natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Table 3.1 — Market and direct support for agriculture — Key information 2011 Budget (million euro) Management mode Centralised direct Shared (2) Shared Centralised direct/Shared Policy area Description Payments Agriculture expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) Administrative expenditure (1) Interventions in agricultural markets Direct aids Other 134 3 533 40 178 98 43 943 Title 05 Total administrative expenditure (3) 134 Total operational expenditure Of which: — advances 8 — interim/final payments Total payments for the year Total commitments for the year 43 801 43 943 43 950 43 809 (1) This amount represents the total administrative expenditure for Title 05. 
Ključne informacije o vključenih dejavnostih in porabi v letu 2011 so v tabeli 3.1. Tabela 3.1 – Kmetijstvo: tržna in neposredna podpora – ključne informacije za leto 2011 Proračunski (v milijonih EUR) Način upravljanja neposredno centralizi­ rano deljeno (2) deljeno neposredno centralizira­ no/deljeno Področje politik Opis Plačila Kmetijski odhodki, financirani iz Evropskega kmetijskega jamstve­ nega sklada (EKJS) upravni odhodki (1) intervencije na kmetijskih trgih neposredne pomoči drugo 134 3 533 40 178 98 43 943 naslov 05 Upravni odhodki skupaj (3) Operativni odhodki skupaj Od tega: — predplačila — vmesna/končna plačila Plačila za leto skupaj Obveznosti za leto skupaj 134 43 809 8 43 801 43 943 43 950 (1) Ta znesek predstavlja skupne upravne odhodke za naslov 05.
(2) This figure includes 1,5 million euro which is centralised management (budget line 05 02 20 02). 
(2) Ta znesek vključuje 1,5 milijona EUR iz centraliziranega upravljanja (proračunska vrstica 05 02 20 02).
(3) The audit of administrative expenditure is reported in Chapter 9. 
(3) Revizija upravnih odhodkov je predstavljena v poglavju 9.
EN 12.11.2012 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C344/73 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S Specific characteristics of the policy group 3.2. The objectives (1) of the common agricultural policy (CAP) as set out in the Treaty are to increase agricultural productivity, thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. 
SL 12.11.2012 UradnilistEvropskeunije C344/73 U G O T OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A Posebne značilnosti te skupine politik 3.2 Cilji skupne kmetijske politike (SKP), kot so določeni v Pogodbi, so povečanje kmetijske produktivnosti za zagota­ vljanje primerne življenjske ravni kmetijske skupnosti, stabili­ zacija trgov in zagotavljanje redne preskrbe, ki je potrošnikom dostopna po primernih cenah (1).
3.3. The EU budget finances CAP expenditure mainly through two funds (2): the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), which fully finances EU direct aid and market measures (3), and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), which co-finances rural development programmes. 
3.3 Odhodki skupne kmetijske politike iz proračuna EU se financirajo predvsem iz dveh skladov (2): Evropskega kmetij­ skega jamstvenega sklada (EKJS), ki v celoti financira nepo­ sredno pomoč EU in tržne ukrepe (3), ter Evropskega kmetij­ skega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP), ki sofinancira programe za razvoj podeželja.
This Chapter covers EAGF expenditure while rural development expenditure is presented in Chapter 4. 3.4. 
To poglavje obravnava odhodke EKJS, odhodki za razvoj podeželja pa so predstavljeni v poglavju 4.
ThemainmeasuresfinancedbyEAGFare: — the direct aid ‘Single Payment Scheme’ (SPS). 
3.4 Glavniukrepi,kisefinancirajoizEKJS,so: — Shema neposredne pomoči, ki se imenuje „shema enotnega plačila“ (SEP).
SPS payments are based on ‘entitlements’ (4) each of which is activated with one hectare of eligible land declared by the farmer. 
Plačila v okviru SEP temeljijo na „pravi­ cah“ (4). Vsaka pravica se uveljavi z enim hektarom upra­ vičenega zemljišča, ki ga je kmet prijavil.
In 2011 SPS represented 31 082 million euro of expenditure (77 % of direct aids), — the direct aid ‘Single Area Payment Scheme’ (SAPS) provides for the payment of uniform amounts per eligible hectare of agricultural land and is currently applied in 10 of the Member States (5) that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. 
Leta 2011 je SEP dosegala 31 082 milijonov EUR odhodkov (77 % nepo­ srednih pomoči). — Pri shemi neposredne pomoči, ki se imenuje „shema enotnega plačila na površino“ (SEPP), je predvideno plačilo enotnih zneskov na hektar upravičenih kmetijskih zemljišč. Shema se zdaj uporablja v desetih državah članicah (5), ki so se pridružile EU v letih 2004 in 2007.
In 2011 SAPS accounted for 5 084 million euro of expen­ diture (13 % of direct aids), — other direct aid schemes linked to specific types of agri­ cultural production (such as suckler cows, cotton, etc.). 
Leta 2011 so odhodki SEPP znašali 5084 milijonov EUR (13% neposrednih pomoči). — Druge sheme neposrednih pomoči so povezane s posameznimi vrstami kmetijske proizvodnje (kot so krave dojilje, bombaž itd.).
In 2011 those schemes accounted for 4 012 million euro of expenditure (10 % of direct aids), — interventions in agricultural markets covering, e.g. intervention storage, export refunds, food programmes and specific support for the fruit/vegetable and the wine sectors (in total amounting to 3 533 million euro in 2011). _____________ (1) Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Te sheme so leta 2011 pomenile odhodke v višini 4 012 milijonov EUR (10 % neposrednih pomoči). — Intervencije na kmetijskih trgih, ki zajemajo npr. interven­ cijsko skladiščenje, izvozna nadomestila, programe za hrano in posebno podporo za sektorje sadja/zelenjave in vina (leta 2011 skupaj 3 533 milijonov EUR). _____________ (1) Člen 39 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
(3) With the exception of certain measures such as promotion measures and the school fruit scheme, which are co-financed. 
(3) Razen nekaterih ukrepov, kot so promocijski ukrepi in shema za razdeljevanje sadja v šolah, ki so sofinancirani.
(4) The number and value of each farmer's entitlement was calculated by the national authorities according to one of the models provided for under EU legislation. 
(4) Število in vrednost pravic za vsakega kmeta so izračunali nacionalni organi v skladu z enim od modelov, ki jih določa zakonodaja EU.
(5) Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. 
(5) V Bolgariji, na Češkem, v Estoniji, na Cipru, v Latviji, Litvi, na Madžarskem, Poljskem, v Romuniji in na Slovaškem.
EN C 344/74 Official Journal T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S 3.5. Under all EAGF direct aid schemes (6), beneficiaries of EU aid have a legal obligation to fulfil ‘cross compliance’ conditions relating to the protection of the environment, public health, animal and plant health, animal welfare (Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs)) and to the maintenance of agricultural land in good agricultural and envi­ ronmental condition (GAEC) (7). 
SL C 344/74 Uradni list Evropske unije 12.11.2012 U G OT OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A 3.5 V okviru vseh shem neposrednih pomoči EKJS (6) imajo upravičenci do pomoči EU zakonsko obveznost za izpolnje­ vanje pogojev v zvezi z „navzkrižno skladnostjo“, ki se nana­ šajo na varovanje okolja, javno zdravje, zdravje živali in rastlin, dobro počutje živali (predpisane zahteve ravnanja) ter na ohra­ njanje zemljišč v stanju, ki je v skladu z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji (7).
If farmers do not comply with these obligations their aid is reduced (8). 3.6. 
Če kmetje ne ravnajo v skladu s temi obveznostmi, se njihov znesek pomoči zniža (8).
Expenditure is chan­ nelled through 81 national or regional paying agencies. 
Odhodke izvršuje 81 nacionalnih ali regio­ nalnih plačilnih agencij.
These paying agencies are responsible for making payments to the beneficiaries and, prior to doing so, they must, either directly or through delegated bodies, check the eligibility of the aid applications. 
Te plačilne agencije so odgovorne za izvrševanje plačil upravičencem, pred izplačilom pa se morajo neposredno ali s pomočjo pooblaščenih organov prepričati o upravičenosti zahtevkov za pomoč.
The Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is the main management and control system to ensure the regularity of EAGF direct aid transactions. 
Integrirani administrativni in kontrolni sistem (IAKS) je glavni upravljavski in kontrolni sistem za zagotavljanje pravilnosti transakcij neposredne pomoči EKJS.
The accounts and payment records of the paying agencies are examined by independent audit bodies (certification bodies) which report to the Commission through annual certificates and reports. 3.7. 
Računovodske izkaze in plačilne evidence plačilnih agencij pregledajo neodvisni revizijski organi (certifi­ kacijski organi), ki o tem poročajo Komisiji v letnih certifikatih in poročilih.
TheCommissionhastoobtainassurancethatthe Member States have set up management and control systems which meet the requirements of the regulations, and that the systems function effectively. 3.8. 
3.7 Komisija mora pridobiti zagotovilo, da so države članice vzpostavile upravljavske in kontrolne sisteme, ki izpolnjujejo zahteve iz uredb, in da ti sistemi uspešno delujejo.
Asregardsdirectaidsthemainriskstoregularityare that area aid is paid for ineligible land or to two or more beneficiaries for the same plot of land, or that animal premiums are paid for more animals than the applicant owns. 
3.8 Pri neposrednih pomočeh so glavna tveganja za pravil­ nost, da se pomoč na površino izplača za neupravičeno zemljišče oziroma dvema ali več upravičencem za isto parcelo ali da se premije za živali izplačajo za več živali, kot jih ima vlagatelj zahtevka v lasti.
As regards interventions in agricultural markets the main risks to regularity are that aid is granted for ineligible or overstated costs. of the European Union 12.11.2012 T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 3.5. EU legislation provides that where non-compliance with those conditions is noted, a penalty shall be applied on the overall amount of direct payments made in respect of the applications submitted by the farmer in the course of the calendar year of the finding, if the non-compliance is due to an act or omission directly attributable to the farmer and if it is not of a minor nature. 
Pri intervencijah na kmetijskih trgih je glavno tveganje za pravilnost, da se pomoč dodeli za neupravičene ali previsoko navedene stroške. O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E 3.5 Zakonodaja EU določa, da se ob ugotovljeni neskladnosti z navedenimi pogoji naloži kazen, katere višina je odvisna od skupnega zneska izvršenih neposrednih plačil za zahtevke, ki jih je kmet pred­ ložil v koledarskem letu ugotovitve, če je neskladnost posledica dejanja ali opustitve, za katero je neposredno odgovoren kmet, in če nesklad­ nost ni neznatna.
3.6. According to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006, the certification bodies examine, on an annual basis, the internal control procedures of the paying agencies, in addition to their annual accounts. _____________ (6) Articles 4 to 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 
3.6 V skladu s členom 5 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 885/2006 certifikacijski organi vsako leto poleg letnih računovodskih izkazov plačilnih agencij pregledajo tudi njihove postopke notranjih kontrol. _____________ (6) Členi od 4 do 6 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
(7) Whilst GAEC standards, as referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, apply in all Member States, Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) as referred to in Annex II to that Regulation are mandatory only in EU-15. 
(7) Standardi za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, ki so navedeni v Prilogi III k Uredbi (ES) št. 73/2009, se uporabljajo v vseh državah članicah, predpisane zahteve ravnanja, ki so navedene v Prilogi II k isti uredbi, pa so zavezujoče le v EU-15.
For the EU-10, SMRs are being phased in between 2009 and 2013, and for EU-2 between 2012 and 2014. 
Za EU-10 se predpisane zahteve ravnanja postopoma uvajajo med letoma 2009 in 2013, za EU-2 pa med letoma 2012 in 2014.
(8) According to Articles 70 and 71 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (OJ L 316, 2.12.2009, p. 
(8) V skladu s členoma 70 in 71 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1122/2009 (UL L 316, 2.12.2009, str.
65), the level of the reduction per SMR or GAEC not complied with can vary between 1 % and 5 % in case of negligence and can lead to full rejection of the aid in case of intentional non-compliance. 
65) lahko raven znižanja pri nesklad­ nosti s posamezno predpisano zahtevo ravnanja ali dobrimi kmetij­ skimi in okoljskimi pogoji v primeru malomarnosti znaša med 1 % in 5 %, v primeru namerne neskladnosti pa lahko pride do popolne izključitve iz pomoči.
Annex 1.1, Part 2, to Chapter 1 describes the Court’s overall audit approach and methodology. For the audit of market and direct support for agriculture the following specific issues should be noted: — the audit involved the examination of a sample of 180 interim and final payments, — as regards cross compliance, the Court focused its testing on selected GAEC obligations(9) and SMRs(10). 
V zvezi z revizijo tržne in neposredne podpore za kmetijstvo je treba upoštevati naslednje posebnosti: — revizija je vključevala pregled vzorca 180 vmesnih in končnih plačil, — pri navzkrižni skladnosti se je Sodišče pri preizkušanju posvetilo predvsem izbranim zahtevam v zvezi z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji(9) ter predpisanim zahtevam ravnanja(10).
Where cross-compliance obligations were not met, the Court treated such cases as errors(11). 
Primere, ko zahteve navzkrižne skladnosti niso bile izpolnjene, je Sodišče obravnavalo kot napake(11).
These errors were included in the calculation of the overall error rate provided that it can be established that the error already existed in the year in which the farmer applied for aid (12). 
Te napake so bile vključene v izračun skupne stopnje napake, če je bilo mogoče ugotoviti, da je napaka v letu, ko je kmet vložil zahtevek za pomoč, že obstajala (12).
This represents a change from previous years, when the failure to meet cross-compliance obligations was not included in the error rate calculation, — reductions and exclusions (applied in cases where bene­ ficiaries of EU aid over-claim the actual area or number of animals (13) are not included in the Court’s error rate calculation, T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S _____________ (9) Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation, retention of terraces, maintenance of olive groves and respect of minimum livestock stocking rates or mowing obligations. 
To je sprememba od prejšnjih let, ko neizpol­ njevanje zahtev navzkrižne skladnosti ni bilo vključeno v izračun stopnje napake, — Sodišče v izračun stopnje napake ne zajame znižanj in izključitev (ki se uporabljajo v primeru, ko upravičenci do pomoči EU prijavijo površino, ki je večja od dejanske, ali preveliko število živali (13), O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E _____________ (9) Preprečevanje razraščanja nezaželene vegetacije, ohranjanje teras, vzdrževanje oljčnih nasadov ter spoštovanje zahtev v zvezi z mini­ malno obremenitvijo živine ali košnjo.
(10) SMR 4 relating to the nitrates Directive. 
(10) Predpisana zahteva ravnanja 4, povezana z direktivo o nitratih.
(11) Cross-compliance obligations are substantive legal requirements that must be met by all recipients of direct aid and are the basic and in many cases the only conditions to be respected in order to justify the payment of the full amount of direct payments, hence the Court’s decision to treat failure to meet such requirements as errors. 
(11) Zahteve navzkrižne skladnosti so vsebinske pravne zahteve, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati vsi prejemniki neposredne pomoči. To so osnovni in pogosto edini pogoji, ki jih je treba izpolnjevati, da je upravičeno izplačilo polnega zneska neposrednih plačil, zato se je Sodišče odločilo, da bo nespoštovanje teh zahtev obravnavalo kot napake.
(12) For each infringement, the national system for reduction of payments has been used for the quantification of the error. 
(12) Pri vsaki kršitvi je bil za količinsko opredelitev napake uporabljen nacionalni sistem za zmanjšanje plačil.
(13) Regulation(EC)No1122/2009providesthat,wheretheclaimedarea is found to be overstated by more than 3 % or two hectares, the aid amount shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined reduced by twice the area claimed irregularly. 
1122/2009 določa, da se v primerih, ko je bila prija­ vljena za več kot 3 % ali dva hektara prevelika površina, znesek pomoči izračuna na podlagi ugotovljene površine, znižane za dvakratno nepravilno prijavljeno površino.
If the difference is more than 20 % no aid shall be granted for the crop group concerned. 
Če je razlika več kot 20 %, se za zadevno skupino posevka ne odobri nobena pomoč.
Similar provisions apply to animal premiums. 3.9. — Most of the cross-compliance requirements, i.e. the SMRs, are to be respected by all EU citizens, irrespectively of being a farmer benefiting from EU support under the CAP. 
Podobne odločbe veljajo za premije za živali. — Večino zahtev glede navzkrižne skladnosti, tj. predpisanih zahtev ravnanja, morajo spoštovati vsi državljani EU, ne glede na to, ali so kot kmetje v okviru SKP prejeli podporo EU.
The respect of cross compliance does not constitute an eligibility criterion and, therefore, the controls of these requirements do not pertain to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. 
Spoštovanje navzkrižne skladnosti ni merilo za upravičenost in zato kontrole teh zahtev niso povezane z zakonitostjo in pravilnostjo osnovnih transakcij.
Farmers not respecting the requirements are entitled to receive their payments, but are sanctioned on the basis of the severity, extent, permanence and repetition of the non-compliance found as well as negligence or intent of the farmer concerned. 
Kmetje, ki ne upoštevajo teh zahtev, so upravičeni do prejemanja plačil, vendar so kaznovani na podlagi resnosti, obsega, trajnosti in ponovitev ugotovljenih neskladnosti ter svoje malomarnosti ali namere.
This is also shown by the fact that payments can be made before the cross-compliance controls have been completed and that penalties are not applied on the payments made in respect of the calendar year when the farmer failed to comply with the requirements, but rather on the payments made in respect of the calendar year of the findings by the national authorities. 
To potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je plačila mogoče opraviti pred zaključkom kontrol navzkrižne skladnosti in da se kazni ne uporabijo pri plačilih, opravljenih v koledarskem letu, ko kmet ni izpolnil zahtev, temveč se uporabijo pri plačilih, opravljenih v koledarskem letu, ko nacionalni organi oblikujejo ugotovitve.
For all these reasons, the Commission does not itself take violations of cross-compliance obligations into account in the calculation of the level of error for its Annual Activity Report. 
Iz vseh teh razlogov Komisija ne upošteva kršitve obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti pri izračunu stopnje napake za svoje letno poročilo o dejavnostih.
EN C 344/76 Official Journal of the European Union 12.11.2012 T H E C O U R T ’ S O B S E R VA T I O N S — the assessment of systems covered IACS in five paying agencies in Member States applying the SPS — Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy (Lombardia) and Spain (Galicia) — and in one paying agency in a Member State applying SAPS (Hungary), — the Court examined the implementation (at national level) of cross-compliance standards and the control systems implemented by Member States. 
C 344/76 Uradni list Evropske unije U G OT OV I T V E S O D I Š Č A — ocena sistemov je zajela IAKS v petih plačilnih agencijah v državah članicah, ki uporabljajo SEP – v Avstriji, na Danskem, Finskem, v Italiji (Lombardija) in Španiji (Galicija) – in v eni plačilni agenciji v državi članici, ki uporablja SEPP (Madžarska), — Sodišče je pregledalo izvajanje (na nacionalni ravni) stan­ dardov navzkrižne skladnosti in kontrolne sisteme, ki jih uporabljajo države članice.
The results of this work are presented in Chapter 4 at paragraphs 4.30 to 4.32 but are also applicable to this Chapter, — the Court reviewed the work carried out by the certification bodies of Romania and Bulgaria under the new reinforcement of assurance procedure (14), — the review of the Commission’s management represen­ tations covered the annual activity report of DG AGRI concerning EAGF-related issues, — in the context of the Commission’s clearance of accounts procedure the Court reviewed 17 of the EAGF certification bodies’ certificates and reports relating to 17 paying agencies. 
Rezultati tega dela so predsta­ vljeni v poglavju 4 v odstavkih od 4.30 do 4.32, vendar veljajo tudi za to poglavje, — Sodišče je pregledalo delo, ki sta ga opravila certifikacijska organa v Romuniji in Bolgariji v okviru novega postopka okrepitve zagotovila (14), — pregled poslovodskih predstavitev Komisije je zajel letno poročilo o dejavnostih GD AGRI v zvezi z zadevami, pove­ zanimi z EKJS, — v kontekstu potrjevanja obračunov, ki ga izvede Komisija, je Sodišče pregledalo 17 certifikatov in poročil, ki so jih izdali certifikacijski organi v zvezi z EKJS in se nanašajo na 17 plačilnih agencij.
The results are presented in Chapter 4 (see paragraph 4.36). _____________ (14) See paragraphs 3.34 and 3.35. 
Rezultati so predstavljeni v poglavju 4 (glej odstavek 4.36).
The most likely error estimated by the Court is 2,9 % (15). 
Ocenjuje, da je najverjet­ nejša stopnja napake 2,9 % (15).
T H E C O M M I S S I O N ’ S R E P L I E S 3.10. The most likely error determined by the Court for the financial year 2011 represents a slight increase compared to last year but is still within the normal range of statistical variation from one year to another and does not point to a deterioration of the overall quality in the management and control of expenditure by Member States. 
O D G O V O R I K O M I S I J E 3.10 Najverjetnejša stopnja napake, ki jo je Sodišče določilo za proračunsko leto 2011, je nekoliko višja kot prejšnje leto, vendar ostaja znotraj normalnega obsega statističnih odstopanj med posa­ meznimi leti ter ne kaže na poslabšanje splošne kakovosti upravljanja in kontrole odhodkov s strani držav članic.
This is confirmed by the fact that, in the Commis­ sion’s view, one of the cases which the Court considers to be a 100 % error was of an exceptional nature and does not point to an inherent weakness in the system. 
To potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je bil eden od primerov, pri katerem je po mnenju Sodišča razvidna 100-odstotna stopnja napake, po mnenju Komisije zgolj izjema, in zato ne kaže na pomanjkljivo zasnovo sistema.
The Commission considers that the error rates determined by the Court over the last years taken together provide reliable evidence that the most likely error rate for EAGF is relatively close to the 2 % materiality threshold. 
Komisija meni, da so skupne stopnje napak, ki jih je v zadnjih letih določilo Sodišče, zanesljiv dokaz, da se najverjetnejša stopnja napake za EKJS giblje razmeroma blizu 2-odstotnega praga pomembnosti.
The low error rates indicated in the control statistics which the Commission has received from Member States and which to a very large extent have been verified and validated by the certification bodies, also confirm that EAGF expenditure in financial year 2011 has generally been well managed. 
Nizke stopnje napak, razvidne iz kontrolnih statističnih podatkov, ki so jih Komisiji predložile države članice ter ki so jih v zelo veliki meri preverili in potrdili certifikacijski organi, prav tako potrjujejo, da so se odhodki EKJS v proračunskem letu 2011 na splošno dobro upravljali.
Finally, the risk to the EU budget is adequately covered by the conformity clearance procedures of the Commission. 
Kot zadnje je tveganje za proračun EU ustrezno krito s postopki potrditve skladnosti, ki jih izvaja Komisija.
See also joint reply to points 3.11 and 3.12. 
Glej tudi skupni odgovor na odstavka 3.11 in 3.12.