natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The number and impact of the errors we found indicate that weaknesses persist with regard to the regularity of the expenditure declared by managing authorities. 
Meie leitud vigade arv ja mju osutab psivatele puudustele korraldusasutuste deklareeritud kulude korrektsuses.
Ineligible expenditures and projects contributed most to our estimated level of error, followed by infringement of internal market rules (such as public procurement and state aid) and the absence of essential supporting documents. 
Suurima osa meie hinnangulisest veamrast moodustasid rahastamisklbmatud kulud ja toetusklbmatud projektid, millele jrgnes siseturu (nt riigihangete ja riigiabi) eeskirjade rikkumine ning oluliste tendavate dokumentide puudumine.
Some of these errors were the result of complex national rules going beyond what the EU legislation requires (see box below). 
Mned neist vigadest tulenesid keerulistest riigisisestest eeskirjadest, mis olid rangemad kui ELi igusaktid (vt jrgnev selgitus).
27 Example: Complex national eligibility conditions We found that the eligibility rules for an operational programme in Poland included a condition prohibiting the use of an EU grant if another entity was carrying out the same type of business activity in the same premises. 
27 Nide: keerulised riiklikud toetusklblikkuse tingimused Leidsime, et he Poola rakenduskava toetusklblikkuse eeskirjad sisaldasid tingimust, millega keelati ELi toetuse kasutamine, kui samades ruumides tegeles teine ksus sama liiki ritegevusega.
This requirement, which goes beyond what is set out in the EU regulations, was repeated in the grant agreement. 
Seda nuet, mis on ELi mrustes stestatud nuetest rangem, korrati ka toetuslepingus.
As one beneficiary, a lawyer, set up its activity in the same premises as another legal firm, the project was ineligible for co-financing. 
Kuna ks toetusesaajast advokaat alustas tegevust teise advokaadibrooga samades ruumides, oli projekt kaasrahastamiseks klbmatu.
Assessment of the work of audit authorities Audit authorities are set up to oversee the use of EU funds. 
Hinnang auditeerimisasutuste tle Auditeerimisasutused on loodud selleks, et kontrollida ELi vahendite kasutamist.
Their work is a critical part of the assurance and control framework in Cohesion. 
Nende t moodustab olulise osa htekuuluvuse valdkonna kontrollija kindlustandvast raamistikust.
This year we assessed the work of 15 out of the 126 audit authorities in 14 Member States in relation to 15 assurance packages for the 2014-2020 period and nine closure packages for the 2007-2013 period. 
Sel aastal hindasime 14 liikmesriigi 126 auditeerimisasutusest 15 td seoses 15 kindlustandva teabe paketiga perioodi 2014Đ2020 ja heksa lpetamispaketiga perioodil 2007Đ2013.
Similar to last year, in several cases, our review of audit authoritiesŐ work revealed shortcomings relating to the scope, quality and/or documentation of their work and the representativeness of their sampling. 
Sarnaselt eelmise aastaga on auditeerimisasutuste t lbivaatamisel ilmnenud mitmel juhul puudusi seoses nende t ulatuse, kvaliteedi ja/vi dokumenteerimisega ning valimi esinduslikkusega.
All audit authorities in our sample had reported a residual error rate below 2 %. 
Kik meie valimi auditeerimisasutused olid teatanud, et allesjnud veamr on alla 2 %.
Following its verifications, the Commission corrected the residual error rate to be above 2 % for four out of the 15 assurance packages for the 2014-2020 period in our sample. Because of the additional errors we detected, our recalculated rate was above 2 % for another four of the 15 assurance packages for the 2014-2020 period and one of the nine closure packages for 2007-2013. 
Prast kontrollimist korrigeeris komisjon allesjnud veamra nii, et see oli meie valimisse kuulunud perioodi 2014Đ2020 15-st kindlustandva teabe paketist nelja puhul le 2 %. Meie leitud tiendavate vigade tttu oli perioodi 2014Đ2020 15-st kindlustandva teabe paketist veel nelja ja perioodi 2007Đ2013 heksast lpetamispaketist he puhul mberarvutatud mr suurem kui 2 %.
The CommissionŐs assurance work and its reporting of the residual error rate in its annual activity reports Annual activity reports (AARs) are the CommissionŐs key tool for reporting whether it has reasonable assurance that the control procedures put in place ensure the regularity of expenditure. 
Komisjoni kindluse tagamisega seotud t ja allesjnud veamra kajastamine tema iga-aastastes tegevusaruannetes Iga-aastased tegevusaruanded on komisjoni peamine aruandlusvahend selle kohta, kas tal on piisav kindlus, et kehtestatud kontrollimenetlused tagavad kulutuste seaduslikkuse ja korrektsuse.
Last year, we pointed out that the reporting requirements for AARs had not been sufficiently adapted to the 2014-2020 control and assurance framework. 
Eelmisel aastal mrkisime, et aasta tegevusaruannete aruandlusnuded ei ole veel kohandatud perioodi 2014Đ2020 uue kontrollija kindlustandva raamistikuga.
Since then, the Commission has made efforts to improve its arrangements for reporting on regularity. 
Prast seda on komisjon teinud jupingutusi korrektsuse alase aruandluse parandamiseks.
In its 2018 AARs, the Commission updated its key performance indicator (KPI) on regularity and reported that the residual error rate for the 2016/2017 accounting year was below 2 % for both DGs. 
2018. aasta tegevusaruannetes ajakohastas komisjon oma peamise korrektsust kajastava tulemusnitaja ja mrkis, et mlema peadirektoraadi allesjnud veamr eelarveaastal 2016Đ2017 on vhem kui 2 %.
However, we identified issues that affect the reliability of these figures. 
Tuvastasime aga probleeme, mis mjutavad nende andmete usaldusvrsust.
To this end, we reported that these rates are not yet final when the Commission publishes them and that they can only be considered to be minimum error rates . 
Seetttu teatasime, et need mrad ei ole veel lplikud, kui komisjon need avaldab, ja et neid saab pidada vaid minimaalseteks veamradeks.
In its Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU budget (AMPR) the Commission estimates that the amount of risk at payment for the 2018 relevant expenditure in the area of ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ is 1.7 %. 
Iga-aastases ELi eelarve haldus-ja tulemusaruandes hindab komisjon 2018. aasta asjaomaste kulude makse tegemisel veariski sisaldava summa suuruseks majandusliku, sotsiaalse ja territoriaalse htekuuluvuse valdkonnas 1,7 %.
However, this figure includes expenditure, which has not yet gone through the full control cycle. 
See nitaja hlmab aga kulusid, mis ei ole veel lbinud kogu kontrollitsklit.
This will only happen as from 2020. 
See toimub alles 2020. aastast alates.
We also identified a number of issues that could affect the closure of OPs from the 2014-2020 programming period with a final residual error rate below 2 %. 
Tuvastasime ka mitu probleemi, mis vivad mjutada alla 2 % jva lpliku allesjnud veamraga programmit perioodi 2014Đ2020 rakenduskavade lpetamist.
Our work on the different elements of our audit shows that the error rates for ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ presented in the CommissionŐs 2018 AMPR and AARs currently can still not be relied upon. 
Meie anals auditi eri osade kohta nitab, et komisjoni 2018. aasta haldus-ja tulemusaruandes ja aasta tegevusaruannetes esitatud majandusliku, sotsiaalse ja territoriaalse htekuuluvuse valdkonna veamrasid ei saa endiselt usaldada.
Performance assessment In 2018, we examined whether Member States set up output and result indicators in their OPs that were relevant to their objectives and whether the output and result objectives specified for projects corresponded to the OP objectives. 
Tulemuslikkuse hindamine Uurisime 2018. aastal, kas liikmesriigid kehtestasid oma rakenduskavades vljund-ja tulemusnitajad, mis olid nende eesmrkide seisukohast asjakohased, ning kas projektide jaoks kindlaksmratud vljund-ja tulemusnitajad vastavad rakenduskava eesmrkidele.
We also examined whether Member States had set up a database with information on performance at project level and to what extent audit authorities checked the reliability of that information. 
Samuti kontrollisime, kas liikmesriigid on loonud andmebaasi teabega tulemuslikkuse kohta projektide tasandil ja selle kohta, mil mral kontrollisid auditeerimisasutused knealuse teabe usaldusvrsust.
Although Member States have monitoring systems to record information on performance, we found a number of cases where authorities had not set result or output indicators at project level, and few cases where there were no indicators or targets at all with which to measure project performance. 
Kuigi liikmesriikidel on jrelevalvessteemid tulemuslikkuse kohta teabe salvestamiseks, leidsime mitmeid juhtumeid, kus ametiasutused ei olnud projekti tasandil tulemus-vi vljundnitajaid kehtestanud, ning mnel juhul puudusid projekti tulemuslikkust mtvad nitajad vi eesmrgid tiesti.
Furthermore, we found that completed projects have not always fully achieved their performance objectives. 28 
Lisaks leidsime, et lpetatud projektid ei saavutanud alati tielikult tulemuslikkusele seatud eesmrke. 28
What we recommend We highlighted that four of our recommendations from last year concern issues that we found again and have therefore not been repeated. 
Meie soovitused Juhtisime thelepanu sellele, et neli meie eelmise aasta soovitust puudutavad taasesinenud probleeme, mistttu neid puudutavaid soovitusi ei korrata.
In addition we identified new issues and recommend that the Commission: o ensure that regular checks, based on a representative sample of disbursements to final recipients, are carried out at the level of financial intermediaries either by the audit authority or by an auditor selected by the EIB Group; o develop and implement appropriate control measures to prevent the possibility of material irregular expenditure at closure, where the regular checks were found to be insufficient; o take the necessary steps to ensure that the checklists used by managing and audit authorities include verifications of compliance with article 132 of the Common Provisions Regulation, which states that beneficiaries must receive the total amount of eligible expenditure due no later than 90 days from the submission of the related payment claim; and o address weaknesses identified at closure, and ensure that no programme can be closed with a material level of irregular expenditure. 
Lisaks tuvastasime uusi probleeme ja soovitame komisjonil o tagada, et auditeerimisasutus vi EIP grupi valitud audiitor teeks finantsvahendajate tasandil korrapraseid kontrolle, mis phinevad lppsaajatele tehtud vljamaksete esinduslikul valimil; o korrapraste kontrollide ebapiisavuse korral arendada ja rakendada asjakohaseid kontrollimeetmed, et vlistada vimalikke olulisi eeskirjade vastaselt tehtud kulusid rakenduskavade lpetamisel; o vtta vajalikke meetmeid tagamaks, et korraldus-ja auditeerimisasutuste kasutatavate kontrollnimekirjade puhul kontrollitakse vastavust hisstete mruse artiklile 132, milles on stestatud, et toetusesaajad peavad saama avaliku sektori rahastamisklblike kulude kogusumma ktte mitte hiljem kui 90 peva prast vljamaksetaotluse esitamist; o krvaldada lpetamisel tuvastatud puudused ja tagada, et htegi rakenduskava ei saa lpetada, kui selles esineb olulisel mral eeskirjadevastaselt tehtud kulutusi. Soovite tiendavat teavet?
Want to know more? Full information on our audit of EU expenditure for ÔEconomic, social and territorial cohesionŐ can be found in Chapter 6 of our 2018 annual report. 
Tielik teave meie auditi kohta, mis ksitleb ELi majandusliku, sotsiaalse ja territoriaalse htekuuluvuse kulutusi, on esitatud meie 2018. aasta aastaaruande 6. peatkis.
29 Natural resources Total: Ű58.0 billion What we audited This spending area covers the common agricultural policy (CAP), the common fisheries policy, and part of EU spending on the environment and climate action. 
29 Loodusvarad Kokku: 58,0 miljardit eurot Mida me auditeerisime Knealune kuluvaldkond hlmab hist pllumajanduspoliitikat (PP), hist kalanduspoliitikat, osa ELi keskkonnakulutustest ja kliimameetmeid. PP moodustab 98 % loodusvarade rubriigi kulutustest.
Its three general objectives set in EU legislation are: o viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability; o the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water; and o balanced territorial development. 
Kolm ELi igusaktidega seatud ldeesmrki on jrgmised: o elujuline toidutstus Đ keskendutakse pllumajandusest saadavatele sissetulekutele, pllumajanduse tootlikkusele ja hindade stabiilsusele; o loodusvarade sstev majandamine ja kliimameetmed Đ keskendutakse kasvuhoonegaaside heitkogustele, elurikkusele, mullale ja veele; o tasakaalustatud territoriaalne areng.
The Commission, in particular the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agriculture and Rural Development), shares management of the CAP with paying agencies in the Member States. CAP spending falls into three broad categories: o direct payments to farmers, which are fully funded by the EU budget; o agricultural market measures, also fully funded by the EU budget, with the exception of certain measures co-financed by the Member States, such as promotion measures and the school fruit, vegetable and milk scheme; and o Member StatesŐ rural development programmes, co-financed by the EU budget. 
Komisjon, eelkige pllumajanduse ja maaelu arengu peadirektoraat (DG AGRI), tidab PP eelarvet koosts liikmesriikide makseasutustega. PP kulutused jagunevad kolme suurde kategooriasse: o otsetoetused pllumajandustootjatele, mida rahastatakse tielikult ELi eelarvest; o pllumajanduse turumeetmed, mida rahastatakse samuti tielikult ELi eelarvest, vlja arvatud mned liikmesriikide kaasrahastatavad meetmed, nagu mgiedendusmeetmed ja koolidele puu-ja kgivilja ning piima jagamise kava; o liikmesriikide maaelu arengu programmid, mida kaasrahastatakse ELi eelarvest.
For 2018, expenditure of Ű58.1 billion was subject to audit in this area. 
Selles valdkonnas auditeeriti 2018. aastal 58,1 miljardi euro ulatuses kulutusi.
What we found Direct payments as a whole were free from material error Direct payments to farmers are mainly based on the area of agricultural land declared by farmers. 
Auditi tulemused Otsetoetuste maksed tervikuna ei olnud olulisel mral vigadest mjutatud Pllumajandustootjatele makstavad otsetoetused phinevad peamiselt pllumajandustootjate poolt deklareeritud pllumajandusmaa pindalal.
These payments account for 72 % of spending under the MFF heading ÔNatural resourcesŐ. 
Need toetused moodustavad 72 % mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku loodusvarade rubriigi kulutustest.
Estimated most likely level of error Ű58.1 billion Yes 2.4 % (2017: 2.4 %) 
Hinnanguline kige tenolisem veamr 58,1 miljardit eurot Jah 2,4 % (2017. aastal 2,4 %)
The main management tool for direct payments is the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), which incorporates the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS). 
Peamine otsetoetuste haldamise vahend on htne haldus-ja kontrollissteem (IACS), mis hlmab pldude identifitseerimise ssteemi (LPIS).
IACS has helped to bring down the level of error in direct payments, with the LPIS making a particularly significant contribution. 
IACS on aidanud vigu otsetoetustes vhendada, kusjuures LPISi panus on eriti oluline.
We checked 95 direct payments and found that 77 were unaffected by error. 
Kontrollisime 95 otsetoetuste makset ja leidsime, et neist 77 ei olnud vigadest mjutatud.
We conclude that direct payments, as a whole, were free from material error. 
Jreldame, et otsetoetuste maksed tervikuna ei olnud olulisel mral vigadest mjutatud.
Rural development, market measures, fisheries, environment and climate action Complex eligibility conditions increase the risk of error in these spending areas. 
Maaelu areng, turumeetmed, kalandus, keskkond ja kliimameetmed Keerulised toetusklblikkuse tingimused suurendavad neis kuluvaldkondades vigade esinemise riski.
We tested 156 payments and found that 40 were affected by error. 
Kontrollisime 156 makset ja leidsime, et neist 40 oli vigadest mjutatud.
The main sources of error were: o ineligible beneficiaries, activities or costs (see example); o the provision of inaccurate information on areas or animal numbers; o non-compliance with procurement or grant award rules; and o administrative errors. 
Vead tulenesid eelkige jrgnevast: o toetusklbmatud toetusesaajad, tegevused vi kulud (vt nide); o pindala vi loomade arvu kohta ebatpse teabe esitamine; o hanke-vi toetuse andmise eeskirjade rikkumine; o haldusvead.
31 Example: A beneficiary failed to comply with the eligibility rules for on-farm investments We examined a case where a beneficiary, together with other family members, submitted a joint application for support to construct a pigsty, with capacity for up to 600 sows. 
31 Nide: toetusesaaja ei titnud pllumajandusettevtetesse tehtavate investeeringute toetusklblikkuse eeskirju Uurisime juhtumit, kus ks toetusesaaja esitas koos teiste pereliikmetega hisavalduse toetuse saamiseks, et rajada sigala, mis mahutab kuni 600 emist.
Each of the joint beneficiaries applied for the maximum level of support, which was around Ű215 000. 
Iga hisavalduse esitaja taotles maksimaalset toetuse mra, mis oli ligikaudu 215 000 eurot.
Since the purpose of the measure was to support the development of small and medium-sized farms, the eligibility conditions stipulated that applicantsŐ holdings must have neither an economic size above Ű250 000 nor an area greater than 300 hectares. 
Kuna meetme eesmrk oli toetada vikeste ja keskmise suurusega pllumajandusettevtete arengut, stestati toetusklblikkuse tingimustes, et taotleja pllumajandusettevtte majanduslik suurus ei tohi olla suurem kui 250 000 eurot ega pindala suurem kui 300 hektarit.
The beneficiaries claimed to operate independent businesses. 
Toetusesaajad vitsid, et nad on eraldiseisvad ettevtjad.
We found that they held shares in a family company operating on the same site. 
Tuvastasime, et nad olid osanikud pereettevttes, mis tegutses samas asukohas.
When taking into account the beneficiaryŐs share of the family company, his holding exceeded the ceiling for economic size. 
Vttes arvesse toetusesaaja osa pereettevttes, letas tema pllumajandusettevte majandusliku suuruse lempiiri.
Preventive and corrective measures The Commission and the Member StatesŐ authorities had applied corrective measures that directly affected 53 of the 251 transactions examined. 
Ennetus-ja parandusmeetmed Nii komisjon kui ka liikmesriikide ametiasutused olid vtnud parandusmeetmeid, mis puudutasid 251-st lbivaadatud tehingust otseselt 53 tehingut.
Without these measures, our estimated level of error for this chapter would have been higher by 0.6 percentage point. 
Ilma nende meetmeteta oleks meie hinnanguline veamr selle peatki kohta olnud 0,6 protsendipunkti vrra krgem.
At the same time, in 12 cases of quantified error, the national authorities had sufficient information to prevent, or to detect and correct, the error before declaring the expenditure to the Commission. 
Samas oli 12 kvantifitseeritava vea puhul riiklikel ametiasutustel kllalt teavet nende vltimiseks vi avastamiseks ja parandamiseks enne kulude komisjonile deklareerimist.
Had the national authorities made proper use of all the information at their disposal, the estimated level of error would have been 0.6 percentage point lower. 
Kui liikmesriikide ametiasutused oleksid kogu nende ksutuses olevat teavet asjakohaselt kasutanud, oleks hinnanguline veamr olnud 0,6 protsendipunkti madalam.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs reporting on regularity of CAP spending DG Agriculture and Rural Development uses national control statistics it receives from the paying agencies. 
DG AGRI aruandlus PP kulude korrektsuse kohta DG AGRI kasutab makseasutustelt saadud riiklikku kontrollistatistikat.
It also makes adjustments based on the results of the certification bodiesŐ audits, and on its own checks and professional judgement, to arrive at an estimation of the amount at risk at payment. 
Peadirektoraat teeb ka kohandusi vastavalt sertifitseerimisasutuste auditite tulemustele ning enda kontrollidele ja kutsealasele otsustusele, et hinnata makse tegemisel veariski sisaldavat summat.
The director of each of the 76 paying agencies provides DG Agriculture and Rural Development with an annual management declaration on the effectiveness of their control systems and a report on the paying agencyŐs checks. 
Kigi 76 makseasutuse direktorid esitavad DG AGRI-le kord aastas vahendite haldaja kinnituse kontrollissteemide thususe kohta ning aruande makseasutuste kontrollide kohta.
Since 2015, in order to provide additional assurance, the certification bodies have been required to give an annual opinion for each paying agency on the legality and regularity of the expenditure for which the Member States have requested reimbursement. 
Alates 2015. aastast peavad sertifitseerimisasutused tiendava kindluse andmiseks esitama igale makseasutusele kord aastas arvamuse nende kulude seaduslikkuse ja korrektsuse kohta, mille hvitamist liikmesriigid on taotlenud.
DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs checks identified shortcomings in the certification bodiesŐ work. 
DG AGRI kontrollide kigus tuvastati sertifitseerimisasutuste ts puudusi.
As we noted last year, continued improvement in the certification bodiesŐ work is required if the Commission is to use their work as its primary source of assurance on the regularity of CAP spending. 
Nagu me eelmisel aastal mrkisime, tuleb sertifitseerimisasutuste td jtkuvalt parandada, kui komisjon soovib kasutada nende td PP kulude korrektsuse kohta saadava kindluse peamise allikana.
Based on their paying agenciesŐ control statistics, Member States reported an overall level of error close to 1 % for CAP spending as a whole. 
Makseasutuste kontrollistatistika kohaselt on liikmesriikide teatatud PP kulutuste kui terviku ldine veamr ligi 1 %.
We reviewed DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs adjustments to Member State error rates. 
Vaatasime le DG AGRI kohandused liikmesriikide veamrades.
As in previous years, DG Agriculture and Rural Development based most of its adjustments on its own checks of paying agency systems and spending. 
Nagu ka varasematel aastatel, phines enamik DG AGRI kohandustest tema enda tehtud makseasutuste ssteemide ja kulude kontrollidel.
DG Agriculture and Rural Development calculates the majority of these adjustments as flat rates, intended to reflect the significance and extent of weaknesses it identified in control systems. 
Suurema osa kohanduste arvutamisel kasutas DG AGRI kindlaid mrasid, mille eesmrk on kajastada kontrollissteemides tuvastatud puuduste tsidust ja ulatust.
DG Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentŐs AAR estimates the amount at risk at payment at around 2.1 % for CAP spending as a whole and at around 1.8 % for direct payments. 
DG AGRI aasta tegevusaruandes hinnatakse makse tegemisel veariski sisaldava summa suuruseks PP kulutuste puhul tervikuna 2,1 % ja otsetoetuste puhul 1,8 %.
The Commission also presents these results in its AMPR. 
Komisjon esitab need tulemused ka oma aasta haldus-ja tulemusaruandes.
The CommissionŐs estimate is consistent with our conclusion indicating a material level of error for ÔNatural resourcesŐ spending as a whole, but not for direct payments. 
Komisjoni hinnang, mille kohaselt on rubriigi ăLoodusvaradŇ kulutused tervikuna olulisel mral vigadest mjutatud, otsetoetused aga mitte, on koosklas meie jreldusega.
Performance assessment We reviewed 113 sampled rural development actions in 18 Member States. 
Tulemuslikkuse hindamine Kontrollisime 18 riigis 113-st maaelu arengu tegevusest koosnevat valimit.