natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
More concretely, the Commission should monitor relevant Member States’ implementation through their annual implementation reports, from 2017, which should also include the number and proportion of NPI projects that have been implemented in synergy with other rural development measures or environmental support schemes, including integrated projects. Member States should include in their evaluation plans, an assessment of the extent to which NPIs are implemented in synergy with other rural development measures or environmental schemes. (b) 
Natančneje, Komisija bi morala od leta 2017 naprej spremljati izvajanje neproduktivnih naložb v zadevnih državah članicah v okviru njihovih letnih poročil o izvajanju, ki bi morala zajemati tudi število in delež projektov neproduktivnih naložb, ki so bili izvedeni v sinergiji z drugimi ukrepi za razvoj podeželja ali okoljskimi shemami podpore, vključno z integriranimi projekti. (b) Države članice bi morale v svoje načrte vrednotenja vključiti oceno obsega, v katerem se neproduktivne naložbe izvajajo v sinergiji z drugimi ukrepi za razvoj podeželja ali okoljskimi shemami.
Conclusions and recommendations 37 75 The overall effectiveness of the support was undermined by weaknesses in the Member States’ selection procedures. 
Sklepi in priporočila 37 75 Splošno uspešnost podpore so zmanjševale slabosti izbirnih postopkov držav članic.
These weaknesses led Member States to fund investments which were ineligible for EU funding and as such, did not contribute to the objectives of the support scheme, or to select project applications without verifying appropriately that they respected crucial selection criteria. 
Zaradi teh slabosti so države članice financirale naložbe, ki niso bile upravičene do financiranja EU in kot take niso prispevale k doseganju ciljev sheme podpore, ali izbirale projektne vloge, ne da bi ustrezno preverile, ali te izpolnjujejo ključna izbirna merila.
In addition, some Member States used selection procedures that were not fully transparent (paragraph 24). 
Poleg tega so nekatere države članice uporabljale izbirne postopke, ki niso bili povsem pregledni (odstavek 24).
Recommendation 2 Selection of NPIs project applications (a) The Member States should ensure that selection procedures are transparent and effectively implemented. 
Priporočilo 2 – Izbira projektnih vlog za neproduktivne naložbe (a) Države članice bi morale zagotoviti preglednost in uspešno izvajanje izbirnih postopkov.
In particular, Member States should make public all the criteria used in the selection and prioritisation of NPIs and effectively verify the compliance with these criteria. 
Zlasti bi morale javno objaviti vsa merila, ki se uporabljajo za izbiro in prednostno razvrščanje neproduktivnih naložb, ter uspešno preverjati izpolnjevanje teh meril.
Furthermore, the Member States should ensure an appropriate segregation of duties between organisations and persons involved in the transmission and selection of applications. (b) For the new programming period, the Commission should provide guidance to Member States on selection criteria, having due regard to their transparency and relevance, and check that the Member States apply appropriate procedures for the selection of projects. 
Poleg tega bi morale zagotoviti ustrezno ločevanje nalog med organizacijami in osebami, ki sodelujejo pri prenosu in izbiri vlog. (b) Za novo programsko obdobje bi morala Komisija državam članicam zagotoviti navodila v zvezi z izbirnimi merili, pri tem pa ustrezno upoštevati njihovo preglednost, ter pregledati, ali države članice uporabljajo ustrezne postopke za izbiro projektov.
76 The audit revealed that neither the Commission nor the Member States had relevant information about the direct results of NPI support. 
76 Revizija je pokazala, da niti Komisija niti države članice niso imele ustreznih informacij o neposrednih rezultatih podpore za neproduktivne naložbe.
Basic performance data such as the increase in the number of traditional structures or landscape features restored, or the extent to which NPIs have contributed to protect biodiversity was missing. 
Osnovnih podatkov o smotrnosti poslovanja, kot je povečanje števila tradicionalnih struktur ali obnovljenih krajinskih značilnosti ali obseg, v katerem so neproduktivne naložbe prispevale k varstvu biotske raznovrstnosti, ni bilo.
Several reasons could explain this. 
Za to bi lahko obstajalo več razlogov.
Firstly, the Member States did not define baseline indicators during the programming phase on the basis of which a sound allocation of resources and a subsequent comparison of the progress achieved could be made. 
Prvič, države članice v fazi načrtovanja programov niso opredelile temeljnih kazalnikov, na podlagi katerih bi se lahko dobro dodelili viri in pozneje tudi primerjal doseženi napredek.
Secondly, the common monitoring indicators used to aggregate the performance data at Member State and EU levels measured only input and output data, such as the amount spent, the number of holdings receiving support and total volume of investment. 
Drugič, skupni kazalniki spremljanja, ki se uporabljajo za združevanje podatkov o smotrnosti poslovanja na ravni držav članic in EU, so merili le vhodne in izhodne podatke, kot so porabljena sredstva, število gospodarstev, ki prejemajo podporo, in skupni obseg naložbe.
77 The absence of specific results indicators led some Member States to bundle the assessment of NPIs with that of other environmental schemes, according to a wishful rationale in which the performance of the latter in a certain direction would imply that NPIs have been performing in the same way, despite the lack of objective data regarding the outcome of NPI support (see paragraphs 25 to 31). 
77 Ker ni bilo specifičnih kazalnikov rezultatov, so nekatere države članice oceno neproduktivnih naložb povezale z oceno drugih okoljskih shem na podlagi iluzorne utemeljitve, da smotrnost poslovanja slednjih v določeni smeri pomeni, da je smotrnost poslovanja neproduktivnih naložb enaka, kljub pomanjkanju objektivnih podatkov o izidih podpore za neproduktivne naložbe (glej odstavke 25 do 31).
Conclusions and recommendations 38 Recommendation 3 Monitoring and evaluation (a) The Commission should ensure that the contribution of NPIs to achieving the EU agri-environment objectives is monitored, or at least specifically assessed during the evaluations of the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Sklepi in priporočila 38 Priporočilo 3 – Spremljanje in vrednotenje (a) Komisija bi morala zagotoviti, da se prispevek neproduktivnih naložb k doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev EU spremlja ali vsaj posebej ocenjuje v okviru vrednotenja programskega obdobja 2014–2020.
To this end, the Commission should advise those Member States where NPI support is significant, to define specific result indicators for the NPIs types most frequently funded. (b) Member States should report on these indicators in their annual implementation reports starting from June 2016. 
V ta namen bi morala Komisija državam članicam, v katerih je podpora za neproduktivne naložbe bistvena, svetovati, da za vrste neproduktivnih naložb, ki se najpogosteje financirajo, opredelijo posebne kazalnike rezultatov. (b) Države članice bi morale o teh kazalnikih poročati v svojih letnih poročilih o izvajanju, in sicer od junija 2016 naprej.
These Member States should include the assessment of the results of NPIs in their evaluation plans. 
Te države članice bi morale v svoje načrte vrednotenja vključiti oceno rezultatov neproduktivnih naložb.
78 Although most projects visited by the Court delivered a positive contribution to address the Member States’ agri-environmental needs and objectives, for this contribution to be cost-effective, it is essential that the cost of the supported NPIs are reasonable and justified. 
78 Večina projektov, ki jih je obiskalo Sodišče, je sicer pozitivno prispevala k obravnavanju kmetijsko-okoljskih potreb in ciljev držav članic, vendar je za stroškovno učinkovitost tega prispevka bistveno, da so stroški neproduktivnih naložb, ki prejmejo podporo, razumni in utemeljeni.
This is all the more so in the case of high public funding rates (up to 100 %) in which the beneficiaries may have less incentive to contain the costs. 
To še toliko bolj velja v primeru visokih stopenj javnega financiranja (do 100 %), pri katerih imajo morda upravičenci manj spodbud za omejitev teh stroškov.
However, the Court found clear indications of unreasonable costs in 75 % of these projects. 
Vendar je Sodišče pri 75 % teh projektov našlo jasne dokaze, da so bili njihovi stroški nerazumni.
As a result, only 5 of the 28 (18 %) audited projects proved to be cost-effective. 
Posledično se je izkazalo, da je bilo samo pet od 28 (18 %) revidiranih projektov stroškovno učinkovitih.
79 The weaknesses observed with the reasonableness of costs of NPIs are not confined to the sample of projects, since the concrete cases identified stem from weaknesses in the management and control systems of the Member States. 
79 Opažene slabosti v zvezi z razumnostjo stroškov neproduktivnih naložb niso omejene na vzorec projektov, saj konkretni primeri, ki so bili odkriti, izhajajo iz slabosti upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov držav članic.
In particular, they reimbursed investment costs on the basis of unit costs which were much higher than the actual market costs, or did not appropriately verify the reality of the costs claimed, or accepted the most expensive offer for undertaking the investment without requiring justification from the beneficiaries or without comparing the proposed costs against benchmarks. 
Pri tem je šlo zlasti za primere, ko so države članice povrnile stroške naložb na podlagi stroškov na enoto, ki so bili veliko višji od dejanskih tržnih stroškov, ali ko niso ustrezno preverjale resničnosti prijavljenih stroškov ali ko so sprejele najdražjo ponudbo za izvedbo naložbe, ne da bi od upravičencev zahtevale utemeljitev ali ne da bi predlagane stroške primerjale z referenčnimi vrednostmi.
80 In addition, the audit revealed several cases in all the Member States audited where NPIs with obvious remunerative characteristics benefited from the maximum aid rates stipulated for this type of investments, which meant that, in most cases, they were fully funded with public money. 
80 Poleg tega je bilo pri reviziji v vseh revidiranih državah članicah odkritih več primerov, pri katerih so neproduktivne naložbe z očitnimi profitnimi značilnostmi prejemale najvišje možne stopnje pomoči, določene za to vrsto naložb, kar pomeni, da so bile v večini primerov v celoti financirane z javnimi sredstvi.
In the Court’s view, the fact that Member States did not reduce these high aid rates to take account of the remunerative aspects entailed the overpayment of the related investment costs. 
Po mnenju Sodišča je zaradi tega, ker države članice niso zmanjšale teh visokih stopenj pomoči, da bi upoštevale vidike profitnosti, prišlo do preplačil s tem povezanih naložbenih stroškov.
Indeed, once deducted the benefits that the investments provided to the beneficiaries, these costs could be actually lower than the aid granted (see paragraphs 35 to 50). 
Če bi se koristi, ki so jih naložbe zagotavljale upravičencem, dejansko odštele, bi bili ti stroški v resnici nižji od dodeljene pomoči (glej odstavke 35 do 50).
Conclusions and recommendations 39 Recommendation 4 Intensity of support rates and reasonableness of costs (a) Member States should define, as soon as possible, appropriate criteria to determine the remunerative characteristics of NPIs benefiting from the highest aid rates. 
Sklepi in priporočila 39 Priporočilo 4 – Intenzivnost stopenj pomoči in razumnost stroškov (a) Države članice bi morale čim prej opredeliti ustrezna merila za določitev profitnih značilnosti neproduktivnih naložb, ki prejemajo najvišje možne stopnje pomoči.
These criteria should consider, for example, the economic benefit, the agronomical benefit, the degree of financial assistance necessary to encourage undertaking the NPI and the basic support rate applicable to productive investments in the same geographical area. 
Pri teh merilih bi bilo treba upoštevati na primer gospodarsko korist, kmetijsko korist, stopnjo finančne pomoči, potrebne za spodbujanje k izvedbi neproduktivnih naložb, in osnovno stopnjo podpore, ki se uporablja za produktivne naložbe v istem geografskem območju.
On the basis of this assessment, Member States should modulate the intensity of support. (b) The Commission should also provide further guidance on the establishment of such criteria and promote their implementation through the Monitoring Committee. (c) Member States should implement, without delay, procedures to ensure that the costs of the supported NPIs do not exceed the costs of similar types of goods, service or works offered by the market. 
Na podlagi te ocene bi morale države članice prilagoditi intenzivnost pomoči. (b) Komisija bi morala zagotoviti tudi nadaljnja navodila za določitev teh meril, njihovo izvajanje pa spodbujati v okviru odbora za spremljanje. (c) Države članice bi morale brez odlašanja izvesti postopke za zagotovitev, da stroški neproduktivnih naložb, ki prejmejo podporo, ne presegajo stroškov podobnih vrst blaga, storitev ali del, ki jih ponuja trg.
More concretely, Member States should define appropriate benchmarks and/or reference costs against which the costs of NPIs are systematically verified as part of their administrative checks. 
Natančneje, države članice bi morale določiti ustrezne referenčne vrednosti in/ali referenčne stroške, na podlagi katerih bi se stroški neproduktivnih naložb sistematično preverjali kot del njihovih administrativnih pregledov.
These checks must include the verification of proof that the costs claimed have been actually incurred by the beneficiaries. (d) The Commission should build on the information provided by the Member States regarding the controllability and verifiability of the measures for the approval of their RDPs for 2014-2020 to ensure that Member States define and implement adequate procedures regarding the reasonableness of costs. (e) The Commission should, in the context of its multiannual audit plan, verify the Member States’ effective application of the controls foreseen to ensure reasonableness of costs. 
Ti pregledi morajo vključevati preverjanje dokazil, da so prijavljeni stroški pri upravičencih dejansko tudi nastali. (d) Komisija bi se morala pri odobritvi programov razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020 opirati na informacije držav članic v zvezi z možnostjo nadziranja in preverjanja ukrepov, kar bi zagotovilo, da države članice določijo in izvajajo ustrezne postopke v zvezi z razumnostjo stroškov. (e) Komisija bi morala v okviru svojega večletnega revizijskega načrta preveriti, ali države članice uspešno izvajajo predvidene kontrole za zagotavljanje razumnosti stroškov.
81 EAFRD support for NPIs continues in the 2014-2020 programming period, but the Commission and the Member States have not yet corrected most of the weaknesses identified by the Court. 
81 Podpora EKSRP za neproduktivne naložbe se bo v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 še naprej izvajala, vendar pa Komisija in države članice še niso odpravile večine slabosti, ki jih je odkrilo Sodišče.
The main reason is that they did not do enough to identify weaknesses in a timely manner, so that the necessary corrective actions could be taken before the start of the new period. 
Glavni razlog za to je, da niso storile dovolj za pravočasno odkritje slabosti, da bi se lahko pred začetkom novega obdobja sprejeli potrebni popravljalni ukrepi.
On the one hand, the Member States did not analyse the causes of the irregularities detected through their own controls to improve the management of the scheme. 
Po eni strani države članice niso analizirale vzrokov za nepravilnosti, ugotovljenih v okviru svojih lastnih kontrol za izboljšanje upravljanja sheme, po drugi strani pa je Komisija opravila revizijo prepozno, da bi državam članicam pomagala ugotoviti in odpraviti pomanjkljivosti pri upravljanju v obdobju izvajanja 2007–2013 (glej odstavke 51 do 71).
Conclusions and recommendations 40 Recommendation 5 Identification of management weaknesses (a) Member States should define, before the first on-the-spot controls for the 2014-2020 period are performed, a method for the timely consolidation and analysis of the cause of the errors found during these controls. 
Sklepi in priporočila 40 Priporočilo 5 – Ugotavljanje slabosti pri upravljanju (a) Države članice bi morale pred prvimi kontrolami na kraju samem za obdobje 2014–2020 opredeliti način za pravočasno uskladitev in analizo vzrokov napak, odkritih med temi kontrolami.
The results of this analysis should trigger, when applicable, improvements in the management and control systems of the NPIs scheme. 
Rezultati te analize bi morali, kadar je to primerno, sprožiti izboljšave upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov sheme za neproduktivne naložbe.
The Member States should report on these improvements in their annual implementation reports starting from June 2016 onwards. (b) In planning future audits, the Commission should take due account of the scale of weaknesses identified by the Court in this area of expenditure, irrespective of its limited financial importance. 
Države članice bi morale o teh izboljšavah poročati v svojih letnih poročilih o izvajanju, in sicer od junija 2016 naprej. (b) Komisija bi morala pri načrtovanju prihodnjih revizij ustrezno upoštevati obseg slabosti, ki jih je Sodišče ugotovilo na področju odhodkov, tudi če je njihov finančni pomen omejen.
This report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Augustyn KUBIK, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 11 November 2015. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi Augustyn KUBIK, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na zasedanju 11. novembra 2015.
Annexes 41 Main characteristics of the EAFRD measure support for non-productive investments in agriculture Programming period 2007-2013 Programming period 2014-2020 Title/ actions Measure 216 — Support for NPI Investments that do not lead to any significant increase in the value or profitability of the agricultural holding. 
Priloge 41 Glavne značilnosti podpore za neproduktivne naložbe v kmetijstvu v okviru ukrepov EKSRP Programsko obdobje 2007–2013 Programsko obdobje 2014–2020 Naslov/ dejavnosti ukrep 216 – podpora za neproduktivne naložbe Naložbe, ki ne vodijo do bistvenega povečanja vrednosti ali dobičkonosnosti kmetijskega gospodarstva. ukrep 4.4 – podpora za neproduktivne naložbe, povezane z doseganjem kmetijsko-okoljskih-podnebnih ciljev Naložbe, ki ne vodijo do bistvenega povečanja vrednosti ali dobičkonosnosti kmetijskega gospodarstva.
Rationale Support is needed for NPI where they are necessary to achieve: – commitments undertaken under agri‐environmental schemes; – other agri‐environmental objectives; – enhancement on‐farm of the public amenity value of a Natura 2000 area or other high nature value areas. 
Utemeljitev Podpora je potrebna za neproduktivne naložbe, če so te nujne za doseganje: – obvez, sprejetih v okviru kmetijsko-okoljskih shem, – drugih kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, – povečanje javne uporabne vrednosti območij Natura 2000 ali drugih območij visoke naravne vrednosti na kmetijah.
Support is needed for NPI linked to the achievement of agri‐ environment–climate objectives including: – biodiversity conservation status of species and habitat; – enhancing the public amenity value of a Natura 2000 area or other high nature value system in Member States. 
Podpora je potrebna za neproduktivne naložbe, povezane z doseganjem kmetijsko-okoljskih-podnebnih ciljev, vključno s: – statusom ohranjenosti biotske raznovrstnosti vrst in habitatov, – povečanjem javne uporabne vrednosti območij Natura 2000 ali drugih sistemov visoke naravne vrednosti v državah članicah.
Beneficiaries – Farmers and/or land managers – Farmers and/or land managers Types of operations – Land use change; – Wetland restoration; – Conversion of agricultural land to swamp; – Construction/management of biotopes/habitats; – Management of high value perennials. – Capital works in the framework of an agri‐environment– climate commitment; – Fencing and other works needed to facilitate conservation management; – Restoration of wetlands and moorland; – Restoration of landscapes and features; – Dry‐stone walls. Annex I 
Upravičenci – kmetje in/ali upravljavci zemljišč – kmetje in/ali upravljavci zemljišč Vrste operacij – sprememba rabe zemljišča – obnova mokrišča – sprememba kmetijskega zemljišča v močvirje – vzpostavitev/upravljanje biotopov/habitatov – upravljanje trajnic visoke vrednosti – glavna dela v okviru kmetijsko-okoljsko-podnebnih zavez – ograjevanje in druga dela, potrebna za lažje upravljanje ohranjanja – obnova mokrišč in barij – obnova krajine in značilnosti – suhi zidovi Priloga I
General complementarity refers to those projects which were not implemented in synergy with other schemes, but shared the same general objectives. 
Splošno dopolnjevanje se nanaša na projekte, ki niso bili izvedeni v sinergiji z drugimi shemami, ampak so imeli iste splošne cilje kot te sheme.
2 Assessment of the significance of the remunerative components of NPI projects: when there were no indications that the investment delivered and/or contained significant remunerative components, the investment was considered as non‐productive. 
2 Ocena pomena profitnih elementov projektov neproduktivnih naložb: če ni bilo ugotovljeno, da je naložba zagotovila in/ali vsebovala bistvene profitne elemente, se je štela kot neproduktivna.
When the remunerative elements observed were considered not significant, but in view of the very high aid rates granted the Court considered that these elements should have been taken into account to reduce these aid rates, the investment was considered as partially productive. 
Če so se ugotovljeni profitni elementi šteli kot nepomembni, vendar je Sodišče zaradi zelo visokih stopenj pomoči, ki so bile odobrene, menilo, da bi bilo treba te elemente upoštevati za zmanjšanje stopenj pomoči, se je naložba štela kot delno produktivna.
Investments which clearly influenced the main commercial or productive activity of the beneficiary were considered as providing a ‘significant’ remunerative component. 
Naložbe, ki so očitno vplivale na glavno trgovinsko ali produktivno dejavnost upravičenca, so se štele kot naložbe z „bistvenim“ profitnim elementom.
3 Assessment of whether or not the NPI project contributed to the achievement of the proposed environmental objective(s) (Y/N). 
3 Ocena tega, ali je projekt neproduktivne naložbe prispeval k doseganju predlaganih okoljskih ciljev (D/N).
In the case of NPIs that were assessed as non-eligible, the Court considers that the NPI project in question is not contributing to the objectives of the measure. 
V primeru neproduktivnih naložb, ki so bile ocenjene kot neupravičene, Sodišče meni, da zadevni projekt neproduktivne naložbe ni prispeval k uresničevanju ciljev ukrepa.
4 Assessment of the eligibility of NPI projects in regard to their nature and costs (Y/N/Partially). ‘Partially’ denotes the existence of ineligible costs that are not affecting the entirety of the NPI project. 
4 Ocena upravičenosti projektov neproduktivnih naložb na podlagi njihove narave in stroškov (D/N/delno). „Delno“ pomeni, da obstajajo neupravičeni stroški, ki ne vplivajo na celoten projekt neproduktivne naložbe.
5 Assessment of the reasonableness of the costs of the NPI projects (Y/N). 
5 Ocena razumnosti stroškov projektov neproduktivnih naložb (D/N).
It takes in consideration the existence of adequate tendering procedures and/or the use of reasonable reference costs and whether the high intensity of aid took into account the remunerative characteristics of the project. 
Pri oceni se upošteva obstoj ustreznih razpisnih postopkov in/ali uporaba razumnih referenčnih stroškov, pa tudi, ali so bile pri visoki intenzivnosti pomoči upoštevane profitne značilnosti projekta.