natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The online survey was carried out with all Member States and included three questionnaires13. 
Spletna anketa, ki so jo sestavljali trije vprašalniki13, je bila izvedena v vseh državah članicah.
The response rate was around 90 % for all three. 
Pri vseh treh vprašalnikih je stopnja odzivnosti znašala približno 90 %.
The audit dealt with the situation as at the end of 2009. 
Revizija obravnava položaj, kakršen je bil konec leta 2009.
Where considered relevant, subsequent developments were taken into consideration. 
Poznejše spremembe so se upoštevale, če je bilo pomembno.
Accordingly, in the part of the report presenting conclusions and recommendations, the proposal for a new regulation on ‘agricultural product quality schemes’ has been taken into consideration. 
Tako je bil v delu poročila, v katerem so predstavljeni zaključki in priporočila, upoštevan predlog za novo uredbo o „she-mah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov“.
The proposal concerns the GI and other quality schemes, which will be included in a single regulation14. 
Predlog se nanaša na geografske označbe in druge sheme kakovosti, ki bodo zajete v skupni uredbi14.
12 Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Poland and Portugal. 
12 Nemčija, Grčija, Španija, Francija, Italija, Ciper, Poljska in Portugalska.
14 Proposalforaregulationof the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes (COM(2010) 733 final of 10 December 2010). 14 Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
14 PredlogUredbeEvropskega parlamenta in Sveta o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov, COM(2010) 733 konč. z dne 10.12.2010. 14 Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
The GI scheme is intended to protect product names registered as a PDO or PGI. 
Shema GO je namenjena zaščiti imen proizvodov, registriranih kot proizvodi z ZOP ali ZGO.
Defining a robust system for the Member States’ checks related to the GI scheme and supervising these checks in an adequate manner are essential to achieve this objective. 
Za doseganje tega cilja je bistveno, da se določi zanesljiv sistem pregledov v zvezi s shemo GO, ki jih izvajajo države članice, ter ustrezen nadzor nad temi pregledi.
Two types of checks are to be distinguished in this context: (a) Article 11 of the Regulation refers to the obligation of Member States to verify compliance of products with their specifications before the products are placed on the market (‘Article 11 checks’). 
Pri tem je treba ločiti med dvema vrstama pregledov: (a) člen 11 Uredbe se nanaša na obveznost držav članic, da pred dajanjem proizvodov v promet preverjajo njihovo skladnost s specifikacijami („preverjanje po členu 11“).
The Regulation provides that a ‘competent authority’ is responsible in the Member States for these checks; it also allows these checks to be carried out by an independent ‘control body’ accredited in accordance with European Standard EN 4501115. 
Uredba določa, da je v državah članicah za preglede za to preverjanje odgovoren „pristojni organ“. Dovoljuje tudi, da jih izvaja neodvisen „izvajalec nadzora“, akreditiran v skladu z evropskim standardom EN 4501115.
The costs of these checks are usually borne by the operators; (b) The competent authorities within Member States are also responsible for checks, which aim to detect and suppress misuse, imitation or evocation of a protected name or other practices misleading the consumer as to the true origin of a product (‘disallowed practices’)16. 
Stroške teh pregledov običajno krijejo gospodarski subjekti; (b) pristojni organi v državah članicah so odgovorni tudi za preglede, namenjene odkrivanju in preprečevanju zlorab, posnemanja ali omenjanja zaščitenega imena ali drugih praks, ki potrošnike zavajajo glede resničnega porekla proizvoda („prepovedane prakse“)16.
THE PROVISIONS FOR CHECKS OF COMPLIANCE OF PDO AND PGI PRODUCTS WITH THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION DO NOT SET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 18. 
DOLOČBE O PREVERJANJU SKLADNOSTI PROIZVODOV Z ZOP IN ZGO S SPECIFIKACIJO PROIZVODA NE OPREDELJUJEJO MINIMALNIH ZAHTEV 18.
The Regulation does not provide for minimum requirements to be adhered to by the competent authorities and control bodies concerning issues such as the coverage of Article 11 checks, their frequency, the methodology for their selection and the parties involved in the different stages of the production and distribution subject to control. 
Uredba ne določa minimalnih zahtev, ki se jih morajo držati pristojni organi in izvajalci nadzora pri zadevah, kot so obseg pregledov za preverjanje po členu 11, njihova pogostost, metodologija za njihovo izbiro in subjekti, vključeni v različne faze proizvodnje in distribucije, ki se preverjajo.
Instead of providing specific instructions on the control system, Article 10 of the Regulation17 refers to the controls under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 dealing with official controls verifying compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules18. 
Namesto da bi člen 10 Uredbe17 opredelil natančna navodila za sistem preverjanja, se sklicuje na nadzor v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 882/2004, ki se nanaša na uradni nadzor zaradi preverjanja skladnosti z zakonodajo o krmi in živilih ter s pravili o zdravstvenem varstvu živali in zaščiti živali18.
15 European Standard EN 45011 specifies general requirements that a third party operating a product certification system shall meet if it is to be recognised as competent and reliable. 
15 Evropski standard EN 45011 določa splošne zahteve, ki jih mora izpolnjevati tretja stran, ki upravlja sistem certificiranja proizvodov, da bi bila priznana kot sposobna in zanesljiva.
16 Various forms of disallowed practices are mentioned in Article 13(1) of the Regulation. 
16 Razne vrste prepovedane prakse so omenjene v členu 13(1) Uredbe.
17 Article 10(1) of the Regulation: ‘Member States shall designate the competent authority or authorities responsible for controls in respect of the obligations established by this Regulation in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.’ 
17 Člen 10(1) Uredbe: „Države članice imenujejo pristojni organ ali organe, ki so odgovorni za nadzor v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 882/2004 v zvezi z obveznostmi po tej uredbi.“ 18 Uredba (ES) št.
18 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 
882/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o izvajanju uradnega nadzora, da se zagotovi preverjanje skladnosti z zakonodajo o krmi in živilih ter s pravili o zdravstvenem varstvu živali in zaščiti živali (UL L 191, 28.5.2004, str.
However, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 does not specifically deal with the product specification (Article 11) checks. 
882/2004 ne obravnava posebej preverjanja skladnosti s specifikacijo proizvoda (po členu 11).
Most of the provisions of the regulation regarding controls are of general nature and relate to food safety, hygiene and animal health and welfare. 
Večina določb Uredbe o nadzoru je splošnih in se nanaša na varnost hrane, higieno ter zdravje in dobro počutje živali.
They address issues such as sampling and analysis methods, designation of reference laboratories or the official controls on the introduction of feed and food from third countries. They are therefore not relevant to setting minimum requirements for Article 11 checks. 
Obravnavajo zadeve, kot so metode vzorčenja in analize, določanje referenčnih laboratorijev ali uradni nadzor uvoza krme in živil iz tretjih držav, zato niso pomembna za določanje minimalnih zahtev za preverjanja po členu 11.
The almost complete lack of such information specific to Article 11 checks in the legal provisions related to the GI scheme has resulted in discrepancies among the control systems set up by the different Member States. 
Skoraj popolno pomanjkanje teh informacij, značilnih za preverjanje po členu 11, v predpisih, povezanih s shemo GO, je privedlo do razlik med sistemi nadzora, ki so jih vzpostavile različne države članice.
An example of different practices found in the Member States visited is shown in Table 1. 
Primer različnih praks, opaženih v obiskanih državah članicah, je prikazan v Tabeli 1.
The table shows differences in the two control systems on a number of important issues such as the cycle of checks, their scope and the obligation of entry-level checks. 
Tabela prikazuje razlike med dvema sistemoma nadzora pri več pomembnih elementih, kot so ciklus preverjanj, obseg in (ne) obvezno začetno preverjanje.
Differences in the control systems were also found as a result of the analysis of the replies to the online survey. 
Razlike med sistemi nadzora so bile ugotovljene tudi z analizo odgovorov na spletno anketo.
Such discrepancies undermine the objective of establishing ‘a more uniform approach’ required by the Regulation, which is necessary to ensure fair competition between producers of products bearing such indications and enhance the credibility of the products in the consumer’s eyes19. 
Te razlike ogrožajo cilj uvedbe enotnejšega pristopa, zahtevanega v Uredbi, ki je potreben, da se zagotovijo enaki konkurenčni pogoji za proizvajalce proizvodov, ki nosijo takšne označbe, in poveča zaupanje potrošnikov v te proizvode19.
In contrast, more information specific to the Member States’ checks is available for the checks related to other EU quality schemes. 
Nasprotno pa je na voljo več informacij o pregledih, ki jih izvajajo države članice v zvezi z drugimi shemami kakovosti EU.
The regulation dealing with the GI scheme for wine products addresses issues such as selection of the producers to be checked and the stages of the production process to be covered20. 
Uredba, ki ureja shemo GO za proizvode iz vinskega sektorja, obravnava zadeve, kot sta izbira proizvajalcev, ki se preverjajo, in faze proizvodnega procesa, ki jih je treba vključiti20.
More information is also laid down for the Member States’ controls related to organic farming, which is one of the EU quality schemes. 
Na voljo je tudi več informacij za nadzor, ki ga države članice opravljajo v zvezi z ekološkim kmetovanjem, ki je ena od shem kakovosti EU.
They deal with issues such as the frequency of controls, the stages of the production process to be covered, the reporting obligations of control bodies and the exchange of information with competent authorities from other Member States21. 
Obravnavajo zadeve, kot so pogostost nadzora, faze proizvodnega procesa, ki jih je treba vključiti, obveznost poročanja izvajalcev nadzora ter izmenjava informacij s pristojnimi organi v drugih državah članicah21.
19 Recital 6 of the preamble to the Regulation. 
19 Uvodna izjava 6 preambule Uredbe.
20 Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ L 193, 24.7.2009, p. 
607/2009 z dne 14. julija 2009 o določitvi nekaterih podrobnih pravil za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 479/2008 v zvezi z zaščitenimi označbami porekla in geografskimi označbami, tradicionalnimi izrazi, označevanjem in predstavitvijo nekaterih proizvodov iz vinskega sektorja (UL L 193, 24.7.2009, str.
21 Title V of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products (OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 
834/2007 z dne 28. junija 2007 o ekološki pridelavi in označevanju ekoloških proizvodov (UL L 189, 20.7.2007, str.
17 BOX 1 EXAMPLES OF SHORTCOMINGS IN THE VERIFICATION OF PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Shortcomings in the control body’s verification of the origin of the raw material for a processed PDO product were found in two of the Member States visited. 
17 OKVIR 1 PRIMERI POMANJKLJIVOSTI PRI PREVERJANJU SPECIFIKACIJ PROIZVODOV Pomanjkljivosti pri preverjanju porekla surovin za predelane proizvode z ZOP, ki ga opravlja izvajalec nadzora, so bile ugotovljene v dveh obiskanih državah članicah.
The check of the product specification of an olive oil registered as a PDO did not include a plausibility test on the average yield of olives obtained by the olive growers in their parcels. 
Preverjanje specifikacije za oljčno olje, registrirano kot proizvod z ZOP, ni vključevalo verjetnostnih testov za povprečen donos oljk, ki ga proizvajalci dosegajo na svojih parcelah.
Such a test is important to determine whether the quantity of olives delivered to mills and processed for the olive oil can actually originate from the geographical area concerned. 
Ti testi so pomembni, da se določi, ali količina oljk, dostavljenih oljarnam in predelanih v oljčno olje, v resnici lahko izvira z nekega geografskega območja.
The work of a control body that checked the product specification of a cheese registered as a PDO showed shortcomings regarding the verification of the origin of the milk used for the production of the cheese. 
Pri delu izvajalca nadzora, ki je preverjal specifikacijo za sir, registriran kot proizvod z ZOP, so bile ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti pri preverjanju porekla mleka, ki se uporablja za proizvodnjo tega sira.
The control body did not include in its check a verification that would address the risk that the milk used in the production of the cheese originated from farms and cows which are located outside the geographical area defined in the product specification. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Izvajalec nadzora v svoje preglede ni vključil preverjanja, ki bi se nanašalo na tveganje, da mleko, uporabljeno za proizvodnjo sira, izvira s kmetij in od krav, ki so zunaj geografskega območja, opredeljenega v specifikaciji proizvoda. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
18 LACK OF A CLEAR LEGAL DEFINITION FOR THE CHECKS AIMED AT THE DETECTION AND SUPPRESSION OF DISALLOWED PRACTICES 23. 
18 NI JASNIH PRAVNIH OPREDELITEV PREGLEDOV, NAMENJENIH ODKRIVANJU IN PREPREČEVANJU PREPOVEDANE PRAKSE 23.
Article 13 of the Regulation refers to the obligation to protect registered names against various forms of disallowed practices. 
Člen 13 Uredbe se nanaša na obveznost zaščite registriranih imen pred različnimi oblikami prepovedanih praks.
The European Parliament in this context has demanded thorough ex officio protection of GIs as an obligation for authorities in all Member States22. 
Evropski parlament je v zvezi s tem zahteval, da morajo organi v vseh državah članicah po uradni dolžnosti zagotoviti temeljito zaščito GO22.
Despite the relevance of the protection of registered names against their disallowed use, no provisions are laid down in the Regulation as to what checks (if any) are required from the Member States in order to ensure such protection. 
Kljub pomembnosti zaščite registriranih imen pred prepovedano uporabo v Uredbi ni določb o tem, kakšne preglede morajo izvajati države članice (če jih morajo izvajati), da zagotovijo to zaščito.
The only information given by the Commission on the checks to be carried out in order to detect and suppress disallowed practices is that checks on GI products fall under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and consequently Member States have to consider them in their multiannual national control plan (‘MANCP’) mentioned in that regulation23. 
Edino navodilo Komisije o pregledih, ki jih je treba izvajati zaradi odkrivanja in preprečevanja prepovedane prakse, določa, da za preglede proizvodov z GO velja Uredba (ES) št. 882/2004, zato morajo države članice preglede upoštevati v svojih večletnih nacionalnih načrtih nadzora, omenjenih v navedeni uredbi23.
However, the extent of the Member States’ obligation to carry out checks aimed at the detection and suppression of cases of disallowed practices on a regular basis remains unclear. 
Vendar ostaja nejasno, v kolikšnem obsegu so države članice dolžne izvajati redne preglede za odkrivanje in preprečevanje primerov prepovedane prakse.
There are no instructions on how such checks (if any) are to be carried out. 
Navodil za to, kako je treba izvajati te preglede (če se izvajajo), ni.
A number of Member States visited stressed the need to have a procedure on mutual assistance in the Regulation that would provide for a response to denunciations concerning the disallowed use of a protected name in a Member State other than the Member State of production. 
Več obiskanih držav članic je poudarilo potrebo, da bi Uredba vključevala postopek vzajemne pomoči, ki bi zagotavljal odziv na prijave v zvezi s prepovedano uporabo zaščitenega imena v državi članici, ki ni tista država članica, v kateri se proizvod proizvaja.
This issue puts into question the adequacy of the provisions laid down in Articles 35 and 36 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 dealing with liaison bodies and assistance on request. 
Zaradi tega vprašanja je vprašljiva ustreznost določb iz členov 35 in 36 Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004, ki obravnavata organe za zvezo in zaprosilo za pomoč.
22 ‘European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on Agricultural product quality policy: what strategy to follow?’ (OJ C 4 E, 7.1.2011, p. 
22 Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 25. marca 2010 „Politika kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov: katera strategija je prava?“ (UL C 4 E, 7.1.2011, str.
23 InterpretativeNote No 2009-01. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
2009-01. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
Most Member States do not carry out checks aimed at the detection and suppression of cases of disallowed practices on a regular basis. 
Večina držav članic ne izvaja rednih pregledov za odkrivanje in preprečevanje prepovedane prakse.
They usually carry out checks aimed at the detection and suppression of disallowed practices concerning PDO and PGI products only in order to address denunciations or as a secondary part of hygiene and safety checks related to foodstuffs. 
Preglede, namenjene odkrivanju in preprečevanju prepovedane prakse v zvezi s proizvodi z ZOP in ZGO, običajno izvajajo samo zaradi obravnavanja prijav ali kot sekundaren del preverjanja higienske ustreznosti in varnosti živil.
Where such checks are carried out, the visits to the Member States and the online survey showed a difference in the coverage of PDO and PGI products from other countries. 
Obiski držav članic in spletna anketa so pokazali, da obstajajo razlike pri vključenosti proizvodov z ZOP in ZGO iz drugih držav v preglede, kadar se izvajajo.
In a number of Member States, the checks exclude such products and only national products are covered. 
V več državah članicah pregledi ne vključuje teh proizvodov, ampak so vključeni samo domači proizvodi.
Box 2 provides examples of disallowed practices found by Member States when carrying out their controls related to food safety or following up a suspicion or denunciation and demonstrates the high risk of disallowed practices not being found due to the lack of regular checks. 
Spodnji okvir prikazuje primere nedovoljene prakse, ki so jih odkrile države članice ob izvajanju nadzora v zvezi z varnostjo živil ali na podlagi suma ali prijave, in dokazuje, da obstaja veliko tveganje, da zaradi pomanjkanja rednih pregledov nedovoljena praksa ne bo odkrita.
19 BOX 2 EXAMPLES OF DISALLOWED PRACTICES FOUND BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES The French authorities found that a butcher had sold lamb meat to restaurants showing in his invoices a product name protected as a PGI whilst the meat delivered did not allow him to use this name. 
19 OKVIR 2 PRIMERI NEDOVOLJENE PRAKSE, KI SO JIH ODKRILI NACIONALNI ORGANI Francoski organi so ugotovili, da je mesar restavracijam prodajal jagnjetino, za katero je bilo na računih navedeno, da je proizvod z ZGO, čeprav za dobavljeno meso ne bi smel uporabljati te označbe.
The restaurants in consequence had made unjustified reference to the protected name in their menus. 
Te restavracije so torej na svojih jedilnih listih neupravičeno uporabljale zaščiteno ime.
Samples taken by the Bavarian authorities in shops selling a specific type of cheese protected as a PDO showed a number of cases of disallowed use of this name. 
Vzorci, ki so jih bavarski organi odvzeli v trgovinah, ki so prodajale posebno vrsto sira, zaščitenega z ZOP, so pokazali več primerov prepovedane uporabe te označbe.
Most of the cheeses concerned did not originate from the designated geographical area and in one case cow milk had been used instead of sheep milk as provided for by the product specification. 
Večina teh sirov ni izvirala z navedenega geografskega območja, v enem primeru pa je bilo uporabljeno kravje mleko namesto ovčjega, ki bi moralo biti uporabljeno v skladu s specifikacijo.
Table olives were marketed by a processing and packaging company illicitly using a name protected as a PDO. 
Podjetje za predelavo in pakiranje je nezakonito tržilo namizne oljke pod imenom, zaščitenim kot ZOP.
The documentation examined by the Italian authorities showed that the olives packaged by this company were not of the variety required by the product specification. 
Dokumentacija, ki so jo pregledali italijanski organi, je pokazala, da sorta oljk, ki jih je pakiralo to podjetje, ni bila enaka kot v specifikaciji proizvoda.
During a check carried out by the Greek authorities at a supermarket, the name of a PDO cheese was found on the sign of the display fridge. 
Med pregledom, ki so ga grški organi izvedli v supermarketu, je bilo na napisu na hladilniku navedeno ime sira z ZOP.
The same name appeared on the weighing label for the product and on the purchase receipt. 
Isto ime je bilo na nalepki s ceno proizvoda in na računu.
The supermarket should not have labelled the cheese using the protected name since the producer was not accredited and therefore not subject to product specification checks. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Supermarket za sir ne bi smel uporabiti nalepk z zaščiteno označbo, ker proizvajalec ni bil akreditiran in se zanj zato niso izvajala preverjanja skladnosti s specifikacijo proizvoda. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
20 WEAKNESSES EXIST IN THE COMMISSION’S SUPERVISION OF MEMBER STATES’ CHECKS RELATED TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME 28. 
20 PRI NADZORU KOMISIJE NAD PREGLEDI DRŽAV ČLANIC V ZVEZI S SHEMO GEOGRAFSKIH OZNAČB OBSTAJAJO SLABOSTI 28.
Adequate supervision of Member States’ control systems should comprise auditing the checks carried out by Member States and reviewing the reporting on their control activities on a regular basis. 
Ustrezen nadzor nad sistemi pregledov v državah članicah bi moral vključevati redno revizijo pregledov, ki jih opravljajo države članice, ter preglede poročanja o njihovih nadzornih dejavnostih.
Lack of commission audits of the member states’ checks reLating to the geographicaL indications scheme 29. 
Komisija ne revidira pregledov, Ki jih države članice izvajajo v zvezi s shemo geografsKih označb 29.
The Regulation does not include specific provisions as to the Commission supervision of checks related to the GI scheme. 
V Uredbi ni posebnih določb o nadzoru pregledov v zvezi s shemo GO, ki naj bi jih izvajala Komisija.
Reference to supervision is made, however, in Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, which requires general and specific audits of the Member States’ official controls by Commission experts. 
Je pa nadzor omenjen v členu 45 Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004, v katerem so zahtevane splošne in posebne revizije uradnega nadzora držav članic, ki jih izvajajo strokovnjaki Komisije.