i de stżrste frugt-og grżnsagspro-ducerende medlemsstater ved mere effektivt at tilskynde de pgžldende til at blive medlem af producentorganisationer. 
The Commission will address in its forthcoming reform proposal the issue of lack of organisation in the main fruit and vegetable producing Member States by encouraging membership of producer organisations more effectively.
C 282/58 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 20.11.2006 99. og 100. 
C 282/58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 99 and 100.
I en sektor, hvor udbuddet str over for en efterspżrgsel, hvis forhandlingsposition bliver stedse stžrkere, er og bliver koncentration et godt redskab til at sikre stżrre balance p markedet. 
In a sector where supply is facing ever stronger bargaining power from the demand side, the concentration of supply is, and will be, a valid tool for ensuring a more balanced market.
C 178/24 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 31.7.2007 BERIGTIGELSER Berigtigelse til sžrberetning nr. 2/2007 om institutionernes udgifter til bygninger med institutionernes svar (Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 148 af 2. juli 2007) (2007/C 178/02) Side 8, punkt 28, sidste punktum: I stedet for: ČAndre institutioner er imidlertid ikke enige i denne konklusion, og udvalgene baserer fortsat deres kżb p indeksregulerede lejer og ikke p bygningernes vžrdi.Ç lžses: ČDenne konklusion blev imidlertid ikke videreformidlet til de andre institutioner, og udvalgene baserer fortsat deres kżb p indeksregulerede lejer og ikke p bygningernes vžrdi.Ç 
C 178/24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 CORRIGENDA Corrigendum to Special Report No 2/2007 concerning the InstitutionsŐ expenditure on buildings together with the InstitutionsŐ replies (Official Journal of the European Union C 148 of 2 July 2007) (2007/C 178/02) On page 11, footnote 31: for: ÔRegulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Commission of 19 March 2001 (OJ L 114, 24.4.2001, p.
DenEuropžiskeFlygtningefond ............................................ 
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................
Revisionensomfangogmlogrevisionsmetode ............................... 
Background............................................................
VAR FORDELINGEN AF MIDLERNE TIL MEDLEMSSTATERNE HENSIGTSMŽSSIG? . . . . . . 
TheEuropeanRefugeeFund ...............................................
De statistiske data, der blev anvendt som basis for tildelingen, var ufuldstžndige og up-lidelige................................................................ 
Auditscope,objectivesandapproach........................................
Fortolkningsforskelle blandt medlemsstaterne forvrider fordelingsgrundlaget . . . . . . . . . 
Lowefficiencyoftheallocationprocedure ....................................
Tildelingsproceduren var kendetegnet ved lav produktivitet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... MedlemsstaternefortolkerERF-reglerneforskelligt .............................. 
DifferentinterpretationofERFrulesbyMemberStates .......................... PositiveexamplesofERFmanagement .......................................
Resultaterne af Kommissionens overvgning og korrigerende foranstaltninger var utilstržkkelige ............................................................ 
C 178/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 Paragraph Page WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE ERF ON NATIONAL EFFORTS IN THE AREA OF ASY-LUM?.....................................................................
KONKLUSION ............................................................. 
40-44 9 CONCLUSION .............................................................
ANBEFALINGER ............................................................ 
16 TheCommissionŐsreplies .............................................................. 19
31.7.2007 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende RESUM I. Den Europžiske Flygtningefond (ERF eller fonden) blev oprettet i september 2000 for en indledende femrsperiode, der udlżb i 2004, og med et finansielt referencegrundlag p 216 millioner euro. 
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union SUMMARY I. The European Refugee Fund (ERF or the Fund) was established in September 2000 for an initial five-year period ending in 2004, with a financial reference amount of 216 million euro.
Fonden blev oprettet p et tidspunkt, hvor EU żgede sine aktiviteter p asyl-og immigrationsomrdet, som var i hastig udvikling. 
The FundŐs creation occurred at a time of increased EU activity in the rapidly evolving field of asylum and immigration.
Sigtet med ERF var at stżtte og fremme medlemsstaternes indsats med hensyn til modtagelse af flygtninge og fordrevne og fżlgerne heraf. 
The aim of the ERF was to support and encourage the efforts made by the Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons.
Forvaltningen af fonden var delt mellem Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne. 
The management of the Fund was shared between the Commission and the Member States.
Kommissionen havde det overordnede ansvar for, at fonden blev implementeret i overensstemmelse med reglerne, mens medlemsstaterne stod for gennemfżrelsen af de enkelte foranstaltninger. 
The Commission had the overall responsibility for the correct implementation of the Fund, while the Member States were in charge of carrying out the actual measures.
De stżtteberettigede foranstaltninger var inddelt i tre grupper: modtagelsesforhold, integration og hjemsendelse af flygtninge og fordrevne. 
Fundable measures were divided into three groups: conditions for the reception, integration, and repatriation of refugees and displaced persons.
Retten reviderede forvaltningen af den fżrste fase af Den Europžiske Flygtningefond (2000-2004) med fokus p fżlgende forhold: Ń Var fordelingen af midlerne til medlemsstaterne hensigtsmžssig? Ń Var Kommissionens og medlemsstaternes forvaltning forsvarlig? 
The Court carried out an audit of the management of the first phase of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004), focusing on the following: Ń was the distribution of funds to Member States sound?
Midlerne blev primžrt fordelt p basis af det antal tredjelandsstatsborgere eller statslżse personer, jf. 
The distribution of funds was mainly based on the number of third-country nationals and stateless persons, as defined by the ERF, that have entered the Member States.
De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Statistiske Kontor (Eurostat) var ansvarlig for at indsamle statistiske oplysninger om asylansżgere fra medlemsstaterne. 
The Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) was responsible for collecting statistical data on asylum figures from the Member States.
Der var ikke fastlagt en harmoniseret definition af de mlgrupper, der var defineret i ERF-bestemmelserne, og medlemsstaterne fortolkede dem forskelligt. 
No harmonised definitions of the target groups as defined in the ERF rules existed, and Member States applied different interpretations.
Grundlaget for tildelingen af ERF-bevillinger var sledes ikke ensartet, sammenligneligt og plideligt. 
Thus the basis used for the ERF allocations was not consistent, comparable and reliable.
Der blev konstateret alvorlige uoverensstemmelser i de underliggende statistiske data. 
Serious discrepancies in the underlying statistical data were detected.
I nogle tilfžlde blev dataene žndret som fżlge af, at medlemsstaternes lovgivning udviklede sig i retning af stżrre harmonisering. 
In some cases, the data were changed due to the evolution of the Member StatesŐ legislation in the direction of greater harmonisation.
V. Hele den rlige tildelingsprocedure var tung, og der kunne stilles spżrgsml ved, hvor effektiv den var. 
V. The entire annual allocation procedure was cumbersome and its efficiency questionable.
Medlemsstaterne var eneansvarlige for at forvalte og administrere projekterne, mens Kommissionen skulle sikre, at medlemsstaterne havde velfungerende forvaltnings-og kontrolsystemer. 
Member States had sole responsibility for the management and administration of projects, while the Commission had to ensure that Member States had smoothly functioning management and control systems.
Selv om der blev konstateret svagheder, og Kommisisonen har ivžrksat en ržkke korrigerende foranstaltninger, er alle de problemer, der blev konstateret i medlemsstaterne, endnu ikke blevet lżst. 
Although shortcomings were detected and some corrective measures were taken by the Commission, not all problems detected in the Member States had yet been resolved.
Rettens revision viste, at nogle af bestemmelserne om ERF I, navnlig bestemmelserne om stżtteberettigelse, kunne fortolkes meget forskelligt. 
The CourtŐs audit has shown that some of the provisions of ERF I, in particular the eligibility rules, were open to significant differences of interpretation.
Retten anbefaler, at der Ń under hensyntagen til dens revisionsresultater og de žndringer, der allerede er foretaget i ERF II Ń tržffes hensigtsmžssige foranstaltninger, s det sikres, at ERF fremover fr en klarere og mere pržcis mlretning. 
The Court recommends, taking account of its findings and the changes already made in ERF II, that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that the ERF is more clearly and precisely targeted for the future.
For s vidt angr ERFŐs indvirkning p medlemsstaternes udgifter, var der ikke ret mange oplysninger at f hverken i medlemsstaterne eller i Kommissionen. 
Regarding the question of the impact of the ERF on national funding, information was limited both in the Member States and at the Commission.
Ud fra de projekter, den besżgte, konstaterede Retten en ržkke positive žndringer i medlemsstaternes indsats, primžrt med hensyn til afprżvning af nyskabende projekter og integration af resultaterne af sdanne projekter i de nationale strategier. 
In the light of the projects visited, some positive changes in national efforts were noted, mainly with regard to testing innovatory projects and integrating their results into national strategies.
C 178/3 INDLEDNING Baggrund 1. 
C 178/3 INTRODUCTION Background 1.
Det er fastsat i Amsterdam-traktaten, at der gradvist skal indfżres et omrde med frihed, sikkerhed og retfžrdighed (1). 
The Treaty of Amsterdam envisages the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice (1).
I overensstemmelse hermed vedtog Det Europžiske Rd i oktober 1999 i Tammerfors (Finland) et omfattende program med (1) Artikel 61 i traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europžiske Fžllesskab, som žndret ved Amsterdam-traktaten. politiske retningslinjer og operationelle ml, herunder indfżrelse af et fžlles europžisk asylsystem. 
Pursuant to this, the European Council agreed in October 1999 in (1) Article 61 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Den Europžiske Flygtningefond 2. 
The European Refugee Fund 2.
Den Europžiske Flygtningefond (ERF eller fonden) blev oprettet i september 2000 for en indledende femrsperiode, der udlżb i 2004 (2). 
The European Refugee Fund (ERF or the Fund) was established in September 2000 for an initial five-year period ending in 2004 (2).
(2) Rdets beslutning 2000/596/EF af 28. september 2000 om oprettelse af en europžisk flygtningefond (EFT L 252 af 6.10.2000). 
(2) Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 establishing the European Refugee Fund (OJ L 252, 6.10.2000).
C 178/4 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 31.7.2007 3. 
C 178/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 3.
ERF blev oprettet for Čat fremme en ligelig fordeling mellem medlemsstaterne af indsatsen med hensyn til modtagelse af flygtninge og fordrevne og fżlgerne herafÇ (1). 
The ERF was created Ôto promote a balance in the efforts made by Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced personsŐ (1).
Fonden skulle baseres p princippet om solidaritet mellem medlemsstaterne, og den skulle sikre, at byrderne blev fordelt rimeligt mellem dem. 
It was to be based on the principle of solidarity between Member States, and it should ensure fair burden-sharing between them.
Fonden skulle yde stżtte til foranstaltninger, der tog sigte p at etablere egnede modtagelsesforhold, og til foranstaltninger til social integration af flygtninge og fordrevne i opholdsmed-lemsstaten. 
The Fund was to support measures that aim to achieve appropriate reception conditions, as well as integrating refugees and displaced persons into the society of a Member State.
ERF skulle endvidere yde stżtte til flygtninge og fordrevne i forbindelse med hjemsendelse, og navnlig gżre det muligt for dem ud fra kendskab til forholdene at tržffe beslutning om at vende tilbage til deres hjemland. 
In addition, the ERF was to allocate resources to assist refugees and displaced persons with repatriation, including help in taking an informed decision to return to their country of origin.
Der blev bevilget et finansielt referencegrundlag p 216 millioner euro til ERF. 
A financial reference amount of 216 million euro was allocated to the ERF.
De endelige bevillinger belżb sig til 243 millioner euro, inklusive 49 millioner euro til nżdforanstaltninger, som ikke blev anvendt. 
The final appropriations amounted to 243 million euro, including 49 million euro provided for emergency measures but not used.
Kommissionen anslr, at der pr. udgangen af december 2006 var blevet udbetalt 141 millioner euro. 
As of the end of December 2006 the Commission estimates that 141 million euro had been paid.
Nedenstende tabel viser bevillingerne og forpligtelserne i perioden 2000-2004. 
The following table shows the appropriations and commitments for the years 2000 to 2004.
Bevillinger og forpligtelser 2000-2004 2000-2004 2004 Bevil-Forplig- Bevillinger telser linger 0,66 0,12 0,73 42,27 42,27 42,27 0,16 (*) 0,18 9,82 (*) 9,82 52,91 42,39 53,00 (millioner euro) 2001 2000 2003 Forpligtelser 0,65 42,27 (*) (*) 42,92 8. gere, flygtninge og personer under beskyttelse. 
Appropriations and commitments 2000 to 2004 (million euro) Administrative expenditure ERF Operational expenditure ERF Administrative expenditure emergency measures ERF Operational expenditure emergency measures ERF 2000 Appropriations 3,64 189,02 0,96 49,03 to 2004 Commitments 2,19 189,00 (*) (*) 2004 Appro-Commit- priations ments 0,66 0,12 42,27 42,27 0,16 (*) 9,82 (*) 2003 Appro-Commit- priations ments 0,73 0,65 42,27 42,27 0,18 (*) 9,82 (*) 2002 Appro-Commit- priations ments 0,73 0,53 45,08 44,99 0,18 (*) 9,82 (*) 2001 Appro-Commit- Appro-Commit- Total 242,65 191,19 52,91 42,39 53,00 42,92 55,81 45,52 45,00 34,40 36,01 25,95 2000 priations ments priations 0,81 0,21 0,72 0,67 34,19 34,19 25,28 25,28 0,20 (*) 0,23 (*) 9,80 (*) 9,78 (*) ments (*) Appropriations foreseen for emergency needs and not used between 2000 and 2004.
I 1999 var tallet steget til 475 000, og i 2003 faldt det igen til 374 000. 
According to DG JLS, the number of asylum applicants, refugees and persons under protection amounted to approximately 303 000 in 1996, which increased to 475 000 in 1999 and decreased to 374 000 in 2003.