natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission regulation also specified a number of checks that the Member States should make on the operational programme proposals: Ń verify the producer organisationŐs initial situation and the operational programme objectives; Ń verify the compliance of the operational programme objectives with those set out in the Council regulation; Diagram 4 Main EU aids paid to fruit and vegetable producer organisations 1996-2004 (EU 15) Diagram 5 Programming model 
Komisjoni mruse kohaselt peab liikmesriik rakenduskavade ettepanekute kohta lbi viima jrgmise kontrollimise: Ń kontrollima tootjaorganisatsioonide algset olukorda ja rakenduskavade eesmrke, Ń kontrollima rakenduskava eesmrkide vastavust nukogu mruses stestatutega, 5. diagramm Programmit mudel
C 282/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 Ń verify the economic consistency and technical quality of the proposed operational programme, and the soundness of the estimates. 
C 282/38 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 20.11.2006 Ń kontrollima kavandatava rakenduskava majanduslikku jrjepidevust ja tehnilist kvaliteeti ning prognooside usaldusvrsust.
PART I: EFFECTIVENESS OF OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 19. 
I OSA: RAKENDUSKAVADE MÍJUSUS 19.
As described above, Member States and the Commission share the responsibility to ensure that the aid scheme is effective: that the aid is used to achieve progress towards the 11 objectives the Council set for operational programmes. 
Nagu eespool kirjeldatud, peavad liikmesriigid ja komisjon tagama toetuskava mjususe hiselt: toetust tuleb kasutada edusammude tegemiseks 11 nukogu poolt mratud rakenduskava eesmrgi saavutamise suunas.
This part of the report first looks at whether the aid scheme was implemented by the Commission and Member States in a way to encourage effectiveness, and in particular, if the Ôprogramming modelŐ operated as intended. 
Selles aruande osas vaadeldakse esmalt, kas toetuskava rakendati komisjoni ja liikmesriigi poolt viisil, mis suurendaks thusust, ja eriti, kas programmit mudel ttas kavandatud viisil.
It then assesses a sample of operational programmes to determine whether the measures financed resulted in progress towards the schemeŐs objectives. 
Seejrel hinnatakse rakenduskavade valimit, et mrata kindlaks, kas rahastatud meetmed aitasid toetuskava eesmrke saavutada.
Has the aid scheme been implemented in a way to ensure that operational programmes are likely to be effective? 
Kas toetuskava rakendati viisil, mis tenoliselt tagab rakenduskavade thususe?
Member States approve the operational programmes proposed by the producer organisations, but under the Treaty, the Commission retains final responsibility for the sound financial management of the EU budget and supervises the Member States. 
Liikmesriigid annavad tootjaorganisatsioonide esitatud rakenduskavadele heakskiidu, aga lppvastutus ELi eelarve usaldusvrse finantsjuhtimise eest on asutamislepingu kohaselt komisjonil, kes juhib liikmesriikide tegevust.
In the ÔClearance of AccountsŐ process, the Commission visits Member States to check that the aid payments have been made in compliance with Community rules. 
Raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollimise ja heakskiitmise menetluse kigus klastab komisjon liikmesriike, et kontrollida, kas toetusmaksete tegemisel jrgiti henduse eeskirjade nudeid.
The Council regulation also set up a ÔSpecial Corps of InspectorsŐ for the fruit and vegetable sector with the role, inter alia, of ensuring a uniform application of the rules across the EU. 
Nukogu mrusega loodi puu-ja kgiviljasektorile ka vastav kontrollijate grupp, kelle lesandeks oli muu hulgas eeskirjade ldise rakendamise tagamine kogu ELis.
In practice, these are the same officials that check expenditure for the Clearance of Accounts. 
Tegelikkuses on tegemist samade ametnikega, kes kontrollivad kulusid raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollimise ja heakskiitmise jaoks.
In relation to other EU agricultural policies, the operational programme aid scheme requires Member States to exercise a greater degree of judgment in deciding whether to approve, reject or require changes to the measures proposed in an operational programme. 
Liikmesriikidel on rakenduskava toetuskava osas vrreldes teiste ELi pllumajanduspoliitika valdkondadega suurem ot-sustusvime, kui tehakse otsuseid rakenduskavas esitatud meetmete heakskiitmise, vajalike muudatuste tegemise vi tagasilkkamise kohta.
However, since the initial checks of the Member StatesŐ procedures in 1997 and 1998, Commission inspections have focused on compliance with the criteria for the eligibility of expenditure and have not checked whether the Member State procedures for approving and monitoring operational programmes shown in paragraph 18 operate in a way to ensure that operational programmes are likely to be effective. 
Prast liikmesriikide menetluste esialgseid kontrolle 1997. ja 1998. aastal on komisjoni kontrollid keskendunud kulude abiklblikkuskriteeriumide jrgimisele ning ei ole kontrollitud, kas punktis 18 toodud liikmesriikide rakenduskavade heakskiitmise ja jrelevalve menetlused toimivad viisil, mis tenoliselt tagab rakenduskavade thususe.
Consequently, while the Commission has checked the eligibility of the aid paid out by Member States for Clearance of Accounts purposes, it has not checked whether this aid has been granted respecting the sound financial management principles, in particular, of effectiveness. 
Seega, kuigi komisjon on kontrollinud raamatupidamisarvestuse kontrollimise ja heakskiitmise eesmrgil liikmesriikide makstud toetuse abiklblikkust, ei kontrollitud, kas toetust on antud usaldusvrse finantsjuhtimise phimtete kohaselt (isera-nis mjususe osas).
Member StatesŐ implementation of the aid scheme Details of the audit in the Member States 24. 
Toetuskavade rakendamine liikmesriikide poolt Liikmesriikides lbiviidud auditi kirjeldus 24.
Given the Member StatesŐ key role in approving operational programmes, the Court audited the procedures applied in all 14 Member States concerned (Text box 5). 
Arvestades liikmesriikide keskset rolli rakenduskavade heakskiitmisel, auditeeris kontrollikoda kigis 14 asjaomases liikmesriigis rakendatud menetlusi (vt 5. selgitus).
As implementation of the scheme is decentralised in some Member States, the procedures were also checked at a further 19 regional and local administrations in Italy, Spain, France and Greece. 
Kuna toetuskava rakendamine on mnedes liikmesriikides detsentraliseeritud, kontrolliti ka 19 piirkondliku ja kohaliku ametkonna menetlusi Itaalias, Hispaanias, Prantsusmaal ja Kreekas.
The implementing regulation requires Member States to make a number of checks, but does not prescribe how. 
Rakendusmruse kohaselt peab liikmesriik teostama mitmeid kontrolle, aga selles ei mratleta nende lbiviimise korda.
This gives Member States the flexibility to organise these procedures according to their context. 
See vimaldab liikmesriikidel menetlusi lbi viia vastavalt nende kontekstile.
Consequently, each administration has implemented the scheme in a different way and the findings below do not apply equally in all Member States (1). 
Seetttu on iga ametkond rakendanud toetuskava erineval viisil ja allpool toodud tulemused ei kehti vrdselt kikide liikmesriikide kohta (1).
Text box 5 Details of the audit in the Member States: We based the audit of the Member StatesŐ procedures on a random sample of 30 operational programmes completed in 2003 and 2004. 
5. selgitus Liikmesriikides lbiviidud auditi kirjeldus Liikmesriikide menetluste audit phines 2003. ja 2004. aastal lpetatud 30 rakenduskava juhuslikul valimil.
We visited the Member StatesŐ administrations responsible for approving those programmes and the producer organisations concerned. 
Audiitorid klastasid programmide eest vastutavaid liikmesriikide ametiasutusi ja programmidega seotud tootjaorganisatsioone.
Number of operational programmes selected Spain 11 France 8 Italy 4 Greece 2 Portugal 2 United Kingdom 1 Netherlands 1 Ireland 1 The selected operational programmes were approved by the Member States between 1998 and 2001. 
Hispaania Prantsusmaa Itaalia Kreeka Valitud rakenduskavade arv 11 Portugal 2 8 hendkuningriik 1 4 Holland 1 2 Iirimaa 1 Valitud rakenduskavad olid liikmesriikide poolt heaks kiidetud ajavahemikus 1998Đ2001.
To obtain sufficient evidence, and ensure that findings were still relevant, we examined documentation from 1998 to 2005 for a further 94 operational programmes and 103 evaluation reports. 
Piisavate tendite kogumiseks ja nende asjakohasuse tagamiseks kontrolliti veel 94 rakenduskava ja 103 hindamisaruande 1998.Đ2005. aasta dokumente.
(1) The Court has informed Member States of the specific findings that concern them. 
(1) Kontrollikoda on liikmesriike neid puudutavate leidude osas teavitanud.
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/39 Criteria for assessing the implementation of the programming model 26. 
20.11.2006 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 282/39 Programmit mudeli rakendamise hindamiskriteeriumid 26.
To comply with the requirements for sound financial management, Member States should apply the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in deciding whether to approve an operational programme, thereby granting the EU aid. 
Jrgides usaldusvrse finantsjuhtimise nudeid, peaksid liikmesriigid rakenduskava heakskiitmisel ja seelbi ELi toetuse andmisel rakendama sstlikkuse, thususe ja mjususe phimtteid.
For the aid to be effective, each action financed in the programme should have an effect: the action should result in progress being made towards one or more of the 11 objectives set by the Council Regulation. Consequently, Member States should base their decision on whether to approve, reject or require changes to an operational programme on whether the producer organisation has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed actions are likely to achieve these objectives. 
Toetuse mjususe tagamiseks peavad mjusad olema kik rahastatud meetmed: iga meede peaks kaasa tooma edusamme he vi rohkema nukogu mruses stestatud 11 eesmrgi saavutamise suunas. Seetttu peaks liikmesriikide toetuse heakskiitmise, tagasilkkamise vi rakenduskavas muudatuste tegemise otsus phinema sellel, kas tootjaorganisatsioon on piisavalt testanud, et esitatud meetmetega nimetatud eesmrgid saavutatakse.
Member States need detailed information from the producer organisations to be able to justify their decisions to award the aid in these terms. 
Liikmesriigid peavad tootjaorganisatsioonidelt saama ksikasjalikku teavet vimaldamaks oma toetuse andmise otsust neil tingimustel phjendada.
Following this logic, and the specific requirements of the Regulation (see paragraphs 16 to 18), the Court developed audit criteria for what would be reasonable to expect in a ÔgoodŐ system (Text box 6). 
Selle loogika ja mruse erinuete kohaselt (vt punktid 16Đ18) ttas kontrollikoda vlja hindamiskriteeriumid, mida oleks mistlik ŇhealtÓ ssteemilt oodata (6. selgitus).
If these criteria are met, Member StatesŐ procedures are likely to ensure that the aid will be effective. 
Nende kriteeriumide titmisel tagavad liikmesriigi menetlused tenoliselt abi mjususe.
These criteria can be summarised as follows: Ń Operational programme documents should show the producer organisationŐs initial situation in respect of each of the programmesŐ objectives. 
Kriteeriumid on kokkuvttes jrgmised: Ń Rakenduskava dokumendid peaksid iga programmi eesmrgi puhul kirjeldama tootjaorganisatsioonide esialgset olukorda.
Producer organisations should give targets for each objective in relation to the initial situation. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonid peaksid seadma igale eesmrgile esialgsest olukorrast lhtuvad sihtmrgid.
The documents should show how the proposed actions will achieve the programmeŐs objectives. 
Dokumendid peaksid nitama, kuidas kavandatavate meetmete abil programmi eesmrke saavutatakse.
At the end of the programme the producer organisation should report on the extent to which the objectives have been achieved in relation to the initial situation and targets. 
Programmi lppedes peaks tootjaorganisatsioon lhtuvalt esialgsest olukorrast ja sihtmrkidest esitama eesmrkide saavutamise ulatuse kohta aruande.
Ń Member States should ensure that the operational programme objectives correspond to those in the EU regulation, and that the actions proposed represent a real advance towards the objectives at a reasonable cost. 
Ń Liikmesriigid peaksid tagama, et rakenduskava eesmrgid h-tivad ELi mruses stestatud eesmrkidega ja et kavandatavad meetmed vimaldavad mistlike kuludega reaalseid edusamme eesmrkide suunas.
They should use the evaluation information in the producer organisationsŐ final reports to monitor the effectiveness of the operational programmes and apply the lessons learned to improve the effectiveness of future programmes. 
Liikmesriigid peaksid kasutama tootjaorganisatsioonide lpparuannetes toodud hindamistea-vet rakenduskava mjususe jrelevalveks ning parandama seelbi edasiste programmide mjusust.
Text box 6 Methodology: Some of the CourtŐs criteria for assessing the Member StatesŐ implementation of the aid scheme go beyond formal compliance with the letter of the regulation (see Annex). 
6. selgitus Metoodika: Mned kontrollikoja hindamiskriteeriumid toetuskavade liikmesriikide-poolse rakendamise kohta hlmavad lisaks mruste nuete formaalse titmise kontrollimisele ka muud (vt lisa).
To meet the audit criteria, the Member State should also ensure that the description is related to the objectives and actions in the proposed programme. 
Hindamiskriteeriumide titmiseks peab liikmesriik ka tagama, et esialgse olukorra kirjeldus seondub eesmrkide ja esitatava programmi meetmetega.
If not, the description of the initial situation has little purpose. 
Vastasel juhul ei ole esialgse olukorra kirjeldus kuigi otstarbekas.
The initial situation description is not related to the operational programme objectives 30. 
Esialgse olukorra kirjeldus ei ole rakenduskava eesmrkidega seotud 30.
Some Member States required producer organisations to list their equipment and facilities and give a table of their production in tonnes and by value, but without requiring this to be related to the programmeŐs objectives or actions in any way. 
Mned liikmesriigid esitasid tootjaorganisatsioonidele nudmise koostada seadmete ja vahendite nimekiri ja esitada toodangu kohta tonnides ja vrtuses tabel, kuid ei nudnud, et see oleks seotud programmi eesmrkide vi meetmetega.
Other Member States issued no particular instructions, and accepted very general descriptions, in some cases of only one or two sentences. 
Teised liikmesriigid erilisi juhiseid ei esitanud ja aktsepteerisid vga ldisi kirjeldusi, mnedel juhtudel ainult hte vi kahte lauset.
Few producer organisations described their initial situation in respect of the environment, product quality and production costs, yet nearly all operational programmes had these objectives (see Text box 7). 
Vhesed tootjaorganisatsioonid kirjeldasid oma esialgset olukorda keskkonna, tootekvaliteedi ja tootmiskulude seisukohalt, kuigi peaaegu kigil rakenduskavadel olid sellekohased eesmrgid (7. selgitus).
No producer organisation described the initial situation for each of the objectives in its operational programme. 
Iga eesmrgiga seonduvat esialgset olukorda ei kirjeldanud rakenduskavas kski tootjaorganisatsioon.
Text box 7 Regional authorities in Spain approved an operational programme containing ten actions with a total cost of 770 000 euros. 
7. selgitus Hispaania piirkondlikud ametiasutused kiitsid heaks rakenduskava, mis sisaldas kmmet meedet kogumaksumusega 770 000 eurot.
Six of these actions had the objective of improving product quality, eight had the objective of reducing production costs, and two had the objective of improving environmental practices. 
Neist kuue meetme eesmrgiks oli tootekvaliteedi parandamine, kaheksa meetme eesmrgiks oli tootmiskulude vhendamine ja kahe eesmrgiks oli keskkonnatavade edendamine.
The producer organisation listed in the initial situation the types of fruit grown and the surface area, but gave no information on the initial quality of the fruit, the costs of production, or the environment. 
Tootjaorganisatsioon esitas esialgses olukorras andmed kasvatata-vate puuviljade liikide ja viljelusalade pindala kohta, kuid ei esitanud teavet puuviljade esialgse kvaliteedi, tootmiskulude ega keskkonna kohta.
C 282/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 31. 
C 282/40 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 20.11.2006 31.
In a few cases, producer organisations described the starting situation in relation to specific actions, which is a requirement in the Netherlands, for example. 
Mnel juhul kirjeldasid tootjaorganisatsioonid esialgset olukorda erimeetmete seisukohalt (see on nudeks nt Hollandi puhul).
This went some way to meeting the criteria, but did not sufficiently describe the producer organisationŐs initial situation in terms of its objectives. 
Nii jrgiti osaliselt kriteeriume, aga ei kirjeldatud piisavalt tootjaorganisatsioonide esialgset olukorda iga eesmrgi seisukohalt eraldi.
The contents of operational programmes do not always relate to the stated objectives 32. 
Rakenduskavade sisu ei ole alati seotud seatud eesmrkidega 32.
In these cases, the correspondence between the objective and the programme was automatic on paper, making the Member StatesŐ check of the compliance of objectives with those in the regulation a formality. 
Sellistel juhtudel toimis eesmrgi ja programmi vaheline vastavus paberil automaatselt, muutes liikmesriigi eesmrkide ja mruse nuete htivuse kontrolli ksnes formaalsuseks.
However, many producer organisations listed any objective that seemed relevant in an attempt to justify the programme or particular action, regardless of whether that was their real objective or not (Text boxes 8 and 9). 
Paljud tootjaorganisatsioonid esitasid aga ks-kik milliseid asjakohasena paistvaid eesmrke, et programmi vi mnda kindlat meedet phjendada, hoolimata sellest, kas tegemist oli nende telise eesmrgiga vi mitte (8. ja 9. selgitus).
In Italy and Greece, the authorities developed detailed lists of possible actions, from which the producer organisation could choose, and gave a predetermined objective to each action. 
Itaalias ja Kreekas ttasid ametiasutused vlja ksikasjalikud vimalike meetmete nimekirjad, millest tootjaorganisatsioonid visid valida, ja kehtestasid igale meetmele eelnevalt kindlaks mratud eesmrgi.
The French authorities also issued a list of possible actions, but classified according to their nature, not their objective. 
Prantsusmaa ametiasutused vljastasid samuti vimalike meetmete nimekirja, aga lhtusid meetmete jaotamisel nende iseloomust, mitte eesmrgist.
For the environmental and quality categories of actions the relevant objective was usually evident, but for the category Ômeasures linked to production facilitiesŐ sometimes it was not. 
Kui keskkonna-ja kvaliteedialaste meetmete eesmrgid olid tavaliselt ilmsed, siis Ňtootmisvahenditega seotud meetmeteÓ eesmrgid seda alati ei olnud.
As a result it was not possible to identify the objective of some of the actions on the basis of the operational programme documentation (Text box 10). 
Selle tulemusena polnud rakenduskava dokumentide phjal mne meetme eesmrke vimalik kindlaks mrata (10. selgitus).
The Italian, Greek and French authorities did not attempt to check the objectives of individual programmes as they considered that the compliance of the actions with the EU objectives had been established when drafting the national lists of actions. 
Itaalia, Kreeka ja Prantsusmaa ametiasutused individuaalprogram-mide eesmrke ei kontrollinud, kuna nad arvestasid, et meetmete vastavus ELi eesmrkidele tagati juba riiklike meetmete nimekirjade koostamisel.
However, changes over time to the classification had the effect of ÔchangingŐ the operational programmesŐ objectives for a given action (Text box 11). 
Aja jooksul tehtud muudatused klassifitseerimises phjustasid aga rakenduskavade eesmrkide ŇmuutmiseÓ vastava meetme osas (11. selgitus).
Operational programme objectives are not given in measurable terms and targets are not set 34. 
Rakenduskavade eesmrgid ei ole mdetavad ja sihtmrgid pole seatud 34.
Only the United Kingdom authorities formally required producer organisations to set measurable objectives for operational programmes, although in practice it did not ensure that this was done. 
Ainult Suurbritannia ametiasutused nudsid ametlikult tootjaorganisatsioonidelt rakenduskavadele mdetavate eesmrkide seadmist, kuigi tegelikkuses ametiasutused ei taganud, et seda oleks tehtud.
In Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, the authorities required the expected results to be shown for each measure or action, but this was focused on the outputs Ń how the implementation of the actions could be demonstrated Ń rather than on the achievement of the objective. 
Hispaanias, Itaalias ja Hollandis esitasid ametiasutused nudmise, et iga meetme vi tegevuse puhul tuleb esitada kavandatud tulemused, kuid keskenduti pigem vljunditele Đ ehk sellele, kuidas meetmete rakendamist viks nidata Đ kui eesmrgi saavutamisele.
In 10 % of the operational programmes examined, producer organisations gave quantified objectives for at least one action where this was straightforward, such as for the expected reduction in costs, or the number of hectares to be converted to organic production. 
10 protsendi kontrollitud rakenduskavade puhul olid tootjaorganisatsioonid kehtestanud kvantitatiivsed eesmrgid vhemalt hele meetmele, seda tehti otsestel juhtudel, niteks oodatava kulude vhenemise vi orgaaniliseks tootmiseks kohandatava hektarite arvu puhul.
These cases were mostly in Spain and Italy. Otherwise, producer organisations did not set targets or indicators by which achievement of the objectives could be monitored. 
Eespool toodud juhte theldati peamiselt Hispaanias ja Itaalias. ldiselt tootjaorganisatsioonid selliseid sihtmrke ega indikaatoreid ei mratlenud, mis oleksid vimaldanud eesmrkide saavutamist jlgida.
Producer organisationsŐ evaluation reports do not show the achievement of objectives 35. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonide hindamisaruannetes ei nidata eesmrkide saavutamise ulatust 35.
Except for some cases in France and Ireland, the Member States ensured that producer organisationsŐ final evaluation reports described the implementation of the programme and outputs (what had been done), but none in practice required the reports to also show the extent to which the operational programme objectives had been achieved. 
Liikmesriigid, vlja arvatud mnedel juhtudel Prantsusmaa ja Iirimaa, tagasid, et tootjaorganisatsioonide lplikes hindamisaruannetes kirjeldataks programmi rakendamist ja vljundeid (st mida ei saavutatud), kuid tegelikkuses ei nudnud kski liikmesriik, et aruanded nitaksid ka rakenduskavade eesmrkide saavutamise ulatust.
As such the reports were of little use for assessing the effectiveness of the aid. 
Sellisel kujul oli aruannetest toetuse mjususe hindamisel vhe kasu.
Text box 9 In an operational programme approved by the regional authorities in Spain, a producer organisation purchased a fork-lift truck at a cost of 25 000 euro. 
9. selgitus Hispaania piirkondlike ametiasutuste poolt heaks kiidetud projekti raames ostis tootjaorganisatsioon tstuki maksumusega 25 000 eurot.
The producer organisation could not demonstrate a relation between the action and the stated objective of Ôreducing with-drawalsŐ. 
Tootjaorganisatsioon ei suutnud testada meetme ja eesmrgi Ňtu-rult krvaldamise vhendamineÓ omavahelist seonduvust.
Text box 10 In an operational programme in France, a producer organisation included an action described as Ôprovision of servicesŐ a cost of 50 400 euro. 
10. selgitus Rakenduskava Prantsusmaal sisaldas 50 400 euro suuruse maksumusega meedet, mida tootjaorganisatsioon kirjeldas kui Ňteenuste telli-mistÓ.
25 % of this cost was allocated to the objective of Ôimproving qualityŐ and 25 % to Ôimproving environmental practicesŐ. 
25 % sellest kulust oli meldud Ňkvaliteedi parandamiseleÓ ja 25 % Ňkeskkonnatavade parandamiseleÓ.