natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Recommendation 3 – Ensure greater harmonisation and transparency of project selection procedures With a view to enhancing project selection procedures, the Commission and INEA should: (a) undertake a structured analysis of the procedures in the three CEF sectors to identify best practices, and potentially harmonise them; (b) define – both for the external and the internal evaluation – in more detail the award criteria; in particular, the maturity criterion should be precisely defined and its assessment should be reinforced. 
Rekommendation 3 Đ Skerstll kad harmonisering av och insyn i frfarandena fr projekturval I syfte att frbttra frfarandena fr projekturval br kommissionen och Inea gra fljande: a) Genomfra en strukturerad analys av frfarandena inom de tre FSE-sektorerna fr att identifiera bsta praxis och eventuellt harmonisera dem. b) Definiera Đ bde fr den externa och den interna utvrderingen Đ tilldelningskriterierna i nrmare detalj; framfr allt br mognadskriteriet definieras p ett exakt stt och bedmningen av det strkas.
Other award criteria should be more explicitly formulated and make it possible to demonstrate that selected projects will have a significant impact and EU added value; 
Andra tilldelningskriterier br formuleras tydligare och gra det mjligt att visa att utvalda projekt kommer att ha betydande inverkan och ett EU-mervrde.
(c) better document the link between the opinion of external experts and the final assessment by the Commission, with particular reference to the justification of divergences. 
c) Bttre dokumentera kopplingen mellan externa experters utltande och kommissionens slutliga bedmning, srskilt nr det gller motiveringen av avvikelser.
Timeframe: by the end of 2020. 
Tidsram: Fre slutet av 2020.
86 The CEF programme risks not being fully implemented. 
86 Det finns en risk fr att FSE-programmet inte kommer att genomfras fullt ut.
This would mean further pushing into the future the programme’s effects. 
Detta skulle innebra att programmets effekter skjuts ytterligare p framtiden.
Experience of the past has shown that measures to enhance absorption towards the end of a programming period risk having less consideration for results. 
Tidigare erfarenheter har visat att tgrder fr att ka utnyttjandet mot slutet av en programperiod riskerar att leda till att resultat inte beaktas lika mycket.
And, a high amount of funds still to be managed after the start of a successor programme can create a knock-on effect of delays. 
Och om stora summor fortfarande mste hanteras efter det att ett efterfljande program har inletts kan det leda till en dominoeffekt med frseningar.
87 The particularly low rate of payments in CEF-E and CEF-T is linked to the delayed implementation and under-execution of projects. 
87 Den srskilt lga utnyttjandegraden inom FSE-E och FSE-T beror p att genomfrandet av projekt r frsenat eller ofullstndigt.
The underlying issue is non-performing projects, which are not able to fully use the funds granted to them. 
Det bakomliggande problemet r lgpresterande projekt som inte till fullo kan utnyttja de medel som beviljats dem.
The Commission does not currently plan its calls for proposals on a multiannual basis, resulting in the submission of proposals with different maturity. 
Fr nrvarande planerar inte kommissionen sina anskningsomgngar p flerrig basis, vilket leder till att frslag med olika mognadsgrad lmnas in.
88 INEA’s corrective steps for projects that are not on track do not fully address these risks. 
88 Ineas korrigerande tgrder fr projekt som inte ligger i fas hanterar inte dessa risker fullt ut.
Tools for the in-depth monitoring of projects require enhancement (paragraphs 58 to 73). 
Verktygen fr ingende vervakning av projekt behver frbttras (punkterna 58Đ73).
Recommendation 4 – Set better conditions for timely implementation of the CEF To streamline the multiannual planning of fund allocation and enhance the use of funds: (a) The Commission and INEA should ensure the long-term and coherent planning of commitments and calls; Timeframe: start of implementation of the 2021-2027 CEF. (b) The Commission and INEA should enhance the link between funding and the achievement of project milestones; Timeframe: start of implementation of the 2021-2027 CEF. (c) The Commission should enhance tools for the in-depth monitoring of projects regarding the use of funding. For all CEF sectors, INEA should focus further on the 40 
Rekommendation 4 Đ Faststll bttre villkor fr att FSE-programmet ska genomfras i tid Fr att effektivisera den flerriga planeringen av medelstilldelning och ka medelsanvndningen br a) kommissionen och Inea skerstlla lngsiktig och sammanhngande planering av taganden och anskningsomgngar, Tidsram: Nr FSE 2021Đ2027 brjar genomfras. b) kommissionen och Inea strka kopplingen mellan finansiering och uppnende av projektdelml, Tidsram: Nr FSE 2021Đ2027 brjar genomfras. 40
89 The current performance framework does not sufficiently measure how projects contribute to the achievement of the CEF programme objectives. 
89 Den nuvarande resultatramen bedmer inte i tillrcklig utstrckning p vilket stt projekt bidrar till att FSE-programmets ml uppns.
INEA monitors indicators which focus mainly on project outputs but do not allow an assessment of the programme efficiency. 
Inea vervakar indikatorer som r inriktade p framfr allt projektoutput men som inte mjliggr bedmning av programmets effektivitet.
INEA prepared revised indicators in 2018, but the process has yet to be taken further (paragraphs 75 to 80). 
Inea tog fram reviderade indikatorer 2018, men processen mste fras vidare (punkterna 75Đ80).
Recommendation 5 – Redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results (a) Based on experience and lessons learned from TEN-T and CEF projects, INEA and the Commission should define a performance framework that breaks down the objectives of the CEF programme into clear and measurable indicators, covering all CEF sectors, and expected project results. (b) INEA should specify these indicators in call objectives, consider them in the evaluation of project proposals, monitor them through grant agreements and report on them on a regular basis to the Commission. 
Rekommendation 5 Đ ndra resultatramen s att projektresultaten kan vervakas bttre a) Utifrn tidigare erfarenheter och lrdomar frn TEN-T-och FSE-projekt br Inea och kommissionen definiera en resultatram som delar upp FSE-programmets ml i tydliga och mtbara indikatorer som omfattar alla FSE-sektorer och frvntade projektresultat. b) Inea br precisera dessa indikatorer i de ml som anges i anskningsomgngarna, beakta dem i utvrderingen av projektfrslag, vervaka dem genom bidragsavtal och regelbundet rapportera om dem till kommissionen.
Timeframe: start of implementation of the 2021-2027 CEF. 
Tidsram: Nr FSE 2021Đ2027 brjar genomfras.
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mrs Iliana Ivanova, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 25 September 2019. 
Denna rapport antogs av revisionsrttens avdelning II, med ledamoten Iliana Ivanova som ordfrande, vid dess sammantrde i Luxemburg den 25 september 2019.
For the Court of Auditors Klaus-Heiner Lehne President 41 
Fr revisionsrtten Klaus-Heiner Lehne 41 ordfrande
It is the main document used by INEA to follow and review the progress of a project. CBA: cost-benefit analysis. CEF - Connecting Europe Facility: a facility, which, since 2014, has provided financial aid to three sectors: energy (CEF-E), transport (CEF-T), and information and communication technology (CEF-ICT). 
Ordlista och frkortningar Fonden fr ett sammanlnkat Europa (FSE): en mekanism som sedan 2014 har tillhandahllit ekonomiskt std till tre sektorer: energi (FSE-E), transport (FSE-T) och informations-och kommunikationsteknik (FSE-IKT); inom dessa tre sektorer identifierar FSE vilka investeringar som ska prioriteras, ssom el-och gaskorridorerna, anvndning av frnybar energi, sammanlnkade transportkorridorer och renare transportstt samt hghastighetsanslutningar fr bredband och digitala ntverk.
CEF-T: Connecting Europe Facility – Transport. 
FSE-T: Fonden fr ett sammanlnkat Europa Đ transport.
TEN-T - Trans-European Transport Network: a set of planned road, rail, air and water infrastructure developments in implementation of the trans-European transport network policy The TEN-T networks are part of a wider system of Trans-European Networks (TENs), including a telecommunications network (eTEN) and a proposed energy network (TEN-E). The development of the TEN-T infrastructure is closely linked to the implementation and further advancement of EU transport policy. 45 
transeuropeiska transportnt (TEN-T): planerad utveckling av vg-, jrnvgs-, luft-och vattentransportinfrastruktur fr genomfrande av strategin fr det transeuropeiska transportntet; TEN-T-nten ingr i ett strre system av transeuropeiska nt med bland annat ett telekommunikationsnt (eTEN) och ett freslaget energint (TEN-E); infrastrukturutvecklingen av TEN-T r nra knuten till genomfrandet och den fortsatta utvecklingen av EU:s transportpolitik. 45
Second indent: The Commission believes that INEA’s performance indicators are adequate for the measurement of the performance of INEA in accordance with the mandate that it has received from the Commission. 
Andra strecksatsen: Kommissionen anser att Ineas utfrandeindikatorer r lmpliga fr att mta Ineas resultat i enlighet med det uppdrag som Inea har ftt av kommissionen.
INEA’s performance indicators provide information on the yearly results in relation to the budget voted by the Budgetary Authority (i.e. absorption of funds). 
Ineas utfrandeindikatorer ger information om de rliga resultaten i frhllande till den budget som har beslutats av budgetmyndigheten (dvs. utnyttjande av medlen).
Under CEF 2, the first multiannual work programme will include the timetable of the calls for proposals for the first three years of the programme, their topics and indicative budget as well as a prospective framework covering the entire programming period. 
Under FSE 2 kommer det frsta flerriga arbetsprogrammet att innehlla en tidsplan fr anskningsomgngarna under programmets tre frsta r, med mnen och vgledande budget samt en preliminr ram som tcker hela programperioden.
First indent: The CEF DGs have already reviewed their individual evaluation and selection procedures and are preparing a common approach in view of CEF 2. 
Frsta strecksatsen: De generaldirektorat som ansvarar fr FSE har redan granskat sina egna utvrderings-och urvalsfrfaranden och frbereder en gemensam metod infr FSE 2.
This will notably transpose the evaluation elements in article 13 of the draft CEF 2 Regulation into the award criteria. 
Framfr allt kommer utvrderingsdelarna i artikel 13 i utkastet till frordning om FSE 2 att infrlivas i tilldelningskriterierna.
The 14 CEF-T projects mentioned by the ECA represent only 1,9% of the selected projects and 3% of total funding. 
De 14 projekten inom FSE Transport som revisionsrtten nmner motsvarar endast 1,9 % av de utvalda projekten och 3 % av den sammanlagda finansieringen.
As a norm, the selection of projects is aligned with the experts’ recommendation to retain projects for funding. 
Normalt sett grs urvalet av projekt utifrn experternas rekommendation om vilka projekt som ska vljas fr finansiering.
Third indent: The Commission underlines that the implementation of EU spending programmes for infrastructure in particular carries a certain degree of risk. 
Tredje strecksatsen: Kommissionen betonar att genomfrandet av EU:s utgiftsprogram fr i synnerhet infrastruktur innebr en viss risk.
The Commission considers that the inherent risk that CEF programmes may not be fully implemented is being continuously managed by the Commission and INEA. 
Kommissionen anser att den inneboende risken fr att FSE-program inte genomfrs till fullo hanteras fortlpande av kommissionen och Inea.
Fourth indent: The front-loading of the CEF-T budget was a clear policy approach aimed at facilitating the economic recovery, supporting very significant cross-border infrastructure projects partly already funded under the TEN-T 2007-2013 programe, optimising budget absorption, and meeting the commitment to provide for the full execution of the Cohesion envelope budget (€ 11.3 billion) until end 2016 which was the deadline for the national envelopes (article 11(2) of the CEF Regulation). 
Fjrde strecksatsen: Tidigarelggningen av budgeten fr FSE-T var en tydligt politisk strategi som syftade till att underltta den ekonomiska terhmtningen och ge std till mycket viktiga grnsverskridande infrastrukturprojekt som redan delvis hade finansierats inom ramen fr TEN-T-programmet 2007Đ2013. Syftet var att optimera budgetutnyttjandet och uppfylla tagandet om att se till att sammanhllningsbudgeten (11,3 miljarder euro) skulle genomfras fullt ut fram till slutet av 2016, d tidsfristen lpte ut fr de nationella anslagen (artikel 11.2 i FSE-frordningen).
Fifth indent: Active portfolio management should ensure the effective use of EU funds and this may include, where appropriate, extensions and rescoping of projects. 
Femte strecksatsen: En aktiv portfljfrvaltning br skerstlla att EU-medel anvnds effektivt och detta kan, nr s r lmpligt, inbegripa utvidgningar och frndringar av projektens omfattning.
V. See Commission’s replies to Recommendations 1 to 5. 
V. Se kommissionens svar p rekommendationerna 1Đ5.
The Commission acknowledges that coordination between executive agencies and joint undertakings (JU) could be increased in view of further developing structured measures. EN EN 1 
Kommissionen medger att samordningen mellan genomfrandeorgan och gemensamma fretag skulle kunna utkas fr att utveckla mer strukturerade tgrder. SV SV
EN EN Efforts in this regard are being deployed; in relation to Shift2Rail (S2R) JU, for instance, INEA is a member of the ERTMS Policy Board, where ERTMS and related technical matters are being coordinated. 
Nr det t.ex. gller det gemensamma fretaget Shift2Rail r Inea medlem i policygruppen fr ERTMS (ERTMS Policy Board), dr ERTMS och tillhrande tekniska frgor samordnas.
As soon as results from research projects managed by the S2R JU become available for deployment and as far as eligible under CEF, more cooperation will emerge. 
S snart resultaten frn forskningsprojekt som leds av det gemensamma fretaget Shift2Rail blir tillgngliga fr anvndning och i den mn de r stdberttigande inom ramen fr FSE kommer mer samarbete att vxa fram.
Furthermore, at least one key project (selected during the 2015 CEF Transport call) was jointly supported by INEA and the Fuel Cell Hydrogen Joint Undertaking according to the respective competencies. Finally, INEA is also using expertise from regulatory agencies like ERA, EMSA and EASA during the evaluations of project proposals. 
Dessutom har minst ett viktigt projekt (som valdes ut under 2015 rs anskningsomgng fr FSE Transport) ftt gemensamt std av Inea och det gemensamma fretaget fr brnsleceller och vtgas, i enlighet med deras respektive behrighetsomrden.
Horizon 2020 is the biggest programme that has been delegated to Executive Agencies in terms of amount and various strands. 
Horisont 2020 r det strsta program som har delegerats till genomfrandeorgan i frga om belopp och olika omrden.
Not only Executive Agencies but also several DGs and Joint Undertakings are responsible for implementing parts of Horizon 2020. 
Det r inte bara genomfrandeorgan utan ven flera generaldirektorat och gemensamma fretag som har ansvar fr att genomfra delar av Horisont 2020.
At the time of the delegation of Horizon 2020 Energy to INEA and EASME, synergies were rather expected between the Horizon 2020 Energy strand in INEA with CEF Energy and between the Horizon 2020 Energy strand in EASME with Horizon 2020 Envirnoment and resources, LIFE and CIP Eco-innovation. 
Nr Horisont 2020 Energi delegerades till Inea och Easme (Genomfrandeorganet fr sm och medelstora fretag) fanns vissa frvntningar p att det skulle uppst synergieffekter mellan Horisont 2020 Energi-delen i Inea och FSE Energi och mellan Horisont 2020 Energi-delen i Easme och Horisont 2020 Milj och resurser, Life och CIP Miljinnovation.
The Commission launched in September 2018 a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) that is studying various scenarios regarding the breakdown of future EU programmes (or strands of programmes) to be delegated to the various Executive Agencies 2021-2027. 
I september 2018 inledde kommissionen en kostnads-nyttoanalys som undersker olika alternativ fr frdelningen av framtida EU-program (eller delar av EU-program) som ska delegeras till de olika genomfrandeorganen 2021Đ2027.
The CBA will take into account several factors among which yielding savings, keeping agencies at a manageable size, limiting as far as possible the number of parent DGs and consistency in terms of targeted beneficiaries. 
Kostnads-nyttoanalysen ska ta hnsyn till flera faktorer, dribland att stadkomma besparingar, behlla organen i en hanterbar storlek, begrnsa antalet ansvariga generaldirektorat i den utstrckning som r mjligt och skapa konsekvens i frga om berrda stdmottagare.
The Commission believes that INEA’s KPIs are adequate for measuring the performance of INEA in accordance with the mandate that it has received from the Commission. 
Kommissionen anser att Ineas nyckelutfrandeindikatorer r lmpliga fr att mta Ineas resultat i enlighet med det uppdrag som Inea har ftt av kommissionen.
INEA’s performance indicators should therefore be distinguished from the indicators measuring the results of the programmes themselves, set by the co-legislators in the legal framework of the programmes. 
Drfr br Ineas nyckelutfrandeindikatorer srskiljas frn de indikatorer som mter resultatet fr programmen i sig och som har faststllts av medlagstiftarna i den rttsliga ramen fr programmen.
INEA’s KPIs provide information on the yearly results in relation to the budget voted by the Budgetary Authority (i.e. absorption of funds). 
Ineas nyckelutfrandeindikatorer ger information om de rliga resultaten i frhllande till den budget som har beslutats av budgetmyndigheten (dvs. utnyttjande av medlen).
INEA’s current set of key performance indicators were designed to reflect the agency’s specific role but are similar to the KPIs used by the other executive agencies. 
Ineas nuvarande uppsttning av nyckelutfrandeindikatorer utformades fr att spegla Ineas srskilda uppdrag, men liknar de indikatorer som anvnds av de andra genomfrandeorganen.
However, the Commission notes that there are significant differences between the programmes managed by different executive agencies that might explain use of different indicators. 
Kommissionen konstaterar dock att det finns betydande skillnader mellan de program som frvaltas av olika genomfrandeorgan, vilket kan frklara anvndningen av olika indikatorer.
The Commission will, nevertheless, assess the scope for further improvement of indicators while keeping the total number of KPIs limited. 2 
Kommissionen kommer nd att bedma mjligheten att frbttra indikatorerna ytterligare och samtidigt begrnsa det totala antalet nyckelutfrandeindikatorer. SV SV
The Commission is currently assessing the possibilities to introduce additional flexibility mechanisms for staff allocation between programmes within a given executive agency in order to reach increased efficiency in its management. 
Kommissionen bedmer fr nrvarande mjligheterna att infra ytterligare flexibilitetsmekanismer fr att frdela personal mellan program inom ett visst genomfrandeorgan fr att effektivisera frvaltningen.
However, the Commission is bound by the respect of the budgetary principles set out in the Financial Regulation, and in particular the specification principle; any such flexibility will therefore need to be properly framed to ensure the respect of this principle. 
Kommissionen mste dock flja de budgetprinciper som faststlls i budgetfrordningen, framfr allt principen om specificering, vilket betyder att en sdan flexibilitet mste tfljas av tillfredsstllande ramar fr att se till att den principen uppfylls.
An analysis of the evaluation and selection procedures of the three CEF sectors has been carried out in the meantime and a common approach is being prepared in view of CEF 2. 
Det har gjorts en analys av utvrderings-och urvalsfrfarandena fr de tre sektorerna i FSE och en gemensam metod utarbetas just nu, infr FSE 2.
The experts’ recommendation does not only contain scores but also a qualitative appraisal by criterion which the Commission takes into account in its selection. 
Experternas rekommendation innehller inte enbart pong utan ven en kvalitativ bedmning per kriterium, som kommissionen tar hnsyn till i sitt urval.
The Commission considers that the main reason for proposals recommended by the experts not being funded is the mismatch between the budget available and the demand for funding, not scoring considerations. 
Kommissionen anser att den viktigaste anledningen till att frslag som rekommenderas av experterna inte finansieras r den bristande verensstmmelsen mellan den tillgngliga budgeten och efterfrgan p finansiering, inte hnsyn till pongsttningen.
Common Commission reply to paragraphs 49 and 50: The Commission notes that the budget availability is a major difference between the three sectors. 
Kommissionens gemensamma svar p punkterna 49 och 50: Kommissionen konstaterar att den tillgngliga budgeten r en viktig skillnad mellan de tre sektorerna.
In transport even after the recommendations by the external experts, there is still a high oversubscription which constrains the Commission during the selection process to reject high-quality proposals. 
Inom transportdelen finns det ven efter de externa experternas rekommendationer en stor verteckning som tvingar kommissionen att avvisa frslag av hg kvalitet under urvalsprocessen.
To the contrary for the other two sectors, the pressure by over-subscription is less relevant, hence the reason for an apparent correlation. 
Inom de andra tv sektorerna r trycket frn verteckning dremot mindre relevant, vilket r anledningen till att det verkar finnas ett samband.
As already indicated in paragraph 48, the 14 cases mentioned by the ECA of CEF-T selected projects which had not been recommended by the external experts represent only 1,9% of the selected projects and 3% of total funding. 
Som anges i punkt 48 motsvarar de 14 fall som revisionsrtten tar upp dr utvalda projekt fr FSE-T inte har rekommenderats av de externa experterna endast 1,9 % av de utvalda projekten och 3 % av den sammanlagda finansieringen.
The Commission considers that in all 14 cases the justification for selection is clearly outlined in the minutes of the selection committee and in the individual evaluation forms of the respective projects. 
Kommissionen anser att motiveringen fr urvalet i samtliga 14 fall beskrivs tydligt i protokollen frn urvalskommittn och i de enskilda utvrderingsformulren fr de respektive projekten.
The Commission nevertheless recognises that more detailed justifications could have been elaborated in this respect. 
Kommissionen medger dock att det kunde ha lmnats mer detaljerade motiveringar i detta avseende.
This issue will be addressed in the context of the common approach for the evaluation and selection process under CEF 2. 
Frgan kommer att tas upp inom ramen fr den gemensamma metoden fr utvrderings-och urvalsprocessen fr FSE 2.