natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Variation in the numbers of jobs in the audited projects 1 ANNEX V OP Number of employees, SMEs Number of employees, larger enterprises before project at project end (in total) variation between situation before project and at project end at project end (as a result of project) as of 1 June 2016 variation between project end and situation as of 1 June 2016 before project at project end (in total) variation between situation before project and at project end at project end (as a result of project) as of 1 June 2016 variation between project end and situation as of 1 June 2016 OP Burgenland 45 192 + 326 % 135 114 - 40 % 376 413 + 10 % 0 319 - 23 % Czech Republic OP South East 12 40 + 233 % 19 53 + 33 % - - - - - - OPEI 325 352 +8% 4 395 + 12 % - - - - - - Germany OP Lower Saxony 24 109 + 354 % 85 125 + 15 % - - - - - - OP Saxony 60 89 + 48 % 29 107 + 20 % 286 437 + 53 % 151 766 + 75 % Italy Central OP 0 19 N/A 19 19 0 160 163 +2% 3 1631 - OP Puglia 59 86 + 45 % 27 72 - 16 % 319 354 + 11 % 35 532 + 50 % OP Poland 263 424 + 61 % 159 441 +4% 10 656 10 871 +2% 14 9 691 - 11 % Total 788 1 311 + 66.4 % 477 1 326 +1% 11 797 12 238 + 3.7 % 203 11 471 -6% In one project under OP Italy it was not possible to verify the maintenance of the jobs created. 
Informacije o rezultatih niso bile merljive; informacije niso bile v celoti na voljo. Razlike v številu delovnih mest v revidiranih projektih 1 PRILOGA V OP Število zaposlenih (MSP) Število zaposlenih (večja podjetja) pred začetkom projekta ob koncu projekta (skupaj) razlika med stanjem pred začetkom projekta in ob koncu projekta ob koncu projekta (kot rezultat projekta) na dan 1. junija 2016 razlika med stanjem ob koncu projekta in na dan 1. junija 2016 pred začetkom projekta ob koncu projekta (skupaj) razlika med stanjem pred začetkom projekta in ob koncu projekta ob koncu projekta (kot rezultat projekta) na dan 1. junija 2016 razlika med stanjem ob koncu projekta in na dan 1. junija 2016 OP Gradiščanska 45 192 +326 % 135 114 –40 % 376 413 +10 % 0 319 –23 % Češka republika OP Jugovzhod 12 40 +233 % 19 53 +33 % - - - - - - OPEI 325 352 +8 % 4 395 +12 % - - - - - - Nemčija OP Spodnja Saška 24 109 +354 % 85 125 +15 % - - - - - - OP Saška 60 89 +48 % 29 107 +20 % 286 437 +53 % 151 766 +75 % Italija Osrednji OP 0 19 n. r.
It was however assumed that all jobs (163) remained as of June 2016. 
Predvidevalo se je, da so bila junija 2016 ohranjena vsa delovna mesta (163).
Note: The figures in the table show the results for the projects audited under the relevant OPs. 
Opomba: številke v tabeli prikazujejo rezultate za revidirane projekte v okviru ustreznih operativnih programov.
Source: ECA analysis, based on information gathered during the audit. 1 
Vir: analiza Evropskega računskega sodišča na podlagi informacij, zbranih med revizijo. 1
National legislation 2. 
Nacionalna zakonodaja 2.
Specific conditions in the financing agreements 4. 
OP osredotočeni na dolgoročne rezultate projektov 4.
Guidance or systematic advice from the MA / Implementing Bodies concerning the monitoring of durability No AT Partially In line with EU regulations, but obligations regarding monitoring were lacking. 
Navodila ali sistematično svetovanje organa upravljanja / izvajalskih organov v zvezi s spremljanjem trajnosti Ne AT Delno V skladu s predpisi EU, toda obveznosti glede spremljanja niso bile določene.
CZ (Central) Yes In line with EU regulations for the purchased assets. 
Ne CZ (osrednji OP) Da V skladu s predpisi EU za kupljena sredstva.
CZ (ROP) Yes In line with EU regulations for the purchased assets. 
CZ (regionalni OP) Da V skladu s predpisi EU za kupljena sredstva.
The durability period was also valid for the jobs created or saved. 
Obdobje trajnosti je veljalo tudi za ustvarjena ali ohranjena delovna mesta.
Yes Guidance for applicants and beneficiaries, monitoring for the whole durability period, each project checked on-the-spot. 
Ne Da Navodila za prijavitelje in upravičence, spremljanja za celotno obdobje trajnosti, vsak projekt pregledan na kraju samem.
DE (Lower Saxony) Yes In line with EU regulations for the purchased assets. 
DE (Spodnja Saška) Da V skladu s predpisi EU za kupljena sredstva.
Yes Effective monitoring mechanisms established and guidance provided. 
Delno Da Vzpostavljeni uspešni mehanizmi spremljanja, zagotovljena navodila.
DE (Saxony) Yes In line with EU regulations for the purchased assets. 
Delno DE (Saška) Da V skladu s predpisi EU za kupljena sredstva.
Yes Effective monitoring mechanisms established and guidance provided. 
Da Vzpostavljeni uspešni mehanizmi spremljanja, zagotovljene smernice.
IT (Central) Partially In line with EU regulations, but provisions not transposed in consistent manner. 
Ne IT (osrednji OP) Delno V skladu s predpisi EU, vendar določbe niso bile dosledno prenesene v nacionalno zakonodajo.
IT (ROP) Partially In line with EU regulations, but provisions not transposed in consistent manner. 
IT (regionalni OP) Delno V skladu s predpisi EU, vendar določbe niso bile dosledno prenesene v nacionalno zakonodajo.
PL Partially In line with EU regulations, but obligations regarding monitoring were lacking. No No No Partially Partially No Partially Obligation to keep investment for 5 years after completion or until loan is repaid. 
PL Delno V skladu s predpisi EU, toda obveznosti glede spremljanja niso bile določene. Ne Ne Ne 3. Specifični pogoji v sporazumih o financiranju Delno Delno Da Da Da Delno Delno Ni posebnih navodil; edina navodila pri enem ukrepu se nanašajo na zahteve glede vzdrževanja.
No No Partially Obligation to keep investment for 5 years after project completion. 
Delno Ne Delno Obveznost, da se naložba ohrani 5 let po zaključku projekta.
No systematic controls on durability requirements. 
Ni sistematičnih kontrol izpolnjevanja zahtev glede trajnosti.
Partially Obligation to keep investment for 3 years (SME) after project completion. 
Obveznost, da se naložba ohrani 3 leta (MSP) po zaključku projekta.
Reporting for the first two closed accounting periods, not the whole durability. 
Poročanje za prvi dve zaključeni obračunski obdobji, ne pa tudi za celotno obdobje trajnosti.
Yes Obligation to keep assets for 5 years for all enterprises, reporting during the whole durability period. 
Obveznost ohranitve sredstev še 5 let za vsa podjetja, poročanje v celotnem obdobju trajnosti.
Yes Detailed conditions for being eligible – types of investment and employment-related conditions. 
Podrobni pogoji za upravičenost – različne vrste pogojev glede na naložbe in zaposlovanje.
Obligation to keep invested assets and jobs for 5 years. 
Obveznost, da se sredstva, v katera se je investiralo, in delovna mesta ohranijo še 5 let.
Detailed reporting obligations. 
Podrobne obveznosti glede poročanja.
Detailed reporting obligation. 
Podrobne obveznosti glede poročanja.
Partially Obligation to keep investment for 5 years after completion, in one measure – to ten years for immovable assets. 
Obveznost, da se naložba ohrani še 5 let po zaključku projekta; pri enem ukrepu: še deset let, če gre za nepremičnine.
In one measure reporting – only during first two years after project completion. 
Poročanje pri enem ukrepu: samo v prvih dveh letih po zaključku projekta.
No reporting foreseen in one measure. 
Pri enem ukrepu poročanje ni predvideno.
Partially Obligation to keep investment for 5 years after completion. 
Obveznost, da se naložba ohrani še 5 let po zaključku projekta.
In one measure – to provide reports on results annually within 5 years after completion. 
Pri enem ukrepu: poročila o rezultatih se pripravljajo letno še 5 let po zaključku projekta.
No Partially Guidance approved in 2012, but no exhaustive monitoring required. 
Delno Navodila odobrena leta 2012, vendar ni potrebno izčrpno spremljanje.
Source: ECA’s analysis. ANNEX VII 1 Monitoring and reporting procedures of legal durability requirements MS OP AT Monitoring by the MA Good: The MA required information on both results and outputs to be provided in the monitoring reports. 
PRILOGA VII Postopki spremljanja zakonodajnih zahtev glede trajnosti in poročanje o njih 1 DČ OP Spremljanje, ki ga izvaja organ upravljanja Poročanje, ki ga izvajajo upravičenci AT Zmerno: Organ upravljanja in posredniško telo nista predvidela sistematičnih kontrol izpolnjevanja zahtev glede trajnosti in nista izvedla ciljno usmerjenih pregledov med obdobjem trajnosti.
For a three-year period after project completion the IB checked on achievement and maintenance of the job target based on data from the social insurance fund and on the financial accounts of the supported companies. 
Posredniško telo je v obdobju treh let po zaključku projekta na podlagi podatkov iz sklada za socialno zavarovanje in finančnih poročil podjetij, ki so prejela podporo, preverjalo dosego cilja, da se ustvarijo in ohranijo delovna mesta.
IT system not in place for monitoring results for the whole durability period. 
Sistem IT za spremljanje rezultatov v celotnem obdobju trajnosti ni bil uveden.
Moderate: The MA and IB did not monitor the projects’ performance for the whole durability period but only for the first two financial years closed after the project completion. 
CZ Zmerno: Organ upravljanja in posredniško telo nista spremljala smotrnosti projektov v celotnem obdobju trajnosti, temveč le prvi dve proračunski leti, ki sta se končali po zaključku projekta.
The selection of the projects to be checked during the implementation and durability period was based on a sample. 
Izbira projektov, ki naj bi se preverjali v obdobju izvajanja in trajnosti, je temeljila na vzorcu.
Moderate: Although the beneficiaries were obliged to report on the binding (mainly outputs) and non-binding indicators, they did not report on the achieved values of the non-binding indicators consistently. 
Zmerno: Čeprav so upravičenci morali poročati o zavezujočih (predvsem izložkih) in nezavezujočih kazalnikih, pa niso dosledno poročali o doseženih vrednostih nezavezujočih kazalnikov.
They were not required to submit information on project performance for the whole durability period. 
Ni jim bilo treba predložiti informacij o smotrnosti projektov v celotnem obdobju trajnosti.
CZ Moderate: The beneficiaries submitted information on both output and result indicators in the annual monitoring reports throughout the whole durability period. 
Zmerno: Upravičenci so celotno obdobje trajnosti v letnih poročilih o spremljanju predložili informacije o kazalnikih izložkov in tudi rezultatov.
DE Good: Standardised and effective reporting by the beneficiaries was in place and enforced, covering project completion and thereafter the full durability period. 
Dobro: Uvedeno je bilo standardizirano in uspešno poročanje za upravičence, ki se je tudi uveljavljalo, zajemalo pa je zaključek projekta in nato celotno obdobje trajnosti.
DE Moderate: Standardised and effective reporting was in place covering project completion and thereafter the durability period. 
Zmerno: Uvedeno je bilo standardizirano in uspešno poročanje, ki je zajemalo zaključek projekta in nato obdobje trajnosti.
The final durability report was due three months before the end of the 5-year durability period for practical reasons; while not in line with regulations, this did not impact negatively on durability of results directly. 
Končno poročilo o trajnosti je bilo treba iz praktičnih razlogov predložiti tri mesece pred koncem 5-letnega obdobja trajnosti. To sicer ni bilo skladno s predpisi, vendar ni neposredno negativno vplivalo na trajnost rezultatov.
Poor: For the audited projects, the managing authority Moderate: Depending on the measure, IT did not have information on the use of projects during the entire durability period and did not request such information from the beneficiaries. 
IT Slabo: Pri revidiranih projektih organ upravljanja ni imel informacij o uporabi projektov v celotnem obdobju trajnosti in teh informacij tudi ni zahteval od upravičencev.
And overall, not sufficient evidence was obtained for assuring about full compliance with durability obligations in the projects. 
Poleg tega pri projektih na splošno ni bilo pridobljenih dovolj dokazov za zagotovitev izpolnjevanja obveznosti glede trajnosti v celoti.
Poor: Systematic controls on durability requirements were not foreseen. 
IT Slabo: Sistematične kontrole izpolnjevanja zahtev glede trajnosti niso bile predvidene.
For the audited projects, the managing authority did not have information on the use of projects during the entire durability period and did not request such information from the beneficiaries. 
Pri revidiranih projektih organ upravljanja ni imel informacij o uporabi projektov v celotnem obdobju trajnosti in teh informacij tudi ni zahteval od upravičencev.
Moderate: Depending on the measure, the managing authority required the beneficiary to transmit: (a) a self-declaration for two consecutive years following the completion of the project (in case the beneficiary was a large enterprise or a consortium of SMEs - or (b) a one-off self-declaration (if the beneficiary was a microenterprise). 
Zmerno: Organ upravljanja je zahteval, da upravičenci predložijo (odvisno od ukrepa): a) izjavo v dveh zaporednih letih po zaključku projekta (če je bil upravičenec veliko podjetje ali konzorcij MSP) ali b) enkratno izjavo (če je bil upravičenec mikropodjetje).
OP Puglia (POR Puglia Central OP (PON Saxony Lower Saxony Regional OP South-OP Enterprise and OP Burgenland 2000-2006) R&C 2007-2013) OP 2007-2013 OP 2007-2013 East 2007-2013 Innovation 2007-2013 2000-2006 
OP Apulija (POR Osrednji OP (PON Saška Spodnja Saška Regionalni OP OP Podjetništvo in OP Gradiščanska Apulija 2000–2006) R&C 2007–2013) OP 2007–2013 OP 2007–2013 Jugovzhod 2007– inovacije 2007–2013 2000–2006 2013
2 PL Moderate: Different monitoring procedures were applied by different IB: (a) annual reporting on results during the durability, or (b) sample checks of 5 % of projects completed five years before the year of the checks. 
2 PL Zmerno: Različna posredniška telesa so uporabljala različne postopke spremljanja: a) letno poročanje o rezultatih v obdobju trajnost ali b) pregled vzorca 5 % projektov, ki so bili zaključeni pet let pred letom pregleda.
This procedure, however, did not ensure systematic monitoring of the results achieved and maintained for the whole durability period. 
Ta postopek ni zagotavljal sistematičnega spremljanja rezultatov, ki so bili doseženi in so se ohranili v celotnem obdobju trajnosti.
IT system not in place for monitoring results during the whole durability period. 
Sistem IT za spremljanje rezultatov v celotnem obdobju trajnosti ni bil uveden.
Poor: In one measure beneficiaries were required to provide annual reports on durability of project results five years after project completion (as required by national legislation), but no such reporting was required for two other measures. Source: ECA’s analysis. 
Slabo: Pri enem ukrepu so morali upravičenci predložiti letna poročila o trajnosti rezultatov projekta pet let po zaključku projekta (kot zahteva nacionalna zakonodaja), za druga dva ukrepa pa se tovrstno poročanje ni zahtevalo.
ANNEX VIII 1 Evaluation results concerning SMEs and large enterprises SMEs - The prevalent pattern of intervention was to reach the widest possible number of beneficiaries, with little indication of the target beneficiaries or the specific objectives the projects were expected to achieve. - In most cases, the projects sought to increase the main production factors of enterprises such as capital, labour and R&D expenditure. 
PRILOGA VIII 1 Rezultati vrednotenja v zvezi z MSP in velikimi podjetji MSP - Prevladujoči vzorec posredovanja je bil doseči čim večje število upravičencev, redko pa je bilo navedeno, kdo so ciljni upravičenci ali kaj so specifični cilji, ki naj bi jih projekti dosegli. - V večini primerov so projekti skušali povečati glavne proizvodne faktorje podjetij, kot so kapital, delo in odhodki za R&R. Malo pozornosti se je namenjalo končnemu cilju, ki se je skušal doseči, ali pričakovanim rezultatom, npr. v smislu povečanja izvoza, produktivnosti ali prodaje. - Večina upravičencev je bila iz gospodarskih sektorjev, razvrščenih kot nizkotehnološki, kot sta proizvodnja ali trgovina na debelo.
This indicates that significant funds supported the catching up or survival of SMEs in traditional sectors rather than promoting growth and innovation poles. - Even if a shift from non-repayable to repayable aid was observed, grants still remained the most common form of delivery. 
To pomeni, da so bila znatna sredstva namenjena podpori za dohitevanje ali preživetje MSP v tradicionalnih sektorjih, ne pa za rast in inovacije. - Tudi če se je upošteval premik z nevračljive na vračljivo pomoč, so bila nepovratna sredstva še vedno najpogostejša oblika zagotovitve sredstev.
Simple grants are commonly considered to be traditional, less innovative (and possibly less cost-efficient) than financial instruments. - Changes were recorded in terms of economic performance. 
Preprosta nepovratna sredstva se običajno obravnavajo kot tradicionalna, manj inovativna (in morda manj stroškovno učinkovita) kot finančni instrumenti. - Zabeležene so bile spremembe v smislu ekonomske smotrnosti.
The ERDF grants accelerated or anticipated the SMEs’ investment plans, thus helping them to increase turnover, profitability and exports. 
Nepovratna sredstva iz ESRR so pospešila ali predvidela naložbene načrte MSP, s čimer so se jim tudi povečali promet, dobičkonosnost in izvoz.
But the most significant change triggered by the ERDF could be behavioural changes to the way of doing business rather than in the immediate materialisation of economic results which were however not emphasised in the projects. - There has not been a focus on the result orientation of the intervention logic addressing specific expected changes, and with the implementation of conditional grants committing beneficiary enterprises to well-defined objectives (e.g. in terms of employment creation or preservation). - Monitoring was not adapted to the role played by the ERDF in supporting SMEs. 
Najpomembnejša sprememba, ki jo je sprožil ESRR, pa bi lahko bile vedenjske spremembe pri poslovanju, ne pa takojšnja uresničitev gospodarskih rezultatov, ki pa se pri projektih niso poudarjali. - Poudarek ni bil na usmerjenosti intervencijske logike, ki obravnava posebne pričakovane spremembe, v rezultate in na izvajanju pogojnih nepovratnih sredstev, ki zavezujejo upravičena podjetja k doseganju dobro opredeljenih ciljev (npr. v smislu ustvarjanja ali ohranjanja delovnih mest). - Spremljanje ni bilo prilagojeno vlogi, ki jo ima ESRR pri podpori MSP.
The choice of indicators was insufficiently aligned with the added value of the ERDF. 
Izbira kazalnikov ni bila dovolj usklajena z dodano vrednostjo ESRR.
Measurement systems suitable for reporting and assessing the level of achievement, based on data collection at firms, were lacking. 
Merilni sistemi, ki bi bili primerni za poročanje in ocenjevanje stopnje uspešnosti na podlagi zbiranja podatkov na ravni podjetij, niso bili na voljo.
Large enterprises - The rationale for the support to large enterprises remained unclear and OPs were not explicit about the planned direct and indirect benefits. 
Velika podjetja - Utemeljitev podpore velikim podjetjem še vedno ni bila jasna, v operativnih programih pa načrtovane neposredne in posredne koristi niso bile jasno določene.
Moreover, previous studies had not revealed the effectiveness and full scope of benefits of large enterprise support. - The ERDF support had often little influence on corporations’ investment decisions, notably whether to invest in the EU or overseas. 2 - Whereas generally production capacities and productivity of the large project beneficiaries have risen, and also direct results were achieved (e.g. an increased demand for jobs), longer-term results beyond the five-year durability period have been less obvious. 
2 - Podpora iz ESRR je pogosto le malo vplivala na naložbene odločitve korporacij, zlasti o tem, ali naj se vlaga v EU ali v prekomorskih državah. - Proizvodne zmogljivosti in produktivnost upravičencev velikih projektov so se na splošno sicer povečale in doseženi so bili tudi neposredni rezultati (npr. povečano povpraševanje po delovnih mestih), vendar pa so bili dolgoročnejši rezultati, ki bi segali v obdobje po petletnem obdobju trajnosti, manj očitni.
Investments in industries with closer ties to the existing industrial structure have likely attained more durable benefits. 
Naložbe v panoge z tesnejšimi vezmi z obstoječo panožno strukturo so verjetno dosegale bolj trajne koristi.
The nature of the investment and the operating history of the enterprises in the region affected the level of durability and it also depended on the industrial sector as well the differing lengths of the investment life cycles and capital needs. - Multiple granting has been a common feature between in 2007 and 2013 whereby the actual needs or incentive effects for the large firms to invest in the region concerned was often not explicit. - Whereas it was found that durability of support could be successfully promoted through regional incentives, supplier development programmes and multiple funding, it was nevertheless stressed that strategic capacities of managing authorities and other stakeholders in policy development and implementation, including valid project selection linked to the long-term strategy of the region, were key to the success of the business support. 
Narava naložbe in zgodovina poslovanja podjetja v regiji sta vplivali na stopnjo trajnosti, ki je bila odvisna tudi od panožnega sektorja ter različnih dolžin naložbenih ciklov in kapitalskih potreb. - Večkratna odobritev nepovratnih sredstev je bila pogosta značilnost med letoma 2007 in 2013, pri čemer dejanske potrebe ali spodbujevalni učinki za velika podjetja, da vlagajo v zadevno regijo, pogosto niso bili jasni. - Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je trajnost podpore mogoče uspešno spodbujati z regionalnimi pobudami, programi za razvoj dobaviteljev in večkratnim financiranjem, pa je bilo kljub temu poudarjeno, da so bile za uspeh podpore podjetjem ključne strateške zmogljivosti organov upravljanja in drugih deležnikov v razvoju in izvajanju politike, vključno s pravilno izbiro projektov, povezano z dolgoročno strategijo v regiji.
Source: Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013: • Final report – work package 2: ‘Support to SMEs – Increasing Research and innovation in SMEs and SME Development’, 30 March 2016; and • Final report – work package 4: ‘Support to large enterprises’, 18 February 2016. 
Vir: Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013: • končno poročilo – delovni sklop 2: Support to SMEs – Increasing Research and innovation in SMEs and SME Development, 30. marec 2016, in • končno poročilo – delovni sklop 4: Support to large enterprises, 18. februar 2016.
Summary in Commission staff working document SWD(2016) 318 final of 19 September 2016. 
Povzetek je v delovnem dokumentu služb Komisije SWD (2016) 318 final z dne 19. septembra 2016.
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS "EU SUPPORT FOR PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENTS IN BUSINESSES – GREATER FOCUS ON DURABILITY NEEDED" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE NA POSEBNO POROČILO EVROPSKEGA RAČUNSKEGA SODIŠČA „PODPORA EU ZA PRODUKTIVNE NALOŽBE V PODJETJA – VEČJI POUDAREK JE TREBA NAMENITI TRAJNOSTI“ POVZETEK IV.
In addition to the legislative changes 2007-2013, the EU approach to durability has improved also through the emphasis put on strategic planning of major projects through the requirement of ex-ante cost-benefit-analysis, as well as in the Commission's ex-post evaluations at programme level for cohesion policy. 
Pristop EU k trajnosti se je izboljšal zaradi zakonodajnih sprememb v obdobju 2007–2013 in tudi zaradi poudarka na strateškem načrtovanju velikih projektov, ki vsebuje zahtevo po predhodni analizi stroškov, in naknadnega vrednotenja Komisije na ravni programov kohezijske politike.
The Commission takes into account the aspects of durability through the selection criteria approved at Monitoring Committee level where the Commission takes place in an "advisory capacity". 
Komisija upošteva vidike trajnosti v izbirnih merilih, ki so odobreni na ravni odbora za spremljanje, v katerem ima Komisija „svetovalno funkcijo“.