natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The SESAR project contains a gap in this area as neither the SESAR Joint Undertaking nor the Deployment Manager are mandated to ensure standardisation. 
Sesar-projektet har en lucka p det hr omrdet eftersom varken det gemensamma Sesar-fretaget eller infrandefrvaltaren har befogenhet att se till att standardisering sker.
This shortcoming still represents a high risk to deployment at the time of this report. 
Denna brist utgr fortfarande en hg risk fr infrandet nr denna rapport utarbetas.
30 Lack of maturity has been repeatedly mentioned as a risk to deployment by the Deployment Manager22, namely as a potential cause of delays and non-harmonised deployment, affecting particularly AFs 4, 5 and 6. 
30 Infrandefrvaltaren har terkommande nmnt bristen p mognad som en risk fr infrandet22, och som en potentiell orsak till frseningar och icke-harmoniserat infrande, i synnerhet fr ATM-funktionalitet 4, 5 och 6.
In addition, this has allowed EU funding to be channelled to support the deployment of non-mature technologies (see paragraph 56). 
Dessutom har den lett till att EU-finansiering har gtt till std fr infrande av teknik som nnu inte r mogen (se punkt 56).
31 As per the regulation, the need for synchronised deployment of a functionality should be assessed by the Commission on the basis of geographical scope, target dates and operational stakeholders required to deploy the ATM functionalities23. 
31 Enligt frordningen ska kommissionen bedma behovet av synkroniserat infrande av en funktionalitet p grundval av geografisk rckvidd, mldatum och de operativa berrda parter som krvs fr att infra ATM-funktionaliteten23.
We found that such criteria are not sufficient because they do not demonstrate the need for synchronised multi-stakeholder participation (air-ground or ground-ground or both) to deliver operational benefits. 
Vi konstaterade att dessa kriterier inte rcker eftersom de inte visar att det krvs ett synkroniserat genomfrande dr flera berrda parter deltar (luft-mark, mark-mark eller bda) fr att uppn operativa frdelar.
Consequently, the current wording in the regulation would allow any essential and mature functionality to qualify for inclusion in a common project. 
Den nuvarande formuleringen i frordningen innebr drmed att vilken vsentlig och mogen funktionalitet som helst kan ing i ett gemensamt projekt.
32 All but two of the functionalities included in the PCP require multi-stakeholder synchronisation. 
32 Alla utom tv av funktionaliteterna i det gemensamma pilotprojektet krver synkronisering dr flera berrda parter deltar.
However, specific components of AF 1 (for example, Performance based navigation in high density terminal manoeuvring areas) and AF 2 (for example, airport safety nets) are local in nature, need to be tailored to specific airports, and can deliver performance benefits even if only deployed independently of others on a local basis. 
Men specifika delar av ATM-funktionalitet 1 (t.ex. prestationsbaserad navigering i manvreringsomrde fr terminal med hg trafiktthet) och ATM-funktionalitet 2 (t.ex. skerhetsnt fr flygplatser) r lokala till sin karaktr, mste anpassas till specifika flygplatser och kan tillhandahlla prestationsfrdelar ven om de bara infrs lokalt och oberoende av andra aktrer.
33 In these two cases, we consider that the added value of EU-level coordination is limited. 
33 I de hr tv fallen anser vi att mervrdet av samordning p EU-niv r begrnsat.
The mandatory deployment of functionalities which do not require multi-stakeholder synchronisation does not address the Ňlast-mover advantageÓ and this weakens the purpose of the common project concept. 
Det obligatoriska infrandet av funktionaliteter som inte krver synkronisering av flera berrda aktrer tgrdar inte Ófrdelen med att vara sistÓ, vilket frsvagar syftet med konceptet gemensamma projekt.
EU funding was largely unnecessary 34 In this section, we assessed whether the EU funding under the PCP was used to target the beneficiaries most in need for deploying projects to modernise ATM. 
Mycket av EU-finansieringen hade inte behvts 34 I det hr avsnittet bedmer vi huruvida EU-finansieringen inom det gemensamma pilotprojektet gick till de stdmottagare som hade strst behov av att infra projekt fr modernisering av ATM.
We examined the risk of EU funding being paid to beneficiaries which did not need the funding (ŇdeadweightÓ - see Box 4). 
Vi underskte risken fr att EU-finansiering betalades till stdmottagare som inte behvde finansieringen (s kallade ddviktseffekter, se ruta 4).
We reviewed the initial case put forward for project funding by the Commission, whether this case existed in practice and the impact it had on the investment decisions of stakeholders. 
Vi gick igenom det frsta exemplet p projektfinansiering som kommissionen presenterade, kontrollerade om ngot sdant projekt existerade och hur EU-finansieringen pverkade de berrda parternas investeringsbeslut.
23 Article 4.5 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 409/2013. 
21 23 Artikel 4.5 i kommissionens genomfrandefrordning (EU) nr 409/2013.
20 The initial rationale for funding was not followed 35 EU deployment funding should be limited to that necessary for: accelerating investments in trans-European networks; enabling projects of common interest; projects with a European added value and significant societal benefits which do not receive adequate financing from the market24. 
Den ursprungliga finansieringslogiken fljdes inte 35 EU:s finansiering av infrande br begrnsas till vad som krvs fr att pskynda investeringar i transeuropeiska nt, mjliggra projekt av gemensamt intresse och genomfra projekt med europeiskt mervrde och stor samhllsnytta som inte fr tillrcklig finansiering frn marknaden24.
The Commission then concluded that Ňin order to mitigate risks related to negative business cases and to leverage private funds, it is 24 Preamble (2) and article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility. 
36 I sitt meddelande frn 2011 om styrnings-och stimulansmekanismer fr infrandet av Sesar26 ansg kommissionen att det visserligen finns ett starkt incitament fr leverantrer av flygledningstjnster att tidigt investera i ny teknik27, 24 Skl 2 och artikel 3 i Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning (EU) nr 1316/2013 om inrttande av Fonden fr ett sammanlnkat Europa.
25 Preamble (20) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 409/2013. 
25 Skl 20 i kommissionens genomfrandefrordning (EU) nr 409/2013.
26 COM(2011) 923 final. 
26 KOM(2011) 923 slutlig.
27 The performance scheme applicable to ground stakeholders establishes binding targets in various performance areas and financial penalties in some cases of non-compliance. 
27 Det prestationssystem som gller fr parter p marken anger bindande ml p olika prestationsomrden och faststller ekonomiska sanktioner vid ngra fall av bristande efterlevnad.
21 Box 4 What is deadweight in EU funding Deadweight is a risk to the sound financial management of the EU budget. 
22 Ruta 4 Detta menas med ddviktseffekter vid EU-finansiering Ddviktseffekter utgr en risk fr den sunda ekonomiska frvaltningen av EU:s budget.
It refers to the extent to which a beneficiary would have undertaken the investment even in the absence of EU financial support. 
De avser i vilken utstrckning en stdmottagare skulle ha gjort investeringen ven utan ekonomiskt std frn EU.
To award a grant in such cases is an inefficient use of the EU budget as it is not needed for the investment to be made. 
Att i sdana fall bevilja ett bidrag r att anvnda EU:s budget ineffektivt eftersom det inte behvs fr att investeringen ska gras.
The primary means of reducing the risk of deadweight is to design EU support so it is only available where there is an identified need for public intervention. 
Det bsta sttet att minska risken fr ddviktseffekter r att utforma EU:s std s att det endast r tillgngligt nr det freligger ett identifierat behov av en offentlig insats.
Public support may be needed, for example, where investments are innovative and it is difficult to raise capital; or where the financial returns do not meet the full costs of the investment, e.g. a project with mainly environmental benefits. 
Offentligt std kan till exempel behvas nr investeringar r innovativa och det r svrt att skaffa fram kapital, eller nr den ekonomiska avkastningen inte tcker den fulla kostnaden fr investeringen, till exempel i ett projekt som frmst ger miljmssiga frdelar.
The risk of deadweight can also be mitigated in the project selection process. The awarding authorities can obtain information about a beneficiaryŐs financial situation and the costs and projected benefits for the investment Đ thereby assessing whether a grant is needed for the project to be viable. 
De myndigheter som vljer ut projekt kan f information om en stdmottagares ekonomiska situation och om kostnaderna fr investeringen och de frdelar den r tnkt att ge Đ och mot den bakgrunden bedma om det behvs ett bidrag fr att projektet ska bli lnsamt.
estimated that SESAR implementation would require 3 billion euros in EU funds over the period 2014-2024Ó. 
Kommissionen drog drfr fljande slutsats: ÓFr att reducera riskerna i samband med ohllbara affrsstrategier och fr att dra nytta av privata medel, berknar man att genomfrandet av Sesar skulle krva 3 miljarder euro i EU-medel under perioden 2014Đ2024Ó.
37 This analysis of the Commission was consistent with the European ATM Master Plan in force at that time, which placed the major part of the investment requirements on airborne stakeholders (73 %). 
37 Kommissionens analys verensstmde med den europeiska ATM-generalplanen som d gllde, dr strre delen av investeringskraven lg p parter i luften (73 %).
A delay in the investments of airborne stakeholders would seriously endanger ATM modernisation. 
Om de investeringar som ska gras av parter i luften frsenas skulle det allvarligt hota ATM-moderniseringen.
38 However, this rationale of encouraging airborne stakeholders to invest was not followed in practice: (a) The PCP adopted by the Commission placed the bulk of investment requirements on ground stakeholders (close to 80 %, as presented also in paragraph 41 below), a different group of stakeholders to those for which funding needs had been identified in the European ATM Master Plan and the 2011 Communication. 
38 Logiken att uppmuntra parter i luften att investera tillmpades dock inte i praktiken: a) I det gemensamma pilotprojekt som kommissionen antog lg strre delen av investeringskraven p parter p marken (nrmare 80 %, se ven punkt 41 nedan), allts en annan grupp av berrda parter n den vars finansieringsbehov hade identifierats i den europeiska ATM-generalplanen och kommissionens meddelande frn 2011.
This was the result of the analysis of the SESAR JU of the potential technological improvements foreseen in the Master Plan: those that were actually ready for implementation and needed synchronisation turned out to be largely in the domain of ground stakeholders. (b) Despite the significant reduction of the investments for which EU funding was deemed necessary (airborne stakeholders were no longer expected to carry the major part of the investment, but only 20 %), the initially proposed financial envelope was not revised downwards and the CEF regulation earmarked the same Ű3 billion for the 2014-2020 period. 
Det var en fljd av det gemensamma Sesar-fretagets analys av de potentiella tekniska frbttringarna i generalplanen: de som faktiskt var redo att genomfras och behvde synkroniseras visade sig i stor utstrckning glla parter p marken. b) Trots den stora minskningen av de investeringar som bedmdes behva EU-finansiering (parter i luften frvntades inte lngre st fr strre delen av investeringen utan endast 20 %), minskades inte det ursprungliga frslaget till finansieringsram, och i FSE-frordningen ronmrktes samma 3 miljarder euro fr perioden 2014Đ2020.
As such, using that financial envelope in full would imply directing it to those for which the need was significantly less28. 
Om hela finansieringsramen utnyttjades skulle det innebra att anslagen gr till dem som har mycket mindre behov av finansiering28.
39 The analysis of the grants awarded during the 2014-2017 calls shows that primary recipients of EU grants were ground stakeholders, in a sharp contrast to the 2011 needs assessment (see Figure 2). 
39 Analysen av de bidrag som beviljades vid anskningsomgngarna 2014Đ2017 visar att de strsta mottagarna av EU-bidrag var parter p marken, vilket str i stark kontrast till behovsbedmningen frn 2011 (se figur 2).
28 Ground stakeholders providing air navigation services operate in a regulatory framework which allows them to recover the costs of their investment from users, through air navigation charges. 22 
28 Parter p marken som tillhandahller flygtrafiktjnster r verksamma inom ett regelverk som ger dem mjlighet att f tillbaka sina investeringskostnader frn anvndare, genom flygtrafikavgifter. 23
Figure 2 Đ Distribution of EU funds for SESAR deployment across stakeholder categories (in million euro and % of total awarded 2014-2017) 23 Airborne 10 %; Ű159 Other 2 %; Ű4 Ground 88 %; Ű1 444 Source: ECA calculation based on grants awarded 2014-2017. 
Figur 2 Đ Frdelning av EU-medel fr Sesar-infrande per kategori berrd part (i miljoner euro och procent av totalt tilldelat std 2014Đ2017) 24 I luften 10 %; Ű159 vriga 2 %; Ű4 P marken 88 %; Ű1 444 Klla: Revisionsrttens berkning p grundval av tilldelat std 2014Đ2017.
The cost benefit analysis for the PCP was flawed 40 EU regulations29 require common projects to be accompanied by a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). 
Kostnadsnyttoanalysen av det gemensamma pilotprojektet var felaktig 40 Enligt EU:s frordningar29 ska gemensamma projekt tfljas av en kostnadsnyttoanalys.
This analysis should, inter alia, identify potential positive or negative impacts for specific categories of operational stakeholders and be used to modulate any CEF financial assistance to each project. 
Analysen ska bland annat identifiera potentiella positiva eller negativa effekter fr specifika kategorier av operativa berrda parter och anvndas fr att anpassa det finansiella stdet frn FSE till varje projekt.
41 The CBA accompanying the pilot common project was prepared by the SESAR JU and included in its overall proposal. 
41 Den kostnadsnyttoanalys som tfljde det gemensamma pilotprojektet utarbetades av det gemensamma Sesar-fretaget och ingick i Sesar-fretagets vergripande frslag.
The CBA covers the 2014-2030 period and presents a positive overall net result of 29 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 409/2013 on common projects, Regulations (EU) 1315/2013 and (EU) 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Trans-European Transport Network and on the Connecting Europe Facility. 
Kostnadsnyttoanalysen omfattar perioden 2014Đ2030 och visar p ett positivt 29 Kommissionens genomfrandefrordning (EU) nr 409/2013 om gemensamma projekt, Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning (EU) nr 1315/2013 och frordning (EU) nr 1316/2013 om det transeuropeiska transportntet och Fonden fr ett sammanlnkat Europa.
Ű2.4 billion, unevenly distributed among stakeholders: airspace users are expected to be the key beneficiaries of PCP implementation despite needing to make relatively small investments (Ű0.6 billion). 
samlat nettoresultat p 2,4 miljarder euro, som frdelas ojmnt mellan de berrda parterna: luftrumsanvndare frvntas f de viktigaste frdelarna av genomfrandet av det gemensamma pilotprojektet trots att de bara behver gra relativt sm investeringar (0,6 miljarder euro).
On the other hand, ground stakeholders need to make most of the investments (Ű3 billion or 80 % of the total Ű3.8 billion estimated by the CBA) and stand to make a loss on investment. 
Parter p marken behver dremot gra de strsta investeringarna (3 miljarder euro eller 80 % av de totalt 3,8 miljarder euro som uppskattas i analysen) och riskerar att gra en frlust p sina investeringar.
The CBA also shows different contributions from the 6 functionalities (see Figure 3). 
Kostnadsnyttoanalysen visar ocks att de sex funktionaliteternas bidrag varierar (se figur 3).
Figure 3 Đ Different expected impacts of the PCP TOTAL 2.4 Source: ECA analysis based on SESAR JU, Proposal on the content of a Pilot Common Project (2013). 
Figur 3 Đ Olika frvntade effekter av det gemensamma pilotprojektet (PCP) TOTALT 2,4 Klla: Revisionsrttens analys baserat p det gemensamma Sesar-fretagets frslag om innehllet i ett gemensamt pilotprojekt (2013).
42 We analysed the CBA and found it to contain a fundamental flaw because it assumed the non-transferability of costs and benefits between stakeholders. 
42 Vi analyserade kostnadsnyttoanalysen och fann att den hade ett grundlggande fel genom att det frutsattes att kostnader och frdelar inte kan verfras mellan berrda parter.
This is not correct because ANSPs are able to recover from airspace users the costs of investments in line with the charging scheme regulation. 
Det r inte korrekt eftersom leverantrer av flygtrafiktjnster kan f tillbaka investeringskostnader frn luftrummets anvndare i enlighet med frordningen om avgiftssystem.
25 to charge users for such investments, particularly if they are consistent with the ATM Master Plan and implemented through common projects such as the PCP30. 
Enligt frordningen fr leverantrer av flygtrafiktjnster debitera anvndare fr sdana investeringar, i synnerhet om investeringarna verensstmmer med generalplanen fr flygledningstjnsten och genomfrs med hjlp av gemensamma projekt ssom det gemensamma pilotprojektet30.
43 The omission to include the revenue generated by ANSPs through the charging scheme leads to a negative business case for them (of Ű440 million as shown in Figure 3 above) which is not in line with reality31. 
43 Eftersom flygtrafiktjnstleverantrernas inkomster frn avgiftssystemet inte beaktas blir deras nyttokalkyl negativ (med 440 miljoner euro, se figur 3 ovan), vilket inte verensstmmer med verkligheten31.
Conversely, as airspace users will have to pay for those same investments, their estimated benefit is overstated. 
Omvnt verskattas luftrumsanvndarnas frdel eftersom deras kostnader fr samma investeringar inte beaktas.
A similar conclusion is drawn for the remainder of ground stakeholders, even if the transmission mechanisms differ. 
En liknande slutsats kan dras om de resterande berrda parterna p marken, ven om mekanismen fr att verfra kostnader r annorlunda.
Such a situation adversely affects the use that can be made of the CBA, both in terms of guiding the investment decisions of stakeholders and in assessing the need and added value of EU funding to support them. 
Denna situation inverkar negativt p hur kostnadsnyttoanalysen kan anvndas, bde nr det gller att vgleda de berrda parternas investeringsbeslut och att bedma behovet och mervrdet av EU-finansiering fr att stdja dem.
A majority of the projects audited did not need EU funding 44 We examined whether the EU funding succeeded in aligning the behaviour of stakeholders with the intentions of the EU policy on modernising ATM. 
Merparten av de granskade projekten behvde inte EU-finansiering 44 Vi underskte om EU-finansieringen lyckades f de berrda parterna att agera i enlighet med EU:s politik fr moderniseringen av ATM.
Notably, it should trigger investment decisions in line with the ATM Master Plan and in particular the Pilot Common Project. 
Politiken ska framfr allt ge upphov till investeringsbeslut som verensstmmer med ATM-generalplanen och srskilt med det gemensamma pilotprojektet.
45 Our analysis shows that the majority of the audited stakeholderŐs investment decisions were not driven nor triggered by EU funding, confirming the presence of deadweight. 
45 Vr analys visar att merparten av de granskade berrda parternas investeringsbeslut inte styrdes eller franleddes av EU-finansiering, vilket bekrftar frekomsten av ddviktseffekter.
Nine out of 14 sampled projects associated with the PCP had been decided upon or even launched in advance of the regulation. 
Nio av de 14 projekten i urvalet som hrde till det gemensamma pilotprojektet hade beslutats eller inletts innan frordningen antogs.
In addition, 13 out of the total of 17 projects sampled by the audit were decided prior to the decision that awarded the co-funding. 
Dessutom var 13 av de totalt 17 projekten i revisionsurvalet beslutade innan beslutet 30 Artiklarna 6.3 och 6.4 i kommissionens genomfrandefrordning (EU) nr 391/2013.
We note also that the text of the 2014 CEF call explicitly prioritises applications related to investments that had already started. 
Vi noterar ocks att man i 2014 rs anskningsomgng fr FSE uttryckligen prioriterade anskningar som gllde investeringar som redan hade startat.
46 In all sampled projects executed by ANSPs (total Ű159 million EU funding awarded) the same investments had been included in their respective performance plans and thereafter charged to airspace users32. 
46 I alla projekt i urvalet som genomfrdes av flygtrafiktjnstleverantrer (totalt 159 miljoner euro i tilldelad EU-finansiering) hade samma investeringar tagits med i deras respektive prestationsplaner och drefter debiterats luftrummets anvndare32.
potential double funding as although ANSPs fully recover the costs of their investments from airspace users through the agreed navigation charges, they then receive an EU grant which adds to their revenue and further compensates them for the same investment. 
Detta leder till en situation med potentiell dubbelfinansiering eftersom flygtrafiktjnstleverantrerna fr tillbaka hela sin investeringskostnad frn luftrummets anvndare genom de verenskomna flygtrafikavgifterna och sedan fr ett EU-bidrag som lggs till deras inkomster och en gng till kompenserar dem fr samma investering.
47 The charging scheme seeks to mitigate such elements of double funding by requiring ANSPs to deduct the subsidy from the navigation charges applicable to airspace users. 
47 Syftet med avgiftssystemet r att motverka denna typ av dubbelfinansiering genom kravet p att flygtrafiktjnstleverantrerna ska dra av bidraget frn de flygtrafikavgifter som debiteras luftrummets anvndare.
However, deductions are not yet being consistently applied across ANSPs: within the five sampled by the audit, only one is gradually deducting the subsidy. 
Alla flygtrafiktjnstleverantrer gr dock nnu inte alltid dessa avdrag: av de fem i granskningsurvalet drar endast en stegvis av bidraget.
To add to that benefit financial compensation in the form of reduced navigation charges paid for by the EU budget is unjustified, especially as this is done irrespective of the level of compliance of airspace users with the requirements of the PCP. 
Att luftrummets anvndare drutver fr ekonomisk kompensation i form av lgre flygtrafikavgifter som betalas av EU:s budget r omotiverat, i synnerhet som detta sker oberoende av i vilken utstrckning de uppfyller det gemensamma pilotprojektets krav.
Weaknesses in implementation further reduce the effectiveness of EU funding 49 In this section, we assessed whether EU funding was managed in a way that ensures the adequate use of EU resources. 
Brister i genomfrandet minskar ytterligare EU-finansieringens ndamlsenlighet 49 I det hr avsnittet bedmer vi om EU-finansieringen frvaltades p ett stt som skerstller att EU:s resurser anvnds p lmpligt stt.
We assessed whether the calls for proposals set clear priorities, whether applications were grouped to best coordinate investments and whether the process was free from potential conflict of interest. 
Vi bedmde om anskningsomgngarna hade tydliga prioriteringar, om anskningarna grupperades s att investeringar samordnades p bsta stt och om processen var fri frn potentiella intressekonflikter.