natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
24 Hvis de samlede administrative omkostninger forbliver p eller under det oprindelige skżn i lżbet af hele INEA's levetid, vil de forventede effektivitetsgevinster p 54 millioner euro kunne opns. 
24 If the total administrative costs were to remain in line with or below the initial estimate over INEA’s entire lifespan, the expected efficiency gains of €54 million could be achieved.
Det vil fżrst vžre muligt at vurdere dette, nr programmerne er afsluttet. 
It will only be possible to assess this after the closure of the programmes.
Rapport fra Kommissionen til Europa-Parlamentet, Rdet, Det Europžiske Żkonomiske og Sociale Udvalg og Regionsudvalget om midtvejsevalueringen af Connecting Europe-faciliteten, COM(2018) 66 af 14.2.2018. 
Synergies materialised only in a limited number of actions 25 One of the main expected benefits of delegating programmes to INEA was that synergies would be gained from having closely related policy domains under the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the mid-term evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), COM(2018) 66 of 14.2.2018.
10 Denne konklusion byggede p en onlinespżrgeundersżgelse, der var henvendt til ansżgere og stżttemodtagere ("Study Supporting the Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) 2014-2016", 5. februar 2019, Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services). 
10 This conclusion was based on an online survey of applicants and beneficiaries (Study Supporting the Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) 2014-2016, 5 February 2019, Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services).
11 Mlet p 111 millioner euro i effektivitetsgevinster omfatter ikke WiFi4EU-initiativet, som blev uddelegeret til INEA i 2018. 
11 The €111 million target for efficiency gains excludes the WiFi4EU initiative, which was delegated to INEA in 2018.
I 2018 mtte INEA derfor džkke administrationsomkostningerne vedrżrende driften af WiFi4EU, bl.a. lżnninger, som ikke var omfattet af det oprindelige ml. 
Therefore, in 2018 INEA had to cover the administrative costs of running Wifi4EU, notably salaries, which were not initially part of the target.
CEF-forordningen fastsžtter, at arbejdsprogrammerne skal koordineres p en sdan mde, at synergier mellem de tre sektorer udnyttes, og at der skal vedtages mindst n forslagsindkaldelse, som džkker flere sektorer13. 
umbrella of a single agency, with efficiency gains likely to follow12. The CEF Regulation requires the coordination of work programmes to exploit synergies between the three sectors, and the adoption of at least one multi-sectoral call for proposals13.
26 Vi konstaterede, at flere elementer begržnsede muligheden for at opn synergier. 
26 We found that several elements limited the possibility of achieving synergies.
Nogle af de forventede synergier var ikke realistiske, hvilket skyldes iboende forskelle mellem CEF og Horisont 2020 og mellem CEF-sektorerne. 
Some of the expected synergies were not realistic due to inherent differences between the CEF and H2020 and within CEF sectors.
Der er bl.a. tale om forskelle i programmernes politikml, omfang og retsgrundlag samt i reglerne for programmernes gennemfżrelse (forskellige typer interessenter, retlige og finansielle regler). 
These include differences in the policy aims, scope and legal frameworks of the programmes as well as in programme implementation rules (different types of stakeholders targeted, legal and financial rules).
27 Trods disse vanskeligheder har INEA truffet en ržkke foranstaltninger for at opn synergier mellem Horisont 2020 og CEF, navnlig inden for transport og energi. 
27 Despite these difficulties, INEA has taken a number of measures to achieve synergies between H2020 and the CEF, especially in transport and energy.
Med hensyn til transport har INEA identificeret fžlles tematiske omrder inddelt i fire kategorier. 
For transport, INEA has identified common thematic areas grouped in four categories.
Adskillige initiativer er blevet forelagt for de overordnede GD'er, f.eks. oprettelsen af en sžrlig INEA-platform for synergier mellem Horisont 2020 og CEF og indfżrelsen af innovationsindikatorer til mling af CEF-prioriteterne. 
Several initiatives have been presented to the parent DGs, such as the creation of an INEA platform dedicated to H2020/CEF synergies and the introduction of innovation indicators to measure the CEF priorities.
Hidtil er der dog kun implementeret resultater fra et begržnset antal forskningsprojekter i CEF. 
However, so far results from only a limited number of research projects have been implemented in the CEF.
Det skyldes hovedsagelig, at programmerne ikke naturligt passer til hinanden, og at det tager lang tid for forskningsprojekter at opn teknologisk modenhed. 
This is mainly because the programmes do not naturally align and because of the time required for research projects to reach technological readiness.
I den eksterne trersvurdering bemžrkede man ogs de begržnsede synergier mellem Horisont 2020-forskning og CEF-infrastrukturprojekter. 
The triennial external evaluation also noted the limited synergies between Horizon 2020 research and CEF infrastructure projects.
28 Trods INEA's indsats er der mindre synergi p tvžrs af CEF-sektorerne end oprindelig planlagt. 
28 Notwithstanding INEA’s efforts, there is less synergy across the CEF sectors than initially projected.
Den hidtil eneste ivžrksatte forslagsindkaldelse, som džkkede flere sektorer for at opn synergi, var ikke nogen sžrlig succes, idet lidt over halvdelen 12 Cost-benefit-analysen fra 2013. 
The only multi-sectoral synergy call launched so far was not very successful, as just over half of its budget was committed to seven projects (see Table 2).
7, i Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets forordning (EU) nr. 1316/2013 af 11. december 2013 om oprettelse af Connecting Europe-faciliteten, om žndring af forordning (EU) nr. 
13 Article 17(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p.
Som eksempler p inkompatibilitet kan nžvnes, at der i de tre sektorer er forskellige regler med hensyn til f.eks. foranstaltningens geografiske placering eller typen af stżtteberettigede aktiver. 
15 regards, for example, the geographical location of an action or the type of eligible assets.
29 Synergierne med programmer, som gennemfżres af andre forvaltningsorganer og fžllesforetagender, er ogs begržnsede. 
29 Synergies with programmes implemented by other executive agencies and joint undertakings are also limited.
Rdets forordning om oprettelse af fžllesforetagendet Shift2Rail15 (S2R) fastsžtter, at der for at opn en maksimal virkning ved udviklingen af innovative lżsninger er behov for tžt synergi med andre EU-programmer, herunder CEF. 
The Council Regulation establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking15 stipulates that, to achieve maximum impact in the deployment of innovative solutions, close synergies are necessary with other EU programmes, including the CEF.
Trods gensidige bestržbelser p at udveksle oplysninger om portefżljer og identificere et muligt samarbejde eller mulige synergier er der muligheder for mere koordination mellem de to sider med henblik p at udvikle strukturerede foranstaltninger. 
Despite mutual efforts to share information about portfolios and identify possible cooperation or synergies, coordination between both sides could be increased with a view to developing structured measures.
30 Der er en udfordring forbundet med, at INEA og Forvaltningsorganet for Sm og Mellemstore Virksomheder (EASME) deler ansvaret for at gennemfżre Horisont 2020-energiforskningsprogrammet. 
30 A challenge relates to the fact that INEA and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) share responsibility for implementing the H2020 energy research programme.
De to organer koordinerer indkaldelserne af forslag, men de administrerer deres programdele hver for sig, hvilket medfżrer administrative omkostninger for begge parter og begržnser potentialet for synergier. 
The two agencies coordinate calls for proposals, but each separately administers its part of the programme, which means administrative costs on both sides and limited potential for synergies.
INEA begržnses af rammeforhold INEA udfżrer sine opgaver og opfylder sine KPI'er, men disse er ikke specifikt resultatorienterede, da de ikke er rettet mod at mle, om programgennemfżrelsen er effektiv 31 INEA er ansvarligt for gennemfżrelsen af dele af CEF og Horisont 2020-programmet (jf. bilag 1 for nžrmere oplysninger om Kommissionens og INEA's respektive ansvarsomrder). 
INEA faces framework constraints INEA fulfils its tasks and delivers on its KPIs, but these are not specifically results-oriented not being targeted to measure the effective implementation of the programmes 31 INEA was entrusted with implementing parts of the CEF and H2020 programmes (see Annex 1 for details on the respective responsibilities of the Commission and INEA).
32 Vi konstaterede, at INEA mlt ud fra sine nżgleresultatindikatorer (KPI'er) udfżrer sine opgaver som fastlagt i sit mandat (punkt 31). 
32 We found that INEA fulfils its tasks as defined in its mandate (paragraph 31) and as measured against key performance indicators (KPIs).
INEA har fem KPI'er, som er godkendt af Kommissionen til at mle effektiviteten af dets opgaveudfżrelse. 
INEA has five KPIs, approved by the Commission, with which to measure the effectiveness of its tasks.
INEA adresserer disse KPI'er p en fyldestgżrende og struktureret mde i sine rlige aktivitetsrapporter. 
In its annual activity reports it addresses these KPIs fully and in a structured manner.
INEA har konsekvent performet godt med hensyn til alle KPI'erne og net alle ml fuldt ud (jf. tabel 3). 
INEA has consistently performed well on all KPIs, fully achieving all targets (see Table 3).
Tabel 3 - INEA's KPI'er 17 Indikator Ml Resultater Udnyttelse af forpligtelsesbevillinger 100 % 100 % Udnyttelse af betalingsbevillinger 100 % 100 % Tidsforbrug til underskrift af tilskudsaftaler > 98 % af tilskudsaftalerne blev underskrevet rettidigt Ľ CEF: 9 mneder (276 dage) Ľ Horisont 2020: 8 mneder (245 dage) Alle ml net fuldt ud Nettotidsforbrug til betaling > 98 % af betalingerne blev foretaget til tiden Ľ 30 dage til forfinansiering Ľ 60 dage til yderligere forfinansiering Alle ml net fuldt ud NB: "Udnyttelse af forpligtelsesbevillinger" og "Udnyttelse af betalingsbevillinger" henviser til de rlige budgetmžssige forpligtelsesbevillinger og de rlige planlagte betalingsbevillinger - ikke til de oprindelige skżn vedrżrende hele FFR'en. 
Table 3 – INEA’s KPIs 17 Indicator Target Results Rate of execution of commitment appropriations 100 % 100 % Rate of execution of payment appropriations 100 % 100 % Time taken to signature of grant agreement > 98 % of grants signed on time • CEF: 9 months (276 days) • H2020: 8 months (245 days) All targets fully achieved Net time taken to pay > 98 % of payments made on time • 30 days for pre-financing • 60 days for further pre-financing • 90 days for interim/final payments All targets fully achieved Residual multiannual error rate detected during ex-post audit Error rate below 2 % 0.27 % - 0.75 % NB: The “rate of execution of commitment appropriations” and the “rate of execution of payment appropriations” refer to annual budgetary commitment appropriations and annual planned payment appropriations - not to the initial estimates for the entire MFF.
Kilde: INEA's rlige arbejdsprogrammer og rlige aktivitetsrapporter 2014-2018. 
Source: INEA annual work programmes and annual activity reports 2014-2018.
33 INEA's KPI'er er vigtige med hensyn til mlingen af dets administrative forvaltning af EU's projektstżtte. 
33 INEA’s KPIs are essential for measuring its administrative management of EU support for projects.
I deres nuvžrende udformning giver de dog kun begržnsede oplysninger om programforvaltningens kvalitet. 
In their current guise, however, they provide limited information on the quality of programme management.
F.eks. overvger INEA sin projektportefżlje nżje for at mindske de risici, der er forbundet med langsom projektgennemfżrelse. 
For instance, INEA closely monitors its project portfolio to mitigate the risks linked to slow project implementation.
De nuvžrende indikatorer vedrżrer ikke i tilstržkkelig grad programmernes gennemfżrelsesgrad eller absorptionen af midlerne (punkt 60). 
The current indicators do not sufficiently relate to the rate of programme implementation or the absorption of funds (paragraph 60).
34 Andre forvaltningsorganer bruger lignende KPI'er, men nogle bruger ogs indikatorer, der mler effektivitet i forbindelse med forvaltning af indkaldelser og evalueringer, projektovervgning og feedback til overordnede GD'er og andre interessenter. 
34 Other executive agencies use similar KPIs, but some also apply indicators that measure the efficiency of the management of calls and evaluations, project monitoring and feedback to the parent DGs and other clients.
I vores 2009-sžrberetning om forvaltningsorganerne anbefalede vi, at de overvges p resultatbasis, idet SMART-ml overvges ved hjžlp af et begržnset antal KPI'er16. 
In a 2009 special report on executive agencies, we recommended that agencies be supervised on a results basis, with SMART objectives to be monitored through a limited number of KPIs16.
INEA har fleksibilitetsbegržnsninger, nr det gžlder tildeling af personale til de mest presserende opgaver 35 INEA's personaleplan omfatter op til 318 fuldtidsžkvivalenter i perioden indtil 2020. 
INEA has flexibility constraints in assigning its staff to the most pressing tasks 35 INEA’s staffing plan comprises up to 318 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for the period to 2020.
Denne plan blev justeret flere gange mellem 2014 og 2018 i trd med omfordelingen af dele af budgettet til udgiftsprogrammer (jf. figur 1). 
This plan was adjusted several times between 2014 and 2018 in line with the redeployment of parts of the budget of spending programmes (see Figure 1).
13/2009: "Uddelegering af gennemfżrelsesopgaver til forvaltningsorganer: en vellykket lżsning?", punkt 66. 
18 16 ECA Special Report No 13/2009: “Delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies: a successful option?”, paragraph 66.
Figur 1 - INEA's personaleplan for 2014-2020 og det faktiske personaleantal 19 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 SFS (2013) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Personaleplan (2019) 162 187 262 282 292 306 318 Faktisk antal 162 197 251 272 298 307 318 151 186 225 249 282 SFS (2013) Personaleplan (2019) Faktisk antal Kilde: SFS17, oplysninger leveret af INEA i januar-februar 2019. 
Figure 1 – INEA staffing plan for 2014-2020 and actual staff 19 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 SFS (2013) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Staffing plan (2019) 162 187 262 282 292 306 318 Actual 162 197 251 272 298 307 318 151 186 225 249 282 SFS (2013) Staffing plan (2019) Actual Source: SFS17, information provided by INEA in January-February 2019.
36 Hvad angr personaletildelingen i INEA var nogle af de oprindelige sektorspecifikke arbejdsbyrdeprognoser ikke baseret p en korrekt behovsvurdering, og det viste sig derfor, at det vedtagne personaleantal ikke svarede til de reelle behov. 
36 As regards staff allocation across INEA , some of the initial sector-specific workload projections were not based on a proper needs assessment, and therefore the agreed staff numbers turned out not to correspond to real needs.
CEF-programportefżljen har ogs udviklet sig betydeligt, f.eks. er CEF-IKT-budgettet nu vžsentligt stżrre end det oprindelige skżn. 
Also, the CEF programme portfolio has evolved considerably; for example, the CEF-ICT budget is now significantly larger than the initial estimate.
37 INEA har ikke den nżdvendige fleksibilitet til at omplacere sit personale til de mest presserende opgaver p tvžrs af sektorerne, eftersom personaleantallet er fordelt p programmer og inden for hvert program er fordelt p aktiviteter og GD'er18. 
37 INEA does not have the necessary flexibility to reassign its staff across sectors to the most pressing tasks, as staff numbers are broken down by programme and, within each programme, by activity and DG18.
Dette skaber begržnsninger. 
This creates a constraint.
Navnlig har INEA med de nuvžrende regler ingen mulighed for at omplacere sit personale mellem CEF og Horisont 2020. 
In particular, under the current rules INEA cannot reassign its staff at all between the CEF and H2020.
Dette begržnser INEA's fleksibilitet til at tilpasse sig den svingende arbejdsbyrde. 
This limits INEA’s flexibility to adjust to a fluctuating workload.
38 Fra 2014 til 2018 havde INEA svžrt ved at rekruttere nok til at džkke sit hastigt stigende behov for kvalificerede medarbejdere. 
38 From 2014 to 2018, INEA had difficulties in recruiting to meet its rapidly increasing need for qualified staff.
Ved udgangen af 2018 havde INEA 17 En sžrlig finansieringsoversigt sendt til Forvaltningsorganudvalget og budgetmyndigheden, hvis opgaver relateret til forvaltningen af EU-programmer uddelegeres til et forvaltningsorgan. 
In 17 Specific financial statement submitted to the Committee for Executive Agencies and the Budgetary Authority in the event of delegation to an executive agency of tasks related to the management of EU programmes.
18 I overensstemmelse med afsnit 9.2.2 i retningslinjerne for oprettelse og drift af forvaltningsorganer, der finansieres over EU-budgettet (Kommissionens afgżrelse C(2014) 9109 final af 2.12.2014). 
18 In line with section 9.2.2 of the Guidelines for the establishment and operation of executive agencies financed from the Union budget (Commission Decision C(2014) 9109 final of 2.12.2014).
I september 2018 vedtog INEA en politik for medarbejderfastholdelse baseret p foranstaltninger ssom integration og orientering for nye medarbejdere, flekstid og intern mobilitet. 
September 2018, INEA adopted a staff retention policy based on measures such as integration and orientation for new staff, flexitime and internal mobility.
Kommissionen har ingen koordineret mekanisme til flerrig planlžgning af indkaldelser 39 Ifżlge forslaget til CEF-forordning for perioden 2021-2027 skal tidsplanen og emnerne for indkaldelser fastlžgges i trerige arbejdsprogrammer. 
The Commission has no coordinated mechanism for the multiannual planning of calls 39 Under the proposal for the 2021-2027 CEF Regulation, the calendar and topics of calls would be set in three-year work programmes.
Denne flerrige planlžgning kunne sikre bedre koordinering og stżrre forudsigelighed i indkaldelserne19. 
This multiannual planning could improve the coordination and predictability of calls19.
40 I perioden 2014-2020 gžlder det, at arbejdsprogrammerne, inklusive tidsplanen for indkaldelser, udarbejdes af de overordnede GD'er og vedtages af Kommissionen efter hżring af CEF-Koordinationsudvalget, og at dette sker p rsbasis, ikke p flerrig basis. 
40 During 2014-2020, work programmes, including the timing of calls, are established by the parent DGs and decided by the Commission after consulting the CEF Coordination Committee on a yearly rather than multiannual basis.
Planlžgningen tilpasses jžvnligt til žndringer i situationen, f.eks. nye lovgivningsinitiativer. 
Planning is regularly adapted to changes in the situation, such as new legislative initiatives.
Vi konstaterede, at koordineringen mellem de forskellige GD'er med hensyn til planlžgningen af indkaldelser somme tider skabte udfordringer for INEA. 
We found that coordination between the different DGs with regard to call planning occasionally created challenges for INEA.
Dette skyldes GD'ernes forskellige tilgange til strategisk planlžgning i de tre CEF-sektorer, som bestemmes af interne krav og tidsmžssige begržnsninger. 
This situation is due to the DGs’ different approaches to strategic planning in the three CEF sectors which are determined by internal requirements and timing constraints.
For INEA betyder det, at der er spidsbelastningsperioder i forbindelse med forberedende arbejde og afslutning af indkaldelsesevalueringer. 
The impact for INEA is that there are peak periods for preparatory work and concluding call evaluations.
F.eks. var andet og fjerde kvartal af 2018 meget travle, fordi et usždvanligt hżjt antal indkaldelser fandt sted sidelżbende med hinanden. 
For example, the second and fourth quarters of 2018 were very busy owing to an unusually high number of calls running in parallel.
Der er mangler i de ellers veltilrettelagte CEF-udvžlgelsesprocedurer, risici i gennemfżrelsen af programmet og svagheder i performancerapporteringen 41 Dette afsnit omhandler Kommissionens og INEA's forvaltning af CEF i hele projektlivscyklussen: udvžlgelse, programgennemfżrelse og performancerapportering. 
There are shortcomings in the otherwise well organised CEF selection procedures, risks in the implementation of the programme and weaknesses in performance reporting 41 This section examines the management of the CEF by the Commission and INEA throughout the project lifecycle: selection, programme implementation and performance reporting.
19 Forslag til Europa-Parlamentets og Rdets forordning om oprettelse af Connecting Europe-faciliteten og om ophžvelse af forordning (EU) nr. 
19 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014.
I artikel 19 str der, at CEF skal gennemfżres via arbejdsprogrammer. 
Article 19 stipulates that the CEF is to be implemented through work programmes.
Ifżlge Kommissionen skal den senest den 31. december 2020 vedtage de fżrste flerrige arbejdsprogrammer, inklusive en tidsplan for indkaldelser af forslag - med emner og vejledende budget - i de fżrste tre r under den nye CEF, samt en forelżbig ramme for hele perioden. 20 
According to the Commission, it must adopt the first multiannual work programmes by 31 December 2020, including a calendar of the calls for proposals, with topics and an indicative budget, for the first three years of the new CEF, as well as a projected framework covering the entire period. 20
Udvžlgelsesprocedurerne er veltilrettelagte, men der kunne med fordel sikres stżrre sammenhžng og gennemsigtighed Procedurerne for projektudvžlgelse er veltilrettelagte 42 Kommissionen planlžgger indkaldelser af forslag og fastsžtter kriterierne for projektudvžlgelse i overensstemmelse med de underliggende forordninger20. 
Selection procedures are well-organised, but would benefit from increased coherence and transparency The procedures for selecting projects are well-organised 42 The Commission plans calls for proposals and defines the criteria for selecting projects in line with the underlying regulations20.
INEA bidrager til dette forberedende arbejde ud fra sine erfaringer med evaluering og gennemfżrelse af tidligere projekter. 
INEA contributes to this preparatory work through its experience with the evaluation and implementation of previous projects.
I hver indkaldelse vurderes projektforslagene ud fra kriterierne for stżtteberettigelse, udvžlgelse og tildeling21. 
INEA then launches the calls. In each call, project proposals are evaluated against eligibility, selection and award criteria21.
Ansżgningerne skal ogs opfylde formelle antagelighedskrav. 
Applications also have to meet formal admissibility requirements.
43 Evalueringen af projektforslag og tildelingen af finansiel stżtte er opdelt i faser. 
43 The evaluation of project proposals and granting of financial aid is structured in phases.
Der er to faser i evalueringsprocedurerne vedrżrende CEF-projektforslag: den eksterne og den interne evaluering. 
There are two phases of the evaluation procedures for CEF project proposals: external and internal evaluation.
Procedurerne er beskrevet i detaljer i tekstboks 1. 
The procedure is described in detail in Box 1.