natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1970 of 8 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with specific provisions on the reporting of irregularities concerning the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (2014‐2020 programme period) (OJ L 293, 10.11.2015, p. 
1) in Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1970 z dne 8. julija 2015 o dopolnitvi Uredbe (EU) št. 1303/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta s posebnimi določbami o poročanju o nepravilnostih v zvezi z Evropskim skladom za regionalni razvoj, Evropskim socialnim skladom, Kohezijskim skladom in Evropskim skladom za pomorstvo in ribištvo (programsko obdobje 2014–2020) (UL L 293, 10.11.2015, str.
Observations 37 60 While DG COMP did not have a database either, for the 2007‐2013 programme period it made a horizontal analysis of the problems detected in its monitoring exercises by means of an Excel spreadsheet. 
Opažanja 37 60 Čeprav tudi GD COMP ni imel podatkovne zbirke, je za programsko obdobje 2007–2013 na podlagi razpredelnice v programu Excel pripravil horizontalno analizo težav, odkritih med spremljanjem.
It did not share this information with DG REGIO or DG EMPL. 
Teh podatkov ni posredoval GD REGIO ali GD EMPL.
In March 2016, DG COMP started to do so. 
Posredovati jih je začel marca 2016.
61 The absence of robust databases and the insufficient exchange of information on detected State aid errors between the Commission DGs prevented a comprehen‐ sive analysis of State aid errors in cohesion. 
61 Ker ni zanesljivih podatkovnih zbirk in dovolj izmenjave podatkov o odkritih napakah pri državni pomoči med generalnimi direktorati Komisije, izčrpna analiza napak pri državni pomoči na področju kohezije ni bila mogoča.
Such an analysis could have helped the Commission to develop more focused and tailor‐made preventive measures for Member States and/or programmes (see e.g. paragraphs 101 to 105). 
Taka analiza bi Komisiji lahko pomagala razviti bolj osredotočene in prilagojene preventivne ukrepe za države članice in/ali programe (glej npr. odstavke 101 do 105).
The Commission stepped up State aid controls of public infrastructure projects following a 2011 Court of Justice ruling 62 In 1994, the Commission issued guidelines which specified that the construction of public infrastructure projects represented a general measure of economic policy which was not subject to the rules on State aid47. 
Komisija je po sodbi Sodišča Evropske unije iz leta 2011 okrepila nadzor nad državno pomočjo za projekte javne infrastrukture 62 Komisija je leta 1994 objavila smernice, v katerih je določila, da projekti za izgradnjo javne infrastrukture spadajo med splošne ukrepe gospodarske politike, za katere ne veljajo pravila o državni pomoči47.
The public financing of investments in airports, ports or similar public infrastructure were thus not notified by Member States to the Commission. 
Zato države članice javnega financiranja naložb v letališča, pristanišča ali podobno javno infrastrukturo niso priglaša-le Komisiji.
In those guidelines, however, the Commission already indicated that economic activities carried out inside airports which directly or indirectly benefit airlines could be considered State aid48. 
Toda Komisija je v teh smernicah že navedla, da bi lahko gospodarske dejavnosti, izvedene znotraj letališč, ki neposredno ali posredno koristijo letalskim družbam, štele za državno pomoč48.
This distinction between ‘public’ infrastructure and ‘dedicated’ infrastructure was made in the 1995 Annual Competition report and later in the Commission’s 2003 Vademecum on State aid49. 
To razlikovanje med „javno” in „namen-sko” infrastrukturo je bilo uvedeno šele v letnem poročilu o politiki konkurence za leto 1995 in kasneje v vademekumu Komisije za državno pomoč, objavljenem leta 200349.
However, this Vademecum stated that the general State aid rules did not apply, in particular, to rail, air, inland waterways and mari‐ time transport. 
Toda v tem vademekumu je navedeno, da splošna pravila o državni pomoči ne veljajo zlasti za železniški in zračni promet, promet po celinskih plovnih poteh in pomorski promet.
During the 1990s, several factors such as market liberalisation, privatisation and technological progress contributed to increase the scope for the commercial exploitation of infrastructure. 
V 90-ih letih 20. stoletja je več dejavnikov, kot so liberalizacija trga, privatizacija in tehnološki napredek, prispevalo k povečanju možnosti za komercialno uporabo infrastruktur.
From 1998 onwards, and in accord‐ ance with this interpretation, the Commission considered aid awarded to several public infrastructure projects to be State aid. 
Komisija je od leta 1998 v skladu s to interpretacijo pomoč, dodeljeno več projektom javne infrastrukture, obravnavala kot državno pomoč.
63 The European Court of Justice issued rulings in 2000 and in 2011 which confirmed the view that the public financing of infrastructure investments can have State aid relevance (see Box 7). 
63 Sodišče Evropske unije je v letih 2000 in 2011 izdalo sodbe, s katerimi je potrdilo, da je javno financiranje naložb v infrastrukturo relevantno z vidika državne pomoči (glej okvir 7).
47 See paragraph 12 of Application of articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector (OJ C 350, 10.12.1994). 
47 Glej odstavek 12 dokumenta Uporaba členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES in člena 61 Sporazuma EGP za državno pomoč v letalskem sektorju (UL C 350, 10.12.1994).
48 See paragraph 12 of ‘Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector’ (OJ C 350, 10.12.1994, p. 
48 Glej odstavek 12 dokumenta Uporaba členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES in člena 61 Sporazuma EGP o državnih pomočeh v letalskem sektorju (UL C 350, 10.12.1994, str.
49 See COM(96) 126 Final paragraph 175 and Vademecum Community Rules on State Aid, pages 6 and 10. 
49 Glej odstavek 175 COM(96) 126 final in strani 6 in 10 vademekuma o pravilih Skupnosti o državni pomoči.
Observations 38 Two important Court of Justice judgments relating to public infrastructure projects’ compliance with State aid rules In the ‘Aéroports de Paris’ judgment, the General Court ruled in December 2000 that the operation of an airport, including the provision of airport services to airlines and service providers within airports, is an eco‐ nomic activity and thus subject to State aid rules50 In the ‘Leipzig Halle’ judgment, the General Court ruled in March 2011 that if the construction of infrastructure (for example, a runway) is inseparably linked to an economic activity (for example, transporting passengers by aeroplane), the construction itself is an economic activity51. 
Opažanja 38 Dve pomembni sodbi Sodišča Evropske unije o skladnosti projektov javne infrastrukture s pravili o državni pomoči V sodbi v zadevi Aéroports de Paris je Splošno sodišče decembra 2000 odločilo, da je upravljanje letališča, vključno z zagotavljanjem letaliških storitev letalskim družbam in ponudnikom storitev znotraj letališč, gospodarska dejavnost, torej zanj veljajo pravila o državni pomoči50. V sodbi v zadevi Leipzig/Halle je Splošno sodišče marca 2011 odločilo, da v primeru, ko je izgradnja infrastrukture (na primer vzletne steze) neločljivo povezana z gospodarsko dejavnostjo (na primer z letalskim prevozom potnikov), tudi sama izgradnja pomeni gospodarsko dejavnost51.
50 Case T‐128/98, Aéroports de Paris. 
50 Zadeva T-128/98, Aéroports de Paris.
51 Joined cases T‐443/08 and T‐445/08, Leipzig Halle. 
51 Združeni zadevi T-443/08 in T-445/08, Leipzig/Halle.
64 In August 2012, DG COMP issued guidance documents (referred to as ‘analyti‐ cal grids’) to help Member States assess whether aid granted to infrastructure projects should be notified to the Commission, based on the ‘Leipzig Halle’ judgment. 
64 GD COMP je avgusta 2012 objavil smernice (imenovane „razpredelnice za anali-zo”), ki temeljijo na sodbi Leipzig/Halle in naj bi državam članicam pomagale pri ocenjevanju, ali je treba pomoč za infrastrukturne projekte priglasiti Komisiji.
65 It was only following the ‘Leipzig Halle’ judgment and the 2012 Commission guid‐ ance to the Member States that the number of notifications of infrastructure pro‐ jects increased52. 
65 Šele po sodbi Leipzig/Halle in smernicah Komisije iz leta 2012 za države članice se je število priglasitev infrastrukturnih projektov52 povečalo.
In 2014, referring to the ‘Aéroports de Paris’ and ‘Leipzig Halle’ judgments, the Commission expressed the view that the Court rulings would be ‘applicable to any infrastructure operated for an economic activity’, regardless of the sector concerned53. 
V letu 2014 je Komisija na podlagi sodb Aéroports de Paris in Leipzig/Halle izrazila mnenje, da bi se morali ti sodbi „uporablja[ti] za katero koli infrastrukturo gospodarske dejavnosti”, ne glede na sektor53.
52 For example, DG COMP stated in the letter ‘State aid Questionnaire on the functioning and the taxation of ports’ of 3 July 2013 that: ‘Following the Leipzig/Halle judgment of the European Court of Justice the European Commission received an increasing number of notification of port infrastructure investment projects involving public support.’ 
52 GD COMP je v svojem dopisu z dne 3. julija 2013 z naslovom Vprašalnik v zvezi z državno pomočjo o delovanju in obdavčenju pristanišč na primer zapisal, da je Evropska komisija po sodbi Sodišča Evropske unije v zadevi Leipzig/Halle prejemala naraščajoče število priglasitev projektov za naložbe v pristaniško infrastrukturo, ki so zajemali državno pomoč.
See COMP/E3/H3/IA/ jf/20 13/68609. 
Glej COMP/E3/H3/IA/jf/20 13/68 609.
53 Paragraph 35 of the draft Commission notice on the notion of State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, published in 2014. 
53 Odstavek 35 osnutka obvestila Komisije o pojmu državne pomoči v skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU, objavljenega leta 2014.
The notice was adopted on 19 May 2016 (http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/state_aid/ modernisation/notice_aid_ en.html) which includes a similar wording. 
Obvestilo, ki vsebuje podobno ubeseditev, je bilo sprejeto 19. maja 2016 (http:// ec.europa.eu/competition/ state_aid/modernisation/ notice_aid_en.html).
Observations 39 Inadequate coordination between Commission DGs to ensure that major project decisions also take account of State aid rules until the end of 2012 66 Some ERDF/CF projects are so financially significant that a specific Commission decision is required for the Member State to obtain EU co‐financing. 
Opažanja 39 Generalni direktorati Komisije so premalo usklajeni med seboj, da bi zagotovili spoštovanje pravil o državni pomoči pri odločitvah o velikih projektih do konca leta 2012 66 Nekateri projekti ESRR/KS so finančno tako pomembni, da je potreben poseben sklep Komisije, da lahko države članice pridobijo sofinanciranje EU.
They have a total eligible cost exceeding 50 million euro, and are generally large‐scale infrastructure projects54. 
Njihov skupni strošek, upravičen do sofinanciranja EU, presega 50 milijonov EUR, običajno pa gre za obsežne infrastrukturne projekte54.
These projects are called major projects. 
Imenujejo se veliki projekti.
If aid granted to a major project constitutes State aid, it is also likely that it needs to be notified due to its size55. 
Kadar je velikemu projektu dodeljena državna pomoč, je tudi zelo verjetno, da jo bo treba priglasiti zaradi njene vrednosti55.
67 For the 2007‐2013 programme period, the Commission adopted 918 major pro‐ ject decisions representing over 75 billion euro of EU contributions; the average EU contribution to these projects was 82.6 million euro. 
67 V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 je Komisija sprejela 918 sklepov o velikih projektih, ki so zajemali več kot 75 milijard EUR prispevkov EU. Povprečni prispevek EU k tem projektom je bil 82,6 milijona EUR.
Together these projects accounted for more than 25 % of all ERDF/CF spending, with significant differ‐ ences between Member States (see Figure 7). 
Ti projekti so skupaj predstavljali več kot 25 % celotne porabe ESRR/KS z velikimi razlikami med državami članicami (glej sliko 7).
68 More detailed information on major projects adopted by the Commission for the 2007‐2013 programme period is presented in Annex III. 
68 Podrobnejši podatki o velikih projektih, ki jih je Komisija sprejela v programskem obdobju 2007–2013, so na voljo v Prilogi III.
54 For certain projects, the threshold is 75 million euro. 
54 Prag za nekatere projekte je 75 milijonov EUR.
See Article 100 of Regulation No 1303/2013. 
Glej člen 100 Uredbe št. 1303/2013.
55 The only categories of aid under the GBER with notification thresholds exceeding 50 million euro are regional investment aid, investment aid for culture and heritage conservation and aid for broadband infrastructure as well as, under certain conditions, aid for research and development and operating aid for renewable sources of energy. 
55 V skladu z uredbo o splošnih skupinskih izjemah so edine vrste pomoči, katerih pragovi za priglasitev so višji od 50 milijonov EUR, regionalna pomoč za naložbe, pomoč za naložbe v kulturo in ohranjanje kulturne dediščine ter pomoč za širokopasovno infrastrukturo, pod določenimi pogoji pa tudi pomoč za raziskave in razvoj ter pomoč za tekoče poslovanje za obnovljive vire energije.
The notification threshold for services of general economic interest is 15 million euro. 
Prag za priglasitev za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena je 15 milijonov EUR.
Article 4 of Regulation 651/2014 and Article 2 of Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest. 
Člen 4 Uredbe št. 651/2014 in člen 2 Sklepa Komisije z dne 20. decembra 2011 o uporabi člena 106(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije za državno pomoč v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, dodeljenega nekaterim podjetjem, pooblaščenim za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Observations 40 EU contributions to major projects as a proportion of all ERDF/CF spending by Member State Figure 7 Legend 0 - 12.5 % 12.5 - 25 % 25-37.5 % 37.5-50 % 50+ % No major projetcs Not an EU country Administrative boundaries: © EuroGeographics © UN-FAO © Turkstat Cartography: Eurostat — GISCO, 01/2015 Source: European Court of Auditors, based on 2015 Commission data. 
Opažanja 40 Prispevki EU k velikim projektom kot delež vse porabe ESRR/KS po državah članicah Slika 7 Legend 0 - 12,5 % 12,5 - 25 % 25-37,5 % 37,5-50 % Nad 50 % Brez velikih projektov Ni država članica EU Administrativne meje: ©EuroGeographics ©UN-FAO ©Turkstat Kartografija: Eurostat – GISCO, 01/2015 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Komisije za leto 2015.
Observations 41 69 Member States are required to include various kinds of information in a major project application to allow the Commission to make a reasoned decision based on an assessment of the project’s relevance, viability, sustainability, environmen‐ tal profile and justification of requested funding as well as information provided by the Member State on whether State aid is involved. 
Opažanja 41 69 Države članice morajo v vlogah za velike projekte navesti različne vrste podatkov, da se lahko Komisija utemeljeno odloči na podlagi ocene relevantnosti, sposobnosti preživetja, trajnosti in okoljskega profila projekta, utemeljitve zahtevanega financiranja ter informacij, ki jih države članice zagotovijo o tem, ali gre za državno pomoč.
According to the Com‐ mission, since the end of 2012 DG REGIO formally consults DG COMP on all major project applications as part of its internal procedures, at which stage DG COMP may indicate to DG REGIO that the project should be notified. 
Po navedbah Komisije se od konca leta 2012 GD REGIO formalno posvetuje z GD COMP o vseh vlogah za velike projekte v okviru svojih internih postopkov, pri tem pa mu lahko GD COMP nakaže, da je treba projekt priglasiti.
Furthermore, DG REGIO as the lead DG must consult DG COMP and other relevant DGs on the ma‐ jor project approval decision56. 
Poleg tega se mora GD REGIO kot vodilni generalni direktorat o odobritvi velikih projektov posvetovati z GD COMP in drugimi relevantnimi direktorati56.
70 This consultation is especially important when the Member States indicate in the major project application that State aid is not involved, since in this case DG COMP does not receive a notification. 
70 To posvetovanje je pomembno zlasti takrat, ko države članice v vlogi za veliki projekt navedejo, da ne gre za državno pomoč, saj v tem primeru projekt ni priglašen GD COMP.
But even if the Commission approves a major project by taking a decision, there is no guarantee that the project com‐ plies with State aid rules. 
Ampak tudi če Komisija s sklepom odobri veliki projekt, to ne pomeni zagotovila, da je ta v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
An analysis of Commission decisions for major projects showed that there was no mention that the decision did not constitute confirma‐ tion of the projects’ compliance with the applicable State aid legislation. 
Analiza sklepov Komisije o velikih projektih je pokazala, da v njih ni omenjeno, da sklep ni potrdilo o skladnosti projekta z veljavno zakonodajo o državni pomoči.
71 Of the 918 major projects adopted for the 2007‐2013 programme period, the Commission adopted 440 before the end of 2012. 
71 Komisija je 440 od teh 918 velikih projektov, sprejetih za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, sprejela pred koncem leta 2012.
For these projects DG COMP did not systematically verify whether the investments in public infrastructure might involve State aid. 
Za te projekte GD COMP ni sistematično preverjal, ali naložbe v javno infrastrukturo morda vključujejo državno pomoč.
Moreover, in November 2012, the Commission issued a guidance note to Member States, stating that it did ‘not intend to examine systematically compliance with the State aid rules of major infrastructure projects covered by this note which have already been subject of a decision [...] before the date of this note’57. 
Poleg tega je Komisija novembra 2012 državam članicam poslala smernice, v katerih je navedla, da ne namerava sistematično pregledovati skladnosti velikih infrastrukturnih projektov, zajetih v obvestilu, s pravili o državni pomoči, če je bilo o njih že odločeno s sklepom pred izdajo obvestila57.
In principle, it is thus possible for a Member State to have received a Commission decision approving a major project while being in breach of State aid rules. 
Tako je teoretično mogoče, da je država članica prejela sklep Komisije o odobritvi velikega projekta, čeprav ta morda ni v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
56 All relevant Commission departments shall have 10 to 15 working days for their assessment of the project application as well as for their assessment of the major project approval decision. 
56 Vsi relevantni oddelki Komisije imajo na voljo 10 do 15 delovnih dni za pripravo svoje ocene projektne vloge in za oceno sklepa o odobritvi velikega projekta.
57 European Commission; Guidance Note to the COCOF No 12‐0059‐01 ‘Verification of compliance with state aid rules in infrastructure cases’; 21 November 2012. 
57 Evropska komisija, smernice za odbor COCOF št.
Observations 42 Insufficient focus of Member States’ audit authorities on compliance with State aid rules 72 Member States’ audit authorities are an important part of the control chain on which the Commission builds its assurance in cohesion policy. 
Opažanja 42 Premajhno osredotočanje revizijskih organov držav članic na skladnost s pravili o državni pomoči 72 Revizijski organi držav članic so pomemben del nadzorne verige, na podlagi katere Komisija gradi zagotovilo za področje kohezijske politike, zato je pomembno, da imajo potrebno strokovno znanje in izvajajo dovolj kakovostne preglede.
This is particularly important for checking com‐ pliance with State aid rules, which are an important source of errors and irregular expenditure in cohesion policy, though much less so for the ESF than for the ERDF and the CF (see paragraphs 33 to 36). 
To je še posebno pomembno pri preverjanju skladnosti s pravili o državni pomoči, saj tu pogosto prihaja do napak in nepravilnih odhodkov v okviru kohezijske politike, čeprav je to redkeje pri ESS kot pri ESRR in KS (glej odstavke 33 do 36).
73 We asked audit authorities for their audit results related to State aid through our survey and examined the reporting of State aid errors in their annual con‐ trol reports (ACRs) for ERDF/CF operational programmes. 
73 Revizijske organe smo v anketi prosili za njihove rezultate revizij državne pomoči in pregledali poročanje o napakah pri državni pomoči v njihovih letnih poročilih o nadzoru za operativne programe v okviru ESRR in KS.
As part of our annual compliance audits, we reviewed the audit authorities’ checklists for auditing compliance with State aid rules. 
V okviru letnih revizij skladnosti smo pregledali kontrolne sezname revizijskih organov za revizijo skladnosti s pravili o državni pomoči.
We also asked the audit authorities whether they had received sufficient support from the Commission and how frequently they cooperated with other Member State authorities (such as State aid offices) in the area of State aid. 
Poleg tega smo revizijske organe vprašali, ali jim je Komisija zagotovila dovolj pomoči in kako pogosto so na področju državne pomoči sodelovali z drugimi organi države članice (kot so uradi za državno pomoč).
Audit authorities detected significantly fewer cases of non-compliance with State aid rules than the Commission or the Court 74 During the 2010‐2014 period, based on information provided in the survey, audit authorities estimated that around a third (32.4 %) of the ERDF/CF and ESF projects audited by them had been State aid relevant. 
Revizijski organi so odkrili precej manj primerov neskladnosti s pravili o državni pomoči kot Komisija ali Sodišče 74 Podatki iz ankete kažejo, da so revizijski organi v obdobju 2010–2014 ocenili, da približno tretjina projektov (32,4 %) ESRR/KS ter projektov ESS, ki so jih revidirali, vključuje državno pomoč.
Audit authorities found State aid errors on average in 3.6 % of those projects (see Figure 8). 
V povprečju so odkrili napake pri državni pomoči v 3,6 % teh projektov (glej sliko 8).
Over that same period, we detected State aid errors in ERDF/CF and ESF projects at more than five times this rate (see paragraph 35, Table 2), even though we have a similar sampling methodology58. 
V istem obdobju je Računsko sodišče odkrilo več kot petkrat več napak pri državni pomoči pri projektih ESRR/KS in projektih ESS (glej odstavek 35 v preglednici 2), čeprav je uporabilo podobno metodologijo vzorčenja58.
58 As a general rule, audit authorities are required to sample projects randomly. 
58 Na splošno morajo revizijski organi projekte vzorčiti naključno.
See Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 for the 2007‐2013 programme period and Article 127 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 for the 2014‐2020 programme period. 
Glej člen 17 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št.
Observations 43 State aid in audit authorities’ audits of projects, 2010-2014 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2010 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Projects subject to State aid rules Projects affected by State aid error 2011 2012 Year 2013 2014 Source: European Court of Auditors, based on survey results. 
Opažanja 43 Državna pomoč v revizijah projektov, ki so jih izvedli revizijski organi, 2010–2014 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2010 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Projekti, za katere veljajo pravila o državni pomoči Projekti, pri katerih so bile odkrite napake pri državni pomoči 2011 2012 Leto 2013 2014 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi rezultatov ankete.
75 We also analysed 1026 ACRs for ERDF/CF operational programmes submitted to DG REGIO in the 2010‐2014 period (see Table 5). 
75 Sodišče je preučilo tudi 1 026 letnih poročil o nadzoru za operativne programe ESRR in KS, ki so bili predloženi GD REGIO v obdobju 2010–2014 (glej tabelo 5).