natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Recommendation 4(d) The Commission accepts this recommendation and has started to implement it. 
Priporočilo 4(d) Komisija sprejema to priporočilo in ga je začela izvajati.
During the screening of the Rural Development Programmes for the 2014-2020 programming period, the Commission paid attention to check the controllability and verifiability section of the measures. 
Med pregledovanjem programov razvoja podeželja za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 je Komisija namenila posebno pozornost oddelku ukrepov, ki vsebuje možnosti nadziranja in preverjanja.
If this explanation was missing or was not detailed enough, MS had to provide additional information. 
Če teh pojasnil ni bilo ali če niso bila dovolj natančna, so morale države članice predložiti dodatne informacije.
Recommendation 4(e) The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
Priporočilo 4(e) Komisija sprejema to priporočilo.
81 With regard to the 2014–2020 programming period the Commission has strengthened the provisions and guidance regarding reasonableness of costs which should address some of the weaknesses identified by the Court. 
81 Komisija je za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 okrepila določbe in smernice glede razumnosti stroškov, ki naj bi obravnavale nekatere slabosti, ki jih je ugotovilo Sodišče.
Recommendation 5(a) This recommendation is for the Member States. 
Priporočilo 5(a) To priporočilo velja za države članice.
Recommendation 5(b) The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. 
Priporočilo 5(b) Komisija delno sprejema to priporočilo.
Non-productive investments (NPIs) are investments which do not generate significant return, income, or revenue, or increase significantly the value of the beneficiary’s holding, but have a positive environmental impact. 
Neproduktivne naložbe so naložbe, ki ne ustvarjajo bistvenega donosa, prejemkov ali prihodkov ali ki bistveno ne povečujejo vrednosti gospodarstva upravičenca, vendar imajo pozitiven vpliv na okolje.
Public support for NPIs is provided by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and national co-financing. 
Javna podpora za neproduktivne naložbe se zagotavlja v okviru Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in nacionalnega sofinanciranja.
This public support often reaches 100 % of the total investment costs. 
Ta javna podpora pogosto doseže 100 % skupnih naložbenih stroškov.
The Court concludes that NPI support has contributed to the achievement of objectives linked to the sustainable use of agricultural land, but in a way that was not cost effective. This was because the costs of 75 % of the visited projects were unreasonably high. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da je podpora za neproduktivne naložbe prispevala k doseganju ciljev, povezanih s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč, vendar na način, ki ni bil stroškovno učinkovit, saj so bili stroški 75 % projektov, ki jih je obiskalo Sodišče, nerazumno visoki.
Furthermore, even though many of these projects had obvious remunerative characteristics, they were fully funded with public money. 
Poleg tega so bili številni od teh projektov kljub očitnim profitnim značilnostim v celoti financirani z javnimi sredstvi.
The Court makes five recommendations aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of NPIs that will be funded during the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Sodišče je izreklo pet priporočil za izboljšanje stroškovne učinkovitosti neproduktivnih naložb, ki se bodo financirale v programskem obdobju 2014–2020.
EN 2015 Special Report NO 25 EU support for rural infrastructure: potential to achieve significantly greater value for money EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
SL 2015 Posebno poročilo št. 25 Podpora EU za podeželsko infrastrukturo: potencialne možnosti za doseganje bistveno večje stroškovne učinkovitosti EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 Print ISBN 978-92-872-3916-7 PDF ISBN 978-92-872-3915-0 EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-3863-4 ISSN 1831-0834 ISSN 1977-5679 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/302320 doi:10.2865/830096 doi:10.2865/343872 QJ-AB-15-025-EN-C QJ-AB-15-025-EN-N QJ-AB-15-025-EN-E © European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2016 Print ISBN 978-92-872-3885-6 PDF ISBN 978-92-872-3925-9 EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-3877-1 ISSN 1831-094X ISSN 1977-5784 ISSN 1977-5784 doi:10.2865/43484 doi:10.2865/7656 doi:10.2865/23566 QJ-AB-15-025-SL-C QJ-AB-15-025-SL-N QJ-AB-15-025-SL-E © Evropska unija, 2016 Reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
For any use or reproduction of the map on p. 22, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder. 
Za vsako uporabo ali razmnoževanje zemljevida na strani 22 je treba pridobiti dovoljenje neposredno od imetnika avtorske pravice.
EN 2015 Special Report NO 25 EU support for rural infrastructure: potential to achieve significantly greater value for money (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 
SL 2015 Posebno poročilo št. 25 Podpora EU za podeželsko infrastrukturo: potencialne možnosti za doseganje bistveno večje stroškovne učinkovitosti (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU)
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber I — headed by ECA Member Augustyn Kubik — which specialises in preservation and management of natural resources spending areas. 
To revizijo smotrnosti poslovanja je opravil senat I, ki ga vodi član Evropskega računskega sodišča Augustyn Kubik in ki je specializiran za področje porabe ohranjanja in upravljanja naravnih virov.
The audit was led by ECA Member Nikolaos Milionis, supported by Ioulia Papatheodorou, head of private office; Kristian Sniter, private office attaché; Michael Bain, head of unit; Diana Voinea, team leader and Lorenzo Pirelli, deputy team leader. The audit team consisted of Ramona Bortnowschi, Malgorzata Frydel, Athanasios Koustoulidis, Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas and Michael Spang. 
Revizijo je vodil član Evropskega računskega sodišča Nikolaos Milionis, pri njej pa so sodelovali vodja njegovega kabineta Ioulia Papatheodorou in ataše Kristian Sniter, vodja enote Michael Bain, vodja ekipe Diana Voinea in namestnik vodje ekipe Lorenzo Pirelli ter revizorji Ramona Bortnowschi, Malgorzata Frydel, Athanasios Koustoulidis, Maria Eulàlia Reverté i Casas in Michael Spang.
Language support by Hannah Critoph, Jeremy Gardner, Paulina Pruszko, Agata Sylwestrzak, Fiona Urquhart and Adrian Williams. 
Prevajalci Hannah Critoph, Jeremy Gardner, Paulina Pruszko, Agata Sylwestrzak, Fiona Urquhart in Adrian Williams ter asistentka Terje Teppan-Niesen.
From left to right: J. Gardner, M. Frydel, K. Sniter, H. Critoph, M. Bain, N. Milionis, M. E. Reverté i Casas, D. Voinea, I. Papatheodorou, L. Pirelli. 
Od leve proti desni: J. Gardner, M. Frydel, K. Sniter, H. Critoph, M. Bain, N. Milionis, M. E. Reverté i Casas, D. Voinea, I. Papatheodorou, L. Pirelli.
Contents 03 Paragraphs Glossary I–V Executive summary 1–8 Introduction 1 The importance of rural infrastructure investments in the European Union 2–8 Rural development support for infrastructure investments 9–14 Audit scope and approach 15–89 Observations 15–41 Part I — Insufficient justification for using EU rural development funds and weak coordination with other funds 20–24 Member States did not always clearly justify the need for the EU rural development funds 25–30 The risk of deadweight was not effectively mitigated, though some good practices were identified 31–36 Effective coordination of funds was often affected by weak demarcation lines and insufficient mechanisms to ensure complementarity 37–41 The Commission focused on improving coordination in the 2014-2020 programming period in order to address the weaknesses of the past 42–72 Part II — Limited value for money in the implementation of the measures audited 43–49 Selection procedures did not always direct funding towards the most cost-effective projects 50–54 Checks on the reasonableness of costs and public procurement procedures did not effectively limit the risk of excessive project costs 55–60 Sustainability-related requirements did not take into account the useful life of the investments 61–65 Long delays in the administrative process impacted the measures’ efficiency and effectiveness 66–72 The Commission started to systematically follow up weaknesses and related Member States' action plans late in the programming period 
Kazalo 03 Odstavki Glosar I–V Povzetek 1–8 Uvod 1 Pomembnost naložb v podeželsko infrastrukturo v Evropski uniji 2–8 Podpora za naložbe v infrastrukturo v okviru razvoja podeželja 9–14 Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 15–89 Opažanja 15–41 Del I – Nezadostna utemeljenost uporabe sredstev EU za razvoj podeželja in slaba uskladitev s sredstvi iz drugih skladov 20–24 Države članice niso vedno jasno utemeljile potrebe po sredstvih iz skladov EU za razvoj podeželja 25–30 Tveganje mrtvih izgub ni bilo uspešno zmanjšano, čeprav so bile ugotovljene nekatere dobre prakse 31–36 Na uspešno usklajevanje sredstev iz skladov so pogosto vplivali slaba razmejitev in nezadostni mehanizmi za zagotavljanje dopolnjevanja 37–41 Komisija se je v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 osredotočala na izboljšanje usklajevanja, da bi odpravila pretekle slabosti 42–72 Del II – Slaba stroškovna učinkovitost pri izvajanju revidiranih ukrepov 43–49 Izbirni postopki niso vedno omogočali usmerjanja financiranja v stroškovno najučinkovitejše projekte 50–54 Pregledi razumnosti stroškov in postopkov javnega naročanja niso uspešno omejili tveganja čezmernih projektnih stroškov 55–60 Pri zahtevah v zvezi s trajnostjo ni bila upoštevana doba koristnosti naložb 61–65 Dolge zamude pri upravnem postopku so vplivale na učinkovitost in uspešnost ukrepov 66–72 Komisija je začela sistematično nadalje spremljati slabosti in z njimi povezane akcijske načrte držav članic pozno v programskem obdobju
Contents 04 73 – 89 77 – 83 84 – 89 90 – 109 Part III — The monitoring and evaluation system did not produce adequate information on project results The audited projects delivered the expected physical outputs, but reliable information on project results was often unavailable The Commission has encouraged Member States to improve monitoring and evaluation, but some weaknesses are likely to persist in the 2014-2020 programming period Conclusions and recommendations Annex I — EU funds for infrastructure measures 125, 321, 322 and 323 — programmed and spent in the 2007-2013 programming period Annex II — Overview of projects audited Reply of the Commission 
Kazalo 04 73–89 77–83 84–89 90–109 Del III – Sistem za spremljanje in vrednotenje ni zagotovil ustreznih informacij o rezultatih projektov Revidirani projekti so prinesli pričakovane fizične izložke, vendar zanesljive informacije o rezultatih projektov pogosto niso bile na voljo Komisija je države članice pozvala k izboljšanju spremljanja in vrednotenja, vendar v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 nekatere slabosti verjetno ne bodo odpravljene Zaključki in priporočila Priloga I – Programsko načrtovana in porabljena sredstva EU za infrastrukturne ukrepe 125, 321, 322 in 323 v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 Priloga II – Pregled revidiranih projektov Odgovori Komisije
Glossary 05 CMEF (common monitoring and evaluation framework): EU-wide monitoring and evaluation framework for rural development in the 2007-2013 programming period. 
Glosar 05 CMEF (skupni okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja): okvir za spremljanje in vrednotenje na področju razvoja podeželja v programskem obdobju 2007–2013, ki se uporablja po vsej EU.
CMES (common monitoring and evaluation system): EU-wide monitoring and evaluation system for rural development in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
CMES (skupni sistem spremljanja in vrednotenja): sistem za spremljanje in vrednotenje na področju razvoja podeželja v programskem obdobju 2014–2020, ki se uporablja po vsej EU.
Complementarity: A deliberate counterpoint or synergy between two or more funds, when applied to a particular territory or field of action, intending to result in needs being better met than if only one fund was applied and avoiding funding gaps. 
Dopolnjevanje: namerna uravnoteženost ali sinergija med sredstvi dveh ali več skladov, če se uporabljajo na določenem ozemlju ali področju ukrepanja, zaradi katere naj bi bile potrebe izpolnjene bolje, kot če bi bila uporabljena samo sredstva iz enega sklada, preprečevala pa naj bi tudi vrzeli pri financiranju.
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds, ESIF): A new term for five EU funds providing support under cohesion policy in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Evropski strukturni in investicijski skladi: novo poimenovanje za pet skladov EU, ki v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 zagotavljajo podporo v okviru kohezijske politike.
These five funds are: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); the European Social Fund (ESF); the Cohesion Fund (CF); the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). 
Ti so: Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (ESRR), Evropski socialni sklad (ESS), Kohezijski sklad, Evropski kmetijski sklad za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in Evropski sklad za pomorstvo in ribištvo.
(Public) intervention: An action, such as an ‘operation’, ‘measure’, programme or project carried out by or funded by a public authority. 
(Javno) posredovanje: aktivnost, kot so „dejavnost”, „ukrep”, program ali projekt, ki jo izvaja ali financira javni organ.
Public procurement: Tender process to be followed by public bodies when purchasing goods, works and services above a certain price threshold. 
Javno naročanje: razpisni postopek, ki ga morajo upoštevati javni organi pri nabavi blaga, gradenj in storitev, katerih cena presega določen prag.
The aim is to obtain the best value offer by creating sufficient competition between suppliers and to award contracts in a fair, transparent and non-discriminating way, in line with Directives 2004/18/ EC1 and 2004/17/EC2. 
Cilj je dobiti najugodnejšo ponudbo, in sicer z ustvarjanjem zadostne konkurence med dobavitelji, in zagotoviti, da se naročila oddajo pošteno, pregledno in brez diskriminacije v skladu z direktivama 2004/18/ES2 in 2004/17/ES3.
1 Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 
1). 2 Direktiva 2004/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev (UL L 134, 30.4.2004, str.
2 Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 
3 Direktiva 2004/17/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev (UL L 134, 30.4.2004, str.
Glossary 06 Reference prices: Prices for items of equipment, machinery, construction materials or building costs, labour costs, etc. against which the Member State authorities evaluate the project costs proposed in grant applications. 
Referenčne cene: cene opreme, strojev, gradbenega materiala ali stroški gradnje, stroški dela itd., ki jih organi držav članic uporabijo za primerjavo pri vrednotenju stroškov projektov, navedenih v vlogah za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev.
Results: The direct effects or changes that arise due to the ‘intervention’. 
Rezultati: neposredni učinki ali spremembe, ki nastanejo zaradi „posredovanja”.
Executive summary IFor the 2007-2013 programming period, the Member States allocated 13 billion euro of EU funds to investments in rural infrastructure through four measures in their rural development programmes (RDPs). 
Povzetek 07 IDržave članice so v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 dodelile 13 milijard EUR sredstev EU naložbam v podeželsko infrastrukturo na podlagi štirih ukrepov iz svojih programov razvoja podeželja.
The EU funds are supplemented by national spending, which brings the total budget for these measures to almost 19 billion euro. 
Sredstva EU dopolnjuje nacionalna poraba, zato znaša skupni proračun za te ukrepe skoraj 19 milijard EUR.
The funding was provided to private and public beneficiaries, in order to boost economic growth, enhance the attractiveness of rural areas and improve their links with major infrastructures. 
Financiranje je bilo dodeljeno zasebnim in javnim upravičencem za krepitev gospodarske rasti, povečanje privlačnosti podeželskih območij in izboljšanje njihovih povezav z glavno infrastrukturo.
The financed projects were mainly rural roads, water management schemes and social and cultural infrastructure. 
Financirani projekti so v glavnem zajemali podeželske ceste, programe za gospodarjenje z vodami ter socialno in kulturno infrastrukturo.
II The Court’s performance audits assess whether the principles of sound financial management (economy, efficiency, effectiveness) have been applied, seeking to identify good practices in achieving the highest benefit with the EU funds available. 
II Z revizijami smotrnosti poslovanja Evropsko računsko sodišče oceni, ali so se uporabljala načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja (gospodarnost, učinkovitost, uspešnost), da bi opredelilo dobre prakse pri doseganju največjih koristi z razpoložljivimi sredstvi EU.
For this particular audit, the Court examined whether the Commission and the Member States had achieved value for money with the rural infrastructure measures they decided to finance. 
S to revizijo je Sodišče preučilo, ali so Komisija in države članice z ukrepi na področju podeželske infrastrukture, ki so se jih odločile financirati, dosegle stroškovno učinkovitost.
Audit visits were made to the Commission and to five Member States, selected on the basis of the significance of the amounts allocated to rural infrastructure. 
Revizijski obiski so bili izvedeni v Komisiji in v petih državah članicah, ki so bile izbrane glede na pomembnost zneskov, dodeljenih podeželski infrastrukturi.
07 — Member States did not always clearly justify the need for using EU rural development funds. 
Do tega je prišlo zaradi naslednjih vzrokov: – države članice niso vedno jasno utemeljile potrebe po črpanju sredstev iz skladov EU za razvoj podeželja.
Effective coordination with other EU, national, regional or local funds was often affected by weak demarcation lines and insufficient mechanisms to ensure complementarity. 
Na uspešno usklajevanje sredstev s sredstvi iz drugih skladov EU ter iz nacionalnih, regionalnih ali lokalnih skladov so pogosto vplivali slaba razmejitev in nezadostni mehanizmi za zagotavljanje dopolnjevanja.
The risk of deadweight was not effectively mitigated, though some good practices were identified; — selection procedures did not always direct funding towards the most cost-effective projects, the risk of excessive project costs was not effectively limited and the sustainability-related requirements did not take into account the useful life of investments. 
Tveganje mrtvih izgub ni bilo uspešno zmanjšano, čeprav so bile ugotovljene nekatere dobre prakse, – izbirni postopki niso vedno omogočali, da bi se sredstva usmerjala v stroškovno najučinkovitejše projekte, tveganje za čezmerne stroške pri projektih ni bilo uspešno zmanjšano, pri zahtevah v zvezi s trajnostjo pa niso bile upoštevane dobe koristnosti naložb.
Long delays in the administrative processes, especially with regard to the approval of grant applications, also impacted the measures’ efficiency and effectiveness; — the monitoring and evaluation system did not produce adequate information. 
Dolge zamude pri upravnih postopkih, zlasti pri odobritvah vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev, so vplivale na učinkovitost in uspešnost ukrepov, – sistem za spremljanje in vrednotenje ni zagotavljal ustreznih informacij.
While the audited projects delivered the expected physical output, reliable information on what has actually been achieved with the public funds spent was often unavailable, making it difficult to direct future policy and manage the budget by results. 
Čeprav so revidirani projekti dosegli pričakovane fizične izložke, zanesljive informacije o tem, kaj je bilo s porabljenimi javnimi sredstvi dejansko doseženo, pogosto niso bile na voljo, kar je oteževalo usmerjanje prihodnje politike in upravljanje proračuna na podlagi rezultatov.
IV The Commission did not offer sufficient guidance to Member States at the start of the 2007-2013 programming period. 
IV Komisija državam članicam v začetku programskega obdobja 2007–2013 ni dala zadostnih navodil.
Since 2012, the Commission has adopted a more proactive and coordinated approach. 
Od leta 2012 je pristop Komisije dejavnejši in bolj usklajen.
If the changes are implemented properly, this should lead to better financial management in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Če bodo spremembe primerno izvedene, bi morale voditi k boljšemu finančnemu poslovodenju v programskem obdobju 2014–2020.
However, certain weaknesses concerning the coordination of funds and performance information are likely to persist. 
Vendar pa bodo nekatere slabosti v zvezi z usklajevanjem sredstev in informacijami o smotrnosti poslovanja verjetno še vedno prisotne.
III Even though the individual audited projects delivered their expected physical outputs and, in some cases, made a clear positive contribution to the rural areas, the Court found that the Member States and the Commission, acting through shared management, had achieved only limited value for money, as aid was not systematically directed towards the most cost-effective projects addressing the objectives set in the RDPs and there was insufficient information to demonstrate the success or otherwise of the measures. 
III Čeprav so posamezni revidirani projekti dosegli pričakovane fizične izložke in so v nekaterih primerih dali jasen pozitiven prispevek k podeželskim območjem, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so države članice in Komisija v okviru deljenega upravljanja dosegle le omejeno stroškovno učinkovitost, saj pomoč ni bila sistematično usmerjena v stroškovno najučinkovitejše projekte, ki bi obravnavali cilje, določene v programih razvoja podeželja, za prikaz uspešnosti ali neuspešnosti ukrepov pa ni bilo na voljo zadosti informacij.
Executive summary 08 VThe Court believes that significantly more can be achieved with the given financial resources and recommends that: (a) The Member States should have a coordinated approach for supporting rural infrastructure, which quantifies needs and funding gaps and justifies the use of the RDP measures. 
Povzetek 08 VSodišče je mnenja, da bi bilo z razpoložljivimi finančnimi viri mogoče doseči veliko več in priporoča naslednje: (a) države članice bi morale imeti usklajen pristop za podpiranje infrastrukture na podeželju, s katerim bi bilo mogoče količinsko opredeliti potrebe in vrzeli pri financiranju ter utemeljiti uporabo ukrepov v okviru programov razvoja podeželja.