natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We agree with the Court that the delays it highlights in the adoption of the programmes submitted in 1994 can be attributed in part to the unwieldy procedure for selecting the eligible areas and the detailed and substantial negotiations between the Commission and the Member States. 
Man kan hlla med revisionsrtten om att en del av frseningarna vid godknnandet av de under 1994 inlmnade programmen kan frklaras med det tungrodda urvalsfrfarandet fr mottagaromrdena samt med de omfattande och ingende frhandlingarna mellan kommissionen och medlemsstaterna.
The delays are also due to the major revision work required on a number of programmes to reach a satisfactory level of quality, since this was the first time that the local authorities had been called upon to play a key role in programming. 
De beror ocks p att Urban oftast innebr att de lokala myndigheterna fr frsta gngen mste spela en viktig roll i programarbetet, vilket gjort att man i mnga fall tvingats gra betydande ndringar i programmen fr att uppn en tillfredsstllande kvalitet.
In any event, the practice is now to resolve the selection problems before the programmes are submitted for approval (see the comments on points 11 to 16 above) and this problem is not expected to recur under URBAN II. 
Olgenheterna i samband med valet av mottagaromrden r hur som helst nu undanrjda redan innan programmen lmnas in (se kommentarerna ovan till punkterna 11Đ16). De kommer inte att terkomma under Urban II.
(See point 61.) 
(Se punkt 61.)
The Commission agrees that the four-month period allowed for drawing up the first generation of URBAN programmes in 1994 proved in some cases to be too short. 
Kommissionen hller med om att frberedelsetiden p fyra mnader fr att frbereda den frsta generationen Urban-program 1994 i vissa fall visade sig vara kort.
It also agrees with the Court that the situation improved for the programmes that started after 1996. 
Kommissionen delar revisionsrttens sikt att situationen frbttrades fr de efter 1996 inleddda programmen.
The submission period for the 2000 to 2006 URBAN programmes has been extended to six months. 
Frberedelsetiden fr Urban-programmen fr perioden 2000Đ2006 frlngdes till sex mnader.
This cannot be solved satisfactorily in the short term. 
P detta problem finns p kort sikt inte ngon tillfredsstllande lsning.
However, the Commission accepts the CourtŐs suggestion (in point 71 of the draft report) that it continue the efforts launched by the Urban Audit to improve information and statistical data at local level. 
Kommissionen accepterar dock revisionsrttens frslag (punkt 71 i rapportfrslaget) om att fortstta det projekt som inletts fr fr att f bttre kunskaper och statistiska data om lokala frhllanden, nmligen kartlggningen av situationen i stderna genom projektet Urban Audit.
Responsibility for proposing operational programmes lay with the Member States, (1) as did the choice between having separate programmes by area or a single national programme. 
Det r medlemsstaterna som skall fresl operativa program (1), och de skall d ocks vlja srskilda program fr olika omrden eller ett enda program fr hela landet.
1 ( ) See point 20 of the guidelines. 
1 ( ) Se punkt 20 i riktlinjerna.
In some cases, the Commission felt it appropriate to go along with the management procedures normally used for Structural Fund programmes in a particular Member State. 
Kommissionen har i vissa fall funnit det lmpligt att anpassa sig till den i respektive medlemsstat etablerade frvaltningen av strukturfonderna.
The Court considers that the two approaches used (single national programme or individual programme for each city) sometimes caused delays in programme adoption and inefficient programme management. 
Det faktum att det finns tv frfaranden (program fr hela landet respektive per stad) anser revisionsrtten ibland har frorsakat frseningar i godknnandet av programmen och att de frvaltats ineffektivt.
In this connection, it cites the example of national programmes, where, since a single statement of expenditure is made for the entire programme, a delay on the part of justonecityisenoughtopenalisealltheothers.Inthelightofits experience with URBAN I, the Commission shares this view and has sought to rectify the problem in URBAN II, the guidelines for which state that Ôeach programme shall target an urban area and mustbedrawnupbythelocalauthoritiesresponsibleforthat areaŐ. 
Revisionsrtten nmner hr exempel p nationella program dr det rckt med att en stad varit frsenad fr att ocks frsena alla vriga, eftersom utgiftsdeklarationerna varit gemensamma. Vad gller erfarenheterna frn Urban I delar kommissionen denna sikt och sker undvika problemet i samband med Urban II, dr det i riktlinjerna sgs att ÓVarje program skall inriktas p ett stadsomrde och utarbetas av dess lokala myndig-heterÓ.
Ontheotherhand,oncethenegotiationstagebegins,theCom-mission will seek to make the process as simple and efficient as possible, by taking advantage of the Ôsmoother coordination of measures and [an] improve[d]... exchange of valuable informationŐ, the clearest signs of which seem to be in the national programmes. 
Under frhandlingsfasen kommer kommissionen dremot att utnyttja alla mjligheter till frenkling och kad effektivitet genom Óen frbttrad samordning av insatserna och ett bttre utbyte av ndvndig informationÓ. Att detta r mjligt har faktiskt de nationella programmen visat.
For example, where possible all the monitoring committees will sit in parallel, a single paying agency will be appointed and the control system will be standardised. 
Till exempel kommer man att s ofta det gr omorganisera vervakningskommitterna s att de arbetar parallellt, utse ett enda utbetalningsstlle och harmonisera kontrollsystemet.
These include Actions 1 (2), 8 (3) and 18 (4), which were given particular priority in the new guidelines for Structural Fund programmes in 2000 to 2006 adopted by the Commission (COM(99) 344 final of 1 July 1999). 
Srskild vikt lades p tgrderna 1 (2), 8 (3), 18 (4) nr kommissionen antog sina nya riktlinjer fr strukturfondernas programplanering fr perioden 2000Đ2006 (KOM(1999) 344 slutlig av den 1 juli 1999).
It encourages regional plans and operational programmes to include reference to the specific development problems, opportunities and objectives presented by the main urban areas in each region. 
I planeringen uppmanas till att man i regionala planer och operativa program srskilt skall lyfta fram de viktigare regionala stadsomrdenas utvecklingsproblem, potential och ml.
These documents should include specific measures to develop the urban areas in question. Action 8, ÔStructural Fund support for area-based action for urban regenerationŐ, is concerned with the economic and social regeneration of areas experiencing structural problems, especially urban areas. 
Man skall i dessa planer ta fram ett samordnat tgrdspaket fr de aktuella stads-3 omrdena. () tgrd 8 ÓStd genom strukturfonderna till omrdesbaserade tgrder fr stadsfrnyelseÓ avser ekonomisk och social frnyelse av omrden med strukturella problem, srskilt stadsomrden.
In addition to the areas of this type that fall under Objective 1 and, as industrial areas, under Objective 2, the general Structural Fund Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999) makes provision for identifying deprived urban areas for which an integrated spatial approach like that employed under the URBAN initiative is particularly relevant. Action 18, ÔEU Structural Fund support for protecting and improving the urban environmentŐ, underlines the importance of environmental sustainability in urban development. 
I strukturfondernas grundfrordning (EG) nr 1260/1999 medges att industriomrden under ml 1 och 2 kan kompletteras med stadsomrden och att man ocks kan ta med missgynnade stadsomrden dr 4 en integrerad metod av typ Urban r srskilt lmplig. () tgrd 18: ÓStd genom EU:s strukturfonder fr att skydda och frbttra miljn i stdernaÓ framhller vikten av hllbar milj fr alla stadsutvecklingstgrder.
25.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 124/21 As acknowledged by the Court in point 71 of its report, the Urban Audit, which was mentioned in Action 23 of the framework for action, is an example of the CommissionŐs efforts to improve the qualityofitscomparativedataonurbanareas.Itwillbecontin-ued in collaboration with Eurostat. 
25.4.2001 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 124/21 Som revisionsrtten mycket riktigt understryker i punkt 71 i sin rapport (och som nmns i handlingsprogrammets insats 23) r projektet Urban Audit ett exempel p kommissionens anstrngningar att hja kvaliteten p jmfrbar information om frhllandena i stderna. Projektsamarbetet med Eurostat kommer hr att fortstta.
The Commission is aware of this problem and has, therefore arranged for all expenditure on urban renewal (i.e. spending on urban transport networks and investment in urban regeneration) made under the new Structural Fund programmes and URBAN II to be identified in the expenditure codification system. 
Kommissionen r medveten om denna svrighet och har i de nya strukturfondsprogrammen, inbegripet det nya initiativet Urban II, drfr bestmt att systemet fr utgiftskontering skall avspegla vilka utgifter som avser stadsfrnyelse, t.ex. transporter och investeringar i upprustning.
In accordance with the Regulation, the Commission intends to evaluate the Objective 1 and 2 programmes to determine the longer-term impact of Structural Fund operations. 
I enlighet med frordningen avser kommissionen att utvrdera ml 1-och ml 2-programmen fr att bedma de lngsiktiga effekterna av strukturfondsinsatserna.
These evaluations will not be completed before the end of 2003. 
Detta betyder att utvrderingarna inte kommer att avslutas fre utgngen av 2003.
With regard to the financial significance of the assistance granted under URBAN, it should be noted that: Ń URBAN I had the catalysing effect it was planned to have, mobilising considerable investment in the target areas to the total amount of EUR 560 per capita on average (meaning that the Community contribution was matched by counterpart financing from national public and private sources), Ń while it is true that the EUR 280 per head of population sourced through URBAN is a small amount compared to the EUR 1 000 per capita granted in the 66 cities covered by Objective1,itshouldnotbeforgottenthatinthe33Objec-tive 2 cities this amount approaches the levels of funding granted under the CSFs and SPDs and, for cities not covered by Objectives 1 or 2, was the only urban regeneration support provided by the Structural Funds. 
Betrffande Urban-insatsernas ekonomiska betydelse br fljande nmnas: Ń Urban I har fungerat som den frvntade katalysatorn d programmet slussat betydande medel till mlomrdena, dr de totala investeringarna uppgr till i genomsnitt 560 euro per capita (vilket innebr att samfinansieringen frn nationellt och privat hll har varit i samma storleksordning som gemen-skapsbidraget). Ń Visserligen r Urbans genomsnittliga anslag p 280 euro per capita blygsamt i jmfrelse med de 1 000 euro som beviljats 66 stder under ml 1, men det r ocks s att fr 33 stder under ml 2 r detta belopp lika stort som vad som beviljats genom stdramar/samlade programdokument.
It should be pointed out that URBAN was not conceived simply to provide top-up funding to Objectives 1 and 2. 
Det br framhllas att frmsta syftet med Urban inte kan reduceras till en summa pengar som kompletterar anslagen inom programplaneringen fr strukturfondernas ml 1 och 2.
Its real added value lies in basing urban regeneration on the creation of neighbourhood partnership networks and the involvement of local residents. 
Dess srskilda vrde ligger i att lokala partnerskap och invnarnas deltagande drigenom grs till det nav kring vilket man kan f igng en frnyelse av mlomrdena.
While it is true that this approach is also possible under the general rules on Structural Fund measures, the Court recognisesthatÔ...localauthorityinvolvementintheStructural Fund regional measures that target local development was quite insignificant in most of the countries. 
Strukturfondernas generella regler utesluter frvisso inte denna metod och revisionsrtten erknner att: ÓDeltagande frn lokala myndigheter i strukturfondernas regionala tgrder fr lokal utveckling har endast liten betydelse i de flesta lnder.
URBAN has enabled local authorities to access Community part-financingŐ. 33. 
Urban-initiativet har gjort det lttare fr lokala myndigheter att f medfinansiering frn gemenskapen.Ó 33.
The Commission believes that all the programmes adopted under the URBAN initiative are integrated with the other national urban regeneration programmes that exist in the Member States. 
Kommissionen anser att alla program som antagits inom ramen fr Urban tar hnsyn till de andra insatser som p nationell niv grs fr stadsfrnyelse.
This does not, however, mean that the degree of integration is the same in all Member States, since this is at the discretion of each Member State, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. 
Detta innebr samtidigt inte att de nationella insatserna r lika integrerade i alla medlemsstater, men enligt subsidiaritetsprincipen r det medlemsstaterna som beslutar i denna sak.
Italy: The participating cities and the projects to be carried out under the URBAN initiative for Italy were selected jointly by the Commission and the competent national authorities, such as the Dipartimento per le aree urbane or the Ministries for the Environment, Industry, Home Affairs, Public Works, Labour, etc., and in consultation with the local and regional authorities. 
Italien: Inom ramen fr initiativprogrammet Urban Italia har valet av deltagande stder och insatser gjorts i samarbete med behriga nationella myndigheter som t.ex. Dipartimento per le aree urbane, Ministeri dellŐ Ambiente, Industria, Interni, Lavori pubblici, Lavoro osv., dr kommunala och regionala myndigheter naturligtvis varit involverade.
In this way, an urban regeneration strategy was developed at national level. 
Drigenom har en strategi kunnat utformas bde p nationell niv och stadsniv.
The United Kingdom: There was indeed a degree of overlap between the URBAN programmes and some national programmes (i.e. SRB or City Challenge). 
Frenade kungariket: Frvisso har en viss verlappning frekommit mellan Urban och vissa nationella program (t.ex. SRB och City Challenge).
This was due to the choice of delivery bytheUKauthoritiesandthefactthattheSRBservesasapart-financing fund to the URBAN programmes. 
Detta har berott p de brittiska myndigheternas val att genomfra programmen och det faktum att SRB fungerar som en fond som samfinansierar Urban-programmen.
However there were some differences between URBAN and the UK programmes in terms of scope and selection criteria. 
Emellertid har det funnits vissa skillnader mellan Urban och programmen i Frenade kungariket vad gller omfattning och urvalskriterier.
MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING STRUCTURES At the decision-taking level 34. The Commission regards subsidiarity as one of the key principles of the URBAN initiative, in both the preparation and the implementation of the programmes. 
STRUKTURER F R F RVALTNING OCH VERVAKNING Nivn fr beslutsfattande 34. Kommissionen anser att subsidiariteten r en nyckelprincip fr initiativet Urban, bde fr programfrberedelser och programgenomfrande.
Although their role in the monitoring committees may differ, the Member States always retain responsibility for selecting projects. 
Deltagandet i vervakningskommitter kan skilja sig t, men det r alltid medlemsstaterna som skall st fr valet av projekt.
C 124/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.4.2001 The Court is right that in Greece all the projects part-financed under the programme were subject to scrutiny and approval by the programmeŐs Monitoring Committee. 
C 124/22 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 25.4.2001 Det r riktigt att alla projekt i Grekland som ingr i samfinansie-ringsprogrammet har granskats och godknts av dess vervakningskommitt.
These arrangements appliedthroughoutthe1994to1999periodnotonlytoCom-munity initiatives but also to all CSF II programmes in Greece. 
Denna regel gllde under perioden 1994Đ1999 inte bara fr initiativprogrammen utan fr alla program under Greklands gemenskapsstdram II.
As a member of the Monitoring Committee, the Commission was involved in assessing and approving these projects. The purpose of such scrutiny was to ensure that only projects which had reached the required level of ÔmaturityŐ were included in the programme. 
Kommissionen har allts granskat och godknt dessa projekt som deltagare i vervakningskommittn. Granskningens syfte var att bara projekt med tillrcklig ÓmognadÓ skulle ing i programmet.
The Commission considers that the partnership dimension of URBAN is one of the initiativeŐs strongest points, and that the involvement of the social partners and local residents in implementation has generally been satisfactory. It must be admitted, however, that they were not involved to the same degree in drawing up the programmes, due mainly to the lack of appropriate structures for this. 
Kommissionen anser att partnerskapen r ett av knnetecknen fr Urban och att fretrdare fr samhllslivets olika delar, och ven invnarna, generellt deltagit p ett tillfredsstllande stt vid genomfrandet av insatserna. Erknnas br dock att man inte lyckats uppn ett lika aktivt deltagande i sjlva programfrbere-delserna, framfr allt i brist p lmpliga arbetsformer fr detta.
The new URBAN II initiative will be funded from a single Fund (theERDF). 38 to 40. 
Det nya initiativet Urban II kommer bara att vara knutet till en fond (ERUF).
While it is true that this may have caused delays or inefficiency in some cases, these shortcomings are to a large extent compensated for by the experience gained by the authorities in the course of the URBAN initiative, which equips them to take a more active role in implementing the whole range of Structural Fund programmes in their regions. 
Vissa fr Urban mycket knnetecknande svrigheter har berott p att dessa myndigheter, srskilt p lokal niv, inte alltid varit vana vid gemenskapens regler. ven om detta i vissa fall kunnat leda till frseningar eller ineffektivitet, r det ocks s att denna olgenhet i vermtt har kompenserats av de erfarenheter som myndigheterna gjort genom Urban.
The general problems experienced with the submission of the annual implementation reports can now be considered a thing of the past, since under URBAN II all requests for interim payments willbeconditionalonthesubmissiontotheCommissionofthe latest annual implementation report (Article 32(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999). 
Ett allmnt konstaterande i rapporten gller svagheter i samband med de rliga rapporterna. Man kan anta att detta inte kommer att glla Urban II, eftersom varje anskan om delutbetalning kommer att frutstta att kommissionen har erhllit den senaste relevanta rliga rapporten (artikel 32.3 b i frordning (EG) nr 1260/ 1999).
This report will also be required as a basis for the annual consultations between the Commission and the managing authority provided for in Article 34(2) of the Regulation. 
Enligt artikel 34.2 i frordningen r denna rapport ocks ndvndig fr kommissionens rliga dialog med frvaltningsmyndigheten.
It is clear that, for Community initiative programmes, such as URBAN, expenditure on technical assistance accounts for a greater proportion of total funding than it does in CSF and SPD programmes. 
Det r uppenbart att utgifterna fr tekniskt std r proportionerligt mycket strre i program inom ramen fr gemenskapsinitiativ som Urban n i program inom gemenskapsstdramar eller samlade programdokument.
For URBAN in particular, this is due in part to the innovative nature of the integrated approach promoted by these programmes and partly also to the frequent inexperience of the competent authorities in managing Structural Fund programmes (see points 20 and 38 to 40). 
I fallet Urban beror detta delvis p att programmens integrerade metod r innovativ. Delvis beror det ocks p att de ansvariga myndigheterna ofta inte har srskilt stor erfarenhet av struktur-fondsfrvaltning (se punkt 20 och punkterna 38Đ40).
The problem is acknowledged in the new Regulation (EC) No 1685/ 2000 on the eligibility of expenditure under the Structural Fund programmes in 2000 to 2006, and in particular its rule 11 which, in laying down ceilings for expenditure on technical assistance, provides for a higher ceiling of 5 % for Community initiatives, wellabovethatsetfortheCSFsandtheSPDs. 
Denna problematik erknns i frordning (EG) nr 1685/2000 avseende stdberttigande utgifter i samband med insatser som medfinansieras av strukturfonderna under perioden 2000Đ2006. Srskilt gller detta regel nr 11 dr ett tak stts fr tekniska stdinsatser och dr taket hjs med upp till 5 % fr gemenskapsinitiativ, medan det r vsentligt lgre fr gemenskapsstdramar och samlade programdokument.
It should be pointed out here that funding for technical assistance, as well as covering traditional forms of technical assistance (management, monitoring, evaluation and control, which will be capped at 5 % as described above), also covers promotional and publicity measures for projects and support for cooperation networks and information-sharing schemes. 
Det br hr framhllas att det p omrdet tekniskt std, frutom de klassiska aktiviteterna (frvaltning, vervakning, utvrdering och kontroll, med det ovan nmnda taket p 5 %), ocks freskrivs om offentlighet och informationsspridning kring projekt samt std till ntverk och informationsutbyte.
The Commission is currently examining this case with a view to taking the appropriate action. 
I det freliggande fallet hller kommissionen emellertid p att analysera fallet i syfte att vidta ndvndiga tgrder.
If part of this infrastructure were in future to be managed or run on a for-profit basis by a private management company that invoiced its services to third parties and applied VAT, one possible solution would be to refund the portion of VAT relating to the project that had been charged totheprogramme.However,thisishypothetical.Andthesizeof the amounts involved could mean that the operation would not necessarily be viable in terms of cost/benefit. 
Vad gller mervrdesskatt br det nmnas att infrastrukturerna i frga tillhr kommunen, dvs. en offentlig och ej momsskyldig myndighet. Om en del av dessa infrastrukturer i framtiden skulle frvaltas eller t.o.m. utnyttjas kommersiellt av ett affrsdrivande frvaltningsfretag som fakturerar tredje part med moms, skulle en del av den projektrelaterade moms som konterats programmet kunna terbetalas.
25.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 124/23 In Portugal, the lower rate of VAT levied on infrastructure work carried out on behalf of local authorities compared with the rate applicable to the same work when carried out on behalf of other bodies (in this case a foundation) is a provision of Portuguese law. 
25.4.2001 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 124/23 Att momsen fr infrastrukturarbeten i Portugal r lgre om arbetet utfrs av en lokal myndighet n nr samma arbete grs av en juridisk person (t.ex. en stiftelse) r en konsekvens av den nationella lagstiftningen.
In Spain, VAT liability is likewise governed by national legislation. The Commission will nevertheless examine the CourtŐs findings and take the appropriate action. 
Fr momsen i Spanien mste man beakta att momsskyldigheten fljer av den nationella lagstiftningen. I alla hndelser kommer kommissionen att granska revisionsrttens iakttagelser och vidta ndvndiga tgrder.