natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The final appropriations amounted to 243 million euro, including 49 million euro provided for emergency measures but not used. 
De slutliga anslagen uppgick till 243 miljoner euro, inbegripet 49 miljoner euro till brdskande tgrder som inte anvndes.
As of the end of December 2006 the Commission estimates that 141 million euro had been paid. 
Enligt kommissionens uppskattningar hade 141 miljoner euro betalats ut vid utgngen av december 2006.
The following table shows the appropriations and commitments for the years 2000 to 2004. Appropriations and commitments 2000 to 2004 (million euro) Administrative expenditure ERF Operational expenditure ERF Administrative expenditure emergency measures ERF Operational expenditure emergency measures ERF 2000 Appropriations 3,64 189,02 0,96 49,03 to 2004 Commitments 2,19 189,00 (*) (*) 2004 Appro-Commit- priations ments 0,66 0,12 42,27 42,27 0,16 (*) 9,82 (*) 2003 Appro-Commit- priations ments 0,73 0,65 42,27 42,27 0,18 (*) 9,82 (*) 2002 Appro-Commit- priations ments 0,73 0,53 45,08 44,99 0,18 (*) 9,82 (*) 2001 Appro-Commit- Appro-Commit- Total 242,65 191,19 52,91 42,39 53,00 42,92 55,81 45,52 45,00 34,40 36,01 25,95 2000 priations ments priations 0,81 0,21 0,72 0,67 34,19 34,19 25,28 25,28 0,20 (*) 0,23 (*) 9,80 (*) 9,78 (*) ments (*) Appropriations foreseen for emergency needs and not used between 2000 and 2004. 
2000Đ2004 Anslag taganden 3,64 2,19 189,02 189,00 0,96 (*) 49,03 (*) 2004 2003 2002 (miljoner euro) 2001 2000 Anslag ta-Anslag taganden ganden 0,81 0,21 0,72 0,67 34,19 34,19 25,28 25,28 0,20 (*) 0,23 (*) 9,80 (*) 9,78 (*) Anslag och taganden 2000Đ2004 Administrativa utgifter ERF Driftsutgifter ERF Administrativa utgifter fr brdskande tgrder ERF Driftsutgifter fr brdskande tgrder ERF Anslag ta-Anslag ganden 0,66 0,12 0,73 42,27 42,27 42,27 0,16 (*) 0,18 9,82 (*) 9,82 ta-Anslag ganden 0,65 0,73 42,27 45,08 (*) 0,18 (*) 9,82 taganden 0,53 44,99 (*) (*) Total 242,65 191,19 52,91 42,39 53,00 42,92 55,81 45,52 45,00 34,40 36,01 25,95 (*) Anslag som planerats till brdskande behov och som inte anvndes mellan 2000 och 2004.
Source: European Commission accounting system. 
Klla: Europeiska kommissionens redovisningssystem.
The management of the ERF was shared (2) between the Commission (Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security Ń JLS DG) and the Member States. 
Frvaltningen av ERF delades (2) mellan kommissionen (generaldirektoratet fr rttvisa, frihet och skerhet, GD Rttvisa, frihet och skerhet) och medlemsstaterna.
The Commission had the overall responsibility for the correct implementation of the Fund, while the Member States were in charge of managing the actual measures. 
Kommissionen hade det vergripande ansvaret fr att fonden genomfrdes korrekt medan medlemsstaterna ansvarade fr frvaltningen av de faktiska tgrderna.
Each Member State had appointed a national authority which handled all communication with the Commission and was responsible for the selection of individual projects and for their financial management and administration. 
Varje medlemsstat utsg en nationell myndighet som svarade fr alla kontakter med kommissionen och ansvarade fr urvalet av enskilda projekt och fr den ekonomiska frvaltningen och administrationen av dem.
Persons targeted by the ERF were third-country nationals or stateless persons who had refugee status as defined by the Geneva Convention (3), as well as persons benefiting from international or temporary protection. 
Mlgrupperna fr ERF var medborgare i tredjeland eller statslsa personer med en sdan rttslig stllning som anges i Genvekonventionen (3) och ven personer som tnjuter ngon form av internationellt eller tillflligt skydd.
Asylum seekers who had applied for refugee status and persons whose right to temporary protection was being examined in a Member State were also eligible. 
Asylskande som hade anskt om att f flyktingstatus och personer vars rtt till tillflligt skydd hll p att utredas av en medlemsstat var ocks berttigade till std.
(1) Recital 2 of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(1) Skl 2 i beslut 2000/596/EG.
(2) As defined in Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002). 
(2) I enlighet med artikel 53 i rdets frordning (EG, Euratom) nr 1605/2002 av den 25 juni 2002 med budgetfrordning fr Europeiska gemenskapernas allmnna budget (EGT L 248, 16.9.2002).
(3) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 189, p. 
(3) Konventionangendeflyktingarsrttsligastllning,Genveden28juli 1951, Frenta nationerna, frdragssamling, volym 189, s.
Adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly Resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950 entry into force 22 April 1954, in accordance with Article 43. 
Antagen den 28 juli 1951 av Frenta nationernas konferens fr sndebud om flyktingars och statslsa personers rttsliga stllning som sammankallades enligt generalfrsamlingens resolution 429 (V) av den 14 december 1950 som trdde i kraft den 22 april 1954 i enlighet med artikel 43.
According to DG JLS, the number of asylum applicants, refugees and persons under protection amounted to approximately 303 000 in 1996, which increased to 475 000 in 1999 and decreased to 374 000 in 2003. 
Enligt GD Rttvisa, frihet och skerhet uppgick antalet asylskande, flyktingar och skyddade personer till cirka 303 000 r 1996, det kade till 475 000 r 1999 och minskade till 374 000 r 2003.
Community aid was granted by the European Refugee Fund by means of co-financed actions. 
Europeiska flyktingfonden beviljade gemenskapsstd i form av medfinansierade tgrder.
The co-financing was established at a maximum of 50 % of the total cost of the measure. 
Medfinansieringen faststlldes till maximalt 50 % av tgrdens totala kostnader.
This share was increased to a maximum of 75 % for countries covered by the Cohesion Fund. 
Denna del kunde uppg till maximalt 75 % fr lnder som omfattades av Sammanhllningsfonden.
Commission payments to Member States were made in the form of pre-financing, interim and final payments. 
Kommissionens betalningar till medlemsstaterna gjordes i form av frskott, delbetalningar och slutbetalningar.
Synthesis of main changes between ERF I and ERF II 10. 
Sammanfattning av de viktigaste skillnaderna mellan ERF I och ERF II 10.
A second phase of the programme (ERF II) has since been launched, covering the period 2005 to 2010 (4). 
En andra period av programmet (ERF II) som omfattar perioden 2005Đ2010 (4) har inletts.
The following comparison highlights only the main differences between ERF I and ERF II. 
I fljande jmfrelse lyfts endast de viktigaste skillnaderna mellan ERF I och ERF II fram.
It is neither an analysis nor an evaluation of those changes. 
Den r varken en analys eller en utvrdering av gjorda ndringar.
A detailed comparison between ERF I and ERF II is given in Annex I. 
En detaljerad jmfrelse mellan ERF I och ERF II finns i bilaga I.
(4) Council Decision 2004/904/EC of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004). 
(4) Rdets beslut 2004/904/EG av den 2 december 2004 om inrttande av Europeiska flyktingfonden fr perioden 2005Đ2010 (EUT L 381, 28.12.2004).
Denmark is not participating in the ERF. 
Danmark deltar inte i ERF.
Implementation and management provision: Ń the management of the ERF remains shared. 
Genomfrande och frvaltning: Ń Frvaltningen av ERF r fortfarande delad.
The responsibilities of the Commission and the Member States are described in greater detail for ERF II, Ń the selection criteria have not changed, Ń deadlines for the submission of relevant documentation have been extended, Ń the distribution of funds continues to be based mainly on statistical data on refugees and asylum seekers. Financial management and supervision: Ń the ERF II co-financing is still 50 % (75 % for Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund). 
Ń Tidsfristerna fr att lmna in relevant dokumentation har frlngts. Ń Frdelningen av medel grundas fortfarande frmst p statistiska uppgifter om antalet flyktingar och asylskande. Ekonomisk frvaltning och kontroll: Ń ERF II:s del av medfinansieringen uppgr fortfarande till 50 % (75 % fr medlemsstater som omfattas av Sammanhllningsfonden), men denna del p 50 % fr kas till 60 % fr insatser som r srskilt innovativa.
But the 50 % contribution may be increased to 60 % for particularly innovative actions, Ń the deadlines and requirements for payments are more precisely indicated for ERF II, Ń the first pre-financing is still 50 % of the ERF co-financing, while the second pre-financing may amount to a maximum of 50 % (instead of 30 % for ERF I), Ń for ERF II, at least 10 % of the total eligible expenditure must be checked, for ERF I it was 20 %. 
Ń Tidsfrister och krav fr betalningar r exaktare angivna fr ERF II. Ń Den frsta frhandsfinansieringen r fortfarande 50 % av ERF:s medfinansiering, medan den andra frhandsfinansieringen fr uppg till maximalt 50 % (i stllet fr 30 % fr ERF I).
Monitoring, evaluation and reports: Ń for ERF II the Commission is to carry out regular monitoring in cooperation with the Member States, Ń for ERF II, obligations regarding evaluation have been enhanced: the Fund is to be evaluated regularly by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions. 
Ń Nr det gller ERF II mste minst 10 % av de totala stdberttigande utgifterna kontrolleras. Fr ERF I var det 20 %. vervakning, utvrdering och rapporter: Ń Nr det gller ERF II skall kommissionen regelbundet vervaka fonden i samarbete med medlemsstaterna.
A review of the ERF II rules showed that the recommendations presented in this report have not been acted upon in ERF II. 
Revisionsrttens genomgng av bestmmelserna fr ERF II visar att rekommendationerna i denna rapport inte har fljts i ERF II.
The Commission has also proposed a framework programme for the period 2007 to 2013 which would include the ERF. 
Kommissionen har ven freslagit ett ramprogram fr perioden 2007Đ2013 dr ERF skall ing.
Audit scope, objectives and approach 14. 
Granskningens omfattning samt granskningsml och granskningsmetod 14.
The Court carried out an audit of the management of the first phase of the European Refugee Fund (2000 to 2004). 
Revisionsrtten granskade frvaltningen av Europeiska flyktingfondens frsta programperiod (2000Đ2004).
The objectives of the audit were to conclude on the following questions: Ń was the distribution of funds to Member States sound? 
Mlet med granskningen var att besvara fljande frgor: Ń Frdelades medlen till medlemsstaterna p ett riktigt stt?
In the context of this audit and the annual Statements of Assurance for 2003 and 2004 (1), the relevant Commission services (DG JLS and Eurostat) in Brussels and Luxembourg were audited. 
Inom ramen fr granskningen och de rliga revisionsfrklaringarna fr 2003 och 2004 (1) granskades berrda kommissionsavdelningar (GD Rttvisa, frihet och skerhet och Eurostat) i Bryssel och Luxemburg.
In addition, responsible national authorities and final beneficiaries were visited in the following Member States: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
Dessutom beskte revisionsrtten ansvariga nationella myndigheter och slutliga stdmottagare i fljande medlemsstater: sterrike, Frankrike, Tyskland, Grekland, Italien, Spanien, Sverige och Frenade kungariket.
According to the ERF rules (2), the Commission had to submit a final report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 September 2005. 
Enligt ERF-bestmmelserna (2) var kommissionen skyldig att lmna en slutlig rapport till Europaparlamentet och rdet senast den 1 september 2005.
The Court could not take into consideration the results of the final report, as it was finalised after the completion of the CourtŐs audit. 
Revisionsrtten kunde inte beakta resultaten i den slutliga rapporten eftersom den blev klar efter det att revisionsrttens granskning hade avslutats.
WAS THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO MEMBER STATES SOUND? 
F RDELADES MEDLEN TILL MEDLEMSSTATERNA P ETT RIKTIGT STT?
Basis for the distribution of amounts 17. 
Grund fr frdelning av anslag 17.
ERF funds were distributed annually and were composed of a small fixed amount and a larger variable amount. 
ERF-medel frdelades rligen och bestod av ett litet fast belopp och ett strre varierande belopp.
The fixed amount has decreased from 500 000 euro per Member State for 2000 to 100 000 euro for 2004. 
Det fasta beloppet minskade frn 500000 euro per medlemsstat fr 2000 till 100 000 euro fr 2004.
(1) Chapter 6, pp. 200 to 202, of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2003 (OJ C 293, 30.11.2004); Chapter 6, pp. 165 to 166, 176 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2004 (OJ C 301, 30.11.2005). 
(1) Se s. 200Đ202 i kapitel 6 i rsrapporten fr budgetret 2003 (EUT C 293, 30.11.2004) och s.
(2) Article 20 of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(2) Artikel 20 i beslut 2000/596/EG.
C 178/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2007 18. 
C 178/6 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning 31.7.2007 18.
The variable part of the annual allocation was distributed to the Member States in proportion to the number of third country nationals or stateless persons they had received (1) during the three years preceding the programme year. 
Den varierande delen av den rliga tilldelningen betalades ut till medlemsstaterna i frhllande till det antal medborgare i tredjeland eller statslsa personer som de hade tagit emot (1) under de tre r som fregick programret.
65 % of this allocation was based on the number of asylum seekers, while 35 % of the allocation was based on the number of refugees (2). 
Av denna tilldelning grundades 65 % p antalet asylskande medan 35 % av tilldelningen grundades p antalet flyktingar (2).
The distribution of funds for the years 2000 to 2004 is presented in Annex II. 
Frdelningen av medel fr ren 2000Đ2004 presenteras i bilaga II.
The description of the allocation procedure is shown in Annex III. 
Tilldelningsfrfarandet beskrivs i bilaga III.
The basis for the variable part of the annual allocation had to be the most recent figures established by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) (3), which were provided by the Member States Statistical data used as allocation basis were incomplete and not reliable 20. 
Den varierande delen av den rliga tilldelningen mste grunda sig p de senast faststllda siffrorna frn Europeiska gemenskapernas statistikkontor (Eurostat) (3) vilka tillhandahlls av medlemsstaterna. De statistiska uppgifter tilldelningen grundades p var ofullstndiga och inte tillfrlitliga 20.
This transitional period should have been limited to ERF 2000 and 2001, but it was extended to ERF 2002 and 2003. 
Denna vergngsperiod borde ha begrnsats till ren 2000 och 2001 men den frlngdes till 2002 och 2003.
It took the Commission until 2005, after several years of preparatory actions, to make a proposal on harmonising Community statistics on migration and international protection (4). 
Det var inte frrn 2005, efter flera r av frberedande arbete, som kommissionen lade fram ett frslag om att harmonisera gemenskapsstatistik ver migration och internationellt skydd (4).
In its proposal the Commission pointed out that Ôthere are particular concerns about the large amounts of data that are missing from the data collections. 
I sitt frslag framhll kommissionen att man Ór srskilt orolig fr de stora mngder uppgifter som saknas i datain-samlingarna.
There are also serious problems relating to a lack of harmonisation Ń both in terms of the data sources used and the definitions applied to the statisticsŐ (5). 
Det finns ven allvarliga problem som gller bristen p harmonisering, bde nr det gller datakllor och de definitioner som tillmpas p statistikenÓ (5).
Another point is that the reliability of the data is questionable as long as they have been verified at Member State level neither by the Commission nor the Member State. 
En annan sak r att uppgifternas tillfrlitlighet r diskutabel s lnge varken kommissionen eller medlemsstaten har kontrollerat dem p medlemsstatsniv.
Differences in interpretation among Member States distort the basis 23. 
Olika tolkningar bland medlemsstaterna gr att grunden fr tilldelningen frvrngs 23.
The definition of target groups has been interpreted differently by Member States and changed inside some Member States over the years. 
Definitionen av mlgrupper har tolkats p olika stt av medlemsstaterna och ndrats inom vissa medlemsstater genom ren.
(1) Article 3 of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(1) Artikel 3 i beslut 2000/596/EG.
(2) Article 10(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(2) Artikel 10.2 i beslut 2000/596/EG.
(3) Article 10(3) of Decision 2000/596/EC. 
(3) Artikel 10.3 i beslut 2000/596/EG.
(4) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD). 
(4) Frslag till Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning om gemenskapsstatistik ver migration och internationellt skydd KOM(2005) 375 slutlig, Bryssel, 14 september 2005, 2005/0156 (COD).
(5) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection COM(2005) 375 final Brussels, 14 September 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), p. 
(5) Frslag till Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning om gemenskapsstatistik ver migration och internationellt skydd KOM(2005) 375 slutlig, Bryssel, 14 september 2005, 2005/0156 (COD), s.
Revisions of previously validated data were not taken fully into account for future distributions or were not adequately documented 24. 
Revideringar av tidigare godknda uppgifter beaktades inte till fullo infr kommande frdelningar eller dokumenterades inte p lmpligt stt 24.
Over the entire ERF I period, some of the figures that had been validated one year were modified in subsequent years. 
Under hela ERF I-perioden ndrades vissa av de uppgifter som hade godknts ett r under pfljande r.
The revision of official statistics is a common practice and is not criticised as such. 
Att revidera den officiella statistiken r i sig en gngse rutin och den kritiseras inte som sdan.
Nonetheless, when the Commission revises the statistics ex post, it should take account of the revised information not only for current distributions but also for previous yearsŐ distributions. 
Nr kommissionen reviderar statistiken i efterhand br den dock beakta de reviderade uppgifterna inte enbart vid aktuella frdelningar av medel utan ven nr det gller fregende rs frdelningar.
In a number of cases, where the allocation of funds was based on modified statistics, there was no documentation available on the reasons why changes had been made either at DG JLS or at Eurostat. 
I ett antal fall dr tilldelningen av medel baserades p ndrade statistiska uppgifter fanns varken vid GD Rttvisa, frihet och skerhet eller Eurostat ngon tillgnglig dokumentation om varfr ndringar hade gjorts.
(6) CIREA (Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum) annual report for 1999 and 2000. 
(6) rsrapport fr 1999 och 2000 frn Cirea (Centrum fr information, reflexion och utbyte i asylfrgor).
(7) CIREA annual report for 1999 and 2000 and Monthly statistics on asylum report Ń August 2002. 
(7) rsrapport fr 1999 och 2000 frn Cirea och mnatlig statistik om asylrapporter Đ augusti 2002.
Ń For most countries, the number of asylum applications indicated the number of individuals; in some countries, in contrast, e.g. the United Kingdom and France, it indicated the number of cases (one ÔcaseŐ may include family members in addition to the principal applicant) (6). 
Ń De flesta lnderna ansg att antalet asylanskningar motsvarade antalet personer; i vissa lnder dremot, t.ex. Frenade kungariket och Frankrike, motsvarade det antalet fall (ett ÓfallÓ kan omfatta flera familjemedlemmar utver den huvudskande) (6).
Ń Some Member States (Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Austria) did not make a distinction between first applications and repeated applications. 
Ń Vissa medlemsstater (Sverige, Irland, Finland och sterrike) gjorde ingen skillnad p frsta anskningar och upprepade anskningar.
Ń For Germany, the 1999 figure for asylum applications indicated the number of cases, but the August 2002 figures indicated the number of individuals (7). 
Ń Fr Tyskland motsvarade antalet asylanskningar r 1999 antalet fall medan uppgifterna fr augusti 2002 motsvarade antalet individer (7).
Ń In France major discrepancies were noted between the figures provided in 2002 and 2003. 
Ń I Frankrike konstaterades stora avvikelser mellan uppgifterna fr 2002 och dem fr 2003.
The 2003 ERF figures for asylum applications included persons benefiting from Ôterritorial asylumŐ, a new category not included in 2002. 
I ERF:s uppgifter om asylanskningar fr 2003 ingick personer som tnjt Óterritoriell asylÓ, en ny kategori som inte fanns 2002.
As an example, a data revision occurred between 2002 and 2003 in France, for which the number of persons declared was increased by 17 606 (the total number of persons declared for France for ERF 2003; cumulative total for the years 1999 to 2001: 238 947). 
Som ett exempel gjordes en revidering av uppgifter mellan 2002 och 2003 i Frankrike dr antalet anmlda personer kade med 17 606 (totalt antal anmlda personer fr Frankrike ERF 2003, sammanlagt antal personer 1999Đ2001: 238 947).
In the case of Italy, the Commission reduced the allocation significantly for 2004 (0,7 million euro) compared with the year 2003 (2,4 million euro), mainly because it was not able to validate the previous yearsŐ statistics on the number of persons declared by Italy for the reference period 2001. 
Nr det gller Italien minskade kommissionen tilldelningen betydligt fr 2004 (0,7 miljoner euro) jmfrt med 2003 (2,4 miljoner euro), frmst p grund av att den inte kunde godknna de fregende rens statistik om antalet personer som anmldes av Italien fr referensperioden 2001.
31.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/7 25. 
31.7.2007 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 178/7 25.
The difficulties encountered could have been avoided if the ERF had been based on reliable and harmonised data from the beginning. 
De svrigheter som uppstod hade kunnat undvikas om ERF hade grundats p tillfrlitliga och harmoniserade uppgifter redan frn brjan.
For ERF II the definition of target groups has not changed significantly (1) and the allocation of funds continues to be based on statistics produced by Eurostat (2) and those statistics have not yet been harmonised. 
Fr ERF II har definitionen av mlgrupper inte ndrats p ngot mrkbart stt (1), och tilldelningen av medel grundas fortfarande p statistik frn Eurostat (2). Statistiken har nnu inte harmoniserats.
WAS THE MANAGEMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES SOUND? 
VAR KOMMISSIONENS OCH MEDLEMSSTATERNAS F RVALTNING SUND?
ERF implementing rules were published late 26. 
Regler fr genomfrandet av ERF offentliggjordes sent 26.
As the ERF was a new programme, the Member States ought to have been given clear management guidelines from the start of the programme. 
Med tanke p att ERF var ett nytt program borde medlemsstaterna ha ftt tydliga riktlinjer fr frvaltningen frn programmets start.
The Commission published the rules governing eligibility of expenditure (3) in April 2001, six months after the launch of the ERF. 
Kommissionen offentliggjorde reglerna om vilka utgifter som var stdberttigande (3) i april 2001, sex mnader efter det att ERF hade inletts.
However, the Commission published the detailed rules for management and control systems more than 18 months after ERF had been established. 
Kommissionen offentliggjorde dock detaljerade regler fr frvaltnings-och kontrollsystemen mer n 18 mnader efter det att ERF hade inrttats.