natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
20 Water bodies can also be affected by hydrological and/or morphological alterations as well as other types of pollution that prevent them from achieving good water quality status. 
20 Vattenfrekomster kan ocks pverkas av hydrologiska och/eller morfologiska frndringar och andra typer av froreningar som hindrar dem frn att uppn god vattenkvalitetsstatus.
21 The Court has already published other special reports11 in related fields. 
21 Revisionsrtten har tidigare offentliggjort andra srskilda rapporter11 p nrliggande omrden.
9 Part of the Czech Republic, a major part of Slovakia and the whole of Romania and Hungary are in the Danube river basin. 
9 En del av Tjeckien, en stor del av Slovakien och hela Rumnien och Ungern ligger i Donaus avrinningsomrde.
The total area of these Member States (expressed in km2) represents around half (49.4 %) of the Danube river basin. 
Dessa medlemsstaters totala areal (uttryckt i km2) motsvarar cirka hlften (49,4 %) av Donaus avrinningsomrde.
10 By December 2015 Member States had to adopt the second river basin management plans. 
10 Senast i december 2015 mste medlemsstaterna anta de andra frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt.
According to the water framework directive, the draft river basin management plans are subject to a consultation procedure with the parties interested in the implementation of the directive. 
Enligt ramdirektivet fr vatten r utkasten till frvaltningsplaner fr avrinningsdistrikt freml fr ett samrdsfrfarande med berrda parter i genomfrandet av direktivet.
11 Special Report No 8/2008 тIs cross-compliance an effective policy?у, Special Report No 7/2011 тIs agri-environment support well designed and managed?у, Special Report No 5/2011 тSingle payment scheme (SPS): issues to be addressed to improve its sound financial managementу, Special Report No 4/2014 тIntegration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial successу and Special Report No 2/2015 тEU funding of urban waste water treatment plants in the Danube river basin: further efforts needed in helping Member States to achieve EU waste water policy objectivesу (http://eca.europa.eu). 
11 Srskild rapport nr 8/2008 r tvrvillkoren ndamlsenliga?, srskild rapport nr 7/2011 Utformas och frvaltas stdet fr miljvnligt jordbruk vl?, srskild rapport nr 5/2011 Systemet med samlat grdsstd Đ vad mste gras fr att den ekonomiska frvaltningen ska bli bttre?, srskild rapport nr 4/2014 Integrering av EU:s vattenpolitikml i den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken: delvis en framgng samt srskild rapport nr 2/2015 EU:s anslag till anlggningar fr rening av avloppsvatten frn ttbebyggelse i Donaus avrinningsomrde: mer mste gras fr att hjlpa medlemsstaterna att uppfylla EU:s politiska ml nr det gller avloppsvatten (http://eca. europa.eu).
Observations 17 River basin management plans as a tool for achieving good water quality by 2015 22 According to the water framework directive Member States have to assess water quality using the results of their national water monitoring network. 
Iakttagelser 17 Frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt som verktyg fr att uppn god vattenkvalitet till 2015 22 Enligt ramdirektivet fr vatten ska medlemsstaterna bedma vattenkvaliteten med hjlp av resultaten frn sina nationella nt fr vattenvervakning.
The assessment is made at water body level12 on the basis of the systems and methods defined by the Member States within the rules specified by the water framework directive. 
Bedmningen grs p vattenfre-komstniv12 p grundval av de system och metoder som medlemsstaterna har faststllt i enlighet med bestmmelserna i ramdirektivet fr vatten.
There are two components to assessing water quality: я the ecological status/potential13: Member States have to make the assessment by taking into account various factors, called тquality ele-mentsу: biological elements (such as aquatic flora and fish fauna), hydromorphological elements and chemical and physico-chemical elements14. 
Bedmningen av vattenkvaliteten bestr av fljande tv delar: Ń Den ekologiska statusen/poten-tialen13: medlemsstaterna mste vid bedmningen beakta olika faktorer kallade Ókvalitetsfakto-rerÓ: biologiska faktorer (ssom vattenvxter och fiskfauna), hydromorfologiska faktorer samt kemiska och fysikalisk-kemiska faktorer14.
The latter include organic pollution (measured by the parameters biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and chemical oxygen demand (COD)), nutrient conditions and selected chemical substances15. 
De sistnmnda inbegriper organiska froreningar (som mts med parametrarna biokemisk syrefrbrukning (BOD5) och kemisk syrefrbrukning (COD)), nringsfrhllanden och utvalda kemiska mnen15.
The classification is made according to five categories: high, good, moderate, poor and bad; я the chemical status: Member States have to assess whether the environmental quality standards16 for the substances defined by EU legislation were respected or not (i.e. 41 priority substances or groups of substances were to be evaluated for the 2009 river basin management plans). 
Klassificeringen grs i fem kategorier: hg, god, mttlig, otillfredsstllande och dlig. Ń Den kemiska statusen: medlemsstaterna mste bedma huruvida miljkvalitetsnormerna16 fr de mnen som faststllts i EU:s lagstiftning har uppfyllts eller inte (dvs. 41 prioriterade mnen eller grupper av mnen skulle bedmas i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009).
The classification results in a score of either тgoodу or тfailу. 
Klassificeringen resulterar i omdmet ÓgodÓ eller Óuppnr inte godÓ status.
23 The overall classification of the ecological status is defined by the lowest observed individual quality element. 
23 Den vergripande klassificeringen av den ekologiska statusen bestms av den lgsta observerade enskilda kvalitetsfaktorn.
Equally, the chemical status can be rated as тgoodу only when the standards for all substances are complied with. 
P samma stt kan den kemiska statusen endast klassas som ÓgodÓ om normerna fr alla mnen uppfylls.
The application of such a rule may mask progress with regard to individual quality elements. 
Tillmpningen av en sdan regel kan dlja framsteg nr det gller enskilda kvalitetsfaktorer.
24 A river basin management plan has to include information on the pollution sources that water bodies are subject to, on the status assessment and on the measures to be implemented to achieve good water quality as well as their total cost. 
24 En frvaltningsplan fr avrinningsdistrikt mste innehlla information om vilka froreningskllor som pverkar vattenfrekomsterna, om statusbe-dmningen och om de tgrder som ska vidtas fr att uppn god vattenkvalitet samt de totala kostnaderna fr dem.
The plans also have to provide justification for granting a water body an exemption from the deadlines for achieving good water quality (the first deadline being 2015, see paragraph 2). 
Planerna mste ocks innehlla en motivering till att en vattenfrekomst beviljas undantag frn tidsfristerna fr att uppn god vattenkvalitet (frsta tidsfristen r 2015, se punkt 2).
12 According to Annex II of the water framework directive ,Member States had to identify surface water bodies and groundwater bodies. 
12 Enligt bilaga II till ramdirektivet fr vatten mste medlemsstaterna identifiera ytvattenfrekomster och grundvattenfrekomster.
13 For water bodies which have been heavily modified in their physical structure to serve various uses such as navigation, flood protection, hydropower and agriculture, in many cases, it is neither viable nor desirable from an economic point of view to abandon such uses and to remove the physical modifications. 
13 Nr det gller vattenfrekomster som har modifierats kraftigt i sin fysiska struktur fr olika ndaml som sjfart, skydd mot versvmningar, vattenkraft och jordbruk r det i mnga fall varken praktiskt eller nskvrt ur ekonomisk synvinkel att upphra med sdana anvndningar och att avlgsna de fysiska modifieringarna.
Therefore, for the heavily modified water bodies it is not the status but the potential which has to be assessed following the directive. 
Drfr ska inte de kraftigt modifierade vattenfrekomsternas status utan potential mtas enligt direktivet.
14 For priority substances indicated in Annex X to the water framework directive, the environmental quality standards are set at EU level. 
14 Vad betrffar de prioriterade mnen som anges i bilaga X till ramdirektivet fr vatten faststlls miljkvalitets-normerna p EU-niv.
For other substances it is up to the Member States to set environmental quality standards. 
Nr det gller andra mnen r det upp till medlemsstaterna att faststlla miljkvalitetsnormer.
16 Concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment. 
16 Koncentrationen av ett visst frorenande mne eller en viss grupp av frorenande mnen i vatten, sediment eller biota, som, fr att skydda mnniskors hlsa och miljn, inte br verskridas.
Observations 18 25 The Court examined whether: я surface water quality improved as a result of measures implemented by the Member States; я in the 2009 river basin management plans the pollution sources had been identified for each water body; я the measures identified in the 2009 river basin management plans adequately address the identified pollution sources; я Member States aimed at achieving the 2015 deadline for the majority of their water bodies; я the Commission had taken any action in cases where it considered the 2009 river basin management plans as being inadequate. 
Iakttagelser 18 25 Vi granskade huruvida Ń ytvattenkvaliteten frbttrades till fljd av de tgrder som medlemsstaterna vidtog, Ń froreningskllorna fr varje vattenfrekomst hade identifierats i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009, Ń de tgrder som hade faststllts i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009 p ett tillfredsstllande stt angriper de identifierade froreningskllorna, Ń medlemsstaterna frskte n tidsfristen 2015 nr det gllde merparten av deras vattenfrekomster, Ń kommissionen hade vidtagit tgrder om den ansg att frvaltningsplanen fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009 var bristfllig.
Little improvement in the ecological and chemical status of water bodies 26 Figures 1 and 2 present the changes between the 2009 river basin management plans17 and the 2015 draft plans, with regard to the ecological and chemical status of the surface water bodies in the four Member States visited. 
Vattenfrekomsternas ekologiska och kemiska status har knappast frbttrats 26 Diagrammen 1 och 2 visar frndringarna mellan frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 200917 och utkasten till planer fr 2015 nr det gller den ekologiska och kemiska statusen hos ytvattenfrekomsterna i de fyra beskta medlemsstaterna.
17 For the Czech Republic, which only has parts of its territory in the Danube river basin, reference is made to the river basin management plan for the Danube (and the plans for the sub-basins Dyje and Morava). 
17 Vad betrffar Tjeckien som endast har delar av sitt territorium i Donaus avrinningsomrde avses frvaltningsplanen fr avrinningsdistriktet fr Donau (och planerna fr delavrinningsomrdena Dyje och Morava).
Ecological status/potential presented in the 2009 river basin management plans and the 2015 draft plans (expressed as % of total number of surface water bodies) 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 2 % 2 % 32 % Czech Republic 2009 2015 2009 2 % 2 % 3 % 39 % 2009 34 % 2015 2009 Unclassified Poor & bad Moderate Good & high 62 % 24 % 12 % 40 % 26 % 39 % 22% 30 % 9% 22 % 26 % 38 % 13 % 59 % 1% 33 % 64 % 63 % 9% 36 % 55 % Hungary Romania Slovakia 2015 2015 Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE1 and the draft 2015 river basin management plans. 
Ekologisk status/potential presenterad i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009 och utkasten till planer fr 2015 (uttryckt i % av det totala antalet ytvattenfrekomster) 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 2 % 2 % 32 % 2 % 2 % 3 % 39 % Rumnien 2009 2015 34 % Slovakien 2009 2015 Oklassificerad Otillfredsstllande och dlig Mttlig God och hg 62 % 24 % 12 % 40 % 26 % 39 % 22 % 30 % 9% 22 % 26 % 38 % 13 % 59 % 1% 33 % 64 % 63 % 9% 36 % 55 % 2009 2015 2009 2015 Tjeckien Ungern Klla: Information frn medlemsstaterna via WISE och i utkasten till frvaltningsplaner fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2015.
1 WISE (Water Information for Europe) provides a wide range of data and information on water issues collected by EU institutions. Figure 1 
1 WISE (vatteninformation fr Europa, Water Information for Europe) tillhandahller en stor mngd uppgifter och information om vattenfrgor som sammanstllts av EU:s institutioner. Diagram 1
Observations 19 Chemical status presented in the 2009 river basin management plans and the 2015 draft plans (expressed as % of total number of surface water bodies) 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 2% 2 % 3 % 31 % 67 % 49 % 51 % 3 94 % % 3% 46 % 29 % 25 % 7% 93 % 6% 92 % 5% 95 % 97 % Unknown Fail Good Czech Republic 2009 2015 2009 Hungary Romania Slovakia 2015 2009 2015 2009 2015 Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE and the draft 2015 river basin management plans. 
Iakttagelser 19 Kemisk status/potential presenterad i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009 och utkasten till planer fr 2015 (uttryckt i % av det totala antalet ytvattenfrekomster) 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 2% 2 % 3 % 31 % 67 % 49 % 51 % 3 94 % % 3% 46 % 29 % 25 % 7% 93 % 6% 92 % 5% 95 % 97 % Oknd status Uppnr ej god status God status 2009 2015 2009 2015 Tjeckien Ungern Rumnien 2009 2015 2009 Slovakien 2015 Klla: Information frn medlemsstaterna via WISE och i utkasten till frvaltningsplaner fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2015.
27 Based on the data included in the river basin management plans, the changes in water quality status do not appear to be significant and the 2015 deadline for achieving good status was not met. 
27 Utifrn uppgifterna i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt frefaller inte frndringarna av vattenkvali-tetsstatusen vara srskilt stora, och tidsfristen fr att uppn god status till 2015 hlls inte.
The bodies with ecological status/ potential that was тgood or highу only increased by a small percentage, with the biggest increase for the Czech Republic. 
Vattenfrekomster med ÓgodÓ eller ÓhgÓ ekologisk status/potential kade med endast en liten procentsats, dr Tjeckien stod fr den strsta kningen.
For the chemical status, the situation deteriorated in the Czech Republic. 
Nr det gller den kemiska statusen frsmrades situationen i Tjeckien.
Hungary managed to significantly reduce the number of water bodies with unknown status, which explains the increase in the number of water bodies either having scores of тgoodу or тfailу chemical status. 
Ungern lyckades minska antalet vattenfrekomster med oknd status betydligt, vilket frklarar det kade antalet vattenfrekomster med en kemisk status som klassas som ÓgodÓ eller Óuppnr ej godÓ status.
Identification of the pollution sources at water body level suffered from lack of comprehensive data 28 Given a lack of monitoring data, Member States partly based their status assessment on indirect methods such as risk analysis and estimation, which has an impact on the degree of confidence with regard to the status classification. 
Identifieringen av froreningskllorna p vattenfrekomstniv frsvrades av att uttmmande uppgifter saknades 28 Eftersom vervakningsuppgifter saknades baserade medlemsstaterna sin statusbedmning delvis p indirekta metoder, ssom riskanalys och riskuppskattning, vilket pverkar statusklassificeringens tillfrlitlighet.
While Romania and Slovakia have a high number of water bodies classified as тgoodу and тhighу in the 2009 plans (see Figures 1 and 2), the confidence in the classification was low for a significant number of water bodies. 
Rumnien och Slovakien har ett stort antal vattenfrekomster vars status klassas som ÓgodÓ och ÓhgÓ i planerna frn 2009 (se diagrammen 1 och 2), men klassificeringens tillfrlitlighet var lg fr ett betydande antal vattenfrekomster.
The lower the degree of confidence in a status classification, the more difficult it is to identify the appropriate measures to remedy the situation. Figure 2 
Ju lgre tillfrlitligheten r i en statusklassificering, desto svrare r det att identifiera lmpliga tgrder fr att komma till rtta med situationen. Diagram 2
Observations 20 29 Also, the number of specific physico-chemical substances assessed for the ecological status (see paragraph 22) varied significantly from one Member State to another (from four in Hungary to more than 80 in the Czech Repub-я lic) sometimes due to a lack of proper identification. 
Iakttagelser 20 29 Dessutom varierade det antal specifika fysikalisk-kemiska faktorer som bedmdes med avseende p ekologisk status (se punkt 22) kraftigt mellan medlemsstaterna (frn fyra i Ungern till ver 80 i Tjeckien), vilket ibland berodde p att man inte hade gjort en ordentlig identifiering.
This can lead to an overoptimistic classification of water bodies. of data in particular with regard to the discharge of physico-chemical and priority substances. 
Det kan leda till veroptimistisk klassificering av vattenfrekomster.
Most information was available for organic 30 and nutrient emissions from urban Annex II presents the percentage of water bodies that were subject to pollution from point and diffuse sources я as well as the percentage of water bodies subject to organic enrichment, to nutrient enrichment and to contamination by priority substances or other specific pollutants. waste water treatment plants; when it comes to diffuse pollution the calculation of the share of the various sources (fertiliser use, erosion, atmospheric deposition, etc.) is difficult and therefore estimations were mainly based on statistical models; 31 The Courtуs analysis showed that there were insufficiencies regarding the information by water body presented in the 2009 river basin management plans18: they do not always indicate whether organic pollution (BOD5 and COD), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), physico-chemical and priority substances and pesticides pose a problem to the water quality of the body concerned. я when it comes to contaminated and waste disposal sites no quantified information on the importance of the source was available. 
30 I bilaga II presenteras den andel vattenfrekomster som pverkades av froreningar frn punktkllor och diffusa kllor samt den andel vattenfrekomster som pverkades av tillfrsel av organiska mnen, vergdning och kontaminering av prioriterade mnen eller andra specifika frorenande mnen.
Measures identified in the river basin management plans are not sufficient to adequately address pollution sources 33 According to the 2009 guidance document No 21 for reporting under the water framework directive Member States had to present the measures in their river basin management plan according to three categories: тbasic measuresу (measures required to implement EU Directives), тother basic measuresу (measures additionally introduced by the Water Framework Direc-tive19) and тsupplementary measuresу. 
De tgrder som identifierades i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt r inte tillrckliga fr att man p ett adekvat stt ska angripa froreningskllorna 33 Enligt vgledning nr 21 frn 2009 fr rapportering inom ramen fr ramdirektivet fr vatten var medlemsstaterna tvungna att presentera tgrderna i sin frvaltningsplan fr avrinningsdistriktet i enlighet med tre kategorier: Ógrundlggande tgrderÓ (tgrder som krvs fr att genomfra EU-direk-tiv), Óandra grundlggande tgrderÓ (andra tgrder som infrts genom ramdirektivet fr vatten19) och Ókompletterande tgrderÓ.
32 18 This does not preclude that other information is available at Member State level but not presented in the river basin management plans. 
18 Detta utesluter inte att det p medlemsstatsniv finns annan information tillgnglig som inte presenteras i frvaltningsplanerna fr avrinningsdistrikt.
19 These include (i) for point source discharges: a requirement for prior regulation or for prior authorisation, or registration based on general binding rules and (ii) for diffuse sources: measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants and (iii) measures deemed appropriate to recover the costs of water services. 
19 De inbegriper i) nr det gller utslpp frn punktkllor: krav p frhandsreglering eller krav p frhandsprvning eller registrering som baseras p allmnna bindande regler, ii) nr det gller diffusa kllor: tgrder fr att hindra eller reglera utslpp av frorenande mnen och iii) tgrder som anses lmpliga fr att tcka kostnaderna fr vattentjnster.
Observations 21 34 The 2009 river basin management plans of the four Member States generally lacked information on the achievements to be expected from the implementation of the тbasic measuresу and the resulting need for additional measures to achieve good status. 
Iakttagelser 21 34 De fyra medlemsstaternas frvaltningsplaner fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009 saknade i allmnhet information om de frvntade resultaten av att de grundlggande tgrderna genomfrdes och om de ytterligare tgrder som behvde vidtas fr att man skulle uppn god status.
Pollution from agglomerations: measures in addition to the urban waste water treatment directive miss out some important aspects 35 The тbasic measureу for tackling pollution from agglomerations is the implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive (see Table 1). 
Utslpp frn ttbebyggelse: tgrder utver direktivet om rening av avloppsvatten frn ttbebyggelse missar en del viktiga aspekter 35 Den Ógrundlggande tgrdenÓ fr att komma till rtta med frorening frn ttbebyggelse r att genomfra direktivet om rening av avloppsvatten frn ttbebyggelse (se tabell 1).
36 With regard to тother basicу and уsup-plementary measuresу, the Court identified the following shortcomings in the 2009 river basin management plans of the four Member States: я for agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. the river basin management plans of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia failed to indicate how many of these agglomerations are of importance for water quality and thus would need specific measures; я the water quality situation of water bodies may require setting emission limits that go beyond the requirements of the urban waste water treatment directive (see Annex III). 
36 Vad betrffar Óandra grundlggandeÓ och Ókompletterande tgrderÓ konstaterade revisionsrtten fljande brister i de fyra medlemsstaternas frvaltningsplaner fr avrinningsdistrikt frn 2009: Ń Nr det gller ttorter med mindre n 2 000 pe angav inte Tjeckiens, Ungerns och Slovakiens frvaltningsplaner fr avrinningsdistrikt hur mnga av dessa ttorter som pverkar vattenkvaliteten och drmed skulle krva specifika tgrder. Ń Situationen nr det gller vattenkvaliteten i vattenfrekomster kan gra att utslppsgrnsvrden som gr utver kraven i direktivet om rening av avloppsvatten frn ttbebyggelse (se bilaga III) mste faststllas.
The review of the adequacy of emission limit values as defined in the national legal provisions was mentioned for Hungary and Romania. The Czech Republic did not include such a measure as the limits set by law had been updated in 2007, thus shortly before the approval of the river basin management plan. 
I frga om Ungern och Rumnien nmndes att man skulle underska om de utslppsgrnsvrden som angavs i den nationella lagstiftningen var lmpliga. Tjeckien hade inte tagit med en sdan tgrd eftersom de grnsvrden som faststllts i lagstiftningen hade uppdaterats 2007, dvs. kort innan frvaltningsplanen fr avrinningsdistrikt godkndes.