natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Evaluation team members are designated by the Schengen States based on a call for designations by the Commission (each evaluation has a separate call for designations, with a two weeks deadline for Schengen States to designate the reviewers). 
Medlemmarna i utvrderingsgruppen utses av Schengenstaterna p grundval av kommissionens frslagsinfordran (en separat frslagsinfordran fr varje utvrdering, dr Schengenstaterna har tv veckor p sig att utse granskarna).
Reviewers from eu-LISA can participate in these visits, but they do not take part in them regularly. 
Granskare frn eu-Lisa kan delta i besken men gr inte det regelbundet.
The cost of Schengen evaluations is relatively low compared to the expenditure on the information systems. 
Kostnaderna fr Schengenutvrderingar r relativt lga jmfrt med utgifterna fr informationssystemen.
For the 2014-2018 period, the Commission allocated €11.9 million to Schengen evaluations. 
Fr perioden 2014Đ2018 anslog kommissionen 11,9 miljoner euro till Schengenutvrderingar.
The current multiannual programme has been implemented as planned through annual evaluation programmes. 19 
Det nuvarande flerriga programmet har genomfrts enligt plan genom rliga utvrderingsprogram. 19
20 Box 1 Schengen evaluation team’s visits to Schengen States In July the year before they are due to receive an evaluation visit, the Member States concerned receive a standard questionnaire, to which they have eight weeks to reply. 
20 Ruta 1 Schengenutvrderingsgruppens besk i Schengenstater I juli ret innan de berrda medlemsstaterna besks i utvrderingssyfte fr de ett standardfrgeformulr som de har tta veckor p sig att besvara.
The evaluation team prepares its visits based on the replies received. 
Utvrderingsgruppen frbereder besken utifrn de svar som mottas.
Evaluation visits usually last one week. 
Utvrderingsbesken pgr vanligtvis i en vecka.
Teams consist of maximum eight experts appointed by Schengen States, plus two representatives from the Commission. 
Grupperna bestr av hgst tta experter som utsetts av Schengenstaterna, plus tv representanter frn kommissionen.
The team members have different types of expertise, allowing them to cover all aspects of the Schengen Acquis. 
Gruppmedlemmarna besitter olika typer av expertis, vilket gr det mjligt fr dem att tcka alla aspekter av Schengenregelverket.
Each team is headed by two lead experts (one from the Member States and one from the Commission), responsible for the content and quality of the final report. 
Varje grupp har tv ledande experter (en frn medlemsstaterna och en frn kommissionen) som br ansvar fr slutrapportens innehll och kvalitet.
The visits start at a strategic level, with meetings at ministries and border authority headquarters, followed by activities at an operational level. 
Besken inleds p strategisk niv, med mten p ministerier och grnsmyndigheters huvudkontor. Detta fljs av verksamheter p operativ niv.
The evaluation team members are allocated to their different areas of expertise and meet with different national practitioners, such as border guards, police officers and IT experts. 
Medlemmarna i utvrderingsgruppen placeras inom sina olika expertomrden och trffar olika nationella yrkespersoner, ssom grnskontrolltjnstemn, poliser och it-experter.
For example, during the 2017 Schengen evaluation of the implementation of SIS II in France, the team visited 38 on-site locations, including the National SIS II IT centre, police stations, customs offices, ports, airports and train stations. 
Under Schengenutvrderingen 2017 av genomfrandet av SIS II i Frankrike beskte gruppen exempelvis 38 platser, dribland det nationella it-centret fr SIS II, polisstationer, tullkontor, hamnar, flygplatser och tgstationer.
36 We examined the Schengen evaluations of the countries we visited. 
36 Vi granskade Schengenutvrderingarna av de lnder vi beskte.
We found that these were thorough and methodical, and addressed key aspects of the systems. 
Vi konstaterade att de var grundliga och metodiska och behandlade centrala aspekter av systemen.
They provided a detailed set of operational recommendations and specific recommendations on improving the information systems. 
De gav en detaljerad uppsttning operativa rekommendationer och specifika rekommendationer fr att frbttra informationssystemen.
However, it can take several years to address identified weaknesses. 
Det kan dock ta flera r att tgrda identifierade brister.
37 The draft evaluation report is completed six weeks after the evaluation mission, but it can take the Commission one year to adopt the report, and the Council to adopt the recommendations. 
37 Ukastet till utvrderingsrapport slutfrs sex veckor efter utvrderingsuppdraget, men det kan ta ett r fr kommissionen att anta rapporten och fr rdet att anta rekommendationerna.
This involves numerous procedures for consultations with the Schengen State and the Commission. 
Detta inbegriper ett stort antal frfaranden fr att samrda med Schengenstaten och kommissionen.
There are no agreed deadlines for these consultations. 
Det finns inga verenskomna tidsfrister fr dessa samrd.
38 Once the Council adopts the recommendations, the Schengen States concerned have three months to present an action plan to address the Council’s recommendations. 
38 Nr rdet antar rekommendationerna har berrda Schengenstater tre mnader p sig att lgga fram en handlingsplan fr att genomfra rdets rekommendationer.
This action plan needs to be reviewed and approved by the Commission and the evaluation team. 
Handlingsplanen mste granskas och godknnas av kommissionen och utvrderingsgruppen.
39 There is no deadline for the implementation of the action plans, although the Schengen States must start to report on their implementation six months after the plan is approved. 
39 Det finns ingen tidsfrist fr att genomfra handlingsplanerna, men Schengenstaterna mste brja rapportera om genomfrandet sex mnader efter det att planen har godknts.
This means that from the time a shortcoming is detected, it could take almost two years before a Schengen State starts to report on the corrective action it has taken. 
Detta innebr att det, frn det att en brist har upptckts, kan ta nstan tv r innan en Schengenstat brjar rapportera om den korrigerande tgrd som har vidtagits.
Figure 4 shows the procedure following an evaluation visit. 
I figur 4 visas frfarandet efter ett utvrderingsbesk.
The Commission relies on Schengen States’ own reporting on their implementation of the agreed action plan. 
Kommissionen frlitar sig p Schengenstaternas egen rapportering om genomfrandet av den godknda handlingsplanen.
There is therefore a risk of deficiencies remaining unaddressed until the next round of evaluations five years later. 
Drfr finns det en risk fr att brister inte har avhjlpts till nsta utvrderingsomgng fem r senare.
It could then take a further two years for that country’s authorities to implement corrective action. 
Det skulle d kunna ta ytterligare tv r fr det landets myndigheter att genomfra korrigerande tgrder. ~ 2 r fr hela frfarandet
41 The Commission can suggest follow-up visits if a Schengen State fails to implement its action plan, but there are no other mechanisms in place to enforce 
41 Kommissionen kan fresl uppfljningsbesk om en Schengenstat underlter att genomfra handlingsplanen, men det finns inga andra mekanismer fr att driva igenom genomfrandet.
In theory, if persistent serious deficiencies are identified in a Schengen State in the field of management of the external border, the Council may, based on a proposal from the Commission, recommend that the country reintroduce controls at its borders with other Schengen States. 
Om ihllande allvarliga brister identifieras i en Schengenstat nr det gller frvaltningen av den yttre grnsen kan rdet i teorin, p grundval av ett frslag frn kommissionen, rekommendera att landet terinfr kontroller vid grnserna mot andra Schengenstater.
42 Under the regulation from 2013 on the Schengen evaluation mechanism11, the Commission is required to report annually to the Parliament and the Council on the evaluations carried out, the recommendations made and the state of play with regard to remedial action. 
42 Enligt frordningen frn 2013 om utvrderingsmekanismen fr Schengen11 ska kommissionen rligen rapportera till Europaparlamentet och rdet om de utvrderingar som har genomfrts, de rekommendationer som lmnats och en beskrivning av hur tgrderna fr att avhjlpa brister har utvecklats.
The Commission has not yet produced such a report. 
Kommissionen har nnu inte utarbetat en sdan rapport.
43 With the exception of Finland, whose evaluation report had not been completed at the time of the audit, all the Schengen States we visited had been subject to evaluation. 
43 Med undantag fr Finland, vars utvrderingsrapport nnu inte hade slutfrts vid tidpunkten fr revisionen, hade alla Schengenstater som vi beskte utvrderats.
We followed up on their progress in implementing their action plans and found a variety of implementation rates. 
Vi fljde upp deras framsteg nr det gller genomfrandet av handlingsplanerna och konstaterade att genomfrandet sg mycket olika ut.
According to the evidence provided, Poland had implemented 79 % of its recommendations two years after the evaluation visit, France had implemented 87 % of the recommendations four years after the evaluation visit and Luxembourg, which was evaluated in 2018, has implemented 92 % of the recommendations. 
Enligt de underlag som tillhandahlls hade Polen genomfrt 79 % av sina rekommendationer tv r efter utvrderingsbesket. Frankrike hade genomfrt 87 % av rekommendationerna fyra r efter utvrderingsbesket, och Luxemburg, som utvrderades 2018, hade genomfrt 92 % av rekommendationerna.
The evidence from Italy suggested that, two years after the evaluation visit, the country was in the process of implementing 15 % of its recommendations. 
Underlaget frn Italien visade att landet, tv r efter utvrderingsbesket, hll p att genomfra 15 % av rekommendationerna.
EU Member States make only limited use of available EU funding to improve information systems for border control 44 The main EU instrument to support border control is the Internal Security Fund (ISF) with an initial allocation of €3.8 billion for the 2014-2020 period. 
EU:s medlemsstater anvnder tillgnglig EU-finansiering endast i begrnsad omfattning fr att frbttra informationssystemen fr grnskontroller 44 Det frmsta EU-instrumentet som stder grnskontroller r Fonden fr inre skerhet, med ett ursprungligt anslag p 3,8 miljarder euro fr perioden 2014Đ2020.
It consists of:  ISF Borders (€2.76 billion), providing support for the management of external borders and the common visa policy. 
Den bestr av fljande: Ľ Instrumentet fr ekonomiskt std fr frvaltningen av de yttre grnserna och den gemensamma viseringspolitiken (2,76 miljarder euro), som stder frvaltningen av yttre grnser och den gemensamma viseringspolitiken.
All EU States except Ireland and the United Kingdom participate in the implementation of the ISF Borders instrument. 
Alla EU-lnder utom Irland och Frenade kungariket deltar i genomfrandet av instrumentet fr ekonomiskt std fr frvaltningen av de yttre grnserna.
22 11 Article 20 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013. 
De 22 11 Artikel 20 i rdets frordning (EU) nr 1053/2013 av den 7 oktober 2013.
45 Most of the Member States did not report any significant expenditure until 2017. 
45 De flesta medlemsstater rapporterade inte ngra betydande utgifter fram till 2017.
As spending started late, the Member States have been slow to use the money. 
Eftersom utgifterna kom sent har medlemsstaterna anvnt medlen lngsamt.
According to the Commission, the primary reason for this is the heavy procurement procedures involved. 
Enligt kommissionen r det frmsta sklet till det de tunga upphandlingsfrfarandena.
The Member States covered by the audit, also noted the additional administrative burden involved. 
De medlemsstater som omfattas av revisionen nmnde ocks den ytterligare administrativa brdan.
For example, they noted that even a small increase in the amount allocated to a national programme requires a complete revision of that programme. 
Exempelvis konstaterade de att till och med en liten kning av det belopp som ansls till ett nationellt program krver en fullstndig revidering av det programmet.
46 The countries covered by our audit, dedicated between 3 % and 29 % of their Internal Security Fund allocations (€61.2 million) to the five systems audited (see Figure 5). 
46 De lnder som omfattas av vr revision avsatte mellan 3 % och 29 % av sina bidrag frn Fonden fr inre skerhet (61,2 miljoner euro) till de fem system som har granskats (se figur 5).
Of this, they allocated 43 % (€26.5 million) to maintenance projects and 57 % (€34.7 million) to extension projects. 
Av detta anslog de 43 % (26,5 miljoner euro) till underhllsprojekt och 57 % (34,7 miljoner euro) till utbyggnadsprojekt.
They have mostly used this money for maintenance of SIS II and VIS and extensions of Eurosur and PNR. 
De har frmst anvnt dessa medel till att underhlla SIS II och VIS och bygga ut Eurosur och PNR.
Border guards do not always get complete data from the systems, which undermines the efficiency of checks 47 We assessed the extent to which the Member States share relevant, timely and complete information through the information systems covered by the audit. 
Grnskontrolltjnstemn fr inte alltid fullstndiga uppgifter frn systemen, vilket undergrver kontrollernas effektivitet 47 Vi bedmde i vilken utstrckning medlemsstaterna delar relevant, aktuell och fullstndig information genom de informationssystem som omfattas av revisionen.
We reviewed available statistics in order to assess the extent to which the Schengen countries are using the systems for their border checks and for exchanging information. 
Vi granskade tillgnglig statistik fr att bedma i vilken utstrckning Schengenlnderna anvnder systemen vid grnskontroller och fr att utbyta information.
In addition, we examined whether these countries entered complete data promptly. 
Vidare granskade vi om dessa lnder snabbt matade in fullstndiga uppgifter.
Member States are making increasing use of the systems to share information, but checks could be more systematic 48 From the moment individuals present themselves at a border checkpoint to the Schengen area, border guards need European information systems to help them confirm the person’s identity and verify that they are authorised to enter the Schengen area. 
Medlemsstaterna anvnder systemen i allt strre utstrckning fr att dela information, men kontrollerna skulle kunna vara mer systematiska 48 Frn den tidpunkt d enskilda personer instller sig vid grnsvergngar till Schengenomrdet behver grnskontrolltjnstemnnen europeiska informationssystem fr att hjlpa dem att bekrfta personens identitet och kontrollera att han eller hon har rtt att komma in i Schengenomrdet.
SIS II 49 Any Schengen State with information about a person to be intercepted at the border (as prescribed by the relevant legislation) should create an alert in SIS II. 
SIS II 49 Om en Schengenstat har information om en person som ska stoppas vid grnsen (i enlighet med tillmplig lagstiftning) ska den fra in en registrering i SIS II.
This allows border guards in any participating country to act upon it when they encounter that individual during border checks (see Box 2). 
Detta gr det mjligt fr grnskontrolltjnstemn i alla deltagande lnder att agera om de stter p den personen under grnskontroller (se ruta 2).
24 Box 2 Hitting the right target When a person presents a travel document, the border guard uses a scanner, which reads an identifier on the travel document. 
24 Ruta 2 Trffa rtt ml Nr en person uppvisar en resehandling anvnder grnskontrolltjnstemannen en skanner som lser av en identifierare p resehandlingen.
The most modern documents contain an electronic chip, while older documents have a special code at the bottom of the page (known as the machine-readable zone or MRZ) and some documents have none (for example, most Italian ID cards). 
De modernaste handlingarna innehller ett elektroniskt chip, ldre handlingar har en srskild kod lngst ner p sidan (vilket kallas maskinlsbart flt eller MRZ) och vissa handlingar saknar identifierare (t.ex. de flesta italienska id-kort).
If the document number cannot be retrieved by the scanner, a border guard can enter it in the system manually. 
Om en handlings nummer inte kan lsas av skannern kan grnskontrolltjnstemannen mata in det manuellt i systemet.
Based on the data transferred to the computer, a query on a person is sent to the national or European SIS II databases. 
Utifrn de uppgifter som verfrs till datorn skickas en skning om personen till de nationella eller europeiska SIS II-databaserna.
If there is a match between a record in the database and the data collected by the border guard, it is called a hit. 
Om en registrering i databasen verensstmmer med de uppgifter som samlats in av grnskontrolltjnstemannen kallas det fr en trff.
25 If the initial alert recorded in the database was created in a country other than the one from which the query is sent, the hit is called a foreign hit. 
Figur 6 Đ Antal trffar i SIS II p grundval av registreringar frn andra lnder (tusental) 243 155 25 Om den ursprungliga registrering som frts in i databasen skapades av ett annat land n det som skningen gjordes i kallas trffen fr en utlndsk trff.
Hits may occur if the relevant authorities have registered a person as wanted, or the travel document has been flagged in the system. 
Trffar dyker upp om de berrda myndigheterna har registrerat en person som efterlyst eller om resehandlingen har flaggats i systemet.
However, sometimes the authorities issuing an alert do not have all the information they need to identify a person uniquely. 
Ibland har dock de myndigheter som fr in registreringen inte all information de behver fr att gra en unik identifiering av en person.
Matches may therefore occur for someone who is not actually the wanted person but who has the same name. 
Trffar kan drfr dyka upp fr ngon som faktiskt inte r den efterlysta personen men som har samma namn.
This type of match is called a false positive. 
Denna typ av trffar kallas falska trffar.
In such cases, border guards must take further steps in order to establish that person’s identity. 
I sdana fall mste grnskontrolltjnstemnnen vidta ytterligare tgrder fr att faststlla den personens identitet.
Biometrics (i.e. fingerprints) are generally regarded as a way to identify a person uniquely, which is why an increasing number of alerts in SIS II contain fingerprint information. 
Biometriska uppgifter (t.ex. fingeravtryck) betraktas vanligtvis som ett stt att gra en unik identifiering av en person, och detta r anledningen till att ett allt strre antal registreringar i SIS II innehller fingeravtrycksinformation.
51 The increased number of hits is consistent with the steady increase in the number of alerts in SIS II, from around 50 million in 2013 to over 76 million in 2017. 
51 Det kande antalet trffar gr i linje med den stadiga kningen av antalet registreringar i SIS II, frn omkring 50 miljoner 2013 till ver 76 miljoner 2017.
Most of the alerts (76 %) concern lost or stolen documents. 
De flesta registreringarna (76 %) rr frlorade eller stulna handlingar.
52 According to Eurostat data12, the number of third-country nationals refused entry at the external borders ranged from a low of 440 000 in 2017 to a high of nearly 500 000 in 2009. 
52 Enligt Eurostats uppgifter12 varierade antalet tredjelandsmedborgare som nekades inresa vid de yttre grnserna mellan en lgsta niv 2017 p 440 000 och en hgsta niv 2009 p nstan 500 000.
The information systems provide the necessary support for identifying the most typical reported reasons for refusal. 
Informationssystemen ger ndvndigt std fr att identifiera de vanligaste rapporterade anledningarna till nekad inresa.
However, Schengen States do not always specify or record the reason why an individual was refused at the external border. 
Schengenstaterna specificerar eller registrerar inte alltid anledningen till att en enskild person nekas inresa vid den yttre grnsen.
National authorities stated during the audit interviews that they check every individual who tries to cross the external border. 
Nationella myndigheter angav under revisionsintervjuerna att de kontrollerar varje enskild person som frsker korsa den yttre grnsen.
However, our survey revealed that more than half of the border guards had been in a situation where they had to decide whether to let someone through without consulting the systems. 
Vr underskning visade dock att mer n hlften av grnskontrolltjnstemnnen hade befunnit sig i situationer dr de var tvungna att fatta beslut om de skulle lta ngon resa in utan att anvnda systemen.
Figure 7 – Survey: Have you ever had to take a decision about letting someone in without being able to consult the data from the system? 
Figur 7 Đ Underskning: Har du ngonsin varit tvungen att fatta beslut om att lta ngon resa in utan att kunna kontrollera uppgifterna i systemen?
54 The use of the information systems also depends on the external environment in which checks are carried out. 
54 Anvndningen av informationssystemen beror ven p den yttre milj dr kontrollerna genomfrs.
Some types of border crossing are more challenging than others. 
Vissa typer av grnsvergngar r mer utmanande n andra.
For example, checks carried out on board ships often suffer from connectivity issues. 
Nr kontroller genomfrs p ett fartyg r det till exempel ofta problem med uppkopplingen.
Conducting checks on moving trains poses similar technical challenges. 
Att genomfra kontroller p tg i rrelse medfr liknande tekniska utmaningar.
Eurodac 55 Another example of increased data exchange among Schengen States is through the Eurodac system, which allows them to register asylum seekers and persons attempting an irregular border crossing by taking their fingerprints. 
Eurodac 55 Ett annat exempel p kat uppgiftsutbyte bland Schengenstater r det som sker genom Eurodac-systemet. Systemet gr det mjligt fr dem att registrera asylskande och personer som frsker passera grnser irreguljrt genom att ta deras fingeravtryck.
Since 2003, there has been an agreement13 between EU Member States that asylum applications should be processed in the country where the applicant first declares his or her intention to seek asylum. 
Sedan 2003 har det funnits en verenskommelse13 mellan EU:s medlemsstater som innebr att asylanskningar ska behandlas i det land dr den asylskande frst uppger att hon eller han har fr avsikt att ska asyl.
Whenever a national administration compares a person’s fingerprints against those registered in Eurodac, a hit is returned if that person has previously applied for asylum in another EU country and should be returned there. 
Nr en nationell myndighet jmfr en persons fingeravtryck med dem som r registrerade i Eurodac erhlls en trff om den personen tidigare har skt asyl i ett annat EU-land och ska terfras till det landet.
56 The number of applications for asylum made by individuals who had already lodged an application for asylum in another Member State grew significantly until 2016, which was the peak of the migration crisis. 
56 Antalet asylanskningar som gjordes av personer som redan hade lmnat in en asylanskan i en annan medlemsstat kade betydligt fram till 2016, vilket var det r d migrationskrisen ndde sin kulmen.
Most applicants tried to seek asylum in France or Germany having initially arrived in another EU country, as shown in Figure 8. 
De flesta frskte ska asyl i Frankrike eller Tyskland efter det att de ursprungligen hade anlnt till ett annat EU-land, ssom framgr av figur 8.