natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The preamble of the CARDS Regulation describes the main objective of the assistance: ÔThe existing Community assistance should be expanded and redirected to adjust it to the European UnionŐs political objectives for the region and, particularly, to contribute to the stabilisation and association process and increase the responsibility of the recipient countries and entities in relation to that processŐ. 
CARDSi mruse preambulis on abi peaeesmrki kirjeldatud jrgmiselt: ăPraegust henduse abi tuleks laiendada ja mber suunata, et kohandada seda Euroopa Liidu poliitilistele eesmrkidele knealuses piirkonnas ning eelkige aidata kaasa stabiliseerumisele ja assotsieerumisele ning suurendada saajariikide ja -ksuste vastutust selle protsessi eest.Ó Mruse kohaselt tuleks erilist thelepanu prata ka henduse abi piirkondlikule mtmele.
The Stabilisation and Association process (SAp) is a progressive partnership in which the EU offers a mixture of trade concessions (Autonomous Trade Measures), economic and financial assistance (CARDS Programme) and contractual relationships (Stabilisation and Association Agreements). 
Stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsess (SAp) on progres-siivne partnerlus, kus EL pakub korraga nii kaubanduskontses-sioone (hepoolsed kaubandusmeetmed), majandus-ja finantsabi (programm CARDS) ning lepingulisi suhteid (stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimislepingud).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 (OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 1). 
(1) Nukogu mrus (E) nr 2666/2000 (ET L 306, 7.12.2000, lk 1).
(2) In February 2003 the FRY was restructured into a State Union of two republics ÔSerbia and MontenegroŐ. 
(2) Veebruaris2003restruktureeritiJFVkahestvabariigistkoosnevakslii-triigiks ăSerbia ja MontenegroÓ.
Montenegro held an independence referendum in the spring of 2006 in line with international standards. 
Montenegro korraldas iseseisvusreferendumi 2006. aasta kevadel koosklas rahvusvaheliste standarditega.
The vote for severing ties with Serbia exceeded the 55 % threshold, allowing Montenegro to formally declare its independence on 3 June 2006. 
Hletusel anti Serbiast eral-dumise poolt le 55 % hltest, mis vimaldas Montenegrol oma iseseisvuse 3. juunil 2006 ametlikult vlja kuulutada.
Two days later, Serbia declared that it was the successor state to the union of Serbia and Montenegro. 
Kaks peva hiljem kuulutas Serbia ennast Serbia ja Montenegro liitriigi igusjrglaseks.
(3) Throughout the report reference to Serbia therefore excludes the province of Kosovo. 5. 
(3) Seeprast ksitatakse kesolevas dokumendis sisalduvates viidetes Serbiat ilma Kosovo provintsita.
7. In the European Commission the management of the 
C 285/6 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 27.11.2007 c) d) kuivrd edendasid programmi kaudu rahastatud projektid abisaajariikide omavastutust; kui thusad olid jrelevalve ja hindamine puuduste tuvastamisel ja leidudest teavitamisel ning kui igeaegselt vttis komisjon nende phjal meetmeid.
The Court assessed the extent to which the CARDS programme was governed by adequate strategic guidance and directed towards the specific need of the countries involved while being coherent with the regulatory-defined objectives of the programme and the SAp in its wider sense. 
Kontrollikoda hindas, kuivrd asjakohased olid strateegilised suunised programmi CARDS juhtimisel ja kuivrd oli programm suunatud kaasatud riikide spetsiifiliste vajaduste rahul-damisele, olles samas koosklas igusaktides stestatud program-mieesmrkidega ning stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsessiga ldiselt.
In accordance with the CARDS regulation the Commission defined a strategy framework for the western Balkan countries, with country strategy papers (CSPs) for each individual country, and a regional strategy paper, drafted taking into account all the recipient countries. 
Vastavalt CARDSi mrusele koostas komisjon Lne-Balkani riikide jaoks strateegilise raamistiku ning iga riigi jaoks riigistrateegia dokumendi, samuti piirkondliku strateegiadokumendi, vttes arvesse kiki abisaajariike.
As required by the regulatory framework the Commission has produced two multi-annual indicative programmes (MIPs), one for each country and one for the regional inter-state programme for the periods 2002 to 2004 and 2005 to 2006. 
Reguleeriva raamistiku nuete kohaselt ttas komisjon vlja kaks mitmeaastast sihtprogrammi, he igale riigile ja he piirkondliku riikidevahelise programmi jaoks perioodideks 2002Đ2004 ja 2005Đ2006.
In 2004 Ń at the end of the first MIP period Ń European partnership documents were approved by the European Council covering Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo (3), with the aim of intensifying the stabilisation and association process (4). 
2004. aastal, esimese mitmeaastase sihtprogrammi lpus kiitis Euroopa lemkogu heaks Euroopa partnerluse dokumendid, millega olid hlmatud Albaania, Bosnia ja Hertsegoviina, endine Jugoslaavia Makedoonia Vabariik ning Serbia ja Montenegro koos Kosovoga, (3) eesmrgiga intensiivistada stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsessi (4).
The partnerships were drawn up for each country in the region and identified areas for action and obligations to be fulfilled by the partner countries in order to move them closer to the European Union. 
Partnerlused ttati vlja piirkonna iga riigi jaoks ning nendes mrati kindlaks partnerriikide tegevusvaldkonnad ja kohustused, mis aitaksid neid riike Euroopa Liidule lhendada.
EU assistance was to be directed towards the priorities set out in the partnerships. 
ELi abi tuli suunata partnerlustes stestatud prioriteetidele.
The audit revealed weaknesses in the strategic guidance of CARDS programming mechanisms. 
Audit ti esile puudusi CARDSi programmide kavanda-mismehhanismide strateegilistes suunistes.
Strategies as described in Country Strategy Papers (CSPs), although formally compliant with the Commission CSP guidelines, were too broadly formulated to be useful for the programming exercise. 
Riigistrateegia dokumentides kirjeldatud strateegiad, mis olid kll formaalselt komisjoni strateegiadokumentide juhistega koosklas, olid liiga ldsnalised selleks, et nendest programmide kavandamisel kasu oleks.
CSPs were not updated to reflect major changes such as the CouncilŐs European partnership documents. 
Riigistrateegia dokumente ei ajakohastatud ega viidud koosklla selliste oluliste muutustega nagu nukogu vastu vetud Euroopa partnerlusdokumendid.
The MIPs did not prioritise between and within sectors as required by Commission guidelines (5) nor indicated timing for the foreseen actions. 
Mitmeaastastes sihtprogrammides ei kehtestatud vald-kondadesiseseid ega -vahelisi prioriteete, nagu oli nutud komisjoni juhistes, (5) ega stestatud ettenhtud meetmete ajakavu.
The first European partnership in 2004 offered an opportunity for the Commission to focus its actions more precisely in the MIP covering 2005 to 2006 (6). 
Esimene Euroopa partnerlus aastal 2004 vimaldas komisjonil suunata 2005Đ2006. aasta mitmeaastases sihtprogrammis meetmeid konkreetsemalt (6).
Even though the MIPs for 2005 to 2006 contained references to the European Partnership priorities, they still gave insufficient guidance for the selection of actions to be financed. 
Kuigi 2005.Đ2006. aasta mitmeaastased sihtprogrammid sisaldasid viiteid Euroopa partnerluste prioriteetidele, andsid need siiski liiga vhe suuniseid rahastatavate meetmete valikuks.
(3) On the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 533/2004(OJ L 86, 24.3.2004, p. 1). 
(3) Nukogu 22. mrtsi 2004. aasta mruse (E) nr 533/2004 (ELT L 86, 24.3.2004, lk 1) alusel.
(4) The European Partnership for Croatia was approved by Council Decision 2004/648/EC (OJ L 297, 22.9.2004, p. 19). 
(4) Euroopa partnerlus Horvaatiaga kiideti heaks nukogu 13. septembri 2004. aasta otsusega 2004/648/E (ELT L 297, 22.9.2004, lk 19).
(5) Reference made to point 3.1.4 of the guidelines for implementation of the common framework for country strategy papers. 
(5) Viide riigistrateegia dokumentide htse raamistiku rakendamise juhiste punktile 3.1.4.
(6) Since becoming a candidate country in 2004, Croatia has benefited from the pre-accession instruments. 
(6) Alates kandidaatriigiks saamisest 2004. aastal on Horvaatia saanud kasutada hinemiseelseid rahastamisvahendeid.
A revision of the CARDS MIP for 2005 to 2006 was therefore not necessary. 
Seetttu ei olnud CARDSi mitmeaastast sihtprogrammi 2005Đ2006 vaja muuta.
9. documents, guidelines and reports. 
9. suuniste ja aruannete lbivaatamist.
In addition a judgemental sample of CARDS projects (Annex) over the period 2002 to 2005 was examined. 
Peale selle kontrolliti juhuslikku valimit CARDSi projektidest (lisa) ajavahemikul 2002Đ2005.
The audit also examined the relevant evaluation reports, prepared on behalf of the Commission Ń including the mid-term evaluation of the CARDS programme (1), which was completed in June 2004 Ń as well as the follow-up actions taken by the Commission. 
Auditi kigus kontrolliti ka nii komisjoni nimel koostatud asjakohaseid hindamisaruandeid, sealhulgas juunis 2004 valminud programmi CARDS vahehinnangut, (1) kui ka komisjoni jrelkontrollitegevusi.
The Court concluded that they provided a sufficient basis to use the results as corroborative evidence for its own audit findings (2). 
Kontrollikoda leidis, et nende tulemusi oli vimalik kasutada toetava tendusmaterjalina koja enda auditileidude puhul (2).
OBSERVATIONS Weaknesses in strategic guidance in the programming process CSPs too broadly formulated, MIPs without clear priorities, lack of effective guidance of aid 11. The CARDS regulation provides the legal basis for the main strategy papers used for CARDS assistance: ÔThe Community assistance should be governed by a strategy framework and by annual and multi-annual programming, which will be put to the management committee set up by this regulation for an opinionŐ. 
CARDSi mruses on stestatud CARDSi abi peamiste strateegiadokumentide iguslik alus: ăhenduse abi tuleks hallata strateegilise raamistiku ning he-ja mitmeaastaste programmide alusel, mille kohta kesoleva mrusega asutatav korralduskomitee esitab oma arvamuse.Ó (1) CARDSi mruse artiklis 13 on stestatud, et ăkomisjon esitab nukogule hiljemalt 30. juunil 2004 hindamisaruande ja ettepanekud kesoleva mruse tuleviku kohta ja muudatuste kohta, mida selles oleks vaja tehaÓ.
(1) Article 13 of the CARDS Regulation established that Ônot later than 30 June 2004, the Commission shall submit to the Council an evaluation report, together with proposals for the future of this Regulation and for any amendments to be made to it.Ő (2) The main conclusions of the evaluation of the assistance to Balkan countries under CARDS Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 (contract No B7-6510/2002/005) were: (a) the CARDS programme was highly relevant for ensuring financial and technical support to the Stabilisation and Association process; (b) the centralised nature and approach might become an obstacle to the programme ownership and effectiveness; (c) balancing support for institution building and development investment was a key challenge; (d) the regional dimension of the programme was weak. 
(2) Balkani riikidele CARDSi mruse (E) nr 2666/2000 alusel osutatava abi hindamise (leping nr B7Đ6510/2002/005) peamised jreldused olid jrgmised: a) programm CARDS oli stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsessile finants-ja tehnilise toe tagamisel rmiselt oluline; b) tsentraliseeritud olemus ja lhenemisviis vivad saada takistuseks omavastutuse kujunemisele ja programmi tulemuslikkusele; c) phiprobleem oli toetuse tasakaalustatud jagamine institutsioonide vljaarendamise ja arenguinvesteeringute vahel; d) programmi piirkondlik mde oli nrk. Auditeerimine hlmas strateegiadokumentide ja kavade,
27.11.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/7 17. 
27.11.2007 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 285/7 17.
As provided in the CARDS Regulation the CARDS Management Committee (1) was required to give its opinion on the CARDS programming guidelines, the Multi-annual Indicative Programmes and the Annual Programmes, with the intention of enhancing strategic guidance in the programming process. 
CARDSi mruse kohaselt pidi CARDSi korralduskomitee (1) esitama oma arvamuse CARDSi programmide kavandamise suuniste, mitmeaastaste sihtprogrammide ja aastaprogrammide kohta, et thustada strateegilist suunamist programmide kavandamise protsessis.
In reality no evidence was found that the CommitteeŐs work contributed to improving the quality of the proposed documents. 
Tegelikkuses ei leitud mingeid tendeid selle kohta, et komitee t oleks aidanud kaasa dokumendikavandite kvaliteedi parandamisele.
Detailed sectoral analyses by the Commission and/or recipient country national strategies mostly did not exist or were produced too late to enhance the strategic guidance. 
Komisjonipoolne ksikasjalik valdkondlik anals ja/vi abisaajariigi siseriiklik strateegia enamasti puudus vi oli koostatud liiga hilja ega vimaldanud enam strateegilisi suuniseid tiustada.
As a result, projects were not selected on the basis of objective criteria and, in certain cases, they were selected in response to the beneficiariesŐ ad hoc request. 
Selle tulemusena ei valitud projekte objektiivsete kriteeriumide alusel. Teatavatel juhtudel tehti valik abisaajate otsese nudmise peale.
Although the identification process was complex, it did not involve a clear methodology for optimising project selection. 
Kuigi projektide vljavalimise menetlus oli keerukas, ei hlmanud see selget metoodikat projektivaliku optimeerimiseks.
For instance, there was no cost-benefit analysis (2) or other comparative analysis of possible alternative projects before selecting the projects. 
Niteks ei tehtud enne projektide vljavalimist vimalike alternatiivsete projektide kulude-tulude analsi (2) ega muud vrdlevat analsi.
Some projects were simply continuations of earlier support. 
Mned projektid kujutasid endast ksnes varasema toetuse jtku.
There were no guidelines to help decide which intervention would best support the stabilisation and association process. 
Puudusid juhised, mis oleksid aidanud otsustada, milline sekkumine toetaks stabiliseerimis-ja assotsieerimisprotsessi kige paremini.
The audit identified differences between the planned and implemented projects. 
Audit tuvastas erinevusi kavandatud ja rakendatud projektide vahel.
There were essential projects not implemented due to the resistance of the recipient country or projects for which the initial plans were disregarded (Box 1). 
Mned olulised projektid jid ellu viimata abisaajariigi vastuseisu tttu, mne puhul jeti esialgsed kavad krvale (1. selgitus).
Box 1 Examples of non-implemented projects Case 1: No political support to the Serbian Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) As early as 2001 the EAR had identified the necessary building blocks for significant government institutional reform in Serbia, including support to the treasury, the internal audit function as well as a project concerning the creation of a Supreme Audit Institution. 
1. selgitus Elluviimata projektide niteid 1. juhtum. Poliitilise toetuse puudumine Serbia krgeimale kontrolliasutusele Juba 2001 oli EAR kindaks teinud, millest peaks koosnema Serbia valitsuse mrkimisvrne institutsionaalne reform.
However, the necessary backing of the Serbian Parliament did not materialise for the SAI and the project was not taken forward until the 2006 programme. 
Serbia parlamendilt ji aga vajalik toetus krgeimale kontrolliasutusele saamata ja kuni 2006. aasta programmini projekti enam ei edendatud.
(1) The CARDS Management Committee is composed of the representations of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. 
(1) CARDSi korralduskomitee koosneb liikmesriikide esindajatest ja seda juhib komisjon.
(2) Cost-benefit analysis allows a measure of the economic efficiency of the programme or project, as well as providing a basis for comparison with alternatives. 
(2) Kulude-tulude anals aitab leida programmi vi projekti majandusliku tasuvuse ja annab aluse vrdluseks teiste programmide vi projektidega.
Case 2: The European Commission Police Assistance mission in Albania The project fiche of the Justice and Home Affairs sector in Albania for the programming year 2002 envisaged for the Police and Public Order component Ôto contribute to the establishment of rule of law and to the establishment of a functioning police force able to contribute to democratic stabilityŐ. 
2. juhtum. Euroopa henduse politseiabi missioon Albaanias Albaania justiits-ja siseksimuste valdkonna projektikirjelduses 2002. programmiaastaks oli kavandatud, et politsei ja avaliku korra edendamisele suunatud komponent ăpeab aitama luua igusriiki ja toimivaid politseijude, kes suudaksid tagada demokraatliku stabiil-suseÓ.
It established the following: ÔThe project will be executed through supporting the EC Police Assistance Mission (ECPA), training and related investment supportŐ. Out of the 8 million euro allocated to the Police and Public order component, 4 million euro were planned for institution building support (financing ECPA mission), 2,5 million euro for training and support component and 1,5 million euro for the investment component. 
Taotluses mrgiti jrgmist: ăProjekt viiakse ellu Euroopa henduse politseiabi missiooni (ECPA) toetamise, koolituse ja sellega seotud investeerimistoetuste kaudu.Ó Politsei ja avaliku korra edendamisele suunatud komponendile eraldatud 8 miljonist eurost 4 miljonit oli planeeritud institutsioonide vljaarendamise toetamiseks (ECPA missiooni rahastamiseks), 2,5 miljonit eurot koolituseks ja toetusteks ning 1,5 miljonit investeeringuteks.
In reality the project fiche was completely disregarded. 
Tegelikkuses ei vetud projektikirjeldust ldse arvesse.
Not one euro was spent in order to finance the ECPA mission. 
ECPA missiooni rahastamiseks ei kulutatud mitte htegi eurot.
4,7 million euro were spent on a Data Communication Network, 1,9 million euro were spent on the power supply equipment and 1 million euro were spent on a grant to the United Nations in order to support the Security Sector Reform programme. 
4,7 miljonit eurot kulutati andmesidevrgule, 1,9 miljonit eurot energiavarustusseadme-tele ja 1 miljon julgeolekusektori reformi toetamiseks RO programmi kaudu.
Redirecting assistance from investment support to institution building 21. 
Abi mbersuunamine investeeringutoetustelt institutsioonide vljaarendamisele 21.
Because the recipient countries were recovering from war the early years of the CARDS programme focused more on reconstruction (through investment projects) than institution building. 
Kuna abisaajariigid taastusid sjast, keskenduti programmi CARDS algusaastail pigem lesehitustle (investeeringu-projektide kaudu) kui institutsioonide vljaarendamisele.
However, as the programme matured a shift towards more institution building was required. 
Programmi edenedes oli aga vaja asetada institutsioonide vljaarendamisele suurem rhk.
In its report on the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) published in May 2002, the European Parliament considered that the EAR should significantly increase EU assistance in the two countries (i.e. the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in favour of institution building. 
Oma 2002. aasta mais avaldatud aruandes Euroopa lesehitusameti (EAR) kohta pidas Euroopa Parlament vajalikuks, et EAR suurendaks mrkimisvrselt knealuses kahes riigis (Ju-goslaavia Fderatiivne Vabariik ja endine Jugoslaavia Makedoonia Vabariik) ELi poolt institutsioonide vljaarendamisele osutatava abi osakaalu.
The Court analysed the CARDS projects in order to determine and assess the proportion of institution building projects compared with investment projects (see Graph 1). 
Kontrollikoda analsis CARDSi projekte, et teha kindlaks, milline on institutsioonide vljaarendamise projektide osakaal vrreldes investeeringuprojektidega, ning anda sellele hinnang (vt diagramm 1).
C 285/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union Graph 1 Proportion of institution building projects in Delegations and in the EAR by programming year (1) 27.11.2007 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 YEAR (1) Projects of each programming year n are implemented in the year n and the following years. 24. 
C 285/8 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 27.11.2007 Diagramm 1 Institutsioonide vljaarendamise projektide osakaal delegatsioonides ja EARis programmitaastate kaupa (1) 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 AASTA (1) Programmitaasta n projekte viiakse ellu nii aastal n kui ka sellele jrgnevatel aastatel.
From the very beginning the focus on institution building was more pronounced in countries where assistance was managed by the Delegations (1) than in countries where it was managed by the EAR (2). 
Algusest peale oli selgem suund institutsioonide vljaarendamisele vetud nendes riikides, kus abi haldasid delegatsioonid, (1) vrreldes riikidega, kus abi haldajaks oli EAR (2).
When strengthening the administrative capacity of a country, twinning is recognised as an important instrument (3). 
Riikide haldussuutlikkuse tugevdamisel on olulise vahendina leidnud tunnustust mestimine (3).
However, twinning had a slow start in the western Balkans particularly in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia where the EAR only started to use twinning in 2005. 
Ometi on mestimine Lne-Balkani riikides, eriti endises Jugoslaavia Makedoonia Vabariigis kivitunud aeglaselt. Viimatinimetatud riigis hakkas EAR mestimist kasutama alles 2005. aastal.
An EAR evaluation of twinning (4) concluded that there was sometimes only limited support from the AgencyŐs Programme Managers for twinning and that EAR staff were not always trained sufficiently in the use of that instrument. 
EARi hinnangus mestimise kohta (4) jreldati, et ameti programmijuhid toetasid seda mnikord liiga vhe ja et EARi ttajad ei olnud alati saanud piisavat koolitust selle vahendi kasutamiseks.
(1) The EC Delegations are implementing CARDS programmes in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Croatia. 
(1) Euroopa Komisjoni delegatsioonid rakendavad CARDSi programme Albaanias, Bosnia ja Hertsegoviinas ning Horvaatias.
(2) The EAR has operational centres in former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia. 
(2) EARil on rakenduskeskused endises Jugoslaavia Makedoonia Vabariigis, Kosovos, Montenegros ja Serbias.
(3) The Commission launched twinning as the principal tool of pre-accession assistance for institution building already in May 1998. 
(3) Komisjon kivitas mestimise kui hinemiseelse abi phivahendi juba 1998. aasta mais.
The Thessaloniki Summit, in June 2003 underlined the significance of twinning in the western Balkans. 
Thessaloniki tippkohtumine juunis 2003 rhutas mestimise thtsust Lne-Balkani riikides.
(4) Reference made to EAR evaluation EU/13/040/05 of November 2005. 26. 
(4) Viidatud on EARi hinnangule EU/13/040/05 novembrist 2005.
As the countries of western Balkans recovered from the war, the draft programmes and the related Project Fiches (5) as well as the projects under implementation took into account the ParliamentŐs request to increase the EU assistance from investment support to institution building. 
Kui Lne-Balkani riigid olid sjast taastunud, veti prog-rammikavandites, asjakohastes projektikirjeldustes, (5) aga ka juba elluviidavates projektides arvesse parlamendi soovi suunata rohkem ELi abi institutsioonide vljaarendamisse kui investeeringu-toetustesse.
However, in some cases the changes to the planned projects led to decreased emphasis on institution building (see Box 2). 
Kavandatud projektides tehtud muudatused mnel juhul aga hoopis vhendasid rhuasetust institutsioonide vljaarendamisele (vt 2. selgitus).