natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
EU pilot is used as an attempt to clarify or resolve problems so that, if possible, formal infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU can be avoided. 
EU Pilot anvnds som ett frsk att klargra eller lsa problem s att man om mjligt kan undvika formella vertrdelsefrfaranden i enlighet med artikel 258 i EUF-frdraget.
87 The Commission opened 1 502 EU pilot cases in all areas in 2013 and 1 208 cases in 2014. 
87 Kommissionen inledde 1 502 EU Pilot-renden inom alla omrden 2013 och 1 208 renden 2014.
By early 2015 there had been 84 cases relating to the Directive. 
I brjan av 2015 hade det frekommit 84 renden med anknytning till direktivet.
On average it takes just over 16 months to resolve a Services Directive‐related EU pilot case 88 The Commission submits individual cases to the MS concerned using the EU pilot application. 
I genomsnitt tar det lite drygt 16 mnader att lsa ett EU Pilot-rende som rr tjnstedirektivet 88 Kommissionen skickar enskilda renden till den berrda medlemsstaten via EU Pilot-systemet.
MSs’ authorities have a 10-week deadline to provide a reply and propose a solution. 
De nationella myndigheterna har drefter tio veckor p sig att lmna svar och fresl en lsning.
51 The Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
51 Tjeckien, Danmark, Tyskland, Irland, Spanien, Italien, Litauen, Ungern, Nederlnderna, sterrike, Portugal, Slovenien, Finland, Sverige och Storbritannien.
Observations 33 89 The Commission publishes the average response rate of the MSs to all EU pilot letters, having set a deadline of 70 days. 
Iakttagelser 33 89 Kommissionen publicerar den genomsnittliga tid det tar fr medlemsstaterna att svara p alla EU Pilot-brev, och den har faststllt en tidsfrist p 70 dagar.
According to the single market scoreboard (July 2014)52 the majority of MSs were marked as ‘green’ for respecting the deadline. 
Enligt resultattavlan fr den inre marknaden (07/14)52 var merparten av lnderna markerade med ÓgrntÓ nr det gllde att hlla tidsfristen.
The Czech Republic, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom are ranked as ‘yellow’, or close to respecting the deadline (with 71 to 77 days average response time). 
Tjeckien, Irland, Spanien, Italien, Lettland, Polen, Portugal, Rumnien, Sverige och Storbritannien klassas som ÓgulaÓ, det vill sga att de nstan fljer tidsfristen (en genomsnittlig svarstid p 71Đ77 dagar).
The average response time of France, however, is 93 days. 
Den genomsnittliga svarstiden fr Frankrike r dock 93 dagar.
The time taken by the Commission is not indicated in the scoreboard but according to the second evaluation report on EU pilot53, where it also set itself a deadline of 70 days to assess replies and decide on follow-up, the average time taken was 102 days. 
Den tid det tar fr kommissionen att handlgga renden anges inte i resultattavlan, men enligt den andra utvrderingsrapporten fr EU Pilot-projektet53, dr kommissionen ocks faststllde en tidsfrist fr sig sjlv p 70 dagar fr att bedma svar och fatta beslut om uppfljning, var den genomsnittliga tidstgngen 102 dagar.
In some cases the Commission has waited too long to take action 91 The Court examined six EU pilot cases concerning the Directive. 
I vissa fall har kommissionen vntat fr lnge innan den har agerat 91 Vi granskade sex EU Pilot-renden som gllde direktivet.
In this sample, the process took between 5 and 8 months where the case was resolved using EU pilot. 
I det urvalet tog processen mellan fem och tta mnader i de fall d rendet lstes med hjlp av EU Pilot.
However, the more complex cases which were later transferred to the infringement stage took between 9 and 30 months. 
De mer komplexa rendena som senare blev vertrdelsefrfaranden tog dock mellan nio och trettio mnader.
92 MSs were on time with their replies. 
92 Medlemsstaterna lmnade sina svar i tid.
However, Box 4 gives examples of delays in EU pilot procedure. 
I ruta 4 ger vi dock exempel p frseningar i EU Pilot-frfarandet.
52 http://ec.europa.eu/ internal_market/scoreboard/ performance_by_governance_ tool/eu_pilot/ index_en.htm#maincontentSec 53 SEC(2011) 1629/2 of 21 December 2011, ‘Second evaluation report on EU pilot’. 
52 http://ec.europa.eu/ internal_market/scoreboard/ performance_by_ governance_tool/eu_pilot/ index_ en.htm#maincontentSec 53 SEK(2011) 1629/2, 21.12.2011, Andra utvrderingsrapporten fr EU Pilot-projektet.
Examples of delays in EU pilot procedure In case of one MS, it took the Commission 16 months after identifying issue to send the administrative letter and another 6 months to launch the EU pilot case. 
Exempel p frseningar i EU Pilot-frfarandet Nr det gllde ett land tog det kommissionen 16 mnader efter det att den hade identifierat problemet att skicka en frvaltningsskrivelse till en medlemsstat och ytterligare sex mnader att inleda EU Pilot-rendet.
In the case of another MS, it took the Commission almost 20 months from receiving a complaint to starting the EU pilot. 
I fallet med en annan medlemsstat tog det nstan 20 mnader frn det att kommissionen tog emot ett klagoml till det att den inledde EU Pilot.
One EU pilot case was started in 2012 and has not yet been closed, as the verification of the correct implementation of the legislative changes introduced is still necessary. 
Ett EU Pilot-rende inleddes 2012 och har nnu inte avslutats, eftersom man nnu inte har kontrollerat om gjorda lagndringar tillmpas korrekt.
Observations 34 93 Information on EU pilot cases is not made public either during the time they are active or after they have been completed. 
Iakttagelser 34 93 Information om EU Pilot-renden offentliggrs varken under den tid de pgr eller efter det att de har avslutats.
As a result, even if such procedures provide a remedy in an individual country, they do not benefit other interested parties nor do they contribute to creating an established EU legal practice in this area. 
Det innebr att ven om frfarandena leder till en lsning i ett enskilt land kan andra berrda parter inte dra nytta av dem och de bidrar inte heller till att en fast EU-rttspraxis etableras p omrdet.
The Commission has hardly used infringement procedures 94 If, after preliminary consultations in EU pilot, the Commission considers that EU rules are not being properly applied, it may open infringement proceedings against the MS in question. 
Kommissionen har knappt anvnt vertrdelsefrfaranden 94 Om kommissionen efter frberedande samrd i EU Pilot anser att EU:s regler inte tillmpas korrekt kan den inleda ett vertrdelsefrfarande mot medlemsstaten i frga.
The Commission has the power to try to bring the infringement to an end, including, where necessary, referral of the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
Kommissionen har befogenhet att frska f vertrdelsen att upphra och kan vid behov hnskjuta rendet till Europeiska unionens domstol.
This can be done either based on a complaint received by the Commission54 or based on the Commission’s own initiative. 
Det kan ske antingen p grundval av ett klagoml som kommissionen fr54 eller p kommissionens eget initiativ.
95 The case may be resolved if the MS provides the necessary additional information which satisfies the Commission that there is in fact no infringement or if it accepts the Commission’s opinion and brings the violation to an end. 
95 rendet kan lsas om medlemsstaten lmnar ndvndig kompletterande information som vertygar kommissionen om att det i sjlva verket inte har skett ngon vertrdelse eller om den godtar kommissionens stndpunkt och ser till att vertrdelsen upphr.
96 The ‘zero-tolerance policy’ was announced by the Commission as part of its services package in 2012. 
96 Kommissionen aviserade en ÓnolltoleranspolitikÓ som en del av tjnstepaketet 2012.
However, the Commission took the position that only a limited subset of requirements to be within the scope of its ‘zero tolerance’ (see Box 5). 
Men den intog stndpunkten att endast vissa krav skulle omfattas av dess ÓnolltoleransÓ (se ruta 5).
54 All complaints, on all subjects, including those which lead to EU pilot and/or infringement, are registered in the Commission complaint recording system (CHAP). 
54 Alla klagoml, i alla mnen, ven de som leder till EU Pilot-och/eller vertrdelsefrfaranden, registreras i systemet fr registrering av klagoml (Chap).
CHAP includes field flagging where complaints pertain to Article 56 (freedom to provide services) or 49 (freedom of establishment) of the TFEU. 
Chap innefattar omrdesidentifiering nr klagoml gller artiklarna 56 (frihet att tillhandahlla tjnster) eller 49 (etableringsrtt) i EUF-frdraget.
Observations 35 ‘Zero tolerance’ of non‐compliance The Commission has decided to only enforce its ‘zero-tolerance’ policy regarding non-compliance in respect of the following obligations set out in the Services Directive: The Directive prohibits a number of discriminatory and particularly burdensome requirements, which are listed in Article 14. 
Iakttagelser 35 ÓNolltoleransÓ fr bristande efterlevnad Kommissionen har beslutat att endast tillmpa sin ÓnolltoleranspolitikÓ fr bristande efterlevnad p fljande skyldigheter enligt tjnstedirektivet: Artikel 14 i direktivet frbjuder ett antal diskriminerande och srskilt betungande krav.
The Directive introduces specific obligations to simplify authorisation procedures: (1) tacit approval, i.e. silence from the administration means approval, provided for in Article 13(4); and (2) nationwide validity of authorisations is provided for in Article 10(4). 
Direktivet omfattar srskilda skyldigheter att frenkla frfarandena fr godknnande. 1) Tyst medgivande, det vill sga tystnad frn frvaltningen betyder medgivande, freskrivs i artikel 13.4 och 2) nationell giltighet fr medgivandena freskrivs i artikel 10.4.
The Directive bans the total prohibition of commercial communications for regulated professions in Article 24. 
Artikel 24 i direktivet freskriver att alla totalfrbud mot marknadskommunikation frn reglerade yrken ska upphvas.
They are one of the most restrictive requirements addressed by Article 16 of the Services Directive (the freedom to provide services clause) in its paragraph 2, and MSs may not impose it on service providers. 
Etableringskrav gr det omjligt att tillhandahlla grnsverskridande tjnster. De tillhr de mest begrnsande kraven och behandlas i artikel 16.2 i tjnstedirektivet (artikeln om frihet att tillhandahlla tjnster).
Source: COM(2012) 261 final, ‘A partnership for new growth in services 2012-2015’, p. 
Klla: COM(2012) 261 final, Ett partnerskap fr ny tillvxt i tjnstesektorn 2012Đ2015, s.
97 This policy addresses only the most restrictive requirements covered by the Directive. 
97 Nolltoleranspolitiken gller endast de mest begrnsande krav som direktivet avser.
The policy is not applied to other obstacles and barriers identified where the justification of proportionality provided by the MS needs to be assessed and possibly challenged. 
Den gller inte andra identifierade hinder dr medlemsstatens motivering baserad p proportionalitet mste bedmas och eventuellt ifrgasttas.
The Commission’s position is that it cannot pronounce on these specific cases as they can only be decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
Kommissionens stndpunkt r att den inte kan uttala sig om dessa specifika renden eftersom endast domstolen kan avgra dem.
However, the Commission is reluctant to refer cases when it is not absolutely certain that the ruling would confirm the breach of legislation. 
Kommissionen r dock ovillig att hnskjuta renden till domstolen nr den inte r absolut sker p ett avgrande som bekrftar brott mot lagstiftningen.
98 For some cases, the Commission has provided guidance in presentations to expert group meetings of new requirements based on IMI notifications of legislative measures. 
98 Nr det gller en del renden har kommissionen gett vgledning vid presentationer p expertgruppmten om nya krav grundade p IMI-anmlningar av lagstiftningstgrder.
Nevertheless, the ‘zero-tolerance policy’ is not applied for what the Commission considers to be unjustified requirements imposed by MSs. 
ÓNolltoleranspolitikenÓ tillmpas dock inte p det som kommissionen anser r omotiverade krav frn medlemsstaternas sida.
Observations 36 99 There have only been nine infringement cases for non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive since its introduction. 
Iakttagelser 36 99 Sedan direktivet infrdes har det bara frekommit nio vertrdelserenden p grund av bristande verensstmmelse mellan nationell lagstiftning och direktivet.
By the end of 2015 — some 15 months later — 11 of these cases were still pending. 
Vid utgngen av 2015, omkring 15 mnader senare, hade elva av dessa renden nnu inte avgjorts.
The Commission does not systematically compile or publish information on the length of closed infringement procedures relating to the Services Directive. 
Kommissionen sammanstller eller offentliggr inte systematiskt information om hur lng tid avslutade vertrdelsefrfaranden som gller tjnstedirektivet har tagit.
101 In addition to the 20 cases relating to late transposition (see paragraph 19) and nine cases for non-conformity (see paragraph 99), there have been 55 cases55 regarding incorrect application or transposition of the Services Directive and 20 similar infringements which concern TFEU Articles 49 (freedom of establishment) or 56 (freedom to provide services). 
101 Utver de 20 rendena om sent infrlivande (se punkt 19) och de nio rendena om bristande verensstmmelse (se punkt 99) har det frekommit 55 renden55 om felaktig tillmpning eller felaktigt genomfrande av tjnstedirektivet och 20 liknande vertrdelser som gller artiklarna 49 (etableringsrtt) och 56 (frihet att tillhandahlla tjnster) i EUF-frdraget.
These are cases where the directive was transposed correctly in the national legislation but the provisions of the legislation were incorrectly transposed or applied. 
Detta r renden dr direktivet infrlivades korrekt i den nationella lagstiftningen men dr bestmmelserna i lagstiftningen inte har genomfrts eller tillmpats korrekt.
Individual services‐related complaints followed up on regular basis; however, there are long periods of inactivity during the infringement procedures 102 Ten infringement cases were examined by the Court which arose from either barriers highlighted during the visits to the Commission and MSs or where the procedure took a particularly long time. 
Enskilda tjnsterelaterade klagoml fljs upp regelbundet, men det frekommer lnga perioder av overksamhet under vertrdelsefrfarandena 102 Vi granskade tio vertrdelserenden som hade att gra med hinder som uppmrksammades under besken vid kommissionen och medlemsstaterna eller dr frfarandet tog srskilt lng tid.
55 As of 1 April 2015. 
55 Per den 1 april 2015.
Observations 37 103 Cases in CHAP were followed up on a regular basis. 
Iakttagelser 37 103 renden i kommissionens system fr registrering av klagoml (Chap) fljdes upp regelbundet.
Those relating to the Directive were transferred to DG Internal Market and Services, which then either prepared a response or opened an EU pilot case to start the pre-infringement procedure. 
De som rrde direktivet lmnades ver till generaldirektoratet fr inre marknaden och tjnster som d antingen utarbetade ett svar eller inledde ett EU Pilot-rende som frberedelse fr vertrdelsefrfarandet.
In all cases there were multiple communications between the Commission and the MSs. 
I samtliga renden frekom omfattande kontakter mellan kommissionen och medlemsstaterna.
However, once the infringement procedures started long delays occurred, and there were periods of inactivity for individual cases as well as delays in the MSs’ responses. 
Men nr vertrdelsefrfarandena vl hade inletts uppstod stora frseningar, och det frekom perioder av overksamhet i enskilda renden och frseningar i medlemsstaternas svar.
For example, in one case there was a period of inactivity between February 2012 and March 2014, and in another case there was a gap between November 2012 and May 2015 in the correspondence of the Commission, although subsequently the decision was made quickly. 
Till exempel i ett rende frekom det ingen verksamhet mellan februari 2012 och mars 2014, och i ett annat rende avbrts kommissionens korrespondens mellan november 2012 och maj 2015, ven om beslutet sedan fattades snabbt.
104 Even though it takes longer than expected and planned, all infringement cases closed resulted in the MS concerned amending its legislation, thereby remedying the problems identified. 
104 ven om de tar lngre tid n frvntat och planerat ledde alla avslutade vertrdelserenden till att den berrda medlemsstaten ndrade sin lagstiftning och drmed kom till rtta med de problem som hade identifierats.
It can be concluded that when infringement procedures are initiated they lead to legislative changes in the MSs. 
Man kan konstatera att nr vertrdelsefrfaranden inleds leder de till lagndringar i medlemsstaterna.
Moreover, while the Commission announces the opening of an infringement procedure, detailed documentation is not made available to the public when the case is closed, which reduces the transparency of the procedure and adversely affects the development of common legal practice. 
Dessutom tillknnager visserligen kommissionen att ett vertrdelsefrfarande inleds, men detaljerad dokumentation grs inte tillgnglig fr allmnheten nr rendet avslutas, vilket minskar insynen i frfarandet och inverkar negativt p etableringen av en gemensam rttspraxis.
Only one case referred to the Court of Justice 105 When the Commission takes an MS to the Court of Justice, it is for the Commission to provide evidence of the infringement of EU law. 
Endast ett rende hnskts till domstolen 105 Nr kommissionen drar en medlemsstat infr domstolen r det kommissionen som ska presentera bevis fr att det har skett en vertrdelse av EU:s lagstiftning.
If the evidence provided is not sufficiently conclusive, the Court is entitled to rule against the Commission by declaring the case inadmissible or as unfounded. 
Om de bevis som lggs fram inte r tillrckligt bindande, fr domstolen fatta ett beslut som gr emot kommissionen och frklara rendet icke tilltligt eller ogrundat.
The Commission has referred only one infringement case on the basis of the Directive56 to the Court of Justice57 (see Box 6). 
Kommissionen har endast hnskjutit ett vertrdelserende grundat p direktivet56 till domstolen57 (se ruta 6).
56 Articles 14, 15 and 16. 
56 Artiklarna 14, 15 och 16.
57 Case C-179/14, Commission v Hungary, 2012/4083. 
57 Ml C-179/14, kommissionen mot Ungern, 2012/4083.
Observations 38 Infringement case brought to the Court of Justice The European Commission decided to bring Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union to contest its legislation on issuing luncheon, leisure and holiday vouchers. 
Iakttagelser 38 vertrdelserende som anhngiggjorts vid domstolen Europeiska kommissionen beslutade att vcka talan mot Ungern vid Europeiska unionens domstol fr att ifrgastta dess lagstiftning om utfrdande av kuponger avseende lunch, njen och semester.
The Commission considers that the restrictions introduced by the Hungarian legislation in force on 1 January 2012 are contrary to the fundamental principles of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 49 and 56) and contrary to the Services Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market). In 2011, Hungary amended its legislation on the issue of vouchers for meals (hot and cold), leisure and holidays, granted by employers to their employees, and considered as benefits in kind and therefore subject to more favourable tax and social security rules. 
Kommissionen ansg att de begrnsningar som infrdes genom den ungerska lagstiftning som trdde i kraft den 1 januari 2012 strider mot de grundlggande principerna om etableringsrtt och frihet att tillhandahlla tjnster enligt EUF-frdraget (artiklarna 49 och 56) och mot tjnstedirektivet (Europaparlamentets och rdets direktiv 2006/123/EG av den 12 december 2006 om tjnster p den inre marknaden). r 2011 ndrade Ungern sin lagstiftning om utfrdande av kuponger avseende varma och kalla mltider, njen och semester, som arbetsgivare gav till arbetstagare och som ansgs vara en lnefrmn och drfr omfattades av frdelaktiga regler nr det gllde skatter och socialfrskringar.
This legislation entered into force on 1 January 2012 with no significant transitional period or measures. 
Lagstiftningen trdde i kraft den 1 januari 2012 utan ngon lmplig vergngsperiod.
This new legislation has created a monopoly for a public foundation responsible for issuing cold-meal vouchers (paper or electronic) and hot-meal vouchers (paper), granted by employers to their employees. 
Den nya lagstiftningen tilldelade ett statligt organ monopol avseende utfrdandet av kuponger fr kalla (pap-perskuponger eller elektroniska kuponger) och varma rtter (papper), som arbetsgivarna ger arbetstagarna.
Furthermore, it establishes very strict conditions for the issue of vouchers for hot meals, leisure and holidays, considered as benefits in kind, which may no longer be in electronic form. 
Lagstiftningen stllde dessutom upp extremt strnga krav fr utfrdande av kuponger fr varma rtter, njen och semester, och som betraktades som en lnefrmn, som endast kunde utfrdas elektroniskt.
Since Hungary has not brought its legislation into line with the reasoned opinion sent to it in November 2012 the Commission decided to bring this case before the Court of Justice. 
Eftersom Ungern inte hade ndrat sin lagstiftning i enlighet med det motiverade yttrande som skickades till landet i november 2012 beslutade kommissionen att vcka talan vid domstolen.
As of October 2015, the case was still pending. 
Mlet hade nnu inte avgjorts i oktober 2015.
106 In the reports of the Commission, European Parliament and other bodies, and particularly in the services package (June 2012), enforcement tools have been reviewed and recommendations made for future action. 
106 I rapporterna frn kommissionen, Europaparlamentet och andra organ, och srskilt i tjnstepaketet (juni 2012), har efterlevnadsverktyg granskats och rekommendationer om framtida tgrder utfrdats.
The Court found consensus in the MSs visited that all issues of non-compliance should be rigorously addressed and that infringement procedures should be applied. 
Vi konstaterade att det i de beskta medlemsstaterna rder samfrstnd om att alla fall av bristande efterlevnad br behandlas strngt och att vertrdelsefrfaranden br tillmpas.
107 The Commission has not created a systematic strategy to strengthen the single market in services, in particular the areas covered by the Directive. 
107 Kommissionen har inte utarbetat en systematisk strategi fr att frstrka den inre marknaden fr tjnster, srskilt inte p de omrden som omfattas av direktivet.
The current enforcement activities do not always focus on the economically most significant industries selected on a risk-based approach. 
De nuvarande efterlevnadstgrderna r inte alltid inriktade p de ekonomiskt mest betydelsefulla branscherna som valts ut utifrn en riskbaserad metod.
Observations 39 Country‐specific recommendations have had limited success 108 In addition to infringement procedures, the Commission is trying to influence MSs by including Services Directive-related recommendations in CSRs issued in the context of the European semester. 
Iakttagelser 39 Landsspecifika rekommendationer har haft begrnsad framgng 108 Utver vertrdelsefrfaranden frsker kommissionen pverka medlemsstaterna genom att ta med rekommendationer som rr tjnstedirektivet i de landsspecifika rekommendationer som utfrdas inom ramen fr den europeiska planeringsterminen.