natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We were unable to identify the EU objective related to the remaining 50 % of the costs. 
ELi eesmrki, mis oleks seondunud lejnud 50 % kuludega polnud vimalik vlja selgitada.
Text box 11 An irrigation project in Italy was allocated to the objective of Ôimproving qualityŐ in accordance with the 1997 national guidelines. 
11. selgitus Itaalias oli vastavalt 1997. aasta riigisisestele suunistele niisutusprojekti eesmrgiks Ňkvaliteedi parandamineÓ.
Following a revision of the guidelines it was given the objective of Ôconcen-tration of supplyŐ in 1999. In 2002 a further revision classified the same action under the objective Ôreducing costsŐ. 
Prast suuniste muutmist seati 1999. aastal eesmrgiks Ňpakkumise koondamineÓ. Prast 2002. aastal toimunud muutmist liigitati sama meede eesmrgi Ňku-lude vhendamineÓ alla.
Text box 8 An operational programme in the Netherlands included an electronic delivery note system at a cost of 135 000 euro with the objective Ôplanning and adjusting production to the demandŐ. 
8. selgitus Rakenduskava Hollandis sisaldas 135 000 eurot maksvat elektroonilise saatelehe ssteemi, mille eesmrgiks oli Ňtoodangu planeerimine ja nudlusega kohandamineÓ.
The producer organisation could not demonstrate a relation between the action and this objective. 
Tootjaorganisatsioon ei suutnud nidata eesmrgi ja meetme omavahelist seotust.
The real objective, the reduction in costs, was not mentioned in the operational programme. 
Tegelikku eesmrki, milleks oli kulude vhendamine, rakenduskavas ei mainitud.
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/41 36. 
20.11.2006 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 282/41 36.
In Greece, Spain (2) and Portugal, final reports were simply filed by the paying agency and not examined by the authorities responsible for approving operational programmes. 
Kreekas, Hispaanias (2) ja Portugalis registreeriti lpparuanded lihtsalt makseasutuse poolt, rakenduskavade heakskiitmise eest vastutavad ametiasutused neid ei kontrollinud.
The content of the reports varied widely, from less than one page of general unsubstantiated statements such as that Ôquality has been improvedŐ, to over 100 pages of detailed facts and figures on the implementation of the programme, action by action. Member States did not require final reports to contain a (1) Member States commented that, according to the deadlines set in the implementing regulation, final reports are received after they have already approved the next operational programme for the producer organisation concerned. 
Aruannete sisu erines suurel mral, alates vhem kui le-hekljelistest ldsnalistest videtest, nagu Ňkvaliteet on parane-nudÓ, kuni sajalehekljeliste aruanneteni, mis ksitlesid programmi rakendamist meetmete kaupa ksikasjaliste faktide ja arvude abil. Liikmesriigid ei nudnud, et lpparuanded sisaldaks (1) Liikmesriigid kommenteerisid, et vastavalt rakendusmruses stestatud thtaegadele esitatakse lpparuanded alles prast vastava tootjaorganisatsiooni jrgmise rakenduskava heakskiitmist.
Although the regulation has been revised several times since 1997, this inconsistency has not been amended. 
Kuigi mrust on alates 1997. aastast mitmeid kordi muudetud, pole seda ebakla parandatud.
Evaluation reports could be required earlier in the final year of the programme, simultaneous with the request for the following programme, for example. 
Niteks viks hindamisaruanded esitada kava viimasel aastal varem, koos jrgmise kava taotlusega.
(2) This concerns the national paying agency in particular. common set of information to allow monitoring of the effectiveness of the programmes at regional or national level, and the diversity of the reports made any such analysis impractical. 
(2) See hlmab eelkige siseriiklikku makseasutust. htset teavet, mis oleks vimaldanud programmide mjususe jrelevalvet piirkondlikul ja riiklikul tasemel, ning aruannete mitmekesisus muutis sellise analsi ebapraktiliseks.
Member States do not apply effectiveness criteria when approving operational programmes 38. 
Liikmesriigid ei rakendanud rakenduskavade heakskiitmisel mjususe kriteeriumi 38.
In practice, Member States approved the programmes according to the nature of the proposed expenditure, not in terms of what the programme was expected to achieve. 
Tegelikkuses andsid liikmesriigid programmidele heakskiidu, lhtudes kavandatavate kulude iseloomust, mitte programmi kavandatud saavutustest.
Effectiveness criteria, such as additionality, were not applied in deciding whether or not to approve the financing of an action with EU aid. 
Otsustades, kas meetmeid ELi toetusega rahastada vi mitte, ei rakendatud mjususe kriteeriume, nagu tiendavus.
Consideration of factors specifically required by the regulation, such as the initial situation and objectives, the technical quality and economic consistency of the programme, has become redundant and has only been done to the extent necessary to demonstrate compliance with the letter of the regulation. 
Arvestamine mruses nutud teguritega, nagu esialgne olukord ja eesmrgid, tehniline kvaliteet ja programmi majanduslik jrjepidevus, muutus leliigseks ja seda tehti ainult mruse nuete titmiseks vajalikus ulatuses.
Instead, Member States followed a different approach, with the focus placed on compliance with the eligibility criteria and the payment of subsidy as illustrated in Diagram 6. 
Selle asemel rakendasid liikmesriigid erinevat lhenemisviisi, keskendudes abiklblikkuskriteeriumide jrgimisele ja toetuse maksmisele, vt 6. diagramm.
Diagram 6 Subsidy approach 
6. diagramm Toetuse lhenemisviis
C 282/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 40. 
C 282/42 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 20.11.2006 40.
These list the types of expenditure that can and cannot be included in operational programmes (Text box 12). have to be able to justify their decision to the producer organisation and also may face legal challenges. 
Peamiselt phjustas seda alates 1999. aastast kehtiva komisjoni rakendusmruse muudatus abiklblikkuse nimekirjade kasutusele vtmise kohta, milles stestatakse rakenduskavades lubatud ja vlistatud kulude liigid (12. selgitus). eesmrkidest vi olukorrast, vivad liikmesriigid neid raskeid otsuseid vltida, kiites heaks samad meetmed kikide soovi avaldanud tootjaorganisatsioonide puhul (13. selgitus).
Text box 13 Example: pallet-boxes In 10 of the 30 randomly selected operational programmes, Member States had approved the purchase of pallet-boxes, crates or similar containers for collecting, transporting and storing fruit and vegetables at a combined cost of 1,7 million euro. 
13. selgitus Nide: kaubaalused Kmne juhuslikult valitud rakenduskava puhul 30st kiitsid liikmesriigid kaubaaluste, kastide vi muude puu-ja kgiviljade transportimiseks meldud konteinerite ostu heaks kokku 1,7 miljoni euro vrtuses.
The Commission considers this expenditure to be eligible. 
Komisjon hindab selle kulu abiklblikuks.
The objectives given in the operational programmes included: Ń stabilising producer prices, Ń increasing product quality, Ń boosting productsŐ commercial value, Ń reducing production costs, Ń improving environmental practices, Ń concentration of supply, Ń reducing withdrawals. 
Rakenduskavades olid toodud jrgmised eesmrgid: Ń tootjahindade stabiliseerimine, Ń tootekvaliteedi parandamine, Ń toodete kaubandusliku vrtuse suurendamine, Ń tootmiskulude vhendamine, Ń keskkonnatavade parandamine, Ń pakkumise koondamine, Ń turult krvaldamise vhendamine.
In some cases, the purchase represented an advance from the initial situation to achieve an objective: one producer organisation replaced wooden crates with more hygenic plastic in order to supply a baby-food manufacturer (objective given: improving quality). 
Esialgse olukorraga vrreldes tehti mnel juhul eesmrkide saavutamise suunas edusamme: ks tootjaorganisatsioon asendas puust kas-tid hgieenilisemate plastikust kastidega, et varustada imikutoidu valmistajaid (eesmrgiks toodete kvaliteedi parandamine).
The initial implementing regulation in 1997 did not set detailed criteria for eligibility, except to exclude producer organisationsŐ administrative and operating expenditure. Member States were uncertain of what the Commission would accept as eligible expenditure in the Clearance of Accounts process and, in response to queries from the Member States, the Commission issued a series of ad hoc interpretive notes. 
1997. aasta algses rakendusmruses ksikasjalikke abiklblikkuskriteeriume ei esitatud, vlja arvatud tootjaorganisatsioonide haldus-ja tegevuskulude vlistamise puhul. Liikmesriigid olid ebakindlad, mida komisjon raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollimise ja heakskiitmise menetluse puhul abiklblike kriteeriu-mitena ksitleb, ja vastuseks liikmesriikide jreleprimistele vljastas komisjon hulgaliselt juhtumiphiseid tlgendavaid teatisi.
As these interpretive notes had no official status, the Commission amended the implementing legislation to introduce a list of ineligible operations and expenditure. 
Kuna nimetatud tlgendavatel teatistel ei olnud ametlikku staatust, viis komisjon mrusesse sisse muudatused ja vttis kasutusele abiklbmatute tegevuste ja kulude nimekirja.
At the same time, it required Member States to check the eligibility of proposed operational programme expenditure against this list before approving operational programmes. 
Samal ajal pidid liikmesriigid enne rakenduskava heakskiitmist kavandatud rakenduskavade kulude abiklblikkust nimekirja abil kontrollima.
In 2001 the Commission added a list of what could be included in operational programmes and in 2003 the interpretive notes were withdrawn and both lists were revised again. 
2001. aastal lisas komisjon nimekirja selle kohta, mis viks rakenduskavades sisalduda, ning 2003. aastal lpetati tlgenda-vate teatiste kasutamine ja mlemad nimekirjad vaadati uuesti le.
The eligibility lists allowed some exceptions to the exclusion of producer organisationsŐ production and operating costs such as certain staff salaries, recyclable packaging and costs of natural pest and disease controls. 
Abiklblikkuse nimekirjad vimaldasid mningaid erandeid tootjaorganisatsioonide tootmis-ja tegevuskulude vlistamise osas, nagu teatavad ttajate palgad, taaskasutatavad pakendid ning kahjurite ja haiguste loodusliku trje kulud.
The existence of these eligibility lists does not prevent Member States from also considering the producer organisationsŐ initial situation and objectives and the likely effectiveness of the proposed actions. 
Nende abiklblikkuse nimekirjade olemasolu ei takista liikmesriikidel arvesse vtta tootjaorganisatsioonide esialgset olukorda, eesmrke ja kavandatavate meetmete tenolist mjusust.
In effect, a Ôsubsidy approachŐ has been followed by Member States rather than a programming approach, while the programming elements of the regulation are still required. 
Liikmesriigid on eelistanud toetuse lhenemisviisi programmit mudelile, samal ajal nutakse ka mruses stestatud programmit elemente.
The result is that the aid scheme has become more complex than necessary, with increased costs of administration and control. 
Selle tulemusena on toetuskava muutunud asjatult keeruliseks ning haldus-ja kontrollikulud on kasvanud.
This results from the lack of clarity of the eligibility lists as well as from the coexistence of the programming model. 
Seda on phjustanud nii abiklblikkuse nimekirjade ebapiisav selgus kui ka paralleelselt kehtiv programmit mudel.
This is all the more so in Member States such as Italy and the Netherlands, which require detailed annual operational programmes also to be submitted for approval. 
Seda vis theldada rohkem liikmesriikides nagu Itaalia ja Holland, kuna neis tuleb ksikasjalikud iga-aastased rakenduskavad esitada ka heakskiitmiseks.
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/43 45. 
20.11.2006 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 282/43 45.
Inevitably, queries arise, and the lists are interpreted differently by different Member States and even by different regions within Member States. 
See tekitab paratamatult ksimusi ja nimekirju tlgendatakse erinevates liikmesriikides ja isegi liikmesriigisiseselt erinevate piirkondade poolt erinevalt.
Even after eight years of operation of the scheme, examples of ineligible expenditure continued to be found by the Commission in the 2005 Clearance enquiries in Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom where the Member States had not always interpreted the eligibility rules in the same way as the Commission. 
Isegi kaheksa aastat prast toetuskavade esmast rakendamist leidis komisjon Hispaanias, Prantsusmaal, Itaalias ja hendkuningriigis 2005. aasta kontrollimise ja heakskiitmise menetluse kigus jtkuvalt abiklbmatuid kulusid, kuna need liikmesriigid ei tlgendanud abiklblikkuse eeskirju komisjoniga alati samal viisil.
This adds costs not only for the Member State but also for the producer organisation. 
See ei toonud kaasa lisakulusid mitte ainult liikmesriigile, vaid ka tootjaorganisatsioonile.
This uncertainty on the eligibility, the costs of administration and extensive checks of their activities may also deter producer organisations from risking innovative measures, which may ultimately be disallowed. 
Abiklblikkuse ebakindlus, halduskulud ja meetmete ulatuslikud kontrollid vivad takistada tootjaorganisatsioonidel vtta uudseid meetmeid, kuna need vidakse lpuks tagasi lkata.
There is a risk that ineffective actions have been approved 48. 
Esineb ebathusate meetmete heakskiitmise oht 48.
As the programming model has not been properly implemented, the EU budget has been exposed to an increased risk of ineffectiveness: the risk that actions will be approved that do not result in progress towards the EUŐs objectives. 
Kuna programmit mudelit ei rakendatud nuetekohaselt, suurendas see ELi eelarve ebathususe riski, kuna heakskiidetud meetmetega ei kaasne edusamme ELi eesmrkide saavutamise suunas.
Some Member States have argued that they do not need to concern themselves with the effectiveness of the programmes, as producer organisations will normally make the best business decisions for their circumstances. 
Mned liikmesriigid on vitnud, et neil ei ole vajadust sekkuda programmide mjususse, kuna tootjaorganisatsioonid teevad tavaliselt oma olukorrale vastavaid parimaid rialaseid otsuseid.
After all, the members of the producer organisation have to co-finance 50 % of the costs of the programme. 
Lpuks peavad ju tootjaorganisatsiooni liikmed rahastama 50 % programmi kuludest.
However, the examples seen in this audit show that some producer organisations use the subsidy to support the costs of their existing activities, which do not represent a step forward from their initial situation. 
Auditi aruandes toodud nited aga testavad, et mned tootjaorganisatsioonid kasutavad toetust juba olemasolevate meetmete kulude toetamiseks, seega vrreldes esialgse olukorraga edusamme ei tehta.
While this may make business sense for the producer organisation, particularly when under competitive pressure, it does not contribute to achieving the objectives of the EU aid scheme. The example in Spain (Text box 14) illustrates (1) Annual checks of at least 20 % of producer organisations representing 30 % of expenditure. the inclusion of costs which are not ÔactionsŐ or ÔmeasuresŐ designed to achieve operational programme objectives, but are normal costs of any fruit and vegetable producer. 
Kuigi see vib toot-jaorganisatsioonile iseranis konkurentsitingimustes rilist kasu tuua, ei aita see saavutada ELi toetuskava eesmrke. Hispaania nite puhul (14. selgitus) kaasati selliseid kulusid, mis ei olnud rakenduskava eesmrkide saavutamiseks meldud tegevused (1) Aastas tuleb kontrollida vhemalt 20 protsenti tootjaorganisatsiooni-dest, kelle kulud moodustavad 30 protsenti kigist kuludest. vi meetmed, vaid iga puu-ja kgiviljatootja tavaprased kulud.
Although it is not common for operational programmes to include such a high proportion of recyclable packaging(2), Member States have approved significant amounts of expenditure for this. 
Kuigi tavaliselt rakenduskavad suuri koguseid korduvkasutatavaid pakendeid (2) ei sisalda, on liikmesriigid nende kulude rahastamiseks heaks kiitnud mrkimisvrseid summasid.
Ten operational programmes in the CourtŐs sample of 30 included a combined total of 4,9million euro for recyclable or reusable packaging. Text box 14 Example: Regional authorities in Spain had approved one operational programme in our sample, which included 2,7 million euro for recyclable cardboard boxes. 
14. selgitus Nide: Hispaania piirkondlikud ametiasutused kiitsid heaks he kontrollikoja valimisse kaasatud rakenduskava, mis sisaldas 2,7 miljoni euro suurust toetust taaskasutatavatele pappkastidele.
This represented 83 % of the total programme for 2000-2003. 
See esindas 83 % kogu 2000.Đ2003. aasta programmist.
In 2001 they approved a revision to the programme which deleted planned investments in greenhouses and irrigation, and increased the budget for recyclable boxes to 98 % of the total. 
2001. aastal kiitsid piirkondlikud ametiasutused heaks kava muudatuse, millega thistati kavandatud investeeringud kasvuhoonetesse ja niisutamisse, ning suurendasid taaskasutatavate pappkastide eelarvet 98 protsendini kogusummast.
The only other ÔactionŐ was the salary of a technician. 
Ainsaks muuks ŇmeetmeksÓ oli he tehniku palk.
The previous section showed that the approach followed by the Member States in approving operational programmes results in a risk that the measures financed may not be effective. 
Eelmine peatkk nitas, et liikmesriikide rakenduskavade heakskiitmise lhenemisviisiga kaasnes risk, et rahastatud meetmed ei ole tulemuslikud.
This section assesses whether or not the actions implemented by producer organisations have been effective in achieving the operational programme objectives. 
Kesolevas ligus hinnatakse, kas tootjaorganisatsioonide poolt elluviidavad meetmed olid vi ei olnud rakenduskavade eesmrkide saavutamisel tulemuslikud.
Producer organisation evaluations of operational programmes (final reports) 51. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonide koostatud rakenduskavade hindamised (lpparuanded) 51.
The primary source of information on the effectiveness of operational programmes should be the final reports drawn up by producer organisations at the end of each programme. 
Esmaseks rakenduskavade mjususe teabeallikaks peaksid olema tootjaorganisatsioonide poolt iga programmi lpus koostatud lpparuanded.
(2) The Commission disallowed this expenditure in the Clearance of Accounts process on the basis that the programme did not have several objectives as required by the regulation. 
(2) Komisjon keeldus selle kulutuse rahastamisest raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollimise ja heakskiitmise kigus, kuna puudusid mitmed mruses nutud eesmrgid.
In 2002, the Spanish authorities limited spending on recyclable packaging to a maximum 35 % of each operational programme to ensure equal treatment for all Spanish producer organisations. 
2002. aastal piirasid Hispaania ametiasutused korduvkasutatavate pakendite kulutusi maksimaalselt 35 protsendini igas rakenduskavas, et tagada kikide Hispaania tootjaorganisatsioonide vrdne kohtlemine.
C 282/44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 52. 
C 282/44 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 20.11.2006 52.
This represents a missed opportunity for the Commission, which has a specific responsibility under the EUŐs Financial Regulation to monitor the achievement of policy objectives. 
Tegemist on komisjoni poolt kasutamata jetud vima-lusega, ELi finantsmruse kohaselt on komisjonil vastutus jlgida poliitika eesmrkide saavutamist.
Had the final reports contained the required assessments, it should have been possible to analyse a sample of reports and draw conclusions on whether operational programmes had achieved their objectives. 
Kui lpparuanded oleksid sisaldanud nuetekohaseid hindamisi, oleks olnud vimalik analsida aruannete valimit ja teha jreldusi rakenduskavade eesmrkide saavutamise kohta.
With a few well-chosen performance indicators required from all producer organisations, these final reports could have produced a long time series showing progress made in objectives such as improving quality, reducing costs, organic production, and improving environmental practices. 
Mne hoolikalt valitud, kikidelt tootjaorganisatsioonidelt nutava tulemusnitajaga oleks lpparuannetes olnud vimalik pikkade ajavahemike puhul nidata kvaliteedi parandamise, kulude vhendamise, orgaanilise tootmise ja keskkonnatavade edendamise eesmrkide osas tehtud edusamme.
In order to check if operational programme actions have been effective, the Court selected a total of 104 actions at random from thirty producer organisationsŐ operational programmes completed in 2003 or 2004 (Text box 5). 
Et kontrollida rakenduskavade meetmete tulemuslikkust, valis kontrollikoda juhuslikkuse phimttel 30 tootjaorganisatsiooni 2003. vi 2004. aastal lpetatud rakenduskava phjal kokku 104 meedet (5. selgitus).
The producer organisations were asked to demonstrate the impact of the selected actions in terms of the related operational programme objectives. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonidel paluti nidata valitud meetmete mju nendega seonduvatele programmi eesmrkidele.
Some actions had more than one objective, giving a total of 265 cases examined. 
Mnel meetmel oli mitu eesmrki, seega hlmas kontroll 265 juhtumit.
In only 30 % of the cases could producer organisations provide sufficient evidence to show that the action had resulted in progress towards the related objective (Diagram 7). 
Ainult 30 % juhtudest suutsid tootjaorganisatsioonid esitada piisavaid tendeid nitamaks, et meetmete abil tehti edusamme seonduvate eesmrkide saavutamise suunas (7. diagramm).
In a further 41 % of cases, while there was no direct evidence, a positive conclusion could be reached based on a logical reasoning (see Text box 15). 
41 protsendil juhtudest, kus otsesed tendid puudusid, vis juda positiivse lpplahenduseni loogilise arutluse tulemusena (vt 15. selgitus).
However, as shown in paragraph 58, in many cases the progress made was only marginal. 
Nagu nhtub punktist 58, olid edusammud paljudel juhtudel aga vaid marginaalsed.
In almost a quarter of the cases, the Court could not draw a conclusion on whether or not progress had been made. 
Peaaegu neljandikul juhtudest ei judnud kontrollikoda otsusele, kas edusamme tehti vi mitte.
In most cases, this was because the related objective was so general that it was not possible to prove that there had been no impact. 
Enamikul juhtudest oli selle phjuseks meetmete liialt ldine eesmrk ning mju puudumist ei olnud vimalik testada.
This was particularly the case for the objectives of reducing withdrawals, concentration of supply, and stabilising producer prices (Diagram 8). 
Seda esines eriti sageli turult krvaldamise vhendamise, pakkumise koondamise ja tootjahindade stabiliseerimise eesmrkide puhul (vt 8. diagramm).
In a few of these cases, the action had failed: one producer organisation had started an operational programme action concerning organic production, for example, but abandoned the project. In the rest of the cases, the reason for the lack of progress was that objectives had been incorrectly allocated to the measures, either through misunderstanding (several producer organisations understood the objective Ôpromotion of products to consumersŐ as being promotion to clients), or to comply with a national classification (see paragraph 33). 
56. gramm). Mnel nimetatud juhul meetmete vtmine ebannestus: ks tootjaorganisatsioon oli niteks alustanud orgaanilise tootmise alase rakenduskava meedet, kuid hiljem projektist loobunud. lejnud juhtude puhul olid edusammude puudumise phjuseks meetmetele kehtestatud ebakohased eesmrgid, mida phjustasid kas arusaamatused (paljud tootjaorganisatsioonid tlgendasid eesmrki Ňtoodete aktiivne turustamine tarbijateleÓ toodete aktiivse turustamisena klientidele), vi htivus siseriikliku klassifitseeri-misssteemiga (vt punkt 33).