natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 64 box 6 — czech republic the commission has challenged this practice and addressed this issue with the managing authority during meetings and in writing at the beginning of 2010.13 box 6 — italy (campania) see replies in Box 5 and paragraph 31. box 6 — sweden according to the explanations of the swedish Board of agriculture the county board accepted applications on a running basis and only the projects that contributed to the objectives of the programme and the priorities set by the county were accepted. the quality of the projects and their capacity to satisfy these priorities was assessed on the basis of the business and project plans. this assessment shall in future be justified. 
6/2013 – Dosiahli členské štáty a Komisia prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi? 64 rámček 6 – česká republika Komisia spochybnila tento postup a riešila túto otázku s riadiacim orgánom počas zasadnutí a písomne na začiatku roka 201013. rámček 6 – taliansko (kampánia) Pozri odpovede na rámček 5 a bod 31. rámček 6 – švédsko Podľa objasnení Švédskej rady pre pôdohospodárstvo provinčná rada prijímala žiadosti priebežne a akceptované boli len projekty, ktoré prispievali k cieľom programu a prioritám stanoveným radou.
32. the audited measures contribute also to the sustainable development of rural areas and their economic environment, to safeguarding existing jobs, and to development of the conditions for economic growth. furthermore, ‘skill level’ should also be taken into account. it should be noted that costs per job differ between regions, Ms and economic sectors, and is not the only criterion for assessment of applications. cost per job may be an inappropriate indicator, for example, in the cases when investments cover highly technological activities that require little human resources for their management, when safeguarding jobs, when improving existing jobs’ quality, or when temporary employment linked to the investment is created. 
Okrem toho by sa mala zohľadniť aj „úroveň zručností“. Treba uviesť, že náklady na pracovné miesto sa medzi regiónmi, členskými štátmi a hospodárskymi odvetviami líšia a nie sú jediným kritériom posudzovania žiadostí. Náklady na pracovné miesto môžu byť nevhodným ukazovateľom napríklad v prípadoch, keď sa investície vzťahujú na vysoko technické činnosti, ktoré si vyžadujú na svoje riadenie málo ľudských zdrojov, pri ochrane pracovných miest, pri zlepšovaní kvality existujúcich pracovných miest alebo v prípade vytvorenia dočasnej zamestnanosti súvisiacej s investíciou.
By letter of 19 March 2010 (ref. ares(2010)148269) the commission wrote to the cZ authorities indicating that it had been informed in the preparatory meeting held on 11/11/2009 before the Monitoring committee meeting of 12/11/2009 that in 2009 the selection criteria had not been applied. this issue was also discussed with the cZ authorities at the annual review meeting held in february 2010 and at the preparatory meeting held on 24/03/2010 before the Monitoring committee meeting of 25/03/2010. in its letter the commission made reference to article 43 of regulation 1974/2006 and article 71(2) of regulation 1698/2005. 
Komisia napísala českým orgánom v liste z 19. marca 2010 [vec Ares(2010)148269] o tom, že na prípravnom zasadnutí, ktoré sa konalo 11. novembra 2009 pred zasadnutím monitorovacieho výboru 12. novembra 2009, bola informovaná o tom, že v roku 2009 sa neuplatnili kritériá výberu. O tejto otázke sa diskutovalo s českými orgánmi aj na revíznom zasadnutí, ktoré sa konalo vo februári 2010, a na prípravnom zasadnutí, ktoré sa konalo 24. marca 2010 pred zasadnutím monitorovacieho výboru 25. marca 2010.
2. the cZ authorities replied by letter of 7/04/2010 ref. cj.10039/10-11200 (registered at the commission on 13/04/2010 with ref. ares(2010)189115). 
1698/2005. 2. České orgány odpovedali listom zo 7. apríla 2010, vec 10039/10-11200 [zaregistrovaný Komisiou 13. apríla 2010 ako vec Ares(2010)189115].
3. the commission has indeed replied to this letter on 17/05/2010 (ref. ares(2010)261022). in this letter the commission indicated ‘in the Monitoring committee meeting itself [held on 25/03/2010], we have also understood that you would ensure that in the future the financial envelopes would be definitely fixed prior to the opening of the calls for applications and that the latter would be selected in accordance with the established criteria. therefore, i (i.e. the undersigned person for the commission) consider that, even though it is not clearly mentioned in your letter, you are committed by your statement in the abovementioned Monitoring committee meeting.’ 
3. Komisia na tento list aj odpovedala 17. mája 2010 [vec Ares(2010)261022]. V tomto liste Komisia uviedla: „Na samotnom zasadnutí monitorovacieho výboru [ktorý sa konal 25. marca 2010] sme takisto chápali, že zabezpečíte, aby bolo v budúcnosti finančné krytie definitívne stanovené pred zverejnením výziev na predkladanie žiadostí a že žiadosti budú vyberané v súlade so stanovenými kritériami.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 34. the range of costs per job given by the court (3 000– 215 000 euro) does not relate to similar or same activities, thus recognition of the different types of investments should also be made. 
Rozsah nákladov na pracovné miesto, ktorý uviedol Dvor audítorov (3 000 – 215 000 EUR), sa netýka podobných alebo rovnakých činností, preto by sa mali rozlišovať aj rôzne druhy investícií. 37.
37. the commission notes that the principles of subsidiarity and shared management hands considerable discretion to Member states and regions given that the cMEf does not specify what additional indicators are to be used by Member states when evaluating and monitoring projects. the selection of projects and their implementation monitoring lies within the responsibility of Member states. the commission makes the necessary effort in the course of its audit missions to detect inadequate practices and propose relevant measures related to it, including their correction. 
Komisia konštatuje, že zásada subsidiarity a spoločného riadenia poskytuje členským štátom a regiónom dostatočný priestor na rozhodovanie vzhľadom na to, že v spoločnom rámci pre monitorovanie a hodnotenie sa nespresňuje, ktoré ďalšie ukazovatele majú členské štáty pri hodnotení a monitorovaní projektov použiť. Výber projektov a monitorovanie ich vykonávania patrí do rámca zodpovednosti členských štátov.
40. italy (campania) and sweden: see reply given to Box 8. box 8 — czech republic it is correct that the czech authorities have set initially rather ambitious targets related to job creation. at the same time, the economic/financial crisis has significantly hindered creation of employment. therefore, following the mid-term evaluation and following the court’s visit, a revision of these targets has been proposed on 27/09/2012 under the 8th rdp modification, accepted by the commission on 13/03/2013. box 8 — italy (campania) according to the general state aid rules, which apply to axis 3 of the Eafrd, subsidies of less than 200 000 euro granted to an undertaking over a period of 3 years do not constitute ‘state aid’ (so-called ‘de minimis’ rule). 
Komisia vynakladá potrebné úsilie počas svojich misií zameraných na audit, aby odhalila neprimerané postupy a navrhla príslušné opatrenia, ktoré s nimi súvisia, vrátane ich opravy. 40. taliansko (kampánia) a švédsko Pozri odpoveď na rámček 8. rámček 8 – česká republika Je správne, že české orgány pôvodne stanovili dosť ambiciózne ciele súvisiace s tvorbou pracovných miest.
However, the commission is encouraging Member states not to apply a 100 % aid intensity for private profit-generating projects within this rule. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Komisia však členským štátom doporučuje, aby neuplatňovali 100 % intenzitu pomoci na súkromné ziskové projekty v rámci tohto pravidla. Osobitná správa č. 6/2013 – Dosiahli členské štáty a Komisia prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi?
65 box 8 — sweden the cMEf result indicators are set at national level. sweden has, however, 21 counties each of which face different challenges, needs and administrative problems. the final result indicators’ achievements will be collected on the basis of the finalised projects, which mean that these targets are often reached quite slowly, as the realisation of a project may take several years. 
65 rámček 8 – švédsko Ukazovatele výsledku spoločného rámca pre monitorovanie a hodnotenie sú stanovené na vnútroštátnej úrovni. Švédsko však má 21 provincií, z ktorých každá čelí odlišným výzvam, potrebám a administratívnym ťažkostiam. Výstupy konečných výsledkov ukazovateľov budú zhromaždené na základe dokončených projektov, to znamená, že tieto ciele sa často dosahujú dosť pomaly, keďže realizácia projektu môže trvať niekoľko rokov.
By the end of 2012 axis 3 was committed at about 76 %, thus significant progress has been made between 2010 and 2012. 
Na konci roka 2012 boli projekty osi 3 splnené na približne 76 %, medzi rokom 2010 a 2012 sa teda dosiahol významný pokrok. 42.
43. see reply to paragraph 42. czech republic: the commission, in the light of its competences and responsibility, has undertaken the necessary steps for ensuring that the targets set by the cZ are now more appropriate. in the annual review meetings14 in 2011 and 2012, the ‘commission pointed to the unbalance between the fulfilment of the targets for output indicators and the amounts committed and reiterated that adaptation of indicators can be done only if no other action is possible to ensure that the targets are achieved. the commission emphasised that priority should be given to projects which create jobs.’ the commission has accepted a reduction in the targets for gross number of jobs because it became clear that the initial targets were more ambitious than realistic, and that due to the economic and financial crisis such targets would not be achieved. 
43. Pozri odpoveď na bod 42. česká republika: Komisia v zmysle svojich právomocí a zodpovednosti podnikla potrebné kroky na zabezpečenie toho, aby boli ciele stanovené Českou republikou v súčasnosti primeranejšie. Na výročných hodnotiacich zasadnutiach14 v roku 2011 a 2012 „Komisia poukázala na nerovnováhu medzi plnením cieľov ukazovateľov výstupu a viazanými sumami a zopakovala, že prispôsobenie ukazovateľov sa môže uskutočniť len v prípade, že na zabezpečenie dosiahnutia cieľov nie je možné použiť žiadne iné opatrenie.
14 in relation to measure 311 (code in cZ rdp: iii.1.1 ‘diversification into non-agricultural activities’) and measure 313 (code in cZ rdp: iii.1.3 ‘Encouragement of tourism activities’). 
14 V súvislosti s opatrením 311 (kód v programe rozvoja vidieka Českej republiky: III.1.1 „Diverzifikácia smerom k nepoľnohospodárskym činnostiam“) a opatrenie 313 (kód v programe rozvoja vidieka Českej republiky: III.1.3„Podpora činností v oblasti cestovného ruchu“).
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 50. demonstration of economic viability of the enterprises supported for an investment is not a requirement under council regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. furthermore, the administrative checks on applications mentioned in article 24(2) of regulation (Ec) no 65/2011 do not require Ms to establish the economic viability of projects. the requirement is to identify needs in the rdp in relation to the sWot analysis of the area concerned, hence to target support according to identified territorial needs and structural weaknesses. box 9 — france (aquitaine) the commission will follow up this case. 
Okrem toho sa administratívnymi kontrolami žiadostí uvedenými v článku 24 ods. 2 nariadenia (ES) č. 65/2011 od členských štátov nevyžaduje, aby stanovili ekonomickú životaschopnosť projektov. Požiadavkou je určiť potreby v programe rozvoja vidieka v súvislosti s analýzou SWOT príslušnej oblasti, teda zamerať podporu podľa identifikovaných územných potrieb a štrukturálnych nedostatkov. rámček 9 – francúzsko (akvitánia) Komisia bude tento prípad ďalej sledovať.
52. the requirement to target investment support (article 43 of commission regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006) was introduced explicitly in this programming period, among other aspects, to counter deadweight and displacement effects. box 10 — italy (campania) it is the responsibility of the managing authority to ensure an adequate proportionality between the investments (which would contribute to deliver environmental benefits) to be supported and the score attributed according to the selection criteria. 
52. Požiadavka zamerania investičnej podpory [článok 43 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1974/2006] bola zavedená výslovne v tomto programovom období s cieľom čeliť okrem iného účinkom mŕtvej váhy a presunu. rámček 10 – taliansko (kampánia) Je povinnosťou riadiaceho orgánu zabezpečiť primeranú proporcionalitu medzi investíciami (ktoré prispejú k realizácii environmentálnych výhod), ktoré sa majú podporiť, a bodmi pridelenými podľa výberových kritérií.
53. the legislation did not foresee an a priori assessment of whether or not the applicants would be in need of a subsidy. the requirement is to identify needs in the rdp in relation to the sWot analysis of the area concerned, hence to target support according to identified territorial needs and structural weaknesses. the assessment of deadweight is complex and should be part of the evaluation of programmes. 
53. V právnych predpisoch sa nestanovovalo posúdenie a priori toho, či by žiadatelia potrebovali dotáciu alebo nie. Požiadavkou je určiť potreby v programe rozvoja vidieka v súvislosti s analýzou SWOT príslušnej oblasti, teda zamerať podporu podľa identifikovaných územných potrieb a štrukturálnych nedostatkov.
66 55. in the context of the axis 3 measures of the Eafrd, the legislation provided that the general state aid rules apply for support under article 52 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005 and for Leader when delivering on axis 3. these rules require that expenditure is eligible from the submission of the aid application. this requirement is stated in the state aid rules to establish the necessary incentive element.15 the same rules should apply to co-financed measures as for separate aid schemes notified under the state aid regime. furthermore, the support to projects should be granted on the basis of the assessment of whether the project contributes to the objectives of the rdp. taking account of the beneficiaries’ financial capacity in isolation to assess deadweight may entail the risk of supporting non-viable projects and increased administrative costs for the authorities and increased administrative burden for the beneficiaries. 
66 55. V súvislosti s opatreniami EPFRV v rámci osi 3 sa v právnych predpisoch stanovilo, že všeobecné pravidlá v oblasti štátnej pomoci sa uplatňujú na podporu podľa článku 52 nariadenia (ES) č.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 59. the commission considers that axis 3 measures have been designed in order to ensure an adequate support for the diversity of rural areas as identified in the rdps according to the nsps (please see reply to point 18 ). the ex ante analysis of the sectors suitable for farm diversification could help potential beneficiaries in developing niche products and services. the support granted by axis 3 measures is meant to spur the local development with the aim to overcome the rather negative economic conditions existing in many rural areas. the support to be given to disadvantaged rural areas is conceived for ensuring better living conditions by satisfying identified needs in relation to local development and improving the existing socioeconomic situation. see also reply to paragraph 58. the measurement of displacement should cover many factors and it is more appropriate to be done at project level. 
Samostatné zohľadnenie finančnej kapacity príjemcov v záujme vyhodnotenia mŕtvej váhy môže predstavovať riziko podpory nerealizovateľných projektov a zvýšených administratívnych nákladov pre orgány, ako aj zvýšenú administratívnu záťaž pre príjemcov. ODPOVEDE KOMISIE 59. Komisia sa domnieva, že opatrenia osi 3 boli navrhnuté s cieľom zabezpečiť primeranú podporu rozmanitosti vidieckych oblastí, ktorá je vymedzená v programoch rozvoja vidieka podľa národných strategických plánov (pozri odpoveď na bod 18).
61. some of the Ms are in a stage of development of their rural areas such that consideration of saturation points, oversupply and displacement are not relevant because economic activities are generally missing or strongly insufficient. therefore, in these cases, it seems to be more appropriate to evaluate the displacement at the time of ex post evaluation. the fact that the selection of projects in some of the audited cases takes place at local level should normally contribute to limit the displacement effects, as displacement is most appropriately measured at project level. the commission, however, encourages Member states to apply systems that reduce the risk of deadweight. 
Meranie presunu by malo pokrývať mnohé faktory a je vhodnejšie, aby sa vykonávalo na úrovni projektu. 61. Niektoré z členských štátov sú v takej etape rozvoja svojich vidieckych oblastí, že zvažovanie bodov nasýtenia, nadbytočnej ponuky a presunu nie je relevantné, pretože hospodárske činnosti všeobecne chýbajú alebo sú výrazne nedostatočné.
57. see reply to paragraph 53 and 83. 
57. Pozri odpoveď na body 53 a 83.
58. the commission considers that if the investment support is well targeted (using among others eligibility and selection criteria, differentiation in aid rates) and based on clearly identified gaps/needs16, the risk of deadweight and displacement is minimised. the targeting of investment support (article 43) was introduced in this programming period exactly to limit deadweight and displacement effects coming out of earlier evaluations. the commission does not consider that in case a subsidy leads to increase of the marketing share at the expense of a competitor a priori is economically inefficient. the support e.g. may have led to more efficient (economically and/ or environmentally) businesses which may contribute to the overall development of the rural economy. 
58. Komisia sa domnieva, že ak je investičná podpora dobre zameraná (okrem iného s použitím kritéria oprávnenosti a výberových kritérií, diferenciácie v sadzbách pomoci) a založená na jasne určených nedostatkoch/potrebách16, riziko mŕtvej váhy a presunu je minimalizované.
15 article 8 of commission regulation (Ec) no 800/2008. its paragraph 2 states: aid granted to sMEs, covered by this regulation, shall be considered to have an incentive effect if, before work on the project or activity has started, the beneficiary has submitted an application for the aid to the Member state concerned. 
15 Článok 8 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 800/2008. V odseku 2 sa uvádza: Pomoc poskytnutá MSP, na ktorú sa vzťahuje toto nariadenie, sa považuje za pomoc, ktorá má stimulačný účinok, ak príjemca predložil žiadosť o pomoc príslušnému členskému štátu pred začatím práce na projekte alebo pred začatím činnosti.
16 article 43 of commission regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006. 
16 Článok 43 nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 1974/2006.
67 62. see reply to paragraph 83. any analysis on displacement should be thorough and detailed. its results should not lead automatically to defending national/regional/local monopolistic situations and it should rather be oriented towards the stimulation of the healthy competition between businesses with similar activities for offering high quality products/services/ activities to potential consumers. in this context, attention should be paid to quality of the services or products provided by competitors, prices, development strategies that have been or are followed, recent investments by competitors, type of structures and organisational and management matters, etc., before concluding that there have been any displacement effects. box 12 see reply to paragraph 83. box 12 — sweden see reply to paragraph 62. 
Pozri odpoveď na bod 83. Akákoľvek analýza týkajúca sa presunu by mala byť dôkladná a podrobná. Jej výsledky by nemali automaticky viesť k obrane vnútroštátnych/regionálnych/miestnych monopolných situácií, a skôr by mala byť zameraná na stimulovanie zdravej hospodárskej súťaže medzi podnikmi s podobnými činnosťami, aby ponúkali potenciálnym zákazníkom výrobky/služby/činnosti vysokej kvality.
Business development and investments linked to physical development are often done in stages. 
Rozvoj podnikania a investície spojené s fyzickým rozvojom sa často uskutočňujú v etapách.
Entrepreneurship and healthy competition should not be penalised nor customers should remain without a choice when making decisions, thus businesses should be allowed to introduce innovative ideas related to their medium to long-term sustainability and competitiveness, including their expansion. often, such expansion is done in stages and not in one go. 
Podnikanie a zdravá hospodárska súťaž by nemali byť znevýhodnené ani zákazníci by nemali zostať bez možnosti výberu pri prijímaní rozhodnutí, preto by sa podnikom malo umožniť zavádzať inovačné nápady týkajúce sa ich strednodobej až dlhodobej udržateľnosti a konkurencieschopnosti vrátane ich rozširovania. Často sa toto rozširovanie uskutočňuje postupne, a nie jednorazovo.
63. according to the principles of subsidiarity and shared management, the selection of projects falls under the responsibility of the Member states and the commission cannot assess the reasonableness of costs of individual projects ex ante. 
63. Podľa zásady subsidiarity a spoločného riadenia výber projektov patrí do rámca zodpovednosti členských štátov a Komisia nemôže posudzovať odôvodnenosť nákladov jednotlivých projektov ex ante.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 65. the commission confirms that it has decided a financial correction for france because of weaknesses in the verification of the reasonableness of costs for which have been found evidence in one region in france in which concerned measures were 121 and 323. furthermore, the commission services found during a mission in 2013 similar weaknesses in another region in france which are currently being discussed with the french authorities in the clearance of accounts procedure. 
ODPOVEDE KOMISIE 65. Komisia potvrdzuje, že rozhodla o finančnej oprave pre Francúzsko z dôvodu nedostatkov v overovaní primeranosti nákladov, o čom sa zistili dôkazy v jednom regióne vo Francúzsku, ktoré sa týkali opatrení 121 a 323.
66. following the court’s audit, the regional authorities took action in order to improve the verification of the reasonableness of the costs during the on-the-spot checks (new check lists). as answered by the czech authorities, there are a number of positive elements (price catalogues for building and construction, cost limits for the renewable energy projects). box 13 — sweden the estimation of the reasonability of costs is not necessarily made on the basis of comparison of offers but can be made by other means like reference costs (article 24.2d of regulation 65/2011). the commission will analyse this aspect. box 13 — italy (campania) in the case mentioned by the court, the professional fees that have been considered excessive compared to the given professional advice are in line with the indications given by the professional corporation and the national provisions on the admissibility of general costs. the regional authority has specified that a number of different consultancy services have been provided against that payment. the commission will follow up this case. 
66. Na základe auditu Dvora audítorov regionálne orgány prijali opatrenie na zlepšenie overovania primeranosti nákladov počas kontrol na mieste (nové kontrolné zoznamy).