natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Information was published for all audited projects, but we found several errors in the contracted amounts43, the disbursements44 and the project end dates45 (see Box 8). The UN bodies published inadequate information on the contracts awarded to NGOs 61. The Commission entrusts the implementation of projects under indirect management to a third party. 
Kaikista tarkastetuista hankkeista julkaistiin tietoja, mutta tilintarkastustuomioistuin havaitsi useita virheit sopimusten rahamrisess arvossa43, maksuissa44 ja hankkeiden pttymispiviss45 (ks. laatikko 8). https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=FSS. https://www.iatiregistry.org/.
We found that in five cases, the UN Projects 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16 and 17. 
Hankkeet 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16 ja 17.
Projects 1, 2, 11, 12, 13. 
Hankkeet 1, 2, 11, 12 ja 13.
Projects 7, 14 and 15. 
Hankkeet 7, 14 ja 15.
28 Box 8 – Examples of errors found in data published in the IATI d-portal For project 11, the amount of disbursements reported in IATI (d-portal) was wrong. 
31 Laatikko 8 Đ Esimerkkej IATIn d-portalissa julkaistuissa tiedoissa havaituista virheist Hankkeen 11 osalta IATIn d-portalissa raportoitu maksujen mr oli virheellinen.
The stated amount of disbursements was €14 000 000, but the actual figure should be €11 200 000 as the final payment had not yet been made (as at 2 March 2018). 
Portaalissa esitetty maksujen mr oli 14 000 000 euroa, mutta tosiasiallisesti luvun pitisi olla 11 200 000 euroa, koska loppumaksua ei ollut viel suoritettu (2. maaliskuuta 2018).
In the case of project 15, the contract amount published in the IATI d-portal was zero whereas the actual contracted amount was €2 000 000 and the end date of the project was wrong because it had not been updated to reflect a three-month extension. 43 44 45 46 
Hankkeen 15 tapauksessa IATIn d-portalissa julkaistu sopimuksen arvo oli nolla, kun taas todellinen sopimuksen arvo oli 2 000 000 euroa, ja hankkeen pttymispiv oli virheellinen, koska sit ei ollut pivitetty hankkeelle mynnetyn kolmen kuukauden jatkoajan mukaisesti.
bodies either did not publish47, or only partially published48, information on the grants awarded to NGOs with EU funds (see Box 9). 
Tarkastuksessa todettiin, ett viidess tapauksessa YK:n elimet joko eivt julkaisseet47 tai julkaisivat vain osittain48 tietoja valtiosta riippumattomille jrjestille EU:n varoilla mynnetyist avustuksista (ks. laatikko 9).
Furthermore, the Commission did not check that the UN bodies had fulfilled this requirement. 
Komissio ei myskn tarkastanut, olivatko YK:n elimet tyttneet julkaisemista koskevan vaatimuksen.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63. 
JOHTOPT KSET JA SUOSITUKSET 63.
Our audit examined whether EU funding implemented by NGOs was transparent. 
Tilintarkastustuomioistuimen tarkastuksessa tutkittiin, oliko valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen toteuttama EU-rahoitus avointa.
This included whether the Commission’s identification of entities as NGOs was reliable and whether the selection of NGOs implementing EU-funded actions was transparent. 
Tss yhteydess selvitettiin, oliko tapa, jolla komissio mrittelee yhteisj valtiosta riippumattomiksi jrjestiksi, luotettava ja oliko menettely, jolla valitaan valtiosta riippumattomia jrjestj toteuttamaan EU:n rahoittamia toimia, avoin.
We also examined the process of collecting, checking and disclosing information on NGOs appropriately. 
Lisksi tutkittiin, kuinka asianmukainen oli prosessi, jolla kerttiin, tarkastettiin ja julkistettiin tietoja valtiosta riippumattomista jrjestist.
We covered the main policy areas in which NGOs implement EU funds, focusing in particular on the largest funding area, external action. 
Erityist huomiota kiinnitettiin suurimpaan politiikanalaan eli ulkoisiin toimiin.
In most cases, the eligibility of EU funding does not depend on the NGO status. 
Mahdollisuus saada EU-rahoitusta ei useimmissa tapauksissa ole riippuvainen siit, onko yhteis valtiosta riippumaton jrjest.
The assignment of the NGO status in the Commission’s accounting system, which is based on self-declaration, and the limited checks the Commission applied , made the classification of an entity as an NGO unreliable (see paragraphs 18 to 27). 
Yhteis merkitn komission kirjanpitojrjestelmn valtiosta riippumattomaksi jrjestksi yhteisn oman ilmoituksen perusteella.
29 Box 9 – Examples of UN bodies not publishing information on EU funds sub-granted to NGOs The Commission entrusted a UN body with the implementation of project 18 concerning cash assistance and the identification of refugees in Ethiopia. 
32 Laatikko 9 Đ Esimerkkej tapauksista, joissa YK:n elimet eivt julkaisseet tietoja valtiosta riippumattomille jrjestille edelleenmynnetyist EU:n varoista Komissio antoi erlle YK:n elimelle tehtvksi hankkeen 18 toteuttamisen. Hanke koski kteisavustuksia ja pakolaisten tunnistamista Etiopiassa.
The UN body then sub-granted some activities to an NGO; however, its website did not disclose any information about this sub-grant. 
YK:n elin antoi joidenkin toimien toteuttamisen valtiosta riippumattoman jrjestn tehtvksi mutta ei julkistanut verkkosivustollaan mitn tietoja avustuksen edelleenmyntmisest.
In Ethiopia, the Commission entrusted the implementation of project 19, supporting the reintegration of human trafficking victims, to a UN body. 
Etiopiassa komissio antoi erlle YK:n elimelle tehtvksi hankkeen 19 toteuttamisen.
Two local NGOs implemented some of the project activities. 
Kaksi paikallista valtiosta riippumatonta jrjest toteutti joitakin hankkeen toimista.
On its website, the UN body published only limited information on the contracts signed with these NGOs and did not disclose the contracted amounts. 47 48 
YK:n elin julkaisi verkkosivustollaan vain vhn tietoja niden jrjestjen kanssa tehdyist sopimuksista eik julkistanut sopimusten arvoja.
There was no Commission-wide system for registering applicants for funding. 
Rahoituksen hakijoiden rekisteritymist varten ei ollut komission laajuista jrjestelm.
In addition, the different systems used to register applicants for funding, including NGOs, were not interconnected (see paragraph 22). 
Rahoituksen hakijoiden, kuten valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen, rekisteritymiseen kytettyj eri jrjestelmi ei myskn ollut yhdistetty toisiinsa (ks. kohta 22).
However, there were shortcomings in certain cases. (see paragraphs 28 to 33). 
Tietyiss tapauksissa oli kuitenkin puutteita (ks. kohdat 28Đ33).
We found that the different Commission departments did not apply the sub-granting procedures in the same way. 
Tilintarkastustuomioistuin totesi, etteivt komission eri yksikt soveltaneet rahoituksen edelleenmyntmismenettelyj samanlaisella tavalla.
DG ECHO ́s interpretation of the rules for financial support to third parties was broader than other DGs and allows for several implementation layers with no limitation on the sub-granted amounts (see paragraphs 35 and 37). 
ECHOn tulkinta kolmansille osapuolille mynnettv rahoitustukea koskevista snnist oli vljempi kuin muiden posastojen.
69. 
34 69.
The audited UN bodies’ selection procedures of NGOs were not always transparent (see paragraphs 38 and 39). 
Tarkastettujen YK:n elinten kyttmt valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen valintamenettelyt eivt olleet aina lpinkyvi (ks. kohdat 38 ja 39).
The Commission did not always collect and check the information on NGOs appropriately. 
Komissio ei aina kernnyt ja tarkastanut valtiosta riippumattomia jrjestj koskevia tietoja asianmukaisesti.
In particular, these systems did not always allow the recording of funds received by all contract beneficiaries (see paragraphs 41 to 42). 
Jrjestelmiss ei varsinkaan aina ollut mahdollista kirjata sopimuksen kaikkien edunsaajien saamia varoja (ks. kohdat 41 ja 42).
In external action, the Commission did not have comprehensive information on the funding received and activities carried out by all the implementing actors. 
Ulkoisten toimien alalla komissiolla ei ollut kattavia tietoja kaikkien toteutuksesta vastaavien toimijoiden saamasta rahoituksesta ja toteuttamista toimista.
Furthermore, in indirect management, the lack of information available hindered the Commission’s checks on the costs declared (see paragraphs 43 to 49). 
Kun hallinnointimuotona oli vlillinen hallinnointi, saatavilla olleiden tietojen puute mys esti komissiota tarkastamasta ilmoitettuja kustannuksia (ks. kohdat 43Đ 49).
Information on EU funds implemented by NGOs is published in several systems but the information disclosed is limited, except in the area of external action (see paragraphs 51 to 56). 
Valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen toteuttamaa EU-rahoitusta koskevia tietoja julkaistaan useissa jrjestelmiss, mutta julkistettuja tietoja on vhn, paitsi ulkoisten toimien alalla (ks. kohdat 51Đ56).
The Commission generally disclosed data on humanitarian and development aid in accordance with international transparency standards, but some of the data showed weaknesses (see paragraphs 58 to 60). 
Komissio julkisti yleens tietoja humanitaarisesta avusta ja kehitysavusta kansainvlisten avoimuusstandardien mukaisesti, mutta joissakin tiedoissa oli puutteita (ks. kohdat 58Đ60).
In five cases, the entrusted UN bodies either did not publish, or only partially published, the contracts awarded to NGOs, and the Commission did not check whether the UN bodies had fulfilled this requirement (see paragraph 62). 
36 riippumattomien jrjestjen kanssa. Komissio ei tarkastanut, olivatko YK:n elimet tyttneet julkaisemista koskevan vaatimuksen (ks. kohta 62).
33 Recommendation 4 – Standardise and improve accuracy of information published The Commission should: (a) adopt a uniform approach among all the services to publishing in the Financial Transparency System, making sure that all beneficiaries contracted by the EU are disclosed, together with the amount of funding awarded. 
Suositus 4 Đ Vakioidaan julkaistavat tiedot ja parannetaan niiden tarkkuutta Komission olisi a) otettava kyttn kaikissa yksikiss yhteninen toimintatapa, jota sovelletaan tietojen julkaisemiseen varainhoidon avoimuuden jrjestelmss ja jolla varmistetaan, ett kaikki EU:n kanssa sopimussuhteessa olevat avustuksen saajat ja mynnetty rahoituksen mr julkistetaan. Aikatavoite: vuoden 2021 puolivli.
In external action, the Commission should: (b) further increase its compliance with international standards on aid transparency by reporting on the results of the projects funded and EU trust funds data; (c) verify UN bodies’ fulfilment of their obligation to adequately disclose the contracts awarded with EU funding. 
Ulkoisten toimien alalla komission olisi b) parannettava avun lpinkyvyytt koskevien kansainvlisten standardien noudattamista raportoimalla rahoitettujen hankkeiden tulokset ja EU:n erityisrahastoja koskevia tietoja c) tarkistettava, ett YK:n elimet tyttvt velvollisuutensa julkistaa riittvsti tietoja tehdyist sopimuksista, joilla on mynnetty avustusta EU-rahoituksella.
This Report was adopted by Chamber V, headed by Mr Lazaros S. LAZAROU, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 5 December 2018. 
Tilintarkastustuomioistuimen V jaosto on tilintarkastustuomioistuimen jsenen Lazaros S. Lazaroun johdolla hyvksynyt tmn kertomuksen Luxemburgissa 5. joulukuuta 2018 pitmssn kokouksessa.
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS “TRANSPARENCY OF EU FUNDS IMPLEMENTED BY NGOS: MORE EFFORT NEEDED” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III. 
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS ŇTRANSPARENCY OF EU FUNDS IMPLEMENTED BY NGOS: MORE EFFORT NEEDEDÓ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III.
Box 1 – What is an NGO? 
Box 1 Đ What is an NGO?
In the context of development aid, it is important to emphasize that the Commission enjoys discretion in deciding to disclose information on recipients of Union funds in sensitive policy areas (see CIR Art 4 (5): “ when providing the Union’s financial assistance (...) the Commission shall, where appropriate, take all necessary measures in order to ensure the visibility of the Union’s financial support. 
In the context of development aid, it is important to emphasize that the Commission enjoys discretion in deciding to disclose information on recipients of Union funds in sensitive policy areas (see CIR Art 4 (5): Ň when providing the UnionŐs financial assistance (...) the Commission shall, where appropriate, take all necessary measures in order to ensure the visibility of the UnionŐs financial support.
Those shall include measures imposing visibility requirements on recipients of Union funds, except in duly justified cases.”). 
Those shall include measures imposing visibility requirements on recipients of Union funds, except in duly justified cases.Ó).
Thorough checks are being performed to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, which include not-for-profit status, and registration details – including the validation of the legal form. 
Thorough checks are being performed to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, which include not-for-profit status, and registration details Đ including the validation of the legal form.
1 2 COM(2012) 492 final of 12.9.2012, “The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external relations” classifies as CSOs, among others, NGOs, community-based organisations, faith-based organisations, foundations, research institutions, cooperatives, professional and business associations. 
1 2 COM(2012) 492 final of 12.9.2012, ŇThe roots of democracy and sustainable development: EuropeŐs engagement with Civil Society in external relationsÓ classifies as CSOs, among others, NGOs, community-based organisations, faith-based organisations, foundations, research institutions, cooperatives, professional and business associations.
Box 4 – Example of a selection process carried out by a third party which did not comply with its own internal selection rules In the selection of implementing partners, the capacity of regional government partners in remote and difficult region was considered. 
Box 4 Đ Example of a selection process carried out by a third party which did not comply with its own internal selection rules In the selection of implementing partners, the capacity of regional government partners in remote and difficult region was considered.
Box 5 – Information collected in the different Commission’s systems In the case of DG ECHO, action grants are single beneficiary grants awarded to entities which have concluded a Framework Partnership Agreement with ECHO. 
Box 5 Đ Information collected in the different CommissionŐs systems In the case of DG ECHO, action grants are single beneficiary grants awarded to entities which have concluded a Framework Partnership Agreement with ECHO.
Thus, in its internal system, DG ECHO’s funding is correctly allocated to the legal entity with which the Commission established a legal commitment under the terms of the Financial Regulation. 
Thus, in its internal system, DG ECHOŐs funding is correctly allocated to the legal entity with which the Commission established a legal commitment under the terms of the Financial Regulation.
Box 6 – Example of overcharging indirect costs This is part of the way grants are constructed: grants are made of direct and indirect costs. 
Box 6 Đ Example of overcharging indirect costs This is part of the way grants are constructed: grants are made of direct and indirect costs.
Second indent: The NGO “flag” is a non-mandatory field stored in the legal entity record. 
Second indent: The NGO ŇflagÓ is a non-mandatory field stored in the legal entity record.
Results are also included in the “Annual Report on the implementation of the European Union’s instruments for financing external actions”. 
Results are also included in the ŇAnnual Report on the implementation of the European UnionŐs instruments for financing external actionsÓ.
Box 8 – Examples of errors found in data published in the IATI d-portal For project 15, corrective action has already taken place through a technical rider to modify the contracted amount. 
Box 8 Đ Examples of errors found in data published in the IATI d-portal For project 15, corrective action has already taken place through a technical rider to modify the contracted amount.
Box 9 – Examples of UN bodies not publishing information on EU funds sub-granted to NGOs The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 62. 
Box 9 Đ Examples of UN bodies not publishing information on EU funds sub-granted to NGOs The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 62.
Recommendation 1 – Improve the reliability of information on NGOs The Commission does not accept this recommendation. 
Recommendation 1 Đ Improve the reliability of information on NGOs The Commission does not accept this recommendation.
However, while the term “NGO” is widely used, it has no generally accepted definition either at the international level3, or at EU level. 
However, while the term ŇNGOÓ is widely used, it has no generally accepted definition either at the international level3, or at EU level.
For instance, the United Nations (UN) describes an NGO as any “not-for-profit, voluntary citizens’ group that is organized at a local, national or international level” (https://outreach.un.org/ngorelations/content/about-us-0). 7 
For instance, the United Nations (UN) describes an NGO as any Ňnot-for-profit, voluntary citizensŐ group that is organized at a local, national or international levelÓ (https://outreach.un.org/ngorelations/content/about-us-0). 7
and non-European jurisdictions indicates diverse understandings and designations of “NGO” between countries, and this suggests that harmonisation of the concept may be problematic.4 68. 
and non-European jurisdictions indicates diverse understandings and designations of ŇNGOÓ between countries, and this suggests that harmonisation of the concept may be problematic.4 68.
Recommendation 2 – Check the application of rules for sub-granting The Commission accepts this recommendation. (a) The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Recommendation 2 Đ Check the application of rules for sub-granting The Commission accepts this recommendation. (a) The Commission accepts this recommendation.
Recommendation 3 – Improve information on funds implemented by NGOs The Commission accepts this recommendation 4 European Parliament, Directorate-General for internal policies, Policy Department D: budgetary affairs, study « Democratic Accountability and Budgetary Control of Non-Governmental Organisations funded by the EU Budget”, 17 November 2016 8 
Recommendation 3 Đ Improve information on funds implemented by NGOs The Commission accepts this recommendation 4 European Parliament, Directorate-General for internal policies, Policy Department D: budgetary affairs, study Ç Democratic Accountability and Budgetary Control of Non-Governmental Organisations funded by the EU BudgetÓ, 17 November 2016 8
Recommendation 4 – Standardise and improve accuracy of information published The Commission accepts the recommendation (a) The Commission accepts this recommendation. (b) The Commission accepts this recommendation. (c) The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Recommendation 4 Đ Standardise and improve accuracy of information published The Commission accepts the recommendation (a) The Commission accepts this recommendation. (b) The Commission accepts this recommendation. (c) The Commission accepts this recommendation.
During 2014-2017, the Commission committed an estimated €11.3 billion for implementation by NGOs in many different EU policy areas. 
Vuosina 2014Đ2017 komissio sitoi arviolta 11,3 miljardia euroa rahoitusta valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen toteutettavaksi monilla EU:n eri politiikanaloilla.
However, for some of the audited UN bodies, the selection processes of NGOs were not transparent. 
Joidenkin tarkastettujen YK:n elinten kohdalla valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen valintaprosessit eivt kuitenkaan olleet lpinkyvi.
The Commission does not always collect and check comprehensive information on all NGOs supported. 
Komissio ei aina ker ja tarkasta kattavia tietoja kaikista tukea saavista valtiosta riippumattomista jrjestist.
The information on EU funds implemented by NGOs is published in several systems but the information disclosed is limited. 
Valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen toteuttamaa EU-rahoitusta koskevia tietoja julkaistaan useissa jrjestelmiss, mutta julkistettuja tietoja on vhn.
We conclude that the Commission was not sufficiently transparent regarding the implementation of EU funds by NGOs, and that more efforts are needed to improve it. 
Tilintarkastustuomioistuin totesi, ettei komissio ollut riittvn avoin valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen toteuttaman EU-rahoituksen osalta ja ett avoimuuden lisminen vaatii viel listoimia.
Furthermore, we formulated a number of recommendations for improving the transparency of the EU funds implemented by NGOs. 
Lisksi tilintarkastustuomioistuin esitt joukon suosituksia, joiden tarkoituksena on list valtiosta riippumattomien jrjestjen toteuttaman EU-rahoituksen avoimuutta.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx Website: eca.europa.eu Twitter: @EUAuditors © European Union, 2018 For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 
EUROOPAN TILINTARKASTUSTUOMIOISTUIN 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxemburg LUXEMBURG Puh. +352 4398-1 Tiedustelut: eca.europa.eu/fi/Pages/ContactForm.aspx Verkkosivut: eca.europa.eu Twitter: @EUAuditors ŠEuroopan unioni, 2018. Euroopan unionin tekijnoikeuden piiriin kuulumattomien kuvien tai muun materiaalin kyttn tai jljentmiseen on pyydettv lupa suoraan tekijnoikeuden haltijoilta.
EN 2019 Special Report NO 01 Fighting fraud in EU spending: action needed (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 
FI 2019 nro 01 Erityiskertomus EU:n varainkäyttöön liittyvien petosten torjunta: toimia tarvitaan (annettu Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 287 artiklan 4 kohdan toisen alakohdan mukaisesti)
Annex IV — Events triggering Member States to report cases of fraud under criminal investigation to the Commission Annex V — Roles and responsibilities within the Commission for the outcomes of anti-fraud actions in EU spending Annex VI — List of references Acronyms and abbreviations Glossary Audit team 4 
Liite III — Viimeaikaisia lainsäädäntöaloitteita EU:ssa petostentorjunnan alalla Liite IV — Tapahtumat, joiden perusteella jäsenvaltiot ilmoittavat komissiolle rikostutkinnan kohteena olevista petoksista Liite V — EU:n varainkäyttöä koskevien petosten torjuntatoimien tuloksiin liittyvät tehtävät ja vastuut komissiossa Liite VI — Viiteluettelo Lyhenteet Sanasto Tarkastustiimi 4
Fraud involving public funds is often linked with corruption, which is generally understood as any act or omission that abuses official authority, or seeks to bring about the abuse of official authority, in order to obtain undue benefit. 
Petokset, joihin liittyy julkisia varoja, ovat usein yhteydessä korruptioon, jolla tarkoitetaan yleensä tekoa tai laiminlyöntiä, jolla käytetään väärin julkista valtaa tai pyritään saamaan aikaan julkisen vallan väärinkäyttö perusteettoman edun saamiseksi.
II The Commission and the Member States have a shared responsibility to protect the EU’s financial interests against fraud and corruption. 
II EU ja jäsenvaltiot ovat yhdessä vastuussa EU:n taloudellisten etujen suojaamisesta petoksilta ja korruptiolta.
The European anti-fraud office (OLAF) is currently the EU’s key anti-fraud body. 
Euroopan petostentorjuntavirasto (OLAF) on tällä hetkellä EU:n keskeinen petostentorjuntaelin.
It contributes to the design and implementation of the Commission’s anti-fraud policy and conducts administrative investigation into fraud against the EU budget. 
Se osallistuu komission petostentorjuntapolitiikan suunnitteluun ja täytäntöönpanoon ja toteuttaa EU:n talousarvioon kohdistuvia petoksia koskevia hallinnollisia tutkimuksia.