natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The ECR provides for penalties and interest to be recorded separately (1). Some Member States, however, included penalties and interest in the principal (Spain and Ireland). 
Komisjoni andmebaas vimaldab trahvide ja viiviste eraldi kirjendamist. (1) Mned liikmesriigid (Hispaania, Iirimaa) lisasid aga trahvid ja viivised phisummale.
Information on penalties and interest was recorded in less than 4 % of the cases in the ECR. 
Trahvide ja viiviste kohta kirjendati komisjoni andmebaasi andmeid vhem kui 4 % juhtudest. ksnes 5 % juhtudest, millest teatati vi mida ajakohastati 2002. aastal, sisaldas teave andmeid trahvide kohta.
For example, the product description had not been completed in some 47 % of cases notified for 2002 (2). 
Tootekirjeldust ei tidetud niteks umbes 47 % 2002. aastal teatatud juhtudest.
In 7 % of cases the type of irregularity had not been identified and in 4 % nor had the detection method. 
(2) 7 % juhtudest ei teatatud eeskirjade eiramise liiki ja 4 % juhtudest avastamismeetodit.
Checks on data: unsatisfactory 28. 
Andmete kontroll: mitterahuldav 28.
Because there was no procedure for systematically checking the completeness and accuracy of the ECR database on the spot against information on irregularity cases held in Member States, in 2002 and 2003 OLAF asked Member States to verify that the data in the ECR was accurate. 
Kuna puudus kord, mille alusel kohapeal sstemaatiliselt kontrollida komisjoni andmebaasi tielikkust ja igsust ning vrrelda seda liikmesriikide eeskirjade eiramise juhtumite andmetega, palus OLAF liikmesriikidel 2002. ja 2003. aastal kinnitada komisjoni andmebaasis olevate andmete igsust.
For the most part Member States did not address irregularities notified before 2002. 
Liikmesriigid enamasti ei ksitlenud enne 2002. aastat teatatud eeskirjade eiramise juhtusid.
Most Member States drew attention to discrepancies between Member State data and the ECR. 
Enamik liikmesriike juhtis thelepanu liikmesriikide andmete ja komisjoni andmebaasi erinevustele.
OLAF does not have an analysis of these discrepancies, of the reasons for them, of corrective action or of the changes made to the ECR. 
OLAF ei analsinud neid lahknevusi, nende phjuseid, korrigeerivaid meetmeid vi komisjoni andmebaasi tehtud muudatusi.
Nor has OLAF sought to check that Member States have notified all of the cases they should have notified, or verified whether Member States have improperly closed cases and written down the impact of the irregularity to zero. 
Samuti ei pdnud OLAF kontrollida, kas liikmesriigid on teatanud kikidest juhtudest, millest nad oleksid pidanud teatama, vi kindlaks teha, kas liikmesriigid on mittenuetekohaselt sulgenud juhtumeid ja kus-tutanud eeskirjade eiramise tagajrgi.
(1) Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 requires Ôthe financial consequences of the irregularity to be reportedŐ and Article 5 Ôthe judicial and administrative procedures instituted with a view to (...) applying sanc-tionsŐ. 
(1) Nukogu 4. mrtsi 1991. aasta mruse (EM) nr 595/91 artiklis 3 nutakse Ňeeskirjade vastaselt tehtud maksete finantstagajrgedest teatamistÓ ja artiklis 5 nhakse ette Ňkohtu-vi haldusmenetlused, mis on algatatud... sanktsioonide rakendamiseksÓ.
(2) Source: paragraph 11.2 of the Annual Report for 2002 on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the Communities and the fight against fraud. 
(2) Allikas: 2002. eelarveaasta aastaaruanne henduse finantshuvide kaitsmise ja pettusevastase vitluse kohta, punkt 11.2.
Quality of information about irregular payments: incomplete and inconsistent 30. 
Teabe kvaliteet eeskirjade eiramise osas: puudulik ja vasturkiv 30.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 21 to 29 and 31 and 32, the ECR database (and the figures relating to CAP irregularities and debts published in the CommissionŐs 2002 Report on the fight against fraud) cannot be considered reliable, complete and accurate. 
Punktides 21Đ29 ja 31Đ32 mrgitud phjustel ei saa komisjoni andmebaasi (ning komisjoni 2002. aasta pettusevastase vitluse aruandes avaldatud andmeid eeskirjade vastaste PP maksete ja vlgade kohta) pidada usaldusvrseks, tielikuks ega igeks.
In addition to cases notified by Member States, OLAF itself initiates investigations of some irregularity cases in the CAP sector (as elsewhere in the Community budget). 
Peale liikmesriikide teatatud juhtude algatab OLAF ka ise eeskirjade eiramise juhtumite uurimisi PP valdkonnas (nagu henduse eelarve teisteski valdkondades).
OLAF maintains a Case Management System (CMS) database to record the progress of these cases. 
OLAF haldab juhtumite andmebaasi (Case Management System Ń CMS), et registreerida juhtumite osas tehtud edusammud.
The CMS does not show whether the case is recorded in the ECR nor, if appropriate, whether it has been charged to Member States under the clearance-of-accounts procedure (see paragraphs 34 to 37). 
CMS ei nita, kas vastav juhtum on salvestatud komisjoni andmebaasis vi, kui see on asjakohane, kas juhtum on raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollija heakskiitmismenetluse alusel kantud liikmesriikide kuludesse (vt punktid 34Đ37).
Of a sample of 26 cases recorded in the CMS, only 13 could be traced satisfactorily to either an entry in the ECR or to closure of the case because no irregularity had been detected. 
CMSis salvestatud juhtumitest vetud 26 juhtumi valimis oli vaid 13 korral vimalik rahuldavalt tuvastada juhtumi kandmine komisjoni andmebaasi vi selle lpetamine, kuna eeskirjade eiramist ei avastatud.
Recovery and writing off: responsibilities of Member States and the Commission 33. 
Sissenudmine ja kustutamine: liikmesriikide ja komisjoni lesanded 33.
Member States must: (a) satisfy themselves that CAP transactions are carried out and executed correctly; (b) prevent and detect irregularities; (c) recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence, in which case they may retain 20 % of the amounts recovered (3); (3) Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103). An Italian investigation agency reported a company for fraudulently obtaining CAP subsidies for processing tomatoes. 
Liikmesriigid peavad: a) kindlaks tegema, kas PP tehingud on korrektselt lbi viidud ja teostatud; b) takistama ja avastama eeskirjade eiramisi; c) sisse nudma eeskirjade eiramise vi hooletuse tttu kaotatud summad, millisel juhul vivad liikmesriigid jtta 20 % tagasisaadud summast endale; (3) (3) Nukogu 17. mai 1999. aasta mruse (E) nr 1258/1999 (ET L 160, 26.6.1999, lk 103) artikli 8 lige 1. ks Itaalia uurimisasutus teatas rihingust, mis oli pettusega saanud tomatite ttlemise eest PP toetust.
The amount involved is 2,71 million euro. 
Vastav summa oli 2,71 miljonit eurot.
In fact the claims were made but never paid. There is therefore no debt. 
Tegelikult nuded esitati, kuid neid ei makstud kunagi vlja. Seetttu vlgnevust ei ole.
4.11.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/9 (d) (e) notify the Commission of sums which are outstanding; and of sums which are unlikely to be recovered. (d) 39. the Commission will use information about the incidence of irregularities for the management of the CAP to improve control procedures. 
4.11.2004 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 269/9 d) teatama komisjonile laekumata summadest; e) teatama komisjonile summadest, mille tagasisaamine on ebatenoline. 34.
34. recovered should be borne by the Community, or borne by the Member State concerned (on the grounds that non-recovery is the consequence of negligence or irregularity by that Member State (1)). 35. 
Komisjon otsustab, kas kahju summade osas, mida tagasi ei saada, peaks kandma hendus vi asjaomane liikmesriik (kui summat ei saada tagasi selle liikmesriigi hooletuse vi eeskirjade eiramise tttu). (1) 35.
Where the Commission decides that the financial consequences of non-recovery should be borne by the Member State concerned, the decision is taken as part of the Ôclearance-of-accounts procedureŐ. 
Kui komisjon otsustab, et tagasisaamata jmise finantstagajrjed tuleks kanda asjaomasel liikmesriigil, vetakse see otsus vastu raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollija heakskiitmismenetluse osana.
This is the procedure in which the Commission decides whether expenditure undertaken by paying agencies has been carried out in accordance with EC law and should be definitively charged to EU budget. 
Knealune kord on menetlus, kus komisjon otsustab, kas makseasutuse tehtud kulud on tehtud vastavalt E igusele ja kuuluvad kindlalt ELi eelarvest katmisele.
If sums are to be charged to Member States the Commission deducts them from the monthly payments to finance the CAP which it makes to the paying agency concerned. 
Kui kahju peab kandma liikmesriik, tasaarvestab komisjon vastavad summad tema poolt asjaomasele makseasutusele PP rahastamiseks tehtavate igakuiste maksetega.
OLAF (and formerly UCLAF) is responsible for recommending whether the amounts should be written off to the budget (i.e. borne by the Community taxpayer) or in cases of negligence should be charged to Member States. 
OLAF (ja enne teda UCLAF) peab soovitama, kas summad tuleks katta henduse eelarvest (st henduse maksumaksja poolt) vi hooletuse korral liikmesriigi poolt.
The Directorate-General for Agriculture is responsible for the Commission decision. 
Pllumajanduse peadirektoraat vastutab komisjoni otsuse eest.
There is, however, relevant European Court of Justice jurisprudence. 
Siiski on olemas vastav Euroopa Kohtu praktika.
The European Court of Justice ruled in 1989 (2) that in waiting four to 10 years before starting proceedings to recover amounts wrongly paid, the Italian authorities had not acted with the necessary diligence (3). 
Euroopa Kohus otsustas 1989. aastal, (2) et valesti makstud summade sissenudmise algatamisega neli kuni kmme aastat viivitades ei olnud Itaalia ametivimud tegutsenud vajaliku hoolsusega.
38. 
(3) 38.
In a well-functioning system: The Commission decides whether sums which cannot be Low rate of recovery 40. 
Kord oli ebarahuldav kigis neljas punktis. Tagasisaamise madal protsendimr 40.
Table 2 shows that, at the end of 2002, the cumulative recovery rate was only 17 %. 
Tabelis 2 ilmneb, et 2002. aasta lpus oli tagasisaamise kumulatiivne protsendimr vaid 17 %.
The main reasons for the low rate of recovery are as follows: (a) some Member StatesŐ administrative and judicial systems are slow. 
Tagasisaamise madala protsendimra peamised phjused on jrgmised: a) mnede liikmesriikide haldus-ja kohtussteemid on aegla-sed.
This prejudices the likelihood of eventual recovery because assets disappear, companies are liquidated, individual beneficiaries disappear or die etc.; False claims for aid for the production of concentrated wine led to irregular payments of 8,3 million euro. 
See vhendab tagasisaamise tenosust, sest varad kao-vad, rihingud likvideeritakse, ksikud abisaajad kaovad vi surevad jne; Kontsentreeritud veini tootmise abi saamiseks esitatud phjendamata nuete tttu tehti eeskirjade vastaseid makseid 8,3 miljoni euro ulatuses.
The irregularity was first reported to the Greek paying agency in 1990. 
Eeskirjade eiramisest teatati Kreeka makseasutusele esimest korda 1990. aastal.
The Greek Ministry of Agriculture did not classify it as an irregularity until December 1996. 
Detsembrini 1996 ei liigitanud Kreeka pllumajan-dusministeerium seda eeskirjade eiramiseks.
The case, which has been referred to the Greek courts, has still not been heard and no monies have been recovered. (a) (b) (c) Member States will take all required action to recover sums irregularly paid; the Commission will encourage Member States to operate effectively; the Commission will make appropriate judgements about whether sums irregularly paid and not recovered are charged to the Community budget or to the individual Member State concerned; (b) recovery is further delayed where recovery procedures are suspended until the outcome of any associated fraud case is decided (for example, in Italy). 
Selle Kreeka kohtusse viidud juhtumi kohtuistungit ei ole veel toimunud ja summasid ei ole tagasi saadud. a) b) c) vtavad liikmesriigid kik vajalikud meetmed, et eeskirjade vastaselt makstud summad sisse nuda; julgustab komisjon liikmesriike thusalt tegutsema; teeb komisjon asjakohased otsused, kas eeskirjade vastaselt makstud ja tagasisaamata summad tuleb kanda henduse eelarvest vi asjaomase ksiku liikmesriigi poolt; b) tagasisaamine aeglustub veelgi, kui sissenudemenetlused peatatakse tagasisaamisega seotud pettusejuhtumi lahendi selgumiseni (niteks Itaalias).
Fraud cases require proof of intent before someone can be found guilty which is not necessary for the recovery of a de facto irregular payment; (c) some Member States do not give CAP debts preferential status (there is no EU legislation requiring them to do so); In early 1992 a combined UCLAF/German investigation proved skimmed-milk powder from intervention stocks, exported with refunds, had not been placed on the market outside the EU. 
Pettuse korral tuleb testada tahtlus, enne kui kedagi sdi saab mista; de facto eeskirjade vastaselt tehtud makse sissenudmiseks ei ole see vajalik; c) mned liikmesriigid ei anna PP vlgadele eelisstaatust (neid ei kohusta selleks kski ELi igusakt); 1992. aasta alguses testas UCLAFi/Saksamaa his-uurimine, et sekkumisvarust prinevat kooritud pii-mapulbrit, mida eksporditi eksporditoetusega, ei lastud EList vljaspool asuvatele turgudele.
Despite a request from the Commission in February 1993, Germany did not issue recovery orders until August 1995. 
Vaatamata komisjoni veebruaris 1993 esitatud taotlusele ei vljastanud Saksamaa augustini 1995 sisse-nudekorraldust.
In August 1996 an offer was made to pay 5,1 million euro (being the value of the available assets of the German com-pany). 
Augustis 1996 tehti pakkumine maksta 5,1 miljonit eurot (mis oli Saksa rihingu varade vrtus).
This was rejected by the Commission in April 1997. 
Komisjon lkkas selle aprillis 1997 tagasi.
By December 1999 the assets had diminished to 1,5 million euro. 
Detsembriks 1999 olid varad vhenenud 1,5 miljoni euroni.
None of the subsidies totalling 43,5 million euro has been recovered. 
Subsiidiumidest kogusummas 43,5 miljonit eurot ei ole midagi tagasi saadud.
(1) Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991. 
(1) Nukogu 4. mrtsi 1991. aasta mruse (EM) nr 595/91 artikli 5 lige 2.
(2) The Court of Justice ruled that Member States should respect the obligation of diligence which Ôimplies that the Member States must take steps to rectify irregularities promptlyŐ, adding that Ôwith the passage of time, recovery of sums wrongly paid is likely to become more complicated or impossible for reasons such as the fact that the undertakings may have ceased trading or accounting documents may have been lostŐ. 
(2) Euroopa Kohus otsustas, et liikmesriigid peaksid olema sissenudmisel hoolsad, mis Ňthendab, et liikmesriigid peavad astuma samme eeskirjade eiramiste koheseks heastamiseksÓ, lisades, et Ňaja mdudes muutub valesti makstud summade tagasi saamine tenoliselt raskemaks vi vimatuks niteks asjaolu tttu, et ettevtted vivad olla lpetanud tegutsemise vi et raamatupidamisdokumendid vivad olla kadunudÓ.
(3) Case C-34/89 of 11 October 1990, Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities. 
(3) Kohtuasi C-34/89, 11. oktoober 1990, Itaalia Vabariik v Euroopa henduste Komisjon.
C 269/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.11.2004 (d) there is inadequate use of procedures to offset debts against other CAP payments which are due. Offset procedures between paying agencies (for example in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal) or within the same paying agency (for example in Denmark) are not used by either because such offset is precluded under national law or because of inadequate communication channels; (e) national legislation in some Member States does not require a guarantee to be lodged, equivalent to the amount in dispute, before an appeal can be made (the Court made this observation in 2000 in the context of olive oil consumption aid irregularities (1)); (f) the Commission has, to date, refused to accept offers to settle for amounts referred to it by the Member States. 
C 269/10 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 4.11.2004 d) vlgade tasaarvestamist teiste sissenutavate PP maksetega kasutatakse ebapiisavalt. Tasaarvestust makseasutuste vahel (niteks Hispaanias, Prantsusmaal, Itaalias ja Portugalis) vi sama makseasutuse sees (niteks Taanis) ei kasutata, kuna see on riikliku igusaktiga keelatud vi kuna suhtluskanalid on ebapiisavad; e) mne liikmesriigi seadused ei nua vaidlusaluse summaga vrdse tagatise seadmist enne kaebuse kohtusse esitamist (kontrollikoda mrkas seda 2000. aastal seoses oliivili tar-bimistoetuse eeskirjade eiramise juhtumitega); (1) f) komisjon on siiani keeldunud pakkumistest leppida summadega, mida liikmesriik talle vlja pakub.
These are calculated on the basis of the assets available to the debtor and are lower than the debt. 
Need summad arvutatakse vlgniku varade jrgi ning on vlasummast viksemad.
However, even if recovery procedures were faster and recovery possibilities maximised, some debts would still have to be written off because of insolvency, death, official error, equity, cost effectiveness etc. It is not possible to estimate how much would be written off for these reasons. 
Isegi kui sissenudmine vtaks vhem aega ja tagasisaamise vimalused oleksid suuremad, tuleks mned vlad maksejuetuse, surma, ametniku eksituse, omakapitali, tasuvuse jne phjusel siiski kustutada. Nendel phjustel kustutatava summa suurust ei ole vimalik hinnata.
The Commission has limited powers to influence the way in which Member States carry out their responsibilities under the regulation. 
Komisjonil on piiratud pdevus mjutada viisi, kuidas liikmesriigid tidavad oma mrusega ettenhtud kohustusi.
It cannot intervene in Member States, administrative or judicial procedures in order to speed them up. 
Ta ei saa sekkuda haldus-vi kohtumenetlustesse liikmesriikides menetluste kiirendamiseks.
On the other hand: (a) the Commission can take action to recover the value of old debts from Member States, on the basis of the European Court of Justice ruling referred to in paragraph 37; (b) Community law provides an incentive to Member States to recover monies unduly paid in that they may retain 20 % of amounts recovered. 
Teisalt: a) vib komisjon punktis 37 viidatud Euroopa Kohtu otsuse alusel nuda liikmesriikidelt sisse vanu vlgu; b) henduse iguses stimuleeritakse liikmesriike ebaigelt makstud summasid sisse nudma sellega, et riigid vivad 20 % tagasisaadud summadest endale jtta.
In view of the cumulative recovery rate of 17 % this incentive cannot be considered to have achieved its objective. 
Arvestades tagasisaamise 17 % kumulatiivset protsendimra, ei saa elda, et see stiimul oleks oma eesmrki titnud.
OLAF does not have a reliable record of amounts retained. 
OLAFil ei ole endale jetud summade kohta usaldusvrseid andmeid.
Commission decisions on who should bear the cost of irregular payments which are not recovered: no clear principles 43. 
Komisjoni otsused selle kohta, kes peaks kandma kahju eeskirjade vastaselt tehtud maksete osas, mida ei ole tagasi saadud: puuduvad selged phimtted 43.
According to the ECR, since 1971 a total of 110 million euro has been written off against the EU budget and 142 million euro charged to Member States. 
Komisjoni andmebaasi jrgi on alates 1971. aastast ELi eelarvest kustutatud kogusummas 110 miljonit eurot ja 142 miljonit eurot kantud liikmesriikide kuludesse.
These amounts are small (10 %) in relation to the total amount to be recovered, partly because Member States have proposed few cases to be written off as irrecoverable and partly because the Commission action to clear up the old debts has not been timely. 
Need summad on vrreldes sissenudmisele kuuluva kogusummaga vikesed (10 %), seda osaliselt seetttu, et liikmesriigid on esitanud vhe juhtumeid lootusetutena kustutamiseks, ja osalt seetttu, et komisjoni katse vanu vlgu likvideerida ei olnud igeaegne.
(1) Special Report No 11/2000, paragraph 101 (OJ C 215, 27.7.2000). 
(1) Eriaruanne nr 11/2000, punkt 101 (ET C 215, 27.7.2000).
The Commission had no adequate criteria for making recommendations for writing off nor on the nature of supporting evidence required. 
44. vate tendusmaterjalide laadi kohta asjakohaseid kriteeriume.
There was no systematic analysis in the files presenting the arguments and evidence in support of the recommendations. 
Soovitusi toetavate videte ja tendusmaterjali toimikuid ei analsitud sstemaatiliselt.
Tests were carried out on a selection of 30 cases recorded in the ECR, where the Commission had decided that the cost should be charged to Member States. The selection concentrated on pre-1996 cases as there had been no clearance-of-accounts decision on cases since that year except for the special exercise mentioned below. 
Komisjoni andmebaasis kirjendatud 30 valikulise juhtumi suhtes, mille osas oli otsustatud kulude kandmine liikmesriikide arvele, viidi lbi testid. Valikul keskenduti enne 1996. aastat aset leidnud juhtumitele, kuna selle ajani poldud tehtud htegi raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollija heakskiitmisotsust, vlja arvatud allpool nimetatud konkreetne juhtum.
Of the 30 cases examined, only three contained satisfactory evidence that the amounts had in fact been recovered from Member States (2). 
30 analsitud juhtumist ksnes kolme puhul olid olemas rahuldavad tendusmaterjalid summade tegeliku liikmesriikidelt tagasisaamise kohta.
46. 
(2) 46.
Some 30 cases recorded as charged to the budget were also examined. 
Analsiti ka 30 juhtumit, mis olid kirjendatud eelarvevahenditega kaetud juhtumitena.
In eight cases the files could not be found and in 15 cases there was insufficient evidence (3) that the amounts were irrecoverable. 
Kaheksal juhul ei suudetud toimikut leida ja 15 juhul oli tendusmaterjal summade tagasisaamise lootusetuse kohta ebapiisav.
There were reasoned arguments for decisions in few (4) of the files examined. 
(3) Analsitud toimikutest ksnes mnes (4) olid otsused phjendatult argumenteeritud.
There is a particular respect in which writing off procedures by Member States interact with the clearance of accounts. Under the clearance-of-accounts procedure, disallowance of expenditure normally takes the form of a Ôflat-rate correctionŐ: the Commission judges that a Member State has failed to manage certain expenditure properly and disallows from EU financing (i.e. in effect charges to the Member State) a percentage of the expenditure concerned as a sanction for poor management and an incentive for improvement. 
Raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollija heakskiitmismenetluses toimub kulude mittelubamine tavaliselt kindlasummalise korrektsiooni kujul: komisjon otsustab, et liikmesriigil ei ole nnestunud teatud kulutusi igesti hallata ja ei luba karistusena nrgatasemelise haldamise eest ning ergutusena paremate tulemuste saavutamiseks asjaomastest kuludest teatud osa suhtes ELi rahastamist (st kannab selle tegelikult liikmesriigi kuludesse).
Some Member States have taken the opportunity of such flat-rate corrections to write off debts arising from irregularities committed in that same area of expenditure up to the value of the correction, rather than proposing writing off under the condition discussed in paragraphs 33 to 37. 
Mned liikmesriigid kasutasid sellist kindlasummalist korrektsiooni ra, et kustutada korrektsiooniga samas ulatuses ja kulutustega samas valdkonnas eeskirjade eiramisest tekkivaid vl-gu, selle asemel, et teha punktides 33Đ37 kirjeldatud tingimustel kustutamisettepanek.
The Commission considers that this practice is not in conformity with the legal provisions relating to clearance of accounts. 
Komisjon on seisukohal, et see tava ei ole vastavuses raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrolli ja heakskiitmisega seotud igusnormidega.