natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Minutes of the Bureau meeting of 3.12.1980 -4- CS requested that to this amount the return on the investment made directly by the City (51 600 000 FF) be added; a return of 6,5 % resulted in "further rent" for 3 354 000 FF5; - a further amount of 787 095 FF was added because of the increase of the INSEE construction price index; - the sum of the above amounts (14 079 000 + 3 354 000 + 787 095) gave 18 220 095 FF. 
Minutes of the Bureau meeting of 3.12.1980 -4- CS requested that to this amount the return on the investment made directly by the City (51 600 000 FF) be added; a return of 6,5 % resulted in "further rent" for 3 354 000 FF5; - a further amount of 787 095 FF was added because of the increase of the INSEE construction price index; - the sum of the above amounts (14 079 000 + 3 354 000 + 787 095) gave 18 220 095 FF.
In December 1980 the Quaestors6 considered the revised rent demanded by CS as reasonable and the Bureau7 agreed that a rent contract be signed by the President of the EP. 
In December 1980 the Quaestors6 considered the revised rent demanded by CS as reasonable and the Bureau7 agreed that a rent contract be signed by the President of the EP.
The rent contract was signed on 12.1.1981 and applied from 1.11.1980. 
The rent contract was signed on 12.1.1981 and applied from 1.11.1980.
The contract stipulated that the area of the building was 39 183 m2 and the annual rent 18 220 095 FF. 
The contract stipulated that the area of the building was 39 183 m2 and the annual rent 18 220 095 FF.
Article 4 of the contract stipulated that the rent might be revised, on request from one of the parties and by mutual agreement, in order to take account of the evolution of the INSEE index of construction costs8. 
Article 4 of the contract stipulated that the rent might be revised, on request from one of the parties and by mutual agreement, in order to take account of the evolution of the INSEE index of construction costs8.
On 25.6.1982 CS requested a revision of the rent for 1982 (i.e. the second full year of the renting period) corresponding to the evolution of the INSEE index of construction costs9. 
On 25.6.1982 CS requested a revision of the rent for 1982 (i.e. the second full year of the renting period) corresponding to the evolution of the INSEE index of construction costs9.
The EP accepted10. 
The EP accepted10.
The same indexation was applied also in 5 6 7 8 9 Original French wording of this place in the note: "A ce chiffre, la Ville de Strasbourg demande d'ajouter la rémunération des investissements complémentaires qu'elle a effectués pour un montant de 51 600 000 FF. 
The same indexation was applied also in 5 6 7 8 9 Original French wording of this place in the note: "A ce chiffre, la Ville de Strasbourg demande d'ajouter la rémunération des investissements complémentaires qu'elle a effectués pour un montant de 51 600 000 FF.
A un taux de 6,5 %, cela signifie un loyer supplémentaire de 3 354 000 FF". 
A un taux de 6,5 %, cela signifie un loyer supplémentaire de 3 354 000 FF".
This was the index generally applied to the revision of rents at the time when the contract was signed. 
This was the index generally applied to the revision of rents at the time when the contract was signed.
Letter of 25.6.1982 from CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Personnel and Finances. 
Letter of 25.6.1982 from CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Personnel and Finances.
-5-1983 and 198411. 
-5-1983 and 198411.
From 1.1.1985 the rent was converted into ECU and revised every two years with reference to weighted indices of consumer prices in the European Community12. 
From 1.1.1985 the rent was converted into ECU and revised every two years with reference to weighted indices of consumer prices in the European Community12.
According to Article II of the rental contract, its duration was for a period of 18 years. 
According to Article II of the rental contract, its duration was for a period of 18 years.
During this period the Parliament reserved the right to terminate the contract at one year's notice whithout having to pay a compensation, if obliged to leave the place because of changes in the location of the Institutions of the European Community13. 
During this period the Parliament reserved the right to terminate the contract at one year's notice whithout having to pay a compensation, if obliged to leave the place because of changes in the location of the Institutions of the European Community13.
From 1.11.1998 onwards the contract was tacitly renewed every year. 
From 1.11.1998 onwards the contract was tacitly renewed every year.
Observations 11. 
Observations 11.
In December 1980 the Bureau accepted to pay rent calculated on the basis of 465 FF/m2 for the whole area of the building. 
In December 1980 the Bureau accepted to pay rent calculated on the basis of 465 FF/m2 for the whole area of the building.
This is higher than any price considered "acceptable" by the Bureau in April 1979 and actually accepted by the Mayor of CS on 5.6.1979. 
This is higher than any price considered "acceptable" by the Bureau in April 1979 and actually accepted by the Mayor of CS on 5.6.1979.
At this date CS was already financing a part of the construction cost, but the Mayor accepted the Bureau's conditions without requesting an increase of the rent. 
At this date CS was already financing a part of the construction cost, but the Mayor accepted the Bureau's conditions without requesting an increase of the rent.
The EP financial controller remarked that the rent calculated on the conditions set by the Bureau in April 1979 would have amounted to 14 000 000 FF, not 18 220 095 FF. 
The EP financial controller remarked that the rent calculated on the conditions set by the Bureau in April 1979 would have amounted to 14 000 000 FF, not 18 220 095 FF.
The financial controller stated in writing that it was the Bureau's responsibility to decide whether to accept such an increase of the rent ("...le montant du loyer ne correspond pas à ce que le Bureau, en sa réunion des 4/5 avril 1979 considérait comme acceptable...L'appréciation 11 12 13 Note of 10.2.1984 of the EP Directorate for General Administration. 
The financial controller stated in writing that it was the Bureau's responsibility to decide whether to accept such an increase of the rent ("...le montant du loyer ne correspond pas à ce que le Bureau, en sa réunion des 4/5 avril 1979 considérait comme acceptable...L'appréciation 11 12 13 Note of 10.2.1984 of the EP Directorate for General Administration.
-6-de cette augmentation et son acceptation ne peuvent relever que de la compétence du Bureau")14. 
-6-de cette augmentation et son acceptation ne peuvent relever que de la compétence du Bureau")14.
The EP was aware that SCI had been granted a 6,5 % return on investment and, as mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, considered that the same rate could be earned by CS for its part of the investment. 
The EP was aware that SCI had been granted a 6,5 % return on investment and, as mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, considered that the same rate could be earned by CS for its part of the investment.
However, it does not appear from the available documents that the EP ever ascertained the total construction cost and the part of it supported by each investor. 
However, it does not appear from the available documents that the EP ever ascertained the total construction cost and the part of it supported by each investor.
The Bureau rejected an automatic rent indexation and the contract required the agreement of both parties for the revision of the rent. 
The Bureau rejected an automatic rent indexation and the contract required the agreement of both parties for the revision of the rent.
However, the EP accepted the first possible request of an index-linked rent increase without any prior negotiation. 
However, the EP accepted the first possible request of an index-linked rent increase without any prior negotiation.
At the expiry of the initial period of 18 years the EP should have opened negotiations for a possible reduction of the rent taking into account the capital recovered by the investors, the return obtained on the investment and the written-down value of the depreciated building15. 
At the expiry of the initial period of 18 years the EP should have opened negotiations for a possible reduction of the rent taking into account the capital recovered by the investors, the return obtained on the investment and the written-down value of the depreciated building15.
14 15 Note of 5.11.1980 from the financial controller (Mr Etien) to Mr Paludan-Muller, Director for Administration. 
14 15 Note of 5.11.1980 from the financial controller (Mr Etien) to Mr Paludan-Muller, Director for Administration.
In a special report of 21.6.1979 on accommodation policies of the institutions of the European Communities (OJ C 221, 3.9.79) the Court of Auditors recommended that all institutions examine the possibility of negotiating a reduction of rents after an initial period in which capital and financing costs might have been fully recovered by the investors. 
In a special report of 21.6.1979 on accommodation policies of the institutions of the European Communities (OJ C 221, 3.9.79) the Court of Auditors recommended that all institutions examine the possibility of negotiating a reduction of rents after an initial period in which capital and financing costs might have been fully recovered by the investors.
The effects of such recommendation were followed-up in paragraph 10.51 of the annual report concerning the financial year 1987 (OJ C 316, 12.12.1988). 
The effects of such recommendation were followed-up in paragraph 10.51 of the annual report concerning the financial year 1987 (OJ C 316, 12.12.1988).
In its reply to this paragraph the EP stated that it had set in motion interinstitutional cooperation with a view to the renegotiation of leases in Luxembourg. 
In its reply to this paragraph the EP stated that it had set in motion interinstitutional cooperation with a view to the renegotiation of leases in Luxembourg.
-7-THE EXTENSIONS TO THE IPE-0 BUILDING: IPE1-2 Background 15. 
-7-THE EXTENSIONS TO THE IPE-0 BUILDING: IPE1-2 Background 15.
On 6.7.1983 the Bureau decided to invite CS to extend the IPE building16. 
On 6.7.1983 the Bureau decided to invite CS to extend the IPE building16.
On 13.1.1986 the first extension to the IPE building (IPE-1) was delivered to the EP. 
On 13.1.1986 the first extension to the IPE building (IPE-1) was delivered to the EP.
On 10.6.1986 CS sent to the EP an invoice for the first provisional rent17. 
On 10.6.1986 CS sent to the EP an invoice for the first provisional rent17.
The rent, calculated on the basis of 730 FF/m2 applying to a total area of 3 320,80 m2 , amounted to 2 424 184 FF. 
The rent, calculated on the basis of 730 FF/m2 applying to a total area of 3 320,80 m2 , amounted to 2 424 184 FF.
This amount, converted into ECU at a rate of 6,70899 FF/ECU, resulted in an amount of 361 333,67 ECU. 
This amount, converted into ECU at a rate of 6,70899 FF/ECU, resulted in an amount of 361 333,67 ECU.
On 29.12.1986 a codicil to the contract of 12.1.1981 was signed. 
On 29.12.1986 a codicil to the contract of 12.1.1981 was signed.
The codicil stated that the annual rent for the first extension to the building would amount to 361 333,67 ECU and would be added to the rent of the main building. 
The codicil stated that the annual rent for the first extension to the building would amount to 361 333,67 ECU and would be added to the rent of the main building.
The same codicil stipulated that a second extension to the main building would be delivered at the latest on 31.12.1987. 
The same codicil stipulated that a second extension to the main building would be delivered at the latest on 31.12.1987.
The estimated surface of this second extension was 21 505 m2 and a provisional rent was indicated (630 FF/m2). 
The estimated surface of this second extension was 21 505 m2 and a provisional rent was indicated (630 FF/m2).
On 5.1.1988 CS informed the EP administration18 that, the second extension (IPE-2) having been completed, a rent of 2 089 339,70 ECU was requested, calculated on the basis of 680 FF/m2 (97,156 ECU/m2) for an area of 21 505 m2. 
On 5.1.1988 CS informed the EP administration18 that, the second extension (IPE-2) having been completed, a rent of 2 089 339,70 ECU was requested, calculated on the basis of 680 FF/m2 (97,156 ECU/m2) for an area of 21 505 m2.
Replying to a request from the EP, CS explained that the amount of 630 FF/m2 appearing in the codicil of 29.12.86 to the contract of 12.1.1981 was provisional, while the amount of 680 FF/m2 resulted from a calculation based on the actual costs19. 
Replying to a request from the EP, CS explained that the amount of 630 FF/m2 appearing in the codicil of 29.12.86 to the contract of 12.1.1981 was provisional, while the amount of 680 FF/m2 resulted from a calculation based on the actual costs19.
16 17 18 19 Minute of the meeting of 6.7.1983. 
16 17 18 19 Minute of the meeting of 6.7.1983.
Letter of 10.6.1986 from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director for Infrastructure and Internal Service. 
Letter of 10.6.1986 from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director for Infrastructure and Internal Service.
Letter from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Conferences and Interpretation. 
Letter from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Conferences and Interpretation.
Letter of 22.1.1988 from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Conferences and Interpretation. 
Letter of 22.1.1988 from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Conferences and Interpretation.
-8-19. 
-8-19.
On 28.1.1988 the EP requested from CS the exact figures concerning the construction costs of the buildings rented in Strasbourg. 
On 28.1.1988 the EP requested from CS the exact figures concerning the construction costs of the buildings rented in Strasbourg.
No reply to this request was obtained and the EP did not insist for obtaining it. 
No reply to this request was obtained and the EP did not insist for obtaining it.
On 6.9.1988 CS wrote to the EP that, following remarks made by the EP, the surface of IPE-2 was recalculated at 20 880 m2, instead of 21 505 m2. 
On 6.9.1988 CS wrote to the EP that, following remarks made by the EP, the surface of IPE-2 was recalculated at 20 880 m2, instead of 21 505 m2.
This had no substantial effect on the annual rent, which was recalculated at 700,35 FF/m2, instead of 680 FF/m2, and thus amounted to 2 088 292 ECU, instead of 2 089 339,70 ECU. 
This had no substantial effect on the annual rent, which was recalculated at 700,35 FF/m2, instead of 680 FF/m2, and thus amounted to 2 088 292 ECU, instead of 2 089 339,70 ECU.
It was agreed that IPE-2 had been completed on 9.12.1987 and the renting period started on 10.12.198720. 
It was agreed that IPE-2 had been completed on 9.12.1987 and the renting period started on 10.12.198720.
On 22.12.1989 a codicil to the contract of 12.1.1981 was signed. 
On 22.12.1989 a codicil to the contract of 12.1.1981 was signed.
This codicil established the rent for IPE-2 as indicated in the above-mentioned CS letter of 6.9.1988. 
This codicil established the rent for IPE-2 as indicated in the above-mentioned CS letter of 6.9.1988.
The rent was added to the rent of the main building. 
The rent was added to the rent of the main building.
Observations 22. 
Observations 22.
While aware that, as stated by CS, the requested rents had been calculated with reference to the capital and financial costs of the investments, the EP did not require CS to state the amount of such costs and provide evidence of the charges actually supported by CS. 
While aware that, as stated by CS, the requested rents had been calculated with reference to the capital and financial costs of the investments, the EP did not require CS to state the amount of such costs and provide evidence of the charges actually supported by CS.
EP accepted the amounts of rent per m2 requested by CS and the resulting total amounts. 
EP accepted the amounts of rent per m2 requested by CS and the resulting total amounts.
20 Letter of 6.9.1988 from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Conferences and Interpretation. 
20 Letter of 6.9.1988 from the Secretary-General of CS to the EP Director-General for Administration, Conferences and Interpretation.
-9-CONCLUSIONS 23. 
-9-CONCLUSIONS 23.
The construction of the IPE buildings is atypical in so far as it took place at a time where major changes occurred in Parliament and where the cost of money was particularly high. 
The construction of the IPE buildings is atypical in so far as it took place at a time where major changes occurred in Parliament and where the cost of money was particularly high.
Keeping these particular circumstances in mind, it can be concluded that, when negotiating the initial contract, the EP does not appear to have exploited the following facts and arguments: - on 5.6.1979 the Mayor of Strasbourg accepted to let the IPE O building to the EP for 14 611 000 FF. 
Keeping these particular circumstances in mind, it can be concluded that, when negotiating the initial contract, the EP does not appear to have exploited the following facts and arguments: - on 5.6.1979 the Mayor of Strasbourg accepted to let the IPE O building to the EP for 14 611 000 FF.
The contract signed on 12.1.1981 stipulated a rent of 18 220 095 FF. 
The contract signed on 12.1.1981 stipulated a rent of 18 220 095 FF.
This increase was mainly due to the request by CS for return on its investment. 
This increase was mainly due to the request by CS for return on its investment.
However, when accepting, on 5.6.1979, the price offered by the EP, CS was already making a direct investment, additional to the capital invested by SCI Erasme. 
However, when accepting, on 5.6.1979, the price offered by the EP, CS was already making a direct investment, additional to the capital invested by SCI Erasme.
At that time this was not considered a reason to request a higher rent; - while aware that the investors intended to obtain, through the rent, a return on investment of 6,5 %, the EP did not ascertain the total construction cost and the part of it supported by each investor. 
At that time this was not considered a reason to request a higher rent; - while aware that the investors intended to obtain, through the rent, a return on investment of 6,5 %, the EP did not ascertain the total construction cost and the part of it supported by each investor.
Consequently, it was not in a position to determine whether the rental amount requested was reasonable. 
Consequently, it was not in a position to determine whether the rental amount requested was reasonable.
Although in its decision of 4/5.4.1979 the Bureau had rejected an automatic indexation of the rent and, accordingly, the wording of the initial contract did not provide for automatic indexation, the EP accepted in 1982, without any negotiation, to pay, in fact, an automatically indexed rent. 
Although in its decision of 4/5.4.1979 the Bureau had rejected an automatic indexation of the rent and, accordingly, the wording of the initial contract did not provide for automatic indexation, the EP accepted in 1982, without any negotiation, to pay, in fact, an automatically indexed rent.
When discussing the codicils referring to the rental of the extensions, the EP accepted the amount of the rent requested by CS, without insisting on disclosure of the actual costs supported by CS and the methods applied to calculate the rent. 
When discussing the codicils referring to the rental of the extensions, the EP accepted the amount of the rent requested by CS, without insisting on disclosure of the actual costs supported by CS and the methods applied to calculate the rent.
According to the EP administration21, the rents of the IPE buildings were negotiated on the basis of the price per square metre and considered reasonable in comparison with the price paid by the EP for other buildings in Strasbourg and 21 Note of 8.6.2006 to the Secretary-General from the Director-General for Infrastructure and Interpretation. 
According to the EP administration21, the rents of the IPE buildings were negotiated on the basis of the price per square metre and considered reasonable in comparison with the price paid by the EP for other buildings in Strasbourg and 21 Note of 8.6.2006 to the Secretary-General from the Director-General for Infrastructure and Interpretation.
- 10 - in other cities. 
- 10 - in other cities.
However, the comparison referred to prices paid for an average square metre (offices, meeting rooms, lounges, bars, car parks, etc. added up) of buildings having different areas and structures and, sometimes, different functions. 
However, the comparison referred to prices paid for an average square metre (offices, meeting rooms, lounges, bars, car parks, etc. added up) of buildings having different areas and structures and, sometimes, different functions.
At the end of the first 18 years period, the EP did not follow the recommendation made by the Court in its special report of 1979 (see paragraph 14). 
At the end of the first 18 years period, the EP did not follow the recommendation made by the Court in its special report of 1979 (see paragraph 14).
The possibility of negotiating a reduction of the rent after the initial period, in which capital and financing costs might have been fully recovered by the investors, was thus not examined. 
The possibility of negotiating a reduction of the rent after the initial period, in which capital and financing costs might have been fully recovered by the investors, was thus not examined.
Nor did the EP establish any specific procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the rent paid for the WIC and SDM buildings. 
Nor did the EP establish any specific procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the rent paid for the WIC and SDM buildings.
This document was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 7 September 2006. 
This document was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 7 September 2006.
For the Court of Auditors Hubert Weber President 
For the Court of Auditors Hubert Weber President
1.12.2016 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 449/173 EL ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ ΕΚΘΕΣΗ σχετικά με τους ετήσιους λογαριασμούς του Ευρωπαϊκού Οργανισμού για τη Λειτουργική Διαχείριση Συστημάτων ΤΠ Μεγάλης Κλίμακας στον Χώρο Ελευθερίας, Ασφάλειας και Δικαιοσύνης (eu-LISA) για το οικονομικό έτος 2015, συνοδευόμενη από την απάντηση του Οργανισμού (2016/C 449/32) 1. 
1.12.2016 Official Journal of the European Union C 449/173 EN REPORT on the annual accounts of the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) for the financial year 2015, together with the AgencyŐs reply (2016/C 449/32) INTRODUCTION 1.
Ο Ευρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός για τη Λειτουργική Διαχείριση Συστημάτων ΤΠ Μεγάλης Κλίμακας στον Χώρο Ελευθερίας, Ασφάλειας και Δικαιοσύνης (γνωστός και ως «eu-LISA», εφεξής «ο Οργανισμός»), με έδρα στο Τάλιν, το Στρασβούργο και το St. Johann im Pongau, ιδρύθηκε με τον κανονισμό (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1077/2011 του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου (1). 
The European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA), hereinafter Ôthe AgencyŐ, which is located in Tallinn, Strasbourg and St. Johann im Pongau, was established by Regulation (EC) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).
Κύρια αποστολή του Οργανισμού είναι η εξασφάλιση της λειτουργικής διαχείρισης του συστήματος πληροφοριών Σένγκεν δεύτερης γενιάς (SIS II), του συστήματος πληροφοριών για τις θεωρήσεις (VIS) και του Eurodac. 
The core mission of this Agency is to fulfil the operational management tasks for the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac.