natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION When approving the Rural Development Programmes, the Commission carried out an analysis to assess that programmes and measures are consistent with the Community strategic guidelines, the national strategy plans and comply with the relevant legal provisions. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE Ob potrditvi načrtov za razvoj podeželja je Komisija izvedla analizo za oceno, da so programi in ukrepi skladni s strateškimi smernicami Skupnosti, nacionalnimi strateškimi načrti in ustreznimi zakonskimi določbami.
For the period 2014-2020, the Commission will develop and underpin a more results oriented policy with a reinforced monitoring and evaluation system, overcoming some of the shortcomings identified for the 2007-13 programming period. 
Za obdobje 2014–2020 bo Komisija razvila in podprla politiko, bolj usmerjeno v rezultate, z okrepljenim sistemom spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki odpravlja nekatere pomanjkljivosti, ugotovljene za programsko obdobje 2007–13.
Recommendation 4 For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission and the Member States are elaborating a monitoring and evaluation framework for the Common Agricultural Policy as a whole, including the monitoring and evaluation framework for the Rural Development Programmes. 
Priporočilo 4 Za obdobje 2014–2020 Komisija in države članice oblikujejo okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja za skupno kmetijsko politiko kot celoto, vključno z okvirom spremljanja in vrednotenja za programe razvoja podeželja.
In this context, a number of compulsory common indicators have been defined, with a requirement for additional indicators where needed to address programme specificities. 
V teh razmerah je bilo opredeljenih več obveznih skupnih kazalnikov z zahtevo za dodatne kazalnike, kjer so potrebni, za obravnavo programskih specifičnosti.
The common indicators also provide the basis to link the Rural Development policy to the broader 20/20 Strategy. 
Skupni kazalniki tudi zagotovijo podlago za povezavo politike razvoja podeželja s širšo strategijo 20-20.
Recommendation 4 (i) Quantified target indicators are foreseen for each of the Focus Areas. 
Priporočilo 4 (i) Za vsako od področij, na katera se je treba osredotočiti, se predvidevajo kazalniki za količinsko opredeljene ciljne vrednosti.
Annual reporting in the Annual Implementation Reports is required for each of these. 
Za vsako od teh se zahteva letno poročanje v letnih poročilih o izvajanju.
Recommendation 4 (ii) The Commission does not accept this part of the recommendation. 
Priporočilo 4 (ii) Komisija ne sprejme tega dela priporočila.
In the proposed design of the new monitoring and evaluation system, results and impacts will not be assessed at measure level. 
V predlagani obliki novega sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja se rezultati in vplivi ne bodo ocenjevali na ravni ukrepov.
The Commission and Member States are elaborating a monitoring and evaluation framework for the Common Agricultural Policy as a whole, including the monitoring and evaluation framework for the Rural Development Programmes. 
Komisija in države članice oblikujejo okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja za skupno kmetijsko politiko kot celoto, vključno z okvirom spremljanja in vrednotenja za programe razvoja podeželja.
In this context, a number of compulsory common indicators have been defined, with a requirement for additional indicators where needed to address programme specificities. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
V teh razmerah je bilo opredeljenih več obveznih skupnih kazalnikov z zahtevo za dodatne kazalnike, kjer so potrebni, za obravnavo programskih specifičnosti. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
58 Measure ‘fiches’ for common indicators will include information such as source, provider, frequency of collection, unit of measurement etc. to ensure a harmonised and consistent approach. 
58 „Podatkovne kartice“ o ukrepih za skupne kazalnike bodo vsebovale informacije, kot so vir, posredovalec, pogostost zbiranja, enota merjenja itd., da se zagotovi usklajen in dosleden pristop.
This framework takes account of the information needs for policy implementation and development, however also tries to limit the administrative burden and costs related to the data collection. 
Ta okvir upošteva potrebe po informacijah za izvajanje in razvoj politike, hkrati pa skuša omejiti upravno breme in stroške, povezane z zbiranjem podatkov.
Recommendation 4 (iii) Each Rural Development Programme is subject to ex-ante evaluation, which will appraise, among others, the internal coherence of the proposed programme, the consistency of the allocation of budgetary resources with the objectives of the Rural Development Programme and whether the quantified targets are realistic. 
Priporočilo 4 (iii) Za vsak program razvoja podeželja se izvede predhodno vrednotenje, ki bo med drugim ocenilo notranjo skladnost predlaganega programa, skladnost dodeljenih proračunskih sredstev s cilji programa razvoja podeželja in če so količinsko opredeljene ciljne vrednosti realne.
Results of ex-ante evaluations and its recommendations are considered in the approval process of the Rural Development Programmes. 
Rezultati predhodnih vrednotenj in njihova priporočila se upoštevajo pri postopku odobritve programov razvoja podeželja.
Targeting can be achieved in many ways in addition to selection criteria and eligibility criteria; using sectorial or regional differentiation, differentiation of aid intensities by type of beneficiary or by type of investment or by setting aid ceilings. 
Ciljno usmerjanje se lahko poleg uporabe izbirnih meril in meril za upravičenost doseže na veliko načinov: z uporabo razlikovanja med sektorji ali regijami ali razlikovanja med intenzivnostmi pomoči z vrsto upravičenca ali vrsto naložbe ali z določitvijo zgornje meje pomoči.
Regardless the process of selection of the Rural Development projects, there is a need for measuring the output, result and impact of the programmes in order to draw lessons for the future. 
Ne glede na postopek izbire projektov razvoja podeželja obstaja potreba po meritvah izložka, rezultata in vpliva programov, ki bodo poučna za prihodnost.
This implies that in any case data collection and analysis is needed, with the associated costs. 
To kaže, da sta zbiranje in analiza podatkov potrebna v vsakem primeru, skupaj s povezanimi stroški.
See Commission replies to paragraph 57 and 77. 
Glej odgovora Komisije na odstavka 57 in 77.
The Commission publishes the entire reports of the evaluations carried out on its behalf together with their quality assessments on the Europa site, and transmits them to the European Parliament, Council and Court of Auditors. 
Poleg tega Komisija na spletni strani Europa objavi vsa poročila o vrednotenjih, izvedenih v njenem imenu, skupaj z njihovimi ocenami kakovosti in jih posreduje Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu in Evropskemu računskemu sodišču.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Recommendation 6 The Commission considers that there was sufficient follow-up of the Mid-Term Evaluations findings. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE Priporočilo 6 Komisija meni, da je ugotovitvam vmesnega vrednotenja sledilo zadosti nadaljnjega spremljanja.
Letters were sent to the Managing Authorities enquiring what actions were to be taken in relation to Mid-Term Evaluations recommendations, and the Annual Review meetings also addressed this issue. 
Organom za upravljanje so se poslali dopisi, v katerih se jih je spraševalo, kako naj se ukrepa v zvezi s priporočili za vmesna vrednotenja, s to temo pa so se ukvarjali tudi na letnih pregledovalnih sejah.
In addition, the 2011 Focus Group meetings conducted in each Member State by the Evaluation Helpdesk focussed on the Mid-Term Evaluations findings. 
Poleg tega so se na sejah skupin za osredotočanje leta 2011, ki jih je v vsaki državi članici pripravila služba za pomoč uporabnikom pri vrednotenju, osredotočali na ugotovitve vmesnih vrednotenj.
Recommendation 6 (i) Instead of a Mid-Term Evaluation, the Commission has proposed for the 2014-2020 period enhanced Annual Implementation Reports in 2017 and 2019, which will incorporate evaluation findings. 
Priporočilo 6 (i) Namesto vmesnega vrednotenja je Komisija za obdobje 2014–2020 predlagala izboljšana letna poročila o izvajanju za leti 2017 in 2019, ki bodo vključevala ugotovitve vrednotenja.
Recommendation 6 (ii) The Commission publishes the entire reports of the evaluations carried out on its behalf together with their quality assessments on the Europa site, and transmits them to the European Parliament, Council and Court of Auditors. 
Priporočilo 6 (ii) Komisija na spletni strani Europa objavi vsa poročila o vrednotenjih, izvedenih v njenem imenu, skupaj z njihovimi ocenami kakovosti in jih posreduje Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu in Evropskemu računskemu sodišču.
The Commission considers that the objectives of the evaluations are to improve decision-making (by explaining what works and why) and to demonstrate accountability on the basis of work of an independent contractor. 
Komisija meni, da so cilji vrednotenj izboljšati odločanje (prek pojasnila, kaj je učinkovito in zakaj) in dokazati odgovornost na osnovi dela neodvisnega izvajalca.
Recommendation 6 (iii) While lessons can be drawn from the ex-post evaluations, the 2015 report is not necessarily the best place to analyse the implications for any future programmes. 
Priporočilo 6 (iii) Iz naknadnih vrednotenj se je mogoče česa naučiti, toda poročilo za leto 2015 ni nujno najprimernejše za analizo posledic za morebitne prihodnje programe.
The Annual Implementation Reports for 2014-2020 will include a summary of evaluation findings, and it is intended that this should include relevant findings from the 2007-2013 ex-post evaluations. 
Letna poročila o izvajanju za obdobje 2014–2020 bodo vključevala povzetek ugotovitev vrednotenj, ta pa naj bi vključeval pomembne ugotovitve naknadnih vrednotenj za obdobje 2007–2013.
Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
It is normal that the effectiveness and efficiency of policy instruments are assessed on an ex-post basis. 
Običajno je, da sta uspešnost in učinkovitost političnih instrumentov ocenjeni na podlagi naknadnosti.
This evaluation forms part of the standard policy evaluation cycle. 
To vrednotenje tvori del cikla vrednotenja standardne politike.
The relevant information contained in the Leader+ ex-post evaluation will provide the basis for the Commission’s further work on the Leader approach. 
Zadevne informacije, ki jih vsebuje naknadno vrednotenje pristopa Leader+, bodo zagotovile osnovo za nadaljnje delo Komisije na pristopu Leader.
Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko‐okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
The Commission has verified that the objectives are specific, meas¬urable, achievable, realistic and timely to the extent possible during the procedure of the programmes’ approval. 
Komisija je potrdila, da so cilji specifični, merljivi, dosegljivi, realni in pravočasni, kolikor je to mogoče med postopkom potrditve programov.
The Commission will further underline the need for Member States to ensure consist¬ency of the sub-measures’ objectives with the general agri-environmental objectives. 
Komisija bo še dodatno poudarila potrebo po tem, da države članice zagotovijo skladnost ciljev podukrepov s splošnimi kmetijsko-okoljskimi cilji.
The actual environmental benefits of sub-measures can only be determined after a certain period of time of their implemen¬tation. 
Dejanske okoljske koristi podukrepov se lahko določijo komaj po določenem času njihovega izvajanja.
Special Report No 8/2012 – Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings The current ‘learning by doing’ experience shows that the definition of result indicators for improving competitiveness is challenging and the Commission, Member States and various stakeholders have devoted much effort to continuously improve methodology, reliability and comparability. 
8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev Sedanje izkušnje „učenja prek delovanja“ kažejo, da je opredelitev kazalnikov rezultatov za izboljšanje konkurenčnosti izziv, Komisija, države članice in različne udeležene strani pa so vložile veliko truda v stalno izboljševanje metodologije, zanesljivosti in primerljivosti.
The monitoring and evaluation system is subject to review by the Commission and Member States in order to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, especially in terms of reliability and comparability, and foster ownership by sharing good practices and building capacity. 
Komisija in države članice pregledujejo sistem spremljanja in vrednotenja, da bi izboljšale njegovo učinkovitost in uspešnost, zlasti njegovo zanesljivost in omogočanje primerljivosti, ter spodbudile občutek lastništva z izmenjevanjem dobrih praks in gradnjo zmogljivosti.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Special Report No 1/2013 – Has the EU support to the food-processing industry been effective and efficient in adding value to agricultural products? 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE Posebno poročilo št. 1/2013 – Ali je podpora EU živilskopredelovalni industriji uspešno in učinkovito dodala vrednost kmetijskim proizvodom?
The forthcoming synthesis of MTEs is expected to give an overview of the available information on measure 123 with respect to the implementation of the measure and on the achievement of the result indicators . 
Za prihodnji povzetek vmesnih vrednotenj se pričakuje, da bo ponudil pregled informacij, ki so na voljo, o ukrepu 123 v zvezi z njegovim izvajanjem in o dosežkih kazalnikov rezultatov.
In the ex-post evaluation, Member States should again report on the achievement of the result indicators, this time covering the full programming period. 
Pri naknadnem vrednotenju bi morale države članice ponovno poročati o dosežku kazalnikov rezultatov, le da bi tokrat pokrile celotno programsko obdobje.
Special Report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Posebno poročilo št. 6/2013 – Ali so države članice in Komisija z ukrepi za diverzifikacijo podeželskega gospodarstva dosegle stroškovno učinkovitost?
For the next programming period the Commission is developing a new version of the CMEF, together with the Member States, which will allow the assessment, for each RDP, of progress in implementation against commonly defined target indicators for the priorities and focus areas selected for the programme. 
Za naslednje programsko obdobje Komisija skupaj z državami članicami razvija novo različico skupnega okvira spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki bo za vsak program razvoja podeželja omogočil oceno napredka izvajanja v povezavi s skupno opredeljenimi kazalniki za ciljne vrednosti za prednostne naloge in področja, na katera se je treba osredotočiti, izbrana za program.
At the basis is an indicator plan which for each focus area sets the target and the planned outputs and expenditure for the measures that will be used to achieve the targets and objectives of the programme. 
Osnovo tvori načrt kazalnikov, ki za vsako področje, na katero se je treba osredotočiti, določa ciljno vrednost in načrtovane izložke in odhodke za ukrepe, s katerimi se bodo dosegle ciljne vrednosti in cilji programa.
The indicator plan represents more accurately the quantified intervention logic for each individual programme than does the current rigid axis structure. 
Načrt kazalnikov bolj točno predstavlja količinsko opredeljeno logiko intervencije za vsak posamezen program kot pa sedanja toga struktura osi.
60 Annual Report 2011, Chapter 10 The Commission services complied with the obligations set up in the Financial Regulations and in the instructions for the drafting of the Annual Activity Reports (AARs). 
60 Letno poročilo za leto 2011, poglavje 10 Službe Komisije so se strinjale z obveznostmi, določenimi v finančnih uredbah in v navodilih za sestavljanje letnih poročil o dejavnostih.
The Commission is confident that AARs as a whole provide sufficient information on results/outcomes. 
Komisija je prepričana, da letna poročila o dejavnostih kot celota zagotavljajo dovolj informacij o rezultatih/izidih.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2013 — 60 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-428-3 doi:10.2865/42819 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije 2013 – 60 str. – 21 × 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-444-3 doi:10.2865/49813
Priced subscriptions: • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 
Plačljive naročnine: • pri prodajnih zastopnikih Urada za publikacije Evropske unije (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_sl.htm).
FOR THE 2007–13 PROGRAMMING PERIOD, THE EU HAS ALLOCATED ALMOST 100 BILLION EURO TO ACHIEVE ITS RURAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES. 
EU JE ZA DOSEGANJE SVOJIH CILJEV RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA V PROGRAMSKEM OBDOBJU 2007–2013 DODELILA SKORAJ 100 MILIJARD EUR.
IN THIS REPORT, THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ASSURANCE THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN WELL SPENT: THE COMMISSION AND MEMBER STATES HAVE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE IN ACHIEVING VALUE FOR MONEY WITH THE EU’S BUDGET. 
V TEM POROČILU SODIŠČE UGOTAVLJA, DA SO ZAGOTOVILA O DOBRI PORABI PRORAČUNSKIH SREDSTEV EU NEZADOSTNA: KOMISIJA IN DRŽAVE ČLANICE NISO V ZADOSTNI MERI POROČALE O SVOJI SMOTRNOSTI POSLOVANJA PRI DOSEGANJU SMOTRNE PORABE PRORAČUNA EU.
DESPITE SUPPORT FROM THE COMMISSION, MEMBER STATES’ MONITORING AND EVALUATION HAS NOT BEEN RELIABLE, CONSISTENT AND RELEVANT ENOUGH TO SHOW WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN RELATION TO THE POLICY OBJECTIVES. 
SPREMLJANJE IN VREDNOTENJE, KI SO JU IZVAJALE DRŽAVE ČLANICE, KLJUB PODPORI KOMISIJE NISTA BILA DOVOLJ ZANESLJIVA, DOSLEDNA IN RELEVANTNA, DA BI SE LAHKO DOKAZALI DOSEŽKI V ZVEZI S CILJI POLITIKE.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS QJ-AB-13-012-EN-C 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE QJ-AB-13-012-SL-C
EN 2014 Special Report NO 07 Has the ERDF successfully supported the development of business incubators? 
07 Posebno poročilo SL 2014 Ali je ESRR uspešno podpiral razvoj podjetniških inkubatorjev?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 ISBN 978-92-872-0120-1 doi:10.2865/32195 © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2014 ISBN 978-92-872-0136-2 doi:10.2865/34883 © Evropska unija, 2014 Reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
EN 2014 Special Report NO 07 Has the ERDF successfully supported the development of business incubators? (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 
07 Posebno poročilo SL 2014 Ali je ESRR uspešno podpiral razvoj podjetniških inkubatorjev? (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU)
Contents 02 Paragraph I–VII 1–9 10–17 18–78 19–28 20–23 24–28 29–58 31–34 35–48 49–51 52–58 59–72 60–68 69–72 Glossary Executive summary Introduction Audit scope and objectives Observations The quality of infrastructure was generally good, but incubators’ performance lagged behind In most cases, incubation facilities were well adapted and had been constructed and equipped as planned Audited business incubators were comparatively less effective Audited ERDF incubators had not made sufficient use of good practices When business incubators were being established, too little attention had been paid to the effectiveness of their business support functions Incubation services were only loosely linked to clients’ needs Monitoring systems within the incubators did not provide adequate management information Incubators’ financial sustainability was conflicting with the objective of providing adequate incubation services to relevant businesses ERDF management systems did not focus on efficiency of the services provided by business incubators The procedure for selecting incubators did not give due consideration to certain crucial elements for incubation activity ERDF co-funded incubators were not required to continue incubation activities for a sufficiently long period of time 
Kazalo 02 Odstavek I–VII 1–9 10–17 18–78 19–28 20–23 24–28 29–58 31–34 35–48 49–51 52–58 59–72 60–68 69–72 Glosar Povzetek Uvod Obseg in cilji revizije Opažanja Kakovost infrastrukture je bila na splošno dobra, smotrnost poslovanja inkubatorjev pa je bila slabša Objekti inkubatorjev so bili večinoma dobro prilagojeni ter izgrajeni in opremljeni po načrtih Revidirani podjetniški inkubatorji so bili sorazmerno manj uspešni Revidirani inkubatorji, sofinancirani iz ESRR, niso dovolj uporabljali dobrih praks Pri ustanavljanju podjetniških inkubatorjev je bilo premalo pozornosti namenjeno uspešnosti njihovih podpornih dejavnosti za podjetja Storitve inkubatorja so bile le ohlapno povezane s potrebami uporabnikov Sistemi spremljanja znotraj inkubatorjev niso zagotavljali ustreznih upravljavskih informacij Finančna vzdržnost inkubatorja je bila v nasprotju s ciljem zagotavljanja ustreznih storitev inkubatorja zadevnim podjetjem Sistemi upravljanja ESRR se niso osredotočali na učinkovitost storitev, ki so jih zagotavljali podjetniški inkubatorji V postopku za izbiro inkubatorjev se niso ustrezno upoštevali nekateri elementi, ključni za dejavnosti inkubatorjev Inkubatorjem, sofinanciranim iz ESRR, ni bilo treba dovolj dolgo nadaljevati izvajanje dejavnosti inkubatorja
Contents 03 73 – 78 Limitations in the dissemination of knowledge by the European Commission hampered the promotion of good practices 79 – 85 Conclusions and recommendations Annex — List of audited incubators Reply of the Commission 
Kazalo 03 73 – 78 Omejitve, s katerimi se je pri razširjanju znanja srečevala Evropska komisija, so ovirale spodbujanje dobrih praks 79 – 85 Zaključki in priporočila Priloga – Seznam revidiranih inkubatorjev Odgovori Komisije
EBN: European Business and Innovation Centre Network. 
Glosar 04 EBN: Evropska mreža poslovnih in inovacijskih centrov.
ERDF: European Regional Development Fund. 
ESRR: Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj.
High-growth potential company: A company performing better, or expected to perform better, than its industry or the market as a whole. 
Podjetje z visokim potencialom rasti: Podjetje, ki je ali bo po pričakovanjih uspešnejše kot druga podjetja v celotni panogi ali na celotnem trgu.
Incubation programme: An individually tailored document describing planned events and actions for each individual start‐up hosted in the incubator. 
Program inkubiranja: Posameznemu podjetju prilagojen dokument, v katerem so za vsako posamezno gostujoče zagonsko podjetje opisani načrtovani dogodki in ukrepi.
The objective of the incubation programme is to establish business objectives for a client company and to define a range of targeted resources and services which would support its development. 
Namen programa inkubiranja je določiti poslovne cilje podjetja uporabnika ter opredeliti vrsto ciljno usmerjenih virov in storitev, ki bodo podpirali njegov razvoj.
The implementation of the programme and the achievement of business goals are monitored using indicators. 
Izvajanje programa in doseganje poslovnih ciljev se spremljata z uporabo kazalnikov.
Regional innovation strategy (RIS): A document defining regional priorities in a systematic and target‐oriented manner, and addressing them using actions aimed at developing local innovation by academic and business organisations. 
Regionalna inovacijska strategija (RIS): Dokument, v katerem so sistematično in na podlagi ciljev opredeljene regionalne prednostne naloge, ki se obravnavajo z uporabo ukrepov, namenjenih razvoju inovacij na lokalni ravni prek akademskih in poslovnih organizacij.