natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN recommendation 2 (a) the commission shares the view that road projects should have clear objectives accompanied by appropriate indicators and considers this recommendation as already implemented for major projects. in the current period this information is required as part of major projects’ description, as well as in the cost-benefit analysis. the commission proposal for the structural and investment funds for the next programming period contains a comprehensive performance framework and conditionality which, if adopted, will help in ensuring that future road projects will contain clear objectives accompanied by indicators. the commission considers that the effects on the economy will depend not only on road projects but also the contribution of other economic and social factors. in this regard the commission recalls that this contribution of the road project to the economic effect can be disentangled from other contributions by means of an evaluation not an indicator. recommendation 2 (b) the commission agrees with this recommendation and considers it as partly implemented. in the current period the selection of reasonable and cost-effective technical solutions is considered as part of the feasibility study and option analysis carried out for each major project which should result in selecting the best solution. 
Komisia posúdi otázku jednotkových nákladov v aktualizácii svojej Príručky analýzy nákladov a výnosov na ďalšie programové obdobie pre všetky druhy projektov zahrnutých do spolufinancovaných programov. ODPOVEDE KOMISIE Odporúčanie 2 a) Komisia sa stotožňuje s názorom, že cestné projekty by mali mať jasné ciele doplnené príslušnými ukazovateľmi a v prípade veľkých projektov považuje toto odporúčanie už za zrealizované.
Member states are expected to apply the same principles on non-major projects, for example through the selection criteria. in addition, the Guide to cost-Benefit analysis of investment projects, issued in 2008 by the commission (directorate-General for regional and urban policy), applies to all types of projects and not only to major projects. the commission will consider methods of sharing best practices in the field, for example through the use of JaspErs know-how. 
Od členských štátov sa očakáva, že tie isté zásady budú uplatňovať na projekty menšieho významu, napríklad prostredníctvom výberových kritérií. Okrem toho sa Príručka analýzy nákladov a výnosov investičných projektov, ktorú Komisia (Generálne riaditeľstvo pre regionálnu a mestskú politiku) vydala v roku 2008, uplatňuje nielen na veľké projekty, ale na všetky druhy projektov.
45 recommendation 2 (c) the commission considers this recommendation as implemented. the Eu directives on public procurement aim at ensuring the principles of fair and open competition throughout the Eu, equal treatment of all economic operators without giving undue advantages or creating barriers, obtaining the best value for public money, etc. co-financing from cohesion policy is subject to conformity with these principles of Eu directives on public procurement and Eu policies. the commission monitors that these are implemented in practice and takes corrective actions when necessary. for the next programming period, ex ante conditionality linked to public procurement is foreseen. recommendation 3 the commission agrees with this recommendation and considers it as partly implemented. in the current programming period traffic forecasts are required as part of the demand analysis presented in the application form and cost-benefit analysis for each major project in road sector, which are then carefully assessed by the commission to ensure they are realistic. the commission’s Guide to cost-Benefit analysis of investment projects, which applies to all projects, also gives guidance on carrying out traffic forecasts. the commission will also invite JaspErs to consider this topic for planning their future networking platform meetings with Member states to promote the exchange of best practices. recommendation 4 the commission acknowledges the need for making available more detailed unit costs information and will consider the issue in the update of the commission’s Guide to cost Benefit analysis for the next programming period. 
45 Odporúčanie 2 c) Komisia považuje toto odporúčanie za zrealizované. Cieľom smerníc EÚ o verejnom obstarávaní je zabezpečiť dodržiavanie zásad spravodlivej a otvorenej hospodárskej súťaže v celej EÚ, rovnakého zaobchádzania so všetkými hospodárskymi subjektmi, bez toho, aby dochádzalo k neopodstatnenému zvýhodňovaniu alebo vytváraniu prekážok, získanie najlepšej hodnoty za vynaložené verejné finančné prostriedky atď.
European Court of auditors special report no 5/2013 are eu cohesion Policy funds well spent on roads? luxembourg: publications office of the European union 2013 — 45 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-270-8 doi:10.2865/71435 
Európsky dvor audítorov Osobitná správa č. 5/2013 Vynakladajú sa finančné prostriedky EÚ v rámci politiky súdržnosti na cesty dobre? Luxembourg: Úrad pre vydávanie publikácií Európskej únie 2013 – 45 s. – 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-284-5 doi:10.2865/82475
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). 
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).
EuropEaN Court of audItorS QJ-aB-13-006-EN-C 
EuRóPSKY DVOR AuDíTOROV QJ-AB-13-006-SK-C
Special report No 6 2013 ISSN 1831-0834 
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? (pursuant to article 287(4), second subparagraph, tfEu) EuropEaN Court of audItorS 
Osobitná správa č. 6 2013 DOSIAhlI člENSKé šTáTY A KOmISIA PROSTREDNÍcTVOm OPATRENÍ NA DIVERzIfIKácIU VIDIEcKEhO hOSPODáRSTVA EfEKTÍVNY POmER mEDzI KVAlITOU A NáKlADmI? (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 6 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 978-92-9241-292-0 doi:10.2865/88553 © 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 978-92-9241-306-4 doi:10.2865/9119 © Európska únia, 2013 Rozmnožovanie je povolené len so súhlasom autora. Printed in Luxembourg
3 CoNtENtS Paragraph I–VIII 1–10 11–13 14–84 14–43 18–22 23–24 25–26 27–38 39–40 41–43 44–71 49–62 49–50 51–57 58–62 Glossary ExEcutIVE summary IntroductIon audIt scopE and approach obsErVatIons part onE — arE dIVErsIfIcatIon mEasurEs dEsIGnEd and ImplEmEntEd In such a way as to makE an EffEctIVE contrIbutIon to Growth and jobs? 
3 Bod I – VIII 1 – 10 11–13 14–84 14–43 18–22 23–24 25–26 27–38 39–40 41–43 44–71 49–62 49–50 51–57 58–62 Glosár ZhrnutIe ÚVod roZsah audItu a audítorský prístup prIpomIenky prVá časť – naVrhlI a realIZoValI sa dIVerZIfIkačné opatrenIa tak, aby sa dosIahol ÚčInný prínos k rastu a ZamestnanostI?
Objectives set were brOad and were nOt always related tO creating cOnditiOns fOr grOwth and emPlOyment OPPOrtunities the cOmmissiOn aPPrOved rdPs desPite weaknesses the eligibility cOnditiOns/criteria set by the audited member states dO nOt restrict the scOPe Of the aid fOr diversificatiOn selectiOn PrOcedures did nOt direct funding tOwards the best PrOjects nO PrOactive management Of the measures the cOmmissiOn has nOt sufficiently used PerfOrmance infOrmatiOn tO imPrOve the efficiency and effectiveness Of diversificatiOn measures part two — wErE thE rIsks to EffIcIEncy and Economy suffIcIEntly mItIGatEd? efficiency member states’ checks give limited assurance Of the financial sustainability Of PrOjects member states’ PrOgramming and imPlementatiOn Of the measure dO nOt effectively mitigate risks Of deadweight ... ... and disPlacement Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 63–71 64–66 67–71 72–84 75–81 82 83 84 85–97 ecOnOmy POOr checks On the reasOnableness Of cOsts the administrative burden imPedes the effective and efficient imPlementatiOn Of PrOgrammes part thrEE — wErE EffEctIVE and EffIcIEnt projEcts actually fundEd? mOnitOring infOrmatiOn is lacking and PrOject results shOw a mixed Picture in terms Of efficiency and effectiveness diversificatiOn PrOjects can helP bOOst farmers’ financial PerfOrmance ... ... but when they aim tO create jObs they are Only Partially effective ... ... and there is an unknOwn effect On maintaining jObs conclusIons and rEcommEndatIons annEx I — Eu funds for axIs 3 dIVErsIfIcatIon mEasurEs proGrammEd and spEnt (as at fEbruary 2012) annEx II — court’s assEssmEnt of thE projEcts audItEd rEply of thE commIssIon 4 Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
63–71 64–66 67–71 72–84 75–81 82 83 84 85–97 hoSpodárnoSť nedoStatočné kontroly primeranoSti nákladov Byrokratická záťaž Bráni účinnej a efektívnej realizácii programov tretIa časť − skutočne sa fInancoValI ÚčInné a efektíVne projekty? chýBajú informácie z monitorovania a z výSledkov projektov vyplýva protichodný oBraz o efektívnoSti a účinnoSti diverzifikačné projekty môžu priSpieť k podpore finančnej výkonnoSti poľnohoSpodárov... ... keď je však ich cieľom vytvorenie pracovných mieSt, Sú účinné len čiaStočne... ... a vplyv na zachovanie pracovných mieSt je neznámy ZáVery a odporÚčanIa príloha I — plánoVané a použIté fInančné prostrIedky eÚ na dIVerZIfIkačné opatrenIa V rámcI osI 3 (k februáru 2012) príloha II — hodnotenIe kontroloVaných projektoV Vykonané dVorom audítoroV odpoVeď komIsIe 4 Osobitná správa č.
Eafrd: European agricultural fund for rural development. ftE: full-time Equivalent, a unit used to measure employed persons in a way that makes them comparable although they may work a different number of hours per week. the unit is obtained by comparing an employee’s average number of hours worked to the average number of hours of a full-time worker. 
5 GlOSáR epfrV: Európsky poľnohospodársky fond pre rozvoj vidieka. fte: Ekvivalent pracovného času na plný úväzok, jednotka, ktorá sa používa na meranie zamestnancov tak, aby boli porovnateľní, aj keď odpracujú odlišný počet hodín za týždeň.
GVa: Gross value added. measure: an aid scheme for implementing a policy. a measure defines the rules for the projects that can be financed within an axis. measure 311: the measure for ‘diversification into non-agricultural activities’. measure 312: the measure for ‘business creation and development intended for microenterprises’. measure 313: the measure for ‘encouragement of tourism activities’. mtE: Mid-term evaluation report. nsp: the national strategy plan is a document prepared by a Member state which shall ensure that community aid for rural development is consistent with the community strategic guidelines and that community, national and regional priorities all coordinate. the national strategy plan shall be a reference tool for preparing Eafrd programming. it shall be implemented through the rural development programmes. programming period: Multiannual framework to plan and implement Eu policies such as rural development policy; the current rural development period runs from 2007 to 2013. rdp: rural development programme, a programming document prepared by a Member state and approved by the commission to plan and implement the Eu’s rural development policy. a rdp may be prepared on regional or national level. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Táto jednotka je výsledkom porovnania priemerného počtu odpracovaných hodín zamestnanca s priemerným počtom hodín zamestnanca na plný pracovný čas. hph: Hrubá pridaná hodnota. mŕtva váha: Situácia, keď by sa podporovaný projekt plne alebo čiastočne realizoval bez grantovej pomoci. mte: Hodnotiace správy v polovici obdobia. nsp: Národný strategický plán je dokument vypracovaný členským štátom, ktorý zabezpečuje, že pomoc Spoločenstva na rozvoj vidieka je jednotná so strategickými usmerneniami Spoločenstva a že priority Spoločenstva, národné a regionálne priority sú navzájom koordinované. Národný strategický plán je referenčným nástrojom pre prípravu programu EPFRV. Realizuje sa prostredníctvom programov rozvoja vidieka. opatrenie 311: Opatrenie na „diverzifikáciu smerom k nepoľnohospodárskym činnostiam“. opatrenie 312: Opatrenie na „zriaďovanie a rozvoj mikropodnikov“. opatrenie 313: Opatrenie na „podporu činností v oblasti cestovného ruchu“. opatrenie: Systém pomoci na realizáciu politiky.
6 i. the Eu rural development policy intends to address rural problems such as depopulation, scarcity of economic opportunities and unemployment. it provides funding in order to support growth, employment and sustainable development in rural areas. ii. one of the three thematic axes of Eu rural development policy aims to improve the quality of life in rural areas and diversify the rural economy; it is known as axis 3. under this axis, three specific measures are intended to diversify the rural economy: — diversification into non-agricultural activities (measure 311); — support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises with a view to promoting entrepreneurship and developing the economic fabric (measure 312); and — encouragement of tourism activities (measure 313). iii. the Eu budget for these measures amounts to 5 billion euro for the period 2007–13. this Eu funding is supplemented by a further 2 billion euro programmed to come from national funds. 
Cieľom politiky rozvoja vidieka EÚ je riešiť problémy vidieka, ako sú napríklad vyľudňovanie vidieka, nedostatok hospodárskych príležitostí a nezamestnanosť. Finančné prostriedky sa poskytujú s cieľom podporiť rast, zamestnanosť a udržateľný rozvoj vidieckych oblastí. ii. Cieľom jednej z troch tematických osí politiky rozvoja vidieka EÚ je zlepšiť kvalitu života vo vidieckych oblastiach a diverzifikovať vidiecke hospodárstvo; označuje sa ako os 3.
EXECutIvE SuMMary v. the court concludes that overall the commission and the Member states have, only to a limited extent, achieved value for money through the measures for diversifying the rural economy, as the aid was not systematically directed to the projects that were most likely to achieve the purpose of the measures. this was due to a lack of clear needs for intervention or specific objectives set in the rdps, broad eligibility criteria adopted that did not limit the projects to those most likely to achieve diversification and selection criteria that did not choose the most effective projects or were not applied at all. too often, and particularly at the start of the programming period, the selection of projects was driven more by a need to spend the allocated budget than by the quality of the projects themselves. in some Member states, all eligible projects were funded where sufficient budget was available regardless of how the project was assessed. vi. 
Dvor audítorov dospel k záveru, že celkovo Komisia a členské štáty dosiahli prostredníctvom opatrení na diverzifikáciu vidieckeho hospodárstva efektívny pomer medzi kvalitou a nákladmi len v obmedzenom rozsahu, keďže pomoc sa systematicky nenasmerovala k projektom, prostredníctvom ktorých by sa najpravdepodobnejšie dosiahol účel opatrení.
Member states did not sufficiently mitigate the risks of deadweight and displacement, thus they did not ensure the most efficient use of resources. 
Členské štáty nezabezpečili dostatočné zmiernenie rizík mŕtvej váhy a presunu, a teda nezabezpečili najefektívnejšie využitie zdrojov.
Member states checks on reasonableness of costs did not sufficiently reduce the risk of inflated costs and there were examples of an excessive administrative burden on applicants and delays in payments. vii. there was a lack of effective monitoring and evaluation of the measures so that there is a real risk that the results of the funding allocated to the projects will not be known. the Eu’s strategic priority of job creation was not well targeted and there was a lack of active management when it was apparent that the targets set would not be met. iv. the court’s audit examined whether the commission and the Member states achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy. in particular, the court assessed whether these three measures were designed and implemented in such a way as to make an effective contribution to growth and jobs and whether the most effective and efficient projects were chosen for financing. furthermore, the court assessed whether the available monitoring and evaluation information provided reliable, complete and timely information on the outcomes of the measures. 
Členské štáty prostredníctvom kontrol primeranosti nákladov neznížili dostatočne riziko zvýšených nákladov a zistili sa prípady nadmerného administratívneho zaťaženia žiadateľov a omeškania platieb. vii. Chýbalo účinné monitorovanie a hodnotenie opatrení, preto existuje skutočné riziko, že nebudú známe výsledky rozpočtových prostriedkov pridelených projektom.
Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? viii. the court therefore recommends that: — in their rural development programmes (rdps), Member states should clearly identify how and why public intervention for investments in non-agricultural activities will help to redress for example market failures related to barriers to employment and growth. the Member states should then set specific and measurable objectives in relation to these needs. the commission should approve only those rdps that present substantiated and comprehensive strategies with a clear rationale that show how policy intervention will contribute to strategic aims of creating growth conditions and employment opportunities. — Member states should establish and consistently apply criteria to ensure the selection of the most effective, sustainable projects with respect to the Member states’ specific objectives. the commission should ensure that these criteria are correctly and continuously applied, not only in cases of budgetary shortage. — the commission and Member states should promote the adoption of best practices in respect of mitigating the risks of deadweight and displacement. the commission should encourage Member states to adopt the practice whereby expenditure for investments would be eligible only as of the date of grant approval. — the commission should ensure that Member states have effective systems to carry out checks on reasonableness of costs. 
Dvor audítorov preto odporúča: — Členské štáty by mali vo svojich programov rozvoja vidieka (PRV) jasne určiť, ako a prečo prispeje verejná pomoc v oblasti investícií do nepoľnohospodárskych činností k náprave napríklad zlyhania trhu súvisiaceho s prekážkami zamestnanosti a rastu. V súvislosti s týmito potrebami by preto členské štáty mali stanoviť konkrétne a merateľné ciele. Komisia by mala schváliť len tie programy rozvoja vidieka, ktoré predstavujú opodstatnené a komplexné stratégie s jednoznačným odôvodnením preukazujúcim, ako pomoc v rámci politiky prispeje k strategickým cieľom vytvorenia podmienok pre rast a pracovné príležitosti. — Členské štáty by mali stanoviť a dôsledne uplatňovať kritériá na zabezpečenie výberu najefektívnejších, trvalo udržateľných projektov vzhľadom na konkrétne ciele členských štátov.
EXECutIvE SuMMary — the commission and Member states should ensure that for the forthcoming programming period, relevant and reliable information is obtained to facilitate management and monitoring of the measure and to demonstrate the extent to which the aid given is contributing to the achievement of Eu priorities. the targets for job creation should be realistic and the numbers of jobs created accurately monitored, the measures should be better managed throughout the programming period and particularly if it becomes apparent that targets set will not be achieved. — the commission and Member states should increase their efforts in reducing the administrative burden and ensuring that payments are made in a reasonable timeframe. 
Komisia by mala podporiť členské štáty, aby prijali postup, na základe ktorého by boli výdavky na investície oprávnené až odo dňa schválenia grantu. — Komisia by mala zabezpečiť, aby členské štáty mali účinné systémy na vykonávanie kontrol primeranosti nákladov. zhRNUTIE — Komisia a členské štáty by mali zabezpečiť, aby sa v nasledujúcom programovom období získali relevantné a spoľahlivé informácie s cieľom umožniť riadenie a monitorovanie opatrenia a preukázať, v akom rozsahu poskytnutá pomoc prispieva k dosiahnutiu priorít EÚ.
8 INtroduCtIoN 1. the Eu rural development policy intends to address rural problems such as depopulation, scarcity of economic opportunities and unemployment. it provides funding in order to support growth, employment and sustainable development in rural areas. 
8 ÚVOD 1. Cieľom politiky rozvoja vidieka EÚ je riešiť problémy vidieka, ako napríklad vyľudňovanie vidieka, nedostatok hospodárskych príležitostí a nezamestnanosť.
Eu rural development policy for 2007 to 2013 is focused on three themes (known as ‘thematic axes’). these are: ο axis 1 — improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector; ο axis 2 — improving the environment and the countryside; ο axis 3 — improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging the diversification of the rural economy1. 
Politika rozvoja vidieka EÚ na obdobie 2007 – 2013 je zameraná na tri oblasti (označované ako tematické osi). Ide o: ο Os 1 – zlepšenie konkurencieschopnosti odvetvia poľnohospodárstva a lesného hospodárstva; ο Os 2 – zlepšenie životného prostredia a vidieka; ο Os 3 – zlepšenie kvality života vo vidieckych oblastiach a podpora diverzifikácie vidieckeho hospodárstva1.