natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
EN C 375/174 Official Journal THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS 6.23. For two transactions in two Member States, the national authorities had identified serious cases of non-compliance with public procurement rules and imposed specific financial corrections at project level(19). 
C 375/174 Uradni list Evropske unije 13.10.2016 ODGOVORI KOMISIJE SL UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA 6.23 Pri dveh transakcijah v dveh državah članicah so nacionalni organi ugotovili primere resnega neupoštevanja pravil o javnem naročanju in naložili posebne finančne popravke na ravni projektov(19).
These corrective measures have been taken into account in the calculation of our estimated level of error, since the corrective measures were taken before the notification of our audit. 
Ti popravljalni ukrepi so se upoštevali pri izračunu ocenjene stopnje napake, saj so bili sprejeti pred obvestilom o reviziji Sodišča.
On 26 February 2014, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament adopted three directives aimed at simplifying public procurement procedures and making them more flexible. 
6.24 Svet Evropske unije in Evropski parlament sta 26. februarja 2014 sprejela tri direktive za poenostavitev in večjo fleksibilnost postopkov javnega naročanja.
EU countries had until April 2016 to transpose the new rules into national law (except with regard to e-procurement where the deadline is October 2018) (20). 
Države članice EU so morale nova pravila prenesti v nacionalno zakonodajo do aprila 2016 (razen pravil o e-javnem naročanju, za katera je rok oktober 2018) (20).
In May 2016, the Commission has addressed letters of formal notice whereby the Commission reminds them of their overdue obligation to enact in national law the three EU directives to 20 out of the 28 Member States (21). 
Komisija je maja 2016 20 od 28 držav članic EU (21) poslala uradne opomine, v katerih jih je opomnila, da teh treh direktiv EU še vedno niso prenesle v nacionalno zakonodajo, čeprav je rok že potekel.
If Member States continue to fail in their obligation to enact in national law, the Commission may open infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU which could eventually lead to the imposition of fines to the Member States concerned. 
Če države članice še naprej ne bodo izpolnjevale svoje obveznosti sprejemanja nacionalne zakonodaje, bo Komisija morda uvedla postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev v skladu s členom 258 PDEU, po katerih bi bile za zadevne države članice lahko naložene globe.
We have also published a special report on the actions taken by Member States and the Commission to address the problem of public procurement errors in the area of ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ (22). of the European Union 13.10.2016 THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES 6.23. 
6.25 Sodišče je objavilo tudi posebno poročilo o ukrepih, ki so jih sprejele države članice in Komisija, za obravnavo problema napak pri javnem naročanju na področju ekonomske, socialne in teritorialne kohezije (22).
The Commission notes that adequate corrective action is indeed taken by some programme authorities in the quoted Member States and acknowledges that it is reflected by the Court in its quantification of errors. 
6.23 Komisija ugotavlja, da nekateri organi, ki so v navedenih državah članicah pristojni za programe, dejansko sprejmejo ustrezne popravljalne ukrepe, in potrjuje, da to odraža Računsko sodišče v svoji opredelitvi napak.
The objective of the Commission’s action plan referred to in the reply to paragraphs 6.19 to 6.21 is to increase the occurrence of such proactive corrective actions at Member State level. 6.24. 
Cilj akcijskega načrta, na katerega se Komisija sklicuje v odgovoru na odstavke 6.19 do 6.21, je povečati pojav takšnih proaktivnih popravljalnih ukrepov na ravni držav članic.
The Commission is closely monitoring the state of transposition in Member States. 
6.24 Komisija tesno spremlja prenos v državah članicah.
As of 30 June 2016, 16 Member States still have to transpose the directive on public procurement (2014/24/EU), while 19 have to transpose the directive on the award of concession contracts (2014/23/ EU) and 17 the directive on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (2014/25/EU). 6.25. 
Na dan 30. junija 2016 mora še 16 držav članic prenesti Direktivo 2014/24/EU o javnem naročanju, medtem ko mora še 19 držav članic prenesti Direktivo 2014/23/EU o podeljevanju koncesijskih pogodb, 17 držav članic pa Direktivo 2014/25/EU o javnem naročanju naročnikov, ki opravljajo dejavnosti v vodnem, energetskem in prometnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev.
The Commission has accepted all recommendations made by the Court in its special report and is taking the recommended actions. 
6.25 Komisija je sprejela vsa priporočila Računskega sodišča v posebnih poročilih ter izvaja predlagane ukrepe.
The Commission refers to its replies to paragraphs 6.7 to 6.15 and 6.19 above. 
Komisija se sklicuje na svoje odgovore na odstavke 6.7 do 6.15 in 6.19 zgoraj.
(19) In accordance with Commission Decision C(2013) 9527 final of 19.12.2013. 
(19) V skladu s Sklepom Komisije C(2013) 9527 final z dne 19. decembra 2013.
(20) Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement (2014/24/EU), on the award of concession contracts (2014/23/EU) and on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (2014/25/EU) (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014). 
(20) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. februarja 2014 o javnem naročanju (2014/24/EU), o podeljevanju koncesijskih pogodb (2014/23/EU) in o javnem naročanju naročnikov, ki opravljajo dejavnosti v vodnem, energetskem in prometnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev (2014/25/EU) (UL L 94, 28.3.2014).
(21) The eight Member States that implemented all three new Directives are: Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. 
(21) Osem držav članic, ki so prenesle vse tri nove direktive, je: Danska, Nemčija, Francija, Italija, Madžarska, Romunija, Slovaška in Združeno kraljestvo.
(22) See special report No 10/2015 ‘Efforts to address problems with public procurement in EU Cohesion expenditure should be intensified’ (http://eca.europa.eu). 
(22) Glej Posebno poročilo št. 10/2015 – Prizadevanja za reševanje problemov pri javnem naročanju na področju odhodkov EU za kohezijo bi bilo treba povečati (http://eca.europa.eu).
The Commission directly enforces the EU state aid rules. 
6.27 Komisija neposredno izvršuje pravila EU o državni pomoči.
Member States must notify all cases of state aid to the Commission (either through a scheme or case-by-case for a project), unless the project is below a ‘de minimis’ ceiling (24) or is covered by the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER)(25). 
Države članice morajo vse primere državne pomoči priglasiti Komisiji (v okviru sheme ali za vsak projekt posebej), razen če ni projekt pod pragom de minimis (24) ali pa ne sodi v obseg uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah(25).
For all cases notified, the Directorate-General for Competition forms a view on whether the aid is compatible with the internal market The ESF is less prone to infringements of state aid rules since very often projects fall under the ‘de minimis’ rule. 6.28. 
Generalni direktorat za konkurenco za vsak priglašen primer oblikuje stališče o tem, ali je pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom. ESS je manj dovzeten za kršitve pravil o državni pomoči, saj za projekte zelo pogosto velja pravilo de minimis.
We identified this year seven ERDF/CF projects in five Member States that infringed the EU state aid rules (26). 
6.28 Sodišče je letos odkrilo sedem projektov ESRR/Kohezijskega sklada v petih državah članicah, pri katerih so bila kršena pravila EU o državni pomoči(26).
Where necessary, we requested and obtained a preliminary assessment by the Directorate-General for Competition. 
Po potrebi je prosilo za predhodno oceno Generalnega direktorata za konkurenco in jo tudi dobilo.
This assessment and the case law of the European Court of Justice were taken into account when classifying errors. 6.29. 
Ta ocena in sodna praksa Sodišča Evropske unije sta bili upoštevani pri razvrščanju napak.
For three of these projects, we consider that the project should have obtained less or no public funding from the EU and/or the Member State according to the state aid rules. 
6.29 Za tri od teh projektov Sodišče meni, da bi morali v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči prejeti manj javnega financiranja EU in/ali države članice ali pa ga sploh ne bi smeli prejeti.
The main reasons for non-compliance with state aid rules refer to the excess of aid intensity limits These quantified errors make up approximately 0,3 percentage points of the estimated level of error (see Figure 6.6). 
Glavni razlog za neupoštevanje pravil o državni pomoči se nanaša na prekoračitev omejitev za intenzivnost pomoči. Te količinsko opredeljene napake pomenijo približno 0,3 odstotne točke ocenjene stopnje napake (glej sliko 6.6).
We applied the 2014 GBER for estimating the level of error in this category (27). of the European Union THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES 6.27. 
Sodišče je za oceno ravni napake v tej kategoriji uporabilo uredbo o splošnih skupinskih izjemah iz leta 2014 (27).
C 375/175 In case of a State aid notification, the Commission assesses whether the support constitutes State aid and, if so, whether it is compatible with the internal market. 
Pri priglasitvi državne pomoči Komisija oceni, ali podpora pomeni državno pomoč in ali je v tem primeru združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The outcome of the assessment leads to a Commission decision. 
Rezultati ocene vodijo do sklepa Komisije.
(23) Article 107 and 108 TFEU. 
(23) Člena 107 in 108 PDEU.
(24) Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 (OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5). 
(24) Člen 2(1) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 (UL L 379, 28.12.2006, str.
(25) Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 
(25) Člen 3 Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 651/2014 (UL L 187, 26.6.2014, str.
1), replacing Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3). 
1), ki je nadomestil člen 3(1) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 800/ 2008 (UL L 214, 9.8.2008, str.
(26) Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Poland and United Kingdom. 
(26) Češka, Italija, Latvija, Poljska in Združeno kraljestvo.
(27) Regulation (EU) No 651/2014. 
(27) Uredba (EU) št.
EN C 375/176 Official Journal THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS of the European Union 13.10.2016 THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES Figure 6.6 — Example of a project infringing state aid rules The aid intensity limit was exceeded: For a CF project in Poland related to the construction of a port infrastructure, funding exceeded the maximum allowable under state aid rules for this type of project. 
C 375/176 Uradni list Evropske unije 13.10.2016 ODGOVORI KOMISIJE SL UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA Slika 6.6 – Primer projekta, pri katerem so bila kršena pravila o državni pomoči Omejitev za intenzivnost pomoči je bila prekoračena: Pri projektu Kohezijskega sklada na Poljskem, ki se je nanašal na gradnjo pristaniške infrastrukture, je financiranje prekoračilo najvišji znesek, ki je v skladu s pravili za državno pomoč še dovoljen za to vrsto projektov.
Other cases were found in another ERDF projects in Latvia and the United Kingdom. 
Dodatna primera sta bila ugotovljena pri drugih projektih ESRR v Latviji in Združenem kraljestvu.
6.30. We have also published a special report on the Commission’s and Member States’ efforts needed to prevent, detect and correct infringements of state aid rules in the area of Cohesion (28). 
6.30 Sodišče je objavilo tudi posebno poročilo o prizadevanjih Evropske komisije in držav članic, ki so potrebna za preprečevanje, odkrivanje in popravljanje kršitev pravil o državni pomoči na področju kohezije (28).
Value-added tax declared by public bodies 6.31. Value-added tax (VAT) is an EU indirect tax on the domestic consumption of goods and services levied at each stage in the chain of production and borne by the end consumer. 
Davek na dodano vrednost, ki so ga prijavili javni organi 6.31 Davek na dodano vrednost (DDV) je posredni davek EU na domačo potrošnjo blaga in storitev, ki se zaračuna v vsaki fazi proizvodne verige in ga plača končni potrošnik.
According to EU legislation, recoverable VAT is not eligible for co-financing under ERDF/CF and ESF (29). 
V skladu z zakonodajo EU vračljivi DDV ni upravičen do sofinanciranja v okviru ESRR/Kohezijskega sklada in ESS (29).
Non-recoverable VAT can, thus, be declared for co-financing. 
Nevračljivi DDV se tako lahko prijavi za sofinanciranje.
When public bodies do not declare and therefore do not recover VAT, both the Commission and the Member States have interpreted the regulations as allowing VAT to be an eligible cost. 
6.32 Kadar javni organi ne prijavijo DDV in zato ne prejmejo vračila, tako Komisija kot države članice menijo, da je DDV v skladu z uredbami upravičen strošek.
However, the distinction between recoverable and non-recoverable VAT in the regulations is a source of confusion. 
Toda razlikovanje med vračljivim in nevračljivim DDV v uredbah povzroča zmedo.
6.30. The Commission refers to its replies to the Court’s observations and recommendations published in the referred special report and will follow up the accepted recommendations. 
6.30 Komisija se sklicuje na svoje odgovore na opažanja in priporočila Računskega sodišča, objavljena v navedenem posebnem poročilu, in bo spremljala sprejeta priporočila.
6.31. The regulatory provisions mentioned by the Court for Cohesion policy are the outcome of a policy choice made by the co-legislators. 
6.31 Regulativne določbe, ki jih je Računsko sodišče navedlo za kohezijsko politiko, so rezultat izbire politike s strani sozakonodajalcev.
They are overall aligned with the standard principles on eligibility of VAT for grants in other EU policies, in particular under direct management. 
Na splošno so v skladu s standardnimi načeli o upravičenosti do DDV za nepovratna sredstva v drugih politikah EU, še posebej pod neposrednim upravljanjem.
6.32-6.33. In principle, the Commission relies on the Member State’s assessment of the beneficiary’s taxable or non-taxable status regarding VAT. 
6.32–6.33 Načeloma se Komisija opira na ocene držav članic o davčnem oz. nedavčnem statusu upravičenca v zvezi z DDV.
However, as confirmed by the Court of Justice in 2012, the notion of recoverable VAT does not result only from the formal examination of the taxable/non-taxable status of the beneficiary. 
Vendar, kot je potrdilo Sodišče leta 2012, zamisel o povračljivem DDV ne izvira iz formalnega pregleda davčnega/nedavčnega statusa upravičenca.
The Commission intends to provide clarification to Member States in that respect for the current 2014-2020 programming period. 
Komisija namerava zagotoviti dodatna pojasnila državam članicam v zvezi s trenutnim programskim obdobjem 2014–2020.
The Commission will follow up the cases identified by the Court. 
Komisija bo spremljala primere, ki jih je ugotovilo Računsko sodišče.
(28) See special report No 24/2016 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
(28) Glej Posebno poročilo št. 24/2016 (http://eca.europa.eu).
(29) Article 7(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 
(29) Člen 7(1)(d) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1080/2006 (UL L 210, 31.7.2006, str.
1) and Article 11(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 
1) ter členi 11(2)(a) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št 1081/ 2006 (UL L 210, 31.7.2006, str.
12) and Article 3(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 
12) in člen 3(e) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1084/2006 (UL L 210, 31.7.2006, str.
For the 2014-2020 programming period, similar provisions are included in Articles 37(11) and 69(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
Za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 so podobne določbe vključene v člena 37(11) in 69(3)(c) Uredbe (EU) št. 1303/2013.
EN 13.10.2016 Official Journal of the European Union C 375/177 THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS 6.33. For example, the Court of Justice ruled in 2012 that VAT must be considered recoverable whenever an operator charges fees with VAT to the ultimate users of the infrastructure (30). 
13.10.2016 Uradni list Evropske unije C 375/177 SL UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA ODGOVORI KOMISIJE 6.33 Npr. Sodišče Evropske unije je leta 2012 razsodilo, da mora DDV šteti za vračljivega, kadar izvajalec dejavnosti končnim uporabnikom infrastrukture zaračuna ceno z DDV (30).
We identified three cases where recoverable VAT was declared by public bodies as eligible cost (see Figure 6.7). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo tri primere, v katerih so javni organi vračljivi DDV prijavili kot upravičen strošek (glej sliko 6.7).
THE COMMISSION’S REPLIES Figure 6.7 — Example of ineligible VAT Recoverable VAT is ineligible for EU co-financing: For an ERDF project in Hungary related to the rehabilitation of an unused mine to construct a new open-air event centre the beneficiary, a public municipality, declared VAT as eligible expenditure. 
Slika 6.7 – Primer neupravičenega DDV Vračljivi DDV ni upravičen do sofinanciranja EU: Za projekt ESRR na Madžarskem, ki se je nanašal na sanacijo rudnika, ki se ne uporablja več, in gradnjo novega središča za prireditve na prostem, je upravičenec, občina, kot upravičen odhodek prijavil DDV.
However, the operator of the centre will charge fees with VAT to the ultimate users of the infrastructure. As a result, VAT expenditure is ineligible for EU co-financing. 
Ker pa bo izvajalec dejavnosti središča končnim uporabnikom infrastrukture zaračunaval ceno z DDV, odhodki za DDV niso upravičeni do sofinanciranja EU.
Similar cases were found in two ERDF projects in Germany. 
Podobna primera sta bila ugotovljena pri dveh projektih ESRR v Nemčiji.
6.34. Even when VAT declared as expenditure by national governments acting as beneficiaries has been considered as eligible, the VAT as such does not represent a net cost to the Member State(31). 
6.34 Tudi kadar je DDV, ki so ga kot odhodek prijavile nacionalne vlade v vlogi upravičenca, štel za upravičenega, za države članice ne pomeni neto stroška (31).
A large infrastructure project can be implemented, for example, by a ministry or a body directly under its authority and include VAT in its costs since that ministry does not recover VAT paid. 
Ministrstvo ali drug organ v neposredni pristojnosti ministrstva lahko npr. izvaja velik infrastrukturni projekt in v svoje stroške vključi DDV, ker ministrstvo ne zahteva vračila plačanega DDV.
At the same time, the national budget receives the VAT that has been reimbursed by EU funds. 
Nacionalni proračun pa hkrati prejme DDV, povrnjen iz skladov EU.
In the EU the standard VAT rates applied for most of the projects range from 17 % to 27 %. 
6.35 V EU standardne stopnje DDV, ki se uporabljajo za večino projektov, znašajo od 17 % do 27 %.
When VAT declared as non-recoverable by the ministries implementing the projects exceeds the national co-financing rate, the EU reimbursement may even exceed the actual costs incurred for the project, net of VAT. 
Kadar DDV, ki ga ministrstva, ki izvajajo projekte, prijavijo kot nevračljivega, preseže nacionalno stopnjo sofinanciranja, lahko povračilo EU celo preseže dejansko nastale stroške projekta brez DDV.
For example, this occurs when the co-financing rate of a project is 85 % or higher and the VAT rate paid by the ministry implementing the project is beyond 20 %. 
To se zgodi npr. kadar stopnja sofinanciranja za projekt znaša vsaj 85 %, stopnja DDV, ki jo plača ministrstvo, ki izvaja projekt, pa presega 20 %.
If the VAT rate paid would be 23 %, then the total EU contribution for the project would account for 104,6 % of the actual costs incurred net of VAT. 
Če bi bila plačana 23-odstotna stopnja DDV, bi skupni prispevek EU za projekt znašal 104,6% dejansko nastalih stroškov brez DDV.
This is particularly relevant for the Cohesion Fund where most of the projects have a co-financing rate of 85 % or higher. 
To je zlasti pomembno pri Kohezijskem skladu, pri katerem ima večina projektov vsaj 85-odstotno stopnjo sofinanciranja.
The Commission notes that VAT is a general tax collected by national or regional governments which do not redirect it back to individual financed projects. 
Komisija ugotavlja, da je DDV splošen davek, ki ga poberejo nacionalne ali regionalne vlade, vendar ga ne preusmerijo nazaj na posamezne financirane projekte.
A more stringent position which would declare VAT as ineligible costs for ministries or bodies directly under their authority would actually penalise those which are not in a position to recover VAT or be compensated for it. 
Strožje stališče, ki bi DDV štelo za neupravičen strošek ministrstev ali organov, ki so neposredno pod njihovim nadzorom, bi pravzaprav kaznovalo tiste, ki ne morejo zahtevati povračila DDV ali zanj prejeti nadomestila.
Such bodies would therefore be obliged to find additional funding to implement their projects or would have to contribute more to their financing than other beneficiaries recovering VAT. 
Ti organi bi tako morali poiskati dodatna sredstva za izvajanje svojih projektov ali pa bi morali prispevati več lastnih finančnih sredstev od upravičencev, ki lahko zahtevajo povračilo DDV.
This is not the policy choice made by the co-legislators for cohesion policy. 
To ni politika, ki bi jo sozakonodajalca izbrala za kohezijsko politiko.
(30) Case T-89/10, Hungary v Commission, judgement of 20 September 2012 of the General Court. 
(30) Zadeva T-89/10, Madžarska proti Komisiji, sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 20. septembra 2012.
(31) For 47 of the 223 ERDF/CF and ESF projects implemented by public bodies we examined in 2015, we estimated up to 412 million euro of VAT declared. 6.34-6.35. 
(31) Sodišče je za 47 od 223 leta 2015 preučenih projektov ESRR/ Kohezijskega sklada in ESS, ki jih izvajajo javni organi, ocenilo, da prijavljen DDV znaša 412 milijonov EUR. 6.34–6.35
EN C 375/178 Official Journal of the European Union 13.10.2016 THE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS Insufficient reliability of checks at Member State level 6.36. In 18 cases of quantifiable errors made by beneficiaries, national authorities had sufficient information (32) to prevent or detect and correct the errors before declaring the expenditure to the Commission. 
C 375/178 Uradni list Evropske unije 13.10.2016 ODGOVORI KOMISIJE SL UGOTOVITVE SODIŠČA Pregledi na ravni držav članic niso dovolj zanesljivi 6.36 V 18 primerih količinsko opredeljivih napak, ki so jih naredili upravičenci, so imeli nacionalni organi dovolj informa-cij(32), da bi napake lahko preprečili ali odkrili in popravili, preden so bili odhodki prijavljeni Komisiji.
If all this information had been used, the estimated level of error for this chapter would have been 2,4 percentage points lower. 
Če bi se vse te informacije uporabile, bi bila ocenjena stopnja napake za to poglavje za 2,4 odstotne točke nižja.
In addition, we found that for two cases, the error that we detected was made by managing authorities and intermediate bodies in Member States. 
Poleg tega je Sodišče v dveh primerih ugotovilo, da so napake, ki smo jih odkrili, naredili organi upravljanja in posredniški organi v državah članicah.
These errors contributed 0,6 percentage points to the estimated level of error. 
Te napake so prispevale 0,6 odstotne točke k ocenjeni stopnji napake.
The Commission is strictly following up these cases and agrees that sound and timely management verifications must be in place in order to prevent irregularities occurring in the first place or being included in payment claims. 
6.36 Komisija natančno spremlja te primere in se strinja, da je treba zagotoviti dobra in pravočasna preverjanja upravljanja, da bi se preprečil pojav nepravilnosti ali njihova vključitev v zahtevke za plačila.
Since 2010, the Commission has been carrying out targeted audits on management verifications of high-risk programmes where it has identified that deficiencies could remain undetected or not detected in a timely manner by the programme audit authority. 
Komisija od leta 2010 izvaja ciljno usmerjene revizije upravnih preverjanj pri programih z visokim tveganjem v primerih, v katerih je ugotovila, da bi pomanjkljivosti lahko ostale neodkrite ali pa bi jih revizijski organ za program opazil prepozno.