natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They should make better use of the existing coordination structures. (b) The Commission should build upon the first steps taken to ensure effective coordination and carry out a thorough assessment of the complementarity between the different EU funds to be used by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. (c) Member States should establish and consistently apply criteria to ensure the selection of the most cost-effective projects4, take into account the useful life of the investments when establishing the sustainability-related requirements and checks, and set a reasonable timeframe for processing grant and payment applications and respect it. (d) For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission and the Member States should collect timely, relevant and reliable data that provides useful information on the achievements of the projects and measures financed. (e) Member States should ensure that clear, specific objectives are set for the projects to which funds are committed. 
Bolje bi morale izkoristiti obstoječe strukture za usklajevanje; (b) Komisija bi morala nagraditi svoje prve ukrepe za zagotovitev uspešnega usklajevanja in izvesti temeljito oceno dopolnjevanja med sredstvi iz različnih skladov EU, ki jih bodo države članice uporabljale v programskem obdobju 2014–2020; (c) države članice bi morale določiti in dosledno uporabljati merila, s katerimi bi zagotovile izbiro stroškovno najučinkovitejših projektov4, pri določitvi in pregledih zahtev v zvezi s trajnostjo bi morale upoštevati dobo koristnosti naložb, določiti pa bi morale tudi razumen rok za obravnavo vlog za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev in zahtevkov za plačilo in ga spoštovati; (d) Komisija in države članice bi za obdobje 2014–2020 morale zbirati pravočasne, ustrezne in zanesljive podatke, ki zagotavljajo uporabne informacije o dosežkih financiranih projektov in ukrepov. (e) Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da so za projekte, katerim so namenjena sredstva, določeni jasni, specifični cilji.
4 See Special Report No 22/2014 ‘Achieving economy: keeping the costs of EU-financed rural development project grants under control’ (http://eca.europa.eu). 
4 Glej Posebno poročilo št 22/2014 - Doseganje gospodarnosti: obvladovanje stroškov projektov za razvoj podeželja, ki jih z nepovratnimi sredstvi financira EU (http://eca.europa.eu).
Introduction 09 The importance of rural infrastructure investments in the European Union Rural development support for infrastructure investments 02 Some 13 billion euro, amounting to 13.5 % of the total EAFRD funding, were allocated to infrastructure investments in the 2007-2013 programming period (see Annex I). 
Uvod 09 Pomembnost naložb v podeželsko infrastrukturo v Evropski uniji Podpora za naložbe v infrastrukturo v okviru razvoja podeželja 02 Za naložbe v infrastrukturo je bilo v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 dodeljenih približno 13 milijard EUR, kar znaša 13,5 % vseh sredstev EKSRP (glej Prilogo I).
The total public expenditure programmed by Member States in their RDPs, including national co-financing, was 19 billion euro, of which almost 12 billion euro had been spent by the end of 2013. 
Skupni javni odhodki, ki so jih države članice načrtovale v svojih programih razvoja podeželja, skupaj z nacionalnim sofinanciranjem, so znašali 19 milijard EUR, od tega je bilo do konca leta 2013 porabljenih skoraj 12 milijard EUR.
Although 2013 corresponds to the end of the programming period, this is not the end of its implementation, which extends until 31 December 20156. 
Čeprav se je programsko obdobje končalo leta 2013, pa to ni konec izvajanja programa, ki traja do 31. decembra 20156.
Taking into account the beneficiaries’ own contributions, the total volume of investment is expected to reach nearly 29 billion euro. 
Ob upoštevanju lastnih prispevkov upravičencev naj bi celotni obseg naložb po pričakovanjih znašal skoraj 29 milijard EUR.
03 The main measures chosen by the Member States to support infrastructure under their RDPs in the 2007-2013 programming period were the following: — measure 125: ‘Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry’; — measure 321: ‘Basic services for the economy and rural population’; — measure 322: ‘Village renewal and development’; — measure 323: ‘Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage’. 
03 Glavni ukrepi za podporo infrastrukturi, ki so jih v okviru svojih programov za razvoj podeželja izbrale države članice v obdobju 2007–2013, so bili naslednji: – ukrep 125: infrastruktura, povezana z razvojem in prilagoditvijo kmetijstva in gozdarstva, – ukrep 321: osnovne storitve za gospodarstvo in podeželsko prebivalstvo, – ukrep 322: obnova in razvoj vasi, – ukrep 323: ohranjanje in izboljševanje dediščine podeželja.
The abovementioned measures will be referred to in this report as ‘infrastructure measures’. 
Ti ukrepi bodo v tem poročilu imenovani „infrastrukturni ukrepi”.
5 Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p. 
5 Sklep Sveta 2006/144/ES z dne 20. februarja 2006 o strateških smernicah Skupnosti za razvoj podeželja (programsko obdobje 2007–2013) (UL L 55, 25.2.2006, str.
20) sets out the Community priorities for rural development, as required by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p.1). 
20) določa prioritete Skupnosti na področju razvoja podeželja, kot zahteva člen 9 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 z dne 20. septembra 2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 277, 21.10.2005, str.
6 Under the ‘N+ 2 rule’, the Member States can incur expenditure for the 2007-2013 programmes until the end of 2015. 
6 V skladu s pravilom N + 2 lahko odhodki držav članic za programe iz obdobja 2007–2013 nastanejo do konca leta 2015.
01 Rural areas face significant challenges, such as depopulation and a scarcity of economic opportunities. 
01 Podeželska območja se soočajo z velikimi izzivi, kot sta odseljevanje in pomanjkanje gospodarskih priložnosti.
Good infrastructure (roads, water supply, sewerage systems, flood prevention systems, irrigation pipes, etc.) helps to boost economic growth and to increase the attractiveness of rural areas. 
Dobra infrastruktura (ceste, oskrba z vodo, kanalizacija, sistemi za preprečevanje poplav, namakalni cevovodi itd.) pripomore h krepitvi gospodarske rasti in poveča privlačnost podeželskih območij.
The Community strategic guidelines, adopted by the Council in 20065, identify the European Union’s priorities under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 
V strateških smernicah Skupnosti, ki jih je leta 2006 sprejel Svet5, so opredeljene prioritete Evropske unije v okviru Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP).
The guidelines emphasised the importance to be attached to the upgrading of local infrastructure in the 2007-2013 programming period: ‘Significant investment will be undertaken in major telecommunications, transport, energy and water infrastructure over the coming years. 
V njih je poudarjeno, kako pomembno je v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 posodabljanje lokalne infrastrukture: „V prihodnjih letih bodo izvedena večja vlaganja v glavne telekomunikacijske, transportne, energetske in vodne infrastrukture.
Considerable support will be available from the Structural Funds, ranging from trans-European networks to the development of connections to business or science parks. 
Znatna podpora bo na voljo iz strukturnih skladov, od vseevropskih omrežij do razvoja povezav do poslovnih ali znanstvenih parkov.
For the multiplier effect to be fully realised in terms of jobs and growth, small-scale local infrastructure, supported within rural development programmes, can play a vital role in connecting these major investments to local strategies for the diversification and development of agricultural and food-sector potential.’ 
Za celotno uresničitev multiplikacijskega učinka pri delovnih mestih in rasti ima lahko mala lokalna infrastruktura, podprta v okviru programov razvoja podeželja, bistveno vlogo pri povezovanju teh glavnih naložb z lokalnimi strategijami za diverzifikacijo in razvoj potenciala kmetijskega in živilskega sektorja.”
Introduction 10 04 The EU rural development regulation applicable to the 2007-2013 programming period sets neither the maximum eligible amount nor the maximum aid rate for projects under these measures. Member States determine these elements in their RDPs, in accordance with EU state aid rules. 
Uvod 10 04 Uredba EU o razvoju podeželja, ki velja za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, za projekte v okviru teh ukrepov ne določa ne najvišjega upravičenega zneska ne najvišje stopnje pomoči, ki ju v skladu s pravili EU o državni pomoči določijo države članice v svojih programih razvoja podeželja.
The standard aid rates are usually high, and ranged from 70 % to 100 % in the RDPs audited. 
Standardne stopnje pomoči so običajno visoke in so se pri programih razvoja podeželja, ki jih je revidiralo Sodišče, gibale med 70 % in 100 %.
Box 1 gives typical examples of the projects funded under each of these measures, which were mainly used by public beneficiaries, but were also open to private beneficiaries. 
V okviru 1 so navedeni značilni primeri projektov, financiranih v okviru vsakega od posameznih ukrepov, ki so jih večinoma uporabljali javni upravičenci, vendar so bili dostopni tudi za zasebne upravičence.
Examples of projects funded by the rural infrastructure measures Farm roads in Italy (Sicily) (measure 125, private beneficiary) Eligible cost: 1 330 000 euro Aid rate: 80 % Extension of a day care centre in Germany (Saxony) (measure 321, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 145 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Box 1 
Primeri projektov, financiranih v okviru ukrepov za podeželsko infrastrukturo Kmetijske ceste v Italiji (Sicilija) (ukrep 125, zasebni upravičenec) Upravičeni stroški: 1 330 000 EUR Stopnja pomoči: 80 % Razširitev vrtca v Nemčiji (Saška) (ukrep 321, javni upravičenec) Upravičeni stroški: 145 000 EUR Stopnja pomoči: 100 % Okvir 1
Introduction 11 Construction of a water supply and sewerage system in Romania (measure 322, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 2 200 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Restoration of a rural path for livestock in Spain (Extremadura) (measure 323, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 120 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Uvod 11 Gradnja vodooskrbnega in kanalizacijskega sistema v Romuniji (ukrep 322, javni upravičenec) Upravičeni stroški: 2 200 000 EUR Stopnja pomoči: 100 % Obnova poljske poti za živino v Španiji (Ekstremadura) (ukrep 323, javni upravičenec) Upravičeni stroški: 120 000 EUR Stopnja pomoči: 100 % Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče.
05 Depending on the measure under which they are supported, infrastructure projects should contribute either to the objective of improving the competitiveness of the agriculture and forestry sector (measure 125) or to the objective of improving the quality of life in rural areas (measures 321, 322 and 323). 
05 Infrastrukturni projekti naj bi glede na ukrep, v okviru katerega se podpirajo, prispevali bodisi k cilju izboljšanja konkurenčnosti kmetijskega in gozdarskega sektorja (ukrep 125) bodisi k cilju izboljšanja kakovosti življenja na podeželskih območjih (ukrepi 321, 322 in 323).
Infrastructure projects contributing to the same objectives could also be implemented following a bottom-up (‘LEADER’) approach7. 
Infrastrukturne projekte, ki prispevajo k istim ciljem, je bilo mogoče izvajati tudi v skladu s pristopom „od spodaj navzgor” (program Leader)7.
06 The regulatory framework for allocating EAFRD funding to infrastructure projects is based on shared management. Under this system, the Member States submit their RDPs for the Commission’s approval. 
06 Regulativni okvir za dodeljevanje sredstev EKSRP za infrastrukturne projekte temelji na sistemu deljenega upravljanja, v skladu s katerim države članice predložijo svoje programe razvoja podeželja v odobritev Komisiji.
The Commission’s role is to supervise the proper functioning of the management and control systems in Member States and ensure the respect of the principles of sound financial management8. 
Komisija je dolžna nadzorovati, ali upravljavski in kontrolni sistemi v državah članicah pravilno delujejo, in zagotavljati, da se upoštevajo načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja8.
Based on the approved RDPs, Member States select the projects to be funded. 
Države članice na podlagi odobrenih programov razvoja podeželja izberejo projekte za financiranje.
7 A method to achieve the objectives of the EU’s rural development policy through bottom-up implementation rather than the traditional top-down approach. 
7 Metoda za doseganje ciljev politike EU za razvoj podeželja, v skladu s katero izvajanje poteka od spodaj navzgor namesto po tradicionalnem pristopu od zgoraj navzdol.
8 See Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
8 Glej člen 73 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005.
Introduction 12 07 Figure 1 shows how funding is allocated to infrastructure projects. 
Uvod 12 07 Slika 1 prikazuje, kako poteka dodeljevanje finančnih sredstev infrastrukturnim projektom.
The different steps are intended to ensure that funding is directed to the projects that best match the overall policy objectives while meeting the needs and priorities established at Member State or regional level. 
Z različnimi koraki se zagotovi, da so sredstva namenjena projektom, ki najbolje ustrezajo splošnim ciljem politike, hkrati pa ustrezajo potrebam in prioritetam, določenim na ravni države članice ali regije.
08 The EU regulation for the 2014-2020 programming period9 broadly retains the legal requirements set for the 2007-2013 programming period with regard to the audited measures and operations. 
08 Uredba EU za programsko obdobje 2014–20209 za revidirane ukrepe in dejavnosti v splošnem ohranja pravne zahteve iz programskega obdobja 2007–2013.
Member States have earmarked more than 14.65 billion euro for infrastructure measures in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Države članice so za infrastrukturne ukrepe v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 namenile več kot 14,65 milijarde EUR.
Thus, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are also relevant for the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Zato so ugotovitve, zaključki in priporočila, ki jih Sodišče predstavlja v tem poročilu, veljavni tudi za programsko obdobje 2014 –2020.
9 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
1305/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
Regulatory framework for allocating EAFRD funding to projects Rural development policy established at EU level (Community strategic guidelines, Council regulation) Proposed by the Commission and approved by the Council Strategic programming at Member State level (National strategy plan, rural development programme) Proposed by the Member States and approved by the Commission Detailed rules and procedures at Member State level (National or regional legislation, procedures, guides) Project selection Funding allocated to rural infrastructure projects Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Regulativni okvir za dodeljevanje sredstev EKSRP projektom politika razvoja podeželja, opredeljena na ravni EU (strateške smernice Skupnosti, uredba Sveta) predlaga jo Komisija, odobri Svet strateško programsko načrtovanje na ravni držav članic (nacionalni strateški načrt, program razvoja podeželja) predlagajo jih države članice, odobri Komisija podrobna pravila in postopki na ravni držav članic (nacionalna ali regionalna zakonodaja, postopki, navodila) izbira projektov dodelitev financiranja projektom podeželske infrastrukture Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče.
Audit scope and approach 13 09 The audit sought to answer the following question: Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the support for rural infrastructure investments? 
Obseg revizije 13 in revizijski pristop 09 Z revizijo je Sodišče želelo odgovoriti na naslednje vprašanje: Ali so države članice in Komisija s podporo za naložbe v podeželsko infrastrukturo dosegle stroškovno učinkovitost?
10 The Court assessed the justification of the need for EU funds for rural infrastructure and the coordination with other funds (Part I of the report). 
10 Sodišče je ocenilo utemeljitev potrebe po sredstvih EU za podeželsko infrastrukturo in njihovo usklajenost z drugimi sredstvi (del I).
Several key aspects related to the Member States’ implementation of the measures were further analysed: the application of selection criteria, the checks on the reasonableness of costs, the sustainability-related requirements and the timeliness of the administrative processes (Part II). 
Podrobneje je analiziralo več ključnih vidikov, ki se nanašajo na to, kako države članice izvajajo ukrepe: uporabo izbirnih meril, preglede razumnosti stroškov, zahteve v zvezi s trajnostjo in pravočasnost upravnih postopkov (del II).
The Court also assessed whether the results of the measures had been monitored and evaluated in such a way as to allow the Member States and the Commission to identify and respond to any problems which may have arisen, and to provide objective information on the results of the measures financed (Part III). 
Sodišče je ocenilo tudi, ali so se rezultati ukrepov spremljali in vrednotili tako, da so države članice in Komisija lahko ugotovile morebitne probleme, se nanje odzvale ter zagotovile objektivne informacije o rezultatih financiranih ukrepov (del III).
11 The audit, which was carried out between November 2014 and June 2015, concerns the design and implementation of the infrastructure measures in the 2007-2013 programming period. 
11 Revizija, ki je bila izvedena med novembrom 2014 in junijem 2015, obravnava zasnovo in izvajanje infrastrukturnih ukrepov v programskem obdobju 2007–2013.
Where possible, the changes in place for the programming period 2014-2020 were also covered by the Court’s assessment. 
Če je bilo mogoče, so bile v oceno Sodišča zajete tudi spremembe za programsko obdobje 2014–2020.
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 infrastructure10. 
Revizorji so obiskali Komisijo in pet držav članic, ki so bile izbrane glede na pomembnost dodeljenih zneskov za podeželsko infrastrukturo10.
These Member States were: Germany (Saxony), Spain (Extremadura), Italy (Sicily), Poland and Romania. 
Te države so bile: Nemčija (Saška), Španija (Ekstremadura), Italija (Sicilija), Poljska in Romunija.
12 The audit focused on infrastructure investments financed under measures 125, 321, 322 and 323. 
12 Revizija je bila usmerjena na projekte, ki se financirajo v okviru ukrepov 125, 321, 322 in 323.
Projects financed using the LEADER approach were audited in Germany (Saxony) and Spain (Extremadura), as these two regions used this approach for significant infrastructure investments. 
Projekti, financirani po pristopu Leader, so bili revidirani v Nemčiji (Saška) in Španiji (Ekstremadura), saj sta ti regiji ta pristop uporabljali za pomembne infrastrukturne naložbe.
13 In terms of project types, the audit concentrated on rural roads, water management infrastructure and social and cultural infrastructure, as these are the main project categories supported under the relevant measures. 
13 Revizija se je osredotočala na vrste projektov, kot so podeželske ceste, vodnogospodarska infrastruktura ter socialna in kulturna infrastrukturo, saj so to osrednje kategorije projektov, ki se podpirajo v okviru zadevnih ukrepov.
14 The audit analysed the systems used by managing authorities and/or paying agencies to implement support for infrastructure projects, as well as the key management information derived from Member States’ control and monitoring activities. 
14 Pri reviziji so bili analizirani sistemi, ki jih uporabljajo organi upravljanja in/ali plačilne agencije za izvajanje podpore za infrastrukturne projekte, ter ključne informacije o upravljanju, pridobljene s kontrolnimi in nadzornimi dejavnostmi držav članic.
This entailed the examination of 48 project files, selected as a sample of infrastructure projects typical of those financed in the Member State concerned. 
To je zajemalo preučitev 48 projektnih spisov, izbranih kot vzorec značilnih infrastrukturnih projektov, ki se financirajo v zadevni državi članici.
Site visits, involving interviews with the beneficiaries, were made to 32 of these projects, while the remaining 16 project files were checked through a documentary review. 
Obiski na kraju samem, med katerim so potekali pogovori z upravičenci, so bili opravljeni pri 32 od teh projektov, za preostalih 16 pa je bil izveden dokumentacijski pregled projektnih spisov.
More information about the projects visited can be found in Annex II. 
Več informacij o projektih, ki so bili obiskani, je na voljo v Prilogi II.
10 See Annex I for detailed financial figures on programmed and realised expenditure per Member State. 
10 Za podrobne finančne podatke o programsko načrtovanih in dejanskih odhodkih na državo članico glej Prilogo 1.
Observations 14 Part I — Insufficient justification for using EU rural development funds and weak coordination with other funds 15 Infrastructure investments in rural areas can receive funding from several sources. 
Opažanja 14 Del I – nezadostna utemeljenost Uporabe sredstev EU za razvoj podeželja in slaba uskladitev s sredstvi iz drugih skladov 15 Infrastrukturne naložbe na podeželskih območjih lahko prejmejo sredstva iz več virov.
At EU level, in addition to the EAFRD, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund may also finance rural infrastructure. 
Podeželsko infrastrukturo na ravni EU poleg Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) financirata tudi Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (ESRR) in Kohezijski sklad.
The Member States often finance such projects from their own national, regional or local budgets, either through dedicated programmes (organised in a similar way to the RDP measures) or through the direct allocation of funds, for example through a specific budget line for road maintenance. 
Države članice pogosto financirajo take projekte iz lastnih nacionalnih, regionalnih ali lokalnih proračunov, bodisi v okviru namenskih programov (ki so organizirani podobno kot ukrepi programov razvoja podeželja) ali z neposredno dodelitvijo sredstev, na primer s posebno proračunsko postavko za vzdrževanje cest.
16 Furthermore, private beneficiaries may be able to cover at least part of the costs of some infrastructure projects, as they are the main users of investments such as rural roads and irrigation systems that are likely to improve their economic performance. 
16 Poleg tega so lahko vsaj del stroškov nekaterih infrastrukturnih projektov sposobni pokriti zasebni upravičenci, saj so sami glavni uporabniki naložb, kot so podeželske ceste in namakalni sistemi, ki bodo verjetno izboljšali njihovo gospodarsko uspešnost.
For water supply and sewerage systems, some investment costs are normally recovered from the fees paid by users. 
V primeru vodooskrbnih in kanalizacijskih sistemov se nekateri stroški naložb običajno povrnejo s pristojbinami uporabnikov.
17 In order to achieve optimum value for money, Member States should identify the rural development needs and, from among these, the main priorities. 
17 Da bi dosegle optimalno stroškovno učinkovitost, bi morale države članice opredeliti potrebe na področju razvoja podeželja in izmed teh izbrati glavne prioritete.