natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
There are several reasons for this: the absence of a theoretical basis for the principle, which would have enabled a precise methodological framework well known to all the participants to be built up; verification procedures which were unsuitable for the particular circumstances of the Member States and for the information available; hastily carried out ex ante verifications and failure to examine critically the problems encountered for the 1989 to 1993 generation. 
There are several reasons for this: the absence of a theoretical basis for the principle, which would have enabled a precise methodological framework well known to all the participants to be built up; verification procedures which were unsuitable for the particular circumstances of the Member States and for the information available; hastily carried out ex ante verifications and failure to examine critically the problems encountered for the 1989 to 1993 generation.
In addition, the information needed for the verification of the principle of additionality, notably for Objectives 2 and 5b, is collected from numerous sources of various kinds, which are not always reliable or recent. 
In addition, the information needed for the verification of the principle of additionality, notably for Objectives 2 and 5b, is collected from numerous sources of various kinds, which are not always reliable or recent.
The result of this is that too many estimates and hypotheses are included. 
The result of this is that too many estimates and hypotheses are included.
The difficulties observed by the Court demonstrate the need to make the work done to verify additionality clearer, simpler and more effective. 
The difficulties observed by the Court demonstrate the need to make the work done to verify additionality clearer, simpler and more effective.
1990 1991 1992 1993 B 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,5 1994 1995 1,6 1,4 1996 1,2 2,1 2 1,8 1,8 3,1 3,4 3,8 3 2,9 2,9 2,8 2,8 2,7 2,4 2,3 2,5 2,3 2,3 2,5 4,8 4,7 5,4 2,6 2,7 2,6 2,8 2 2 4,1 4,2 4,2 2,7 2,8 2,5 2,1 2,5 1,4 1,3 1,1 1,2 2,4 2,2 2,1 1997 1998 DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK (1) EU-15 2 1,9 2,3 2,2 2,2 2,5 2,8 2,5 2,4 2,2 2,8 3,2 3,5 3,1 3 3,2 5 4,9 4 4 3,9 3,7 3,3 3,4 3,4 3,3 3,2 3,1 2,1 2,2 2 2,2 2,3 2,4 3,3 3,3 3 2,6 2,3 2,2 5,4 4,9 5,5 5,4 4,4 4,7 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,7 2,7 2,7 3,2 3,3 3,3 3,2 3,2 3 3,4 3,5 3,9 4 3,6 3,7 3,6 3,7 3,5 2,8 2,8 2,6 3 3 2,9 1,1 3,1 2,9 2,3 2,1 2,1 1,9 1,8 1,8 2,9 3 3 2,8 2,7 2,6 1,4 1,5 2 1,8 2 1,9 (1) Budget year. 
1990 1991 1992 1993 B 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,5 1994 1995 1,6 1,4 1996 1,2 2,1 2 1,8 1,8 3,1 3,4 3,8 3 2,9 2,9 2,8 2,8 2,7 2,4 2,3 2,5 2,3 2,3 2,5 4,8 4,7 5,4 2,6 2,7 2,6 2,8 2 2 4,1 4,2 4,2 2,7 2,8 2,5 2,1 2,5 1,4 1,3 1,1 1,2 2,4 2,2 2,1 1997 1998 DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK (1) EU-15 2 1,9 2,3 2,2 2,2 2,5 2,8 2,5 2,4 2,2 2,8 3,2 3,5 3,1 3 3,2 5 4,9 4 4 3,9 3,7 3,3 3,4 3,4 3,3 3,2 3,1 2,1 2,2 2 2,2 2,3 2,4 3,3 3,3 3 2,6 2,3 2,2 5,4 4,9 5,5 5,4 4,4 4,7 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,7 2,7 2,7 3,2 3,3 3,3 3,2 3,2 3 3,4 3,5 3,9 4 3,6 3,7 3,6 3,7 3,5 2,8 2,8 2,6 3 3 2,9 1,1 3,1 2,9 2,3 2,1 2,1 1,9 1,8 1,8 2,9 3 3 2,8 2,7 2,6 1,4 1,5 2 1,8 2 1,9 (1) Budget year.
Source: COM(98) 682 final of 2 December 1998. 
Source: COM(98) 682 final of 2 December 1998.
9.3.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 68/13 Expenditure to be taken into account and compiling the data 40. 
9.3.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 68/13 Expenditure to be taken into account and compiling the data 40.
It is not easy to determine the public structural expenditure, or comparable expenditure, which is to be taken into account. 
It is not easy to determine the public structural expenditure, or comparable expenditure, which is to be taken into account.
The relevant expenditure is that which, by its nature and purpose, is capable of being co-financed by the SFs, including expenditure which has not been co-financed in this way (). 
The relevant expenditure is that which, by its nature and purpose, is capable of being co-financed by the SFs, including expenditure which has not been co-financed in this way ().
For this reason, it is theoretically necessary to identify all the expenditure which is potentially eligible under the relevant Objective (18). 
For this reason, it is theoretically necessary to identify all the expenditure which is potentially eligible under the relevant Objective (18).
In practice, some of the tables submitted look more like an attempt to demonstrate capacity to spend Community assistance or to prove the existence of the co-financing than a verification of additionality. 
In practice, some of the tables submitted look more like an attempt to demonstrate capacity to spend Community assistance or to prove the existence of the co-financing than a verification of additionality.
There are cases where the expenditure to which ex ante additionality applies which was taken into account is more or less identical to that in the SPDŐs financing plan. 
There are cases where the expenditure to which ex ante additionality applies which was taken into account is more or less identical to that in the SPDŐs financing plan.
In several countries, in the context of Objectives 3 and 4, only co-financed expenditure is analysed. 
In several countries, in the context of Objectives 3 and 4, only co-financed expenditure is analysed.
The expenditure to be taken into account is expenditure by the national, regional or local government administration, or by bodies carrying out a public service function, whether they are public, semi-public or para-public or, where relevant, by private undertakings. 
The expenditure to be taken into account is expenditure by the national, regional or local government administration, or by bodies carrying out a public service function, whether they are public, semi-public or para-public or, where relevant, by private undertakings.
No Member State has been able to identify all of the sums spent by these administrations, bodies and undertakings. 
No Member State has been able to identify all of the sums spent by these administrations, bodies and undertakings.
Expenditure by the relevant private undertakings (19) is very rarely taken into account despite its increasing importance within the context of SF financing and investment in infrastructure. 
Expenditure by the relevant private undertakings (19) is very rarely taken into account despite its increasing importance within the context of SF financing and investment in infrastructure.
The extent to which expenditure by public bodies and undertakings is taken into account varies. 
The extent to which expenditure by public bodies and undertakings is taken into account varies.
In some cases it has been excluded com-pletely, while in others significant efforts have been made to try to identify and evaluate it. 
In some cases it has been excluded completely, while in others significant efforts have been made to try to identify and evaluate it.
As far as public administrations are concerned, the majority of the Member States have encountered difficulties in obtaining complete data on expenditure at the local level. 
As far as public administrations are concerned, the majority of the Member States have encountered difficulties in obtaining complete data on expenditure at the local level.
In several cases, it was not taken into account at all, in spite of its size. 
In several cases, it was not taken into account at all, in spite of its size.
Sometimes, only expenditure carried out at a central or regional level was identified. 
Sometimes, only expenditure carried out at a central or regional level was identified.
For Objectives 3 and 4, many Member States only take into account central government expenditure. 
For Objectives 3 and 4, many Member States only take into account central government expenditure.
Identifying the expenditure headings to analyse also poses problems. 
Identifying the expenditure headings to analyse also poses problems.
For Objective 1, the Commission proposed in 1993 a list of functional categories of expenditure based on the United Nations statistical classification (COFOG). 
For Objective 1, the Commission proposed in 1993 a list of functional categories of expenditure based on the United Nations statistical classification (COFOG).
In fact, though, there is no Member State which compiles information on additionality on the basis of the available statistics. 
In fact, though, there is no Member State which compiles information on additionality on the basis of the available statistics.
It is done instead on the basis of budgetary data, which are classified in a different way. 
It is done instead on the basis of budgetary data, which are classified in a different way.
Identifying the relevant expenditure is a difficult task, which has to be carried out on a case-by-case basis. 
Identifying the relevant expenditure is a difficult task, which has to be carried out on a case-by-case basis.
If the budgetary expenditure of central government is compared with that of the regions and other bodies, it can be seen that the same expenditure may be recorded several times, particularly in the case of subsidies and transfers from one public administration to another. 
If the budgetary expenditure of central government is compared with that of the regions and other bodies, it can be seen that the same expenditure may be recorded several times, particularly in the case of subsidies and transfers from one public administration to another.
Only a consolidated public administrationŐs account could prevent them being counted twice (20). 
Only a consolidated public administrationŐs account could prevent them being counted twice (20).
For Objectives 2 and 5b, the expenditure headings chosen are in some cases identical; in other cases they are similar and occasionally they are totally different. 
For Objectives 2 and 5b, the expenditure headings chosen are in some cases identical; in other cases they are similar and occasionally they are totally different.
Because of the regional nature of Objectives 2 and 5b and the national nature of Objectives 3 and 4, double counting of expenditure also occurs fre-quently. 
Because of the regional nature of Objectives 2 and 5b and the national nature of Objectives 3 and 4, double counting of expenditure also occurs frequently.
In addition, cases occur where expenditure which should not have been taken into account is included in the analyses. 
In addition, cases occur where expenditure which should not have been taken into account is included in the analyses.
In Germany, for Objective 1, unemployment benefit was treated as structural assistance. 
In Germany, for Objective 1, unemployment benefit was treated as structural assistance.
It is almost impossible to identify all of the relevant expenditure (21). 
It is almost impossible to identify all of the relevant expenditure (21).
For this reason, all the Member States have introduced simplifications. 
For this reason, all the Member States have introduced simplifications.
However, the rationale for these simplifications is not always economic, but is based on the availability of data, with the result that a consistent approach cannot be guaranteed. 
However, the rationale for these simplifications is not always economic, but is based on the availability of data, with the result that a consistent approach cannot be guaranteed.
For example, the French authorities only took into account expenditure recorded in national plan contracts between the State and the regions. 
For example, the French authorities only took into account expenditure recorded in national plan contracts between the State and the regions.
In the SPD No 1, they undertook to transmit to the Commission, before 31 December 1994, a new indicative financial table including an estimation of all of the public expenditure eligible for the SFs, based on significant information covering most of the expenditure at stake in the eligible areas. 
In the SPD No 1, they undertook to transmit to the Commission, before 31 December 1994, a new indicative financial table including an estimation of all of the public expenditure eligible for the SFs, based on significant information covering most of the expenditure at stake in the eligible areas.
This table would then be used as the basis of the monitoring of additionality. 
This table would then be used as the basis of the monitoring of additionality.
It has not yet been sent. 
It has not yet been sent.
In the case of Objectives 3 and 4, the Commission had already acknowledged the difficulty, or even the impossibility, of establishing all of the expenditure in the ESFŐs sphere of intervention (22). 
In the case of Objectives 3 and 4, the Commission had already acknowledged the difficulty, or even the impossibility, of establishing all of the expenditure in the ESFŐs sphere of intervention (22).
For this reason, it decided to take a representative sample of bodies as a basis for the period 1994 to 1999. 
For this reason, it decided to take a representative sample of bodies as a basis for the period 1994 to 1999.
However, since its underlying hypotheses were not confirmed, this approach does not enable the observance of additionality to be verified correctly, because comparisons are made between dissimilar elements. 
However, since its underlying hypotheses were not confirmed, this approach does not enable the observance of additionality to be verified correctly, because comparisons are made between dissimilar elements.
In fact, assistance in the field of Objectives 3 and 4 is especially vari-able, being dependent in particular on the business cycle, and it was not stable during the two periods under comparison. 
In fact, assistance in the field of Objectives 3 and 4 is especially variable, being dependent in particular on the business cycle, and it was not stable during the two periods under comparison.
In addition, choosing the bodies which are among the largest beneficiaries of the Social Fund produces results more relevant to the verification of co-financing than of additionality. 
In addition, choosing the bodies which are among the largest beneficiaries of the Social Fund produces results more relevant to the verification of co-financing than of additionality.
Overlapping of periods 51. 
Overlapping of periods 51.
Another major difficulty concerns the overlapping of periods. 
Another major difficulty concerns the overlapping of periods.
The verification of additionality must in fact enable the expenditure trend during the programming period to be 
The verification of additionality must in fact enable the expenditure trend during the programming period to be
C 68/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9.3.2000 compared with a reference period. 
C 68/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9.3.2000 compared with a reference period.
But the actual programming period does not necessarily coincide with the calendar years taken into consideration. 
But the actual programming period does not necessarily coincide with the calendar years taken into consideration.
In fact, in addition to possible extensions to the period in order to fulfil commitments, there is a minimum extension of two years for making the payments, which always results in the simultaneous implementation of at least two periods. 
In fact, in addition to possible extensions to the period in order to fulfil commitments, there is a minimum extension of two years for making the payments, which always results in the simultaneous implementation of at least two periods.
If the aim is to match up the payments with the programming period to which they belong, it is necessary to wait for at least two more years, and also to make numerous additional adjustments in order to charge expenditure which was completed after the calendar years to which the relevant CSF refers. 
If the aim is to match up the payments with the programming period to which they belong, it is necessary to wait for at least two more years, and also to make numerous additional adjustments in order to charge expenditure which was completed after the calendar years to which the relevant CSF refers.
This method would be possible as far as co-financed expenditure is concerned, but it does not solve the problem of non-co-financed expenditure, which must also be taken into account. 
This method would be possible as far as co-financed expenditure is concerned, but it does not solve the problem of non-co-financed expenditure, which must also be taken into account.
The other possibility is to deal only with expenditure during the calendar years under consideration, without reference to which CSF each item belongs to. 
The other possibility is to deal only with expenditure during the calendar years under consideration, without reference to which CSF each item belongs to.
This approach is a pragmatic one, but it departs from the rationale behind the operation of the SFs. 
This approach is a pragmatic one, but it departs from the rationale behind the operation of the SFs.
This second option was chosen by the Commission in 1996, when some Member States had adopted the first approach. 
This second option was chosen by the Commission in 1996, when some Member States had adopted the first approach.
However, the ex ante verifications for the 1994 to 1999 period and the tables included in the corresponding CSFs/SPDs assumed that final payments for all the appropriations would be made during these years. 
However, the ex ante verifications for the 1994 to 1999 period and the tables included in the corresponding CSFs/SPDs assumed that final payments for all the appropriations would be made during these years.
This hypothesis was unrealistic in the light of the implementing provisions of the Funds. 
This hypothesis was unrealistic in the light of the implementing provisions of the Funds.
As a result, the ex ante verifications of additionality were based on an illogical premise. 
As a result, the ex ante verifications of additionality were based on an illogical premise.
It should be noted that numerous measures from the 1989 to 1993 period have not yet been closed, that there have been delays with regard to the 1994 to 1996 period for Objective 2 which have resulted in large amounts of the Funds being transferred to the 1997 to 1999 period, and that the majority of measures for the 1994 to 1999 period will not be closed until 2002. 
It should be noted that numerous measures from the 1989 to 1993 period have not yet been closed, that there have been delays with regard to the 1994 to 1996 period for Objective 2 which have resulted in large amounts of the Funds being transferred to the 1997 to 1999 period, and that the majority of measures for the 1994 to 1999 period will not be closed until 2002.
Most Member States analyse national expenditure on the basis of payments. 
Most Member States analyse national expenditure on the basis of payments.
Other Member States, such as France and Belgium, use budgetary commitments, at either the forecast or implementation stage. 
Other Member States, such as France and Belgium, use budgetary commitments, at either the forecast or implementation stage.
Paradoxically, one of the weakest aspects of additionality cal-culations are the figures established for expenditure under the CSFs/SPDs, both with regard to the SFs and their national counter-parts. 
Paradoxically, one of the weakest aspects of additionality calculations are the figures established for expenditure under the CSFs/SPDs, both with regard to the SFs and their national counterparts.
Several Member States merely set out in the various tables the SF financing plans and those of their national counterparts as submitted in the CSFs/SPDs. 
Several Member States merely set out in the various tables the SF financing plans and those of their national counterparts as submitted in the CSFs/SPDs.
The ex ante and on-going verifications were therefore carried out on the basis of very disparate items of data which could not easily be compared. 
The ex ante and on-going verifications were therefore carried out on the basis of very disparate items of data which could not easily be compared.
For the years that have already been closed, payments are still mixed together with forecasts or commitments. 
For the years that have already been closed, payments are still mixed together with forecasts or commitments.
Starting point and comparability of data 58. 
Starting point and comparability of data 58.
A key factor in the verification of additionality is the starting point. 
A key factor in the verification of additionality is the starting point.
The structural expenditure trend for a period must be compared with the previous situation. 
The structural expenditure trend for a period must be compared with the previous situation.
For the 1989 to 1993 period, the Member States were left to choose between the 1987 to 1988 period or the average of these two years. 
For the 1989 to 1993 period, the Member States were left to choose between the 1987 to 1988 period or the average of these two years.
Leaving it up to the Member State to choose the reference period, when the various results are already known, does not seem very well advised. 
Leaving it up to the Member State to choose the reference period, when the various results are already known, does not seem very well advised.
In certain cases, such as Objective 2 in the Netherlands or Objectives 3 and 4 in France, the choice of reference period may be decisive, in that one may oblige the auditor to conclude that the principle has not been abided by and the other may have the opposite effect. 
In certain cases, such as Objective 2 in the Netherlands or Objectives 3 and 4 in France, the choice of reference period may be decisive, in that one may oblige the auditor to conclude that the principle has not been abided by and the other may have the opposite effect.
For the 1994 to 1999 generation, the reference period used is the previous one, except for the new Member States, which were able to decide on a period during the ex ante verification. 
For the 1994 to 1999 generation, the reference period used is the previous one, except for the new Member States, which were able to decide on a period during the ex ante verification.
For Objective 6 in the 1995 to 1999 generation, the reference periods chosen by Sweden and Finland were 1991 to 1992 and 1993 respectively. 
For Objective 6 in the 1995 to 1999 generation, the reference periods chosen by Sweden and Finland were 1991 to 1992 and 1993 respectively.
One difficulty concerns the comparison of data from one period with data from the previous one, for the potentially eligible expenditure in one period is not necessarily the same as that for the previous period, when changes in the provisions of the regulations are taken into account. 
One difficulty concerns the comparison of data from one period with data from the previous one, for the potentially eligible expenditure in one period is not necessarily the same as that for the previous period, when changes in the provisions of the regulations are taken into account.
The same is true of the eligible regions and areas. 
The same is true of the eligible regions and areas.
To make it possible to make reliable comparisons the tables must be adjusted to the new circumstances; for example, the tables for the 1989 to 1993 period must be recal-culated, taking into account the newly-eligible areas and categories of expenditure. 
To make it possible to make reliable comparisons the tables must be adjusted to the new circumstances; for example, the tables for the 1989 to 1993 period must be recalculated, taking into account the newly-eligible areas and categories of expenditure.
There are cases where, within the context of the new definition of Objective 4, expenditure categories for this Objective were included in the data for the 1994 to 1999 period but were ignored for the previous period. 
There are cases where, within the context of the new definition of Objective 4, expenditure categories for this Objective were included in the data for the 1994 to 1999 period but were ignored for the previous period.
The result of this is an artificial increase in expenditure (23). 
The result of this is an artificial increase in expenditure (23).