natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although the term ‘comple-mentarity’ was mentioned in Member States’ RDPs and during high-level meetings, it was often misused to refer to demarcation and the rules aimed at avoiding double funding. 
Trots att ordet ÓkomplementaritetÓ nmndes i medlemsstaternas landsbygdsprogram och vid hgnivmten anvndes det ofta missvisande som hnvisning till avgrnsning och de regler som syftade till att undvika dubbelfinansiering.
34 Complementarity could have been encouraged by, for example, using different funds to prioritise successive projects that build upon each other or parallel projects that complement each other in order to achieve additional benefits. 
34 Komplementaritet kunde ha uppmuntrats t.ex. genom att olika medel anvndes fr att prioritera flera projekt i fljd som bygger p varandra eller parallella projekt som kompletterar varandra s att ytterligare vinster uppns.
The audit only identified one mechanism aimed at promoting complementarity in the Member States audited: in Romania, selection criteria used under measure 322 prioritised sewerage infrastructure projects that complemented projects supported under the Cohesion Fund with the aim to achieve the objectives of the waste water directive. 
Vid revisionen identifierade vi bara en mekanism som syftade till att frmja komplementaritet i de granskade medlemsstaterna: i Rumnien prioriterade urvalskriterierna inom tgrd 322 avloppsinfrastrukturprojekt som kompletterade projekt som fick std inom Sammanhllningsfonden fr att mlen i direktivet om rening av avloppsvatten skulle uppns.
35 The common approach taken by Member States was to leave it up to the potential beneficiaries to coordinate their use of the different funds (see Box 5). 
35 Medlemsstaternas gemensamma metod gick ut p att lta de potentiella stdmottagarna samordna sin anvndning av olika medel (se ruta 5).
An example of the alternate use of funds based on availability Germany (Saxony) A commune in Germany (Saxony) used several funds (national, own funds and RDP funds) to support the consecutive stages of a school renovation project from 2009 to 2011. 
Ett exempel p ett annat stt att anvnda medel utifrn tillgnglighet Tyskland (Sachsen) En kommun i Tyskland (Sachsen) anvnde olika medel (nationella medel, egna medel och landsbygdsutveck-lingsmedel) till att stdja flera stadier i rad i ett skolrenoveringsprojekt frn 2009Đ2011.
The RDP funds were used for the same type of investment as the national funds, e.g. the replacement of school windows. 
Landsbygdsutveck-lingsmedlen anvndes till samma typ av investering som de nationella medlen, t.ex. till att byta ut fnster i skolan.
This does not represent complementarity, but rather the practice of switching between different funds, depending on their availability. 
Detta r inte komplementaritet utan snarare ett stt att vxla mellan olika medel beroende p deras tillgnglighet.
Box 5 Observations 22 36 The audit identified two cases where the lack of complementarity with national and local funds jeopardised the efficiency and effectiveness of the EAFRD projects (see Box 6). 
Rutas 5 Iakttagelser 22 36 Vid revisionen hittade vi tv fall dr bristen p komplementaritet med nationella och lokala medel gjorde Ejflu-projekten mindre effektiva och ndamlsenliga (se ruta 6).
Examples of a lack of complementarity between funds Romania In a commune that had received RDP support for building a network of roads, the main road leading to these financed roads was in very poor condition. 
Exempel p nr det inte finns ngon komplementaritet mellan medlen Rumnien I en kommun som hade ftt landsbygdsutvecklingsstd fr att uppfra ett vgnt var den huvudvg som ledde till de finansierade vgarna i mycket dligt skick.
The main road was supposed to be upgraded with local funds, but never received the approved funding. 
Det var meningen att huvudvgen skulle uppgraderas med hjlp av lokala medel, men den fick aldrig den godknda finansieringen.
Source: www.geoportal.gov.ro Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Klla: www.geoportal.gov.ro Klla: Revisionsrtten.
Italy (Sicily) One of the audited projects involved building a new road as an alternative to an existing communal road that had become unusable through lack of maintenance. 
Italien (Sicilien) Ett av de granskade projekten gllde anlggning av en ny vg som ett alternativ till en befintlig kommunal vg som hade blivit obrukbar p grund av bristande underhll.
The road had fallen into disrepair because communal roads were not eligible for RDP support and the region’s own budget for road maintenance had been cancelled (see Box 2). 
Vgen hade frfallit p grund av att de kommunala vgarna inte hade rtt till landsbygdsutvecklingsstd och att regionens egen budget fr vgunderhll hade dragits tillbaka (se ruta 2).
Building a new road rather than regularly maintaining an existing one is clearly inefficient13 and reveals a gap between the funds, which do not complement each other. 
Att anlgga en ny vg i stllet fr att regelbundet underhlla en befintlig vg r helt klart ineffektivt13 och visar p en lucka mellan medlen, som inte kompletterar varandra.
13 Recent studies and reports on this topic include the following: Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, ‘Repair priorities: transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads’, 2011; McKinsey Global Institute, ‘Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year’, 2013; European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, ‘EU road surfaces: economic and safety impact of the lack of regular road maintenance’, 2014. 
Repair Priorities: Transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads (upprustningsprioriteringar Đ utgiftsstrategier fr transport fr att spara skattebetalarnas dollar och frbttra vgar), Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, 2011, Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year (infrastrukturproduktivitet: hur man sparar en biljon dollar om ret); McKinsey Global Institute, 2013 och EU Road Surfaces: Economic and Safety Impact of the Lack of Regular Road Maintenance (EU:s vgbelggningar: ekonomisk och skerhetsmssig effekt av bristen p regelbundet vgunderhll), Europaparlamentets generaldirektorat fr unionens inre politik, 2014.
Roads financed by measure 322 Road section approved for financing from national funds Box 6 
Vgar som finansieras av tgrd 322 Vgavsnitt som godknns fr finansiering via nationella medel Ruta 6
Observations 23 The Commission focused on improving coordination in the 2014-2020 programming period in order to address the weaknesses of the past 37 Responsibility for justifying the need for RDP intervention and ensuring good coordination between funds lies mainly with the Member States. 
Iakttagelser 23 Kommissionen inriktade sig p att frbttra samordningen under programperioden 2014Đ2020 fr att tgrda tidigare brister 37 Ansvaret fr att motivera behovet av landsbygdsutvecklingsstd och garantera god samordning av medlen ligger frmst hos medlemsstaterna.
However, the Commission has the power to influence these processes at the programme approval stage, when it reviews the needs analysis and the demarcation and complementarity principles set out by the Member States. 
Kommissionen har dock befogenhet att pverka processen p det stadium d programmen godknns, nr den gr igenom behovsanalysen och de principer om avgrnsning och komplementaritet som medlemsstaterna har faststllt.
The Commission can also intervene indirectly during the implementation of the programmes, by issuing guidance, promoting good practice and participating in monitoring committee meetings, where it has an advisory role14. 
Kommissionen kan ocks ingripa indirekt under programgenomfrandet genom att ge ut vgledning, frmja god praxis och delta i vervakningskommittns mten dr den har en rdgivande roll14.
38 In the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission approved the RDPs submitted by the Member States, even though they lacked a clear justification and quantification of the need for using the EAFRD for infrastructure investments. 
38 Under programperioden 2007Đ2013 godknde kommissionen de landsbygdsprogram som lmnats in av medlemsstaterna trots att de saknade tydlig motivering och kvantifiering av behovet av att anvnda Ejflu till infrastrukturinvesteringar.
The Commission generally insisted that the audited measures had to be better targeted, that demarcation criteria be set, that cross-checks be performed to avoid double funding and that coordination bodies be set up. 
Kommissionen brukade bestmt hvda att de granskade tgrdarena mste vara bttre riktade, att avgrnsningskriterier mste faststllas, att korskontroller mste genomfras fr att undvika dubbelfinansiering och att samordningsorgan mste inrttas.
However, it accepted overlaps of funds for the same types of intervention (see paragraphs 31 and 32) and issued no guidance to Member States on how to achieve better complementarity. 
Men dremot godtog den verlappningar av medel fr samma typer av intervention (se punkterna 31 och 32) och gav inte ngon vgledning till medlemsstaterna om hur de skulle f bttre komplementaritet.
39 In the 2014-2020 programming period, improving coordination and ensuring consistent implementation of the various funds were among the main goals behind drafting a single set of rules covering the EU’s five Structural and Investment Funds. 
39 Infr programperioden 2014Đ2020 var huvudsyftet med att en enda uppsttning regler utarbetades fr EU:s fem struktur-och investeringsfonder bl.a. att frbttra samordningen och garantera enhetlig tillmpning av de olika fonderna.
The new approach focuses less on demarcation and more on complementarity. 
Den nya metoden r mindre inriktad p avgrnsning och mer p komplementaritet.
A positive element for rural infrastructure is the fact that the measure ‘basic services and village renewal’ can now also offer support to the development plans for municipalities and villages, thus encouraging them to carry out investments in a coherent way. 
Ett positivt inslag nr det gller landsbygdsutveckling r att tgrden Ógrundlggande tjnster fr ekonomin och befolkningen p landsbygdenÓ nu ven kan erbjuda std till utvecklingsplaner fr kommuner och byar och p s stt uppmuntra dem att gra investeringar p ett samstmt stt.
40 The Court reviewed the checklist used by the Commission to ensure the consistency of the 2014-2020 RDPs. 
40 Vi granskade den checklista som kommissionen anvnde fr att garantera enhetlighet i landsbygdsprogrammen fr 2014Đ2020.
The checklist included points that refer to the complementarity of the EU’s Structural and Investment Funds in the areas of local roads, irrigation and water treatment; however, it did not include any checks on the risk of substitution of funds. 
I checklistan fanns punkter som avser komplementariteten i EU:s struktur-och investeringsfonder p omrdena lokala vgar och bevattning och vattenrening, men det ingick inga kontroller av risken fr att medel ersattes med varandra.
14 Article 77(2) and Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 state that ‘At their own initiative, Commission representatives may participate in the work of the Monitoring Committee in an advisory capacity’, and that ‘The Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the implementation of the rural development programme’. 
14 I artikel 77.2 och artikel 78 i rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 anges fljande: ÓP eget initiativ kan fretrdarna fr kommissionen delta i kommittns arbete som rdgivareÓ och Ó vervakningskommittn skall frskra sig om att landsbygdsutvecklingsprogrammet genomfrs p ett effektivt sttÓ.
This is done by considering and revising selection criteria, monitoring progress toward objectives, the achievement of targets, etc. 
Det grs genom att man vervger och reviderar urvalskriterierna, vervakar framsteg mot mlen och uppfyllelsen av delmlen m.m.
Observations 24 41 As highlighted in the Court’s 2014 annual report15, partnership agreements, as the key mechanism for coordinating EU funds, have provided little evidence that the aims of complementarity and synergy are being put into practice by Member States. 
Iakttagelser 24 41 Som vi lyfte fram i vr rsrapport fr 201415 r det inte mycket som visar att partnerskapsavtal, som en central mekanism fr att samordna EU-fonder, leder till att medlemsstaterna frverkligar mlsttningarna om komplementaritet och synergieffekter i praktiken.
Furthermore, despite the Commission’s checks, the 2014-2020 RDPs for Germany (Saxony), Poland and Romania16 still do not provide a description of the mechanisms to be used to promote complementarity and synergies between the different sources of funding. 
Trots kommissionens kontroller innehller landsbygdsprogrammen fr 2014Đ2020 fr Tyskland (Sachsen), Polen och Rumnien16 fortfarande ingen beskrivning av de mekanismer som ska anvndas fr att frmja komplementaritet och synergier mellan de olika finansieringskllorna.
The focus of the programmes remains on demarcation and avoiding double funding. Part II — Limited value for money in the implementation of the measures audited 42 In order to achieve value for money17, Member States should: — apply selection methods that prioritise the most cost-effective projects, i.e. the projects with the potential to make the greatest contribution towards the RDP objectives per unit of cost; — ensure that costs are reasonable before approving grant applications and payment claims; — ensure, before approving grant applications, that applicants have been able to show that their projects are likely to be sustainable; — ensure that the administrative procedures allow projects to be implemented within a reasonable time frame. 
Del II Đ begrnsad valuta fr pengarna i genomfrandet av de granskade tgrderna 42 Fr att f valuta fr pengarna17 br medlemsstaterna Ń tillmpa urvalsmetoder som prioriterar de kostnadseffektivaste projekten, det vill sga de projekt som har potential att bidra mest till mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet per kostnadsenhet, Ń frskra sig om att kostnaderna r rimliga innan de godknner bidragsanskningar och betalningsanskningar, Ń innan de godknner bidragsanskningar frskra sig om att de skande har kunnat visa att deras projekt sannolikt blir hllbara, Ń se till att de administrativa frfarandena gr att projekten kan genomfras inom en rimlig tidsram.
The Commission, through its guidance and audit activities, should ensure that Member States observe the principles of sound financial management (economy, efficiency and effectiveness). 
Genom sin vgledning och sin revisionsverksamhet ska kommissionen se till att medlemsstaterna fljer principerna fr sund ekonomisk frvaltning (sparsamhet, effektivitet och ndamlsenlighet).
Selection procedures did not always direct funding towards the most cost-effective projects 43 To ensure that funding is directed towards the RDP objectives, Member States must set out the conditions for eligibility — which identify, for example, the types of investments supported, the categories of beneficiaries that can apply for a grant and the nature of the support. 
Urvalsfrfarandena ledde inte alltid till att finansieringen riktades till de kostnadseffektivaste projekten 43 Fr att kunna garantera att finansieringen riktas till mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet mste medlemsstaterna faststlla stdvillkor Đ som t.ex. identifierar de typer av investeringar som fr std, kategorier av stdmottagare som kan anska om ett bidrag och stdets karaktr.
The Court found that the eligibility criteria set by the audited Member States were generally clear and objective. 
Vi konstaterade att de granskade medlemsstaternas stdkriterier i regel var tydliga och objektiva.
However, a specific case was identified in Italy (Sicily) where an eligibility criterion applicable to rural road projects supported under measure 125 was not in line with the needs described in the RDP (see Box 7). 
Men ett srskilt fall ptrffades i Italien (Sicilien) dr ett stdkriterium som gllde fr landsvgsprojekt som fick std inom tgrd 125 inte verensstmde med de behov som beskrevs i landsbygdsprogrammet (se ruta 7).
15 The findings presented in the annual report are based on a sample of five partnership agreements: those of Germany, France, Latvia, Poland and Portugal. 
15 Granskningsresultaten i rsrapporten bygger p ett urval av fem partnerskapsavtal: de i Tyskland, Frankrike, Lettland, Polen och Portugal.
16 The 2014-2020 RDPs for the remaining two regions audited (Spain (Extremadura) and Italy (Sicily)) have not been reviewed because they had not yet been approved by the date of the audit. 
16 Landsbygdsutvecklingsprogrammen fr 2014Đ2020 fr de terstende tv granskade regionerna (Spanien (Extremadura) och Italien (Sicilien)) har inte granskats eftersom de inte hade godknts nr revisionen genomfrdes.
17 In accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness set out in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. 
17 I enlighet med principerna fr sparsamhet, effektivitet och ndamlsenlighet i artikel 30.2 i frordning (EU, Euratom) nr 966/2012.
Observations 25 An eligibility criterion inconsistent with the RDP objectives and needs of rural areas Italy (Sicily) Although the RDP indicates that projects supported under measure 125 should favour the rehabilitation of existing farm roads, the eligibility criteria set in the call for proposals required that a maximum of 40 % of the eligible project costs was spent on rehabilitation, while the remaining 60 % had to be spent on building new roads. 
Iakttagelser 25 Ett stdkriterium stmde inte verens med mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet och landsbygdsomrdenas behov Italien (Sicilien) Trots att man angav i landsbygdsprogrammet att projekt som fr std inom tgrd 125 ska gynna upprustning av befintliga traktorvgar, krvdes det enligt stdkriteriet i anbudsinfordran att hgst 40 % av de stdberttigande projektkostnaderna skulle anvndas till upprustning medan de terstende 60 % skulle anvndas till att bygga nya vgar.
This requirement resulted in the financing of some projects which did not match the needs of the rural areas as identified in the RDP. 
Kravet ledde till att en del projekt finansierades som inte motsvarade landsbygdsomrdenas behov ssom de beskrevs i landsbygdsprogrammet.
For example, in one of the audited projects, the initial section of the existing access road was in bad condition and would have warranted rehabilitation, yet it was not included in the project to keep the costs for rehabilitation under 40 % of the eligible project costs. On the other hand, around one third of the length of the newly built road served only two out of the 31 farms included in the association which implemented the project, i.e. only 5.5 % of the total agricultural land owned by the association. 
I ett av de granskade projekten t.ex. var den frsta strckan p en befintlig tillfartsvg i dligt skick och borde ha upprustats; nd ingick inte strckan i projektet fr att upprustningskostnaderna inte skulle verstiga 40 % av de stdberttigande projektkostnaderna.  andra sidan var det bara tv av de 31 grdar som ingick i den frening som genomfrde projektet som anvnde ungefr en tredjedel av strckan p den nybyggda vgen, det vill sga endast 5,5 % av den totala jordbruksmark som freningen gde.
44 Whereas eligibility criteria should exclude projects that do not address the RDP objectives, selection criteria should enable the relative merits of project proposals to be evaluated on an objective and transparent basis, so that Member States spend the available budget on those projects that contribute most to the objectives. 
44 Medan stdkriterierna ska utesluta projekt som inte r inriktade p mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet ska urvalskriterierna gra att projektfrslagens relativa frtjnster kan utvrderas p en objektiv grund som medger insyn s att medlemsstaterna anvnder den tillgngliga budgeten till de projekt som bidrar mest till mlen.
For instance, all else being equal, if one water infrastructure project connects more users than another project, or generates higher water savings, it should be prioritised, if this is in line with the Member State’s strategy for developing infrastructure. 
Om ett vatteninfrastrukturprojekt t.ex. ansluter fler anvndare n ett annat projekt eller genererar strre vattenbesparingar, om projekten i vrigt r likvrdiga, ska det prioriteras om det stmmer verens med medlemsstatens strategi fr att utveckla infrastruktur.
Effectively applying selection criteria is a requirement of the relevant EU legislation18. 
Att urvalskriterierna tillmpas i praktiken r ett krav i den aktuella EU-lagstiftning-en18.
Therefore, even in cases when the budget is sufficient to approve all eligible projects at a given time, Member States should set a minimum score (a threshold) that projects would have to reach in order to be selected. 
Det betyder att ven i de fall d budgeten rcker fr att godknna alla stdberttigande projekt vid en bestmd tidpunkt ska medlemsstaterna faststlla en minimipong (ett trskel-vrde) som projekten mste uppn fr att kunna bli utvalda.
18 Article 71(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that: ‘Expenditure shall be eligible for EAFRD contribution only where incurred for operations decided on by the Managing Authority of the programme in question or under its responsibility, in accordance with the selection criteria fixed by the competent body.’ Box 7 
18 I artikel 71.2 i frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 anges fljande: ÓUtgifter kan endast berttiga till std frn EJFLU om de avser sdana insatser som beslutats av programmets frvaltningsmyndighet, eller under dess ansvar, i enlighet med det behriga organets urvalskriterier.Ó Ruta 7
45 The Member States audited either did not set selection criteria or, if they did do so, the criteria set did not always lead to actual prioritisation of projects in relation to the RDP objectives. 
45 I de granskade medlemsstaterna faststllde man antingen inga urvalskriterier eller om man gjorde det s ledde de inte alltid till att projekten faktiskt prioriterades i frhllande till mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet.
This happened in cases where the budget programmed for the measures was sufficient to support all eligible project applications and where the selection criteria were not relevant for the RDP objectives. 
S var det i de fall dr den planerade budgeten fr tgrderna var tillrcklig fr att bevilja std till alla stdberttigande projektanskningar och dr urvalskriterierna inte var relevanta fr mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet.
46 In Germany (Saxony) and Spain (Extremadura), the project selection process was insufficiently documented, not based on specific selection criteria and did not produce a ranking of projects (see Box 8). 
46 I Tyskland (Sachsen) och Spanien (Extremadura) dokumenterades inte projekturvalsprocessen tillrckligt, den byggde inte p srskilda urvalskriterier och ledde inte till att projekten rangordnades (se ruta 8).
Observations 27 Examples of non-transparent and unverifiable project selection procedures hindering the selection of the most cost-effective projects Spain (Extremadura) Projects representing 73 % (i.e. 49 out of 67 million euro) of the funds spent under infrastructure measures 125 and 323 were managed directly by the regional administration. 
Iakttagelser 27 Exempel p urvalsfrfaranden som inte medger ngon insyn och inte kan kontrolleras och motverkar att de kostnadseffektivaste projekten vljs ut Spanien (Extremadura) Projekt motsvarande 73 % (dvs. 49 av 67 miljoner euro) av de medel som anvndes inom infrastrukturtgrderna 125 och 323 frvaltades direkt av den regionala frvaltningen.
The managing authority collected project proposals (prepared on its own initiative or following the informal requests of municipalities) and subsequently approved projects in a non-transparent and unverifiable way. 
Frvaltningsmyndigheten tog in projektfrslag (som utarbetats p eget initiativ eller efter informella frfrgningar frn kommuner) och godknde sedan projekt p ett stt som inte medgav ngon insyn och som inte gick att kontrollera.