natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
72 recommendation 2 the broad scope of the audited measures should be recognised, as they not only bring impact on employment and income but also contribute to the sustainability of rural areas. the commission has insisted on several occasions during the current programming period on the need for greater selectivity and is prepared to further encourage Member states to apply such an approach. the application of selection criteria or equivalent targeting mechanism is examined by the commission in its audit missions and several observations in this regard have been made to the Member states. if needed, the commission proposes financial corrections. the commission agrees with the recommendation and has, in the proposal on the Eu rural development policy for programming period 2014–20 foreseen that the selection criteria shall be defined for all measures and shall aim to ensure equal treatment of applicants, better use of financial resources and targeting of measures in accordance with the union priorities for rural development. the use of selection criteria is proposed to be generally compulsory even in the case where available funds are sufficient, except in the case of some compensatory area and animal-related measures.24 the commission also agrees that the project selection system of the Member states should take into account the quality of the projects and use a minimum scoring system. the commission will present guidelines to the Member states on the use of eligibility and selection criteria for the next programming period. 
6/2013 – Dosiahli členské štáty a Komisia prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi? 72 odporúčanie 2 Treba uznať široký rozsah kontrolovaných opatrení, keďže majú vplyv nielen na zamestnanosť a príjmy, ale zároveň prispievajú k udržateľnosti vidieckych oblastí.
93. 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. 
93. 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.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN therefore, the commission does not consider the question to the beneficiary of whether he needs the grant as an appropriate tool to assess deadweight. the assessment of deadweight is more complex and should be part of the evaluation of programmes. 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/needs, the risk of deadweight and displacement is minimised. the targeting of investment support (article 43 of regulation 1974/2006) was introduced in this programming period exactly to limit deadweight and displacement effects coming out of earlier evaluations. as regards the displacement, 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. the commission has included in the legal proposal for the next programming period requirement that specific needs linked with specific conditions at regional or sub-regional level are taken into account and concretely addressed through adequately designed combinations of measures or thematic subprogrammes. the commission has also proposed that appropriate targets are set for each of the focus areas of the union priorities, on the basis of common result indicators, and that the selected measures in relation to the union priorities are based on sound intervention logic supported by an ex ante evaluation. 
ODPOVEDE KOMISIE Komisia z toho dôvodu nepovažuje otázku pre príjemcu, či potrebuje grant, za vhodný nástroj na posúdenie mŕtvej váhy. Posúdenie mŕtvej váhy je zložitejšie a malo by byť súčasťou hodnotenia programov. 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/potrebách, riziko mŕtvej váhy a presunu je minimalizované.
Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Osobitná správa č. 6/2013 – Dosiahli členské štáty a Komisia prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi?
73 recommendation 3 the commission agrees with the recommendation and is prepared to organise exchange of best practices on the mitigation of deadweight and displacement risks with the Member states. the legislation provided that the general state aid rules apply for support under article 52(a) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 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 to prevent the deadweight.25 the same rules should apply to co-financed measures as for separate aid schemes notified under the state aid regime. 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. 
73 odporúčanie 3 Komisia súhlasí s odporúčaním a je pripravená zorganizovať s členskými štátmi výmenu osvedčených postupov týkajúcich sa zmiernenia rizika mŕtvej váhy a presunu. V právnych predpisoch sa uvádza, že všeobecné pravidlá o štátnej pomoci sa vzťahujú na podporu podľa článku 52 písm. a) nariadenia (ES) č.
94. the risk of overspending is to be considered. the aid-inten-sity rates should contribute to reduce such risks. recommendation 4 the commission notes that this recommendation is for the Member states and that the principles of subsidiarity and shared management hands considerable discretion to Member states and regions. the commission covers the issue of evaluation of the reasonableness of costs during its audit missions on investment measures. it verifies that the Member state has established an effective system to evaluate the reasonableness of costs. 
94. Treba vziať do úvahy riziko nadmerného čerpania prostriedkov. Miery intenzity pomoci by mali prispieť k zníženiu týchto rizík. odporúčanie 4 Komisia konštatuje, že toto odporúčanie je určené členským štátom a že zásada subsidiarity a spoločného riadenia poskytuje členským štátom a regiónom dostatočný priestor na rozhodovanie.
25 article8ofcommissionregulation(Ec)no800/2008.itsparagraph2 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. 
25 Článok8nariadeniaRady(ES)č.800/2008.Vodseku2sauvádza: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.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 95. in the preparation of the monitoring and evaluation system for the future period, account is being taken of weaknesses observed during this period. in practice, it has been difficult for Mas to compile the necessary data and conduct the analysis required to establish values for these types of result indicators (GVa ...) as part of their regular annual monitoring activities. therefore, for the next programming period, result indicators will rather be assessed as part of the rdp evaluation. it will also be done by developing more precise explanatory document (fiches) for each indicator to avoid potential inconsistencies in data collection through misinterpretation. the collection of information and the monitoring of projects’ implementation lies within the responsibilities of the Member states and the commission cannot be requested to actively manage this process as it goes against the subsidiarity and shared management principle. recommendation 5 objectives and their targets at programme level are set up by the managing authority as part of the programme strategy. at the project level estimated/predicted results/outcomes by which the project in question will contribute to the programme objectives are set ex ante by potential beneficiaries in their applications. 
ODPOVEDE KOMISIE 95. V príprave monitorovacieho a hodnotiaceho systému na budúce obdobie sa zohľadňujú nedostatky zaznamenané v tomto období. V praxi však bolo pre riadiace orgány zložité zhrnúť všetky potrebné údaje a vykonať analýzu potrebnú na posúdenie hodnôt pre tieto typy ukazovateľov výsledkov (HPH atď.) v rámci pravidelného výročného monitorovania.
However, there are always uncertainties and external factors in the achievement of the targets set, so the targets should also be able to be adjusted accordingly, if need to be. the commission agrees with the recommendation and is taking care that in the preparation of the common Monitoring and Evaluation framework for the future period, which is currently being elaborated26, weaknesses observed during this period are taken into account. therefore, for the next programming period, result indicators will rather be assessed as part of the rdp evaluation. it will also be done by developing more precise explanatory documents (fiches) for each indicator to avoid potential inconsistencies in data collection through misinterpretation. 
Vždy však existujú neistoty a vonkajšie faktory v dosahovaní stanovených cieľov, preto by malo byť možné v prípade potreby prispôsobiť ciele zodpovedajúcim spôsobom. Komisia súhlasí s odporúčaním a dbá na to, aby sa v príprave spoločného monitorovacieho a hodnotiaceho rámca na budúce obdobie, ktorý sa v súčasnosti vypracúva26, zohľadnili nedostatky zistené počas tohto obdobia.
26 the legal basis is the proposal for the Horizontal Legislation art. 
26 Právnym základom je návrh horizontálnych právnych predpisov článok 110, návrh nariadenia o rozvoji vidieka, hlava VII, ako aj súvisiace vykonávacie/delegované akty.
110, the proposal for the rd regulation title Vii, as well as the related implementing/ delegated acts. see coM(2011) 628 final/2 dated 19.10.2011 and coM(2011) 627 final/2 dated 19.10.2011. 
Pozri KOM(2011) 628 v konečnom znení/2 z 19. októbra 2011 a KOM(2011) 627 v konečnom znení/2 z 19. októbra 2011. Osobitná správa č.
Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
6/2013 – Dosiahli členské štáty a Komisia prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi?
74 for the next programming period 2014–20 the commission is developing a cMEf, together with the Member states, which will allow the assessment, for each rdp, of progress in implementation against commonly defined target indicators for the priorities and focus areas selected for the programme. at the basis is an indicator plan which for each focus area sets the target and the planned outputs and expenditure for the measures that will be used to achieve the targets and objectives of the programme. the indicator plan represents more accurately the quantified intervention logic for each individual programme than does the current rigid axis structure. recommendation 6 according to the principles of subsidiarity and shared management it is for the Member states to ensure efficient delivery mechanisms and well-functioning administrative procedures at national/regional level. the commission is encouraging Ms in different contexts (e.g. in monitoring committees and annual review meetings) to shorten the delay for project approval procedures and payments to beneficiaries, and is informed that the situation is improving during the current programming period. for the next programming period 2014–20 the commission is foreseeing further reduction of the administrative burden in the form of introducing simplified costs. as a result, the processes of claiming, administering and auditing reimbursement for payments made will be easier for both the beneficiaries and the administration itself. 
74 Komisia na nasledujúce programové obdobie rokov 2014 – 2020 vypracúva spolu s členskými štátmi spoločný rámec pre monitorovanie a hodnotenie, pomocou ktorého sa umožní vyhodnotiť pre každý program rozvoja vidieka pokrok dosiahnutý pri realizácii na základe spoločne vymedzených cieľových ukazovateľov pre priority a zvolených cieľových oblastí programu. Základom je plán ukazovateľov, v ktorom sa pre každú cieľovú oblasť stanovujú ciele, plánované výsledky a výdavky na opatrenia, ktoré sa použijú na dosiahnutie všeobecných a konkrétnych cieľov daného programu.
European Court of auditors special report no 6/2013 have the member states and the commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? luxembourg: publications office of the European union 2013 — 74 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISbN 978-92-9241-292-0 doi:10.2865/88553 
Európsky Dvor audítorov osobitná správa č. 6/2013 dosiahli členské štáty a komisia prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi? luxemburg: Úrad pre vydávanie publikácií Európskej únie. 2013 — 74 s. — 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-306-4 doi:10.2865/9119
free publications: how to obtaIn Eu publIcatIons • one copy: via Eu bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-Eu countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the Eu) (*). (*) the information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). priced subscriptions: • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 
bezplatné publikácie: ako Získať publIkácIe eÚ • jeden kus: prostredníctvom webovej stránky EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • viac kusov alebo plagátov/máp: na zastúpeniach Európskej únie (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_sk.htm); v delegáciách, ktoré sídlia v nečlenských krajinách EÚ (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_sk.htm); kontaktovaním služby Europe Direct (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_sk.htm); na bezplatnom telefónnom čísle 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (v rámci EÚ) (*). (*) za poskytnutie informácií sa neplatí, podobne ako za väčšinu hovorov (niektorí mobilní operátori, verejné telefónne automaty alebo hotely si však môžu účtovať poplatok). platené publikácie: • prostredníctvom webovej stránky EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). predplatné: • prostredníctvom obchodných distribútorov Úradu pre vydávanie publikácií Európskej únie (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_sk.htm).
EuropEaN Court of audItorS QJ-ab-13-008-EN-C 
EURÓPSKY DVOR AUDÍTOROV QJ-AB-13-008-SK-c
Special report No 7 2013 ISSN 1831-0834 
Osobitná správa č.
Special report No 7 2013 HaS tHE EuropEaN GlobalISatIoN adjuStmENt fuNd dElIvErEd Eu addEd valuE IN rEINtEGratING rEduNdaNt workErS? (pursuant to article 287(4), second subparagraph, tfEu) EuropEaN Court of audItorS 
Osobitná správa č. 7 2013 PRINIESOL EURÓPSKY FOND NA PRISPÔSOBENIE SA GLOBALIZÁCII PRIDANÚ HODNOTU EÚ V PODOBE OPÄTOVNÉHO ZAČLENENIA PREPUSTENÝCH PRACOVNÍKOV? (podľa článku 287 ods. 4 druhého pododseku ZFEÚ) EURÓPSKY DVOR AUDÍTOROV
EuropEan court of auditors 12, rue alcide de Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LuXEMBourG tel. +352 4398-1 fax +352 4398-46410 E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu internet: http://eca.europa.eu special report no 7 2013 more information on the European union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 
EURÓPSKY DVOR AUDÍTOROV 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Fax +352 4398-46410 E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://eca.europa.eu Osobitná správa č.
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. luxembourg: publications office of the European union, 2013 ISbN 978-92-9241-314-9 doi:10.2865/92721 © European union, 2013 reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Katalogizačné údaje nájdete na konci tejto publikácie. Luxemburg: Úrad pre vydávanie publikácií Európskej únie, 2013 ISBN 978-92-9241-328-6 doi:10.2865/95315 © Európska únia, 2013 Rozmnožovanie je povolené len so súhlasom autora.
5 GloSSarY dG budget: directorate-General for the Budget dG Employment, social affairs and Inclusion: directorate-General for Employment, social affairs and inclusion Eca: European court of auditors (or ‘the court’) EGf: European Globalisation adjustment fund Esf: European social fund Eu added value: the Eu added value is the value that an Eu action adds to the value that would otherwise have been created by Member states acting alone. oEcd: organisation for Economic cooperation and development; 21 Eu Member states are currently members of the oEcd. workers’ income support: cash expenditure compensating for unemployment. this includes redundancy payments out of public resources as well as pensions to beneficiaries before they reach the ‘standard’ pensionable age if these payments are made because they are out of work or otherwise for reasons of labour market policy. see ‘an interpretative guide to the oEcd social expenditure database’, oEcd, 2007. 
7/2013 – Priniesol Európsky fond na prispôsobenie sa globalizácii pridanú hodnotu EÚ v podobe opätovného začlenenia prepustených pracovníkov? 5 GLOSÁR Dvor audítorov: Európsky dvor audítorov EGF: Európsky fond na prispôsobenie sa globalizácii ESF: Európsky sociálny fond GR pre rozpočet: Generálne riaditeľstvo pre rozpočet GR pre zamestnanosť, sociálne záležitosti a začlenenie: Generálne riaditeľstvo pre zamestnanosť, sociálne záležitosti a začlenenie OECD: Organizácia pre hospodársku spoluprácu a rozvoj; členmi OECD je v súčasnosti 21 členských štátov EÚ.
However, whereas the purpose of the Esf is to address long-term structural imbalances, the EGf was designed to address short-term and ad hoc emergency situations. 
Zatiaľ čo cieľom ESF je riešiť dlhodobé štrukturálne nerovnováhy, EGF bol navrhnutý na riešenie krátkodobých a núdzových situácií ad hoc.
EXECutIvE SummarY (d) the EGf delivered Eu added value when used to co-finance services for redundant workers or allowances not ordinarily existing under Member states’ unemployment benefit systems. (e) However, in all the audited cases, the court identified measures to provide workers with income support, which would have been paid by the Member states anyway. sixteen of the 19 Member states that benefited from the EGf included income support measures in their packages. 
ZHRNUTIE d) EGF priniesol pridanú hodnotu EÚ, keď sa používal na spolufinancovanie služieb pre prepustených pracovníkov alebo príspevkov, ktoré obvykle neexistujú v systémoch jednotlivých členských štátov na poskytovanie dávok v nezamestnanosti; e) vo všetkých kontrolovaných prípadoch Dvor audítorov identifikoval opatrenia na poskytnutie podpory príjmov pre pracovníkov, ktoré by členské štáty aj tak vyplatili. Šestnásť z 19 členských štátov, ktoré využívali EGF, mali vo svojich balíkoch opatrenia na podporu príjmov.
Globally, income support measures represented 33 % of the costs refunded for all EGf cases. (f) the EGf approval procedure, requiring the need for an ad hoc budgetary procedure, is very long. this hampers Eu solidarity with the redundant workers targeted. iii. v. until 31 december 2012, EGf aid packages represented 627 million euro for 89 approved Member state applications. the EGf co-finances measures at a rate of 50 % or 65 %, with the balance being provided by the Member state concerned. iv. the court concluded that: (a) nearly all EGf eligible workers were offered personalised and well-coordinated measures. (b) Each EGf measure may also be eligible for the Esf and some Member states preferred to use the Esf rather than EGf. (c) no quantitative reintegration objectives were set. 
Celkovo opatrenia na podporu príjmov predstavovali 33 % nákladov vrátených vo všetkých prípadoch EGF; f) postup schvaľovania EGF, pri ktorom je potrebný ad hoc rozpočtový postup, je veľmi dlhý. Obmedzuje to solidaritu EÚ s dotknutými prepustenými pracovníkmi.
Moreover, existing data are not adequate to assess the effectiveness of the measures in reintegrating workers into employment. the court recommends that: (a) the Member states and the commission take the necessary steps to ensure the availability of up-to-date and reliable data in order to monitor the achievement of objectives, as well as to compare the outcome of the various measures; (b) the European parliament, the council and the commission consider limiting Eu funding to measures likely to provide Eu added value, rather than funding already existing national workers’ income support schemes; (c) the European parliament, the council and the commission consider, as an alternative to the current EGf scheme, the possibility of adapting the Esf framework and its funding allocations in order to support more rapidly workers affected by mass redundancies. Special report No 7/2013 – Has the European Globalisation adjustment fund delivered Eu added value in reintegrating redundant workers? 
V. Dvor audítorov odporúča, aby: a) členské štáty a Komisia prijali potrebné opatrenia na zabezpečenie dostupnosti aktuálnych a spoľahlivých údajov, aby bolo možné monitorovať plnenie cieľov, ako aj porovnať výsledok rozličných opatrení; b) Európsky parlament, Rada a Komisia zvážili obmedzenie financovania EÚ v prospech opatrení, ktoré pravdepodobne prinesú pridanú hodnotu EÚ, namiesto financovania už existujúcich vnútroštátnych systémov na podporu príjmov pracovníkov; c) Európsky parlament, Rada a Komisia zvážili ako alternatívu k súčasnému systému EGF možnosť prispôsobiť rámec ESF a rozdelenie finančných prostriedkov, aby sa mohli rýchlejšie podporovať pracovníci, ktorí boli hromadne prepustení.
2. the EGf is outside the multiannual financial framework. as a result each application for EGf support submitted by a Member state has to pass a thorough assessment by the commission and obtain approval from the Eu budgetary authority (council and European parliament). the commission shares the management of the EGf with the Member states. 
2. EGF pôsobí mimo viacročného finančného rámca. V dôsledku toho každú žiadosť o podporu z EGF, ktorú predložil členský štát, musí Komisia dôkladne posúdiť a musí ju schváliť rozpočtový orgán EÚ (Rada a Európsky parlament).
3. redundant workers can also benefit from the European social fund (Esf), mainly through lifelong learning programmes. 
3. Prepustení pracovníci môžu získať podporu aj z Európskeho sociálneho fondu, najmä prostredníctvom programov celoživotného vzdelávania.
However, whereas the purpose of the Esf is to address long-term structural imbalances, the EGf was designed to address short-term and ad hoc emergency situations. 
Avšak zatiaľ čo cieľom ESF je riešiť dlhodobé štrukturálne nerovnováhy, EGF bol navrhnutý na riešenie krátkodobých a núdzových situácií ad hoc.