natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
55. the court has already noted (e.g. in its reports on the Leader approach, measure 121 and measure 12323) that cases where investments have already started or even been completed before a decision is taken to award a grant are a strong indication of the deadweight effect. in these situations, the beneficiary’s initial investment decision already shows that he/she would have been willing and able to carry out the investment even without the aid. consequently, it is considered good practice for Member states only to deem projects eligible for funding as from the date of grant approval. 
55. Kontrollikoda on juba märkinud (nt oma aruannetes Leader-lähenemise, meetme 121 ja meetme 123 kohta23), et juhtumid, kus on enne toetuse eraldamise otsuse langetamist investeeringutega juba algust tehtud või need lõpule viidud, viitab tugevalt tühimõju efektile.
56. the united Kingdom (England) applied this good practice. in the other Member states that were audited, investments were generally eligible as from the date on which the application was submitted. the auditors found that 25 of the 57 projects visited (i.e. 44 %) had started before the grant decision was made (see the Table). 
Ühendkuningriik (Inglismaa) rakendas seda head tava. Teistes auditeeritud liikmesriikides olid investeeringud toetuskõlblikud enamasti alates taotluse esitamise kuupäevast. Audiitorid leidsid, et 57 külastatud projektist 25 (st 44%) olid alanud enne toetuse eraldamise otsuse langetamist (vt tabel).
Moreover, in sweden, the court even found a case where a project was approved after its completion (see Box 11). 
Lisaks leidis kontrollikoda Rootsis juhtumi, kus projekt kiideti heaks alles pärast selle elluviimist (vt 11. selgitus).
23 special report no 5/2010 on the implementation of the Leader approach for rural development; special report no 8/2012 on targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings and special report no 1/2013 Has the Eu support to the food-processing industry been effective and efficient in adding value to agricultural products? (http://eca.europa.eu). 
23 Eriaruanne nr 5/2010 „Leader-lähenemise rakendamine maaelu arengus”, eriaruanne nr 8/2012 „Põllumajandusettevõtete moderniseerimiseks antud ELi abi suunamine” ja eriaruanne nr 1/2013„Kas ELi toetus toiduainetetööstusele on olnud mõjus ja tõhus põllumajandustoodete lisandväärtuse suurendamisel?” (http://eca.europa.eu).
27 Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
27 Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
28 tablE projEcts that had bEEn startEd bEforE Grant approVal Member State Total number of projects subject to audit visits Audited projects started before approval Czech Republic 11 4 France (Aquitaine) 10 8 Italy — Campania 9 3 Poland 8 3 Sweden (Västra Götaland) 10 7 United Kingdom — England (Yorkshire and Humber) 9 0 Total 57 25 box 11 a stronG IndIcatIon of dEadwEIGht: GrantInG Eu fundInG for a projEct whIch has alrEady bEEn complEtEd in sweden, a grant of 240 000 sEK (22 000 euro) was given for an extension to the workshop premises of an existing business servicing and repairing forestry machinery. the beneficiary submitted an incomplete grant application in May 2008, with a one line description of the project and no business plan. subsequently, he completed his grant application at the beginning of May 2009 with information requested by the county Board. the decision to award the grant was taken one week later and, in the same month, the beneficiary forwarded a payment claim. the project had already been completed in april 2009 before the complete application was submitted. during the court’s audit visit, the beneficiary stated that he had already decided to undertake the project before he learned of the possibility of a grant. 
28 taBel projeKtid, Millega alustati enne toetuse eraldaMise otsust Liikmesriik Auditikäikude raames külastatud projektide koguarv Auditeeritud projektid, mis rakendati enne projekti kinnitamist Tšehhi Vabariik 11 4 Prantsusmaa (Akvitaania) 10 8 Itaalia (Campania) 9 3 Poola 8 3 Rootsi (Västra Götaland) 10 7 Ühendkuningriik, Inglismaa (Yorkshire ja Humber) 9 0 Kokku 57 25 11. selgitus Viidud selge Viide tühiMõjule: eli toetuse eraldaMine projeKtile, Mis oli juBa ellu rootsis anti 240 000 Rootsi krooni (22 000 euro) suurune toetus metsamasinate hoolduse ja parandusega tegeleva ettevõtte tööpindade laiendamiseks.
He had a bank loan agreement in place for up to 1,2 million sEK (approximately 110 000 euro), which he would have used to finance the entire project if the grant had not been awarded. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Tal oli pangalaenuleping sõlmitud kuni 1,2 miljoni Rootsi krooni (ligi 110 000 euro) peale, mida ta plaanis kasutada terve projekti rahastamiseks, kui talle ei oleks toetust eraldatud. Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
59. as with deadweight, the primary means of mitigating the risk of unjustified displacement lies in the design of the measures. the rdp should establish the need for expenditure (e.g. by analysing expected demand and excluding sectors where the market appears saturated), identify needs that are sufficiently strong to justify any displacement that may occur and set objectives and eligibility conditions that are specific to those needs. as shown in the first part of this report, this was not done in the Member states audited. the rural development programmes of sweden and the uK do however recognise displacement as a potential risk to sound financial management. 
59. Nagu ka tühimõju puhul, peituvad peamised tegevuse põhjendamata ümberpaiknemise ohu vähendamise vahendid meetmete kavandamises. Maaelu arengukavad peaksid välja tooma vajaduse kulutuste järele (nt analüüsides eeldatavat nõudlust ja jättes välja sektorid, kus turg tundub olevat küllastunud), kindlaks määrama vajadused, mis oleksid piisavalt suured, põhjendamaks võimalikku tegevuse ümberpaiknemist, ning seadma vajadustele vastavad eesmärgid ja valikutingimused.
Member state authorities should assess project proposals for the risk of displacement during the project approval stage. 
Liikmesriikide ametiasutused peaksid hindama projektiettepanekuid tegevuse ümberpaiknemise ohu seisukohast projekti heakskiitmise etapis.
Where displacement is likely to occur, they should ensure that the contribution that the project would make to the measures’ objectives is sufficiently high to justify the grant. 
Võimaliku tegevuse ümberpaiknemise ohu korral peaksid nad tagama selle, et projekti panus meetmete eesmärkidesse on toetuse õigustamiseks piisavalt suur. 61.
61. only the united Kingdom24 had taken appropriate steps to assess and mitigate displacement; specifically their implementing rules exclude proposals ‘in sectors of the economy that have reached saturation point, leading to an oversupply, damaging productivity and lead to the displacement of similar businesses’. futhermore, the court identified the following elements of good practice in the uK appraisal system: a requirement for the beneficiary to prove market demand and describe the impact on competitors, the assessment of displacement risk as part of project appraisal and selection, and projects rejected where displacement was likely. 
Vaid Ühendkuningriigis24 astuti asjakohaseid samme tegevuse ümberpaiknemise hindamiseks ja vähendamiseks: sealsed rakenduseeskirjad näevad ette selliste ettepanekute tagasilükkamise, mis on seotud kül-lastuspunktini jõudnud majandussektoritega, viies ülepakkumiseni, kahjustades tootlikkust ja viies sarnaste ettevõtete tegevuse ümberpaikne-miseni. Lisaks leidis kontrollikoda Ühendkuningriigi hindamissüsteemis järgmised heade tavade elemendid: toetusesaajalt nõutakse turunõudlu-se tõendamist ja konkurentidele avaldatava mõju kirjeldamist, projektide hindamise ja valimise osana hinnatakse tegevuse ümberpaiknemisohtu ja projektid, milles esines tegevuse ümberpaiknemise võimalus, lükati tagasi.
62. the court assessed the 57 projects visited for the risk of displacement, basing its review on an examination of documentation and on discussions with beneficiaries about their companies’ products, markets and competitors, and about the effects of the investment on these factors. indications of displacement risk were identified for 19 projects (see Annex II). 
62. Kontrollikoda hindas 57 külastatud projekti tegevuse ümberpaiknemise ohu seisukohast, tuginedes oma ülevaates dokumentide uurimisele ja toetusesaajatega peetud vestlustele nende ettevõtte toodete, turgude ja konkurentide ning nendesse teguritesse tehtud investeeringute teemal.
Examples of indications of displacement are described in Box 12. for three projects, the risk of displacement was considered not applicable and for four projects the court did not have enough evidence to assess it. 
Kolme projekti puhul ei olnud tegevuse ümberpaiknemise ohu hindamine asjakohane ja nelja projekti puhul puudus kontrollikojal piisav tõendusmaterjal, et seda hinnata. säästliKKus 63.
31 poor chEcks on thE rEasonablEnEss of costs 64. article 24(2)(d) of regulation (Ec) no 65/201125 specifies that Member states should verify the reasonableness of project costs submitted as part of the administrative checks on applications for support. this evaluation must be performed using a suitable system, such as reference costs, the comparison of a number of offers or an evaluation committee. 
Hindamine peab toimuma nõuetekohase hindamissüsteemi alusel, näiteks võrdluskulude, erinevate pakkumiste võrdluse või hindamiskomitee abil.
65. the court found that france did not apply any such procedures. this was all the more serious because the commission had already (in 2008) asked the french authorities to introduce a system to verify the reasonableness of costs as part of their administrative checks and has applied, in the past, a financial correction for this type of weakness concerning other investment measures. 
65. Kontrollikoda leidis, et Prantsusmaa ei rakendanud selliseid menetlusi. Olukord on seda tõsisem, et komisjon oli juba varem (2008. aasta mais) palunud Prantsusmaa ametiasutustel sisse seada süsteem, millega kontrollida halduskontrolli raames kulude põhjendatust, ning on minevikus teiste investeerimismeetmetega seotud sama liiki puuduste korral rakendanud finantskorrektsiooni.
66. the other Member states that were audited applied relevant systems, consisting of specific procurement rules, checks against standard costs or a combination of both. 
66. Teistes auditeeritud liikmesriikides rakendati asjakohaseid süsteeme, mis hõlmasid spetsiaalseid hanke-eeskirju või standardkulude kontrolli või nende kahe kombinatsiooni.
However, these checks varied in quality. the court identified cases of non-compliance with Eu rules in sweden and significant weaknesses in the czech republic, italy — campania and poland, involving incomplete, superficial and poorly documented checks (see Box 13). following the court’s visit, the italian authorities issued a revocation order for the aid granted to a local municipality (46 780 euro) partly due to problems relating to the selected bid and the price accepted for the services funded. 
Kuid need kontrollid olid kvaliteedilt erinevad. Kontrollikoda leidis ELi eeskirjade täitmata jätmise juhtumeid Rootsis ja märkimisväärseid puudusi Tšehhi Vabariigis, Itaalias (Cam-panias) ja Poolas, mis hõlmasid puudulikke, pealiskaudseid ja halvasti tõendatud kontrolle (vt 13. selgitus).
25 commission regulation (Eu) no 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of council regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (oJ L 25, 28.1.2011, p. 
25 Komisjoni 27. jaanuari 2011. aasta määrus (EL) nr 65/2011, millega kehtestatakse nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 rakendamise üksikasjalikud eeskirjad kontrollimenetluse rakendamise ja maaelu arengu toetusmeetmete nõuetele vastavuse kohta (ELT L 25, 28.1.2011, lk 8).
32 box 13 ExamplEs of wEak and ‘Good practIcE’ rulEs and chEcks IdEntIfIEd In thE mEmbEr statEs sweden: the usual method used for establishing the reasonableness of costs is to require applicants to provide two quotes for costs that represent at least 25 % of the total. this means that a project promoter does not have to show, for up to 75 % of the proposed total, that the costs are reasonable. Eligible expenditure is not limited to the amounts quoted and beneficiaries can therefore claim for costs in excess of the amounts (accepted as being ‘reasonable’) and still get the full grant as long as they obtain lower prices on other items (for which ‘reasonableness’ was not checked), or by not purchasing other items included in the application. this does not result in savings to the Eu budget as the beneficiary may use the ‘savings’ to purchase additional items up to the ceiling of the approved total project cost. in one of the audited projects, no quotes were provided for 2,5 million sEK or 290 000 euro involving the building and fitting of a new restaurant and a separate guest house (grant: 900 000 sEK or 94 000 euro, grant rate: 30 %). there was no mention in the project file of any measures to check that the costs were reasonable. italy — campania: in italy, the only check carried out by the provincial authorities on the reasonableness of costs for general expenses was that their value should not exceed the ceilings mentioned in the call for proposals without considering the detailed nature and scope of the services (usually consultancy services) provided. for example, for a simple project involving the purchase of a new bus, the consultant charged a fee of 15 000 euro (5,1 % of the price of the bus); this fee was eligible for public support. furthermore, for some projects, machinery and/or equipment were provided by different companies from those selected by the independent expert and authorised by the expert evaluator. in one case the beneficiary stated that he had granted the contract for the creation of a website to a friend who was able to do the work at the same price as the company selected by the expert. 
Tavapärane kulude põhjendatuse kontrollimise meetod on nõuda taotlejatelt kahe hinnapakkumise esitamist, mis kataksid vähemalt 25% kogumaksumusest. See tähendab, et projekti elluviija ei pea näitama kulude põhjendatust kuni 75% ulatuses kavandatud kogumaksumusest. Toetuskõlblikud kulud ei piirdu hinnapakkumises esitatud summadega ja toetusesaajad võivad seega taotleda neid summasid ületavate kulude hüvitamist (kui need on põhjendatud kulutustena heaks kiidetud) ning saada seeläbi siiski täiel määral toetust, juhul kui neil õnnestub teiste kulutuste (mille põhjendatust ei kontrollitud) hinna pealt kokku hoida või kui nad ei soeta teisi taotlusesse lisatud kuluartikleid.
However, the auditors found that the website was not fully functional at the time of the audit (March 2012) despite the invoice having been paid on 9 august 2010. the incomplete website was not noted during the visit made as part of the pre-payment checks. the court identified the following good practices: in england, the inspections made in accordance with articles 27 and 30 of regulation (Ec) no 1975/2006 (5 % at payment and 1 % ex post) included checks for credit notes or discounts. in italy — campania, the region included in the 2011 call for proposals the requirement to enclose the vendor’s published price-list to the offer and to indicate any discounts offered. 
Audiitorid leidsid aga, et auditi ajal (2012. aasta märts) ei toiminud veebisait täielikult, vaatamata sellele, et arve oli tasutud 2010. aasta 9. augustil. Pooleliolev veebisait jäi makse-eelsete kontrollide käigus tähelepanuta. Kontrollikoda leidis järgmised head tavad: inglismaal hõlmasid määruse (EÜ) nr 1975/2006 artiklitega 27 ja 30 kooskõlas tehtud kontrollid (5% maksmise ja 1% järelkontrollide käigus) kreeditarvete ja allahindluste kontrolle. itaalias Campanias lisas piirkond 2011. aasta konkursiteatele nõude lisada pakkumise juurde müüja avaldatud hinnakiri ning näidata pakutud soodustusi.
33 thE admInIstratIVE burdEn ImpEdEs thE EffEctIVE and EffIcIEnt ImplEmEntatIon of proGrammEs 67. as stated in paragraph 63, the Member states’ procedures must not be excessively long and burdensome so as not to dissuade applicants from submitting project proposals. this risk is particularly evident for potential beneficiaries who cannot afford to take the risk of their grant application’s being rejected, leaving them to finance the project entirely by themselves — or otherwise delay the investment and potentially miss a business opportunity. 
See oht on eriti akuutne nende potentsiaalsete toetusesaajate puhul, kes ei saa riskida võimalusega, et nende toetusetaotlus lükatakse tagasi ja et projekti rahastamine jäetaks täielikult nende õlule, või võimalusega, et investeerimine viibib ja neil on oht ärivõimalusest ilma jääda.
68. the administrative burden and associated bureaucratic costs and delays stand out as factors that hamper the achievement of programme objectives, particularly where they are not justified by the selection of more effective projects (see Box 14). box 14 a systEm that rEducEs thE burdEn on thE applIcant and onE that dId not united kingdom — england: the uK authorities reviewed short Expression of interest forms weekly and gave feedback to applicants on their project’s likely eligibility and the extent to which it matched the region’s priorities. this procedure spared applicants the expense of preparing a full application that was likely to be rejected while decreasing the administrative burden for appraisal, etc. rural business facilitators were appointed for each project to support the applicant in making the application. once the promoter submitted an application, the selection process was completed within around nine weeks. the appraisal covered strategic fit with regional priorities, innovation, the multiplier effect, demand for the product/service, financial viability, the reasonableness of costs; outputs and outcomes of the proposal, deadweight and the value for money of the public funding. 
68. Halduskoormus ning sellega seonduvad bürokraatiakulud ja viivitused väärivad märkimist teguritena, mis takistavad kava eesmärkide saavutamist, ennekõike siis, kui need ei õigusta end mõjusamate projektide valimisega (vt 14. selgitus).
26 Median value (in calendar days). 
26 Keskmiselt (kalendripäevades).
34 Graph 1 procEssInG of applIcatIons and paymEnt claIms (In calEndar days) FR PL IT CZ SE UK 0 50 250 300 100 150 200 Median for processing of applications 350 400 450 Median for processing of payments claims Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
1. joonis taotluste ja MaKsetaotluste läBiVaataMine (KalendripäeVades) FR PL IT CZ SE UK 34 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Keskmine taotluste läbivaatamise aeg Keskmine maksetaotluste läbivaatamise aeg Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu? 70.
70. delays in project approval and payments can have negative impacts on timely project implementation and the scope of projects financed, and ultimately on the economic situation of an applicant (see Box 15). 
Projektide heakskiitmise ja maksete tegemise viibimisel võib olla negatiivne mõju projektide õigeaegsele rakendamisele ja rahastatud projektide ulatusele ning viimaks ka taotlejate majanduslikule olukorrale (vt 15. selgitus).
71. in italy — campania, france (aquitaine) and the czech republic, the project owners interviewed considered the procedures in their own countries to be too burdensome. 
71. Itaalias (Campanias), Prantsusmaal (Akvitaanias) ja Tšehhi Vabariigis leidsid intervjueeritud projektide elluviijad menetluskorra oma riigis liiga keerulise olevat.
Moreover, it should be noted that the court only audited projects that had been completed successfully, thus not considering applicants that had been dissuaded by the administrative burden or delays. furthermore, most beneficiaries used consultants to prepare their applications, sometimes at significant cost, partly because they did not feel able to do so themselves. 
Seejuures tasub mainida, et kontrollikoda auditeeris vaid projekte, mis olid edukalt ellu viidud, välistades seega taotlejad, kes olid halduskoormuse või viivituste pärast huvi kaotanud. Lisaks kasutas enamik toetusesaajaid, arvates, et nad ei suuda oma taotlusi ise ette valmistada, selle juures nõustajate abi, mis oli vahel suhteliselt kallis.
35 box 15 paymEnt systEms can hElp or hIndEr bEnEfIcIarIEs united kingdom — england: in the uK, the system provided relative certainty to beneficiaries about project approval and payment dates, allowing short-term finance to be arranged and encouraging grants to be taken up by companies that might not otherwise have been able to cope with the cost of the projects. 
Ühendkuningriigis andis süsteem taotlejatele projekti heakskiitmise ja maksetähtaegade kohta üpris suurt kindlust, võimaldades korraldada lühiajalist rahastamist ja julgustades kandideerima ettevõtjaid, kes muidu ei pruugiks kulukuse tõttu projekti alustada.
Beneficiaries faced further problems with the release of the guarantees which led to cases where, at the time of the audit in March 2012, some beneficiaries still incurred significant guarantee-related costs despite having received their final payments in 2011. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Toetusesaajad seisid silmitsi probleemidega tagatiste vabastamisel, mis viis juhtumiteni, kus 2012. aasta märtsis toimunud auditi ajal kandis osa toetusesaajatest endiselt tagatistega seotud suuri kulutusi, vaatamata sellele, et nad olid oma lõppmakse 2011. aastal kätte saanud. Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
72. performance information on the effectiveness and efficiency of rural development spending is needed to demonstrate what has been achieved with the Eu budget and that it has been spent well (accountability); to be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Eu budget through informing ongoing management (calls for proposals or grant decisions), identifying improvements to be made in the current programming period, and informing decision-making on future policy. 
72. Maaelu arengu kulutuste mõjusust ja tõhusust puudutav tulemusalane teave peaks näitama, mida on ELi eelarvega suudetud saavutada ja kas seda on kasutatud õigesti (aruandluskohustus); seda teavet tuleks kasutada ELi eelarve tõhususe ja mõjususe parandamiseks, teavitades tehtavatest juhtimisotsustest (konkursiteated või toetuse andmise otsused), määrates kindlaks käimasoleva programmitöö perioodi jooksul vajalikud muudatused ja teavitades otsustest tulevase poliitika kohta.
73. in order to show what has been achieved with Eu budget spent on diversification measures, Member states should collect data on the results achieved by projects. under the common Monitoring and Evaluation framework (cMEf), Member states must collect information for at least the common output and result indicators (see footnote 11). the two common result indicators set out for measures 311–313 should provide information on how projects performed in terms of increase in non-agricultural gross value added (GVa)27 and gross number of jobs created. 
73. Selleks, et näidata, mida on mitmekesistamise meetmetele eraldatud ELi eelarvega saavutatud, peaksid liikmesriigid koguma andmeid projektide saavutatud tulemuste kohta.