natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
23 In its guide to the cost-benefit analysis of investment projects (published in July 2008), the Commission indicated that for the majority of infrastructures, the time horizon over which financial forecasts should be made, and which should not exceed the economic useful life of the project, is at least 20 years. 
23 I sin vgledning fr kostnadsnyttoanalysen av investeringsprojekt (som kom ut i juli 2008) angav kommissionen att fr merparten av infrastrukturen r den tidshorisont fr vilken de finansiella prognoserna ska gras, och som inte br verstiga projektets ekonomiska livslngd, minst tjugo r.
24 Examples of such studies are given in footnote 13. 
24 Exempel p sdana underskningar finns i fotnot 13.
25 This possibility was included in the draft RDP for the programming period 2014-2020, sent to the Commission in July 2014 (section M04 — Investments in physical assets (Article 17), page 221). 
25 Den mjligheten fanns med i frslaget till landsbygdsprogram fr perioden 2014Đ2020, som skickades till kommissionen i juli 2014 (avsnitt M04 Đ Investeringar i fysiska tillgngar (artikel 17), s. 221).
Observations 32 59 To ensure the durability of investments, the rural development regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, requires Member States to recover the EAFRD contribution if an investment project undergoes a substantial modification that ‘affects its nature or implementation conditions’ within 5 years (known as ‘commitment period’) from the managing authority’s funding decision26. 
Iakttagelser 32 59 Fr att investeringarnas varaktighet ska kunna garanteras krvs det enligt frordning nr 1698/2005 om landsbygdsutveckling att medlemsstaterna tervinner Ejflu-bidraget om ett investeringsprojekt genomgr en betydande frndring som Ópverkar dess art eller frutsttningarna fr genomfrandetÓ inom fem r (den s kallade tagandeperioden) jmfrt med frvaltningsmyndighetens beslut om finansiering26.
However, this requirement is not differentiated by type of investment. 
Kravet r dock inte differentierat efter typ av investering.
Only Germany (Saxony), Italy (Sicily) and Romania specified longer commitment periods for certain types of investment, although the limited timeframe of ex post checks weakened the incentive on beneficiaries to respect their commitments (see Box 12). 
Det var bara i Tyskland (Sachsen), Italien (Sicilien) och Rumnien som lngre tagandeperioder angavs fr vissa typer av investeringar, trots att den begrnsade tidsramen fr efterhandskontroller minskade stdmottagarnas incitament att fullgra sina taganden (se ruta 12).
26 Article 72 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
26 Artikel 72 i rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005.
Good practices implemented by Member States to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments and their limitations Germany (Saxony) In the 2007-2013 programming period, there were differentiated commitment periods27 which ranged between 5 and 20 years after the completion of the project, depending on the type of project as well as on the total eligible costs. 
God praxis som medlemsstaterna tillmpar fr att garantera infrastrukturinvesteringarnas hllbarhet och deras begrnsningar Tyskland (Sachsen) Under programperioden 2007Đ2013 fanns olika lnga tagandeperioder27 som varade mellan fem och 20 r efter det att projektet hade avslutats, beroende p vilken typ av projekt det var och de totala stdberttigande kostnaderna.
These commitment periods were taken into account in the risk assessment leading to the sampling of projects for the ex post checks, making it more likely that older projects would be sampled. 
Dessa tagandeperioder beaktades vid den riskbedmning som ledde till att ett antal projekt valdes ut fr efterhandskontroller, vilket gjorde det sannolikare att ldre projekt skulle ing i urvalet.
Another element favouring sustainable investments in schools was the requirement that applicants (com-munes) submit with their application a written confirmation from the Ministry of Culture and Sport that the school concerned by the modernisation project is expected to remain in operation for 5 or 10 years. 
En annan sak som frmjade hllbara investeringar i skolor var kravet att de skande (kommuner) tillsammans med sina anskningar skulle lmna in en skriftlig bekrftelse frn kultur-och idrottsministeriet att den skola som berrdes av moderniseringsprojektet frvntades fortstta sin verksamhet i fem eller tio r.
Romania As part of the eligibility conditions for measure 125 (that supports farm and forest roads and irrigation infrastructure), beneficiaries were required to commit to maintaining and repairing the financed infrastructure throughout its entire useful life. 
Rumnien Som en del av stdvillkoren fr tgrd 125 (som ger std till traktor-och skogsvgar och bevattningsinfra-struktur) var stdmottagarna skyldiga att ta sig att upprtthlla och upprusta den finansierade infrastrukturen under hela dess livslngd.
Ex post checks during which this commitment could be checked are, however, only performed for up to 5 years after the date of the grant agreement. 
Men efterhandskontroller d detta tagande skulle kunna kontrolleras genomfrs enbart upp till fem r efter det datum d bidragsverenskommelsen ingicks.
27 These commitment periods have been revised downwards in the 2014-2020 programming period to the standard 5-year period stated in Article 71 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
27 Infr programperioden 2014Đ2020 har tagandeperioderna kortats ner till den femrsperiod som r standard och anges i artikel 71 i Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning (EU) nr 1303/2013 av den 17 december 2013 om faststllande av gemensamma bestmmelser fr Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden, Europeiska socialfonden, Sammanhllningsfonden, Europeiska jordbruksfonden fr landsbygdsutveckling och Europeiska havs-och fiskerifonden, om faststllande av allmnna bestmmelser fr Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden, Europeiska socialfonden, Sammanhllningsfonden och Europeiska havs-och fiskerifonden samt om upphvande av rdets frordning (EG) nr 1083/2006 (EUT L 347, 20.12.2013, s.
Observations 33 60 The audited Member States generally applied the 5-year requirement and used the ex post checks28 to verify that the beneficiaries had respected their commitments. 
Iakttagelser 33 60 De granskade medlemsstaterna till-lmpade i allmnhet femrskravet och anvnde efterhandskontroller28 fr att kontrollera att stdmottagarna hade fullgjort sina taganden.
Each year the ex post checks cover at least 1 % of the eligible public expenditure for investment operations for which the final payment has been made from the EAFRD. 
Varje r ska kontrollerna i efterhand omfatta minst 1 % av de stdberttigande offentliga utgifterna fr investeringsinsatser fr vilka slutbetalningar har gjorts frn Ejflu.
However, it is possible for the 1 % to be reached by checks on just one project. 
Men det gr att komma upp till 1 % bara genom att ett enda projekt kontrolleras.
In addition, as in Poland and Romania the commitment period of 5 years was counted from the date of the funding decision, it was reduced in practice to much less time after the completion of the project. 
Eftersom tagandeperioden i Polen och Rumnien rknades frn datumet fr finansieringsbeslutet blev denna period dessutom mycket kortare i praktiken efter det att projektet hade avslutats.
For example, seven out of the 10 projects audited in these two Member States were completed more than 2 years after the funding decision. 
Till exempel avslutades sju av de tio projekt som granskades i dessa tv medlemsstater mer n tv r efter finansieringsbeslutet.
So, the ‘5 years’ requirement and the corresponding checks had a reduced relevance in practice in carrying out their function to ensure the sustainability of the projects. 
Det medfrde att femrskravet och motsvarande kontroller hade mindre relevans i praktiken nr det gllde att se till att projekten var hllbara.
Long delays in the administrative process impacted the measures’ efficiency and effectiveness 61 To make EAFRD funding attractive to potential beneficiaries and to allow projects to generate timely benefits for rural areas, administrative procedures should not be excessively long and burdensome. 
Stora frseningar i den administrativa processen pverkade tgrdernas effektivitet och ndamlsenlighet 61 Om Ejflu-finansieringen ska bli attraktiv fr potentiella stdmottagare och projekt ska kunna stadkomma frdelar fr landsbygdsomrden i rimlig tid br de administrativa frfarandena inte vara alltfr utdragna och krngliga.
62 Three (Italy (Sicily), Romania and Poland) out of the five audited Member States set time limits for processing project applications and final payment claims. 
62 Tre (Italien (Sicilien), Rumnien och Polen) av de fem granskade medlemsstaterna hade satt tidsfrister fr behandlingen av projektanskningar och anskningar om slutbetalning.
63 The time limits set by the Member States for processing grant applications were exceeded for most of the measures audited (see Figure 5)29. 
63 Medlemsstaternas tidsfrister fr att behandla bidragsanskningar verskreds nr det gller merparten av de tgrder som granskades (se figur 5)29.
In Germany (Saxony), Poland and Romania, it took30 from 3.5 to 9 months to process grant applications, while the Italian (Sicilian) authorities needed around 16 months to process applications under measures 125 and 321, with extreme cases lasting more than 3 years. 
I Tyskland (Sachsen), Polen och Rumnien tog det30 frn tre och en halv till nio mnader att behandla bidragsanskningarna medan de italienska (sicilianska) myndigheterna behvde runt 16 mnader fr att behandla anskningarna inom tgrderna 125 och 321 med extremfall som tog mer n tre r.
This was mainly due to the excessive time required to perform the required checks on the eligibility of the beneficiaries. 
Det berodde frmst p att det tog enormt lng tid att gra de ndvndiga kontrollerna av stdmottagarnas stdberttigande.
64 Payment claims were generally processed quicker than grant applications; however notable delays were again incurred in Italy (Sicily) (see Figure 6). 
64 Betalningsanskningar behandlades i allmnhet snabbare n bidragsanskningar, men stora frseningar frekom terigen i Italien (Sicilien) (se figur 6).
28 Made in accordance with Article 30 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
28 I enlighet med artikel 30 i kommissionens frordning (EG) nr 1975/2006 av den 7 december 2006 om tillmpningsfreskrifter fr rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 i frga om kontroller och tvrvillkor i samband med std fr landsbygdsutveckling (EUT L 368, 23.12.2006, s.
29 For Spain (Extremadura), it was not possible to calculate such statistics as there was no overview data available for all approved projects under the audited measures. 
29 Nr det gllde Spanien (Extremadura) gick det inte att uppskatta sdan statistik eftersom det inte fanns ngra versiktliga uppgifter om alla godknda projekt inom de granskade tgrderna.
30 Median value: a value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values (or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no middle number). 
30 Medianvrde: det vrde i en ordnad uppsttning vrden dr det finns lika mnga vrden som r strre som det finns vrden som r mindre (om det r ett jmt antal vrden fr man medianen genom att ta medelvrdet av de tv vrdena som ligger i mitten).
Observations 34 Processing of grant applications (median value, in months) Germany (Saxony) Italy (Sicily) Po la n d Romania * The information presented for Italy (Sicily) under measure 321 only applies to the audited sub-measure, ‘Azione 2’; in Romania, measure 321 is implemented jointly with measure 322. ** In Poland, measure 322 is implemented jointly with measure 323. 
Iakttagelser 34 Behandling av bidragsanskningar (medianvrde, i mnader) Tyskland (Sachsen) Italien (Sicilien) Polen Rumnien tgrd 125 tgrd 321 * tgrd 322 ** 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 mnader * Informationen om Italien (Sicilien) inom tgrd 321 gller endast fr den granskade deltgrden Azione 2; i Rumnien genomfrs tgrd 321 tillsammans med tgrd 322. ** I Polen genomfrs tgrd 322 tillsammans med tgrd 323.
Source: European Court of Auditors, based on data provided by Member States. 
Klla: Europeiska revisionsrtten utifrn uppgifter frn medlemsstaterna.
Processing of payment applications (median value, in months) Measure 125 Measure 321 * Measure 322 ** Germany (Saxony) Italy (Sicily)* Po la n d Romania Measure 125 Measure 321 Measure 322 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 months 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 months * In Italy (Sicily), only the data regarding the processing of final payment requests was used for the calculation; also in Italy (Sicily), information regarding measure 321 was not available, as none of the approved projects had received its final payment by December 2014. 
Behandling av betalningsanskningar (medianvrde, i mnader) Tyskland (Sachsen) Italien (Sicilien)* Polen Rumnien tgrd 125 tgrd 321 tgrd 322 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 mnader * I Italien (Sicilien) anvndes endast uppgifterna om behandlingen av slutbetalningsanskningar vid berkningen; i Italien (Sicilien) fanns inte heller ngon information om tgrd 321 tillgnglig eftersom inget av de godknda projekten hade ftt sin slutbetalning i december 2014.
Figure 6 Figure 5 
Figur 6 Figur 5
Observations 35 65 The audit found that Romania had devised a good practice in addressing the main causes of delays and limiting the administrative burden on the applicant. 
Iakttagelser 35 65 Vid revisionen konstaterade vi att Rumnien har hittat ett bra stt att komma till rtta med de frmsta orsakerna till frseningarna och begrnsa den skandes administrativa brda.
In order to speed up the project submission and evaluation process, in the 2014-2020 programming period the paying agency will allow applications to be submitted online in full (including all the supporting documents), on an ongoing basis, and selection reports will be published at shorter intervals than in the previous programming period. 
Fr att skynda p projektinlmningen och utvrderingen godtar det utbetalande organet fr programperioden 2014Đ 2020 att anskningar fortlpande lmnas in helt och hllet online (inbegripet alla styrkande handlingar), och urvalsrapporter kommer att offentliggras med kortare intervaller n under den fregende programperioden.
The Commission started to systematically follow up weaknesses and related Member States' action plans late in the programming period 66 In the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission checked, mainly through its conformity audits, whether Member States were complying with the legal requirements of applying selection criteria, verifying the reasonableness of costs and following public procurement rules. 
Kommissionen brjade systematiskt flja upp brister och medlemsstaternas tgrdsplaner fr dem sent under programperioden 66 Under programperioden 2007Đ2013 kontrollerade kommissionen, frmst genom sina revisioner av verensstmmelse, om medlemsstaterna uppfyllde de rttsliga kraven p att anvnda urvalskriterer, kontrollera om kostnaderna var rimliga och flja reglerna fr offentlig upphandling.
The scope of the Commission’s audits did not include an examination of performance aspects. 
Inriktningen och omfattningen p kommissionens revisioner inbegrep inte granskning av resultataspekter.
67 Consequently, the Commission’s audits identified only a few of the above weaknesses — mainly those with respect to the application of public procurement rules in Romania, which gave rise to a financial correction31 in 2014. 
67 Vid revisionerna identifierade kommissionen sledes endast ett ftal av de brister som nmns ovan: frmst dem som gllde tillmpningen av reglerna fr offentlig upphandling i Rumnien, vilket ledde till en finansiell korrige-ring31 2014.
Only in 2013 did the Commission start to systematically follow up on actions taken by Member States to address the root causes of errors in rural development measures, including errors related to the project selection system, checks on the reasonableness of costs and public procurement. 
Frst 2013 brjade kommissionen systematiskt flja upp de tgrder som medlemsstaterna hade vidtagit fr att komma till rtta med grundorsakerna till fel i landsbygdsutvecklingstgrder, inbegripet fel avseende projekturvalsystemet, kontroller av kostnadernas rimlighet och offentlig upphandling.
As a result of this exercise, out of the Member States audited, only Italy (Sicily) and Romania have introduced or are in the process of developing new procedures that intend to tackle some of the weaknesses identified. 
Som en fljd av detta r det bara Italien (Sicilien) och Rumnien av de granskade medlemsstaterna som har infrt eller hller p att ta fram nya frfaranden som ska tgrda en del av de konstaterade bristerna.
However, these changes arrived too late to have an influence on the bulk of the expenditure incurred in the 2007-2013 programming period. 
Men ndringarna kom fr sent fr att ha ngon effekt p merparten av utgifterna under programperioden 2007Đ2013.
68 Recognising past problems, the Commission has made changes for the 2014-2020 programming period, which are intended to improve the situation. 
68 Kommissionen har medgett de tidigare problemen och gjort frndringar infr programperioden 2014Đ2020, som ska frbttra situationen.
69 On project selection, it is an explicit requirement for the 2014-2020 RDPs to include the principles guiding the establishment of selection criteria. 
69 Nr det gller projekturvalet r det ett uttalat krav fr landsbygdsprogrammen fr 2014Đ2020 att det ska finnas med principer som styr hur urvalskriterierna faststlls.
The Commission issued guidance in March 2014 encouraging Member States to ensure that eligibility and selection criteria are applied in a transparent and consistent way throughout the programming period, that selection criteria are applied even in cases when the budget available is sufficient to fund all eligible projects and that projects with a total score that is below a certain threshold are excluded from support. 
Kommissionen gav ut en vgledning i mars 2014 dr medlemsstaterna uppmanades att se till att std-och urvalskriterier tillmpas p ett ppet och enhetligt stt under hela programperioden, att urvalskriterier tillmpas ven i de fall d den tillgngliga budgeten rcker fr att finansiera alla stdberttigande projekt och att projekt med en sammanlagd pong under ett visst trskelvrde utesluts frn std.
31 Following its audit findings, the Commission may launch procedures whereby EU funding for the Member State concerned is reduced to compensate for the shortcomings identified. These procedures are referred to as ‘financial corrections’. 
31 Som en fljd av granskningsresultaten fr kommissionen inleda frfaranden varigenom EU:s finansiering till den aktuella medlemsstaten minskas fr att kompensera fr de konstaterade bristerna. Dessa frfaranden kallas finansiella korrigeringar.
Observations 36 70 On public procurement, at the end of 2014 the Commission developed guidelines on how to avoid common errors in EU co-funded projects32. 
Iakttagelser 36 70 Nr det gller offentlig upphandling utarbetade kommissionen i slutet av 2014 riktlinjer fr hur man undviker vanliga fel i EU-medfinansierade pro-jekt32.
In this document, the Commission criticises the use of the ‘average pric-ing’ method, whereby tenders close to the average for all tenders receive more points than tenders deviating from the average, as this methodology ‘represents unequal treatment of tenderers, particularly those with valid low tenders’. 
I dokumentet kritiserar kommissionen anvndningen av Ógenomsnitts-prismetodenÓ, som innebr att anbud som ligger nra genom genomsnittet fr alla anbud fr fler pong n anbud som avviker frn genomsnittet eftersom kommissionen menar att den metoden r ett exempel p orttvis behandling av anbudsgivare, srskilt av dem med giltiga lga anbud.
Further guidance is given on topics such as the selection of the appropriate public procurement procedure, time limits and selection and award criteria. 
Mer vgledning finns i mnen som hur man vljer ett lmpligt frfarande fr offentlig upphandling, tidsfrister och urvals-och tilldelningskriterier.
Nevertheless, at the time of the audit, the ex ante conditionality33 related to public procurement had not been fulfilled by Romania and it had only been partially fulfilled by Italy (Sicily) and Poland. 
Nr vi genomfrde revisionen hade dock frhandsvillkoren33 fr offentlig upphandling inte uppfyllts av Rumnien och bara delvis av Italien (Sicilien) och Polen.
The non-fulfilment of this ex ante conditionality by the end of 2016 may lead to a suspension of payments to Member States, as the Court has recently recommended34. 
Om frhandvillkoren inte har uppfyllts senast i slutet av 2016 kan det leda till att betalningarna till medlemsstaterna hlls inne, ngot som vi nyligen rekommenderade34.
71 The Commission organised a series of workshops on the topic of reasonableness of costs and simplified cost options in 2014-2015. 
71 Kommissionen anordnade en serie workshoppar i mnet rimliga kostnader och frenklade kostnadsalternativ under 2014 och 2015.
However, the issue of setting and using reference prices (see paragraph 51) was not addressed in the guidance documents discussed during these workshops. 
Frgan om hur man faststller och anvnder referenspriser (se punkt 51) togs dock inte upp i de vgledningsdokument som diskuterades vid workshopparna.
72 The Commission has not taken any specific action with regard to Member States’ project sustainability requirements and checks. 
72 Kommissionen har inte vidtagit ngon srskild tgrd nr det gller medlemsstaternas krav p och kontroller av projektens hllbarhet.
Part III — The monitoring and evaluation system did not produce adequate information on project results 73 Performance information on the effectiveness and efficiency of rural development spending is needed to demonstrate what has been achieved with the EU budget and to show that it has been spent well (accountability). 
Del III Đ vervaknings-och utvrderingssystemet gav inte tillrcklig information om projektresultat 73 Det behvs resultatinformation om landsbygdsutvecklingsutgifternas ndamlsenlighet och effektivitet fr att man ska kunna visa vad som har uppntts med EU-budgeten och ocks att den har anvnts vl (redovis-ningsskyldighet).
Furthermore, it is used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU budget by guiding ongoing management of the measures, pointing to possible improvements and helping to shape future policy, for example by revealing the types of investment that performed well. 
Vidare anvnds den informationen till att gra EU-budgeten effektivare och ndamlsenligare genom att man vgleder den pgende frvaltningen av tgrder, pekar p mjliga frbttringar och hjlper till att utforma morgondagens politik, t.ex. genom att lyfta fram de typer av investeringar som ftt goda resultat.