natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With a view to obtaining a conclusion on complementarity in the absence of such an overview, the Court analysed all projects addressing one of the six lifestyle-related health determinants (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, nutrition and physical activity, sexual and reproductive health, mental health) (see Annex II). 
Fr att kunna komma till en slutsats om komplementarieteten utan denna verblick analyserade revisionsrtten alla projekt som behandlade en av de sex livsstilsrelaterade bestmningsfaktorerna fr hlsan (alkohol, tobak, narkotika, kost och motion, sexuell och reproduktiv hlsa, psykisk hlsa) (se bilaga II).
This detailed analysis was complemented by a quantitative analysis, stakeholder interviews and consultation of experts. 
Denna ingende analys kompletterades av en kvantitativ analys, intervjuer med berrda parter och samrd med experter.
28 Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
28 Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
The analysis showed that complementarity between projects and consistency within the overall project portolio were lacking because of: (a) fragmentation: in the ‘drugs’ policy area, projects funded from the PHP were few in number and addressed very diverse aspects of the drugs problem, ranging from doping in leisure sports to falsified prescriptions as an indicator for the abuse of legal drugs, and to drug prevention in prisons. 
Analysen visade att komplementariteten mellan projekt och enhetligheten inom projektportfljen var bristfllig p grund av fljande: a) Fragmentering: Inom politikomrdet ÓnarkotikaÓ var de projekt som finansierades av folkhlsoprogrammet f till antalet och de behandlade mycket olika aspekter av narkotikaproblem, frn dopning i fritidssporter till frfalskade recept som en indikator p missbruk av lagliga droger, och till frebyggande av narkotikamissbruk i fngelser.
A similar situation was found in the ‘nutrition and physical activity’ policy area, where the few PHP projects were very dissimilar in terms of objectives and activities; (b) activity overlap and the duplication of work: PHP projects in the ‘alcohol’ policy area were characterised by a great deal of overlap in the partners involved and the information produced, not only between the projects in the sample but also with regard to a project funded from the predecessor Community Action Programme on Health Promotion and a report produced following an earlier call for tender. 
En liknande situation ptrffades inom politikomrdet Ókost och motionÓ, dr de f folkhlsoprogramprojekten var mycket olika i frga om ml och verksamheter. b) verlappning av verksamheter och dubbelarbete: Folkhlsopro-gramprojekt inom politikomrdet ÓalkoholÓ knnetecknades av en hg grad av verlappning hos berrda parter och i framtagen information, inte enbart mellan projekten i urvalet utan ocks i ett projekt som finansierades av gemenskapens fregende handlingsprogram fr hlsofrmjande och en rapport som skrivits efter en tidigare anbudsinfordran.
In the ‘mental health’ policy area, two projects with identical activities were funded under consecutive calls for proposals; (c) parallel implementation of similar actions: in the ‘tobacco’ policy area, the main projects financed from the PHP were two large networks established to combat smoking, one targeting the general population and the other young people only. 
Inom politikomrdet Ópsykisk hlsaÓ finansierades tv projekt med identiska verksamheter efter tv p varandra fljande inbjudningar att lmna frslag. c) Parallellt genomfrande av liknande tgrder: Inom politikomrdet ÓtobakÓ var de strsta projekt som finansierades genom folkhlsoprogrammet tv stora ntverk som inrttats fr att bekmpa rkning. Ett riktade sig till allmnheten och det andra enbart till ungdomar.
In the ‘sexual and reproductive health’ policy area, the PHP funded many networks whose objective was to strengthen the capacity of the participating NGOs. 
Inom politikomrdet Ósexuell och reproduktiv hlsaÓ finansierade folkhlsoprogrammet mnga ntverk vilkas ml var att strka kapaciteten hos de medverkande enskilda organisationerna.
They found their ‘niche’ by focusing on different direct and indirect addressees: NGOs in central European countries, or NGOs working with migrants, migrant sex workers, local sex workers, injection-drug users or people living with HIV/AIDS. 
De hittade sin ÓnischÓ genom att inrikta sig p olika direkta och indirekta mottagare: enskilda organisationer i centraleuropeiska lnder eller enskilda organisationer som arbetar med invandrare, migrerande sexarbetare, lokala sexarbetare, sprutnarkomaner eller hivsmittade och aidssjuka.
In all these areas there are already other mechanisms which could take the place of the PHP: platforms, working groups, agencies (EMCDDA, ECDC), WHO and other EU programmes such as the RTD framework programmes or the Drugs Prevention and Information Programme (see paragraph 64 and Box 12). 
P alla dessa omrden finns det redan andra mekanismer som skulle kunna erstta folkhlsoprogrammet: plattformar, arbetsgrupper, byrer (EMCDDA, ECDC), WHO och andra EU-program som ramprogrammet fr FoTU eller program fr frebyggande av och information om narkotikamissbruk (se punkt 64 och textruta 12).
29 Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
29 Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
LIMITED EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 55. 
BEGRNSAT EUROPEISKT MERVRDE 55.
In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality set out in the Treaty, Community action on matters which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community, such as public health, should be undertaken only if and in so far as, by reason of its scale or effects, its objective can be better achieved by the Community32. 
I enlighet med subsidiaritets-och proportionalitetsprinciperna som faststlls i frdraget ska gemenskapen p omrden dr gemenskapen inte r ensam behrig, till exempel folkhlsa, vidta en tgrd endast om och i den mn som mlen fr den planerade tgrden p grund av sin omfattning eller sina verkningar bttre kan uppns p gemenskapsniv32.
A key ramification of the subsidiarity principle is that EU health policy should consist only of actions delivering output which cannot be achieved by Member States acting individually, or which deliver economies of scale. 
En viktig fljd av subsidiaritetsprincipen r att EU:s hlsopolitik endast br best av tgrder som ger output som medlemsstaterna inte kan producera var fr sig eller som medfr stordriftsfrdelar.
The ‘health threats’ strand deals with the surveillance of communicable diseases, and the ‘health information’ strand with the collection of comparable data and the development of common indicators. 
Komponenten Óhot mot folkhlsanÓ behandlar vervakning av verfrbara sjukdomar och komponenten ÓhlsoinformationÓ insamling av jmfrbara uppgifter och utarbetande av gemensamma indikatorer.
These two strands thus focus on issues which clearly cannot be managed by Member States acting individually. 
Dessa tv komponenter r sledes inriktade p frgor som helt klart inte kan sktas av medlemsstaterna var fr sig.
However, in the Court’s view other mechanisms for cooperation between Member States could equally play this role (see paragraphs 64 and 65). 
Enligt revisionsrttens uppfattning skulle dock andra mekanismer fr samarbete mellan medlemsstater lika vl spela denna roll (se punkterna 64Đ65).
In contrast, tackling health determinants to promote health and prevent disease is not a cross-border task per se. 
Att behandla bestmningsfaktorer fr att frmja hlsa och frebygga sjukdom r dremot inte en grnsverskridande uppgift i sig.
In particular, direct health promotion — health education and influencing lifestyles — is a culture-specific activity which needs to take account of the specificities of the national public health system and local characteristics and needs. 
I synnerhet direkt hlsofrmjande Đ utbildning i hlsa och livsstilar som pverkar hlsan Đ r en kulturspecifik verksamhet dr srskilda knnetecken i det nationella folkhlsosystemet och lokala srdrag och behov mste beaktas.
EAV BY PROJECT TYPE: NETWORKS MOST LIKELY TO PROVIDE EAV 58. 
EUROPEISKT MERVRDE PER PROJEKTTYP: MEST SANNOLIKT ATT NTVERK TILLF R EUROPEISKT MERVRDE 58.
At the level of health promotion projects under the ‘health determinants’ strand, the Court has assessed EAV by taking into consideration a range of arguments why a measure could only be taken — or would be better taken — at European level. 
Revisionsrtten bedmde europeiskt mervrde i hlsofrmjande projekt inom komponenten Óbestmningsfaktorer fr hlsanÓ genom att beakta en rad argument till varfr en insats endast kunde genomfras Đ eller borde genomfras Đ p europeisk niv.
The analysis took account of the four project categories defined by the RDI cycle framework, while networks were considered separately (see Box 10). 
Vid analysen beaktades de fyra projektkategorier som faststllts inom ramen fr forskning-utvecklings-genomfrande-kedjan, medan dremot ntverk beaktades separat (se textruta 10).
32 See Articles 2 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union, together with paragraph 5 of the Protocol (No 30) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. 
32 Se artiklarna 2 och 5 i EU-frdraget, och punkt 5 i protokollet (nr 30) om tillmpning av subsidiaritets-och proportionalitetsprinciperna.
30 Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
30 Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
There is a requirement for all projects to involve partners from several European countries. 
Det finns ett krav p att partner frn flera europeiska lnder ska delta i alla projekt.
A a result of their cross-border nature, networks are most likely to exhibit EAV through sharing of expertise, consensus-building and exchange of ‘good practices’ across countries. 
Tack vare sin grnsverskridande karaktr r det mest sannolikt att ntverk tillfr europeiskt mervrde genom utbyte av sakkunskaper, konsensusbyggande och utbyte av god praxis mellan lnder.
The EAV of the other project types is less obvious. (a) Study and research projects: EAV lay mainly in the fact that data were collected from several countries and subject to a comparative analysis. 
De andra projekttypernas europeiska mervrde r inte lika uppenbart. a) Studie-och forskningsprojekt: Det europeiska mervrdet lg framfr allt i det faktum att uppgifter samlades in frn flera lnder och blev freml fr en jmfrande analys.
These projects sought to develop a common terminology, set common standards and ensure the comparability of data and methods between Member States. 
Inom dessa projekt frskte man ta fram en gemensam terminologi, faststlla gemensamma normer och se till att uppgifterna och metoderna gick att jmfra mellan medlemsstater.
However, there was some overlap with activities carried out under the ‘health information’ strand, as well as under other EU programmes such as the RTD framework programmes33 or the Drugs Prevention and Information Programme (see paragraph 54 and Annex II). (b) Development projects: these projects’ EAV was their link to the development of EU policy. 
Det frekom dock viss verlappning med de verksamheter som bedrevs inom komponenten ÓhlsoinformationÓ och ven inom andra EU-program, till exempel FoTu-ram-programmen33 eller program fr frebyggande av och information om narkotikamissbruk (se punkt 54 och bilaga II). b) Utvecklingsprojekt: Det europeiska mervrdet i dessa projekt var deras koppling till EU-politikens utveckling.
They sought to further the development of their respective priority areas at European level and to contribute to agenda-setting across Europe. (c) Implementation and ‘going-to-scale’ projects: the EAV of these projects was least apparent. 
Inom projekten strvade man efter att utveckla sina respektive prioriterade omrden p europeisk niv och bidra till att stta dagordningen i hela Europa. c) Genomfrandeprojekt och Óprojekt som frbereder sig fr storskalig spridningÓ: Det europeiska mervrdet i dessa projekt var inte lika uppenbart.
This is because, by their very nature, the related activities (such as piloting, training and capacity building, dissemination and implementation on a wider scale) have to happen on the ground, i.e. not at European level but in a particular region or country. 
Detta beror p att tillhrande verksamheter, p grund av sin karaktr (som pilotprojekt, utbildning och kapacitetsuppbyggnad, spridning och genomfrande i strre skala) mste ske p plats, det vill sga inte p europeisk niv utan i ett srskilt omrde eller land.
For this category of projects, it could be argued that activities should be funded by the region or country where they take place. 
Nr det gller denna kategori av projekt skulle det kunna hvdas att verksamheterna br finansieras av det omrde eller det land dr de bedrivs.
For some projects this was indeed the case: Community funding was used only for ‘European activities’ (e.g. meetings between national coordinators) and not for actual interventions or daily country-based activities. 
Detta var ocks fallet fr en del projekt: gemenskapsfinansiering anvndes endast till Óeuropeiska verksamheterÓ (t.ex. mten fr nationella samordnare) och inte till faktiska insatser eller lpande landbaserade verksamheter.
However, in other cases funding from the PHP was used for national or regional activities. 
I andra fall anvndes dock finansiering frn folkhlsoprogrammet till nationell eller regional verksamhet.
The Court considers that all types of projects under the ‘health determinants’ strand have the potential to deliver EAV to some degree, by bringing together partners from different EU Member States. 
Revisionsrtten anser att alla typer av projekt inom komponenten Óbestmningsfaktorer fr hlsanÓ har potential att i viss utstrckning tillfra europeiskt mervrde genom att de sammanfr partner frn olika EU-medlemsstater.
However, applying the criteria used by the Court, the most obvious providers of EAV in the sample were networks. 
Tillmpar man de kriterier som revisionsrtten anvnde var det dock ntverksprojekten som tydligast tillfrde europeiskt mervrde i urvalet.
33 During the period 2003–06, ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ is one of seven major thematic research priorities of the European Union’s sixth framework programme (FP6) aiming at the generation of new knowledge and translating it into applications that enhance human health. 
33 Under perioden 2003Đ2006 var ÓBiovetenskap, genomik och bioteknik fr bttre hlsaÓ en av sju strre tematiska forskningsprioriteringar i Europeiska unionens sjtte ramprogram (FP6) som syftar till att alstra ny kunskap och verfra den till applikationer som frbttrar mnniskors hlsa.
To this end research organisations carrying out both fundamental and applied research were supported with an indicative budget of 2 514 million euro. 
I detta syfte fick forskningsorganisationer som bedriver bde grundforskning och tillmpad forskning en vgledande budget p 2 514 miljoner euro.
Such funding opportunities existed in the fields of genomic approaches to health and disease, biotechnology, cancer, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. 
Sdana finansieringsmjligheter fanns p omrden dr genomiska metoder anvnds fr att underska hlsa och sjukdom, bioteknik, cancer, hiv/aids, malaria och tuberkulos.
Similar funding opportunities existed under the FP5 and the current FP7. 
Liknande finansieringsmjligheter fanns inom femte och det nuvarande sjunde ramprogrammet.
31 Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
31 Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
32 BOX 11 SURVEY OF PROJECT PARTNERS ‘The project’s objectives could only be realised by participating in the European Public Health Programme.’ 0 % strongly agree agree neither agree nor disagree disagree strongly disagree don’t know 10 % 9 % 5 % 20 % 15 % 30 % 40 % 36 % 50 % 60 % 0 % strongly agree agree neither agree nor disagree disagree strongly disagree don’t know 10 % 6 % 2 % 6 % 20 % 30 % 29 % 26 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 2 % ‘Participating in the European Public Health Programme is more effective than participating in a national health project.’ 
32 TEXTRUTA 11 ENKT BLAND PROJEKTPARTNER ÓProjektmlen kunde endast uppns genom deltagande i det Europeiska folkhlsoprogrammet.Ó 0 % instmmer helt instmmer varken instmmer eller inte instmmer instmmer inte instmmer inte alls vet ej 10 % 9 % 5 % 20 % 15 % 30 % 40 % 36 % 50 % 60 % 0 % instmmer helt instmmer varken instmmer eller inte instmmer instmmer inte instmmer inte alls vet ej 10 % 6 % 2 % 6 % 20 % 30 % 29 % 26 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 2 % ÓDet r mer ndamlsenligt att delta i det europeiska folkhlsoprogrammet n i ett nationellt hlsoprojekt.Ó 32 % 31 % Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
STAKEHOLDERS POSITIVE ABOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAMME 62. 
BER RDA PARTER VAR POSITIVA TILL SITT DELTAGANDE I PROGRAMMET 62.
Participants widely affirmed the European dimension of their projects. 
Deltagarna intygade i hg grad den europeiska dimensionen i sina projekt.
A large majority (68 %) of project partners responding to the Court’s survey agreed or strongly agreed that their project objectives could only be realised by participating in the PHP. 
En stor majoritet (68 %) av de projektpartner som svarade p revisionsrttens enkt instmde eller instmde helt i att deras projektml endast kunde uppns genom deltagande i folkhlsoprogrammet.
Some 60 % considered participation in the PHP to be more effective than participation in national projects (see Box 11). 
Cirka 60 % ansg att det var mer ndamlsenligt att delta i folkhlsoprogrammet n i nationella projekt (se textruta 11).
Stakeholders in the Member States found that the programme as a whole was also a source of EAV in that it provided an opportunity to pool knowledge and share ‘good practices’. 
Berrda parter i medlemsstaterna ansg att programmet som helhet ocks var en klla till europeiskt mervrde i det att den gav deltagarna tillflle att utbyta kunskaper och Ógod praxisÓ.
The representatives of national authorities who were interviewed in the framework of the audit (Programme Committee members and national focal points) agreed that the PHP addressed the need for Member States to cooperate by exchanging information, experience and guidelines on public health problems of concern to all. 
De fretrdare fr nationella myndigheter som intervjuades i samband med revisionen (medlemmar i programkommittn och nationella kontaktpunkter) instmde i att folkhlsoprogrammet tillgodosg behovet av samarbete mellan medlemsstaterna genom utbyte av information, erfarenheter och riktlinjer avseende folkhlsoproblem som angr alla.
The mid-term evaluation of the PHP concluded that the rationale for European intervention in public health is widely accepted and supported34. 
I halvtidsutvrderingen av folkhlsoprogrammet drog man slutsatsen att den logiska grunden till EU-insatser p folkhlsoomrdet r allmnt accepterad och har stort std34.
34 Wija J. Oortwijn et al., Interim evaluation of the Public Health Programme 2003–08. 
34 Wija J. Oortwijn et al, Interim evaluation of the Public Health Programme 2003Đ2008.
Final Report. 
Slutrapport.
33 BOX 12 EXAMPLES OF EXISTING COORDINATION MECHANISMS (see Annex II for details) • European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction (EMCDDA) • European Alcohol and Health Forum • EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) • Think Tank on HIV/AIDS • HIV/AIDS Civil Society Forum Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
33 TEXTRUTA 12 EXEMPEL P BEFINTLIGA SAMORDNINGSMEKANISMER (se bilaga II fr nrmare uppgifter) Ľ Europeiska centrumet fr kontroll av narkotika-och narkotikamissbruk (ECNN) Ľ Europeiskt forum fr alkohol och hlsa Ľ EU-plattform fr kost, motion och hlsa Ľ Europeiskt centrum fr frebyggande och kontroll av sjukdomar (ECDC) Ľ Tankesmedja fr hiv-/aidsfrgor Ľ Civilsamhllets forum fr hiv/aids-frgor Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
However, the exchange of information and cooperation among Member States in the field of public health is not limited to the PHP. 
Informationsutbytet och samarbetet mellan medlemsstaterna p folkhlsoomrdet r dock inte begrnsat till folkhlsoprogrammet.
Other mechanisms exist which can deliver this EAV. 
Det finns andra mekanismer som kan tillfra detta europeiska mervrde.
There are a number of fora, working groups and platforms in most public health policy areas that address not only health determinants but also health information and health threats. 
Det finns ett antal forum, arbetsgrupper och plattformar p de flesta politikomrdena avseende hlsa som inte bara arbetar med bestmningsfaktorer fr hlsan utan ven hlsoinformation och hot mot folkhlsan.
They facilitate consultation between stakeholders — especially governmental organisations, but also civil society, industry, etc. — and provide a ‘meeting place’ where common approaches can be developed and coordinated (see paragraphs 54 and 60(a)). 
Dessa instanser underlttar samrd mellan berrda parter Đ srskilt statliga organisationer, men ocks det civila samhllet, nringslivet osv. Đ och erbjuder en ÓmtesplatsÓ dr gemensamma metoder kan utarbetas och samordnas (se punkterna 54 och 60 a).
The existence of alternative mechanisms raises the question whether such activities should continue to be carried out under the PHP. 
Frekomsten av alternativa mekanismer vcker frgan om huruvida sdana verksamheter ska fortstta att bedrivas inom folkhlsoprogrammet.
In its current EU health strategy published in October 2007 the Commission has proposed setting up a ‘structured cooperation mechanism’ to identify and promote the necessary coordination activities among the Member States35. 
I den nuvarande EU-strategin fr hlsa, som offentliggjordes i oktober 2007, freslog kommissionen att en modell fr strukturerat samarbete skulle inrttas som syftar till att identifiera och underltta den ndvndiga samordningen mellan medlemsstaterna35.
A dedicated ‘Council Working Party on Public Health at Senior Level’ was set up in December 2008 to assist the Commission in identifying priorities, defining indicators, producing guidelines and recommendations, fostering exchange of good practice and measuring progress. 
En srskild rdsar-betsgrupp avseende folkhlsa p hg niv inrttades i december 2008 som ska hjlpa kommissionen att kartlgga prioriteringar, faststlla indikatorer, ta fram riktlinjer och rekommendationer, frmja utbyte av bsta praxis samt mta framsteg.
35 European Commission, White Paper, ‘Together for health: A strategic approach for the EU 2008–13’, COM(2007) 630 final, p. 
35 Europeiska kommissionens vitbok, ÓTillsammans fr hlsa: Strategi fr EU: 2008Đ2013Ó, KOM(2007) 630 slutlig, s.
34 Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
34 Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 66. 
PROJEKTF RVALTNING 66.
Project design is crucial, but projects must also be managed in a way that increases their chances of being effective. 
Utformningen av projekten r grundlggande, men projekten mste ocks frvaltas p ett sdant stt s att deras mjligheter att bli ndamlsenliga kar.