natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Samarbejdet mellem alle partnerne blev virkelig styrket. 
This effectively strengthened cooperation between all the partners.
P nogle punkter kan der imidlertid stadig ske forbedringer: P den ene side fik forvaltningsmyndighederne en ret kunstig funktion, fordi der ikke fandtes strukturer, der virkelig var fžlles, og som repržsenterede de forskellige medlemsstater (jf. punkt 43 og 44); p den anden side var den samarbejdsnd, der skulle kendetegne FTSŐerne, ikke altid sžrligt fremherskende, og i flere tilfžlde var enhedsreglen ikke overholdt fuldstžndigt i forbindelse med finansieringsplanen, for midlerne til FS og navnlig til EF-initiativerne var blevet fordelt p de deltagende medlemsstater (jf. punkt 45-50). 
However, there is still room for improvement: on the one hand, the absence of bodies that were genuinely shared to represent the various Member States conferred an artificial role on the managing authorities (see paragraphs 43 and 44); on the other hand, the spirit of cooperation that was supposed to characterise the constitution of JTSs was not always in evidence, and in several cases the principle of a single financial plan was not fully respected because the resources allocated to the SFs and, more specifically, to the CIs were assigned by Member States (see paragraphs 45 to 50).
Analyserne var generelt samordnede, men ikke sžrlig nyttige; ingen sammenhžng mellem analyserne og definitionen af foranstaltningerne under programmerne og projekterne, som burde have stżrre mervžrdieffekt 88. 
Analyses are generally integrated but of little use; no connection exists between analyses and the definition of programme measures; the added value of projets needs to be enhanced 88.
I de fleste tilfžlde havde de myndigheder, der havde foretaget forhndsevalueringen, bidraget til forberedelsen og udarbejdelsen af EF-initiativ-programmerne, og derfor kunne de ikke afgive en sdan kritisk og fuldstžndig uafhžngig udtalelse, som forventedes af dem (jf. punkt 52). 
Since the ex ante assessors usually contributed to the preparation and drafting of the CIPs, they are unable to provide the wholly independent critical opinion that is required of them (see paragraph 52).
De analyser, som EF-initiativ-programmernes prioriteter og foranstaltninger skal opstilles p grundlag af, er meget arbejds-og tidskržvende. De kržver, at der involveres eksperter. Selv om de stort set džkker den stżtteberettigede region, er de ikke sžrlig nyttige, navnlig fordi oplysningerne fra dem ikke kan bruges, nr man skal beskrive regionens udgangssituation. 
The analyses which are supposed to underlie any decisions concerning CIP priorities and measures take time and a good deal of effort necessitating the involvement of experts. Although they usually cover the eligible region as a whole, the analyses are of little use, in particular because the information that they incorporate does not establish a regional point of departure against which the indicators are to measure CIP impact.
Hvis Čbottom-upÇ-hżringsprocessen giver resultater, der afviger fra resultaterne af disse analyser, bżr grundene hertil fremg af programmerne (jf. punkt 55, 56 og 57). 
Where the results of these analyses are contradicted by the Ôbottom-upŐ consultation process, the programmes should explain why (see paragraphs 55 to 57).
Desuden er de konstaterede problemer generelle og ikke sžrlig gržnserelaterede, selv om en ržkke foranstaltninger (miljż, territoriale aspekter forbundet med EFFU...) for en ržkke EF-initiativ-programmers vedkommende er berettigede, fordi gržnser er en hindring i sig selv (jf. punkt 58). 
Moreover, the problems identified are of a general nature and are not specifically caused by the existence of borders, although for some CIPs measures (on the environment and territorial concerns linked to the ESDP, etc.) are justified because the borders appear per se to constitute an obstacle (see paragraph 58).
Endelig er rsagssammenhžngene mellem disse analyser og EF-initiativ-programmernes prioriteter ikke klare. 
Finally, the causal links between these analyses and the CIP priorities are unclear.
Der ligger andre hensyn til grund for mlene, prioriteterne og foranstaltningerne end hensynet til at f lżst de specifikt gržnserelaterede problemer ved at mlrette aktionerne. 
Both the stated objectives and the priorities and measures derive from other concerns than that of targeting actions to resolve specific border-related problems.
Det betyder, at de finansielle midler fordeles i sm portioner, og at effekten udvandes. 
Programme measures are extremely varied, with the effect that resources are spread very thinly and their impact is diluted.
Enhedsreglen for de organer, der gennemfżrer EF-initiativ-programmerne, fremmer ganske vist samarbejdet, men den har ikke fżrt til en mlrettet strategi (jf. punkt 59-63). 
Although the sharing of implementing bodies is conducive to cooperation, it has not resulted in a targeted strategy (see paragraphs 59 to 63).
De programmer, der er beskrevet mindst pržcist, er programmerne under linje C. Retningslinjerne hertil er uklart formuleret, og der var ikke udarbejdet forhndsevalueringer, som kunne have vist behovene. 
Strand C programmes are the least well defined, in that they offer vague specific guidelines without the ex ante evaluation that would have served to clarify needs.
Det havde ikke vžret muligt at definere indikatorer, og det viser ogs, at Kommissionen ikke var helt parat til at indfżre denne linje (jf. punkt 24, 57, 62 og 72). 
That it was impossible to define indicators also demonstrates that the Commission was not entirely prepared for the introduction of this Strand (see paragraphs 24, 57, 62 and 72).
Der er kun grund til at undersżge komplementariteten i EF-initiativ-programmerne, hvis de bliver mere mlrettede (jf. punkt 64 og 65). 
There is no point in assessing the complementarity of CIPs unless they are more tightly focused (see paragraphs 64 and 65).
Hovedparten af de fżrste projekter, der blev godkendt, blev forberedt og vil blive gennemfżrt i samarbejde. 
Most of the first projects adopted were prepared and will be implemented through cooperation.
Projekterne bidrager imidlertid ikke altid sžrlig meget til lżsning af de gržnserelaterede problemer, for nogle af dem gr ikke ud p andet end erfaringsudveksling, eller de er ikke gržnserelaterede. 
However, projects do not always contribute significantly to the resolution of border-related problems, as some are limited to the exchange of experience or exist irrespective of the proximity of a border.
Retten mener, at denne mervžrdieffekt er for begržnset, og at det fżrst og fremmest skyldes, at mlene er upržcist formuleret, og at foranstaltningerne under hvert enkelt EF-initiativ-program er s omfattende (jf. punkt 66-69). 
In the CourtŐs view there is too little added value, mainly by virtue of the imprecise nature of the stated objectives and the broad scope of the measures for each CIP (see paragraphs 66 to 69).
De eksisterende redskaber er ikke egnede til mling af effekten af EF-initiativ-programmerne i forhold til mlene 95. 
The available tools are inadequate to the task of measuring the impact of CIPs in relation to their objectives 95.
Disse ml er ikke fastlagt p grundlag af valg truffet med henblik p at f lżst specifikke gržnserelaterede problemer, og det er ikke klart, hvordan de hžnger sammen (jf. punkt 71 og 72). 
These objectives do not result from choices made in order to resolve specific border-related problems, and they were not further broken down (see paragraphs 71 and 72).
EF-initiativ-programmernes mange indikatorer har kun begržnset Ń eller slet ingen Ń sammenhžng med mlene. 
The many indicators set for the CIPs embody the objectives inadequately or not at all.
I żvrigt bżr nogle indikatorer defineres mere pržcist, og informationskilderne bżr angives. 
Moreover, some indicators need to be clarified and the sources of information need to be defined more precisely.
Man har forsżgt at sžtte tal p nogle af indikatorerne, men ikke p grundlag af udgangsanalysen, og de vedrżrer ml, der ikke er sžrlig relevante. Hovedparten af de reviderede programmer havde ikke it-vžrktżjer til indsamling af statistiske oplysninger om indikatorerne (jf. punkt 73-78). 
Although efforts were made to quantify some indicators, these bear no relation to the initial analysis and concern largely irrelevant objectives. In most cases, the computer application that should enable the statistical data necessary for the indicators to be collected is still non-existent (see paragraphs 73 to 78).
Anbefalinger 97. 
Recommendations 97.
C 303/18 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 7.12.2004 98. 
C 303/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 98.
Derefter bżr den foresl et fžlles sžt af indikatorer for hver enkelt linje, der gżr det muligt at overvge, hvilke fremskridt der gżres c) bżr der defineres detaljerede kriterier for vurderingen af forslagene til EF-initiativ-programmer. 
It should then propose a common system of indicators for each Strand with which to monitor progress; (c) there is a need for detailed criteria for the assessment of CIP proposals.
EF-initiativet Interreg tilskynder partnere i forskellige medlemsstater til at samarbejde og er med til at bne gržnserne. 
The Interreg CI promotes cooperation between partners in different Member States and contributes to the opening of borders.
I alle etaper af gennemfżrelsen bringer det en ržkke medlemsstater og regioner i medlemsstaterne sammen. 
At all stages of its implementation Interreg brings together a number of Member States and regions.
I den resterende del af programmeringsperioden 2000-2006 bżr der gżres en indsats p sdanne omrder som indikatorer, mling af initiativets effekt og udvžlgelseskriterier. 
It will benefit, during the rest of the 2000 to 2006 programming period, from efforts with regard to indicators, the measurement of impact and selection criteria.
Med tanke p den kommende periode bżr der desuden, hvis Kommissionen agter at viderefżre initiativet efter 2006, fżrst og fremmest gżres en yderligere indsats p omrderne programkoncept og gennemfżrelsesbetingelser. 
Looking ahead to the next period, should the Commission decide to renew the Initiative after 2006, there should also be efforts focusing mainly on programme planning and the conditions of implementation.
Vedtaget af Revisionsretten i Luxembourg p mżdet den 1. juli 2004. 
This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 1 July 2004.
7.12.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 303/19 Tabel 1 Sammenhžngen mellem SF-grundforordningen og hele forlżbet indtil EFRU-stżttemodtagerne gennemfżrer projekter 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/19 Table 1 From the basic Community Structural Funds legislation to projects receiving ERDF assistance
C 303/20 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 7.12.2004 Tabel 2 Interreg IIIŐs budgetgennemfżrelse 2000 2001 2002 (millioner euro) 2003 (forelżbige tal) 688,9 + 188,0 876,9 876,9 0,0 100 % (4) 563,3 Đ 370,0 (5) 193,3 182,2 11,1 (5) 94 % (5) Forpligtelser Oprindelige bevillinger 818,0 Đ reallokering Đ 818,0 (1) Đ overfżrsler + fremfżrte bevillinger = disponible bevillinger (a) Udnyttelse (b) Bevillinger at fremfżre (a)Đ(b) Gennemfżrelsesgrad (b)/(a) 0 % Betalinger Oprindelige bevillinger 139,0 Đ overfżrsler = disponible bevillinger (a) Udnyttelse (b) Bortfaldne bevillinger (a)Đ(b) 139,0 Gennemfżrelsesgrad (b)/(a) 0 % 777,0 Đ 73,3 703,7 594,3 109,4 762,9 + 147,3 Đ 46,7 + 109,4 972,8 972,8 (3) 0,0 84 % 223,6 Đ 22,7 (5) 200,9 82,9 118,0 (5) 41 % (5) 100 % (4) 370,0 370,0 267,5 102,5 (5) 72 % (5) (2) (2) (3) (1) Tranchen for 2000 blev reallokeret p trancherne for 2002-2006, fordi der ikke blev vedtaget noget EF-initiativ-program under Interreg i 2000. 
C 303/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 Table 2 Implementation of Interreg III budget 2000 2001 2002 762,9 + 147,3 Đ 46,7 + 109,4 972,8 972,8 (million euro) 2003 (provisional) 688,9 + 188,0 876,9 876,9 0,0 100 % (4) Commitments Initial appropriations 818,0 Đ reallocations Đ 818,0 (1) Đ transfers + appropriations carried over = appropriations available (a) Implementation (b) Appropriations to be carried over (a)Đ(b) Rate of implementation (b)/(a) 0 % Payments Initial appropriations 139,0 Đ transfers = appropriations available (a) Implementation (b) Appropriations cancelled (a)Đ(b) 139,0 Rate of implementation (b)/(a) 0 % 777,0 Đ 73,3 703,7 594,3 109,4 84 % 223,6 Đ 22,7 (5) 200,9 82,9 118,0 (5) 41 % (5) (2) (2) (3) (3) 0,0 100 % (4) 370,0 563,3 Đ 370,0 (5) 370,0 193,3 267,5 182,2 102,5 (5) 11,1 (5) 72 % (5) 94 % (5) (1) Reallocation of the 2000 instalment to the 2002 to 2006 instalments as no Interreg CIP was adopted in 2000.
(2) Overfżrsel til Činnovative aktionerÇ, fordi en ržkke EF-initiativ-programmer ikke var vedtaget inden fristens udlżb, eller p grund af forsinkelser i en ržkke medlemsstater. 
(2) Transfer to Ôinnovative actionsŐ following delays in the adoption of a number of CIPs and delays on the part of some Member States.
I 2001: Gržkenland-Albanien (linje A), Gržkenland-Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien (linje A), Italien-Albanien (linje A), Italien-Adriaterhavskysten (linje A), Vestindien (linje B), Runion (linje B) og sydlige omrde (linje C). 
In 2001: Greece-Albania (Strand A), Greece-FYROM (Strand A), Italy-Albania (Strand A), Italy-Adriatic (Strand A), Caribbean (Strand B), Runion (Strand B) and South Zone (Strand C).
I 2002: Gržkenland-Italien (linje A), Gržkenland-Tyrkiet (linje A), Archimed (linje B) og Det vestlige Middelhav (linje B). 
In 2002: Greece-Italy (Strand A), Greece-Turkey (Strand A), Archimed (Strand B) and Western Mediterranean (Strand B).
(3) Bevillinger fremfżrt fra 2001 til 2002, fordi en ržkke EF-initiativprogrammer ikke var vedtaget inden fristens udlżb: Irland-Nordirland (linje A), Gržkenland-Cypern (linje A), Spanien-Atlanterhavskysten (linje B), Nordvesteuropa (linje B) og det vestlige omrde (linje C). 
(3) Appropriationscarriedoverfrom2001to2002followingdelaysintheadoptionofanumberofCIPs:Ireland-NorthernIreland(StrandA),Greece-Cyprus(StrandA),Spain-Atlantic (Strand B), North-West Europe (Strand B) and West Zone (Strand C).
(4) Gennemfżrelsesgrad p 100 % p grund af systemet med automatisk forpligtelse af de rlige trancher inden den 30. april hvert r (artikel 31 i Rdets forordning (EF) nr. 
(4) Rate of 100 %, taking into account the mechanism for automatic commitment of annual instalments on 30 April each year (Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999).
70 %Ős vedkommende, til automatisk udbetalte acontobelżb p 7 % af EFRUŐs deltagelse i de vedtagne EF-initiativ-programmer. 
(5) Sizeoftransfersofpaymentappropriationsandcancelledappropriations,aswellaslowratesofimplementation.ThispositionisduetothelateadoptionoftheCIPsbythe Commissionandthetimerequiredafterwardsforselectingandlaunchingthefirstprojects(seeparagraphs 35to39).Around 70%oftheamountspaidin2001,2002and 2003 corresponds to the payment of automatic advance payments of 7 % of the ERDF contribution to the CIPs that were adopted.
NB: Jf. rsberetningen for regnskabsret 2001, punkt 3.7, 3.8 og 3.34 (EFT C 295 af 28.11.2002). 
NB: see the CourtŐs Annual Report concerning the 2001 financial year, paragraphs 3.7, 3.8 and 3.34 (OJ C 295, 28.11.2002).
Kilde: Forvaltningsregnskabet og Generaldirektoratet for Regionalpolitik. 
Source: DG REGIO and revenue and expenditure accounts
7.12.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 303/21 Linje A: Gržnseoverskridende samarbejde Gržnseoverskridende samarbejde mellem gržnseregioner, der stżder op til hinanden, for at oprette gržnseoverskridende żkonomiske og sociale centre via fžlles strategier for bžredygtig regionaludvikling. 
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/21 Strand A: Cross-border cooperation Between neighbouring border regions, to develop cross-border economic and social centres through joint strategies for sustainable territorial development.
Alle omrder beliggende ved Fžllesskabets indre og ydre gržnser og visse kystomrder, jf. listen i bilag I til Kommissionens retnings-linjer; under bestemte betingelser desuden omrder, som gržnser op til ovennžvnte omrder. 
Areas along the internal and external land borders of the Community and certain maritime areas, as listed in the Annex to the Commission guidelines; adjoining areas may also be eligible, subject to certain conditions.
Jf. kort 1. 
See Map 1.
Specificering af de prioriterede omrder i bilaget til retningslinjerne, men listen er ikke udtżmmende (udvikling i byomrder, landdistrikter og kystomrder; sm og mellemstore virksomheder; beskžftigelsesinitiativer; arbejdsmarkedsintegration og fremme af social integration; udveksling af menneskelige ressourcer og faciliteter; miljż, energikil-der; transport, kommunikation; juridisk og administrativt samarbejde; menneskeligt og institutionelt potentiale...). 
Listed in the Annex to the guidelines, but the list is not restrictive (urban, rural and coastal development; SMEs; employment initiatives; labour market and social inclusion; sharing human resources and facilities; environment, sources of energy; transport, communications; legal and administrative cooperation; human and institutional potential, etc.).
Mindst 50 % af hver enkelt medlemsstats Interreg-bevillinger, eller 3 539,2 millioner euro i 2003-priser. 
At least 50 % of each Member StateŐs Interreg allocation, i.e. 3 539,2 million euro at 2003 prices.
Linje B: Tvžrnationalt samarbejde Fremme af en hżjere grad af fysisk integration af stżrre grupper af europžiske regioner med henblik p at opn en bžredygtig, harmonisk og afbalanceret udvikling inden for Fžllesskabet og en bedre fysisk integration med ansżgerlandene og andre nabolande. 
Strand B: Transnational cooperation To promote a higher level of territorial integration across large associations of European regions, with a view to achieving sustainable, harmonious and balanced development in the Community and better territorial integration with the candidate countries and other neighbouring countries.
Stżrre geografiske omrder, som er defineret i retningslinjerne og omfatter flere europžiske regioner eller hele medlemsstater. 
Large geographical areas, as defined in the guidelines, grouping several European regions or entire Member States.
Jf. kort 2. 
See Map 2.
Specificering af de prioriterede omrder i bilaget til retningslinjerne, men listen er ikke udtżmmende (strategier for fysisk planlžgning p tvžrnationalt plan; fremme af bžredygtige og effektive transportsystemer og bedre adgang til informationssamfundet; fremme af miljżet, kulturarven og naturres-sourcerne; fremme af integreret samarbejde mellem kystregioner og ż-regioner; fremme af samarbejdet i EUŐs yderste periferi). 
Listed in the Annex to the guidelines, but the list is not restrictive (transnational spatial development strategies; promotion of efficient and sustainable transport and access to the information society; promotion of the environment, cultural heritage and natural resources; promotion of integrated cooperation between maritime regions and insular regions; promotion of cooperation between ultraperipheral regions).
Mindst 14 % af hver medlemsstats Interreg-bevillinger, eller 1 313,6 millioner euro i 2003-priser. 
At least 14 % of each Member StateŐs Interreg allocation, i.e. 1 313,6 million euro at 2003 prices.
Linje C: Tvžrregionalt samarbejde Effektivisering af regionaludviklings-og samhżrighedspolitikker og -instrumenter via etablering af netvžrk af partnere. 
Strand C: Interregional cooperation To improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion through partnership networks.
Hele EF, mellem partnere fra regioner, der ikke gržnser op til hinanden, i forskellige medlemsstater. 
Throughout the territory of the Community, between partners in non-neighbouring regions of different Member States.
Jf. kort 3. 
See Map 3.
Fem omrder for tvžrregionalt samarbejde (aktiviteter, der stżttes under strukturfondsml nr. 1 eller 2, Interreg-programmer, byudvikling, regionale nyskabende aktioner og, generelt, alle omrder, der falder inden for tvžrregionalt samarbejde). 
Five topics relating to interregional cooperation (activities relating to Objective 1 or Objective 2, Interreg programmes, urban development, innovative regional actions and, generally, any topic concerning interregional cooperation).
6 % af hver medlemsstats Interreg-bevillinger, eller 307,5 millioner euro i 2003-priser. 
6 % of each Member StateŐs Interreg allocation, i.e. 307,5 million euro at 2003 prices.
Ml Stżtteberettigede omrder Prioriterede omrder Midler Tabel 3 EF-initiativet Interreg IIIŐs tre linjer i hovedtržk Projekteksempler: Ń Indfżrelse og fremme af en 1-dags-billet, som man kan anvende til samtlige kollektive transportmidler i et gržnseoverskridende omrde. 
Examples of projects: Ń introduction and promotion of a day pass Ń public measures to exploit the potential of a cross-border tourist region (training for guides, promotions, reservation system).
Ń Fžlles aktioner til udvikling af en gržnseoverskridende turistregion (rejselederuddannelse, reklametiltag, reservationssystem) Projekteksempler: Ń Integrerede aktioner gennemfżrt af 14 partnere fra fire medlemsstater med henblik p at fremme de eksisterende net af hżjhastighedstog (fžlles salgssteder, stżrre arrangementer og van-dreudstillinger, rundspżrger om de rejsendes behov, og om de er tilfredse, reklamer mv.). Ń Mellem partnere fra tre medlemsstater forsżg med og modelberegninger af landbrugs-, skovbrugs-og miljżforanstaltninger vedrżrende bekžmpelse af jorderosion, overfladeafvanding og vandopsamling i et omrde. 
Table 3 Main characteristics of the three strands of the Interreg III Community Initiative Objective Eligible areas Priority themes Resources for use on all forms of public transport in a cross-border area, Examples of projects: Ń integrated actions carried out by 14 partners from four Member States with the aim of promoting existing highspeed rail networks (dedicated points of sale, touring exhibitions and events, surveys of passenger needs and passenger satisfaction, publications, etc.), Ń between partners in three Member States, experimentation and modelling in a region of agricultural, forestry and environmental measures to combat soil erosion, run-off of surface water and water retention.
Ekstrapolering p to andre omrder og oplysningskampagner, isžr med henblik p integrering i arealudnyttelsesplanlžgningen. 
Projection for two other regions and public awareness campaigns, particularly with a view to inclusion in land utilisation plans.
Projekteksempel: Ń Etablering af et netvžrk, der omfatter 19 partnere fra 13 lande, vedrżrende forvaltning af strukturfondsprogrammerne. 
Example of project: Ń creation of a network of 19 partners in 13 countries for management of Structural Fund programmes with the aim of exchanging information and experience in the rural development sector (conferences, seminars, addressed to the new Member States in particular).