natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ten specific objectives had to be achieved involving 15 different types of project partners simultaneously. 
Saavutada tuli kmme konkreetset eesmrki, kaasates heaegselt 15 erinevat projektipartnerit.
Each of the ten objectives involved numerous different project partners. 
Sealjuures tuli arvukalt partnereid kaasata igahe puhul nendest kmnest eesmrgist.
As a result, the Ministry of Justice, the principal beneficiary, would be dealing with 78 different foreseen activities. 
Selle tulemusena oleks justiitsministeerium, kes oli projekti peamine kasusaaja, pidanud toime tulema 78 ettenhtud tegevusega.
One of the main unintended side effects of the high contracting speed, encouraged by the Commission was that beneficiaries might not fully benefit from the projects, thus reducing their effectiveness and impact. 
Komisjoni poolt kannustatud kiire lepinguslmimise ks peamisi ebasoovitavaid krvalmjusid seisnes selles, et abisaajad ei pruukinud saada projektidest tit kasu, mistttu vhenes nende tulemuslikkus ja mju.
To ensure project effectiveness Community assistance under the stabilisation and association process is conditional and failure to respect the conditions could lead the Commission to take appropriate measures. 
Projektide tulemuslikkuse tagamiseks on henduse abi stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsessi raames tingimuslik ja tingimuste titmata jtmisel vib komisjon vtta asjakohaseid meetmeid.
An example in this respect was the support to the Croatian Court System described in Box 5. 
Selliseks niteks on Horvaatia kohtussteemi toetamine, mida on kirjeldatud 5. selgituses.
The mission concluded that the final confirmation of the devolution sub-Delegation was conditional to achieving a tender target of 25 million euro within a delay of six months. 
Selle kigus juti jreldusele, et haldusfunktsioonide edasivolitamise lplik kinnitamine phjustas olukorra, kus 25 miljoni euro suurune pakkumiste maht saavutati kuuekuulise hilinemisega.
Box 5 Support to the Croatian Court System The Twinning project financed by the 2002 programme was implemented despite the fact that none of the conditionalities defined in the project form were fulfilled at the time of the project start-up. 
5. selgitus Toetus Horvaatia kohtussteemile 2002. aasta programmist rahastatud mestiprojekt viidi ellu vaatamata sellele, et projekti kivitamisel ei olnud tidetud mitte kski projekti dokumentatsioonis stestatud tingimustest. ks tingimus eeldas kohtureformi strateegia olemasolu.
Given that the project was an absolute priority for the Commission, it was imposed on the recipient. 
Kuna projekt oli komisjoni jaoks absoluutne prioriteet, suruti see abisaajale peale.
For the above reasons recommendations made to the recipient, although accepted and recognised by the Croatian Ministry of Justice, have not produced major actions in all areas. 
Eespool loetletud phjustel ei toonud abisaajale, st Horvaatia justiitsministeeriumile antud soovitused kigis valdkondades kaasa mrkimisvrseid tegusid, kuigi abisaaja nustus soovitustega.
CommissionŐs management approach not conducive to increasing the responsibility of recipient countries 42. 
Komisjoni halduslhenemine ei soodustanud abisaajariikide vastutuse kasvu 42.
In addition to the contribution to the SAp, the preamble of the CARDS Regulation describes the other main objective of the assistance as: ÔThe existing Community assistance should ... increase the responsibility of the recipient countries and entities in relation to that [SAp] process.Ő 43. 
Peale stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsessile kaasaaitamise kirjeldatakse CARDSi mruse preambulis abi teisi peamisi eesmrke jrgmiselt: ăPraegune henduse abi [peaks]... suurendama saajariikide ja -ksuste vastutust selle [stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimis-] protsessi eest.Ó 43.
As set out in paragraph 31, the main reason behind the management structures established was to ensure quick delivery of aid. 
Nagu on mrgitud punktis 31, oli haldusstruktuuride loomise peamine phjus abi kiire kohaletoimetamise tagamine.
The downside of this approach is reduced recipient state involvement. 
Selle lhenemisviisi negatiivne klg on abisaajariigi vhene kaa-satus.
This approach was appropriate in the reconstruction phase but less so as the assistance moved from infrastructure projects to institution building projects. 
See lhenemisviis oli asjakohane lesehituse etapil, kuid mitte enam siis, kui abi suunati infrastruktuuriprojektidelt institutsioonide vljaarendamise projektidele.
Despite the apparent political will to bring the countries as rapidly as possible into the European Union, this has not been matched by any increase in the countriesŐ management responsibilities. 
Hoolimata nilisest poliitilisest tahtest tuua need riigid vimalikult kiiresti Euroopa Liitu, ei ole sellele vastavalt suurendatud riikide haldusvastutust.
The Court did not find any indication of a formal aid management strategy on the CommissionŐs part Ń general or country specific Ń to increase progressively the responsibility of the recipients. 
Kontrollikoda ei leidnud htegi mrki sellest, et komisjonil oleks olemas kas ldine vi konkreetseid riike ksitlev ametlik abi haldamise strateegia, mis oleks suunatud abisaajate vastutuse pidevale suurendamisele.
The Court assessed to what degree the CommissionŐs management of the CARDS programme contributed to increasing the responsibility of recipient countries in certain critical steps of the project cycle management, and assessed the consequences of insufficient ownership. 
Kontrollikoda hindas, kuivrd aitas programmi CARDS komisjonipoolne haldamine kaasa abisaajariikide vastutuse suurendamisele projektitskli juhtimise teatavatel kriitilistel etappidel. Samuti hindas ta ebapiisava omavastutuse tagajrgi.
27.11.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/13 46. 
27.11.2007 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 285/13 46.
The CommissionŐs guidelines for the identification of projects and subsequent drafting of the Annual Programmes (1) did not promote beneficiary participation in the decision-making. 
Komisjoni suunised projektide vljavalimise ja sellele jrgneva aastaprogrammide kavandamise kohta (1) ei soodustanud abisaajate osalemist otsuste tegemisel.
The instructions issued by EuropeAid for the 2001 and 2002 annual programming did not specify any kind of beneficiary involvement. 
Koosttalituse EuropeAid poolt 2001. ja 2002. aasta programmide kavandamise kohta vlja antud juhistes ei nhtud ette mingisugust abisaajate kaasamist.
The guidelines for the 2003 and 2004 annual programmes specified some involvement Ń albeit limited Ń requiring initial contacts to be taken with potential beneficiaries during the preparatory work, and draft project fiches to be sent by the Delegation or EAR to the beneficiaries at least two weeks before finalising the annual programme. 
2003. ja 2004. aasta programmide juhistes oli teatav kaasamine ette nhtud, kuigi see oli piiratud. Nutud oli, et ettevalmistuse kigus tuleb vtta hendust potentsiaalsete abisaajatega ning et delegatsioon vi EAR peab saatma projektikirjelduste kavandid abisaajatele vhemalt kaks ndalat enne aastaprogrammi lplikku valmimist.
The audit assessed the extent of the involvement of the beneficiaries through on-the-spot interviews with around 30 beneficiaries. 
Auditi kigus hinnati abisaajate kaasatuse ulatust umbes 30 abisaajaga kohapeal lbiviidud intervjuude abil.
The Court found some examples, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia, where the Commission and the Agency had tried to increase recipient country ownership (see Box 6). 
Kontrollikoda leidis mned nited, eelkige Bosnia ja Hertsegoviinas, Horvaatias ja Serbias, kus komisjon ja lesehitusamet olid pdnud suurendada abisaajariigi omavastutust (vt 6. selgitus).
Box 6 Example of good practices in ownership Case 1: Strengthening the Directorate of European Integration in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) The decision-making process for the CARDS 2006 programming in BiH is a good illustration of ownership and accountability development. 
Euroopaga limumise direktoraadi tugevdamine Bosnia ja Hertsegoviinas Otsuste tegemise protsess CARDS 2006 programmide kavandamisel Bosnia ja Hertsegoviinas on hea nide omavastutuse ja vastutavuse arengu kohta.
Already in the CARDS 2004 and 2005 annual programme, the Commission started to build capacity with the recipient country, for example by introducing senior programming officer posts in BiH line ministries and agencies and by supporting the Directorate for European Integration. 
Juba CARDSi 2004. ja 2005. aasta programmide raames hakkas komisjon abisaajariikide suutlikkust kasvatama, nt seades Bosnia ja Hertsegoviina asjaomastes ministeeriumides ja asutustes sisse vanem-programmiametniku ametikohad ning toetades Euroopaga limumise direktoraati.
Because of the efforts made, in the last year of the CARDS programme, project fiches were prepared by the BiH authorities. 
Tnu nendele jupingutustele valmistasid CARDS programmi viimase aasta projektikirjeldused ette Bosnia ja Hertsegoviina ametiasutused.
Case 2: Nikola Tesla project in Serbia Although the AgencyŐs legal framework (i.e. indirect centralised management) is not the most appropriate for enhancing the ownership of the recipient country, the Agency was still able to find an innovative solution in the case of a power plant project in Serbia (Nikola Tesla A5). 
2. juhtum. Nikola Tesla projekt Serbias Kuigi lesehitusameti iguslik raamistik (st kaudne tsentraliseeritud haldamine) ei ole abisaajariigi omavastutuse edendamiseks kige sobivam, nnestus ametil siiski leida uuenduslik lahendus elektrijaama-projekti puhul Serbias (Nikola Tesla A5).
(1) The annual programmes contain a detailed list of projects Ń so called project fiches Ń to be financed and specify the relevant amounts. 
(1) Aastaprogrammid sisaldavad rahastatavate projektide ksikasjalikku loetelu (projektikirjeldusi) ja neile vastavaid summasid.
Since 2005 project fiches are being grouped and consolidated in sector fiches. 
Alates 2005. aastast on projektikirjeldused rhmitatud ja koondatud sekto-rikirjelduste alla.
Formally the project fiches were not part of the Commission financing decision therefore not legally binding unlike to sector fiches. 
Formaalselt ei olnud projektikirjeldused komisjoni rahastamisotsuse osa ning seega ei olnud need ka iguslikult siduvad nagu sektorikirjeldused.
The innovative feature of the implementation of the project was the use of a ÔGrant AgreementŐ. 
Uuenduslik element projekti rakendamisel oli toetuslepingu kasutamine.
Through this arrangement the responsibility for the planning, including the definition of the technical specifications and management of the project was entrusted to the beneficiary, the Serbian electricity utility. 
Selle kokkuleppe kaudu usaldati vastutus kavandamise, sealhulgas tehniliste spetsifikatsioonide vljattamise eest ning samuti projektijuhtimise eest abisaajale, st Serbia elektrienergiaettevttele.
The technical specifications were checked and approved by the contracted supervisor and the tendering procedure and control of payments was maintained by the Agency. 
Tehnilised spetsifikatsioonid kontrollis le ja kiitis heaks lepinguline jrelevaataja ning pakkumiskutse menetlust ja maksete kontrollimist haldas endiselt lesehitusamet.
All parties, including the beneficiary, were very satisfied with the arrangement and thus it can be concluded that the ownership was as complete as can be expected under the present arrangements. 
Kik osapooled, sealhulgas abisaaja, olid sellise korraldusega rahul ja seega vib jreldada, et omavastutus oli niivrd tielik, kui antud olukorras ldse vib eeldada.
However, in most cases the Commission was not consistent in promoting recipient country responsibility when developing the so-called project fiches and later the terms of reference. 
Enamikul juhtudel ei olnud komisjon siiski projektikirjelduste ja hiljem tpsemate juhendite vljattamisel abisaajariigi vastutuse edendamise suhtes nii jrjekindel.
Participation varied from country to country on the basis of initiatives taken by the Delegations or the EAR depending on the capacities of the countries concerned. 
Osalus oli riigiti erinev, tulenedes delegatsioonide vi EARi algatustest ning olenedes asjaomaste riikide suutlikkusest.
The co-financing of projects with national funds is one indicator of recipient country ownership and interest. 
Projektide kaasrahastamine riigi vahenditest on ks abisaajariigi omavastutuse ja huvi nitaja.
Although the CARDS Guidelines encourage the use of national co-financing, it was hardly used (2). 
Kuigi CARDSi suunised julgustavad kasutama riigipoolset kaasrahastamist, tehti seda harva (2).
A positive exception, i.e. the only one out of the 31 non-grant projects audited, in this respect is the Croatian land cadastre project, which was significantly co-financed and where the donor coordination was effectively led by the Croatian authorities. 
Positiivne erand, st ainus 31st toetuslepinguga mittehlma-tud auditeeritud projektist on Horvaatia maakatastri projekt, mida kaasrahastati mrkimisvrses ulatuses ja mille puhul Horvaatia ametiasutused koordineerisid thusalt rahastajate tegevust.
Similarly the commitment of the beneficiaries of grants was also high (3). 
Ka toetusesaajate omaosalus oli suur (3).
50. One way of increasing recipient country ownership is to involve national authorities in tender evaluation committees. 
50. ks viis suurendada abisaajariigi omavastutust on kaasata riigi ametiasutused pakkumiste hindamise komisjonidesse.
However, the EuropeAid instructions binding the Delegations and acting as guidance for the EAR, require that the majority of the voting members of the evaluation committees represent the Commission (see Box 7). 
Koosttalituse EuropeAid juhendid, mis on delegatsioonidele siduvad ja EARile juhendmaterjaliks, nevad siiski ette, et enamus hindamiskomisjonide hleiguslikke liikmeid peab esindama komisjoni (vt 7. selgitus).
This contrasts with many other areas of external actions where the Commission is not represented as a voting member on evaluation committees, but retains the right of veto. 
Siin on tegemist erinevusega paljudest muudest valdkondadest, kus komisjon ei ole hindamiskomisjoni-des hleiguslike liikmetega esindatud, kuid omab siiski vetoigust.
(2) (3) Except with the grant contracts where the co-financing is an obligation. 
(2) V.a toetuslepingute puhul, kus kaasrahastamine on kohustuslik.
Projects audited included for example a tourist centre in the Travnik fortress in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a mobile library in the city of Zadar in Croatia. 
(3) Auditeeritud projektid hlmasid niteks turismikeskust Travniku kindluses Bosnia ja Hertsegoviinas ning mobiilset raamatukogu Zadari linnas Horvaatias.
C 285/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 27.11.2007 Box 7 Composition of tender evaluation committees The Court assessed 177 tender evaluation committees covering 2002 to 2005. 
C 285/14 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 27.11.2007 7. selgitus Pakkumiste hindamise komisjonide koosseis Kontrollikoda hindas 177 pakkumiste hindamise komisjoni, mis tegutsesid perioodil 2002Đ2005.
On average 55 % percent of the voting members were task managers from the Delegations or EAR operational centres and 13 % of the voting members were independent external experts. 
Keskmiselt 55 % hleiguslikest liikmetest olid delegatsioonide vi EAR rakenduskeskuste projektijuhid ja 13 % olid sltumatud vliseksperdid.
The average representation of beneficiary organisations was 32 % with the exception of Croatia, where the percentage increased significantly to 52 % and Bosnia and Herzegovina where the trend of beneficiary voting members decreased to 24 %. 
Kasusaavate organisatsioonide keskmine esindatus oli 32 %, v.a Horvaatias, kus esindatuse mr oli tunduvalt krgem, 52 %, ning Bosnia ja Hertsegoviinas, kus abisaajat esindavaid hleiguslikke liikmeid vaid 24 %.
The EuropeAid instructions require evaluation committees to comprise a minimum of four EC Delegation/EAR staff (i.e. chairman, secretary and two evaluators) for one external evaluator and an additional two EC Delegation/EAR staff for every additional beneficiary evaluator. 
EuropeAidi juhendite kohaselt peab hindamiskomis-jonides olema vhemalt neli liiget Euroopa Komisjoni delegatsiooni/EARi poolt (st esimees, sekretr ja kaks hindajat) he vlishindaja kohta ja veel kaks delegatsiooni/EARi esindajat iga tiendava abisaajat esindava hindaja kohta.
This draws excessively on the human resources of the Delegations while preventing improved country ownership. 52. 
See hivab palju delegatsioonide inimressursse ja takistab samas abisaajariigi omavastutuse edendamist.
One of the obstacles to decentralisation was a lack of knowledge by recipient countries of the European CommissionŐs contract procedures. 
52. heks takistuseks detsentraliseerimisel oli asjaolu, et abisaajariigid tundsid halvasti Euroopa Komisjoni lepinguslmimise menetlusi.
In Croatia, representatives from national authorities were systematically invited by the Delegation to participate in the evaluation committee meetings as non-voting observers. 
Horvaatias kutsus delegatsioon riigi ametiasutuste esindajaid hindamiskomisjonide koosolekutel regulaarselt vaatlejatena osalema.
This represented good practice by allowing national authorities to become familiar with the detailed tendering procedures, but was not applied systematically in other countries. 
See oli hea tava, mis vimaldas riigi ametiasutustel tutvuda pakkumismenetluste ksikasjadega, kuid teistes riikides seda regulaarselt ei rakendatud.
For example, in Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia the practice was applied only in very rare cases. 
Niteks Albaanias, endise Jugoslaavia Makedoonia Vabariigis ja Serbias kohaldati seda tava vaid vga harvadel juhtudel.
Among the participants there was the European Commission and 91 countries, two of which represented the CARDS area (Albania and Serbia-Montenegro). Box 8 Donor co-ordination in Albania In order to improve donor coordination in Albania, the four multi-laterals (EC, OSCE, UN and WB) set up a sectoral coordination mechanism in December 2003. 
8. selgitus Rahastajate tegevuse koordineerimine Albaanias Rahastajate tegevuse koordineerimise parandamiseks Albaanias kehtestasid neli mitmepoolset organisatsiooni (Euroopa Komisjon, OSCE, RO ja Maailmapank) 2003. aasta detsembris valdkondliku koosk-lastusmehhanismi.
They agreed on the division of responsibilities between themselves in four thematic areas. 
Nad leppisid kokku, et jagavad omavahel vastutuse neljas teemavaldkonnas.
In order to manage the coordination process, they formed the Donor Technical Secretariat. 
Koordineerimistegevuste juhtimiseks moodustasid nad rahastamise tehnilise sekretariaadi.
This contributes to a more effective complementarity and more effective division of labour. 
See tagab thusama vastastikuse tiendavuse ja tju efektiivsema kasutamise.
The donors are expected to make use of their respective comparative advantages at sector level and to delegate authority to the assigned lead donors for the execution of programmes. 
Ra-hastajatel on vimalik kasutada ra oma suhtelised eelised valdkondlikul tasandil ja delegeerida programmide elluviimise volitused mratud juhtivale rahastajale.
The donor community contributed to establishing an Integrated Planning System, which was launched by the Government of Albania in 2005 and which should help the country to lead its own development process. 
Rahastajad andsid panuse htse kavandamisssteemi loomisse, mille Albaania valitsus kivitas 2005. aastal ja mis peaks aitama riigil ise oma arenguprotsesse juhtida.
This aims to integrate the various policy frameworks into a single medium-term development plan in 2007 and to set up a new architecture for donor coordination and management of external assistance. 
Selle eesmrk on integreerida erinevad poliitilised raamistikud 2007. aastal heks keskpikaks arengukavaks ning seada sisse uus rahastajate koordineerimise ja vlisabi haldamise struktuur.
Inconsistent approach to monitoring and evaluation 55. Delegations and the EAR have different monitoring procedures: (a) the Commission HQ and Delegations use outsourced monitoring services following a standard methodology called Result-Oriented Monitoring (ROM). 
Delegatsioonidel ja EARil on erinevad jreleval-vemenetlused: Riikide koordineerimisel omavastutus rahastajate tegevuse a) b) komisjoni peakorter ja delegatsioonid kasutavad sisseostetud jrelevalveteenuseid, mille puhul jrgitakse standardmetoo-dikat nimega tulemuslikkuse seire (ROM).
It includes the use of a rating system for the performance of the projects, but does not provide a formal record of the follow-up; (b) the EAR has its own monitoring teams in each Operational Centre, as well as a coordinator in the HQ. 
Sealjuures kasutatakse hinnangute ssteemi projektide teostamise kohta, kuid ei koostata vormikohast jrelkontrolli dokumenti; EARil on igas rakenduskeskuses oma jrelevalvetrhmad ja peakorteris nende koordinaator.
These teams used the ROM system from the beginning of 2005. 
Need trhmad on tulemuslikkuse seire ssteemi kasutanud alates 2005. aasta algusest.
The follow-up is formally recorded in the monitoring documents. 56. 
Jrelkontrolli leiud kantakse vormikohastesse jrelevalvedokumentidesse. vhene 53.
Effective monitoring requires projects to have objectives and objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) to monitor against. However, OVIs are either not provided, or when provided, they are not measurable or time-bound. 
56. gid ja objektiivselt kontrollitavad nitajad. Sageli aga objektiivselt kontrollitavaid nitajaid ei esitata vi kui esitatakse, pole need mdetavad vi ei ole ajaliselt mratud.
For instance in a Police Academy project one of the OVIs was Ôadequate teaching of staffŐ without specifying the number of participants foreseen or the curriculum. 
Niteks hes politseiakadeemia projektis oli ks mdikutest ăpersonali piisav kooli-tamineÓ, ilma et oleks mainitud ettenhtud osavtjate arvu ja ppekava.
In another project, there were indicators such as Ôenhanced operational capacityŐ without specific criteria. 
Teises projektis esinesid sellised nitajad nagu ăparane-nud tegevussuutlikkusÓ, ilma tpsemate kriteeriumideta.
In accordance with the CARDS regulation the Commission evaluated the programme by the end of June 2004. 
Komisjon viis programmi hindamise koosklas CARDSi mrusega lbi 2004. aasta juuni lpuks.
According to the evaluation terms of reference, its objective was to provide the European Commission with an independent and reliable assessment of the assistance strategy under CARDS and its evolution with its wider political setting. 
Vastavalt hindamisju-hendile oli selle eesmrk anda Euroopa Komisjonile sltumatu ja usaldusvrne hinnang programmi CARDS abistrateegia ja selle arengu kohta ldisemas poliitilises kontekstis.
It covered the 2001 to 2003 period (see also paragraph 10). 
Hindamine hlmas perioodi 2001Đ2003 (vt ka punkt 10).
27.11.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/15 58. 
27.11.2007 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 285/15 58.
In order to improve financial management a critical part of the evaluation process is the follow-up on the recommendations made. 
Finantsjuhtimise tiustamise eesmrgil moodustas olulise osa hindamisprotsessist soovituste titmise jrelkontroll.
In principle, the Commission has one year to report on its follow-up actions. 
Reeglina on komisjonil ks aasta aega, et jrelkontrollist aru anda.
In this case the Commission reported over two years later. 
Kesoleval juhul esitas komisjon aruande le kahe aasta hiljem.
This may have been partly due to the Commission not being satisfied with the quality of some of the recommendations made. 
Osaliselt tingis selle asjaolu, et komisjon ei olnud rahul mne soovituse kvaliteediga.
The EAR systematically carried out evaluations at sector and project level. 
EAR viis regulaarselt lbi hindamisi valdkondlikul ja projektide tasandil.