natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For Sample 1 transactions, CBs are required to re-perform both the on-the-spot checks carried out by the PAs and the full range of administrative checks (receipt of the claim and eligibility checks, validation of expenditure, including the authorisation, execution and recording in the accounts of the corresponding payment). - Sample 2: drawn by CBs from all payments for the year in question. 
Nr det gller urval 1-transaktioner ska de attesterande organen upprepa bde de kontroller p plats som de utbetalande organen har gjort och hela raden av administrativa kontroller (mottagande av ersttningsansprket och kontroller av stdberttigandet, kontroll av utgifter, inbegripet godknnande, verkstllande och bokfring i rkenskaperna av motsvarande utbetalning). - Urval 2: grs av de attesterande organen frn alla utbetalningar under ret i frga.
For Sample 2, CBs need to re-perform only administrative checks, not on-the-spot checks (see paragraphs 62 to 67). 
Vad betrffar urval 2 behver de attesterande organen endast upprepa administrativa kontroller och inte kontroller p plats (se punkterna 62Đ67).
The timetable of the CBs substantive testing and reporting to the Commission are described in Annex IV. 
Tidtabellen fr de attesterande organens substansgranskning och rapportering till kommissionen beskrivs i bilaga IV.
Sample 1 transactions are chosen from a list of randomly selected on-the-spot checks performed by the PA on claims, which, if they are IACS, are very likely to lead to payments during the corresponding financial year. 
Urval 1-transaktioner vljs frn en lista ver slumpmssigt utvalda kontroller p plats som det utbetalande organet har gjort av ersttningsansprk som, om de r IAKS-transaktioner, med all sannolikhet leder till utbetalningar under motsvarande budgetr.
Hence, the results of CBsŐ testing not only serve the purpose of expressing an opinion on the legality and regularity of expenditure, but also help the CBs to form an opinion on the functioning of the PAsŐ internal control systems, which is one of the other audit objectives laid down in the CAP Horizontal Regulation. 
Resultaten av de attesterande organens granskning fyller drfr inte bara syftet att vara ett utltande om utgifternas laglighet och korrekthet utan hjlper ocks de attesterande organen att bilda sig en uppfattning om hur de utbetalande organens internkontrollsystem fungerar, vilket r ett av de andra revisionsml som faststllts i den horisontella GJP-frordningen.
The number of transactions upon which CBs re-perform all of the PA checks (see Table 3 below paragraph 64) is often considerably greater than the number of transactions usually 44 45 46 Paragraph 6 of International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 530 Đ Audit sampling. Section 6.2 of Guideline No 2 on sampling methodology. 
Det antal transaktioner fr vilket de attesterande organen upprepar alla de kontroller som det utbetalande organet har gjort (se tabell 3 efter punkt 64) r ofta betydligt strre n 45 46 33 Avsnitt 6.2 i riktlinje nr 2 om urvalsmetoder.
The random sample represents between 20 to 25 % of PAsŐ on-the-spot checks. 
Det slumpmssiga urvalet str fr mellan 20 och 25 % av de utbetalande organens kontroller p plats.
The remaining PAsŐ on-the-spot checks are sampled based on risk. 
De utbetalande organens terstende kontroller p plats vljs ut utifrn risk.
This gives them greater assurance that the PAsŐ systems for administrative and on-the-spot checks comply with the applicable regulations. 
Detta ger dem strre skerhet om att de utbetalande organens system fr administrativa kontroller och kontroller p plats fljer tillmpliga frordningar.
For audit results to be reliable, it is important that all samples used for substantive testing be representative. 
Fr att granskningsresultaten ska vara tillfrlitliga r det viktigt att alla urval som anvnds fr substansgranskning r representativa.
In order to be representative, samples must be drawn from the total population using statistically valid methods and remain unchanged. 
Fr att urvalen ska vara representativa mste de gras frn den totala populationen med hjlp av statistiskt giltiga metoder och frbli ofrndrade.
Because the CBs extract their samples in part from the PAsŐ samples, the results of their work can only be representative if the PAsŐ samples are themselves representative. 
Eftersom de attesterande organen fr fram sina urval delvis frn de utbetalande organens urval kan resultatet av deras arbete bara vara representativt om de utbetalande organens urval ocks r representativa.
Furthermore, any replacement of transactions contained in the initial samples must be appropriately justified and documented. 
Om transaktioner i de ursprungliga urvalen erstts mste man dessutom motivera och dokumentera det p vederbrligt stt.
However, in order to comply with such a requirement, both the PAs and the CBs need to maintain a sufficient and reliable audit trail to confirm that the samples are representative, drawn from the entire population and have remained unchanged. 
Men fr att uppfylla det kravet behver bde de utbetalande organen och de attesterande organen ha en tillrcklig och tillfrlitlig verifieringskedja fr att kunna bekrfta att urvalen r representativa, har gjorts frn hela populationen och har frblivit ofrndrade.
DG AGRI requires Sample 1 IACS transactions for substantive testing to be selected based on the amounts claimed by farmers (claim-based selection) rather than the amounts they are actually paid48, so that the CBs can perform their re-verifications as soon as possible after the PAsŐ on-the-spot checks. 
GD Jordbruk och landsbygdsutveckling krver att urval 1-IAKS-transaktioner fr substansgranskning ska vljas ut utifrn de belopp som jordbrukare begrt ersttning fr (urval baserat p ersttningsansprk) och inte utifrn de belopp som faktiskt betalas ut till dem48, s att de attesterande organen kan upprepa sina kontroller snarast mjligt efter de utbetalande organens kontroller p plats.
The advantage of the claim-based selection is that the conditions the CBs find when they inspect the selected farms on the spot will be very similar to those found by the PAs. 
Frdelen med att urvalet baseras p ersttningsansprk r att de frhllanden som de attesterande organen ptrffar nr de kontrollerar de utvalda jordbruksfretagen p plats kommer att vara mycket lika de frhllanden som de utbetalande organen ptrffade.
However, for this method to work as intended, close cooperation and communication between the PAs and the CBs is important. 
Men fr att denna metod ska fungera som avsett r det viktigt med ett nra samarbete och nra kontakter mellan de utbetalande organen och de attesterande organen.
47 48 Annex 3 of Guideline 2 recommends a minimum of 30 transactions for each Fund. 
De 47 48 I bilaga 3 till riktlinje 2 rekommenderas minst 30 transaktioner fr varje fond.
Section 6.7 of Guideline No 2 on sampling parameters. 
Avsnitt 6.7 i riktlinje nr 2 om urvalsparametrar. 34
30 31 We found that in three of the five Member States visited where the CB re-performed the IACS on-the-spot checks49, this condition was not met (see Box 3). 
Vi konstaterade att detta villkor inte uppfylldes i tre av de fem beskta medlemsstaterna dr det attesterande organet upprepade IAKS-kontrollerna p plats49 (se ruta 3).
Also, for this approach to be valid, the CBs need to have immediate access to the list of on-the-spot checks initially selected by the PAs, in order to ensure that this list is not subsequently changed. 
Fr att detta tillvgagngsstt ska vara giltigt krvs det ocks att de attesterande organen har omedelbar tillgng till listan ver de kontroller p plats som ursprungligen valdes ut av de utbetalande organen, s att man skerstller att listan inte ndras senare.
Moreover, a CB must not be allowed to exclude transactions from its sample as a result of delays in the PAŐs decision granting the relevant aid. 
Ett attesterande organ fr inte heller undanta transaktioner frn sitt urval drfr att det utbetalande organets beslut om beviljande av std r frsenat.
Such cases not only undermine the representativeness of the results and the validity of their extrapolation to overall expenditure, but may also cause an incorrect reduction in the error rate found by the CBs (see Box 4). 
Sdana fall minskar inte bara resultatens representativitet och deras giltighet nr de extrapoleras till de totala utgifterna utan kan ocks leda till en felaktig minskning av den felfrekvens som de attesterande organen konstaterat (se ruta 4).
The application of the claim-based selection method also relies on the CBs not letting the PAs know which transactions they have selected until after the latter have already performed their checks, so that the PAs do not know which transactions the CBs will later scrutinise (the Commission has also recognised this risk in cases where CBs accompany the PAs on their initial checks)51. 
Tillmpningen av den urvalsmetod som baseras p ersttningsansprk frutstter ocks att de attesterande organen inte lter de utbetalande organen f veta vilka transaktioner de har valt ut frrn de sistnmnda har utfrt sina kontroller, s att de utbetalande organen inte vet vilka transaktioner de attesterande organen senare kommer granska (kommissionen har ocks konstaterat att denna risk freligger nr de attesterande organen fljer med de utbetalande organen p deras frsta kontroller)51.
However, we found that in Italy such safeguards were not in place (see Box 5). 
Vi konstaterade emellertid att sdana skyddstgrder inte hade vidtagits i Italien (se ruta 5).
32 Box 4 Đ Exclusion of transactions from IACS Sample 1 because the PA did not execute payment until after the CB had completed its audit work In Romania, the CB excluded five transactions from its EAFRD IACS Sample 1 after completing its audit work because the PA had not yet executed the corresponding payments. 
36 Ruta 4 Đ Undantag av transaktioner frn IAKS-urval 1 p grund av att det utbetalande organet inte verkstllde betalningen frrn efter det att det attesterande organet hade avslutat sitt revisionsarbete I Rumnien undantog det attesterande organet fem transaktioner frn sitt Ejflu-IAKS-urval 1 nr det hade avslutat sitt revisionsarbete eftersom det utbetalande organet nnu inte hade verkstllt motsvarande betalningar.
Consequently, the CB did not take into consideration the results of the tests on these transactions in calculating the overall error rate upon which its opinion on the legality and regularity of transactions was based. 
Det attesterande organet tog fljaktligen inte hnsyn till resultaten av granskningarna av dessa transaktioner nr den berknade den vergripande felfrekvens p vilken den grundade sitt utltande om transaktionernas laglighet och korrekthet.
Box 5 Đ The re-performance exercise was compromised in Italy because the CB had given the PA advance notice of which beneficiaries would be subject to re-performance In Italy, for the 2015 claim year (2016 financial year), the CB gave the PA the list of transactions it had selected for Sample 1 IACS for both funds (EAGF and EAFRD) before the PA had carried out the majority of its initial on-the-spot checks. 
Ruta 5 Đ Upprepningen ventyrades i Italien eftersom det attesterande organet i frvg hade meddelat det utbetalande organet vilka stdmottagare som skulle ing i den Nr det gllde anskningsret 2015 (budgetret 2016) i Italien gav det attesterande organet listan ver transaktioner som det hade valt ut fr urval 1-IAKS fr bda fonderna (EGFJ och Ejflu) till det utbetalande organet innan detta hade utfrt merparten av sina frsta kontroller p plats.
As a result, the PA already knew before starting its on-the-spot checks which transactions would subsequently be subject to re-performance by the CB. 
Det fick till fljd att det utbetalande organet redan innan det inledde sina kontroller p plats visste fr vilka transaktioner kontrollerna senare skulle upprepas av det attesterande organet.
51 Section 6.2 of Guideline No 2 on sampling methodology. 
51 Avsnitt 6.2 i riktlinje nr 2 om urvalsmetoder.
A portion of the non-IACS transactions upon which the CBs perform substantive testing is not representative of expenditure in the financial year audited 59. 
Vissa icke-IAKS-transaktioner som de attesterande organen substansgranskar r inte representativa fr utgifterna det granskade budgetret 59.
For non-IACS transactions (both EAGF and EAFRD), there is a significant disparity between: - the period for which the on-the-spot checks are reported, which is the calendar year (from 1 January to 31 December 2014 for the 2015 financial year, in this case), and - the period for which expenditure is paid, which for the 2015 financial year is from 16 October 2014 to 15 October 2015. 
Nr det gller icke-IAKS-transaktioner (bde EGFJ och Ejflu) freligger det en betydande skillnad mellan - den period fr vilken kontrollerna p plats rapporteras, som r kalenderret (frn 1 januari till 31 december 2014 vad betrffar budgetret 2015 i det hr fallet) och - den period fr vilken utgifter betalas, som budgetret 2015 lper frn 16 oktober 2014 till 15 oktober 2015.
As a result, some of the beneficiaries subject to on-the-spot checks performed during the 2014 calendar year were not reimbursed in the 2015 financial year52. 
Det ledde till att vissa av de stdmottagare som kontrollerades p plats under kalenderret 2014 inte ersattes under budgetret 201552.
The CBs cannot use the results of such transactions in their calculation of the error rate for the financial year concerned. 
De attesterande organen kan inte anvnda resultaten av sdana transaktioner nr de berknar felfrekvensen det aktuella budgetret.
Such results may only be used to express an opinion on the functioning of the internal control system and provide a statement on the assertions in the MD and its underlying control statistics. 
Resultat av det slaget kan endast anvndas till att avge ett utltande om internkontrollsystemets funktion och om pstendena i frvaltningsfrklaringen och dess underliggande kontrollstatistik.
According to internationally accepted audit standards, Ôin performing a reasonable assurance audit, public sector auditors gather sufficient appropriate audit evidence to 52 The beneficiaries reimbursed before 16 October 2014 were recorded in the previous financial year and those (exceptional cases) reimbursed after 15 October 2015 were recorded in the following financial year. 33 
En konsekvens av detta r att de attesterande organen anvnder frre transaktioner fr att berkna den vergripande felfrekvensen, vilket gr den mindre exakt och drmed 52 De stdmottagare som ersattes fre den 16 oktober 2014 bokfrdes det fregende budgetret och de som ersattes efter den 15 oktober 2015 (undantagsfall) bokfrdes det fljande budgetret.
They should use a variety of techniques for this purpose, such as observation, inspection, inquiry, re-performance, confirmation and analytical procedures. 
De ska anvnda en mngd olika tekniker fr detta ndaml, ssom observation, inspektion, utredning, upprepning av aktivitet, bekrftelse och analytisk granskning.
Furthermore, under EU law, the CBsŐ substantive testing of expenditure must cover verifying the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions at final beneficiary level54. 
Enligt EU:s lagstiftning mste dessutom de attesterande organens substansgranskning av utgifter omfatta kontroll av de underliggande transaktionernas laglighet och korrekthet p slutmottagarniv54.
Inspection involves examining books, records and other elements (such as the beneficiariesŐ right of use for the land in question, fertilisation registers, building permits, etc.) or physical assets (such as land, animals, equipment, etc.). 
I inspektionen ingr granskning av bokfring, rkenskapsmaterial och annat (ssom stdmottagarnas nyttjandertt till marken i frga, gdselregister, bygglov etc.) eller fysiska tillgngar (ssom mark, djur, utrustning etc.).
Inquiry involves obtaining information and explanations from final beneficiaries, in the form of either written statements or more informal oral discussions. 
Utredning innebr att man hmtar information och fr frklaringar frn slutliga stdmottagare i form av skriftliga redogrelser eller mer informella muntliga diskussioner.
As mentioned above, for sample 2, the CommissionŐs guidelines only require CBs to re-perform administrative checks (see paragraph 49). 
Som nmndes ovan krver kommissionens riktlinjer nr det gller urval 2 endast att de attesterande organen ska upprepa administrativa kontroller (se punkt 49).
In Table 3, we calculated the proportion of Sample 2 transactions in the total sample for the six Member States visited. 
I tabell 3 har vi berknat andelen urval 2-transaktioner i det totala urvalet fr de sex beskta medlemsstaterna.
54 Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014. 
53 38 54 Artikel 7.3 i frordning (EU) nr 908/2014.
Table 3 Đ Proportion of Sample 2 transactions used for substantive testing by the six Member States visited 35 Member State EAGF EAFRD Sample 1 Sample 2 Total sample % of Sample 2 in total Sample 1 Sample 2 Total sample % of Sample 2 in total (1) (2) (3) = (1)+(2) (4) = (2)/(3)*100 (5) (6) (7) = (5)+(6) (8) = (6)/(7)*100 Germany (Bavaria) 30 41 71 58 % 60 146 206 71 % Spain (Castilla y Lon) 52 123 175 70 % 50 122 172 71 % Italy (AGEA1) 30 192 222 86 % 30 91 121 75 % Poland 90 58 148 39 % 97 33 130 25 % Romania 161 292 453 64 % 140 245 385 64 % United Kingdom (England) 30 40 70 57 % 59 26 85 31 % Average proportion of Sample 2 in the Member States/Regions visited (with no on-the-spot testing) 62 % 56 % 1 The ÔAgenzia per le erogazioni in agricolturaŐ (AGEA) is one of the 11 Italian PAs. 
Tabell 3 Đ Andel urval 2-transaktioner som anvnts fr substansgranskning av de sex beskta medlemsstaterna 39 Medlemsstat EGFJ Ejflu Urval 1 Urval 2 Urval totalt urval 2 i % av det totala urvalet Urval 1 Urval 2 Urval totalt urval 2 i % av det totala urvalet (1) (2) (3) = (1)+(2) (4) = (2)/(3)*100 (5) (6) (7) = (5)+(6) (8) = (6)/(7)*100 Tyskland (Bayern) 30 41 71 58 % 60 146 206 71 % Spanien (Kastilien-Len) 52 123 175 70 % 50 122 172 71 % Italien (AGEA1) 30 192 222 86 % 30 91 121 75 % Polen 90 58 148 39 % 97 33 130 25 % Rumnien 161 292 453 64 % 140 245 385 64 % Frenade kungariket (England) 30 40 70 57 % 59 26 85 31 % Genomsnittlig andel fr urval 2 i de beskta medlemsstaterna/regionerna (utan kontroller p plats) 62 % 56 % 1 Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura (AGEA) r ett av de 11 utbetalande organen i Italien.
As the table above shows, in four of the Member States/Regions visited, Sample 2, for which no on-the-spot testing is done, accounted for the majority of the overall sample used by CBs for substantive testing. 
Som tabellen ovan visar stod urval 2, som inte kontrolleras p plats, i fyra av de beskta medlemsstaterna/regionerna fr merparten av det totala urval som de attesterande organen anvnde fr substansgranskning.
For sample 2, gathering evidence based only on a re-performance of administrative checks at PA level, will often not provide the CBs with sufficient and appropriate audit evidence as required by ISSAI 4200. 
Vad betrffar urval 2 ger inhmtande av bevis enbart utifrn en upprepning av administrativa kontroller hos de utbetalande organen ofta inte de attesterande organen tillrckliga och ndamlsenliga revisionsbevis p det stt som krvs enligt Issai 4200.
By doing so, the CBs are not using two audit collection methods that are very important in the context of the CAP expenditure: inspection and inquiry. 
Sklet till det r att de attesterande organen inte tillmpar tv metoder fr insamling av revisionsbevis som r mycket viktiga nr det gller GJP-utgifter: inspektion och utredning.
Without these methods, important audit evidence cannot be collected, such as evidence that farmers are using their land as stated in their declarations and proof of the existence of physical assets purchased through investment projects. 
Utan dem kan viktiga revisionsbevis inte inhmtas, till exempel fr att jordbrukare anvnder sin mark p det stt som de har uppgett i sina redovisningar och fr frekomsten av fysiska tillgngar som kpts genom investeringsprojekt.
Without sufficient on-the-spot testing, the CBs may not be able to obtain reasonable assurance that the relevant expenditure is legal and regular: as we have demonstrated in our annual reports, most of the errors in CAP expenditure (particularly for IACS) are found on the spot55. 
Utan tillrckliga kontroller p plats r det inte skert att de attesterande organen kan uppn rimlig skerhet om att utgifterna r lagliga och korrekta: som vi har visat i vra rsrapporter konstateras de flesta fel i GJP-utgifter (srskilt nr det gller IAKS) p plats55.
The guidelines require the CBs only to re-perform PAsŐ initial checks, rather than carry out all the audit procedures the CBs consider necessary to obtain reasonable assurance 68. 
Enligt riktlinjerna ska de attesterande organen endast upprepa de utbetalande organens frsta kontroller och inte vidta alla de granskningstgrder som de anser r ndvndiga fr att uppn rimlig skerhet 68.
With regards to the standards applicable when performing the reasonable assurance audit see also paragraph 62. 
Se ven punkt 62 nr det gller vilka standarder som ska tillmpas vid en revision som syftar till att uppn rimlig skerhet.
For example, if the initial 55 56 57 See, for example, paragraphs 7.19 and 7.26 of the CourtŐs annual report for the 2014 financial year (OJ C 373, 10.11.2015) and paragraphs 7.14, 7.18 and 7.22 of the CourtŐs annual report for the 2015 financial year (OJ C 375, 13.10.2016). 
Se till exempel punkterna 7.19 och 7.26 i revisionsrttens rsrapport fr budgetret 2014 (EUT C 373, 10.11.2015) och punkterna 7.14, 7.18 och 7.22 i revisionsrttens rsrapport fr budgetret 2015 (EUT C 375, 13.10.2016). 40
37 on-the-spot checks had been done by the PAs using remote sensing58, then the CBs were always required to re-perform them using the same method59. 
Om de fjrranalys58, var de attesterande organen alltid tvungna upprepa dem med samma metod59.
Re-performance is defined by internationally accepted audit standards60 as Ôindependently carrying out the same procedures already performed by the audited entityŐ, in this case the PA. 
I de internationellt accepterade revisionsstandarderna60 definieras upprepning som att p ett oberoende stt utfra samma tgrder som ursprungligen utfrdes av revisionsobjektet, i detta fall det utbetalande organet.
For example, CBs may re-perform administrative checks to test whether the PAs made the correct decisions when granting aid. 
Till exempel kan de attesterande organen upprepa administrativa kontroller fr att prva huruvida de utbetalande organen fattade rtt beslut nr de beviljade std.
While re-performance is a valid audit evidence collection method, the Commission should not, in our opinion, require the CBs to limit themselves to such method for all transactions subject to substantive testing but instead leave it up to the CBs to determine the extent of its use. 
Upprepning r visserligen en giltig metod fr att inhmta revisionsbevis men kommissionen br enligt vr uppfattning inte krva att de attesterande organen ska anvnda den fr alla transaktioner som ska substansgranskas utan lta dem bestmma sjlva hur mycket den ska anvndas.
CBs might choose and perform audit steps and procedures that they themselves consider appropriate, which should not be limited to re-performance. 
De attesterande organen skulle kunna vlja och vidta revisionstgrder som de sjlva anser r ndamlsenliga, vilket inte skulle begrnsas till upprepning.
Section 9.2 of Guideline No 2 on the performance of on-the-spot checks. 
Avsnitt 9.2 i riktlinje nr 2 om genomfrande av kontroller p plats.
Section 7.1.5 of ISSAI 4200. 
Avsnitt 7.1.5 i Issai 4200.
Glossary of Guideline No 2. 
Ett 61 Ordlistan i riktlinje nr 2.