natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Our audit work comprised: - an analysis of provisions in the legal framework of the 2007-2013 programme period which impact absorption; - a review of relevant Commission technical guidelines on the implementation of certain legal provisions affecting absorption and on closure; - an assessment of Commission monitoring procedures for the 2007-2013 programme period relating to absorption, including the work done by the Task Force for Better Implementation14; - an analysis of 16 ERDF and CF OPs and four ESF OPs from seven Member States: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. 
Revizija koju je obavio Sud obuhvaćala je: - analizu odredbi u pravnom okviru za programsko razdoblje 2007. – 2013. koje utječu na iskorištavanje sredstava - pregled relevantnih tehničkih smjernica Komisije za provedbu određenih pravnih odredbi koje utječu na iskorištavanje sredstava, kao i za zaključenje programa - procjenu postupaka praćenja kojima se Komisija služila tijekom programskog razdoblja 2007. – 2013. u pogledu iskorištavanja sredstava, uključujući rad Radne skupine za bolju provedbu programa14 - analizu 16 OP-ova financiranih iz EFRR-a i KF-a i četiriju OP-ova financiranih iz ESF-a u sedam država članica: Bugarskoj, Češkoj Republici, Mađarskoj, Italiji, Rumunjskoj, Slovačkoj i Španjolskoj.
Of these OPs, seven ERDF and CF OPs and two ESF OPs were reviewed in depth. 
Od tih operativnih programa, sedam OP-ova financiranih iz EFRR-a i KF-a te dva OP-a financirana iz ESF-a pregledano je detaljno.
A list of the OPs covered is included in Annex 1; - audit visits to four Member States: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy and Romania; The Task Force for Better Implementation was set up to assist Member States who were facing difficulties in using the remaining funding from the 2007-2013 programme period. 
Popis ispitanih OP-ova nalazi se u prilogu 1. Radna skupina za bolju provedbu programa osnovana je kako bi pomogla državama članicama koje su naišle na poteškoće pri uporabi preostalih sredstava iz programskog razdoblja 2007. – 2013.
It concentrated on 38 ERDF and CF OPs and covered eight Member States. 
Njezin rad bio je usmjeren na 38 OP-ova financiranih iz EFRR-a i KF-a u osam država članica.
- interviews with officials from DG REGIO and DG EMPL, including those who participated in the Task Force for Better Implementation. 
- revizijske posjete četirima državama članicama: Češkoj Republici, Mađarskoj, Italiji i Rumunjskoj - razgovore sa službenicima iz GU-a REGIO i GU-a EMPL, uključujući one koji su sudjelovali u radu Radne skupine za bolju provedbu programa.
We also looked at the absorption rates in the 2000-2006, 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programme periods to identify similarities in the spending European Parliament - Committee on Regional Development, ŇReport on absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds: lessons learnt for the future Cohesion policy of the EU (2010/2305(INI))Ó, 25 July 2011. 
U tu svrhu, osobito je važno da se financijska sredstva troše na način koji omogućuje ostvarivanje odgovarajuće vrijednosti za uloženi novac. 15 16 17 Europski parlament – Odbor za regionalni razvoj, „Report on absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds: lessons learnt for the future Cohesion policy of the EU” (Izvješće o iskorištavanju sredstava iz strukturnih i kohezijskih fondova: stečena iskustva za kohezijsku politiku EU-a u budućnosti, 2010/2305(INI)), 25. srpnja 2011.
Opinion No 7/2011 (C 47/1, 17.2.2012, p. 
7/2011 (C 47/1, 17.2.2012., str.
See 2013 annual report, Chapter 10 ŇGetting results from the EU budgetÓ, paragraph 10.10 (OJ C 398, 12.11.2014). 
Vidi godišnje izvješće za 2013. godinu, poglavlje 10., „Ostvarivanje rezultata s pomoću proračuna EU-a”, odlomak 10.10. (SL C 398, 12.11.2014.).
Lastly, we assessed how the Commission monitored absorption during the 2007-2013 period, whether it took timely action and what the results were. 
Naposljetku, Sud je procijenio na koji je način Komisija tijekom razdoblja 2007. – 2013. pratila iskorištavanje sredstava, je li poduzimala pravodobne mjere i kakvi su bili rezultati.
Late adoption of the legislative framework and slow implementation resulting in increased pressure to absorb funds 14. . 
Kasno donošenje zakonodavnog okvira i spora provedba programa stvorili su veći pritisak da se sredstva iskoriste 14. .
The adoption of the legislative framework is an essential pre-requisite for the preparation of OPs, because it establishes the regulatory framework and provides legal certainty to Member States that their spending plans and objectives as set in the OPs are in line with EU objectives. 
Donošenje zakonodavnog okvira ključan je preduvjet za pripremu OP-ova jer se njime uspostavlja regulatorni okvir te se državama članicama pruža pravna sigurnost da su njihovi planovi rashoda i ciljevi koji su utvrđeni u OP-ovima usklađeni s ciljevima EU-a.
In turn, the adoption of the OPs by the Commission marks the start of payments from the EU budget towards an OP. 
S druge strane, čim Komisija usvoji OP-ove, započinju isplate sredstava iz proračuna EU-a u korist OP-ova.
To ensure that spending can commence at the start of the period, it is necessary that the Commission proposes and the legislator adopts, the legislative framework for an upcoming programme period well before it is due to start. 
Kako bi se zajamčilo da potrošnja sredstava može započeti na početku predmetnog razdoblja, nužno je da Komisija predloži, a zakonodavac donese zakonodavni okvir za nadolazeće programsko razdoblje znatno prije početka tog razdoblja.
Based on previous experience we estimate that a reasonable time-frame would be as follows: Ľ Ľ Ľ the Commission proposes the legislative framework 30 months (two-and-a-half years) before the start of the period; the legislator adopts the framework within 18 months of the Commission proposal; the Member States submit, and the Commission adopts, the national strategies (which were partnership agreements for the 2014-2020 programme period) and OPs within one year of the adoption of the legal framework. 
Na temelju prethodnih iskustava Sud procjenjuje da bi razumni rokovi bili sljedeći: • Komisija predlaže zakonodavni okvir 30 mjeseci (dvije i pol godine) prije početka razdoblja • zakonodavac donosi okvir u roku od 18 mjeseci od podnošenja prijedloga Komisije 17 • države članice podnose, a Komisija usvaja nacionalne strategije (odnosno sporazume o partnerstvu za programsko razdoblje 2014. – 2020.) i OP-ove u roku od jedne godine od donošenja pravnog okvira.
This is important in order to avoid a backlog in implementation and undue pressure to absorb funding towards the end of the period, possibly at the expense of observing the rules and achieving good value for money. 
To je važno kako bi se izbjegao zastoj u provedbi programa i stvaranje nepotrebnog pritiska na kraju razdoblja da se sredstva iskoriste, možda i nauštrb pridržavanja pravila i ostvarivanja odgovarajuće vrijednosti za uloženi novac.
Late adoption of the legislative framework and OPs had a knock-on effect on implementation 16. 
Kasno donošenje zakonodavnog okvira i usvajanje OP-ova odrazilo se na provedbu programa 16.
For the 2007-2013 period the CommissionŐs proposal for the General Regulation was presented nearly 30 months before the start of the programme period and was adopted by the legislator nearly 24 months later, i.e. almost six months before the start of the period. 17 
Kad je riječ o razdoblju 2007. – 2013., Komisija je predstavila prijedlog relevantne krovne uredbe gotovo 30 mjeseci prije početka programskog razdoblja, no zakonodavac je uredbu donio gotovo 24 mjeseca kasnije, tj. približno šest mjeseci prije početka razdoblja.
For the 2014-2020 programme period, the CommissionŐs proposal for the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) was presented nearly 27 months before the start of the programme period, and it took the legislator over 26 months to adopt it, i.e. only two weeks before the start of the programme period18. 
Kad je riječ o programskom razdoblju 2014. – 2020., Komisija je predstavila prijedlog Uredbe o zajedničkim odredbama gotovo 27 mjeseci prije početka programskog razdoblja, a zakonodavcu je trebalo više od 26 mjeseci da uredbu i donese, u konačnici svega dva tjedna prije početka programskog razdoblja18.
An overview of the timeline of the legislative procedure is provided in Figure 2. 
Na slici 2. nalazi se kronološki prikaz zakonodavnog postupka.
Compared to the 2007-2013 programme period, the additional time taken to adopt the 2014-2020 Common Provisions Regulation was due to: Ľ Ľ The CommissionŐs legislative proposal was presented three months later (i.e. October 2011 compared to July 2004); The negotiation process between the Council and the European Parliament took two-and-a-half month longer due to the need to wait for the adoption of the Financial Regulation (in October 2012) and of the MFF (adopted only in December 2013) and negotiations as a result of a new legislative procedure19. 
U odnosu na programsko razdoblje 2007. – 2013. za donošenje Uredbe o zajedničkim odredbama za razdoblje 2014. – 2020. bilo je potrebno više vremena zbog sljedećih razloga: • • Komisija je predstavila zakonodavni prijedlog tri mjeseca kasnije (tj. u listopadu 2011. u odnosu na srpanj 2004.) pregovarački proces Vijeća i Europskog parlamenta trajao je dva i pol mjeseca dulje jer se moralo pričekati donošenje Financijske uredbe (u listopadu 2012.) i VFO-a (koji 18 18 Za programsko razdoblje 2007. – 2013. relevantna krovna uredba donesena je u okviru posebnog zakonodavnog postupka, tj.
In its communication on the post-2020 MFF20 the Commission acknowledged that the late adoption of the 2014-2020 MFF delayed investments on the ground in various policy areas (including Cohesion). 
Komisija je u komunikaciji o VFO-u za razdoblje nakon 2020.20 potvrdila da je kašnjenje s donošenjem VFO-a za razdoblje 2014. – 2020. uzrokovalo kašnjenja s ulaganjima na terenu u različitim područjima politika (uključujući koheziju).
The Commission has encouraged an early political agreement on the post-2020 MFF in order to provide legal and financial certainty to the national and regional authorities and enable implementation to start immediately at the start of the programme period. 
Komisija potiče što ranije postizanje političkog dogovora o VFO-u za razdoblje nakon 2020. kako bi se nacionalnim i regionalnim tijelima pružila pravna i financijska sigurnost te kako bi se omogućilo da provedba programa započne odmah na početku programskog razdoblja.
Special Report No 2/2017 ŇThe CommissionŐs negotiation of 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements and programmes in Cohesion: spending more targeted on Europe 2020 priorities, but increasingly complex arrangements to measure performanceÓ, paragraphs 36 to 37. 
2/2017 „Pregovori Komisije o sporazumima o partnerstvu i programima u području kohezije za razdoblje 2014. – 2020.: potrošnja je usmjerenija na prioritete strategije Europa 2020., ali potrebni su sve složeniji mehanizmi za mjerenje uspješnosti”, odlomci 36. i 37.
COM(2018) 98 final of 14 February 2018 ŇA new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-2020Ó. 
COM(2018) 98 final od 14. veljače 2018. „Nov, moderan višegodišnji financijski okvir za Europsku uniju koja učinkovito ostvaruje svoje prioritete nakon 2020.”.
For the 2007-2013 period a bigger number of OPs were adopted by the end of the first year of the programme period compared to the 2014-2020 period (see Box 2). 
Do kraja prve godine programskog razdoblja 2007. – 2013. usvojen je veći broj OP-ova nego do kraja prve godine razdoblja 2014. – 2020. (vidi okvir 2.).
This is mainly due to the delayed adoption of the legislative package and possibly more demanding negotiations for adopting Partnership Agreements and OPs than in the previous period21 22. 
21 donošenjem zakonodavnog paketa i eventualno zahtjevnijim pregovorima za usvajanje sporazuma o partnerstvu i OP-ova nego u prethodnom razdoblju21 22.
20 Box 2 Đ 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 OPs adopted after the programme periods had started For the 2007-2013 programme period, 98 % (432 of 44023) of the OPs had been submitted and 95 % (416 of 440 OPs) had been adopted by the Commission by 31 December 2007. 
Okvir 2. – OP-ovi za razdoblje 2007. – 2013. i 2014. – 2020. usvojeni nakon početka programskog razdoblja Kad je riječ o programskom razdoblju 2007. – 2013., do 31. prosinca 2007. podneseno je 98 % OP-ova (432 od 44023), a Komisija je usvojila njih 95 % (416 od 440).
The bulk of the OPs (91 %) were adopted between July and December 2007. 
Velika većina OP-ova (91 %) usvojena je između srpnja i prosinca 2007.
The average time from date of submission to adoption of an OP was around seven months. 
Od datuma podnošenja OP-a do njegova usvajanja u prosjeku je proteklo približno sedam mjeseci.
For the 2014-2020 programme period, 95.5 % (371 of 38724) of the OPs had been submitted by the Member States and only 55.8 % (216 of 387 OPs) had been adopted by the Commission by 31 December 2014. 
Kad je riječ o programskom razdoblju 2014. – 2020., do 31. prosinca 2014. države članice podnijele su 95,5 % OP-ova (371 od 38724), a Komisija je usvojila samo 55,8 % (216 od 387).
The average time taken from date of submission to adoption of an OP was around eight months. 
Od datuma podnošenja OP-a do njegova usvajanja u prosjeku je proteklo približno osam mjeseci.
Absorption during the first years was slow 20. 
Iskorištavanje sredstava tijekom prvih godina bilo je sporo 20.
The annual spending pattern for the 2007-2013 programme period is shown in Figure 3. 
Obrazac godišnjeg trošenja sredstava za programsko razdoblje 2007. – 2013. prikazan je na slici 3.
Commitments at the start of the period are far bigger than payments, as Member States were still drawing upon commitments available from the 2000-2006 programme period, OPs were still being adopted or project selection procedures were still being finalised. 
Sredstva za preuzete obveze na početku razdoblja daleko su veća od sredstava za plaćanja jer su se države članice tada još služile sredstvima za preuzete obveze iz programskog razdoblja 2000. – 2006., usvajanje OP-ova još je bilo u tijeku te postupci odabira projekata još nisu bili dovršeni.
By the end of the 2007-2013 programme period, with two years left until the end of the eligibility period (on 31 December 2015), less than two-thirds of commitments had been absorbed by payments . 
Na kraju programskog razdoblja 2007. – 2013., u trenutku u kojem je do kraja razdoblja prihvatljivosti (31. prosinca 2015.) bilo preostalo dvije Tematsko izvješće br.
21 22 23 24 Special Report No 2/2017, paragraphs 49 and 53 to 55. 
2/2017, odlomci 49. i 53. – 55.
The negotiation took longer possibly because of new requirements introduced by the new legal framework, IT problems encountered with the new electronic information exchange system and a more complex OP adoption procedure at the Commission. 
Među moguće razloge za dulje trajanje pregovora ubrajaju se novi zahtjevi koji su uvedeni novim pravnim okvirom, IT problemi s primjenom novog elektroničkog sustava za razmjenu informacija i složeniji postupak usvajanja operativnih programa na razini Komisije (vidi tematsko izvješće Suda br.
(See ECA special report No 2/2017, paragraph 55). 
2/2017, odlomak 55.).
This includes: 249 ERDF and CF OPs; 118 ESF OPs; 73 ETC OPs. 
Time je obuhvaćeno sljedeće: 249 OP-ova financiranih iz EFRR-a i KF-a, 118 OP-ova financiranih iz ESF-a i 73 OP-a za europsku teritorijalnu suradnju.
This includes: 124 ERDF and CF OPs; 95 ESF OPs; 92 Multi-fund OPs and 76 ETC OPs. 
Time je obuhvaćeno sljedeće: 124 OP-a financirana iz EFRR-a i KF-a, 95 OP-ova financiranih iz ESF-a, 92 OP-a financirana iz više fondova i 76 OP-ova za europsku teritorijalnu suradnju. 21 22 23 24
Figure 3 Đ Spending pattern for 2007-2013 programme period for the ERDF, ESF and CF Source: ECA, based on of data provided by the Commission. 
Slika 3. – Obrazac trošenja sredstava iz EFRR-a, ESF-a i KF-a za programsko razdoblje 2007. – 2013. Izvor: Sud, na temelju podataka koje je dostavila Komisija.
A comparison of absorption patterns for the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programme periods indicate similar profiles. 
Usporedba obrazaca iskorištavanja sredstava za programsko razdoblje 2000. – 2006. i 2007. – 2013. upućuje na slične profile.
Figure 4 shows the cumulative absorption rate25 during these three programme periods from the start of the period (year 1) to the year when the closure declaration should be submitted (year 11). 
Na slici 4. prikazana je sveukupna stopa iskorištenosti sredstava25 tijekom tih triju programskih razdoblja, od početka razdoblja (1. godina) do godine u kojoj je potrebno podnijeti izjavu o zaključenju programa (11. godina).
Figure 4 Đ Absorption rate in the 2000-2006, 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programme periods for the ERDF, ESF and CF 22 100 % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% End of programme period End of eligibility period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2000-2006 programme period 2007-2013 programme period 2014-2020 programme period years Source: ECA, based on Commission data. 
2014. 23 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Završetak programskog Završetak razdoblja 1. 3. 4. 6. 7. 1 2
22. 
2. 2
Besides the late adoption of the legislative framework and OPs, we identified at least two more factors that led to slow absorption in the first years of the 2007-2013 programme period compared to the previous period. 
3 7
Firstly, for the 2000-2006 programme period, the expenditure eligibility period - and therefore the deadline for closure - were extended by six months (up to June 2009 and September 2010 respectively) for most Member States 26. 
26. 6
This delayed implementation of the 2007-2013 programme period, as Member States were still using the commitments available from the previous period. 
3 7
Secondly, during the 2000-2006 26 In view of the continuing economic difficulties, the eligibility period of 13 Greek programmes and 18 INTERREG III programmes were extended to 31 December 2009, bringing the submission deadlines to 31 March 2011. 
3 6 7
Following the earthquake in Abruzzo regional operational programme and INTERREG III A Italia-Adriatico were extended to 30 June 2010, with a submission deadline of 30 September 2011. 
3
Absorption rate (%) 
6 7
The Court has already reported on the risk that delays in budgetary execution for the 2014-2020 period could be greater than those for the 2007-2013 period28. At the end of 2016 (three years into the programme period), only 77 % of authorities had been designated for the ERDF, ESF and CF OPs. This aggravated the already slow start (see paragraphs 16, 19 and Box 2), because while Member States authorities may launch calls and select projects, they cannot submit statements of expenditure to the Commission until they have been designated. 
3 6 7
As of 1 March 2018, the first, second and third final accounts submitted by the Member States show cumulative expenditure amounting to only around 5Ą% of the budget allocated for the entire programme period29. 
5
However, by July 2017, it had reached the same levels as in the previous period30 and from then on, the Commission expects implementation rates to be broadly similar to the 2007-2013 programme period. 
3 7
However, given the absorption difficulties in the 2007-2013 programme period and the slower start of the 2014-2020 period, it is likely that absorption difficulties will also be encountered in 2014-2020. 
3 7
1). See the CourtŐs 2015 and 2016 annual reports, Chapter 6 ŇEconomic, Social and Territorial CohesionÓ. 
5 6
The third final accounts covering the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 are subject to the Commission's examination and acceptance which is due by 31 May 2018. 
3 6 7
As a result cumulative expenditure may change. My Region, My Europe, My Future, 7th Report on Economic Social and Territorial Cohesion, European Commission, September 2017, p. 
7
177. 
77.
23 27 28 29 30 
3
The Court noted that for nine Member States31 outstanding commitments on 2014-2020 ESI funds at the end of 2016 represented more than 15 % of 2016 general government spending. 
3 5 6
Given the sizeable commitment appropriations still available under the 2014-2020 MFF, Member States where ESI funds represent a significant percentage of general government spending may find it challenging to identify sufficient high-quality projects on which to spend the available funding or to provide co-financing32. 
3
In the 2007-2013 programme period absorption patterns varied across Member States and several did not manage to use all the funding available 27. 
3 7
Our examination of the absorption by Member States for the 2007 - 2013 programme period shows that some Member States absorbed the funds more quickly than others. 
3 7
Figure 5 shows the disparities in absorption rate across Member States. 
5
24 31 32 Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. 
3 5
See the CourtŐs 2016 annual report, Chapter 2 ŇBudgetary and Financial ManagementÓ, paragraphs 2.24-2.25. 
5 6
Figure 5 Đ Absorption rate by Member State compared to EU average for the 2007-2013 programme period for the ERDF, ESF and CF Legend Member States which absorbed above average Đ from 2009 to 2015 Member States which absorbed under average Đ from 2009 to 2015 Member States which absorbed below average and then had an absorption rate above average until 2015 Member States which absorption alternate around average - from 2009 to 2015 Note:WhenconsideringtheMemberStatesŐabsorptionpatternforthe2007-2013 programme periodwetookaccountofpaymentsmadebetween2009and2015. 
3 5 7
Paymentsmadeduring2007 and 2008 were not included as they are practically only pre-financing payments. 
7
Payments made during the 2014 and 2015 were included on the basis of the n+2 rule. 
5
Based on information available from the Commission at the start of 2018 the average EU absorption rate stood at 97.2 %33. 
3 7
Some Member States did not manage to use the funding available within the stipulated time (n+2/3 rule) or did not have sufficient eligible expenditure to claim all allocated funds at closure (see Figure 6). Based on information The absorption rates is calculated by dividing cumulative payments (332.9 billion euros) by the total commitments for ERDF, CF and ESF (342.5 billion euros). 
3 5
The absorption rate is provisional as the final payment applications are still in the process of being cleared and this will affect the value of cumulative payments. 33 25 
3 6
provided by the Commission unused funding at the end of 2017 amounted to 4.4 billion euros34. 
34. 7
Projects suspended due to administrative or judicial proceedings amounted to around 853.8 million euros and their absorption by the Member State will depend on the outcome of the proceedings 35. 
3 5
Figure 6 Đ Unused funding and suspended projects for the 2007-2013 programme period (in million euros) 26 2 000 1 800 1 600 1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 53.6 31.2 28.8 25.4 6.9 4.9 0.4 0 RO IT CZ DE SK BG ES UK AT FR HU SE BE FI PL Decomittment n+2/3 Decommitment at closure Suspended projects Note: The table above does not include de-commitments for European Territorial Co-operation OPs amounting to 229.4 million euros. 
3 5 6 7
ERDF/CF: 3.5 billion euros; ESF: 0.9 billion euros. 
3 5
ERDF/CF: 743.5 million euros; ESF: 110.3 million euros. 34 35 Million euro 
3 5 7
The Commission monitored the implementation of the budget regularly 30. 
3
For the 2007-2013 programme period, the Managing Authority prepared and submitted Annual Implementation Reports (AIR) for each OP to the Commission by 30 June of the following year, starting in June 200836. 
3 7
Towards the end of the 2007-2013 programme period, the Commission enhanced its monitoring by regularly following up the implementation of the DGŐs internal Annual Management Plan. 
3 7
Some Member States took action to address absorption difficulties at a relatively early stage, but the problem persisted 33. 
3
At the end of 2014, with one year left to use the available funding, the absorption rate for the ERDF, ESF and CF stood at around 77 % for the EU-28. 
3 6 7