natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Among other conditions, expenditure was eligible only if it was incurred after the project application had been submitted (as a means of avoiding deadweight and ensuring that only farmers who really needed the aid received it). 
Eden od pogojev je bil, da so odhodki upravičeni le, če so stroški nastali po predložitvi projektne vloge (za preprečevanje mrtvih izgub in zagotovitev, da pomoč prejmejo samo kmetje, ki jo resnično potrebujejo).
When reviewing the payment claim, the Court found cost items, representing more than 10 % of the amount claimed, that had been incurred before the date of the application for support. 
Pri pregledu zahtevka za plačilo je Sodišče odkrilo stroškovne postavke, ki pomenijo več kot 10 % zahtevanega zneska, ki so nastale pred datumom vloge za podporo.
These items of expenditure were therefore ineligible. 
Te postavke odhod‐ kov so bile zato neupravičene.
33 Member States implemented both EU requirements and their own policy ob‐ jectives through national and regional legislation; this typically included rural development programmes, implementing regulations, procedure manuals and applicant guides. 
33 Države članice so izvajale zahteve EU in cilje svojih lastnih politik z nacionalno in regionalno zakonodajo; to je običajno vključevalo programe razvoja podeželja, izvedbene uredbe, priročnike za postopke in navodila za prosilce.
This has resulted in a considerable number of rules and requirements being appli‐ cable. 
Zato je bilo veljavno veliko število pravil in zahtev.
However, in the opinion of the Court, such rules are often needed to ensure that public funds are used to reach policy objectives and respect the principles of sound financial management. 
Toda po mnenju Sodišča so ta pravila pogosto potrebna za zagotavljanje, da so javna sredstva porabljena za dosego ciljev politike in da se upoštevajo načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
Table 2 
Tabela 2
Observations 23 34 The Court considers that, for the projects audited, the rules were not unnecessarily complex and did not impose unjustified requirements on beneficiaries and Member State authorities. 
Opažanja 23 34 Sodišče meni, da pravila pri revidiranih projektih niso bila po nepotrebnem zapletena in niso nalagala neutemeljenih zahtev za upravičence in organe držav članic.
While limited examples of gold‐plating were found, these had only a marginal impact on the error rate. 
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi manjše število primerov prekomerne regulacije, vendar so ti imeli le majhen učinek na stopnjo napake.
35 There is a risk that Member States may withdraw effective rules in order to prevent errors. 
35 Obstaja tveganje, da bi države članice odpravile uspešna pravila, da bi preprečile napake.
Effective rules are important for achieving the objectives of the policy. 
Uspešna pravila so pomembna za doseganje ciljev politike.
The Court considers that simplification should not hamper the principles of sound financial manage‐ ment. 
Sodišče meni, da poenostavitev ne bi smela ogroziti načel dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
For example (see Box 3), the original Portuguese rule described in the case below is an effective way of excluding investments which would have been made anyway, without public aid. 
Na primer, (glej okvir 3) prvotna portugalska pravila, opisana spodaj, so učinkovit način za izključevanje naložb, ki bi bile izvedene tudi brez javne pomoči.
When investments would have been carried out anyway, public support was not necessary. 
Kadar bi bile naložbe izvedene v vsakem primeru, javna podpora ni bila potrebna.
In fact, in several special reports, the Court has criticised the fact that expenditure is eligible before the application is submitted, and recommended that expenditure should only be eligible from grant approval. 
Sodišče je že v več posebnih poročilih kritiziralo to, da so upravičeni odhodki, ki so nastali pred predložitvijo vloge, in priporočilo, naj bodo odhodki upravičeni šele od odobritve nepovratnih sredstev.
Thus, in the case concerned, the solution for preventing errors would not be that the Member State would withdraw an effective rule but would prevent errors by better checking the payment claims. 
Zato v zadevnem primeru rešitev za preprečevanje napak ne bi bilo to, da država članica prekliče uspešno pravilo, temveč da prepreči napake z boljšim preverjanjem zahtevkov za plačila.
No eligibility errors found in the measure ‘setting up of young farmers’ 36 The sample of 461 projects audited included 20 under the measure ‘Set‐ ting up of young farmers’. 
Pri ukrepu „pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij” ni bilo ugotovljenih napak v zvezi z upravičenostjo 36 V vzorcu s 461 revidiranimi projekti je bilo 20 projektov v okviru ukrepa „pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij”.
This sup‐ port is granted to people aged below 40 who become owners of a farm for the first time. 
Ta podpora se odobri posameznikom, mlajšim od 40 let, ki prvič postanejo lastniki kmetije.
The support is provided in the form of a maximum lump sum payment of 70 000 euro, the aim of which is to help these farmers to set up and develop their farms. 
Podpora se zagotovi v obliki izplačila maksimalnega pavšalnega zneska v višini 70 000 EUR, katerega cilj je pomagati kmetovalcem pri začetku dejavnosti in razvijanju njihovih kmetij.
Beneficiar‐ ies can use the support to purchase land, buildings, equipment, and animals, and to cover working capital requirements. 
Upravičenci lahko uporabijo podporo za nakup zemljišč, zgradb, opreme in živali ter za kritje potreb po obratnem kapitalu.
Example of withdrawing an effective eligibility criterion In Portugal, investments made before submitting an application for support were considered ineligible at the start of the programming period in 2007. 
Primer preklica uspešnega merila za upravičenost Na Portugalskem so na začetku programskega obdobja leta 2007 naložbe, izvedene pred predložitvijo vloge za podporo, štele za neupravičene.
The sample of audited cases included two where for certain cost items this rule had not been respected, rendering the expenditure concerned ineligible. 
Vzorec revidiranih primerov je vseboval dva, pri katerih se to pravilo za nekatere stroškovne postavke ni upoštevalo, zato so bili zadevni odhodki neupravičeni.
The national rules were amended in 2011. 
Nacionalna pravila so bila spremenjena leta 2011.
Expenditure incurred before the application for support is submit‐ ted is now eligible. Box 3 
Odhodki, nastali pred predložitvijo vloge za podporo, so zdaj upravičeni. Okvir 3
Observations 24 37 In addition to the basic eligibility re‐ quirements (less than 40 years old and setting up a farm for the first time), the Council regulation15 stipulates two further conditions. 
Opažanja 24 37 V Uredbi Sveta15 sta poleg osnovnih zahtev za upravičenost (mlajši od 40 let in prvi začetek dejavnosti na kmetiji) določena dva dodatna pogoja.
Beneficiaries must possess adequate occupational skills and competence, and must submit a business plan. 
Upravičenci morajo imeti ustrezna poklicna strokovna znanja in usposobljenost ter predložiti poslovni načrt.
For the 20 projects audited, Member States set a small number of detailed requirements. 
Za 20 revidiranih projektov so države članice določile majhno število podrobnih zahtev.
For example, farmers were required to gain adequate skills and competences within 3 years through training, and to prepare and follow a simplified busi‐ ness plan describing the initial situ‐ ation of the agricultural holding and specific milestones and targets for the development of the activities. 
Na primer, kmetovalci so morali v treh letih z usposabljanjem pridobiti ustrezna strokovna znanja in usposobljenost ter pripraviti in izvajati poenostavljen poslovni načrt, v katerem je bilo opisano prvotno stanje kmetijskega gospodarstva ter specifični mejniki in cilji za razvoj dejavnosti.
38 While certain procedural weaknesses and concerns regarding sound finan‐ cial management were identified, the Court did not find any errors of legality and regularity in relation to the manner in which young farmers had prepared and carried out their projects. 
38 Sodišče je odkrilo nekatere postopkovne slabosti in pomisleke glede dobrega finančnega poslovodenja, ni pa ugotovilo nobene napake glede zakonitosti in pravilnosti v zvezi z načinom priprave in izvedbe projektov mladih kmetovalcev.
In the Court’s view, this is due to the small number of detailed re‐ quirements, the focused scope of the measure and the use of lump sum pay‐ ments. 
Sodišče meni, da je to zaradi majhnega števila podrobnih zahtev, osredotočenosti področja uporabe ukrepa in uporabe pavšalnih plačil.
Of course, schemes such as this one must also deliver value for money and demonstrate sound financial man‐ agement — and these are beyond the scope of this report. 
Seveda morajo sheme, kot je ta, zagotoviti tudi stroškovno učinkovitost in upoštevati dobro finančno poslovodenje – to pa ni bilo vključeno v to poročilo.
But the example does show that the relative simplicity of a scheme does impact on the level of irregularities. 
Toda ta primer kaže, da relativna preprostost sheme vpliva na stopnjo nepravilnosti.
Indications that private beneficiaries may have committed intentional irregularities 39 Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 states that where a ben‐ eficiary is found to have intentionally made a false declaration, the operation in question must be excluded from support and any amounts already paid for that operation must be recovered16. 
Znaki, da so zasebni upravi‐ čenci morda storili namerne nepravilnosti 39 V Uredbi Komisije (EU) št.
40 Fraud may consist of one or more of the following17: — The use or presentation of incor‐ rect or incomplete statements or documents leading to wrongful payment of funds from the EU budget or budgets managed by, or on behalf of, the EU; — The non‐disclosure of required information with the same effect; — The misuse of funds for purposes other than those for which they were originally granted. 
65/2011 je določeno, da se, kadar se ugotovi, da je upravičenec namerno vložil napačno prijavo, zadevna dejavnost izključi iz podpore, za vse že plačane zneske za to dejavnost pa se zahteva povračilo.16 40 Goljufije imajo lahko naslednje elemente:17 – uporabo ali predložitev nepravilnih ali nepopolnih izjav ali dokumentov, ki privede do neupravičenega plačila sredstev iz proračuna EU ali proračunov, ki jih upravlja EU ali so upravljani v imenu EU; – nerazkritje zahtevanih informacij z enakim učinkom; – zlorabo sredstev za druge namene kot za tiste, za katere so bila prvotno odobrena.
41 In 4 % of the private investment pro‐ jects audited (6 out of 152), the Court found indications that beneficiaries may have committed intentional ir‐ regularities. 
41 Pri 4 % revidiranih zasebnih naložbenih projektov (6 od 152) je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so upravičenci morda storili namerne nepravilnosti.
These cases account for one eighth of the average error rate for rural development. 
Ti primeri predstavljajo osmino povprečne stopnje napake na področju razvoja podeželja.
15 Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
15 Člen 22 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005.
16 Articles 4.8 and 30.2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011. 
16 Člena 4(8) in 30(2) Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 65/2011.
17 Fraud, as applied in Community law, is defined in Article 1 of Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. 
17 Pojem goljufije, kot se uporablja v zakonodaji Skupnosti, je opredeljen v členu 1 Akta Sveta z dne 26. julija 1995 o pripravi Konvencije o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti.
Observations 25 42 The Court reports all cases where there are indications of intentional irregulari‐ ties to OLAF for further analysis and appropriate follow‐up. 
Opažanja 25 42 Sodišče o vseh primerih, v katerih obstajajo znaki namerne nepravilnosti, poroča OLAF za nadaljnjo analizo in ustrezno spremljanje.
Box 4 contains an example. 
V okviru 4 je primer.
The measure supporting investments in food processing facilities raises the most concerns 43 The rural development measure ‘add‐ ing value to agricultural and forestry products’ made the most significant contribution to the error rate for pri‐ vate investments. 
Ukrep za podporo naložbam v živilskopredelovalne obrate zbuja največ skrbi 43 Ukrep za razvoj podeželja „dodajanje vrednosti kmetijskim in gozdarskim proizvodom” je najpomembneje prispeval k stopnji napake za zasebne naložbe.
This measure targets small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and finances investment in facilities for processing primary prod‐ ucts. 
Ta ukrep je usmerjen v mala in srednja podjetja (MSP), z njim pa se financirajo naložbe v obrate za predelavo primarnih proizvodov.
These facilities include wineries, grain mills, fruit and vegetable pro‐ cessing and packaging lines. 
Ti obrati vključujejo vinarne, mline, linije za predelavo in pakiranje sadja in zelenjave.
44 Of the 19 projects audited for this measure, 10 were affected by error (three of these were reported to OLAF). 
44 Na 10 od 19 revidiranih projektov za ta ukrep je vplivala napaka (trije od teh primerov so bili sporočeni OLAF).
The main shortcomings noted were non‐compliance with the SME criterion and non‐respect of appropriate private procurement procedures. 
Glavne ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti so bile neskladnost z merilom za MSP in neupoštevanje ustreznih postopkov oddaje zasebnega naročila.
Public aid for this measure is typically in the range of several million euro per project. 
Javna pomoč za ta ukrep običajno znaša več milijonov EUR na projekt.
In this context, there is a strong incentive for applicants to circumvent the rules with the aim of receiving aid. 
Zato obstaja velika spodbuda za prosilce, da zaobi-dejo pravila, da bi prejeli pomoč.
Example of indications of intentional irregularity A beneficiary applied for aid under an investment measure whereby the rules stipulated that equipment bought second‐hand was not eligible. 
Primer znakov namerne nepravilnosti Upravičenec je vložil zahtevek za pomoč v okviru naložbenega ukrepa, pri katerem so pravila določala, da nakup rabljene opreme ni upravičen.
When presenting the payment claim, the beneficiary declared that the equipment part of the project had been purchased new from a dealer. 
Ob predložitvi zahtevka za plačilo je upravičenec izjavil, da je bila oprema, ki je bila del projekta, kupljena nova od trgovca.
During the on‐the‐spot visit, the Court’s auditors found evidence to suggest that the machine had not, in fact, been purchased new. The auditors subsequently obtained third party documentation confirming that the equipment had been bought second‐hand. 
Med obiskom na kraju samem so revizorji Sodišča našli dokaze, ki kažejo na to, da stroj dejansko ni bil kupljen nov. Revizorji so nato pridobili dokumentacijo tretje osebe, ki potrjuje, da je bila oprema kupljena rabljena.
The expenditure was assessed as ineligible and the case was forwarded to OLAF. 
Odhodek je bil ocenjen kot neupravičen in primer je bil posredovan OLAF.
Observations 26 45 In addition to the above, the Court has recently reported numerous short‐ comings in the implementation of this measure, which seriously affected the efficiency and effectiveness of the measure in reaching its policy objectives18. 
Opažanja 26 45 Poleg tega je Sodišče pred kratkim poročalo o številnih pomanjkljivostih pri izvajanju tega ukrepa, kar je resno vplivalo na učinkovitost in uspešnost ukrepa pri doseganju ciljev politike.18 49 Prvič, informacije, ki so potrebne za odkrivanje in popravljanje napak, so bile organom držav članic na voljo, vendar pogosto niso bile uporabljene ali zahtevane.
The following typical situations were noted: — the information was available in the supporting documentation submitted by the beneficiary (e.g. dates of invoices), but was not used by the paying agency; — the information was available at the beneficiary level (e.g. ac‐ counting records), but the paying agency did not ask for it; — the information was available at third party level (e.g. shareholder structure of beneficiary compa‐ nies), but was not sought by the paying agency. 
Opažene so bile naslednje značilne situacije: – informacije so bile na voljo v doka-zilih, ki jih je predložil upravičenec (npr. datumi računov), vendar jih plačilna agencija ni uporabila; – informacije so bile na voljo na ravni upravičenca (npr. računovodske evidence), vendar plačilna agencija ni zaprosila zanje; – informacije so na voljo na ravni tretje strani (npr. deležniška struktura družb upravičenca), vendar plačilna agencija ni zaprosila zanje.
50 Secondly, checks performed by Mem‐ ber State authorities were not exhaus‐ tive. 
50 Drugič, pregledi, ki so jih opravili organi držav članic, niso bili izčrpni.
Examples of this are included in Box 5. 
Taki primeri so vključeni v okvir 5.
48 In the Court’s view, Member States could and should have prevented most errors for investment measures from occurring for the following two reasons. 
48 Po mnenju Sodišča bi države članice lahko preprečile večino napak pri naložbenih ukrepih in bi to morale storiti iz naslednjih dveh razlogov.
18 Special Report No 1/2013 ‘Has the EU support to the food‐processing industry been effective and efficient in adding value to agricultural products?’ (http://eca.europa.eu). 
18 Posebno poročilo št. 1/2013 – Ali je podpora EU živilskopredelovalni industriji uspešno in učinkovito dodala vrednost kmetijskim proizvodom? (http://eca. europa.eu).
Member State authorities could have detected and corrected errors affecting investment measures 46 Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 stipulates that Member States must establish a control system ensuring that all necessary checks are carried out to verify compliance with the terms under which support is granted. 
Organi držav članic bi lahko odkrili in popravili napake, ki so vplivale na naložbene ukrepe 46 V Uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 65/2011 je določeno, da morajo države članice vzpostaviti kontrolni sistem, ki zagotavlja, da se izvajajo vsi potrebni pregledi za preverjanje skladnosti s pogoji, pod katerimi se pomoč odobri.
The regulation specifies how such checks must be carried out, including what should be verified, how the samples should be selected and the minimum coverage for each type of support. 
Natančno je tudi določeno, kako je treba izvajati te preglede, vključno s tem, kaj je treba preveriti, kako je treba izbrati vzorce, in kolikšna je minimalna pokritost za vsako vrsto podpore.
47 Administrative checks must be carried out on all applications for support and payment claims and must include at least one visit to the operation sup‐ ported or the investment site to verify its realisation. 
47 Administrativni pregledi se opravijo za vse vloge za podporo in zahtevke za plačila, vključevati pa morajo vsaj en obisk dejavnosti, ki prejema podporo, ali kraja naložbe, da se preveri njena izvedba.
In addition, on‐the‐spot checks must be performed annually on a sample of projects representing at least 5 % of the expenditure incurred. 
Poleg tega je treba vsako leto opraviti preglede na kraju samem za vzorec projektov, ki pomenijo vsaj 5 % odhodkov.
Observations 27 Examples of insufficient quality of Member State authorities’ checks In Poland, a contract co‐financed under the technical assistance measure (see paragraph 23) was awarded directly, without the required competitive procedure being conducted. 
Opažanja 27 Primer nezadostne kakovosti pregledov, ki jih izvajajo države članice Na Poljskem je bilo naročilo, sofinancirano v okviru ukrepa tehnične pomoči (glej odstavek 23), dodeljeno neposredno, brez izvedbe zahtevanega konkurenčnega postopka.
The Court found that the required checks were not performed, as the paying agency did not verify that technical assistance projects complied with public procurement rules. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da zahtevani pregledi niso bili opravljeni, saj plačilna agencija ni preverila, ali so bili projekti tehnične pomoči skladni s pravili o javnem naročanju.
In Romania, the paying agency performed verifications on the payment claim submitted by the beneficiary for a project providing farm advisory services. 
V Romuniji je plačilna agencija izvedla preverjanja zahtevka za plačilo, ki ga je predložil upravičenec za projekt zagotavljanja svetovalnih storitev za kmetije.
The paying agency’s control report showed that the difference between the amount claimed by the beneficiary and the amount approved by the paying agency was more than 3 %. 
Iz kontrolnega poročila plačilne agencije je razvidno, da je razlika med zneskom, ki ga je zahteval upravičenec, in zneskom, ki ga je odobrila plačilna agencija, več kot 3 %.
The paying agency did not apply the penalty required in cases such as this, because such a check was not carried out for this measure. 
Plačilna agencija ni uporabila za take primere zahtevane kazni, ker za ta ukrep ni bil izveden tak pregled.
In Spain, the cost of the construction works carried out was justified by means of copies of the invoices from the contractor and copies of proofs of payment. 
V Španiji so bili stroški izvedenih gradbenih del utemeljeni s kopijami računov izvajalca in kopijami dokazil o plačilu.
These invoices showed that the contractor offered a 5 % discount on the total value of the invoices. 
Ti računi so pokazali, da je izvajalec priznal 5-odstotni popust na skupno vrednost računov.
Payment records also showed that the beneficiary did not pay the invoices in full, but deducted the 5 % discount. 
Iz evidence plačil je razvidno tudi, da upravičenec računov ni plačal v celoti, temveč je odštel 5-odstotni popust.
Although the paying agency had verified the invoices and payment records, the expenses were approved in full without deducting the 5 % discount, which represented expenditure which had not been incurred by the beneficiary. 
Čeprav je plačilna agencija preverila račune in evidenco plačil, so bili odhodki odobreni v celoti, ne da bi bil odštet 5-odstotni popust, čeprav upravičenec tega odhodka ni imel.
In Sweden, a regional government body did not respect the applicable procurement rules (see Box 2). 
Na Švedskem regionalni vladni organ ni upošteval veljavnih pravil o javnem naročanju (glej okvir 2).
The Court found that the paying agency had delegated the tasks of approving aid applications and payment claims for the project audited to the regional government body concerned. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je plačilna agencija naloge odobritve vlog za pomoč in zahtevkov za plačilo za revidiran projekt prenesla na zadevni regionalni vladni organ.
At the same time, the body re‐ ceived the aid as the beneficiary. 
Hkrati je ta organ prejel pomoč kot upravičenec.
The regional government body had not checked compliance with national public procurement rules as part of the administrative checks. 
Regionalni vladni organ ni preveril skladnosti z nacionalnimi pravili o javnem naročanju kot del administrativnih pregledov.
51 The Court’s system examinations confirm that the quality of the checks performed by Member States is insuffi‐ cient. 
51 Sodišče je s preučitvijo sistemov potrdilo, da je kakovost pregledov, ki jih opravljajo države članice, nezadostna.
The Court has assessed the qual‐ ity of key aspects of supervisory and control systems for investment meas‐ ures for 14 paying agencies in 13 Mem‐ ber States19 over the past 3 years. 
Sodišče je ocenilo kakovost ključnih vidikov nadzornih in kontrolnih sistemov za naložbene ukrepe za 14 plačilnih agencij v 13 državah članicah19 v zadnjih treh letih.
No paying agencies were assessed as having effective systems with regard to administrative checks and only five were assessed as being effective with regard to their systems for on‐the‐spot checks. 
Za nobeno plačilno agencijo ni bilo ocenjeno, da ima uspešne sisteme za administrativne preglede, in samo za pet plačilnih agencij je bilo ocenjeno, da imajo uspešne sisteme za preglede na kraju samem.
52 For investment measures, most errors occur at the initial stage of applica‐ tion for support and the procurement stage which follows. 
52 Pri naložbenih ukrepih do večine napak pride na začetni stopnji, tj. pri vlogah za podporo, in v fazi oddaje javnega naročila, ki sledi.