natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
25 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
25 Srskild rapport nr 8/2009 Đ Expertntverk och integrerade projekt i gemenskapens forskningspolitik Đ uppnddes mlen?
As shown by Figure 7, a number of actors (mainly participants and to a lesser extent also coordinators) reached no or insufficient understanding about the specific objectives that the instruments were to achieve and the way in which the instruments were supposed to work. 
Som framgr av diagram 7 frstod inte ett antal aktrer (frmst deltagare och i mindre utstrckning ven projektsamordnare) helt eller delvis de specifika ml som instrumenten var tnkta att uppn eller hur instrumenten skulle fungera.
In particular for NoEs, the survey results indicate that they were mainly understood as a networking instrument, while the objective was that of favouring lasting integration among networked partners. 
Srskilt nr det gller expertntverken visade underskningsresultaten att dessa huvudsakligen uppfattades som ntverksinstrument, medan deras ml i sjlva verket var att frmja varaktig integration bland ntverksparterna.
And further problems were caused by inconsistent communication from the Commission services25. 
Ytterligare problem orsakades av inkonsekvent kommunikation frn kommissionens avdelningar25.
The Commission has to ensure that different actors are clear about the goals to be pursued. 
Kommissionen mste se till att de olika aktrerna frstr vad mlen som de ska strva mot att uppn innebr.
In this respect the role of the coordinators should be highlighted, as they show a far better understanding than participants. 
I detta avseende br samordnarnas roll lyftas fram, eftersom de har frsttt mlen mycket bttre n deltagarna.
This indicates a problem of communication within consortia, probably aggravated by the high number of participants (see paragraph 51). 
Detta tyder p att det finns ett kommunikationsproblem inom konsortierna som troligen frvrras av det stora antalet deltagare (se punkt 51).
25 See also the Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence, op.cit, Section 3.3 (p. 
25 Se ven expertgruppen om expertntverkens framtid (Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence) som ovan, avsnitt 3.3 (s.
18) and Annex 3 (p. 
18) och bilaga 3 (s.
26 FIGURE 7 Do you feel you properly understood the differences between the main collaborative instruments (NoE and IP) when you selected which one to use for the proposal? 
26 DIAGRAM 7 Anser ni er p ett riktigt stt ha frsttt skillnaden mellan de strsta samarbetsinstrumenten (expertntverk och integrerade projekt) nr ni valde vilket som skulle anvndas fr ert frslag?
Succesful applicants Coordinators Participants Coordinators Participants Unsuccesful applicants Coordinators Participants Coordinators Participants ACTORS’ UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE AUDITED INSTRUMENTS’ ROLE NoE IP Yes, definitely Yes, somewhat No, somewhat not No, definitely not Yes, definitely Yes, somewhat No, somewhat not No, definitely not 86 % 11 % 0 % 3 % 75 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 53 % 33 % 8 % 6 % 67 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 84 % 13 % 3% 0% 60 % 20 % 20 % 0 % 62 % 25 % 12 % 2% 58 % 27 % 13 % 2 % Source: Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors. 
86 % 11 % 0 % 3 % 75 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 53 % 33 % 8 % 6 % 67 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 84 % 13 % 3% 0% 60 % 20 % 20 % 0 % 62 % 25 % 12 % 2% 58 % 27 % 13 % 2 % Srskild rapport nr 8/2009 Đ Expertntverk och integrerade projekt i gemenskapens forskningspolitik Đ uppnddes mlen?
MULTIPLE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE 47. 
EN MNGFALD LAGBESTMMELSER MEN INTE ALLTID TILLRCKLIGA RIKTLINJER 47.
The legal provisions governing the instruments were spread across a range of legal texts26. 
De lagbestmmelser som reglerar instrumenten var spridda ver mnga olika lagtexter26.
At different stages decisions were taken by the Council and the European Parliament to set up the instruments and their specific objectives (stating in which programme areas they might be applied), or by the Commission concerning the provisions for implementing the instruments (specifying in particular the basic Community contribution mechanisms that were narrowly applicable to each instrument) and finally the model FP6 contract (specifying provisions for programme participants implementing indirect RTD actions in the form of specific instruments). 
Beslut fattades p olika stadier av rdet och Europaparlamentet fr att inrtta instrumenten och faststlla deras specifika ml (besluten angav p vilka programomrden de kunde tillmpas) eller av kommissionen nr det gller bestmmelserna fr instrumentens genomfrande (besluten angav i synnerhet de grundlggande mekanismer fr gemenskapsbidrag som snvt tillmpades p varje instrument) och slutligen fr sjtte ramprogrammets standardkontrakt (dr bestmmelserna fr de programdeltagare som genomfr indirekta FoTU-tgrder i form av srskilda instrument specifice-ras).
The different applicable provisions were not always consistent. 
De olika tillmpliga bestmmelserna var inte alltid inbrdes konsekventa.
Guidance was not complete when the first FP6 calls for proposals were launched in December 2002. 
Riktlinjerna var inte kompletta nr den frsta frslagsomgngen fr sjtte ramprogrammet inleddes i december 2002.
The delays affecting the preparation and publication of guidelines were traceable, ultimately, to the late adoption of model contracts. 
Frseningarna som pverkade utarbetandet och offentliggrandet av riktlinjerna berodde ytterst p att standardkontrakten antogs sent.
In response to the publication of the 2004 evaluation27, the Commission took corrective action aimed at differentiating between the instruments. 
Till fljd av offentliggrandet av 2004 rs utvrdering27 vidtog kommissionen korrigerande tgrder som skulle gra tskillnad mellan de olika instrumenten.
This resulted in a better understanding of the nature of the instruments, but areas of misunderstanding persisted. 
Detta gjorde att frstelsen av instrumentens srdrag frbttrades, men p vissa omrden kvarstod nd missfrstnd.
As a result, further guidance was provided on several aspects of FP6 project management not addressed by the initial programme guides28. 
Drfr tillhandahlls ytterligare riktlinjer fr flera aspekter av sjtte ramprogrammets projektfrvaltning som inte uppmrksammats i de frsta riktlinjerna fr programmet28.
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: MORE LENGTHY AND OFTEN NOT TRANSPARENT 50. 
F RHANDLINGSPROCESSEN LNGRE OCH OFTA UTAN INSYN 50.
Average time-to-contract29 was about 13 months, to be compared with a duration of nine months for FP5 calls30. 
Den genomsnittliga tid det tog innan kontrakten kunde undertecknas29 var omkring 13 mnader, jmfrt med 9 mnader fr femte ramprogrammets anskningsomgngar30.
As a result, consortia had no choice but to start projects before the contract had been signed. 
Som en fljd av detta hade konsortierna inget annat val n att starta projekten innan kontraktet hade undertecknats.
This entailed a legal and financial risk for the beneficiaries, which is at odds with the objective of encouraging research activities. On the other hand, the project scope (composition of the consortium, duration, work programme) was modified in several cases (11 out of 14 projects audited) at the initiative of the Commission during the negotiation process, without explicit reference to the objectives of the programme. 
Detta innebar en rttslig och ekonomisk risk fr stdmottagarna, vilket gr stick i stv med mlet att stimulera till forskningsverksamhet.  andra sidan modifierades projektets omfattning (konsortiets sammansttning, lptid och arbetsprogram) i flera fall (11 av 14 granskade projekt) p kommissionens initiativ under frhandlingsprocessen utan uttrycklig hnvisning till programmlen.
26 See for example Annex III to Decision No 1513/2002/EC, Annex III to Council Decision 2002/834/EC (OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 
26 Se till exempel bilaga III i beslut nr 1513/2002/EG. Bilaga III i rdets beslut 2002/834/EG (EGT L 294, 29.10.2002, s.
1) and Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 
1). Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning (EG) nr 2321/2002 (EGT L 355, 30.12.2002, s.
28 For example, the guide on competitive calls for NoEs and IPs appeared in November 2004. 
28 Till exempel riktlinjerna fr konkurrensutsatta anskningsomgngar fr expertntverk och integrerade projekt frn november 2004.
The guide on Intellectual Property rights appeared in March 2004. 
Riktlinjerna fr upphovsrtt kom i mars 2004.
29 Time to contract is defined as the time elapsed between a call closing date and a contract signature. 
29 Den tid det tar innan kontrakten kan undertecknas definieras som den tid som frflyter mellan slutdatumet fr en anskningsomgng och undertecknandet av ett kontrakt.
30 See page 60 of Special Report No 1/2004 on the management of ‘indirect’ RTD actions under the fifth framework programme (OJ C 99, 23.4.2004). 
30 Se punkt 60 i srskild rapport nr 1/2004 om frvaltningen av indirekta FoTU-tgrder inom femte ramprogrammet (EUT C 99, 23.4.2004).
27 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
27 Srskild rapport nr 8/2009 Đ Expertntverk och integrerade projekt i gemenskapens forskningspolitik Đ uppnddes mlen?
FEWER AND LARGER PROJECTS BUT STILL A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 51. Although there is not a ‘once size fits all’ number of participants, it is clear that the larger the number of participants, the more difficult the project is to manage (organisational constraints, costs). 
FRRE OCH ST RRE PROJEKT MEN FORTFARANDE ETT STORT ANTAL DELTAGARE 51. ven om det inte finns ngot optimalt antal deltagare fr ett projekt str det klart att ju strre deltagarantalet r desto svrare r det att frvalta projektet (till exempel p grund av organisatoriska begrnsningar och kostnader).
Compared to FP5, fewer contracts were signed under FP6 and they involved larger consortia. 
Inom sjtte ramprogrammet undertecknades frre kontrakt jmfrt med femte ramprogrammet, men de konsortier som var inblandade var strre.
However, on average, the number of participants per contract is higher in FP6 (NoEs involved on average 30 participants and IPs around 25 partners). 
I genomsnitt var dock deltagarantalet per kontrakt hgre inom sjtte ramprogrammet (i expertntverken deltog i genomsnitt 30 deltagare och i de integrerade projekten omkring 25 parter).
Under FP7 the number of participants has been reduced (both NoEs and IP-like collaborative projects involve on average slightly less than 20 partners). 
Deltagarantalet har minskat under sjunde ramprogrammet (bde expertntverken och de samverkansprojekt som liknar integrerade projekt har i genomsnitt ngot frre n 20 deltagare).
WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT MONITORING 52. 
BRISTER I PROJEKT VERVAKNINGEN 52.
All indirect RTD actions implemented under FP6 were subject to periodic technical monitoring by the Commission. 
Alla indirekta FoTU-tgrder som genomfrdes under sjtte ramprogrammet undergick regelbunden teknisk vervakning som genomfrdes av kommissionen.
For Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects, technical monitoring should be supported by project reviews carried out by independent experts (see footnote 11). 
Fr expertntverk och integrerade projekt br den tekniska vervakningen understdjas av projektgranskningar som utfrs av oberoende experter (se fotnot 11).
In particular, the Court found that two Commission departments had failed to fully comply with the legal requirement to have annual project reviews performed by independent experts. 
Framfr allt fann revisionsrtten att tv av kommissionens avdelningar inte till fullo hade fljt lagbestmmelserna om att rliga projektgranskningar ska genomfras av oberoende experter.
28 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
28 Srskild rapport nr 8/2009 Đ Expertntverk och integrerade projekt i gemenskapens forskningspolitik Đ uppnddes mlen?
STIMULATION OF RTD INVESTMENT 54. 
ATT STIMULERA TILL FOTU-INVESTERINGAR 54.
The total value of RTD investment carried out under FP6 thematic priorities amounted to 19 billion euro. 
Det samlade vrdet av FoTU-investeringar som gjordes inom sjtte ramprogrammets prioriterade tematiska omrden uppgick till 19 miljarder euro.
The EU budget funded 63 % of this investment. 
Av dessa investeringar finansierades 63 % med medel frn EU:s budget.
The private sector (including SMEs) contributed up to 22 %. 
Den privata sektorn (ssom sm och medelstora fretag) bidrog med upp till 22 %.
The remaining 15 % was funded by national public sources31. 
Resterande 15 % finansierades genom medel frn nationell offentlig sektor31.
The comparison of FP6 (thematic priorities) with its predecessor (FP5 thematic programmes32) shows that total investment and EU contribution have increased in absolute terms (by 8 % and 15 %, respectively). 
En jmfrelse mellan sjtte ramprogrammet (prioriterade tematiska omrden) och dess fregngare (femte ramprogrammets tematiska program32) visar ett de totala investeringarna och EU-bidragen har kat i absoluta tal (med 8 % respektive 15 %).
However, the ratio ‘Total investment/EU contribution’ has declined from 1,69 euro (FP5) to 1,59 euro (FP6). 
Frhllandet mellan totala investeringar och EU-bidrag har sjunkit frn 1,69 euro (femte ramprogrammet) till 1,59 euro (sjtte ramprogrammet).
The main reason is that the participation of the private sector in general has declined when compared to FP5 (see Figure 6). 
Den strsta orsaken r att deltagandet frn den privata sektorn generellt har sjunkit i jmfrelse med femte ramprogrammet (se diagram 6).
The Court’s audit highlighted a risk of ‘low-profile’ commitment of public bodies participating in the programme. 
Revisionsrttens granskning pvisade en risk fr att offentliga organ som deltar i programmet endast gr mindre taganden.
Cases were found (12 out of 14 projects assessed) where the volume of own resources was much lower (between 30 % and 80 % less) than the costs actually reimbursed by the Commission33. 
Det upptcktes fall (12 av 14 bedmda projekt) dr mngden egna medel var mycket lgre (mellan 30 och 80 % lgre) n de kostnader som faktiskt hade ersatts av kommissionen33.
In such cases, the stimulation of investment is reduced, with the possibility that EU funds simply substitute participants’ own resources. 
I dessa fall minskar stimulansen till investering, vilket kan innebra att EU-medlen helt enkelt erstter deltagarnas egna medel.
31 The only data available for analysis correspond to the contractually agreed estimated eligible costs and the related Community contribution. 
31 De enda uppgifter som finns tillgngliga fr analys r de avtalade berknade stdberttigande kostnaderna och det tillhrande gemenskapsbidraget.
The lack of more detailed information, in particular the total investment actually carried out as a result of the participation in the programme, makes impossible any further analysis. 
Bristen p mer detaljerade uppgifter, srskilt det totala belopp som faktiskt investerats till fljd av deltagande i programmet, gr en ytterligare analys omjlig.
32 FP5 thematic programmes are the predecessors of FP6 thematic priorities. 
32 Femte ramprogrammets tematiska program r fregngarna till sjtte ramprogrammets tematiska omrden.
They were four: ‘Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources’, ‘User-friendly Information Society’, ‘Competitive and Sustainable Growth’ and ‘Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development’. 
De var fyra stycken: Frbttrad livskvalitet och frvaltning av levande resurser, Ett anvndarvnligt informationssamhlle, Konkurrenskraftig och hllbar tillvxt samt Energi, milj och hllbar utveckling.
33 According to the model applied by a significant number of public bodies (mainly universities), participants should allocate a volume of own resources equivalent to those funded by the Community. 
33 Enligt den modell som tillmpades av ett stort antal offentliga organ (huvudsakligen universitet), br deltagarna ansl en mngd egna medel som motsvarar gemenskapens del av finansieringen.
In this way the principle of co-financing would be satisfied. 
P detta stt skulle principen om medfinansiering fljas.
However, this condition was not adequately monitored by the Commission. 
Detta villkor kontrollerades dock inte tillrckligt av kommissionen.
29 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
29 Srskild rapport nr 8/2009 Đ Expertntverk och integrerade projekt i gemenskapens forskningspolitik Đ uppnddes mlen?
30 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57. 
30 SLUTSATSER OCH REKOMMENDATIONER 57.
The Court recalls the lack in FP 6 of an explicit intervention logic, explaining how the different instruments and programmes were supposed to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international level34. 
Revisionsrtten pminner om att det saknas en uttalad interventionslogik inom sjtte ramprogrammet som frklarar hur de olika instrumenten och programmen skulle strka den vetenskapliga och teknologiska grunden fr gemenskapsindustrin och frmja utvecklingen av dennas internationella konkurrensfrmga34.
The absence of SMART objectives and performance indicators limits significantly the assessment of the contribution of specific instruments and activities to the RTD objectives, thus undermining the basis for sound monitoring and evaluation (see paragraphs 19 and 20). 
Avsaknaden av Smart-ml och resultatindikatorer begrnsar vsentligt bedmningen av hur de specifika instrumenten och verksamheterna bidrog till FoTU-mlen och frsvagar p s stt grunden fr en god vervakning och utvrdering (se punkterna 19 och 20).
34 See paragraphs 22 to 37 of Special Report No 9/2007. 
34 Se punkterna 22Đ37 i srskild rapport nr 9/2007.
RECOMMENDATION NO 1 DEVELOP AN EXPLICIT INTERVENTION LOGIC The Court recalls its previous recommendation that spending programmes should be based upon an explicit intervention logic, linking the instruments to realistic objectives. 
REKOMMENDATION NR 1 UTARBETA EN UTTALAD INTERVENTIONSLOGIK Revisionsrtten pminner om sin tidigare rekommendation att utgiftsprogram br bygga p en uttalad interventionslogik som kopplar instrumenten till realistiska ml.
In this context, the possibility of setting one single objective for each instrument should be considered in order to ensure clarity of the instruments’ specific role. 
I detta sammanhang br mjligheten att stta upp ett enda ml fr varje enskilt instrument beaktas, i syfte att garantera att instrumentets specifika roll blir tydlig.
The Court found that the FP6 instruments audited had promoted effective research collaboration between project participants. 
Revisionsrtten fann att de granskade instrumenten inom sjtte ramprogrammet hade frmjat ett ndamlsenligt samarbete mellan projektdeltagarna.
However, while all projects were qualified as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection by the Commission, not more than one third of them kept a rating between ‘good to excellent’ after implementation (see paragraphs 22 to 27). 
Trots att alla projekt bedmdes vara mycket bra nr kommissionen valde ut dem behll dock inte mer n en tredjedel av dem en vrdering mellan bra och mycket bra efter genomfrandet (se punkterna 22Đ27).
Notwithstanding their success in promoting research collaboration and projects of reasonable quality, none of the NoEs audited achieved the specific objective of lasting integration among networked partners, thus making future collaboration subject to continued public support. 
Trots att de granskade expertntverken lyckats frmja forskningssamarbete och projekt av rimlig kvalitet uppndde inget av dem det specifika mlet om varaktig integration av ntverksparter, vilket innebr att framtida samarbete r avhngigt av fortsatt offentligt std.
Among the difficulties there was the reluctance of many organisations to engage in a long-term commitment, but also the fact that the maximal duration of five years proved not to be realistic, particularly in areas where lasting integration can only be achieved progressively. 
En annan var det faktum att det fanns en vre grns p fem r fr projektens lptid, vilket visade sig vara orealistiskt, srskilt p omrden dr varaktig integration bara kan stadkommas stegvis.
This raises the question as to the conditions under which it is justified to continue their financing beyond the initial duration, under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) (see paragraphs 29 to 35). Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Detta vcker frgan under vilka frutsttningar det r berttigat att fortstta att finansiera dem efter att den ursprungliga lptiden gtt ut, inom det pgende sjunde ramprogrammet (se punkterna 29Đ35). Srskild rapport nr 8/2009 Đ Expertntverk och integrerade projekt i gemenskapens forskningspolitik Đ uppnddes mlen?
Thanks to a longer duration and an increased number of participants, they have mobilised a significant volume of resources. 
Tack vare lngre lptider och ett kat antal deltagare kunde de uppbda en vsentlig mngd resurser.
However, IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and private funding. (see paragraphs 36 to 38). 
Dremot har de integrerade projekten inte lyckats dra till sig extra offentlig eller privat finansiering (se punkterna 36Đ38).
31 RECOMMENDATION NO 2 ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE OF NEW INSTRUMENTS COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION The Commission should consider whether NoEs and IP-like collaborative projects, which continue to receive funding under the current Framework Programme (FP7), have been given realistic objectives and provide significant advantages as compared with traditional instruments for research collaboration. 
31 REKOMMENDATION NR 2 BED MA DE NYA INSTRUMENTENS RESULTAT GENOM ATT JMF RA MED TRADITIONELLT FORSKNINGSSAMARBETE Kommissionen br vervga om de ml som satts upp fr expertntverken och de samverkansprojekt som liknar integrerade projekt, som fortfarande finansieras inom det nuvarande, sjunde, ramprogrammet, r realistiska och ger vsentliga frdelar jmfrt med traditionella instrument fr forskningssamarbete.
Concerning NoEs financed under FP6, the Commission should assess on a case-by-case basis whether past achievements, potential EU added value and prospects of self-sustainability justify further funding under FP7. 
Nr det gller expertntverk som finansierades genom sjtte ramprogrammet br kommissionen bedma frn fall till fall om hittills uppndda resultat, det potentiella EU-mervrdet och eventuella mjligheter till varaktighet motiverar till ytterligare finansiering genom sjunde ramprogrammet.
Overall, when compared to FP5, EU funds have increased in FP6 but the investment realised is proportionally less important. 
I jmfrelse med femte ramprogrammet har EU-finansieringen generellt sett kat med sjtte ramprogrammet, men de investeringar som gjorts r proportionellt sett lgre.
The main reason is that the participation of the private sector in general has declined (see paragraph 55). 
Den viktigaste orsaken r att den privata sektorns deltagande verlag har minskat (se punkt 55).
The Court’s audit revealed cases where EU funds were far higher than the own resources committed by public bodies participating in the programme, with the possibility that EU funds simply substitute participants’ own resources (see paragraph 56). 
Revisionsrttens granskning avsljade fall dr EU-medlen var mycket hgre n de egna medel som de offentliga organ som deltog i programmet hade anslagit, vilket kan innebra att EU-medlen helt enkelt erstter deltagarnas egna medel (se punkt 56).