natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the environmental and quality categories of actions the relevant objective was usually evident, but for the category Ômeasures linked to production facilitiesŐ sometimes it was not. 
Pri dejavnostih, ki so sodile v kategoriji okolje in kakovost, je bil relevanten cilj običajno očiten, pri kategoriji „dejav-nosti, povezane s proizvodnimi zmogljivostmi“, pa včasih ne.
As a result it was not possible to identify the objective of some of the actions on the basis of the operational programme documentation (Text box 10). 
Zaradi tega cilja nekaterih dejavnosti ni bilo mogoče opredeliti na podlagi dokumentacije o operativnem programu (Okvir 10).
The Italian, Greek and French authorities did not attempt to check the objectives of individual programmes as they considered that the compliance of the actions with the EU objectives had been established when drafting the national lists of actions. 
Ita-lijanski, grški in francoski organi oblasti niso poskušali preveriti ciljev posameznih programov, saj so menili, da je bila skladnost dejavnosti s cilji EU ugotovljena s pripravo nacionalnih seznamov dejavnosti.
However, changes over time to the classification had the effect of ÔchangingŐ the operational programmesŐ objectives for a given action (Text box 11). 
Vendar so imele postopne spremembe razvrstitve učinek „spreminjanja“ ciljev operativnih programov za dano dejavnost (Okvir 11).
Operational programme objectives are not given in measurable terms and targets are not set 34. 
Cilji operativnih programov niso navedeni izmerljivo, podcilji pa niso določeni 34.
Only the United Kingdom authorities formally required producer organisations to set measurable objectives for operational programmes, although in practice it did not ensure that this was done. 
Samo organi oblasti v Združenem kraljestvu so od organizacij proizvajalcev uradno zahtevali, da za svoje operativne programe določijo merljive cilje, čeprav v praksi to ni zagotavljalo, da je bilo tako tudi storjeno.
In Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, the authorities required the expected results to be shown for each measure or action, but this was focused on the outputs Ń how the implementation of the actions could be demonstrated Ń rather than on the achievement of the objective. 
V Španiji, Italiji in na Nizozemskem so organi oblasti zahtevali, da se za vsak ukrep ali dejavnost navedejo pričakovani rezultati, vendar je bilo to bolj osredotočeno na učinke – kako bi bilo mogoče prikazati izvajanje ukrepov – kot pa na doseganje cilja.
In 10 % of the operational programmes examined, producer organisations gave quantified objectives for at least one action where this was straightforward, such as for the expected reduction in costs, or the number of hectares to be converted to organic production. 
Pri 10 % pregledanih operativnih programov so organizacije proizvajalcev količinsko opredelile svoje cilje pri vsaj eni dejavnosti, kjer so bili ti očitni, kot na primer pri pričakovanem zmanjšanju stroškov ali številu hektarjev, ki naj bi bili predodeljeni za ekološko pridelavo.
These cases were mostly in Spain and Italy. 
Ti primeri so bili večinoma v Španiji in Italiji.
Otherwise, producer organisations did not set targets or indicators by which achievement of the objectives could be monitored. 
Sicer organizacije proizvajalcev niso določile podciljev ali kazalnikov, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče spremljati doseganje ciljev.
Producer organisationsŐ evaluation reports do not show the achievement of objectives 35. 
V ocenjevalnih poročilih organizacij proizvajalcev doseganje ciljev ni prikazano 35.
Except for some cases in France and Ireland, the Member States ensured that producer organisationsŐ final evaluation reports described the implementation of the programme and outputs (what had been done), but none in practice required the reports to also show the extent to which the operational programme objectives had been achieved. 
Razen v nekaterih primerih v Franciji in na Irskem so države članice zagotovile, da so bili v končnih ocenjevalnih poročilih organizacij proizvajalcev opisani izvajanje in učinki (kaj je bilo narejeno), v praksi pa ni nobena zahtevala, da se v poročilih navede tudi, v kolikšnem obsegu so bili doseženi cilji operativnih programov.
As such the reports were of little use for assessing the effectiveness of the aid. 
Zaradi tega poročila niso bila uporabna pri ocenjevanju uspešnosti pomoči.
Text box 9 In an operational programme approved by the regional authorities in Spain, a producer organisation purchased a fork-lift truck at a cost of 25 000 euro. 
Okvir 9 V operativnem programu, ki so ga odobrili regionalni organi oblasti v Španiji, je organizacija proizvajalcev kupila viličarja po ceni 25 000 EUR.
The producer organisation could not demonstrate a relation between the action and the stated objective of Ôreducing with-drawalsŐ. 
Organizacija proizvajalcev ni mogla pokazati povezave med dejavnostjo in navedenim ciljem „zmanjšanje umikov“.
Text box 10 In an operational programme in France, a producer organisation included an action described as Ôprovision of servicesŐ a cost of 50 400 euro. 
Okvir 10 V Franciji je organizacija proizvajalcev v operativni program zajela dejavnost, opisano kot „zagotavljanje storitve“, po ceni 50 400 EUR.
25 % of this cost was allocated to the objective of Ôimproving qualityŐ and 25 % to Ôimproving environmental practicesŐ. 
25 % teh stroškov je bilo dodeljenih cilju „izboljšanje kakovosti“, 25 % pa „izboljšanju okoljskih praks“.
We were unable to identify the EU objective related to the remaining 50 % of the costs. 
Pri tem nismo mogli opredeliti cilja EU, s katerim bi bilo povezanih preostalih 50 % stroškov.
Text box 11 An irrigation project in Italy was allocated to the objective of Ôimproving qualityŐ in accordance with the 1997 national guidelines. 
Okvir 11 Namakalni projekt v Italiji je bil dodeljen cilju „izboljšanje kakovosti“ v skladu z nacionalnimi smernicami iz leta 1997.
Following a revision of the guidelines it was given the objective of Ôconcen-tration of supplyŐ in 1999. 
Po pregledu teh smernic je bil leta 1999 dodeljen cilju „koncentracija ponudbe“.
In 2002 a further revision classified the same action under the objective Ôreducing costsŐ. 
Leta 2002, po še enem pregledu, je bila ista dejavnost uvrščena pod cilj „zmanjšanje stroškov“.
Text box 8 An operational programme in the Netherlands included an electronic delivery note system at a cost of 135 000 euro with the objective Ôplanning and adjusting production to the demandŐ. 
Okvir 8 Operativni program na Nizozemskem je zajemal elektronski sistem za dobavnice, ki bi stal 135 000 EUR, cilj pa je bil „načrtovanje in prilagajanje proizvodnje glede na povpraševanje“.
The producer organisation could not demonstrate a relation between the action and this objective. 
Organizacija proizvajalcev ni mogla pokazati povezave med dejavnostjo in tem ciljem.
The real objective, the reduction in costs, was not mentioned in the operational programme. 
Pravi cilj, zmanjšanje stroškov, v operativnem programu ni bil omenjen.
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/41 36. 
20.11.2006 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 282/41 36.
The evaluations in the final reports were little used by the Member States (1), and were treated as another formality required for compliance with the regulation. 
Države članice ocen v končnih poročilih niso veliko uporabljale (1) in so jih obravnavale kot še eno formalnost, ki je potrebna za skladnost z Uredbo.
In Greece, Spain (2) and Portugal, final reports were simply filed by the paying agency and not examined by the authorities responsible for approving operational programmes. 
V Grčiji, Španiji (2) in na Portugalskem je končna poročila preprosto arhivirala plačilna agencija, organi oblasti, pristojni za odobravanje operativnih programov, pa jih niso pregledali.
The content of the reports varied widely, from less than one page of general unsubstantiated statements such as that Ôquality has been improvedŐ, to over 100 pages of detailed facts and figures on the implementation of the programme, action by action. 
Vsebina poročil je bila zelo različna, nekatera poročila so vsebovala manj kot eno stran splošnih izjav brez utemeljitve, kot je „kakovost se je izboljšala“, druga pa so obsegala tudi več kot 100 strani podrobno navedenih dejstev in številk o izvajanju programa po posameznih dejavnostih.
Member States did not require final reports to contain a (1) Member States commented that, according to the deadlines set in the implementing regulation, final reports are received after they have already approved the next operational programme for the producer organisation concerned. 
Države članice niso zahtevale, da morajo končna poročila vsebovati skupen sklop podatkov, (1) Države članice so pripomnile, da v skladu z roki, določenimi v izvedbeni uredbi, končna poročila prejmejo šele potem, ko so že odobrile naslednji operativni program za zadevno organizacijo proizvajalcev.
Although the regulation has been revised several times since 1997, this inconsistency has not been amended. 
Čeprav je bila Uredba od leta 1997 večkrat posodobljena, ta nedoslednost ni bila odpravljena.
Evaluation reports could be required earlier in the final year of the programme, simultaneous with the request for the following programme, for example. 
Ocenjevalna poročila bi lahko zahtevali prej v zadnjem letu programa, na primer skupaj z vlogo za naslednji program.
(2) This concerns the national paying agency in particular. common set of information to allow monitoring of the effectiveness of the programmes at regional or national level, and the diversity of the reports made any such analysis impractical. 
(2) To zadeva zlasti nacionalno plačilno agencijo. da se omogoči spremljanje uspešnosti programov na regionalni ali nacionalni ravni, zato je bila zaradi raznolikosti poročil vsaka taka analiza nepraktična.
Member States do not apply effectiveness criteria when approving operational programmes 38. 
Države članice pri odobritvi operativnih programov ne uporabljajo meril za uspešnost 38.
In practice, Member States approved the programmes according to the nature of the proposed expenditure, not in terms of what the programme was expected to achieve. 
V praksi so države članice odobrile programe glede na vrsto predlaganih odhodkov, ne pa glede na pričakovane dosežke programa.
Effectiveness criteria, such as additionality, were not applied in deciding whether or not to approve the financing of an action with EU aid. 
Merila za uspešnost, kot je dodatnost, se niso upoštevala pri odločanju o tem, ali naj se odobri financiranje dejavnosti s sredstvi pomoči EU ali ne.
Consideration of factors specifically required by the regulation, such as the initial situation and objectives, the technical quality and economic consistency of the programme, has become redundant and has only been done to the extent necessary to demonstrate compliance with the letter of the regulation. 
Upoštevanje dejavnikov, ki jih uredba izrecno zahteva, kot so začetno stanje in cilji, strokovna kakovost in gospodarska doslednost programa, je postalo odveč in je bilo opravljeno samo v tolikšnem obsegu, kot je bilo potrebno za dokazovanje skladnosti z zahtevami iz Uredbe.
Instead, Member States followed a different approach, with the focus placed on compliance with the eligibility criteria and the payment of subsidy as illustrated in Diagram 6. 
Namesto tega so države članice uporabile drugačen pristop, ki je bil osredotočen na skladnost z merili o upravičenosti in plačilo subvencije, kot je prikazano v Diagramu 6.
Diagram 6 Subsidy approach 
Diagram 6 Subvencijski pristop
C 282/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 40. 
C 282/42 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 20.11.2006 40.
This is largely a result of the amendment of the Commission implementing regulation to introduce Ôeligibility listsŐ with which operational programmes since 1999 have had to comply. 
To je v veliki meri rezultat spreminjanja izvedbene uredbe Komisije zaradi uvedbe „seznamov upravičenosti“, s katerimi morajo biti operativni programi skladni od leta 1999.
These list the types of expenditure that can and cannot be included in operational programmes (Text box 12). have to be able to justify their decision to the producer organisation and also may face legal challenges. 
V njih so navedene tiste vrste odhodkov, ki jih je mogoče zajeti v operativne programe, in tiste, ki jih ni (Okvir 12). zmožne utemeljiti svojo odločitev organizaciji proizvajalcev in se lahko soočijo tudi s pravnimi izzivi.
Member States can avoid these difficult decisions by approving the same action for all producer organisations that request it, regardless of the objectives or situation of each particular producer organisation (Text box 13). 
Države članice se lahko tem težkim odločitvam izognejo tako, da enako dejavnost odobrijo vsem organizacijam proizvajalcev, ki jo zahtevajo, ne glede na cilje ali stanje vsake posamezne organizacije proizvajalcev (Okvir 13).
Text box 12 Example of eligibility criteria: transport costs Eligible: Ń investments in transport equipped with cold storage. 
Okvir 12 Primer meril o upravičenosti: transportni stroški Upravičeni: — naložbe v prevozna sredstva, opremljena s hladilniki.
Ineligible: Ń costs of collection or transport (internal or external), Ń investments in transport for marketing or distribution. 
Neupravičeni: — stroški zbiranja ali transporta (notranjega ali zunanjega), — naložbe v prevozna sredstva za trženje ali distribucijo.
Text box 13 Example: pallet-boxes In 10 of the 30 randomly selected operational programmes, Member States had approved the purchase of pallet-boxes, crates or similar containers for collecting, transporting and storing fruit and vegetables at a combined cost of 1,7 million euro. 
Okvir 13 Primer: zabojaste palete Pri desetih od 30 naključno izbranih operativnih programov so države članice odobrile nakup zabojastih palet, zabojev ali podobnih posod za zbiranje, prevoz in skladiščenje sadja in zelenjave po skupni ceni 1,7 milijona EUR.
The Commission considers this expenditure to be eligible. 
Komisija meni, da je ta odhodek upravičen.
The objectives given in the operational programmes included: Ń stabilising producer prices, Ń increasing product quality, Ń boosting productsŐ commercial value, Ń reducing production costs, Ń improving environmental practices, Ń concentration of supply, Ń reducing withdrawals. 
Med cilji, navedenimi v operativnih programih, so bili: — stabilizacija proizvodnih cen, — izboljšanje kakovosti proizvodov, — zvišanje komercialne vrednosti proizvodov, — zmanjševanje proizvodnih stroškov, — izboljšanje okoljskih praks, — koncentracija ponudbe, — zmanjševanje umikov s trga.
In some cases, the purchase represented an advance from the initial situation to achieve an objective: one producer organisation replaced wooden crates with more hygenic plastic in order to supply a baby-food manufacturer (objective given: improving quality). 
V nekaterih primerih je nakup predstavljal napredek pri doseganju cilja glede na začetno stanje: ena organizacija proizvajalcev je lesene za-boje nadomestila z bolj higienskimi plastičnimi, da bi lahko oskrbo-vala proizvajalca otroške hrane (navedeni cilj: izboljšanje kakovosti).
In other cases these were simply replacements of old, lost or damaged crates, or additional purchases needed for increased production levels, without any clear relation to the given objectives. 
V drugih primerih je šlo preprosto samo za zamenjavo starih, izgubljenih ali poškodovanih zabojev ali za dodatne nakupe, potrebne zaradi večje proizvodnje, brez vsake jasne povezave z navedenimi cilji.
The initial implementing regulation in 1997 did not set detailed criteria for eligibility, except to exclude producer organisationsŐ administrative and operating expenditure. 
V prvi izvedbeni uredbi iz leta 1997 niso bila podrobno navedena merila o upravičenosti, razen tega, da so bili izvzeti upravni in poslovni odhodki organizacij proizvajalcev.
Member States were uncertain of what the Commission would accept as eligible expenditure in the Clearance of Accounts process and, in response to queries from the Member States, the Commission issued a series of ad hoc interpretive notes. 
Države članice niso zagotovo vedele, kaj bo Komisija v postopku potrditve obračunov sprejela kot upravičene odhodke, Komisija pa se je na vprašanja držav članic odzvala z vrsto priložnostnih pojasnil.
As these interpretive notes had no official status, the Commission amended the implementing legislation to introduce a list of ineligible operations and expenditure. 
Ker ta pojasnila niso imela nobenega uradnega statusa, je Komisija spremenila izvedbeno zakonodajo, da bi uvedla seznam neupravičenih dejavnosti in odhodkov.
At the same time, it required Member States to check the eligibility of proposed operational programme expenditure against this list before approving operational programmes. 
Hkrati je od držav članic zahtevala, da po tem seznamu preverijo upravičenost odhodkov pred odobritvijo predlaganih operativnih programov.
In 2001 the Commission added a list of what could be included in operational programmes and in 2003 the interpretive notes were withdrawn and both lists were revised again. 
Leta 2001 je Komisija dodala seznam, v katerem je navedla, kaj je lahko zajeto v operativne programe, leta 2003 pa so bila izdana pojasnila umaknjena in oba seznama ponovno pregledana.
The eligibility lists allowed some exceptions to the exclusion of producer organisationsŐ production and operating costs such as certain staff salaries, recyclable packaging and costs of natural pest and disease controls. 
Seznama upravičenosti sta dovoljevala nekatere izjeme pri izvzetju proizvodnih in poslovnih stroškov organizacij proizvajalcev, kot so plače za določene uslužbence, embalaža, primerna za recikliranje, in stroški naravnega nadzora nad škodljivci in boleznimi.
The existence of these eligibility lists does not prevent Member States from also considering the producer organisationsŐ initial situation and objectives and the likely effectiveness of the proposed actions. 
Obstoj teh seznamov upravičenosti državam članicam ne preprečuje, da upoštevajo tudi začetno stanje organizacij proizvajalcev, njihove cilje in verjetnost uspešnosti predlaganih dejavnosti.
However, Member States that refuse to approve proposed expenditure defined in the regulation as eligible would The coexistence of the programming model and subsidy approach has increased complexity and costs 44. 
Vendar bi morale biti države članice, ki zavrnejo odobritev predlaganih odhodkov, ki so v Uredbi opredeljeni kot upravičeni, Večja zapletenost in višji stroški zaradi soobstoja modela načrtovanja programov in subvencijskega pristopa 44.
In effect, a Ôsubsidy approachŐ has been followed by Member States rather than a programming approach, while the programming elements of the regulation are still required. 
Dejansko so države članice namesto modela načrtovanja programov uporabljale „subvencijski pristop“, čeprav se še vedno zahtevajo elementi načrtovanja programov iz Uredbe.
The result is that the aid scheme has become more complex than necessary, with increased costs of administration and control. 
Zaradi tega je program pomoči postal bolj zapleten, kot bi bilo potrebno, zvišali pa so se tudi upravni in nadzorni stroški.
This results from the lack of clarity of the eligibility lists as well as from the coexistence of the programming model. 
To je posledica premalo jasnih seznamov upravičenosti in soobstoja modela načrtovanja programov.
If done properly, preparing operational programmes, annual implementation reports and end-of-programme evaluations entails significant costs for producer organisations. 
Če organizacije proizvajalcev pravilno pripravijo operativne programe, poročila o letni izvedbi in ocene ob koncu programa, imajo zaradi tega precejšnje stroške.
This is all the more so in Member States such as Italy and the Netherlands, which require detailed annual operational programmes also to be submitted for approval. 
To še posebej drži za države članice, kot sta Italija in Nizozemska, ki zahtevajo, da je treba v odobritev predložiti tudi podrobne letne operativne programe.
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/43 45. 
20.11.2006 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 282/43 45.
The eligibility lists published in the regulation can never be precise enough to cover all possible actions in such a diverse and fast-changing sector and so are written in quite general terms such as Ôquality improvement measuresŐ. 
Seznami upravičenosti, objavljeni v Uredbi, ne morejo biti nikoli dovolj natančni, da bi zajeli vse možne dejavnosti v tako raznolikem in hitro spreminjajočem se sektorju in so zato napisani precej na splošno, kot na primer „dejavnosti za izboljšanje kakovosti“.
Inevitably, queries arise, and the lists are interpreted differently by different Member States and even by different regions within Member States. 
Zato se neizogibno pojavljajo vprašanja, države članice, in celo njihove posamezne regije, pa si sezname različno razlagajo.
Even after eight years of operation of the scheme, examples of ineligible expenditure continued to be found by the Commission in the 2005 Clearance enquiries in Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom where the Member States had not always interpreted the eligibility rules in the same way as the Commission. 
Celo po osmih letih izvajanja programa pomoči je Komisija pri pregledih v okviru potrditve obračunov v letu 2005 našla primere neupravičenih odhodkov v Španiji, Franciji, Italiji in Združenem kraljestvu, kjer si države članice pravil o upravičenosti niso vedno razlagale enako kot Komisija.
In the light of the uncertainty on eligibility and the associated risks, several Member State administrations undertake more checks than required by the regulation (1), some visiting every producer organisation several times a year. 
Glede na negotovost pri upravičenosti in s tem povezana tveganja uprave več držav članic izvaja več pregledov, kot jih zahteva Uredba (1), pri čemer nekatere vsako leto večkrat obiščejo vsako organizacijo proizvajalcev.
This adds costs not only for the Member State but also for the producer organisation. 
To povečuje stroške ne samo državi članici, ampak tudi organizaciji proizvajalcev.
This uncertainty on the eligibility, the costs of administration and extensive checks of their activities may also deter producer organisations from risking innovative measures, which may ultimately be disallowed. 
Ta negotovost pri upravičenosti, upravni stroški in obsežni pregledi njihovih dejavnosti lahko organizacije proizvajalcev tudi odvračajo od tega, da bi poskusile z inovativnimi ukrepi, ki so lahko nazadnje zavrnjeni.
This may encourage them to include only those measures in their operational programmes where the eligibility has been clearly established. 
To jih lahko spodbudi, da v svoje operativne programe zajamejo samo tiste ukrepe, kjer je bila upravičenost jasno ugotovljena.
There is a risk that ineffective actions have been approved 48. 
Tveganje, da so bile odobrene neuspešne dejavnosti 48.
As the programming model has not been properly implemented, the EU budget has been exposed to an increased risk of ineffectiveness: the risk that actions will be approved that do not result in progress towards the EUŐs objectives. 
Ker se model načrtovanja programov ne izvaja pravilno, je proračun EU izpostavljen povečanemu tveganju neuspešnosti: tveganju, da bodo odobrene dejavnosti, ki ne prinašajo napredka pri doseganju ciljev EU.
Some Member States have argued that they do not need to concern themselves with the effectiveness of the programmes, as producer organisations will normally make the best business decisions for their circumstances. 
Nekatere države članice so trdile, da jim ni treba skrbeti zaradi uspešnosti programov, saj bodo organizacije proizvajalcev običajno sprejele najboljše poslovne odločitve glede na svoje razmere.
After all, the members of the producer organisation have to co-finance 50 % of the costs of the programme. 
Nenazadnje morajo člani organizacije proizvajalcev sami sofinancirati 50 % stroškov programa.