natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The body of the regulation sets out the eligibility criteria, which define that support should be granted only to investments which7: ɦ improve the overall performance of the agricultural holding; and ɦ respect the Community standards applicable to the investment concerned. Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
V glavnem delu uredbe7 so določena merila za upravičenost, v skladu s katerimi se podpora dodeli samo za naložbe, ki: – izboljšajo splošno učinkovitost kmetijskega gospodarstva in – so v skladu s standardi Skupnosti, ki veljajo za takšne naložbe. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
The Member States must ensure that investment measures included in their RDPs are targeted on clearly defined objectives reflecting identified structural and territorial needs and structural disadvantages8, having regard to the Community strategic guidelines. 
Države članice morajo zagotoviti, da so naložbeni ukrepi v njihovih PRP usmerjeni v jasno opredeljene cilje, ki odražajo ugotovljene strukturne in ozemeljske potrebe ter strukturne slabosti8, pri čemer je treba upoštevati strateške smernice Skupnosti.
Member States can take different approaches to achieve this. 
Države članice lahko za doseganje tega uporabijo različne pristope.
A first level of targeting may be achieved by setting restrictive eligibility criteria and differentiated aid rates for different types of investment projects, which should be detailed in the RDP. 
Prva raven usmerjanja se lahko doseže z določitvijo omejevalnih meril za upravičenost in različnih stopenj pomoči za različne vrste naložbenih projektov, kar bi moralo biti podrobno opisano v PRP.
Thus, the Member State may declare certain types of farmers and of agricultural holdings eligible (eligibility of beneficiaries), and set out eligibility criteria for investment projects, either by setting out a ‘positive’ list of eligible investment types, or defining a ‘negative’ list of investment items that are not eligible. 
Tako lahko države članice nekatere vrste kmetov in kmetijskih gospodarstev razglasijo za upravičene (upravičenost upravičencev) ter določijo merila za upravičenost naložbenih projektov tako, da določijo pozitivni seznam upravičenih vrst naložb ali negativni seznam naložbenih postavk, ki niso upravičene.
This can result in regional and sectoral differentiation (by excluding certain sectors from the scope) and setting aid ceilings (linked to the size of projects). 
To lahko pripelje do razlikovanja med regijami ali sektorji (z izloči-tvijo nekaterih sektorjev) in določanja zgornjih mej pomoči (povezano z velikostjo projektov).
The use of basic eligibility criteria, as described in the previous paragraph, may filter out projects that are unrelated to the identified needs and priorities.The regulation, however, requires further targeting: Member States should make a selection from within the population of eligible investment projects submitted, using specific selection criteria9. 
Uporaba osnovnih meril za upravičenost, ki je opisana v predhodnem odstavku, lahko izloči projekte, ki niso povezani z ugotovljenimi potrebami in prednostnimi nalogami.
One way of doing this — although not required in the underlying legislation — is to rank project applications by attributing points for each selection criterion addressed. 
Eden od načinov za doseganje tega, ki sicer ni zahtevan v ustrezni zakonodaji, je razvrščanje projektnih vlog s točkovanjem za vsako obravnavano izbirno merilo.
Such scoring systems aim at setting up a list of ‘best’ projects — those that make the greatest contribution to achieving the objectives set for the measure. 
Namen takih sistemov točkovanja je pripraviti seznam najboljših projektov, ki največ prispevajo k doseganju zastavljenih ciljev ukrepa.
8 Article 43 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
1974/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o podrobnih pravilih glede uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 368, 23.12.2006, str.
9 Article 71 of Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 requires that projects are selected on the basis of selection criteria to be established by the Member State or region concerned. 
9 V členu 71 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005 je določeno, da se projekti izberejo na podlagi izbirnih meril, ki jih določi ustrezna država članica ali regija.
12 Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
12 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
A diagram of how Member States can target measure 121 is presented in the Figure. 
V diagramu je predstavljeno, kako lahko države članice usmerjajo ukrep 121.
13 FIGURE Investment projects improve the overall performance of the holding Measure 121 investment projects should address the EU priorities and target identified needs and structural disadvantages Measure 121 investment projects should be selected in accordance with selection criteria defined by the Member State Selection procedures to mitigate the risks to sustainability and deadweight Scoring systems to compare projects on objective basis Funding allocated to the projects that make the greatest contribution to achieving the objectives of measure 121 Eligible investment projects Projects addressing EU priorities and identified needs Economically viable projects where there is a clear need for EU funding Projects that best meet the EU priorities and identified needs Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings Good practices Legal requirements 
13 DIAGRAM Naložbeni projekti izboljšajo splošno učinkovitost gospodarstva Naložbeni projekti v okviru ukrepa 121 bi morali obravnavati prednostne naloge EU in biti usmerjeni v ugotovljene potrebe in strukturne slabosti Naložbene projekte v okviru ukrepa 121 bi bilo treba izbrati v skladu z izbirnimi merili, ki jih opredeli država članica Izbirni postopki bi morali manjšati tveganje za trajnost in mrtve izgube Sistemi točkovanja za objektivno primerjavo projektov Sredstva se dodelijo projektom, ki največ prispevajo k doseganju ciljev ukrepa 121 Upravičeni naložbeni projekti Projekti, ki obravnavajo prednostne naloge EU in ugotovljene potrebe Ekonomsko upravičeni projekti z jasno potrebo po sredstvih EU Projekti, ki najbolje izpolnjujejo prednostne naloge EU in ugotovljene potrebe Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev Dobre prakse Zakonske zahteve
14 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 17. 
14 OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP 17.
The audit examined how the measure ‘modernisation of agricultural holdings’ (measure 121) was being managed by the European Commission and implemented by the Member States. 
Pri reviziji je bilo preučeno, kako Evropska komisija upravlja ukrep posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev (ukrep 121) in kako ga države članice izvajajo.
The overall audit question was: Through this the audit sought to establish if the 11,1 billion euro budgeted for the measure was directed to the projects that best achieve the EU’s priority of modernisation, in particular in the specific respects identified in Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (see paragraph 10). 
Splošno revizijsko vprašanje je bilo: Cilj revizije je bil s tem vprašanjem ugotoviti, ali je bilo 11,1 milijarde EUR proračunskih sredstev za ta ukrep usmerjenih v projekte, ki najbolje izpolnjujejo prednostno nalogo EU, da se doseže posodobitev, zlasti njene posebne vidike, opredeljene v Uredbi (ES) št. 1698/2005 (glej odstavek 10).
The audit also assessed the implementation of the extra funding made available under the ‘Health Check’ and the EERP through measure 121. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ocenjeno tudi izvajanje dodatnega financiranja, ki je bilo z ukrepom 121 zagotovljeno v okviru sistematskega pregleda in evropskega načrta za oživitev gospodarstva.
Finally, the audit assessed whether Member States had introduced effective systems to reduce the risk of financing investments on farms that were not economically viable and to reduce the risk of deadweight. 
Kot zadnje pa je bilo pri reviziji ocenjeno, ali so države članice uvedle uspešne sisteme za zmanjšanje tveganja, da se financirajo naložbe v kmetije, ki niso ekonomsko upravičene, in da pride do mrtvih izgub.
The audit focused on the main stages at which investment aid can be channelled to priorities and identified needs through different aspects of the policy’s framework, namely the EU regulatory framework, the RDP, the Commission’s approval of the RDP and Member States’ implementation of the measure. 
Revizija je bila osredotočena na glavne faze, v katerih je mogoče pomoč za naložbe usmerjati v prednostne naloge in ugotovljene potrebe prek različnih vidikov okvira politike, in sicer uredbeni okvir EU, PRP, Komisijino odobritev PRP in izvajanje ukrepa v državah članicah.
The audit work covered both the Commission and 10 Member States10. At the level of the Commission the design of the measure through the underlying applicable EU legislation11 and the European Commission’s activities when approving the RDPs submitted by the Member States, and any subsequent follow-up was examined. 
V revizijsko delo je bila vključena Komisija in deset držav članic.10 Na ravni Komisije je bila pregledana zasnova ukrepa z ustrezno zakonodajo EU,11 ki se zanj uporablja, dejavnosti Evropske komisije pri odobritvi PRP, ki jih predložijo države članice, in kakršno koli nadaljnje spremljanje.
Seven of the 10 selected Member States (and/or regions in these States) were visited by the audit teams and a further three were subject to a desk review. 
Revizijske ekipe so obiskale sedem od desetih izbranih držav članic (in/ali regij v teh državah), za dodatne tri pa je bil opravljen pregled dokumentacije.
The audit comprised a documentary review of the underlying RDPs and the rele vant national/regional legislation and the procedures put in place for selecting investment projects to be financed by measure 121. 
Med revizijo so bili pregledani PRP, ustrezna nacionalna/ regionalna zakonodaja in izbirni postopki za naložbene projekte, ki naj bi jih financiral ukrep 121.
To assess the CMEF as a monitoring tool for measure 121, the Court examined the data collected and reported yearly by Member States. 
Sodišče je za oceno okvira skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja kot orodja spremljanja za ukrep 121 pregledalo podatke, ki jih države članice vsako leto zberejo in o njih poročajo.
The Court reviewed a sample of 100 investment projects approved during 200912 by the competent national or regional authorities (10 investment projects for each Member State or region audited) in order to analyse the process by which these projects had been selected. 
Sodišče je pregledalo vzorec s 100 naložbenimi projekti, ki so jih med letom 200912 odobrili pristojni nacionalni ali regionalni organi (deset naložbenih projektov za vsako revidirano državo članico ali regijo), da bi lahko analiziralo izbirni postopek za te projekte.
The Court’s auditors visited 21 of the projects in the sample on the spot and interviewed the final beneficiaries. 
Revizorji Sodišča so na kraju samem obiskali 21 projektov iz vzorca in opravili pogovore s končnimi upravičenci.
10 The audit covered the following national or regional RDPs: Belgium (Wallonia), Germany (Baden-Württemberg), Spain (Catalonia), France (mainland), Italy (Veneto), Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Portugal (mainland) and Romania. 
10 V revizijo so bili vključeni naslednji nacionalni ali regionalni PRP: Belgija (Valonija), Nemčija (Baden-Württemberg), Španija (Katalonija), Francija (celinska), Italija (Benečija), Luksemburg, Madžarska, Poljska, Portugalska (celinska) in Romunija.
11 Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006. 
11 Uredba (ES) št. 1698/2005 in Uredba (ES) št.
12 For Italy (Veneto), the sample comprised also projects approved during 2008. 
12 Za Italijo (Benečija) je vzorec vseboval tudi projekte, odobrene med letom 2008.
Is EU aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings directed to EU priorities and specific needs in Member States? Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
Ali je pomoč EU za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev usmerjena v prednostne naloge EU in posebne potrebe v državah članicah? Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
15 OBSERVATIONS TARGETING THE MEASURE 121 FUNDING TO MEET EU PRIORITIES AND IDENTIFIED NEEDS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF MODERNISATION RESULTS FROM THE PURCHASE OF NEW EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES 23. 
15 OPAŽANJA USMERJANJE SREDSTEV UKREPA 121 V IZPOLNJEVANJE PREDNOSTNIH NALOG EU IN UGOTOVLJENIH POTREB NAKUP NOVE OPREME ALI OBRATOV JE PRINESEL DELNO POSODOBITEV 23.
The Court found that all 100 projects in the sample reviewed had already achieved, or were likely to achieve, the modernisation of the holding and/or the farming sector concerned. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je vseh 100 projektov v vzorcu že doseglo ali pa bodo verjetno dosegli cilj posodobitve gospodarstva in/ali ustreznega kmetijskega sektorja.
This was, however, almost inevitable as investments usually finance new machinery, new equipment, new buildings or the renovation of buildings and a degree of modernisation results from any purchase of new equipment or facilities. 
Vendar je bilo to skoraj neizogibno, saj se z naložbami običajno financira nakup novih strojev, nove opreme, novih stavb ali prenova stavb, rezultat vsakega nakupa nove opreme ali obratov pa je neka stopnja posodobitve.
Similarly, new investments are likely to automatically address to some extent the EU priorities (see paragraph 10), such as introducing new technologies and improving the environmental, occupational safety, hygiene and animal welfare status of agricultural holdings. 
Podobno bodo nove naložbe verjetno delno že same po sebi ustrezale prednostnim nalogam EU (glej odstavek 10), kot so uvedba nove tehnologije in izboljšanje glede okolja, varnosti pri delu, higiene in dobrega počutja živali na kmetijskem gospodarstvu.
Constant advances in technology and environmental standards mean that any new equipment is likely to represent some improvement in energy efficiency and emissions in relation to older equipment. 
Zaradi nenehnega napredka tehnologije in okoljskih standardov vsaka nova oprema verjetno pomeni izboljšanje energetske učinkovitosti in izpustov v primerjavi s starejšo opremo.
As an example, new animal housing has to meet standards established in EU directives, so will represent some improvement over older facilities in terms of hygiene, animal welfare, occupational safety and environmental protection. 
Novi hlevi morajo na primer izpolnjevati standarde iz direktiv EU, zato v primerjavi s starejšimi obrati pomenijo izboljšanje higiene, dobrega počutja živali, varnosti pri delu in varovanja okolja.
However, other EU priorities, such as innovation, quality and diversification, are not necessarily addressed automatically by simply investing in new equipment or facilities. 
Vendar druge prioritete EU, kot so inovacije, kakovost in diverzifikacija, niso nujno avtomatsko dosežene samo z naložbami v opremo in obrate.
Where aid is targeted to specific needs in line with the EU priorities, a more effective use of the aid can be achieved. 
Če se pomoč usmeri v posebne potrebe v skladu s prednostnimi nalogami EU, jo je mogoče uspešneje uporabiti.
Projects that specifically address agreed priorities and the identified needs should represent better value for money for the EU and national taxpayers who provide the funding. Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
Projekti, ki posebej obravnavajo dogovorjene prednostne naloge in ugotovljene potrebe, bi morali doseči boljše razmerje med ceno in koristmi za davkoplačevalce EU in držav članic, ki zagotavljajo sredstva. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
Most Member States applied restrictive eligibility conditions to achieve a basic targeting of the aid. 
Večina držav članic je uporabljala omejevalne pogoje za upravičenost, da bi dosegla osnovno usmerjanje pomoči.
For example: ɦ in Hungary, the authorities issued calls for project proposals for specific sectors or types of projects such as the modernisation of livestock farms, horticultural equipment, irrigation projects, etc.; ɦ in Germany (Baden-Württemberg), field machinery such as tractors was excluded. 
Na primer: – oblasti na Madžarskem so objavile razpis za zbiranje predlogov za projekte za posamezne sektorje ali vrste projektov, kot so posodabljanje živinorejskih farm, vrtnarska oprema, namakalni projekti itd.; – v Nemčiji (Baden-Württemberg) so bili izključeni poljedelski stroji, kot so traktorji.
However, in some Member States such as Poland and Luxembourg, almost any type of farm investment was eligible. 
V nekaterih državah članicah, kot sta Poljska in Luksemburg, pa so bile upravičene skoraj vse vrste kmetijskih naložb.
Targeting of the aid by giving an incentive to projects that correspond to the needs and priorities identified in the RDP was found in several Member States. 
Usmerjanje pomoči s spodbujanjem projektov, ki ustrezajo potrebam in prednostnim nalogam, opredeljenim v PRP, je bilo ugotovljeno v več državah članicah.
For example: ɦ Luxembourg offered higher rates of aid (an additional 10 % of the project cost) for investments addressing environmental concerns or animal welfare; ɦ in Belgium, a 40 % aid rate was applied for projects that improved manure storage and spreading facilities — double the standard rate of 20 %. 
Na primer: – Luksemburg je ponudil višje stopnje pomoči (dodatnih 10 % stroškov projekta) za naložbe, ki izboljšujejo varovanje okolja ali dobro počutje živali; – v Belgiji se je za projekte, ki izboljšujejo naprave za shranjevanje in trosenje gnoja, uporabljala 40-odstotna stopnja pomoči, kar je dvakrat več kot standardna stopnja v višini 20 %.
Two Member States targeted further by selecting the best projects from within those projects they had deemed eligible. 
Dve državi članici sta pomoč dodatno usmerjali z izbiro najboljših projektov izmed tistih, ki so šteli kot upravičeni.
Italy (Veneto) and Romania used such selection criteria with other targeting methods in order to address the RDP needs, in line with the EU’s priorities. 
Italija (Benečija) in Romunija sta takšna merila uporabljali z drugimi metodami usmerjanja za obravnavanje potreb iz PRP v skladu s prednostnimi nalogami EU.
16 BOX 2 AN EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE: ITALY (VENETO REGION) MAXIMISED THE PROBABILITY OF SELECTING INVESTMENT PROJECTS THAT BEST ADDRESS IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND ALSO EU PRIORITIES Veneto sets out its selection criteria to choose projects from the eligible applications through a scoring system that takes into account the priorities defined in the regional RDP and defines lists of ‘priority investment’ types per sector. 
16 OKVIR 2 PRIMER DOBRE PRAKSE: ITALIJA (BENEČIJA) JE DOSEGLA KAR NAJVEČJO VERJETNOST, DA BODO IZBRANI TISTI NALOŽBENI PROJEKTI, KI NAJBOLJE OBRAVNAVAJO UGOTOVLJENE POTREBE IN TUDI PREDNOSTNE NALOGE EU Benečija svoja izbirna merila za izbiro projektov izmed upravičenih vlog določa s sistemom točkovanja, pri katerem se upoštevajo prednostne naloge, opredeljene v regionalnem PRP, in pripravljajo seznami vrst prednostnih naložb po sektorjih.
These priorities were: environmental benefits; enhancing the value of products; enterprise integration; structural modernisation; access to information and communication technology; reconversion and restructuring of particular agricultural sectors and projects located in mountain areas. 
Te prednostne naloge so bile okoljske koristi, povečanje vrednosti proizvodov, integracija podjetij, strukturno posodabljanje, dostop do podatkov in komunikacijske tehnologije, ponovna preusmeritev in prestrukturiranje posameznih kmetijskih sektorjev in projektov na goratih območjih.
As an example, a project to construct a warehouse and cold storage for apples was selected as it corresponded to the priorities of organic production (which enhances the value); it used photovoltaic panels to reduce energy consumption (environmental benefits) and it was located in a mountain area. Special Report No 8/2012 — Targeting of aid for the modernisation of agricultural holdings 
Projekt gradnje skladišča in hladilnice za jabolka je bil na primer izbran, ker je ustrezal prednostni nalogi ekološke pridelave (ki veča vrednost), ker je uporabljal fotovoltaične panele za zmanjšanje porabe energije (okoljske koristi) in ker se je izvajal na goratem območju. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2012 – Usmerjanje pomoči za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev
17 ... BUT IN PRACTICE LITTLE PRIORITISATION TAKES PLACE 29. 
17 V PRAKSI SO PREDNOSTNE NALOGE REDKO DOLOČENE 29.
In Germany (Baden-Württemberg), Spain (Catalonia), France, Hungary and Portugal (mainland), national procedures established selection criteria against which all projects were assessed. 
V Nemčiji (Baden-Württemberg), Španiji (Katalonija), Franciji, na Madžarskem in Portugalskem (celinski del) so bila v nacionalnih postopkih določena izbirna merila, na podlagi katerih so bili ocenjeni vsi projekti.
However, regardless of the result of this assessment, all eligible project applications were awarded a grant as the budget for the measure was sufficient. 
Vendar je bila ne glede na rezultate te ocene za vse upravičene projekte odobrena donacija, saj je bilo dovolj sredstev za ukrep.
For example, in France, the authorities considered a project for 76 000 euro to construct stables for horses as eligible but it received a score of zero points in the assessment as it did not address any of the priorities established for the measure. 
Za oblasti v Franciji, na primer, je bil projekt gradnje konjušnice za 76 000 EUR upravičen, vendar je pri ocenjevanju dobil nič točk, saj ni obravnaval nobene prednostne naloge, določene za ukrep.
Nevertheless, as there was more budget available than total demand from the eligible project applications received at that time, the project was awarded a grant. 
Kljub temu je bila odobrena donacija za projekt, saj je bil proračun, ki je bil na voljo, večji od takratnega skupnega povpraševanja v prejetih upravičenih projektnih vlogah.
In Belgium, Luxembourg and Poland, no selection criteria had been established: this was despite the Commission advising Member States that it is a legal obligation to define such selection criteria. 
V Belgiji, Luksemburgu in na Poljskem izbirna merila niso bila določena, čeprav je Komisija državam članicam sporočila, da je opredelitev takšnih izbirnih meril zakonska obveznost.
BOX 3 THE POLISH RDP, AN EXAMPLE OF A LACK OF TARGETING An independent ex ante evaluation of the Polish RDP showed that the targeting system was weak and recommended the preparation and implementation of selection criteria. 
OKVIR 3 POLJSKI PRP, PRIMER PREMAJHNE USMERJENOSTI Pri neodvisni predhodni oceni poljskega PRP se je pokazalo, da je bil sistem za usmerjanje slab, zato je bilo priporočeno, naj se pripravijo in uporabljajo izbirna merila.
However, the RDP does not set out any selection criteria or other means addressing specific needs or objectives. 
Vendar v PRP niso določena nobena izbirna merila niti druga sredstva za obravnavo posebnih potreb ali ciljev.
As the criteria adopted only excluded farms below a certain size, almost all holdings in all agricultural sectors were eligible to apply. 
Ker so sprejeta merila izločila samo kmetije, manjše od določene velikosti, so bila skoraj vsa kmetijska gospodarstva v vseh kmetijskih sektorjih upravičena do prijave.
This led to a level of demand far exceeding the number of projects that it was possible to finance. 
Zato je povpraševanje močno preseglo število projektov, ki jih je bilo mogoče financirati.