natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Executive summary 08 (ii) how to improve the scheme for supporting investments in the processing of agricultural products, taking into consideration the follow‐ ing elements: — the actual need for public aid for this sec‐ tor and the risk of deadweight; — the categories of beneficiaries targeted: farmers looking to achieve vertical integra‐ tion of their business, or companies which have no agricultural activity; — the high public aid ceiling, which consti‐ tutes an incentive for large corporations, as only they have access to the required co‐financing; — the entire set of eligibility conditions and the potential for circumventing them; — greater efforts to improve the design and performance of administrative and on‐the‐spot controls. (iii) the agri‐environment payments measure so that, as far as possible, commitments can be controlled via Member States’ administrative checks. 
Povzetek 08 (ii) kako izboljšati shemo za podporo naložbam v predelavo kmetijskih proizvodov ob upoštevanju naslednjih elementov: – dejansko potrebo po javni pomoči za ta sektor in tveganje mrtvih izgub; – kategorije upravičencev, v katere je shema usmerjena: kmetje, ki želijo doseči vertikalno integracijo svojih podjetij, ali družbe, ki se ne ukvarjajo s kmetijsko dejavnostjo; – visoko zgornjo mejo za javno pomoč, ki je spodbuda za velike korporacije, saj imajo samo te dostop do potrebnega sofinanciranja; – celoten sklop pogojev za upravičenost in možnosti za zaobhajanje teh pogojev; – več prizadevanj za izboljšanje zasnove in uspešnosti administrativnih pregledov in pregledov na kraju samem. (iii) ukrep kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil, da se bodo lahko obveznosti, kolikor je mogoče, nadzirale z administrativnimi pregledi držav članic.
Introduction 09 01 The European Union (EU) allocated almost 100 billion euro to achieving ru‐ ral development objectives during the 2007–13 programming period. 
Uvod 09 01 Evropska unija (EU) je v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 dodelila skoraj 100 milijard EUR za doseganje ciljev na področju razvoja podeželja.
Mem‐ ber States also allocated 55 billion euro of their own resources to co‐finance the EU’s rural development policy. 
Države članice so namenile še 55 milijard EUR svojih lastnih sredstev za sofinanciranje politike EU za razvoj podeželja.
This public support is implemented under ‘shared management’ arrangements (see Figure 1). 
Ta javna podpora se izvaja v okviru ureditev „deljenega upravljanja“ (glej sliko 1).
02 Member States allocated around half of the rural development budget to support investment measures. 
02 Države članice so približno polovico proračuna za razvoj podeželja dodelile za podporo naložbenim ukrepom.
Exam‐ ples of such measures are the modern‐ isation of agricultural holdings, setting up of young farmers or improving basic services for the rural population. 
Primeri takih ukrepov so posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev, pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij ali izboljšanje osnovnih storitev za podeželsko prebivalstvo.
Area‐related aid received the other half of the funding. 
Druga polovica financiranja je bila namenjena za pomoč na površino.
The largest measures under this type of aid are agri‐envi‐ ronment payments and compensatory payments to farmers in areas with natural handicaps, such as mountain areas. 
Najpomembnejši ukrepi v okviru te vrste pomoči so kmetijsko-okoljska plačila in kompenzacijska plačila kmetom na območjih z naravnimi omejitvami, kot so gorska območja.
The Annex of this report lists all measures and their financial execution. 
V Prilogi k temu poročilu so navedeni vsi ukrepi in njihovo finančno izvajanje.
03 The Court’s Annual Reports published since 2011 have included specific as‐ sessments of the ‘rural development, environment, fisheries and health’ pol‐ icy group, of which rural development spending represents around 90 %. 
03 V letna poročila Sodišča, objavljena od leta 2011, so vključene posebne ocene skupine politik „razvoj podeželja, okolje, ribištvo in zdravje“, v kateri je približno 90 % sredstev namenjenih za razvoj podeželja.
This assessment is based on the results of the Court’s testing of the legality and regularity of transactions and the ef‐ fectiveness of control systems. 
Ta ocena temelji na rezultatih preizkušanja zakonitosti in pravilnosti transakcij, ki ga izvaja Sodišče, ter uspešnosti kontrolnih sistemov.
04 For rural development alone, the Court estimates the average error rate for expenditure incurred during the past 3 years was 8,2 % based on a repre‐ sentative sample of transactions (see also paragraph 8)5. 
04 Po oceni Sodišča na podlagi reprezentativnega vzorca transakcij je samo na področju razvoja podeželja povprečna stopnja napake za odhodke, nastale v zadnjih treh letih, znašala 8,2 % (glej tudi odstavek 8)5.
Box 1 shows how the cases of non‐compliance identi‐ fied for the individual transactions are quantified for the purposes of calculat‐ ing the error rate. 
V okviru 1 je ponazorjeno, kako se primeri neskladnosti, ugotovljeni pri posameznih transakcijah, količinsko opredelijo za izračun stopnje napake.
05 The significant level of non‐compli‐ ance with applicable rules, as reflected by the high error rate6, means that the money concerned is not spent accord‐ ing to the rules. 
05 Visoka stopnja neskladnosti z veljavnimi pravili, ki se odraža v visoki stopnji napake6, pomeni, da se zadevna sredstva ne porabljajo v skladu s pravili.
This may negatively affect the attainment of rural develop‐ ment policy objectives (improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry; improving the environment and the countryside; improving the quality of life in rural areas and encour‐ aging the diversification of economic activity). 
To bi lahko negativno vplivalo na doseganje ciljev politike za razvoj podeželja (izboljšanje konkurenčnosti kmetijstva in gozdarstva; izboljšanje okolja in podeželja; izboljšanje kakovosti življenja na podeželskih območjih in spodbujanje diverzifikacije gospodarskih dejavnosti).
5 The 8,2 % is an average for the 3 years with a lower limit of 6,1 % and an upper limit of 10,3 %. 
5 8,2 % je povprečje za ta tri leta s spodnjo mejo 6,1 % in zgornjo mejo 10,3 %.
The average is composed of 8,4 % for 2011, 8,3%for2012and7,9%for 2013. 
Povprečje je izračunano iz 8,4 % za leto 2011, 8,3 % za leto 2012 in 7,9 % za leto 2013.
6 The Court’s materiality threshold is 2 % of audited expenditure. 
6 Prag pomembnosti, ki ga je določilo Sodišče, znaša 2 % revidiranih odhodkov.
This means that, in the auditors’ judgement, total errors below this threshold are unlikely to be material; in other words, they are not likely to influence users of the financial information. 
To pomeni, da po presoji revizorjev skupne napake pod tem pragom verjetno niso pomembne, ali povedano drugače, da te napake verjetno ne bodo vplivale na uporabnike finančnih informacij.
Introduction 10 Implementation of the EU’s rural development policy under shared management Rural development policy defined at EU level (Community Strategic Guidelines, Council regulation) Regulatory framework: Based on the regulations set at EU level, Member States draw up Rural Development Programmes at national or regional level, in which they define a strategy and propose the measures they wish to use to address their identified needs. 
Uvod 10 Izvajanje politike EU za razvoj podeželja v okviru deljenega upravljanja Politika za razvoj podeželja, opredeljena na ravni EU (strateške smernice Skupnosti, Uredba Sveta) Regulativni okvir: Države članice na podlagi predpisov na ravni EU pripravijo programe razvoja podeželja na nacionalni ali regionalni ravni, v katerih opredelijo strategijo in predlagajo ukrepe, s katerimi želijo obravnavati ugotovljene potrebe.
Funds are to be channelled by using eligibility and/or selection criteria defined in the Member States implementing provisions. 
Sredstva je treba usmerjati z uporabo meril za upravičenost in/ali izbirnih meril, opredeljenih v izvedbenih določbah držav članic.
Strategic programming at Member State level (National Strategic Plans, Rural Development Programmes) Proposed by the Commission and approved by the Council Proposed by Member States and approved by the Commission Detailed rules and procedures at Member State level (national or regional legislation, procedures, guides) Member States organise call for projects Application stage (funding allocated to beneficiaries) (contracts signed between beneficiaries and Member States) Budget execution: Based on financing contracts signed with Member States, beneficiaries implement the projects and submit payment claims to receive public aid corresponding to a certain percentage of eligible costs incurred. 
Predlaga Komisija in odobri Svet Strateško programsko načrtovanje na ravni držav članic (nacionalni strateški načrti, programi razvoja podeželja) Podrobna pravila in postopki na ravni držav članic (nacionalna ali regionalna zakonodaja, postopki, navodila) Predlagajo države članice in odobri Komisija Države članice organizirajo razpis za projekte Faza oddaje vlog (sredstva, dodeljena upravičencem) (pogodbe, podpisane med upravičenci in državami članicami) Izvrševanje proračuna: Na podlagi pogodb o financiranju, podpisanih z državami članicami, upravičenci izvajajo projekte in predložijo zahtevke za plačila, da bi prejeli javno pomoč, ki ustreza nekemu odstotku nastalih upravičenih stroškov.
Member States perform verifications on the appropriate implementation of the project and on the correctness of the payment claim and transfer the public aid to beneficiaries (including the EU co-financing). 
Države članice preverjajo ustrezno izvajanje projektov in pravilnost zahtevkov za plačilo ter upravičencem nakažejo javno pomoč (vključno s sofinanciranjem EU).
On a quarterly basis, Member States submit declarations of expenditure to the Commission, to reclaim the EU portion of the public aid. 
Vsake tri mesece države članice Komisiji predložijo izjave o odhodkih, da od EU prejmejo njen del državne pomoči.
Upon verification, the Commission reimburses the Member State for the EU co-financing paid. 
Po preverjanju Komisija državam članicam povrne sofinanciranje EU, ki so ga plačale.
Implementation stage (beneficiaries carry out the project/commitment) (contracts with third parties/farming practices) Beneficiaries put in practice the approved project Beneficiaries submit payment claims Payment claim stage (Member States disburse public aid to beneficiaries, after performing checks) (payment claims) Member States reclaim the EU co-financing from the Commission Commission disburses EU co-financing to Member States (declarations of expenditure) Figure 1 
Faza izvajanja (upravičenci izvedejo projekt/zavezo) (pogodbe s tretjimi stranmi/kmetijske prakse) Upravičenci udejanjijo odobrene projekte Upravičenci vložijo zahtevke za plačilo Faza zahtevkov za plačilo (države članice izplačajo javno pomoč upravičencem, potem ko opravijo preglede) (zahtevki za plačilo) Države članice vložijo zahtevke, da od Komisije prejmejo sofinanciranje EU Komisija razdeljuje sofinanciranje EU državam članicam (izjave o odhodkih) Slika 1
Introduction 11 Calculation of the error rate The Court defines as errors those transactions (or parts thereof) which were not in accordance with the pur‐ poses approved by the budget and the legal basis, not correctly calculated and/or not in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. 
Uvod 11 Izračun stopnje napake Sodišče kot napake opredeljuje transakcije (ali njihove dele), ki niso bile v skladu z nameni, za katere so bile v proračunu odobrene, in s pravno podlago, niso bile pravilno izračunane in niso bile v skladu z ustreznimi pravili in predpisi.
To assess whether an error has occurred, the Court aims to answer the following question: ‘Would the amount paid, or the contractor selected, have been different if the applicable procedures had been followed correctly?’. 
Sodišče želi odgovoriti na naslednja vprašanja, da bi ocenilo, ali je prišlo do napake: „Ali bi bil izplačan drugačen znesek ali izbran drug izvajalec, če bi bili veljavni postopki pravilno upoštevani?”
The error rate for each irregular transaction is the ratio of the error amount to the total amount paid. 
Stopnja napake za vsako nepravilno transakcijo je razmerje med zneskom, na katerega je vplivala napaka, in skupnim plačanim zneskom.
These error rates are then extrapolated to the amount of the entire population audited. 
Te stopnje napake se nato ekstrapolirajo na znesek celotne revidirane populacije.
7 EU legislation requires Member States to apply reductions where beneficiaries over‐claim the actual area or number of animals, or do not respect commitments. 
7 Zakonodaja EU zahteva, da države članice uporabijo znižanja, kadar upravičenci prijavijo površino, ki je večja od dejanske, ali preveliko število živali, ali ne izpolnjujejo zavez.
Audit scope and approach 06 This report describes the main causes of the high error rate for rural devel‐ opment. 
Obseg revizije 12 in revizijski pristop 06 V tem poročilu so opisani glavni vzroki za visoko stopnjo napake na področju razvoja podeželja.
It also assesses whether the steps taken by the Member States and the Commission are likely to address the identified causes effectively in future. 
V njem je tudi ocenjeno, ali je za ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele države članice in Komisija, verjetno, da bodo v prihodnje uspešno obravnavali ugotovljene vzroke.
The report includes information made available to the auditors up to the end of September 2014, when the audit work was completed. 
V poročilo so vključene informacije, ki so bile revizorjem dane na voljo do konca septembra 2014, ko je bilo končano revizijsko delo.
07 The overall audit question was: To what extent are the main causes of the high error rate for rural devel‐ opment being effectively addressed by the Commission and the Member States? 
07 Splošno revizijsko vprašanje je bilo: V kolikšni meri Komisija in države članice uspešno obravnavajo glavne razloge za visoko stopnjo napake na področju razvoja podeželja?
The detailed questions which the audit aimed to answer were: — What are the main causes of the er‐ ror rate in investment measures? — What are the main causes of the error rate in area‐related aid? — Do the Member States’ action plans and the new EU legal frame‐ work have the potential to address these causes effectively? 
Podrobna vprašanja, na katera smo z revizijo iskali odgovore, so bila: – Kateri so glavni vzroki za stopnjo napake pri naložbenih ukrepih? – Kateri so glavni vzroki za stopnjo napake pri pomoči na površino? – Ali bi akcijski načrti držav članic in nov pravni okvir EU lahko uspešno obravnavali te vzroke?
12 08 To reply to the first two sub‐ques‐ tions, the Court analysed the results reported for the sample of transac‐ tions selected randomly during the audits of legality and regularity for 2011, 2012 and 2013. 
08 Za odgovor na prvi podvprašanji je Sodišče analiziralo sporočene rezultate za vzorec transakcij, ki so bile naključno izbrane med revizijami zakonitosti in pravilnosti za leta 2011, 2012 in 2013.
Taking the results of 3 years instead of one allows for a more detailed analysis of the types of error. 
Upoštevanje rezultatov treh let namesto enega omogoča podrobnejšo analizo vrst napak.
The analysis included reviewing 4618 transactions, of which 160 had an impact on the error rate. 
Analiza je vključevala pregled 4618 transakcij, od katerih jih je 160 vplivalo na stopnjo napake.
This identifi‐ cation of the causes of errors was com‐ plemented by knowledge stemming from the Court’s examination of the control systems operating in the Mem‐ ber States between 2011 and 2013. 
Ugotavljanje vzrokov za napake je bilo dopolnjeno z vedenjem, ki ga je Sodišče pridobilo s preučitvijo kontrolnih sistemov, ki so v državah članicah delovali med letoma 2011 in 2013.
09 In its reply to the 2012 Annual Report, the Commission indicated that ex‐ tensive action plans had been imple‐ mented for each of the 27 Member States to identify the causes of errors and to develop appropriate remedial action. 
09 Komisija je v svojem odgovoru na letno poročilo za leto 2012 navedla, da so bili za vsako od 27 držav članic izvedeni obsežni akcijski načrti za ugotavljanje vzrokov za napake in pripravo ustreznih popravljalnih ukrepov.
The Court selected 10 of these action plans9 and investigated whether they targeted the weaknesses identi‐ fied by the Court, the Commission and the Member States themselves. 
Sodišče je izbralo 10 od teh akcijskih načrtov9 in preučilo, ali so bili usmerjeni v slabosti, ki so jih ugotovili Sodišče, Komisija in države članice same.
This exercise, which built partially on the work performed for the annual report, also involved interviews with the Com‐ mission’s desk officers for the Member States concerned. 
Ta postopek, ki delno temelji na delu za pripravo letnega poročila, je vključeval tudi pogovore z referenti Komisije za zadevne države članice.
8 Of the 482 transactions referred to in the Annual Reports for 2011, 2012 and 2013, 21 transactions were excluded because they represented payments for the closure of previous programming periods, or payments under the pre‐accession assistance programme. 
8 Od 482 transakcij iz letnih poročil za leta 2011, 2012 in 2013 je bilo 21 transakcij izključenih, ker so bila to plačila za zaključek prejšnjih programskih obdobij ali plačila v okviru programa predpristopne pomoči.
9 Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany — Berlin‐Brandenburg, Spain, France, Italy — Lombardy, Latvia, Hungary, Portugal and Romania. 
9 Bolgarija, Danska, Nemčija – Berlin-Brandenburg, Španija, Francija, Italija – Lombardija, Latvija, Madžarska, Portugalska in Romunija.
Audit scope and approach 13 10 At the date of adoption of this report, the EU regulations for the new 2014–20 rural development programming pe‐ riod had already been approved. 
Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 13 10 Na dan sprejetja tega poročila so bile uredbe EU za novo programsko obdobje za razvoj podeželja 2014– 2020 že odobrene.
This allowed the auditors to consider the extent to which the changes intro‐ duced by the new legal framework were likely to have a significant impact on the causes of errors. 
To je revizorjem omogočilo, da so preučili, koliko je za spremembe, uvedene z novim pravnim okvirom, verjetno, da bodo pomembno vplivale na vzroke za napake.
The Member States’ regulatory frameworks for the new programming period were still in the drafting stage and therefore did not fall under the scope of this report. 
Regulativni okviri držav članic za novo programsko obdobje so bili še v fazi priprave in zato niso bili vključeni v to poročilo.
11 This report focuses on the compliance of rural development implementa‐ tion with the applicable laws and regulations, and only makes marginal references to performance aspects — economy, effectiveness and efficiency. 
11 To poročilo je osredotočeno na skladnost izvajanja ukrepov za razvoj podeželja z veljavnimi zakoni in predpisi in se le obrobno sklicuje na vidike smotrnosti – gospodarnost, uspešnost in učinkovitost.
These elements of sound financial management are extensively covered by other special reports of the Court. 
Ti elementi dobrega finančnega poslovodenja so obsežno obravnavani v drugih posebnih poročilih Sodišča.
Types and prevalence 14 of errors found Overall 12 This section contains an analysis of the sample of 461 payments examined, and of the 160 on which the average error rate of 8,2 % is based. 
Vrste in pogostost 14 ugotovljenih napak Splošno 12 Ta oddelek vsebuje analizo vzorca 461 preučenih plačil in 160 plačil, na katerih temelji povprečna stopnja napake 8,2 %.
13 Figure 2 shows that the sample was almost equally split between the two main types of measures. 
13 Na sliki 2 je prikazano, da je bil vzorec skoraj enakovredno razdeljen med glavni vrsti ukrepov.
It also shows that investment measures accounted for a greater proportion of the error rate (around two thirds) than area‐re‐ lated aid (around one third). 
Prikazano je tudi, da so naložbeni ukrepi pomenili večji delež stopnje napake (približno dve tretjini) kot pomoč na površino (približno eno tretjino).
14 As Figure 1 shows, the regulatory framework comprises two layers: the EU level, which sets general require‐ ments and conditions, and the Member State level. 
14 Kot je prikazano v diagramu 1, regulativni okvir sestavljata dve plasti: raven EU, ki določa splošne zahteve in pogoje, in raven držav članic.
Member States implement the requirements of EU regulations and establish additional conditions according to their own pol‐ icy objectives. 
Države članice izvajajo zahteve uredb EU in določijo dodatne pogoje v skladu s cilji svojih politik.
Regarding the type of legislation breached, the Court found that only 1,3 percentage points of the error rate were due to non‐compliance with direct provisions of EU regula‐ tions. 
Sodišče je v zvezi z vrstami kršene zakonodaje ugotovilo, da je le 1,3 odstotne točke stopnje napake posledica neskladnosti z neposrednimi določbami uredb EU.
Most of the error rate (6,9 per‐ centage points) was due to breaches of conditions set at Member State level. 
Večina stopnje napake (6,9 odstotne točke) je posledica kršitve pogojev, določenih na ravni držav članic.
Share of area‐related aid and investment measures in the sample and the error rate 214 Area-related aid Investment measures 247 sample error rate 2,5% 5,7% Figure 2 
Delež pomoči na površino in naložbenih ukrepov v vzorcu in pri stopnji napake 214 pomoč na površino naložbeni ukrepi 247 vzorec stopnja napake 2,5% 5,7% Slika 2
Types and prevalence of errors found 15 Investment measures 15 Figure 3 presents a breakdown of the different types of beneficiaries for investment measures. It shows that public bodies caused a quarter of the 8,2 % error rate. 
Vrste in pogostost ugotovljenih napak 15 Naložbeni ukrepi 15 Na sliki 3 je prikazana razčlenitev različnih vrst upravičencev do naložbenih ukrepov, ki kaže, da so javni organi povzročili četrtino 8,2-odstotne stopnje napake.
There are two main categories of private beneficiary: farmers and those without agricultural activity. 
Obstajata dve glavni kategoriji zasebnih upravičencev: kmetovalci in upravičenci brez kmetijske dejavnosti.
The latter represented a fifth of the sample, but contributed to a third of the error rate for investment projects. 
Zadnji predstavljajo petino vzorca, vendar so prispevali k tretjini stopnje napake za naložbene projekte.
16 For investment measures, the most common errors found were breaches of eligibility conditions, indications that private beneficiaries may have committed intentional irregularities, and failures to comply with public and private procurement rules (see Figure 4). 
16 Pri naložbenih ukrepih so bile najpogostejše ugotovljene napake kršitve pogojev za upravičenost, znaki, da bi lahko zasebni upravičenci namerno storili nepravilnosti, in neupoštevanje pravil o javnem in zasebnem naročanju (glej sliko 4).
Investment projects typically consist of a small number of individual high‐value cost items. 
Naložbene projekte običajno sestavlja majhno število posameznih stroškovnih postavk z visoko vrednostjo.
This means that when individual cost items are deemed to be ineligible, they result in a relatively high error rate as a pro‐ portion of the total payment. 
To pomeni, da posamezne stroškovne postavke, kadar štejejo za neupravičene, povzročajo razmeroma visoko stopnjo napake kot delež celotnega plačila.
Also, if projects or beneficiaries are ineligible, this results in a 100 % error rate being applied to the audited payment. 
Če projekti ali upravičenci niso upravičeni, se za revidirano plačilo uporabi 100-odstotna stopnja napake.
Share of different types of investment beneficiaries in the sample and the error rate 95 2,3% Public bodies Private beneficiaries excluding farmers Farmers 46 106 1,8% 1,6 % sample error rate Figure 3 
Delež različnih vrst upravičencev do naložbenih ukrepov v vzorcu in pri stopnji napake 95 2,3% javni organi zasebni upravičenci razen kmetov kmetje 46 106 1,8% 1,6 % vzorec stopnja napake Slika 3